Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2008-040_MISC*NEW FILE* PA2008-040_misc. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application: 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD u s NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (Check all that apply) PA2008-040 for ER2008-001 1700 W. Balboa Blvd DATE OF MEETING: - PART I: Cover Page a"a9-a00£' an❑ Planning Activity No. �A�ooB-o�O ❑ Use Permit No. X G.RA:/Amendment No. ❑ Variance No. ❑ Director's Use Permit EtP- ❑ Deposit Account No. 029- d1AL1,. FEES: lK.�y- APPLICANT (Print): CITY of Nezopor-r 23e79ch, CONTACT PERSON (if different): /MgR-r. 12C-sroar� Mailing Address: 3 �'00 /VEcyPO4T Mailing Address: PlOeJdPt-s ?3e:0C-Zf, C--,4 90 663 Phone: (91A 6 yy- 3 3 Fax W9 Phone: (9y9) 9h !— .SLO Fax 3316 Property Owner (if different from above): Mailing Address: Phone: Fax 1'?Ov Project Description (If applying for a variance, also complete attached form for required findings.): ut-,, !%OK 2L n V151-n N VE56615L, MPJ H"6, wrrH A m l 1, l L e� P44 A Sal U N (o, D++TEf I - AMP A HOOWCav4 MUH If c0r6� Vcl MTG-j Gl�A'155PMMS _�bj Sjp�PGCiSp�Xi ANA A"PktPERI'y Yl7WNE -SAFF"I%VIT (1) (We) ('1144 6f� Y(JCtJa0e4 Wc e of the property (iesl involved in this application. (I statements and answers herein contained and the to the best of (my) (our) nowledge a d belief. Signature(s) depose and say that (I am) (we are) the owner(s) further certify, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing Ition herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct Please Print S�/ IYi OY� ee L, NOTE: An agent may sign for the owner if written authorization from the record owner is filed with the application. F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\APPLICATIONS\Use PermlLdoc Updated 12/12/07 Page 1 PLEASE PIOCEED TO PART II OF THE A&LICATION DO NOT COMPLETE THE BOXED AREA BELOW THIS LINE - FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY: Indicate Previous Planning General Plan Designation: Zoning District: Coastal Zone: ❑ Yes ❑ No Council District No.: Community Association: Date Deemed Complete: Posting Date: Refund Amount Planning Director Action:, P.C. Hearing Appeal C.C. Date Filed: Fee Pd: Receipt No: Form of Payment: Check # (if applicable): Development No: Project No: Activity No: Hearing Date: Mailing Date: Date: Date: Date P.C. Date C.C. F:\USers\PLN\Shared\Forms\APPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 2 PART Il: Project Data Sheet , Project Common Name: Project Address/Location: Application Number(s): Assessors Parcel Number(s): Legal Description (Attach on separate sheet, if necessary): Existing Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Zoning District: Land Use Designation: Please complete all the following items that apply to the project: Existing Development Proposed Development Zoning Code Requirement Lot Area (sf) Lot Width (ft) Lot Depth (ft) Setback Yards Front (ft) Side (ft) Side (ft) Rear (ft) Gross Floor Area (sf) Floor Area Ratio Building Coverage (%) Building Height (ft) Landscaping (%) Paving (%) N/A Parking Number of Employees Number of seats Dwelling Units Hours of Operation F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms APPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 3 PART III: Plans - All plans shall be collated, stapled and folded to a size of 8%" X 14" maximum. Planning Commission - Each application shall be accompanied by eight (8) sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations, drawn to scale on 24" x 36" sheets with margins not less than half ('/2) an inch and one (1) set of plans reduced to 11" x 17." Twelve (12) additional sets of final drawings (after staff review) will be required prior to Planning Commission meeting, size to be determined. Planning Director's Use Permit - The required number of plans to be submitted for a Use Permit within the jurisdiction of the Planning Director is four (4) sets of plot plans, floor plans, and elevations, drawn to scale on 24" x 36" sheets with margins not less than half (%2) an inch and eight (8) sets of plans reduced to 11" x 17" with details itemized on 8'/2 "x 11" sheets if necessary. The Planning Director may require additional material(s) or plan(s) and may modify or waive individual items if deemed appropriate to support the review of the application. A. Plot Plan/Site Plan Plot plans or site plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information on the subject property. The plot plan shall show these items abutting the property a minimum of 20 feet from the boundaries of the site: • Vicinity Map • North arrow • Scale of the plan • Existing and proposed property lines • Required and proposed yard setback lines • Locations, names, dimensions, and descriptions of all existing and proposed right of way lines, dedications and easements • Locations of existing and proposed structures, additions, utilities, driveways, walks, and open spaces • Any structures to be relocated removed or demolished • Locations, heights, and materials of existing and proposed walls and fences • Locations, dimensions and descriptions of parking areas • Location, heights, size and materials of signs • Existing and proposed grade elevations and any significant natural features • An Information block containing the name and telephone number of the contact person and calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable property development regulations (i.e., density, floor area limits, height, parking, etc.) F.\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\APPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 4 B. Floor Plans • • Floor plans shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Overall building and individual room dimensions, including square footage calculations • All proposed interior walls and partitions • Room identification • Window and door locations C. Elevations Elevations shall be fully dimensioned and show the following information: • Exterior wall openings • Exterior materials and finishes • Roof pitches • All roof mounted equipment and screening • Heights above grade of all floors, eaves, and ridges D. Optional Materials Materials board (specifications and samples of type, color and texture of proposed construction materials) • Color photographs of the subject and adjacent properties Part IV: Other Information and Materials Each application shall be accompanied by the following: A. Property Owners' List and Assessor's Parcel Maps Two (2) sets of gummed address labels (Avery 5160 or equivalent) containing the names and addresses of owners of the subject property and properties within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property (excluding roads and waterways for commercial properties only) shall be submitted. The list shall also contain the addresses of occupants of residentially zoned property within the required prescribed radius only if the Planning Department makes the determination that the project is of significant public interest. Additional sets of gummed labels shall be required if the proposed development is appealed or called up for review. 2. An assessor's parcel map(s) indicating the 300-foot radius line and the subject property shall also be submitted. This information shall be prepared by a title company or an ownership listing service doing business in Orange County, utilizing names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll and utilizing the most recent assessor's maps, or alternatively, from such other records that contain more recent names, addresses or maps. The information shall be verified by the title company or ownership listing service and be accompanied by a written affidavit. F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms%PPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 5 -B. Preliminary Title Report • `J Provide one (1) copy of a Preliminary Title Report less than 60 days old that identifies the legal description of property. A Preliminary Title Report is required for all applications with the exception of a Planning Director's Use Permit, Staff Approval and any other application determined by the Planning Department. C. Project Description and Justification -REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS A statement describing the proposed project in detail is required. This will serve as the formal statement to the approving authority on what the project is and why it should be approved. Please include any relevant information which supports the application. See table below for findings and Sections in Zoning Code. Particular attention should be given in relating this information to any findings that must be made in order to approve the application. Required Findings Application Section Transportation Demand Management Ordinance 20.64.040 Establishment of grade by the Planning Commission 20.65.030 (B-3) Sign Exception Permits 20.67.045 (B) Accessory Outdoor Dining 20.82.050 (B) Waiver of location restrictions for massage establishments 20.87.025 (B) Modification Permits (General) 20.93.030 Condominium Conversions 20.83 and Title 19 Use Permits (General) 20.91.035 (A) To exceed base development allocations 20.63.040 (B or C) To allow mixed use developments with less than 0.25 FAR for commercial development 20.63.040 (E) To restore of damage or Destroyed nonconforming structures 20.62.070 Conversion of a Maximum FAR use to a Base FAR use or to a Reduced FAR use, or conversion of a Base FAR use to a Reduced FAR use 20.63.050 (B) To transfer development intensity 20.63.080 (1) To modify or waive of off-street parking and loading requirements 20.66.100 (A) For bars and cocktail lounges 20.82.020 (B) For take-out service, limited 20.82.020 (C) Variances (See page 8 of application) 20.91.035 (B) F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\HPPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 6 D. Environmental Information -Form: The Environmental Information Form is intended to provide the basic information necessary for the evaluation of your project to determine its potential environmental effects. This review provides the basis for determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment, as required by state law. After this information has been evaluated by the Planning Department, a determination will be made regarding the appropriate environmental documentation for your project. E. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Requirements: The following projects are identified as Priority Projects and require submittal of additional materials: • Residential development of 10 units or more; • Commercial and industrial development greater than 100,000 square feet including parking areas; • Automotive repair shop (SIC (codes 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, and 7536-7539); • Restaurant where the land area of development is 5,000 square feet or more including parking areas (SIC code 5812); • Hillside development on 10,000 square feet or more, which is located on areas with known erosive soil conditions or where natural slope in 25 percent or more; • Impervious surface of 2,500 square feet or more located within, directly adjacent to (within 200 feet), or discharging directly to receiving water within Environmental Sensitive Areas (ESA's); • Parking lot area of 5,000 square feet or more, or with 15 or more parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban runoff. Include a description of all permits and approvals that will be necessary from the City of Newport Beach and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project. Please attach project plans and include the following: • Conceptual grading plan; • Drainage plan indicating the drainage and flood control facilities (size, type, etc.); • Draft Water Quality Management Plan (WQMPs); and • Both construction and post -construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan. Staff is available for clarification as to whether your project qualifies as a Priority Project. F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\APPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 7 Variances: Required Findings720.91.035 (B)): •1. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of this code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the purposes of this code and. will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 4. The granting of such application will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not under the circumstances of the particular case be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To aid staff in determining that the finding can be made in this particular case please answer the following questions with regard to your request. These findings must be made in order for a variance to be approved. (Please attach on separate sheet, if necessary.) 1. What exceptional circumstances apply to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings? 2. Why is a variance necessary to preserve property rights? 3. Why will the proposal not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 4. Why would the granting of this application not be consistent with the code and not a granting of special privilege?, F:\Users\PLN\Shared\Forms\APPLICATIONS\Use Permit.doc Updated 12/12/07 Page 8 MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT HABITATS AND SPECIES IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED BEACH REPLENISHMENT FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MARINA PARK PROJECT NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA • Ye Prepared for: The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Mark Reader, Project Manager Prepared by: Coastal Rg9ources Management, Inc. PMB 327, 3334 E. Coast highway, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Contact: Rick Ware, Principal/Senior Marine Biologist (949) 412-9446 October 23`d, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.... 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS. 2.1 Habitat Types and General Biological Characteristics in the Project Area .................. 3 2.2 Non -Protected Special and Unique Habitats.................................................................. 11 2.3 Marine Protected Areas................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Sensitive Species............................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Essential Fish Habitat...................................................................................................... 22 2.6 Invasive Species............................................................................................................. 24 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES......................................................................................................................... 26 3.1 Description of Preferred Project Alternative.................................................................... 26 3.2 Definitions of Significant Impacts.................................................................................. 26 3.3 Water and Sediment Quality Impacts............................................................................... 27 3.4 Impacts on Non -Sensitive Marine Resources.................................................................. 31 3.5 Long Term Operational Impacts....................................................................................... 42 4.0 LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................................ 44 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................................... 45 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary of Sand Disposal Options for the Marina Park Project ............................................ 1 2 Special Status Species.............................................................................................................. 14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 China Cove Sand Disposal Site ......... 4........................................................................................ 2 2 Balboa Peninsula Sand Disposal Sites......................................................................................... 2 3 China Cove Beach Disposal Site................................................................................................. 4 4 China Cove Beach -Rocky Outcrop in the Center of the Cove ................................................... 4 5 Site A, Near -Shore Disposal Site. 44d' Street to 52nd Street ...................................................... 6 6 Site A, 44d' Street to 45d' Street Coastal Erosion......................................................................... 6 7 Site B, 6d' Street Moderately -Sloped Foreshore and High Wave Run-up .................................. 7 8 Site B, Near -Shore Sand Disposal Site Shoreline-10h to 6' Street ............................................. 7 9 Marine Center Project Area at Newport Pier....................................................................................... 7 10 Marine Center Sand Disposal Area, Facing West....................................................................... 8 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. LIST OF FIGURES Figure (continued) Page 11 Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study. Grain Size Distribution .............................. 9 12 Eelgrass Distribution in China Cove. 2007................................................................................ 12 13. Newport Bay Eelgrass Distribution. 2003-2007....................................................................... 13 14. The Invasive Algae, Caulerpa taxifolia....................................................................................... 24 15. Undaria pinnatifida...................................................................................................................... 25 16. Typical Near -Shore Disposal Plan .............................................................................................. 29 LIST OF APPENDICES 1 CEQA Evaluation of Potential Effects of Marina Park Sand Disposal Project on Birds ..............46 2 Example of Monitoring Options for Beach and Near -Shore Sand Disposal .............................. 46 Specie Marina 1.0 The City of Newport Beach is proposing to develop a public park for passive and active activities between 15d' and 19tb Street, in Newport Beach, California. The passive area will include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and a half -court basketball court. Sailing facilities to be developed at the site include a public short- term visiting vessel marina and a sailing center that will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A restaurant will be located on top of the Balboa/Sailing center and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. The City of Newport Beach proposes to use sandy material excavated from the site as beach fill material along the Balboa Peninsula and in China Cove (Newport Bay). The sites proposed for beach replenishment, amount of material each site can accommodate, disposal method, and location of disposal (on beach or nearshore) are shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1-3. In addition to these sites, some fill will be required for the project (on -site), and approximately 3,000 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated material will be disposed at an upland disposal site which accepts contaminated material. The location of this site is unknown at this time. Dredged material meeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) criteria and the following criteria for beach replenishment may be deposited as beach nourishment in accordance with project plans: Material utilized for beach nourishment shall have a sand content that is either 1) greater than 80% sand; or 2) at least 75% sand and within 10% of the sand content of the receiver beach. Any material that meets these requirements for beach nourishment and consists of less than 80% sand shall only be placed upon submerged beach areas (i.e. below the water line) (Source: California Coastal Commission, 2006). Table 1. Summary of Sand Disposal Options for the Marina Park Project In Newport Bay and along the Balboa Peninsula (Source: City of Newport Beach Public Worlcs Department Location Amount of Material Disposal Method Area of Disposal China Cove, 5,000 cubic yards via Truck Sand Beach Newport Bay (cy) 110 x 110 sq ft sand beach fill area Marine Center, Up to 10,000 cy via Truck Sand Beach Newport Pier Site A Near -shore Up to 45,000 cy via Barge Nearshore Dis osal Site 4,570 ft long length 40t' St. to 52" d St. of nearshore habitat Balboa Peninsula Site B Near -shore Up to 45,000 cy via B."xge Nearshore Disposal Site (2,450 ft long length 16" St, to 6°' St. of nearshore habitat) Balboa Peninsula In response to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marine Park Project EIR, (No. 2008051096) that requested more information on the presence of sensitive habitats potentially within sand disposal areas (Comment A6-4), this report identifies sensitive resources and assesses the potential Species and Habitats impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Pads Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Figure 1. China Cove Sand Disposal Site Figure 2. 52nd St. nearshore disposal site; middle (Newport Pier) is the Marine Center Site; and the lower right site is the Site B, 16t" to 6th St. nearshore disposal site. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. effects of sand disposal on biological habitats and resources groups, including sensitive habitats and sensitive species. Where applicable, Best Management and mitigation measures are provided to lessen potential adverse environmental impacts on marine resources. 2.0 Existing biological conditions discussed in this study are based upon: (1) site visits to each of the project sites by Rick Ware, Senior Marine Biologist of Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (CRM) and Robb Hamilton, President/Biologist of Hamilton Biological, Inc. on September 301', 2009 and October 121; (2) applicable scientific data bases, (3) literature and reports; and (4) communications with local wildlife experts. The assessment of project impacts on birds (Hamilton Biological Inc.) is presented in Appendix 1. 2.1 HABITAT TYPES AND GENERAL BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PROJECT AREA 2.1.1 China Cove is located near the entrance to Newport Harbor, along the Corona del Mar shoreline (Figure 1). The area is a residential community that fronts a sandy beach and the entrance channel to Newport Harbor (Figures 2 and 3). A cement bulkhead is located along its backshore perimeter. The two sand beaches in the cove consist of fine-grained, imported sand, and these beaches are susceptible to sand loss. The backshore vegetation at the site .consists of only terrestrial plants- Highway Iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis) and Washington Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera), both non-native invasive species. The foreshore is a wide, low -tide terrace that grades into a fine-grained shallow subtidal bayfloor colonized by eelgrass (Zostera marina). See Section 2.4.1 for a discussion of eelgrass. At the south end of the cove, the shoreline is a combination of bulkhead and rocky intelidal that is colonized by green, red, and brown algae, and invertebrates such as mussels, anemones, barnacles, and limpets. The marine biological community living on the low -intertidal rocky substrate in Carnation Cove (immediately north of China Cove) supports high cover of the scaly worm snail (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and secondary, lower biological cover of barnacles (Balanus spp.), mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis), green algae (Enteromorphal Ulva complex), and brown algae (Sargassum muticum, and Codium fragile (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008). Invertebrates observed on the shallow subtidal rock outside the cove included Kellet's whelk (Kelletia lwlletii), ochre sea star (Pilaster ochraceus), warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis), and lobster (Panulirus interruptus). These species would be expected occur in the rocky intertidal facing the Entrance Channel around the perimeter of China Cove as well. The rocky intertidal transitions into the sandy subtidal bay`floor of the entrance channel. One small rocky intertidal outcrop is present in the middle of China Cove, that is located 175 feet away from the proposed beach replenishment activity . Bird life in the cove is variable, and typical of beach sites in Newport Bay. A Western Gull and a Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) were observed at this site during the sensitive bird species reconnaissance survey, and it is likely that other common bird species such as the willet and marbled godwit forage or roost here on occasion. Other birds observed at the site have included great blue heron and great egret, both on the docks of the Kerckhoff Marine Laboratory (R. Ware, pers. obs). The site is Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Pack Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 4 too small and close to residences to provide habitat for any bird species that is not highly adapted to conspicuous human presence. Figure 4. China Cove Beach. , A rocky outcrop is located in the center of the cove 175 feet north of the disposal site. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 5 2.1.2 Balboa Peninsula Sandy Beaches. Along the ocean side of the Balboa Peninsula, moderate -to -high energy sand beaches extend between the Santa Ana River Mouth and the entrance to Newport Harbor. The section of Newport's shoreline between the Santa Ana River Mouth and Newport Pier is also interspersed with rock groins that serve to stabilize the sandy shoreline. Photographs of shoreline at the three Peninsula sand replenishment sites are shown in Figures 5-6 (Site A, 40th to 52nd Street; Figures 7-8 (Site B, Site 6th Street to 16th Street); and Figures 9-10 (Marine Center, Newport Pier). Based on the results of the Coast of California Storm and Tidal Wave Study grain size distribution analysis (USACOE, 2002), West Newport has coarse sand between 0.4 to 0.5 millimeters in diameter, and Balboa Peninsula has coarser sand of between 0.5 and 0.6 mm in diameter (Figure 11). Beach slopes in West Newport are relatively steep compared to other beaches, but the Peninsula has the steepest beaches due to the coarsest sand. Slopes at West Newport are 10:1 (horizontal:vertical) while those at the Peninsula are up to 5:1 in some areas. Typical beach slopes are between 10:1 and 20:1. Erosion between the beach groins typically occurs on the downcoast side of each groin, creating beach scarps and loss of beach sand (Figure 6). Offshore, sediments tend to be fine-grained silty -sand to silts at depths between -6 to -30 ft. There are no nearshore reefs, although rock groins provide substrate for both intertidal and subtidal species associated with reefs and hardscape. The backshore of the sandy beaches east of the Newport Pier support some dune vegetation on unstablized dunes, usually immediately adjacent to open beach (Coastal Resources Management, and Chambers Group, Inc. 2003). Southern coastal foredunes extends along the open sandy beaches from 10`h Street to the end of the Balboa Peninsula. The soil is nutrient -poor and the community is exposed to continuous wind. Dominant plant species include red sand -verbena (Abronia maritima), sea rocket (Cakile maritima), beach primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia), sea -fig (Carpobrotus edulis), iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.), beach morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), sand mat (Cardionema ramosissima), and beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis). Sandy beaches support relatively few intertidal organisms compared to rocky intertidal areas due to generally intolerant physical conditions such as seasonal losses of beach sands and extreme variations in temperatures. Beach hoppers (amphipods), sand crabs (Emerita analoga), and a limited diversity of polychaete worms are representative intertidal beach organisms. In addition, the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is known to spawn along Newport Beach between March and September. See discussion of California grunion in Section 2.4.4. The proposed sand disposal site at the Marine Center is located between the base of Newport Pier and the southern terminus of 191h Street (Figure 9-10). The site consists of open, sandy beach that Just north of the pier is a fish cleaning area that routinely attracts large numbers of gulls (Larus spp.) and some Brown Pelicans (Pelecanus occide;,talis), as well as Royal Terns (Thalasseus maximus) and Elegant Terns (Thalasseus elegans) (Hamilton Biological, Inc, 2009). Various common shorebird species forage in the intertidal zone at this location, including the Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa), and Sanderling (Calidris alba). Otherwise, bird use of this area will generally be limited to such highly adaptable species as the Rock Pigeon (Columba livia), American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. C J ',A ,Y'�:'fyA{t;,�`'9t.�.'k, .. ^P`")'J�`.�itn ���. .,� 1 '' .••_��Il np 'x+..,w a"+{pjo.. , .. �.....w•.�R .: ti^L' •�'K..1i,,.y4WMa�., '�'�MII�. .. ..�. i"I.F+b�� � , ' . ' ,�.. ygry7yr.�w.'`'-,' ,�`'�—.• .,,yam.^:- �. ` 'j Ar Figure 5. Site A, Nearshore Disposal Site Shoreline. 44 ' Street to 52" Street ,_ .. . —.4' . - �, 'r.,: ��.'sy::'�;''1i;�r`r,•: {y'w's �� w: �:n �.e' '. �mddt .. t . aiwl, � � ""'ems' •:rw r'+�Y .. �, .. b . Y`'.;v G;a 4'y,. �',a ja a') ' sf. .ax'e,. 'J•y+ .L k' �q�. 9 . .z, ,e. � Y H�.r� .,. ai �1 'i. '��- cif a s �'' 1�MY ��•� ..L• Street to 45"' Street Coastal Erosion Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Species and Habitats bnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 2 , r i 'AqCCI 01 Rock groins (West Newport, Figures 5-6) provide a stable biological habitat for many coastal species. while the surfaces of these structures within the littoral (tide) zone provide attachment area for intertidal and subtidal algae and invertebrates, cryptic habitat for resident fishes, and foraging areas for fish that prey on small invertebrates and graze on algae that attach to the structure. Sand movement will alternately expose and cover lower areas at the base of these rocks, creating stressful conditions for invertebrates and plants resulting in highly variable abundances over the course of a season and between years. Common invertebrates observed on the rock groins at 40 Street during the site reconnaissance survey on 30 September 2009 included California mussels (Mytilus californianus), goose -neck barnacles (Pollicipes Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 10 polynierus), anemones (Anthopleura sola), and the barnacles Chthamalus fissus/dalli and Balanus glandula. The groins adjacent to the westerly Site A provide foraging and roosting habitat for birds of the rocky shore, including the Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), Black Turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala), and Surfbird (Aphriza virgata) and perching sites for birds such as pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis occidentalis), cormorants (Phalocorax spp.), and sea gulls (Larus spp.). 2.1.3 Balboa Peninsula Near -Shore Waters. Sand beaches grade into subtidal fine sands and silts that become progressively finer with increasing depth and decreasing wave energy outside the wave zone. The distribution of these sediments is affected by several factors, including input of sediments from the Santa Ana River, normal longshore current patterns, the obstruction and alternation of longshore current patterns by the Newport Beach groin fields, and the Newport Harbor jetty that modifies patterns of water and sediment movement. Within the project area, sandy -to -silty sediments are present where depths vary from -2 ft MLLW immediately to depths of -20 and -30 ft approximately 1,000 ft offshore. The median grain size at depths of -12 ft (3.7 m) along West Newport between the Santa Ana River and 40`h St were coarser than the Balboa beaches east of the pier where the median grain size at this depth was generally less than 0.2 mm. This shift in grain sizes may be in part, due to the effects of the Newport Submarine Canyon. Outside of the -12 ft isobath, sediments tend to become siltier, with increasing depth. These sediments support a benthic community of invertebrates such as sea pansies (Renilla kolkerii), sea pens (Stylatula elongata), polychaete worms (Diopatra ornata/D. splendissima), crustaceans (amphipods, isopods, cumaceans and ostracods), snails (Olivella biplicata), ophiuroid brittle stars (Amphiodia sp.), sand dollars (Dendraster excentricus), sea stars (Pisaster brevispinus), and sand stars (Astropecten armatus). Various gulls are also often seen roosting along the beaches and in the water just past the breakers. Fishes of the sandy surf zone habitat include topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata), walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argenteum), barred surfperch (Amphisticus argenteus), dwarf surfperch (Micrometrus minimus), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), barred sand bass (Paralabrax nebulifer), and round sting ray (Urolophus halleri). Common open coastal water column and/or demersal fishes associated with sand bottom habitats offshore of Newport Beach include white croaker, halibut, barred sand bass, sand dabs (Citharichthys stigmaeus), horny head turbot (Pleuronichthys verticalis), bat ray (Myliobatis californica), staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and lizard fish (Synodus lucioceps). The near -shore waters in the vicinity of Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B provide potential foraging habitat for limited numbers of such common species as the Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), Western Grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), and Double -crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). 2.2 NON -PROTECTED SPECIAL AND UNIQUE HABITATS Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 11 2.3.1 Essential Fish Habitat Habitats of Particular Concern (HAPC). The project area does not fall within any areas of reef, kelp bed, estuarine, or eelgrass habitat, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish FMP, (i.e., rockfishes). The nearest HAPC are Newport Bay and the subtidal and intertidal reefs south of the Newport Harbor Channel Entrance. HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of Essential Fish Habitat that are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2007). 2.3.2 Newport Beach Submarine Canyon. Although the Newport Submarine Canyon is not a protected habitat, it is a unique coastal feature that begins immediately seaward of the Newport Pier at a depth of 8 meters (25 ft) Bottom depths rapidly increase to nearly 30 meters (100 ft) within 400 meters (1,200 ft) from shore and 100 meters (300 ft) deep within 1,300 meters (3,900 ft) from shore (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2002). This geological feature is believed to have been formed by the ancestral Santa Ana River, and it is the exit pathway for southward - moving sands transported through littoral drift currents at the end of the San Pedro Littoral Cell. In an effort to reduce the sand loss, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) constructed groins along West Newport to hold the sand, which has been partially successful. Biologically, the submarine canyon is unique because it acts as a pathway for cold, nutrient -rich waters that upwell from deeper offshore waters to the shallower nearshore shelf. Additionally, the Canyon acts as a pathway through which deeper water species of fish, squid, shark, and jellyfish) sometimes can be found close to shore. The Canyon is also an important fishing zone for the Newport Dory Fleet. 2.3 MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 2.2.1 State and City Protected Areas. China Cove and the Balboa Peninsula are not located within the boundaries of City, State, or Federal marine protected areas, nor are identified within any of three proposals that are being evaluated to update the limits of WAS in the South Coast Study Region aa://www.dfg.ca. o�pa/scrsg-dprops-r3.asD). The nearest local and state -marine protected area is the City of Newport Beach Marine Life Refuge (Area of Special Biological Significant #32, Robert C. Badham ASBS), located in Corona del Mar east of the entrance jetty. This marine refuge is located 0.5 mi from China Cove, 3.5 miles from 6d' Street to 16d' Street nearshore sand disposal site, and 4.3 miles from the 40 to 52ad Street nearshore sand disposal site.. The City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan (City of Newport Beach, 2004) identifies giant kelp (Macrocystis pyriitera) beds along the west jetty in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel as Environmental Study Area Number 13, because kelp forests afford protection and cover for many marine invertebrates and fishes, they are a persistent feature within the Entrance Channel, and because there is a potential for kelp to be affected by future dredging activity in the Entrance Channel. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 12 The head of the Canyon is located at the tip of Newport Pier but is not within the proposed near -shore sand disposal sites. It is located 0.9 mi southeast of Site A near -shore sand disposal area and 0.4 mi northwest of the Site B near -shore sand disposal site. 2.4 SENSITIVE SPECIES Sensitive species that may be present within the project area are listed in Table 2 and discussed below. 2.4.1. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Although not identified as a City designated Environmental Study Area, eelgrass habitat extends between the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and Upper Newport Bay, and back through Mariner's Mile (Figure 12, Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2005, 2008). Most eelgrass is found between the harbor entrance channel and Linda Isle. Eelgrass occurs in the intertidal and subtidal habitats of China Cove, at depths between 0.0 and -12 feet (ft) Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). It lies approximately 100 ft from the edge of the proposed sand disposal site. While it occurs in the Harbor Entrance Channel, it has not been reported to occur in the nearshore shallow subtidal habitat offshore of the Balboa Peninsula in the vicinity of the either Site A or Site B near - shore sand disposal sites. 2.4.2 Surfgrass (Phyllospadixtorreyi) Surfgrass is a sensitive marine resource that occurs in rocky shoreline and rocky subtidal habitats at depths to approximately 20 feet. Its sensitivity is related to its use by invertebrates and fishes as nursery habitat and its susceptibility to long-term damage because it is a very slow growing species. Revegetation occurs very slowly through initial seeding and eventually the spreading of roots and rhizomes over surfaces of rocks. Surfgrass is considered to be a Habitat of Particular Concern by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and juvenile olive rockfish (Sebastes serranoides) which are Figure I r, 9wo tot 41 2. Newnnrt Rav Eelgrass Distribution. Coastal Resources Management. Inc. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study (2009) Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 13 fill Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 1 2006-2008 2003-2004 , Figure 13. Newport Bay Eelgrass Distribution. Source: Coastal Resources Management, Inc. (2009). Species and Habitats Lnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 14 Table 2. Special Status Species Scientific Name _ Common Name Federal Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur Plants Macrocystis pyrifera giant kelp Habitat Area of - Nearshore rocky subtidal habitat None; not present in the project Particular Concern areas. (HAPC) for Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Phyllospadix torreyi surfgrass HAPC for FMP Species — Nearshore rocky intertidal/rocky Low potential to be present on the subtidal groins located along West Newport Zostera marina eelgrass Habitat Area of — Bays, harbors, shallow nearshore Present in China Cove; absent along Particular Concern water sediments the Balboa Peninsula (HAPC) for Fisheries Management Plan (IMP) Species under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Invertebrates- _ Haliotis spp. Black abalone FE Rocky intertidal and subtidal reefs No potential Tivela stultorum Pismo clam no status no status, although it Low intertidal sandy beaches and Potential unknown, due to limited is considered a nearshore sandy sediments at depths knowledge of the Pismo clam recreational fisheryto about 80 feet common in shallow population along the Newport resource water surf -zone depths shoreline. Fishes Eucyclogobtus newberryt Tidewater goby FE — Shallow marine waters, lower reaches No potential, extirpated from of streams Orange County Leuresthes tennis California grunion — — Spawns on local open coastal_ beaches High potential to be present in the vicinity of the Balboa Peninsula Protected under California State Subtidal rocky reef habitat; resident None in West Newport Bay; does Hypsypops rubicundus California garibaldi commercial and sport Marine Fish , and territorial species -in shallow occur near the harbor entrance fish regulations Assembly Bill subtidal rocky habitats channel in rocky subtidal A1377, 1995 environment Paralichthys californicus I California halibut I Shallow coastal waters, open ocean High potential Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resoumes Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 15 Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. IN Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Reptiles Chelonia mydas Green turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle FE — Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor but unlikely to occur in the waters of West Newport Bay Birds FE Does not nest in local area; non- Pelecanus accidentalis Califomia Brown (del sting CE breeders roost in estuaries and on Known to forage and rests in the californicus Pelican proposed) beaches and breakwaters, and forage project area in bays and near -shore waters. Nests at Upper Newport Bay; likely Nests on islands with expanses of bare to forage in project area. Skimmers Rynchops niger Black Skimmer — SSC ground; in winter, commonly roosts forage on small fish and possibly crustaceans in ponds, estuaries, on beaches well above the tide line or bays, and in the nearshore waters, on mud flats in estuaries. usually within a few miles of nesting sites. Nests at Upper Newport Bay and at the mouth of the Santa Ana River; moderate potential to forage Sternula antillamm brown California Least Tern FE CE Nests on sparsely vegetated flat occasionally in project area. Least substrates, forages in nearby waters. Terns forage on small fish in ponds, estuaries, bays, and in the nearshore waters, usually within 5 miles of nesting sites. No potential for breeding in the „. project area; low potential for occurrence by non -breeders. Nearest nesting location is at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. Nests on sandy beaches and shores. Repeated surveys by local Snowy Charadrius alerandrimrs y r Western SnowPlover FT SSC Non -breeders forage and roost on Plover monitors have identified nivosus sandy beaches and shores, typically only one regular winter roost on the using the same areas year after year. Newport Peninsula, 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier, on the beach between E and F streets, where 62 plovers were present on 5 October 2009 (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 17 Scientific Name Common Name USFWS Status CDFG Status Habitat Potential to Occur or NMFS Status Mammals Zalophus californianus California sea lion MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters, Moderate -to -high potential for occasionally enters bays/harbors individuals to be present in the vicinity of China Cove and within near -shore Disposal Sites A and B. Phoca vitulina Harbor seat MMA Nearshore and open ocean, Low -to -moderate potential for occasionally enters bays/harbors individuals to be present in the Entrance Channel and along the Balboa Peninsula. Tursiops truncattts Bottlenose dolphin MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters; Moderate potential for individuals may enter bays/harbors to be present along the Balboa Peninsula; low potential to be present in Newport Harbor Eschrichtius robusnts California gray whale MMA Nearshore and open ocean waters Rare visitor to Newport Harbor; common offshore of the Balboa Peninsula between December and April. Potential higher for individuals to be closer to shore during northbound migration between Marchand April. FE— Federal Endangered; Fr— Federal Threatened;MMA — Protected under Marine Mammal Act California Department of Fish and Game CE—California Endangered SSC— Species of Special Concern HAPC are subsets of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) which are rue, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA); however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (NMFS 2008a) Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 17 Fisheries Management Plan groundfish species, utilize surfgrass beds as nursery habitat. Surfgrass is also an extremely important nursery habitat for juvenile lobsters. Surfgrass may be present at low intertidal and shallow subtidal depths on the individual groins in Disposal Area A. However, this species is not present within the perimeter of proposed near -shore sand disposal activities. Giant Kelp. Giant kelp, as discussed in section 3.3.1 grows in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, but is not present at either of the near -shore sand disposal sites off of the Balboa Peninsula. 2A.3. Invertebrates. In 1998, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) added black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) to the candidate species list for possible listing under the federal ESA, and on January 140', 2009, NMFS listed black abalone as an endangered species (Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14t1i, 2009 /Rules and Regulations). Black abalones usually inhabit surf - battered rocks and crevices from the intertidal zone to shallow subtidal zone down to 20 ft (6 m). It is a long-lived species, attaining an age of 25 years or more. Now a rare species, the black abalone was abundant in California until the mid-1980's. It once occurred in such high concentrations that individuals were observed stacked on top of one another. This species is not present within the sand disposal project areas, and unlikely to be present at the mouth of Newport Harbor. east of Disposal Site B. The Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum) is a thick, heavy -shelled clam that is sought after for its flavor by recreational clam diggers. It usually lives in the intertidal zone on flat beaches of the open coast, but they have been found out to depths of 80 feet and are sometimes encountered in the entrance channels to sloughs, bays and estuaries (California Department of Fish and Game, 2001). Their normal depth in the sand is 2 to 6 inches, but can be found up to 12 inches deep (CDFG 2001). Burrowing is accomplished by moving the foot rapidly to loosen the surrounding sand. Jets of ejected water then help to further loosen the sand along the sides of the shell. The weight of the clam and the pull of the foot together drag the clam down through the sand. It has been periodically abundant in Orange County between Seal Beach and Newport Beach (Knaggs, 1977; California Department of Fish and Game, 2001). Although no recent surveys have been conducted in Orange County, Pismo clam surveys conducted at Coronado Beach between 2000- 2005 indicated that the Pismo clam population was relatively stable and that some recruitment was taking place. Recent reports from clam diggers, as well as divers indicate that significant numbers of Pismo clams continue to be harvested from some of the beaches in southern California. In addition, Pismo clam populations at the Channel Islands appear to be stable, as shown by surveys conducted by the National Park Service (California Department of Fish and Game, 2006). Based upon this information, it can be assumed that Pismo clams may be present in the intertidal and shallow subtidal habitat within the project area. However, their abundance within the area is not known. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. M 2.4.4 Fishes Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) has been expatriated from Orange County Streams. It is currently found in shallow marine areas and lower reaches of streams between San Diego northward to Humboldt County waters where the salinity is less than 10 parts per thousand. The population of the tidewater goby is depleted due to lowering or elimination of flows in the lower reaches of coastal streams, pollution, and the filling in, channelization, or physical alterations of their habitats. The population disappeared from about 74 percent of the coastal lagoons from Morro Bay southward to San Diego (U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 1994). This species will not occur within the project areas. California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) _The California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) is a fish that uses the high intertidal sandy beach habitat of many southern California beaches as spawning habitat (Walker, 1952), including Newport Beach (CRM and Chambers Group, 2002, Moffatt & Nichol 2009). The grunion is a member of the silversides family, Atherinidae, along with the jacksmelt and topsmelt. They normally occur from Point Conception, California, to Point Abreojos, Baja California. Occasionally, they are found farther north to Monterey Bay, California and south to San Juanico Bay, Baja California. They inhabit the nearshore waters from the surf to a depth of 60 feet. The grunion is a non -migratory species (httn://www.dfiz.ca.goy/mrd/pvschd.httnl). Grunion use the energy of waves to strand themselves onto sandy beaches generally over a 3-4 night period following the highest semi lunar tides. Typically, grunion "runs" last about 1 to 2 hours (Walker, 1952). Female dig themselves tail -first into wet sand. The males then curl around the females and deposit milt. Normally, the eggs develop above the water line buried in moist sands and are triggered to hatch in nine days at the high tide of the next new or full moon by waves that reach high enough on shore to wash out the sand and carry the eggs into the ocean (Walker, 1952; Middaugh et al., 1983 in Darken et al., 1998). If the eggs are washed out to sea during the next high tides, they hatch rapidly into free-swimming larvae (Walker, 1952). If the waves do not reach the eggs, as happens frequently along the southern California coast, the eggs are able to remain viable for at least two more weeks (Walker, 1952) and up to 35 days (Darken et al., 1998). This period encompasses the next two highest semi lunar tides. However, hatching success decreases over time (Darken et al., 1998). Spawning occurs from March through August, and occasionally in February and September. Peak spawning period is between late March and early June. After July, spawning is erratic, and the number of fish observed in a grunion run greatly decreases. (Walker, 1952). The California grunion is not a formally listed federal -or -state rare, threatened, or endangered species, but grunion spawning habitat (sandy beaches) is considered "sensitive',' because of the overlap between beach spawning activity and shoreline management activities such as (1) the removal of debris and grooming beaches by mechanical means that rake, remove, or crush eggs (2) beach erosion; 3) harbor construction; and (4) pollution (Martin, 2002, ht!D://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/gruschd.html), as well as beach nourishment activities. Grunion have a low potential to be present in China Cove. Grunion do however, spawn frequently along the Balboa Peninsula/West Newport beach shoreline. Historically, "grunion "runs" have occurred on west -facing beaches west of Newport Pier, where the beach slopes tend Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management; Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc, 19 to be more gradual rather south facing beaches downcoast of Newport Pier (Coastal Resources Management, 2003). Grunion run activity has also occurred on Corona del Mar State Beach and Rocky Point (Pirate's Cove) Beach, in the Harbor Entrance mouth (Jim Turner, Newport Beach Marine Department, Aug 7d' 2002). Recent documented runs occurred during the 2009 grunion season (Karen Martin, PhD, Pepperdine University pers. com with R. Ware, 15 October 2009). In the early part of the season, grunion runs were observed along West Newport (570' St and the Santa Ana River Mouth), 36" St to 32nd St, and 30"' St to 28"' St (Tonia McMahon, Moffatt & Nichol, pers.com May 29", 2009). On the basis of the 2009 grunion run data, there is a moderate -to -high potential for grunion to be present between March and August in the near -shore habitat as well as on the beaches during spawning events. California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). The California halibut does not have a formal special species status, but it is considered a sensitive species by resource agencies because of its commercial value and a continued region -wide reduction of its nursery habitat in bays and wetlands. California halibut spawn at sea and the larval stages are planktonic. . After spending nearly nine months in Newport Bay, juveniles will move out into the open coastal environment. This species has a moderate -to -high potential to occur in the shallow waters of the project area because of the nature of the sand shoreline and the relatively wide shelf of sandy silt sediments. Garibaldi (Hypsypops rubicundus). The garibaldi is the largest of the damselfish family (Pomacentridae); adults, orange in color, typically reach 14 inches in length. It is found in shallow waters off the Southern California coast and Mexico (California Department of Fish and Game, 2001. Males build the nests, the female enters several of them and then makes her decision. The garibaldi is one of the few fish to use the same nesting site every year. In 1995 the California Legislature designated the Garibaldi as the Official State Marine Fish and banned any further commercial take. Garibaldi populations have rebounded from the local effects of commercial take and are in good condition throughout their range in southern California. Sports fishing take of this species is also prohibited(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marinelpdfs/oceanfish2OO8.pdo. Garibaldi occur in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel and nearshore reefs (Coastal Resources Management, 2002, 2008) and may utilize the rock groins in the project area. However, their potential to be present in the project area is low. 2.4.5 Marine Reptiles Marine reptiles do not utilize the local marine waters as a permanent breeding or foraging habitat. However, the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), 1 will occasionally occur in the nearshore environment offshore Orange County. Their occurrence in the vicinity of China Cove within Newport Harbor, and along the coastline in the vicinity of the near -shore sand disposal areas is expected to be rare. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 20 2.4.6 Birds Sensitive Bird Species Potentially in the Project Area. Table 2 lists each sensitive bird species known to occur on the project site or adjacent areas, or that could potentially occur there. Species accounts following the table discuss the range and conservation status of all taxa included in Table 2. Additional sensitive wildlife species could conceivably occur on the project site, but such occurrences would be exceptional or limited to the passage of migrants. California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) The California brown pelican breeds from the Channel Islands south along Pacific coast of Mexico as far south as Nayarit; also breeds at the Salton Sea. Non -breeders range from southern British Columbia south along Pacific coast to Colima, Mexico. The federal government and State of California listed this large seabird as endangered due to sharp population declines resulting from organochlorine pesticide pollution during the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed delisting the brown pelican in 2008, and if this decision is carried forward the species' populations will be monitored for a decade, from 2010 to 2020, under a post-delisting monitoring plan. The species continues to be listed as endangered by the State. California brown pelicans do not breed in Orange County, but non -breeders occur commonly in estuaries and on beaches and breakwaters; they typically forage in bays and near -shore waters. Brown Pelicans occur regularly in lower Newport Bay, on the beach at Newport Pier, and in the near -shore waters off Balboa Peninsula, including areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Black Skimmer (Rynchops niger) The black skimmer is a California Species of Special Concern, an administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats. Some species may be just starting to decline, while others may have already reached the point where they meet the criteria for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The species is widespread along the coasts of the Americas, and in the West it breeds primarily in coastal southern California and the Salton Sea. The species also breeds very locally in Mexico, from Baja California south to Colima. The winter range extends south to El Salvador and Nicaragua. The greatest threat to the long-term viability of the breeding population is thought to be the apparent shortage of suitable open nesting habitat and its continued loss as a result of erosion or vegetation growth on small islets. This species is a year-round resident on the coast of Orange County, breeding on islands at Upper Newport Bay, Bolsa Chica, and the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The species r forages mainly at dawn, dusk, and at night, and foraging skimmers could potentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, but would be unlikely to do so regularly or intensively. California Least Tern (Sternula antillarznn brownc) This small tern, listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of California, breeds on sandy beaches and other barren habitats along the Pacific coast from Monterey County south to southern Baja California. The birds prey upon small fish in ponds, bays, and near -shore waters, typically within five miles of their nesting colonies. California least Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resoutees Management, Inc, Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 21 terns typically are present in southern California from mid -April through August; they winter on the Pacific coast of southern Mexico. Declines in populations of this species have been related to loss of suitable nesting habitat because of human recreational uses, and the concentration of their remaining colonies in small areas, rather than scattered widely as in historical times, has made them vulnerable to predation by a variety of predators. The California least tern colonies closest to the project area are located at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the proposed Near -shore Sand Disposal site A, and on a man-made island near the head of Upper Newport Bay, approximately 4.0 miles northeast of the project area. Birds from these colonies could potentially forage in the near -shore waters proposed as sand disposal sites, but would be unlikely to do so regularly or intensively. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) This Pacific coast population of this small shorebird is federally listed as threatened, and it is also a California Species of Special Concern. The current Pacific coast breeding population extends from Washington south to southern Baja California Sur. These birds winter mainly in along the coast from southern Washington to Central America. Western snowy plovers nest on beaches, many of which have been subjected to habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria), and expanding predator populations. Frequent mechanical raking to remove garbage, kelp, and other debris makes beaches unsuitable for nesting and probably harms food resources for wintering plovers by eliminating substrates supporting flies and other invertebrates important in the birds' diets. Humans and dogs also disturb roosting birds on heavily used recreational beaches, but effects of such disturbance have not been quantified. The western snowy plover is a year-round resident of Orange County beaches, although it is found only locally during both breeding and non -breeding periods. There is an influx of birds from outside of the county during the fall and winter months, typically from other coastal areas in southern California. The nearest consistent nesting location for the western snowy plover is at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2.4 miles northwest of the proposed sand disposal site at the base of the Newport Pier. The only consistent snowy plover winter roosting site on the Balboa Peninsula is located in the vicinity of E and F Streets, approximately 2.0 miles southeast of Newport Pier (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). In 2009, a snowy plover nest at this location produced three young (Peter Knapp pers. comm.). Mr. Knapp recorded 62 snowy plovers at this location on 5 October 2009. Hamilton Biological Consulting (2009, Appendix 1) found only 18 there on 12 October 2009, but this was at mid -day, when most of the birds were out foraging on the local beach rather than roosting in a large group. The snowy plover is un- likely to occur in any areas proposed for project impacts except as a rare transient. 2.4.7 Marine Mammals Several species of marine mammals have a potential to occur within the project site -the pinnipeds California sea lion (Zalophus californica) and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)- and cetaceans -the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Mm,agement, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 22 California sea lions, harbor seals, and bottlenose dolphin are occasional to common visitors in the Newport Harbor Entrance Channel, and common in the near -shore waters of Newport Beach. There are no rookeries or haul outs on the Balboa Peninsula. In June 1994, the California gray whale eastern pacific population was removed from the Federal Endangered Species List, due to recovery of population numbers to near the estimated sustainable population size. The gray whale migrates through the SCB twice each year, traveling between its feeding grounds in Alaska and its breeding grounds in Baja California. The southern migration through the Southern California Bight (SCB) between Point Conception and the Mexican Border occurs from December through February, with pregnant females moving through the area first. The northward migration begins in February and lasts through May, peaking in March (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). Solitary animals generally lead the northbound migration with cow -calf pairs following 1 to 2 months later (Foster and Schiel 1985). Gray whales migrate within 125 miles (200 km) of the shoreline and many are sighted within 9 miles (15 km) of shore (Bonnell and Dailey, 1993). On the northbound migration, cow -calf pairs are believed to more closely follow the shoreline rather than the offshore route (Dailey et al. 1993). Gray whales are commonly observed offshore of the Entrance Channel and along the Balboa Peninsula, but usually offshore of the proposed near -shore sand disposal Sites A and B. The potential for individuals to occur in the local project area is greater during March and April, when cow/calf pairs travel close to shore on their northbound migration. 2.5 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT The assessment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for the project is being conducted to conform with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Federal Register 62, 244, December 19, 1997). The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Act set forth a number of new mandates for the National Marine Fisheries Service, eight regional fishery management councils, and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The councils, with the assistance from NMFS are required to delineate EFH for all managed species. Federal action agencies which fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with NMFS regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to the NMFS recommendations. EFH is defined as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity". An adverse effect is "any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH". Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to benthic organisms, prey species, and their habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects may be sites specific orrhabitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions [50 CFR 600.910(a)]. 2.5.1 Fisheries Management Plan Species The Coastal Pelagics IMP includes four finfish (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, northern anchovy, and jack mackerel) as well as market squid. The Pacific Groundfish IMP includes 83 species, many of which are rockfish but also include sharks, skates, ratfish, morids, grenadiers, roundfish cabezon, greenlings, Pacific cod, Pacific whiting, sablefish, and lingcod . Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 23 Newport Bay is located in an area designated as EFH in the Coastal Pelagics Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) and the Pacific Groundfish FMP. Four coastal pelagic species -the northern anchovy, pacific sardine, jack mackerel, and Pacific mackerel -potentially occur within Newport Bay or offshore of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach at depths within the 30 ft contour (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988; Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008). Of these, the northern anchovy contribute moderate -to -heavy abundances to the nearshore fish community and can be abundant within Newport Bay (Coastal Resources Management, 2008; MEC, 1997). Northern anchovy comprise a portion of the commercial bait fishery in San Pedro Bay and a commercial bait fishing operation operates in the Newport Harbor entrance channel that provides northern anchovy to sports fishermen. Groundfish FMP species potentially present within Newport Harbor and within the 30 ft depth contour offshore of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach include California scorpion fish, vermillion rockfish, calico rockfish, bocaccio, California skate, spiny dogfish shark, and leopard shark (Coastal Resources Management, 2008, MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1988). FMP species that have been caught offshore of Newport Beach and in the Newport Submarine Canyon at depths generally greater than 80 meters by the Newport Dory Fishing Fleet (Cross 1984)) include northern anchovy and Pacific mackerel. Groundfish FMP species caught by the Dory fishing fleet include sablefish, shortspine thorayhead, several species of rockfish, long spine homyhead, Dover sole, spiny dogfish shark, and spotted ratfish (Cross, 1984). 2.5.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area National Marine Fisheries Service, 2005). Newport Harbor (Lower Newport Bay) and Upper Newport Bay are estuarine and eelgrass habitats that are considered HAPC for various federally managed fish species within Coastal Pelagic and Pacific Groundfish Fisheries Management FMPs, under EFH provisions of the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (FR 62, 244, December 19, 1997). Designated HAPC within Newport Bay that include estuaries and eelgrass are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1997). However, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC are more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process (National Marine Fisheries Service, 2008). Eelgrass is located in China Cove (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008, 2009 in progress), within 100 feet of the proposed beach disposal site. Coastal or marine habitats comprise a variety of broad habitat types for EFH managed species including sand bottoms, rocky reefs, and submarine canyons. The waters offshore of the Newport Beach are also in areas designated as EFH in the Coastal Pelagics FMP , and the Pacific Groundfish FMP. The project vicinity seafloor is sand bottom and the Newport Submarine Canyon is located between near -shore sand disposal sites A and B, extending to continental slope depths of several hundred meters. Species and Habitats impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. PZAI 2.6 INVASIVE SPECIES 2.6.1 Invasive Algae (Caulei pa taxifolia) Caulerpa (Figure 7) has a potential to cause ecosystem -level impacts on California's bays and nears -shore systems due to its extreme ability to out -compete other algae and seagrasses. Caulerpa taxifolia grows as a dense smothering blanket, covering and killing all native aquatic vegetation in its path when introduced in a non-native marine habitat. Fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and sea birds that are dependent on native marine vegetation are displaced or die off from the areas where they once thrived. It is a tropical -subtropical species that is used in aquariums. It was introduced into southern California in 2000 (Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Huntington Harbour) by way of individuals likely dumping their aquaria waters into storm drains, or directly into the lagoons. While outbreaks have been contained, the Water Resources Board, through the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game require that projects that have potential to spread this species through dredging and bottom -disturbing activities conduct pre -construction surveys to determine if this species Figure 14. The invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia. Source: NOAA/NMFS is present using standard agency -approved protocols and by National Marine Fisheries Service/California Department of Fish and Game Certified Field Surveyors. Biologist's$ did not observe any invasive algae, Caulerpa taxifolia in the general vicinity of the project site during either 2005 or 2007 surveys near Carnation Cove (Coastal Resources Management Inc., 2008), or during site dives in China Cove in August 2008 (Coastal Resources Management, Inc. pers. observations). Its potential to occur in the near -shore project area is extremely low. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 25 2.6.2 Undaria pinnatifida (wakame) Undaria pinnatifida (Figure 9) is a golden brown kelp native to the Japan Sea. It has been introduced in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe and has now spread to the California coastline. It has been found in several bodies of water including Monterey Harbor, Santa Barbara Harbor, Port Hueneme, Channel Islands Harbor, Ventura Harbor, Long Beach Harbor, Anaheim Bay, San Diego Bay, and the waters surrounding Catalina Island (Silva et al., 2002, R. Ware, pers. observations). In Japan it is known as wakame and is extensively cultivated as a fresh and dried food plant. However, it has the potential to become a major pest in our coastal waters. Undaria grows to between 3 to 7 feet (1 and 2 m) tall and is found in sheltered harbor waters on rocks, breakwaters, and marine debris from the low -tide mark to 50 feet (15 m). A mature plant has a distinctive, spiraled (frilly), spore -producing structure at its base. It also has an obvious central stem to 4 inches (10 cm) wide that extends for the length of the plant (Figure 15). The blade may be up to 3.1 feet (1 m) wide and extends from the tip of the plant for half the length of the plant. It has not been reported from Newport Beach outer coast or from within Newport Harbor. Figure 15. Undaria pinnatifida (Source: CRM, Inc.) �i Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Send Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. "4 26 3.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The City of Newport Beach proposed to use sandy material excavated from the site as beach fill material along the Balboa Peninsula and in China Cove (Newport Bay). The sites proposed for beach replenishment, amount of material each site can accommodate, disposal method, and location of disposal (on beach or nearshore) are shown in Table 1 and illustrated in Figures 1-3. In addition to these sites, some fill will be required for the project (on -site), and approximately 3,000 cy of contaminated material will be disposed offsite at an upland disposal site which accepts contaminated material, which is unknown location at this time. 3.2 DEFINITIONS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS Potential impacts to marine resources are classified into several categories; significant and Immitigable, significant but mitigable, adverse but not significant, and beneficial. Several factors were taken into account when identifying the level of impact: duration.of impact, rates of recovery of habitat and populations, and how an impact might affect habitats, communities, or individuals of a population. Significant impacts are defined as: The populations of an endangered species, threatened species, fully protected species, or species identified by state and federal resource agency as "sensitive" is directly affected, its breeding habitat impaired, or critical foraging or breeding habitat is lost or substantially affected; . The movement of any sensitive species is impeded; Sensitive resources (reefs, kelp beds, surfgrass beds, and eelgrass beds) are affected for a period of time that will substantially reduce the ability of resources to recover. Significant impacts are considered mitigable if the resources can be returned to its previous level of structure and function through a viable restoration program and if the restoration of the resource is considered feasible by resource agencies. Impacts are considered adverse but not -significant if (1) the project would disturb habitats and individuals but would not result in long-term population effects, beach fill and/or near -shore sand movement would result in a short-term sedimentation increase but not persistent burial of the resource. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. MA 3.3 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY IMPACTS 3.3.1 Turbidity China Cove. Beach disposal material will be trucked into China Cove, reducing .the potential, for dispersal of any fine sediment into the Bay. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Level of Impact. The turbidity plume created during beach disposal of sands is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue until the nourished shoreline reaches an equilibrium profile. Mitigation. No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not exceed ambient levels. 1. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured points beyond a radius of 300 feet downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within 300 feet of shoreline are exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Marine Center, Newport Pier. Beach disposal material will be trucked on to the beach, reducing the potential for dispersal of any fine materials into the surf zone during beach fill operations. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Turbidity will be generated during high tides and high surf conditions, that will naturally increase near -shore turbidity. Level of Impact: The turbidity plume created during beach disposal of sands at the Marine Center is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue until the nourished shoreline reaches an equilibrium profile. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not exceed ambient levels. 2. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured one - quarter mile offshore at or downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within one quarter mile of shoreline are exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc PA:1 of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Near -shore Sand Replenishment, Sites A and B. Beach disposal material will be barged to the Site and B near -shore beach disposal sites from the project area in Newport Harbor. The typical near -shore disposal plan is shown in Figure 16. Barges will approach the disposal site and release the fill material between the 3 and 10 meter isobaths (10 to 29.5 feet), 50 meters to 300 meters (164 to 984 feet) offshore, depending upon the barge's operational capabilities. The level of turbidity generated is expected to be low since the material will be beach -compatible and contain low percentages of silt. Turbidity will be generated during high tides and high surf conditions, that naturally increase near -shore turbidity. Level of Impact: The turbidity plume created during near -shore sand replenishment is expected to have an adverse but not -significant short-term effect on local water quality. Some localized turbidity will continue through the completion of near -shore disposal operations and the seafloor reaches an equilibrium profile. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Although not required, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that turbidity levels associated with the proposed project do not exceed ambient levels. 3. During construction, daily monitoring of turbidity during sand placement shall be conducted to ensure turbidity levels do not exceed ambient levels as measured at a distance one-half mile offshore at or downcoast of the placement site for a prolonged period, assumed to be 5 days. If ambient turbidity levels within one half mile of shoreline are exceeded, the condition will be documented and placement may be modified to reduce turbidity. Turbidity plume observations shall be documented with photographs, and maps of maximum daily plumes shall be reported to the City after construction. Observations of swell, wind, and tide conditions shall also be recorded to correlate with turbidity conditions. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 29 p rw,a as +rsoaao siaawr, i it 06 �- .....1...........y....,�.... � � all AAA o s1 = n......................... .... fl 3 918 An . L ..... U) Z e J to aJill JJO z d W�� b /. L..... .....i...... a to J✓' // / i W" uo,Niaurnry p� / `•/ /� `� !� / « N.M. v t4 / ♦ F /� « i «MAN# 3 Species and Habitats bnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 30 3.3.2 Construction Runoff and Discharges China Cove and Marine Center Beach Fill Sites. At the beach construction staging area spills or leaks from heavy equipment could enter runoff and or be washed into the nearshore waters, releasing petroleum products such as fuel, oil and grease, and heavy metals into the environment. Unexpected leakages of oil, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous material associated with dredge slurry pipeline installation and maintenance could also release toxic and/or hazardous materials on the beach and/or the nearshore open waters. Debris (trash and other macro debris) could wash off the beach in storm water run off, as well as be thrown overboard from vessels. Level of Impact: The project will have a potential for adverse, and but mitigable impacts on water quality. Miti agztion: Potential impacts would be reduced with implementation of the following mitigation measures. Adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations including Best Management Practices for construction vehicle fueling. 2. Debris generated would be placed in trash receptacles to prevent any contamination of surface runoff. 3. Fully comply with applicable local, state, and federal water quality regulations. 4. Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent all discharge of fuel or oily waste or other hazardous materials from heavy machinery or construction equipment or power tools on East Beach or in the nearshore project area. The City of Newport Beach and its contractors shall maintain current contingency planning guidelines and protocols at the project site, and have adequate equipment available to contain and clean up hazardous materials spills. Near -shore Sand Replenishment Sites. Unexpected leakages of oil, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous materials on -board barges or tugs could release toxic and/or hazardous materials on in Newport Harbor or the nearshore open waters. Debris (trash and other macro debris) could wash off the beach in storm water run off, as well as be thrown overboard from vessels. Level of Impact: The project will have a potential for adverse, and but mitigable impacts on water quality. Miti ag rion: Potential impacts would be reduced with implementation of the following mitigation measures. 1. Adhere to applicable local, state, and federal regulations including Best Management Practices for vessel fueling. 2. Fully comply with applicable local, state, and federal water quality regulations. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 31 3. Reasonable and prudent measures shall be taken to prevent all discharge of fuel or oily waste or other hazardous materials from heavy machinery or construction equipment. The City of Newport Beach and its contractors shall maintain current contingency planning guidelines and protocols at the project site, and have adequate equipment available to contain and clean up hazardous materials spills. 3.4 IMPACTS ON NON -SENSITIVE MARINE On -shore and near -shore beach sand replenishment projects would potentially bury marine organisms living within the tide zone and the near -shore subtidal habitat through the direct placement of sand on these resources. Secondly, the movement of sand discharged within the near -shore littoral drift could secondarily impact subtidal benthic organisms by increasing the depth of sediment cover and also bury subtidal benthic organisms out of the initial disposal sites. Lastly, water column turbidity created by the resuspension and transport of the fine particle constituent of the discharged beach fill material to nearshore waters may temporarily reduce primary productivity (plankton), interrupt feeding mechanisms of filter feeding fishes, and reduce the ability of sight -foraging fishes to see their prey. 3.4.1 Beach Nourishment Impacts on Sandy Intertidal and Shallow Subtidal Soft Bottom Benthic Infauna (Non -sensitive species) China Cove and Marine Center Onshore Beach Replenishment Sites Fill material will be placed on China Cove beach from the supra -tidal to intertidal elevations, while the beach fill material will be placed at the Marina Center site in the supra -tidal area. Both nourishment sites are sandy beach habitat. Animals that live in the high -to -low tide zone within the China Cove beach sands such as worms, clams, crustaceans, and insects are naturally adapted to living within environments that undergo seasonal environmental changes in order to feed, burrow, and reproduce. They are adapted to living deep in the sands to depths of about 2-3 feet, capable of withstanding normal fluctuations of waves, currents, erosion, and accretion cycles of storms, and are generally tolerant of extreme ranges in temperature and oxygen. If the replenishment occurs gradually, over time, many forms such as bivalves and crustaceans will be able to migrate vertically and survive. Quick and direct burial of non -motile forms however, will smother and kill the organisms. Few organisms live in the supra -tidal beach sides, with the exception of insects and insect larvae that are found in decaying material. Beach fill material will be placed over the existing beach and intertidal habitat in China Cove that will smother intertidal -occurring sandy beach and infaunal organisms. Once beach nourishment activities are completed, planktonic larvae will resettle the China Cove beach and shallow subtidal sand habitat through tidal and wave transport mechanisms. Full recovery of the beach and shallow subtidal benthic infauna is expected to occur within one to three months. Level of Impact: Beach fill at the Marine Center will not affect marine organisms because of the supra -tidal nature of the fill project. The effect of beach replenishment on beach fauna at China Cove is expected to be adverse, but not -significant, resulting in a temporary loss of intertidal sandy infauna and non -motile macrofauna. Once the project is completed, sandy beach and Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 32 benthic soft bottom organisms will begin to recolonize the sediments. Full recovery is expected to occur within one to three months. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Although no mitigation is required, implementation of Best Management Practices related to turbidity and other impacts on water quality would ensure that no adverse effects on biological resources will occur. Near -Shore Sand Disposal Sites A and B. The soft bottom benthic community, composed primarily of polychaete worms, microcrustaceans, mollusks, and slow moving, or non -motile benthic macrofauna (i.e., snails, sea stars, sand stars, and crabs) will be temporarily disturbed by being rapidly buried by the disposal of the sand disposal material. Once operations have ceased, benthic invertebrate populations will recolonized the impacted zones. Level of Impact: This action will result in a short-term disturbance to soft bottom benthic habitat and a short-term decrease in benthic invertebrate populations resulting in an adverse, but not significant impact to non -sensitive benthic resources. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. 3.4.2 Impacts on Intertidal and Subtidal Hard Substrate Habitat China Cove and Marine Center Sites The biological community on the rocks and bulkheads nearby the China Cove site consist of mussels, barnacles, limpets, chitons, tunicates, sponges, tube snails, sea stars, and other invertebrates common to southern California hard -substrate habitats. Direct burial of hard substrate and associated marine organisms is not expected since the limits of beach fill will stop short of these habitats. Some redistribution of the beach fill material is expected to occur through longer -term and natural wave processes that have a low -potential to affect mussel and other organisms that live nearby. Level of Impact: This action will result in minor disturbances to intertidal organisms at China Cove, but no disturbances are expected at the Marine Center site located next to the Newport Pier. At most, the disturbance at China Cove will be short-term stress resulting in an adverse, but not significant impact. No impacts on intertidal and subtidal hard substrate habitat or communities are expected to occur at the Marine Center Site located near the Newport Pier. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B The biological community on the groins within Disposal Site A and on the pier pilings between Disposal Sites A and B also consist of mussels, barnacles, limpets, chitons, tunicates, sponges, tube snails, sea stars, and other invertebrates common to southern California hard -substrate habitats. Direct burial of hard substrate and associated marine organisms is not expected. Redistribution of the near -shore placed sands is expected to increase subtidal elevations that potentially could bury some hard -bottom habitat at the base of the groins. However, these Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 33 habitats are continually subjected to burial and scour, which results in low species diversity and abundances. Consequently, any redistribution of the near -shore material placed in the vicinity of these structures is not expected to have an impact on these benthic marine resources. Level of Impact: None. Mitigation: No mitigation is required. 3.4.3 Open Water Habitat China Cove. Beach filling from the shore will potentially create a minor turbidity plume in the as beach fill material is moved to the water line and is agitated and redistributed by wave action and tidal surge. While the spread of a turbidity plume could temporarily reduce phytoplankton primary production due to lowered submarine light intensity, the impact would be neglible since the project is relatively small, and conducted over a short period. Demersal (bottom) and water column fishes that live in the project area are accustomed to turbid conditions in the Harbor and are not expected to be substantially affected by short-term increases in turbidity. The most likely response to a turbidity plume that exceeds their threshold for being able to find prey, or their threshold to respond to water quality degradation would be an avoidance behavior. Some species (i.e., anchovy, sardines, and grunion) are planktivores that rely upon their gills as filtering mechanisms. High levels of suspended sediments can clog their gills and impair their ability to feed as well as breathe. Since the turbidity plume is expected to be short-term and confined within a relatively small zone, fishes would swim out of the higher turbid areas to seek prey and less stressful conditions. Such behavioral changes, while adverse, would not result in mortality or impacts at a population level. Level of Impact: Short-term adverse, but not significant resulting in short-term stressed to fishes. Mitigation: None required. Although no mitigation is required, the implementation of Best Management Practices related to turbidity and other impacts on water quality would ensure that no adverse effects on biological resources will occur. 3.5 IMPACTS ON SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS 3.5.1 China Cove. Eelgrass is the only sensitive species that has a potential to be impacted within China Cove. No other sensitive plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, invasive algae, Essential Fish Habitat, Marine Protected Areas, reefs, or kelp beds would be affected by the placement of sand at this site. Eelgrass. Eelgrass is located approximately 30 meters (100 feet) from proposed beach disposal operations in China Cove. Although eelgrass is capable of surviving slow rates of sand deposition (Phillips, 1984) it cannot survive quick burial. Because it is present approximately 30 meters away from the beach disposal site, there is no potential for adverse impacts related to immediate burial. Over time, these sediments may migrate seaward through tidal action and Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 34 winds that could increase the intertidal elevation at which eelgrass can survive. Eelgrass is a designated HAPC within Newport Bay. Level of Impact: Due to its status as a sensitive species and as a Habitat of Particular Concern for federal groundfish management plan species, any loss of eelgrass as a consequence of sand disposal would be considered a significant and adverse impact. However, there is no potential for impacts related to burial since all material will be trucked to the site and placed on to the beach. Additionally, no vessels will be used for this project, eliminating the potential for anchor scarring and/or damage as a result of vessel movement. Mitigation: Although no impacts are anticipated, pre -and -post beach replenishment surveys may be required from the California Coastal Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers. The following requirements were placed upon the City of Newport Beach and the Channel Reef Community Association for dredging at Channel Reef, temporarily pumping it to a sand -berm dewatering pit at China Cove Beach, and placing the sandy material on Corona Del Mar State Beach and the Ruby Avenue Beach in Newport Beach (Permit Application 5-06-225). Pre -Construction Eelgrass Survey. A valid pre -construction eelgrass (Zostera marina) survey shall be completed during the period of active growth of eelgrass (typically March through October). The pre -construction survey shall be completed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be valid until the next period of active growth. The survey shall be prepared in full compliance with the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" Revision 8 (except as modified by this special condition) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicants shall submit the eelgrass survey for the review and approval of the Executive Director within five (5) business days of completion of each eelgrass survey and in any event no later than fifteen (15) business days prior to commencement of any development. If the eelgrass survey identifies any eelgrass within the project area, which would be impacted by the proposed project, the development shall require an amendment to this permit from the Coastal Commission or a new coastal development permit. Post -Construction Eelgrass Survey. If any eelgrass is identified in the project area by the survey required in subsection A of this condition above, within one month after the conclusion of construction, the applicants shall survey the project site to determine if any eelgrass was adversely impacted. The survey shall be prepared in full compliance with the "Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy" Revision 8 (except as modified by this special condition) adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service and shall be prepared in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. The applicants shall submit the post -construction eelgrass survey for the review and approval of the Executive Director within thirty (30) days after completion of the survey. If any eelgrass has been impacted, the applicants shall replace the impacted eelgrass at a minimum 1.2:1 ratio on -site, or at another location, in accordance with the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. All impacts to eelgrass habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 1.2:1 (mitigation to impact). The exceptions to the required 1.2:1 mitigation ratio found within SCEMP shall not apply. Implementation of mitigation shall require an amendment to this permit or a new coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment or new permit is legally required. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 35 Pre -Construction Caulerpa taxifolia survey. Not earlier than 90 days nor later than 30 days prior to commencement or re -commencement of any development authorized under this coastal development permit (the "project'), the applicants shall undertake a survey of the project area and a buffer area at least 10 meters beyond the project area to determine the presence of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia. The survey shall include a visual examination of the substrate. B. The survey protocol shall be prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Within five (5) business days of completion of the survey, the applicants shall submit the survey: for the review and approval of the Executive Director; and to the Surveillance Subcommittee of the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team (SCCAT). If Caulerpa taxifolia is found within the project or buffer areas, the applicants shall not proceed with the project until 1) the applicants provide evidence to the Executive Director that all C. taxifolia discovered within the project and buffer area has been eliminated in a manner that complies with all applicable governmental approval requirements, including but not limited to those of the California Coastal Act, or 2) the applicants have revised the project to avoid any contact with C. taxifolia. No revisions to the project shall occur without a Coastal Commission approved amendment to this coastal development permit unless the Executive Director determines that no amendment is legally required. No mitigation is required. 3.5.2 Marine Center No sensitive plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, invasive algae, Marine Protected Areas, Essential Fish Habitat, reefs, or kelp beds would be affected by the placement of sand at this site. One species of bird (western snowy plover) has a low potential of occurrence in the project area. Birds. This site (and the China Cove site) is heavily impacted by human activities and do not provide nesting habitat for birds of any kind. However, California brown pelicans and the federally threatened western snowy plover may occur within the local project area (Hamilton Biological, Inc. 2009). California brown pelicans occur commonly at the Newport Pier adjacent to the Marine Center sand disposal site, but this adaptable species routinely interacts with humans in this area and would not be significantly impacted by the proposed actions. The federally threatened western snowy plover is known to roost on open, sandy beaches, including some beaches on the Balboa Peninsula that are used by moderate numbers of people; it is possible that this species could occur as a non -breeder at the Newport Pier sand disposal site. Level of Impact: There was a recent case in which a vehicle ran over and killed a non -breeding western snowy plover on a southern California beach, and the resource agencies have expressed concern that any sick plovers may be unable to move out of the way of heavy equipment working on a beach. If sand disposal actions were to result in death, injury, or harassment of one or more roosting western snowy plovers this would constitute a potential violation of the federal Endangered Species Act, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation: To ensure against any potential adverse effects upon the federally threatened western snowy plover, a qualified biological monitor shall inspect the sand deposition site at Newport Pier immediately before sand is disposed of at this site and throughout the period when Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 36 sand is being deposited on the beach. The monitor shall have experience surveying for Snowy Plovers and shall be approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service prior to conducting this work. The monitor shall have the authority to immediately stop work if any snowy plovers that may be present show signs of stress or disturbance as a result of the sand disposal work. Work shall only resume with the monitor's approval. Implementation of this recommended mitigation measure would ensure that sand disposal actions would not entail any potentially significant impacts upon the western snowy plover. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, the proposed sand disposal actions would result in no potentially significant impacts upon any bird species. Appendix 2 provides an example of pre, during, and post sand replenishment monitoring programs identified for the County of San Diego's Regional Sediment Management Plan (Moffatt & Nichol et al., 2008) that could be adapted to any monitoring programs adapted by the City of Newport Beach for proposed sand disposal projects along the Newport Beach shoreline. 3.5.3. Near -shore Disposal Sites A and B. Several species or sensitive habitats have a potential to occur along the Newport Beach coastline at depths between the tide zone and the 30 foot isobath. Surfgrass. Surfgrass has a low potential to occur around the base of the groins within Disposal Site A. It is a nursery habitat for juvenile lobsters and provides habitat for a number of invertebrates and fish. Surfgrass attaches to rocks and forms meadows with an extensive root/rhizome system and has long -bladed leaves designed to withstand abrasion and at least partial sand burial. Because it occurs within the highly dynamic nearshore environment, this species is naturally adapted to periods of sand burial, and subsequent re-emergence. Some blade loss will occur as a result of these physical rigors on a seasonal basis. Consequently, it is recognized as a species that can tolerate some stress, including sand burial. The degree of sand burial it can withstand however, is not well documented and depends in part, on the duration and length of burial and recovery from disturbances such as sand burial is dependent upon if the integrity of the rhizome system is left intact after the disturbance. Since oxygen is transported from the blades to the rhizomes, the rhizomes are capable of surviving under anoxic conditions created by the sand cover (Phillips and Menez 1988). The period of survival under varying sand cover however, has not been investigated. Since the blades must be above sand level to provide the rhizomes with oxygen, a maximum threshold sand cover criteria of two-thirds of surfgrass blade length was established to limit long- term damage. Sand cover of no more than six months was used as the threshold duration since longer -term burial of more than one season may affect the ability of new rhizome shoots to survive and grow. This threshold was conservatively established based on the period of time identified as being a maximum that surfgrass could withstand before a significant biological impact would occur for the SANDAG Regional Beach Sand Project (MEC Analytical Systems 2000). i Level of Impact: It is not clear if surfgrass is present within the project area's groin field, although because hard substrate is present, there is a low potential for it to occur. There are no natural reefs in the project area, however that would support this species. If it was present, the level of impact would likely be a short-term adverse, but not significant impact due to its ability to survive low -to - moderate amounts of sand burial for up to six months. Pre -and -post sand disposal monitoring is recommended to identify possible impacts on this species (See Appendix 2). Species and Habitats impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 37 Mitigation. None required. However, documenting the presence of this species presence in .the Disposal Area A's groin field would provide a clear understanding of the potential for this species to be impacted by near -shore sand replenishment. Appendix 2 provides an example of pre, during, and post sand replenishment monitoring programs identified for the County of San Diego's Regional Sediment Management Plan (Moffatt & Nichol et al., 2008). Pismo Clams. The status of the Pismo clam population is not known for the project area intertidal and subtidal habitats. In the past, its presence has fluctuated widely, and no recent surveys are known that have documented this species' abundance or populations structure. Being in a zone of high sand movement, Pismo clams are naturally adapted to periodic and natural levels of burial, and they can live in the sands to a depth of about 12 inches. Level of Impact: While it is not clear if Pismo clams are present within Disposal Areas A and B. If this species is present, the level of impact would depend upon the depth of burial and the duration of burial. Pre -and -post sand disposal monitoring is recommended to identify possible impacts on this species (See Appendix 2). California Grunion. California grunion may spawn along the Newport Beach shoreline periodically between March and September each year, although total number and the degree of spawning success are highly variable on a year-to-year basis. Level of Impact: The level of impact is dependent upon when and how shallow near -shore beach disposal would occur. No impacts would occur if the projects are conducted between September and the end of February. No monitoring or mitigation would be necessary. If near -shore sand disposal were to occur between March and August, then the potential for impact is greater and there could potentially be short-term adverse, but mitigable impacts on this sensitive species. If beach nourishment was to occur in or immediately offshore the surf zone compared to farther offshore, then the potential for impact to grunion would be greater. Any shoreline vehicular movement along the shoreline and/or spreading beach material associated with sand disposal would result in temporary, adverse impacts to grunion spawning habitat. This will temporarily degrade grunion spawning habitat until the project is completed and new beach slopes have stabilized. While the entire Newport Beach shoreline is potentially grunion spawning habitat, it will not be known to what degree grunion will use the region within Site A (400i to 52ad Streets) or Site B (16" to 5tl' Streets) until the grunion season is underway. The degree of impact to spawning grunion and beach habitat would be related to changes in beach slope and if these projects would involve any shoreline activities. Every possible means will be implemented to ensure that grunion spawning habitat is protected and spawning success is achieved if grunion are present during sand disposal operations. Species and Habitats bnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Mmiagement, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. M Offshore of the surf zone, the likelihood of impacts to schooling grunion would be minimal. Mitigation: Should shoreline beach disposal activity (use of vehicles or equipment) or near -shore surf -zone sand disposal occur during the grunion spawning season (as defined by the California Department of Fish Game grunion calendar), the City of Newport Beach shall prepare and implement a beach nourishment grunion habitat protection plan prior to start of sand disposal activities on the project site, to include: 1. Temporal BMPs, such as avoidance of known spawning area during grunion runs, to avoid disturbances to grunion spawning activity and to minimize damage to grunion spawning habitat; 2. conduct pre -construction monitoring surveys within three weeks of proposed construction to determine the potential for grunion to use Newport Beach Disposal Sites A and B during beach nourishment activities; 3. conduct grunion monitoring during known grunion run activities while onshore or near - shore beach nourishment activities are in progress to assess if the project sites will be impacted; 4. implement avoidance measures, if feasible, to minimize impacts within Disposal Sites A and B during beach or near -shore sand disposal activities if spawning activity is observed by berming off beach habitat within 100 ft of where spawning is observed; and 5. conduct post -beach nourishment grunion spawning success monitoring surveys for two - months if the projects impact grunion habitat. The first post -construction survey will be conducted during the first grunion run following completion of sand disposal activities. The survey results will be included in a report that be submitted to the City of Newport Beach, National Marine Fisheries Service, CDFG, and California Coastal Commission within 30 days after the final grunion run. If sand disposal activity occurs between September and the end of February, or outside of the 15 ft isobath, then the level of impact will be no impact, and no mitigation or monitoring would be required. California Halibut. Juvenile and adult halibut are common offshore of Newport Beach. This species was the 70' most abundant species collected in otter trawl surveys offshore of Seal Beach between 1972 and 2006 (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2006) and the 5d' most abundant species collected offshore of Huntington Beach between 1978-1988 (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988). It is considered a sensitive resource because of its value as sports fish and commercial species. Proposed beach nourishment could temporarily affect individuals as a consequence of disturbing shallow water habitat, since both juveniles and adults frequent offshore of the project area. Individuals that are disturbed will migrate out the zone of effects. No mortality or long-term impacts on a population level will occur. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 39 Level of Impact: Short-term adverse, but not significant resulting in short-term stressed to halibut populations. Mitigation: None required. Marine Reptiles (Sea Turtles). Near -shore sand disposal operations will potentially occur within a corridor where green sea turtles have been occasionally sighted. Therefore, there is a potential that green sea turtles may be in the general project area during near -shore sand disposal operations and where vessels and dredge scows would be transiting to -and -from Newport Harbor. Although an occasional green sea turtle may be present, the potential for adverse impacts to an individual is low since only a small number of barge -loads would be needed. Vessel movements have a very low potentially to result in a behavioral modification (a "take" of a endangered species) to this species that would include a change in swimming behavior to avoid excessive noise, turbidity, or the vessel movements. However, no mortality is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. Level of Impact. The unauthorized take of an endangered species would constitute a short term adverse, but mitigable impact on an endangered species. However, the potential for this occurrence is low. Mitigation. If a sea turtle is present in the project area during near -shore sand disposal activity, the mitigation measure identified below would reduce potential short-term, significant but mitigable to adverse and not -significant. 1. If a sea turtle is within 100 meters radius of any near -shore sand disposal operations, disposal activity should be halted until the turtle is safely out of the area. 2. Vessel crews should be cognizant of the potential for sea turtles to be present within the project area. Crews should be trained to spot and avoid sea turtles while transiting to and from Newport Harbor. Marine Birds. The near -shore disposal sites could possibly serve as foraging habitat for small numbers of California brown pelicans, black skimmers, or California least terns, but these sites are not known or expected to be of particular value to these or other foraging seabird species. Furthermore, only a small number of barge -loads would be needed to dispose of the sand at the near -shore sites, so any adverse effects that might occur, such as a temporary increase in turbidity, would have no significant impacts to foraging pelicans, skimmers, terns, or other bird species (Hamilton Biological, 2009). Marine Mammals. All marine mammals are protected by the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits the intentional taking, import, or export of marine mammals without a permit. Several of the species that occur within the SCB are also protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). A species that is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA is categorized as depleted under the MMPA. Unintentional take of a depleted species is allowed by permit only if the activity is determined to Species and Habitats bnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 40 have a negligible impact. Intentional take of a depleted species is only allowed under a scientific research permit. Vessel traffic transiting to and from the near -shore disposal sites (barges, tugs, work vessels) would be operating in waters where California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, California gray whale, bottlenose dolphin, and other marine mammals occur. These species, including the cow - calf gray whale pairs can occur as close as the surf line (Poole, 1982; Bonnell et al., 1992), R. Ware, personal observations), and gray whales have been observed immediately offshore of Newport Pier (R. Ware, pers. observations) between early -to -late spring. More common however, they will be present in a divergent pathway offshore, heading across the Huntington Beach Flats, where small -to -large sized vessels operate and where few, if any collisions and/or marine mammal interactions occur. Hypothetically, work vessels could collide with marine mammals. However, marine mammals are mobile and are generally capable of avoiding boat traffic (American Petroleum Institute, 1983) especially at the speeds the vessels would likely be transiting. Also, marine mammals in the local waters have habituated, to some degree, to vessel traffic since vessels commonly transit the waters offshore Newport Harbor. Vessel operators are also trained to recognize the presence of marine mammals which reduces the potential for adverse impacts. In the event a pinniped or cetacean is injured or killed as consequence of a collision, the impact would be a locally significant impact and a "take" a protected species, but it would not result in a population -level impact. Should a marine mammal be injured or killed, the vessel operator and the City of Newport Beach will immediately notify the National Marine Fisheries Service (Southwest Division) and will submit a written, follow up report within 24 hours of the incident. Marine mammals can sense underwater noise and vibrations coming from onshore and offshore sources, although moving sound sources from vessels and aircraft seem to be more disturbing than stationary sources such as drilling rigs, drill ships, and dredging operations (American Petroleum Institute, 1983). Over time, marine mammals in the region would acclimate to dredge -operation noises. Marine mammals could come within a close range slurry pipeline operations, and although they would likely able to "sense" the noise, the magnitude and intensity of the source sounds are unlikely to result in any significant changes in behavior. Such types of sounds and their intensity levels are common throughout the range in which these marine mammals live. Only a small number of barge -loads would be needed to dispose of the sand at the near -shore sites, which lowers the potential for both possible vessel -marine mammal interactions and avoidance behaviors by marine mammals due to an increase of underwater noise and vibrations. Level of Impact. The "taking" of a marine mammal as a consequence of vessel operations would be a short term, adverse but mitigable impact if vessel operators approach within 100 yards of a marine mammal or vessel operations result in the death of a marine mammal. Mitigation. If a protected marine mammal is present in the nearshore project area, the mitigation measure identified below would reduce potential short-term, significant but mitigable to adverse and not -significant. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc, Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hanilton Biological, Inc. 41 1. Vessel crews should be cognizant of the potential for marine mammals, including sea lions, whales, and dolphins to be present within the project area. Crews should be trained to spot and avoid marine mammals while transiting to and from the slurry pipeline project area. Fishery Management Plan Species. Of the several IMP species identified from the local project region, only the northern anchovy is expected to be in the near -shore Newport Beach waters in substantial numbers. However, the temporary nature of any turbidity plume created by sand disposal is expected to have an adverse, but not -significant impact on this species. No mortality is expected. This species will likely avoid any sediment plume originating from the project, which would constitute a schooling behavioral change. Level of Impact: Turbidity related to beach nourishment activities is expected to be adverse, but not -significant resulting in temporary, minor behavior disturbances FMP species. Mitigation: None required. Designated Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC). HAPCs in the region include kelp beds, reefs, and submarine canyons. Of these, none occur within the near -shore Disposal Sites A and B. Level of Impact. No impact. Mitigation. None required. Sensitive Habitats. Reefs. No Impacts. Kelp Beds. No Impacts. Submarine Canes. No Impacts. Marine Protected Areas. No Marine Protected Areas occur in the proposed near -shore disposal sites. Invasive Species Caulerpa taxifolia. Caulerpa is not known to be present within the near -shore disposal site project areas which precludes the potential spread of this species during sand disposal activities. However, a Caulerpa algae survey will be conducted according to the National Marine Fisheries Service Control Protocol prior to construction. Level of Impact. None if not found in the project area. If found, then the impact will be a significant adverse, but mitigatable impact. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 42 Miti ag tion. If this species is found, then protocols for the eradication of Caulerpa will be implemented to remove this species from the project area. (httv://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/CaulerpaControlProtocol.htm). The City will conform to the 2008 Caulerpa Control Protocol, which requires survey results to be submitted to NOAA and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) within 15 days of completion. This protocol also requires that NOAA and CDFG be notified within 24 hours if Caulerpa is identified at a permitted project site. 3.5 LONGTERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 3.5.1 China Cove and Marine Center Water Quality and Sediment Quality. The proposed projects will have no long-term impacts on water quality. Sand Beach and Subtidal Soft Bottom Habitat Communities. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sand beach or nearshore soft bottom benthic communities. Rocky Intertidal/Hardscape. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on rocky intertidal or subtidal marine organisms or rock habitat. Open Water. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on open water habitats or biological resources. Special Status Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on species that have special biological status. Fisheries Management Plan Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on FMP species. Sensitive Habitats. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sensitive habitats. Invasive Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on invasive species. 3.5.2 Near -shore Sand Disposal Sites A and B. Water Quality and Sediment Quality. The proposed projects will have no long-term impacts on water quality. Sand Beach and Near -shore Benthic Soft Bottom Habitat Communities. Tie proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sand beach or nearshore soft bottom benthic communities. Rocky Intertidal/Hardscape. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on rocky intertidal or subtidal marine organisms or rock habitat. Open Water. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on open water habitats or biological resources. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 43 Special Status Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on species that have special biological status. Fisheries Management Plan Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on FMP species. Sensitive Habitats. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on sensitive habitats. Invasive Species. The proposed project will have no long-term impacts on invasive species. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 4.0 LITERATURE CITED Bonnell, Michael L. and M. D. Dailey. 1993. Marine Mammals. Chapter 11 in: Dailey, M. D., D. J. Reish, and J. W. Anderson. Ed. 1983. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. A synthesis and interpretation. University of California Press. 926 pp. California Coastal Commission. 2006. Staff report 5-06-225. Channel Reef Association and the City of Newport Beach. Dredge the Channel Reef Community Association Marina to remove 7,000 cubic yards of sand and temporarily pump it to a sand -berm dewatering pit at China Cove Beach. The sand will then be distributed to two different sites for beach nourishment: 1) Ruby Avenue Beach (1,500 cubic yards) and 2) Corona Del Mar State Beach (5,500 cubic yards). July 16'b, 2006. California Department of Fish and Game. 2001. California Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. The Resources Agency. W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E. J. Larson (ed). 581 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Chapter 6. Pismo Clams: Annual Status of the Fisheries Report. Prepared by Christine Pattison and revised by Kai Lampson, 2007. City of Newport Beach. 2004. Local Coastal Program. Coastal Land Use Plan. Approved May 25d', 2004. Coastal Resources Management. 2002. City of Newport Beach Local Coastal Plan. Biological Appendix. Prepared in association with Chambers Group for the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. December, 2002. Various paging. Coastal Resources Management. 2005. Results of bay -wide eelgrass (Zostera marina) habitat mapping surveys in Newport Bay, December 2003 April 2004. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Department. GIS maps of eelgrass habitat and density information. March 2005. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2008. Distribution and abundance of eelgrass (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay-GIS Map. 2006-2007. Eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division. Map available on City of Newport Beach Website. Coastal Resources Management, Inc. 2009 (in progress). Distribution and abundance of eelgrass r (Zostera marina) in Newport Bay-GIS Map. 2009-2010. Eelgrass habitat mapping project. Bulkhead to pierhead line surveys. Being prepared for the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division, Cross, Jeffrey.1983. The Newport Dory Fishing Fleet. Species and Habitats hnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. 45 Darken, Rachel S., K Martin, and M. Fisher. 1998. Metabolism during delayed hatching in terrestrial eggs of a marine fish, the grunion Leuresthes tenuis. Physiological Zoology 71(4):400-406. Hamilton Biological Inc. 2009. CEQA evaluation of potential effects of Manna Park sand disposal project on birds. Prepared for Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Corona del Mar, CA. 15 October, 2009. 13 pp. Knaggs, Eric H., E. R. Fleming, and T. Hoban. 1977. Results of the 1977 Southern California Pismo Clam Survey. Administrative report No. 77-15. August 1977.20 pp. Martin, Karen. 2002. Does beach grooming harm grunion eggs? Coastal Ocean Research R/CZ/81 PD: 2.15.2002-8.31.2002. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 1988. NPDES 1988 Receiving Water Monitoring Report, Huntington Beach Generating Station. Prepared for the Southern California Edison Company. 46 pp plus appendices. MBC Applied Environmental Sciences, 2006. NPDES 2006 Receiving Water Monitoring Report, Haynes and AES Alamitos LLC Generating Stations. Prepared for LADWP, 89 pp. plus appendices. MEC Analytical Systems, Inc. 2000. Evaluation of impacts to marine resources and water quality from dredging of sands from offshore borrow sites and beach replenishment at Oceanside, Carlsbad, Leucadia, Encinitas, Cardiff, Solana Beach, Del Mar, Torrey Pines, Mission Beach, and Imperial Beach, Ca. Prepared for KEA Environmental, Inc. San Diego, CA. 183 pp. plus appendices. Middaugh, D.P., H.W. Kohl, and L.E. Burnett. 1983. Concurrent measurement of intertidal variables and embryo survival for the California grunion, Leuresthes tenuis, and Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia (Pisces: Atherinidae). Calif. Fish Game 69:89-96. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991 (as amended). Southern California eelgrass mitigation policy. 4 pp. Revision 11, 30 August, 2005. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. Caulerpa control protocol. Version 4, March 28", 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA. 7 pp. Phillips, R. C. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows in the Pacific Northwest: A community profile. FWS/OBS-84/24. 85 pp. Richardson, W. J., C. Greene, J. Hickie, and R. Davis. Effects of offshore petroleum operations on cold water marine mammals. A literature review. Prepared by LGL Limited for the American Petroleum Institute. October 1983. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. M Silva, Paul C., Rachel A. Woodfield, Andrew N. Cohen, Leslie H. Harris, and Jeffrey H.R. Goddard. First report of the AsiankelpUndaria pinnatifada in the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Invasions. 4: 333-338. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). 2002. Coast of California Study (Figure 3-20). Supplied to CRM by Chris Webb, Moffatt & Nichol. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination of endangered status for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 59(24):5494- 5498. Walker, Boyd W. 1952. A guide to the grunion. Calif. Fish Game 38 (3):410-420. 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Rick Ware, Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Robb Hamilton, Hamilton Biological, Inc. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study Coastal Resources Management, Inc. and Hamilton Biological, hie. HAMILTON BIOLOGICAL INC., PROJECT REPORT (Under separate cover) Species and Habitats bnpact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Example of Monitoring Options for Beach and Near -Shore Sand Disposal (Source: Moffatt & Nichol, Everest International, and SAIC (2008) Project Phase Pre -project Baseline During Construction Post -Construction Timing/Duration 1 month prior 1/2 month prior, 3 times per week over 14 days If project is scheduled between March 1 and September 15 (2 to 3 weeks prior to construction before and/or during predicted grunion run closest to project initiation) 30 days prior to project start Daily during construction Type of Monitoring Beach profiles Surf conditions Grunion habitat suitability (if surf zone or berm placement) Grunion monitoring (if habitat suitable) Nearshore sensitive resources; e.g., Pismo clam beds, giant kelp beds, surfgrass beds, nearshore reefs with sea fans, sea palms, and/or feather boa kelp (if nearshore placement) Turbidity If scheduled between March 1 and Grunion monitoring September 15 (monitoring frequency dictated by tides and lunar cycle, approximately every 2 weeks during spawning season) If scheduled between March 1 and September 15 Immediately after completion 1 month after, 3 times per week over 14 days 90 days after construction Endangered and Threatened Species Western snowy plover (daily monitoring if receiver site is within critical habitat and/or adjacent to known breeding sites); California least tern. (daily monitoring of turbidity outside surf zone if receiver site is adjacent to known breeding sites) Beach profiles Surf conditions Nearshore sensitive resources (if appropriate) Over 1 year following construction; Beach profiles surveys at 6 months after, and 1 year after Post -Project Either 9 months or 1 year following Nearshore sensitive resources (if construction, depending on biologist, with appropriate) concurrence of permitting agencies Beach Sand Gradation Nearshore Sand Gradation (conduct grain size sampling and testing over time at receiver site Years 1 (pre-project),„miner beaches to confirm sediment gradation Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Species and Habitats Impact Evaluation Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Marina Park Sand Disposal Site Study and Hamilton Biological, Inc. Environmental INVOICE June 30, 2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 Rosalinh Ling Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Invoice Period: June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.006 MARINA PARK Task 1, Editing; $15,000: 100% Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: 100% Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: 100% Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: 100% Task 5, Comments; $2,400: 100% Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: 100% Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: 100% Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,255 100% Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: 100% Task 9, Findings and misc costs; $7,900: 100% Name Title Task Hrs Hrly Cost Rate Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management 16 $185 $2,960.00 Sub -total Labor $2,960.00 Direct Costs $0 THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $2,960.00 I certify this invoice to be true and accurate: 410 410 '�t d'6� %� J DATE: - DEPART2'.r-1' -rIT: PO/R #(if any): L UDGET #: AUTH. SIG: ull 1478 N Altadena Drive, Pasadena, Ca4i`u u I 1 808 0031 wv..., ,1 siriusenvironmental.com irlukza Environmental RECEIVED BY INVOICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT JUN 0 3 2010 Rosalinh Ung CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Invoice Period: May 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.004 MARINA PARK RECIRCUL Task 1, Editing; $15,000: Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: Task 5, Comments; $2,400: Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,255 Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: Task 9, Findings and misc costs; $7,900: Name Title Task Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management Sub -total Labor Direct Costs THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $2,590.00 I certify this invoice to be true and accurate: v May 31, 2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 100% complete 100% complete. 100% complete 100% complete 100% complete 1000% 100% 100% 100% 100% i 11 9 Hrs Hrly Rate 14 $185 Cost $2,590.00 $2,590.00 $0 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental,com INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 0.5 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 30, 2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 Invoice Period: April 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.004 MARINA PARK RECIRCULATED EIR Task 1, Editing; $15,000: 100% complete Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: 100% complete. Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: 100% complete Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: 100% complete Task 5, Comments; $2,400: 100% complete Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: 0% Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: 100% Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,255 100% Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: 100% Task 9, Findings and misc costs; $7,900: 100% Name Title Task Hrs Hrly Cost Rate Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management 16 $185 $2.960.00 Sub -total Labor $2,960.00 Direct Costs $0 THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $2,960.00 I certify this invoice to be true and accurate: GOODS/SERVICES RECEIVED DATE:5 2� � U DEPARTMENT: PO/R #(if any): BUDGET #: AUTH. SIG: 117.`t td. Altadenr-a Drive Pasadena California 91107 626 803 0031 wmiv.siriusenvironniental .'on. Sirius Erivil-Onmental INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEWED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR - 5 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH March 31, 2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 Invoice Period: March 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.003 MARINA PARK RECIRCULATED EIR Task 1, Editing; $15,000: 100% complete Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: 100% complete. Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: 100% complete Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: 100% complete Task 5, Comments; $2,400: 100% complete Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: 0% Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: 100% Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,255 100% Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: 100% Task 9, Findings and misc costs; $7,900: 100% Name Title Task Hrs Hrly Cost Rate Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management 72 $185 $13,320.00 Tom Johnson Sr. Consultant Review 11 $150 $1,650.00 Sub -total Labor $14,970.00 Direct Costs $0 THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $14,970.00 I certify this invoice to be true and accurate: GOODS/SERVT G� G DATE: �l 17FrPAF PO/R #(if any) BUDGET#:_- AUTH. SIG: 1478 N. Altadena Drive. Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental corn Sirius Environmental INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 0 4 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH F'qm"' 4�� 1,J V3/ I February 28, 2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 Invoice Period: February 1, 2010 to February 28, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.002 MARINA PARK RECIRCULATED EIR Task 1, Editing; $15,000: Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: Task 5, Comments; $2,400: Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,105 Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: Task 9, Findings; $6,400: Name Title Task Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management Sub -total Labor Direct Costs I certify It THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $925.00 ru and a curate: 100% complete 100% complete. 100% complete 100% complete 100% complete 0% 100% 100% 10% 0% Hrs Hrly Rate 5 $185 GOODS/SERVICES RECEI�D DATE U� 7D DEPARTMENT PO/R #(if any): BUDGET #: AUTH, SIG: Cost $925 $.00 $0 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental corn Sirius Environmental INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning -Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 04 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 61i l�( _ FJ 3'I IIU January 31,2010 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 Invoice Period: January 1, 2010 to January 31, 2010 Invoice Number: MPR 10.001 MARINA PARK RECIRCULATED EIR Task 1, Editing; $15,000: 100% complete Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: 100% complete. Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: 100% complete Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: 100% complete Task 5, Comments; $2,400: 100% complete Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: 0% Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: 100% Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,105 100% Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: 5% Task 9, Findings; $6,400: 0% Name Title Task Hrs Hriy Cost Rate Wendy Lockwood Principal Project Management 4 $185 $740 Sub -total Labor $.00 Direct Costs 1 $0 THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $740.00 1 certify this Invoice to be tru and accurate: w6V6 bATri' 3 I�I�alr^r RECE](VEI D 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental.com Ung, Rosalinh From: Wendy Lockwood lwl@siriusenvironmental.comj Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 1:11 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park Schedule and Budget Hi Ros, After changing the document to address the approach to wetlands, here's the Target schedule we just discussed: Pre -publication copies (4) delivered to City: January 4, 2010 City Review complete and final changes incorporated (1 week): January 8, 2010 Printing complete, distribution of document, start of comment period (1 week): January 19 End of 45 day comment period: March 4, 2010 First Draft of Responses: March 18 City Review Complete: March 26 Final EIR Complete: April 2, 2010 Printing complete and FEIR distributed: April 9 Certification: Anytime Afteg April 19 Let me know if you see any problems with this Budget As a result of revising the document to change the approach to addressing wetlands, we anticipate that the following costs will be incurred (Including document revisions and getting the document ready for the printer again, we anticipate minor additional changes to the document in response to staff comments — an hour or so of time, but not a meeting): Wetland Approach revisions W Lockwood: 14 hours x $185/hr = $2,590 T. Johnson: 8 ours x $150/hr= $1,200 Wetland Revisions Sub Total: $3,790 In addition we have previously requested a budget modification to account for unanticipated multiple sets of comments: W. Lockwood: 10 hours x $185/hr = $1,850 T. Johnson: 11 hours x $150/hr = $1,650 Multiple setss2� mments Total = $3,500 Total: $7,290 Oxv_O� -fo Ce-rl OCC7 — 0l D!— We would appreciate David's authorization to add this amount to our authorized contract amount. Any questions please call. Happy Holidays! ❑DOWNTOWN L.A. 934 W VE1410E BLVD.. LOS ANGELES, CA 9OD15 (213)745-3145 ❑SANTA CLARITA 27891 SMYTH DR.. VALENCIA, CA 91355 (661)702.8762 ❑ PASAOENA 681 S. RAYMOND AVE.. PASADENA, CA 91105 (626)583-1122 ❑ LONG BEACH 1435 DAISY AVE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436.9761 ❑ VAN NUYS 15013 CALIFA ST., VAN NUYS. CA 91411 (818) 781-0513 ❑ VENTURA 5917 OLIVA$ PARK OR, STE C. VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 658.0156 FOROG;f .:` ❑ WEST L.A. 2435 MILITARY AVE.. LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 (310) 477-6501 ❑ SANTA BARBARA 528 SANTA BARBARA ST. SANTA BARBARA. CA 93101 (805) 560.0999 ❑BEVERLY HILLS 900S ROBERTSON BLVD, LOS ANGELES. CA 90035 (310)657-004D ❑THOUSAND OAKS 171 ETHOUSAND OAKS BLVD, STEIOB.THM40OAKS. CA91360(8051496.0993 wN..W..' ❑ GLENDALE 1851 VICTORY BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91201 (818)241-4181 PLEASE REMIT TO: P.O. BOX 1507, SO. PASADENA, CA'91031.1507 \ VD VO ICE fan �l l 111 01096022 B CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH H ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P PO BOX 1768 T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 0 __._._..,.... Y 10:30 A.M. O5/03/10 TIME REQUIRED DATE REQUIRED 3179384 04/30/10 INVOICE NUMBER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Ph: 949-644-3087 WENDY LOCKWOOD lJob: *MARINA PARK FINAL 3179384-1 1903 8.5"Xll" TWO SIDED COPIES 31 30 83.70 1602.03 SET-UP FEE 1 1 3.50,1 4600 MERCHANDISE 1 1 19.00 US MAIL 5503 SHIPPING PREP 1 1 7.50 5201 COURIER 1 1 36.37 5205 FUEL SURCHARGE -PER DELIVER 1 3.50 UDGET NUMB =R & MATURE PL ASE SALES TAX 13.45 INVOICE TERMS: NET 30 DAYS 1.5% LATE 72 PLEASE CHECK YOUR WORK ORDER CLOSELY RETURNS MUST DE MADE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DELIVERY ❑ DOWNTOWN L.A. 934 W. VENICE BLVD, LOS ANGELES. CA SOD15 (213) 745-3145 ❑ PASADENA 681 S. RAYMOND AVE.. PASADENA. CA 91105 (626) 583.1122 ❑VAN NUYS 15013 CAUFA ST. VAN NUYS, CA 91411 (818)781.0513 FORDGNP,4CS ❑ WEST L.A. 2435 MILITARY AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 (310) 477-6501 _ ❑ BEVERLY HILLS BOB S. ROBERTSON BLVD, LOS ANGELES. CA 90035 (310) 657-0040 ❑ GLENDALE 1651 VICTORY BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91201 (818)241-4181 PLEASE REMIT TO: P.O. BOX 1507, SO. PASADENA, CA 91031.1507 INVOICE 01096022 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Y ❑ SANTA CLAHITA 27891 $MYTH DR., VALENCIA. CA 91355 (661)702.8762 ❑ LONG BEACH 1435 DAISY AVE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562)436.9761 ❑ VENTURA 5917 OUVAS PARK DR., STE C, VENTURA, CA 93003 (805)658-0166 ❑ SANTA BARBARA 528 SANTA BARBARA ST, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805)560-0999 ❑THOUSAND OAKS 171 ETHWSANDOAKSBLVD,STE10B,TH0UW)D ONCS.CA91360(805) 496-0993 10:30 A.M. 03/25/10 TIME REQUIRED DATE REQUIRED 3179273Z 04/29/10 INVOICE NUMBER PAGE 1 0OF 2 S ROSALINH UNG H CITY OF NEWPORT BCH (P.DEPT.) 1 P 3300 NEWPORT BEACH BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 T 0 Ph: 949-644-3087 LOCKWOOD I P.O.: - Job: *MARINA PARK 3179273Z-1 2516 FIERY INPUT 8.5X11-FIRST C 21 1 21.00 28LB LASER BOND 2517 8.511X11" FIERY OUTPUT 21 14 249.90 28LB LASER BOND 2518 1111X1711 FIERY OUTPUT -1ST C 3 1 6.00 28LB LASER BOND 2519 ll"X17" FIERY OUTPUT 3 14 71.40 28LB LASER BOND 2512.37 12PT. GLOSSY COATED 1-S 2 15 �� l L PA 12.60 8 . 5X11 6137 BURN TO CD 1 1U'j� pmvT 12.50 6137.02 ADDITIONAL CD' S 1 14 1 llRlrj1 175.00 6140 CD/DVD LABEL 1 15 1 O,N 75.00 6148 JEWEL CASE 1 15 26.25 1903 8.5"Xll" TWO SIDED COPIES 172 15 232.20 1.5 % LATE CHARGE PER PLEASE CHECK YOUR WORK ORDER CLOSELY. RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DELIVERY _/..111� �--�� ❑ DOWNTOWN L.A. 934 W. VENICE BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 80015 (213) 7453145 ❑ PASADENA 681 S. RAYMOND AVE., PASADENA CA 91105 (626) 583-1122 `! ❑ VAN NUYS 15013 CALIFA ST. VAN NUYS, CA 91411 (818) 781.0513 FORD: PP PH _; ❑ WEST L A 2435 MILITARY AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 (310) 477.6501 - ❑ BEVERLY HILLS 900 S. ROBERTSON BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90035 (310)657-0040 0 GLENDALE 1651 VICTORY BLVD.. GLENDALE. CA 91201 (818) 241.4181 PLEASE REMIT TO: P.O. BOX 1507. SO. PASADENA, CA 91031-1507 ❑SANTA CLARITA 6891 SMYIN DR, VALENCIA. CA 91355 (661)702-0762 ❑ LONG BEACH 1435 DAISY AVE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562)436.9761 O VENTURA 5917 OUVAS PARK DR. STE C. VENTURA, CA 93003 (8051668.0156 ❑ SANTA BARBARA 528 SANTA BARBARA ST. SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805)560-0999 ❑THOUSAND OAKS 171 ETHOUSAND CABS BLVD, STE103,THOUSAND M. CA 91360 (805) 496.0993 INVOICE 10:30 A.M. 03/25/10 TIME REQUIRED DATE REQUIRED 3179273Z 04/29/10 0109G022 INVOICE NUMBER PAGE 2 DTP 2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH S ROSALINH UNG ACCOUNTS PAYABLE H CITY OF NEWPORT BCH (P.DEPT.) 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. P 3300 NEWPORT BEACH BLVD. PO BOX 1768 T NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 0 Y Ph: 949-644-3087 REIMBURSABLE (Y / N) - 7RDERED BY WENDY LOCKWOOD P.O.: - Job: *MARINA PARK 3179273Z-1 bESCRIPTION SIZE 6. OR .• 1950.01 COMB BIND 1 15 54.00 1602.03 SET-UP FEE 1 1 3.50 3503 SHIPPING PREP 1 1 7.50 REA ED Cur SUBTOTA1946.85 SALES TAX SS SHIPPING 18 .� 1113.88 INVOICE TERMS: NET 30 DAYS 1.5 % LATE CHARGE PER MONTH ON PAST DUE BALANCES PLEASE CHECK YOUR WORK ORDER CLOSELY. RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DELIVERY. Sirius Environmental INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Invoice Period: December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 Invoice PARK Task 1, Editing; $15,000: Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: Task 5, Comments; $2,400: Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: Task 7a, Wetland policy changes, $7,105 Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: Task 9, Findings; $6,400: Name Title Wendy Lockwood Principal Sub -total Labor Direct Costs Task December 31, 2009 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 100% complete 100% complete. 100% complete 100% complete 100% complete 0% 100% 99% 0% 0% Project management, response to comments Mileage THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $7,030.00 i certify this invoice (to ble true and accurate VVil Hrs Hrly Cost Rate 38 $185 $7,030.00 $.00 pxcg"15 BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 7 2M CITY OF NEWpORT BEACH $7,030.00 1478 N Altadena Drive, Pasadena. California 91107 626 808 0031 wvAv.siriusenvironmental corn ,ti 1 0 DOWNTOWN L.A. 934 W. VENICE BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 (213) 745.3145 ❑ SANTA CLABITA 25570 RYE CANYON RD., UNIT I, VALENCIA, CA, 91355 (661) 702-8762 ❑ PASADENA 681 S RAYMOND AVE., PASADENA, CA 91105 (626) 583-1122 ❑ LONG BEACH 1435 DAISYAVE, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 436.9761 ❑ VAN NUYS 6920 HAYVENHURST, SUITE 206, VAN NUYS, CA 91406 (818) 781-0513 ❑ VENTURA 5917 OLIVAS PARK DR„ STE C, VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 658.0156 ❑ WEST L.A. 2435 MILITARY AVE., LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 (310) 477-6501 ❑ SANTA BARBARA 528 SANTA BARBARA ST. SANTA BARBARA. CA 93101 (805) 560.0999 FORDGRAPHICS13BEVERLYHILLS 900 S ROBERTSON BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90035 (310)657-0040 ❑THOUSAND OAKS 171ETHOUSANDOAKSBLVD.SIEIW,IHOUSANDCAKECA91360(805)495.0993 010-11--&1 hbeom ❑ GLENDALE 1851 VICTORY BLVD, GLENDALE. CA 91201 (818)241-4181 PLEASE REMIT TO; P.O. BOX 1507, SO. PASADENA, CA 91031.1507 INVOICE 01096022 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. T PO BOX 1768 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 REIMBURSABLE (Y/ N) Y 12:00 P.M TIME REQUIRED 3188079Z INVOICE NUMBER 11/12/09 DATE REQUIRED 12/14/09 DATE PAGE 1 OF 2 ROSALINH UNG PLANNING DEPT 3300 NEWPORT BEACH BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Ph: 949-644-3087 ORDERED BY WENDY LOCKWOOD P.O.: MARINA PARK Job: *MARINA PARK 3188079Z-1 DESCRIPTION NO. NO. SIZE TOTAL AMOUNT 2516 FIERY INPUT 8.5X11-FIRST C 26 1 26.00 28LB LASER BOND 2517 8.5"Xll" FIERY OUTPUT 26 9 198.90 28LB LASER BOND 2518 11"X17" FIERY OUTPUT -1ST C 3 1 6.00 28LB LASER BOND 2519 1111X17" FIERY OUTPUT 3 9 43.90 28LB LASER BOND 1602.03 SET-UP FEE 1 1 3.50 2516 FIERY INPUT 8.5X11-FIRST C 210 1 210.00 28LB LASER BOND 1903 8.5"Xll" TWO SIDED COPIES 739 1 66.51 1914 COLORED STOCKS- PER SHEET 52, 1 0.78 1929 INSERTING - EACH 116 1 11.60 1903 8.5"Xll" TWO SIDED COPIES 181 10 162.90 SUBTOTAL SAL STAX SHIPPING INVOICE TERM ET SO DAYS 1.5 % LATE CHARGE PER MONTH ON PAST DUE BALANCES PLEASE CHECKYOUR WORK ORDER CLOSELY RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DELIVERY. „A. t ❑ DOWNTOWN L.A. 934 W. VENICE BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 (213) 745-3145 ❑ SANTA CLABITA 25570 RYE CANYON RD., UNIT I, VALENCIA, CA, 91355 (661) 702.8762 ❑ PASADENA 681 S. RAYMOND AVE.. PASADENA, CA 91105 (626)563.1122 ❑ LONG BEACH 1435 DAISY AVE., LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562)436.9761 ❑ VAN NUYS IWW ❑ WEST L.A. 6920 HAYVENHURSL SUITE 206, VAN NUYS, CA 91408 2435 MILITARY AVE., LOS ANGELES, (818) 781.0513 ❑ VENTURA 5917 OLIVAS PARK DR., STE C, VENTURA, CA 93003 (805) 658.0156 CA 90064 (310)477.6501 ❑ SANTA BARBARA 528 SANTA BARBARA ST, SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 (805)560-0999 FORDGRAPHICS ❑ BEVERLY HILLS 900 S. ROBERTSON BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CA 90035 (310)657-0040 11 THOUSAND OAKS 171 ETHOUSANDGAKS B=,SIE108THOUSAVDONCS,CA91360(805) 496.0993 0loibllmtymo Sclmlem ❑ GLENDALE 1851 VICTORY BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91201 (818)241-4181 PLEASE REMIT TO: P.O. BOX 1507, SO. PASADENA, CA 91031-1507 (0 ckJ 'a i0r R1i +; (r ntT; lYJ fl it INVOICE � �- I 'n I A N B 01096022 P. A SO I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WW Cq Hj L ACCOUNTS PAYABLE U c� W L 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. I P T PO BOX 1768 Tp 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-W915 Dy, REIMBURSABLE(Y/N) Y 12:00 P.M. 11/12/09 TIME IRED DATE REQUIRED 3188079Z 12/14/09 DATE PAGE 2 OF 2 PLANNING DEPT 1Z 1 Z, 1 3300 N EACH BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Ph: 949-644-3087 ORDERED BY WENDY LOCKWOOD P.O.: MARINA PARK Job: *MARINA PARK 3188079Z-1 DESCRIPTION U. SIZE .. AMOkINT ORIG. COPIES sm Fr./ IN. 1950.01 COMB BIND 1/4 TO 7/16” 1 10 36.00 1925 11" CLEAR ACETATE - PER DO 1 10 4.00 1926 11" VINYL -BLACK COVERS -PER 1 10 12.00 1950.01 COMB BIND 1/4 TO 7/16" 1 3 10.80 1925 11" CLEAR ACETATE - PER DO 1 3 1.20 1926 11" VINYL -BLACK COVERS -PER 1 3 3.60 1926 11" VINYL -BLACK COVERS -PER 10 1 12.00 5201.01 Pick Up and/or Delivery 1 1 12.50 5205 FUEL SURCHARGE -PER DELIVER 1 3.50 SUB TOTAL SALES TAX Y SHIPPING 10 1.0 INVOICE TERMS: NET 30 DAYS 1.5% LATE CHARGE PER MONTH ON PAST DUE BALANCES PLEASE CHECK YOUR WORK ORDER CLOSELY RETURNS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF DELIVERY Los Angeles/Orange Coundes 7141523-9036 Inland Empire/San Diego =ram 877/523-9036 Arizona 8001252-0736 ''mot Tracking No. Date'! '�' Q Reference U �' Qom/ r� Tro ,Am ' PICK UP FROM: u AA di Ale, 1) PAQd� D � c 7�l: r✓�"' Gr � x �{ 7inD %�1 1 rS N¢ Jrlrwt '�r &4-t 33a6 NEv/Pdr--t" &Ucl 13, ()7 ��cviFvy�-r RuCH CA - %2GG3, EXCLUSIVE STAT RUSH REGULAR NEXT DAY ROUTE NO ''1l i �i1\C)4 VQV"1 ti1 of Sirius Environmental INVOICE Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Invoice Period: 01 Invoice Number: 1, 2009 to October 31, 2009 .002 MARINA PARK Task 1, Editing; $15,000: Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: Task 5, Comments; $2,400: Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: Task 9, Findings; $6,400: Name Title Task October 31, 2009 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental 1478 N. Altadena Drive Pasadena, CA 91107 100% complete 100% complete. 80% complete 100% complete 100% complete 0% 0% 0% 0% Wendy Lockwood Principal Project management, document prep Tom Johnson Sr. Cons. Review and editing sections Sub -total Labor Direct Costs THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $21,850.00 I certify this invoice to be true and accurate: i )CJ4�d W. Hrs Hrly Cost Rate 50 $185 $9,250 84 $150 $12,600 $21,850.00 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental.com Sirius Environm��tc�i RECEIVED BY INVOICE PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 30, 2009 OCT 0.5 2009 Wendy Lockwood Sirius Environmental N. Altadena Drive CITY OF NEWPORT BE�i` adena, CA 91107 Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Invoice Period: September 22, 2009 to September 30, 2009 Invoice Number: MPR 09.001 MARINA PARK RECIRCULATED EIR Task 1, Editing; $15,000: 75% complete Task 2, Project Description; $5,000: 100% complete. Task 3, Impact Analysis; 24,000: 40% complete Task 4, Alternatives; $5,000: 0% Task 5, Comments; $2,400: 50% complete Task 6, Public meetings; $10,000: 0% Task 7, Response to staff, print; $7,500: 0% Task 8, R to C, print FEIR; $7,500: 0% Task 9, Findings; $6,400: 0% Name Title Task Hrs Hrly Cost Rate Wendy Lockwood Principal Project management, document prep. 90 $185 $16,650 Tom Johnson Sr. Cons. Review and editing sections 54 $150 $8,100 Sub -total Labor $24,750.00 Direct Costs 258 miles 141.90 THIS INVOICE TOTAL: $24,891.90 I certify this in oice to be true and accurate: 1478 N ,Made; s', Pi iv-. Pasadena California 91 GOODS/SERVICES RECEIVED DATE; nRPRRTMEND evl v. oil any), -- BUDGET #: Ouu (10SI bV6+trJ.SIrIUSE t7! IrnPitiP n!a! Otii 0 0 APPLICATION FOR "APPROVAL IN CONCEPT' NO. '2� 01 6, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FEE: APPROVAL IN CONCEPT BY THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - As required for permit application to the California Coastal Commission pursuant to California Administrative Code, Section 13210 and 13211. Property Address: 17 0 0 W, 23 A L S O A 13 L V D, General Description of Proposed Development: %fit E b tvc L Oa C / r-?' OGJn/ir� P142GCLS tAJI -rM MAZ/n1A PAi,i?K Per7J'(-C7- 6u/4,c,/-1 /"CVvocS R MA rnaA + GorvtM,)Q/7-7'/S4/c /N(,� GEN%�77� /lhJ� Pfl,r? jCi Legal Description: P0:,T 101V 77—ncr Z 3Y 6K, /3 Al 3dJ-37 Zone: P C 5 1 Applicant: (: /Te OF NCbJPOR7" 9(-Y1C//7elephoneNumber: 9N9-6yq-3zzp Applicant's Mailing Address: 3300 N ECJPtiZ /— /3C UD. N6til"02T Boic fr, c- , 9Z 663 DO NOT COMPLETE APPLICATION BELOW THIS LINE I have reviewed the plans for the foregoing development including: 1. The general site plan, including any roads and public access to the shoreline. 2. The grading plan, if any. 3. The general uses and intensity of use proposed for each part of the area covered in the application; and find • They comply with the current adopted City of Newport Beach General Plan, Zoning /Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and any applicable specific or precise plans or (• frhat a 1 l� has been approved and is final A copy of any variance, site plan review, resubdivision, use permit, or other issued permit is attached together with all conditions of approval and all approved plans including approved tentative tract maps. On the basis of this finding, these plans are approved in concept, and said approval has been written upon site plans, signed and dated. Should this City adopt an ordinance deleting, amending, or adding to the Zoning Ordinance or other regulations in any manner that would affect the use of the property or the design of a project located thereon, this approval in concept shall become null and void as of the effective date of this said ordinance. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and state and local guidelines adopted thereunder, this development: • Has received a final Exemption Declaration or final Negative Declaration (copy attached). • Has been determined to be ministerial or categorically exempt. �• )Has received a final Environmental Impact Report (copy Attached). All discretionary approval legally required of this City prior to issuance of a building permit have_ -been given and are final. The development is not subject to rejection in principal by this City unless a substantial change in it is proposed. This concept approval in no way excuses the applicant from complying with all applicable policies, ordinances, codes, and regulations of this City. Date: IL I c PLANNING DEPARTMENT t : AttachmenDavid Lepo;,Planni1ng Director 7rC}-r(7,1 By NOTE: No building permit will be issued until approval is received'from C.C.0 Updated 03-04-08 F:\Users\PLN\Shared\FormsWPPLICATIONS\Approval in Concept.DOC 0, Orange County Clerk/Recorder's Office Toro Daly I 63ON Broadway Bldg. 12 Suite 101 Santa Ana, CAS 92701 j County Finalization: 20100000112260 5/12/10 10:44 am 175 OR03 Item Title Count ------------------------------ 1 Z02 1 Fish & Game: Env Impact Report Document ID Amount , ------------------------------ DOC# 201085000625 2792.25 Time Recorded 10:44 am Total Payment Type ------------------ Check tendered # 109553 Amount Due M 2792.25 Amount 2792.25 0.00 THANK YOU PLEASE RETAIN THIS RECEIPT FOR YOUR RECORDS www.ocrecorder.com Stale of California —The Resources Agega DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND G 2010 ENVIRONMENTAL F ING FEE CASH RECEIPT 1" " 399598 1W Local PubllcAgency ❑ School District ❑ OthatSpecial District U Slate Agar CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $2,792.25 ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) $2,010.25 ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) $650.00 ❑ Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs (CRP) $949.50 ❑ County Administrative Fee $50.00 ❑ Project that is exempt from fees ❑: Notice of Exemption ❑y DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) ❑ Other PAYMENTMETHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit ❑ Check ❑ Other TOTALRECEIVED SIGNATURE TITS P-1 z -7yZ. ZS YELLOW-DFC/ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDEN ?wV pORr CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard o \ P.O. Box 1768 �S,ioAN•' Newport Beach, CA 92658-8916 (949) 644-3200 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: From: Office. of Plan ning-and_Research _. _City of.NewporLBeach-Planning_Department_- . P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk, County of Orange $2,792.25 Fish &•Game Environmental Filing Fee Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 "Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code Section 6103" ResourcesSubject: Filing of Notice of Determination ln_compliance with Section 21108 or 21162 of the Public ••> Project Name: Marina Park Project Applicant: City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Contact Person Area Code/Telephone/Extension SCH#: 2008051096 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644-3208 Project Location The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, on the Balboa Peninsula Street (include county): between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15 Street on the east and le on the west. Project Description: The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern Cal'Ifomia Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the Public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on May 11. 2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) 1. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency. 2. The project will have a significant effect on the environment. 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. J N 4. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. "- 5. A mitigation reporting and monitoring plan was adopted for this project. U. Q 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. .� o 7. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. o This is to certify that the environmental document with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Ne ort 8 levard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200 1 ! oZ` 010 . R alinh Ung, Associ a lanner Date Recorded in Official Records, Orange Coun T \Daly County Recorder d- % 15 �� il111011111111�11111111111111111111111�11111111111111111127g2,21 MAY 12 2090 F:\USERSIPLN\SharedlPA's\PAs 20108500062510 44 an105/12/10 TOM DALY.CLERK-RECORDER 175 OR03 Z02 0.00 ty State of California —The Resources DEWTMENTOF FISHAND 2040 ENVIRONMENTALNFIG FEE CASH RECEIPT Local School District p,,EnAonmental Impact Report (EIR) ❑ Mitigated/Negative Declaration (ND)(MND) ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑ Projects Subject to Certiried Regulatory Programs (CRP) ❑ County Administrative Fee ❑ Project that Is exempt from fees ❑ Notice of Exemption ❑ DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) ❑ Other PAYMENT METHOD: ❑ Cash ❑ Credit ❑ Check , ❑ Other_ SIGNATURE 7'�"# 399598 State Aaencv LJ Private $2,792.25 $2,010.25 $850.00 $949.50 $50.00 TOTALRECEIVED WHnY•PROJECTAPPGCAkr --YELLOW-DFG/ASB PINK-LEADAGENCY GOLDEN ROD -CCJONTY CLERK _FA753.5a(RW11M9) • _ TOM DAILY ORANGE COUNTY CLERK - RECORDER • ORANGE COUNTY CLERK -RECORDER'S OFFICE 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106, P.O. BOX 238, Santa Ana, CA 92702 web: www.oc.ca.gov/recorder/ PHONE (714) 834-5284 FAX (714) 834-2500 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 NEWPORT BEWPORT BEACH NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92685 Office of the Orange County Clerk -Recorder Memorandum SUBJECT: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - EIR The attached notice was received, filed and a copy was posted on 05/12/2010 It remained posted for 30 (thirty) days. TOM DALY ORANGE COUNTY CLERK - RECORDER In and for the County of Orange By: ANGEL CARDENAS Public Resource Code 21092.3 Deputy The notice required pursuant to Sections 21080.4 and 21092 for an environmental impact report shall be posted in the office of the County Clerk of each county *** in which the project will be located and shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. The notice required pursuant to Section receipt. Public Resource Code 21152 All notices filed pursuant to this section shall be available for public inspection, and shall be posted *** within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the County Clerk. Each notice shall remain posted for a period of 30 days. *** Thereafter, the clerk shall return the notice to the local lead agency *** within a notation of the period it was posted. The local lead agency shall retain the notice for not less than nine months. Additions or changes by underline; deletions by *** aE"°oR> CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ` NOTICE OF 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. 8 DETERMINATION �i4 OpN' Newport Beachch,,CACA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 To: From: of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department ❑Office P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk, County of Orange $2,792.25 Fish & Game Environmental Filing Fee Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 "Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code Section 6103" Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Name: Marina Park Project Applicant: I City of Newport Beach State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Contact Person Area Code/Telephone/Extension SCH#: 2008051096 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644-3208 Project Location The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, on the Balboa Peninsula Newport Bay and between 15 Street on the east and 190 Street on (include county): between Balboa Boulevard and the west. Project Description: The project site encompasses approximately IOA5 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access Improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and manna basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the manna. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. This is to advise that the City of Newport Beach has approved the above described project on May 11, 2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Date) gg 1. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency. N LL! 2. The project will have a significant effect on the environment. s r 3. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. J N 4. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the project. 5. A mitigation reporting and monitoring plan was adopted for this project. LL Q 6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this project. o 7. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. o This is to certify that the environmental document with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Ne ort B levard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915; 949/644-3200 1.$ // 020/0 salinh Ung, Associ a tanner Date Rec „ided in Offic ial Records, Oranges Cuun 7 not DaIV, County Recor(let ly ��/ %S 9� ,ilP�li!Milli!IIIIP!Illlllllllp!Ilri',IIIIII18111111111 � .l.'.1:. MAY 12 2010 F:\USERSIPLN\SharedTNs1PAsI ')O!O8�(}(}(}625 10 44 S(11 05/12j10 TOM DALY,CLERK-RECORDER 175 OR03 Z02 �,,* I_ Q.00000000000000000000000_ City of Newport Beach E t � L E City Council Minutes May 11, 2010 }} SCANNETO Ion by Council Member Gardner. seconded by Mover Curry to direct staff to negotiate a five-year contract with the Orange County Sheriffs Harbor Patrol to provvZ a mooring management services. The mote carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Coun� Member Selich, Council Member Rosans , Mayor Curry, Cou di MeY beiVebb, Council Member Gardner, Council Member Daigle Absent: Ma or Projem Henn XIV. ORAL REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Council Member Daigle reported t t the Aviation Committee received update about the DUUKE runway. She stated that the ederal Aviation Administrati (FAA) will be working on improving the current plan, the Coun is working with the F expedite the process, and a representative from John Wayne Airpo (JWA) attends the viation Committee meetings because they communicate with the FAA on b alf of the Ci Council Member Gardner reported that the Me . a Communications Committee will be providing Council with suggested revisions to the to ommunications ordinance. Council Member Selich reported that the Zo ' Code a going to the Planning Commission for review on May 20. Mayor Curry reported that the ce Committee received report on the City's budget, Council was provided a budget ov view during today s Study See ' n, and Council will receive another budget update on M 25. He pointed out that the p= d budget shows an $8.7 million reduction; however a City will still be able to move forwar with the Civic Center project and the Rhine C� el dredging without the need to reduce safe ersonnel out in the field and while still b * g able to follow the Fiscal Sustainability Plan. He cc mended the City Manager and City If for their efforts. XV. PUBLIC C NT Eddie arquez, Southern California Edison (SCE), provided an update on SCE's infras cture, ens}r� efficiency, and rates, and discussed the Smart Meter Reader program. He stated t he jirworking with, City staff to ensure that permits are obtained as projects come before the Gity. XVI. PUBLIC HEARING 10. MARINA PARK PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - ER2008-0.01 (PA2008-040); STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING •CONSIDERATIONS; 'SITE PLANS (PHASES 1 THROUGH 3); AND EXEMPTION FROM ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. f781100-20101 Deputy Public Works Director Webb utilized.a PowerPoint presentation to display the 'concept plan approved in 2007, the three phases to the Marina Park project, and the various amenities proposed for the park. Associate Planner Ung provides( a staff report and noted that the Environmental Impact Repdrt (EIR) was distributed for -comments twice. She discussed the comments received from the Public, highlighted the alternatives, aud'reviewed the objectives of the project. She referenced a letter from Lois Fundenberg, Central Balboa Community Association, that expressed concern about removing the two existing gates during Phase 1 because it may create a traffic thoroughfare. She reported that, if Council finds that the public benefit of the project outweighs the. temporary noise during Volume 59 - Page476 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 11, 2010 construction, she recommended that Council approve the resolutions outlined in the staff report. Council Member Gardner noted areas in the FEIR that needed more clarification and expressed concern that the City would be determining mitigation when it was the entity that prepared the EIR. She requested and received clarification from Recreation and Senior Services Director Detweiler that the community center will only be open late on Friday and Saturday nights for special events, like weddings. Harbor Resources Manager Miller noted that the number of boat slips was determined by the Harbor Commission and Council Member Webb reported that the original plan included more slips. Associate Planner Ung clarified that the height exemption is for the lighthouse -feature. Mayor Curry opened the public hearing. Craig Morrissette, Central Balboa Community Association, reported that the association board supports the Marina Park plans, however, has concern about removing the two gates during Phase 1 because people may start using it as a westbound bypass road during the summer and cause stacking at 19th Street. He believed that adding signage will not solve the problem. He also expressed concern that no options can be considered if it is written into the EIR. Deputy Public Works Director Webb reported that the current plans include opening the alley during Phase 1 by removing the gates. He noted that staff has not analyzed the situation, but possible solutions could include installing speed bumps or only open one gate. City Manager Kiff indicated that Mayor Pro Tem Henn asked him to speak on his behalf, and stated that Mayor Pro Tem. Henn also has concerns regarding the gates and -believed that the Marina Park Committee should decide what happens to the gates, along with Public Works. He agreed that there should be some type of mitigation so the alley does not become a thoroughfare. Acting City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the gate does not environmentally affect the project. She stated that this is an operational issue and that the Public Works Department has a process when traffic control measures are required. She agreed that writing something about the gates into the FEIR may limit options in the future. Tom Billings, Protect Our Parks (POP), expressed support for the EIR, noted that the marina that POP proposed only had 12 slips that were placed offshore, and expressed hope that not many weddings will take place in the community center since the park is .intended to be used for park -related activities. 'In response to George Wallace's questions, City Manager Kiff indicated that the park is 'hot intended to be used to launch boats and that this can occur at Newport Dunes. Council Member Webb added that allowing launches would take up parking spaces for the trailers. Hearing no further testimony, Mayor Curry closed the public hearing. Without objection,:it was the consensus of Council to determine that the disposition of the existing alley gates is an operational matter and not an environmenGrelated issue. Motion by Council Member Selich, seconded by Council Member Webb to a) adopt Resolution No. 2010.46 certifying the Marina Park Project'a•FEIR (SCH. No. 2008051096), making certain Findings of Fact and Determinations thereto, and Volume 59 - Page 477 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes May 11, 2010 adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); b) adopt Resolution No. 2010-47 adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approving the Site Plans for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Marina Park Project; c) determine that the disposition of the existing alley gates is an operational matter and not an environment - related issue; and d) exempt the Marina Park Project from Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Council Member Webb noted that the park will be a great asset to the City, create a new window to the Bay, and supply slips for visiting yachtsmen. He hoped that Phase 3 happens sooner than later. Mayor Curry stated that today is a historic day due to the groundbreaking of the new Civic Center and now this step to create a meaningful public amenity on the Peninsula. He indicated that Mayor Pro Tem Henn would have liked to have been here for this vote, and recognized him and all the Council Members for their hard work on this project. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Council Member Selich, Council Member Rosansky, Mayor Curry, Council Member Webb, Council Member Gardner, Council Member Daigle Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Henn XVII. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - None XVIII. ADJOURNMENT -Adjourned at 8:07 p.m. in memory of Keith Dennis The agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 5, 2010, at 4:50 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located outside of 'the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. The supplemental agenda for the Regular Meeting was posted on May 7, 2010, at 2:40 p.m. on the City Hall Bulletin Board located' outside of the City of Newport Beach Administration Building. ' Recording Secretary , Mayor --- ,.City Clerk Volume 56 -:Pdge 478 .. 0 • RESOLUTION NO.2010-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE SITE PLANS FOR THE THREE PHASES OF THE MARINA PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California 'Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report {State Clearinghouse No. 2008051096) for the Marina Park Project ("Project"). The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Project. The City Council considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") on May 11, 2010, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained in Resolution No..2010-46, which are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less - than -significant level. The City Council, adopting Resolution No. 2010-46, has made the findings mandated by CEQA (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 and 15091). In particular, the City Council has found that changes or alterations have been made to the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies one potentially significant impact (construction noise) to the environment that cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the adoption of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. In other words, there are no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that would fully mitigate this impact. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council may approve the Project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain, in the City Council's view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce and will render the significant effects acceptable. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as "Exhibit A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Approval of Site Plans. The City Council hereby approves the Site Plans for the three phases of the Project, identified as Exhibits 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6 in the Draft REIR (which comprises the first part of the Final EIR), incorporated herein by reference. Further refinement of the Site Plans are anticipated provided they are deemed in substantial conformance with the Site Plans and subject to the City Council's review and approval with the final plans and bid specifications. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May2010. l� Keith D. Curry, ayor ATTEST: (Al,x Leilani I. Brown, Cit Clerk "Exhibit A" CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA PARK NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008051096 A. INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Marina Park Project. As the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against any remaining significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making. this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve ,the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered '.acceptable". (b) When the lead agency approves a Project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence'in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects of the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impact (construction noise) associated with the proposed Project, and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City of Newport Beach also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which meets the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings of Fact (attached as "Exhibit A" of Resolution No. 2010-46). The Newport Beach City Council, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final EIR for the Marina Park Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Although most potential significant Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings of Fact, there remains one Project impact for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For the construction noise impact, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency; however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The construction noise impact is described below and is also addressed in the Findings of Fact. Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 Construction noise impacts were found to be potentially significant because of the up to 17 weeks of piledriving. This impact was found to be potentially significant (and therefore is addressed as a significant impact) because of the proximity of sensitive receptors and the potential to annoy residents for up to 17 weeks. At up to 17 weeks the construction impact would be temporary and would cease on completion of construction activities. C. PUBLIC BENEFITS The City of Newport Beach in balancing the specific economic, social, technological and other benefits of the proposed Marina Park Project, has determined that the unavoidable impact identified above, which would result in short-term construction - related noise impacts, and which impacts would cease upon completion of construction, are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 1. Redevelop Site with Land Uses Consistent with Land Use Designation and Tidelands The General Plan and City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan Map designated the project site as Parks and Recreation (PR) and Public Facilities (PF). The PR category applies to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The existing mobile homes are not consistent with this land use designation. The proposed facilities within the Marina Park project would be consistent with the land use designation and would meet the recreation and open space needs of the community. The current use of the site (mobile homes) is also not consistent with tidelands. The proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation of the site and with tidelands. The proposed project would enhance public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences. 2. Enhance Public Access and Provide Community Facilities to Meet the Goals of the General Plan for Recreation and Harbors and Beaches General Plan goals call for the preservation and enhancement of water related public recreation and education areas and facilities (Harbors and Bay Element, Goal 1.1); the provision of youth programs (Recreation Element, Goal 4.3); the expansion of coastal and beach recreational opportunities, including the provision of recreational facilities (Recreation Element, Goals 6.1 and 7.1); the provision of marine recreational facilities (Recreational Element, Goals 8.2 and 8.5); and the enhancement of marine -oriented programs such as sailing programs (Recreation Element, Goal 8.7). City policy calls for five acres of park per 1,000 residents. By that standard, according to recent City data, the City has an overall deficit of some 68 acres of parkland, not including beaches. The Balboa Peninsula in particular currently has only •6.5 acres of Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 park, since most of its recreational area is in beaches. The area needs an additional 21.5 acres of park to meet the City's standard. The General Plan calls for additional pedestrian access and the renovation and expansion df community facilities such as the Balboa Center and facilities for sailing and boating programs. The General Plan also identifies a need for community facilities that include large meeting and multipurpose rooms, because most existing City -owned indoor spaces are small classrooms. The proposed project would address established City policy as expressed in the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (e.g., policies HB-2.1.1 Public Access and HB- 2.1.7 Visiting Vessels) and in the Local Coastal Program (e.g., Section 3.3). Both documents encourage expansion and improvement of waterfront access and facilities for visiting vessels. In addition, Section 30224 of the California Coastal Act encourages the provision of berthing space, harbors of refuge, and new protected waters dredged from dry land. 3. Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and Enhance Other Commercial Areas on the Peninsula The project would complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village by placing a recreational facility in close proximity to Balboa Village and other commercial activity. The uses would be complementary as visitors would be able to shop and enjoy beach and marina facilities in close proximity to each other. 4. Provide for Additional Marine -Related Facilities Recent estimates by the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division have identified a market demand for approximately 17,000 berth -days of public berth occupancy per year. Visiting boaters must use moorings, which restricts their access to shore facilities and to boaters with the experience, ability, and vessel characteristics that allow them to use moorings (for example, many aging, physically handicapped, or inexperienced boaters, boaters with children, and boaters whose vessels lack electrical and sanitation systems cannot readily use moorings for a stay of several days). As a result, potential visitors tend to favor other harbors (e.g., Dana Point, Long Beach, and Huntington) that can provide slips or side -tie space. D. CONCLUSION The City hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR (comprised of the Draft Recirculated EIR, Response to Comments to the Draft Recirculated EIR, and Errata to the Draft Recirculated EIR) have been and will be implemented with the Project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social, and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 • 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Cleric of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010-47 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the IIth day of May, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Curry Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 12th day of May, 2010. City Cler Newport Beach, California (Seal) RESOLUTION NO.2010-46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008051096) FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach City Council has determined that the Marina Park Project ('Project') is necessary to serve the needs of the community; and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2008, theCity of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared and mailed a Notice of Preparation .("NOP") of the -EIR, together with a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting to public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2008, the City of Newport Beach conducted a public scoping meeting to provide all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues that were proposed to addressed within the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"), which, taking into account the comments received on the NOP and during the scoping meeting, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and circulated the DEIR for a 45-day public review and comment period on February 27, 2009, which ended on April 13, 2009; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was recirculated for a 45-public review and comment period from January 25, 2010 to March 10, 2010, to provide further clarification and additional technical analysis, including policy determinations to address comments/concerns received from the regulatory agencies, home -owner associations, and nearby residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR), and has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on April 28, 2010 distributed the responses to comments in, accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and FILE Con ,,. b WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the City of Newport Beach completed a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the project consisting of the Draft REIR, comments received on the Draft REIR, responses to comments on the Draft REIR, and an Errata to the Draft REIR (Errata) containing minor changes and clarification to the document; and WHEREAS, the minor changes and clarification to the Draft REIR do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the Draft REIR, and therefore, does not warrant recirculation of the Draft REIR for public review; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the'FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations, (3) approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and (4) approval of the Conceptual Site Plans for the Project; and WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, the decision making body for the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible, except for the construction noise impact which is addressed in the Statement of Overriding Consideration document; and WHEREAS, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency made written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed -and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact as shown on the attached "Exhibit A" entitled "Marina Park Project Findings of Fact" which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as "Exhibit B," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4 Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government ,Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification. Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the records of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010. ATTEST:`, �nn WV� City Clerk . 0 .• Exhibit A MARINA PARK PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT BACKGROUND 'California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code Section 21002) The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Thus, CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against any unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). These Findings of Fact are prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) and (3) that requires for each potential significant adverse impact that can be avoided a finding that, "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are summarized herein. After mitigation, the proposed Marina Park project would have one (temporary) unavoidable significant adverse impact: construction noise. The Draft SEIR identified the noise associated with up to 17 weeks of pile driving as annoying to residents and therefore at least potentially significant. When an impact is potentially significant it must be treated as significant. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The Marina Park project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15th Street, and east of 18th Street. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented: Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 1 Phase 1 — Removal of mobile homes (coaches) and rough grading to create an open space area (consisting of materials that underlie the site) in place of the mobile home park; a new temporary restroom and parking lot would be installed. All other structures on the site would remain. Phase 2 — Replacement of the open space area created in Phase I with new turf and irrigation, additional pedestrian paths, and picnic facilities to enhance the public park, but no other changes from Phase 1 would occur. Phase 3 — Construction of the Balboa Center, which includes the Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building; and construction of the Girl Scout House, parking areas, park, beach, tennis courts and a 23-slip marina basin. The project would provide a "window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard and surrounding areas. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas would include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas would include a children's play area and basketball half courts. A public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. The Multi -purpose Building and the Sailing Program Building would include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A small cafe would be located on the second story of the Sailing Program Building. Bathrooms and laundry areas also would be provided within the Sailing Program Building. Two tennis courts are proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15th Street. In addition, an existing bathroom located on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be reconstructed. A new restroom facility (designed to look like a lighthouse) would be constructed adjacent to the children's play area and a water feature. Primary vehicular access to the project would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street and secondary access would be via an exittentrance off of 15th Street. Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed parks as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18th and 19th streets would still provide access to the public beach. OBJECTIVES To achieve that purpose, the City of Newport Beach has established five basic objectives. • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site. • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the peninsula. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 2 9 • Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and beaches. • Provide for additional marine -related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on May 22, 2008. On February 27, 2009, a Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review. Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist form and comments received on the Draft EIR circulated in February 2009, the City staff determined that a Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the Draft REIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City, and comments received on the Draft EIR. Section 1.2 of the Draft REIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft REIR. The City prepared a Draft REIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period, beginning January 25, 2010, and ending March 10, 2010. The City then prepared a Final EIR, including the Responses to Comments and Errata to the Draft REIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the. Draft REIR and responses to those comments (including revisions to the Draft REIR as appropriate). The City held public a hearing on the proposed project May 11, 2009. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • The NOP (Notice of Preparation) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Draft EIR; • The Draft REIR; • The Final EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 3 • 0 • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project; The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the documents; All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft REIR and Final EIR; The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the NOP by the City on May 22, 2008 (see Draft REIR Appendix A), and analysis in the Draft REIR the City determined, based upon threshold criteria for significance, that the project would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in several areas; therefore, the City determined that these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the Draft EIR nor the Draft REIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR, the project would not have the potential to significantly impact the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Scenic Vistas. The project would not have a significant adverse project - specific or cumulative effect on a scenic vista. The scenic vista from Lido Isle/Lido Peninsula would change from a view of mobile homes to a view of a park (with minor Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 4 vertical architectural features), and sail boats that enhance the views of the Bay for pedestrians and motorists traveling along Balboa Boulevard. Aesthetics, Scenic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the site. Agricultural Resources. The project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that is considered to be suitable farmland. No agricultural activities occur on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur from project development. Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not have a cumulative significant impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to potential cumulative impacts to the California halibut nursery sites. Biological Resources, Conservation Plans. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Neither the project site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. Cultural Resources, Historic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, cause a significant adverse change in an historical resource as defined in Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no historic resources located in the vicinity of the site. Geology and Soils, Earthquakes. Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in cumulative impacts as a result of potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, nor seismic ground failure (see discussion of project -specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project -specific impacts). The project would not result in project or cumulative impacts as a result of landslides. Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in a cumulative loss of topsoil (see discussion of project - specific less than significant impact below). Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 5 Geology and Soils, Unstable Geologic Location. Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build -out of related projects in the area. The project would not result in a cumulative impact as a result of unstable soil or geologic conditions (see discussion of project -specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project - specific impacts). Geology and Soils, Expansive Soil and Wastewater Disposal Systems. The project would not result in a project -specific or cumulative impact as a result of expansive soil. No septic tanks are proposed on the site and therefore the project would not have a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater systems where sewers are not available. Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Site Listing. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant project specific nor cumulative hazard to the public or the environment. Hazards, Airports Private Air Strips. The project is not located within an airport land - use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport; or within the vicinity of a private air strip; the project would not result in a project -specific nor cumulative safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Hazards, Emergency Response Plans. The proposed project would not alter emergency access to surrounding uses, and onsite emergency access would be provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (e.g., turning radii, etc), and implementation of the proposed project would improve emergency access to the site itself. Therefore, no impacts to the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. The project would not impair (project specific or cumulatively) the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Hazards, Wiidland Fires. The project site is not located in the vicinity of wildland areas. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Hydrology and Water Quality, Depletion of Groundwater Supplies. The project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or interfere significantly with groundwater recharge such that there• would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 6 • nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. Construction activities in Phases 1 and 2 would not affect groundwater because the construction activities would be confined to the upper few feet of the site currently occupied by the mobile home park. Phase 3 construction would include drilling or excavating building foundations and driving piles, excavating a portion of the project site to create the marina basin, and driving sheet and column piles for the marina. The creation of the basin and some of the building foundation activities would extend to the groundwater; however, these activities would not deplete groundwater supplies because the project area is not used for domestic water supply (groundwater in the area is saltwater because of the adjacency to the ocean and is therefore not suitable for domestic supply). Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would 'result in no impact on groundwater supplies. Hydrology and Water Quality, Site Drainage, Area Drainage Pattern Including Causing Erosion or Siltation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in significant erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The project was found to beneficially impact the existing drainage pattern of the site. The proposed project would not alter a stream or river, adversely change drainage patterns, or significantly alter shoreline dynamics, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on drainage patterns or erosion or siltation. Hydrology and Water Quality, Runoff in Excess of Drainage Capacity, Polluted Runoff. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide significant additional sources of polluted runoff. Based on the physical environment of the proposed project location and the length of the proposed groin, it is expected that the proposed groin would have minimum, if any, impact to the neighboring shoreline. Both upland storm water dynamics and shoreline beach dynamics would not be significantly altered by the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on erosion and siltation. The proposed project would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff in any phase. In addition to the change in land uses from residential to open space, the proposed project would include structural features and best management practices (BMPs), none of which are in place on the existing site, that would require stormwater containment and would reduce the pollutant load in site runoff. Hydrology and Water Quality, Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Potential sources of water quality degradation are discussed in the Draft REIR in connection with water quality standards, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, erosion, and flooding (see above and below), Those discussions are each presented separately herein and address the potential water quality impacts of demolition and construction in all phases, including grading, excavation, dredging, dredged material transport, and the placement of dredged material on area beaches, and of the operation Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 7 of the proposed project, including park use and maintenance, marina operations, maintenance dredging, and water circulation. Accordingly, the proposed project would otherwise not significantly degrade water quality and there would be no impact. Hydrology and Water Quality, Housing in a 100-year Flood Hazard Area, Structures that Impede or Redirect Flood Flows in a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area. The project would ,not, either individually or cumulatively, place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. As delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor is it located within a Special Flood Hazard'Area (SFHA). No impacts associated with flood and water related hazards would result with project implementation. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions, especially during Phase 1 and 2. Therefore, the structures proposed on the project site would result in no impacts on flood flows. Hydrology and Water Quality, Flooding, Floodplains, Levees and Dams. The proposed project is not located in an area of flooding or in the vicinity of a levee or dam. The proposed project floor elevation of the proposed structures is at +10 feet above MLLW that would reduce potential significant effects from storm surges and flooding. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Land Use, Divide Established Community, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations. The proposed project would not physically -divide an established community nor result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. The proposed project would actually enhance public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, physically divide an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and therefore with the California Coastal Act (on which the CLUP is based). The project would not, -neither individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Neither the projecfi site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. The Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 8 project would not, individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. Mineral Resources. The, project site is developed with urban uses and is not utilized for the extraction of mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is not located within a significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would result from project development. Noise from Airports/Airstrips. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips because no such facilities are in the project vicinity or part of the proposed project. Population and Housing. The proposed project would generate employment associated with the public facilities; however, that increase would be nominal compared to the approximate 48,000-person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Given the relatively small number of jobs generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment would directly or indirectly induce significant population growth in the project area that would require new housing or extension of roads or other infrastructure. The proposed project would also result in the removal of 57 mobile homes, 15 of which are occupied full-time and the remainder part-time. These units are a non -conforming use because the site of the mobile homes is designated for Park and Recreation. Furthermore, the Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential candidate to provide housing. Accordingly, the mobile home units are not considered part of the City's future housing stock in the City's Housing Element and their removal would not result in a significant effect on the City's existing or future housing supply. A Relocation Impact Study has been prepared in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts on population and housing. Public Services, Provision of New of Physically Altered Government Facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. The proposed project would not result in additional residences to the city and therefore would not create the need for new school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have, no (direct or cumulative) impact on school services. Public Services, Parks. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in significant adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately ten acres of park, increasing the amount of parkland on the project site by nearly eight acres. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on parkland within the City as well as on Balboa Peninsula. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 9 Transportation, Change in Air Traffic. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in significant safety risks. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the northeast. Due to this distance and the low -profile nature of the proposed structures, the project would not change air traffic patterns. Traffic, Emergency Access. The proposed project includes three entrances/exits: one at 16th Street, one at 18th Street, and one along the east side of the project site on 15th Street via alleyway. These entrances/exits provide adequate emergency access for the project site in accordance with City of Newport Beach emergency access requirements. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact public safety due to emergency access. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate emergency access. Transportation and Conflict with Alternative Transportation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The City of Newport Beach Bikeway Master Plan does not identify any bike lanes within the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no short-term or long-term operational impacts on policies related to bikeways. There is an existing OCTA bus stop on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and 16th Street that would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, there would be no change, and the proposed project would not conflict with any policies supporting alternative transportation. Recreation. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, it would not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. The proposed project would replace and enhance existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site, as well as provide a new marina and boating programs facilities, and would thus have a beneficial effect in meeting the City's identified need for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no adverse impacts on recreational resources would occur from project development. Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment. The project would have neither a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater treatment capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District. The existing sewer facilities have adequate capacity 'to meet project demand and the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of OCSD. Accordingly, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur due to project implementation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impact: Visual Character. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively) significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 16 surroundings. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily alter the visual characteristics of the project site during all three phases of construction, largely due to the presence of construction equipment and stockpiles of soil, which would be noticeable on the flat site. Fence screening would be provided onsite to minimize views of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and minimized by screening, construction would have less -than -significant visual impacts. The proposed project would permanently change views of the existing mobile home site to views of a recreational park; in Phase 3 the view would include public tennis courts, the Balboa Center complex, the Girl Scout House, and the marina. Approximately 930 linear feet of waterfront area would be opened up to view from Balboa Boulevard under all three phases. In Phase 3, palm trees and ornamental landscaping would line pedestrian walkways and gathering points. Except for two architectural features, the lighthouse and the sail -roof feature on the Balboa Center, the buildings proposed on the project site (exclusive of architectural features) for Phase 3 would be within the 35-foot height limit. Impact: Light and Glare. The project would not create a new source of significant light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Phases 1 and 2 would result in removal of existing lighting associated with the existing mobile homes. Some low-level security lighting may be introduced although it is not specifically called out on the plans. Lighting associated with the Phase 3 development would introduce minor new sources of light and glare, although to some extent the new lighting would simply replace the existing lighting. New sources of light would include additional safety lighting for the parking lots, lighting associated with the marina (security lighting along the perimeter, safety lighting on the docks), security lighting, low-level accent lighting and interior lights (visible through un-shaded windows) for the Balboa Center, and safety and security lighting as well as accent lighting for park features, including the rest rooms and major walkways. The proposed project would utilize fully shielded luminaires in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and regulations. Utilization of these luminaires, coupled with the removal of residences on the project site, would ensure that the proposed project would create a less than significant glare impact on the surrounding residential land uses. Impact: Air Quality, Regional Emissions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during operation. Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in fewer trips (as well as less on -site consumption of electricity and natural gas as a result of elimination of the mobile homes) and therefore would result in fewer air emissions than existing uses. Phase 3 project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Impact: Air Quality, CO Hotspots. The project would not cause or contribute to a carbon monoxide violation from project -related and cumulative traffic during operation. Project traffic under Phases 1 and 2 is anticipated to be less than existing, therefore Phases 1 and 2 would not result in an increase in CO emissions at local intersections as compared to today. In Phase 3, no CO hotspots are anticipated as a result of traffic - Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 11 0 generated emissions by the proposed project or in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from Phase 3 are not anticipated to contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Impact: Air Quality, Odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people. Land uses typically considered to be associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. During all Phases of the project, diesel exhaust will be emitted during construction (from the heavy duty equipment) and operation (from the boat diesel engines). VOCs will also be emitted during construction of the project from painting and asphalt paving. These odors are objectionable to some; however, the odors would be short term and would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level to induce a negative response. Impact: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. The City of Newport Beach currently considers projects emitting 1,600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be less than significant with no further analysis required. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are anticipated to be negligible. Onsite emissions would total 567 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) from all phases of construction which is substantially less than the City's threshold of significance of 1,600 MTCO2e. Since Phases 1 and 2 would result in fewer trips and less consumption of electricity and natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions under Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be less than existing. The operational emissions from full buildout of the project under Phase 3 would be a post -project increase of 667 MTCO2e per year. Impact: Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not interfere significantly with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The LA-3 ocean disposal site may experience migrations by a number of fish and mammal species, including gray whales. The site designation EIS, however, concluded that the impacts of disposal operations on wildlife migration movements would be less than significant (USACE and EPA 2004). The site is likely to serve as nursery for the California halibut, considered by the regional wildlife agencies as a sensitive fish species. The site is not known to support a large population of California halibut, although some may be present. The project would have less than significant impacts on halibut and their habitat (mitigation to lessen noise impacts and water quality impacts would also reduce impacts on halibut). Impact: Cultural Resources, Human Remains. The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No human remains are known to be present on site, and because the project site has been previously graded it is very unlikely that any would be encountered. There is always the Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 12 unlikely event that ground -disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws and standards apply, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. Impact: Strong Seismic Groundshaking. The project would not result in a significant impact as a result of strong seismic groundshaking. The project is a park with low - density use and few buildings (all built to current earthquake standards) that would be at risk during an earthquake. Impact: Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. The project would not result in significant direct soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is located on relatively flat terrain and consists primarily of sandy soil. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in the mass grading of the entire site (during all three phases), which would leave the soil exposed. Construction activities would utilize best management practices in accordance with City requirements to reduce the potential for soil erosion by wind or water to a less -than -significant impact. Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Routine Use. Cumulative impacts from the transport or use of hazardous materials would be less than significant (see discussion of project specific mitigation below). Project specific construction activities could result in a significant hazardous materials impact related to the discovery, removal, and disposal of hazardous demolition debris. Since hazardous materials impacts are localized, a cumulative impact is not anticipated. Therefore, Impacts related to construction activities would be cumulatively less than significant. Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Schools. The proposed project is located approximately one -quarter mile from Newport Elementary School. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in emission of hazardous materials or wastes that would pose a serious health risk to students or school employees. There are no significant or extraordinary conditions associated with the project that would result in the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations with regard to the use of hazardous materials would ensure that any remote impact potential would be less than significant. Impact: Hydrology, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow. The project could be subject to inundation by tsunami but to an extent that would constitute a less than significant impact. As the site lies on the coast, the risks that are associated with tsunamis are moderate to high; there are no hillsides close enough to the project site to pose a risk of mudslides. Studies performed by Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) suggest that this area of the coastline may be affected by both earthquake -generated and submarine landslide -generated tsunamis with wave heights of two meters (seven feet) or more and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 13 0 wave run -ups of four meters (13 feet) or more. Accordingly, the site could be affected by tsunamis under certain conditions, although the probability of such an event is considered low. Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) estimate a return interval of at least several hundred years for a seismic event large enough to generate a catastrophic tsunami in southern California. Seiches are waves that surge back and forth in an enclosed basin, and are usually seismically induced. The larger the basin the larger the wave can be, and it is generally necessary for the basin to have nearly vertical walls, as would be the case with the proposed marina, for a seiche to develop. The project would reduce the risk to people of a tsunami by removing residential uses. The City of Newport Beach has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place, which would reduce the likelihood of injury and death. The potential for a damaging seiche to occur in the marina is very small, given the small size of the marina. Accordingly, the potential impact of tsunamis and seiches would be less than significant. Impact, Noise, Noise Level in Excess of Standards. The project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction noise (pile driving) could result in a significant adverse short- term increase in ambient noise levels (see discussion below). Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be due to the amount of noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. While construction noise would result in significant adverse impacts, construction activities would comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that exempts construction activity from noise standards provided it is conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Although there are no standards for construction noise, all construction activity is required to be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. While noise from pile driving could be disturbing to residents in the area and is therefore identified as a potentially significant impact it would not violate City regulations. Future operational traffic noise levels would result in an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity of 0.1 dBA. This would be less than the 1 dBA threshold and therefore would result in a less than significant impact. Impact: Noise, Excessive Groundborne Vibration and Noise. Phase 1 and 2 would only involve demolition activities (Phase 1) and rough grading (Phases 1 and 2); use of construction equipment would be of short duration (approximately 4 weeks for Phase 1) and 8 weeks for Phase 2, and would not include pile driving activities. During Phase 3, the major source of vibration would be the impact pile driver, which would be expected to produce groundborne vibration on the order of 0.644 PPV at 25 feet. While the majority of pile driving would occur relatively far from sensitive receptors (in the marina), some pile driving may be undertaken to construct the proposed buildings. The proposed marina and Balboa Center are about 200 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. While vibration during Phase 3 pile driving could result in annoyance to residents closest to the site it would not exceed identified significance thresholds. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 14 Impact: Noise, Permanent increase In Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Compliance with the Zoning Code would ensure that HVAC equipment does not result in a significant impact on noise in the area. Noise from recreational activities would not expose future receptors at the project site to significant increases in noise levels (i.e., an increase of 3 dBA or more); therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Future modeled noise from project - related traffic, show that future noise levels with the project for 2011 would not produce a perceptible change in noise levels compared to future conditions without the project (the greatest impact was calculated at 0.1 dBA). A 1dBA to 2 dBA threshold would be applicable to the project site; implementation of the project would result in a less than significant permanent noise increase impact. Impact: Noise, Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a cumulatively significant increase in noise levels in the area (see discussion of project specific mitigation required below). Construction noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. There are no proposed large construction projects that could result in overlapping construction noise with construction noise from the project; therefore, there would not be a cumulative impact to which the project would contribute. Impact: Public Services, Fire Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. According to the NBFD, the current facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate to serve the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. As required by the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, the proposed project would include specific design features such as appropriate emergency access, approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes reduces the risks associated with fire hazards. In addition, the proposed project would reduce building and population density on the site. Impact: Public Services, Police Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. According to the NBPD, the current level of personnel and facilities is sufficient to provide police services to the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. Development of the proposed project would allow for more access to the site than the previous use of mobile homes, and would thus improve response time to the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on police services. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 15 0 Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Traffic Increase/Levels of Service. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is significant in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, either individually or cumulatively, a level -of -service standard for intersections established by the City. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Hazards. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Primary access to the project site would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th street. Controlled secondary access would be provided via 15th Street. 18th Street adjacent to the site would be widened to provide parking on both sides. The project would not result in the alteration of the existing offsite circulation system. Therefore, it will not create dangerous intersections or sharp curves that may increase hazards. In addition, all driveway and internal parking access aisles will be designed in conformance with city sight distance, queuing, and other applicable traffic safety requirements. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazards would be less than significant. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Parking Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate parking capacity. Based on the 159 parking spaces that would be provided on the project site and a requirement for 145 spaces, the proposed project would provide adequate parking, even accounting for a net loss of 9 on -street spaces. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Water and Wastewater Facilities. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Treatment Plant No. 2 and the existing 21-inch OCSD Balboa trunk sewer line have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater generation from the proposed project at full build out. The OCSD expressed concern that the fully -built project would hinder access to the 15th Street Pumping Station, but the city has agreed with OCSD to provide access from the proposed parking lot to provide access to the Pumping Station. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on existing wastewater 'facilities. On the basis of building square footage, development of the Phase 3 project is estimated to result in an increase in domestic water consumption from 7,213 gpd under current conditions to an estimated 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Phases 1 would not include any turf or irrigation and would be a decrease in required water supply compared to the existing condition. Phase 2 encompasses 3.83 acres of which 90% would be landscaping and would consume (3.83 acres x 0.9 x 0.32 gpd/sf) 48,000 gpd, an increase in domestic water consumption when compared to the existing condition of 7,213 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 16 Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Stormwater Drainage Facilties. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the proposed project would utilize existing storm drainage facilities as well as incorporate other drainage features on the project site. The construction of bioswales and biocells (Phase 3) on the project site would allow for quick percolation of storm water into the soil while filtering urban runoff contaminants. The proposed project would not require construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities and, therefore, will result in less than significant impacts. Impact: Utilities and Service .Systems, Water Supplies. The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and other cumulative projects from existing entitlements and resources; new or expanded entitlements are not needed. The Phase 3 project buildout water demand is estimated at 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, the project's estimated water demand will be adequately served by the existing water supply. Given that the proposed project's water demand is consistent with the City's projections for water demand within their service area, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the City's water supply. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's ,existing commitments. At full build out (Phase 3) the proposed project is projected to reduce the generation of wastewater by approximately 133 gpd. The existing facilities have adequate capacity. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing treatment plant capacity. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Landfill capacity. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's (and cumulative projects') solid waste disposal needs. The solid waste generated by the proposed project is not expected to increase the amount of refuse deposited at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill compared to the existing site. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the existing impact on the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing landfill capacity. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations and Statutes. The project (and cumulative projects) would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Solid waste generated on the project site will comply with a host of comprehensive and applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts insofar as all regulations related to solid waste would be adhered to. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 17 Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Natural Gas and Electricity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical services. Implementation of Phase 3 of the proposed project would result in the demand for natural gas and electrical services (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for natural gas). On completion of Phase 3 the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 0.65 million cubic feet of natural gas per year (mcf/yr). This would result in a decrease in the use of natural gas of over 2,919 million cubic feet of natural gas compared to the existing uses on the project site. The proposed project would continue the demand for natural gas, but the project's impact on existing services would be less than significant. On completion of Phase 3, the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 1.6 million kilowatt hours per year (KWH/yr). This would result in an increase in the use of electricity of 910 thousand KWH/yr compared to the existing uses on the project site (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for electricity). Although the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity, the demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing electrical facilities on the project site. As part of the project (Phase 3), the aboveground electrical facility would be placed below ground. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on existing electrical services and facilities. C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION The FEIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project. However, the Newport Beach City Council finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the FEIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level. Air Quality Impact: Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds During Construction, Obstruct Implementation of AQMP, Violate Standards, Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollution Concentrations. The project could exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during the construction phase of the project resulting in potentially project specific and cumulative impacts. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could violate an air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The project, individually Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 18 and in combination with other projects, could expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific MM 5.2-A.1. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no more than five acres per day. MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. MM 5.2-A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to construction emissions to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Biological Resources Impact: Sensitive Species. The project could have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Specifically, beach nourishment could affect grunion spawning if it occurred during the spawning season (April through June), pile -driving for marina construction could produce noise levels deleterious to sea lions and harbor seals, and construction vessels could collide with sea lions and seals. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 19 MM 5.3-A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from pile -driving activities. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980-4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1, and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce potentially significant impacts related to sensitive species to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Sensitive Natural Communities. The project could have a significant adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species in the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics (specifically, northern anchovy) fisheries adjacent to the project site could potentially be affected by project construction and operation both directly and by adverse effects on their habitat. Construction activities in all three phases could potentially cause erosion/runoff of exposed soils by water and wind that could enter the waters of Newport Bay. Other pollutants generated during demolition and marina construction could include heavy metals, toxic chemicals, wastes and debris, fuel, lubricants, and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. These pollutants could degrade water quality and have adverse impacts on marine life, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and chronic and acute toxicity. Soil runoff could result in turbidity and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 20 0 0 siltation in the bay, which could adversely affect the planktonic and benthic organisms in the bay that provide food for managed fish species, as well as eelgrass that constitutes EFH. Releases of other pollutants could degrade water quality and cause toxicity to managed fish species and their prey. Dredging during Phase 3 in the intertidal and subtidal sediments would destroy benthic invertebrates and bottom -dwelling fish such as gobies that serve as prey for managed species, and could create turbidity that would adversely affect managed species and EFH. Pile driving in Phase 3 construction would create noise and turbidity, but the effects would be localized and of relatively short duration. Most of the pile driving, i.e., that involving the sheet piling, would be done before the basin was open to the Bay; only the 60 guide piles would be installed when the basin was full of water, which would take no more than one month. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Impact: Intertidal and Shallow Water Habitat. The project could have a significant adverse effect on sandy intertidal habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE or CCC guidance are present on the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on protected wetlands. However, there are 1.81 acres of sandy intertidal habitat present on the site. The construction of the proposed marina in Phase 3 would remove 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of intertidal habitat and associated benthic food resources for foraging fish and shorebirds would constitute a Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 21 potentially significant, but mitigable, impact. That loss would be mitigated as determined by the City of Newport Beach during the project permitting phase (mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1). Deepening of the existing subtidal area would affect 0.1 ac of on -site shallow water and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water. That area would remain shallow -water habitat, therefore, no loss of shallow -water habitat would occur, and the impact on marine habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.3-C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation shall be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly -permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. Cumulative Implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sandy intertidal habitat to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources. The project could conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree -preservation policy or ordinance. Some common bird species have the potential to nest on the project site, although a site survey suggested that no suitable nesting habitat exists on the site. Any nests that did occur would be protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Project construction activities in Phase 1 have the potential to affect those nests adversely because all of the trees on the site would be removed entirely or relocated elsewhere on site. The number of nests affected, if any, would be Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 22 E r small and the species affected are abundant and nest throughout the area. Nevertheless, the destruction of active nests would be a significant impact because it would violate an established regulation aimed at preserving biological resources. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.3-E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-E.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to policies protection biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Cultural Resources Impact: Archaeological and Cultural Resources. The project is not anticipated to cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5. However, in the event of discovering unexpected resources this impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is included. The records search found four previously recorded archaeological resources in the general area ("camp sites," discovered in 1912) but the field survey found no archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site. In general the California coast is culturally sensitive, however the Balboa Peninsula is a relatively new feature and the project area has been substantially disturbed by previous activities. Therefore the site is not considered particularly sensitive; project construction activities are not anticipated to result in cultural resource impacts to Native American groups; mitigation measure MM 5.4-13.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 23 Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.4-13.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or prehistoric, artifacts are encountered during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-B.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to archaeological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Paleontological Resources or Geological Feature. The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The project area is situated upon geological deposits with low fossil -bearing potential, but these sediments may overlie more sensitive deposits that lie at an unknown depth. Based on the potential for finds within the older deposits, construction of the proposed project has a moderate potential to encounter paleontological resources in the subsurface of the project site. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources could result from construction activities. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 24 as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-C.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to paleontological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Geolo Impact:.Earthquakes. The project (directly) could expose people or structures to potential significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground shaking and seismic -related liquefaction, and would not expose people or structures to such potential adverse effects with respect to: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. The project site is not located within a Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone, although the project is near the- Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 1.86 miles east of the project site. California State law requires structures to incorporate earthquake -resistant design standards in accordance with the latest CBC and appropriate seismic design criteria; the adherence to this regulatory requirement would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The near -surface soils beneath the project site, which consist of loose to medium -dense hydraulic fills and bay deposits, would be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. Ground settlement due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration, as well as from reconsolidation of liquefied soils. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 25 L.J Mitigation Measure: Project Specific MM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a building foundation design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation design shall conform to the recommendation of the geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation - mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to ground rupture and faults to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Unstable Geologic Location. The project (directly) would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The proposed facilities on the project site may be exposed to unstable soils. Lateral spreading is slope instability that can occur in response to liquefaction. Lateral spreading typically develops on ground underlain by liquefiable soils or where free -face conditions can develop in a liquefiable soil, such as along Newport Bay or its drainage tributaries. The beach area of the project site along Newport Bay is likely to be vulnerable to lateral spreading, which could result in a significant impact on the proposed buildings. Mitigation Measure: Project Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.5-A.1 (above) is required. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 26 Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to unstable soils to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact: Routine Use. -The project could (directly) create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the Dredged, Material Evaluation, some of the sediments that would be dredged for the marina basin contain detectable concentrations of mercury, but the concentrations are below the USFDA and EPA regulation limits. Nevertheless, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredged material with elevated mercury levels would be disposed of at an approved facility rather than being disposed of on beaches or on the project site. The material would be transported by truck, but as it would not constitute acutely or extremely hazardous waste, as those terms are defined by the California Department of Toxics Substances Control, its transport and disposal would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts. Approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB -contaminated soil at the SCE substation site would be excavated and. shipped (by SCE) to a facility approved for such material. The soil would be transported in covered haul trucks by a licensed contractor. [Accordingly, the transport and disposal of PCB - contaminated soil from the SCE site would result in less than significant hazardous materials impacts.] Mitigation Measure: Project Specific MM 5.6-A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to transport or use of hazardous materials to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 27 Impact: Risk of Upset. Demolition activities could create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving a release of the hazardous materials into the environment. Construction equipment would include diesel- and gasoline -powered engines. There would be a small risk of gasoline or diesel tank rupture in the event of an accident, but the risk of spills would be negligible because the contractors would not be permitted to fuel or service vehicles on site. Furthermore, the limited duration of construction (less than one year) would reduce the risk of spills and upsets. Compliance with construction site safety regulations and use of best management practices would limit the risk of upset to less - than -significant levels. Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A-1 is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to risk of upset to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact: Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements. The project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction of the proposed project would involve activities (demolition of existing site features, grading, excavation and hauling, removal and transport of contaminated soils and construction debris, dredging and dredged material transport, pile driving, welding, and concrete pouring) that could discharge pollutants to the waters of Newport Bay. Construction activities could generate pollutants such as silt and other particulate matter (i.e., suspended solids), fuels and lubricating oils, debris, and dissolved chemicals. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 28 Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste includes concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate into the ground. • Construction dewatering. Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity. Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria are met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 29 Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. Dredged Material: The scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. MM 5.7-A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A.2 (see above) is required. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to water quality to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated 'into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. D. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Noise Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels. The project could result in a significant (direct) temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction noise would occur primarily from the noise -generated onsite during demolition, excavation and grading, dredging, and construction activities. Construction noise associated with Phases 1 and 2 would be relatively limited. Phase 1 would include demolition and very rough grading (4 weeks); Phase 2 would include additional grading and placement of sod and associated irrigation equipment. During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 30 piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 5.9-D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. MM 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City Of Newport Beach department shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e,g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. MM 5.9-D.4. During all phases of construction, material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce substantially reduce significant impacts related to construction noise but not to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect but construction noise impacts would remain significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 31 construction are considered to remain unavoidably potentially significant even with mitigation. III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the " discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." One unavoidable significant adverse impact to the Marina Park project was identified: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels During construction. Three alternatives were analyzed in the Final EIR. The following section discusses the project alternatives that were considered and analyzed in the Draft REIR and summarizes the consistency of these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed project. The Draft REIR identified three alternatives as follows: 1. No Project 2. Reduced Marina 3. No Marina The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below. No Project Alternative Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the project site would remain in the same condition as they were at the time the NOP was published (May 2008). The setting of the site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Section 5.0 of the Draft REIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the proposed project. This alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no change were to occur on the project site. The existing mobile home park is a non -conforming land use located within Parks and Recreation (PR) -designated area. The use conflicts with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as well as the California Coastal Act since it is not a coastal dependent use. The project would terminate the existing lease to the mobile home park that is not a permitted activity in tidelands leasing policy. Under this alternative the non -permitted activity (mobile homes) would remain. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 32 Environmental Effects: The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project including the potentially significant construction noise impacts as well as other less than significant impacts including air quality, biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning and migratory bird nesting; loss of sandy intertidal habitat), and water quality (construction runoff and dredging turbidity).. It would also avoid all of the operational -phase impacts, including air quality (cumulative ozone and health impacts), geology (seismic risks), and water quality (poor circulation in the marina). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve the provisions of the Coastal Act that encourage the maintenance and expansion of marine boating facilities and enhanced coastal access and coastal recreational, opportunities. The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen but not eliminate the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to, marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project, Reduced Marina Alternative Description: This alternative includes the development of the Marina Park Project with a visiting vessel marina approximately one-half the size of the proposed project marina. The proposed marina under this alternative would include approximately 12 slips and encompass approximately 0.5 acre of surface water area, compared to the 23 slips and approximately one acre of surface water area under the proposed project. The marina would include floating and landside storage for small boats and sailing dinghies, to support at least some of the educational sailing programs envisioned in the proposed project. This alternative would include all of the -other features of the proposed project (the Balboa Center Complex, Girl Scout Building, beach area, children's play area, Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 33 • public park facilities, and parking), as well as an additional 0.5 acres of park in the area not converted to marina. Environmental Effects: Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be approximately half as much dredging and excavation, and fewer pilings and floating docks would be installed. Construction would require the same equipment and activities as in the proposed project, but the marina construction component would not take as long and would not involve as much pile driving, excavation and dredging, and truck and barge trips. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 40 fewer vehicle trips per day and half as many vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce the magnitude of all of the construction and operational impacts identified for the proposed project. Nonetheless construction noise impacts of this alternative would remain potentially significant. (Geological impacts related to seismic risks would not be reduced as those would be applicable primarily to the landside components of the project, and the impacts to sandy intertidal habitat, as those would occur in the part of the marina that would be built under either alternative.) In particular, this alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts during operation because the marina basin would be smaller and there would be fewer boats, and it would reduce traffic because there would be fewer trips generated by visiting mariners. Although the impacts would be reduced, they would not be avoided: the Reduced Marina Alternative would have all of the impacts of the proposed project (including potentially significant construction noise), but of a lesser duration/magnitude. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public •coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would .not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 34 Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. This alternative would reduce the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project but not below a level of significance. No Marina Alternative Description: In this alternative the visiting vessels marina would not be built, but all other features of the proposed project (Section 3.3 of the Draft REIR) would be built. The area that would have been occupied by the marina would, instead, remain beach (the northern portion) or be converted to park (the southern portion). Construction of this alternative would be .the same as for the proposed project except that there would be no dredging, excavation, or pile driving associated with marina development. Up to approximately 1,500 round-trip truck trips would be required to deliver the 15,000 cubic yards of fill that could be needed for the upland construction portion of this alternative. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 80 fewer vehicle trips per day and no vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. Environmental Effects: This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project driving (although there would still be piles driven for the buildings, the duration of pile driving would be much less and the activity would be farther from sensitive receptors). This alternative would avoid the degraded water quality that could occur in the marina. It would also reduce other (less than significant) impacts associated with marina construction, including water quality impacts from dredging and dredged material disposal; air quality impacts from construction equipment (although construction of the remainder of the project would still generate emissions, particularly in view of the need to import fill); and impacts on biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning, loss of sandy intertidal habitat). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 35 C � ! recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. IV. GENERAL FINDINGS 1. The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Final EIR are perceived to have a less than significant effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment as discussed in the Draft REIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues and has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Comments regarding the Draft REIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments included in the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. 4. The analysis contained in the Draft REIR and Final EIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 36 Exhibit B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Method of Timing Responsible Verification Party Air Qualit MM 5.2-A.1. During all phases of project construction, the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving Inspections. construction. Dept., Director to no more than five acres per day. or designee. MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following inspections. construction. Dept., Director methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: or designee. • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. Biological Resources MM 5.2•A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City Field During Phase 3 Public Works of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand inspections. construction. Dept., Director export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the or designee. year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge inspections. construction. Dept., Director material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur or designee. between March 31 and June 30. MM 5.3-A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement inspections. construction. Dept., Director techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from or designee. pile -driving activities. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than -full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 it) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a Field During Phase 3 Public Works construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the inspections. construction. Dept., Director City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe or designee. Cordaro, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980.4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. MM 5.3-C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the Plan check. Prior to Phase 3 Public Works loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an construction. Dept., Director acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another or designee, southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu and/or Planning fee agreement. Mitigation will be based upon a ratio Department, determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in-Ileu fee Director or agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly- designee. Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part permitted mitigation project option shall also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. in accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. MM 5.3-E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or Inspections. construction. Dept., Director other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be or designee. conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cultural Resources MM 5.4-B.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological Field During all Public Works monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities inspections construction. Dept. and In previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or Planning Dept. prehistoric artifacts are encountered during construction, Director or the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American designee. representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer of soil before building over it. Altematively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified Field During Phase 3 Public Works paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading inspections construction. Dept., Director activities and conduct salvage excavation of or designee. paleontological resources as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Sinus Environmental MM-2 Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Geology and Solis MM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works Phase 3, the City of Newport beach shall prepare a for Phase 3. of grading permits. Dept, and building foundation design to reduce the impacts of Building Dept., potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation Director or design shall conform to the recommendation of the designee. geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation — mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM 5.6-A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the Field Prior to demolition Public Works City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling inspections activities in each Dept., Director and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or and testing. Phase. or designee. lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. Hydrology MM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City Field Prior to Public Works of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution inspections. construction Dept., Director prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that activities in each or designee. describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce Phase. the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). • Construction Staging. Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control. Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking, Tracking of sand and mud on the local street Sirius Environmental MU-3 Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down ...d66K.... .... nn....:Hn.i\ -:11 k- Inns ;;+— — nnnurc Sirius Env( R • Marina Park Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 5.7-A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within for Phase 3. of permits for Dept., Director the marina basin design to enhance the movement and Phase 3 marina. or designee. mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Noise 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction inspections construction. Dept., Director equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to or designee. minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 5.9-D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Field During Phase 3 Public Works Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is inspections pile driving. Dept., Director used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound or designee. from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all stationary noise inspections. construction. Dept., Director sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are or designee. located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. 5.9-13.4. During all phases of construction, material Field During all Public Works delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and Inspections. construction. Dept., Director construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set or designee. forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Sirius Environmental MR-5 wti M 0 t STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH } I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution No. 2010-46 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the llth day of May, 2010, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Selich, Rosansky, Webb, Gardner, Daigle, Mayor Curry Noes: None Absent: Henn Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 12th day of May, 2010. 'P owe City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal) U Qr Cq</FO RN�P CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner DATE: April 20, 2010 RE: Marina Park — Final EIR (Responses to Comments & Errata) Attached please find the proposed Marina Park Final EIR document comprised of Responses to Comments and Errata to the Draft Recirculated EIR (REIR). A total of 11 comment letters and emails were received from the following interested parties: California Department of Transportation, California Department of Substance Control, Orange County Transportation Authority, the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, Pier to Pier -Central Newport Beach Community Association, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance, California State Lands Commission, Southern California Gas Company, California Coastal Commission and two private individuals. The written responses to each of the environmental comments received on the adequacy of the Draft REIR have been prepared and included in Chapter 3, Responses to Comments of the Final EIR. Chapter 3 of the Final EIR also includes the Errata Section that includes the following revisions to the Draft REIR: 1. Revisions to Table 2-1, Executive Summary Matrix for consistency with the impact analysis sections; 2. Revisions to cumulative analysis with respect to Hazard Materials, Section 5.6-A; 3. Revisions to impact analysis with respect to Water Quality, Section 5.7-F; 4. Addition of discussion on no impacts to Airport/Airstrip Noise; 5. Revisions to cumulative impact with respect to Schools, Section 5.10-C; and 6. Clarifications on short -tern construction impact on the Alternative to Proposed Project, Section 6. These changes/revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the Draft REIR, and therefore, does not warrant any further recirculation for public review. City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 ~ Marina Park Final EIR Page 2 The Final EIR is also available for review online on April 28, 2010, at: hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=l 347 The project is scheduled for your consideration at the May 11, 2010, City Council Meeting. This document is being sent to you for your review in advance of the meeting and distribution of the staff report. Attachment: Marina Park Final EIR c: Dave Kiff, City Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director Dave Webb, Deputy PW Director Leonie Mulvihill, Acting City Attorney -< Marina Park Project Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report and Consideration of Site Plan On May 11, 2010, the City Council will review and consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and review the Site Plans prepared for Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Marina Park. The project is located on north side of Balboa Blvd, between 15th and 19th Streets. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Anyone interested in this item is invited to attend the meeting. The Final Environmental Impact Report (Responses to Comments and Errata) is available for review on the City's website at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1347 The City Council staff report on the project will be available for review on the City's website on May 5, 2010. 4a"Oa, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard g P.O. a Newport Beachch,,CACA 92658-8915 (949) 644-3200 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION To: From: ❑Office of Planning and Research City of Newport Beach Planning Department P.O. BOX 3044 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 County Clerk, County of Orange $2,792.25 Fish & Game Environmental Filing Fee Public Services Division Santa Ana, CA 92702 "Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Government Code Section 6103" Subject: Filing of Notice of Resources Code. Project Name: M State Clearinghouse Numl SCH#: 2008051096 Project Location Tt (include county): be thi Project Description: The project site encompasses apl House, community center, Las At sidewalks, the 19th Street restroo three phases. In Phase 1 the mot improvements. Phase 2 would co at the Balboa Center Complex (0. House (0.16 acres), parking area: basin (1.67 acres). The public pa water feature. The active areas it vessel marina would accommoda Bathrooms and laundry areas are educational classes, sailing classi bathroom on thepublic; beach ad' This is to advise that the City of and has made the following date 1. The City of Newport Be, 2. The project will have a i 3. An Environmental Impa 4. Mitigation measures we 5. A mitigation reporting at 6. A Statement of Overridi 7. Findings were made pu This is to certify that the is available to the Gene Newport Boulevard, Nei Rosalinh Ung, Associ • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 19 May 11, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner �;g 949-644-3208, rung(a newportbeachca.gov FILE SUBJECT: Marina Park Project ■ Environmental Impact Report - ER2008-001 (PA2008-040) ■ Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Site Plans (Phase 1 through 3) ■ Exemption from Zoning & Development Regulations ISSUE: Should the City Council certify the Marina Park Project's Final Environmental Impact Report; adopt a statement of overriding considerations; approve the Site Plans for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Project; and exempt the Project from Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Hold the Public Hearing on the Marina Park Project's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR); and 2. Adopt Resolution 2010-_ certifying the Marina Park Project's FEIR (SCH. No. 2008051096), making certain Findings of Fact and Determinations thereto, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); and 3. Adopt Resolution 2010- adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approving the Site Plans for Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Marina Park Project; and 4. Motion, second, and affirmative vote to exempt the Marina Park Project from Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Background: In early 2005, the City Council formed the City Council/Citizens Ad Hoc Committee for the planning and redevelopment of the Marina Park site. On October 10, 2006, the City Council chose the Park + Marina Concept Plan, which combined two of eight different use scenarios advocated by various groups and individuals. In November 2006, the City Council formed the City Council/Citizens Committee on Marina Park Design to refine the design concepts presented by the City's design consultant, Rabben/Herman Design Office (R/HDO) and its sub -consultant team. On November 13, 2007 the City Council approved the Marina Park Concept Plan and Final Master Plan Report and authorized the City Manager to bring forward a contract for the schematic design phase of the Marina Park Project, and directed staff to proceed with preparation of appropriate documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ANALYSIS: Marina Park Proiect: The schematic design approved for Marina Park includes a new, 23-slip marina with a visitor side tie dock and floating docks to support youth and adult sailing programs. An 11,000 square -foot Sailing Program Building is proposed to support the needs of various sailing programs within the community, and a 10,560 square -foot Multi -Purpose Building is proposed to support community programming needs. The remainder of the site will be developed as a community park with tennis courts, half -court basketball courts, tot lot, and children's water play area. The Project also includes an area for the Girl Scout House and a new restroom building at 19th Street. The Project could be implemented in three phases, as illustrated in Exhibits 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6 of the Draft Recirculated EIR. The following is a brief summary of the three phases: Phase I will include removal of the existing Marina Park Mobile Home structures. The area occupied by the mobile homes will be transformed into a park after construction of concrete sidewalks and a temporary restroom facility. The existing sidewalk and trees adjacent to the beach will remain. The existing alley will be restriped for parking and the existing gates at the mobile home park will be removed to provide access between 151h and 18" Streets. Phase II will include addition of new turf, picnic tables, and benches to the improvements in Phase I. PA 41 • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 3 Phase III is full build -out of the Marina Park Project including Sailing Program Building, Multi -Purpose Building, marina, and community park. Environmental Review: 1st Draft EIR The City contracted with Michael Brandman Associates to prepare an Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park Project. Potential impacts were identified and mitigation measures were included in the DEIR to reduce potentially significant adverse impacts, where feasible, to a less than significant level. The first DEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from February 26, 2009, to April 13, 2009. The City received comment letters from regulatory agencies, home -owner associations, nearby residents, and the Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC). In response to comments, the need for additional technical studies and analyses was indicated. This included studies required to definitively determine the presence or absence of wetlands on the existing beach, and analysis of remediation efforts needed to remove contamination at the Southern California Edison site proposed for purchase by the City. The additional studies and analyses, including the changes to project description (project phasing), were deemed to be significant new information requiring preparation of a second DEIR, and recirculation for public review and comment. 2"d Draft (Recirculated) EIR The second Draft (Recirculated) EIR (DREIR) was prepared by Sirius Environmental Consultants. The project description was revised to include description of phased development of Marina Park. The second DEIR includes the substantive analysis of potential impacts identified in the 1st DEIR supplemented with technical studies and analyses deemed necessary in response to comments receivedr on the first DEIR. The second DREIR was circulated for a 45-day public comment period from January 25, 2010, to March 10, 2010. A total of 11 comment letters and a -mails were received from the following interested parties: California Department of Transportation, California Department of Substance Control, Orange County Transportation Authority, the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, Pier to Pier - Central Newport Beach Community Association, California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance, California State Lands Commission, Southern California Gas Company, and two private individuals 3 • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 4 Potentially Significant Impacts The 2"d DREIR incorporates the Initial Study (IS) prepared for the 1st DEIR. Based on the IS, the project was determined to have no potential impacts in the topical areas of Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, and Recreation, and no further analysis is included. The IS identified the potential for impacts in the topical areas of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities/Service Systems. Analysis of potential impacts within each of these topical areas from the 1st DEIR is incorporated in the 2"d DEIR where appropriate. The additional technical studies and analysis deemed necessary after receipt of comments on the 1st DEIR were included in the 2"d DEIR. This information together with analysis included from the 1st DEIR indicates that all potentially significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, with the exception of construction noise, can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. Unavoidable Adverse Impact Construction noise impacts expected during Phase 3 construction were found to be potentially significant because of noise generated by construction, excavation, and pile driving activities and dredging for the marina. With implementation of mitigation measures, noise levels associated with Phase 3 construction will remain significant and are unavoidable. Project Alternatives Section 6.0 of the 2nd DREIR discusses project alternatives as required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. These alternatives include: A. No Project/No Development (assumes existing conditions would remain as is); or B. Reduce d Marina Alternative (assumes the visiting vessel marina will be developed to have a total of 12 slips, approximately one-half the size of the proposed 23-slip marina); or C. No Marina Alternative (assumes the visiting vessel marina would not be built). Although Alternative B (Reduced Marina) and Alternative C (No Marina) are considered to have reduced impacts and considered to be environmentally superior to the proposed project, they would not achieve the objectives of the Project. The Project objectives are: 1. Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. q- Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 5 2. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site. 3. Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula. 4. Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and beaches. 5. Provide for additional marine -related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report Prior to taking action on the Site Plans for the Project, the City Council must first review, consider, and certify the FEIR for the Marina Park Project. The FOR is comprised of five separate documents as follows: 2"d Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) 2. Volume I which includes Appendices A through F [Notice of Preparation (NOP), Initial Study, Comments Received on the NOP, Visual Simulations, Air Quality Information, Terrestrial and Marine Biological Resources Assessments, Cultural Resources and Geotechnical Investigation Report] 3. Volume II which includes Appendix G (Hazardous Materials Information) 4. Volume III — Includes Appendices H through N (Drainage and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Traffic, and Utilities Information, Comments Letters received on February Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan) 5. Final EIR (Responses to Comments & Errata) These documents are not attached to this report due to the extensive volume, but are available at the Planning Department and online at "The Environmental Document Download Page —Marina PaW at: hftp://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=l 347 Errata Section The Errata Section includes the following revisions to the second DREIR included after recirculation: 1. Revisions to Table 2-1, Executive Summary Matrix for consistency with the impact analysis sections; 2. Revisions to cumulative analysis with respect to Hazardous Materials, Section 5.6-A; • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 6 3. Revisions to impact analysis with respect to Water Quality, Section 5.7-F; 4. Addition of discussion on no impacts to Airport/Airstrip Noise; 5. Revisions to cumulative impact with respect to Schools, Section 5.10-C; and 6. Clarifications on short -tern construction impact on the Alternative to Proposed Project, Section 6. These changes/revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the DREIR and, therefore, do not warrant recirculation for public review. CEQA Findings of Fact Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, Findings of Fact has been prepared and attached as "Exhibit A" of Attachment No. CC1, for the City Council adoption. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program has been prepared and attached as "Exhibit B" of Attachment No. CC1, for City Council adoption. Statement of Overriding Considerations If the City Council determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the short-term, unavoidable impact attendant to Project Phase 3 construction noise, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted prior to project approval. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and attached as Exhibit A of Attachment No. CC2, for City Council adoption that identifies economic, social and public benefits of the Project that would serve the needs of the community through the development of a new public park. These benefits include: The proposed facilities within the Marina Park Project would be consistent with the land use designation and would meet the recreation and open space needs of the community. 2. The proposed facilities would enhance public access and provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and 'harbors and beaches. 3. The proposed facilities would complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula. 4. The proposed facilities would provide for additional marine -related facilities. Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings The Planning Department is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's M • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 7 decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). Exemption from Title 20, Planning and Zoning: A city or county may exempt itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations, or it may amend its Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Municipal Code) to include a provision that the regulations shall not apply to capital improvement projects. While the Zoning Code does not currently include a provision to exempt capital improvement projects such as the Marina Park Project, the proposed Zoning Code Update does include such a provision for capital improvement projects undertaken in compliance with the City Charter. The Marina Park property is located in the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone and the 35-Foot Shoreline Height Limitation Zone. The Multi -Purpose and Sailing Program Buildings (Balboa Center complex of the Marina- Park Project) are designe6 to be at 35 feet in height, exceeding the 26-foot base height limit. Section 20.65.055 of the Municipal Code allows structures to exceed the base height limit with the adoption of a PC District or approval of a Use Permit. A 38-foot-high, lighthouse -like structure will be situated atop the Sailing Program Building resulting in a total structure height of 73 feet. Section 20.65.070 of the Municipal Code allows architectural features such as the lighthouse structure to exceed the permitted height limits with the approval of a modification permit. The Marina Park Project is a one -of -a -kind capital improvement project. It is a unique civic facility, and in some cases, there are no specific development regulations or standards in the Municipal Code that apply to this type of facility. Furthermore, The Project has been presented in a public forum on numerous occasions; including the citizen group Protect Our Parks, the Harbor Commission and the Council/Citizens Marina Park Design Ad Hoc Committee. The design of the proposed project is consistent with the directive of the City Council, and the Council/Citizens Marina Park Design Ad Hoc Committee. Rather than direct staff to prepare an amendment in advance of the Zoning Code Update, or prepare a use permit and modification permit to regulate this civic facility, staff is requesting the City Council find that this Project is exempt from the zoning and development regulations of the Municipal Code. Fiscal Impact: Staff responsible for the operation and maintenance of Marina Park (Recreation and Senior Services, Harbor Resources, General Services and Fire) has estimated the expenses and revenues for ongoing annual operations of the facilities and park. The estimates of $1.6 million in expenditures and $1 million in revenue (for a net annual cost of $600,000) are inclusive of the total operation of the park, sailing and community center, programs, cafe and marina. These estimates will need to be reevaluated at the 7 • Marina Park Project Final EIR Certification and Site Plan Approval May 11, 2010 Page 8 onset of the project to ensure inflation of costs and fees are taken into consideration. The estimates reflect staffs assumption that an outside operator will be selected for the management of the cafe and provision of a sailing program to generate revenue and minimize overhead costs to the City. Public Notice: The notice required for the EIR was a Notice of Availability (NOA) notifying the public that the DEIR was available for public review. In addition to this legally required notice, notice of the public hearing associated with the certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Site Plans was provided pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act and printed in the Daily Pilot on May 1, 2010. Prepared by: alinh Ung A ociate Planner Attachments Submitted by: 46i4n�L Sharon Wood Assistant City Manager CC 1 Draft Resolution 2010- FEIR Certification, with Exhibits A (Findings of Fact) and B (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) CC 2 Draft Resolution 2010-_ Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approval of Conceptual Site Plans, with Exhibit A (Statement of Overriding Considerations) 3 Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution — FEIR Certification Ok RESOLUTION NO.2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008051096) FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach City Council has determined that the Marina Park Project ("Project') is necessary to serve the needs of the community; and WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2008, the City of Newport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared and mailed a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR, together with a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting to public agencies, organizations and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, on June 12, 2008, the City of Newport Beach conducted a public scoping meeting to provide all interested parties an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues that were proposed to addressed within the EIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City caused to be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"), which, taking into account the comments received on the NOP and during the scoping meeting, described the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting there from, and circulated the DEIR for a 45-day public review and comment period on February 27, 2009, which ended on April 13, 2009; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was recirculated for a 45-public review and comment period from January 25, 2010 to March 10, 2010, to provide further clarification and additional technical analysis, including policy determinations to address comments/concerns received from the regulatory agencies, home -owner associations, and nearby residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR), and has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on April 28, 2010 distributed the responses to comments in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the City of Newport Beach completed a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the project consisting of the Draft REIR, comments received on the Draft REIR, responses to comments on the Draft REIR, and an Errata to the Draft REIR (Errata) containing minor changes and clarification to the document; and WHEREAS, the minor changes and clarification to the Draft REIR do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the Draft REIR, and therefore, does not warrant recirculation of the Draft REIR for public review; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2010, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations, (3) approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program, and (4) approval of the Conceptual Site Plans for the Project; and WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Project was presented to the City Council, the decision making body for the lead agency, for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR addresses all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action on this Project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts and Project alternatives identified in the FEIR and has found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible, except for the construction noise impact which is addressed in the Statement of Overriding Consideration document; and WHEREAS, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency made written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and WHEREAS, CEQA and CEQA Guidelines require, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Newport Beach; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings of Fact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact as shown on the attached "Exhibit A" entitled "Marina Park Project Findings of Fact" which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as "Exhibit B," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of the Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Certification. Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed in the records of the City Clerk. 13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010. MAYOR Keith D. Curry ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk 14 Exhibit A MARINA PARK PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT I. BACKGROUND California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Public Resources Code Section 21002) The same statute provides that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." Section 21002 goes on to provide that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Thus, CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against any unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). These Findings of Fact are prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) and (3) that requires for each potential significant adverse impact that can be avoided a finding that, "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are summarized herein. After mitigation, the proposed Marina Park project would have one (temporary) unavoidable significant adverse impact: construction noise. The Draft SEIR identified the noise associated with up to 17 weeks of pile driving as annoying to residents and therefore at least potentially significant. When an impact is potentially significant it must be treated as significant. A. PROJECT SUMMARY The Marina Park project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15th Street, and east of 18th Street. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented: Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 1 _ 1J 0 Phase 1 — Removal of mobile homes (coaches) and rough grading to create an open space area (consisting of materials that underlie the site) in place of the mobile home park; a new temporary restroom and parking lot would be installed. All other structures on the site would remain. Phase 2 — Replacement of the open space area created in Phase I with new turf and irrigation, additional pedestrian paths, and picnic facilities to enhance the public park, but no other changes from Phase 1 would occur. Phase 3 — Construction of the Balboa Center, which includes the Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building; and construction of the Girl Scout House, parking areas, park, beach, tennis courts and a 23-slip marina basin. The project would provide a "window on the Bay" from Balboa Boulevard and surrounding areas. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas would include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas would include a children's play area and basketball half courts. A public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. The Multi -purpose Building and the Sailing Program Building would include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. A small cafe would be located on the second story of the Sailing Program Building. Bathrooms and laundry areas also would be provided within the Sailing Program Building. Two tennis courts are proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15th Street. In addition, an existing bathroom located on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be reconstructed. A new restroom facility (designed to look like a lighthouse) would be constructed adjacent to the children's play area and a water feature. Primary vehicular access to the project would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street and secondary access would be via an exit/entrance off of 15th Street. Public access to the beach would be provided by walkways within the proposed parks as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18th and 19th streets would still provide access to the public beach. OBJECTIVES To achieve that purpose, the City of Newport Beach has established five basic objectives. • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands. • Enhance public access and community facilities on the site. • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the peninsula. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 2 16 • Provide community facilities to meet the goals of the General Plan for recreation and harbors and beaches. • Provide for additional marine -related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. B. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the proposed project. The City determined that an EIR would be required for the proposed project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study on May 22, 2008. On February 27, 2009, a Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review. Based upon the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form and comments received on the Draft EIR circulated in February 2009, the City staff determined that a Draft Recirculated EIR (Draft REIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. The scope of the Draft REIR was determined based on the City's Initial Study, comments received in response to the NOP, comments received at the scoping meeting conducted by the City, and comments received on the Draft EIR. Section 1.2 of the Draft REIR describes the issues identified for analysis in the Draft REIR. The City prepared a Draft REIR, which was made available for a 45-day public review period, beginning January 25, 2010, and ending March 10, 2010. The City then prepared a Final EIR, including the Responses to Comments and Errata to the Draft REIR, and these Findings of Fact. The Final EIR/Response to Comments contains comments on the Draft REIR and responses to those comments (including revisions to the Draft REIR as appropriate). The City held public a hearing on the proposed project May 11, 2009. C. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the proposed project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: The NOP (Notice of Preparation) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed project; • The Draft EIR; The Draft REIR; The Final EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 3 0 • All responses to written comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR; • All written and verbal public testimony presented during a noticed public hearing for the proposed project; • The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP); • The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the documents; All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft REIR and Final EIR; The Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, including comments received after the close of the comment period and responses thereto; Matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any documents expressly cited in these Findings; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D. CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the project are at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the project. Copies of these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings, are and at all relevant times have been and will be available upon request at the offices of the Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Guidelines Section 15091(e). II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT As a result of the Initial Study that was circulated with the NOP by the City on May 22, 2008 (see Draft REIR Appendix A), and analysis in the Draft REIR the City determined, based upon threshold criteria for significance, that the project would not result in significant potential environmental impacts in. several areas; therefore, the City determined that these potential environmental effects would not be addressed in the Draft EIR nor the Draft REIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Final EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR and Draft REIR, the project would not have the potential to significantly impact the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Scenic Vistas. The project would not have a significant adverse project - specific or cumulative effect on a scenic vista. The scenic vista from Lido Isle/Lido Peninsula would change from a view of mobile homes to a view of a park (with minor Marina•Park Project Findings of Fact Page 4 F vertical architectural features), and sail boats that enhance the views of the Bay for pedestrians and motorists traveling along Balboa Boulevard. Aesthetics, Scenic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway. There are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the site. Agricultural Resources. The project site is located within an urbanized area of Newport Beach. The project site contains no land that is considered to be suitable farmland. No agricultural activities occur on or adjacent to the site. Therefore, no impacts to agricultural resources would occur from project development. Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not have a cumulative significant impact on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or on established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to potential cumulative impacts to the California halibut nursery sites. Biological Resources, Conservation Plans. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Neither the project site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. Cultural Resources, Historic Resources. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, cause a significant adverse change in an historical resource as defined in Section15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. There are no historic resources located in the vicinity of the site. Geology and Soils, Earthquakes. Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in cumulative impacts as a result of potential rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, nor seismic ground failure (see discussion of project -specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project -specific impacts). The project would not result in project or cumulative impacts as a result of landslides. Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. Soils and geologic influences are site -specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the proposed project and development within the greater cumulative project area. The project would not result in a cumulative loss of topsoil (see discussion of project - specific less than significant impact below). Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 5 11 Geology and Soils, Unstable Geologic Location. Soil and geologic influences are site specific, and there is little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of the project site and build -out of related projects in the area. The project would not result in a cumulative impact as a result of unstable soil or geologic conditions (see discussion of project -specific mitigation required below that would mitigate project - specific impacts). Geology and Soils, Expansive Soil and Wastewater Disposal Systems. The project would not result in a project -specific or cumulative impact as a result of expansive soil. No septic tanks are proposed on the site and therefore the project would not have a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater systems where sewers are not available. Hazards, and Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Materials Site Listing. The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant project specific nor cumulative hazard to the public or the environment. Hazards, Airports Private Air Strips. The project is not located within an airport land - use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public -use airport; or within the vicinity of a private air strip; the project would not result in a project -specific nor cumulative safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Hazards, Emergency Response Plans. The proposed project would not alter emergency access to surrounding uses, and onsite emergency access would be provided via the onsite circulation system. The onsite circulation system has been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles (e.g., turning radii, etc), and implementation of the proposed project would improve emergency access to the site itself. Therefore, no impacts to the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would occur. The project would not impair (project specific or cumulatively) the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Hazards, Wildland Fires. The project site is not located in the vicinity of wildland areas. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Hydrology and Water Quality, Depletion of Groundwater Supplies. The project would not significantly deplete groundwater supplies or interfere significantly with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 6 HE • planned uses for which permits have been granted. Construction activities in Phases 1 and 2 would not affect groundwater because the construction activities would be confined to the upper few feet of the site currently occupied by the mobile home park. Phase 3 construction would include drilling or excavating building foundations and driving piles, excavating a portion of the project site to create the marina basin, and driving sheet and column piles for the marina. The creation of the basin and some of the building foundation activities would extend to the groundwater; however, these activities would not deplete groundwater supplies because the project area is not used for domestic water supply (groundwater in the area is saltwater because of the adjacency to the ocean and is therefore not suitable for domestic supply). Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would result in no impact on groundwater supplies. Hydrology and Water Quality, Site Drainage, Area Drainage Pattern Including Causing Erosion or Siltation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in significant erosion or siltation on- or off -site. The project was found to beneficially impact the existing drainage pattern of the site. The proposed project would not alter a stream or river, adversely change drainage patterns, or significantly alter shoreline dynamics, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on drainage patterns or erosion or siltation. Hydrology and Water Quality, Runoff in Excess of Drainage Capacity, Polluted Runoff. The project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide significant additional sources of • polluted runoff. Based on the physical environment of the proposed project location and the length of the proposed groin, it is expected that the proposed groin would have minimum, if any, impact to the neighboring shoreline. Both upland storm water dynamics and shoreline beach dynamics would not be significantly altered by the proposed project. Accordingly, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on erosion and siltation. The proposed project would not result in additional sources of polluted runoff in any phase. In addition to the change in land uses from residential to open space, the proposed project would include structural features and best management practices (BMPs), none of which are in place on the existing site, that would require stormwater containment and would reduce the pollutant load in site runoff. Hydrology and Water Quality, Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality. Potential sources of water quality degradation are discussed in the Draft REIR in connection with water quality standards, groundwater supplies, drainage patterns, erosion, and flooding (see above and below), Those discussions are each presented separately herein and address the potential water quality impacts of demolition and construction in all phases, including grading, excavation, dredging, dredged material transport, and the placement of dredged material on area beaches, and of the operation of the proposed project, including park use and maintenance, marina operations, Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 7 a� maintenance dredging, and water circulation. Accordingly, the proposed project would otherwise not significantly degrade water quality and there would be no impact. Hydrology and Water Quality, Housing in a 100-year Flood Hazard Area, Structures that Impede or Redirect Flood Flows in a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. As delineated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, nor is it located within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). No impacts associated with flood and water related hazards would result with project implementation. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions, especially during Phase 1 and 2. Therefore, the structures proposed on the project site would result in no impacts on flood flows. Hydrology and Water Quality, Flooding, Floodplains, Levees and Dams. The proposed project is not located in an area of flooding or in the vicinity of a levee or dam. The proposed project floor elevation of the proposed structures is at +10 feet above MLLW that would reduce potential significant effects from storm surges and flooding. In addition, the project site would have fewer structures that could impede the flow of water than under existing conditions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Land Use, Divide Established Community, Conflict with Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community nor result in any barriers that would preclude travel throughout the project area. The proposed project would actually enhance public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, physically divide an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) and therefore with the California Coastal Act (on which the CLUP is based). The project would not, neither individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Neither the project site nor the sand disposal areas are located in habitat conservation planning areas. The Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 8 2 0% project would not, individually nor cumulatively, conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. Mineral Resources. The project site is developed with urban uses and is not utilized for the extraction of mineral resources. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the site is not located within a significant mineral resource zone. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources would result from project development. Noise from Airports/Airstrips. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, expose people to excessive noise levels from airports or airstrips because no such facilities are in the project vicinity or part of the proposed project. Population and Housing. The proposed project would generate employment associated with the public facilities; however, that increase would be nominal compared to the approximate 48,000-person labor force within the City of Newport Beach. Given the relatively small number of jobs generated by the proposed project, it is not anticipated that such employment would directly or indirectly induce significant population growth in the project area that would require new housing or -extension of roads or other infrastructure. The proposed project would also result in the removal of 57 mobile homes, 15 of which are occupied full-time and the remainder part-time. These units are a non -conforming use because the site of the mobile homes is designated for Park and Recreation. Furthermore, the Housing Element does not identify the project site as a potential candidate to provide housing. Accordingly, the mobile home units are not considered part of the City's future housing stock in the City's Housing Element and their removal would not result in a significant effect on the City's existing or future housing supply. A Relocation Impact Study has been prepared in compliance with the State's Mobile Home Residency law. Implementation of the proposed project would result in less -than -significant impacts on population and housing. Public Services, Provision of New of Physically Altered Government Facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. The proposed project would not result in additional residences to the city and therefore would not create the need for new school facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have no (direct or cumulative) impact on school services. Public Services, Parks. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in significant adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately ten acres of park, increasing the amount of parkland on the project site by nearly eight acres. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact on parkland within the City as well as on Balboa Peninsula. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 9 a3 0 Transportation, Change in Air Traffic. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in significant safety risks. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne International Airport, located approximately 4.7 miles to the northeast. Due to this distance and the low -profile nature of the proposed structures, the project would not change air traffic patterns. Traffic, Emergency Access. The proposed project includes three entrances/exits: one at 16th Street, one at 18th Street, and one along the east side of the project site on 15th Street via alleyway. These entrances/exits provide adequate emergency access for the project site in accordance with City of Newport Beach emergency access requirements. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact public safety due to emergency access. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate emergency access. Transportation and Conflict with Alternative Transportation. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, conflict with adopted policies, plans, or, programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The City of Newport Beach Bikeway Master Plan does not identify any bike lanes within the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no short-term or long-term operational impacts on policies related to bikeways. There is an existing OCTA bus stop on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and 16th Street that would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, there would be no change, and the proposed project would not conflict with any policies supporting alternative transportation. Recreation. The proposed project would not result in an increase in the residential population in the project area; thus, it would not create a demand for recreational services or facilities. The proposed project would replace and enhance existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site, as well as provide a new marina and boating programs facilities, and would thus have a beneficial effect in meeting the City's identified need for additional recreational facilities. Therefore, no adverse impacts on recreational resources would occur from project development. Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment. The project would have neither a project specific nor cumulative impact on wastewater treatment capacity of the Orange County Sanitation District. The existing sewer facilities have adequate capacity to meet project demand and the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of OCSD. Accordingly, no impacts to wastewater treatment requirements would occur due to project implementation. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impact: Visual Character. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively) significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 10 a �I surroundings. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily alter the visual characteristics of the project site during all three phases of construction, largely due to the presence of construction equipment and stockpiles of soil, which would be noticeable on the flat site. Fence screening would be provided onsite to minimize views of construction. Because these impacts would be temporary and minimized by screening, construction would have less -than -significant visual impacts. The proposed project would permanently change views of the existing mobile home site to views of a recreational park; in Phase 3 the view would include public tennis courts, the Balboa Center complex, the Girl Scout House, and the marina. Approximately 930 linear feet of waterfront area would be opened up to view from Balboa Boulevard under all three phases. In Phase 3, palm trees and ornamental landscaping would line pedestrian walkways and gathering points. Except for two architectural features, the lighthouse and the sail -roof feature on the Balboa Center, the buildings proposed on the project site (exclusive of architectural features) for Phase 3 would be within the 35-foot height limit. Impact: Light and Glare. The project would not create a new source of significant light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Phases 1 and 2 would result in removal of existing lighting associated with -the existing mobile homes. Some low-level security lighting may be introduced although it is not specifically called out on the plans. Lighting associated with the Phase 3 development would introduce minor new sources of light and glare, although to some extent the new lighting would simply replace the existing lighting. New sources of light would include additional safety lighting for the parking lots, lighting associated with the marina (security lighting along the perimeter, safety lighting on the docks), security lighting, low-level accent lighting and interior lights (visible through un-shaded windows) for the Balboa Center, and safety and security lighting as well as accent lighting for park features, including the rest rooms and major walkways. The proposed project would utilize fully shielded luminaires in accordance with City of Newport Beach standards and regulations. Utilization of these luminaires, coupled with the removal of residences on the project site, would ensure that the proposed project would create a less than significant glare impact on the surrounding residential land uses. Impact: Air Quality, Regional Emissions. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds during operation. Phases 1 and 2 of the project would result in fewer trips (as well as less on -site consumption of electricity and natural gas as a result of elimination of the mobile homes) and therefore would result in fewer air emissions than existing uses. Phase 3 project emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD's regional thresholds and are considered less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Impact: Air Quality, CO Hotspots. The project would not cause or contribute to a carbon monoxide violation from project -related and cumulative traffic during operation. Project traffic under Phases 1 and 2 is anticipated to be less than existing, therefore Phases 1 and 2 would not result in an increase in CO emissions at local intersections as compared to today. In Phase 3, no CO hotspots are anticipated as a result of traffic - Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 11 as' generated emissions by the proposed project or in combination with other anticipated development in the area. Therefore, the mobile emissions of CO from Phase 3 are not anticipated to contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation of CO. Impact: Air Quality, Odors. The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a significant number of people. Land uses typically considered to be associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste -disposal facilities, or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. During all Phases of the project, diesel exhaust will be emitted during construction (from the heavy duty equipment) and operation (from the boat diesel engines). VOCs will also be emitted during construction of the project from painting and asphalt paving. These odors are objectionable to some; however, the odors would be short term and would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not be at a level to induce a negative response. Impact: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The project would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly hinder or delay the State's ability to meet the reduction targets contained -in AB 32. The City of Newport Beach currently considers projects emitting 1',600 metric tons of CO2e per year or less to be less than significant with no further analysis required. Emissions of nitrous oxide and methane are anticipated to be negligible. Onsite emissions would total 567 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) from all phases of construction which is substantially less than the City's threshold of significance of 1,600 MTCO2e. Since Phases 1 and 2 would result in fewer trips and less consumption of electricity and natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions under Phases 1 and 2 of the project would be less than existing. The operational emissions from full buildout of the project under Phase 3 would be a post -project increase of 667 MTCO2e per year. Impact: Biological Resources, Migratory Species, Halibut Nurseries. The project would not interfere significantly with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of California halibut nursery sites. The LA-3 ocean disposal site may experience migrations by a number of fish and mammal species, including gray whales. The site designation EIS, however, concluded that the impacts of disposal operations on wildlife migration movements would be less than significant (USACE and EPA 2004). The site is likely to serve as nursery for the California halibut, considered by the regional wildlife agencies as a sensitive fish species. The site is not known to support a large population of California halibut, although some may be present. The project would have less than significant impacts on halibut and their habitat (mitigation to lessen noise impacts and water quality impacts would also reduce impacts on halibut). Impact: Cultural Resources, Human Remains. The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. No human remains are known to be present on site, and because the project site has been previously graded it is very unlikely that any would be encountered. There is always the Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page12 �/ unlikely event that ground -disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Should this occur, Federal laws and standards apply, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and its regulations found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 43 CFR 10. In addition, California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. Impact: Strong Seismic Groundshaking. The project would not result in a significant impact as a result of strong seismic groundshaking. The project is a park with low - density use and few buildings (all built to current earthquake standards) that would be at risk during an earthquake. Impact: Geology and Soils, Soil Erosion or Topsoil Loss. The project would not result in significant direct soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site is located on relatively flat terrain and consists primarily of sandy soil. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in the mass grading of the entire site (during all three phases), which would leave the soil exposed. Construction activities would utilize best management practices in accordance with City requirements to reduce the potential for soil erosion by wind or water to a less -than -significant impact. Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Routine Use. Cumulative impacts from the transport or use of hazardous materials would be less than significant (see discussion of project specific mitigation below). Project specific construction activities could result in a significant hazardous materials impact related to the discovery, removal, and disposal of hazardous demolition debris. Since hazardous materials impacts are localized, a cumulative impact is not anticipated. Therefore, Impacts related to construction activities would be cumulatively less than significant. Impact: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Schools. The proposed project is located approximately one -quarter mile from Newport Elementary School. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in emission of hazardous materials or wastes that would pose a serious health risk to students or school employees. There are no significant or extraordinary conditions associated with the project that would result in the release of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Compliance with applicable state and federal regulations with regard to the use of hazardous materials would ensure that any remote impact potential would be less than significant. Impact: Hydrology, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow. The project could be subject to inundation by tsunami but to an extent that would constitute a less than significant impact. As the site lies on the coast, the risks that are associated with tsunamis are moderate to high; there are no hillsides close enough to the project site to, pose a risk of mudslides. Studies performed by Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) suggest that this area of the coastline may be affected by both earthquake -generated and submarine landslide -generated tsunamis with wave heights of two meters (seven feet) or more and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 13 an wave run -ups of four meters (13 feet) or more. Accordingly, the site could be affected by tsunamis under certain conditions, although the probability of such an event is considered low. Legg, Borrero, and Synolakis (2004) estimate a return interval of at least several hundred years for a seismic event large enough to generate a catastrophic tsunami in southern California. Seiches are waves that surge back and forth in an enclosed basin, and are usually seismically induced. The larger the basin the larger the wave can be, and it is generally necessary for the basin to have nearly vertical walls, as would be the case with the proposed marina, for a seiche to develop. The project would reduce the risk to people of a tsunami by removing residential uses. The City of Newport Beach has a tsunami contingency plan and evacuation routes in place, which would reduce the likelihood of injury and death. The potential for a damaging seiche to occur in the marina is very small, given the small size of the marina. Accordingly, the potential impact of tsunamis and seiches would be less than significant. Impact, Noise, Noise Level in Excess of Standards. The project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Construction noise (pile driving) could result in a significant adverse short- term increase in ambient noise levels (see discussion below). Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be due to the amount of noise generated by construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. While construction noise would result in significant adverse impacts, construction activities would comply with Section 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code that exempts construction activity from noise standards provided it is conducted between 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Although there are no standards for construction noise, all construction activity is required to be conducted in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. While noise from pile driving could be disturbing to residents in the area and is therefore identified as a potentially significant impact it would not violate City regulations. Future operational traffic noise levels would result in an increase in noise levels in the project vicinity of 0.1 dBA. This would be less than the 1 dBA threshold and therefore would result in a less than significant impact. Impact: Noise, Excessive Groundborne Vibration and Noise. Phase 1 and 2 would only involve demolition activities (Phase 1) and rough grading (Phases 1 and 2); use of iconstruction equipment would be of short duration (approximately 4 weeks for Phase 1) and 8 weeks for Phase 2, and would not include pile driving activities. During Phase 3, the major source of vibration would be the impact pile driver, which would be expected to produce groundborne vibration on the order of 0.644 PPV at 25 feet. While the majority of pile driving would occur relatively far from sensitive receptors (in the marina), some pile driving may be undertaken to construct the proposed buildings. The proposed marina and Balboa Center are about 200 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. While vibration during Phase 3 pile driving could result in annoyance to residents closest to the site it would not exceed identified significance thresholds. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 14 2 �3 • 0 Impact: Noise, Permanent increase In Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Compliance with the Zoning Code would ensure that HVAC equipment does not result in a significant impact on noise in the area. Noise from recreational activities would not expose future receptors at the project site to significant increases in noise levels (i.e., an increase of 3 dBA or more); therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Future modeled noise from project - related traffic, show that future noise levels with the project for 2011 would not produce a perceptible change in noise levels compared to future conditions without the project (the greatest impact was calculated at 0.1 dBA). A 1dBA to 2 dBA threshold would be applicable to the project site; implementation of the project would result in a less than significant permanent noise increase impact. Impact: Noise, Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise Levels. The project would not result in a cumulatively significant increase in noise levels in the area (see discussion of project specific mitigation required below). Construction noise would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. There are no proposed large construction projects that could result in overlapping construction noise with construction noise from the project; therefore, there would not be a cumulative impact to which the project would contribute. Impact: Public Services, Fire Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. According to the NBFD, the current facilities, equipment, and personnel are adequate to serve the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. As required by the Uniform Fire Code and the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 9, the proposed project would include specific design features such as appropriate emergency access, approved building materials, etc. Conformance with these codes reduces the risks associated with fire hazards. In addition, the proposed project would reduce building and population density on the site. Impact: Public Services, Police Protection. The project would not result in significant adverse physical impacts (direct or cumulative) associated with the provision of new -or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. According to the NBPD, the current level of personnel and facilities is sufficient to provide police services to the project site (all three phases), including on the peak Fourth of July holiday. Development of the proposed project would allow for more access to the site than the previous use of mobile homes, and would thus improve response time to the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on police services. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 15 �9 0 Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Traffic Increase/Levels of Service. The project would not cause an increase in traffic that is significant in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and that exceeds, either individually or cumulatively, a level -of -service standard for intersections established by the City. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Hazards. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, significantly increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Primary access to the project site would be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th street. Controlled secondary access would be provided via 15th Street. 18th Street adjacent to the site would be widened to provide parking on both sides. The project would not result in the alteration of the existing offsite circulation system. Therefore, it will not create dangerous intersections or sharp curves that may increase hazards. In addition, all driveway and internal parking access aisles will be designed in conformance with city sight distance, queuing, and other applicable traffic safety requirements. Therefore, impacts with respect to hazards would be less than significant. Impact: Transportation and Traffic, Parking Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in inadequate parking capacity. Based on the 159 parking spaces that would be provided on the project site and a requirement for 145 spaces, the proposed project would provide adequate parking, even accounting for a net loss of 9 on -street spaces. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Water and Wastewater Facilities. The project would not, individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Treatment Plant No. 2 and the existing 21-inch OCSD Balboa trunk sewer line have adequate capacity to serve the wastewater generation from the proposed project at full build out. The OCSD expressed concern that the fully -built project would hinder access to the 15th Street Pumping Station, but the city has agreed with OCSD to provide access from the proposed parking lot to provide access to the Pumping Station. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on existing wastewater facilities. On the basis of building square footage, development of the Phase 3 project is estimated to result in an increase in domestic water consumption from 7,213 gpd under,current conditions to an estimated 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Phases 1 would not include any turf or irrigation and would be a decrease in required water supply compared to the existing condition. Phase 2 encompasses 3.83 acres of which 90% would be landscaping and would consume (3.83 acres x 0.9 x 0.32 gpd/sf) 48,000 gpd, an increase in domestic water consumption when compared to the existing condition of 7,213 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, adequate domestic water supplies currently exist to serve the increased demand. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 16 3b Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Stormwater Drainage Facilties. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Implementation of the proposed project would utilize existing storm drainage facilities as well as incorporate other drainage features on the project site. The construction of bioswales and biocells (Phase 3) on the project site would allow for quick percolation of storm water into the soil while filtering urban runoff contaminants. The proposed project would not require construction or expansion of storm water drainage facilities and, therefore, will result in less than significant impacts. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Water Supplies. The project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and other cumulative projects from existing entitlements and resources; new or expanded entitlements are not needed. The Phase 3 project buildout water demand is estimated at 50,104 gpd. According to the City's Utilities Department, the project's estimated water demand will be adequately served by the existing water supply. Given that the proposed project's water demand is consistent with the City's projections for water demand within their service area, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on the City's water supply. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater Treatment Capacity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. At full build out (Phase 3) the proposed project is projected to reduce the generation of wastewater by approximately 133 gpd. The existing facilities have adequate capacity. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing treatment plant capacity. - Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Landfill capacity. The project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's (and cumulative projects') solid waste disposal needs. The solid waste generated by the proposed project is not expected to increase the amount of refuse deposited at the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill compared to the existing site. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the existing impact on the remaining capacity of the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on the existing landfill capacity. Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations and Statutes. The project (and cumulative projects) would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Solid waste generated on the project site will comply with a host of comprehensive and applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and therefore, the project will result in less than significant impacts insofar as all regulations related to solid waste would be adhered to. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 17 31 Impact: Utilities and Service Systems, Natural Gas and Electricity. The project would not, either individually or cumulatively, have a significant impact on the provision of natural gas and electrical services. Implementation of Phase 3 of the proposed project would result in the demand for natural gas and electrical services (Phases 1 and 2 would result in minimal to no demand for natural gas). On completion of Phase 3 the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 0.65 million cubic feet of natural gas per year (mcf/yr). This would result in a decrease in the use of natural gas of over 2,919 million cubic feet of natural gas compared to the existing uses on the project site. The proposed project would continue the demand for natural gas, but the project's impact on existing services would be less than significant. On completion of Phase 3, the proposed project would result in the demand for approximately 1.6 million kilowatt hours per year (KWH/yr). This would result in an increase in the use of electricity of 910 thousand KWH/yr compared to the existing uses on the project site (Phases 1 and 2 would' result in minimal to no demand for electricity). Although the proposed project would result in an increased demand for electricity, the demand is expected to be adequately served by the existing electrical facilities on the project site. As part of the project (Phase 3), the aboveground electrical facility would be placed below ground. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact on existing electrical services and facilities. C. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION The FEIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the proposed project. However, the Newport Beach City Council finds for each of the significant or potentially significant impacts identified in this section, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the FEIR. As a result, adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified significant effects to a less than significant level. Air Quality Impact: Exceed SCAQMD Thresholds During Construction, Obstruct Implementation of AQMP, Violate Standards, Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial .Pollution Concentrations. The project could exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds during the construction phase of the project resulting in potentially project specific and cumulative impacts. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The project (individually and in combination with other projects) could violate an air quality standard or contribute significantly to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The project, individually Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 18 3,7 • and in combination with other projects, could expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific MM 5.2-A.1. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving to no more than five acres per day. MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. MM 5.2-A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to construction emissions to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Biological Resources Impact: Sensitive Species. The project could have a significant adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Specifically, beach nourishment could affect grunion spawning if it occurred during the spawning season (April through June), pile -driving for marina construction could produce noise levels deleterious to sea lions and harbor seals, and construction vessels could collide with sea lions and seals. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur between March 31 and June 30. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 19 33 MM 5.3-A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from pile -driving activities. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe Cordero, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 980-4017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1, and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce potentially significant impacts related to sensitive species to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Sensitive Natural Communities. The project could have a significant adverse effect on a sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Species in the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics (specifically, northern anchovy) fisheries adjacent to the project site could potentially be affected by project construction and operation both directly and by adverse effects on their habitat. Construction activities in all three phases could potentially cause erosion/runoff of exposed soils by water and wind that could enter the waters of Newport Bay. Other pollutants generated during demolition and marina construction could include heavy metals, toxic chemicals, wastes and debris, fuel, lubricants, and other toxins related to construction equipment and its maintenance. These pollutants could degrade water quality and have adverse impacts on marine life, including reduced viability, tissue contamination, and chronic and acute toxicity. Soil runoff could result in turbidity and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 20 3y siltation in the bay, which could adversely affect the planktonic and benthic organisms in the bay that provide food for managed .fish species, as well as eelgrass that constitutes EFH. Releases of other pollutants could degrade water quality and cause toxicity to managed fish species and their prey. Dredging during Phase 3 in the intertidal and subtidal sediments would destroy benthic invertebrates and bottom -dwelling fish such as gobies that serve as prey for managed species, and could create turbidity that would adversely affect managed species and EFH. Pile driving in Phase 3 construction would create noise and turbidity, but the effects would be localized and of relatively short duration. Most of the pile driving, i.e., that involving the sheet piling, would be done before the basin was open to the Bay; only the 60 guide piles would -be installed when the basin was full of water, which would take no more than one month. Mitigation Measures: Project -Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1, MM 5.7-A.2 (measures presented in full below under the discussion of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements), MM 5.3-A.1 and MM 5.3-A.2 (measures presented in full above directly under the discussion of sensitive species) would lessen impacts. Finding: The mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which have been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Impact: Intertidal and Shallow Water Habitat. The project could have a significant adverse effect on sandy intertidal habitat through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the USACE or CCC guidance are present on the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would have no impact on protected wetlands. However, there are 1.81 acres of sandy intertidal habitat present on the site. The construction of the proposed marina in Phase 3 would remove 0.66 acre of intertidal habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of intertidal habitat and associated benthic food resources for foraging fish and shorebirds would constitute a Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 21 3s potentially significant, but mitigable, impact. That loss would be mitigated as determined by the City of Newport Beach during the project permitting phase (mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1). Deepening of the existing subtidal area would affect 0.1 ac of on -site shallow water and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water. That area would remain shallow -water habitat, therefore, no loss of shallow -water habitat would occur, and the impact on marine habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.3-C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu fee agreement. Mitigation shall be based upon a ratio determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly -permitted mitigation project option will also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final intertidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat replacement. Cumulative Implementation of mitigation measure MM 5.3-C.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to sandy intertidal habitat to a less -than -significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources. The project could conflict with policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree -preservation policy or ordinance. Some common bird species have the potential to nest on the project site, although a site survey suggested that no suitable nesting habitat exists on the site. Any nests that did occur would be protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Project construction activities in Phase 1 have the potential to affect those nests adversely because all of the trees on the site would be removed entirely or relocated elsewhere on site. The number of nests affected, if any, would be Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 22 3 (p small and the species affected are abundant and nest throughout the area. Nevertheless, the destruction of active nests would be a significant impact because it would violate an established regulation aimed at preserving biological resources. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.3-E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. - Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.3-E.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to policies protection biological resources to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Cultural Resources Impact: Archaeological and Cultural Resources. The project is not anticipated to cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5. However, in the event of discovering unexpected resources this impact is considered potentially significant and mitigation is included. The records search found four previously recorded archaeological resources in the general area ("camp sites," discovered in 1912) but the field survey found no archaeological resources on or adjacent to the site. In general the California coast is culturally sensitive, however the Balboa Peninsula is a relatively new feature and the project area has been substantially disturbed by previous activities. Therefore the site is not considered particularly sensitive; project construction activities are not anticipated to result in cultural resource impacts to Native American groups; mitigation measure MM 5.4-13.1 would ensure that impacts remain less than significant. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 23 31 Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.4-13.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or prehistoric, artifacts are encountered during construction, the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-6.1 (above) is required.) Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to archaeological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Paleontological Resources or Geological Feature. The project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. The project area is situated upon geological deposits with low fossil -bearing potential, but these sediments may overlie more sensitive deposits that lie at an unknown depth: Based on the potential for finds within the older deposits, construction of the proposed project has a moderate potential to encounter paleontological resources in the subsurface of the project, site. Therefore, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources could result from construction activities. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified paleontologist; shall be retained to observe grading activities and conduct salvage excavation of paleontological resources as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 24 :58 establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.4-C.1 (above) is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to paleontological artifacts to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Geolopv Impact: Earthquakes. The project (directly) could expose people or structures to potential significant adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground shaking and seismic -related liquefaction, and would not expose people or structures to such potential adverse effects with respect to: j) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. The project site is not located within a Fault -Rupture Hazard Zone, although the project is near the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 1.86 miles east of the project site. California State law requires structures to incorporate earthquake -resistant design standards in accordance with the latest CBC and appropriate seismic design criteria; the adherence to this regulatory requirement would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The near -surface soils beneath the project site, which consist of loose to medium -dense hydraulic fills and bay deposits, would be subject to liquefaction during seismic events. Ground settlement due to seismic activity results from a densification of soils due to ground vibration, as well as from reconsolidation of liquefied soils. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 25 Mitigation Measure: Project Specific MM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a building foundation design to reduce the impacts of potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation design shall conform to the recommendation of the geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation - mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department. Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to ground rupture and faults to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Impact: Unstable Geologic Location. The project (directly) would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The proposed facilities on the project site may be exposed to unstable soils. Lateral spreading is slope instability that can occur in response to liquefaction. Lateral spreading typically develops on ground underlain by liquefiable soils or where free -face conditions can develop in a liquefiable soil, such as along Newport Bay or its drainage tributaries. The beach area of the project site along Newport Bay is likely to be vulnerable to lateral spreading, which could result in a significant impact on the proposed buildings. Mitigation Measure: Project Specific Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.5-A.1 (above) is required. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 26 LID Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to unstable soils to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact: Routine Use. The project could (directly) create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the Dredged Material Evaluation, some of the sediments that would be dredged for the marina basin contain detectable concentrations of mercury, but the concentrations are below the USFDA and EPA regulation limits. Nevertheless, approximately 3,000 cubic yards of dredged material with elevated mercury levels would be disposed of at an approved facility rather than being disposed of on beaches or on the project site. The material would be transported by truck, but as it would not constitute acutely or extremely hazardous waste, as those terms are defined by the California Department of Toxics Substances Control, its transport and disposal would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts. Approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB -contaminated soil at the SCE substation site would be excavated and shipped (by SCE) to a facility approved for such material. The soil would be transported in covered haul trucks by a licensed contractor. [Accordingly, the transport and disposal of PCB - contaminated soil from the SCE site would result in less than significant hazardous materials impacts.] Mitigation Measure: Project Specific MM 5.6•A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to transport or use of hazardous materials to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 27 L1 Impact: Risk of Upset. Demolition activities could create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving a release of the hazardous materials into the environment. Construction equipment would include diesel- and gasoline -powered engines. There would be a small risk of gasoline or diesel tank rupture in the event of an accident, but the risk of spills would be negligible because the contractors would not be permitted to fuel or service vehicles on site. Furthermore, the limited duration of construction (less than one year) would reduce the risk of spills and upsets. Compliance with construction site safety regulations and use of best management practices would limit the risk of upset to less - than -significant levels. Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-A-1 is required. Finding: The mitigation measure is feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to risk of upset to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that this measure be adopted. Implementation of this measure, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Hydrology and Water Quailt Impact: Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements. The project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Construction of the proposed project would involve activities (demolition of existing site features, grading, excavation and hauling, removal and transport of contaminated soils and construction debris, dredging and dredged material transport, pile driving, welding, and concrete pouring) that could discharge pollutants to the waters of Newport Bay. Construction activities could generate pollutants such as silt and other particulate matter (i.e., suspended solids), fuels and lubricating oils, debris, and dissolved chemicals. Mitigation Measure: Project -Specific MM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 28 q 2. 0 0 • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking: Tracking of sand and mud on the local street will be avoided by tire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done if tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste includes concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plC, material. Solid waste will be disposed of locations. Washing of concrete trucks w proper cleanup. (Wash water would I permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) percolate into the ground. nts, wood products and other construction in approved trash receptacles at specific I be done in a contained area allowing e discharged into sanitary sewer [as Other liquid waste will not be allowed to • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SWPPP will include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity. Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters that exceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b) 10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c) 10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria are met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains. Silt curtains will be placed within.- the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks. The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment: Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 29 43 Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. Dredged Material: The scow doors used to release dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. MM 5.7-A.2. As part of marina construction in Phase 3, the City of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by US EPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Cumulative Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 5.7-A.1 and MM 5.7-A.2 (see above) is required. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would avoid potentially significant impacts related to water quality to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect to a less -than -significant level. D. 'ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Noise Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels. The project could result in a significant (direct) temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction noise represents a short-term increase in ambient noise levels. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, the sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. Construction noise would occur primarily from the noise -generated onsite during demolition, excavation and grading, dredging, and construction activities. Construction noise associated with Phases 1 and 2 would be relatively limited. Phase 1 would include demolition and very rough grading (4 weeks); Phase 2 would include additional grading and placement of sod and associated irrigation equipment. During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 30 lq piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Project Specific MM 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment is fit with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. MM 5.9-D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. MM 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City Of Newport Beach department shall ensure that all stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. MM 5.9-D.4. During all phases of construction, material delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set forth in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Finding: These mitigation measures are feasible and would reduce substantially reduce significant impacts related to construction noise but.not to a less than significant level for the reasons set forth in the Final EIR. The City Council hereby directs that these measures be adopted. Implementation of these measures, which has been required or incorporated into the Project, and included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, would substantially lessen the severity of a significant effect but construction noise impacts would remain significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 31 construction are considered to remain unavoidably potentially significant even with mitigation. III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT CEQA requires that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project or to its location that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and that it evaluate the comparative merits of each of the alternatives. Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the " discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." One unavoidable significant adverse impact to the Marina Park project was identified: Temporary,or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels During construction. Three alternatives were analyzed in the Final EIR. The following section discusses the project alternatives that were -considered and analyzed in the Draft REIR and summarizes the consistency of these alternatives with the objectives of the proposed project. The Draft REIR identified three alternatives as follows: 1. No Project 2. Reduced Marina 3. No Marina The City's findings and facts in support of findings with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below. No Project Alternative Description: This alternative, which is required by CEQA, assumes that the project site would remain in the same condition as they were at the time the NOP was published (May 2008). The setting of the site at the time the NOP was published is described throughout Section 5.0 of the Draft REIR with respect to individual environmental issues and forms the baseline of the impact assessment of the- proposed project. This alternative represents the environmental conditions that would exist if no change were to occur on the project site. The existing mobile home park is a non -conforming land use located within Parks and Recreation (PR) -designated area. The use conflicts with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan as well as the California Coastal Act since it is not a coastal dependent use. The project would terminate the existing lease to the mobile home park that is not a permitted activity in tidelands leasing policy. Under this alternative the non -permitted activity (mobile homes) would remain. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 32 ql6 0 Environmental Effects: The No Project Alternative would avoid al[ of the construction impacts associated with the proposed project including the potentially significant construction noise impacts as well as other less than significant impacts including air quality, biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning and migratory bird nesting; loss of sandy intertidal habitat), and water quality (construction runoff and dredging turbidity).. It would also avoid all of the operational -phase impacts, including air quality (cumulative ozone and health impacts), geology (seismic risks), and water quality (poor circulation in the marina). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Project Alternative would not achieve the provisions of the Coastal Act that encourage the maintenance and expansion of marine boating facilities and enhanced coastal access and coastal recreational opportunities. The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen but not eliminate the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Project Alternative would not provide the benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; realization of a number of General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. Coastal access would still be hampered by the presence of the mobile home park, the awkward vehicular and pedestrian facilities, and the lack of community facilities. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not achieve any of the goals of the Marina Park Project. Reduced Marina Alternative Description: This alternative includes the development of the Marina Park Project with a visiting vessel marina approximately one-half the size of the proposed project marina. The proposed marina under this alternative would include approximately 12 slips and encompass approximately 0.5 acre of surface water area, compared to the 23 slips and approximately one acre of surface water area under the proposed project. The marina would include floating and landside storage for small boats and sailing dinghies, to support at least some of the educational sailing programs envisioned in the proposed project. This alternative would include all of the other features of the proposed project (the Balboa Center Complex, Girl Scout Building, beach area, children's play area, Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 33 public park facilities, and parking), as well as an additional 0.5 acres of park in the area not converted to marina. Environmental Effects: Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be approximately half as much dredging and excavation, and fewer pilings and floating docks would be installed. Construction would require the same equipment and activities as in the proposed project, but the marina construction component would not take as long and would not involve as much pile driving, excavation and dredging, and truck and barge trips. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 40 fewer vehicle trips per day and half as many vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Marina Alternative would reduce the magnitude of all of the construction and operational impacts identified for the proposed project. Nonetheless construction noise impacts of this alternative would remain potentially significant. (Geological impacts related to seismic risks would not be reduced as those would be applicable primarily to the landside components of the project, and the impacts to sandy intertidal habitat, as those would occur in the part of the marina that would be built under either alternative.) In particular, this alternative would reduce potential water quality impacts during operation because the marina basin would be smaller and there would be fewer boats, and it would reduce traffic because there would be fewer trips generated by visiting mariners. Although the impacts would be reduced, they would not be avoided: the Reduced Marina Alternative would have all of the impacts of the proposed project (including potentially significant construction noise), but of a lesser duration/magnitude. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The Reduced Marina Alternative would provide most of benefits that have been identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space, realization of a number of General Plan goals related to community and recreational facilities, improved public coastal access, and improved emergency services access. It would not provide the benefit of meeting General Plan goals related to marine educational programs since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, and would only partially achieve the goal of the Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 34 4 Marina Park Project to provide additional facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. This alternative would reduce the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project but not below a level of significance. No Marina Alternative Description: In this alternative the visiting vessels marina would not be built, but all other features of the proposed project (Section 3.3 of the Draft REIR) would be built. The area that would have been occupied by the marina would, instead, remain beach (the northern portion) or be converted to park (the southern portion). Construction of this alternative would be the same as for the proposed project except that there would be no dredging, excavation, or pile driving associated with marina development. Up to approximately 1,500 round-trip truck trips would be required to deliver the 15,000 cubic yards of fill that could be needed for the upland construction portion of this alternative. Operation of this alternative would result in approximately 80 fewer vehicle trips per day and no vessel trips, but would otherwise be similar to the proposed project. Environmental Effects: This alternative would eliminate the potentially significant construction noise impacts of the project driving (although there would still be piles driven for the buildings, the duration of pile driving would be much less and the activity would be farther from sensitive receptors). This alternative would avoid the degraded water quality that could occur in the marina. It would also reduce other (less than significant) impacts associated with marina construction, including water quality impacts from dredging and dredged material disposal; air quality impacts from construction equipment (although construction of the remainder of the project would still generate emissions, particularly in view of the need to import fill); and impacts on biological resources (noise impacts on marine mammals, interference with grunion spawning, loss of sandy intertidal habitat). Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. Findings: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1), that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen the potentially significant construction noise effects on the environment. Facts in Support of the Finding: The No Marina Alternative would provide most of the benefits identified for the proposed project, including increased public park space; improved public coastal access; and improved emergency services access. It would not achieve General Plan goals related to marine -related educational programs and Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 35 99 recreational facilities, since it would not provide the facilities needed to support the City's sailing programs, nor would it achieve the project objective of providing facilities to meet the identified demand for visiting boat slips. IV. GENERAL FINDINGS The plans for the project have been prepared and analyzed so as to provide for public involvement in the planning and CEQA processes. 2. To the degree that any impacts described in the Final EIR are perceived to have a less than significant effect on the environment or that such impacts appear ambiguous as to their effect on the environment as discussed in the Draft REIR, the City has responded to key environmental issues and has incorporated mitigation measures to reduce or minimize potential environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible. 3. Comments regarding the Draft REIR received during the public review period have been adequately responded to in written Responses to Comments included in the Final EIR. Any significant effects described in such comments were avoided by the standard conditions and mitigation measures described in the Final EIR. 4. The analysis contained in the Draft REIR and Final EIR of the environmental effects and mitigation measures represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City. Marina Park Project Findings of Fact Page 36 50 Exhibit B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part Air Quality MM 5.2-A.1. During all phases of project construction, the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall limit grading and earth moving inspections. construction. Dept., Director to no more than five acres per day. or designee. MM 5.2-A.2. During all phases of project construction, the Field During all Public Works City of Newport Beach shall ensure that the following inspections. construction. Dept., Director methods to reduce fugitive dust emissions are undertaken: or designee. • Exposed soil and sand surfaces shall be watered periodically to reduce dust. • Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. Biological Resources MM 5.2-A.3. During Phase 3 project construction, the City Field During Phase 3 Public Works of Newport Beach shall require tugboat(s) used in sand inspections. construction. Dept., Director export activities to have a propulsion engine built after the or designee. year 2000 or meeting Year 2000 emission standards. MM 5.3-A.1. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that placement of dredge Inspections. construction. Dept., Director material on or adjacent to ocean beaches does not occur or designee. between March 31 and June 30. MM 5.3-A.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Field During Phase 3 Public Works Newport Beach shall require that sound abatement inspections. construction. Dept., Director techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from or designee. pile -driving activities. At the initiation of each pile -driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance. MM 5.3-A.3. During Phase 3 construction, in the event of a Field During Phase 3 Public Works construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, the inspections. construction.. Dept., Director City of Newport Beach shall immediately contact Mr. Joe or designee. Cordaro, National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator 562 9804017) and will submit a report to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. MM 5.3-C.1. The City of Newport Beach shall mitigate the Plan check. Prior to Phase 3 Public Works loss of 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat at an construction. Dept., Director acceptable location within Newport Bay, or at another or designee, southern California embayment, or by means of an in -lieu and/or Planning fee agreement. Mitigation will be based upon a ratio Department, determined by the City of Newport Beach. An in -lieu fee Director or designee. agreement option for contributing to a permitted or nearly- 5 Marina Park Final EIR and Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part permitted mitigation project option shall also be simultaneously pursued. A conceptual and final interfidal habitat mitigation plan shall be developed that further refines habitat losses, identifies mitigation goals, mitigation success criteria, costs, location, mitigation requirements, mitigation methods, monitoring, and mitigation success criteria. The mitigation plan will be Included in the USACE and the California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit conditions. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21081.6, a mitigation monitoring plan must be developed to monitor the success of the habitat re lacement. MM 5.3-E.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that removal of vegetation or inspections. construction. Dept., Director other potential migratory nesting -bird habitat will be or designee. conducted outside of the avian nesting season (February through August). If removal of vegetation occurs during the avian nesting season, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to this activity. If migratory birds are found to be nesting within or near the impact area, a buffer where no construction activities would occur would need to be established by a qualified biologist. This biologist would also determine when the nest is no longer active, at which time construction could resume. Cultural Resources MM 5.4-B.1. During Phase 3, a qualified archaeological Field During all Public Works monitor shall be available to supervise excavation activities inspections construction. Dept. and Planning Dept. in previously undisturbed soils. If archeological, historic or Director or prehistoric artifacts are encountered during construction, designee. the City of Newport Beach shall contact a Native American representative (as appropriate) and take measures to avoid the site, or shall record the site then cap or cover the site with a layer of soil before building over it. Alternatively, the City shall excavate the site under the supervision of a qualified archeologist in order to recover the scientifically consequential information relevant to the resource. In accordance with the Public Resources Code Section 5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative shall then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. MM 5.4-C.1. During Phase 3 construction, a qualified Field During Phase 3 Public Works paleontologist shall be retained to observe grading inspections construction. Dept., Director activities and conduct salvage excavation of or designee. paleontological resources as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grading conference, shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the fossils as appropriate. If additional or unexpected paleontological features are discovered, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the City Sirius Environmental MM-2 sa EIR • Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part Planning Department. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Geology and Soils MM 5.5-A.1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works Phase 3, the City of Newport beach shall prepare a for Phase 3. of grading permits. Dept. and building foundation design to reduce the impacts of Building Dept., potential liquefaction and settlement. The foundation Director or design shall conform to the recommendation of the designee. geotechnical report prepared for the project, which include: Site Preparation — excavation of minimum of 12 inches and recompaction to provide recommended subgrade density; all activities to be observed by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation — mat foundation for restroom facilities and small buildings and either a deep foundation system such as driven piles,or stone columns with mat foundations for the Balboa Center. The specific foundation design for each proposed structure would require approval by the City of Newport Beach Building Department Marina — design specifications and construction techniques are recommended in the geotechnical report and shall be adhered to. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM 5.6-A.1. Prior to demolition activities in Phase 1, the Field Prior to demolition Public Works City of Newport Beach shall determine, through sampling inspections activities in each Dept., Director and testing by a licensed laboratory, whether asbestos or and testing. Phase. or designee. lead -based paint materials, or PCBs are present within the existing onsite structures. If these materials are present, the City of Newport Beach shall require that these materials be handled In accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, and shall dispose of these materials in a landfill that accepts asbestos, PCB -containing materials, and lead -based paint. Hydrology MM 5.7-A.1. Prior to construction of each phase, the City Field inspections. Prior to construction Public Works Dept., Director of Newport Beach shall prepare a stormwater pollution activities in each or designee. prevention plan (SWPPP) for construction activities that Phase. describes best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the release of potential pollutants into surface water. The plan shall also identify how the BMPs will be implemented. The SWPPP shall Include, but not be limited to, the following BMPs: • Dust Control: Water will be sprayed periodically in newly graded areas to prevent dust from grading activities being blown on to adjacent areas (in conformance with Newport Beach Ordinance limiting water use). • Construction Staging: Specific areas will be delineated for storage of material and equipment, and for equipment maintenance, to contain potential spills. • Sediment Control: Sand bags or silt fences will be located along the perimeter of the site. Existing inlets and proposed area drains will be protected against intrusion of sediment. • Tracking. Tracking of sand and mud on the local street Sirlus Environmental MM-3 S"3 and Method of Verification Timing Responsible Part will be avoided by fire washing and/or road stabilization. Street cleaning (using a sweeper, no wash down activities are permitted) will be done If tracking occurs. • Waste Disposal: Specific area and/or methods will be selected for waste disposal. Typical construction waste include concrete, concrete washout, mortar, plaster, asphalt, paint, metal, isolation material, plants, wood products and other construction material. Solid waste will be disposed of in approved trash receptacles at specific locations. Washing of concrete trucks will be done in a contained area allowing proper cleanup. (Wash water would be discharged into sanitary sewer [as permitted], Baker Tank or settling basin.) Other liquid waste will not be allowed to percolate Into the ground. • Construction dewatering: Construction dewatering, if required, will necessitate approval of permits by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the City. • Maintenance: Maintenance of BMPs will take place before and after rainfall events to insure proper operation. • Training: The SW PPP will Include directions for staff training and checklists for scheduled inspections. • Construction Vehicles: Construction vehicles will be inspected daily to ensure there are no leaking fluids. If there are leaking fluids, the construction vehicles will be serviced outside of the project site area. • Turbidity: Activities shall not cause turbidity increases in bay waters thatexceed: a) 20 percent if background turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbity Units (NTUs); b)10 percent if background is between 50 and 100 NTUs; c)10 percent if background turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs. Monitoring of turbidity in bay water adjacent to boat slip construction will be conducted daily during construction activities that may cause turbidity. If activities exceed the above criteria, construction activities associated with causing turbidity will be discontinued until the above criteria are met. • Grease: Construction activities will not cause visible oil, grease, or foam in the work area or in the bay. • Silt curtains: Silt curtains will be placed within the bay so that all effluent from dredging activities will be contained within the construction zone. • Hauling Trucks: The project construction contractors will ensure that trucks hauling soil material to and from the project site will be covered and will maintain a 2-inch differential between the maximum height of any hauled material and the top of the haul trailer. Haul truck drivers will water the load prior to leaving the site in order to prevent soil loss during transport. • Heavy Equipment., Limit heavy equipment use on the beach, as feasible, to areas away from the high -tide line during construction. • Hydrogen Sulfide: Provisions shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. • Dredged Material., The scow doors used to release Sirius Environmental MM4 sy Marina Park Final ER • etlgatlon Monitoring and Method of Timing Responsible Verification Part dredged material remain closed until the scows are towed to the disposal site. 5.7-A.2. As part of marina construction In Phase 3, the City Plan check Prior to issuance Public Works of Newport Beach shall include mechanical devices within for Phase 3. of permits for Dept., Director the marina basin design to enhance the movement and Phase 3 marina. or designee. mixing of water within the basin. The use of mechanical devices shall meet the EPA guidelines for adequate tidal flushing (at least 70 percent exchange every 24 hours). One option could be the use of oloids (propeller -type devices) that have been modeled, but the selection of the system to be installed shall be coordinated with and approved by USEPA, the Santa Ana RWQCB, and NOAA Fisheries. Noise 5.9-D.1. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all construction inspections construction. Dept., Director equipment on -site is properly maintained and tuned to or designee. minimize noise emissions and that construction equipment Is fit with properly operating mufflers, air Intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 5.9-D.2. During Phase 3 construction, the City of Newport Field During Phase 3 Public Works Beach shall ensure that noise abatement technology is inspections pile driving. Dept., Director used (e.g., shrouds and barriers) to minimize the sound or designee. from pile drivers; no pile driving shall take place outside the hours specified for construction activities In the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. 5.9-D.3. During all phases of construction, the City of Field During all Public Works Newport Beach shall ensure that all stationary noise inspections. construction. Dept., Director sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) are or designee. located as far from residential and recreational receptors as is feasible. 5.9-D.4. During all phases of construction, material Field During all Public Works delivery, soil haul trucks, equipment servicing, and inspections. construction. Dept., Director construction activities shall be restricted to the hours set or designee. forth In the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.28.040. Sirius Environmental MM-5 Ss Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution — State of Overriding Consideration and Site Plan Approval 5`I RESOLUTION NO.2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE SITE PLANS FOR THE THREE PHASES OF THE MARINA PARK PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq) and its implementing State regulations (CEQA Guidelines) (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.) the City of Newport Beach prepared an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2008051096) for the Marina Park Project ("Project"). The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed Project. The City Council considered and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") on May 11, 2010, by adopting certain CEQA Findings of Facts contained in Resolution No. 2010-_, which are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts to a less - than -significant level. The City Council, adopting Resolution No. 2010-_, has made the findings mandated by CEQA (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 and 15091). In particular, the City Council has found that changes or alterations have been made to the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, the FEIR identifies one potentially significant impact (construction noise) to the environment that cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level with the adoption of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures. In other words, there are no feasible Project alternatives or mitigation measures that would fully mitigate this impact. Despite the occurrence of these effects, however, the City Council may approve the Project if it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations that explain, in the City Council's view, the economic, social, and other benefits that the Project will produce and will render the significant effects acceptable. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as "Exhibit A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Approval of Site Plans. The City Council hereby approves the Site Plans for the three phases of the Project, identified as Exhibits 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6 in the Draft REIR (which comprises the first part of the Final EIR), incorporated herein by reference. Further refinement of the Site Plans are anticipated provided they are Sa • deemed in substantial conformance with the Site Plans and subject to the City Council's review and approval with the final plans and bid specifications. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of May 2010. MAYOR Keith D. Curry ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk Lo, s "Exhibit A" CEQA STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA PARK NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008051096 A. INTRODUCTION The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review and certification of the Final EIR for the Marina Park Project. As the Lead Agency, the City of Newport Beach is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against any remaining significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed Project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: (a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". (b) When the lead agency approves a Project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the Project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 1 �� economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects of the Project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 (b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City of Newport Beach has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the following unavoidable adverse impact (construction noise) associated with the proposed Project, and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City of Newport Beach also has examined alternatives to the proposed Project, none of which meets the Project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the proposed Project for the reasons discussed in the Findings of Fact (attached as "Exhibit A" of Resolution No. 2010-_). The Newport Beach City Council, acting as Lead Agency, and having reviewed the Final EIR for the Marina Park Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. B. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Although most potential significant Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings of Fact, there remains one Project impact for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For the construction noise impact, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency; however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The construction noise impact is described below and is also addressed in the Findings of Fact. Impact: Temporary or Periodic Increases in Ambient Noise Levels During Phase 3, excavation and pile driving for the buildings would take approximately two months (including up to 3 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and dredging for the marina would take approximately two months to complete, and construction of the sea wall and sheet piling would take approximately six months (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving). Excavation and construction of the buildings on the upland portion of the site could happen simultaneously with excavation and pile driving of the marina. The sheet piling and sea wall would be constructed using jetting and vibrating for the majority of construction and driving for the last two feet of depth. With noise abatement technology the intermittent, sudden nature of pile driving sounds would still be annoying to sensitive receptors, and the impact would still be considered potentially significant. Because of the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction noise and the duration of construction activities (including up to 14 weeks of pile driving for the marina and up to 3 weeks of pile driving for buildings), especially pile drivers, increases in temporary ambient noises due to construction are considered potentially significant. Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 2 �a Construction noise impacts were found to be potentially significant because of the up to 17 weeks of piledriving. This impact was found to be potentially significant (and' therefore is addressed as a significant impact) because of the proximity of sensitive receptors and the potential to annoy residents for up to 17 weeks. At up to 17 weeks the construction impact would be temporary and would cease on completion of construction activities. C. PUBLIC BENEFITS The City of Newport Beach in balancing the specific economic, social, technological and other benefits of the proposed Marina Park Project, has determined that the unavoidable impact identified above, which would result in short-term construction - related noise impacts, and which impacts would cease upon completion of construction, are considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations that outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. 1. Redevelop Site with Land Uses Consistent with Land Use Designation and Tidelands The General Plan and City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan Map designated the project site as Parks and Recreation (PR) and Public Facilities (PF). The PR category applies to land used or proposed for active public or private recreational use. Permitted uses include parks (both active and passive), golf courses, marina support facilities, aquatic facilities, tennis clubs and courts, private recreation, and similar facilities. The existing mobile homes are not consistent with this land use designation. The proposed facilities within the Marina Park project would be consistent with the land use designation and would meet the recreation and open space needs of the community. The current use of the site (mobile homes) is also not consistent with tidelands. The proposed project would be consistent with the land use designation of the site and with tidelands. The proposed project would enhance public access to and along the beach by removing existing barriers such as the mobile home park and associated fences. 2. Enhance Public Access and Provide Community Facilities to Meet the Goals of the General Plan for Recreation and Harbors and Beaches General Plan goals call for the preservation and enhancement of water related public recreation and education areas and facilities (Harbors and Bay Element, Goal 1.1); the provision of youth programs (Recreation Element, Goal 4.3); the expansion of coastal and beach recreational opportunities, including the provision of recreational facilities (Recreation Element, Goals 6.1 and 7.1); the provision of marine recreational facilities (Recreational Element, Goals 8.2 and 8.5); and the enhancement of marine -oriented programs such as sailing programs (Recreation Element, Goal 8.7). City policy calls for five acres of park per 1,000 residents. By that standard, according to recent City data, the City has an overall deficit of some 68 acres of parkland, not including beaches. The Balboa Peninsula in particular currently has only 6.5 acres of Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 3 / 3 0 • park, since most of its recreational area is in beaches. The area needs an additional 21.5 acres of park to meet the City's standard. The General Plan calls for additional pedestrian access and the renovation and expansion of community facilities such as the Balboa Center and facilities for sailing and boating programs. The General Plan also identifies a need for community facilities that include large meeting and multipurpose rooms, because most existing City -owned indoor spaces are small classrooms. The proposed project would address established City policy as expressed in the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element (e.g., policies HB-2.1.1 Public Access and HB- 2.1.7 Visiting Vessels) and in the Local Coastal Program (e.g., Section 3.3). Both documents encourage expansion and improvement of waterfront access and facilities for visiting vessels. In addition, Section 30224 of the California Coastal Act encourages the provision of berthing space, harbors of refuge, and new protected waters dredged from dry land. 3. Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and Enhance Other Commercial Areas on the Peninsula The project would complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village by placing a recreational facility in close proximity to Balboa Village and other commercial activity. The uses would be complementary as visitors would be able to shop and enjoy beach and marina facilities in close proximity to each other. 4. Provide for Additional Marine -Related Facilities Recent estimates by the City of Newport Beach Harbor Resources Division have identified a market demand for approximately 17,000 berth -days of public berth occupancy per year. Visiting boaters must use moorings, which restricts their access to shore facilities and to boaters with the experience, ability, and vessel characteristics that allow them to use moorings (for example, many aging, physically handicapped, or inexperienced boaters, boaters with children, and boaters whose vessels lack electrical and sanitation systems cannot readily use moorings for a stay of several days). As a result, potential visitors tend to favor other harbors (e.g., Dana Point, Long Beach, and Huntington) that can provide slips or side -tie space. D. CONCLUSION The City hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final. EIR (comprised of the Draft Recirculated EIR, Response to Comments to the Draft Recirculated EIR, and Errata to the Draft Recirculated EIR) have been and will be implemented with the Project, and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the above stated specific economic, social, and other considerations, based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. Marina Park Statement of Overriding Considerations Page 4 A 0 W. �,-,��•'yi f ISSu�'�iri Central Newport Beach Community Association PO BOX884 Newpon Beach CA 92661.0884 May 10, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Marina Park Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 14 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Our Board of Directors is delighted that progress continues to be made on the Marina Park project. However, while we do not wish to impede progress and encourage the council to certify the EIR as soon as possible, we do not believe an acceptable response was provided to our comments regarding the disposition of two existing alley gates during Phase I of the project. Project descriptions in the EIR call for the removal of two existing alley gates in Phase 1 that if removed, would effectively result in a Balboa Blvd. westbound traffic bypass from 15'h Street to 19'h Street. In our comments on the DREIR we requested that the document be modified to stipulate these gates would remain until Phase 3 construction. An acceptable alternative to stipulating the gates would remain is to simply have staff delete the several references to demolishing the gates in the EIR and project description, and if appropriate, let the Council/Citizens Advisory Committee consider the gate disposition alternatives at a later time. The removal of these gates could have an enormous impact on the neighborhood next to the Marina Park site if either of the Phase 1 or 2 interim parks remains in use for an extended period of time. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns. Central Newport Beach Community Association represents more than 350 member households on the peninsula. Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association 0 0 Ung, Rosalinh From: Kiff, Dave Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 2:26 PM To: Henn, Michael; craigmorissette@hotmail.com Cc: pier2pier@yahoo.com Subject: RE: Final Marina Park EIR and Alley Gates Hi All — We'll look into it and get back with you Craig, I'll second Mike's thanks to you for staying engaged in the Project. Dave From: Michael Henn [mailto:mhenn527@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 8:05 AM To: craigmorissette@hotmail.com Cc: pier2pier@yahoo.com; Kiff, Dave Subject: RE: Final Marina Park EIR and Alley Gates Hi Craig: I am in the Midwest gathering with family, as my Mother passed away yesterday. So, I won't be at Council on Tuesday. I will however, pass along my thoughts on this to Dave Kiff for further consideration along with yours. Thanks for your continuing diligence and input on Marina Park. Mike From: craigmorissette@hotmail.com To: mhenn527@hotmail.com CC: pier2pier@yahoo.com; DKiff@newportbeachca.gov Subject: Final Marina Park EIR and Alley Gates Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 19:04:32 -0700 Hello Mike. Staff and the consultant(s) may not realized the firestorm that is likely to occur when residents to the West of the Marina Park project discover that ... the existing gates at the mobile home park will be removed to provide access between 15'h and 18th Streets". These words are part of the staff report Phase 1 description dated May 11, 2010, and they also appear in the EIR. Staff may not be aware of or appreciate how much opposition to the hotel grew when residents discovered the 18'h Street gate was to be opened to traffic. I would A great deal of collaborative support and goodwill has been created between council members, staff and local residents since that similar issue surfaced with the hotel project in 2004. In a recent letter to staff, the Central Newport Beach Community Association recommended that the EIR specify the gates would not be removed until Phase III construction. The CNBCA's concern is that Phase III might be delayed due to any one of several issues (funding, legal challenges, OTu.), any of which could result in residenf'aving to live with a Phase I or II park for an extended period of time. I just reviewed the most recent version of the EIR. council at a later and more appropriate time. While I can't speak for all of the CNBCA Board Directors, those that I have communicated with agree that deleting the gate references would be acceptable. After all, the Phase I and II descriptions are a recent addition and were never vetted with the advisory board anyway. The minor gate removal changes should have no material impact on the Final EIR. Data in the EIR actually support the adequacy of the existing park entrance off of Balboa Blvd., (assuming the gates remained closed), since it is anticipated that traffic generated for the park will be less than the existing mobile home park. By the way, regarding a different topic, please pass on a thank you to whomever contributed to the timely decision to remove the seasonal weekend no parking signs on the North side of Balboa Blvd. between 15'h and 19'h Streets. The signs restricted parking when it was needed most, prior to 6pm each weekend. Public works hasn't removed the signs yet, but I did notice that the police department placed ticket warnings on the windshields of all cars this weekend announcing the beginning of seasonal enforcement on May 15th, I presume just in case they have to enforce them. Warmest regards, Craig Morissette c/949-293-4621 Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Learn more. - A IN Ung, Rosalinh From: Tom Rossi (trro@roadrunner.com) Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:30 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: RE: Marina Park - 10-day Notice of Certification of EIR and Consideration of Site Plan Thank you. From: Ung, Rosalinh[mailto:RUng@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:08 AM To: Tom Rossi Subject: RE: Marina Park - 10-day Notice of Certification of EIR and Consideration of Site Plan The meeting will be televised and you may check back with me anytime after the meeting. Also, City Council minutes of the hearing will be posted on the City's website, under agendas & minutes http://newportbeachca.gov/inde)(.asi)x?page=703. From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:04 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: RE: Marina Park - 10-day Notice of Certification of EIR and Consideration of Site Plan Thank you for this Notice. Unfortunately, la am unable to attend. Will you be emailing out the results of the event? From: Ung, Rosalinh[mailto:RUng@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:00 AM To: Ambrosia Sarabia; Anderson, Fred; Asper, Bruce; Bakenie, Ernest; Balalis, Paul; Bazey, Tim; Beek, Allan; Beek, Seymour; Bell, Chandler; Billings, Tom; Black, Bob; Bonn, Liz; Cantwell, Jim; Coltrane, Diane 7-19-05; Cook, Paul; Curran, Laura; Dillon, Ed; Dossey, Marsha; Ford, Carter; Fortmuller, Larry; Fuller, Win 7-21-05; Fundenburg, Louise; Garber, Chris; Garrett, Bill; Harber, Colleen; Hill, Gary; Ibbetson, Joyce; Kiff, Dave; LaBass, Chad; Lambert, Dave; LeBass, Gail; Loftsgaard, Eve; Lorton, Kevin; Lucas, Bev; Melton, Jim; Meyer, Rich; Mills, James; Morrissette, Craig; Murry, Pam; Nazaroff, Adam; New, Dave; O'Hora, Joe; Olivas, Tom; Offing, Dolores 7-21-05; Rawson, Joanne; Reed; Brian; Reiner, Katie; Rettberg, John; Reynolds, Jon; Ricketts, David; Rieff, Kim; Rossi, Tom; Rossi, tom; Silvey, Mark; Stowe, Les; Sudbeck, Rod (Fry's Market); Tapp, Norris; Ung, Rosalinh; Watkins, Paul; Wiessner, Henk 7-19-05; Wilkenheiser, Wayne; Womble, Mark Subject: Marina Park - 10-day Notice of Certification of EIR and Consideration of Site Plan On May 11, 2010, the City Council will review and consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and review the Site Plans prepared for Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Marina Park. The project is located on north side of Balboa Blvd, between 15th and 19t" Streets. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Anyone interested in this item is invited to attend the meeting. The Final Environmental Impact Report (Responses to Comments and Errata) is available for review on the City's website at http://www.'newi3ortbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347 The City Council staff report on the project will be available for review on the City's website on May 5, 2010. Rgsalinh W. Vng Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Office: 949-644-3208 Fax:949-644-3229 Rung(ftewportbeachca.gov s-r Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:00 AM To: 'Madelaine Whiteman' Subject: RE: Marina Park Plan Dear Ms. Whiteman: Thank you for your e-mail expressing your concerns with traffic and parking as they related to the Marina Park Project. Below is an excerpt of responses to your comments/concerns: 2. Madelaine Whiteman; February 15, 2010 2-1 The existing private mobile home parking lot will be re -striped for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed project to provide approximately 112 new public metered parking spaces. This will provide for a sufficient number of spaces for the initial phases without having to change the summer parking restrictions on Balboa Blvd. 2-2 The traffic study for the project recommends that a left -turn pocket from eastbound Balboa Blvd. into the parking lot driveway at 16a, Street be provided. A STOP sign is not proposed or recommended at this intersection. 2-3 The existing public parking lot located at the northeast corner of Balboa Blvd. and 18n, Street has 22 spaces. The existing lot next to the Girl Scout 1-louse has 6 spaces. The new parking lot near 18n, Street, to be built as part of Phase 3, will have 26 parking spaces. In addition, 18n, Street north of Balboa Boulevard will be widened to allow for an additional 8 on -street parking spaces adjacent to the new Girl Scout house. Your comments along with others have been addressed and included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be considered by the City Council on May 11, 2010. The Final EIR document has been posted on the City's website at: littp://www.newportbeaclica.gov/index.aspx?paize�--1 347 Please let me know if 1 could further assist you with any questions. Rosalinh From: Madelaine Whiteman [mailto:tomadelainew@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 4:25 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park Plan Dear Ms. Ung, As a homeowner at I Sth street and W. Balboa Blvd., I am concerned about the increased traffic flow and parking limitations both in the area now and once the Marina Park is built. From the recent public notice, it appears that no parking lots will be built until Phase 3 of the project. If that is the case, I request that once the existing trailers are removed, that the summer parking restrictions along W. Balboa Blvd. be lifted to allow on street parking on Saturdays and Sundays. With more open space there will be more people using it. Parking is already a problem in the area. By allowing people to park on the street 7 days per week, it would help alleviate some of that potential problem rather than having people compete for the limited parking. When Phase 3 is underway and close to completion, I also seethe need for aRasy and safe way enter the main parking lot whether that be a stop sign and left hand turn lane. If a lane is built, this will also remove existing street parking spaces from the street again reducing parking options in the area. With much of the new activity of Phase 3 being near 18th street, Girl Scott House, Basket Ball Court, Children's play area and the picnic area, I hope that the relocation of the lot has more spaces then the current lot. People will tend to park in the first available and most convenient space that is open rather than drive a bit further and have to walk further to get to their destination as they will to get to the main parking lot. I appreciate you taking the time to look at my concerns and hopefully take them into consideration. Thank you, Madelaine Whiteman 0 0 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:00 AM To: Ambrosia Sarabia; Anderson, Fred; Asper, Bruce; Bakenie, Ernest; Balalis, Paul; Bazey, Tim; Beek, Allan; Beek, Seymour; Bell, Chandler; Billings, Tom; Black, Bob; Bonn, Liz; Cantwell, Jim; Coltrane, Diane 7-19-05; Cook, Paul; Curran, Laura; Dillon, Ed; Dossey, Marsha; Ford, Carter; Fortmuller, Larry; Fuller, Win 7-21-05; Fundenburg, Louise; Garber, Chris; Garrett, Bill; Harber, Colleen; Hill, Gary, Ibbetson, Joyce; Kiff, Dave; LaBass, Chad; Lambert, Dave; LeBass, Gail; Loftsgaard, Eve; Lorton, Kevin; Lucas, Bev; Melton, Jim; Meyer, Rich; Mills, James; Morrissette, Craig; Murry, Pam; Nazaroff, Adam, New, Dave; O'Hora, Joe; Olivas, Tom; Otting, Dolores 7-21-05; Rawson, Joanne; Reed, Brian; Reiner, Katie, Rettberg, John; Reynolds, Jon; Ricketts, David; Rieff, Kim; Rossi, Tom; Rossi, tom; Silvey, Mark; Stowe, Les; Sudbeck, Rod (Fry's Market); Tapp, Norris; Ung, Rosalinh; Watkins, Paul; Wiessner, Hank 7-19-05; Wilkenheiser, Wayne; Womble, Mark Subject: Marina Park -10-day Notice of Certification of EIR and Consideration of Site Plan On May 11, 2010, the City Council will review and consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and review the Site Plans prepared for Phase 1, 2 and 3 of the Marina Park. The project is located on north side of Balboa Blvd, between 15`h and 19th Streets. The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663. Anyone interested in this item is invited to attend the meeting. The Final Environmental Impact Report (Responses to Comments and Errata) is available for review on the City's website at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347 The City Council staff report on the project will be available for review on the City's website on May 5, 2010. RQSaiait%6 gat. Vile Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Office: 949-644-3208 Fax: 949-644-3229 Runcl@newportbeachca.gov State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street P. O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Caltrans, District 12 3357 Michelson Drive, Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Attn: Chris Herre 0 The Gas Company 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92803 Attn: Eric Casares California Coastal Commission Suite 380 Attn: Fernie Sy, Coastal Prog. Analyst II South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Ste. 100-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Attn:Marina R. Brand Tom R. Rossi 3419 Via Lido, Ste. 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Pier to Pier Central Newport Beach Community Association Attn: Louise Fundenberg P.B. Box 884 Newport Beach, CA 92661-884 CCRPA, Inc. P.O. Box 54132 Irvine, CA 92619-4132 Response To Comments (Final EIR) Mailing List —April 2010 0 OCTA 550 S. Main St. P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 Attn: Charles Larwood Department of Toxic Substances Control Attn: Greg Holmes, Unit Chief 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, CA 90630 Madelaine Whiteman Via electronic mail CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Plann DATE: March 26, 2010 RE: Marina Park Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) Attached please find a copy of the Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the Marina Park project. This document has been prepared by Sirius Environmental in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and City Council Policy K-3. The project and the findings of the DREIR are scheduled for your consideration at the May 11, 2010 City Council Meeting. This document is being sent to you for your review in advance of the meeting and distribution of the staff report which will describe the project. Your consideration of the DREIR on the basis of your review of the entire environmental record will be requested at the May 11th meeting. A Notice of Availability has been distributed, and all interested parties have been invited to submit written comments pertaining to the DREIR during the 45-day public review period which began on January 25, 2010 and concluded on March 10, 2010. This project does not require any discretionary review by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the DREIR is being referred directly to the City Council for adoption as the decision -making body, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines. cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director Leonie Mulvihill, Acting as City Attorney Dave Webb, Deputy PW Director City Hall 9 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 • Newport Beach, California 92659-1768 0 44'- STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT .ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR April 29,2010 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Marina Park SCH#: 2008051096 Dear Rosalinh Ung: RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY A 4 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH QA OP P�/yC PAR°o ,d>11EOFCALItbQ'�� CYNTIDABRYANT Dn=OR The enclosed comment (s) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on March 10, 2010. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions'concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2008051096) when contacting -this office. Sincerel ScottMorgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445.0613 PAX (916) 323.3018 www.opr.ca.gov DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612.8894 _ Tel: (949) 724-2267 RECEIVE® Fax: (949)724-2592 February 3,2010 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 NewportBoulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, APR 2 8 2010 STATE CLEARING HOUSE ,T Flex your poiverl ✓l. Be enerV e,Qlcientl File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071B SR-1, and 55 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. The Balboa Center Complex (BCC) will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The BCC will have a restaurant situated on the second story and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15t1i Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 191h Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway and SR-55. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right-of-way, anencroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any fixture developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440-3487. Sinnc rery) �. Chris Herrh Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 0 - 0 y., February 3,2010 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park File: IGRXF$gA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071B SR-1, and 55 BC: Ryan Chamberlain, Deputy District Director "Caltram Improves nJo6tllry across Cal(rornla" aW� . • .F.. am C 'O STATE OF CALIFORNIA40 �.p a . GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH �sf��pFCg, .9 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT RYANT ARNOLDSCHWARMEOGER GYNDIRECToR GOVERNOR March 11, 2010 RECEIVED BY nu;cr PLANNING DEPARTMENT Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Marina Park SCH#: 2008051096 Dear Rosalinh Ung: MAR 2 5 2910 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on March 10, 2010, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future _ correspondence so that we may respond promptly. — Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of eXpertise of the agency or which are required to• be carried out or approved by the agency. Those•conrments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, ,/���� colt Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445.0613 FAX (916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov A. 0 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Bas� SCH# 2008051096 Project Title Marina Park Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center cOmplex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would Include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a cafe situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. Lead Agency Contact Name Rosalinh Ung Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)644-3200 Fax email _ _ Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92658 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Lat/Long 33° 36' 28" N / 117° 55' 23" W Cross Streets W. Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street Parcel No. Township 68 Range 10W Section 33 Base NB Proximity to: Highways Hwy 1 Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Newport Elementary Land Use Parks, Community Facilities and Mobile Homes/Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities Project Issues Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Geologic/Seismic; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; AestheticNisuai Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission; Agencies Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Department of Housing and Community Development; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. 1. Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Bas* Date Received 01/2512010 StartofRevlew 01/25/2010 EndofReview 03/10/2010 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient Information provided by lead agency. a Linda S. Adams Secretary for, Environmental Protection March 1, 2010 Department of Toxic Substances Control Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Ru ng(a)city. newportbeachca.gov Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 04 2010 CITY OF NEWpORT BEACH NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT (SCH # 2008051096), ORANGE COUNTY Dear Ms. Ung: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Revised and re -circulated draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: " The Marina Park project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, along Balboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15th Street, and east of 18th Street. The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located between Balboa Boulevard on the south and Newport Bay on the north, and between 15th Street on the east and 19th Street on the west. The project site is currently occupied by the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The project has been divided into three phases that could be individually implemented. The majority of the project site is designated Park and Recreation (PR) and zoned Planned Community (PC)". DTSC provided comments on the project Notice of Availability of the original draft EIR on April 3, 2009; some of those comments have been addressed in the draft re- circulated Environmental Impact Report. Please ensure that the following comments will be addressed in the final EIR when and if'any hazardous wastes are generated or contamination is found. 1) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, 9 Printed on Recycled Paper March 1, 2010 Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies which would not be responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Manager, at rahmedaa.dtsc.ca.gov or by phone at (714) 484-5491. W Greg Holmes Unit Chief Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress Governor's Office of Planning and F State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov. CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 ADelacrl@dtsc.ca.gov To: Rosalinh Ung 23 February 2010 Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 From: Environment Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) Subject: Comments on Marina Park REIR dated January 2010 EQAC is pleased to take this opportunity to provide comments on the referenced REIR. Our comments are generally listed in their order of appearance in the documents with page and paragraph references as needed. We hope that they are constructive and assist the proponent in producing the best possible project for the City of Newport Beach. 2. Executive Summary Page 2-5, 5.2-A: The conclusion under "Cumulative" in the first column should be "Potentially Significant." The impact is mitigated to less than significant as indicated in the 3 d column of that box. 3. Project Description Does the Girl Scout building that is to be demolished have any historic significance? If so, can it be saved, moved, etc? Is there analysis to show that two half -court basketball courts are adequate? This is a very popular activity that appears to be in high demand, especially during good beach weather. Need the pathways be paved? Have alternatives, such as environmentally sound composite decking material, been considered? What is the anticipated timing for the beginning of Phase 3 construction after Phase 2 construction has been completed? In other words, are the interim Phase 2 improvements necessary, or can the project proceed from Phase 1 to Phase 3 and therefore not lose all the temporary Phase 2 improvements? Moreover, to what extent can the Phase 2 improvements be used by the public during the Phase 3 construction period? The less that the park can be used during the Phase 3 construction period, the less it makes sense for the temporary Phase 2 improvements. Operation (pg. 3-19)-The Balboa Center "...would also be available for private functions on a rental basis." To what extent? Clearly, rental events will conflict with peak period usage by the public, as both the rental events and public usage will be greatest on weekends. Short-term harbor based users will be permitted to utilize the marina berths for up to 30 days. This duration seems excessive, and can lead to a few boats tying up the majority of the marina (which calls for only 23 berths) during peak season. 4. Environmental Setting Clarification regarding the OLQA Church expansion (Table 4-1, pg.4-2) - The school is already 100% completed. However, the new church and gymnasium have yet to break ground. Does this affect any analysis? 5.1 Aesthetics In response to previous EQAC concerns, the commitment to try to relocate existing mature trees at Veterans Park to accommodate repositioned tennis courts is positive (pg. 8-39). Also, use of low wattage lamps in the lighthouse (pp. 8-39,40) should be adequate to insure negligible impact on the adjacent properties. Following are additional general comments regarding aesthetics: 1. In general, the environmental aesthetics described in the REIR is a major improvement over the current mobile home "park". The removal of current vegetation and replacement with new vegetation is also a monumental improvement and will be more "green". 2. The improvements will be a better use of the environment for more people, not just the few who reside in the mobile homes and the current visitors, as the new park will be open to all and will also draw more visitors, both from within and without our city: e.g. visiting vessels, an additional basketball court and improved tennis courts (reducing the number of tennis courts by % should please nearby residents with less noise and only two sets of court lights with new and improved hoods in place of four). 3. Environmental friendly and easy cleanup will result from new restrooms and washing machines. 4. Consideration of wind velocity and direction leads to cleaner air. 5. Permeable paving on parking lots is environmentally friendly and attractive. 5.2 Air Quality Modeled data is used to determine the significance of environmental impacts and it seems that the observations taken for local air quality, and then used to generate all the modeled data, might be flawed. Observations taken in locations that seem less than relevant to the Marina Park project located on Newport Peninsula need to be justified (See Section 5.2.3 2 — Existing Conditions, "Local Air Quality"). The SCAQUD's closest monitoring station for communities in its Central Orange County Coastal region is Source Receptor Area 18. This collection point for all current air quality data (except particulate matter pollutants, PMZ 5 and PM10) is located on Mesa Verde Drive in Costa Mesa, approximately 4 miles inland from the proposed Marina Park. The data collection point for PM2.s and PM10 is located in Mission Viejo, over 14 miles away. For a project of this importance and given the obvious efforts expended by the writers of this REIR it would seem appropriate to obtain observations of current air quality conditions on or much closer to the site of the project. If use of portable testing equipment of precision needed to produce reliable on -site observations is not feasible or if experts needed to conduct the tests are not available this should have been explained. Or if the suitability of the data collected at these distant locations for producing data models was justified using appropriate SCAQMD references as support, then it would have been clear that the writers of the REIR took the initial DEIR reviewers' comments to heart. As it stands this REIR provides no justification why local air quality data from these distant test sites is acceptable for use as the basis for all modeled data. This is clearly a shortcoming of this REIR and needs to be addressed. Irrespective of the concern discussed above, the big picture for Air Quality painted by the REIR is one of minimal potential for findings of significant Air Quality issues by the Marina Park project. In fact, the only hard and binding guideline for determining significant air quality issues is the Air Resources Boards preliminary guidance (see page 5.2-9, paragraph 2) and City of Newport Beach's own guideline concerning Green House Gas emissions. This guideline considers residential (including park) projects emitting <1,600 metric tons of CO2 per year as less than significant, therefore requiring no further analysis. (See 5.24). The Marina Park project did not come even close to this threshold during either construction or operation, even without mitigation. Federal air quality standards, California Environmental Quality Act, Air Resource Board, and South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines and checklists for evaluation resulted in almost no other concerns during the project's three construction phases or during operation of the project, even without mitigation efforts. In spite of this rosy outlook for the Marina Park project, there are a few questions and concerns in response to the REIR: 1. Page 5.2-11; paragraph headed by City of Newport Beach, last sentence — Are the words "do not" at the beginning of this sentence a typo? They seem to conflict with the intended meaning of the sentence. 2. Page 5.2-13, paragraph headed by Analytical Methodology — Over a dozen tables in Air Quality section of the REIR were prepared to present detailed analysis of emissions in order to determine significance during construction phases and operation of the Marina Park project. The data for federally identified criteria pollutants plus pollutants identified by the State of California were developed using modeling of the current air quality data collected for analysis. These modeling protocols include: • URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2 for air quality modeling and greenhouse gas emissions (except tugboat emission). • CALINE4 for CO hotspot and vehicular traffic cumulative volumes for worst - case scenarios. The production via modeling of this data is obviously a critical step needed to make determinations of significant environmental impacts, yet at no point in the this section of the REIR is an explanation offered why these modeling protocols were chosen, what they do, how they do it, possible alternatives or any statement concerning the accuracy of the modeled data. These concerns should be addressed. 3'. Page 5.2-21; Project Emissions, Phase 3 — In order to estimate criteria pollutants in the operational phase of the Marina Park project the REIR assumes that 100 boats would taxi for one hour per day. These results were then modeled using the federal Environmental Protection Agency's NONROAD model. The REIR confirms that a wide range of boats will be accommodated by the marina docks, berths and the City's sailing programs. Boats up to 40 feet in length can be moored in the marina's 23 slips. These larger boats all presumably have on -board propulsion systems. Boats ranging in size from small unpowered dingies to large 60 foot plus power boats will tie off on the marina's 200 feet of floating docks. The REIR does state what boats make up the 100 boats that are estimated to taxi one hour per day. It doesn't cite data that estimates the boats likely to use the 23 berths nor what type of power plants do they use. Larger boats tend to use diesel engines that generate a higher output of toxic air contaminates. None of these variables are addressed which leads to concern about the accuracy of the data generated for study. 4. Page 5.2-22; Carbon Monoxide Hotspot Analysis Phase — The REIR states that for the purpose of studying traffic generated CO hotspots, the intersections of Newport Blvd. @ Via Lido and Newport Blvd. @ 32"d Street were analyzed to develop estimates of 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations. Why were these two intersections chosen for study? The closest intersection (Newport Blvd @ 32"d Street) is — 3000 feet from the nearest corner of the Marina Park project. Wouldn't a closer signalized intersection provide more relevant data? Please address this question. Pages 5.2-37 & 38, Level of Significance After Mitigation — Mitigation Measures MM 5.2-I.1 through MM 5.2-I.4 are cited on page 5.2-37. Mitigation Measures 5.2-I.6, 5.2-I.8, 5.2-I.10 and 5.2-I.11 are cited on page 5.2-38. None of these mitigation measures are explained as are, for example, Mitigation Measures 5.2-A.1 through 5.2-A.3 on pg. 5.2- 17. Please provide a brief explanation of these mitigation measures. Air Quality emission calculations in Appendix C assume that construction activities would begin in 2009 and the project would be operational in 2010. Suggest that the emission calculations be updated as construction will not start under mid-2010 and not be completed until 2011. Page 5.2-13, first paragraph under Analytical Methodology, about 2/3rds into the paragraph. The sentence that reads "The CO2 hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model 0 • ..." should be revised to say "The CO hotspot analysis used the CALINE4 model..." (not CO2). The RDEIR should be checked for other occurrences of this reference error and corrected throughout accordingly. 5.3 Biological Resources Page 5.3-16 Text: "The placement of dredged material would have a significant impact on grunion if it took place during the peak spawning season". How will the construction timing be managed to reduce the potentially significant impact on grunion? Page 5.3-19(MM 5.3-A.2) Text: "During Phase 3 project construction, the City of Newport Beach shall require that the use of sound abatement techniques be used to reduce noise and vibrations from pile- driving activities. At the initiation of each pile - driving event and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft -start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40 to 60 percent energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period. A biological monitor shall be on -site to monitor effects on marine mammals, including flushing responses and symptoms of stress or damage. The biological monitor shall also note (surface scan only) whether marine mammals are present within 100 meters (333 ft) of the pile driving and, if any are observed, temporarily halt pile driving until the observed mammals move beyond this distance". What other methods, beyond surface scan, have been considered for the biological resources monitoring portion of the MM? Why was surface scan chosen? Page 5.3-21 Text: "the benthic community would re -colonize the sediments". What is the foundation for this assertion? What other sites with similar characteristics have been successful in re -colonization of the benthic community? Page 5.3-22 Text: "In recognition of this potential impact, Phase 3 of the project includes the installation of circulation- enhancing devices in the marina (see Section 5.7 for a fuller discussion of the devices). These devices would improve water quality by raising dissolved oxygen concentrations and improving flushing times within the marina basin. Both the small size of the basin (1.7 ac) relative to Newport Bay and the installation of circulation enhancement devices would substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact. In the long term, the creation of an additional 0.9 acre of shallow water (the marina basin), would be beneficial to managed species in the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific Groundfish FMPs by increasing the amount of EFH available to them. Accordingly, direct impacts on managed species from operation of the marina would be less than significant'. 0 How will the success of the circulation- enhancing devices be measured? What will be done if the desired results are not achieved? These comments from the EQAC response on the original DEIR still apply: The EIR should analyze whether the use of non-native landscaping would have an impact on the marine environment. The Project Objectives are missing a critical component, i.e. the opportunity to showcase the bay setting and its habitat, and make it part of the visitor experience. What is impact of park lighting on night sky? Will it be more or less than current? How could that impact the ability of birds to nest at the site? 5.4 Cultural Resources The REIR includes a very conscientious and thorough analysis of any reasonable or likely disruption to any and all cultural resources in their study for this project. This evaluation includes their thoughtful responses to public comments of concern. Any potential steps that might need to be taken, should the pre -construction inspection of the site have missed a cultural resource, have been planned and implemented, if necessary. This includes the hiring of experts in the field to monitor this follow up to assure protection of the cultural resource. We see no potential need for mitigation measures for this section. The City's approach to the project, in having an alternative to phase the work is both prudent and appropriate, given the economy, the city's budget shortfall and public opinion on both. Additionally, the sequence of work in the three phases shows public minded planning. 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Sediment Evaluation, pg. 5.6-4: The REIR does not clarify the depth of the core samplings at sites B & C. It simply restates the previous data with the confusing MLLW description of core depth. The document states that "the project would... consist of extensive excavation of the marina" (5.6-7). Both the terms "extensive excavation" and the MLLW (depth of core samplings) descriptions are vague and do not describe either the depth of the excavation or the level of contamination at that depth. Project Specific Analysis, pg.5.6-6, MM 5.6A states "approximately 3000 cubic yards of dredged material with elevated levels of mercury..... and 300 cubic yards of PCB contaminated soil .... would be transported by truck". Since transporting more than 500 lbs, 55 gallons or 200 cubic feet of contaminated material requires a Hazardous Management Plan, will such a plan be submitted? (California Health and Safety Code, Chap. 6.95) 0 0 Site Soil Investigations, pg.5.6-4 states that 300 cubic yards of soil at the project site are PCB contaminated, but does not state the levels (ppm) of the contamination. Please clarify. Accident Conditions, MM 5.613 (pg. 5.6-8 of the original DEIR): Concerns raised in response to the first draft of this DEIR regarding location of the project and heavy traffic in that area suggested need for the development of a time table for dredging, truck staging, barges and a traffic management plan. These have not been adequately addressed in this REIR. Project Specific Analysis, Pg. 5.6-8 restates the fact that the new marina will not include a maintenance area, but does not address the concerns raised regarding vessels in the marina disposing of accumulated waste. Page 5.6 11: The original DEIR stated: "the project will not constrict access ... the onsite circulation system...". No onsite circulation system plan was included in the document and therefore could not be evaluated. The new REIR does not include an onsite circulation system plan and cannot be evaluated. Appendix G contains hundreds of pages of reports on the core samples. What is the process for determining the significance of all that data? 5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Page 5.7-8 3rd Paragraph 4th sentence: The study found that there would be adequate tidal flushing only about one quarter of the way into the basin... This is left as a significant and unacceptable impact on water quality. What design changes and/or mitigation measures have been considered to alleviate this problem? Are there other marinas in the Newport Bay that allow this condition to exist? 5.8 Land Use and Planning Land Use Regulation The adopted planning documents regulating land use within and around the project site are the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP), and the Zoning Code. Mitigation should be addressed regarding the following: • Section 4.4.2-3 of the CLUP, indicates that shoreline height limitations of 35 feet be regulated by the Zoning Code. The Lighthouse height is proposed at 73 feet, over twice the height allowed. The REIR states that the Lighthouse is an "architectural feature" which exempts it from the City's Zoning Code restrictions. The REIR also states that the lighthouse's purpose is to provide a point of reference and direct the public to the site. Has an alternative design been provided for the public to consider? Furthermore, it is of greater concern since the REIR states that the City is planning to exempt the project from the provisions of it's own zoning regulations. • The findings regarding the consistency with the General Plan are also questionable, under LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment. The REIR needs to address how it finds the 73-foot "architectural feature" compatible with the surrounding uses, and address the abrupt change in scale that is to be avoided, per this section of the General Plan. 5.9 Noise Why do the limits for acceptable values in the Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Exhibit 5.9-1, pg. 5.9-2)) differ from those described as 'clearly compatible" in the second paragraph on pg 5.9-3? This seems to conflict with the model results presented for year 2011 with and without the project as presented in Appendix I. Table 5.9-10, pg. 5.9-16, gives the calculated construction noise (all phases of the project) at sensitive receptors. Estimates vary from a maximum of 92 dB at the residences along the west side of 18th Avenue, west of the project site, to a minimum of 66 dB at Newport Elementary, located southeast of the project site (Table 5.9-10). There is a concern that these noise levels for the duration of the construction will have a strongly deleterious impact on the sensitive receptors noted. Are there no mediations that can be achieved (e.g., noise attenuating barricades around the construction site, or at particular sites -- i.e., Newport Elementary School) that can address this serious negative impact? Page 5.9-11 suggests pile driving will be present for a period of 2.5 months (although page 5.9-15 states 3 plus 14 weeks, or 17 weeks, i.e., 4.25 months) within a 12 month period (Phase 3 construction). Has some consideration been given to the timing of Phase 3 construction, to limit the negative impacts to Newport Elementary School children during the academic year? In general, what scheduling considerations have been given for the 24 months of all phases of construction regarding the sensitive receptors (i.e., Newport Elementary School). Considerable data exists suggesting such noise will impact the learning and development of such receptors during the mentioned construction periods. No specific discussion of this negative impact is made in the report. 5.11Tr ansportation and Traffic Typo on page 5.11-1, heading 5.11.2, RegionaULocal, Line 2: Remove "very" and insert "every". The REIR notes that parking spaces are for Marina Park and not for general public/beach goers. However, they don't present specific plans on how to control this situation. Item A10-15 (pg. 8-37) - notes 159 parking spaces total will be created for the project. They note that "details regarding the Parking Management Plan (PMP).... would be determined during the final design of the project". Without the PMP now, it is impossible to determine the adequacy of the proposed 159 spaces or their utilization. At least a preliminary PMP should be presented at this point to allow evaluation of the parking provisions. It is counter -intuitive that the traffic analyses show that the basic project and the cumulative effects result in "less than significant" traffic impacts for all cases considered (pg. 5.11-11). This is among the most congested areas in the city and one would expect significant periodic traffic congestion during all phases of the project and serious disruptions if the cumulative effects of overlapping Banning Ranch, Sunset Ridge and 2300 Newport Blvd. (Newport Bay Marina) projects are considered. We suggest that the analysts re-evaluate the traffic analysis assumptions (e.g. current background levels, current ICU and LOS for critical intersections, predicted project contributions, phasing of cumulative projects) to be sure that this project can be accomplished without any form of traffic mitigation. 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed The discussion of alternatives is too brief. At minimum, the impacts on each of the environmental resources should be discussed and compared to the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6). Conclusion EQAC thanks you for the opportunity to comment on this significant project for the Balboa Peninsula and the City of Newport Beach. We recognize that it will yield major positive benefits for the residents and visitors to Newport Beach, including many boaters who are searching for expanded docking and mooring facilities, and we trust that our comments are helpful in accomplishing that goal. 9 M OCTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS JerryAmante Chairman Patricia Bates Vice Chairman Art Brown Director Peter Bulls Director Bill Campbell Director Carolyn V Cavecche Director William J. Dalton Director Richard Dixon Director Paul G. Gash Dsector Don Hansen Director Allan Mansoor Director John Moorlach Director Janet Nguyen Director Curt Pringle Director Miguel Pultdo Director Gregory T. Wmterbollom Director Cindy Ouon Governor's Ex-OlActo Member CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE Will Kempton Chief Executive Officer February 23, 2010 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 2 6 nio Ms. RosalofNe nh Ung, Associate Planner CITY OFNEWPORTBEACH City of Newport Beach 330 Newport Boulevard Newpprt beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact report State Celaringhouse Number 2008061096 Dear Ms. Ung: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced document. The following comment is provided for your consideration: • On Page 5.11-15, it is incorrectly stated that the project frontage does not have any existing or proposed bus stops. Please indicate that an existing OCTA bus stop is located on westbound West Balboa Boulevard and 16`h Street. For American Disability Act accessibility requirements, the sidewalk should be expanded to at least 8 feet wide and free of obstructions in the bus stop zone. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Hal McCutchan by phone at (714) 560-5759 or by email at hmccutchan@octa.net. Sincerely, Charles Larwood Manager, Transportation Planning c: Mark Strickert, OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/ P.0 Box 14184 /Orange /California 92863.1584 / (714) 560-OCTA (6282) STATE OF rermnomA_BUSEQESS TRANSO-ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY . ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612.8894 Tel: (949) 724-2267 Flexyoarpmverl Fax: (949) 724-2592 Be enerSy efeienll February 3, 2010 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 212010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071B SR-1, and 55 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. The Balboa Center Complex (BCC) will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The BCC will have a restaurant situated on the second story and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15'h Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19a' Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway and SR-55. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions -or need -to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440-3487. Sinc e y j Chris Herre, ranch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Callrans unproves mobility across Caltfornia" s Southern California Gas Company D A Sempra Energy utility" January 26, 2010 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Rosalinh Ung 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 2 9 2,3 CffYOF r1EWFGRT$EACR -Subject: Environmental -Impact Report for the -Proposed Marina Park. Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this E.I.R. Document. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. Gas service to the project can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427-2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427-2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, Eric Casard Technical Services Supervisor Pacifie.Coast Region -,Anaheim. EC/nv .h03,doc CCRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites"60wo Ural resources. YLANNINU DEPARTMENT March 7, 2010 MAR 112010 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Regarding: Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2008051096) Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2008051096) dated January, 2010. We previously commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report in a letter dated March 21, 2009. Although we continue to agree that no known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project, we reiterate here that buried and undiscovered, and therefore unknown cultural resources may be present on the project sight and directly impacted by ground disturbing construction activity. We are disappointed that MM 5.4-B.1 does not include professional archaeological and Native American monitoring, and relies on the project proponent and their assignees (e.g. construction personnel) to report discoveries of "archaeological artifacts". The mitigation measure is not adequate to ensure that buried cultural resources, if present and unearthed by construction activity, are discovered and protected from further disturbance. Furthermore, we take this opportunity to emphasize that cultural resources are more complex than "archaeological artifacts" alone, and may be prehistoric or historical (i.e. Spanish period or later). Additionally, given the very recent age (in geologic terms) of sediments on the peninsula, archaeological deposits of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and associated with non -Native -American people, are more likely than prehistoric Native American archaeological deposits. Given this, we strongly encourage monitoring by a professional archaeologist with demonstrated expertise in historical archaeology as well as prehistoric archaeology. We note a great inconsistency in the analysis in that, although buried archaeological resources are much more likely than buried paleontological resources, MM 5.4-C.1 requires grading observation by a qualified paleontologist, but MM 5.4-B.1 does not require grading observation by a qualified archaeologist. If paleontological monitoring is warranted, then archaeological monitoring is clearly also warranted. M CCRPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine, CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. It is with great concern that we find no mitigation measure regarding the discovery of human remains. However unlikely, and despite the existence of laws which protect human remains, a mitigation measure regarding the discovery, reporting, and protection of human remains is absolutely necessary. In the interest of cultural resources preservation, we sincerely hope that our comments will be considered and that adequate mitigation measures pertaining to cultural resources will be included in a revision of the Environmental Impact Report. If the California Cultural Resources Alliance may be of assistance and if you have questions regarding our comments, please call me at (949) 559-6490, or email pmartz@calstatela.edu. With concern for the preservation of cultural resources, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President CALIFORNIA COASTAL COM South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 10, 2010 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner MAR 16 2010 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Marina Park Project Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096) Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. According to the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will consist of construction of a the Balboa Center Complex consisting of a Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl Scout House, parking areas, a park with tennis and basketball courts, beach and 23-slip marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the City of Newport Beach Community Center, a 21-stall metered parking lot, Las Arenas Park, a Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, an alley, a sidewalk, the 19th Street public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Bay. The proposed project is located within the Coastal Zone in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. Coastal Commission staff commented on the previously circulated Environmental Impact Report in a letter dated April 13, 2009. Coastal Commission staff has the same concerns with this- Recirculated Environmental Impact Report as those concerns identified in the April 13, 2009 letter. Thus, please address the comments in that April 13, 2009 letter (a copy of this letter has been included with this letter). The comments address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. The proposed project raises issues related to dredge and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, water quality, hazards, biology, public access, visual impacts and consistency with the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP). Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project, Coastal Commission staff requests notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific • Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park'Project Page 2 of 2 comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions. Coastal Proms Analyst II Attachments: Letter dated April 13, 2009 Cc: State Clearinghouse Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA— NATURAL RESOU* AGENCY •ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION _ South Coast Area Office °r 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 (562) 590-5071 April 13, 2009 Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department FILE COPY 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8916 Re: Marina Park Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096) Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will consist of construction of the Balboa Center Complex consisting of a Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl Scout House, a marine services building, parking areas, a park, beach and marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the City of Newport Beach Community Center, a 21-stall metered parking lot, Las Arenas Park, a Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, an alley, a sidewalk, the 19th Street public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Bay. The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed project raises issues related to dredge and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, water quality, hazards, biology, public access, visual impacts and consistency with the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP). Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. WETLANDS Dredcina and Fill Based on the Draft EIR, the project site includes approximately 1.20 acres of intertidal coastal wetland and approximately 0.10 acres of subtidal coastal wetland. Also, the project includes approximately 62,000 cubic yards of dredging and states that a total of eight (8) preliminary candidates have been identified as potential sand disposal locations (The Draft EIR fails to indicate the final chosen site). In addition, the project will result in the onsite loss of 0.9 acres of supra -tidal (terrestrial) non -marine habitat and 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat for the onsite creation of 1.56 acres of shallow water habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of sandy habitat • Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 2 of 7 would become shallow water habitat. Also, the proposed project will result in the depth modification of 0.1 aces of onsite shallow water habitat and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water habitat. The proposed project would result in the dredging and fill of open coastal waters/Wetlands. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the placement of earth or any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the dredging and fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to sevem uses and it appears that the proposed project does result in both "Dredging" and "Fill" of open coastal waters. Projects that propose the dredging and fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed dredging and fill would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Also, clarification should be made on whether or not the delineation of wetlands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or another agency's (Le. Army,Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and calculation of fill was not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological analysis regarding the proposed fill should be conducted using the Coastal Act definitions. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan contains more description about wetland delineation procedures for Coastal Act purposes. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. Typically, the Commission prefers on -site mitigation to off -site mitigation. The Commission typically requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. in addition, the applicant must be fully responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is assured that the mitigation will occur and it Is clear who is responsible for undertaking and managing the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that would be proposed. However, every effort 'should be made, to choose an alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging, preferably avoiding coastal water/wetland impacts. Sand Compatibility Report As staffed preylously, the project -Includes -dredging and .the_depositlottof-sand upon eight (8)✓ potential sand disposal locations. These sand disposal locations were not identified, nor was the final disposal location identified. Staff assumes that a potential location would be the public beach found on the project site. Thus, please first identify this location and then provide a sand compatibility report for this location. Please also have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the beach sampling to characterize the existing grain for compatibility with the borrow source material. Ar.-RAW., The proposed marina will require construction of a new groin wall and bulkhead walls. This raises concerns regarding fill of open coastal.waters/wetlands, effect on sand supply and coastal erosion. Is a new marina necessary at this location? In the Draft EIR, one of the identified project alternatives is "The No Marina Alternative." The document states that implementation of this alternative would eliminate the potential significant impacts on sandy Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 3 of 7 intertidal habitat; as well as, the long-term water quality impacts associated• with flushing of the proposed marina (to be discussed later). However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. While staff has serious concerns with the proposed marina, further information regarding the proposed marina is still' necessary if you wish to proceed with the project as submitted: Groin Wall The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will be enclosed by a cement groin and include eighteen (18) pilings that will create hard bottom habitat. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that groin walls must be permitted in certain specified conditions. The Commission is concerned that this type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. Additionally, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of coastal waters to seven allowable uses and requires that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is chosen and that feasible mitigation measures be provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act mandate that the quality of coastal waters and biological productivity be maintained. Projects that propose the fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed fill for the groin wall would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. The document does not provide any studies that substantiate the need for the groin wall nor does it provide information on how it may impact coastal shoreline processes. Due to this, an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified engineering professional with expertise in coastal processes is required. Specifically, staff will need an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on sand supply, erosion rates, and adjoining property and determination. Also, an evaluation of whether the proposed project will require monitoring to assure that shoreline processes are not adversely impacted is required. In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the groin wall. Another possible alternative could be construction of the marina without the groin wall. Bulkhead The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will include new bulkheads. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that new bulkheads may only be constructed under specific circumstances, such as to protect existing structures. The Commission is concerned that this Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 4 of 7 type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse Impacts on coastal access and recreation. The materials submitted with your application do not substantiate the need to construct new bulkheads. Thus, please provide a study prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (i.e. engineer with expertise in coastal processes); which substantiates the need to construct new bulkheads. At minimum, the study must answer the following questions: Why must the proposed bulkheads be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads mitigate the circumstances, which requires the bulkheads to be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads affect coastal processes, including impacts upon shoreline sand supply?; Will the proposed bulkheads be connected to any existing bulkheads located adjacent to the project site? In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the bulkheads. Please reference the attached memorandum titled Applicants for Shorefront Development. Water Quality The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified Lower Newport Bay as an impaired water body. As stated in the,Draft EIR, implementation:of the proposed marina would create a condition where there would be inadequate tidal flushing within the proposed marina and thus contribute to the impaired water body since long-term water quality within the proposed marina will be governed by its flushing capacity. Also stated in the Draft ER, a water quality analyses was conducted that indicated that tidal flushing rates would be poor and that flushing capacities are well below the EPA guideline. It states that inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result in lowered dissolved oxygen levels, higher water temperatures, poor Water transparency, potential eutrophication, and Increased sedimentation. In addition, poor tidal flushing would also exacerbate water quality issues in this region of the bay since the tidal flushing rate in -this part of the harbor Is already poor outside the proposed marina in front of the swimming beach and the American Legion Post 291 Marina. Poor tidal flushing within the marina would result in a significant, long-term impact on Newport harbor water quality and would severely limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, invertebrates, and fish. In order to deal with the adverse -long -term -water -quality Jmpacts due to -poor tidal conditions, a, mitigation measure consisting of installing mechanical devices within "the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin has been proposed. One of the identified project alternatives in the Draft EIR is "The No Marina Alternative." The Draft EIR states that implementation of this alternative would eliminate the long-term water quallty impacts associated with flushing of the project marina. However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Slips The vessel marina is proposed to include 23 slips with full hook-ups for short-term overnight use (up to 30 days): 21 slips, 40-feet in length; and 2 slips, 57-feet in length. In addition, a 200-foot long dock will be provided along the outside edge of the marina. Also, a floating dock structure to support additional dinghy types of craft is proposed. What are the provisions for boats under Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 5 of 7 40-feet to dock in this marina? In addition, how many spaces are available for boats under 30- feet? Additionally, the Draft EIR states that .59 spaces per berth will be used to park the marina. How was this parking standard determined? HAZARDS The proposed project includes development on a sandy beach adjacent to open coastal waters/wetlands. This type of development can be subject to wave hazards, flooding and erosion. When new development is not appropriately sited and designed, property owners often seek some type of shoreline protective device to protect the property from such hazards. While shoreline protective devices afford some protection to the structures behind them, these protective devices can also cause erosion hazards elsewhere and often have adverse visual impacts. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard and assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Accordingly, the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize exposure to hazards from erosion, wave attack, wave run-up, flooding, and other coastal hazards. In order to evaluate whether the project minimizes exposure to such hazards, the Commission will need a hazards analysis of site, prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (normally a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer with expertise in coastal processes). The analysis should cover whether the site and the proposed development could be subject to erosion, wave attack or wave run-up, the frequency of occurrence, consequences and options for siting or designing the project to avoid or minimize impacts over the life of the structure. Structural life is normally taken to be 75 to 100 years. This hazards analysis should consider initially future shoreline changes due to erosion, sea level rise, up and down coast structures, changes in nourishment projects, and any other factors that currently influence shoreline conditions at your project site. This analysis would be developed from historic records, examination of aerial photographs, beach surveys, published studies of shoreline change, anecdotal information, site visits and other information and knowledge that the professional can bring to the project. The most landward shoreline position should be used to determine,hazard from wave attack,, wave run-up and flooding. The design wave conditions for this part of the analysis can be based on historic or wave modeling, including future increases in water level due to sea level rise. For much of the coast, the 1982/83 or 1988 storms were the 100-year event, and these too can be used for design conditions, with adjustments for future changes in sea level. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether future storms may erode the site or flood or damage the proposed project. If so, the analysis should provide some information on the probability or frequency of erosion, flooding and damage. Alternative siting or design options should also be considered that would avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. Please be sure the analysis includes site specific4etails (e.g. maps) showing the seasonal location of the mean high tide line and with both winter and summer profiles with respect to the proposed development and the anticipated inland reach of erosion, wave run-up, and flooding over the life of the structure. In addition, the analysis must make a definitive determination as to whether there is any anticipated need for a shoreline protective device over the life of the Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park�Protect Page 6 of 7 proposed development. The analysis must also provide recommendations for the avoidance or minimization of hazards, if any, at the site. BIOLOGY The Draft EIR states that the project site contains several ornamental trees and shrubs that provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. The document also states that the California Least Tern does not breed or nest near the project site (the nearest California Least Tern nesting site is 2.5 miles west of the site) and that the Brown Pelican does not breed locally. While it appears that these two birds do not breed at the project site, what about other avian species? To determine this, please provide a history of nesting on the site by birds for the last 5-years. PUBLIC ACCESS American Leaion The Draft EIR states that public access to the project site will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 161' Street, and secondary access will be via le Street. Public access to the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 18ti' and 191h Street will continue to provide access to the public beach onsite. Adjacent to the project site and imbedded within the project site is the public tidelands leased to the American Legion. Public access along the waterfront through the area leased by the American Legion is not currently available. In order to provide continuous access to and along the bay, as currently proposed elsewhere in the project site, there should be access to and along the, bay through the American Legion site. This would result in a continuous access to the bay along the bay from the western edge of the project site at 19t' Street to eastern edge of the project site at 15u' Street. Parkino The Draft EIR states that due to the site's close proximity to the beach, it is important that the proposed onsite parking spaces provide adequate parking for the users of the proposed Marina Park facilities. Furthermore, it states that the proposed on-site,parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. Please clarify this statement as a public bay -front beach is adjacent and part of the proposed project. Public access is an essential part of the Coastal Act and any adverse impact to access to the beach raises concerns. VISUAL IMPACTS The project site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation zone, which establishes a maximum height limit of 35-feet. The main buildings proposed on the project site are within the 35-foot height limit. However, the sail feature on the Balboa Center Complex will exceed the shoreline height limitation with a height of 35-feet, 6-inches and the Lighthouse will exceed it with a height of 73-feet. The City's Zoning Code provides for exceptions to this height limit, including vertical architectural features, such as towers, spires, cupolas and steeples. However, the proposed height of the Lighthouse seems to be excessive as it will exceed the height limit by • Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Project Page 7 of 7 38-feet, more than double the allowable height. The height of such a structure would impact coastal views. The Draft EIR justifies the height of the structure since the width of the lighthouse ranges from 18-feet at the Sailing Center roof (the width of the lighthouse at the base was not stated) to 8-feet at the top of the lighthouse and since 930-linear feet of waterfront area will be opened up with the project. Nevertheless, the height of such a structure would adversely impact public views as no other structure in the area would be close to this proposed height. It may also set an adverse- precedent. Thus, please provide alternatives to the proposed Lighthouse that would not have such an adverse impact on public views, such as staying within the allowable height limit, and justify your choice of the alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging alternative. LAND USE The Sailing Program Building is planned to include a cafe, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily. Seating will be provided for 56 customers (32 inside and 24 outside). Will this restaurant be an ancillary use to the facilities proposed on site or will it serve as a destination restaurant? Is adequate parking included for this component? OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL The Commission's regulations require that you submit evidence of review and approval of the proposed project from all local and state agencies for which a review and approval is required. If impacts to biological resources are occurring, a review and approval is typically required from the USFWS and/or the CDF&G. Evidence of these agencies review and approval (or verifications that no review is necessary) will need to be submitted with your application for a coastal permit. Please also provide review of the project by the SLC. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related.projects. Please,note, ,the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions. ;t II Attachments: Applicants for Shorefront Development Cc: State Clearinghouse 0 • nr;_lIA'.I'�fin Central Newport Beach Cn--n yAssociation PO Box884 Newport Beach CA 92661-0884 March 9, 2010 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Attn: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Rung@city.newnort-beach.ca.us PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 1�09010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Reference: DRAFT Marina Park Recirculated Environmental Impact Report dated January 2010 Dear Newport Beach Planning Department: The Central Newport Beach Community Association (CNBCA), which represents over 300 member households on the Balboa Peninsula, is please to provide comments on the referenced Draft Recirculated EIR. Our Board of Directors and Association members are delighted that the City of Newport Beach continues to make progress on this important project. Our comments on the document are as follows: Subsection 2.1— Proposed Project; Subsection 3.4.1— Phase 1; and Subsection 3.4.2 — Construction, Phase 1 There is concern that during Phase I and Phase 2, if existing closed gates on the alley at 16'h Street and 181h Street (see Figure 1) are removed or are opened to enable vehicle through - traffic: (1) children playing in the existing tot lot at 161h Street will be exposed to hazardous traffic, (2) traffic will increase in the alley west of 18'h Street which faces many residential bedrooms and garages with zero setback, (3) traffic will increase at the intersections of both 18'h and 19'h Streets and West Balboa Boulevard, both of which are difficult intersections for merging traffic, and (4) traffic will increase and back up on West Bay between 18`h and 19'h Streets. If additional vehicular access to the park is needed in Phases 1 and 2, removal of the fence behind the existing girl -scout house would provide an alternate vehicle access point. We request that either the EIR specifically stipulate the assumptions which have been made regarding both the gates, and if they are to be removed or permanently opened to through -traffic in Phases 1 or 2, that an assessment and analysis of the related safety, noise, and traffic issues be added to this EIR . If the gates are to remain in place and closed, then the EIR should simply so state. • i Central Newport Beach Communitv Association Box804 Newpon Reach CA 92661-0884 Lower Newport Bay r. r ,ee„e li�nmr� —:Peiroame Metered Pubib Palling, Edsung � j- m Faun Corunib Gin scout Ono pffsoa Figure 1 - Alley Gates At 16'h And 18th Streets If Removed Or Opened During Phases 1 Or 2 Would Substantially Impact Surrounding Neighborhoods Specifically, Section 2.1 states (page 2-1): "Primary vehicular access to the project would be via West Balboa Blvd. at 161h Street and secondary access would be via and exit/entrance off 15rb Street." It is presumed that this only describes Phase 3 of the project after the existing tot lot at le Street has been relocated. Phase 1 or 2 of the project could be in place and do to unforeseen events (funding, scheduling, etc.), Phase 3 could be delayed resulting in the site functioning as a minimal park for an extended period of time. No mention was made of vehicle access to the site during these initial phases in Section 2.1 of the EIR. In the case of the 18`h Street gate, residents in the neighborhood to the west (up the peninsula) of the proposed park have requested that the gate at 18th Street and Vilelle Place (the alley) remain closed to through -traffic during Phases 1 and 2. This issue was expressed as far back in time as release of the DEIR for the hotel project. The concern is that the alley will become an alternate exit from the peninsula during high volume summer afternoon traffic. Cars entering the alley at 150' Street would end up backed up into the alley at 190' Street not only making it difficult to enter and exit garages on the alley, but also impacting noise levels for the many bedrooms which face the alley. The EIR should either stipulate that the existing chain link gate will remain closed during the first two phases or address the noise and traffic impact. In the case of the I Street gate, families that use the existing playground on the site at 16rh Street have expressed concern that through -traffic during Phases 1 and 2 of park development poses a hazard for children playing in the playground several feet from the alley. We recommend that the FIR be modified to specifically stipulate that the existing chain link gate at 16a' Street will remain closed during the first two phases until the tot lot is relocated in Phase 3. Page 2 of 4 Central Newport Beach Commnni V Association Baa884 NMertBeach CA 92661-0894 If the foregoing design assumption in Phases 1 and 2 for the 16`h Street gate is not stipulated in the EIR, then the EIR should identify the traffic hazard to children playing in the playground and an approach to mitigate the hazard —perhaps construction of a fence. Some specific recommended changes regarding the two gates follow: It is recommended that Subsection 2.1- Proposed Project (pa�e 2-1, last paragraph) include the following underlined sentence: "Furthermore, 18'h and 19 Streets would still provide access to the public beach. The existing gates on Vilelle Place (the alley that divides the site) at 16'h and 19h Streets will remain closed to through -traffic during Phases 1 and 2-- except when opened for site development related construction equipment: " Furthermore, it is recommended that Subsection 3.4.1- Phase 1 (page 3-6, paragraph 2) should be modified as follows: " ... The alley between the mobile home park and the beach would be restriped to provide 105 regular parking spaces and five handicapped spaces -,end r-enieval of an • b b ��� .,,t,:,.. laF aese-- f1�- ' 1 �'-� �o'h-Sheet. The existing chain link gates on the alley at both Id" and 18°i Streets shall remain closed to through -traffic. Visitor access to the site during Phases 1 and 2 would remain unchanged at the entrance to the former mobile home park off of Balboa Boulevard.... " In addition, it is recommended that the following underlined sentence should be added to Section 3.4.2 - Construction, Phase 1 (page 3-13, first paragraph): "... low landscape, and existing block wall along 18`h Street, and appurtenant structures. The existing chain link dates on the alley at both 16'h and 18'h Streets shall remain. The existing trees ..: ' Subsection 3A.3 - Operation, Balboa Center (page 3-19) The second paragraph of this subsection refers to "... a range of ocean -based activities, expected ... " The term "harbor -based activities" would more accurately characterize activities of the Sailing Center since none of the activities will likely occur in the open ocean. Subsection 5.2.5 - Project Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures, Localized Impact Analysis (page 5.2-15) Descriptions of Closest Sensitive Receptors were incorrect in the Original DEIR. Changes were recommended, but descriptions in the RDEIR remain incorrect. Specifically, the RDEIR characterizes sensitive receptors west of the site as a hotel and mobile homes. There are no mobile homes across 18`h Street from the site. There is, however, a single family residence of traditional construction and a hotel. The following underlined changes are recommended: "... There are em! mobile homes is a single family residence and a hotel located to the West ..: ' Page 3 of 4 " ! • Central Newport Beach Commuft Association Bex884 Newport Beach CA 92661.98B4 On behalf of our Board of Directors and hundreds of member households, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Recirculated EIR. Louise Fundenberg. President Central Newport Beach Community Association Cc: Mike Henn, Newport Beach City Council Member Dave Kiff, Newport Beach City Manager Page 4 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA • A#OLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 F,475�6il PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 3, 2010 MAR 0 9'2010 t OF NEWPOR.T BEACH Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735-2929 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2922 Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900 Contact FAX: (916) 574-1885 File Ref: SCH# 2008051096 Subject: Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project Dear Ms. Ung: The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff has reviewed the Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed Marina Park project. For this project, the California State Lands Commission (Commission) is potentially both a Trustee agency and a Responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As general background, the State of California upon entering the Union on September 9, 1850, acquired nearly four million acres of land underlying the State's navigable and tidal waterways. Known as "sovereign lands," these lands include tidelands and submerged lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the ordinary high water mark to three nautical miles offshore. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all the people of California for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water -related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. The State's sovereign land interests are under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. In addition, the CSLC has certain residual and review authority related to Public Trust issues for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust- to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§6301 and 6306). The CSLC also administers the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program pursuant to PRC §§6309, 6313, and'6314. The California Legislature, by statute, has granted in trust to the city of Newport Beach (City) the State's title to those filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands involving- portions of the project area, pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, as amended with minerals reserved to the State. Any proposed uses involving granted tidelands must be consistent with the Public Trust and the City's granting statute(s). Rosalinh Ung 6 Page 2 March 3, 2010 The boundaries separating lands owned by the City in trust, pursuant to Chapter 74, from lands acquired by the City from private parties has not been established by agreement or litigation within the Project site. CSLC staff believes that it is necessary to resolve the title and boundary issues with the City prior to the Project going forward. Given the current Project plans it appears that a title settlement and exchange agreement may be necessary. We are available to discuss the resolution of the title and boundary issues With the City. Please contact Grace Kato, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-1227 or by e- mail at katog@slc.ca.gov or Jennifer Lucchesi, Staff Counsel, at (916) 574-0234 or by email at lucche!Oslc.ca.gov for additional information. Based on a review of the DREIR, the CSLC has a comment regarding Phase 3 of the proposed Marina Park project. The following comment was made in our letter dated June 18, 2008 on the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR, and we feel it is still necessary to address this issue: An evaluation should be made of potential submerged cultural resources in the project area. Any submerged archaeological site or submerged historic resource remaining in state waters for more than 50 years is presumed to be significant. The title to all abandoned shipwrecks and all archaeological sites and historic or cultura6 resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the state and under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. The CSLC maintains a shipwrecks database of known and potential vessels located on the state's tide and submerged lands; however, the location of many shipwrecks remains unknown. The recovery of objects from any submerged archaeological site or shipwreck requires a salvage permit under PRC § 6309. On statutorily granted tide and submerged lands, a permit may be issued only after consultation with the local grantee and a determination by the CSLC that the proposed salvage operation is not inconsistent with the purposes of the legislative grant. If you have any questions involving the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program please contact Staff Counsel Pam Griggs at (916) 574-1854 or by email at griggsp(a�slc.ca.gov, If you have questions on the environmental review, please contact Crystal Spurr at (916) 574-0743 or by e-mail at spurrc slc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Marina R. Brand, Acting Chief Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Office of Planning and Research Robin Clauson, City Attorney P. Griggs, CSLC J. Lucchesi, CSLC G._Kato, CSLC C. Spurr, CSLC Ung, Rosalinh From: Tom Rossi [orco2lq@gmail.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:53 AM To: Ling, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park -Additional EIR Comments Attachments: Marina Park EIR Letter Rve 4-7-09.doc; Marina Park 6-2-09 Letter to D Kiff.doc; Marina Park EIR Letter 4-7-09.doc Rosalinh: Please accept this email, its attachments,and the companion email I sent to you immediately prior this morning as my comments/concerns related to the Marina Park EIR. Thank you for your anticipated and appreciated courtesy regarding my concerns. Tom R. Rossi Ung, Rosalinh From: Tom Rossi [trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:27 AM To: Kiff, Dave; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dave Thank you for your usual timely response time and update. I will follow your advice and continue to raise/document my concerns as you suggest. I don't want any surprises that leave my property and me with a negative impact. Thanks again. Tom From: Kiff, Dave[mailto:DKlff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:22 AM To: Tom Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter Hi Tom — The recirculated DEIR envisions the same project, but addresses various things that were not included in the initial circulation. There has been no change from the Girl Scout as to changing their design - they still seem to have no resources to either change the design or build the project. From my perspective, nothing has changed from when we last corresponded. You may still want to raise your concerns formally within the DEIR process. I am still hopeful that the Scouts will change the design —the question'is when. Dave From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:11 AM To: Kiff, Dave; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay'Matter I am in receipt of the most recent DREIR Notice. It appears the project continues to move along. My last correspondence from you (below) indicated the Girl Scout Building was on HOLD and therefore no further word existed regarding work on the related architectural plans progressing. I remain quite concerned about the building's height, massing, •placement, etc causing a severe negative impact on my property located at 1801 West Bay Ave. Has anything changed? Is there any progress regarding my concerns? •From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:06 AM To:'Kiff, Dave';'Wood, Sharon' Cc: 'Henn, Michael' Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter Thank you, Dave. I appreciate your taking time from your busy schedule to address my concerns. I trust I will remain id good hands knowing you are in the loop here. Thanks again. Tom Rossi From: Kiff, Dave[mailto:DKiff@newportbeachca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:54 AM To: Tom Rossi; Wood, Sharon Cc: Henn, Michael Subject: RE: 1801 West Bay Matter Hi Tom — Actually, plans are not progressing. The Girl Scout Council still has their building plans on hold until their fiscal situation improves —you can imagine what the economy has done to non -profits like the Girl Scouts. I still believe that they will work to reduce the height of their building, but they do not have the resources to do that plan redesign at this time. Similarly, they cannot build the building nor go through basic permitting. All I can do is respectfully ask for your patience —there still will be time for review once they get started again. However, I'm not sure if that is 3, 12, or more months from now. Dave From: Tom Rossi [mailto:trro@roadrunner.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:33 AM To: mereader48@sbcglobal.net Cc: Kiff, Dave; Henn, Michael Subject: 1801 West Bay Matter Considerable time has passed without an update to me. I have made previous inquiry with no response.. Kindly apprise me of the headway made regarding my concerns. I presume plans are progressing, and I was assured I would be kept informed and allowed ample time for review and input on this very sensitive matter. What is up?I Thank you. Tom Rossi, Owner TxoMAs R. Rossi 0 April 7, 2009 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Ladies and Gentlemen: I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18th Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay). I have observed and appreciate that great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project"). I believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. I believe it is a fair statement that my property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Project, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. On several previous occasions I made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a "low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Project's plans progressed. 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com • THOMAS R. Rossi As late as last Friday when I met personally with Mr. David Kiff at City Hall, I was informed that no such definition regarding my concerns exists. I believe this situation is inappropriate and should no longer be ignored. In my opinion, this matter should have been addressed long before now, and my patience has gone unrewarded. In addition to view obstruction, my concerns regarding hours of operation, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have a substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Committee that non - Girl Scout -related activities would not be allowed, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation of same at your earliest convenience. In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter as my objection to the Project/EIR due to these issues being left unaddressed in a fair and equitable manner. I respectfully request your timely written response. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. Yours truly, Thomas R. Rossi CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich Councilman Michael F. Henn 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com • THOMAS R. ROSSI June 2, 2009 Mr. Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Dear Mr. Kiff: I recently met with Mr. Timothy D. Bundy, Architect and Mr. Mark Reader, P.E. & Project Manager Public Works Department regarding the above -referenced matter. Mr. Reader instructed me to lodge my written concerns with you. You may recall that I own the single family.residence located at the corner of 18th Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay), and that I have grave concerns regarding the Girl Scout Building's ("Building") impact on my property. To restate my concerns we discussed in your office prior to my meeting with Mr. Bundy and Mr. Reader, and that I embodied in my written EIR comments as you directed me to do, I have observed and appreciate that great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project"). I believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com 0 THOMAS R. Rossi 0 My property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Building, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. I have on several previous occasions made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a "low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Projects plans progressed. Much to my surprise, I have now determined that apparently the Building has a proposed roof height of twenty nine feet, with extensive horizontal massing as well. This will eliminate or substantially reduce the view my property currently enjoys by approximately eighty percent This condition will cause extreme negative impact on my property value and is very unfair. In addition to view obstruction, my concerns regarding hours of operation, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have additional substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Marina Park Planning Committee that non -Girl Scout -related activities would not be 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.,RossiProperties.com THOMAS R. Rossi permitted, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation�of same at your earliest convenience. I certainly hope my concerns will be timely addressed and remedied. Please let me know what the next step will be for us to resolve this matter in an equitable and fair manner. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. I look forward to your written response. Yours truly, Thomas R. Rossi CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich Councilman Michael F. Henn 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com E 11 April 7, 2009 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Attn: Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Ladies and Gentlemen: I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18th Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay). I have observed and appreciate that great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project'). I believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. I believe it is a fair statement that my property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Project, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. I have on several previous occasions made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a "low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Project's plans progressed. As late as last Friday when I met personally with Mr. David Kiff at City Hall, I was informed that no such definition regarding my concerns exists. I believe this situation is inappropriate and should no longer be ignored. In my opinion, this matter should have been addressed long before now, and my patience has gone unrewarded. In addition to view obstruction, my concerns regarding hours of operation, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have a substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Committee that non -Girl Scout -related activities would not be allowed, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation of same at your earliest convenience. In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter as my objection to the ProjectlEIR due to these issues being left unaddressed in a fair and equitable manner. I respectfully request your timely written response. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. Yours truly, Thomas R. Rossi CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich Councilman Michael F. Henn 0 Ung, Rosalinh From: Oborny, Shirley Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:20 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Marina Park - Interest Parties Kim doesn't have any new info. either. Shirley -----Original Message ----- From: Rieff, Kim Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:02 AM To: Oborny, Shirley Subject: RE: Marina Park - Interest Parties Shirley, I don't have any updated information. Kim Rieff, Mayor's Assistant Mayor's Office/City Manager's Office City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 644-3004 (949) 644-3008 (fax) -----Original Message ----- From: Oborny, Shirley Sent: Monday, January 25, To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: Rieff, Kim Subject: RE: Marina Park - Interest Parties I'm copying Kim on this since she has been attending those meetings. She might have more updated contact info. but it's doubtful. Shirley -----Original Message ----- From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:51 PM To: Oborny, Shirley Subject: Marina Park - Interest Parties Shirley: A notice of availability of draft recirculated EIR for the Marina Park project has been sent to the interest parties list that I received from you awhile back. I received 3 failed deliveries from Chad LaBass, Chandler Bell and Norris Tapp. Do you have updated ones for them (see below for their original e-mail addresses); if not, how about their phone numbers that I can call. I am sorry for asking but just wanted to make sure that we have tried everything to notice them. Thanks so much. Original Message ----- 1 10 From: Mail Delivery System [m4p1to:Mailer-Daemon@eigbox.net] • Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:27 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: norris_daveyslocker_if@pop.ipower.com (generated from norris@daveyslocker.com) Your message has reached a mailbox that is no longer in service. However, your message may have been forwarded to another address. Please check with the recipient to verify successful delivery. ------ This is a copy of the message's headers. ------ Return-path: <rung@newportbeachca.gov> Received: from bosimpinc02.eigbox.net ([10.20.13.2]) by bosmailscanl8.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1NYTgY-0002gG-Ls for norris@daveyslocl<er.com; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:27:26 -0500 Received: from Mail-CNB.CNB.LCL ([216.237.19.2]) by bosimpinc02.eigbox.net with NO UCE id YoTJ1d01A02hP000AoTJeK; Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:27:26 -0500 X-EN-OrigIP: 216.237.19.2 X-EN-IMPSID: YoTJ1d01A02hPUQOAoTJeK X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content -class: urn:content-classes:message MIME -Version: 1.0 Content -Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA9BU XIDA0100" Subject: Marina Park Project - Notice of Availability of Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:27:18 -0800 Message-ID:<4C55ABC2781A4749AE410616E81B734BO26433E6@Mail-CNB.CNB.LCL> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread -Topic: Marina Park Project - Notice of Availability of Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Thread -Index: AcgbwrvgUw2bWG7HQ+m1VxZtX2gcIg== From: "Ung, Rosalinh" <RUng@newportbeachca.gov> To: "Ambrosia Sarabia" <asarabia@goboating.com>, "Anderson, Fred" <fanderson49@hotmail.com>, "Asper, Bruce" <balboabruce@aol.com>, "Bakenie, Ernest" <ebakenie96@gsm.uci.edu>, "Balalis, Paul" <pbalalis@balaliscorp.com>, "Bazey, Tim" <bazt@aol.com>, "Beek, Allan" <abeel<@flash.net>, "Beek, Seymour" <SBeek@earthlink.net>, "Bell, Chandler" <chandlerbell@aol.com>, "Billings, Tom" <twbill@earthlinl<.net>, "Black, Bob" <bob@catalinainfo.com>, "Bonn, Liz" <ebonn@trllp.com>, "Cantwell, Jim" <cantwel5@pacbell.net>, "Coltrane, Diane 7-19-05" <dcoltrane@adelphia.net>, 2 "Cook, Paul" <pcook@chOnsulting.com>, • "Curran, Laura" <lauracurran@mac.com>, "Dillon, Ed" <endjoyd@aol.com>, "Dossey, Marsha" <marcia@mdassociates.us>, "Ford, Carter" <carterford@roadrunner.com>, "Fortmuller, Larry" <lff@ix.netcom.com>, "Fuller, Win 7-21-05" <wfuller@pacbell.net>, "Fundenburg, Louise" <lfundy@sbcglobal.net>, "Garber, Chris" <Garber_Chris@Allergan.com>, "Garrett, Bill"<bgarrett@interpacificmgmt.com>, "Harber, Colleen" <harberc@mindspring.com>, "Hill, Gary" <garyphill@sbcglobal.net>, "Ibbetson, Joyce" <jlibbets@uci.edu>, "Kiff, Dave" <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>, "LaBass, Chad" <hanifansurf@yahoo.com>, "Lambert, Dave" <dplambert@fea.net>, "LeBass, Gail" <glabass@hotmail.com>, "Loftsgaard, Eve" <lagunawisp@yahoo.com>, "Lorton, Kevin" <klorton@hornblower.com>, "Lucas, Bev" <cronlucas@roadrunner.com>, "Melton, Jim" <jmelton@Jefferies,.com>, "Meyer, Rich" <Rich@RichMeyer.org>, "Mills, James" <jmills@greatslips.com>, "Morrissette, Craig" <craigmorissette@hotmail.com>, "Murry, Pam" <murgirl@aol.com>, "Nazaroff, Adam" <ANAZAROFF@OCSD.COM>, "New, Dave" <davel@basinmarine.com>, "O'Hora, Joe" <balboajoe@aol.com>, "Olivas, Tom" <tolivas@gscoc.org>, "Otting, Dolores 7-21-05" <amoderosa@aol.com>, "Rawson, Joanne" <JR220@roadrunner.com>, "Reed, Brian" <breed@ocsd.com>, "Reiner, Katie" <I<reiner@pacificaquascape.com>, "Reynolds, Jon" <reynoldsmiramar@earthlinl<.net>, "Ricketts, David" <david.ricketts@sbcglobal.net>, "Rieff, Kim" <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov>, "Rossi, Tom" <trro@adelphia.net>, "Rossi, tom" <trro@roadrunner.com>, "Seymour, Bob" <arcobob@adelphia.net>, "Silvey, Marl" <mbsilvey@marserv.com>, "Stowe, Les" <lloydstowe@yahoo.com>, "Sudbeck, Rod (Fry's Market)" <rod@rodsudbeck.com>, "Tapp, Norris" <norris@daveyslocker.com>, "Ung, Rosalinh" <RUng@newportbeachca.gov>, "Watkins, Paul" <paul@lawfriend.com>, "Wiessner, Henk 7-19-05" <henk@cox.net>, "Wilkenheiser, Wayne" <waynewik@airante.com>, "Womble, Mark" <mwomble@microsoft.com> X-EN-Class: impinc 0 Ung, Rosalinh From: Hart, Heather Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 9:08 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: address correction Hi Rosalinh, I'm the Branch Librarian at the Mariners Branch Library. We just received an impact report on the Marina Park project. We noticed that you were still using the 2005 Dover Drive address for the library. We're actually located on 1300 Irvine Avenue now (the OnTrac delivery service tried to go to the old address). Thanks, Heather Hart Branch Librarian 949-717-3838 Ung, Rosalinh From: John Rettberg Urrettberg@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 4:40 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Re: Marina Park Project - Notice of Availability of DraftRecirculated Environmental Impact Report On 1/26/10 10:29 AM, "Ung, Rosalinh" <RUng newportbeachca.gov> wrote: Per your request. Rosalinh M. Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Office: 949-644-3208 Fax:949-644-3229 Runq@)newoortbeachca.gov Thank you Rosalinh 1 Ung, Rosalinh Distribution List Name: Marina Park Interested Parties Members: Ambrosia Sarabia Anderson, Fred Asper, Bruce Bakenie, Ernest Balalis, Paul Bazey, Tim Beek, Allan Beek, Seymour Bell, Chandler Billings, Tom Black, Bob Bonn, Liz Cantwell, Jim Coltrane, Diane 7-19-05 Cook, Paul Curran, Laura Dillon, Ed Dossey, Marsha Ford, Carter Fortmuller, Larry Fuller, Win 7-21-05 Fundenburg, Louise Garber, Chris Garrett, Bill Harber, Colleen Hill, Gary Ibbetson, Joyce Kiff, Dave LaBass, Chad Lambert, Dave LeBass, Gail Loftsgaard, Eve Lorton, Kevin Lucas, Bev Melton, Jim Meyer, Rich Mills, James Morrissette, Craig Murry, Pam Nazaroff, Adam New, Dave O'Hora, Joe Olivas, Tom Otting, Dolores 7-21-05 Rawson, Joanne Reed, Brian Reiner, Katie Reynolds, Jon Ricketts, David Rieff, Kim Rossi, Tom Rossi, tom Seymour, Bob Silvey, Mark Stowe, Les Sudbeck, Rod (Fry's Market) Tapp, Norris Ling, Rosalinh Watkins, Paul Wiessner, Hank 7-19-05 Wilkenheiser, Wayne Womble, Mark asarabia@goboating.com fanderson49@hotmail.com balboabruce@aol.com ebakenie96@gsm.uci.edu pbalalis@balaliscorp.com bazt@aol.com abeek@flash.net sbeek@earthlink.net chandierbell@aol.com twbill@earthlink.net bob@catalinainfo.com ebonn@trllp.com cantwel5@pacbell.net dcoltrane@adelphia.net pcook@chcconsulting.com Iauracurran@mac.com endjoyd@aol.com marcia@mdassociates.us carterford@roadrunner.com Iff@ix.netcom.com wfuller@pacbell.net lfundy@sbcglobal.net Garber Chris@Allergan.com bgarreft-@Interpacificmgmt.com harberc@mindspring.com cronlucas@roadrunner.com jmelton@Jefferies.com Rich@RichMeyer.org jmills@greatslips.com craigmorissette@hotmail.com murgirl@aol.com ANAZAROFF@OCSD.COM davel@basinmarine.com balboajoe@aol.com tolivas@gscoc.org amoderosa@aol.com JR220@roadrunner.com breed@ocsd.com kreiner@pacificaquascape.com reynoldsmiramar@earthlink.net david.ricketts@sbcglobal.net KRieff@city.newport-beach.ca.us trro@adelphia.net trro@roadrunner.com arcobob@adelphia.net mbsilvey@marserv.com Iloydstowe@yahoo.com rod@rodsudbeck.com norris@daveyslocker.com RU ng @city. newport-beach.ca. us paul@lawfriend.com henk@cox.net waynewik@airante.com mwomble@microsoft.com • PUBLIC NOTICE • Notice of Availability of a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed Marina Park (proposed project) is available for public review during the public comment period (January 25 — March 10, 2010). The City of Newport Beach (City) has prepared the DREIR to analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The proposed project encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19°i Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase I the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a new Girl Scout House, parking areas, park with tennis and basketball courts, beach, and a 23-slip marina. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a cafe situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19°i Street would be reconstructed. The DREIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis Checklist categories: Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Noise.The purpose of this notice is to inform local residents, institutions, agencies, and other interested parties about the availability of the DREIR during the public comment period (January 25-March 10, 2010). Written comments on the DREIR must be submitted no later than March 10, 2010, to the address below. DREIR REVIEWING LOCATIONS Please submit written comments by March 10, 2010 City Hall Planning Department (Building C), 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Public Libraries Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue Mai iner's Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard Online littp:Hwww.ne%vportbeaclica.gov/index.aspx?pape=l 08 Address Comments to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Email: rung@newportbeachca.gov newportbeachca.gov Project site -=V�lR4EOL '_�I++.t 1 t I't' i t i 7 F: 6CfgNFRON[ ' 7C' �`I'-� •fir ^ 7 i.-1- Y i d 2z3ft L1 . Mat r 6A- �Et-k - DR5t R q �f hl r+r f41'00 State Clearinghouse (15 copies) Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street P. 0. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Professional Native American Cultural Resource Monitors 27475 Ynez Road, Suite 349 Temecula, CA 92591 Paul Reed Newport -Mesa Unified School District 2985 Bear Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Southern California Association of Governments 818 West Seventh Street, 121h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Mark Reader - Public Works Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Army Corps of Engineers 911 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 Newport Beach American Legion #291 215 E 15th Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosalinh Ung Planning Department (8 copies) 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 USFWS Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road - Suite 101 Carlsbad, California 92011-4219 ity of Irvine \ttn:Tim Gehrich ).0. Box 19575 wine, CA 92623-9575 Gabrielino Tongva Tribal Council Gabrielino Tongva Nation 501 Santa Monica Blvd., #500 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2415 The Gas Company 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92803 Attn: Mr. Bob Warth Patrick McNally, Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, 92708 Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) P. O. Box 102 Balboa Island, CA 92662 Southern California Edison P.O. Box 11982 1325 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92711 Attn: Mr. Frank Wasko The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tony Brine — Public Works Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Laura Detweiler— Rec. & Senior Servics Chris Miller- Harbor Resources Div. Dept 829 Harbor Island Drive 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Girl Scout Council of Orange County P.O. Box 3739 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 Attn: Tom Olivas California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance Patricia Martz, Ph.D. 1 Songsparrow Irvine, CA 92604 Newport Beach Public Library Mariners Branch 2005 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office 501 West Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 Richard S. Zeilenga SZRV&T LLP 2815 Townsgate Road, Ste. Westlake Village, CA 91361 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P. O. Box 54153 Los Angeles, CA 90054 EQAC (13 copies) c/o Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Newport Beach Public Library Balboa Branch 100 East Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Central Library 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 330 550 S. Main St. P.O. Box 14184 Orange, CA 92863-1584 endy Lockwood Tom Johnson Sirius Environmental 13428 Maxella, # 425 478 N. Altadena Drive Marina del Rey, CA 90292 'asadena, CA 91107 9 California Coastal Commission Attn: Fernie Sy, Coastal Prog. Analyst II South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 California Regional Water Quality Control Central Newport Beach Community )epartment of Toxic Substances Control Board Association kttn: Greg Holmes, Unit Chief Attn: Mark G. Adelson, Chief Attn: Louise Fundenberg, President ;796 Corporate Avenue Santa Ana region PO Box 884 ypress, CA 90630 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Newport beach, CA 92661 Riverside, CA 92501-3348 'homas R. Rossi Caltrans, District 12 ;419 Via Lido, Suite 641 3357 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Jewport Beach, CA 92663 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 �\\�, ��\' )� I, l �el l ,� I �Y � 1� � , 5 1 ; Z 4'sF "���. �" Easy PeelO Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 FIRST AMERICAN CO 359 SAN MIGUEL DR #201 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BARRACUDA INVESTMENTS LLC i 10203 OVERHILL DR SANTA ANA, CA 92705 JOHN NEWCOMB 224 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION PO BOX 711 DALLAS, TX 75221 MARK MURRAY 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN L WESTREM 1006 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ROBERT ROUBIAN 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN DAGOSTINO 3 SAN JOAQUIN PLZ #165 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LYON STUDIOS BLDG LP 222 21ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARSHALL B MUNROEJR. 223 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Bend along line to P ® AVERY® 5960 rm i j•Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edge*^+ • 1 DOROTHY SPITZ THOMAS ERNIE HYANS 1015 GAYLEY AVE #360 21719TH ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOANNERAWSON i ROSEMARY P MORRILL 318 CORONADO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MARK & P MURRAY 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DONALD SPITZ 219 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE MATULICH 210 21ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JULIA M WALKER 209 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WERFF WILLIAM VANDER 11322 SKYLINE VW SANTA ANA, CA 92705 RAY RALPH DONALD 601 PERSHING DR OCEANO, CA 93445 JAMES MCNAMARA 5245 BELL CT CHINO, CA 91710 JOHN DUBOISE 25881 MAJORCA WAY MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 ELIZABETH NELL HOLLENBECK 218 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 D'ALLESSIO INVESTMENTS 440 FAIR DR #F COSTA MESA, CA 92626 STEVEN G BOLTON 3172 SICILY AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 /I FRANCES MATULICH 210 21ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles 8 peler ; A Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 5160® FSens de e^' Repliez 81a hachure aftn de r6vdler le rebord Pop.UpTM I www.avery.com , 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy,PeelO Labels UseAveryO Template 51600 HODSON 2401 SIERRA VIS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF 2811 E VILLA REAL DR ORANGE, CA 92867 BESSIE TRUST A MEILY i 1436 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ARTHUR H & B A SHIPKEY 1428 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JASON M PILALAS 1335 OAK VIEW AVE PASADENA, CA 91108 LOUISE ARAKAW ARAKAWA 1420 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MARK A WARREN 1011 NTOWNEAVE POMONA, CA 91767 MURIEL M WEINER 1608 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PAUL E MAYER 531 W WISTARIA AVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL 1409 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 A Bend along line to AVERY@ 5960T^' j Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM •j A DAVID Q PHAM CRAB COOKER THE 202 21ST ST 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FRED L & SUE A WOODWORTH 1444 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BUCKELEW 1432 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 STEVEN E HIGH 1412 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BAY AVE PROPERTIES LLC 8829 E LOST GOLD CIR GOLD CANYON, AZ 85218 BALBOA PALMS LLC PO BOX 2056 GLENDALE, CA 91209 THOMAS ANTHONY IOVENITTI 1425 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CHESTER A BYPASS ADY 855 E BENNETT AVE GLENDORA, CA 91741 ANTHONY M CIRELLO 14131/2 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JAMES D MADISON 78725 SUNRISE CANYON AVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 KENNETH J SACZALSKI 1440 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOSEPH ZUFFOLETTO 1430 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOSEPH A CASO JR. 1410 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RALPH A FURRA 1418 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 PAUL L BALALIS 1500 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DIANA E WALKER 1423 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 MARILYN OF ROSE 1417 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 FRANCIS J BABCOCK 1411 1/2 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CONSTANCE J ARRIGO 1405 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 @tiquettes faclles A peler i A Repliez a la hachure afln de www.avery.com Sens de Utillsez le aabarlt AVERYO 51600 ! �_en____. r6vdler le re6ord Poe-uo*m ! t_pnn_rn_nvvnv r. Easy.PeelO Labels UseAveryO Template 51600 JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL 1401 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 THEO MANOLELIS 26 BELCREST LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 ABEL & BONNIE VILLALPANDO 304 E OJIBWA RD DEXTER, NM 88230 GEORGE WILLIAM SISCO 524 GREENFIELD CT UPLAND, CA 91786 MICHAEL S & NICOLE L BACUS 1807 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GAYLOR W SINGLETARY 1733 MASSACHUSETTS AVE i RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 JOHN MORDOFF 722 N GRACE CT WEST COVINA, CA 91790 FRANCIS L HUTAIN 13402 SIERRA MADRE DR SANTA ANA, CA 92705 DONNALCAMBON 9675 CABOT CT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737 DONALD A CANNING A Bend along line to p TM j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edgew j %��RY 5960 i CHURCH UNITED METHODIST DOUGLAS WAYNE COTTON 1400 W BALBOA BLVD 206 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ADRIAN 0 COHEN 5353 HORIZON DR MALIBU, CA 90265 FERIT KURTKAN 12217TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 MAHENDRA SHAH 1815 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LINDA C OROZCO 1805 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JUDITH JACOBS 219 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM B MARTIN 1824 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FSUSAN DOLE STEVEN C KOVELY 123 CAMINO DON MIGUEL 0RINDA, CA 94563 GOODIE 2662 E 2ND ST #11 LONG BEACH, CA 90803 TIMOTHY JOSEPH GRABER II 200 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROD CANADA 828 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JAMES H MCKENNON 1930 PORT DUNLEIGH CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 GIACOMO J ZANCHI 16601 NALU CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 JOHN M ROY 1806 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID C JOHNSON 1811 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 B-N14 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 711 CUMBERLAND RD GLENDALE, CA 91202 JEFFSILBAR 3964 SUNSWEPT DR STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 BEVERLYLUCAS 1829 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 @tiquettes faciles 8 peler Utilian7 In nahnrit AVFRV0 Sinn® .,Sens de Repliez A la hachure alin de ! - rAvAlnr In mhnrcl Pnr -UnT ! www.averycom a-unn-r;n-nvFRv Easy,Peel® Labels i ♦ Bend along line to I® i Use Avery® Template 51600 i feed Paper expose Pop•Up EdgeT^+ ]t AVERY® 5966*"'1 PHILIP ABRAMOWITZ LE ROY G WILSON DANIEL F JENSEN 29475 WEEPING WILLOW DR 913 W BAY AVE 1813 W BAY AVE #A AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LORRAINE E MURPHY PAULINE E DALBY 18091/2 W BAY AVE 16482 BULL LAKE RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TROY, MT 59935 PATRICIA FROSTHOLM JAMES MCNAMARA ROSSI 1805 W BAY AVE #A 5245 BELL CT 1801 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHINO, CA 91710 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JACK F HARDY CRAIG B MORISSETTE DAVID JOCELYN RICKETTS 1828 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 888 1824 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DANIEL WIENER MICHAEL MARTIN GONZALES J D KELLEHER 1822 W BALBOA BLVD 26545 RAVENHILL RD 2020 HILLHURST AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91387 LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 JOHN SNEDEGAR MARION B ROSSON GLORIAJ CIMENT 1814 W BALBOA BLVD 1812 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BALBOA NEWPORT BEACH LLC FREDERICJ PRATT 1214 CHAUTAUQUA BLVD 1800 W BALBOA BLVD PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RICHARD BAKER ROBERT L MCCLEEARY MARK S LARSON PO BOX 2060 PO BOX 3146 1715 1/2 W BALBOA BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RALPH COHEN C FRANK ZAVALA DARLE HALE C 1707 W BALBOA BLVD 1701 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 2373 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ORANGE, CA 92859 RICHARD L FALLON QTIP C MOORE JACK E DATT 1704 W OCEANFRONT PO BOX 660506 1710 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ARCADIA, CA 91066 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Etlquettes faciles 5 paler ,A Repllez A la hachure afin de www.averycom , Utilisez le aabarlt AVERY® 51fi0® I _,.Sens de_. rGVbIPY IP IPFIPnI PPII.IIIITM I �_ann.nn_evcov i I . Easy.Peel® Labels UseAvery® Template 51600 KENNETH L RAWSON PO BOX 1221 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BANK FIRST INTERSTATE OF PO BOX 13519 ARLINGTON, TX 76094 MODGAP LLC 1136 S RIMSDALE DR WEST COVINA, CA 91791 ORIEN THEODORE PFEIFER 3584 BLUFF ST NORCO, CA 92860 CENTER ANDREW J PO BOX 870 BLUE JAY, CA 92317 RENE A RIGAUD 1960 PORT SEABOURN E WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RICHARDJ MEYER PO BOX 3046 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 ERNEST M BAKENIE 1617 W BALBOA BLVD NEW PORT BEACH, CA 92663 CLAUDE A GAMMEL PO BOX 3302 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 THOMAS F BEREAN PO BOX 3632 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 i ♦ Bend along line to I Q AVERYe 5960TM �eed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTm 116 '1 JOE & JANICE WILKINS RONALD L HERRICK 620 ARROW HWY PO BOX 1398 LA VERNE, CA 91750 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 JASON F G YEE 12411 SLAUSON AVE #D WHITTIER, CA 90606 THOMAS G DUFFY LARITA BLOHM URQUIDI 11018TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BRENTSEPULVEDA 518 N CARLISLE Pl. ORANGE, CA 92869 JU PROPERTIES LLC 10132 CUTTY SARK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 E 2044 EDGEWOOD DR SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 JOHN JOSEPH BLAHA 1521 MERRIMAN DR GLENDALE, CA 91202 ELLIOTT A BONN 1607 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PENACHO PROPERTIES LLC 1604 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NELLO C DICORPO 16 VISTA MONTEMAR LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 MARK & GEORGIA K SILER 3137 LIMERICK LN COSTA MESA, CA 92626 CRAIG CHAMBERLAIN 201 WESTWOOD UN REDLANDS, CA 92373 RENE A RIGAUD 1960 PORT SEABOURNE WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JU PROPERTIES LLC 10132 CUTTY SARK DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 JOHN BEARDALL 19106 SIERRA MARIA RD IRVINE, CA 92603 NIEMIEC 1841 STONEHENGE DR TUSTIN, CA 92780 THOMAS JOSEPH O'BRIEN 865 BAUER DR SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 CHARLES E WASHBON 1606 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 9tiquettes faciles A peter Utilispz le naharit AVERYO 516R® I L Sens de i Rgpllez A la hachure aftn de rAvblpr la rphard Pon-Untm www.avery.com I_fmn-fYLAvPRv r. Easy. Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 MURIEL M WEINER 1608 W OCEANFRONT i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMPSON 7161 1NDIANA AVE #A RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 STUARTA COGAN PO BOX 4259 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CARPA LLC 111 N SEPULVEDA BLVD #336 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 GEORGE F ENGELKE 517 GARRETT DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 I DA ZABY 3632 VENTURE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 EDWARD G HEALY 700 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 O'MELVENY 400 S HOPE ST #26TH LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 TERRENCE W CHOW 9 HIBISCUS IRVINE, CA 92620 R ANDERSON JAMES 5849 ROLLING RD WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 Bend alongg line to i i Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edgew 0 Q AVERY® 5960TMA, PETER GREGORY ANDERSON JEROME H THOMPSON 1610 W OCEANFRONT 5175 MYRTLE AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 TIMOTHY PATRICK BUCKLEY 22895 EASTPARK DR YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 JOSEPH STACK 18471 SANTIAGO BLVD VILLA PARK, CA 92861 LONG KIM PHAM 1529 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CYNTHIA C SMITH 45 BETHANY DR IRVINE, CA 92603 GRACE E DOVE 117 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN W VANORNUM 1109 MIRABELLA AVE NOVATO, CA 94945 CHARLES A BANKS 1510 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ABEL VILLALPANDO 304 E OJIBWA RD DEXTER, NM 88230 DON CHRISTENSEN 6508 N VISTA ST SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 EDWARD C SAUNDERS 1624 W OCEANFRONT#B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARI K OTA 1627 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TERRY GALLIMORE PO BOX 55722 VALENCIA, CA 91385 EDWARD L LABASS 1521 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 EDWARD G HEALY 700 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MORRIE EUGENE NERO 105 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALFRED D GERRICK 1512 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KATHLEEN INGA MORRIS 7333 LESLEY AVE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46250 JAMES LAHR 1996 N LAKE MEAD CIR ORANGE, CA 92867 k1cluettes faciles 8 peler ; A RGpliez A la hachure afin de ; www.avery.com I i Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 5160® _�_.____Sens de_. r�v�ler le rehard poo•UoTM i-ann.r;n.nvFnv Easy, Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 JAMES CANTWELL 1511 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TONY L PINKERT PO BOX 385920 WAIKOLOA, HI 96738 GILDA FONTANA 1927 HARBOR BLVD #512 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 GERBER 1708 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 IRWIN MAZE PARTNERS 1802 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT WINTERS 100 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHILIP H MELTZER 8818 S SEPULVEDA BLVD LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 LEOJYOUNG 111 VIA JUCAR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ELIZABETH M MCAULEY 112 VIA ITHACA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 E JAMES STANLEY 351 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ♦ Bend along line to i Q AVERY@ 596oTm Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM 1 1, WHITACRE DONALD RAY DONALDSON 101 E 15TH ST 1517 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TRACYJONES PO BOX 625 LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352 NPB WEHNER LLC a 692 N CYPRESS ST #E ORANGE, CA 92867 DENIS W KIDD 22874 PICO ST GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 URBAN LIMITED FREDERICK W CROOKJR. 111 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAURA J PICKING 460 VIA LIDO SOUR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN E SIMPSON 1211 ADAIR ST SAN MARINO, CA 91108 FRANCINE B VARNEY 110 VIA ITHACA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JERRELTHURSTON RICHARDS 355 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WALTER WAGNER 4015 MARCUS AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KATHLEEN CALLAHAN 9771 FAIR TIDE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 KIROLOS 2160 VISTA RD LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA 90631 DREW EBRIGHT 102 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JENNIFER S VOGELE 107 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RICHARD DUGGAN 115 VIA J UCAR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SAM M SABER 1112 MONTANA AVE SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 GARY C GRAY 104 VIA ITHACA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 REDAY MARJORIE #1 359 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 @tiquettes faciles A polar I ltilica7 la nahnrif AVFRVO 9;1Rn® Sens de i Rqpliez A la hachure afln de rAw4lar In whnrrl Dnn.IInTM www.averycom 1Jron-nri-A%/FRV Easy, Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template S1600 MINER PROPERTIES 415 30TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SOREL REISMAN 112 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SARA A WELCH 430 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BURGHARDT 3 HALSTED CIR ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 ALLEN KLINGENSMITH 453 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MICHAEL BOURESTON PO BOX 2770 GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 HELEN TOAL 433 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANDRA KITCHIN 423 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORY A COSENZA 100 VIA GENOA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DONALD PALMQUIST 105 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ♦ Bend along line to /DER(® Sg6UTM 1� I Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edgew j • ��` 1 MARSHALL LEWIS 0 136 VIA TRIESTE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE BISSELL 108 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARY ANN FAUBERT 439 VIA LIDO SOLID #B NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 E MORRIS SMITH 501 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LINDA J RICHLEY 451 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BERNARD CEAZAN 10122 EMPYREAN WAY#302 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 GORDON GRAHAM 429 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN J BURGHARDT 3 HALSTED CIR ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 LAWRENCE W BROWNE 114 PIAllA GENOA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 J D HAWTHORNE 412 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BECKER PO BOX 1014 SEELEY, CA 92273 LAURA M DOYLE 16 CORPORATE PLAZA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 KAYSFARANDA 463 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GERALD K DELEO 628 LANCER LN CORONA, CA 92879 DONALD M REDFERN 23082 MARAVILLA LN COTO DE CAZA, CA 92679 JOHN B DOYLE 425 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BARRYINC 605 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE W BROWNE 109 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KATHLEEN M SANSTER 403 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 @tlquettes faclles 8 peler Utillsez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 Sens de Repllez & la hachure afln de r6vdler le rebord Poo-Uow www.avery.com 1-80n-r,O-AVFRY Easy, Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 SCHUBERT BYERS 2025 NEWPORT BLVD #200 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 I ABEL & BONNIE VILLALPANDO 1518 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RANDALL & CAROL A NUNNELLY 1817 W BAY AVE #4 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PENINSULA RESORT LIDO 710 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KATHY MILLER 18 ANCHORAGE WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 QUINT L CALVERT 6 ANZA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 f MARY MICUCCI 12 ANZA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOUGLAS W MYERS 19 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID C WENSLEY 30 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 Bend along line to Q AAVERY® 5960*M j6Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTm A'01 KELLY C HAGUE EDWARD VANHALEN 101 VIA GENOA 10100 SANTA MONICA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 NEWPORT INVESTMENT PROPS LLC BURT 207 19TH ST 3418 ARDENT OAK CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HOUSTON, TX 77059 RICHARD AJANIK LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 4304 PARK VICENTE 717 LIDO PARK DR CALABASAS, CA 91302 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 TSCHRILLO ANTHONY JOHNSON 16750 SCHOENBORN ST 9409 MESA ROBLES DR NORTH HILLS, CA 91343 WHITTIER, CA 90603 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC HURLEY 717 LIDO PARK DR 2 ANZA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KONDELIA E KRISLOCK NEEDHAM 8 ANZA ST 10153 REDEYE CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 LEBOVITZ THOMAS F DOWDEN 23 BEACH DR 29 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GWENDOLYN M SWINNEY SMALLWOOD 31 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 @tiquettes faciles 8 peter Utilisez le oabarit AVERY® 51600 de Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.averycom Sens .,,,,,,,,,,,, rdv6ler le rebord Pon.UoTm ! 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy, Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 K FORWARD & BREND SCOTT 35 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STANSFIELD 41 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WANDA MARSHALL 2 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PARK PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 BARBARA RVCBL RIM MER 301 STONEWAY DR NW SALEM, OR 97304 RICHARD J CURRAN 21 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MITCHELL FUERST 1323 S MONTEZUMA WAY WEST COVINA, CA 91791 BENJAMIN FINLEY 23393 CAMELLIA LN MURRIETA, CA 92562 DUDLEY GREER 810 W VILLAGE PKWY j LITCHFIELD PARK, AZ 85340 CHARMIN WU 21 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 A Bend along line to i a ® Tm j.Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTm I AVERY 5960 1 ROBERTBJOHNSTON •OHN RADER 10535 MOON VIEW WAY 39 BEACH DR ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HARLANFACCOU PO BOX 3142 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 ROMEO I STOLL 3 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHILIP C SCHROEDER 6 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COLLEEN L NEFF 13 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GAIL B FINNELL 2601 BLUE WATER DR CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 REBECCA SHERBANENKO 25 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FRANK EDWARD DEAN 29 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS E TILSON 15 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT-BEACH, CA 92663 MARK S LAMORTE 27 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CO CURCI-TURNER 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOLA M RANKIN 4 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERTJ OLIVAS 8 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JANICE KAUFMAN 14 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RICHARD J CURRAN 21 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRACE M MCGREW 26 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARIA B TESMAN 30 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TODD M SCOTT PO BOX 7481 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 LIDO PARK PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 6tiquettes faciles 6 peler i A Repliez A la hachure affn de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 FSens de^ MAW le rebord Pop.UpTM www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 TAYLOR 37'CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 A Bend along line to Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM 1 AVERY® 5960TM �SUZANNE SCl VIRGINIA MCDONNELL es 1115 VIRGINIA RD 41 CABRILLO ST SAN MARINO, CA 91108 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK DAVIDSON SURVIVOR INSURANCE LINN W DERICKSON 23 CHANNEL RD 369 22ND ST 31 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE RON SALISBURY R J SKIP ZICCARDI INC MARK DOUGLAS OLSON 816 E WHITTIER BLVD PO BOX 9948 43 CHANNEL RD LA HABRA, CA 90631 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHERYL HUNTER LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC WILLIAM WALTER MESSEMER 711 FEE ANA ST 717 LIDO PARK DR 20 DRAKE ST PLACENTIA, CA 92870 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SARAH CARE BARBARA J DAILEY TAYLOR 3212 BROAD ST 28 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PEGGY DANIELS RAFAEL P FIGUEROA ROBERT C BURGESS 307 MANINI PL#A 32 DRAKE ST 181 RANCH VIEW CIR KIHEI, HI 96753 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 MARY KEY WATERMAN 6 ANCHORAGE WAY 37 DRAKE ST 7375 KINGSLEY WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 LAWRENCE A BROWNLEE THEODORA A PIKE CLAIRE M MACDONALD 41 DRAKE ST 20 EL PASEO ST 1730 W HORIZON RIDGE PKWY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HENDERSON, NV 89012 KINETIC HOLDING CO INC RICHARD R LAURENCE LIDO PARK 25 EL PASEO ST 27 EL PASEO ST PO BOX 3021 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 DOUG MCCRACKEN ALBERT D ROBERTS KENNETH GABRIEL 30 EL PASEO ST 35 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles 5 peler i A Repllez A la hachure a0n de Sens de www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 ,r rdv6ler le rebord Pop-UpTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 THOMAS C FILCHNER PO BOX 5108 f CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81225 DOROTHYJSTAUCH PO BOX 1053 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 ELIZABETH ANN WESCOTT 30 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NANCY WILSON GANNON 35 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENN H MANDA 41 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM TOBIAS WEIDNER 1000 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD #12 PASADENA, CA 91105 JAMES C KETCHAM 4 NOMAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE LTHOMAS PO BOX 5923 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 FERNANDO J MALDONADO 21 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 A Bend along line to Q AVERY@ 5960 rM i it Feed Paper expose Pop -Up Edgem i PHOEBE D PESCHKE *JACQULYN CRANSTON 85 SUFFOLK AVE 41 EL PASEO ST SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BLISS WENDELBURG 60 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GODBEY 801 RODEO RD FULLERTON, CA 92835 RANDY WIKOFF 37 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HELEN UTMAN 43 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM E BUNNETT PO BOX 1152 CANADIAN, TX 79014 BEVERLYJ MIRECKI 1048 IRVINE AVE #718 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JERVIS 1249 DOROTHEA RD LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA 90631 JOHN FRANKLIN HIBBARD 26 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MILDRED LEWIS 29 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 G ELKES ROSEMARY 26 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT PITSENBERGER 34 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PEARL E GANTES 38 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GODDARD 44 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS C MACMASTER 641 DUNES CT PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHILLIP ROY BLAND 21 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JUDITH H SILLS 23 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN M MARTIN 6875 RIO VISTA ST LAS VEGAS, NV 89131 6tiquettes faciles A peter i; A de Repliez A la hachure afln de Utilisez le 9abarit AVERY® 51600 I FSens . rBvdler le rebord Pon-UPTm www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to i ❑ rM i Use Avery® Template 51600 ) Peed Paper expose Pop•up EdgeTM i ® AVERY® 5960 , 1 BYRON J FAIRCHILD HENRICHSEN GAIL PIAZZA 36 CABRILLO ST 1420 CHAPARRAL SUMMIT DR 44 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAS VEGAS, NV 89117 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 l RUTHELLYN MADDOX RICHARD G SARSTEDT RANDY STRAIGHT II 12251 CASTLEGATE DR 31 DRAKE ST 39 EL PASEO ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT NISHIMURA PETER BRETSCHGER MARVIN LANDON 40 FREMONTST 58 BEACH DR #158 62 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID W MCGILL DEANANN H DIERKS DELLJENSEN 25 BEACH DR 644 BROOKLINE PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FULLERTON, CA 92835 TIMOTHY G FACTOR LAWRENCE BUTLER CHARLES S BELLAVIA 33 EL PASEO ST PO BOX 3533 21 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GARY L JARVIS EVANS AGGP INC RUPERT JOSEPH 20 ANCHORAGE WAY 4923 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ( MAUREEN J ASHOFF W BECKER BARBARA KEVIN D KELSO 29 CABRILLO ST 45 EL PASEO ST 3350 RIDGECREST DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHRISTINE J GARBER JUAN B CAAMANO LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 39 CABRILLO ST 43 CABRILLO ST 710 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC TIMOTHY K SORENSEN LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR 20 FREMONT ST 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC CARRIAGE MOTOR COMPANY BARBARA 1 VANLOON 717 LIDO PARK DR PO BOX 892830 43 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TEMECULA, CA 92589 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 6tiquettes faciles h peter ; A Repliez A to hachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 t ASens den' r6vdler le rebord Pop-UpTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Peel® Labels i ♦ Bend along line to Q A�RY TM ®5960 WeAvery0 Template 51600 i •Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeTM �. MARY L MICUCCI MARK DAVIDSON MATTHEW HEMSLEY 41 CHANNEL RD 33 CHANNEL RD 21119TH ST#3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I ROBERT L SULLIVAN JACK E SELCER ' MARVIN S SELCER I 227 20TH ST #103 23120TH ST 233 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I CDN FBO LINCOLN MAKE IT HAPPEN NOW LLC TECHNOLOGY DEV CENTER INC PO BOX 5831 177 RIVERSIDE AVE #F264 751 S WEIR CANYON RD #157-11 DENVER, CO 80217 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ANAHEIM, CA 92808 DAVID W LARSON MARCIA DOSSEY ANTHONY VADOPALAS 7 RICHLAND ACRES CT 1906 W BALBOA BLVD 213 19TH ST HENDERSON, NV 89074 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DEBORAH J WILKINSON STEVEN PATAPOFF JUANITA BENNETT 1901 NEWPORT BLVD #350 6713 LEEWARD ISLE WAY COSTA MESA, CA 92627 TAMPA, FL 33615 JUANITA BENNETT GAYLE N AMEMIYA GENE W ROSSJR. 3419 VIA LIDO #626 617 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GENE W ROSSJR. GENE W ROSSJR. EVERTALSENZ 617 VIA LIDO SOLID 617 VIA LIDO SOLID 23276 S POINTE DR #105 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 MARK K KEMP JEFFREY B WELLES COOKER CRAB 445 VIA LIDO SOLID #A 445 VIA LIDO SOLID #3 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COOKER CRAB STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2200 NEWPORT BLVD 3300 NEWPORT BLVD CITY HALL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LISA CARMEN HANSEN THOMAS D WYCKOFF JAMES THOMAS MELTON II 1243 COLONIAL RD 31571 PEPPERTREE BND 21219 STONYBROOK DR MC LEAN, VA 22101 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 WALNUT, CA 91789 6tiquettes faclies A peter A Repliez h la hachure afin de Sens de www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 5160® �ti,, oMo . r�v�ler le rebord Pop-UpTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Peei® Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 MARK & VALERIE A MAZZULLA 7114 CENTER ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346 DIAA SAMIR FAHMY 44 CALLE AM ENO SAN CLEMENTE, CA 92672 A Bend along line to i j Feed Paper expose Pop -Up EdgeM Q AVERY® S960 1 •PRAKASHANDRA PATEL •BAHER S FAHMY 1058 HOLIDAY DR 2706 N BENTLEY ST WEST COVINA, CA 91791 ORANGE, CA 92867 DEAN OMALLEY 1713 W BALBOA BLVD # A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HAROLD C HARRIMAN WILLIAM D HAMILTON PO BOX 3605 3418 SENECA DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 KIRK GORDON HOWARD JOSEPH M ZUFFOLETTO 1648 WOODLANDS RD 1430 W BAY AVE BEAUMONT, CA 92223 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOHN C KRUEGER FLORENCE G FEVERGEON 9426 S 51ST ST 33 CREEK RD #213 PHOENIX, AZ 85044 IRVINE, CA 92604 FRANK HLIFKA FRANK HLIFKA 1824 VILELLE PL #C 1824 VILELLE PL #C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 M M-W WILLIAMS MADELAINE A WHITEMEN 290 SERENA DR 29020 CATHERWOOD CT PALM DESERT, CA 92260 AGOURA, CA 91301 DONALD W NORBURY 18301/2 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ANNE S HARRIMAN 1720 W OCEANFRONT #A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KAMAL G FARAH 3419 VIA LIDO #63E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JACK H BLOCH .2621 SILVER DR BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 RICHARD & LJANIK 4304 PARK VICENTE CALABASAS, CA 91302 FRANK HLIFKA 1824 VILELLE PL #C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEIL STANLEY HARDIN 1830 W BALBOA BLVD #A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 6tiquettes faciles 6 peler A Repliez A la hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le 9 abarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de A..mcnt MOW le rebord Pop-UpTM ; 1-800-GO-AVERY ! 1 A Central Newport Beach Community 9Lido Isle Community Association Assoc. Walters Management Attn: Grace Dove P.O. Box 884 Balboa, CA 92661 Lido Peninsula Resort Bessire & Casenhiser, Inc. Attn: Richard Bessire 661 Brea Canyon Road, Ste 7 Walnut, CA 91789 Attn: Elisa Traub 17300 Redhill Avenue, Ste 210 Irvine, CA 92614 Newport Pier Association NO INFORMATION Lido Peninsula Company Bellport Group 151 Shipyard Way, Ste 7 Newport Beach, CA 92663 NOTICE LAPAVAILABILITY OF DRAFT RECIRCULATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTq11-c- Project Title: Marina Park Project Location: The proposed project is located between Balboa Blvd. and Newport Bay and between 15th Street and 19" Street, Newport Beach, CA Description of Nature and Purpose of Project: The proposed project, which could be developed in three phases, includes the Multi - Purpose Building, Sailing Program Building, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, improved parking and restroom areas, a public park and beach, and a public short-term visiting vessel marina of 23 slips. The Significant Effects on the Environment, if any, Anticipated as a Result of the Project: The Draft REIR addresses the following significant effects associated with the proposed project that can be mitigated to less than significant: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. There are no environmental issues that would remaln significant after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Lead Agency Division City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Address where copy of the Draft EIR and all documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available: The DREIR is also available at the following sites and on the City's Website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?vage=108 City of Newport Beach, Planning Department Newport Beach Central Library 3300 Newport Blvd 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach CA 92663 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library 100 East Balboa Boulevard 2005 Dover Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Date of Issue: January 25, 2010 Review Period: 45 Days Contact Person: Rosalinh Ung, City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach CA 92663 (949) 644-3200 or RungO-newportbeachca.gov PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Availability of a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed Marina Park (proposed project) is available for public review during the public comment period (January 25 — March 10, 2010). The City of Newport Beach (City) has prepared the DREIR to analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The proposed project encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19a' Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a new Girl Scout House, parking areas, park with tennis and basketball courts, beach, and a 23-slip marina. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 190' Street would be reconstructed. The DREIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis Checklist categories: Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Noise.The purpose of this notice is to inform local residents, institutions, agencies, and other interested parties about the availability of the DREIR during the public comment period (January 25-March 10, 2010). Written comments on the DREIR must be submitted no later than March 10, 2010, to the address below. DREIR REVIEWING LOCATIONS Please submit written comments by March 10, 2010 City Hall Planning Department (Building C), 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Public Libraries Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue Mariner's Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard Online http://www.newportbeachea.gov/index.aspx?page=108 Address Comments to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Email: rungaanewportbeachca.gov POSTE JAN .2 5 2010 Project site TO" 1 flK•RECORDER BY -__DEPUTY , ,.a 0 Notice of Completion State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento; CA95814 Marina Park Project Title POSTED JAN •2 5 2010 TOM D LY, CLERK•RECOROER By . — -DEPUTY The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15 ' Street on the east and 19" Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 150i Street, 180' Street, and 190' Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) Project Location —Specific NewportBeach Orange Project Location — City Project Location — County The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase I the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. The beneficiaries of the project include the residents of the City of Newport Beach. The residents will benefit from the operation of a new public park, marina, and other community facilities. Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project of Newport Beach Planning Department Lead Agency Division 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Address Where Copy of EIR is Available January 25, 2010 through March 10, 2010 Review Period Rosalinh Ung 949-644-3200 Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension • PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of Availability of a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21091 and 21092 and California Environmental Quality Act-(CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed Marina Park (proposed project) is available for public review during the public comment period (January 25 —March 10, 2010). The City of Newport Beach (City) has prepared the DREIR to analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The proposed project encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19a' Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a new Girl Scout House, parking areas, park with tennis and basketball courts, beach, and a 23-slip marina. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a cafe situated on the second story. The existing bathroom -on the public beach adjacent to 19a' Street would be reconstructed. The DREIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis Checklist categories: Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Noise.The purpose of this notice is to inform local residents, institutions, agencies, and other interested parties about the availability of the DREIR during the public comment period (January 25-March 10, 2010). Written comments on the DREIR must be submitted no later than March 10, 2010, to the address below. DREIR REVIEWING LOCATIONS Please submit written comments by March 10, 2010 City Hall Planning Department (Building C), 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Public Libraries Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue Mariner's Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard Online http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=l 08 Address Comments to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Email: runp((n)newportbeachca.gov Project site o' 2xae PUI LIC NICE Notice of Availability of a V c•�,FaaH T Draft Recirculated Environmental 'Impact Report Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Sections 21091 and 21092 and' California Environmental. Quality ,Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Recirculated' Environmental Impact, Report (DREIR) for theproposed Marina Park (proposed project) is available for public review during the public comment period (January 25,-- Match 10, 2010). The City of Ne*rPort,Beaeh (City) has prepared the DREIR to,analyze the enVir'onn ental'.impacts,associated�with implementation of the proposed projects to discuss alternatives, and. to propose mitigation measures'fot identified, potentially signifi'cant impacts,that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental- impacts. The proposed ,project encompasses approximately 10:45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, GirlScout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veterans Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 191h Street rest room; beach, andthe portion of the project 'site within Newport Bay. The proposed project.includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be i demolished and converted to openspacewith coastalaccess improvements. Phase 2would convert the open space to-turf.Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at, the Balboa Center Complex; a 'Sailing Program Building,at the Balboa Center Complex, a new Girl.Scout'Rouse, parkingareas, park with tennis C andbasketballcoiiits,beacheapd•a23-slip,marina.Thepublicpaikwouldprgvid6forpassiveandacdveareas.'Tlie ez passive:areasdncludean'openlawmareaand':a water feature. The active areas include.achildten$playarea,tennis ;''courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting Yes§,el marina would accommodate• visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacentto the maxi -pa. The Balboa Center Complexwould include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and commuunity events, and -would have a caf6 situated on the�second story. The existing bathroom onthepublic beach adjacent to 19' Streetwould'be reconstructed. The DREIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed• project ln'relation to the following .Environmental' Analysis 'Checklist, categories: •Tana Use and Planning, Maffic and Circulation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources; Cultural' Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Rydrology ,and Water Quality, public Services, Utilities and 'Service Systems, and Noisc• The purpose 'of this noticels to'inforin local residents,institutions,:agericies,,and other-lnterested parties about the availability olthe DREIR during'the pubVe,comiiie'nt period (Januaty 25-Mv rc)i 10, 2010): �'V'ritten comm'egts on theDR$IR'mwt be submitted no latet thanMarch 10;2010,to the address below. • ' online. . iR REvIEwING LOCATIONS Please submit writtek comments,: by March Ik2010 ' ' - - Project site Department (130diag C), vporfBlvd. y, Beach PublicLibrades Ibrary,1000AvoeadoAvenbe; s Branch, 1300IrvineAveme tranch,100',EastBalBoa;Boulevard ~.).'"01 11w Lft Z, w,newportlieachca:govlindexaspz7pe=108 t ag�i Comments to: Ung,rtBea*, 500 er fewportBeach;3900Newport Boulevard r �-'"^`•^-.-_ Beach, CA 9265§-8915 s , r • 'Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A-6214, September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 1 am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: January 23, 2010 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 28, 2010 at Costa Mesa, California. Signatur 0 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 0 2 ?0!0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Notice of Completion State of California Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA95814 Marina Park Project Title The project site is located in the City of New Beach, on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15 Street on the cast and 19a' Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15a' Street, 1 e Street, and 19a' Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). Project Location —Specific Newport Beach Orange Project Location —City Project Location —County The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the '19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a cafi situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. The beneficiaries of the project include the residents of the benefit from the operation of a new public park, marina, an Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project of Newport Beach. The residents will er community facilities. City of Newport Beach Planning Department Lead Agency Division 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Address Where Copy of Ent is Available January 25 2010 through March 10 2010 Review Period Rosalinh Ung 949-644-3200 Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension Appendix C Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 sCH #2008051096 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: Marina Park Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: Rosalinh Ung Mailing Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: 949.644.3200 City: Newport Beach Zip: 92658 County: Orange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Location: County:Orange - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - City/Nearest Community: Cityof NeppwrtBeach, Balboa Peninsula Cross Streets: West Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street Zip Code: Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 33 0 36 ' 28 „N / 117 0 55 23 0 W Total Acres: 10.45 Assessors Parcel No.: Section:33 Twp.:6S Range:1OW Base: NB Within 2 Miles: State Hwy 4:Hwy 1 Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: N/A Railways: N/A Schools: Newport Elementary - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Document Type: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CEQA: ❑ NOP 0 Draft EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document ❑ Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) ❑ Draft EIS 0 Other: Recirculated ❑ MitNeg Dee Other: ❑ FONSI - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Local Action Type: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit 0 Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) 0 Other:"'See Attached - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Development Type: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ CommerciahStI.R. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.fL Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type MW ❑ Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD, 0 Recreational:10.45 Acre Park and Marina ❑ Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ WaterFacilities:Type MGD ❑ Other: '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Issues Discussed in Document: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 AestheticNisual ❑ Fiscal 0 Recreation/Parks ✓❑ Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land 0 Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universittes Water Quality 0 Air Quality ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ✓❑ Water Supply/Groundwater 0 Archeological/Historical i] Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity ^'i ✓❑ Wetland/Riparian 0 Biological Resources ❑ Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading i] Growth Inducement 0 Coastal Zone i] Noise 0 Solid Waste Land Use 0 Dminage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance 0 Toxic/Hazardous Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs i] Public Services/Facilities ❑✓ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Parks, Community Facilities and Mobile Homes/Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities --———————————————————————————- Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) "See Attached Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign Identification numbersfor all nmv projects. Ifa SCHnumber already eastsfor a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in. Revised 2008 .Wr 9 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by -marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". X Air Resources Board X Boating & Waterways, Department of California Highway Patrol S Caltrans District # 12 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics _ Caltrans Planning Central Valley Flood Protection Board _ Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy S Coastal Commission _ Colorado River Board Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of _ Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission X Fish & Game Region 05 Food & Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of X Housing & Community Development _ Integrated Waste Management Board X Native American Heritage Commission _ Office of Emergency Services X Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction X Parks & Recreation, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission X Regional WQCB # 8 Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mms. Conservancy San Joaquin River Conservancy _ Santa Monica Mms. Conservancy X State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants X SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights _ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency S Toxic Substances Control, Department of _ Water Resources, Department of _ Other: Other: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date January 25, 2010 Ending Date March 10, 2010 --—————————————————————————————————————————— Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Sirius Envirommnetal Applicant: City of Newport Beach Address: 1478 N. Altadena Drive Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard City/State/Zip: Pasadena, CA 91107 City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Wendy Lockwood Phone: 949.644.3200 Phone: 626,808.0031 ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Date: S °'lo10 Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Cod . Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code. Revmd 2008 Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal sCH # 2008051096 Local Action Type: Other: ** Coastal Harbor Activities Permit; Demolition Permit; Building Permit Project Description: The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a cafe situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. RECEIVED BY POSTED PLANNINGDEPARTMENA PUBLIC NOTICE MAR I I ZD10 Notice of Availability of a JAN -2 5 2010 xl Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact ReR •1CMD�Y,CtEHK.REDDRDER �LDEPUTY. Pur�ttYcM 3fiEMMRTs QEtions 21091 and 21092 and CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15105 and 15087, notice is hereby given that a Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DREIR) for the proposed Marina Park (proposed project) is available for public review during the public comment period (January 25 — March 10, 2010). The City of Newport Beach (City) has prepared the DREIR to analyze the environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project; to discuss alternatives; and to propose mitigation measures for identified potentially significant impacts that will minimize, offset, or otherwise reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The proposed project encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19's Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase 1 the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, a new Girl Scout House, parking areas, park with tennis and basketball courts, beach, and a 23-slip marina. The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19a' Street would be reconstructed. The DREIR examines the potential impacts generated by the proposed project in relation to the following Environmental Analysis Checklist categories: Land Use and Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Noise.The purpose of this notice is to inform local residents, institutions, agencies, and other interested parties about the availability of the DREIR during the public comment period (January 25-March 10, 2010). Written comments on the DREIR must be submitted no later than March 10, 2010, to the address below. DREIR REVIEWING LOCATIONS Please submit written comments by March 10, 2010 City Hall Planning Department (Building C), 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach Public Libraries Central Library, 1000 Avocado Avenue Mariner's Branch, 1300 Irvine Avenue Balboa Branch, 100 East Balboa Boulevard Online http://www.newportbeachea.gov/index.aspx?page=108 Address Comments to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach; CA 92658-8915 Email: rung_(cdnewportbeachca.eov Project site 0� Ma -7.r. 0 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Notice of Completion State of California Olrce ofPlanning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Marina Park Project Title MAR 112010 CITY OF NEATORT BEACH The project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15 Street on the east and 190' Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15a' Street, 180' Street, and 190' Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). Project Location —Specific Newport Beach Orange Project Location — City Project Location — County The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, tennis courts, an alley, sidewalks, the 19th Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes three phases. In Phase I the mobile home park would be demolished and converted to open space with coastal access improvements. Phase 2 would convert the open space to turf. Phase 3 would consist of the construction of a Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), a Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), a new Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres) with tennis and basketball courts, beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park would provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas include a children's play area, tennis courts, and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina would accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex would include rooms for educational classes, sailing classes, and community events, and would have a caf6 situated on the second story. The existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street would be reconstructed. The beneficiaries of the project include the residents of the City of Newport Beach. The residents will benefit from the operation of a new public park marina, and other community facilities. Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project City of Newport Beach Planning Department Lead Agency Division 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Address Where Copy of EIR is Available January 25 2010 through March 10 2010 Review Period Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension 0 S T E D JAN ,2 S 2010 'OM DALY, CLEflK•RECOflDEfl By DEPUTY Prep.red for City of Newport Beach Marine Park- Prelininary Ovemil Pedc5ue4 After atuiNng CompiOam, Development Schedule "DRAFT" O lO naalWe MVC ; Sb- fMN •Aff } - _ + ER my*_ 03 2 4S day Public R.V"Pedod(Calredar Days) 45 ddp Mmt O Wed3110r10 '- J- C teaPm'tllpolFinal HEM 11� ThF64W10 Thu49h01 t 4 • lMl Dmldrl a to day RwAm.f RW HEIR Cedlficalicnd REIR 12mys Odaya Mmr%1 4f0 T.e5/l1/10 TF+s�IO Tue Shltial t r yN+ • t Notice of Dremiatim Filed 3days Wed S/12hO Fd SM Vl0� s • eYlomY CaaeltoumiWmPhu.la0 132 days Wed Sh2/10 ThUM1110 +• 3 Written Detennina0nn Slate LandoConvissim 90days Wed5112110 TWO114110� ++ Prepare Dena9tton Plan 14 days Wed5172/70 Mm5r31110 C1 +2 Propane Lamp. Plans Prepare Tree R&mNWPlan 14-days 14 days Wed S/tZlO Wed 5112110 Mm5131Na Mon 5131110 C C 137- +e GmdM Drainage, EmstunCmtM Plan 14 days Wed5n2I70 Man 513111 s Ciy R.Amofarhermatie Plans 15days Tue W1110 Mma'21h01 u Cmrdtants Rospraabtlycwananb /l days TWSIMG Tu07Ai/10� +2 Application Subritudto CCC p days Tue7/0110 ♦1a Is CCC Slab gwtw 40 drys Wad7/1110 uo 813110 Tun a7th0 +• Gy Response to CCC Camnsn6 23 days Wad 9/t/1D F0101/10 ar end SubmlWbCCC days Fn101111 OCColewa Notice Meehng 29daya Mon1W1ID Tu111/10 22 CCCHmIngaMabteinCDP Odaya Thuilhi/fD Thu 11/11/70 ++^+ a �74— Plea Crapletim PhwlaO Mdorm Mm10100 Thu tratnt ' 1st Plan Check submftud a City Rehew ladays Mon 1014110 Mm10125110 t--i x - Coruuflants Flesportse to GlyCortnnnb /4 days Tue10A?&ID Fri 11112/10 ;'�• r 2nd Plsn Cheek Summitlal Clya Roview ladays Mont1115710 Mon121WIC _ I Consultant, Respoma toChy Cwv*Ms 14days Tus IM/10 Fd IM4110 .h 'a City RoWmandepproval 24 days Mon 12MI10 Thu 1127/11 2• a lily Pemtlt lesuan-0 Odryn Thu1117i11 Thu 1f17/11 u Prefeacon.Wetim Phsulaa 210dve F111/12/t0 Tu.lrflhl "el 90 Do Tenant Noificetian Pedod(Catendar Days) 90drys F411/12110 Wad7A//il t- ' sl Advertlae/BINAWardPro)ect Mdays Fd/1112110 Tue2115/7t a Mahrantion(SlaO 30 Days Ah rAwrd) 12days TIM3115111 WedaGOIll oe DemolitforIPhaselCru7iucoon 90 days TIw3r31/11 Wrlet3111 m Phase ti Conitluctlal adays FA ef5ltl Tue 1Wi1/11 s m End Pham ll Cmgruetim 0days Tue10111111 Tue1N11h1 ♦teal b 8CEP1,ee7Purchw in9 days Wdel12/t0 T 4+ Nseo9rsriodasarMSaeanup aN 45days Wed5t17/f0 Tue 7113110 42 EsamClose lPadaQSCE SIIe Gsergi SOdays IOS/10 Tue t0wit U w e Fiml Prularp Odaya M ye Tuala4h0 Tue 1015/10 Wed VIVIO Tue iN5n0 Twa'1110 ♦-lea _ b Prepare Final Parcel Map 14 days WedSn2110 Mm5r31/t0 4e CIy RoAm Period 16days Tueahlle Tus artl110 Ez b Consultant mtflaeponseto CiryCmmeMs 14 days 7I0 r to drys Tue7t[3110 Tue ]/131f0 Tuee Tue ef3170 m Rn=d mPedod fleooNrimdFhal Map 0days TMBWI0 TOea/3hD ♦p b N IWbrPermaProuu Ndye Wed5112ne become u FloappAatim forHalbm Permit 4days Wed5I12hO MonSM7110 s. Harbor Resources Cimtor Review'Apprwal(A1C.) 20days Tue5119I10 Mm a/1Y10 ss b 1 Herb- CommldmflMeaiapprwal app0aicn (d appealed) 40 days Tue SMSMO Mona/MO n Ceafomle Could emmYeim ProwePhusM 23dy. Wecitut fe TheY I u Prepare Coastal Dwskinnenl Permit package(mcludes Ca: Fah a Game) 40days Wed5h2/1D Tue 71M0 u Flo CDP application _ _ Odeys Tue7MMO Tue 7/&10 a +e ® Stag MA&2nd request foradditorW Womatim 20 Wed711110 2` al Rwiseapp2eaampw SW1 M(3dradmsassans bP d) days 120� Weda14/10 MIIIBh0 Tue 111WIt � m Resd.rit CDPwing m + ldayays Wed 1=11 Wedi/79/11 ea Hearing CCC 38 drys Thu 120/it Thu Y10/11 w hemm _ CCCheeihpapprwataral obtain COP a a CCC wdMn approval 15days FAM1111 Thu 313111 u 8eelbn4aY9eaim 10 Prra Rou..gluborllr.d9tly0slo7 2124ys WWShT/i0 Thu Y.ifn1 ® Initiate Pre•AppllaamcmWtab "thCapsd6igineem(C.dF) 20days WedN12110 Tuea1a110 e• ACOECRWOCBAppliatlom(Secbm t040+_f.40.4,703) 15 days WMINAD Too 7127/70 ' Pe4faRYePgfaedseee aJe IIUYYJIe Tit C'��^ 4ri PAP. _ 1ir4e ♦ _ Bmae li®9 Palsf6uory i T.I' eeee,l j==i f4serliTY n elk n regal 0 0 Prepared tar City of Newport Beach Marina Park- Preliminary Overall Park Fandng After BWldbg Gmpleden Development Schedule "DRAFT" o mwem aeue to � m rvm, m e ass sae, zou ACOE DebmiMlbn olCMpbte Allpgration 15 days Wed723n0 Twwi7n0 Jh Session IM- Dre VMOeaan Disposal Pemit 120 days Wedefla110 Tue2/1/11 SConnecdPadord �ICoowlbnl Wed-9/i9A0 no Twillue ano la Response W Pubic CamrwM Period 30days days weaeriwf9 rwnreno a ALOE lflOCSCedti 90days WedllA0A0 Tue37ISnI is IridCR ACOEaaid CRWWOCB CondtiaW Approvals (F5ul ups, CCC approval) Odays Thuml/il Thu3f3t/Ii M T DnderiproundlllpllIIHOw 1Rdaye Fd4hAl YenlUssill n 90 Day Temra Notiiralbn Period(OpdarW d Phase l or g net bldgl) 90 days Fd4nn1 Mm7/11n1 w lkderwoundng of O"dwad Uuifies(SCOftrsa) /OUdays Tue7n2/111 Mon 112afil eo m Pheee6R YarYu9eawriYDfedldM 507 d.y. We WOMI Thu3cHI '--� as Wafq Cilailatlon SNdy 45days Wed3A0/10 T,w5flino Desgn ���S.� 40days WedS/12no Trw 7161I0 se ' .MonD mn5 80days Thu9/9A0 Thu lzr4Wf0 - ea Plan Checkpomk 50 days Fd 12131/40 ThUMOrt/ DAyTreurt _ Period(OP*W0 Phase l mil ml bu3Q 90days Fd 411111 Mon7/1/A1 I 1 ---_- c A ✓d 50days Fd 4nni TfiuwAt w Combucucn(S1an 30 Days Mer Away 180 days Fd 722n1 Thu 3MM220 i - w ITees": Gmmun6y GNwaMGang GNerwRhpuWngfW@aYn In7ewya M'edidsm 91 Ww LEER condarll 30 days Wed S/12/10 Trw6=10 w -Design Devs1opment Fw RegWaWyAgwmy&bnitW 40days Wad5112n0 Tue7/6/10 w Negotiate emsnU5dacl nudivanl Operate 12g days Wed2125/09 Tusamns Cone 9n opmerd bbO d Oevsi Wday3 Fd 1126/10 Thu 3131111 - - es Cm*ucdon Downward 60 days Fd411/11 Thu6=1 - °s- PlanChackWemil 90days Fd Weill Thu 1012711/ w. AdveNaelildfAward 50 days Fn 10=11 Tlw t%S/12 —_ ee Conehuction(SIen30dayeMxAward) 260days Fd2/17A2 Thu2/14n3 — ,w. BldAwardConstwello NewTsnNiCeude /40 day. Fd4/t/Il Th.lonarn ' --.-- —e 101 Deno" lerWs courts& playground (SW Wah Rase IIFB Comu"on) lodays 1`62/17/12 Thu3llh2 m P T50 days SfI2n0 Tm7r/lo Design Deveioprwnl For Hegliat ory Ageray SulTtilW 40 days ad Wad5A2ll Ttw7Al/l0 ros CmsWctlon Dommulb 40daya Fd tOrtaAf Thu 17122/II lm %an ChecI Perwit 90 daya Fd12113/11 Thu426l12 2' ,m AdvarfwelBldAward 50 days Fd 427/12 Thu7/5/12 tv Consuucion(Sbd30Dapa Alter Award) 1SUdeys Fd S117A2 Thu3/39/13 w no Pheee60:Pwk,PlrypauaY asdaaboav 2a days wed TTM71UIO 1 _ Design teevOSWDlFmflegugtay Agmry Prxesdng 40 days Wed nMo Trw716f10 112 0onanmd� 0days Fd 3R/12 3MM2 ,u CamtrucdonCorrPlete 4vird 40days Fd7/61f2 ku O5h2 TThui0/12 ------i--- -- - - _ .. y `la Plan Chedr/Pemyl 90 days Fda2fA2 114113 „s Adven"SWAward 50 days Fd 1l4A3 Thu Tiw 3f1/lt3 '1fa Aabseios AbatemeN Dieting Bugdnga a0 days Fd 12121112 Thu 4111113 ,n Camtwciai SWtAftarBwg ( 1&,g&i gedon) 160days Fd4/i2/13 Thull2l/13 --- lre De 4dwof MAinp wParkstle(mcbdng CamsNry Cemrard OdSmut Hausa) 20 days F64/12/13 Thu52/13 ,ro -Bide Oki Scoldifw.e Design Dw•NopnM For Roguhu"Agency Process" a@day. oda" WedW2110 Wassavl0 Thull=2 Tue7/6110 _ _ w Couplets 90 days Fd IIJWI0 Thu3/31/11 (e7771� bDesi sebprmnl - eodays niarim• Thu NGVlI ,>• Plea Gaew apse assays. NOWMf T Ilx7n/ ,a- AdsarbseWAwud 60days Fdl=n/ Thu//5/12 �._.�. ,sa Combustion latestw M.A zoos Ri2A7n2 Thu1122112 . a Xlme tlrw Uft �` ---• Spec, pa we 1iN _ sa�, C I Pwfscsm C^ 0. esessiTeb Czz::=zz West a qY 6 -- -_ - -_ meaf 0 i PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WENDY LOCKWOOD DBA SIRIUS ENVIRONMENTAL FOR MARINA PARK PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this 2'kn4 day of September, 2009, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation("City"), and WENDY LOCKWOOD, DOING BUSINESS AS (dba) SIRIUS ENVIRONMENTAL a sole proprietorship whose address is 1478 North Altadena Dr., Pasadena, CA, 91107("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is planning to develop City -owned property commonly known as Marina Park at 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard. C. City desires to engage Consultant for preparation of the re -circulated draft EIR and the final EIR as outlined in the Sirius Environmental Scope of Services referenced as Exhibit "A" for the Marina Park Project ('Project'). D. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement. E. The principal member[sj of Consultant for purposes of this Project, shall be Wendy Lockwood. F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31 day of July, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. 2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, In the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other parry so that all delays can be addressed. 3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control. 3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand -delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to -exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Eighty Four Thousand, Three Dollars and no/100 ($84,300) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and/or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant; A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit B. 4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when payments made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City has accepted the final work under this Agreement. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Wendy Lockwood to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Rosalinh Ung, shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 3 7. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and Information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. 9. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, Its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims"), which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. 11. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work Project Administrator and interest in the work to be Consultant on the Project. 12. CITY POLICY closely and cooperate fully with City's designated any other agencies that may have jurisdiction or performed. City agrees to cooperate with the Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. 14. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. INSURANCE Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work. Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies. C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. D. Coverage Requirements. I. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In* addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non - renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. I= H. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability.. insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self -insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 7 15. 16. 17 A. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-payment of premium) written notice has been received by City. F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership orjoint-venture. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform work on this Project are Identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary of any work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents"), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and [3 City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. All Improvement and/or construction plans shall be prepared with indelible waterproof ink or electrostaticly plotted on standard 24-inch by 36-inch Mylar with a minimum thickness of three mils. Consultant shall provide to City 'As -Built' drawings, and a copy of digital ACAD and tiff image files of all final sheets within ninety (90) days after finalization of the Project, For more detailed requirements, a copy of the City of Newport Beach Standard Design Requirements is available from the City's Public Works Department. 18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file of City : Title Sheets. API written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel. 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, Including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 0 20. OPINION OF COST 21 22. 23. 24. Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or ii7 restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under the law or any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or Its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 27. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Attn: Dave Webb Public Works Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA, 92663 Phone: 949-644-3328 Fax: 949-644-3328 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: Attn: Wendy Lookwood Sirius Environmental 1478 North Altadena Dr Pasadena, CA, 91107 Phone: 626-808-0031 Fax: 866-698-5178 11 28. TERMINATION In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non -defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting parry written notice thereof. Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 30. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 12 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. 33. INTERPRETATION The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which might otherwise apply. 34. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 36, SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 36. CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Yynettl4-YeLdh m , Assistant City Att ney ATTEST: By. Leilani Brown, City Clerk Attachments: Mayor for the City of Newport Beach Title: Sole Proprietor Print Name: Wendy Lockwood of Services Exhibit B — Billing Rate i 14 Acltz� # Sirius Environmental September 3, 2009 Mr. David Lepo, Planning Director Ms. Rosalinh M. Ung, Associate Planner City ofNewpoit Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Proposed Scope of Work, Schedule and Costs to prepare a Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) and Final ED2 OM4IR) for the Marina Park project Dear David and Ros: As we discussed, enclosed please find our proposed scope of work, schedule and costs to prepare a Recirculated Draft EIR and Final EIR foi the Marina Park project. We look forward to working with you on this project. We understand the time -sensitive nature of the EIR and are committed to meeting your schedule. David and Ros, if you have any questions or would like me to expand on any aspect of the attached please call or send me an e-mail. Yours sincerely, PI Wendy Lockwood Principal 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626-808-0031 www.siriusenviroDmental.com i Sirius Environmental Proposal Marina Park Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) Sirius Environmental September 3, 2009 Scope of Work Task 1: Revise Project Description. This task includes revising the project description to reflect the 3-phased project: Phase 1: Removal of mobile homes (coaches), and replacement with a (rough) sand park (with temporary restrooms adjacent to the parking area); also addition of a new lifeguard tower on the beach. The boardwalk and shrubbery along the beach will be maintained. Phase 2. Replacement of the sand park with grass, conversion of the existing alley section into temporary metered public parking (still under consideration). Phase 3: As analyzed in the original Draft EIR: new park configuration with new basketball and tennis courts, new restrooms, reconfigured green space and parking, new children's play area, new Balboa Center multi -purpose building and sailing program, replacement Girl Scout house and new visiting vessel marina and general purpose marina. Additional detail on project elements will be brought in to the Project Description (e.g., number of pilings; design of the groin, seawall, and docks; potential marina circulation enhancement measures) in response to questionsraisedin agency comment letters. In particular the purpose and need for the new marina including the bulkhead and groin wall will be documented. The Project Description will also be augmented to include a description of project construction (including estimated duration of activities). Elements will include the anticipated pile driving techniques; dredge and fill quantities; dredging techniques; dredged material quality, disposal techniques, and locations; sand compatibility; tree removal timing and controls; construction -phase air and water pollution controls). These revisions will ensure that the impact analyses are properly set up and consistent with one another and that the full scope of project activities is disclosed, as it should be, in the Project Description. The Project Description will be augmented to include estimates/assumptions of operational phase activities used to analyze traffic and other issue areas (vehicular traffic, boat traffic, park visitors, etc.) that are currently scattered throughout the 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626-808-0031 www.siriusenvironmental,com Sirius Environmental appendices and impact assessment tables. Elements requested in comment letters such as relevant details of a marina management plan (anti -fouling paints, marine mammal management); clarification of the function of the on -site cafe, and other details will be included. Task 2: Revise Environmental Setting, Impact Analyses and Mitigation Measures, The existing setting overview will be augmented to include information on existing water circulation, sediment contamination, and existing activities such as traffic, boating, visitors, etc. Most of this information is available in the technical appendices, and simply needs to be brought into the text. The CEQA baseline (conditions as of May 2008, date of the NOP) can then be clearly established. We also suggest a map showing the location of cumulative projects be included in the Traffic report (to be prepared by Austin Foust Associates) and In the EIR. This task includes incorporating all the new analyses to be received from technical consultants (wetland delineation, erosion/hazards, sand compatibility, traffic), as well as preparation of phased analyses of all issues. Additional noise and air quality modeling will be undertaken to reflect the phased project. In general, the impact sections will be revised to make them more consistent with one another in format, style, and level of analysis; they should be edited for clarity, and amended to reflect the revised project description. The sections will include descriptions of baseline conditions for each issue area, as well as summaries or the project elements that could have impacts in those issue areas. The text of each impact section will be edited as necessary to separate setting and methodology from impact analysis. The Impact analyses will be revised to compare the project to the CEQA baseline more clearly. Certain of the issue areas, discussed below, will need additional modifications. We would anticipate working closely with City staff to obtain additional information and clarification, as necessary. The mitigation measures will be revised, in consultation with City staff, to ensure that they are specific, feasible, and relevant. Task 2A. Aesthetics The analysis of the aesthetic issues will be augmented to emphasize the aesthetic benefits of the project (removal of the mobile home park and opening up of views) and to treat in more depth the features that would exceed permissible heights. The analysis will e=raluate each phase. Task 2B. Air Quality Construction emissions for all three phases will be calculated and presented separately. Based on operational characteristics evaluated in the revised traffic study (being prepared under separate contract), operational emissions for the different phases will be discussed and modeled as appropriate. Greenhouse gas emissions will be quantified using the Urbemis model. The RDEIR will include a discussion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to City of Newport Beach thresholds and any applicable criteria identified by State, or regional agencies (such as the Southern California Association of Governments — Sirius Environmental SCAG, or the South Coast Air Quality Management District — SCAQMD). The GHG analysis will include consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors (such as the potential for the park to provide recreational amenities to local residents thereby reducing vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions, also any energy/water saving features of the project). Task 2C. Bioloov The setting section will include more detailed information on the wetlands status of the site, per the delineation undertaken by MBA. The impact assessment will be revised to provide more focus and detail concerning project impacts on fish habitat, especially EFH, invasive species, and eelgrass. As an example, the conversion of intertidal habitat to sub -tidal habitat is an impact on EFH. Although the project's footprint would be small, it is of concern primarily from a cumulative standpoint, since, as Newport Bay has developed to support recreational boating, beach and intertidal shoreline has been converted to bulkhead. The section will be augmented with a more thorough discussion of construction noise that takes into account recent NMFS guidance on underwater noise and marine mammals (National Marine Fisheries Service. 2003. Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Construction of the East Span of the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge. Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization 68 Federal Register 64595-64609). This section will also include a summary of the biological assessment (to be prepared under separate contract) of the four sand disposal sites. (The full Biological Assessment of the four beaches will be included as an Appendix.) Task 2D. Cultural Resources Revisions to address the three -phased project are anticipated in this section. Task 2E. Land Use The land use section will be revised to clarify the relationship between the Coastal Act and the City of Newport Beach's Coastal Land Use Plan (Local Coastal Program), as well as to present a summary of the current status of the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Implications for not having an adopted LCP (Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission). The history of the City's interaction with the Coastal Commission on the LCP will be described. Of particular concern is the implications of the 2006 changes to the dredge, dike, and fill language of the Coastal Act. This revision is vital for the marina component of the project, and will be undertaken in close cooperation with City staff. Complete/augment comprehensive policy analysis of project compared to all applicable General plan policies. Task 2F. Hazards A Phase It Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is underway for the Southern California Edison property (under separate contract) to characterize the potential contamination and identify any appropriate mitigation measures. The Phase II ESA will be summarized and incorporated in to the Recirculated Draft EIR. Sirius Environmental Task 2G. Hvdrolooy and Water Quality The water quality and hydrology section will be revised to address project phasing and incorporate Information on existing and with -project coastal processes, i.e., shoreline erosion. Everest International (under separate contract), will prepare: 1) an opinion letter on coastal processes and potential impacts of the project, 2) a revision of the previous analysis conducted using the hydrodynamic and water quality model to reflect the change in groin wall, 3) a qualitative discussion of long-term water quality management in the marina as a result of increased population in the area and use of motors in the marina. Fuscoe Engineering (under separate contract) will provide further discussion on the evaluation of surface runoff on the land portion of the site (an evaluation of surface water runoff is included in the Preliminary Water Quality management Plan — WQMP). The section will also be revised to include more up-to-date information on the regulatory setting, per the RWQCB comments, including the status of regional TMDLs, the City's MS4 permit, the construction storm water permit, and the Basin Plan. We assume that Fuscoe and Everest will provide sufficient information to generally evaluate any potential for significant project -specific impacts on TMDLs. The impact analysis will incorporate more detail on the effects of construction pollution control measures, and will explain how the proposed marina would not Introduce additional pollutants into the bay system (the vessels would come without the marina, but would be accommodated at offshore moorings). 2H. Noise Construction and operational impacts of the three -phased project will be evaluated based on construction equipment anticipated for all three phases and operational characteristics of all three phases analyzed in the traffic report. 21. Public Services Revisions to this section are anticipated to reflect the change to a three -phased project. 2J. Transportation The revised traffic analysis (being prepared under separate cover by Austin Foust Associates) to address the three -phased project will be summarized in the Recirculated Draft EiR.i It is assumed that the revised traffic analysis will include an updated list (and map) of cumulative projects. 2K. Utilities Revisions to this section are anticipated to reflect the change to a three -phased project. Task 3: Alternatives. This task includes revising the alternatives analysis to add substance and reflect the revised technical analyses. In addition the alternatives will be revised to reflect similar phasing to the project as appropriate. Discussion of an alternative site will be added. Sirius Environmental The alternatives analysis will be substantially augmented in order to ensure that CEQA's intent that "the EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project" (CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(d)). The range of alternatives in the draft Marina Park EIR is reasonable, but there is insufficient Information on the impacts of those alternatives to support a meaningful comparison of the alternatives with the proposed project. More description will be provided concerning the key differences between the alternatives and the proposed project, and detailed descriptions, quantitative where feasible and necessary, of the impacts associated with those differences will be provided. Task 4: Comment/Response Matrix. This task includes preparation of a matrix summarizing comments received on the Draft EIR and where responses to those comments are located in the Recirculated Draft EIR. Task 5: General Editing. This task includes comprehensive review and editing and reformatting as needed of the entire document to improve readability and consistency (there will be substantial overlap between this task and Task 3, since they will be conducted at the same time, however, this task is needed even without changes to the project and addition of analyses). Chapters 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Executive Summary) will require minor editing to incorporate the revised project description and impact analyses, but will not require new studies or analyses. Task 6: Meetings and Hearings. This task includes three meetings with staff and attendance at three public meetings. Task 7: Response to Staff Comments, Preparation of Notice of Completion (NOG) and Notice of Availability (NOA) and Print Instructions. This task includes response to staff comments (one set of unified comments) on the screencheck Draft EIR. Given staffs substantial background in the project, their input will be sought early and often to reduce review time. A "proof copy" of the document will be submitted to City staff for their review prior to delivering to the printer. This task includes preparation of a print ready Recirculated Draft EIR and the NOC and NOA as well as providing print Instructions to the printer. It does not include reproduction or mailing costs, or costs of posting notices at the County Clerk or in the newspaper. Task 8: Response to Public/Agency Comments and Preparation of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). This task includes response to all public/agency comments and preparation of a Final EIR (Addendum Format) for staff. review. This task also includes response to staff comments on the Final EIR. This task also Includes preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. This task includes preparation of a print -ready document (FEIR) as well as print instructions. It does not include reproduction or mailing costs, or costs of posting notices at the County Clerk or in the newspaper. It assumes 50 hours of Sirius staff time will be sufficient for this task. Task 9: Findings Preparation of Notice of Determination (NOD). This task includes preparation of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations as well as the NOD. (It does not include the CDFG or other fees or costs associated with posting the NOD.) Schedule Completion of all outside studies (Everest, Fuscoe, AFA): Submit Screencheck Draft REIR: Staff Review Completed: Revisions completed (proof copy available to staff October 30): Printing completed, publish Draft REIR: End of Comment Period: First Draft R to C/FEIR: Staff Review: Revisions completed: Publish Final EIR Certification n 0 Sirius Environmental September 30, 2009 October 19, 2009 October 27, 2009 November 2, 2009 November 9, 2009 December 23, 2009 January 6, 2010 January 13, 2010 January 20, 2009 January 27, 2010 (Jan 29 latest) February 9, 2010 .Cost Estimate TASK Screencheck Draft EIR Task 1: Revise Project Description Task 2: Revise Impact Analyses Task 3: Re -write Alternatives Task 4: Comment Matrix Task 5: General Review Editing Subtota/Screencheck Task 6: Meetings and bearings Task 7: Response to Staff Comments, DEIR Print Instructions, NOC and NOA Task 8: Response to Public/Agency Comments, FEIR Print Instructions and MMRP Task 9: Findings, NOD Sirius Environmental UNITS SUBTOTAL TOTAL 32 hrs $5,000.00 160 hrs $24,000.00 32 hrs $5,000.00 16 hrs $2,400.00 100 hrs $15,000.00 340 hrs $51,400 60 $10,000 50 $7,500 50 $7,500 40 $6,400 TOTAL LABOR 540 $82,800 Other Direct Costs Mileage @ $0.55 per mile, misc other $1,500 TOTAL BUDGET: $84,300 r 7 -Ex�� 6,k S Sirius Environmental BILLING RATES -___-•-- _ . _- -.------_-_._ ____ . -- .__-___--- __-. _._- _ Category Hourl Principal _ $185.00 _ Managing Consultant Y— $150.00 Senior Consultant $120.00 Associate $90.00 Administrative / Graphics/Clerical $75.00 1478 N. Altadena Drive, Pasadena, California 91107 626 808 0031 www.siriusenvironmental.com PG i COR ,,, CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE p1Dc,09-24AT2009 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE 15 ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION SANDER A KESSLER & ASSOC INC/ PHS ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 251280 P: (866)467-8730 F: (877)905-0457 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. P 0 BOX 33015 AwT an„n„w,r„ 1111 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE WENDY LOCKWOOD DBA SIRIUS ENVIRONMENTAL 1478 N. ALTADENA DR. PASADENA CA 91107 COVERAGES T CIES O r9s—L IANCELISTED BELOWAAVE 0 C SS ED 0 IMURE[)' NAMED ABOVE Fdli THE PbLICY PERIOD INDICATED. O ITHSTTA DTO _­ ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN. THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE PDUCIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL TI IC TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED, BY PAID CLAIMS INSR LIN TYAEOPINSWANLE AOUOYAVMBER POIICY EFf£CTNP l MUCYEXP/RAT/ON / LIMITS OVACRAL WARD'Y EACROCCURREILCE 61 000 000 A COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILITY 72 SBM NU1948 04/03/09 04/03/3.0 FIPEDAIdAGEiAnvoneNH s300 000 CLAIMS MADE XO OCCUR MED up W, me ertoA1 f10 000 X PERSONAL B AOV INJURY f1. DGD DOD General Liab GENERALAGGREGATE s2,000,000- GW1.AGGREOATELIMITAPPUESPEIL PRODUCTS-COMNOP AM s2,000,000 ' ::LP PRO' X LOG A AUTOMORME[IABUG 72 SBM NU1948 04/03/09 04/03/10 COMBINED SMOLE LIMIT IEeccll oidm $1, 000, 000 ANYAUTC, BODILY INJURY $ OWNED AUTOS ALL O SCHEDULED AUTOS Pe, Pmsm) BODILY INJURY F X IIIBCDAUTOS X NONOWNED AUTOS `5��U' ..—•'[J]�VI — IPe, ectldanll 1 PROYERIY DAMAGE E ' IPe, eccideRD OARACCUAEILITY —_ AUID ONLY• EA ACCIDENT 3 ,�L {� OTHER111M5 6LACC s ANY AUTO I nSEdl 1 e AUTO ONLY; AGO ^ EXCESSIMOWTY_ 'OCCUR _ EACH OCCURREN_CE__ l CLAIMS WDEE AGGREGATE f VIP OmuLTImE RETENTION s O-H WORMERS ' Y[�n EMPLOYERS' DAT CCuSIAIG nCCIOLNi _ f -- I L CISE�I$E_EA EMPLOYEE f _- ^• 1 _.__T_ I .-_III E.R(PSF•PGUCY LILIIT:E _,.. nfilFR•.—_____ � � I OfELNPTION OF OPERA 1pNSLOLADONSNERIL[F&fXLWE/ONE ADDED BY £NOOAE[NENpSPfLIA[ PROV15/OA5 Those usual to the Tnsured's Operations_ The City its officers, officials, employees & volunteers is listed as additonal insured per business liabiltiy form SS0008. Coverage is primary & non-contributory per the Business Liability , Coverage Form SS0008, attached to this policy. City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 ,3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BUILD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE 110 DAYS FOR NONPAYMENT) TO THE CERTIFICATE LDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO LIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER. ITS AGENTS OR DACORD CORPORATION 1988 I I QUICK REFERENCE BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM READ YOUR POLICY CAREFULLY BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Beginning on Page A. COVERAGES 1 Business Liability 1 Medical Expenses 2 Coverage Extension - Supplementary Payments 2 B. EXCLUSIONS 3 C. WHO IS AN INSURED 10 D. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES LIMITS OF INSURANCE 14 E. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES GENERAL CONDITIONS 15 1, Bankruptcy 15 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Offense, Claim Or Suit 15 3. Financial Responsibility Laws 16 4. Legal Action Against Us 16 5. Separation Of Insureds 16 6. Representations 16 7. Other Insurance 16 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us 17 F. OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGES 18 Additional Insureds 18 G. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES DEFINITIONS 20 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what Is and is not covered. Throughout this policy the words "you" and "your" refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations. The words "we", "us" and "our" refer to the stock insurance company member of The Hartford providing this insurance. The word "insured" means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section C. - Who Is An Insured. Other words and phrases that appear in quotation marks have special meaning. Refer to Section G. - Liability And Medical Expenses Definitions. A. COVERAGES 1. BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE (BODILY INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE, PERSONAL AND ADVERTISING INJURY) Insuring Agreement a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defond the insured against any "suit" seeking damages for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" to which this insurance does not apply. We may, at our discretion, investigate any "occurrence" or offense and settle any claim or "suit" that may result. But: (1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described in Section D. - Liability And Medical Expenses Limits Of Insurance; and (2) Our right and duty to defend ends when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments, settlements or medical expenses to which this insurance applios. No other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for under Coverage Extension - Supplementary Payments. b. This insurance applies: (1) To "bodily Injury" and "property damage" only If: (a) The "bodily injury" or '!property damage" is caused by an "occurrence" that takes place in the "coverage territory"; (b) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs during the policy period; and (c) Prior to the policy period, no insured listed under Paragraph 1. of Section C. — Who Is An Insured and no "employee" authorized by you to give or receive notice of an "occurrence" or claim, knew that the "bodily injury" or "property damage" had occurred, in whole or in part. If such a listed insured or authorized "employee" knew, prior to the policy period, that the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurred, then any continuation, change or resumption of such "bodily injury' or "property damage" during or after the policy period will be deemed to have been known prior to the policy period. (2) To "personal and advertising injury" caused by an offense arising out of your business, but only if the offense was committed in the "coverage territory" during the policy period. c. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" will be deemed to have been known to have occurred at the earliest time when any insured listed under Paragraph 1, of Section C. — Who Is An Insured or any "employee" authorized by you to give or receive notice of an "occurrence" or claim: (1) Reports all, or any part, of the "bodily injury" or "property damage" to us or any other insurer; Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 1 of 24 © 2005, The Hartford BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (2) Receives a written or verbal demand or b. We will make these payments regardless of claim for damages because of the "bodily fault. These payments will not exceed the fnjury" or "property damage"; or applicable limit of insurance. We will pay (3) Becomes aware by any other means that reasonable expenses for: "bodily injury" or "property damage" has (1) First aid administered at the time of an occurred or has begun to occur. accident; d. Damages because of "bodily injury" include (2) Necessary medical, surgical, x-ray and damages claimed by any person or dental services, including prosthetic organization for care, loss of services or devices; and death resulting at any time from the "bodily (3) Necessary ambulance, hospital, injury". professional nursing and funeral e. Incidental Medical Malpractice services. (1) "Bodily injury" arising out of the 3. COVERAGE EXTENSION - rendering of or failure to render SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS professional health care services as a a. We will pay, with respect to any claim or physician, dentist, nurse, emergency "suit" we investigate or settle, or any "suit" medical technician or paramedic shall against an insured we defend: be deemed to be caused by an "occurrence", but only if: (1) All expenses we incur. (a) The physician, dentist, nurse, (2) Up to $1,000 for the cost of bail bonds emergency medical technician or required because of accidents or traffic paramedic is employed by you to law violations arising out of the use of provide such services•, and any vehicle to which Business Liability Coverage for "bodily injury" applies. We (b) You are not engaged in the do not have to furnish these bonds. business or occupation of providing such services. (3) The cost of appeal bonds or bonds to release attachments, but only for bond (2) For the purpose of determining the amounts within the applicable limit of limits of insurance for incidental medical insurance. We do not have to furnish malpractice, any act or omission these bonds together with all related acts or omissions in the furnishing of these (4) All reasonable expenses incurred by the services to any one person will be insured at our request to assist us in the considered one "occurrence". investigation or defense of the claim or "suit", including actual loss of earnings 2. MEDICAL EXPENSES up to $500 a day because of time off Insuring Agreement from work. a. We will pay medical expenses as described (5) All costs taxed against the insured in below for "bodily injury" caused by an the "suit". accident: (8) Prejudgment interest awarded against (1) On premises you own or rent; the insured on that part of the judgment (2) On ways next to premises you own or we pay. If we make an offer to pay the rent; or applicable limit of insurance, we will not (3) Because of your operations; pay any prejudgment interest based on that period of time after the offer. provided that: (7) All interest the full amount of any 1 The accident takes lace in the () P judgment that accrues after entry of the t "coverage territory" and during the judgment and before we have paid, policy period; offered to pay, or deposited in court the (2) The expenses are incurred and reported part of the judgment that is within the to us within three years of the date of applicable limit of insurance. the accident; and Any amounts paid under (1) through (7) (3) The injured person submits to above will not reduce the limits of insurance. examination, at our expense, by physicians of our choice as often as we reasonably require. Page 2 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM b. If we defend an insured against a "suit" So long as the above conditions are met, and an indemnitee of the insured is also attorneys' fees incurred by us in the named as a party to the "suit", we will defense of that indemnitee, necessary defend that indemnitee if all of the litigation expenses incurred by us and following conditions are met: necessary litigation expenses incurred (1) The "suit" against the indemnitee by the indemnitee at our request will be seeks damages for which the insured paid as Supplementary Payments. has assumed the liability of the Notwithstanding the provisions of indemnitee in a contract or agreement paragraph 1.b.(b) of Section B. -- that is an "insured contract'; Exclusions, such payments will not be (2) This insurance applies to such liability deemed to be damages for "bodily assumed by the insured; injury" and "property damage" and will (3) The obligation to defend, or the cost of not reduce the Limits of Insurance. the defense of, that Indemnitee, has Our obligation to defend an insured's also been assumed by the insured in indemnitee and to pay for attorneys' fees the same "Insured contract"; and necessary litigation expenses as (4) The allegations in the "suit" and the Supplementary Payments ends when: Information we know about the (1) We have used up the applicable limit "occurrence" are such that no conflict of insurance in the payment of appears to exist between the interests judgments or settlements; or of the Insured and the interest of the (2) The conditions set forth above, or the indemnitee; terms of the agreement described In (5) The indemnitee and the Insured ask Paragraph (6) above, are no longer met. us to conduct and control the defense B. EXCLUSIONS of that indemnitee against such "suit" 1. Applicable To Business Liability Coverage and agree that we can assign the same counsel to defend the insured This insurance does not apply to: and the indemnitee; and a. Expected Or Intended Injury (6) The indemnitee: (1) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" (a) Agrees in writing to: expected or intended from the (1) Cooperate with us in the standpoint of the insured. This investigation, settlement or exclusion does not apply to "bodily "property defense of the "suit"; injury" or damage" resulting from the use of reasonable force to (ff) Immediately send us copies of protect persons or property; or any demands, notices, (2) "personal and advertising injury" arising summonses or legal papers out of an offense committed by, at the received in connection with direction of or with the consent or the "suit", acquiescence of the insured with the (!if) Notify any other insurer whose expectation of inflicting "personal and coverage is available to the advertising injury". indemnitee; and b. Contractual Liability (iv) Cooperate with us with 1 "Bodilyinjury' or"property dama a or () l y g' respect to coordinating other applicable insurance available (2) "Personal and advertising injury" to the indemnitee; and for which the insured is obligated to pay (b) Provides us with written damages by reason of the assumption of authorization to: liability in a contract or agreement. (I) Obtain records and other This exclusion does not apply to liability information related to the for damages because of: "suit"; and (a) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or (ii) Conduct and control the "personal and advertising injury" that defense of the Indemnitee in the insured would have in the such "suit", absence of the contract or agreement; or Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 3 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (b) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" (b) Performing duties related to the assumed in a contract or agreement conduct of the insured's business, or that is an "Insured contract", (2) The spouse, child, parent, brother or provided the "bodily injury" or sister of that "employee" as a "property damage" occurs consequence of (1) above. subsequent to the execution of the This exclusion applies: contract or agreement. Solely for the purpose of liability assumed in (1) Whether the Insured may be liable as an "insured contract", reasonable an employer or in any other capacity, attorneys' fees and necessary and litigation expenses incurred by or for (2) To any obligation to share damages a party other than an insured are with or repay someone else who must deemed to be damages because of pay damages because of the injury. "bodily injury" or "property damage" This exclusion does not apply to liability provided: assumed by the insured under an "insured (1) Liability to such party for, or for contract". the cost of, that party's defense f. Pollution has also been assumed in the same "insured contract", and 1) "Bodil ( y Injury", "property damage" g „ or "personal and advertising injury" (it) Such attorneys' fees and arising out of the actual, alleged or litigation expenses are for threatened discharge, dispersal, defense of that party against a seepage, migration, release or escape civil or alternative dispute of "pollutants": resolution proceeding in which damages to which this (a) At or from any premises, site or insurance applies are alleged. location which is or was at any time owned or occupied by, or c. Liquor Liability rented or loaned to any insured. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" for However, this subparagraph does which any insured may be held liable by not apply to: reason of: (i) "Bodily injury" if sustained within (1) Causing or contributing to the a building and caused by intoxication of any person; smoke, fumes, vapor or soot (2) The furnishing of alcoholic beverages to produced by or originating from a person under the legal drinking age or equipment that is used to heat, under the influence of alcohol; or cool or dehumidify the building, (3) Any statute, ordinance or regulation or equipment that is used to heat water for personal use, by relating to the sale, gift, distribution or the building's occupants or their use of alcoholic beverages. guests; This exclusion applies only if you are in the (ii) "Bodily Injury" or "property business of manufacturing, distributing, damage" for which you may be selling, serving or furnishing alcoholic held liable, if you are beverages. r contractor and the owner or d. Workers' Compensation And Similar p lessee of such premises, site or Laws location has been added to your Any obligation of the insured under a policy as an additional insured workers' compensation, disability benefits with respect to your ongoing or unemployment compensation law or operations performed for that any similar law. additional insured at that e. Employer's Liability premises, site or location and "Bodily injury" to: such premises, site or location (1) An "employee" of the insured arising is not and never was owned or occupied by, or rented r out of and in the course of: loaned to, any insured, other (a) Employment by the insured; or than that additional insured; or Page 4 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (lit) "Bodily Injury" or "property released as part of the damage" arising out of heat, operations being performed smoke or fumes from a by such insured, contractor or "hostile fire"; subcontractor; (b) At or from any premises, site or (ll) "Bodily injury" or "property location which is or was at any damage" sustained within a time used by or for any insured or building and caused by the others for the handling, storage, release of gases, fumes or disposal, processing or treatment vapors from materials brought of waste; into that building in connection (c) Which are or were at any time with operations being performed transported, handled, stored, by you or on your behalf by a treated, disposed of, or processed contractor or subcontractor, or as waste by or for: (iii) "Bodily injury" or "property (1) Any insured; or damage" arising out of heat, (11) Any person or organization for smoke re fumes from a or fire hostile "; or whom you may be legally responsible; (a) At or from any premises, site or (d) At or from any premises, site or location on which any insured or any contractors or subcontractors location on which any insured or working directly indirectly or any any contractors or subcontractors f behalf are performing working directly or indirectly on opera operations the operations are to operations any insured's behalf are n remove, test for, monitor, clean e, performing operations if the r n contain, treat, detoxify or neutralize, "pollutants" are brought on or to in any way respond to, or assess the premises, site or location in t h the effects o(, "pollutants". connection with such operations by such insured, contractor or (2) Any loss, cost or expense arising out subcontractor. However, this of any: subparagraph does not apply to: (a) Request, demand, order or statutory (1) "Bodily injury" or "property or regulatory requirement that any damage" arising out of the insured or others test for, monitor, escape of fuels, lubncants or clean up, remove, contain, treat, other operating fluids which are detoxify or neutralize, or in any way needed to perform the normal respond to, or assess the effects of, electrical, hydraulic or "pollutants"; or mechanical functions (b) Claim or suit by or on behalf of a necessary for tho operation of governmental authority for "mobile equipment" or its parts, damages because of testing for, if such fuels, lubricants or other monitoring, cleaning up, removing, operating fluids escape from a containing, treating, detoxifying or vehicle part designed to hold, neutralizing, or in any way store or receive them. This responding to, or assessing the exception does not apply if the effects of, "pollutants". "bodily injury" or "property However, this paragraph does not damage" arises out of, the apply to liability for damages because intentional discharge, dispersal of "property damage" that the insured or release of the fuels, would have in the absence of such lubricants or other operating request, demand, order or statutory or fluids, or if such fuels, regulatory requirement, or such claim lubricants or other operating or "suit" by or on behalf of a fluids are brought on or to the governmental authority. premises, site or location with the intent that they be discharged, dispersed or Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 5 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM g. Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, "auto" or watercraft owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured. Use includes operation and "loading or unloading". This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the "occurrence" which caused the "bodily Injury" or "property damage" involved the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any aircraft, "auto" or watercraft that is owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured. This exclusion does not apply to: (1) A watercraft while ashore on premises you own or rent; (2) A watercraft you do not own that is: (a) Less than 51 feet long; and (b) Not being used to carry persons for a charge; (3) Parking an "auto" on, or on the ways next to, premises you own or rent, provided the "auto" is not owned by or rented or loaned to you or the insured; (4) Liability assumed under any "insured contract" for the ownership, maintenance or use of aircraft or watercraft; (5) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the operation of any of the equipment listed in Paragraph f.(2) or f.(3) of the definition of "mobile equipment"; or (6) An aircraft that is not owned by any insured and is hired, chartered or loaned with a paid crew. However, this exception does not apply if the insured has any other insurance for,such "bodily injury" or "property damage", whether the other insurance is primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. h. Mobile Equipment "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of: (1) The transportation of "mobile equipment" by an "auto" owned or operated by or rented or loaned to any insured; or (2) The use of "mobile equipment" in, or while in practice or preparation for, a prearranged racing, speed or demolition contest or in any stunting activity. I. War "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury", however caused, arising, directly or indirectly, out of: (1) War, including undeclared or civil war; (2) Warlike action by a military force, including action in hindering or defending against an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign or other authority using military personnel or other agents; or (3) Insurrection, rebellion, revolution, usurped power, or action taken by governmental authority In hindering or defending against any of these. J. Professional Services "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of or failure to render any professional service. This Includes but is not limited to: (1) Legal, accounting or advertising services; (2) Preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; (3) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities; (4) Medical, surgical, dental, x-ray or nursing services beatment, advice or instruction; (5) Any health or therapeutic service treatment, advice or instruction; (6) Any service, treatment, advice or instruction for the purpose of appearance or skin enhancement, hair removal or replacement or personal grooming; (7) Optical or hearing aid services including the prescribing, preparation, fitting, demonstration or distribution of ophthalmic lenses and similar products or hearing aid devices; Page 6 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (8) Optometry or optometric services Paragraphs (1), (3) and (4) of this including but not limited to examination exclusion do not apply to "property of the eyes and the prescribing, damage" (other than damage by fire) to preparation, fitting,demonstrafion or premises, including the contents of such distribution of ophthalmic lenses and premises, rented to you for a period of 7 or similar products; fewer consecutive days. A separate Limit (9) Any: of Insurance applies to Damage To Premises Rented To You as described in (a) Body piercing (not including ear Section D. - Limits Of Insurance. piercing); Paragraph (2) of this exclusion does not (b) Tattooing, Including but not limited apply if the premises are "your work" and to the insertion of pigments into or were never occupied, rented or held for under the skin; and rental by you. (c) Similar services; Paragraphs (3) and (4) of this exclusion do (10) Services in the practice of pharmacy; not apply to the use of elevators. and Paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) of this (11) Computer consulting, design or exclusion do not apply to liability assumed programming services, including web under sidetrack agreement. site design. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of this exclusion do Paragraphs (4) and (5) of this exclusion do not apply to "property damage" to not apply to the Incidental Medical borrowed equipment while not being used Malpractice coverage afforded under to perform operations at a job site. Paragraph 1.e. in Section A.- Coverages. Paragraph (6) of this exclusion does not k. Damage To Property apply to "property damage" included in the "Property damage" to: "products -completed operations hazard". (1) Property you own, rent or occupy, I. Damage To Your Product including any costs or expenses "Properly damage" to "your product" incurred by you, or any other person, arising out of it or any part of it. organization or entity, for repair, m. Damage To Your Work replacement, enhancement, restoration or maintenance of such "Property damage" to "your work" arising property for any reason, including out of it or any part of it and included in the prevention of injury to a person or "products -completed operations hazard". damage to another's property; This exclusion does not apply if the (2) Premises you sell, give away or damaged work or the work out of which abandon, if the "property damage" arises the damage arises was performed on your out of any part of those premises; behalf by a subcontractor. (3) Property loaned to you; n. Damage To Impaired Property Or Property Not Physically Injured (4) Personal property in the care, custody "Properly damage" to "impaired properly" or control of the insured; or property that has not been physically (5) That particular part of real properly on injured, arising out of: which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or (1) A defect, deficiency, inadequacy or indirectly on your behalf are performing dangerous condition in "your product" operations, if the "property damage" or "your work", or arises out of those operations; or (2) A delay or failure by you or anyone (6) That particular part of any property acting on your behalf to perform a that must be restored, repaired or contract or agreement in accordance replaced because "your work" was with its terms. incorrectly performed on it. This exclusion does not apply to the loss of use of other property arising out of sudden and accidental physical injury to "your product" or "your work" after it has been put to its intended use. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 7 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM o. Recall Of Products, Work Or Impaired (c) Title of any literary or artistic work; Property (8) Arising out of an offense committed by Damages claimed for any loss, cost or an insured whose business is: expense incurred by you or others for the (a) Advertising, broadcasting, loss of use, withdrawal, recall, inspection, publishing or telecasting; repair, replacement, adjustmenp removal (b) Designing or determining content or disposal of: of web sites for others; or (1) "Your product"; (c) An Internet search, access, (2) "Your work"; or content or service provider. (3) "Impaired property"; However, this exclusion does not if such product, work or property is apply to Paragraphs a., b, and c, withdrawn or recalled from the market or under the definition of "personal and from use by any person or organization advertising injury" in Section G. — because of a known or suspected defect, Liability And Medical Expenses deficiency, inadequacy or dangerous Definitions. condition In it. For the purposes of this exclusion, p. Personal And Advertising Injury placing an "advertisement" for or "Personal and advertising injury": linking to others on your web site, by (1) Arising out of oral, written or electronic itself, is not considered the business of advertising, broadcasting, publication of material, if done by or at publishing or telecasting; the direction of the insured with knowledge of its falsity; (9) Arising out of an electronic chat room or bulletin board the insured hosts, (2) Arising out of oral, written or electronic ownsor over which the insured publication of material whose first exercises control; publication look place before the beginning of the policy period; - (10) Arising out of the unauthorized use of (3) Arising out of a criminal act committed another's name or product In your a -mail by or at the direction of the insured; address, domain name or meta or mislead any other similar tactics to mislead (4) Arising out of any breach of contract, anther's potential customers; except an implied contract to use (11) Arising out of the violation of a anthers "advertising idea" in your person's right of privacy created by "advertisement"; any state or federal act. (5) Arising out of the failure of goods, However, this exclusion does not products or services to conform with apply to liability for damages that the any statement of quality or insured would have In the absence of performance made in your such slate or federal act; "advertisement"; (6) Arising out of the wrong description of (12) Arising out of: the price of goods, products or services; (a) An "advertisement" for others on (7) Arising out of any violation of any your web site; intellectual property rights such as (b) Placing a link to a web site of copyright, patent, trademark, trade others on your web site; name, trade secret, service mark -or (c) Content from a web site of others other designation of origin or displayed within a frame or border authenticity. on your web site. Content includes However, this exclusion does not information, code, sounds, text, apply to infringement, in your graphics or images; or "advertisement", of (d) Computer code, software or (a) Copyright; programming used to enable: (b) Slogan, unless the slogan is also (1) Yourweb site; or a trademark, trade name, service (11) The presentation or functionality mark or other designation of origin of an "advertisement" or other or authenticity; or content on your web site; Page 8 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (13) Arising out of a violation of any anti- (a) May be awarded or incurred by trust law; reason of any claim or suit (14) Arising out of the fluctuation in price or alleging actual or threatened injury value of any stocks, bonds or other or damage of any nature or kind to securities; or persons or property which would (15) Arising out of discrimination or not have occurred in whole or in "asbestos part but for the hazard"; humiliation committed by or at the direction of any "executive officer", (b) Arise out of any request, demand, director, stockholder, partner or order or statutory or regulatory member of the insured. requirement that any insured or others test for, monitor, clean up, q. Electronic Data remove, encapsulate, contain, Damages arising out of the loss of, loss of treat, detoxify or neutralize or In use of, damage to, corruption of, inability any way respond to or assess the to access, or inability to manipulate effects of an "asbestos hazard"; or "electronic data". (c) Arise out of any claim or suit for r. Employment -Related Practices damages because of testing for, "Bodily injury" or "personal and advertising monitoring, cleaning up, removing, injury" to: encapsulating, containing, treating, (1) A person arising out of any: detoxifying or neutralizing or in any way responding to or assessing the (a) Refusal to employ that person; effects of an "asbestos hazard". (b) Termination of that person's t. Violation Of Statutes That Govern E- employment; or Mails, Fax, Phone Calls Or Other (c) Employment -related practices, Methods Of Sending Material Or policies, acts or omissions, such as Information coercion, demotion, evaluation, "Bodily injury", "property damage", or reassignment, discipline, "personal and advertising injury" arising defamation, harassment, humiliation directly or indirectly out of any action or or discrimination directed at that omission that violates or Is alleged to person; or violate: (2) The spouse, child, parent, brother or (1) The Telephone Consumer Protection sister of that person as a Act (TCPA), including any amendment consequence of "bodily injury" or of or addition to such law; "personal and advertising Injury" to the (2) The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, including person at whom any of the any amendment of or addition to such employment -related practices law; or described in Paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) above is directed. (3) Any statute, ordinance or regulation, This exclusion applies: other than the TCPA or CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, that prohibits or limits the (1) Whether the insured may be liable as sending, transmitting, communicating or an employer or in any other capacity; distribution of material or information. and Damage To Premises Rented To You — (2) To any obligation to share damages Exception For Damage By Fire, Lightning with or repay someone else who must or Explosion pay damages because of the injury. Exclusions c. through h, and k. through o. do s. Asbestos not apply to damage by fire, lightning or (1) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or explosion to premises rented to you or "personal and advertising injury" temporarily occupied by you with permission of arising out of the "asbestos hazard". the owner. A separate Limit of Insurance (2) Any damages, judgments, settlements, applies to this coverage as described In loss, costs or expenses that: Section D. - Liability And Medical Expenses Limits Of Insurance. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 9 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM 2. Applicable To Medical Expenses Coverage We will not pay expenses for "bodily injury": a. Any Insured To any insured, except "volunteer workers". b. Hired Person To a person hired to do work for or on behalf of any insured or a tenant of any insured. c. Injury On Normally Occupied Premises To a person injured on that part of premises you own or rent that the person normally occupies. d. Workers' Compensation And Similar Laws To a person, whether or not an "employee" of any insured, if benefits for the "bodily injury" are payable or must be provided under a workers' compensation or disability benefits law or a similar law. e. Athletics Activities To a person injured while practicing, Instructing or participating in any physical exercises or games, sports or athletic contests. f. Products -Completed Operations Hazard Included with the "products -completed operations hazard". g. Business Liability Exclusions Excluded under Business Liability Coverage. C. WHO IS AN INSURED 1. If you are designated in the Declarations as a. An individual, you and your spouse are insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of a business of which you are the sole owner. b. A partnership or joint venture, you are an insured Your members, your partners, and their spouses are also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your business. c. A limited liability company, you are an insured. Your members are also insureds, but only with respect to the conduct of your business. Your managers are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your managers. d. An organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, you are an Insured. Your "executive officers" and directors are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your officers or directors. Your stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their liability as stockholders. e. A trust, you are an insured. Your trustees are also insureds, but only with respect to their duties as trustees. 2. Each of the following is also an insured: a. Employees And Volunteer Workers Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or your "employees", other than either your "executive officers" (if you are an organization other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company) or your managers (if you are a limited liability company), but only for acts within the scope of their employment by you or while performing duties related to the conduct of your business. However, none of these "employees" or "volunteer workers" are insureds for: (1) "Bodily injury" or "personal and advertising injury": (a) To you, to your partners or members (if you are a partnership or joint venture), to your members (if you are a limited liability company), or to a co"employee" while in the course of his or her employment or performing duties related to the conduct of your business, or to your other "volunteer workers" while performing duties related to the conduct of your business; (b) To the spouse, child, parent, brother or sister of that co - "employee" or that "volunteer worker" as a consequence of Paragraph (1)(a) above; (c) For which there is any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else who must pay damages because of the injury described in Paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) above; or (d) Arising out of his or her providing or failing to provide professional health care services. If you are not in the business of providing professional health care services, Paragraph (d) does not apply to any nurse, emergency medical technician or paramedic employed by you to provide such services. (2) "Property damage" to properly: (a) Owned, occupied or used by, Page 10 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 (b) Rented to, in the care, custody or control of, or over which physical control is being exercised for any purpose by you, any of your "employees", "volunteer workers", any partner or member (if you are a partnership or joint venture), or any member (if you are a limited liability company). b. Real Estate Manager Any person (other than your "employee" or "volunteer worker"), or any organization while acting as your real estate manager. c. Temporary Custodians Of Your Property Any person or organization having proper temporary custody of your property if you die, but only: (1) With respect to liability arising out of the maintenance or use of that property; and (2) Until your legal representative has been appointed. d. Legal Representative If You Die Your legal representative if you die, but only with respect to duties as such. That representative will have all your rights and duties under this insurance. e. Unnamed Subsidiary Any subsidiary and subsidiary thereof, of yours which is a legally incorporated entity of which you own a financial interest of more than 50% of the voting stock on the effective date of this Coverage Part. The insurance afforded herein for any subsidiary not shown in the Declarations as a named insured does not apply to injury or damage with respect to which an insured under this insurance is also an insured under another policy or would be an insured under such policy but for its termination or upon the exhaustion of its limits of insurance. 3. Newly Acquired Or Formed Organization Any organization you newly acquire or form, other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, and over which you maintain financial interest of more than 50% of the voting stock, will qualify as a Named Insured if there is no other similar insurance available to that organization. However: a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only until the 180th day after you acquire or form the organization or the end of the policy period, whichever is earlier; and Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM b. Coverage under this provision does not apply to: (1) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred; or (2) "Personal and advertising injury" arising out of an offense committed before you acquired or formed the organization. 4. Operator Of Mobile Equipment With respect to "mobile equipment" registered in your name under any motor vehicle registration law, any person is an insured while driving such equipment along a public highway with your permission. Any other person or organization responsible for the conduct of such person is also an insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operation of the equipment, and only if no other Insurance of any kind Is available to that person or organization for this liability. However, no person or organization is an insured with respect to: a. "Bodily injury' to a co -"employee" of the person driving the equipment, or b. "Property damage" to property owned by, rented to, in the charge of or occupied by you or the employer of any person who is an insured under this provision. 5. Operator of Nonowned Watercraft With respect to watercraft you do not own that is less than 51 feet long and is not being used to carry persons for a charge, any person is an insured while operating such watercraft with your permission. Any other person or organization responsible for the conduct of such person is also an insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operation of the watercraft, and only if no other insurance of any kind is available to that person or organization for this liability. However, no person or organization is an insured with respect to: a. "Bodily injury" to a co -"employee" of the person operating the watercraft; or b. "Property damage" to property owned by, rented to, in the charge of or occupied by you or the employer of any person who is an insured under this provision. 6. Additional Insureds When Required By Written Contract, Written Agreement Or Permit The person(s) or organization(s) Identified in Paragraphs a. through f. below are additional insureds when you have agreed, in a written Page 11 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM contract, written agreement or because of a (e) Any failure to make such permit issued by a state or political inspections, adjustments, tests or subdivision, that such person or organization servicing as the vendor has be added as an additional insured on your agreed to make or normally policy, provided the injury or damage occurs undertakes to make in the usual subsequent to the execution of the contract or course of business, in connection agreement, or the issuance of the permit. with the distribution or sale of the A person or organization is an additional products; insured under this provision only for that (f) Demonstration, installation, period of time required by the contract, servicing or repair operations, agreement or permit. except such operations performed at the vendor's premises i However, no such person or organization is an connection with the sale of thee additional insured under this provision if such product; person or organization is included s an(g) additional insured by an endorsement issueded Products which, after distribution by us and made a part of this Coverage Part, or sale by you, have been labeled Including all persons or organizations added or relabeled or used as a as additional insureds under the specific container, part or ingredient of any additional insured coverage grants in Section other thing or substance by or for F. — Optional Additional Insured Coverages. the vendor; or a. Vendors (h) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the sole Any person(s) or organization(s) (referred to negligence of the vendor for its below as vendor), but only with respect to own acts or omissions or those of "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising its employees or anyone else out of "your products" which are distributed acting on its behalf. However, this or sold in the regular course of the vendor's exclusion does not apply to: business and only if this Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily Injury" or (1) The exceptions contained in "property damage" included within the Subparagraphs (d) or (f); or "products -completed operations hazard". (ii) Such inspections, adjustments, (1) The insurance afforded to the vendor tests or servicing as the vendor is subject to the following additional has agreed to make or normally exclusions: undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in This insurance does not apply to: connection with the distribution (a) "Bodily Injury" or "property or sale of the products. damage" for which the vendor is 2 () This insurance does not apply to any obligated to pay damages by insured person organization from reason of the assumption of uired such products, whom you have acquired liability in a contract or agreement. any ingredient, part container, This exclusion does not apply to a entering into, accompanying or a liability for damages that the y g containing such products. vendor would have in the absence b. Lessors Of Equipment of the contract or agreement; (b) Any express warranty (1) Any person or organization from unauthorized by you; whom you lease equipment; but only with respect to their liability for "bodily sisal change (c) Any physical or chemical change injury", "property damage" or in the made intentionally P y "personal and advertising injury" by the vendor; caused, in whole or in part, by your (d) Repackaging, except when maintenance, operation or use of unpacked solely for the purpose of equipment leased to you by such inspection, demonstration, testing, person or organization. or the substitution of parts under Instructions from the manufacturer, and then repackaged in the original container; Page 12 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 C. a (2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that equipment. Lessors Of Land Or Premises (1) Any person or organization from whom you lease land or premises, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the land or premises leased to you. (2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: (a) Any 'occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that land or be a tenant in that premises; or (b) Structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of such person or organization. Architects, Engineers Or Surveyors (1) Any architect, engineer, or surveyor, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", 'property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: (a) In connection with your premises; or (b) In the performance of your ongoing operations performed by you or on your behalf. (2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusion applies: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury", 'properly damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render any professional services by or for you, including: (a) The preparing, approving, or failure to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; or (b) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM e. Permits Issued By State Or Political Subdivisions (1) Any state or political subdivision, but only with respect to operations performed by you or on your behalf for which the state or political subdivision has issued a permit. (2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: (a) 'Bodily injury", 'properly damage" or 'personal and advertising injury" arising out of operations performed for the state or municipality; or (b) 'Bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products - completed operations hazard". f. Any Other Party (1) Any other person or organization who is not an insured under Paragraphs a. through e, above, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or 'personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: (a) In the performance of your ongoing operations; (b) In connection with your premises owned by or rented to you; or (c) In connection with "your work" and included within the "products - completed operations hazard", but only if (1) The written contract or written agreement requires you to provide such coverage to such additional insured; and (H) This Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products - completed operations hazard". (2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: "Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising Injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 13 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (a) The preparing, approving, or failure to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; or (b) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. The limits of insurance that apply to additional insureds are described in Section D. — Limits Oflnsurance. How this insurance applies when other insurance is available to an additional insured is described in the Other Insurance Condition in Section E. — Liability And Medical Expenses General Conditions. No person or organization is an insured with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations. D. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES LIMITS OF INSURANCE 1. The Most We Will Pay The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations and the rules below fix the most we will pay regardless of the number of. a. Insureds; b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or c. Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits". 2. Aggregate Limits The most we will pay for: a. Damages because of "bodily injury" and "properly damage" included in the "products -completed operations hazard" is the Products -Completed Operations Aggregate Limit shown in the Declai ations. b. Damages because of all other "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury', including medical expenses, is the General Aggregate Limit shown in the Declarations. This General Aggregate Limit applies separately to each of your "locations" owned by or rented to you. "Location" means premises involving the same or connecting lots, or premises whose connection is interrupted only by a street, roadway or right-of-way of a railroad. This General Aggregate limit does not apply to "property damage" to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner, arising out of fire, lightning or explosion. 3. Each Occurrence Limit Subject to 2.a. or 2.b above, whichever applies, the most we will pay for the sum of all damages because of all "bodily injury", "property damage" and medical expenses arising out of any one "occurrence" Is the Liability and Medical Expenses Limit shown in the Declarations. The most we will pay for all medical expenses because of "bodily injury" sustained by any one person is the Medical Expenses Limit shown in the Declarations. 4. Personal And Advertising Injury Limit Subject to 2.b. above, the most we will pay for the sum of all damages because of all "personal and advertising injury" sustained by any one person or organization is the Personal and Advertising Injury Limit shown in the Declarations. S. Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit The Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit is the most we will pay under Business Liability Coverage for damages because of "property damage" to any one premises, while rented to you, or in the case of damage by fire, lightning or explosion, while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. In the case of damage by fire, lightning or explosion, the Damage to Premises Rented To You Limit applies to all damage proximately caused by the same event, whether such damage results from fire, lightning or explosion or any combination of these. 6. How Limits Apply To Additional Insureds The most we will pay on behalf of a person or organization who is an additional insured under this Coverage Part is the lesser of: a, The limits or insurance specified in a written contract, written agreement or permit issued by a state or political subdivision; or b. The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. Such amount shall be a part of and not in addition to the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations and described in this Section. Page 14 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM If more than one limit of insurance under this (1) Immediately send us copies of any policy and any endorsements attached thereto demands, notices, summonses or applies to any claim or "suit", the most we will pay legal papers received in connection under this policy and the endorsements is the with the claim or "suit'; single highest limit of liability of all coverages (2) Authorize us to obtain records and applicable to such claim or "suit". However, this other information; paragraph does not apply to the Medical Expenses (3) Cooperate with in the investigation, limit set forth in Paragraph 3. above. settlement of the claim or defense The Limits of Insurance of this Coverage Part apply against the "suit"; and separately to each consecutive annual period and to (4) Assist us, upon our request, in the any remaining period of less than 12 months, starting enforcement of any right against any with the beginning of the policy period shown In the person or organization that may be Declarations, unless the policy period is extended liable to the insured because of injury after issuance for an additional period of less than 12 or damage to which this Insurance months. In that case, the additional period will be may also apply. deemed part of the last preceding period for purposes d. Obligations At The Insured's Own Cost of determining the Limits of Insurance. E. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES No insured will, except at that insured's own cost, voluntarily make a payment, assume GENERAL CONDITIONS any obligation, or incur any expense, other 1. Bankruptcy than for first aid, without our consent. Bankruptcy or Insolvency of the insured or of e. Additional Insured's Other Insurance the insured's estate will not relieve us of our If we cover a claim or "suit" under this obligations under this Coverage Part. Coverage Part that may also be covered 2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, by other insurance available to an Offense, Claim Or Suit additional insured, such additional insured a. Notice Of Occurrence Or Offense must submit such claim or "suit" to the other insurer for defense and indemnity. You or any additional insured must see to However, this provision does not apply to It that we are notified as soon as the extent that you have agreed in a practicable of an "occurrence" or an written contract, written agreement or offense which may result in a claim. To that this insurance is primary and the extent possible, notice should include: non-contributory with the additional non-contributory (1) How, when and where the "occurrence" insured's own insurance. or offense took place; f. Knowledge Of An Occurrence, Offense, (2) The names and addresses of any Claim Or Suit injured persons and witnesses; and Paragraphs a. and b. apply to you or to (3) The nature and location of any injury any additional insured only when such or damage arising out of the "occurrence", offense, claim or "suit" is "occurrence" or offense. known to: b. Notice Of Claim (1) You or any additional insured that is If a claim is made or "suit" is brought an individual; against any insured, you or any additional (2) Any partner, if you or an additional Insured must: insured is a partnership; (1) Immediately record the specifics of the (3) Any manager, if you or an additional claim or "suit" and the date received; insured is a limited liability company; and (4) Any "executive officer" insurance 2 Notify us as soon as practicable () Y p n manager, if you or an additional You or any additional insured must see to insured is a corporation; it that we receive a written notice of the (5) Any trustee, if you or an additional claim or "suit" as soon as practicable. insured is a trust; or c. Assistance And Cooperation Of The (6) Any elected or appointed official, if you Insured or an additional insured is a political You and any other involved insured must. subdivision or public entity. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 15 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM This Paragraph f, applies separately to you and any additional insured. 3. Financial Responsibility Laws a. When this policy is certified as proof of financial responsibility for the future under the provisions of any motor vehicle financial responsibility law, the insurance provided by the policy for "bodily injury" liability and "property damage" liability will comply with the provisions of the law to the extent of the coverage and limits of insurance required by that law. b. With respect to "mobile equipment" to which this insurance applies, we will provide any liability, uninsured motorists, underinsured motorists, no-fault or other coverage required by any motor vehicle law. We will provide the required limits for those coverages. 4. Legal Action Against Us No person or organization has a right under this Coverage Form. a. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us into a "suit" asking for damages from an insured; or b. To sue us on this Coverage Form unless all of its terms have been fully complied with. A person or organization may sue us to recover on an agreed settlement or on a final judgment against an insured, but we will not be liable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this Insurance or that are in excess of the applicable limit of insurance. An agreed settlement means a settlement and release of liability signed by us, the insured and the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. S. Separation Of Insureds Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this policy to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and b. Separately to each insured against whom a claim Is made or "suit" is brought. 6. Representations a. When You Accept This Policy By accepting this policy, you agree: (1) The statements in the Declarations are accurate and complete; (2) Those statements are based upon representations you made to us; and (3) We have issued this policy in reliance upon your representations. b, Unintentional Failure To Disclose Hazards If unintentionally you should fail to disclose all hazards relating to the conduct of your business at the inception date of this Coverage Part, we shall not deny any coverage under this Coverage Part because of such failure. 7. Other Insurance If other valid and collectible Insurance is available for a loss we cover under this Coverage Part, our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance This Insurance is primary except when b. below applies. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis: (1) Your Work That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or similar coverage for "your work'; (2) Premises Rented To You That is fire, lightning or explosion insurance for premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; (3) Tenant Liability That is insurance purchased by you to cover your liability as a tenant for "property damage" to premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; (4) Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft If the loss vises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject to Exclusion g. of Section A. —Coverages. (5) Property Damage To Borrowed Equipment Or Use Of Elevators If the loss arises out of "property damage" to borrowed equipment or the use of elevators to the extent not subject to Exclusion k. of Section A. — Coverages. Page 16 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 (6) When You Are Added As An Additional Insured To Other Insurance That Is other Insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations, or products and completed operations, for which you have been added as an additional insured by that insurance; or (7) When You Add Others As An Additional Insured To This Insurance That is other insurance available to an additional insured. However, the following provisions apply to other Insurance available to any person or organization who is an additional insured under this Coverage Part: (a) Primary Insurance When Required By Contract This insurance is primary if you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance be primary. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. (b) Primary And Non -Contributory To Other Insurance When Required By Contract If you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement or permit that this insurance is primary and non-contributory with the additional insured's own insurance, this insurance is primary and we will not seek contribution from that other insurance. Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to other insurance to which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty under this Coverage Part to defend the Insured against any "suit" if any other insurer has a duly to defend the insured against that "suit". If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the insured's rights against all those other insurers. BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum of: (1) The total amount that all such other insurance would pay for the loss in the absence of this insurance; and (2) The total of all deductible and self - insured amounts under all that other insurance. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance that is not described in this Excess Insurance provision and was not bought specifically to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations of this Coverage Part. c. Method Of Sharing If all the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach, each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other Insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurers share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us a. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. This condition does not apply to Medical Expenses Coverage. b. Waiver Of Rights Of Recovery (Waiver Of Subrogation) If the Insured has waived any rights of recovery against any person or organization for all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, we also waive that right, provided the insured waived their rights of recovery against such person or organization in a contract, agreement or permit that was executed prior to the injury or damage. Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 17 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM F. OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGES If listed or shown as applicable in the Declarations, one or more of the following Optional Additional Insured Coverages also apply. When any of these Optional Additional Insured Coverages apply, Paragraph 6. (Additional Insureds When Required by Written Contract, Written Agreement or Permit) of Section C., Who Is An Insured, does not apply to the person or organization shown in the Declarations. These coverages are subject to the terms and conditions applicable to Business Liability Coverage in this policy, except as provided below: 1. Additional Insured - Designated Person Or Organization WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Declarations, but only with respect to liability for "bodily Injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: a. In the performance of your ongoing operations; or b. In connection with your premises owned by or rented to you. 2. Additional Insured - Managers Or Lessors Of Premises a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. Is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured - Designated Person Or Organization; but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to you and shown in the Declarations. b. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to: (1) Any 'occurrence" which takes place after you cease to be a tenant in that premises; or (2) Structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of such person or organization. Page 18 of 24 3. Additional Insured - Grantor Of Franchise WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organlzation(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured - Grantor Of Franchise, but only with respect to their liability as grantor of franchise to you. 4. Additional Insured - Lessor Of Leased Equipment a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured — Lessor of Leased Equipment, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your maintenance, operation or use of equipment leased to you by such person(s) or organization(s). b. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that equipment. 5. Additional Insured - Owners Or Other Interests From Whom Land Has Been Leased a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured — Owners Or Other Interests From Whom Land Has Been Leased, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that pad of the land leased to you and shown in the Declarations. b, With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply. This insurance does not apply to: (1) Any "occurrence" that takes place after you cease tole. sethat land; or (2) Structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of such person or organization. 6. Additional Insured - State Or Political Subdivision — Permits a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the state or political subdivision shown in the Declarations as an Additional Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Insured — State Or Political Subdivision - (e) Any failure to make such Permits, but only with respect to inspections, adjustments, tests or operations performed by you or on your servicing as the vendor has agreed behalf for which the state or political to make or normally undertakes to subdivision has issued a permit. make in the usual course of b, With respect to the insurance afforded to business, in connection with the these additional insureds, the following distribution or sale of the products; additional exclusions apply: (f) Demonstration, installation, This insurance does not apply to: servicing or repair operations, except such operations performed (1) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or at the vendor's premises In "personal and advertising injury" connection with the sale of the arising out of operations performed for product; the state or municipality; or (9) ribution Produclby ltlabeled (2) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" or sale yolu, have been included in the "product -completed or relabeled or used as a operations" hazard, container, part or ingredient of any 7. Additional Insured —Vendors other thing or substance by or for a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is the vendor; or amended to include as an additional (h) "Bodily Injury" or "property Insured the person(s) or organization(s) damage" arising out of the sale (referred to below as vendor) shown in the negligence of the vendor for its Declarations as an Additional Insured - own acts or omissions or those of Vendor, but only with respect to "bodily its employees or anyone else injury" or "property damage" arising out of acting on its behalf. However, this "your products" which are distributed or exclusion does not apply to: sold in the regular course of the vendor's (1) The exceptions contained in business and only if this Coverage Part Subparagraphs (d) or (f); or provides coverage for "bodily injury" or "property (ji) Such inspections, damage" included within the "products -completed operations hazard". adjustments, tests or servicing as the vendor has agreed to b• The insurance afforded to the vendor is make or normally undertakes subject to the following additional exclusions: to make in the usual course of (1) This insurance does not apply to: business, in connection with (a) 'Bodily injury" or "property the distribution or sale of the damage" for which the vendor is products. obligated to pay damages by (2) This insurance does not apply to any reason of the assumption of insured person or organization from liability in a contract or agreement, whom you have acquired such This exclusion does not apply to products, or any ingredient, part or liability for damages that the container, entering into, vendor would have in the absence accompanying or containing such of the contract or agreement; products. (b) Any express warranty 8. Additional Insured — Controlling Interest unauthorized by you; WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is (c) Any physical or chemical change amended to include as an additional insured in the product made intentionally the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the by the vendor; Declarations as an Additional Insured — (d) Repackaging, unless unpacked Controlling Interest, but only with respect to solely for the purpose of inspection, their liability arising out of: demonstration, testing, or the a. Their financial control of you; or substitution of parts under b. Premises they own, maintain or control instructions from the manufacturer, while you lease or occupy these premises. and then repackaged in the original container, Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 19 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM This insurance does not apply to structural alterations, new construction and demolition operations performed by or for that person or organization. 9. Additional Insured — Owners, Lessees Or Contractors — Scheduled Person Or Organization a. WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to Include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured — Owner, Lessees Or Contractors, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: (1) In the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured(s); or (2) In connection with "your work" performed for that additional insured and included within the "products - completed operations hazard", but only if this Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products -completed operations hazard". b. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional Insureds, this insurance does not apply to 'bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal an advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: (1) The preparing, approving, or failure to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; or (2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. 10, Additional Insured — Co -Owner Of Insured Premises WHO IS AN INSURED under Section C. is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or Organization(s) shown in the Declarations as an Additional Insured — Co - Owner Of Insured Premises, but only with respect to their liability as co-owner of the premises shown in the Declarations. Page 20 of 24 The limits of insurance that apply to additional insureds are described in Section D. — Limits Of Insurance. How this insurance applies when other insurance is available to an additional insured is described in the Other Insurance Condition in Section E. — Liability And Medical Expenses General Conditions. G. LIABILITY AND MEDICAL EXPENSES DEFINITIONS 1. "Advertisement" means the widespread public dissemination of information or images that has the purpose of inducing the sale of goods, products or services through: a. (1) Radio; (2) Television; (3) Billboard; (4) Magazine; (5) Newspaper; b. The Internet, but only that part of a web site that is about goods, products or services for the purposes of inducing the sale of goods, products or services; or c. Any other publication that is given widespread public distribution. However, "advertisement" does not Include: a. The design, printed material, information or images contained in, on or upon the packaging or labeling of any goods or products; or b. An interactive conversation between or among persons through a computer network. 2. "Advertising idea" means any idea for an "advertisement". 3. "Asbestos hazard" means an exposure or threat of exposure to the actual or alleged properties of asbestos and includes the mere presence of asbestos in any form. 4. "Auto" means a land motor vehicle, trailer or semi -trailer designed for travel on public roads, including any attached machinery or equipment. But "auto" does not. include "mobile equipment". 5. "Bodily injury" means physical: a. Injury; b. Sickness; or c. Disease sustained by a person and, if arising out of the above, mental anguish or death at any time. 6. "Coverage territory" means: Form SS 00 08 04 05 a. The United States of America (including its territories and possessions), Puerto Rico and Canada; b. International waters or airspace, but only if the injury or damage occurs in the course of travel or transportation between any places Included in a. above; c. All other parts of the world if the injury or damage arises out of. (1) Goods or products made or sold by you in the territory described in a. above; (2) The activities of a person whose home is in the territory described in a. above, but is away for a short time on your business; or (3) "Personal and advertising injury" offenses that take place through the Internet or similar electronic means of communication provided the insured's responsibility to pay damages is determined in the United States of America (including its territories and possessions), Puerto Rico or Canada, in a "suit" on the merits according to the substantive law In such territory, or in a settlement we agree to. 7. "Electronic data" means information, facts or programs: a. Stored as or on; b. Created or used on; or c. Transmitted to or from computer software, including systems and applications software, hard or floppy disks, CD-ROMS, tapes, drives, cells, data processing devices or any other media which are used with electronically controlled equipment. 8. "Employee" includes a "leased worker". "Employee" does not include a "temporary worker". 9. "Executive officer" means a person holding any of the officer positions created by your charter, constitution, by-laws or any other similar governing document. 10. "Hostile fire" means one which becomes uncontrollable or breaks out from where it was intended to be. 11. "Impaired property" means tangible property, other than "your product" or "your work", that cannot be used or is less useful because: a, it incorporates "your product" or "your work" that is known or thought to be defective, deficient, inadequate or dangerous; or BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM b. You have failed to fulfill the terms of a contract or agreement; if such property can be restored to use by: a. The repair, replacement, adjustment or removal of "your product" or "your work"; or b. Your fulfilling the terms of the contract or agreement. 12. "Insured contract" means: A contract for a lease of premises. However, that portion of the contract for a lease of premises that indemnifies any person or organization for damage by fire, lightning or explosion to premises while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner Is subject to the Damage To Premises Rented To You limit described in Section D. — Liability and Medical Expenses Limits oflnsurance. b. A sidetrack agreement; c. Any easement or license agreement, including an easement or license agreement in connection with construction or demolition operations on or within 50 feet of a railroad; d. Any obligation, as required by ordinance, to indemnify a municipality, except in connection with work for a municipality; e. An elevator maintenance agreement; or f. That part of any other contract or agreement pertaining to your business (including an indemnification of a municipality in connection with work performed for a municipality) under which you assume the tort liability of another party to pay for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to a third person or organization, provided the "bodily injury" or "properly damage" is caused, in whole or in part, by you or by those acting on your behalf. Tort liability means a liability that would be imposed by law in the absence of any contract or agreement. Paragraph f. includes that part of any contract or agreement that indemnifies a railroad for "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of construction or demolition operations within 50 feet of any railroad property and affecting any railroad bridge or trestle, tracks, road -beds, tunnel, underpass or crossing. However, Paragraph f. does not Include that part of any contract or agreement: Form SS 00 08 04 05 Page 21 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM (1) That indemnifies an architect, engineer or surveyor for injury or damage arising out of: (a) Preparing, approving or failing to prepare or approve maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders, designs or drawings and specifications; or (b) Giving directions or instructions, or failing to give them, it that is the primary cause of the injury or damage; or (2) Under which the insured, if an architect, engineer or surveyor, assumes liability for an injury or damage arising out of the insured's rendering or failure to render professional services, including those listed in (1) above and supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. 13. "Leased worker" means a person leased to you by a labor leasing firm under an agreement between you and the labor leasing firm, to perform duties related to the conduct of your business. "Leased worker" does not include a "temporary worker". 14. "Loading or unloading" means the handling of property. a. After it is moved from the place where it is accepted for movement into or onto an aircraft, watercraft or "auto", b. While it is in or on an aircraft, watercraft or "auto"; or c. While it is being moved from an aircraft, watercraft or "auto" to the place where It is finally delivered; but "loading or unloading" does not include the movement of property by means of a mechanical device, other than a hand truck, that is not attached to the aircraft, watercraft or "auto". 15. "Mobile equipment" means any of the following types of land vehicles, including any attached machinery or equipment: a. Bulldozers, farm machinery, forklifts and other vehicles designed for use principally off public roads; b. Vehicles maintained for use solely on or next to premises you own or rent; c. Vehicles that travel on crawler treads; d. Vehicles, whether self-propelled or not, on which are permanently mounted: (1) Power cranes, shovels, loaders, diggers or drills; or (2) Road construction or resurfacing equipment such as graders, scrapers or rollers; e. Vehicles not described in a., b., c., or d. above that are not self-propelled and are maintained primarily to provide mobility to permanently attached equipment of the following types: (1) Air compressors, pumps and generators, Including spraying, welding, building cleaning, geophysical exploration, lighting and well servicing equipment; or (2) Cherry pickers and similar devices used to raise or lower workers; f. Vehicles not described In a., b., c., or d. above maintained primarily for purposes other than the transportation of persons or cargo. However, self-propelled vehicles with the following types of permanently attached equipment are not "mobile equipment" but will be considered "autos": (1) Equipment, of at least 1,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, designed primarily for: (a) Snow removal, (b) Road maintenance, but not construction or resurfacing; or (c) Street cleaning; (2) Cherry pickers and similar devices mounted on automobile or truck chassis and used to raise or lower workers; and (3) Air compressors, pumps and generators, including spraying, welding, building cleaning, geophysical exploration, lighting and well servicing equipment. 16. "Occurrence" means an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions. 17. "Personal and advertising injury" means injury, including consequential "bodily injury", arising out of one or more of the following offenses: a. False arrest, detention or imprisonment; b. Malicious prosecution; Page 22 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 o. The wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that the person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor; d. Oral, written or electronic publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person's or organization's goods, products or services; e. Oral, written or electronic publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy; f. Copying, in your "advertisement", a person's or organization's "advertising idea" or style of "advertisement"; g. Infringement of copyright, slogan, or title of any literary or artistic work, In your "advertisement"; or h. Discrimination or humiliation that results in Injury to the feelings or reputation of a natural person. 18. "Pollutants" means any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste. Waste Includes materials to be recycled, reconditioned or reclaimed. 19 "Products -completed operations hazard"; a. Includes all "bodily injury" and "properly damage" occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of "your product" or "your work" except: (1) Products that are still in your physical possession; or (2) Work that has not yet been completed or abandoned. However, "your work" will be deemed to be completed at the earliest of the following times: (a) When all of the work called for in your contract has been completed. (b) When all of the work to be done at the job site has been completed if your contract calls for work at more than one job site. (c) When that part of the work done at a job site has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor working on the same project. Form SS 00 08 04 05 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Work that may need service, maintenance, correction, repair or replacement, but which is otherwise complete, will be treated as completed. The "bodily Injury" or "property damage" must occur away from premises you own or rent, unless your business includes the selling, handling or distribution of "your product" for consumption on premises you own or rent. b. Does not include "bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of: (1) The transportation of properly, unless the injury or damage arises out of a condition in or on a vehicle not owned or operated by you, and that condition was created by the "loading or unloading" of that vehicle by any insured; or (2) The existence of tools, uninstalled equipment or abandoned or unused materials. 20. "Property damage" means: a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical.injury that caused it; or b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of "occurrence" that caused it. As used in this definition, "electronic data" is not tangible property. 21. "Suit" means a civil proceeding in which damages because of "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" to which this insurance applies are alleged. "Suit" includes: a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent. 22. "Temporary worker" means a person who is furnished to you to substitute for a permanent "employee" on leave or to meet seasonal or short-term workload conditions. 23. "Volunteer worker" means a person who: a. Is not your "employee' Page 23 of 24 BUSINESS LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM b. Donates his or her work; (2) The providing of or failure to provide c. Acts at the direction of and within the warnings or instructions. scope of duties determined by you; and c. Does not include vending machines or d. Is not paid a fee, salary or other other property rented to or located for the compensation by you or anyone else for use of others but not sold. their work performed for you. 25, "Your work": 24. "Your product": a. Means: a. Means: (1) Work or operations performed by you (1) Any goods or products, other than real or on your behalf; and property, manufactured, sold, handled, (2) Materials, parts or equipment distributed or disposed of by: furnished in connection with such work (a) You; or operations. (b) Others trading under your name; b. Includes: or (1) Warranties or representations made at (c) A person or organization whose any time with respect to the fitness, business or assets you have quality, durability, performance or use acquired; and of "your work; and (2) Containers (other than vehicles), (2) The providing of or failure to provide materials, parts or equipment warnings or instructions. furnished in connection with such goods or products. b. Includes: (1) Warranties or representations made at any time with respect to the fitness, quality, durability, performance or use of "your producP; and Page 24 of 24 Form SS 00 08 04 05 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE I hereby certify that in the performance of the work for which this Agreement is entered into, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of the State of California. r, Executed on this 30th day of June, 2009, at Newport Beach, California. Principal CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE CHECKLIST City of Newport Beach This checklist is comprised of requirements as outlined by the City of Newport Beach. Date Received: 09/04/09 Dept /Contact Received From: Shauna Oyler Date Completed: 09/08/09 Sent to: Shauna Oyler By: Judy Villalobos Company/Person required to have certificate: Sirius Environmental I. GENERAL LIABILITY A. INSURANCE COMPANY: Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. B. AM BEST RATING (A: VII or greater): A; XV C. ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted): Is Company admitted in California? ® Yes ❑ No D. LIMITS (Must be $1 M or greater): What is limit provided? $1MM/$2MM/$2MM E. PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED OPERATIONS (Must Include): Is it included? (Completed Operations status does not apply to Waste Haulers) ® Yes ❑ No F. ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The Updated 09/24/09 City Its officers, officials, employees and volunteers): Is it included? ® Yes ❑ No G. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (Must be included): Is It included? ® Yes ❑ No H. CAUTION! (Confirm that loss or liability of the named insured is not limited solely by their negligence) Does endorsement include "solely by negligence" wording? ❑ Yes ® No I. NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION: Although there is a provision that requires notification of cancellation by certified mail; per Lauren Farley, the City will accept the endeavor wording. II. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY A. INSURANCE COMPANY, Hartford Casualty Insurance Cc B. AM BEST RATING (A: VII or greater) A; XV_ C. ADMITTED COMPANY (Must be California Admitted) Is Company admitted in California? ® Yes ❑ No D. LIMITS (Must be $1M min. BI & PD and $500,000 UM, $2M min for Waste Haulers): What is limits provided? Hired & NOA covg. only. $1 MM E. ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The City its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) :Is it included? ❑ Yes ® No F. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (For Waste Haulers only): Is it included? N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No G. NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION: Although there is a provision that requires notification of cancellation by certified mail; per Lauren Farley, the City will accept the endeavor wording. III. WORKERS' COMPENSATION NO WC COVERAGE INDICATED ON THE CERT. A. INSURANCE COMPANY: N/A B. AM BEST RATING (A: VI or greater): N/A C. LIMITS: Statutory D. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION (To include): Is it included? ❑ Yes ❑ No HAVE ALL ABOVE REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? ❑ Yes ® No GL: At endt. is not specific to the City, as blanket At applies as•required by wntten contract. GL: Primary & Non-contributory endt. was not provided, yet included in policy form SS0008 0405, as required by written contract. Auto: AI endt and/or Auto policy form not provided. IF NO WHICH ITEMS NEED TO BE COMPLETED? ased on Info. provided on 09/24/09: GL: At endt. is not specific to the City, as blanket At applies as required by written contract. GL: Primary & Non-contributoryendt. was riot provided, yet included in policy form SS0008 0405, as required by written contract. Auto: At endt and/or Auto policy form not provided. The -policy form sent with•lhe certificate dated 09/24/09, applies to Business Liability (GL). Ed. 8 2009 September 18, 2009 David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Planning Department Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 REMM BY PLANNING DIVARTM$NT SEP 1 S 2009 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Subject: Termination of Professional Services Agreement for Marina Park Project Dear Mr. Lepo: We wantto take this opportunity to thank you for providing Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) an opportunity to work with City staff on the Marina Park project. We would like to continue to provide quality service to the City in the future. We are disappointed that we were not able to continue to provide our environmental services to the City; however, we recognize that the City has obtained another firm that has proposed to complete the Recirculated Draft EIR at a reduced professional fee, and that budget is an Important consideration at this point in the process. As identified in your letter dated September 11, 2009 and required by Section 28 of the Professional Services Agreement, we have included a CD of the reports and documents that are in draft and final form. These reports and documents include the following: • Draft EIR and its Appendices • Notice of Availability • Notice of Completion • Environmental Document Transmittal • Draft EIR Distribution List • Individual graphics provided for the terrestrial resources letter report, cultural resources report, Draft EIR, and Initial Study/Notice of Preparation • Comment letters received on the Draft EIR • Draft version of the Responses to Comments • Draft version of the Coastal Resources Management Marine Biological Responses to Comments • Project Consistency Analysis (i.e., land use policy analysis) • Draft version of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Draft version of the Findings of Fact • The Marina Park Upland Surface Sediment Report, and • Wetland Delineation. The Marina Park project has involved extensive coordination, and I have enjoyed working closely with City staff throughout the environmental process. If you have any questions, please contact me at 715.508.4100. ENVIItONAIENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • NATuRAL RESOURCES MANAGEALENT www.brandman.com Fresno 559.497.0310 Inane 714.508 4100 Palm Springs 760.322.8847 Sacramento 916A47.1100 San Bernardino 909.884.2255 San Ramon 925.830.2733 David Lepo September 18, 2009 Page 2 Sincerely, t s 44 Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: Attachment on CD: Environmental Documents and Reports xc: Michael Brandman MEH I PM:II H.\Cllent(PN.JN)\0064\00640022\TerminaUon Of Con"ct\00640022 Marian Park -Ta,minaUon UtterO9_36_09.dw PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 11, 2009 Mr. Michael E. Houlihan Michael Brandman Associates 200 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92602 Re: Termination of Professional Services Agreement for Marina Park Project Dear Mr. Houlihan: This purpose of this letter is to terminate the March 25, 2008, Professional Services Agreement between the City of Newport Beach ("City") and Michael Brandman Associates ("Consultant") for the Marina Park Project ("Agreement"). _Specifically, the City is providing Consultant with seven (7) calendar day's prior written notice of the City's intent to terminate the Agreement without cause. Pursuant to Section 28 of the Agreement, the City requests that Consultant deliver to the City all reports, documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of the Agreement, whether in draft or final form, including but not limited to: EIR documents, responses to comments, findings and facts in support of findings of overriding considerations, mitigation monitoring and reporting plan(s), CEQA notices and the wetland delineation report. Please provide invoices for all work performed by the Consultant prior to September 18, 2009, the effective date of termination. As required by Section 28 of the Agreement, the City will pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. Thank you for your cooperation during this transition. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Lepo, Planning Direc or City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768 - Newport Beach, California 92658-8915 Telephone: (949) 644-3200 • Fax: (949) 644-3229 • www.city.newport-beach.ca.us %L. IM111 \Iicbacl Brandman Associates June 17, 2009 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Planning Department Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Request to Reallocate Funds for the Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters Including Wetlands, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, Orange County CA Dear Ms. Ung: As we discussed today, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is requesting to reallocate existing funds that are in our executed contract for the Marina Park Master Plan EIR. Subsequent to our latest invoice that included the statement of professional services from April 25, 2009 through May 29, 2009, there is $19,514.93 remaining in the budget. Our June 16, 2009 proposal for the preparation of a jurisdictional delineation included a cost of $10,950. So that we can proceed with the jurisdictional delineation, we request that funds for future tasks such as Public Meetings and Hearings ($8,071.20 is remaining) and Direct Costs ($5,718.83 is remaining) be reallocated for the jurisdictional delineation. Once the jurisdictional delineation is complete, MBA understands that the approach to complete the environmental documentation would be known. At that time, MBA would provide a scope of work, fee, and schedule to complete the environmental process. The fee would include replenishing the Public Meetings and Hearings and Direct Costs that were reallocated for the jurisdiction delineation. Please provide your authorization for the reallocation of funds for the jurisdictional delineation in accordance with our June 16, 2009 letter. Thank you. Sincerely, a Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Authorization '�'V� J/� David Webb Date Deputy Public Works Director City of Newport Beach Public Works Department MEH:jwi 11^•Ch'nUPR IN)\WG4\UOhIW2.,PIIQOIC9t Piop�[plr,'.(fu'u40a7?P'c\\pm[Aipnila 6opllocatlpn 061l tla Aoc IL,wnt( 1:m,81:rtU.I,Fv PIANNEW, a NAI UIL1l. IiJ�SOUI &837AN WLM N'l w�io braadav`aicoin Pre.,no .559.4970;I0 lninc 71.1508 4100 Palm?lvwp -60822 b947 sacmmento 916,447 1100 S,m llrmudino 70').S84.2255 San Ramon 925 830 2"33 NS N&N[XIMLrr , Michael Bandman Associates June 16, 2009 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Planning Department Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Proposal for Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters Including Wetlands, Marina Park Project, Newport Beach, Orange County CA Dear Ms. Ung: Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) is pleased to present this proposal to prepare a Jurisdictional delineation/determination (JD) for the approximately 10—acre Marina Park project hereafter referred to as the project site or site, located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The following scope provides a summary of the regulatory framework and an outline setting forth how MBA will prepare the JD according to standards established by federal and state regulatory agencies. A summary of tasks are as follow: • TASK 1: Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination • TASK 2: Project Management/Meeting It is estimated that the total cost for completing the study is $10,950. The terms and conditions of this proposal will remain valid for 90 days. If you have any questions, please contact me at 715.508.4100. Sincerely, Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Eno: Attachment A: Regulatory Framework Attachment B: Scope of Work Attachment C: Fees and Project Schedule MEHIPM:Iwi I1p716ntlPf:JNJt0004\00840022\P(opeaaI\00060022>:C%WORMar4ni Prbltasal0616-00.Ibc LNVIIt0NN11"TF.3L SERVICE.; • PI..1NNL\G • AT.viru ,• LRiSOUACEs NL1N.1GEMLNI' www.hrandman.com Fresno 559.497.0310 Irvine 714.508 4100 1'.t6n SPrilkn 760322.85,47 Sacmmento 9i0A7.1100 S.m lkmmdino 909 881.2-155 San Ramon 025.830.3735 City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Augment Proposal for Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters Including Wetlands Attachment A ATTACHMENT A: REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has jurisdiction over "Waters of the U.S." via either Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or the Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) (hereinafter referred to as section 10). Section 10 Jurisdiction will apply when navigable waters are involved, typically including jurisdiction over inlets, harbors and bays such as Newport Harbor. The project site is also within the Coastal Zone defined by both the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA,16 U.S.C.A §1453) and California Coastal Act (Public Resource Code, §30103). Prior to, or concurrent with application for an Army Corps Section 10 or a California Coastal Commission (CCC) permit (Section 30233), federal and state guidance require the preparation of a Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination (JD) to demarcate the extent of both USACE and CCCjunsdiction? This document will determine the precise location and acreage of jurisdictional resources including navigable waters, the tidal zone, and wetlands (among others parameters). The USACE Los Angeles District has set forth minimum standards and guidance for conducting JDs, and generally recommends that the delineation cover an area slightly larger than the project area to account for potential effects to waters of the United States from access, temporary staging, laydown areas, and storage areas as well as the direct project work area. A larger delineation area may also help to accentuate minimization and avoidance efforts of jurisdictional resources in the area. As such, MBA proposes to delineate the north facing coastal section of Newport Harbor peninsula extending from approximately 16th Street west to 19th Street. With respect to federal jurisdiction, the geographic and jurisdictional limits of oceanic and tidal waters are set forth in 33 CFR § 329.12. The shoreward limit of jurisdiction in coastal areas extends to the line on the shore reached by the plane of the mean (average) high water (MHW, or High Tide Line). Typically, precise determination of the actual location of the line must be established by survey with reference to the available tidal datum, preferably averaged over a period of 18.6 years. Less precise methods, such as observation of the "apparent shoreline" which is determined by reference to physical markings, lines of vegetation, or changes in type of vegetation, may be used only where an estimate is needed of the line reached by the mean high water. Federal regulation of bays and estuaries extends to the entire surface and bed of all waterbodies subject to tidal action. Jurisdiction will therefore extend the MHW of all such waterbodies, even though portions of the waterbody may be extremely shallow, or obstructed by shoals, vegetation, or other barriers. Marshlands and similar areas are thus considered "navigable in law," but only so far as the area is subject to inundation by the mean high waters. The relevant test is, therefore, the presence of the mean high tidal waters? The determination of the presence of wetlands varies with respect to federal and state law. The Army Corps uses a three prong -test evaluating the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology.3 The California Coastal Commission applies a potentially broader definition of Wetlands, which suggests that the subject area need only to be periodically inundated with water to be considered a wetland. California Coastal Commission, Procedural Guidmtcefor the Review of Welland Projecis in California Coastal Zone, June 15, 1994, at Chapter 1, Section III. 2 33 CFR § 329.12(b) a 33 CFR §328.3(b) This Three -prong lest has also been applied by the Environmental Protection Agency §230.4(t) Michael Brandman Associates A-f City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Augment Proposal for Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters including Wetlands Attachment A "Wetland" means lands within the coastal zone which maybe covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens." (PRC §30121) However, CCC guidance clearly establish the importance of evaluating the three parameters (vegetation, soil, and hydrology) in making an evaluation? This evaluation also invokes wetland classification criteria presently applied by both the United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game in making Wetland determinations. a California Coastal Commission, Procedural Guidance for die Review of lVettand Projecis in California Coastal Zone,,Tune 15, 1994, at Appendix A. Brandman Associates A-2 City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Augment Proposal for Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters Including Wetlands Attachment B ATTACHMENT B: SCOPE OF WORK Task 1: Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination A Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination will be performed at the Site. The JD will demarcate the tidal zones, and evaluate the site for potential wetlands. The wetlands evaluation will determine the presence of wetlands separately applying both USACE and CCC criteria. In both cases, the extent of key wetland characteristics, (1) hydrology, (2) hydric soils, and (3) hydrophytic vegetation will be documented and evaluated. Prior to field work, MBA expects that the City will provide detailed topographic tidal datum in CAD or GIS format from approximately 16t^ Street to 19t^ Street along the bay and beach. A California Coastal Commission biologist will be consulted via teleconference to confirm the proper application of current evaluation protocols prior to field work. Similarly, a project manager at the USACE will be contacted via teleconference to verify JD compliance with Section 10 protocols. Also, aerial photography, National Wetland Inventory Maps, and Soil Conservation Maps will be also be examined. A detailed topographical map will also be evaluated. This topographical map should meet minimum USACE requirements with respect to tidal datum. A field visit will be conducted to verify pre -survey data including examination and classification of soils to a minimum depth of 18 inches. All vegetation in the survey area will be identified and noted. Similarly, the salinity of the bay water will also be measured and recorded. USACE wetland data sheets and jurisdictional determination forms will be completed for all features in the subject area. Photographs will be taken to document tidal variation including the location of MHW and other features of interest. As required by USACE, an exhibit clearly showing photo locations will be included in the report. A detailed jurisdictional report will be prepared. The report will comprehensively present and analyze the data employing sufficient graphics/exhibits to meet or exceed USACE minimum standards. The report will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach for review. As directed by the City of Newport Beach, a final copy of the JD report will be sent to the California Coastal Commission and the United'States Army Corps of Engineers for concurrence with findings. Task 2: Meeting and Project Management This task includes standard project management responsibilities, such as quality assurance, budget and schedule controls, supervision of the MBA team, and communications/coordination with the California Coastal Commission and USACE. The task also includes time allocation for one site visit with CCC and USACE staff after the preparation of the Jurisdictional Delineation Report. It is imperative that the CCC biologist attend the site visit; however, if the USACE project manager is not available, MBA will further consult USACE by teleconference and proceed with the meeting with CCC staff. Michael Brandman Associates City of Newport Beach — Marina Park Augment Proposal for Jurisdictional Delineation/Determination of Coastal Waters including Wetlands Attachment C ATTACHMENT C: ESTIMATE OF FEES AND PROJECT SCHEDULE MBA's fees are as follow: „ , TASK 1: Jurisdictional Determination: Consultation with Resource Agencies and $2,400 Pre -survey Data and Analysis* Field Survey 1,800 JD Report Preparation $4,500 $8,700 TASK 2: Project Management/Meeting: - Management $1,000 - Site visit with resource agencies $1,200 $2,250 Grand Total: $10,950 * Note: Task 1 does not include cost of acquiring detailed topographical tidal datum exhibit/data. Project Schedule MBA proposes the following schedule for the preparation of the Jurisdictional Delineation. Tasks and Milestones Pre -survey Consultation with Resource Agencies and Acquisition of Data, and onsite Week 1 meeting' Field Survey Week 2 Report Generation Weeks 2-3 Onsite Meeting with Resource Angencies2 Week 4 'The pre�survey consultation will be with a California Coastal Commission biologist and a regulatory project manager with USACE via teleconference. The acquisition of data refers to receipt of detailed topographic tidal datum from the City. The field survey will not occur until the teleconference with the resources agencies occur and the topographic tidal datum is provided. ZMBA will coordinate with the Resource Agencies to determine a date and time for the onsite meeting. MBA may require assistance from the City of Newport Beach in establishing the onsite meeting. Michael Brandman C-1 0 -! PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES (MBA) FOR THE MARINA PARK PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of this � day of / ! 200_, by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ("City"), and MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES a California Corporation whose address is 220 Commerce, Suite 200, Irvine, California, 92602 ("Consultant'), and is made with reference to the following: RECITALS A. City is a municipal corporation duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California with the power to carry on its business as it is now being conducted under the statutes of the State of California and the Charter of City. B. City is planning to re -use the existing Marina Park property to construct a Marina, Community Sailing and Community Center Buildings and Community Park C. City desires to engage Consultant to Act as the lead consultant for preparation of the EIR and provide project management services for the various technical consultants outlined in MBA Scope of Services referenced as Exhibit "A" for the Marina Park Project ("Project'). D. Consultant possesses the certification, and -knowledge Agreement. skill, experience, ability, background, to provide the services described in this E. The principal member of Consultant for purposes of this Project, shall be Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services F. City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM The term of this Agreement shall commence on the above written date, and shall terminate on the 31st day of June, 2010, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein. City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion. 3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE Time is of the essence in the performance of services under this Agreement and the services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed. 3.1 Consultant shall submit all requests for extensions of time for performance in writing to the Project Administrator not later than ten (10) calendar days after the start of the condition that purportedly causes a delay. The Project Administrator shall review all such requests and may grant reasonable time extensions for unforeseeable delays that are beyond Consultant's control. 3.2 For all time periods not specifically set forth herein, Consultant shall respond in the most expedient and appropriate manner under the circumstances, by either telephone, fax, hand -delivery or mail. 4. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT City shall pay Consultant for the services on a time and expense not -to -exceed basis in accordance with the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance with this Agreement, including all reimbursable items and subconsultant fees, shall not exceed One Hundred Ninety Five Thousand, One Hundred Eighty Seven Dollars and no/100 ($195,187) without prior written authorization from City. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. 4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and/or the specific task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff. 4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in writing in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be 2 0 . ! limited and include nothing more than the following costs incurred by Consultant: A. The actual costs of subconsultants for performance of any of the services that Consultant agrees to render pursuant to this Agreement, which have been approved in advance by City and awarded in accordance with this Agreement. B. Approved reproduction charges. C. Actual costs and/or other costs and/or payments specifically authorized in advance in writing and incurred by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. 4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Extra Work performed without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Extra Work shall be paid in accordance with the Schedule of Billing Rates as set forth in Exhibit A. 4.4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, when payments made by City equal 90% of the maximum fee provided for in this Agreement, no further payments shall be made until City has accepted the final work under this Agreement. 5. PROJECT MANAGER Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager or any personnel listed in Exhibit A or assign any new or replacement personnel to the Project without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld with respect to the removal or assignment of non -key personnel. Consultant, at the sole discretion of City, shall remove from the Project any of its personnel assigned to the performance of services upon written request of City. Consultant warrants that it will continuously furnish the necessary personnel to complete the Project on a timely basis as contemplated by this Agreement. 6. ADMINISTRATION This Agreement will be administered by the Planning Department. Rosalinh Ung, shall be the Project Administrator and shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Project Administrator or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES In order to assist Consultant in the execution of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City agrees to, where applicable: A. Provide access to, and upon request of Consultant, one copy of all existing relevant information on file at City. City will provide all such materials in a timely manner so as not to cause delays in Consultant's work schedule. B. Provide blueprinting and other services through City's reproduction company for bid documents. Consultant will be required to coordinate the required bid documents with City's reproduction company. All other reproduction will be the responsibility of Consultant and as defined above. C. Provide usable life of facilities criteria and information with regards to new facilities or facilities to be rehabilitated. 8. STANDARD OF CARE 8.1 All of the services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's supervision. Consultant represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel required to perform the services required by this Agreement, and that it will perform all services in a manner commensurate with community professional standards. All services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by City, nor have any contractual relationship with City. By delivery of completed work, Consultant certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws and the professional standard of care. 8.2 Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has, shall obtain, and shall keep in full force in effect during the term hereof, at its sole cost and expense, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature that is legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Newport Beach business license during the term of this Agreement. 8.3 Consultant shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall Consultant be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of City to furnish timely information or to approve or disapprove Consultant's work promptly, or delay or faulty performance by City, contractors, or governmental agencies. El r 0 -93 10. 11. HOLD HARMLESS To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers, agents, volunteers and employees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties) from and against any and all claims (including, without limitation, claims for bodily injury, death or damage to property), demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever (individually, a Claim; collectively, "Claims")," which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant or its principals, officers, agents, employees, vendors, suppliers, consultants, subcontractors, anyone employed directly or indirectly by any of them or for whose acts they may be liable or any or all of them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to• indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the sole negligence, active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services. COOPERATION Consultant agrees to work Project Administrator and : interest in the work to be Consultant on the Project. closely and cooperate my other agencies th performed. City agi fully with City's designated it may have jurisdiction or aes to cooperate with the 5 - 12. CITY POLICY Consultant shall discuss and review all matters relating to policy and Project direction with City's Project Administrator in advance of all critical decision points in order to ensure the Project proceeds in a manner consistent with City goals and policies. 13. PROGRESS Consultant is responsible for keeping the Project Administrator and/or his/her duly authorized designee informed on a regular basis regarding the status and progress of the Project, activities performed and planned, and any meetings that have been scheduled or are desired. 14. INSURANCE Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work. Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City. A. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by City's Risk Manager prior to commencement of performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement. B. Stgnature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies. C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City's Risk Manager. D. Coverage Requirements. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for his or her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor's employees. Any notice of cancellation or non -renewal of all Workers' Compensation policies must be received by City at least R 0 -.0 thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non- payment of premium) prior to such change. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by Consultant for City. ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, contractual liability. If commercial, general liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement, or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for any owned, hired, non -owned or rented vehicles, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions insurance, which covers the services to be performed in connection with this Agreement in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language: The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant. ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self -insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. N. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company. VA 15. firtm iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. V. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-payment of premium) written notice has been received by City. F. Timely Notice of Claims. Consultant shall give City prompt and timely notice of claim made or suit instituted arising out of or resulting from Consultant's performance under this Agreement. G. Additional Insurance. Consultant shall also procure and maintain, at its .own cost and expense, any additional kinds of insurance, which in its own judgment may be necessary for its proper protection and prosecution of the work. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSFERS Except as specifically authorized under this Agreement, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be assigned, transferred contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. Any of the following shall be construed as an assignment: The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the Issued and outstanding capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member or cotenant if Consultant is a partnership or joint -venture or syndicate or cotenancy, which shall result in changing the control of Consultant. Control means fifty percent (50%) or more of the voting power, or twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint -venture. SUBCONTRACTING City and Consultant agree that subconsultants may be used to complete the work outlined in the Scope of Services. The subconsultants authorized by City to perform work on this Project are identified in Exhibit A. Consultant shall be fully responsible to City, for all acts and omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law. The City is an intended beneficiary of any work performed by the subcontractor for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the subcontractor and the City. Except as specifically authorized herein, the services to be provided under this Agreement shall not be otherwise assigned, transferred, contracted or subcontracted out without the prior written approval of City. 0 • C� 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Each and every report, draft, map, record, plan, document and other writing produced (hereinafter "Documents'), prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents and subcontractors, in the course of implementing this Agreement, shall become the exclusive property of City, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant's expense, provide such Documents to City upon prior written request. Documents, including drawings and specifications, prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by City or others on any other project. Any use of completed Documents for other projects and any use of incomplete Documents without specific written authorization from Consultant will be at City's sole risk and without liability to Consultant. Further, any and all liability arising out of changes made to Consultant's deliverables under this Agreement by City or persons other than Consultant is waived against Consultant and City assumes full responsibility for such changes unless City has given Consultant prior notice and has received from Consultant written consent for such changes. All improvement and/or construction plans shall be prepared with indelible waterproof ink or electrostaticly plotted on standard 24-inch by 36-inch Mylar with a minimum thickness of three mils. Consultant shall provide to City 'As -Built' drawings, and a copy of digital ACAD and tiff image files of all final sheets within ninety (90) days after finalization of the Project. For more detailed requirements, a copy of the City of Newport Beach Standard Design Requirements is available from the City's Public Works Department. 18. COMPUTER DELIVERABLES CADD data delivered to City shall include the professional stamp of the engineer or architect in charge of or responsible for the work. City agrees that Consultant shall not be liable for claims, liabilities or losses arising out of, or connected with (a) the modification or misuse by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data; (b) the decline of accuracy or readability of CADD data due to inappropriate storage conditions or duration; or (c) any use by City, or anyone authorized by City, of CADD data for additions to this Project, for the completion of this Project by others, or for any other Project, excepting only such use as is authorized, in writing, by Consultant. By acceptance of CADD data, City agrees to indemnify Consultant for damages and liability resulting from the modification or misuse of such CADD data. All original drawings shall be submitted to City in the version of AutoCAD used by CITY in ".dwg" file format on a CD, and should comply with the City's digital submission requirements for Improvement Plans. The City will provide AutoCAD file of City Title Sheets. All written documents shall be transmitted to City in the City's latest adopted version of Microsoft Word and Excel, 0 19. CONFIDENTIALITY All Documents, including drafts, preliminary drawings or plans, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information. 20. OPINION OF COST Any opinion of the construction cost prepared by Consultant represents his/her judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of City. Since Consultant has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Consultant does not guarantee the accuracy of such opinions as compared to contractor bids or actual cost to City. 21, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY The Consultant shall defend and indemnify City, its agents, officers, representatives and employees against any and all liability, including costs, for infringement of any United States' letters patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, including costs, contained in Consultant's drawings and specifications provided under this Agreement. 22. RECORDS Consultant shall keep records and invoices in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to the costs incurred under this Agreement and any services, expenditures and disbursements charged to City, for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. All such records and invoices shall be clearly Identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records and invoices during regular business hours. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, Documents, proceedings and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment to Consultant under this Agreement. 23. WITHHOLDINGS City may withhold payment to Consultant of any disputed sums until satisfaction of the dispute with respect to such payment. Such withholding shall not be deemed to constitute a failure to pay according to the terms of this Agreement. Consultant shall not discontinue work as a result of such withholding. Consultant shall have an immediate right to appeal to the City Manager or his/her designee with respect to such disputed sums. Consultant shall be entitled to receive interest on any withheld sums at the rate of return that City earned on its investments during the time period, from the date of withholding of any amounts found to have been improperly withheld. 10 11 24. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event of errors or omissions that are due to the negligence or professional inexperience of Consultant which result in expense to City greater than what would have resulted if there were not errors or omissions in the work accomplished by Consultant, the additional design, construction and/or restoration expense shall be borne by Consultant. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to limit City's rights under the law or any other sections of this Agreement. 25. CITY'S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS City reserves the right to employ other Consultants in connection with the Project. 26. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest. If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section. 27. NOTICES All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be given in writing, and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally, or on the third business day after the deposit thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class mail, addressed as hereinafter provided. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from Consultant to City shall be addressed to City at: Attn: Rosalinh Ung and/or Mark Reader Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA, 92663 Phone: 949-644-3208 Fax: 949-644-3229 All notices, demands, requests or approvals from CITY to Consultant shall be addressed to Consultant at: WA • 28. TERMINATION Attn: Michael E. Houlihan Michael Brandman Assoicates 200 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Phone: 714-508-4100 In the event that either party fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement at the time and in the manner required, that party shall be deemed in default in the performance of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) calendar days, or if more than two (2) calendar days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate assurance of due performance within two (2) calendar days after receipt of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the steps necessary to cure such default, and thereafter diligently take steps to cure the default, the non -defaulting party may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to the defaulting party written notice thereof. Notwithstanding the above provisions, City shall have the right, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Agreement at any time by giving seven (7) calendar days prior written notice to Consultant. In the event of termination under this Section, City shall pay Consultant for services satisfactorily performed and costs incurred up to the effective date of termination for which Consultant has not been previously paid. On the effective date of termination, Consultant shall deliver to City all reports, Documents and other information developed or accumulated in the performance of this Agreement, whether in draft or final form. 29. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS Consultant shall at its own cost and expense comply with all statutes, ordinances, regulations and requirements of all governmental entities, including federal, state, county or municipal, whether now in force or hereinafter enacted. In addition, all work prepared by Consultant shall conform to applicable City, county, state and federal laws, rules, regulations and permit requirements and be subject to approval of the Project Administrator and City. 30. WAIVER A waiver by either party of any breach, of. any term, covenant or condition contained herein shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character. 31. INTEGRATED CONTRACT This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held to vary the provisions herein. 12 32. CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES In the event there are any conflicts or inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Scope of Services or any other attachments attached hereto, the terms of this Agreement shall govern. I 33. INTERPRETATION The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning i of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either party,by reason of the authorship of the Agreement or any other rule of construction which j might otherwise apply. 34, AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 35. SEVERABILITY If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 36, CONTROLLING LAW AND VENUE The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all matters relating to it and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be adjudicated in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Orange. 37. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYMENT Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment ,because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. 13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first written above. APPROVED AS TO FORM: C"�— C— ff -- City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach ATTEST:Ya& By: LaVonne Harkless, City Clerk Attachments: for the City of Newport Beach (Financial Officer) Print Name: �tAQ,R Exhibit A — Scope of Services and schedule of Billing Rates f.luserslpbwlshared\agreementslfy 07.08Wrandman•manna park.doe 14 March 7, 2008 EaAmricid Ms. Rosalmh Ling 661.3342755 City of Newport Beach Planning Department Promo 3300 Newport Boulevard 559.4970311) P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 I.4]10e 714.508.4nx1 Subject: Revised Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Palm Spdng< 760 322.8847 Marina Park Master Plan Sacmmemo 916447.1100 Dear Ms Ung: San 11 msdino Preparing defensible, technically precise, and objective environmental documents 1s a 909 8842255 challenging task; however, there are many consulting firms that are able to prepare such son Ramon documents. What Is even more challenging is the consultant's abilityto provide excellent 925 83n 2733 service to each client, as dictated by the client's specific needs and expectations. It is this ability —provision of high quality work products in conjunction with outstanding client service —which sets Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) apart. MBA believes that client service is the foundation from which high -quality work is produced. To verify our ability to produce high -quality work in a highly condensed project schedule while providing client service, MBA refers you to the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan EIR prepared in 2004. MBA worked closely with Mr. David Lepo and Ms. Sharon Wood. Our previous work on the project site will allow MBA to focus on the issues cost- effectively. The Scope of Work, Fee, and Schedule for the Marina Park Master Plan Is In Attachment A and is based on information provide to MBA by the City during phone conversations with City staff, our meeting on February 22, 2008, and our intimate knowledge of the project site from the preparation of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan EIR in 2004. We have highlighted some of our other strengths for this effort. • MBA understands the importance of contracting with an environmental firm that has a solid background and understanding of the CEQA Guidelines. For 20 years, MBA has been providing defensible environmental documents to the public and private sector clients. Many of them were prepared for the local cities and agencies. With approximately 110 professionals on staff company -wide, MBA's depth and breadth of personnel available can serve as a valuable technical and staff resource to this project. We have a full -service graphics division, word processing center, reproduction department, and additional support staff to assist management and technical staff with documentation needs. MBA is committed to malntainingthe necessary financial, technical, and staff resources for this al"A project. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • PLANNING • NK1'URAL FL -SOURCES PIIANAOXNSmww biandman.com Ms. Rosallnh Ung March 7, 2008 Page 2 • To assure timely project completion, Mr. Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services at MBA will be responsible for the day-to-day project management. Mr. Houlihan's has over 20 years experience providing environmental planning services. He has been Involved in numerous projects where strong oral communication and presentation skills have also been key to a successful outcome. • MBA has the resources to assemble a project team that can provide a wide -range of high -quality technical work products that comply with environmental regulations and agency requirements. An experienced team has been assembled, Including MBA's in-house environmental specialists, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (Traffic), and Coastal Resources Management (Marine Resources). Specifically, MBA is prepared to take responsibility for project Initiation and organization, preparation of draft CEQA notices, data compilation, impact assessments, development of mitigation measures, report compilation and distribution, response to public comments, preparation of the mitigation monitoring program, findings/overriding considerations, public meetings and hearing attendance, and coordination with City of Newport Beach staff. As requested by City staff, MBA Is a "C Corporation" and our Dunn and Bradstreet business number is 068163203. We are confident that the approach outline in the Scope of Work in Attachment A will meet the objectives of the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions regarding the attached qualifications, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 714.508.4100. Thank you for your consideration of MBA as a qualified consultant for this project. Sincerely, Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: Attachment A: Scope of Work, Fees and Schedule I1,\Ckn11PNJfe\0664\06040029'\06640022P Madna Pa,k Com u, 034748 Jac MAIN Gly of PN6 port Beaeb — Marina Park Mailer PGm EIR /Illacbment A: Scope of Ir%rk, Peer and Sebedrde SCOPE OF WORK MBA recognizes the importance of coordination and communication in the EIR process for a proposed project of this significance. The scope of work and fees outlined in this proposal takes into account coordination and communication with the following key players in the project. City of Newport Beach City's Technical Consultants (i c., Rabben/Herman, Cash and Associates, Newfields, Terra Costa, and Fuscoe Engineering) MBA Project Team (i.e., traffic, marine resources, ate quality, noise, etc.) More importantly, MBA is committed to being n working partner with City staff. MBA is prepared to take responsibility for project huuation and organization, preparation and processing of CEQA notices, data compilation, impact assessment, development of mitigation measures, report compilation and distribution, response to public comments, public meetings and hearing attendance, coordination with City staff and City's technical consultants, and the MBA Project Team, preparation of the findings of fact, preparation of the statement of overriding considerations (if required), and preparation of a mitigation monitoring plan (to the extent presented in the following scope -of work). Report format and content will be in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Newport Beach environmental guidelines. The EIR organization will include a description of the environmental setting, identification of thresholds of significance, project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. Text will be supplemented with graphics and summary tables, as necessary, to present information in a concise and easily understood format. Work products will consist of pnofessionally photocopied reports in comb bindings, unless other specific approaches are proposed. The proposed scope of work that follows has been orgamzed into major tasks. Refinements to the scope of work, budget, and.project schedule will be discussed during the initial task, if needed This scope of work outline identifies the major tasks and project related deliverables associated with the EIR. The cost for preparation of the EIR is broken into the following tasks. Task 1. Project Definition and Organization The purpose of this task is to obtain the information necessary to prepare a complete "proposed project" and "alternatives" descriptions. It includes crafting measurable project objectives. In ordei to establish early communication among various project team members, consisting of City staff, City technical consultants, and MBA, and to establish project expectations with respect to policy concerns for the project, MBA will use the following approach: • Attend initial orientation meeting with City staff, City's technical consultants, and the MBA Project Manager to determine which elements will be included in descriptions of the project and alternatives to the proposed project • Receive complete project information, which will be used to develop the EIR project and alternatives descriptions. Information will include project objectives, narrative program description, etc. • Receive all existing reference and reseatch materials related to the project, the project site, and the vicinity, including base maps and aerial photographs. • Review reference material provided by the project team. Expand and refine the list of information needs. Distribute, as appropriate, to EIR Project team members. I L.WLent (PN JM\U66A\U66AUU22P\UU6AUU22 Marina Pack Peopo>;J rev 113-07-03 doe 1 Srope of I (%rk City of Nonporl Beach — d$anna Park. Masler Plan EIR Allachmehd A: Scope of Voik, Fees and Schedule Task 2. Project Management, General Coordination and Meetings The purpose of this task is to manage the EIR preparation effort and to maintain close communication between City staff, City's technical consultants, and the i%fBA project team members. This task is also intended to ensure I that the project is running on time and within budget and technically correct. This is a key element to the project because of the necessity to maintain clear lines of communication between the MBA project team, the City, and the City's technical consultants. The following approach will be used - I. Communicate with die MBA projecr team members and City staff for compliance with the scope of wort, schedule and budget. Coordinate the team's work and provide management haison between the project team, the City, and the City's technical consultants foi communication issues, transmittal of , comments, financial management (e.g., invoices) and other project management matters. 2. Attend project coordination meetings with City staff. The proposed scope of work and budget ; proposal includes three project meetings attended by MBA's FIR Project Manager. Other meetings or additional MBA staff may attend on a time -and -materials basis. Task 3. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation MBA will prepare the IS, according to CEQA requirements, the state CEQA Guidelines (Section 15063), and the CEQA compliance procedures of the City of Newport Beach. The IS will comply with the content requirements of case law, specifically Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Atea v. County of Inyo (1985) and Sundstiom v. County of Mendocino (1988), wherein both a checklist of impacts and reasoned explanations of the findings of the study were determined to be necessary for a legally adequate IS. After completion of the initial meeting and receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) responses, MBA will identify issues for which no significant impacts will occur (to be described as effects found not to be significant in the EIR) and potentially significant impact topics identified in the Initial Study (1S) that require further evaluation in the EIR. This will verify and precisely define the scope of EIR issues, provide a strategic action plan for completing the environmental process as efficiently as possible, and determine the most effective approach for addressing the consultations and approvals needed by other agencies. A draft IS will be prepared for review by the City of Newport Beach. Following receipt of staff comments, MBA will prepare the final IS. MBA will prepare the NOR The NOP will include the appropriate City form, a project description, project exhibits, and the final IS, which includes the IS checklist and a discussion of environmental issues. MBA will submit one unbound copy of the NOP to the City for approval, and then will reproduce and distribute up to 50 copies of the NOP via certified marl to agencies and to the public. The distribution List will be provided by the City, with input from MBA. MBA anticipates that the distribution list will be similar to the list that was used during the Marinapitk Resort & Community Plan project. Task 4. CEQA Adequacy Review of Technical Reports The MBA team will review the technical reports that will be prepared by the City's technical consultants for CEQA adequacy. The reports that will be reviewed include the sediment chemstry by Newfields, geotechnical hazards by Terra Costa, and the hydrographic survey, drainage, and preliminary water quality evaluations by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. "These reports will not be ieviewed fin technical accuracy Additional technical reports including traffic by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc and marine biology by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. that will be prepared for VIBA will also be teviewed for CEQA adequacy. H.\(Gent(PN-JM\0664\06640022P\Ia164(N)22 Manna far6 Propn�il rev [ndN-W doc 2 Scope of Vork Cily ofNen porl II each — tblmina Park Marler Plan EIR AuachmeneA: Scope of I Bork, Fees and Schedule Task 5. Administrative Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to prepare a comprehensive EIR for the City. The following approach will be used: 1. Ptepaue the project description section of the EIR, including: regional and local setting, project history, project objectives, and project characteristics. The project description should also identify all discretionary actions required by the City of Newport Beach, and state, regional and federal resource agencies with responsibilities over aspects of the project. 2. MBA shall prepare a narrative on the intended uses of the EIR, as required by Section 15124(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to a list of tesponsible and other agencies expected to use the EIR in decision -making. 3. Identify reasonable anticipated actions/related ptojects likely to occur that may result in cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed project. These potential projects will be identified by the City and will be considered by the MBA team throughout the cumulative impact evaluation. 4. Document baseline conditions and establish thresholds of significance (in coordination with the City of Newport Beach). Identify Effects Found Not to be Significant, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, with brief explanations, conduct impact evaluations, and formulate mitigation measmes. MBA anticipates that the following em$onmental issues will result in no significant impacts: • Agricultural.Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation Specific topical areas to be addressed on a project -specific and cumulative basis in the EIR are as follows: Geology and Soils The potential for impacts from soil or geological conditions onsite or in the project vicinity will be evaluated for the construction of the project. This section will emphasize geotechnical hazards, seismicity of the area, potential for liquefaction and subsidence, and erosion. The analysis will be based on a technical report that is assumed to be prepared by Terra Costa, the City's technical consultant, and adequate for CEQA purposes upon its receipt. Appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended, if necessary. This report will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety, as an appendix to the document. Biological Resources Coastal Resources Management (CUM) will provide marine resources assessment for the proposed project. The projeces potential to impact marine resources is the primary biological evaluation. To provide a comprehensive biological resources evaluation, MBA wd) prepare the terrestrial biological resources assessment for the prolect. However, the terrestrial evaluation is expected to be more brief than the marine tesources assessment. Marine Resources Assessment The purpose of the marine tesources assessment is to evaluate the potential short -and -long term effects of the project development on the marine life and marine habitats of Newport Bay from implementation of the proposed project - Issue areas will be addressed in the assessment: 1.1:%gent(PN-JN)\0664\066411022P\Ot1640e22 Marina Puk Propo,ai my 03.07-OBdoc 3 Scope of Work City ofNopwtBeach — Marina Park MasterMan EIR _ AtlacbweutA:Scope ofWork, Fees and Schedule • Existing matine habitats and biological communities within or nearby the project area; • Sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangeted species within or nearby the project area; • Effects of additional pollutants due to increased runoff caused by the project; • Potential changes in biological productivity caused beach recreational activity and structures, wet weather and dry weather runoff, or decrease in light entering the water due to shadowing (new buildings); • Construction/operational effects of the mariva basin on tiie marine environment The following identifies the tasks to be completed as pact of the marine resources assessment 1. Conduct a marine biological field survey. CRM will conduct a field survey at the proposed development site. This survey will be conducted to gain an understanding of the existing site conditions, the locations of existing storm drains, and the genetal types of marine flora and fauna (including marina birds) within the project aica. Photographs of tiie project site will be taken and included in the project tepott Underwater video will also be taken. An underwater survey will be conducted to document the presence or absence of eelgrass (Zostera marina), which is an important invertebrate and fish nursery habitat 2. Prepare a draft Marine Biological Resources Assessment CRM will conduct a review of the available marine biological data for the local area to be used as background and historical information. Based upon the results of the reconnaissance survey at the project site, the available data base of historical information, and project design plans, stone water runoff plans, and other project documents, CRM will analyze potential ptoject impacts on the marine biological resources. Potential environmental impacts of the project on mare resources (marine plants, invectebiates, fishes, marine mammals, scabitds, federally and state -fisted marine -associated species, sensitive habitats) will. be evaluated. Where significant impacts have been identified, mitigation measures to reduce the level of impact to less -than -significant will be provided. This marine resources assessment will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the document Terrestrial BiologicalResources Assessment In addition to the marine resources assessment, ivfBA will prepare a terrestrial biological resources assessment of the project site. The assessment will be limited to the non-beacb pottion of the project site. MBA will conduct a literature search and field reconnaissance to determine the existing biological conditions on the non -beach portion of the site. MBA will conduct an impact evaluation and provide mitigation measures, if necessary Cultural Resources MBA will perform in archaeological and historical evaluation of the project area following NEPA and CEQA guidelines. The technical evaluation will be used to support the EIR, however, the iepoit could be ultimately used during the futute NEPA processing of the Section 10 of the Rivets and Harbors Act permit which is requited for the dredging associated with the proposed manna. Due to the future review, the existing mobile home units that are more than 45 years old will likely be required to be evaluated at the national (NEPA), state and local (CEQA) significance levels. It is anticipated that the mobile home park would not be identified as a potentially significant cultural resource. However, should the existing mobile home parr be identified as a potentially significant cultural H:\CLcm (PN JN)\06G4\066400221'\00640022 Manna Pad Pwpwal rcv 03-0-08AM 4 Scope of I flork I Cilp of NelvpotY Beaeh — dlarina Park blaster Ran EIR AllacbmentA: Scope of II%rk, Fee, and Sebedale i 1 resource during the survey, you will be notified, and NIBA will pelfotm a historic evaluation as an option task in i this proposal I The final report will require an evaluation of the project area for potential impacts to buried cultural deposits. Mitigation measures will be developed that will be incorporated into the EIR that, if necessary, provide for mitigation monitoring. Lastly, the project area will be evaluated for paleontological sensitivity. Should die project area be Found to lie within a paleontologually sensitive atca, paleontological mitigation measures will be developed that can be incorporated into the EIR. Ttansporta tion/Circulation Austin Foust Associates (AFA) will prepare a traffic and parking study for the proposed project. AFA will use the traffic information that they previously developed with the \larinapark Resort & Community Plan project. The project traffic study will involve an estimation of the net new trips generated by the project considering a credit will be applied for the existing uses and the relocation of the mobile homes. Once the net increase in trips t is known (and approved by City review), a trip distribution and assignment and capacity analysis will be conducted. This analysis will basically follow the City's own Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines in i identification and evaluation of any impacts and potential mitigation. The analysis will be carried out for both off-season and peak summer season conditions. In addition to the traffic impacts, the site access and internal circulation system will be reviewed for both traffic flow and safety with appropriate comment furnished where noted. The parting study will consist of preparation of an estimate of the parking demand created by die project itself, ! although it is recognized the ambient parking conditions vary significantly between the normal and peak summer seasons. AFA will rely heavily on industry parking standards to forecast the park's total parking demand. This analysis will also evaluate the potential for use of the parking facilities by non-usets and develop a means to control any such "poadning" into the park's parking facilities. The study will examine the parking in both the view of the City's own parking code as well as industry standards. The traffic and picking study will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Land Use and Planning Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project will be identified and validated by a Field visit and photo reconnaissance. An existing land use map, and General Plan and Zoning Map will be presented in the EIR. The EIR will evaluate the proposed land uses in relation to the City General Plan (all Elements), the proposed zone change, regional (e.g., SCAG and SCAQIv1D) and state (i.e., California Coastal Act) plans and policies for the site (i.e., State Tidelands) and surrounding area compatibility with surrounding uses, and consistency with relevant plans and policies, and loss/teloenton of existing mobile homes will be addressed Cumulative land use effects will be considered within the context of adopted plans and other past, present and probable future projects Density, interrelationship of uses, and environmental impacts will be addressed from a land use impact perspective. Measures will be recommended to reduce or eliminate adverse land use effects. Air Quality A comprehensive au quality analysis will be prepared in suppott of CEQA and will include an evaluation of both localized and regional short-term and long-term air quality impacts The air quality analysis would judge the significance of those impacts by comparing to South Coast Air Quality Management Disuict (SCAQMD) localized and regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the CEQA guidelines, the analysis would answer the following questions: II:\Cbmt(pNJM\11664\U66411U22P\1N164U1122Aiidna PotA Proposal rev 03-07-08 doc 5 Scope of Work City afNem 1 Beacb — Marina Park Master Plan EIR Allachmenl A: Scope of Work, Fees and Sebednle • Is the piolect consistent with the 2007 Air Qual y Management Plan? • Would the project violate any sit quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • Would the project result in a cumulauvely considerable impact? • Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • Would the project create objectionable odors? To answer these questions, the air quality analysis requires the following tasks Emissions Calculation Air pollutant emissions associated with constmction and operational activities will be estimated using URBEMIS2007 and/or emission factors published by the United States Environmental Protection .Agency (U.S. EPA) to accurately depict the construction and opetational activities. The pollutants that will be estimated include the following: volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). A CO microscale hot -spot analysis for up to two intersections will be performed based on the traffic study results. Mitigation measures will be determined, if necessary, to reduce the level of significance of the air emissions to below the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Enussions prior to and after mitigation measures will be estimated. Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis. There are two methods available for assessing localized impacts from a project from construction pursuant to SCAQMD methodology. The first method assumes that no more than five acres per day would be disturbed during grading. This method estimates onsite pio)ect emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and compares them with localized thresholds as obtained from the SCAQMD LST Methodology look -up tables for the projeces source receptor area. The second method is estimating concentrations of the pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors and is appropriate for projects that anticipate disttubhtg mote than five acres pet day. The concentrations are estimated using the U.S EPA Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) model and are compared with the LST for the source receptor area. The majority of die project site is expected to be graded after the construction of the marina At this time, since the total acreage of the area to be graded (minus the manna) is unknown, the second method will be used to estimate concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors during construction activities. Greenhouse Gases. There are currently no published thresholds of significance established by any state or regional regulatory agency for measuring the impact of a project's greenhouse gas emissions to climate change CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 indicates, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." Therefore, the threshold to be used in assessing project impacts will be as follows: Greenhouse gas emissions created by the project are considered to be potentially significant if the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly hinder or delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32 Background information on greenhouse gases and the regulatory environment will be described. Project generated direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases will be estimated. The Genetal Plan or other regional planning document(s) will be reviewed for goals or policies that telate to climate change. Mitigation measwes willbe recommended and a significance finding will be determined. Noise MBA will prepare a noise evaluation based on the previous noise study ptepated for the Alarinapark Resort & Community Plan project. Noise measurements were taken as pair of the previous study and will be used to describe existing noise levels and traffic mix in the project vicinity. Community noise standards relevant to this project are contained in the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. These standards will be summarized and there relevance to the project discussed. K\Client(VN-JN)\(k64\e6640022P\OO6411022 Mnrim Park Propo<d rev 03-07-(Kdoc 6 .cope of Work Cih, f Nrenpoii Beach — Manna Park Mailer Plan EIR A1larhmenlA. Scope o%11%ark, Fees and Schedule The potential noise impacts can be divided into short-term construction noise, impacts on surrounding land uses, and on -site noise/land use compatibility. The application of the City's Noise Ordinance to control construction noise will be discussed. The noise impacts associated with the project's traffic on adjacent land uses will be assessed in terms of the CNEL noise scale for the without project and with project conditions. Areas that will experience a significant noise increase will be identified. The absolute noise levels experienced in these areas will then be determined, and the resulting had use/noise compatibility discussed Noise levels generated by stationary soutces (e.g. parking lots) will also be assessed foi compatibility with the proposed land uses. Noise levels from stationary sources that potentially impact noise sensitive land uses will be estimated. The City's Noise Ordinance stindaids will be used to assess impacts. Based upon the cumulative baseline, the cumulative noise impacts in the area including mobile is well as any stationary sources of noise, will be assessed. Mitigation for construction and/or operational impacts will be identified, as necessary. Residual impact, if any, would be compared with the impact criteria to assess adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures. Drainage and Water Quality. The City's technical consultant, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., is preparing the drainage and water quality evaluation for the proposed project. Site drainage and surface water quality chnacteristics of the site and receiving waters are assumed to be identified. Requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and compliance with NPDES are also assumed to be addressed. Water quality issues are expected to be preliminarily addressed by Fuscoe. The qualitative water quality issues that are assumed to be addressed include the following- 0 Shore based constriction activities that could locally degrade water quality through an increase in water turbidity, trash and debris, during tunoff events or during dry weather from storm dtain now into Newport Bay; • Water quality impacts associated with the construction of the marina These impacts would -result from pile driving and/or hydrojetdng dock support pilings into the seafloor, as well as dredging (including maintenance dtedghtg) associated with increasing water depths underneath the proposed boat dock Impacts could potentially include a local increase in water turbidity and tesuspension of sediment contaminants; • Potential effects of long-term water impacts associated with runoff horn the proposed park into Newport Bay. These impacts would be associated with wet weather and dry weather runoff It is anticipated that all flows would be directed inland and away from the bay. The conformity of the project to current local, state, and federal water quality regulations are assumed to be discussed and evaluated. The integration of BN[Ps with project design will be discussed. Mitigation measures for water quality impacts will be recommended. The drainage and ;water quality evaluation provided by Fuscoe will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its endrety as an apper'idix to the document. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Newfrelds will conduct an analysis of the marine soil that will be excavated to determine the chemisny of the soil as well is the suitability for use as beach tepleitishment onsite and/or offsite If there are environmental concerns regarding the soil, MBA anticipates that Newfields will provide recommendations to reduce potential significant impacts. MBA will incorporate the findings and conclusions within the E1R. In addition, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. piepated a Limited Phase II Soil Assessment along the beach portion of the site as part of the Marinapatk Resort & Community Plan Project. These findings will be incorporated into the EIR. Futthermore, MBA will conduct a hazardous materials records review, site observation, and conduct interviews with City officials that are familiar with the present and historical uses of the 14:\CLcnt(I'N•JN)\t1664\a664e022P\0064111)226fama PuA PropoA rer03-117418 doe 7 Srope of lr/ork - - 0 City ofNengottBcarb—MarinaPark Master Plan EIR AtlaebmentA:ScopeofVork,Fcerand Seliedule site. Subsequently, MBA will summarize the finding of the hazardous materials teview and recommend measures to reduce potential sigitificant impacts, if necessary. Visual Character. Views of the project site will be depicted thLough a photo -reconnaissance. Massing of the proposed structures and visual simulations of the proposed structures are assumed to be provided by Rabben/Herman based on our discussions with City staff. The potential glaLe impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project will also be qualitatively evaluated. The alteration of the visual setting and sensitivity of viewpoints will also be discussed. Mitigation measures will be recommended, if necessary, to reduce any significant impacts. Public Services and Utilities. \IBA will coordinate with City staff and affected public services and utility purveyors to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project It is anticipated that at least the following services and utility systems will be analyzed Fire Protection; Police Protection; Water; Sewer; Electricity; Natural Gas; and Solid Waste. Letters will be sent to all service facility, and utility agencies describing the proposed project. Answers will be requested, as appropriate, to document existing and planned facilities, current usage, excess capacity, and heeded improvements. The additional capacity required to meet projected needs will be described. Anticipated impacts will be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended. Additional EIR tasks include the following• 1. Discuss all significant unavoidable adverse impacts, in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b). Included in the discussion will be any impacts that can be partially mitigated, but not to a level that is less than significant 2 Include gLowdi-inducing and cumulative impact evaluations in the EIR. To the extent possible, the analysis will address known projects, either approved or proposed in the vicinity of the project. The boundaries of this area will be determined by the City and will be set prior to commencement of the Administrative Draft EIR. The cumulative impact assessment will be based on adopted plans and/or past, present and probable future projects that may, in combination with the proposed project, create adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prepare an Executive Summary, presenting the significant conclusions of the EIR for the project, in a manner that is easily understood by the public. A "summary table" format will be used to identify the significant impacts and the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures. A discussion of issues to be resolved and issues subject to potential controversy, as requited by CEQA, will be provided. A summary of the alternatives and effects found not to be significant would also be presented 4. Prepare the Alternatives Section of the EIR based upon directives from City staff. MBA will work closely with the project team to define the alternatives. MBA will address the following alternatives to the proposed project the No Project Mternative—site remains in its current developed condition, pursuant to current GeneLal Plan and zoning, and up to two alternative designs. The alternatives will be analyzed in sufficient detail for comparison with the -proposed project. Each alternative will be evaluated with respect to each key impact category reviewed for the proposed project. 5. MBA will also prepare other sections of the EIR, including CEQA-mandated topics as follows • Table of Contents; • Significant Irreversible EnviLonmental Changes; • Relationship Between Short -Term Uses & Long-teLm Productivity; • Effects Found Not to Be Significant; • List of Organizations and Persons Consulted; • Preparers of the Environmental Document; t t:\Ghent (pN-JN)\I)664\066400Z11\011601)22 Manna Par6 proposal my [13.07.08doc 8 Sropc of lVork City pfNen port Beach — Marina Park Master Plan EIR Adlaahment A: Scope of bank, Feet and Schedule • References; and • Appendices. G. Prepare up to eight (8) copies of the Adminsitrative Draft EIR fot review by City staff and designated recipients. The appendices will be placed on cd. Task G. Proof Check Draft EIR and Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to respond to staff comments on, the Administrative Draft EIR, complete necessity revisions, and publish and distribute the Draft EIR for public review. The following approach will be used: 1. Cooidinate with the City's EIR Project Manager who will assemble comments on, and suggested revisions to, the Administrative Draft EIR. One set of mufied comments will be provided to MBA. 2. Prepare up to five (5) copies of the Proof Check Draft EIR for submittal to die City's EIR Project Manager and designated recipients for final "proof -check" review before distribution to the public. The appendices will be placed on cd. 3. Following the City's proof check review of the Proof Check Draft EIR, MBA will make any additional minor revisions required and distribute up to 60 copies of the Draft EIR with a cd containing the appendices to recipients on the approved Distribution List, including the fifteen (15) copies required by the State Clearinghouse. Five hard copies of the entire appendices will be provided to the City so that it can be available for public review at the City and the libraries within the City. Task 7. - Draft and Final Responses to Draft EIR Comments The purpose of this task is to prepare written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR that raise significant environmental issues, and submit them for the City's review after the close of the public comment period The responses to comments will be prepared based on the requirements of the State and City CEQA requirements The followingapproach wiU be used: 1. The City's EIR Project Manager will compile and transmit to MBA all written comments on the Draft EIR. 2. MBA will confer with staff to review written comments on the Draft EIR and comments from public meetings and hearings to develops general framework and strategies for preparing responses. 3. MBA will submit up to five (5) copies of the Draft Response to Comments for City staff review. Based on staff review and suggested modifications, the responses will be finalized and three (3) copies and one unbound, photo -ready copy of the Final Response to Comment will be submitted to the City. The responses will include a separate section identifying any Changes to the Draft EIR. Responses that ate within this proposal scope of work and budget proposal consist of explanations, elaboration, or clarifiicadons of the data contained in the Draft EIR corrections, with a budgeted effort of up to 60 hours for management and technical staff in the task If substandal new analysis, issues, alternatives, or project changes need to be addressed, or if effort exceeds the budget amount because of the number or complexity of responses, a contract amendment may be requested. This task also assumes that the Citlrs technical consultants wbo prepared studies for the EIR would be responsible in drafting responses to comments that pertain to their specific issue area (i.e., drainage/water quality, geologic resources, etc.) Task 8. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The purpose of this task is to prepare statutory requirements for actions cetdfying the EIR, pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21081 of the CEQA Statutes) and to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following approach will be used: H:\CBent (PNgN)\0664\U66400221'\OU640022 Manna Path Proposal rev U3-U7-08 doc 9 Scope of Work City o%1Verapas Beath — Mamra Park Master Plan EIR Attatlimew A. Stope o%1l°ork, Fees and Schedule 1. 'MBA will prepare Draft Findings and Facts in Suppoit of Findings for each potential significant effect identified in the EIR and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the unavoidable significant impacts associated with the project. As tequited by the State CEQA Guidelines, one of three findings must be made for each significant effect and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will rely on consultation with the City regarding the potential benefits of the project r\IBA will submit one complete set via e-mail and reproducible hard copy of the Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City's EIR Project Manager for review. 2 MBA's project manages will consult with City staff to review dtaft findings and overriding considerations (if needed) to finalize them. \IBA will submit one complete set via e-mail and reproducible hard copy of the Final Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City's EIR Project Manager Task 9. Final EIR MBA will reproduce and submit to the City twenty-five (25) copies of the Final EIR consisting of the Draft EIR with appendices on cd and the final version of the Response to Comments. MBA will also copy and distribute the Response to Comments document to each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR in accordance with Section 210925(a) of the CEQA statutes. Task10. Mitigation Monitoring and Repotting Plan The purpose of this task is to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as mandated by Assembly Bill 3180 (Cortese 1988), by preparing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for adoption at the time of the CEQA findings. MBA will use the following approach: 1. MBA will prepare and submit a Draft 1\ MRP in accordance with the State and City CEQA requirements. The MMRP will be designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures that address significant Impacts. 2. After City staff review and comment, MBA will finalize the MMRP and submit the requited number of copies. Task 11. Public Meetings and Hearings The purpose of this task is to be present at public meetings and hearings, to develop an understanding of the public's comments and concerns, to be available to answer questions on environmental issues, and to make presentations on the EIR. The ivfBA Project Manager and Traffic Consultant will attend up to four public meetings or hearings to conduct presentations regarding the EIR process and findings (and traffic study), and be available to answer questions. The following public meetings/hearings included ate EQAC (1); Planning Commission (2); and City Council (1) In addition, NIBA will prepare for and attend one scoping meeting after the distribution of the Notice of Preparation. MBA will be available to piesi;,nt the project, the environmental issues that have are initially identified for evaluation in the EIR, and discuss the general schedule of the EIR process Task12. CEQA Notices In addition to the NOP, MBA will prepare the Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability to accompany the Draft EIR distribution. It is assumed that the City will file the Notice of Determination, and distribute public meeting and bearing notices. H:\CLent (pN JN)\0664\0664Un72p\OU64t%122 Marina Nut pmpmal rer 03.07-OU doe 10 .$-eofico if 0 City ofNemport Beacb — Madna Park Master Plan EIR Atiaehnvert A: Scope of 11%ark, Fees and S hedrdc PROJECT FEES Estimated fees for preperadon of the EIR for the Marina Pork \faster Plan Pto)ect ate shown below. MBA PROFESSIONAL FEES Task 1. Ptoject Definition and Organization 2,700 Task 2. Project Management and Meetings 15,940 Task 3. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation 6,090 Task 4. CEQA Adequacy Review of Technical Reports 3,440 Task 5. Administiative Draft EIR 66,060 Task 6 Proof Check Draft and Draft EIR 12,310 Task 7. Draft and Final Responses to Draft EIR Comments 15,680 Task 8 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5,780 Task 9. Final EIR 2,440 Task 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2,140 Task 11. Public Meetings and Hearings 9,120 Task 12. CEQA Notices 940 Total MBA Professional Fees 142,640 Subconsultants Austin Foust Associates (Traffic) 19,400 Coastal Resources Management (Marine Resources) 15,800 (Administrative Fee of 10 Percent) 3520 Total Subconsultant Fees $ 38,720 Direct Cost Document Printing/Reprographics 3 10,770 Phone/fax, postage/delivery, mileage 1,800 (Administrative Fee of 10 Percent) 1 257 Total Direct Costs 8 13,827 TOTAL FEE I I•\Client (PN JN)\e664\11664(a)22P\W64ea22 Manna ParA Pmional rev ()3.(17-(IBdm 11 Fees t City o/Neivport Bearb — Maiva Park Master Plant EIR Altai bwent A: Scope of I r/ork, Fees and Sibednle 4 FEE ASSUMPTIONS In determining MBA's fees for the proposed scope of work, the following assumptions ate made: ` 1. The identified EIR fees are based on the preceding scope of work. Should additional technical studies 1 be required pursuant to EIR scoping or agency comments, a contract amendment may be required. i 2 Ptinting costs are based on the method of printing and binding proposed, specific numbers of copies proposed as work products, and estimated page lengths. Document ptunting costs ace estimated and will need to be finalized at the tune of printing (ADEIR w/Appendices on cd - $70; DEIR w/Appendices on cd - $70, DEIR and Appendices - $250, Response to Comments-$30, Final EIR-$ 100) 3. The EIR scope may need to be adjusted after receipt of all NOP comments. 4. The EIR will be prepared to comply with CEQA j 5. This price is based on completion of the work within the proposed schedule. If substantial delays occur, an amendment of the price may be warranted to accommodate additional project management and other costs, and to reflect adjustment for updated billing rates. 6. Costs have been allocated to tasks based on MBA's proposed approach. During the work, MBA may, i on its sole authority, teallocate costs among tasks, as citcumstances warrant, so long as the adjustments maintain the total price within its authorized amount. BILLING RATES Following are the billing rates of the MBA project team for the Ivlatma Park Master Plan EIR. Michael Brandman Associates Project Manager $ 180 QA/QC $ 220 i Assistant Project Managci. $ 110 Environmental Planner $ 90 EnvitonmentalAnalyst $ 80 Noise Specialist $ 145 Air Quality Specialist $ 130 Biologist $ 100 Water Quality Specialist $ 145 i Cultural Resources Specialist $ 130 Word Processor $ 85 I GraphicTechiician/GIS $ 110 Editing $ 115 Clerical $ 80 Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Senior Marine Biologist $ 125 Bird Biologist $ 85 Marine Biologist $ 75 Word Processor $ 55 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Principal TtafficEngineer $ 180 Transportation Engineer $ 135 Technical/Clerical $ 80 It.\Ghent (pN JN)\11664\U664U1@2p\UU64UU22 t iannn park pmpoval rcv U3-U7-0a.doe 12 Fees 00 afNeivpoit Bead — Main Park Master Plan EIR Attachment A: Srape of IVA, Feer and Sebedule SCHEDULE Projects ate considered successful when they are completed on time and within budget. NIBA places a stiong emphasis on integrating schedule and budget issues into a cohesive and successful plan that will result in the completion of a high -quality work product. Pro)ect objectives, or milestones, need to be identified at the onset of the project through an active exchange of goals and realistic objectives between MBA and die City of Newport Beach. Once these milestones have been detcimined, dates are established for the execution of each objective A preliminary schedule for the EIR is identified below. Milestone Tentative eks Sin contract/Kick-off Meeting 1 Draft NOP and Initial Study Due 4 Receipt of Geotechnical Report from Ci 's Consultant 5 of Sediment Chemistry from Ci 's Consultant 6 -Receipt Review final N.O.P. and Initial Stud 6 -City Consultant Sends N.O.P. and Initial Study (CiIZ to provide mailing list 8 of Preliminary Marina Design from Ci 's Consultant 12 -Receipt Receipt of Drainage and Water Quality Evaluation from Ci 's Consultant A Administrative Draft EIR Due 22 City Comments Due 25 Proof Check Draft EIR Due 28 Comments Due 30 -City Draft EIR Due 32 Review Period Starts 45 days) 32 E AC Study Session 36 Review Period Ends 38 to Comments and Findings Due 42 -Response Comments Due 44 -City Final Response to Comments Due 46 Commission Hearing #1 49 -planning Commission Hearing #2 53 -Planning Final Findings Due 55 Council Hearin 57 - 61 -City Final EIR 62 H.-\t1ent(VNJN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Marina Pack Proposal my 03-07-08 doc 13 Schedule m i.o fE•RnnR nnrrunoonu AC DM.. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATCIrAM'Dem) 04115/2008 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION Dealey, Renton & Associates ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE P. 0. Box 10550 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Santa Ana, CA 92711-0550 714 427-6810 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURED INSURERA Travelers Property Casualty CO of Am Michael Associates INSURERD. American Automobile Ins. Co. 220 Commmerceerce Canter#200 INSURER U.S. Specialty Insurance Company Irvine, CA 92602 INSURERD• Travelers Indemnity Co. of Cohn_ectic INSURER E: LW-11q 01-V"1 ' ' THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS ILSR TYPEOFINSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POL YEFFECDTNE POLIDYEXPIRATION PATF IN LIMITS A GENMLUABIUTY 6806683L204 11/15/07 11/15108 EACH OCCURRENCE _51,000,000 qX COMMERCIALGENERALLIABILTIY CLAIMSMADE OCCUR Gen. Liab. policy excludes claims FIREDAMAGE(Anyonof,o) S300 00D MED EXP(AnY ono Pcmn) S5,000 PERSONAL&ADV WJURY $1 000 000 X CDntmctual arising out of the Liability GENERAL AGGREGATE s2 000 000 performance of GEN'LAGGREGATELIMITAPPLIESPER: PRODUCTS-OOMPIOPAGG s2000000 prof. services. POLICY X PRO•JECT LOC D AUTOMOBILE X LIABILITY ANYAUTO BA607BL716 11/15/07 11/15/08 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea oalEonl) S1,000,000 ALL OWNED AUTOS SCHEDULEDAUTOS BODILYINJURV (Perponon) S X HIRED AUTOS NON•OWNEDAUTOS BODILYINJURY (PwawIdenQ S X PRO ERTYOAMAGE (Pa wIdenl) S GARAGELMSIUTV AUTO ONLY - EAACCIDENT S OTHERTHAN EAACC AUTO ONLY. AGG S ANYAUTO S A EXCESS X1 LIABILITY OCCUR 7 CLAIMSMADE CUP7686Y739 11/15107 11115108 EACHOCCURRENCE s4.000,000 AGGREGATE s4000000 S S DEDUCTIBLE S RETENTION S 'B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND WZP80957165 11/15/07 11115/08 X we srnm• OTH EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT 51000000 EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE S1,000,000 E L. DISEASE• POLICY LIMIT S1,000,000 C OTTER Professional U8071188903 11/15107 11/15/08 $1,000,000 per claim lability $3,000,000 annl aggr. laims Made I DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLESIEXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENBORSEMENLSPECIAL PROVISIONS Re: All Operations as pertains to named Insured. The City of Newport Beach, Its elected or appointed officers, officlals, employees, agents and volunteers are Additional Insured as respects to ' General & Auto Liability coverage as required by written contract. (See Attached Descriptions) City of Newport Beach Attn: Rosalinh Ling or Mark Reader Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 ACORD 25-S (7/97)1 of 2 4M210480 SHOULD ANYOF THEABOVE DESCRIBEO POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE 711E EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER MkXfflMXM TOMAIL3g—DAYS WRITTEN NOTICETOTHE CERTIFICATE HOLDERNAMED TOTHELEFTj4tttxlG)Wa(x3000s0;xxxk REPRESENTATIVE =r" TM0N I I DESCRIPTIONS (Continued from Page 1) Coverage afforded the Additional insured is Primary & Non-contributory. 7. Separation of Insureds Except with respect to the Limits of Liability In this Liability Coverage Part and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this Liability Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this Insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and b. Separately to each Insured against whom the claim or suit is brought. Waiver of Subrogation included In Work Comp. of 2 #M210480 w WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached effective on the inception date of the policy unless a different date is indicated below. (The following "attaching clause" needs to be completed only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) This endorsement forms a part of Policy No. WZP80957165 Issued to: Michael Brandman Associates By: American Automobile Ins. Co. Premium (if any) TBD We have a right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us). You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described In the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2-5% of the California workers compensation premium otherwise due on such remuneration. Schedule Person or Organization Job Description City of Newport Beach Re: All Operations as pertains to named Attn: Rosalinh Ung or Mark Reader insured. The City of Newport Beach, Planning Department its elected or appointed officers, 3300 Newport Boulevard officials, employees, agents and Newport Beach, CA 92663 volunteers WC 04 03 06 Countersigned by (Ed.4.84) Authorized Representative 0 0 POLICYNUMBER: BA607BL716 COMMERCIAL AUTO CA 20 48 02 99 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. DESIGNATED INSURED This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM GARAGE COVERAGE FORM MOTOR CARRIER COVERAGE FORM TRUCKERS COVERAGE FORM With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by this endorsement. This endorsement identifies person(s) or organizations) who are "insureds" under the Who is An Insured Provision of the Coverage Form. This endorsement does not alter coverage provided In the Coverage Form. This endorsement changes the policy effective on the inception date of the policy unless another date is indicated below. Endorsement effective 04/15/2008 Named Insured Michael Brandman Associates Name of Person(s) or Organization(s): City of Newport Beach Attn: Rosalinh Ung or Mark Reader Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 SCHEDULE Re: All Operations as pertains to named insured. The City of Newport Beach, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers (If no entry appears above, information requirod to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to the endorsement.) Each person or organization shown In the Schedule is an "insured" for Liability Coverage, but only to the extent that person or organization qualifies as an "insured" under the Who is An Insured Provision contained in Section 11 of the Coverage Form CA 20 48 02 99 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1998 Page 1 of 1 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. BLANKET ADDITIONAL INSURED (ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS) This endorsement modifies Insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART 1. WHO IS AN INSURED (Section 11) is amended to include.any person or organization that you agree In a 'contract or agreement requiring insurance" to include as an additional insured on this Cover- age Part, but: a. Only with respect to liability for "bodily Injury", "property damage" or "personal injury': and b. If the Injury or damage arises out of the per- fonnance, by you or your subcontractor, of "your work" to which the "contract or agree- ment requiring insurance" applies. Such per- son or organization does not qualify as an additional insured with respect to their inde- pendent acts or for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" for which that person or organization has assumed liability in a contract or agreement. 2, The Insurance provided to the additional Insured by this endorsement is limited as follows: a. This insurance does not apply on any basis to any person or organization for which cover- 4. age as an additional insured specifically Is added by another endorsement to this Cover- age Part. b. This insurance does not apply to the render- ing of or failure to render any "professional services". c.' The limits of insurance afforded to the addi- tional insured shall be the limits which you agreed to provide in that "contract or agree- ment requiring insurance", or the limits shown in the Declarations for this Coverage Part, —= whichever are less. This endorsement does not increase the limits of Insurance stated in the LIMITS OF INSURANCE (Section ill) for this Coverage Part. 3, The following is added to Paragraph a. of 4. _ Other Insurance in COMMERCIAL GENERAL 5• LIABILITY CONDITIONS (Section IV): CG D3 81 09.06 CCC]e8 However, if you specifically agree in a "contract or agreement requiring Insurance" that the insurance provided to an additional insured under this Cov- erage Patt must apply on a primary basis, or a primary and non-contributory basis, this insurance is primary to other insurance that is available to such additional insured which covers such addi- tional insured as a named insured, and we will not share with the other insurance, provided that: (1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" for which coverage is sought occurs; and (2) The "personal injury" for which coverage Is sought arises out of an offense committed; after you have entered into that "contract or agreement requiring insurance". But this insur- ance still is excess over valid and collectible other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis, that is available to the insured when the insured is an additional insured under any other insurance. The following is added to Paragraph•8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us in COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CON- DITIONS (Section IV): We waive any rights of recovery we may have against any person or organization because of payments we make for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal injury" arising out of "your work" performed by you, or on your behalf, under a "contract or agreement requiring insurance" with that person or organization. We waive these rights only where you have agreed to do so as part of the "contract or agreement requiring Insur- ance" with such person or organization entered Into by you before, and in effect when, the "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs, or the "per- sonal injury" offense is committed. As respects the insurance provided to the addi- tional insured by this endorsement, the following definition is added to DEFINITIONS (Section V): 62006, The St. Paul Travelers Insurance Companies, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Includes copyrighted material of insurance services office, Ina , with Its permission n u COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY "contract or agreement requiring insurance" means that part of any contract or agreement un- der which you are required to include a person or organization as an additional insured on this Cov= erage Part, provided that the "bodily Injury" and "property damage" occurs, and the 'personal in- jury" is caused by an offense committed: a. After you have entered into that contract or agreement; b. While that part of the contract or agreement is in effect; and c. Before the end of the policy period. All other terms of your policy remain the same. Page 2 Of 2 ID 2006, The al. Paul Travelers Insurance Companies, Inc. Includes copyrighted material of Insurance services Office, Inc., vath Its permission. CG D3 81 09 06 hMe11+JRt4sPeA .cost 0 Fax #: CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE CHECKLIST City of Newport Beach This checklist is comprised of requirements as outlined by the City of Newport Beach. Date Received: April 14, 2008 Dept./Contact Received From: Shari Rooks Date Completed: April 14, 2008 Sent to Short Rooks By: Tarn Hemmingsen Company/Person required to have certificate: Michael Brandman Associates I. GENERAL LIABILITY A. INSURANCE COMPANY: Travelers Property Casualty Co of America B. AM BEST RATING (A: VII or greater): A+:XV C. ADMITTED Company (Must be California Admitted): Is Company admitted in California? ® Yes ❑ No D. LIMITS (Must be $1M or greater): What is limit provided? $2 Mil agg/$1 Mil occ E. PRODUCTS AND COMPLETED OPERATIONS (Must ® Yes O No include): Is it included? F. ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The ® Yes [-],No City its officers, officials, employees and volunteers): Is it included? G. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (Must be ® Yes ❑ No included): is it included? H. CAUTIONI (Confirm that loss or liability of the named ❑ Yes ® No insured is not limited solely by their negligence) Does endorsement include "solely by negligence" wording? I. NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION. Although there is a provision that requires notification of cancellation by certified mail; per Lauren Farley, the City will accept the endeavor wording. it. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY A. B. C. 1101 INSURANCE COMPANY. Travelers hidennrity Co. ofConnecticut AM BEST RATING (A• VII or greater) A+:XV ADMITTED COMPANY (Must be California Admitted), Is Company admitted in California? LIMITS (Must be $1M min. BI & PD and $500,000 UM): What is limits provided? ® Yes ❑ No E. ADDITIONAL INSURED WORDING TO INCLUDE (The City its ❑ Yes ® No officers, officials, employees and volunteers), Is it included? F. PRIMARY & NON-CONTRIBUTORY WORDING (For Waste Haulers only): Is it included? N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No G. NOTIFICATION OF CANCELLATION. Although there is a provision that requires notification of cancellation by certified mail; per Lauren Farley, the City will accept the endeavor wording. Ill. WORKERS' COMPENSATION A. INSURANCE COMPANY: American Automobile Ins. Co. B. AM BEST RATING (A: VII or greater): A: XV C. LIMITS: Statutory D. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION (To include): Is it included? ® Yes ❑ No HAVE ALL ABOVE REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? ❑ Yes ® No IF NO, WHICH ITEMS NEED TO BE COMPLETED? Auto Linbiliry: Missing AI wording. and Al endorsement. • • Page 1 of 3 Oyler, Shauna From: Rooks, Shari Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:08 AM To: Oyler, Shauna Subject: FW: Marina Park - Cert. Of Ins. From: April Walker [mailto:AWaiker@bbsocal.comj Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:49 AM To: Rooks, Shari Subject: RE: Marina Park - Cert. Of Ins. Shari, I reviewed the auto additional insured endorsement and all is In order. Regards, ApHM[ker, CIC Sr. Account Manager Brown & Brown of California, Inc. P.O. Box 6989 Orange, CA 92863 Phone:714-221-1813 Fax: 714-221-4113 awalker@bbsocal.com License V0785279 NOTICE: Please be aware that you cannot bind, alter or cancel coverage without speaking to an authorized representative of Brown & Brown. Coverage cannot be assumed to be bound without confirmation from an authorized representative of Brown & Brown. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained In this communication, including attachments is privileged and confidential. It is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee. If the reader is not the intended recipient, or the employee, or the agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you'are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by return email or telephone immediately. Thank you 04/17/2008 • • Page 2 of-3 From: Rooks, Shari [mailto:SRooks@city.newport-beach.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:35 AM To: Jayne Ingram Cc: April Walker; Tara Hemmingsen; Oyler, Shauna Subject: RE: Marina Park - Cert. Of Ins. Jayne, sorry, I have not heard back from our broker yet, so I'll copy them once again to see if your insurance was acceptable. Shauna Oyler is back from vacation, so she will be processing all documents from this point forward. Shauna's email is: soylercity.newport- beach. ca.us Regards, Shari Rooks Public Works Specialist I City of Newport Beach 13300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beacb, CA 92663 Phone: 949-644-33i1 I Fax: 949-644-3318 I Email: srooksCcity.newport-beacb.ca.us Pub/icWorks Department —A Well -Engineered M,7chioe Protecbng2174 providing qualify pub/ic improvements and services From: Jayne Ingram [mailto:JIngram@brandman.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 9:22 AM To: Rooks, Shari Subject: RE: Marina Park - Cert. Of Ins. Hi Shari, Could you give me an ETA on when we can expect to receive a fully executed contract back. We are expected to start work next week if not sooner. If you could fax or email me a pdf copy, prior to our receipt of it via US Mail, we can proceed. Thanks. From: "Rooks, Shari"<SRooks@city.newport-beach.ca.us> To: "Jayne Ingram" <JIngram@brandman.com> Date: 4/14/2008 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Marina Park - Cert, Of Ins. Thanks Jayne, I'll shoot it over to our broker for review! 04/17/2008 r-1 Page 3 of 3 Sharf Rooks Public Woi ks Specialist I City of Newport Beach 13300 Newpoi t BOnlevziiA, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone: 949-644-3311 1 Fax:949-644-3318 I Email:siook5Ocity.newpoit-beach.ca•us Pub/ic Wor/s Depaj tment — A Wel%Engineered Machine Protecting and providiny quvh(y pub/ic improvementsdnd services From: Jayne Ingram [maiito:JIngram@brandman.com] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:24 AM To: Rooks, Shari Subject: Marina Park - Cart. Of Ins. HI Sherry, Please find attached a PDF of the COI . An original has been forwarded directly from our Insurance broker to your offices. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, Jayne W. Ingram, CPS Sr. Administrative Assistant 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100, Ext.1025 Fax 714.508.4110 www brandman.com Celebrating 25 Years of Leadership Providing Environmental Planning Services 04/17/2008 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 7, 2008 1 MAR 07 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Revised Proposal to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Master Plan Dear Ms Ung: Preparing defensible, technically precise, and objective environmental documents is a challenging task; however, there are many consulting firms that are able to prepare such documents. What is even more challenging is the consultant's ability to provide excellent service to each client, as dictated by the client's specific needs and expectations. It is this ability —provision of high quality work products in conjunction with outstanding client service —which sets Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) apart. MBA believes that client service is the foundation from which high -quality work is produced. To verify our ability to produce high -quality work in a highly condensed project schedule while providing client service, MBA refers you to the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan EIR prepared in 2004. MBA worked closely with Mr. David Lepo and Ms. Sharon Wood. Our previous work on the project site will allow MBA to focus on the issues cost- effectively. The Scope of Work, Fee, and Schedule for the Marina Park Master Plan is In Attachment A and is based on information provide to MBA by the City during phone conversations with City staff, our meeting on February 22, 2008, and our intimate knowledge of the project site from the preparation of the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan EIR in 2004. We have highlighted some of our other strengths forthis effort. • MBA understands the importance of contracting with an environmental firm that has a solid background and understanding of the CEQA Guidelines. For 20 years, MBA has been providing defensible environmental documents to the public and private sector clients. Many of them were prepared for the local cities and agencies. • With approximately 110 professionals on staff company -wide, MBA's depth and breadth of personnel available can serve as a valuable technical and staff resource to this project. We have a full -service graphics division, word processing center, reproduction department, and additional support staff to assist management and technical staff with documentation needs. MBA is committed to maintaining the necessary financial, technical, and staff resources forthis project. lfichael Brandmmn Associatcs LNVIIZONA11,N r.U. S"ERV4CISs • PL.INNme, • Kvi URAL RBSr IURCFS NlANA(;F,%%N"r www.brandmamcom Bati«rcid 661.434.2755 Frr,nn 559 497.0410 loin( 714,51)8,41O0 Pilm Sluing, 760 3229847 Sacramuttu 916,147.1101) Nan Bcrnardin-i 909 884 2255 San R.unnn 925.8302713 b Ms. Rosallnh Ung March 7, 2008 Page 2 • To assure timely project completion, Mr. Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services at MBA will be responsible for the day-to-day project management. Mr. Houlihan's has over 20 years experience providing environmental planning services. He has been involved in numerous projects where strong oral communication and presentation skills have also been key to a successful outcome. • MBA has the resources to assemble a project team that can provide a wide -range of high -quality technical work products that comply with environmental regulations and agency requirements. An experienced team has been assembled, including MBA's in-house environmental specialists, Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (Traffic), and Coastal Resources Management (Marine Resources). Specifically, MBA is prepared to take responsibility for project Initiation and organization, preparation of draft CEQA notices, data compilation, impact assessments, development of mitigation measures, report compilation and distribution, response to public comments, preparation of the mitigation monitoring program, findings/overriding considerations, public meetings and hearing attendance, and coordination with City of Newport Beach staff. As requested by City staff, MBA is a "C Corporation" and our Dunn and Bradstreet business number Is 068163203. We are confident that the approach outline in the Scope of Work in Attachment A will meet the objectives of the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions regarding the attached qualifications, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 714.508.4100. Thank you for your consideration of MBA as a qualified consultant for this project. Sincerely, Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Manager of Environmental Services Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 Enc: Attachment A: Scope of Work, Fees and Schedule H �,Gien[ (P&1N)%0664106640022P\06640022P Haan%M CC+er LV OWO6 dOO MEH,14 0 0 City ofNeivport Beach — Marina Park [Plaster Plan EIR Attadiment A: Scope of Work, Peer and Sebedule SCOPE OF WORK MBA recognizes the importance of coordination and communication in the EIR process foi a proposed project of this significance. The scope of work and fees outlined in this proposal takes into account coordination and communication with the following key players in the project: • City of Newport Beach • City's Technical Consultants (i.e., Rabben/Herman, Cash and Associates, Newfields, Terra Costa, and Fuscoe Engineering) • MBA Project Team (i.e., traffic, marine resources, air quality, noise, etc.) More importantly, MBA is committed to being n wonting partner with City staff. MBA is prepared to take responsibility for project initiation and organization, preparation and processing of CEQA notices, data compilation, impact assessment, development of mitigation measmes, report compilation and distribution, response to public comments, public meetings and heating attendance, coordination with City staff and City s technical consultants, and the TvIBA Project Team, preparation of the findings of fact, preparation of the statement of overriding considerations (if requied), and pxepaiadon of a mitigation monitoring plan (to the extent presented in the following scope of work) Report format and content ivill be in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City of Newport Beach environmental guidelines. The EIR organizadon will include a description of the environmental setting, identification of thresholds of significance, project and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, anddevel of significance after mitigation. Text will be supplemented with graphics and summary tables, as necessary, to present information in a concise and easily undeistood format. Work products will consist of professionally photocopied reports in comb bindings, unless other specific approaches are proposed. The proposed scope of work that follows has been organized into major tasks. Refinements to the scope of work, budget, and project schedule will be discussed during the initial task, if needed. This scope of work outline identifies the major tasks and project related deliverables associated with the EIR. The cost for preparation of the EIR is broken into the following tasks. Task 1. Project Definition and Organization The purpose of this task is to obtain the information necessary to prepare a complete "proposed project" and "alternatives" descriptions. It includes crafting measurable project objectives. In order to establish early communication among various project team members, consisting of City staff, City technical consultants, and MBA, and to establish project expectations with respect to policy concerns for the project, MBA will use the following approach: • Attend initial orientation meeting with City staff, City's technical consultants, and, the MBA Project Manager to determine which elements will be included in descriptions of the project and alternatives to die proposed project. • Receive complete project information, which will be used to develop the EIR project and alternatives descriptions. Information willinclude project objectives, narrative progiam description, etc. • Receive all existing reference and research materials related to the project, the project site, and the vicinity, including base maps and aerial photographs. • Review reference material provided by the project team. Expand and refine the list of information needs. Distribute, as appropriate, to EIR Project team members. FL\Chen (PN JN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Main" Pack Ptnpos:d rev 03-07-08 doc 1 Scope of Mork 0 City of Neippoit Beach — Mariva Park Allaster Plan EIR AttochrnentA: Scope of Fork, Feet and Schedule Task 2. Project Management, General Coordination and Meetings The purpose of this task is to manage the EIR preparation effort and to maintam close communication between City staff, City's technical consultants, and the MBA project team members. This task is also intended to ensure that the project is running on time and within budget and technically correct. This is a key element to the project because of the necessity to maintain clear lines of communication between the MBA project team, the City, and the City's technical consultants. The following approach will be used: 1. Communicate with the MBA project team members and City staff for compliance with the scope of work, schedule and budget. Coordinate the team's woik and provide management liaison between the project team, the City, and the City's technical consultants for communication issues, transmittal of comments, financial management (e.g., invoices) and other project management matters. 2. Attend project coordination meetings with City staff. The proposed scope of work and budget proposal includes three project meetings attended by MBA's EIR Project Manager. Other meetings or additional MBA staff may attend on a time -and -materials basis. Task 3. Initial Study and Notice of Preparation MBA will prepare the IS, according to CEQA requirements, the state CEQA Guidelines (Section 15063), and the CEQA compliance procedures of the City of Newport Beach. The IS will comply with the content requirements of case law, specifically Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Ioyo (1985) and Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988), wherein both a checklist of impacts and reasoned explanations of the findings of the study were determined to be necessary fox a legally adequate IS. After completion of the initial meeting and receipt of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) responses, bIBA will identify issues for which no significant impacts will occur (to be described as effects found not to be significantin the EIR) and potentially significant impact topics identified in the Initial Study (IS) that require further evaluation in the EIR. This will verify and precisely define the scope of EIR issues, provide a strategic action plan for completing the environmental process as efficiently as possible, and determine the most effective approach for addressing the consultations and approvals needed by other agencies. A draft IS will be prepared for review by the City of Newport Beach. Following receipt of staff comments, MBA will prepare the final IS. MBA will prepare the NOR The NOP will include the appropriate City form, a project description, project exhibits, and the final IS, which includes the IS checklist and a discussion of environmental issues. MBA will submit one unbound copy of the NOP to the City for approval, and then will reproduce and distribute up to 50 copies of the NOP via certified mail to agencies and to the public. The distribution list will be provided by the City, with input from MBA. MBA anticipates that the distribution list will be similar to the list that was used during the Marinapaik Resort & Community Plan project Task 4. CEQA Adequacy Review of Technical Reports The MBA team will review the technical reports that will be prepared by the City's technical consultants for CEQA adequacy. The reports that will be reviewed include the sediment chemistry by Newfields, geotechnical hazards by Terra Costa, and the hydrographic survey, drainage, and preliminary water quality evaluations by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. These reports will not be reviewed for technical accuracy. Additional technical reports including traffic by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. and marine biology by Coastal Resource Management, Inc. that will be prepared for MBA will also be reviewed for CEQA adequacy. Il•\Client (PN f t)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Marina Park Ptopmil rev 03-07-08 doc 2 Scope of Work 0 City ofNapport Beach —[Marina Park Master Plan EIR AttadvventA: Scope of Work, Fees and Schedule Task 5. Administrative Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to prepare a comprehensive EIR for the City. The following approach will be used: 1. Prepare the project description section of the EIR, including: tegional and local setting, project history, project objectives, and project characteristics. The project description should also identify all discretionary actions requited by the City of Newport Beach, and state, regional and federal resource agencies with responsibilities over aspects of the project. 2. NIBA shall prepare a narrative on the intended uses of the EIR, as required by Section 15124(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to a list of responsible and other agencies expected to use the EIR in decision -making. 3. Identify reasonable anticipated actions/related projects likely to occur that may result in cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed project. These potential projects will be identified by the City and will be considered by the MBA team throughout the cumulative impact evaluation. 4. Document baseline conditions and establish thresholds of significance (in coordination with the City of Newport Beach). Identify Effects Found Not to be Significant, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, with brief explanations, conduct impact evaluations, and formulate mitigation measures. MBA anticipates that the following environmental issues will result in no significant impacts: • Agticultutal Resources • Mineral Resources • Population and Housing • Recreation Specific topical areas to be addressed on a project -specific and cumulative basis in the EIR are as follows: Geology and Soils The potential for impacts from soil or geological conditions onsite or in die project vicinity will be evaluated for the construction of the project. This section will emphasize geotechnical hazards, seismicity of the area, potential for liquefaction and subsidence, and erosion. The analysis will be based on a technical report that is assumed to be prepared by Terra Costa, the City's technical consultant, and adequate for CEQA purposes upon its receipt. Appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended, if necessary. This report will be summarized in the EIR and included in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Biological Resources Coastal Resources Management (CRIvf) will provide marine resources assessment for die proposed project. The projeces potential to impact marine resources is the primary biological evaluation. To provide it comprehensive biological resources evaluation, MBA will prepare the terrestrial biological resources assessment for the project. However, the tenestrial evaluation is expected to be more brief than the marine resources assessment. Marine Resources Assessment The purpose of the marine resources assessment is to evaluate the potential short -and -long term effects of the project development on the marine life and marine habitats of Newport Bay from implementation of the proposed project. Issue areas will be addressed in the assessment: M:\Client (PNJM\0664\06640022P\00640022?, ulna Park Proposal rev 03-07-08.doc 3 Scope of Work • City o%Norport Beacb — tbfadua Park Master Plat EIR AttacbmentA: Scope of Il'/ork, Fees and Sebedilk • Existing marine habitats and biological communities within or nearby the project area; • Sensitive, rare, threatened, or endangered species within or nearby the project area; • Effects of additional pollutants -due to increased runoff caused by the project; • Potential changes in biological productivity caused beach recreational activity and structures, wet weather and dry weather runoff, or decrease in light entering the water due to shadowing (new buildings); • Construction/opeiadonal effects of the marina basin on the marine environment The following identifies the tasks to be completed as part of the marine resources assessment 1. Conduct a marine biological field survey. CRM will conduct a field survey at the proposed development site. This survey will be conducted to gain an understanding of the existing site conditions, the locations of existing storm drains, and the general types of marine flora and fauna (including marina birds) within the project area. Photographs of the project site will be taken and included in the project report Underwater video will also be taken. An underwater survey will be conducted to document the presence or absence of eelgrass (Zottera marina), which is an important invertebrate and fish nursery habitat. 2. Prepare a draft Marine Biological Resources Assessment CRNI I will conduct a review of the available marine biological data foi the local area to be used as background and historical information. Based upon the results of the reconnaissance survey at the project site, the available data base of historical information, and project design plans, storm water runoff plans, and other project documents, CRM will analyze potential project impacts on the marine biological resources. Potential environmental impacts of the project on marine resources (marine plants, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, federally and state -listed marine -associated species, sensitive habitats) will be evaluated. Where significant impacts bave been identified, mitigation measures to reduce the level of impact to less -than -significant will be provided. This marine resources assessment will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Terrestrial Biological Resources Assessment In addition to the marine resources assessment, MBA will preparea terrestrial biological resources assessment of the project site. The assessment will be limited to the non -beach portion of the project site. MBA will conduct a literature search and field reconnaissance to determine the existing biological conditions on the non -beach portion of the site. MBA will conduct an impact evaluation and provide mitigation measures, if necessary. Cultural Resources MBA will perform an archaeological and historical evaluation of the project area following NEPA and CEQA guidelines. The technical evaluation will be used to support the EIR, however, the report could be ultimately used during the future NEPA processing of the Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permit which is required for the dredging associated with the proposed marina. Due to the future review, the existing mobile home units that are more than 45 years old will likely be required to be evaluated at the national (NEPA), state and local (CEQA) significance levels. It is anticipated that the mobile home park would not be identified as a potentially significant cultural resource. However, should the existing mobile home park be identified as a potentially significant cultural Ii:\Client (PN JN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Madni Pad. Proposal rev 03-07-08 doc 4 Scope of f Fork City of Neyport Beach — Marina Park ttilaster Plan EIR Attachment A: Scope of Tr/ork, Pees and Schedule resource during the survey, you will be notified, and MBA will perform a historic evaluation as an option task in this proposal. The final report will require an evaluation of the project area for potential impacts to buried cultural deposits. Mitigation measures will be developed that Nvill be incorporated into the EIR that, if necessary, provide for mitigation monitoring. Lastly, the project area will be evaluated for paleontological sensitivity. Should the project area be found to lie within a paleontologic -My sensitive area, paleontological mitigation measures will be developed that can be incorporated into the EIR Transportation /Circulation Austin Foust Associates (AFA) will prepare a traffic and parking study for the proposed project. AFA will use the traffic information that they previously developed with the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan project. The project traffic study will involve an estimation of the net new trips generated by the project considering a credit will be applied for the existing uses and the relocation of the mobile homes. Once the net increase in trips is known (and approved by City review), a trip distribution and assignment and capacity analysis will be conducted. This analysis will basically follow the City s own Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) guidelines in identification and evaluation of any impacts and potential mitigation. The analysis will be carried out fox both off-season and peak summer season conditions In addition to the traffic impacts, the site access and internal circulation system will be reviewed for both traffic flow and safety with appropriate comment furnished where noted. The parking study will consist of preparation of an esti pate of the parking demand created by the piolect itself, although it is recognized the ambient parking conditions vary significantly between the normal and peak summer seasons. AFA will rely heavily on industry parking standards to forecast the park's total parking demand. This analysis will also evaluate the potential for use of the parking facilities by non -users and develop a means to control any such "poaching" into the park's puking facilities. The study will examine the parking in both the view of the City's own paLking code as well as industry standards. The traffic and parking study will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Land Use and Planning Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project will be identified and validated by a field visit and photo reconnaissance. An existing land use map, and General Plan and Zoning Map will be presented in the EIR. The EIR will evaluate the proposed land uses in relation to the City General Plan (all Elements), the proposed zone change, regional (e.g., SCAG and SCAQMD) and state (i.e., California Coastal Act) plans and policies for the site (i.e., State Tidelands) and surrounding area compatibility with surrounding uses, and consistency with relevant plans and policies, and loss/relocation of existing mobile homes will be addressed. Cumulative land use effects will be considered within die context of adopted plans and other past, present and probable future projects. Density, inteirelationship of uses, and environmental impacts will be addressed from a land use impact perspective. Measures will be recommended to reduce or eliminate adverse land use effects. Air Quality A comprehensive air qualityanalysis will be prepared in support of CEQA and will include an evaluation of both localized and regional short -tern and long-term air quality impacts. The air quality analysis would judge the significance of those impacts by comparing to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) localized and regional significance thresholds. In accordance with the CEQA guidelines, the analysis would answer the following questions: Ir.\Client (PN JM\0664\06640022P\00640022biadna Park Proposal=v 03-07-08 doc 5 Scope of Work Oly o%Newport Beach — Maima Park Master Plau EIR AllachnteutA: Scope ojl r/ork, Fees and Schedule • Is the project consistent with the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan? • Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable impact? • Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? • Would the project create objectionable odors? To answer these questions, the air quality analysis requires the following tasks Emissions Calculation Air pollutant emissions associated with construction and operational activities will be estimated using URBEMIS2007 and/or emission factors published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S EPA) to accurately depict the construction and operational activities. The pollutants that will be estimated include the following: volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10 and PN12.5). A CO microscale hot -spot analysis for up to two intersections will be performed based on the traffic study results. Mitigation measures will be determined, if necessary, to reduce the level of significance of the art emissions to below the SCAQNID regional significance thresholds. Emissions prior to and after mitigation measures will be estimated. Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis. There are two methods available for assessing localized impacts from a project from construction pursuant to SCAQNID methodology. The first method assumes that no more than five acres per day would be disturbed during grading. This method estimates onsite project emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter CPM10 and PM2.5) and compares them with localized thresholds as obtained from the SCAQMD LST Methodology look -up tables for the project's source receptor area. The second method is estimating concentrations of the pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors and is appropriate for projects that anticipate disturbing more than five acres per day. The concenttations are estimated using the U.S. EPA Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) model and are comp:ued with the LST for the source receptor area. The majority of the project site is expected to be graded after the construction of the marina. At this time, since the total acreage of the area to be graded (minus the marina) is unknown, the second method will be used to estimate concentrations at the nearby sensitive receptors during construction activities. Greenhouse Gases. There are currently no published thresholds of significance established by any state or regional regulatory agency for measuring the impact of a project's greeuliouse gas emissions to climate change. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 indicates, "each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects." Therefore, the threshold to be used in assessing project impacts will be as follows: Greenhouse gas emissions created by the project are considered to be potentially significant if the project would result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions that would significantly hinder of delay California's ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. Background information on greenhouse gases and the regulatory environment will be described. Project generated ditect and indirect emissions of greenhouse gases will be estimated. The General Plan or other regional planning document(s) will be reviewed for goals or policies that relate to climate change. Mitigation measures will be recommended and a significance fording will be determined. Noise MBA will prepare a noise evaluation based on the previous noise study prepared for the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan project. Noise measurements were taken as part of the previous study and will be used to describe existing noise levels and traffic mix in the project vicinity. Community noise standards relevant to this project are contained in the City Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. These standards will be summarized and there relevance to the project discussed. Fl.\Client (PN JN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Marina Pick Proposal rev 03-07-08.doc '6 Scope of lr/ork City of Newpori Beacb — Madna Park Master Plait EIR AttacbmentA: Scope of Vork, Fees an d Scbedule The potential noise impacts can be divided into short-term construction noise, impacts on surrounding land uses, and on -site noise/land use compatibility. The application of the City's Noise Ordinance to control construction noise will be discussed. The noise impacts associated with the project's traffic on adjacent land uses will be assessed in terms of the CNEL noise scale for the without project and with project conditions. Areas that will experience a significant noise increase will be identified. The absolute noise levels experienced in these areas Nvill then be determined, and the resulting land use/noise compatibility discussed. Noise levels generated by stationary sources (e.g. parking lots) Nvill also be assessed for compatibility with the proposed land uses. Noise levels from stationary sources that potentially impact noise sensitive land uses will be estimated. The City's Noise Ordinance standards will be used to assess impacts. Based upon the cumulative baseline, the cumulative noise impacts in the area including mobile as well as any stationary sources of noise, will be assessed. Mitigation for construction and/or operational impacts will be identified, as necessary. Residual impact, if any, would be compared with the impact criteria to assess adequacy of any proposed mitigation measures. Drainage and Water Quality. The City's technical consultant, Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., is preparing the drainage and water quality evaluation for the proposed project. Site drainage and surface water quality characteristics of the site and receiving waters are assumed to be identified. Requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and compliance with NPDES are also assumed to be addressed. Water quality issues are expected to be preliminarily addressed by Fuscoe. The qualitative water quality issues that are assumed to be addressed include the following: • Shore based construction activities that could locally degrade water quality through an increase in water turbidity, trash and debris, during runoff events or during dry weather from storm drain flow into Newport Bay; Water quality impacts associated with the construction of the marina. These impacts would result from pile driving and/or hydrojetting dock support pilings into the seafloor, as well as dredging (including maintenance dredging) associated with increasing water depths underneath the proposed boat dock Impacts could potentially include a local increase in water turbidity and resuspension of sediment contaminants; Potential effects of long-term water impacts associated with runoff from the proposed park into Newport Bay. These impacts would be associated with wet weather and dry weather runoff. It is anticipated that all flows would be directed inland and away from the bay. The conformity of the project to current local, state, and federal water quality regulations are assumed to be discussed and evaluated. The integration of BMPs with project design will be discussed. Mitigation measures for water quality impacts will be recommended. The drainage and water quality evaluation provided by Fuscoe will be summarized in the EIR and provided in its entirety as an appendix to the document. Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Newfields will conduct an analysis of the marine soil that will be excavated to determine the chemistry of the soil as well as the suitability for use as beach replenishment onsite and/or offsite. If there are environmental concerns regarding the soil, MBA anticipates that Newfields will provide recommendations to reduce potential significant impacts. MBA will incorporate the findings and conclusions within the EIR. In addition, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. prepared a Limited Phase II Soil Assessment along the beach portion of the site as part of the Madnapark Resort & Community Plan Project. These findings will be incorporated into the EIR. Furthermore, MBA will conduct a hazardous materials records review, site observation, and conduct interviews with City officials that are familiar with the present and historical uses of the I I:\Client (PN JM\0664\0664002P\0064002 Marina Puk PropoA rev 03-07-08 doe 7 Scope of Work 0 0 City ofNemport Beach — Marina Park Master Plan EIR Attachment A: Scope of ll%rk, Fees and Schedule site. Subsequently, MBA will summarize the finding of the hazardous materials review and recommend measures to reduce potential significant impacts, if necessary. Visual Character. Views of the project site will be depicted through a photo -reconnaissance. Massing of the proposed structures and visual simulations of the proposed structures are assumed to be provided by Rabben/Herman based on our discussions with City staff. The potential glare impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project will also be qualitatively evaluated The alteration of the visual setting and sensitivity of viewpoints will also be discussed. Mitigation measures will be recommended, if necessary, to reduce any significant impacts. Public Services and Utilities. MBA will coordinate with City staff and affected public services and utility purveyors to assess the potential impacts of the proposed project. It is anticipated that at least the following services and utility systems will be analyzed Fire Protection, Police Protection; Water; Sewer; Electricity; Natural Gas; and Solid Waste. Letters will be sent to all service facility, and utility agencies describing the proposed project. Answers will be requested, as appropriate, to document existing and planned facilities, current usage, excess capacity, and needed improvements. The additional capacity requited to meet projected needs will be described. Anticipated impacts will be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures will be recommended. Additional EIR tasks include the following. 1. Discuss all significant unavoidable adverse impacts, in conformance with the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(b). Included in the discussion will be any impacts that can be partially mitigated, but not to a level that is less than significant. 2 Include growth -inducing and cumulative impact evaluations in the EIR. To the extent possible, the analysis will address known projects, either approved or proposed in the vicinity of the project. The boundaries of this area will be determined by the City and will be set prior to commencement of the Administrative Draft EIR. The cumulative impact assessment will be based on adopted plans and/or past, present and probable future projects that may, in combination with the proposed project, create adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prepare an Executive Summary, presenting the significant conclusions of the EIR for the project, in a manner that is easily understood by the public. A "summary table" format will be used to identify the significant impacts and the effectiveness of the recommended mitigation measures. A discussion of issues to be resolved and issues subject to potential controversy, as required by CEQA, will be provided. A summary of the alternatives and effects found not to be significant would also be presented. 4. Prepare the Alternatives Section of the EIR based upon directives from City staff. MBA will work closely with the project team to define the alternatives. MBA will address the following alternatives to the proposed project: the No Project Alternative —site remains in its current developed condition, pursuant to current General Plan and zoning, and up to two alternative designs. The alternatives will be analyzed in sufficient detail for comparison with the proposed project. Each alternative will be evaluated with respect to each key impact category reviewed for the proposed project. 5. MBA willalso prepare other sections of the EIR, including CEQA-mandated topics as follows • Table of Contents; • Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes; • Relationship Between Short -Term Uses & Long-term Productivity; • Effects Found Not to Be Significant; • List of Organizations and Persons Consulted; • Preparers of the Environmental Document; IMClient (PN JN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Maim PukProposal my 03-07-08 doc 8 Scope of Mork • City ofNapport Beaeb — Manua Park Mailer Plan EIR Attachment A: Scope of Work, Fees and Schedule • References; and • Appendices. 6. Prepare up to eight (8) copies of the Adminsitrative Draft EIR for review by City staff and designated recipients. The appendices will be placed on cd. Task 6. Proof Check Draft EIR and Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to respond to staff comments on the Administrative Draft EIR, complete necessary revisions, and publish and distribute the Draft EIR for public review. The following approach will be used: 1. Coordinate with the City's EIR Project Manager who will assemble comments on, and suggested revisions to, the Administrative Dxaft EIR. One set of unified comments will be provided to MBA. 2. Prepare up to five (5) copies of the Proof Check Draft EIR for submittal to the City's EIR Project Manager and designated recipients for final "proof -check" review before distribution to the public. The appendices will be placed on cd. 3. Following the City's proof check review of the Proof Check Draft EIR, MBA will make any additional minor revisions required and distribute up to 60 copies of the Draft EIR with a cd containing the appendices to recipients on the approved Distribution List, including the fifteen (15) copies xequ red by the State Clearinghouse. Five hard copies of the entire appendices will be provided to the City so that it can be available for public review at the Cityand the libraries within the City. Task 7. Draft and Final Responses to Draft EIR Comments The purpose of this task is to prepare written responses to comments received on the Draft EIR that raise significant environmental issues, and submit them for the City's review after the close of the public comment period. The responses to comments will be prepared based on the requirements of the State and City CEQA requirements. The following approach will be used: 1. The City's EIR Project Manager will compile and transmit to MBA all written comments on the Draft EIR. 2. MBA will confer with staff to review written comments on the Draft EIR and comments ftom public meetings and hearings to develop a general framework and strategies for preparing responses. 3. 14BA will submit up to five (5) copies of the Draft Response to Comments for City staff review. Based on staff review and suggested modifications, the responses will be finalized and three (3) copies and one unbound, photo -ready copy of the Final Response to Comment will be submitted to the City. The responses will include a separate section identifying any Changes to the Draft EIR. Responses that are within this proposal scope of work and budget proposal consist of explanations, elaboration, or clarifications of the data contained in the Draft EIR corrections, with a budgeted effort of up to 60 homs for management and technical staff in the task. If substantial new analysis, issues, altematives, or ptoject changes need to be addressed, of if effort exceeds the budget amount because of the number or complexity of responses, a contract amendment may be requested. This task also assumes that the City's technical consultants who prepared studies for the EIR would be responsible in drafting tesponses to comments that pertain to their specific issue area (i.e., drainage/water quality, geologic resources, etc) Task 8. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The purpose of this task is to prepare statutory requirements for actions certifying the EIR, pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 21081 of the CEQA Statutes) and to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The following approach will be used: f-I:\Chent (PN JM\(1664\06640(122P\00640022 Marina Puk Proposal my 03-07-08.doc 9 Scope of II%rk 0 City ofNemport Beadi — Madua Park Master Plan EIR AttacbmentA: Scope of Work, Fees and Scbedrde 1. MBA will prepare Draft Findings and Facts in Support of Findings for each potential significant effect identified in the EIR and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the unavoidable significant impacts associated Nvith the project. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, one of three findings must be made for each significant effect and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations will rely on consultation with the City regarding the potential benefits of the project. IVFBA Nvill submit one complete set via e-mail and reproducible hard copy of the Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City s EIR Project Manager for review. 2. MBA's project manager will consult with City staff to review draft findings and overriding considerations (if needed) to finalize them. MBA will. submit one complete set via e-mail and reproducible hard copy of the Final Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City's EIR Project Manager. Task 9. Final EIR MBA will reproduce and submit to the City twenty-five (25) copies of the Final EIR consisting of the Draft EIR with appendices on cd and the final version of the Response to Comments. MBA will also copy and distribute the Response to Comments document to each public agency that commented on the Draft EIR in accordance with Section 21092.5(a) of the CEQA statutes. Task 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan The purpose of this task is to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as mandated by Assembly Bill 3180 (Cortese 1988), by preparing a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for adoption at the time of the CEQA findings. MBA will use the following approach: 1. MBA will prepare and submit a Draft MMRP in accordance with the State and City CEQA requirements. The MMRP will be designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures that address significant impacts. 2. After City staff review and comment, MBA will finalize the MMRP and submit the required number of copies. Task 11. Public Meetings and Hearings The purpose of this task is to be present at public meetings and hearings, to develop an understanding of the public's comments and concerns, to be available to answer questions on environmental issues, and to make presentations on the EIR. The MBA Project Manager and Traffic Consultant will attend up to four public meetings or hearings to conduct presentations regarding the EIR process and findings (and traffic study), and be available to answer questions. The following public meetings/hearings included are EQAC (1); Planning Commission (2); and City Council (1). In addition, MBA will prepare for and attend one scoping meeting after the distribution of the Notice of Preparation. MBA will be available to present the project, the environmental issues that have are initially identified for evaluation in the EIR, and discuss the general schedule of the EIR process. Task 12. CEQA Notices In addition to the NOP, IVIBA will prepare die Notice of Completion and Notice of Availability to accompany the Draft EIR distribution. It is assumed that the City will file the Notice of Determination, and distribute public meeting and hearing notices. 11:\Client (PN Jt)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Manna Pack Propos:d rev 03-07-OS.doc 10 Scope of II%rk City afNeu pot2 Beach — Marina Park Master Plan EIR Attachment A: Scope of IP/ork, Fees dud Schedale PROJECT FEES Estimated fees for preparation of the EIR for the Marina Park Master Plan Project are shown below. MBA PROFESSIONAL FEES Task 1. Project Definition and Oigatuzauon $ 2,700 Task 2. Pxo)ect Management and Meetings 15,940 Task 3. Ininal Study and Notice of Preparation 6,090 Task 4. CEQA Adequacy Review of Technical Reports 3,440 Task 5. Administrative Draft EIR 66,060 Task 6. Pioof Check Draft and Draft EIR 12,310 Task 7. Draft and Final Responses to Draft EIR Comments 15,680 Task 8. Findtngs and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5,780 Task 9 Final EIR 2,440 Task 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 2,140 Task 11. Public Meetings and Hearings 9,120 Task 12. CEQA Notices 940 Total MBA Professional Fees 1$ 42,640 Subconsultants Austin Foust Associates (Traffic) 19,400 Coastal Resources Management (Matine Resources) 15,800 (Admmisttative Fee of 10 Percent) 3.520 Total Subconsultant Fees $ 38,720 Direct Cost Document Printing/Reprograplucs $ 10,770 Phone/fax, postage/delivery, mileage 1,800 (Administrative Fee of 10 Percent) 1.257 Total Direct Costs $ 13,827 TOTAL FEE 11:\Chcnt(PNJN)\0664\06640022P\00640022 Marina Park Proposalrev 03-07.08.doc 11 Fees City ofNexport Beath — Marina Park Master Plan EIR AttachmeutA: Scope of Work, Fees and Schedule FEE ASSUMPTIONS In determining IvIBA's fees for the proposed scope of work, the following assumptions are made: 1. The identified EIR fees are based on the preceding scope of work. Should additional technical stitches be required pursuant to EIR scoping or agency comments, a contract amendment may be requited. 2. Printing costs are based on the method of printing and binding proposed, specific numbers of copies proposed as work products, and estimated page lengths. Document printing costs ate estimated and will need to be finalized at the time of printing (ADEIR w/Appendices on cd - $70, DEIR w/Appendices on cd - $70, DEIR and Appendices - $250, Response to Comments-$30, Final EIR-$ 100). 3. The EIR scope may need to be adjusted after receipt of all NOP comments. 4. The EIR will be prepared to comply with CEQA. 5. This price is based on completion of the work within the proposed schedule. If substantial delays occur, an amendment of the price may be warranted to accommodate additional project management and other costs, and to reflect adjustment for updated billing rates. 6. Costs have been allocated to tasks based on MBA's proposed approach. During the work, MBA may, on its sole authority, reallocate costs among tasks, as circumstances warrant, so long as tine adjustments maintain the total price within its authorized amount. BILLING RATES Following are die billing rates of the 1vfl3A project team for the Marina Park Master Plan EIR. Michael Brandman Associates Project Manager $ 1S0 QA/QC $ 220 Assistant Project Manager $ 110 Envitonmental Planner $ 90 Environmental Analyst $ 80 Noise Specialist $ 145 Air Quality Specialist $ 130 Biologist $ 100 Water Quality Specialist $ 145 Cultural Resources Specialist $ 130 Word Processor $ 85 Graphic Technician/GIS $ 110 Editing $ 115 Clerical $ 80 Coastal Resources Management, Inc. Senior Marine Biologist $ 125 Bird Biologist $ 85 Marine Biologist $ 75 Word Processor $ 55 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Principal Traffic Engineet $ 180 Transportation Engineer $ 135 Technical/Clerical $ 80 Ho\Client(PNJM\0664\06640022P\00640022illanna Park Pcoposalrev03-07-08doc 12 Fees City of Newport Beaeb — Marina Park Master Plan EIR AltacbnlentA: Scope of ll'/ork, Fees and Sebedrele SCHEDULE Projects are considered successful when they are completed on time and Nvithin budget. MBA places a strong emphasis on integrating schedule and budget issues into a cohesive and successful plan that will tesult in the completion of a liigh-quality work product. Project objectives, or milestones, need to be identified at the onset of the project through an active exchange of goals and realistic objectives between MBA and the City of Newport Beach. Once these milestones have been determined, dates are established for the execution of each objective. A preliminary schedule for the EIR is identified below. Milestone Tentative Schedule Weeks Sign contract/Kick-off Meeting 1 Draft NOP and Initial Study Due 4 Receipt of Geotechmcal Report from Ci s Consultant 5 Receipt of Sediment Chemistry from Ci 's Consultant 6 City Review final N.O.P. and Initial Study 6 Consultant Sends N.O.P. and Initial Stud(City to provide mailing list 8 Receipt of Preliminary Marina Design from Ci 's Consultant 12 Receipt of Drainage and Water Quality Evaluation from Ci 's Consultant 14 Administrative Draft EIR Due 22 City Comments Due 25 Proof Check Draft EIR Due 28 City Comments Due 30 Draft EIR Due 32 Review Period Starts 45 days) 32 E AC Study Session 36 Review Period Ends 38 Response to Comments and Findings Due 42 City Comments Due 44 Final Response to Comments Due 46 Planning Commission Hearing #1 49 Planning Commission Hearing #2 53 Final rindin s Due 55 City Council Hearin 57 - 61 Final EIR 62 I9:\Chent(PNJM\0664\066400221'\00640022Ataina Pack Proposalmv03-07-08doc 13 Sebedule w Ung, Rosalinh From: Ling, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:02 AM To: Ambrosia Sarabia; Anderson, Fred; Asper, Bruce; Bakenie, Ernest; Balalis, Paul; Bazey, Tim; Beek, Allan; Beek, Seymour; Bell, Chandler; Billings, Tom; Black, Bob; Bonn, Liz; Cantwell, Jim; Coltrane, Diane 7-19-05; Cook, Paul; Curran, Laura; Dillon, Ed; Dossey, Marsha; Ford, Carter; Fortmuller, Larry; Fuller, Win 7-21-05; Fundenburg, Louise; Garber, Chris; Garrett, Bill; Harber, Colleen; Hill, Gary; Ibbetson, Joyce; Kiff, Dave; LaBass, Chad; Lambert, Dave; LeBass, Gail; Loftsgaard, Eve; Lorton, Kevin; Lucas, Bev; Melton, Jim; Meyer, Rich; Mills, James; Morrissette, Craig; Murry, Pam; Nazaroff, Adam; New, Dave; O'Hora, Joe; Olivas, Tom; Offing, Dolores 7-21-05; Rawson, Joanne; Reed, Brian; Reiner, Katie; Reynolds, Jon; Ricketts, David; Rieff, Kim; Rossi, Tom; Rossi, tom; Seymour, Bob; Silvey, Mark; Stowe, Les; Sudbeck, Rod (Fry's Market); Tapp, Norris; Ling, Rosalinh; Watkins, Paul; Wiessner, Henk 7-19-05; Wilkenheiser, Wayne; Womble, Mark Subject: Marina Park - Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report Attachments: 20090226080439.pdf Please see attachment for the notice. Thank you. w NOTICE OF AVAIL*ITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTS IMPACT REPORT (PA2008-040) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach Planning Department has completed an assessment of the possible environmental effects of the following -described project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is appropriate. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach's CEQA Implementation Procedures. The Draft EIR has identified the following significant effects associated with the proposed project that can be mitigated to less than significant: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. There are no environmental issues that would remain significant after the implementation of the recommended -mitigation measures. In addition the proposed project is not located on a hazardous waste site enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Copies of the Draft EIR and all related documents are on file and available to the public through the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The Draft EIR is also available on the City's website at: www.city.ne3gort-beach.ca.us/t)ln/t3lanning.html. If your property is rented or leased, we request that you provide your tenant(s) notice of this public hearing. Copies of the Draft EIR and all related documents will also be available to the public at the following Newport Beach City Libraries: Central Library Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 1000 Avocado Avenue 1300 Irvine Avenue 100 E. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92661 1. Project Name: Marina Park, Newport Beach, Orange County, California 2. Project Description: The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, alley, sidewalk, 196' Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), the Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), marina services building (0.03 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres), beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The Balboa Center Complex will have a caf8 situated on the second story and will include room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15ei Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19a' Street is proposed to be reconstructed. 3. Project Location: The Marina Park,project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California. The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15th Street on the East and 19th Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15th Street, 18th Street, and 19th Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). 4. Applicant and Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 5. Contact Person: Rosalinh Ung, Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658, Phone: 949-644-3200; E-mail rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project and/or adequacy of the EIR will be accepted in writing on or before April 13, 2009 at the Planning Department. The period for public review during which the City will receive comments on the Draft EIR will begin on February 27 2009 and end on April 13, 2009. DATED: February 26, 2009 POSTED: February 26, 2009 fsocisalnh Ungate Planner _ 02/25/09 WWED 11:09 FAX_949 649 5008 DAILY PILOT-LGL DE • g001 M Ce�r �Z o�R wm3 c�a'�2•'m �I ;i �el wnTn O' as BBA m o m m ,2' m 3 o rtt iomn Q�i1 m�23� omN2m coin oZ a gZZ � � d4� o= 0 �IKyC'FAnY F! Nm m mSoG&a'1'6m C `La'm p1 v m 3-c"ue d m c m Ss'm m �°�aa ddd z A O wz.gz MaOT ?P 9cap a 3 0 �a�N� Q.$N'ag ��a�ml+ c7 �a,a} a Q m> �m,mm �8�o8a �ZMO m w vm' S2. Z>03 Qa a r;q F. y/� i' v �m4an n32$m -4 M;K YI `Rom a"=•am2 SZO,'0 ff yy—yI rtIi�� zNds 8 IO£ OQ$ d 'AT m:m'w A N In �mma�3mm c Pr 9z � OQ�m d v A Notice of Completion State ofcahjornia Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA95814 Marina Park Project Title The project site is located in the City ofNewpgort Beach, on the Balboa Peninsula between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15 Street on the east and 190i Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15" Street, 180' Street, and 190i Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). Project Location -Specific Newport Beach Orange Project Location — City Project Location — County The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, alley, sidewalk, 10 Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), the Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), marina services building (0.03 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres), beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short- term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The Balboa Center Complex will have a cafd situated on the second story and will include areas for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 150i Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 190' Street is proposed to be reconstructed. The beneficiaries of the project include the residents of the City of Newport Beach. The residents will benefit from the operation of a new public park marina, and other community facilities. Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project City of Newport Beach Planning Department Lead Agency Division 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Address Where Copy of EIR is Available February 27 2009 through April 13 2009 Review Period Rosalinh Ung 949-644-3200 Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension NOTICE OF AVAIALITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENIQ IMPACT REPORT (PA2008-040) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Newport Beach Planning Department has completed an assessment of the possible environmental effects,of the following -described project and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is appropriate. This determination has been made according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Newport Beach's CEQA Implementation Procedures. The Draft EIR has identified the following significant effects associated with the proposed project that can be mitigated -to less than significant: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Utilities and Service Systems. There are no environmental issues that would remain significant after the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. In addition the proposed project is not located on a hazardous waste site enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Copies of the Draft EIR and all related documents are on file and available to the public through the City of Newport Beach Planning Department located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The Draft EIR is also available on the City's website at: www.city.newport-beacli.ca.us/plii/plaiining.htm]. If your property is rented or leased, we request that you provide your tenant(s) notice of this public hearing. Copies of the Draft EIR and all related documents will also be available to the public at the following Newport Beach City Libraries: Central Library Mariners Branch Balboa Branch 1000 Avocado Avenue 1300 Irvine Avenue 100 E. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92661 1. Project Name: Marina Park, Newport Beach, Orange County, California 2. Project Description: The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and presently supports the Marina Park mobile home park, Girl Scout House, community center, Las Arenas Park, the Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, alley, sidewalk, 190' Street restroom, beach, and the portion of the project site within Newport Bay. The proposed project includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.23 acres), Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex (0.25 acres), the Girl Scout House (0.16 acres), marina services building (0.03 acres), parking areas (1.47 acres), park (4.89 acres), beach (1.75 acres), and marina basin (1.67 acres). The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Utility hook-ups are proposed to be available for the marina. Bathrooms and laundry areas are proposed adjacent to the marina. The Balboa Center Complex will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The Balboa Center Complex will have a cafd situated on the second story and will include room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15a' Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19a' Street is proposed to be reconstructed. 3. Project Location: The Marina Park project is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach in Orange County, California. The project site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is located between Balboa Boulevard and Newport Bay and between 15th Street on the East and 19th Street on the west. Major arterial access is provided along Balboa Boulevard with secondary access to the project site along 15th Street, 18th Street, and 19th Street. Regional freeway access to the site is provided by the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR 55) and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR 73). 4. Applicant and Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department 5, Contact Person: Rosalinh Ung, Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658, Phone: 949-644-3200; E-mail rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us PUBLIC COMMENT regarding the proposed project and/or adequacy of the EIR will be accepted in writing on or before April 13, 2009 at the Planning Department. The period for public review during which the City will receive comments on the Draft EIR will begin on February 27, 2009 and end on April 13, 2009. DATED: February 26, 2009 POSTED: February 26, 2009 JA , salinh Ung sociate Planner vvv Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinAudtng public noti Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A - September 29, 1961, and A-24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ).cis. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: February 27, 2009 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 3, 2009 at Costa Mesa, California. Signatw y„0 d+c ro `NO'flGt t71-"YUIiL'IG'KHVIEW'OF' ' ,'RVA,PARK'DRAFT l� ENVIRONMENTAL .� ,,..* IMPACT REPORT (PA2008-40) NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVENdlu t a draft Pnvlronmentel'lmpact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the construction of the Marine P.atk Project, whlch1s situated along north aide of Balboa Boblevard, between 15th street and 1 @Ih street. The proposed project Includes the Mu18-Plrrpose Building, Selling Program Building, the Neva B,Thomas Gld Scout House, a madnaservice building, improved perking and- restroom areas, a public park and beach, and,a public short -tern visiting vessel marina of 23 slips. The DEIR will be,available.for a 45-day public revlew'pedod-beginning on�Fdday, Febmary'27, 2009. Public comment regarding the proposed'projecl endfor adequacy of the EIR will be accepted,in writing from February 27, 2009 through April 13, 2009. Copies of.the DEIR are available for public review at the City of Newport Beach Planning, Department and at the locadonsdisted below. The DEIR Is also ww available on the City's Webslte at w.city.newportbeach.aa.gs/PLNIPlanning.html. Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Public Library NewpbrrBeach'Publloubrary Central Library Madhers Branch Balboa Branch 1000AvocadoAvenua 2005 Dover Drive 100 East Balboa Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport'Beach, CA92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.717.3800 949.717,3830 '949,644,3076 Please send comments to. Rosallnh Ung;Assoclate Planner CltyofNewpoA Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport BouleVaN, Newport Heath, CA926163, nma(Mylwnewoort•beech.aro RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR cis tow /'l l ry OF M\,N)OART BEACH FILE COPY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BCH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8916 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 DATE: May 22, 2008 TO: Interested Parties (see distribution list) FROM: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting Notice of Preparation The City ofNewport Beach will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Marina Park project. The City has prepared an Initial Study that provides a detailed project description and evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Initial Study is available for review at the following locations: City ofNewport Beach, Planning Department Balboa Branch Library 3300 Newport Boulevard 100 E Balboa Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Newport Beach, CA 92661 Telephone: 949.644.3225 Telephone: 949.717.3800 The City of Newport Beach as the project proponent requests approval of Harbor Permit, Use Permit, Parcel Map, Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Demolition Permit, and Modification Permit for the construction ofthe Marina Park project. The subject property is an approximate 10-acre site situated along West Balboa Boulevard between 15th street and 19th street. The proposed project consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, improved parking lots, tennis courts, half -court basketball courts, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and the Balboa/Sailing center which includes a restaurant, support offices, and classrooms. If you would like to submit written comments on the Notice of Preparation, please send them to the City ofNewport Beach at the address shown below. Please be specific in your statements describing your environmental concerns. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your written response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days from the date of this notice, May 22, 2008. Project Title: Marina Park Project Applicant: The City of Newport Beach Send Responses to: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Telephone: 949.644.3208 Notice Public Scoping Meeting The City ofNewport Beach as the Lead Agency for the Marina Park project, discussed above, has scheduled a public seeping meeting on Thursday, June 12 at 6:30 p.m. at the City ofNewport Beach City Council Chambers located at 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard, Newport Beach. The purpose of the public seeping meeting is to offer an opportunity for interested parties to provide comments regarding the environmental issues that are proposed to be addressed within the EIR for the project. V 0 • *PLV#/*O STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH °+.00xMt �A�OFCWFOP�F STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARNOLDSCHWARZE•NEGGER CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR RECEIVED BY DmacroR Notice of Preparation PLANNING DEPARTMENT May22,2008 MAY 28 20398 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH To: Reviewing Agencies Re: Marina Park SCH# 2008051096 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Marina Park draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agencv. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about -the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, Scott Morgan Project Analyst, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov . 0 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base • SCH# 2008051096 Project Title Marina Park Lead Agency Newport Beach, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The Subject property is an approximate 10-acre site situated along West Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 191h Street. The proposed project consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, improved parking lots, tennis courts, half -court basketball courts, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, and the Balboa/Sailing center which includes a restaurant, support offices, and classrooms. Lead Agency Contact Name Rosalinh ling Agency City of Newport Beach Phone (949)664-3208 Fax email Address 3300 Newport Boulevard City Newport Beach State CA Zip 92663 Project Location County Orange City Newport Beach Region Cross Streets Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street Parcel No. Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Newport Bay Schools Newport Elementary Land Use Mobile Homes and Recreational Facilities/Planned Community District/Parks and Recreation Project issues AestheticNisuai; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Coastal Zone; Drainage/Absorption; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wettand/Riparian; Wildlife; Cumulative Effects Reviewing Department of Boating and Waterways; California Coastal Commission; Department of Conservation; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12; Integrated Waste Management Board; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Resources Agency Date Received 05/22/2008 Start of Review 05122/2008 End of Review 06/20/2008 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Resources AgencV ® Resources Agency p� Nadel[ Gayou Dept. of Boating & Waterways David Johnson California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs ❑ Colorado River Board Gerald R. Zimmerman Yµ1 Dept of Conservation Sharon Howell ❑ California Energy Commission Dale Edwards ❑ Cal Fire Allen Robertson ❑ Office of Historic Preservation Wayne Donaldson ® Dept of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ Central Valley Flood Protection Board Mark Herald ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev'L Comm. Steve McAdam Dept of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou Conservancy Fish and Game ❑ Depart. of Fish & Game Scott Flint Environmental Services Division ❑ Fish & Game Region I Donald Koch ❑ Fish & Game Region I Lauds Hamsberger ❑ Fish & Game Region 2 Jeff Drongesen ❑ Fish & Game Region 3 Robert Floerke ❑ Fish & Game Region 4 Julie Vance Fish & Game Region 5 Don Chadwick Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 6 Gabrina Gatchel Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Game Region 611M Gabdna Getchel Inyc/Mono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept, of Fish & Game M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Steve Shaffer Dept. of Food and Agriculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept. of General Services Robert Sloppy Environmental Services Section ❑ Dept. of Health Services Veronica Malloy Dept. of HealthiDdnkdng Water Independent Commissions.Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Debby Eddy ❑ Offlce of Emergency Services Dennis Castillo ❑ Govemor's Office of Planning & Research State Clearinghouse ® Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway ❑ Public Utilities Commission ❑ Caltrans, Disfricf 8 61 Ken Lewis ❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration Dan Kopuisky ❑ Caltrans, District 9 �y Guangyu Wang fill State Lands Commission Gayle Rosander ❑ Caltrans, District 10 Marina Brand ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning Tom Dumas ❑ Caltrans, District 11 Agency (TRPA) Cherry Jacques Jamb Armstrong Caltrans, District 12 Business. Trans & Housing ❑ Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Sandy Hesnard ❑, Caltrans - Planning Tend Pencovic r!Y!1 Califomia Highway Patrol Shiley Kelly Office of Special Projects ❑ Housing & Community Development Use Nichols Housing Policy Division Dept. of Transportation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District Marcel[no Gonzalez ❑ Caltrans, District Jeff Pulvennan QCaltrans, District Tim Sable ❑ Caltrans, District David Murray ❑ Caltrans, District 6 Moses Stites ❑ Caltrans, District Vin Kumar Ryan P. Chamberlain Cal EPA Air Resources Board ❑ Airport Projects Jim Lemer ❑ Transportation Projects Ravi Ramalingam ❑ Industrial Projects Mike Tollstnrp rllu California Integrated Waste Management Board Sue O'Leary ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student Intem, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality ❑ State Water Resouces Control Board Steven Herrera Division of Water Rights ' ❑ Dept, of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation 2n0805 019 6 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ❑ RWQCBI Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) ❑ RWQCB2 Environmental Document Coordinator San Francisco Bay Region (2) ❑ RWQCB 3 Central Coast Region (3) ❑ RWQCB4 Teresa Rodgers Los Angeles Region (4) ❑ RWQCB 5S Central Valley Region (5) ❑ RWQCB 5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office ❑ RWQCB SR Central Valley Region (✓) Redding Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 6 Lahontan Region (6) ❑ RWQCB 6V Lahontan Region (6) Vdctorville Branch Office ❑ RWQCB7 Colorado River Basin Region (7) ® RWQCB a Santa Ana Region (8) ❑ RWQCB9 San Diego Region (9) ❑ Other Last Updated on 03/03/2008 1 t, • Appendix C Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 SCH #2008051096 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento; CA 95814 Project Title: Marina Park Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Contact Person: Rosalinh Ung Mailing Address:3300 Newport Boulevard Phone: 949.644.3200 City: Newport Beach Zip: 92658 County: Orange — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Location: County:Orange — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — City/Nearest Community: City of Nepowrt Beach, Balboa Peninsula Cross Streets: West Balboa Boulevard and 17th Street Zip Code: Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 33 0 36 28 „ N / 117 -55 23 ^ W Total Acres: 10.45 Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: 33. Twp.:6S Range:10W Base: NB Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Hwy 1 Waterways: Newport Bay Airports: N/A Railways: N/A Schools: Newport Elementary — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — DocumentType: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CEQA: ❑ NOP ❑✓ Draft EIR NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement/Subsequent EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document ❑ Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other: ❑ MitNegDec Other: ❑ FONSI — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Local Action Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit El Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) I] Other:**See Attached — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Development Type: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type MIN ❑ Educational: ❑ Waste Treatment:Type MGD ✓❑ Recreational:10.45 Acre Park and Marina El Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ WaterFacilities:Type MGD ❑ Other: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Issues Discussed in Document: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑✓ AestheticNisual ❑ Fiscal El Recreation/Parks ✓❑ Vegetation ❑ Agricultural Land ✓❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities Z Water Quality ❑+ Air Quality ❑ Forest Land/Fird Hazard ❑ Septic Systems [] Water Supply/Groundwater ❑� Archeological/Historical ✓❑ Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity ✓❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑� Biological Resources ❑ Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑✓ Growth Inducement Coastal Zone ✓❑ Noise ✓❑ Solid Waste ❑✓ Land Use El Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance ✓❑ Toxic/Hazardous i] Cumulative Effects ❑ Economic/Jobs El Public Services/Facilities ✓❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Other: — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation: Parks, Community Facilities and Mobile Homes/Parks and Recreation, Public Facilities — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) **See Attached Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign Identification numbers far all nnv projects /fa SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Nonce of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in. Revised 2008 cY r 0 • Reviewing Agencies Checklist Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "W'. If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". X Air Resources Board X Boating & Waterways, Department of California Highway Patrol X Caltrans District #12 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics _ Caltrans Planning _ Central Valley Flood Protection Board _ Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy X Coastal Commission _ Colorado River Board _ Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of _ Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission X Fish & Game Region #`'_ Food & Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of X Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board X Native American Heritage Commission Office of Emergency Services X Office of Historic Preservation _ Office of Public School Construction X Parks & Recreation, Department of _ Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission X Regional WQCB # 8 Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mms. Conservancy San Joaquin River Conservancy _ Santa Monica Mms. Conservancy X State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants X SWRCB: Water Quality _ SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency _ Toxic Substances Control, Department of _ Water Resources, Department of _ Other: --—————————————————————————————————————————— Local Public Review Period (to be filled In by lead agency) Starting Date February 27, 2009 Ending Date April 13, 2009 --—————————————————————————————————————————— Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Consulting Firm: Michael Brandman Associates Applicant: City of Newport Beach Address: 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Address: 3300 Newport Boulevard City/State/Zip: Irvine, CA 92602 City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP Phone: 949.644.3200 Phone:714.608.4100 --———————————————-----——————————————————————— Signature of Lead Agency Representative: Date: o2� Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resourcesbe. Reference: Section 21 , Public Resources Code. Revised 2008 ANWI ,r e l Aigailr rl 6 N�lurPir, I , ,i sy Peel Labels 4 se Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 FIRST AMERICAN TRUST CO 359 SAN MIGUEL DR #201 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JAMES R MCNAMARA 5245 BELL CT CHINO, CA 91710 DAVID Q PHAM 202 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOROTHY SPITZ 1015 GAYLEY AVE #360 LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 JOANNE RAWSON 220 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ELIZABETH NELL HOLLENBECK 218 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DALESSIO INVESTMENTS LLC 3121 W COAST HWY#8D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 S & R BOLTON 3172 SICILY AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ROBERT ROUBIAN 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN & MARIA DAGOSTINO 216 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i See Instruction ! iFeiaper for Easy Peel Fel h ROBERT ROUBIAN 12200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FRANCES MATULICH ' 210 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i CRAB COOKER THE 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS ERNIE HYANS 217 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN DUBOISE 25881 MAJORCA WAY MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION PO BOX 711 DALLAS, TX 75221 PAMELA A MURRAY 225 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN L. WESTREM 1006 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JULIA M WALKER 209 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WERFF WILLIAM VANDER 11322 SKYLINE VW SANTA ANA, CA 92705 1709W. Balboa Blvd DA•WF MEETING: - MARSHALL B JR MUNROE 223 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HODSON FAMILY TRUST 2401 SIERRA VIS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PAULINE R TRACY 2830 SUNNYWOOD DR FULLERTON, CA 92835 BARRACUDA INVESTMENTS LLC 214 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN NEWCOMB 3103 VILLA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK & P MURRAY 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DONALD R SPITZ 219 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE MATULICH 210 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT ROUBIAN 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ' LYON STUDIOS BUILDING 2212 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 6Yiquettes fadles A peler Util!sez le gabar!t AVERY® 5160® Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'Instructlon www,averycom 1-800.60-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 LYON STUDIOS BUILDING 2212 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I CHESTER A TR BYPASS ADY 855 E BENNETT AVE GLENDORA, CA 91741 l FRANCIS J BABCOCK 1411 1/2 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 CONSTANCE J ARRIGO 1405 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DOUGLAS WAYNE COTTON 206 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TIMOTHY J GRABER II 200 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE WILLIAM SISCO 524 GREENFIELD CT UPLAND, CA 91786 MICHAEL S BACUS 1807 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GAYLOR W SINGLETARY 1733 MASSACHUSETTS AVE RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 JUDITH JACOBS 219 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i See Instruction Sheet! SpVERY@51600 !Feiaper for Easy Peel Feature j j PAULETTE PAPPAS WEINER 1986 TRUST 1717 E BALBOA BLVD 1608 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARILYN ROSE 1417 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL 1409 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL 1401 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 THEO & COLLEEN MANOLELIS 204 E 15TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i FERIT KURTKAN 122 17TH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 MAHENDRA SHAH 1815 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LINDA C OROZCO 1805 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 KARL H KIROLOS 350 W WHITTIER BLVD LA HABRA, CA 90631 JOHN M ROY 1806 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PAUL E MAYER 531 W WISTARIA AVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 JAMES D MADISON 78725 SUNRISE CANYON AVE PALM DESERT, CA 92211 CHURCH UNITED METHODIST 1420 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ADRIAN & SARA COHEN 5353 HORIZON DR MALIBU, CA 90265 ROD & DEBBIE CANADA 828 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JAMES H & TAMARA B MCKENNON 1809 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GIACOMO J ZANCHI 16601 NALU CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 ALBERT M IRWIN 1802 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i JOHN R MORDOFF 722 N GRACE CT WEST COVINA, CA 91790 Etiquettes faciles A peler Utilisez le aaharit AVERY® 51600 i Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille www.avery.com d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Ea Peel Labels i See Instruction Sheet I IN I Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 ® �F*aper for Easy Peel Featurey j I WILLIAM B MARTIN DAVID C JOHNSON FRANCIS L. HUTAIN 1824 W OCEANFRONT 1811 W BALBOA BLVD 13402 SIERRA MADRE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i i SANTA ANA, CA 92705 F SUSAN DOLE B-N14 CAMBON DONNA FAMILY TRUST 1820 W OCEANFRONT 711 CUMBERLAND RD 19675 CABOT CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENDALE, CA 91202 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737 (STEVEN C JR KOVELY j I JEFF SILBAR DONALD A CANNING 123 CAMINO DON MIGUEL : 3964 SUNSWEPT DR 1819 W BALBOA BLVD ORINDA, CA 94563 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JORDON M WEHNER OPAL L GOODIE RINDERKNECHT HELEN 1988 TRUST 692 N CYPRESS ST #A 5904 WAIPOULI RD 1829 W BAY AVE ORANGE, CA 92867 KAPAA, HI 96746 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHILIP ABRAMOWITZ LE ROY G WILSON DANIEL F JENSEN 29475 WEEPING WILLOW DR 913 W BAY AVE 1813 W BAY AVE #A AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 MURPHY MURPHY EXEMPTION DALBY l 1811 W BAY AVE 1809 W BAY AVE 1807 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FROSTHOLM OF WALCHAK TRUST" JAMES R MCNAMARA �j I ROSSI FAMILY TRUST 1805 A & B W BAY AVE 5245 BELL CT 1801 W BAY AVE iNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ; CHINO, CA 91710 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HARDY FAMILY TRUST i CRAIG B MORISSETTE DANIEL WIENER 1828 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 888 1822 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MICHAEL MARTIN GONZALES J D KELLEHER JOHN & JAN SNEDEGAR 26545 RAVENHILL RD 2020 HILLHURSTAVE 1816 W BALBOA BLVD SANTA CLARITA, CA 91387 LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARION D ROSSON GLORIA J CIMENT NEWPORT BEACH LLC BALBOA 1814 W BALBOA BLVD 1812 W BALBOA BLVD 11214 CHAUTAUQUA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 Etiquettes faclles 8 peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de chargement consultez la feuille d'instruction www.averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY Ea Peel Labels see Instruction Sheet 1 AVERY 5160® Use A®very® TEMPLATE 5160® ® Wedaper for Easy Peel Feature j 1 , I FREDERIC J PRATT i FREDERIC J PRATT RICHARD & DIOTAY BAKER 1800 W BALBOA BLVD 1800 W BALBOA BLVD 2821 TURTLE CREEK BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DALLAS, TX 75219 ROBERT L MCCLEEARY ( RALPH COHEN C FRANK ZAVALA PO BOX 3146 1701 W BALBOA BLVD 11701 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DARLE HALE C RICHARD L & A A FALLON WILLIAM L & BILLIE J MOORE 2521 RISA DR 1704 W OCEANFRONT 260 SHARON RD GLENDALE, CA 91208 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ARCADIA, CA 91007 RUTH JEAN GERBER JACK E DATT KENNETH L RAWSON 1708 W OCEANFRONT 1710 W OCEANFRONT PO BOX 1221 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 WILKINS HAAS 2 LLC RONALD L HERRICK BANK FIRST INTERSTATE OF 38 E HUNTINGTON DR PO BOX 1398 PO BOX 13519 ARCADIA, CA 91006 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 I ARLINGTON, TX 76094 I JASON F G YEE NELLO C DICORPO LLC MODGAP 12411 SLAUSON AVE #D 16 VISTA MONTEMAR 1136 S RIMSDALE DR WHITTIER, CA 90606 1 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 WEST COVINA, CA 91791 i THOMAS G DUFFY ' LARITA BLOHM URQUIDI I CRAIG & VICKI CHAMBERLAIN 10618TH ST 11018TH ST 201 WESTWOOD LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 REDLANDS, CA 92373 ' ' CENTER ANDREW JNICKY D 1 1 BRENT SEPULVEDA I j RENE A RIGAUD PO BOX 870 1 518 N CARLISLE PL 1960 PORT SEABOURNE WAY BLUE JAY, CA 92317 1 ORANGE, CA 92869 ; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I RENE A RIGAUD JU PROPERTIES LLC JU PROPERTIES LLC 1960 PORT SEABOURNE WAY 10132 GUTTY SARK DR ( 10132 GUTTY SARK DR i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 RICHARD J MEYER I ; E & J MATYAS SECOND i i JOHN & ANNE BEARDALL PO BOX 3046 2044 EDGEWOOD DR ' 19106 SIERRA MARIA RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 I SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 i j IRVINE, CA 92603 ttiquettesfaciles A peler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de chargement Gonsultez la feuille d'instruction www.averycom 1.800-GO-AVERY Ea Peel Labels 4► Avery® 51600 ® I see instruction sheet I 1F4Paper for Easy Peel Featurel ® aAVERY05160 i Use TEMPLATE 1 ERNEST M BAKENIE ROSE CALLAHAN LOGAN ' JOHN JOSEPH BLAHA 1617 W BALBOA BLVD 1615 W BALBOA BLVD 1521 MERRIMAN DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENDALE, CA 91202 JAMES A NIEMIEC CLAUDE A GAMMEL I ELLIOTT A BONN 1841 STONEHENGE DR PO BOX 3302 1607 W BALBOA BLVD TUSTIN, CA 92780 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS J & KORI A OBRIEN THOMAS F BEREAN PENACHO PROPERTIES LLC 1605 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 3632 1604 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHARLES E WASHBON WEINER 1986 TRUST PETER GREGORYANDERSON 1606 W OCEANFRONT 1608 W OCEANFRONT 1610 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JEROME H THOMPSON ! THOMPSON DENIS W KIDD 5175 MYRTLE AVE 7161 INDIANA AVE #A 22874 PICO ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 i RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 TIMOTHY P & J J BUCKLEY LAURIE TR RICHARD JAKE EDWARD C SAUNDERS 22895 EASTPARK DR 2719 FILBERT ST 1624 W OCEANFRONT #B YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STUART A COGAN J R SEPARATE PROP STACK CART K OTA PO BOX 4259 3310 MARCUS AVE 1627 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LLC CARPA LONG K & T V PHAM & MARY 'TERRY & ROCHELLE C GALLIMORE 1143 RONDA DR 1529 W BALBOA BLVD 1527 W BALBOA BLVD MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE F ENGELKE CYNTHIA C SMITH I EDWARD L LABASS 517 GARRETT DR 45 BETHANY DR 1521 W BALBOA BLVD CORONA -DEL MAR, CA 92625 i IRVINE, CA 92603 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRACE E DOVE i EDWARD G HEALY EDWARD G HEALY 117 E 15TH ST ! 700 CLIFF DR 700 CLIFF DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 @tiquettes faciles 6 peler A Consultez la feuille www.avery.com Utillsez le aabarit AVERY9 5160 Sens de chargement d'instruction 1.800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Gr• ® 1 � See Instruction Sheet 1 �• for ® AVERY 516o ® ® ® Use very® TEMPLATE 51600 ]Fc#aper Easy Peel Featureb j RIA VANORNUM-MEDOFF MORRIE EUGENE NERO OMELVENY & MYERS LLP 1109 MIRABELLA AVE 105 E 15TH ST 400 S HOPE ST #26TH NOVATO, CA 94945 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 CHARLES A BANKS ALFRED D GERRICK TERRENCE W & CATALINA H CHOW 1510 W OCEANFRONT 1512 W OCEANFRONT 9 HIBISCUS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 IRVINE, CA 92620 i �r ABEL VILLALPANDO KATHLEEN I MORRIS I R ANDERSON JAMES 304 E OJIBWA RD 7333 LESLEY AVE 5849 ROLLING RD DEXTER, NM 88230 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46250 I WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 DON CHRISTENSEN JAMES LAHR JAMES R CANTWELL 6508 N VISTA ST 1996 N LAKE MEAD CIR 1511 W BALBOA BLVD SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 ORANGE, CA 92867 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WHITACRE DONALD RAY DONALDSON TONY L. PINKERT 101 E 15TH ST 1517 W BALBOA BLVD 69-555 WAIKOLOA BEACH DR #1104 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WAIKOLOA, HI 96738 TRACY JONES WAGNER FAMILY TRUST GILDA FONTANA PO BOX 625 4015 MARCUS AVE 1401 W BALBOA BLVD LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF FRED L. & SUE A WOODWORTH KENNETH J SACZALSKI 2811 E VILLA REAL DR 1444 W BAY AVE 1440 W BAY AVE ORANGE, CA 92867 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 TBESSIE TR TRUST A MEILY BUCKELEW I JOSEPH ZUFFOLETTO 1436 W BAY AVE 72618 POLO RIDGE DR 13990 S LIPAN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LITTLETON, CO 80128 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 ! ARTHUR H SHIPKEY ( HIGH STEVEN E 2004 TRUST JOSEPH A JR CASO 1428 W BAY AVE 1412 W BAY AVE 1410 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 I JASON M PILALAS BAY AVENUE PROPERTIES LLC RALPH A FURRA 1335 OAK VIEW AVE 8829 E LOST GOLD CIR 1418 W BAY AVE PASADENA, CA 91108 GOLD CANYON, AZ 85218 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 Nquettes fadles A paler A Consultez la feullle ww*avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Ea Peel Labels Avery® See Instruction Sheet i F*aper AVER( 5160 i ® o Use TEMPLATE 5160® for Easy Peel Featurei ARAKAWA PALMS LLC BALBOA PAUL L BALALIS 1420 W BAY AVE I 11510 W BALBOA BLVD j 1500 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I MARK A WARREN THOMAS ANTHONY IOVENITTI E JAMES STANLEY 1011 N TOWNE AVE 1425 W BAY AVE 351 VIA LIDO SOUD POMONA, CA 91767 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JERREL THURSTON RICHARDS i; I REDAY MARJORIE TR #1 MINER PROPERTIES 355 VIA LIDO SOUD BEACH, CA 92663 359 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 365 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 iNEWPORT DOREEN D MARSHALL LEWIS FAMILY TRUST SOREL REISMAN 367 VIA LIDO SOUD 136 VIA TRIESTE 112 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE BISSELL PATRICIA M MCNAMARA SARA A WELCH 108 VIA HAVRE 2333 OAK ST #2 430 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i MARY ANN FAUBERT DONALD M REDFERN HELEN TOAL 1 439 VIA LIDO SOUD #B 23082 MARAVILLA LN 433 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COTO DE CAZA, CA 92679 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GORDON GRAHAM JOHN MICHAEL DOYLE �I I SANDRA KITCHIN 429 VIA LIDO SOLID 425 VIA LIDO SOLID 423 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 j NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 � JOHN J BURGHARDT I BARRY FAMILY INC CORY A & KIMBERLY COSENZA 3 HALSTED CIR 605 VIA LIDO SOLID 100 VIA GENOA ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE W BROWNE HAWTHORNE J D FAMILY TRUST KATHLEEN M SANGSTER 114 PIAZZA GENOA 412 VIA LIDO SOUD 403 VIA LIDO SOUD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 j BYERS j PETER J GRACE URBAN FAMILY LP 1 401 VIA LIDO SOUD i 101 VIA GENOA 104 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 6tiquettes faciles A peter Utiliserle gabarit AVERYO 51600D Sens de chargement Consultez la feuille d'instruction www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels Q► I See Instruction Sheet I Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 ® jFd#aper for Easy Peel Featurei ® �AVERWsmD ROBERT WINTERS FREDERICK W JR CROOK 100 VIA KORON 1111 VIA KORON i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 EDWARD L. VANHALEN 12930 VENTURA BLVD #510 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 JENNIFER S VOGELE ! I PHILIP H MELTZER LAURA J PICKING 107 VIA KORON ; 8818 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 1460 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I DUGGAN YOUNG SIMPSON FAMILY 2003 TRUST j 115 VIA JUCAR 111 VIA JUCAR 1211 ADAIR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 SAM M SABER ELIZABETH M MCAULEY FRANCINE B VARNEY 1112 MONTANA AVE 24422 AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA 110 VIA ITHACA SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 I LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRAY FAMILY TRUST LAURA M DOYLE KAY S FARANDA 104 VIA ITHACA 16 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 463 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALLEN KLINGENSMITH LINDA J RICHLEY GERALD K DELEO 453 VIA LIDO SOLID 451 VIA LIDO SOLID 1 628 LANCER LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 tI CORONA, CA 92879 MICHAEL & K BOURESTON BERNARD CEAZAN LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC - PO BOX 2770 10122 EMPYREAN WAY#302 717 LIDO PARK DR GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC i LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR 1717 LIDO PARK DR PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 PENINSULA RESORT LIDO ' KATHY MILLER HURLEY FAMILY TRUST 710 LIDO PARK DR ' 18 ANCHORAGE WAY 2 ANZA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 QUINT L CALVERT KONDELIA E KRISLOCK ! NEEDHAM 6 ANZA ST 8 ANZA ST 10153 REDEYE CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 'FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 J Etiquettesfatileshpeter • ( Consultezlafeuille wwwaverycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels See Instruction Sheet I �AVERY@0@ 516 Use Avee TEMPLATE 51600 ® iFaper for Easy Peel Feature, MARY MICUCCI LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 12 ANZA ST 717 LIDO PARK DR PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 DOUGLAS W MYERS I LEBOVITZ I THOMAS F DOWDEN 19 BEACH DR 123 BEACH DR 29 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i j NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663' DAVID C WENSLEY GWENDOLYN M SWINNEY I SMALLWOOD FAMILY TRUST 30 BEACH DR 31 BEACH DR 133 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 K FORWARD & BREND SCOTT ROBERT B JOHNSTON JOHN R RADER 35 BEACH DR 10535 MOON VIEW WAY 39 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STANSFIELD FAMILY TRUST HARLAN FACCOU CO CURCI-TURNER 41 BEACH DR 606 MOUNT HUNTER WAY 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BOULDER CITY, NV 89005 , NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WANDA MARSHALL ROMEO I STOLL i LOLA M RANKIN 216 CANAL ST 13 BOLIVAR ST 4 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 f LIDO PARK PAUL KULIEV j PAUL TRUSTREE OLIVERA PO BOX 1549 8 BOLIVAR ST ; 11 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I JANICE KAUFMAN RICHARD J CURRAN GAIL B FINNELL 14 BOLIVAR ST 21 BOLIVAR ST 2601 BLUE WATER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 , CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 RICHARD J CURRAN MITCHELL FUERST i REBECCA SHERBANENKO 21 BOLIVAR ST 1323 S MONTEZUMA WAY 25 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WEST COVINA, CA.91791 ! NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 t GRACE M MCGREW i BENJAMIN FINLEY FRANK EDWARD DEAN 26 BOLIVAR ST 11219 DOLCETTO DR I 29 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAS VEGAS, NV 89141 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I 6tiquettes faciles h paler Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 5160e A Sens de chargement consultez la feuille d'Instruction www,averycom 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel Labels See Instruction Sheet I ® �AVERYOmP i Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 11`aper for Easy Peel Featurel � I MARIA B TESMAN DUDLEY GREER THOMAS E TILSON 30 BOLIVAR ST 810 W VILLAGE PKWY 15 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 j LITCHFIELD PARK, AZ 85340 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TODD M SCOTT CHARMIN WU I MARK S LAMORTE PO BOX 7481 121 CABRILLO ST 27 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PARK VIRGINIA MCDONNELL SUZANNE SCHULER PO BOX 1549 1115 VIRGINIA RD 41 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK DAVIDSON SURVIVOR INSURANCE LINN W DERICKSON 23 CHANNEL RD 369 22ND ST - 31 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 R J SKIP ZICCARDI INC 'MARK DOUGLAS OLSON CHERYL HUNTER PO BOX 9948 43 CHANNEL RD 711 FEE ANA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 I LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC WILLIAM WALTER MESSEMER SARAH CARE i 717 LIDO PARK DR 20 DRAKE ST 3212 BROAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BARBARAJ DAILEY ILARIA BROWNLEE GLORIA WEISENHEIMER 25 DRAKE ST 26 DRAKE ST 28 DRAKE ST #140 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i PEGGY DANIELS RAFAEL P FIGUEROA i ROBERT C BURGESS 307 MANINI PL#A 32 DRAKE ST 34 DRAKE ST KIHEI, HI 96753 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 � I MARY & LOUIS JENSEN I KEY FAMILY TRUST � I WATERMAN 282 E LOCUST ST 37 DRAKE ST 7375 KINGSLEY WAY SHELLEY, ID 83274 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 i LAWRENCE A BROWNLEE DAVID CLIFFORD RICHARD R LAURENCE 41 DRAKE ST 25 EL PASEO ST 27 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH,'CA 92663 9tlquettesfaciles 8 polar Utilisez le oabarit AVERY® 5160® Sens de chi Consultez la feuille, d'instruction www.averycom 1.800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel labels ® i � See Instruction Sheet ® QAVERYOS160® i Use Avery®TEMPLATE 51600 lF aper for Easy Peel Feature! j , LIDO PARK HARVEY BAKER KENNETH GABRIEL PO BOX 3021 30 EL PASEO ST i 36 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS C FILCHNER PO BOX 5108 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81225 ALAN BRANDENBURGER i 60 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i BETTY JO H GUNST 2283 FAIRVIEW RD #245 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 RANDY WIKOFF 37 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i GODDARD FAMILY TRUST 44 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i JAMES H WILLIAMS 520 PACIFIC RD CORONA, CA 92881 JAMES C KETCHAM 4 NOMAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE L. THOMAS PO BOX 5923 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 MILDRED LEWIS 29 DRAKE ST ' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles A peler Utillsez le pabarit AVERYO 51600 PHOEBE D PESCHKE 85 SUFFOLK AVE SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024 G ELKES ROSEMARY 26 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I ROBERT PITSENBERGER 34 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENN H MANDA 41 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM TOBIAS 2 NOMAD ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BEVERLY J MIRECKI 1048 IRVINE AVE #718 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 JERVIS FAMILY TRUST 1986 1249 DOROTHEA RD LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA 90631 JUDITH H SILLS 23 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOROTHY J STAUCH PO BOX 1053 1 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 .I ELIZABETH ANN WESCOTT 30 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NANCY WILSON GANNON 35 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HELEN R UTMAN 43 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WILLIAM E BUNNETT PO BOX 1152 CANADIAN, TX 79014 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I it PHILLIP ROY BLAND 21 FREMONT ST j NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FERNANDO J MALDONADO 21 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JENNIFER A ROLLINS BYRON J FAIRCHILD 1120 VIA ZUMAYA 36 CABRILLO ST PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I , ♦ Consultez la feuilie www,averycom Sens de chargement d'instruction 1•800•GO•AVERY Easy Peel labels ® See Instruction Sheet 1 i F for Easy Peel Feature j ® _ AVERY®5160® i Use very® TEMPLATE 51600 aper 'j T GAIL PIAZZA RUTHELLYN MADDOX RICHARD G SARSTEDT 44 DRAKE ST ; 12251 CASTLEGATE DR 31 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT NISHIMURA j PETER BRETSCHGER I I MARVIN LANDON 40 FREMONT ST 58 BEACH DR #158 62 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I i NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 1 , I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID W MCGILL DEANANN H DIERKS j 125 I DELL R JENSEN 15 BOLIVAR ST BEACH DR 644 BROOKLINE PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 j NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FULLERTON, CA 92835 TIMOTHY G FACTOR LAWRENCE R BUTLER CHARLES S BELLAVIA 33 EL PASEO ST PO BOX 3533 21 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GARY L JARVIS EVANS AGGP INC RUPERT JOSEPH 20 ANCHORAGE WAY 12 ANCHORAGE WAY 4923 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 f NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i MAUREEN J ASHOFF W BECKER REV BARBARA KEVIN D KELSO 29 CABRILLO ST 45 EL PASEO ST 3350 RIDGECREST DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHRISTINE J GARBER I JUAN B CAAMANO i ( LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 39 CABRILLO ST 43 CABRILLO ST 710 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I) NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 f RONALD E BRANKOV j LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 20 FREMONT ST 717 LIDO PARK DR 717 LIDO PARK DR I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i r 1 BARBARA J VANLOON MARY L MICUCCI MARK DAVIDSON 43 EL PASEO ST 41 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 33 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I ANTHONY VADOPALAS DEBORAH J WILKINSON . JOHN F BENNETT 1 213 19TH ST 1901 NEWPORT BLVD #350 207 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ttiquettes faciles a paler Utilisez In ciabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de Consultez In feuille www.averycom d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Ea Peel Labels Q+ 1 See Instruction Sheet , Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 F aper for Easy Peel Featurei ® QAVERY®516o® t STEVEN PATAPOFF MATTHEW T & LAURI B HEMSLEY ROBERT L SULLIVAN 6713 LEEWARD WAY 211 19TH ST #3 1227 20TH ST TAMPA, FL 33615 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92E NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JACK E SELCER i I MARVIN S SELCER I TRUST CDN FBO LINCOLN 231 20TH ST 233 20TH ST i PO BOX 5831 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I DENVER, CO 80217 � I r i IT HAPPEN NOW LLC MAKE ENTS DEV LLC SEASIDE DAVID W LARSON 177 RIVERSIDE AVE #F-264 1902 W BALBOA BLVD 7 RICHLAND ACRES CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ; HENDERSON, NV 89074 I i MARCIA DOSSEY BENNETT C J FAMILY 1987 TRUST BENNETT C J FAMILY 1987 TRUST 1906 W BALBOA BLVD 12669 AUBERRY RD 12669 AUBERRY RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CLOVIS, CA 93619 CLOVIS, CA 93619 GAYLE N AMEMIYA GENE W JR ROSS GENE W JR ROSS 3419 VIA LIDO #626 617 VIA LIDO SOLID 617 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 EVERT ALSENZ MARK K; KEMP JEFFREY B & MARY A WELLES 23276 S POINTE DR #105 445 VIA LIDO SOLID #A 1445 VIA LIDO SOLID #3 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FRANK HLIFKA I FRANK HLIFKA FRANK HLIFKA i 1824 VILELLE PL #C 1824 VILELLE PL #C 1824 VILELLE PL #C NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 M TR M-W WILLIAMS NEIL S HARDIN DONALD W NORBURY 290 SERENA DR 1830 W BALBOA BLVD #A 1830 W BALBOA BLVD-#2 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I HOWARD KIRK G/D L 2004 TRUST i NUNNELLY FAMILY TRUST JOSEPH M & MAUREEN M ETTO 1648 WOODLANDS RD i 1290 WINSTON AVE 1430 W BAY AVE BEAUMONT, CA 92223 SAN MARIO, CA 91108 430 W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RICHARD A PANIK I JACK & GRETCHEN BLOCH JCK 4304 PARK VICENTE 12621 SILVER DR 19426 S 51ST ST CALABASAS, CA 91302 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 PHOENIX, AZ 85044 9tiquettes faciles A paler Utillsez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de El Consultez la feuille wwwaverycom d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel labels Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 FLORENCE G FEVERGEON 1 33 CREEK RD #213 IRVINE, CA 92604 MARK SILER 3137 LIMERICK LN COSTA MESA, CA 92626 See Instruction Sheet ® '® AVERYO moO F aper for Easy Peel Feature! ! COOKER CRAB COOKER CRAB 2200 NEWPORT BLVD i 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 { NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3300 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS D WYCKOFF JAMES THOMAS MELTON II 31571 PEPPERTREE BND 21219 STONYBROOK DR SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 WALNUT, CA 91789 PATEL FAMILY TRUST 1058 HOLIDAY DR WEST COVINA, CA 91791 DAVID; FINE 1713 W BALBOA BLVD #A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ( MADELAINE A WHITEMAN PO BOX 1433 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 I ROSEMARY P MORRILL 318 CORONADO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DAVID JOCELYN RICKETTS 1824 W BALBOA BLVD I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 IDA ZABY 3632 VENTURE DR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 DONALD PALMQUIST 105 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BAHER S; FAHMY 2706 N BENTLEY ST ORANGE, CA 92867 ' ANNE S HARRIMAN 1720 W OCEANFRONT#A NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 { WILLIAM D HAMILTON 3418 SENECA DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 ROBERT ROUBIAN 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 i MARKS LARSON { 1715 1/2 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DIANA E WALKER 1423 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DREW EBRIGHT 102 VIA KORON j NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY HALL I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 I MARK J & VALERIE A MAZZULLA 7114 CENTER ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346 I FAHMY 3140 E ABBEY LN ORANGE, CA 92867 HAROLD C HARRIMAN PO BOX 3605 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 KAMAL G FARAH 3419 VIA LIDO #636 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ANTHONY M CIRELLO 1413 1/2 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 i { ORIEN THEODORE PFEIFER 3584 BLUFF ST NORCO, CA 92860 i, LAWRENCE W BROWNE 109 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 �I BURGHARDT 3 HALSTED CIR ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 9tipuettesfaciles A peter Utilisez le oabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de chargement Consuitezlafeuille wwWaverycom d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peal Labels ® See Instruction Sheet F for �AVERY05160® Use Ave TEMPLATE 51600 aper Easy Peel Featureb E MORRIS SMITH I T SCHRILLO REV ANTHONY JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 501 VIA LIDO SOLID 16750 SCHOENBORN ST 9409 MESA ROBLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NORTH HILLS, CA 91343 I 1 WHITTIER, CA 90603 LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC PHILIP C SCHROEDER ii I COLLEEN L NEFF 717 LIDO PARK DR 16 BOLIVAR ST 6224 PERIDOT AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 + I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 i i BLISS LORI PARR GEORGE RON SALISBURY i I THEODORA A PIKE 7615E SKYPARK PL. 816 E WHITTIER BLVD 20 EL PASEO ST ORANGE, CA 92869 LA HABRA, CA 90631 II NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 r ' j CLAIRE M MACDONALD ' ALBERT D ROBERTS JACQULYN CRANSTON 21 EL PASEO ST 35 EL PASEO ST 41 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 �I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PEARL E GANTES f WEIDNER JOHN FRANKLIN HIBBARD 38 FREMONT ST 1000 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD #12 26 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PASADENA, CA 91105 , I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WESTLING FAMILY TRUST RANDY STRAIGHT LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 29 EL PASEO ST 39 EL PASEO ST j 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARRIAGE MOTOR COMPANY GENE W JR ROSS JANIK RICHARD/L FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 892830 617 VIA LIDO SOLID j 4304 PARK VICENTE TEMECULA, CA 92589 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CALABASAS, CA 91302 DANIEL J BURT 3418 ARDENT OAK CIR HOUSTON, TX 77059 i� ttiquettes faciles A peler I A . Consultez la feuille www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de chargement d'instruction 1-800-GO-AVERY y�lorift&' - PA9# D�a l01 FIRST AMERICAN TRUST CO ROBERT ROUBIAN 359 SAN MIGUEL DR #201 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JAMES R MCNAMARA FRANCES MATULICH 5246 BELL CT 210 21ST ST CHINO, CA 91710 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID Q PHAM CRAB COOKER THE 202 21ST ST 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOROTHY SPITZ THOMAS ERNIE HYANS 1015 GAYLEY'AVE #360 217 19TH ST LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOANNE RAWSON JOHN DUBOISE 220 20TH ST 25881 MAJORCA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 ELIZABETH NELL HOLLENBECK 218 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DALESSIO INVESTMENTS LLC 3121 W COAST HWY #81D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 S & R BOLTON 3172 SICILY AVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 ROBERT ROUBIAN 2200 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION PO BOX 711 DALLAS, TX 75221 PAMELA A MURRAY 225 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN L WESTREM 1006 E BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JULIA M WALKER 209 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARSHALL B JR MUNROE 223 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HODSON FAMILY TRUST 2401 SIERRA VIS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PAULINE R TRACY 2830 SUNNYWOOD DR FULLERTON, CA 92835 BARRACUDA INVESTMENTS LLC 214 20TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN NEWCOMB 3103 VILLA WAY NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK & P MURRAY 229 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DONALD R SPITZ 219 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE MATULICH 210 21 ST ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT R 2200 NEWP T BLVD NEWP BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN & MARIA DAGOSTINO WERFF WILLIAM VANDER LYON STUDIOS BUILDING 216 21ST ST 11322 SKYLINE VW 2212 NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 V, • LYON STUDI ILDING PAULETTE PAPPAS WEINER 1986'TRUST 2212 NEWP T BLVD 1717 E BALBOA BLVD 1608 W OCEANFRONT NEWPOY,'BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHESTER A TR BYPASS ADY MARILYN ROSE PAUL E MAYER 855 E BENNETT AVE 1417 W BAY AVE 531 W WISTARIA AVE GLENDORA, CA 91741 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ARCADIA, CA 91007 FRANCIS J BABCOCK JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL JAMES D MADISON 1411 1/2 W BAY AVE 1409 W BAY AVE 78725 SUNRISE CANYON AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 CONSTANCE J ARRIGO JOSEPH WILLIAM TATCHELL CHURCH UNITED METHODIST 1405 W BAY AVE 1401 W BAY AVE 1420 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DOUGLAS WAYNE COTTON THEO & COLLEEN MANOLELIS ADRIAN & SARA COHEN 206 E 15TH ST 204 E 15TH ST 5353 HORIZON DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MALIBU, CA 90265 TIMOTHY J GRABER II FERIT KURTKAN ROD & DEBBIE CANADA 200.E 15TH ST 122 17TH ST 828 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 GEORGE WILLIAM SISCO MAHENDRA SHAH JAMES H & TAMARA B MCKENNON 524 GREENFIELD CT 1815 W BALBOA BLVD 1809 W BALBOA BLVD UPLAND, CA 91786 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MICHAEL S BACUS LINDA C OROZCO GIACOMO J ZANCHI 1807 W BALBOA BLVD 1805 W BALBOA BLVD 16601 NALU CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 GAYLOR W SINGLETARY KARL H KIROLOS ALBERT M IRWIN 1733 MASSACHUSETTS AVE 350 W WHITTIER BLVD 1802 W OCEANFRONT RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 LA HABRA, CA 90631 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JUDITH JACOBS JOHN M ROY JOHN R MORDOFF 219 VIA LIDO SOLID 1806 W OCEANFRONT 722 N GRACE CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WEST COVINA, CA 91790 WILLIAM B MARTIN DAVID C JOHNSON FRANCIS L HUTAIN 1824 W OCEANFRONT 1811 W BALBOA BLVD 13402 SIERRA MADRE DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANTA ANA, CA 92705 F SUSAN DOLE B-N14 CAMBON DONNA FAMILY TRUST 1820 W OCEANFRONT 711 CUMBERLAND RD 9675 CABOT CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENDALE, CA 91202 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91737 STEVEN C JR KOVELY JEFF SILBAR DONALD A CANNING 123 CAMINO DON MIGUEL 3964 SUNSWEPT DR 1819 W BALBOA BLVD ORINDA, CA 94563 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JORDON M WEHNER OPAL L GOODIE RINDERKNECHT HELEN 1988 TRUST 692 N CYPRESS ST#A 5904 WAIPOULI RD 1829 W BAY AVE ORANGE, CA 92867 KAPAA, HI 96746 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PHILIP ABRAMOWITZ LE ROY G WILSON DANIEL F JENSEN 29475 WEEPING WILLOW DR 913 W BAY AVE 1813 W BAY AVE #A AGOURA HILLS, CA 91301 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MURPHY MURPHY EXEMPTION DALBY 1811 W BAY AVE 1809 W BAY AVE 1807 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FROSTHOLM OF WALCHAK TRUST JAMES R MCNAMARA ROSSI FAMILY TRUST 1806 A & B W BAY AVE 5245 BELL CT 1801 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHINO, CA 91710 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HARDY FAMILY TRUST CRAIG B MORISSETTE DANIEL WIENER 1828 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 888 1822 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MICHAEL MARTIN GONZALES J D KELLEHER JOHN & JAN SNEDEGAR 26545 RAVENHILL RD 2020 HILLHURST AVE 1816 W BALBOA BLVD SANTA CLARITA, CA 91387 LOS ANGELES, CA 90027 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARION B ROSSON GLORIA J CIMENT NEWPORT BEACH LLC BALBOA 1814 W BALBOA BLVD 1812 W BALBOA BLVD 1214 CHAUTAUQUA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 FREDERIC J PRATT FREDERI P RICHARD & DIOTAY BAKER 1800 W BALBOA BLVD 1800 W OA BLVD 2821 TURTLE CREEK BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWP T BEACH, CA 92663 DALLAS, TX 75219 ROBERT L MCCLEEARY RALPH COHEN C FRANK ZAVALA PO BOX 3146 1701 W BALBOA BLVD 1701 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DARLE HALE C RICHARD L & A A FALLON WILLIAM L & BILLIE J MOORE 2521 RISA DR 1704 W OCEANFRONT 260 SHARON RD GLENDALE, CA 91208 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ARCADIA, CA 91007 RUTH JEAN GERBER JACK E DATT KENNETH L RAWSON 1708 W OCEANFRONT 1710 W OCEANFRONT PO BOX 1221 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 WILKINS HAAS 2 LLC RONALD L HERRICK BANK FIRST INTERSTATE OF 38 E HUNTINGTON DR PO BOX 1398 PO BOX 13519 ARCADIA, CA 91006 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 ARLINGTON, TX 76094 JASON F G YEE NELLO C DICORPO LLC MODGAP 12411 SLAUSON AVE #D 16 VISTA MONTEMAR 1136 S RIMSDALE DR WHITTIER, CA 90606 LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA 92677 WEST COVINA, CA 91791 THOMAS G DUFFY LARITA BLOHM URQUIDI CRAIG & VICKI CHAMBERLAIN 106 18TH ST 110 18TH ST 201 WESTWOOD LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 REDLANDS, CA 92373 CENTER ANDREW JNICKY D BRENT SEPULVEDA RENE A RIGAUD PO BOX 870 518 N CARLISLE PL 1960 PORT SEABOURNE WAY BLUE JAY, CA 92317 ORANGE, CA 92869 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 RENE A RIGAUD JU PROPERTIES LLC JU PROPE IE L 1960 PORT SEABOURNE WAY 10132 CUTTY SARK DR 10132 CU ARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92646 HUNTI ON BEACH, CA 92646 RICHARD J MEYER E & J MATYAS SECOND JOHN & ANNE BEARDALL PO BOX 3046 2044 EDGEWOOD DR 19106 SIERRA MARIA RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 SOUTH PASADENA, CA 91030 IRVINE, CA 92603 0 ERNEST M BAKENIE ROSE CALLAHAN LOGAN JOHN JOSEPH BLAHA 1617 W BALBOA BLVD 1615 W BALBOA BLVD 1521 MERRIMAN DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GLENDALE, CA 91202 JAMES A NIEMIEC CLAUDE A GAMMEL ELLIOTT A BONN 1841 STONEHENGE DR PO BOX 3302 1607 W BALBOA BLVD TUSTIN, CA 92780 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS J & KORI A OBRIEN THOMAS F BEREAN PENACHO PROPERTIES LLC 1605 W BALBOA BLVD PO BOX 3632 1604 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CHARLES E WASHBON WEINER 1986 TRUST PETER GREGORY ANDERSON 1606 W OCEANFRONT 1608 W OCEANFRONT 1610 W OCEANFRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JEROME H THOMPSON THOMPSON DENIS W KIDD 5175 MYRTLE AVE 7161 INDIANA AVE #A 22874 PICO ST RIVERSIDE, CA 92506 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 GRAND TERRACE, CA 92313 TIMOTHY P & J J BUCKLEY LAURIE TR RICHARD JAKE EDWARD C SAUNDERS 22895 EASTPARK DR 2719 FILBERT ST 1624 W OCEANFRONT #B YORBA LINDA, CA 92887 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STUART A COGAN J R SEPARATE PROP STACK CARI K OTA PO BOX 4259 3310 MARCUS AVE 1627 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LLC CARPA LONG K & TV PHAM & MARY TERRY & ROCHELLE C GALLIMORE 1143 RONDA DR 1529 W BALBOA BLVD 1527 W BALBOA BLVD MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE F ENGELKE CYNTHIA C SMITH EDWARD L LABASS 517 GARRETT DR 45 BETHANY DR 1521 W BALBOA BLVD CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 IRVINE, CA 92603 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRACE E DOVE EDWARD G HEALY Y EDWA=BEACH, 117 E 15TH ST 700 CLIFF DR 700 CLNEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NE P CA 92663 • 0 RIA VANORNUM-MEDOFF MORRIE EUGENE NERO OMELVENY & MYERS LLP 1109 MIRABELLA AVE 105 E 15TH ST 400 S HOPE ST #26TH NOVATO, CA 94945 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90071 CHARLES A BANKS ALFRED D GERRICK TERRENCE W & CATALINA H CHOW 1510 W OCEANFRONT 1612 W OCEANFRONT 9 HIBISCUS NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 IRVINE, CA 92620 ABEL VILLALPANDO KATHLEEN I MORRIS R ANDERSON JAMES 304 E OJIBWA RD 7333 LESLEY AVE 5849 ROLLING RD DEXTER, NM'88230 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46250 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 DON CHRISTENSEN JAMES LAHR JAMES R CANTWELL 6508 N VISTA ST 1996 N LAKE MEAD CIR 1511 W BALBOA BLVD SAN GABRIEL, CA 91775 ORANGE, CA 92867 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WHITACRE DONALD RAY DONALDSON TONY L PINKERT 101 E 15TH ST 1517 W BALBOA BLVD 69-555 WAIKOLOA BEACH DR #1104 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WAIKOLOA, HI 96738 TRACY JONES WAGNER FAMILY TRUST GILDA FONTANA PO BOX 625 4015 MARCUS AVE 1401 W BALBOA BLVD LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF FRED L & SUE A WOODWORTH KENNETH J SACZALSKI 2811 E VILLA REAL DR 1444 W BAY AVE 1440 W BAY AVE ORANGE, CA 92867 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 BESSIE TR TRUST MEILY BUCKELEW JOSEPH ZUFFOLETTO 1436 W BAY AVE 7261 S POLO RIDGE DR 3990 S LIPAN ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 LITTLETON, CO 80128 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 ARTHUR H SHIPKEY HIGH STEVEN E 2004 TRUST JOSEPH A JR CASO 1428 W BAY AVE 1412'W BAY AVE 1410 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 JASON M PILALAS BAY AVENUE PROPERTIES LLC RALPH A FURRA 1335 OAK VIEW AVE 8829 E LOST GOLD CIR 1418 W BAY AVE PASADENA, CA 91108 GOLD CANYON, AZ 85218 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 0 0 ARAKAWA PALMS LLC BALBOA PAUL L BALALIS 1420 W BAY AVE 1510 W BALBOA BLVD 1500 W BALBOA BLVD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK A WARREN THOMAS ANTHONY IOVENITTI E JAMES STANLEY 1011 N TOWNE AVE 1425 W BAY AVE 351 VIA LIDO SOLID POMONA, CA 91767 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JERREL THURSTON RICHARDS REDAY MARJORIE TR #1 MINER PROPERTIES 355 VIA LIDO SOLID 359 VIA LIDO SOLID 365 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DOREEN D MARSHALL LEWIS FAMILY TRUST SOREL REISMAN 367 VIA LIDO SOLD 136 VIA TRIESTE 112 VIA HAVRE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GEORGE BISSELL PATRICIA M MCNAMARA SARA A WELCH 108 VIA HAVRE 2333 OAK ST #2 430 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARY ANN FAUBERT DONALD M REDFERN HELEN TOAL 439 VIA LIDO SOLID #B 23082 MARAVILLA LN 433 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COTO DE CAZA, CA 92679 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GORDON GRAHAM JOHN MICHAEL DOYLE SANDRA KITCHIN 429 VIA LIDO SOLID 425 VIA LIDO SOLID 423 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JOHN J BURGHARDT BARRY FAMILY INC CORY A & KIMBERLY COSENZA 3 HALSTED CIR 605 VIA LIDO SOLID 100 VIA GENOA ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE W BROWNE HAWTHORNE J D FAMILY TRUST KATHLEEN M SANGSTER 114 PIAZZA GENOA 412 VIA LIDO SOLID 403 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BYERS PETER J GRACE URBAN FAMILY LP 1 401 VIA LIDO SOLID 101 VIA GENOA 104 VIA KORON NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 • 0 ROBERT WINTERS FREDERICK W JR CROOK EDWARD L VANHALEN 100 VIA KORON 111 VIA KORON 12930 VENTURA BLVD #510 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STUDIO CITY, CA 91604 JENNIFER S VOGELE PHILIP H MELTZER LAURA J PICKING 107 VIA KORON 8818 S SEPULVEDA BLVD 460 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90045 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DUGGAN YOUNG SIMPSON FAMILY 2003 TRUST 115 VIA JUCAR 111 VIA JUCAR 1211 ADAIR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 SAM M SABER ELIZABETH M MCAULEY FRANCINE B VARNEY 1112 MONTANA AVE 24422 AVENIDA DE LA CARLOTA 110 VIA ITHACA SANTA MONICA, CA 90403 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRAY FAMILY TRUST LAURA M DOYLE KAY S FARANDA 104 VIA ITHACA 16 CORPORATE PLAZA DR 463 VIA LIDO SOLID NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALLEN KLINGENSMITH LINDA J RICHLEY GERALD K DELEO 453 VIA LIDO SOLID 451 VIA LIDO SOLID 628 LANCER LN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORONA, CA 92879 MICHAEL & K BOURESTON BERNARD CEAZAN LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC PO BOX 2770 10122 EMPYREAN WAY #302 717 LIDO PARK DR GRANITE BAY, CA 95746 LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PENINSULA COL LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC LIDO PENINSULA CO LLC 717 LIDO 717 LIDO K PO BOX 1549 NEWPORT CH, CA 92663 NEWPO EACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 PENINSULA RESORT LIDO KATHY MILLER HURLEY FAMILY TRUST 710 LIDO PARK DR 18 ANCHORAGE WAY 2 ANZA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 QUINT L CALVERT KONDELIA E KRISLOCK NEEDHAM 6 ANZA ST 8 ANZA ST 10153 REDEYE CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 9 • MARY MICUCCI LIDO PENT LIDO PENIX 12 ANZA ST 717 LIDO DR PO BOX NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPO EACH, CA 92663 NE1NJ� RT BEACH, CA 92659 DOUGLAS W MYERS LEBOVITZ THOMAS F DOWDEN 19 BEACH DR 23 BEACH DR 29 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID C WENSLEY GWENDOLYN M SWINNEY SMALLWOOD FAMILY TRUST 30 BEACH DR 31 BEACH DR 33 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 K FORWARD & BREND SCOTT ROBERT B JOHNSTON JOHN R RADER 35 BEACH DR 10535 MOON VIEW WAY 39 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ESCONDIDO, CA 92026 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STANSFIELD FAMILY TRUST HARLAN FACCOU CO CURCI-TURNER 41 BEACH DR 606 MOUNT HUNTER WAY 717 LIDO PARK DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BOULDER CITY, NV 89005 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WANDA MARSHALL ROMEO I STOLL LOLA M RANKIN 216 CANAL ST 3 BOLIVAR ST 4 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PARK PAUL KULIEV PAUL TRUSTREE OLIVERA PO BOX 1549 8 BOLIVAR ST 11 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JANICE KAUFMAN RICHARD J CURRAN GAIL B FINNELL 14 BOLIVAR ST 21 BOLIVAR ST 2601 BLUE WATER DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 RICHARD J CURRAN MITCHELL FUERST REBECCA SHERBANENKO 21 BOLIVAR ST 1323 S MONTEZUMA WAY 25 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WEST COVINA, CA 91791 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GRACE M MCGREW BENJAMIN FINLEY FRANK EDWARD DEAN 26 BOLIVAR ST 11219 DOLCETTO DR 29 BOLIVAR ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAS VEGAS, NV 89141 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARIA B TESMAN DUDLEY GREER THOMAS E TILSON 30 BOLIVAR ST 810 W VILLAGE PKWY 15 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LITCHFIELD PARK, AZ 85340 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 TODD M SCOTT CHARMIN WU MARK S LAMORTE PO BOX 7481 21 CABRILLO ST 27 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO P VIRGINIA MCDONNELL SUZANNE SCHULER PO BO 549 1115 VIRGINIA RD 41 CABRILLO ST NEW RT BEACH, CA 92659 SAN MARINO, CA 91108 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARK DAVIDSON SURVIVOR INSURANCE LINN W DERICKSON 23 CHANNEL RD 369 22ND ST 31 ,CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 R J SKIP ZICCARDI INC MARK DOUGLAS OLSON CHERYL HUNTER PO BOX 9948 43 CHANNEL RD 711 FEE ANA ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PLACENTIA, CA 92870 LIDO PENINSQCO WILLIAM WALTER MESSEMER SARAH CARE 717 LIDO ?,MM DR 20 DRAKE ST 3212 BROAD ST NEVVBJDRT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BARBARA J DAILEY ILARIA BROWNLEE GLORIA WEISENHEIMER 25 DRAKE ST 26 DRAKE ST 28 DRAKE ST #140 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PEGGY DANIELS RAFAEL P FIGUEROA ROBERT C BURGESS 307 MANINI PL #A 32 DRAKE ST 34 DRAKE ST KIHEI, HI 96753 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MARY & LOUIS JENSEN KEY FAMILY TRUST WATERMAN 282 E LOCUST ST 37 DRAKE ST 7375 KINGSLEY WAY SHELLEY, ID 83274 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 LAWRENCE A BROWNLEE DAVID CLIFFORD RICHARD R LAURENCE 41 DRAKE ST 25 EL PASEO ST 27 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LIDO PARK HARVEY BAKER KENNETH GABRIEL PO BOX 3021 30 EL PASEO ST 36 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 THOMAS C FILCHNER PHOEBE D PESCHKE DOROTHY J STAUCH PO BOX 5108 85 SUFFOLK AVE PO BOX 1053 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81225 SIERRA MADRE, CA 91024 LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 ALAN BRANDENBURGER G ELKES ROSEMARY ELIZABETH ANN WESCOTT 60 BEACH DR 26 FREMONT ST 30 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 BETTY JO H GUNST ROBERT PITSENBERGER NANCY WILSON GANNON 2283 FAIRVIEW RD #245 34 FREMONT ST 35 FREMONT ST COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT'BEACH, CA 92663 RANDY WIKOFF GLENN H MANDA HELEN R UTMAN 37 FREMONT ST 41 FREMONT ST 43 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GODDARD FAMILY TRUST WILLIAM TOBIAS WILLIAM E BUNNETT 44 FREMONT ST 2 NOMAD ST PO BOX 1152 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CANADIAN, TX 79014 JAMES H WILLIAMS BEVERLY J MIRECKI LIDO PENI T$ A CO LLC 520 PACIFIC RD 1048 IRVINE AVE #718 717 LIDO PA -- CORONA, CA 92881 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 NEWP.OR BEACH, CA 92663 JAMES C KETCHAM JERVIS FAMILY TRUST 1986 PHILLIP ROY BLAND 4 NOMAD ST 1249 DOROTHEA RD 21 FREMONT ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LA HABRA HEIGHTS, CA 90631 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LAWRENCE L THOMAS JUDITH H SILLS FERNANDO J MALDONADO PO BOX 5923 23 FREMONT ST 21 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92662 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MILDRED LEWIS JENNIFER A ROLLINS BYRON J FAIRCHILD 29 DRAKE ST 1120 VIA ZUMAYA 36 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PALOS VERDES ESTATES, CA 90274 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GAIL PIAZZA RUTHELLYN MADDOX RICHARD G SARSTEDT 44 DRAKE ST 12251 CASTLEGATE DR 31 DRAKE ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROBERT NISHIMURA PETER BRETSCHGER MARVIN LANDON 40 FREMONT ST 58 BEACH DR #158 62 BEACH DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DAVID W MCGILL DEANANN H DIERKS DELL R JENSEN 15 BOLIVAR ST 25 BEACH DR 644 BROOKLINE PL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FULLERTON, CA 92835 TIMOTHY G FACTOR LAWRENCE R BUTLER CHARLES S BELLAVIA 33 EL PASEO ST PO BOX 3533 21 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 GARY L JARVIS EVANS AGGP INC RUPERT JOSEPH 20 ANCHORAGE WAY 12 ANCHORAGE WAY 4923 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 MAUREEN J ASHOFF W BECKER REV BARBARA KEVIN D KELSO 29 CABRILLO ST 45 EL PASEO ST 3350 RIDGECREST DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 CHRISTINE J GARBER JUAN B CAAMANO LIDO PENIN CO LLC 39 CABRILLO ST 43 CABRILLO ST 710 LIDO PA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEW ' EACH, CA 92663 RONALD E BRANKOV LIDO PENINS CO LLC LIDO PEN S LA CO LLC 20 FREMONT ST 717 LIDO PA 717 LIDO RAS&DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPO ACH, CA 92663 NE� EACH, CA 92663 BARBARA J VANLOON MARY L MICUCCI MARK DAVIDSON 43 EL PASEO ST 41 CHANNEL RD 33 CHANNEL RD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ANTHONY VADOPALAS DEBORAH J WILKINSON JOHN F BENNETT 213 19TH ST 1901 NEWPORT BLVD #350 207 19TH ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 COSTA MESA, CA 92627 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 STEVEN PATAPOFF MATTHEW T & LAURI B HEMSLEY ROBERT L SULLIVAN 6713 LEEWARD WAY 211 19TH ST #3 227 20TH ST TAMPA, FL 33615 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 JACK E SELCER MARVIN S SELCER TRUST CDN FBO LINCOLN 231 20TH ST 233 20TH ST PO BOX 5831 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DENVER, CO 80217 IT HAPPEN NOW LLC MAKE ENTS DEV LLC SEASIDE DAVID W LARSON 177 RIVERSIDE AVE #F-264 1902 W BALBOA BLVD 7 RICHLAND ACRES CT NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HENDERSON, NV 89074 MARCIA DOSSEY BENNETT C J FAMILY 1987 TRUST BENNETT C J FAMILY 1987 TRUST 1906 W BALBOA BLVD 12669 AUBERRY RD 12669 AUB R NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CLOVIS, CA 93619 CLOVIS, 93619 GAYLE N AMEMIYA GENE W JR ROSS GENE W JR 3419 VIA LIDO #626 617 VIA LIDO SOLID 617 VIA L.IgP,80UD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 EVERT ALSENZ MARK K; KEMP JEFFREY B & MARY A WELLES 23276 S POINTE DR #105 445 VIA LIDO SOUD #A 445 VIA LIDO SOLID #3 LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 FRANK HLIFKA FRANK HLIF FRANK HLIF 1824 VILELLE PL #C 1824 VILEL 1824 VILELL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWP BEACH, CA 92663 NEWRe BEACH, CA 92663 M TR M-W WILLIAMS NEIL S HARDIN DONALD W NORBURY 290 SERENA DR 1830 W BALBOA BLVD #A 1830 W BALBOA BLVD #2 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 HOWARD KIRK G/D L 2004 TRUST NUNNELLY FAMILY TRUST JOSEPH M & MAUREEN M ETTO 1648 WOODLANDS RD 1290 WINSTON AVE 1430 W BAAYY AVE BEAUMONT, CA 92223 SAN MARIO, CA 91108 NE W NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 RICHARD A PANIK JACK & GRETCHEN BLOCH JCK 4304 PARK VICENTE 2621 SILVER DR 9426 S 51ST ST CALABASAS, CA 91302 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93306 PHOENIX, AZ 85044 • FLORENCE G FEVERGEON COOKER CRAB COOKER 33 CREEK RD #213 2200 NEWPORT BLVD 2200 NEW IRVINE, CA 92604 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NE T BEACH, CA 92663 MARK SILER STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF N ORT BE H 3137 LIMERICK LN 3300 NEWPORT BLVD CITY HAL COSTA MESA, CA 92626 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NE BEACH, CA 92660 THOMAS D WYCKOFF JAMES THOMAS MELTON II MARK J & VALERIE A MAZZULLA 31571 PEPPERTREE BND 21219 STONYBROOK DR 7114 CENTER ST SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 WALNUT, CA 91789 HIGHLAND, CA 92346 PATEL FAMILY TRUST BAHER S; FAHMY FAHMY 1058 HOLIDAY DR 2706 N BENTLEY ST 3140 E ABBEY LN WEST COVINA, CA 91791 ORANGE, CA 92867 ORANGE, CA 92867 DAVID; FINE ANNE S HARRIMAN HAROLD C HARRIMAN 1713 W BALBOA BLVD #A 1720 W OCEANFRONT #A PO BOX 3605 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659 MADELAINE A WHITEMAN WILLIAM D HAMILTON KAMAL G FARAH PO BOX 1433 3418 SENECA DR 3419 VIA LIDO #636 TELLURIDE, CO 81435 LAS VEGAS, NV 89169 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ROSEMARY P MORRILL ROBERT ROUBIAN ANTHONY M CIRELLO 318 CORONADO ST 2200 NEWPORT BLVD 1413 1/2 W BAY AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 DAVID JOCELYN RICKETTS MARK S LARSON ORIEN THEODORE PFEIFER 1824 W BALBOA BLVD 1715 1/2 W BALBOA BLVD 3584 BLUFF ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NORCO, CA 92860 IDA ZABY DIANA E WALKER LAWRENCE W BROWNE 3632 VENTURE DR 1423 W BAY AVE 109 VIA HAVRE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92661 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 DONALD PALMQUIST DREW EBRIGHT BURGHARDT 105 VIA HAVRE 102 VIA KORON 3 HALSTED CIR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALHAMBRA, CA 91801 E MORRIS SMITH T SCHRILLO REV ANTHONY JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 501 VIA LIDO SOLID 16750 SCHOENBORN ST 9409 MESA ROBLES DR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NORTH HILLS, CA 91343 WHITTIER, CA 90603 LIDO PENT LLC PHILIP C SCHROEDER COLLEEN L NEFF 717 LIDO K DR 6 BOLIVAR ST 6224 PERIDOT AVE NEWP-QRT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 BLISS LORI PARR GEORGE RON SALISBURY THEODORAA PIKE 7615 E SKYPARK PL 816 E WHITTIER BLVD 20 EL PASEO ST ORANGE, CA 92869 LA HABRA, CA 90631 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CLAIRE M MACDONALD ALBERT D ROBERTS JACQULYN CRANSTON 21 EL PASEO ST 35 EL PASEO ST 41 EL PASEO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PEARL E GANTES WEIDNER JOHN FRANKLIN HIBBARD 38 FREMONT ST 1000 S ORANGE GROVE BLVD #12 26 CABRILLO ST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 PASADENA, CA 91105 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 WESTLING FAMILY TRUST RANDY STRAIGHT LIDO PENIN EjggR O LLC 29 EL PASEO ST 39 EL PASEO ST 717 LIDO Pam/ D NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 NE BEACH, CA 92663 CARRIAGE MOTOR COMPANY GENE W JR ROSS JANIK RICHARD/L FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 892830 617 VIA LIDO SOLD 4304 PARK VICENTE TEMECULA, CA 92589 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 CALABASAS, CA 91302 Lido Isle Comm. Assoc. Central Nwprt Bch Comm. Assoc. Walters Management DANIEL J BURT 3418 ARDENT OAK CIR Attn: Grace Dove Attn: Elisa Traub HOUSTON, TX 77059 P. O. Box 884 17300 Redhill Ave., Ste 210 Balboa, CA 92661 Irvine, CA 92614 Lido Peninsula Co. Lido Peninsula Resort Southern California Edison Bellport Group Bessire & Casenhiser, Inc. P.O. Box 11982 151 Shipyard Way, Ste 7 Attn: Richard Bessire 661 Brea Canyon Road, Ste 7 1325 S. Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92711 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Walnut, CA 91789 Attn: Mr. Frank Wasko 'he Gas Company 919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92803 �ttn: Mr. Bob Werth 0 southern California Gas Company A Sempra Energy utility" May 23, 2008 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attention: Rosalinh Ung 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92806-6114 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 28 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Subject: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Marina Park. Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to your preparation of an E.I.R. (Environmental Impact Report) Request. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in portions of the area where the aforementioned project is proposed. In areas where we do not have facilities, when the area is served by our facilities, the service will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. Gas service to some of the project area can be provided from an existing gas main located in various locations. The service also will be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission when the contractual arrangements are made. This letter is not a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but is only provided as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non -utility laws and regulations (such as environmental regulations), which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension (i.e., if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Estimates of gas usage for residential and non-residential projects are developed on an individual basis and are obtained from the Commercial-Industrial/Residential Market Services Staff by calling (800) 427-2000 (Commercial/Industrial Customers) (800) 427-2200 (Residential Customers). We have developed several programs, which are available upon request to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact this office for assistance. Sincerely, D" Jose Padilla Technical Services Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim PAS Noz.doo South Coast Air Quality Management 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov Ms. Rosalinda Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department Community and Economic Development 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Ms. Ung: District P/ED By PLANNINGEDEPARTMENT May 30, 2008 JUN 13 7. -"1 CIIYOF NEWPORT 8FACH Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Marina Park Proiect The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The SCAQMD'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 (EIR). Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality analysis and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. Without all files and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Quality Analysis The SCAQMD 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 SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. Alternatively, the lead agency may wish to consider using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved URBEMIS 2007 Model. This model is available on the SCAQMD Website at: www.urbemis.com. 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 (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, 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 emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has developed a methodology for calculating PM2.5 emissions from construction and operational activities and processes. In connection with developing PM2.5 calculation methodologies, the SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD requests that the lead agency quantify PM2.5 emissions and comparethe results to the recommended PM2.5 significance thresholds. Guidance for calculating PM2.5 emissions and PM2.5 significance thresholds can be found at the following internet address: hn://www Umd og v/cega/handbook/PM2 5/PM2 5.htm1. . +r Ms. Rosalinda Ung -2- May 30, 2008 In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts the SCAQMD recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized significance analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at http://www agmd og v/cega/handbook/LST/LST.litm]. It is recommended that lead agencies for projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel - fueled vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis") can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following internet address: http://www.aqmd.gov/cega/handbook/mobile toxic/mobile toxic.html. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the decommissioning or use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. -- - Mitieation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law 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 the project, please refer to Chapter 1 I of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for sample air quality mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures can be found on the SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at the following internet address: www.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/mitigation/MM intro.html Additionally, SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook contain numerous measures for controlling construction -related emissions that should be considered for use as CEQA mitigation if not otherwise required. Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: http://www.aqmd.gov/prdas/aqguide/aqguide.html. In addition, guidance on sitting incompatible land uses can be found in the California Air Resources Board's Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective, which can be found at the following internet address: littp://www.arb.ca.fzov/cli/handbook.pd Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 (a)(1)(1)), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's World Wide Web Homepage (hLtp://www.agmd.gov). The SCAQMD is willing to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project -related emissions are accurately identified, categorized, and evaluated. Please call Gordon Mize, Ph.D., Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3302 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Steve Smith, Ph.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA Section Planning, Rule Development and Area Sources SS:GM:AK ORC080523-04AK Control Number 0 • STATRORCAI3RORNIA Aennid Re6N•l4fnpo0e�. Onvn�nn� NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 r SACRAMRNTO, CA 95514 (916) 653-6251 I=(916)'657.5390 RECEIVED BY ds_nahc@paebell.net PLANNING DEPARTMENT Ms. Rosalinh Ung CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 June 2,2008 JUN 06 2008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Re: SCH# 2008051096• CEQA Notice of Preparation (NOP) draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park Project City of Newport Beach• Oranae County, California Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced document The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated for the protection of California's Native American cultural resources. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archeological resources, is a 'significant effect requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR per the California Code of Regulations § 15064.5(b)(c) (CEQA Guidelines). In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the 'area of potential effect (APE),' and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequately assess the project -related impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action: Contact.the appropriate California Historic Resources information Center (CHRIS). Contact information for the 'Information Center"neaeestYou Iis avaits6le from the'State Office of Historic Preservation in Sacramento (916/653 7271 ."the record search will determine: I, ' - "' ' • If a part or,the entire (APE) has been' previously su,'rveyed foe cultural resources. • If any known,cultural resoufces,have already been recorded in or adjacent to the'APE. • If the probability is low, moderate,.oe high that cultural resources are located in'the APE. • If a survey is required'to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms, site significance,and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should b✓' in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available foe pubic disclosure. • The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. Contact the Native American He(rwge Commission (NAHC) for. A Sacred Lands File, (SLF) search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity who may have information on cultural resources in or near the APE. Please provide us site identification as follows: USGS 7 5-minute guadrangle citation with name township range and section. This will assist us with the SLF. • Also, we recommend that you contact the Native American contacts on the attached list to get their Input on the effect of potential project (e.g. APE) impact. In many cases a culturailyaffiliated Native American tribe or person will be the only source of information about the existence of a cultural resource. Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidentally, discovered archeologicalyesources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §150$4.5 (f)of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines). In areas of identified archaeolcgical,sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally'affiliated Native American, with :knowieddei h6iji(ueel resources; should'moiiitor'all ground -disturbing activities: /.; Lead,aaenefgsshould'inciude iri theirmitigation plan,provlsions for the disposition ofpf overed artifacts, In bonsplta$pnwil(h culi'urally`afflliated'Nat!Ve Americans: v, 4 Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigations plans. • CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the Initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American groups, identified by the NAHE, to ensure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave goods. • Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(d) mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. 4 Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15370 when significant cultural resources are discovered during the course of project planning or execution. Please feel free to contact me at (916) 653-6251 if you have any questions. ' cerely, (� Dave Singleton Native American Contacts Orange County • June 2, 2008 Ti'At Society Cindi Aivitre 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Gabrielino Long Beach , CA 90803 calvitre@yahoo.com (714) 504-2468 Cell Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 David Belardes @ hotmai I. com (949)493-0959 (949)493-1601 Fax Gabrielino/Tongva Council / Gabrielino Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 761 Terminal Street; Bldg 1, 2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles , CA 90021 office @tongvatribe.net (213) 489-5001 - Office (909) 262-9351 -cell (213) 489-5002 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675-2674 arivera@juaneno.com Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources , Gabrielino Tongva 5450 Slauson, Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw@gmail.com Culver City , CA 90230 310-570-6567 gtongva@verizon.net Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel CA 91778 ChiefRBwife@aol.com (626) 286-1632 (626) 286-1758 - Home (626) 286-1262 Fax This list Is current only as of the date of this document. 562-761-6417 - voice 562-925-7989 - fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno San Juan Capistrano , CA 92675 kaamalam@cox.net (949)493-0959 (949) 293-8522 Cell (949) 493-1601 Fax Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the propose SCHN2008057096; CEOA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park PRo)ech City of Newport Reach; Orange County, California. Native American Contacts •Orange County • June 2, 2008 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator Joe Ocampo, Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 1108 E. 4th Street Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 Santa Ana , CA 92701 alfredgcruz@?sbcglobal.net 714-998-0721 sifredgcruz@sbcglobal.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph 'Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul@yahoo.net 714-838-3270 714-914-1812 - CELL bsepul@yahoo.net Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Juaneno Band of Mission Indians P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 sonia.johnston @sbcglobal.net (714) 323-8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779-8832 This list is current only as of the date of this document (714) 547-9676 (714) 623-0709-cell Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the propose SCH#20DW51096; CEOA Notice of Preparation (NOP); draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park PRo)ect; City of Newport Beach; Orange County, California. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 236-1800 f (213) 236-1825 wwwscag.ca.gov Officers President Richard Dixon, Lake Forest First Vice President Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel Second Vice President Vacant Immediate Past President Gary Ovitt, San Bernardino County Policy Committee Chairs Administration Ronald O. Loveridge, Riverside Community, Economic and Human Development Jon Edney, El Centro Energy and Environment Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach Transportation and Communications Mike Ten, South Pasadena RECEIVED BY VNING DEPARTMENT JUN 13 2091 G'Ty OF NEWPORrBFAGH June 12, 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community and Economic Dev. City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard, P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120080296 Marina Park Dear Ms. Ong: Thank you for submitting the Marina Park for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. We have reviewed the Marina Park, and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's May 1-31, 2008 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1857. Thank you. Sincerely, LAVERNE JONES, Planning Technician Environmental Planning Division The Regional Council is comprised of-76 elected officials representing 187 cities, six counties, Doc #AWnty Transportation Commissions, and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. 201 05090a f-` e CTATR OF I`AT inORNfA_ANSINRSQ TRANSPCARON Atdf)HOTISING AGHNCY ARNOLD SCHWAMNEGGE& t DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED By District 12 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2267 JUN 17 203 Flexyourpowerl Fax: (949) 724-2592 Be energy epiclenll June 11, 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, 'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071 PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Marina Park Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project consists of a public park and beach, a public short-term visiting vessel marina, improved parking lots, tennis courts, half court basketball courts, the Neva Thomas Girl Scout House, and the Balboa/Sailing center which includes a restaurant, support offices, and classrooms. The project site is located along north side West Balboa Boulevard to Newport Bay between 151` Street and 181h/19's Streets. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time, ;However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267. Sincerely, ryaAherlain, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: ,Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research , "Caltrans improves moblllty across Cai7jornia" June 11, 2008 Ms. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: Marina Park C: Gale McIntyre, Deputy District Director File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071 PCH Centrat Newport Beach K � Community ,Association 'WF � 1.p-q. ya Pw Y.,� Ad'pAA4q�B �4ow0��igKb P.O. Box 884 • Newport Beach, Caldomia 92661 June 19, 2008 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department, Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: NOP Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung: 0/hZ A 11/60I O ✓GN�ar�Ftir OF 4�ozooB ol The Directors of the Central Newport Beach Community Association offer the following comments in response to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for the Marina Park project: • First, and foremost, we are very enthusiastic about the creation of Marina Park and are grateful to the City Council for its actions to implement it. • Please refer to the Balboa Community Center and the Sailing Center separately. Currently they are referred to as the Balboa/Sailing Center. They are two distinct facilities with differing uses and require separate analysis. The building for servicing the marina also should be analyzed as a separate facility. Impact on recreation was considered as non -significant in the initial study. The creation of Marina Park will increase recreation demand by both local residents and regional visitors who will want to use these State tidelands for the beach, boating opportunities, park amenities and Community Center classes. There will be impact on boating in that section of the bay due to the increase in boat traffic from the sailing center, marina and hand -launch area. This boat traffic may need to be managed. Use of the ocean beach between 159, and 19a' Streets also could be impacted by lack of parking due to overflow parking demand by Park users. Public Safety analysis should also examine adequacy of lifeguard services on the bay beach which, to date, has been little known and hidden from public view. There will now be an unfenced tot lot next to a waterway. • Careful attention to traffic circulation should be paid. Even if there is no increase in traffic, depending on how the traffic analysis is conducted, the current residents of the mobile home park know where they are going. Marina Park users will often not know how to access the facility or beach visitors will see the parking, try 0 to access it, find that it is restricted and have to return to the street or make a u- turn to continue east to find parking. This is the type of chaos that the residents need to have analyzed to make traffic circulation as painless as possible. There will also be impact due to the creation of demand for a left -turn at 17s' Street where little or no demand currently exists. This will create impact to both west and east -bound Balboa Boulevard traffic and will adversely impact residents on that section of boulevard. The Public Safety section should also address the impact of this circulation and congestion on the movement of police, fire, paramedic and lifeguard vehicles servicing the Peninsula easterly of the facility. • Parking analysis should also include access for park and beach users, not just for users of the buildings. Increased parking demand for the hand launch area should be included. While we recognize that there can never be enough parking during the summer, all sources of demand should be included in the analysis. • Any landside demands placed by public dock users should be addressed and mitigated. • The impact and mitigation of potential at -dock maintenance and repair of boats in the marina should be addressed. Mitigation measures should be incorporated to ensure recreation use of the marina and pubic dock to avoid their use by commercial interests for charters, temporary boat sales storage and/or outfitting and delivery. • Project Alternatives should include less intense development of the site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We want to maximize the success of Marina Park by attempting to anticipate problems and mitigate them before construction rather than trying to retrofit remediation. While the highest impact on residents from change in Central Newport is summer, that period is 25% of our lives! Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President STATE OF CALIFORNIA AOOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 June 18, 2008 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 PAUL D. THAYER, Executive Officer (916) 574-1800 FAX (916) 574-1810 Relay Service From TDD Phone 1.800-735-2929 from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2922 Contact Phone: (916) 574-1900 Contact FAX., (916) 574-1885 FiIft EdM3N 1096 0 Aljo° Subject: Notice of Preparation for the Marina Park Project Dear Ms. Ung: 1N3W1aVd3G Jrv,, A9 O3/U3016 The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Marina Park project (Project). For this project, the California State Lands Commission (Commission) is potentially both a trustee agency and a responsible agency under -the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): - . As general background, the State of California upon entering,the Union on September 9, 1850 acquired nearly four million acres of land underlying the State's navigable and tidal waterways. Known as "sovereign lands," these lands include tidelands and submerged lands adjacent to the entire coast and offshore islands of the State from the ordinary high water mark to three nautical miles offshore. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all'the people of California for statewide Public Trust purposes, which include waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water -related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. The State's sovereign land interests are under the jurisdiction of the CSLC. In addition, the CSLC has certain residual and review authority related to Public Trust issues for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§6301 and 6306). The CSLC also administers the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program pursuant to PRC §§6309, 6313, and 6314. The California Legislature, by statute, has granted in trust to.the,.City of Newport Beach the State's title to •those filled and unfilled tide and submerged lands involving portions of the project area, pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, as.amended with minerals reserved to the State. Any proposed uses involving granted tidelands must be consistent with the Public Trust and the City's granting statute(s). 7.f � i. i Rosalinh Ling • Page 2 June 18, 2008 The boundaries separating lands owned by the City in trust, pursuant to Chapter 74, from lands acquired by the City from private parties has not been established by agreement or litigation within the Project site. CSLC staff believes that it is necessary to resolve the title and boundary issues with the City prior to the Project going forward. Given the -current Project plans it-appears-that_a title settlement and exchange agreement may be necessary. We are available to discuss the resolution of the title and boundary issues with the City. Please contact Grace Kato, Public Land Management Specialist, at (916) 574-1227 or by e-mail at katog(&.slc.ca.gov or Jennifer Lucchesi, Staff Counsel, at (916) 574-0234 or by email at lucchei &-slc.ca.gov for additional information. Based on a review of the NOP, the CSLC recommends that the following be included as a part of the,Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR): An evaluation should be made of potential submerged cultural resources in.the project area. Any submerged archaeological site or submerged historic resource remaining in state waters for more than 50 years is presumed to be significant. The title to all abandoned shipwrecks and all archaeological sites and historic or cultural resources on or in the tide and submerged lands of California is vested in the -state and under -fie iurisdictlon ofthe°CSLG: The•GSL-C maintains.a_ shipwrecks database of known and potential vessels located on the state's tide and submerged lands; however, the location of many shipwrecks remains unknown. The recovery of objects from any submerged archaeological site or shipwreck requires a salvage permit under PRC § 6309. On statutorily granted tide and submerged lands, a permit may be issued only after consultation with the local grantee and a determination by the CSLC that the proposed salvage operation is not inconsistent with the purposes of the legislative grant. • The timing of the proposed construction work will need to account for any state and federally listed endangered species. All arrangements with pertinent regulatory agencies should coincide with specific protection policies regarding incidental take and avoidance measures. Consideration should include, but not be limited to, seasonality of migratory or nesting species within the footprint of -the project. - - — - - — • An evaluation of the noise impacts on fish and/or marine mammals from construction activities in the water, such as construction and/or renovation of the docks and vessel berths should be included in the DEIR. • An evaluation of the impacts of turbidity on benthic species and habitat as a result of dredging and other construction activities in the water should be included in the DEIR. Rosalinh Ung • Page 3 June 18, 2008 Greenhouse,gas emissions information consistent with the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) should be included in the DEIR. This would include a determination of the greenhouse gases that will be emitted as a result of construction and ongoing operations and maintenance, a determination of the significanc&of the impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts. If you have any questions involving the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program please contact Staff Counsel Pam Griggs at (916) 574-1854 or by email at griggsp(a)sIc.ca.cjov. If you have questions on the environmental review, please contact Crystal Spurr at (916) 574-0743 or by e-mail at spurrcOslc.ca.gov. Sincerely, /QJzr�o�tav Q• cC/h�� 6C Gail Newton, Chief Division of Environmental Planning and=Management cc: Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse Robin Clauson, City Attorney P. Griggs, CSLC J. Lucchesi, CSLC G. Kato, CSLC C. Spurr, CSLC 0 www.uIrvine.ca.us City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza, PO. Box 19575, Irvine, California 92623-9575 (949) 724-6000 PrcE n BY MAR 3 0 2009 March 24, 2009 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Subject: Review of Marina Park Draft EIR Dear Ms. Ung: The City of Irvine staff has received and reviewed the information on the above referenced project and offers the following comments: COMMENT 1 Section 2: Executive Summary, Page 2-1: Provide a description of the existing land uses. Direct the reader's attention to Section 3, Project Description or add additional explanatory text. COMMENT 2 Section 2: Executive Summary: There does not seem to be "before" schematics or site plans in the EIR except for on page 2 of the Walker Parking Consultants Parking Management Plan that is included in Appendix J. The graphic provides important details, such as a view of the existing beach, marina, mobile homes, and orientation and location of the existing tennis courts that are essential for context. Also, it would be useful if Exhibit 3-2, Local Vicinity Map or another graphic was revised to depict the end of Balboa peninsula so that the dead-end was more prominent. COMMENT 3 Section 2: Executive Summary: The study does not state the location to where the existing 57 mobile homes will be taken. Are these homes going, to be relocated within Newport Beach, and increase the number of dwelling units and/or density of another mobile home site, or are they going to be relocated out of the city, or demolished? If they were relocated within Newport Beach, the trip generation in the Traffic Analysis would need to be revised to reflect the continued use of those residential units in another location. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Ms. Rosalinh Ung • • March 24, 2009 Page 2 COMMENT 4 Section 3 Project Description, Page 3-2, Section 3-2, first paragraph: An existing boat launch located at 18th and Bay Avenue is mentioned in the third sentence, and the last sentence states that "None of the existing facilities are suitable for reuse in the new park development." Exhibit 3-3 seems to show new sidewalk at the end of 18th street. Neither the study nor the exhibit state that the boat launch is being removed or whether it is being relocated. Some text addressing this issue would be helpful. The removal of a boat launch could reduce a significant number of vehicle trips around the study area, after the motorists know that it is gone, and are informed where the nearest one is located. It is likely that for a period of time, there will still be motorists with boats on .trailers driving through the site searching for the boat launch. COMMENT 5 Section 3 Project Description, Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan: There appear to be two dead end parking' aisles in the parking lot nearest the new marinas. Address whether better circulation alternatives can be provided to avoid cars backing out of these angled parking drive aisles. COMMENT 6 Section 3 Project Description, Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan, Pedestrian Issues: There does not appear to be a walkway connecting the new marina for the sailing program boats and the sailing building, as the visiting vessel marina is between them. Address whether children will be walking from the Sailing Program building through the parking lot to the marina, or whether instructors will be bringing the sailboats used in class over to the bay closer to the Sailing Program building. Address whether children will be involved in summer programs at the community center building and then walking over to the tennis courts. The pedestrian route from the community center building to the tennis courts appears to be missing or it traverses within the parking lot/drive aisle at the 15th Street access, or is somewhat circuitous out to West Balboa Boulevard and then along 15th Street. COMMENT 7 Section 3 Project Description, Section 3.4.2, Page 3-17. Last sentence in the first paragraph: "The City has exempted itself from the provisions of its own zoning regulations." This section states that the Zoning Code is not going to be amended to add text to state that it does not apply to CIP projects. It states that the Code does not contain specific development regulations for this type of facility, and that some features of the Marina Park will exceed 35 feet, which if raised as an issue by the City Council, would require a use permit. Additional text could be added to discuss the many other permits that this project will need to obtain from various agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife, California Fish and Game, and the US Coastal Commission for the dredging efforts. Ms. Rosalinh Ung • • March 24, 2009 Page 3 COMMENT 8 Section 3 Project Description, Section 3.4.2, Page 3-17, 2"d paragraph: This section of the report states that there have been public forums held on the project. Please provide information whether there was opposition from the American Legion at the removal of the existing Veteran's Park, and the relocation of the public tennis courts onto Veteran's Park. Were there activities held outside in Veteran's Park that will no longer be able to be conducted, or will they use the new Marina Park for those activities? Additional text would be helpful to discuss the benefits of the proposed park amenities compared to the existing features and whether there was opposition from the mobile home dwellers, and whether relocation assistance will be provided. COMMENT 9 Section 5-11 and Appendix K. How was the traffic associated with the cumulative approved projects added? How was the trip distribution determined? Was a model used to distribute these volumes? If so, provide model data to the City of Irvine for review. COMMENT 10 Section 5-11 and Appendix K: Some of the intersections are non-standard intersections. A) The ICU for Newport Boulevard at Coast Highway was taken at the southbound Newport ramps at Coast Highway because this intersection is grade separated. However, the volumes on Newport crossing Coast Highway do not seem to have been considered in the 1 percent evaluation as discussed in the following comment. B) One of the main intersections near the project site is Newport Boulevard at West Balboa Boulevard which was not evaluated, even though it is closer to the project than any other intersection in the study area. Is this because it has a non-standard configuration that can not be evaluated with an ICU? Explain whether there is another analysis methodology that can be used to evaluate the project's impact, such as Highway Capacity Methodology for stop controlled intersections. COMMENT 11 Section 5-11 and Appendix K, Table 5.11-4: The traffic volume data presented for the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway (Intersection #3) appears to be under -represented on Table 5.11-4 and should be further analyzed. • Figure 3 of Appendix K identifies the project trip distribution (30 percent to and from the east, 25 percent to and from the north, and 10 percent to and from the west), which results in 65 percent of project trips on the northbound approach. Based on this information, the PM northbound Newport approach volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be changed to 12. The ICU at this location does not evaluate the northbound approach, because it is taken at the ramps below and west of the grade separation, consequently, the 1 percent test can not be conducted with the volumes on this ICU. The northbound volume should be provided from some other source, and the 1 percent test should be conducted. • The AM southbound Newport volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be revised to 4 based on the trip distribution presented. Similar to the northbound Ms. Rosalinh Ung • • March 24, 2009 Page 4 analysis, the southbound volume should be provided from some other source and the 1 percent test conducted. • The AM westbound Coast Highway volume on the free ramp in the non -peak is 370. Dividing 5 by 370 is 1 percent, and this meets the 1 percent test. The word "Yes" in the right column on Table 5.11-4 should be changed to "No", and an ICU analysis (existing plus growth plus project and plus cumulative approved projects) should be performed for this intersection. • The AM eastbound Coast Highway volume shown on Table 5.11-4 as 0 (zero) should be revised to 2 based on the trip distribution presented. COMMENT 1Z Appendix K, Table 8, Cumulative ICU Analysis Summary of two intersections: There is a very small change between the existing, background, background plus cumulative, and background plus cumulative plus project scenarios for the two intersections of Newport/Via Lido and Newport/32"d. Explain why the differences in ICU results for these two intersections are so small when comparing the various scenarios analyzed. COMMENT 13 Section 5-11 and Appendix K.• It is understood that more residential development within the City could create a greater interest in attending classes and activities at Marina Park. The development of more commercial areas within the City could also create an increase in traffic from adjacent residential areas around the project site and through the study area intersections. An increase in traffic due to the Marina Park project is most dependent upon the number and frequency of the scheduled activities, (proposed activities are listed on pages 3-10 for the Community Center and on pages 3-13 for the Sailing Program Building). Ultimately, the amount of traffic is limited by the availability of parking and the ease of circulation (for parents dropping off children). Another factor that could affect the volume of traffic at the Marina Park site is the availability of public transportation and shuttles (Exhibit 3-3, Site Plan appears to show a bus turnout at W. Balboa Blvd and 17th St). The sailing program is said to potentially have rentals of sailboat's, canoes, kayaks, and other' watercraft (page 3-1.3) in addition to_ its classes and camps, which could generate increased traffic or be accommodated by shuttles to offsite parking locations. Additional text to discuss this should be incorporated. COMMENT 14 Pages 5.11-13 through 5.11-15 Parking Study portion of the Traffic Study and Appendix J Parking Management Recommendations: A parking attendant would need to monitor the metered self -parking areas to ensure that patrons have paid, and have not parked longer than the number of hours for which they have paid. The study does not get into discussion whether fines/tickets or towing would result from vehicles exceeding their parking time. If not gated or attended, there could be a queue of vehicles within the parking lot driving around or waiting for available spaces, or waiting to pick up children from classes. These vehicles could block parking spaces for those who wish to leave. Additional text could be incorporated to explain these constraints. Ms. Rosalinh Ung March 24, 2009 Page 5 COM— MENT15 Pages 5.11-13 through 5.11-15 Parking Study portion of the Traffic Study and Appendix J Parking Management Recommendations: No mention was made of installing gates with an attendant at the accesses of the parking areas, as is common at some marina and beach locations. If gates were situated such that they did not create a backup of traffic onto the public streets, and they did not remove parking spaces, they could be an option. Attendants could monitor the number of spaces occupied, and verify that those entering were Marina Park patrons by showing proof of registration in a sailing class or community center activity, and limit the general beach parking to those remaining spaces. An attendant could also direct motorists to the appropriate boat launch areas and;,apecific foatures of the park,, to,alieviate,•driver confusion and facilitate way -finding, COMMENT 16 Section 6, Alternatives to the Proposed Project: Staff understands that the traffic generation of the various alternatives would be much the same as for the "with project". If the project consists of the removal of the existing 18th Street boat launch, and another boat launch is not located within or near the project site, the project and all of the alternatives except the "No Project" have the potential to reduce traffic and reduce the need to provide extra long stalls for cars pulling trailers. COMMENT 17 The Marina Park Draft EIR does not appear to address Climate Change. AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2006. AB 32 is now codified as Health & Safety Code Sections 38500-38599. Provide an explanation of how the project will address AB 32. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed document. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, please contact me at by phoneAt (949) 724-6559 or by email -at sighes di ofirvine.og. Sincerely, s�;,, Jd� SHERMAN JONES, AICP Associate Planner cc: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun -Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst Ll April 13, 2009 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Draft EIR — Marina Park Dear Ms Ung: RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,( ,0101 APR IS ZUUS 4o MGR CITY OF NEWPORi OH Following are comments from the Central Newport Beach Community Association regarding the DEIR for Marina Park. CNBCA represents over 300 families who live in or own property between the two piers, including the area in which Marina Park is located. 1. We are very appreciative about the long awaited implementation of Marina Park and are grateful to the City Council for its actions to move the project forward. We do, however, want the project to be the best it can be and minimize impacts on residents and visitors to the beach. 2. Comments made by CNBCA dated June 19, 2008 on the NOP for Marina Park were not included in the DEIR as were comments made by others. Some of those comments will be reiterated below. 3. Parking analysis should include all potential users. Page 5.11-14 states that parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. From this we infer that use of Marina Park lots for summer ocean beach parking demands will be discouraged. Even with this constraint, section 5.11 addresses parking for only the buildings at Marina Park. There is no allocation of parking for visitors to the grassy portions of the park, tot lot, public dock, hand launch or, more importantly the Newport Bay beach. There is very little bay beach available to the Public in Newport Beach; Marina Park will help to address this deficiency and as such should prove to be very popular. While the existing bay beach is accessible to the public, it is not readily visible to the public and therefore is lightly used. A proposed mitigation measure is to not program the Community building for use on Saturdays and Sundays from Memorial Day to Labor Day thus making that parking allocation available for only park and bay beach users. 4. The discussion of water circulation in the marina basin is disturbing. The bay beaches both upstream and downstream from the proposed marina are popular and involve human contact. Anecdotal input from users of the Marina Park beach indicate problems from using the bay for swimming and playing that may result from proximity to the Rhine Channel already. We do not need additional problems from the creation of a new marina. A proposed mitigation measure is prohibiting the washing or working on boats within this short term berthing marina. Additionally, MM 5.7-A.2 proposes the use of mechanical devices to aid flushing and mentions the option of use of four oloids. While the oloids move water well, we suggest that staff contact the County of Orange Dana Point Harbor Department for recent, local experience with oloids. There is indication of limited mechanical life in the marine environment and substantial utility costs. Any mechanical device chosen should be reliable and energy efficient and proven as such. 5. Public Safety needs to address the proximity of the tot lot to Newport Bay. It is akin to placing an unfenced tot lot next to an unfenced swimming pool. Lifeguard services should also be analyzed. 6. Access is proposed to be primarily from 16h Street with limited access from Fifteenth Street. The 15" Street access is from a 20 foot wide alley that is used for access to the American Legion Parking lot and for an apartment structure and a commercial building. Both the apartment and commercial buildings have parking that requires backing into the alley. A mitigation measure should require that access from 151h Street be limited to only emergency and maintenance access needs with a gate at the east end of the Visiting Marina lot. 7. Add the residence on 18" Street at Bay Ave. to the list of Sensitive Receptors (5-9.5) throughout the analysis. This is the private property most impacted by proximity to the project. 8. Traffic studies did not address traffic congestion that will undoubtedly occur in the general vicinity of Marina Park. All traffic analyses were conducted west of the intersection of Newport Blvd. and Balboa Blvd. Residents of and visitors to the peninsula will be most impacted by congestion between 15`h Street and 20"' Street on West Balboa Blvd, an area nearly one mile south of the nearest intersection studied (Newport Blvd. And 32"d Street). West Balboa Blvd. Is the only arterial serving the entire length of the peninsula. Both the Marina Park lots will be visible from Balboa Blvd. And will be aggressively targeted by both ocean beach visitors as well as Marina Park visitors. For years there has been a summer traffic pattern between 18`' Street and 20'h Street that is generated by the parking lot on the bay between 18`h and 19'h Streets (see diagram, existing pattern). Cars hunting for a space, often after unloading family and cargo, will circle until a space becomes available on Balboa Blvd. Or in the parking lot. Our concern is that, if mitigation methods are not employed to discourage ocean beach usage of the Marina Park lots with signage, limited meter time or other methods, a local traffic pattern will develop that will severely impact residents and visitors destined east of Marina Park as well as visitors to the park. Mitigation measures to address the potential local traffic circulation and congestion should be addressed in the analysis. An analysis of the West Balboa and 15" Street intersection for summer AM peak weekend recreational period would be bebeficial to understanding and controlling the inevitable congestion that will ensue around the park site. patient Local Sunup PotentialaDuring Traffic uoun Patlam During Sununar RiSun During Summer FriSun lg:7g2:WPM FdSun 10:302:09PM Newport Bay F— — — — — — ................................ A ' Existing Lot A I i Prapo ad Marina Park Lot Bay Ave. I � — — — — — — — — —> r c rn co � r West Oceanfront (Alley) Paci/Ic Ocean 9. The Project Alternatives section considers only the no or reduced marina alternatives. A similar analysis should be applied to the Community Center building with a reduced size alternative with its reduced parking, traffic and visual impacts. A phased scenario with the Community Center being the last improvement as an alternative should also be considered. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, et.w'`c1 C, Louise Fundenberg, President Central Newport Beach Community Association STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER GOVERNOR PLCEDBY December 15, 2009 ANI`IING DEPARTMEN-f Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Subject: Marina Park SCH#: 2008051096 Dear Rosalinh Ung: JAN 04 20f0 CITY OF N,3wpORTBEACH �4`�ECPPWIN/.PC yo Zya w� $ ���OFCAL140R� CYNTHPABRYANT DMECTOR The enclosed comment (a) on your Draft EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on April 13, 2009. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2008051096) when contacting this office. Sincerel Scott Morgan Acting Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 , (916) 445.0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov STATE OF CALIEGRNIA-131ISMSS TRAN WON AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2267 FRE_C�EIV�ED Flnergyeicient! Fax: (949) 724-2592 Be energy efficient! March19,2009 �f'!4'e� DEC 1 5 2009 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Mr. Rosalinh Ung R/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH#: 2008051096 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2071A Newport Beach, California 92663 PCH, SR-55 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketball courts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. The Balboa Center Complex (BCC) will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The BCC will have a restaurant situated on the second story -and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 151h Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway and SR 55. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially, impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440-3487. Sincerely, !2L Chris Herre, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 04 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 11 March 19, 2009 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071A PCH, SR-55 BC: Ryan Chamberlain, Deputy District Director Is "Caltrans improves mobglly across Cal jornla" • THOMAS R. ROSSI • April 7, 2009 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED By PLANNING DEPARTMENT APR 0 9 20v9 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18th Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay). I have observed and appreciate that -great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project'). 1 believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. I believe it is a fair statement that my property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Project, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. On several previous occasions I made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a "low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com r • 0 concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Project's plans progressed. As late as last Friday when I met personally with Mr. David Kiff at City Hall, I was informed that no such definition regarding my concerns exists. I believe this situation is inappropriate and should no longer be ignored. In my opinion, this matter should have been addressed long before now, and my patience has gone unrewarded. In addition ,to view obstruction, my concerns regarding, hours of operation, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have a substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Committee that non - Girl Scout -related activities would not be allowed, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation of same at your earliest convenience. In light of the foregoing, please accept this letter as my objection to the Project/EIR due to these issues being left unaddressed in a fair and equitable manner. I respectfully request your timely written response. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. Yours truly, omas :-Rossi CC: Mayor Edward D. Selich Councilman Michael F. Henn E cCRPA P.O. Box 54132 Irvine, CA 926194132 March 21, 2009 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner, Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Ms. Ung: KICEWIJ BY PLEiwwny i7EC'AWMENT MAR 2 5 209 CIIY OF %NrY0iZT BEACH Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park. We agree that the proposed project will not affect a historic resource and that significant impacts to archaeological resources are unlikely. However, the project area was not inspected for the presence of archaeological remains when it was developed therefore, it is possible that buried archaeological resources are present and could be impacted by dredging and excavation activities. While providing the opportunity for a Native American representative to monitor excavation and dredging activities places the city in compliance with SB 18, Traditional Tribal Cultural Places, a qualified archaeologist is still needed to identify archaeological materials and evaluate them using the California Register of Historic Properties criteria. Therefore, we strongly recommend that an archaeologist also be present to monitor excavation and dredging. If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 559-6490, or email pmartz@calstatela.edu. Sincerely, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. ' C President Ung, Rosalinh From: Felicia Sheerman [sheerman@roadrunner.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:38 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park Project Dear Rosalinh, The Environmental Impact Report for the above subject project states the project could have impacts to archaeological resources, paleontological resources and burial sites. Due to the fact that the proposed project is in a culturally sensitive area it is our concern that the City of Newport Beach appoints Native American Monitors from the largest faction of the Tribe to represent this project. We are the largest faction of the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe, with over 85% of descendants of the historic Gabrielino Tribe. We have approximately 1,600 members, and the next largest faction has less than 150 members. We strongly recommend the City of Newport Beach hire Native American monitors approved by our faction. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate contacting myself or our office. Sincerely, Hon. Felicia Sheerman, Tribal Councilwoman Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Office: (310) 587-2203 Cell: (310) 428-7720 Email: fsheermanl@GabrlellnoTribe.org Website: www.gabrielinotribe.org To: Rosalinh Ung 20 April 2009 Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 From Environment Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee (EQAC) Subject: Comments on Marina Park DEIR dated February 26, 2009 EQAC is pleased to take this opportunity to provide comments on the referenced DEIR. Our comments are generally listed in their order of appearance in the documents with page and paragraph references as needed. We hope that they are constructive and assist the proponent in producing the best possible result for the City of Newport Beach 2. Executive Summary Refer to Table 2-1, Executive Summary Matrix (pp. 2-2 to 29). The logic in this Table is confusing or wrong. Environmental Impacts under Project Specific or Cumulative (left side of Table) should lead to Mitigation Measures (center of Table) and result in improvements as noted in Level of Significance after Mitigation (right side of Table). For example, Air Quality Impact 5.2-A (pg. 2-4) is shown as potentially significant, leading to 3 mitigation measures, resulting in less than significant after mitigation. However, Air Quality Impact 5.2-1 (pg. 2-5, 6, 7, 8) is shown as less than significant, leading to I 1 mitigation measures resulting in less than significant after mitigation. Shouldn't the original impact have been shown as potentially significant? Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-A (pg. 2-11) is shown as no impact leading no mitigation resulting in less than significant after mitigation. Did no mitigation result in deterioration? Cultural Resources Impact 5.4-D (pg. 2-12) is shown as less than significant but cites a mitigation measure which could stop or delay the project for a significant period of time. Doesn't that make the Impact potentially significant? Geology and Soils Impact 5.5-D (pg. 2-14) goes from potentially significant to no impact with no mitigation measures. How is this possible? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 5.6-G (pg. 2-16) asserts no project impact related to implementation of an "adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan". However, Balboa Blvd. is the main peninsula emergency response and evacuation route, and it will be occupied by trucks and construction equipment during significant portions of the development phase. This slow -moving traffic is a potentially significant impact and should be addressed with a specific mitigation measure assuring that there is always space on -site for all such project related equipment in the event that Balboa Blvd is needed for emergencies and/or Peninsula evacuations. Land Use and Planning Impact 5.8-B (pg. 2-22) relates to project conflict "with any applicable land use plan..." and asserts a less than significant impact. How does this become no impact with no proposed mitigation? Public Services Impact 5.10-1) (pg. 2-25) is shown as Beneficial, but results in no impact after no mitigation. Shouldn't the final result be Beneficial? 5. Environmental Impact Analysis 5.1 Aesthetics In general, the impact on environmental aesthetics is a major improvement for the proposed project area. The removal of current vegetation and replacement with new vegetation is also a monumental improvement and will be more "green" and visually appealing. However, the developer should consider the following comments in planning and mitigation for the project. Open space It is planned to replace the open green space (American Legion Park) next to the American Legion with. two (2) public tennis courts. Included will be the elimination of 6 to 10 mature trees. Is there a way to save these mature trees? Viewers Viewers affected by the proposed changes will include those attending events within the American Legion facility and residential viewers on 15`h Street. American Legion Park will be replaced by two tennis courts, including fencing, tennis netting and lights, in a location that is closer to residences than the existing courts. Court lights and glare will replace the current darkness. The EIR should analyze how residents will be affected by the additional light and noise and social occasions at the American Legion Hall will be disrupted by the additional noise and glare from the adjacent tennis courts. Sailing Center and Lighthouse The Balboa Center, at 35 feet, 6 inches, is over the 35-foot standard of height. The Lighthouse, at 73 feet, is double the Shoreline Height Requirement, adopted over 30 years ago, and will have a light at the top. The EIR should analyze the visual impacts of the building height and new light source to area residents. 5.2 Air Quality' Please provide an analysis and assessment of the local, immediately proximate impacts to Newport Beach residents. Any and all air quality impact analyses and assessments for Marina Park in Newport Beach appear to be inaccurate to the extent they factor in, or are based on, Local Air Quality Measurements taken at the Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18. For measurements on ozone and carbon monoxide, the closest SCAQMD air quality monitoring station for SRA 18 is in Costa Mesa at Mesa Verde Drive. Measurements of particulate matter pollutants (PMio and PM2:5) are drawn from a station in Mission Viejo. See 5.2-1 and 5.2-2, pages 5.2-10 through 5.2-11. These data do not represent actual Newport Beach air quality, or air quality on the Peninsula. As the DEIR acknowledges, the South Coast Air Basin is designated -as "non -attainment" because the ambient air quality for the area already exceeds the State and National standard for the particulate matter pollutants (PMIo and PM2.5), the State standards for ozone (1 hour), and the National standards for ozone (8 hour). See Page 5.2-11. To address the proposed project's impact on the existing noncompliance levels, the DEIR states that the ambient concentrations of pollutants are measured at the SRA station, and based upon these concentrations, a Localized Significance Threshold ("LST") is developed, which in turn represents the "maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable state or national ambient air quality standard." See, e.g., Pages 5.2-25 through 5.2-29. However, as addressed above, the SRA (and therefore LST figures) do not account for the projected cumulative construction and operational impacts of projects missing from Table 4.1 (pg, 4.5)-Aerie, Sunset Ridge, Banning Ranch. Thus, it appears that the DEIR's conclusions that the maximum emissions from the impacts are less than significant (either before or after mitigation) cannot be not based on accurate data because the LSTs are not based on accurate data (See Section 7 of this report). The DEIR is missing any analysis that incorporates the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) "all feasible measures" recommendation. It appears the EIR should be amended to include such discussions. In the beginning of the discussion on Air Quality, the EIR expressly states that the SCAQMD submitted a comment letter in response to the NOP on Marina Park. One of the strong recommendations made by SCAQMD was that the Marina Park air quality analyses include: "Implementation of all feasible measures beyond what is required by law to minimize or eliminate significant adverse air quality impacts". The DEIR states affirmatively that it "incorporated" that suggestion (See "5.2.1 Introduction" at page 5.2-1) However, none of the analyses concerning air quality even mention any measures "beyond what is required by law," and the regional air quality measurements. Instead of also looking at how an impact can be reduced by "measures beyond what is required by law," most of the analyses conclude that the impact at issue amounts to "no impact" or is "less than significant" (and thus requires no mitigation of any sort) because it is consistent with a general plan "policy" or a guideline. This approach appears backwards and circumvents the spirit of the SCAQMD recommendation. The concerns are underscored by the fact that the "legal" standards by which the EIR analyses determine compliance are in the context of the local air quality's violations of both State and National air quality standards. The EIR needs to identify what measures have been incorporated beyond those required by law. Although the DEIR refers to two mitigation measures to be employed for the air quality impacts, it does not explain how these measures actually reduce the contaminants on the short-term (construction) or permanent (operational) bases. More information appears necessary. 5.3 Biological Resources The EIR should analyze whether the use of non-native landscaping would have an impact on the marine environment. The Project Objectives are missing a critical component, i.e. the opportunity to showcase the bay setting and its habitat, and make it part of the visitor experience. What is impact of park lighting on night sky? Will it be more or less than current? How could that impact the ability of birds to nest at the site? 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.6.2 (pp5.6-5 to 5.6-6), Sediment Evaluation This section describes core sampling done to test for hazardous materials. It describes Areas A,B & C as sites of core samples but fails to plot these locations on a map. Also, it describes the corings taking place above and below "the 0 feet MLLW". It fails to define this description. (Calls to the city failed to provide a definition.) This is troubling for two reasons. 1. Pg. 5.6-6 states "soils were tested based on their consistency to be deposited....." at various sites, but 2. 5.6-A (Pg 5.6-7) states that "during construction activities, the proposed marina area will be dredged to -12 MLLW". This would seem to indicate that they will be digging much deeper than the core samples (0 feet MLLW) and dredging samples noted on pg 5.6-6. It seems that deep core samples should be done considering the close proximity of the contaminated Rhine Channel and shipyard areas. Core samples should be obtained to identify potential hazardous materials at -12 feet MLLW (whatever that means) Impact 5.6-13 (pg 5.6-8) Accident Conditions - Project -Specific Analysis Refers to "extensive excavation of the marina..... for a relatively limited time." This is vague and overly broad. The hazardous materials removed from the excavation will have to be removed from the site. Given the location of the project, heavy traffic will be an issue. Also, if a spill or truck accident occurs on W. Balboa Blvd. it could cause an extreme impact. The project site is quite a distance from the branching (alternative route) at W. Superior. The section further states that "because of the limited duration of these activities.... the potential for hazard impact during these activities would be less than Ll significant". A detailed time table for dredging, truck staging, barges (if needed) and traffic management should be prepared and submitted before work begins. Referring to the operational marina (pg 5.6-8) the DEIR states that "In addition, operation of limited -stay...... vessels to stay in the marina for up to 30 days. ...the marina would not include maintenance areas, vehicle boat wash areas, or fueling". How, then will these boats dispose of the waste accumulated over the course of their stay? This is indeed a hazardous consequence of the construction of this project Cumulative (pg 5.6-8)-The DEIR states that "Impacts associated with project demolition.... project could contribute to significant cumulative hazard...... related to asbestos and lead -based paint". Will they not be required to hire specialists to remove asbestos and lead paint before general demolition as is the case in all other construction projects? Impact 5.6-G (pg 5.6-13) states that "the project will not constrict access ... the onsite circulation system..." No onsite circulation system is included in the document and therefore, cannot be evaluated. Considering the location of the project, it is difficult to imagine that it will not seriously impact off -site circulation as well, especially traffic trying to leave the area. 5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality Please provide stormwater runoff and drainage project analyses. Grease — Mitigation Measures (pg 5.7-7) How will pollutants not easily seen, like oil or grease, be handled? Page 5.7.11 Project -Specific Analysis (pg 5.7-11, bottom of the second paragraph) Use California native and California friendly plants for landscape management in the proposed vegetative bioswales and landscape biocells. APPENDIX H: DRAINAGE AND WATER QUALITY INFORMATION Page 7: Specific Industrials/Commercial Details Third box down and to the right- Does the parking analysis include a restaurant? Of what size? Page 16: Source Controls BMPs N15 Second box from bottom on the right- Shouldn't the streets and parking lots be cleaned once a week and not quarterly as planned? Page 26 Will there be a wash down facility for small and large sailing boats? How will contaminated wastewater from this operation be controlled? TC-32 Bioretention Table one This data is based on work done 10-15 years ago. Is more recent data available? 5.8 Land Use and Planning In the Executive Summary, Impact 5.8-13 and in Section 5.8.4 the DEIR states that "the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the General Plan, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Program or Zoning Ordinance)..." However, the DEIR states that the project is located within the 35 foot Shoreline Height Limitation Zone addressed under Chapter 4 of the CLUP, a component of the Local Coastal Program. In addition, the DEIR states that the project may require a Use Permit to allow the Community and Sailing buildings to exceed the base height limit of 35 feet and a Modification Permit to allow structures located on the site to exceed the 35 foot height limit per the zoning code. The language should be revised in the Executive Summary and Section 5.8.4 to reflect these possible measures that could be required, and remove the language stating that "the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation...". 5.10 Public Services Impact 5.10-D (pg. 5.10-6) deals with beneficial aspects of the proposed project with respect to overall increase in parkland. However, the DEIR does -not deal with the negative consequences of elimination of 2 public tennis courts in an area where other public tennis courts are miles away. Elimination of these 2 courts is in direct contradiction to the assertion made on page 1-14 that the "proposed project will include new and expanded versions of all existing recreation facilities now found within the existing site." Is there any evidence to show that these courts are not needed or underutilized? In addition, the project plan requires demolition of the existing tennis courts and an adjacent Tot Lot, both of which are actively utilized and unique to the adjacent community. Since their loss during the project development phase would negatively affect the community and visiting users, it would be helpful to have a mitigation measure showing that the tennis courts and Tot Lot would be replaced and available prior to demolition of the existing facilities. Would the project increase the need for lifeguard services, especially with the Tot Lot located close to the beach? 5.1-1 Transportation and Traffic Page 5.11-1. Section 5.11.2 —First sentence calls fbT 19a` Street, but the map on Exhibit 5.11-1 is showing 18`h Street. Which is correct? Page 5.11-7. Table 5.11-3: Net new trip number shows 352; however, on page 5.11.8 (at the top) it shows a net increase number of 477. Please explain the difference. Page 5.11-12. Project — Specific Analysis Section: Primary access to project can't be via 17" Street by looking at the map on Exhibit 3-3 Site Plan. What is the intended primary access to the project? Page 5.11-14. (third and fifth lines from the top)- Take out approximately 127 and approximately 26, but keep the hard 127 and 26 figures to agree with the total 153 parking places listed elsewhere in the DEIR. Do the current 21 parking spaces remain during the construction and when the project is completed? These spaces are located at the curb and the sand facing the bay, between 18`h & 19' Streets. Who is expected to use these spaces? What provisions will be implemented to assure that ocean beach users will not consume parking spaces meant for Marina Park users? It is likely that, during the construction phase of the project, the residents, businesses and visitors to the Peninsula will face a lot of congestion. A rigorous traffic management plan with strict enforcement should be implemented to assure that the traffic analysis is upheld and that construction will be limited to weekdays only during summer and holiday periods. Will the project include provisions for a public launch ramp for small shallow boats? Will the existing facilities at 150' and 18a' Streets remain? 7.Other CEQA Considerations Significant data concerning cumulative impacts are missing, and thus revisions/amendments to the DEIR are required. The DEIR states, that "Cumulative impacts are defined as impacts created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of - an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." (See 4.2 Related Projects on page 4-1) Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the DEIR included a list of related projects obtained from the City of Newport Beach, dated September 2008 (See Table 4-1, page 4-5). • 0 The Table of related projects fails to include three large current and probable projects: Sunset Ridge, Aerie, and Banning Ranch. All such projects are in the immediate area. In fact, they are closer to the proposed Marina Park development than are several of the projects in the City's list. Thus, the cumulative impact analyses in this EIR lack crucial data. The analyses are dangerously inaccurate without such data. The EIR should be amended to include accurate analyses that consider these missing related projects. This should be a concern for the accuracy of all impacts of the Marina Park project. Lastly, more data/information is needed concerning the environmental impacts of the project alternatives. Though CEQA guidelines do not require a DEIR's discussion of project alternatives to be as extensive as the analyses for the proposed project, the sparse discussion of the "Reduced Marina Alternative" provides no meaningful data for comparison and consideration. (See 6.3 "Reduced Marina Alternative," page 6-3). CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802.4302 (562) 590.5071 1 a I 2 , April 11• Rosalinh Ling, Associate Planner RECENE 6Y City of Newport Beach PWR REC IVEQ BY��IVT Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 APR 14 2009 Re: Marina Park Project 0°ITTO� FtB��j)j{6�oki BEACH Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2008051096) `!�s ��V- 1Y vs�rVfS bIl Dear Ms. Ling, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project will consist of construction of the Balboa Center Complex consisting of a Multi -Purpose Building and Sailing Program Building, a Girl Scout House, a marine services building, parking areas, a park, beach and marina basin on an existing public beach fronting (along Newport Bay) parcel that currently supports 57 mobile homes, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the City of Newport Beach Community Center, a 21-stall metered parking lot, Las Arenas Park, a Southern California Edison parcel, Veteran's Park, an alley, a sidewalk, the 19th Street public restroom, a beach, and a portion of Newport Bay. The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed project raises issues related to dredge and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, water quality, hazards, biology, public access, visual impacts and consistency with the City of Newport Beach Land Use Plan (LUP). Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. WETLANDS Dredging and Fill Based on the Draft EIR, the project site includes approximately 1.20 acres of intertidal coastal wetland and approximately 0.10 acres of subtidal coastal wetland. Also, the project includes approximately 62,000 cubic yards of dredging and states that a total of eight (8) preliminary candidates have been identified as potential sand disposal locations (The Draft EIR fails to indicate the final chosen site). In addition, the project will result in the onsite loss of 0.9 acres of supra -tidal (terrestrial) non -marine habitat and 0.66 acres of sandy intertidal habitat for the onsite creation of 1.56 acres of shallow water habitat. The loss of 0.66 acres of sandy habitat • Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 2 of 7 would become shallow water habitat. Also, the proposed project will result in the depth modification of 0.1 aces of onsite shallow water habitat and 0.72 acre of offsite shallow water habitat. The proposed project would result in the dredging and fill of open coastal waters/wetlands. Section 30108.2 of the Coastal Act defines "Fill" as the placement of earth or any other substance or material placed in a submerged area. Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the dredging and fill of wetlands and open coastal waters to seven uses and it appears that the proposed project does result in both "Dredging" and "Fill" of open coastal waters. Projects that propose the dredging and fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed dredging and fill would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Also, clarification should be made on whether or not the delineation of wetlands and coastal waters was based on Coastal Act standards or another agency's (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers) standard. If the habitat delineation and calculation of fill was not determined by Coastal Act definitions, then a revised biological analysis regarding the proposed fill should be conducted using the Coastal Act definitions. The City's Coastal Land Use Plan contains more description about wetland delineation procedures for Coastal Act purposes. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. Typically, the Commission prefers on -site mitigation to off -site mitigation. The Commission typically requires that mitigation be done at a 4:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant must be fully responsible for undertaking the mitigation. In this way, the Commission is assured that the mitigation will occur and it is clear who is responsible for undertaking and managing the mitigation. The EIR should discuss the mitigation that would be proposed. However, every effort should be made to choose an alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging, preferably avoiding coastal water/wetland impacts. Sand Compatibility Report As stated previously, the project includes dredging and the deposition of sand upon eight (8) potential sand disposal locations. These sand disposal locations were not identified, nor was the final disposal location identified. Staff assumes that a potential location would be the public beach found on the project site. Thus, please first identify this location and then provide a sand compatibility report for this location. Please also have the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review the beach sampling to characterize the existing grain for compatibility with the borrow source material. MARINA The proposed marina will require construction of a new groin wall and bulkhead walls. This raises concerns regarding fill of open coastal waters/wetlands, effect on sand supply and coastal erosion. Is a new marina necessary at this location? In the Draft EIR, one of the identified project alternatives is "The No Marina Alternative." The document states that implementation of this alternative would eliminate the potential significant impacts on sandy Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 3 of 7 intertidal habitat; as well as, the long-term water quality impacts associated with flushing of the proposed marina (to be discussed later). However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. While staff has serious concerns with the proposed marina, further information regarding the proposed marina is still necessary if you wish to proceed with the project as submitted: Groin Wall The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will be enclosed by a cement groin and include eighteen (18) pilings that will create hard bottom habitat. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that groin walls must be permitted in certain specified conditions. The Commission is concerned that this type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. Additionally, Section 30233 of the Coastal Act limits the filling of coastal waters to seven allowable uses and requires that the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative is chosen and that feasible mitigation measures be provided to minimize adverse environmental effects. Sections 30230 and 30231 of the Coastal Act mandate that the quality of coastal waters and biological productivity be maintained. Projects that propose the fill of wetlands and/or coastal waters, must demonstrate that the proposed impact would be allowable under the Coastal Act. If allowable the project must then provide adequate mitigation, preferably on -site. The EIR should include an analysis documenting how the proposed fill for the groin wall would qualify as allowable under the Coastal Act. Should the proposed fill qualify as an allowable use, mitigation would be required for the loss of any wetlands and open coastal waters. The EIR should include a mitigation plan, which specifically identifies how the mitigation will be accomplished, and the alternatives evaluated in developing the mitigation plan. The document does not provide any studies that substantiate the need for the groin wall nor does it provide information on how it may impact coastal shoreline processes. Due to this, an engineering analysis prepared by a qualified engineering professional with expertise in coastal processes is required. Specifically, staff will need an evaluation of the proposed project's impact on sand supply, erosion rates, and adjoining property and determination. Also, an evaluation of whether the proposed project will require monitoring to assure that shoreline processes are not adversely impacted is required. In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the groin wall. Another possible alternative could be construction of the marina without the groin wall. Bulkhead The Draft EIR states that the proposed marina will include new bulkheads. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act mandates that new bulkheads may only be constructed under specific circumstances, such as to protect existing structures. The Commission is concerned that this Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 4 of 7 type of development can have an adverse impact on shoreline processes, could cause erosion, and could have adverse impacts on coastal access and recreation. The materials submitted with your application do not substantiate the need to construct new bulkheads. Thus, please provide a study prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (i.e. engineer with expertise in coastal processes), which substantiates the need to construct new bulkheads. At minimum, the study must answer the following questions: Why must the proposed bulkheads be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads mitigate the circumstances, which requires the bulkheads to be constructed?; How will the proposed bulkheads affect coastal processes, including impacts upon shoreline sand supply?; Will the proposed bulkheads be connected to any existing bulkheads located adjacent to the project site? In addition, an alternatives analysis should be prepared documenting alternatives to the proposed project and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and potential mitigation measure to minimize adverse environmental effects. A possible alternative would be eliminating the construction of the marina, thus not requiring the bulkheads. Please reference the attached memorandum titled Applicants for Shorefront Development. Water Quality The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has identified Lower Newport Bay as an impaired water body. As stated in the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed marina would create a condition where there would be inadequate tidal flushing within the proposed marina and thus contribute to the impaired water body since long-term water quality within the proposed marina will be governed by its flushing capacity. Also stated in the Draft ER, a water quality analyses was conducted that indicated that tidal flushing rates would be poor and that flushing capacities are well below the EPA guideline. It states that inadequate tidal flushing in the marina basin would result in lowered dissolved oxygen levels, higher water temperatures, poor water transparency, potential eutrophication, and increased sedimentation. In addition, poor tidal flushing would also exacerbate water quality issues in this region of the bay since the tidal flushing rate in this part of the harbor is already poor outside the proposed marina in front of the swimming beach and the American Legion Post 291 Marina. Poor tidal flushing within the marina would result in a significant, long-term impact on Newport harbor water quality and would severely limit the colonization of marina habitats by plants, invertebrates, and fish. In order to deal with the adverse long-term water quality impacts due to poor tidal conditions, a mitigation measure consisting of installing mechanical devices within the marina basin design to enhance the movement and mixing of water within the basin has been proposed. One of the identified project alternatives in the Draft EIR is "The No Marina Alternative." The Draft EIR states that implementation of this alternative would eliminate the long-term water quality impacts associated with flushing of the project marina. However, this alternative was not chosen. Please justify this decision and why the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Sl p The vessel marina is proposed to include 23 slips with full hook-ups for short-term overnight use (up to 30 days): 21 slips, 40-feet in length; and 2 slips, 57-feet in length. In addition, a 200-foot long dock will be provided along the outside edge of the marina. Also, a floating dock structure to support additional dinghy types of craft is proposed. What are the provisions for boats under Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 5 of 7 40-feet to dock in this marina? In addition, how many spaces are available for boats under 30- feet? Additionally, the Draft EIR states that .59 spaces per berth will be used to park the marina. How was this parking standard determined? HAZARDS The proposed project includes development on a sandy beach adjacent to open coastal waters/wetlands. This type of development can be subject to wave hazards, flooding and erosion. When new development is not appropriately sited and designed, property owners often seek some type of shoreline protective device to protect the property from such hazards. While shoreline protective devices afford some protection to the structures behind them, these protective devices can also cause erosion hazards elsewhere and often have adverse visual impacts. Section 30253 of the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard and assure stability and structural integrity, and neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs. Accordingly, the Coastal Act requires that new development minimize exposure to hazards from erosion, wave attack, wave run-up, flooding, and other coastal hazards. In order to evaluate whether the project minimizes exposure to such hazards, the Commission will need a hazards analysis of site, prepared by an appropriately licensed professional (normally a licensed civil or geotechnical engineer with expertise in coastal processes). The analysis should cover whether the site and the proposed development could be subject to erosion, wave attack or wave run-up, the frequency of occurrence, consequences and options for siting or designing the project to avoid or minimize impacts over the life of the structure. Structural life is normally "taken to be 75 to 100 years. This hazards analysis should consider initially future shoreline changes due to erosion, sea level rise, up and down coast structures, changes in nourishment projects, and any other factors that currently influence shoreline conditions at your project site. This analysis would be developed from historic records, examination of aerial photographs, beach surveys, published studies of shoreline change, anecdotal information, site visits and other information and knowledge that the professional can bring to the project. The most landward shoreline position should be used to determine hazard from wave attack, wave run-up and flooding. The design wave conditions for this part of the analysis can be based on historic or wave modeling, including future increases in water level due to sea level rise. For much of the coast, the 1982/83 or 1988 storms were the 100-year event, and these too can be used for design conditions, with adjustments for future changes in sea level. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether future storms may erode the site or flood or damage the proposed project. If so, the analysis should provide some information on the probability or frequency of erosion, flooding and damage. Alternative siting or design options should also be considered that would avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse effects. Please be sure the analysis includes site specific details (e.g. maps) showing the seasonal location of the mean high tide line and with both winter and summer profiles with respect to the proposed development and the anticipated inland reach of erosion, wave run-up, and flooding over the life of the structure. In addition, the analysis must make a definitive determination as to whether there is any anticipated need for a shoreline protective device over the life of the • Draft Environmental Impact Report Marina Park Project Page 6 of 7 proposed development. The analysis must also provide recommendations for the avoidance or minimization of hazards, if any, at the site. - rOXOTrl1 The Draft EIR states that the project site contains several ornamental trees and shrubs that provide marginally suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds. The document also states that the California Least Tern does not breed or nest near the project site (the nearest California Least Tern nesting site is 2.5 miles west of the site) and that the Brown Pelican does not breed locally. While it appears that these two birds do not breed at the project site, what about other avian species? To determine this, please provide a history of nesting on the site by birds for the last 5-years. PUBLIC ACCESS American Legion The Draft EIR states that public access to the project site will be via West Balboa Boulevard at 16th Street, and secondary access will be via 15`h Street. Public access to the beach will be provided by walkways within the proposed park as well as an access provided along the western side of the proposed marina. Furthermore, 181h and 19'h Street will continue to provide access to the public beach onsite. Adjacent to the project site and imbedded within the project site is the public tidelands leased to the American Legion. Public access along the waterfront through the area leased by the American Legion is not currently available. In order to provide continuous access to and along the bay, as currently proposed elsewhere in the project site, there should be access to and along the bay through the American Legion site. This would result in a continuous access to the bay along the bay from the western edge of the project site at 19'h Street to eastern edge of the project site at 15`h Street. Parkin The Draft EIR states that due to the site's close proximity to the beach, it is important that the proposed onsite parking spaces provide adequate parking for the users of the proposed Marina Park facilities. Furthermore, it states that the proposed on -site parking lots are intended for the project only and are not intended to provide additional beach parking. Please clarify this statement as a public bay -front beach is adjacent and part of the proposed project. Public access is an essential part of the Coastal Act and any adverse impact to access to the beach raises concerns. VISUAL IMPACTS The project site is located within the Shoreline Height Limitation zone, which establishes a maximum height limit of 35-feet. The main buildings proposed on the project site are within the 35-foot height limit. However, the sail feature on the Balboa Center Complex will exceed the shoreline height limitation with a height of 35-feet, 6-inches and the Lighthouse will exceed it with a height of 73-feet. The City's Zoning Code provides for exceptions to this height limit, including vertical architectural features, such as towers, spires, cupolas and steeples. However, the proposed height of"the Lighthouse seems to be excessive as it will exceed the height limit by • Draft Environmental Impact Report • Marina Park Project Page 7 of 7 38-feet, more than double the allowable height. The height of such a structure would impact coastal views. The Draft EIR justifies the height of the structure since the width of the lighthouse ranges from 18-feet at the Sailing Center roof (the width of the lighthouse at the base was not stated) to 8-feet at the top of the lighthouse and since 930-linear feet of waterfront area will be opened up with the project. Nevertheless, the height of such a structure would adversely impact public views as no other structure in the area would be close to this proposed height. It may also set an adverse precedent. Thus, please provide alternatives to the proposed Lighthouse that would not have such an adverse impact on public views, such as staying within the allowable height limit, and justify your choice of the alternative that would be the least environmentally damaging alternative. LAND USE The Sailing Program Building is planned to include a cafe, serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner daily. Seating will be provided for 56 customers (32 inside and 24 outside). Will this restaurant be an ancillary use to the facilities proposed on site or will it serve as a destination restaurant? Is adequate parking included for this component? OTHER AGENCY APPROVAL The Commission's regulations require that you submit evidence of review and approval of the proposed project from all local and state agencies for which a review and approval is required. If impacts to biological resources are occurring, a review and approval is typically required from the USFWS and/or the CDF&G. Evidence of these agencies review and approval (or verifications that no review is necessary) will need to be submitted with your application for a coastal permit. Please also provide review of the project by the SLC. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. 'Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is submitted for a coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562-590-5071 with any questions. tll Attachments: Applicants for Shorefront Development Cc: State Clearinghouse STATE Of CALW*RNIA-W RESOURCES AGENCY ►ETE WILSON Oww+r CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 'AN AANCISCO. CA 94105-221P IOI@ AND TW (415) 9"nW t December 13, 1993 Tot Applicants for shorefront development yams Commission staff SU=CT: Information needed before your application can be tiled To ensurs that applicants have the legal ability to go forward with projects on or in close proximity to sovereign (i.e., state tide and submerged) lands or navigable waters (i.e., appear to be within the area encompassed by the C40MMissions •red lingo* sups), the Coastal Commission must have a written determination from the State Lands Commission whether it asserts that a ' development either encroaches onto lands seaward of the Kean High Tide Line OaM) or onto lands where the public easement in navigable water may exist. If such encroachments do occur, evidence must also be provided that the state Lands Commission has approved such encroachments. The Coastal Commission has also become increasingly concerned about the effect on beaches of seawalls and other shore and bluff protective devices. Because protective devices may cause erosion, and may Cover beach areas, public use and access along the shoreline can be adversely affected. Preventing or mitigating such loss of access and recreational opportunities is a principal responsibility of the Coastal Commission. The Commission is also concerned about shoreline issues such as impact of projects on adjacent properties, visual impacts of protective works, and allowing protective devices only if adverse affects are eliminated or sufficiently mitigated. Thus, the Commission requires detailed technical information regarding the proposed projsct's likely impact on the beaches and tidelands. To assist the Commission staff in filing and processing an application for a development which is on or in close proximity to tidelands or navigable waters, please provide the following information: For a project that falls within the area delineated in the Commission's 'redline maps,' an application cannot be filed until the SLC determines whether it asserts that the development ancroaches onto sovereign lands. A.datermination will also be required from the SLC whether it asserts that the development intrudes into an area covered by the public easement in navigable waters. It is the applicant's burden to establish that there is no encroachment. The SLC charges a fee for making this *The *red line" corresponds to the "retained jurisdiction" line on post certification maps and on draft "post cart" maps available in the Commission's -441--- • -2- determination, not to exceed its actual cost. Applicants should contact,-..,, the State Lands Commission's Coastal Development Project Coordinator, 1807 13th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 323-2694, for information on procedures and costs for obtaining boundary determinations. coasta� developmen permit apcLi�■*r„- .,.___� �_ ,_ _ � aY , Plans for shoreline projects must be prepared or certified by a registered professional engineer with expertise in shoreline processes. Normally, this means a civil engineer or engineering geologist. an occasion, this can be a structural engineer or soils engineer if he/she has experience in coastal engineering. The submitted plans for all projects Should show the project footprint in relation to the applicants property boundaries. The plans should also show the locations of all xHTLS identified through surveys and the location of any boundaries in the immediate project vicinity to which the State Lands Commission has agreed. If the project extends onto an adjoining property, the applicant must show a legal right to use the adjoining property, and the adjoining owner must be invited to apply as a co -applicant. 3. Information needs for protective works In the case of shoreline protective works benchmark should be shown on the plans and Mtabrlihhhd on theesite for, future Project maintenance and monitor relation to the standard of Nm (National Geodet. This ic Veerttical Datum)k should • ih map showing beach contours at 1 foot intervals should also be provided. Construction access should be identified with any special considerations noted. A gectechnical report must be prepared by a registered professional engineer or engineering geologist for all shoreline protective works. For small projects (for example, adding some $00 cu. yda. of rock to an existing rip -rap wall above the toe and the beach) a short letter report may be acceptable. If a prior thorough investigation has been done, only an update may be necessary. For most shoreline projects, however, a full report that is prepared according to the standards set by the Division of ?tines and Geology, (see Note 044, Guidelines for Preparing ingineering Geology Reports, copy available upon request) will be required. other information needed for protective works include the following: * D^sign wave height and design constraints, and methodology used for such calculations -182- 0 -3- ' Maximwa expacted wave height • Frequency of overtopping and verification that the structure is designed to withstand storms comparable to the winter storms of 1982-83 • Normal and Maximum tidal ranges • grosion rate with/without protection device ' iff!ct of structure on adjoining property • Potential for, and effect of, scouring at base • Design lize of structure and maintenance requirements • Quantification of loss of sand to the beach because of the amount of the armoring of a bluff face • alternatives to the project and to the chosen design. Project alternatives include, but are not limited to: no project, reloeation•of the threatened structure, beach nourishment, etc. • Bffsat of structure upon public access to and along adjacent public tidelands • Locations of any required staging areas and the technique of construction ' In some cases, provision of a monitoring program for the life of the Project will be required. Such a program 94buld evaluate the effectiveness of the structure, and the expected impacts of the structure on nearby beach areas (i.e-, change in beach profile), and Proposed methods for dealing with those impacts. Applicants should also be aware that due to the impacts of a protective device on beaches, the Commission may require some type of mitigation if adverse impacts are expected. One typical type of mitigation condition is a requirement for an offer to dedicate a lateral public access easesant for that portion of the beach seaward of the approved protective device. But there may be other mitigation requirements such as contribution- to progr*ms that provide for nourishment of beaches. If you have any questions about the Content of this informational memo, or the Commission procedures 'in general, please don't hesitate to contact your nearest Coastal Commission office. 5048A/vam California Regional Water Quality Control Board v Santa Ana Region (a Linda S. Adams 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348 Arnold Schvvarzene Phone (951) 782-4130 • FAX (951) 781.6288 • TDD (951) 782-3221 ggcr Secretaryfor www.waterboards.ca.gov/santama Governor Environmental Protection RECEIVED BY p�Rjr,r,..�•�,,, ,r,r.1E�lT April 17, 2009 Rosalinh Ung APR 201009 City of Newport Beach , q,--,....,_� pn 3300 Newport Boulevard Clf u_r iva �l'ki ,} Newport Beach, CA 92658 _ra6H DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MARINA PARK, BALBOA PENINSULA, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, SCH# 2008061096 Dear Ms. Ung: Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (Regional Board) have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Marina Park (Project), to be located in the City of Newport Beach 4City) between Balboa Boulevard and Lower Newport Bay (Bay), and between 15 h and 18th Streets. Regional Board staff commented (June 15, 2004 letter) when this recreational facility project was proposed as "Marinapark Resort" and included subterranean parking and a hotel. The 10.45-acre Project (p.2-1, DEIR Exhibit 3-3) includes a 1.67-acre-marina basin dredged into the existing 1-acre beach' to accommodate 23 slips and utility hook-ups for visiting vessels (up to 30-day terms). An existing mobile home park will be removed and replaced. Several recreational buildings (or revisions to existing ones) will be constructed, as will food service sites, a play area for children, restrooms, and outdoor sports courts/open space. We believe that the DEIR (including Appendix H, the Water Quality Management Plan or WQMP) shodld incorporate the following comments in order for the project to best protect water quality standards (water quality objectives and beneficial uses) contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Region 8 Basin Plan): Marina Dredging and 401 Certification There is no discussion on p. 3-10 of the method of initial dredging or maintenance dredging or, with the exception of sediment, of controlling water quality pollutants that may arise from these dredging activities. P. 5.7-7 states that a silt curtain will be placed within the Bay to contain suspended sediment, but there is no specific description or diagram indicating the curtain's intended position. For example, it has been our experience that silt curtains have been successfully deployed around an entire work site, and also when closely surrounding the dredge. Located immediately west of the existing American Legion Post 291 Marina, which is not part of the Project (Exhibit 3-3). California =nmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Ms. Rosilinh Ung 0 - 2 - April 17, 2009 2. Two errors on p. 5.7-7, regarding Basin Plan natural turbidity maximum increases, would be corrected by insertion of the objective itself: for 0-50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), 20 percent; for 50-100 NTU, 10 NTU (not a percentage); and for greater than 100 NTU, 10 percent. 3. The dredged spoils disposal site(s) are not indicated as anticipated on Exhibit 3-4 nor otherwise specified. The EIR should reflect that disposal locations and any monitoring program have been selected and will be cleared with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Coastal Commission. 4. The DEIR states that approximately 62,000 cubic yards will be dredged from 1.3 acres of combined subtidal/intertidal coastal wetland (plus a portion of beach) and that a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Standards Certification (Certification) will be required as a prerequisite to a Section 404 permit issued by the USACE. Mitigation measures for impacts to the water quality standards of these dredged areas should be proposed in EIR Table 2-1, MM 5.3-B.1., on p. 2-9 of the Executive Summary. Since this mitigation will be necessary to obtain Certification for the Project from the Regional Board, this office should be cited among the permitting agencies that must approve mitigation. Certification will require a baseline functional assessment of the wetlands impacted, conducted according to the California Rapid Assessment Manual or other appropriate protocol. Certifications will also require subsequent functional assessments of wetland mitigation areas and standardized reporting of assessment findings. Baseline assessments should be cited and summarized in the EIR and included as an appendix, and the need for subsequent assessments of the mitigation site(s) should be recognized. Because of this, early Certification consultation with our office is strongly encouraged. DEIR p.2-9 and 5.3-19 indicate that a loss of 0.66 acre of sandy intertidal habitat and 0.9 acre of terrestrial non -marine habitat would be offset by ultimate construction of the 1.67-acre marina, which would provide "an overall net gain of 0.9 acre" (0.11 acre?) of additional "wetland habitat (shallow water habitat)." P.5.3-19 recognizes "as significant" the conversion of this specified acreage of intertidal wetland to marina -bottom. Given the Clean Water Act's directive that no net loss of wetlands occur, we do not consider that the Project, as proposed, provides a net gain of wetlands or will replace the ecological functionality (cyclical aeration and saturation) of the lost intertidal/beach area and its water quality standards (beneficial uses)2. Total Maximum Daily Loads 6. The DEIR recognizes (p.5.7-2) that San Diego Creek and Upper/Lower Newport Bay have been listed, pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d), as impaired by various pollutants and have had various Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) adopted. The following group of adopted and anticipated TMDLs should be incorporated into the EIR: Applicable beneficial uses for Lower Newport Bay: Marine Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, or Water Contact Recreation, or Non -Contact Water Recreation. California En*onmental Protection Agency ■ Recycled Paper Ms. Rosilinh Ung • - 3 - • April 17, 2009 Siltation (sediments) and nutrient TMDLs for Lower Newport Bay, Upper Newport Bay, San Diego Creek Reach 1, and San Diego Creek Reach 2 (see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water issues/programs/tmdl/index.shtml ) A fecal coliform (pathogen) TMDL has been adopted for Lower Newport Bay and Upper Newport Bay. A diazinon/chlorpyrifos pesticide TMDL has been adopted for Upper Newport Bay and San Diego Creek, Reach 1. TMDLs for toxic pollutants, including selenium, were promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June 2002. Future TMDLs are anticipated for selenium and metals (Lower and Upper Newport Bay), selenium and fecal coliform (San Diego Creek Reach 1), and specified metals (San Diego Creek Reach 2). TMDLs for organochlorine compounds (particularly DDT, chlordane, and PCBs) are anticipated for all four of these water bodies (as well as Newport Bay's Rhine Channel), with toxaphene also targeted in San Diego Creek Reaches 1 and 2. BMPs proposed by the Project that will contribute to compliance with TMDLs specific to Lower Newport Bay should be identified in the project's WQMP and remaining EIR. Dewatering Permitting 7. To augment basic DEIR references to the Regional Board's dewatering permit (p.3- 17, where groundwater dewatering is necessary for projects that discharge into storm drains and natural drainages of the San Diego Creek watershed (including Lower Newport Bay), these discharges require coverage under Order No. R8-2004- 0021 (amended by R8-2006-0065), NPDES No. CAG998002, "General Waste Discharge Requirements for Short -Term Groundwater -Related Discharges and De Minimus Wastewater Discharges to Surface Waters Within the San Diego Creek/Newport Bay Watershed." This general permit establishes a waste discharge management program applicable to the project area, for the purpose of reducing selenium, sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants. This permit is available at: Contact this office's Permitting Section staff at (951) 782-4130 for information. Stormwater Permitting The following comments pertain to the DEIR's discussion of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), the Marina Park Coastal Engineering Study, stormwater discharge. permitting, and the implementation of the WQMP required by Waste Discharge Requirements for Orange County (NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, Order No. R8-2002-0010, Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Permit for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region," also known as the Orange County municipal separate storm sewer system, or "Orange County MS4," permit: California En*onmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper Ms. Rosilinh Ung 0 -4- 411 April 17, 2009 The Orange County MS4 permit is currently undergoing revision, and adoption of a revised permit is expected this calendar year. The EIR should reflect that construction and operation of the project may be affected by new requirements included in the revised MS4 permit. Information concerning revision of the Orange County MS4 permit is on this office's web site. The State Water Resources Control Board's Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ, "General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity" is currently under revision. Information regarding the draft general permit may be found at hftp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater The DEIR prescribes three primary Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater capture and treatment within the Project: pervious pavement, landscaped biocells, and one bioswale. Locations of the latter two BMPs should be shown on Exhibit 3-3. Hydrodynamic separator units are mentioned among potential treatment control BMPs considered but are not chosen for the Project. Since trash and litter originating in inland waters and found on coastal beaches is becoming increasingly problematic, treatment controls that capture litter in storm water runoff originating on or passing through the site should be considered for the project, incorporated into the project's WQMP as appropriate, and reported in the EIR. The EIR must include discussions regarding how the proposed marina facilities will be designed and operated to prevent the discharge of non -point source pollutants from moored vessels into Newport Bay. If you have any questions, please contact Glenn Robertson at (951) 782-3259, arobertsonawaterboards.ca.gov, or me at (951) 782-3234, or madelson cDwaterboards.ca.gov Sincerely, Mark G. Adelson, Chief Regional Planning Programs Section Cc: State Clearinghouse U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles — Stephanie Hall California Coastal Commission - Fernie Sy California Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos office - Erinn Wilson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad —William Milller X:Groberts on Magnolia/Data/CEOAICEQA Responses/ DEIR- City of Newport Beach- Marina Park-Revised2009.doc California 54Wmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper DEPARTMENT OF TI District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 724-2267 Fax: (949) 724-2592 March 19, 2009 Mr. Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Subject: Marina Park Dear Ms. Ung, BY t PLANNII,Y! nrYI RTMBNT „ Flexyonrpotver! MARg �t 3 Be energy efJ11ctend ` y File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: 2008051096 Log #: 2071A PCH, SR-55 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Marina Park Project. The public park will provide for passive and active areas. The passive areas include an open lawn area and a water feature. The active areas will include a children's play area and basketballcourts. The public short-term visiting vessel marina is proposed to accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. The Balboa Center Complex (BCC) will include rooms for educational classes as well as community events. The BCC will have a restaurant situated on the second story and will include areas for marina rentals as well as room for sailing classes. There are two tennis courts proposed on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to 15a' Street. In addition, an existing bathroom on the public beach adjacent to 19th Street is proposed to be renovated or reconstructed but the size of the bathroom facility will remain the same. The nearest State route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway and SR 55. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity within the Department's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could -potentially, impact State transportation -facilities. If you have any questions -or need to contacF-us, please do not hesitate to call Daimon Davis at (949) 440-3487. Sincerely, !2L Chris Herre, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves ntobihty across Calironda" a*4 Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection April 3, 2009 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Maziar Movassaghi, Acting Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 Ms. Rosalinh Ling Associate Planner Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us Arnold Schwarzenegger REC9kD BY Governor PIAN010 DEPARTMENT APR 06 2003 b11Y®i NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MARINA PARK PROJECT (SCH # 2008051096), CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY Dear Ms. Ung: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above -mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: The Marina Park project (Marina Park) site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. Specifically, the project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula, alonBalboa Boulevard, south of a public beach and the Newport Bay, west of 15t Street and east of 18th Street. The proposed project includes the Multi -Purpose Building at the Balboa Center Complex, Sailing Program Building at the Balboa Center Complex, the Girl Scout House, marina services building, parking areas, park, beach, and a marina basin. Predominant land uses in the vicinity of the site are residential, recreational, and commercial. The existing site encompasses approximately 10.45 acres and is built up in nature with residential, community service center, public tennis courts, beach access, and surface parking lot uses." DTSC has the following comments: 1) The EIR should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the pertinent regulatory agencies: • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). Printed on Recycled Paper Ms. Rosalinh Ung • • April 3, 2009 Page 2 of 4 • Envirostor: A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, at Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov. • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances_ cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 2) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC can enter an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No. 11 below for more information. 3) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found should be clearly summarized in a table. 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by these agencies should be included in the EIR. Ms. Rosalinh Ung • • April 3, 2009 Page 3 of 4 5) If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally,• the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. 6) Project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed ,and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 7) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 9) If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 10)If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of the project. Ms. Rosalinh Ung April 3, 2009 Page 4 of 4 11)DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies which would not be responsible parties under CERCLA, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www.dtsc.ca.aov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, at rahmed(a)dtsc.ca.00v or by phone at (714) 484-5491. Sincere) , 0"'44;�r� Greg Holmes Unit Chief Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov. CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 nritter@dtsc.ca.gov CEQA#2514 RANGE COUNTY SANITATION90ISTRICT CA 8127 3% CA April 13, 2009 Rosalinh Ung City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 RECENED EY pW1j\1:N1j�=r f°::,as APR 13 2009 CITY 0� OWN _&rndrt4 -io MBAQ�fgj t SUBJECT: OCSD Comments to DRAFT Environmental Impact Report, Marina Park all The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is pleased to take the opportunity to Fox comment on the City of Newport Beach (City) Draft Environmental Impact Report 7356 (DEIR)-for-the Marina Park project. OCSD owns and operates the 15th Street Pump Station (Pump Station) adjacent to Irving the proposed Marina Park project, located at 1514 West Balboa Blvd. This Pump iheim Station serves the City wastewater needs of the peninsula south of the Marina Park Brea project. OCSD requires 24-hour access to this station for planned and unplanned .Park maintenance activities, and emergencies. The DEIR should address increased traffic through the 15'h Street and the alley parallel to Balboa Blvd. that could impact Valley ValleyOCSD's primary access point for this critical piece of infrastructure. Ulierton General DEIR Comments n Grove Reach OCSD is in agreement that the project will not adversely impact the OCSD sewer Irvine system. 3 Habra However, OCSD believes that the project could potentially restrict access to the v Palma current parking locations that OCSD has been using in the alley to access the Pump ilsmitos Station wet well, drywell, and electrical switchgear. Consequently, OCSD would like tBeach additional access to the pump station and parking from the west side of the pump Orange station. nto Ana OCSD is requesting that the City dedicate parking stalls 118 and 119 (as identified it Beach on the Proposed Development Plan Parcel Map) for joint -use parking for the City and Stanton OCSD. It is anticipated that the City will be dedicating a number of parking spots for Tustin its employees with City vehicles working at this new public facility. Dedicating these 711a Park two spaces would allow OCSD guaranteed access to parking for operations, maintenance and emergencies, on an as -needed basis at the Pump Station, and ie Linda would also accommodate the City's needs to provide additional dedicated parking for �s Mesa District its employees with City vehicles. way city District OCSD is also concerned about Homeland Security requirements in addition to 9 Rench general access needs for the Pump Station. District We protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling. Rosalinh Ung Page 2 April 13, 2009 The planning for the Marina Project area should ultimately accommodate an 8-foot block wall between the future Marina Park parking lot (now the SCE property) and the Pump Station to replace the existing chain link fencing between the Pump Station and the new Marina. This new wall should have an access gate from the parking lot to the Pump Station. Ideally a small portion of the SCE property adjacent to the Pump Station would be available to OCSD in the future for parking and odor control facilities. This would reduce the impact of OCSD maintenance vehicles on street or alleyway traffic during routine operation and maintenance activities. Increased public access and pedestrian traffic is expected near the Pump Station once the Marina Park facility is built. Both the City and the public could benefit from a state -of -the art odor control facility being installed adjacent to the Pump Station to mitigate odors generated in the City sewer system and pump stations serving the peninsula. OCSD staff is interested in continuing to discuss this issue in more detail. From recent OCSD staff communications with City Public Works staff, it is OCSD's understanding that SCE and the City are currently negotiating the sale of the SCE property adjacent to the Pump Station. Specific DER Comments On page 5.12-2 of the Marina Park DEIR, under the section called Wastewater Service, no mention is made of the existing OCSD 15`h Street Pump Station just to the south and east of the proposed Marina Park development site. On page 5.12-2 of the Marina Park DEIR, under the section called Wastewater Service, information regarding OCSD treatment capacity at Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach needs to be amended to accurately reflect the current design capacity of Plant No. 2 which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual influent flow numbers for FY 07/08 were 129 MGD at Plant Na. 2 — not 51 MGD as stated in -the DEIR. On page 5.12-9 of the Marina Park DEIR, under the section called Wastewater Treatment Capacity, this information also needs to be amended to accurately reflect the current design capacity of Plant No. 2 which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual influent flow numbers for FY 07108 were 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 — not 51 MGD as stated in the DEIR. On page 5.12.5 of the DER under the section called Wastewater Treatment, current excess design capacity (unused capacity based on average daily flows) at Treatment Plant No. 2 is listed as being 144 MGD. The actual number is 39 MGD. PA Rosalinh Ung Page 3 April 13, 2009 Please update your records to ensure that all future CEQA documentation and comments sent to the Orange County Sanitation District are sent to the attention of Patrick McNelly, Principal Staff Analyst. You may contact Patrick at (714) 593-7163, 'f h uestions i you ave any q !V James D. Herberg, P.E., BCEE Director of Engineering JDH:PMc:sa EDMS: 003887955/1.12a Attachment 3 uuuuuuu UUUUU) �3:z u 00 oz W W r U-z of ' J z co >- x Q x..W}� W U) J � Z W '% a eo C) Q �7o 7� Li U— �U _ 0oz0 o ° LU N LL b _a w W LL y _, , cc 0 IL a- Q r � ASP G C z LL ,r NO W DD _ (-pl9pq Marina Park Ung, Rosalinh From: McNally, Patrick [PMCNELLY@OCSD.COMj Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:26 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park DEIR Correction for OCSD Flow Numbers Attachments: OCSD Fact Sheet.pdf Rosalinh, Please review the attached information regarding OCSD Treatment Capacity at Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach so that the information in the referenced EIR (PA2008-040) accurately reflects the real capacity of Plant No. 2. Which is 168 MGD, not 172 MGD. The actual flow numbers for FY 07/08 were 129 MGD at Plant No. 2 — not 51 MGD. Please contact me if you have any questions. Patrick McNelly Principal Staff Analyst Orange County Sanitation District (714-593-7163) pmcnelly@ocsd.com 9 9 Miscellaneous Statistics General Information Year of Formation................................................1948 Miles of Sewers................................................. 568 miles Form of Government............ County Sanitation District On -Plant Pump Station...........................................1 Authority .................................... Section 4700 et seq. Off -Plant Pump Stations................................................16 ...................................California Health & Safety Code Operating Authority ............... RWQCB/NPDES Permit No. Service Area...........................................471 sq. miles............................................................CA0110604 Service Population ............... Approximately 2.5 million ..........................Statewide WDR Order No. 2006-0003 2007-08 Assessed Value ........................ $292.7 billion Authorized Staff (Full -Time Equivalent) ..................641.00 400 sea 200 100 Treatment Information Daily Influent Flow to Total Primary Capacity Comparison (in mgd) Plants Plant2 Total M2007.08 Est. Influent OCapaclty- Primary Treatment Primary Treatment Capacity (includes standby): Plant No. 1.......................................204 mgd Plant No. 2........................................168.mad TOTAL ............................... 372mad Secondary Treatment Capacity: Plant No. 1........................................110 mgd Plant No. 2........................................ 90 mod TOTAL2.0-0-imad Legend: mgd — million gallons per day kwh — kilowatts per hour 2006-07 Influent BOD Plant No. 1 .........................290 milligrams per liter Plant No. 2........................ 230 milligrams per liter 2006-07 Influent Suspended Solids: Plant No. 1......................... 273 milligrams per liter Plant No. 2......................... 270 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Effluent BOD...................... 48 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Effluent Suspended Solids..33 milligrams per liter 2006.07 Biosolids Beneficially Used .......231,480 wet tons 2007-08 Estimated Average Daily Influent: PlantNo. 1................................................. 92 mgd PlantNo. 2...............................................129 mad TOTAL...................................... 22Lm 2007-08 estimated Electricity Generated: Plant No. 1..... ............................... 36,624,000 kwh Plant No. 2................................... 57,888,000 kwh Financial Information 2006-07 Actual Fees and Charges: One -Time 3-Bedroom Residence Connection $4,360.00 Average Annual Single -Family Residence Fee $165.80 Districts Avg. Share of Ad Valorem Property Tax 1.80% Cost to Collect, Treat, & Dispose of 1 Million Gallons $1,268.38 Summarvof COP Issues September 1993 Refunding $26,900.000 August 2000 Refunding / New Money 196,600,000 August2003 New Money 191,500,000 March 2006 New Money 196,600,000 TOTAL ........................... 94 512 000 kwh 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Projected Proposed Proposed $4,517.00 $4,671.00 $182.00 $201.00 1.80% 1.80% $ 1,516.06 $ 1,654.98 May 2007A Refunding December2007B New Money May 2008A Refunding Total Outstanding COP Balance 7/1/08 Section 10 - Page 19 $4,834.00 $221.00 1.80% 1,738.13 $ 93,655,000 300,000,000 77,166,000 1,082,420,000 Ung, Rosalinh From: Eric.Chavez [Eric.Chavez@noaa.gov) Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:45 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Marina Park DEIR Attachments: Eric Chavez.vcf Hi Rosalinh, As we discussed over the phone, my questions regarding the DEIR are included below: 1. Can you clarify the acreages discussed on p. 41 of Appendix D? In particular, how was the "net loss in HAPC is 0.13 acre" determined? 2. Can you provide the size of the concrete pilings that will be used and any details on how they will be installed? 3. App. D (p. 42) acknowledges the potential for maintenance dredging required for long-term operation of the marina due to poor flushing. Is this still the case with the mechanical devices (propellers) installed? 4. What sort of long-term monitoring/maintenance is anticipated to ensure the propellers continue to function properly? 5. Finally, can you point me to MM 5.3-A.2, mentioned under Biological Resources after MM 5.3-A.1? I can't seem to find it. Thanks in advance, Eric 1 k. f ,+ • y o-4,,SNT O C'%'' • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration y� F� NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 44LMNED OSrA„s Of Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 APR 13 2009 RECEIVED BY PLANIva., i Tknil1.NT Rosalinh Ung Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Ms. Ung: APR 1oNU MOw �'INA1 itA�H .sz m al Q -6 bl R�^� 'e_e'go NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the City of Newport Beach Planning Department's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Marina Park Project to redevelop approximately 10.45 acres into a public park area for various uses; including a new public short-term visiting vessel marina, in the southwestern portion of the City of Newport Beach on the Balboa Peninsula in Orange County, California. NMFS offers the following comments pursuant to the essential fish habitat (EFH) provisions of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Given that the proposed activity will likely require a federal permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NMFS is providing comments on the DEIR in anticipation of the EFH consultation process this permit would require. NMFS also intends to submit comments to the Corps pursuant to our responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). We believe that coordination between NMFS and the City of Newport Beach at this stage of project planning would facilitate a more effective and streamlined EFH and FWCA consultation process between the Corps and NMFS. NMFS is also providing comments on the DEIR given the proximity of this project to marine mammals in the area pursuant to our responsi iiit>es under the &IM'PA. Proposed Project The proposed project would involve the construction of a public short-term visiting vessel marina on the far northeast boundary of the site. The visiting vessel marina is proposed to include 23 slips with full utility hook-ups for shore power and water and accommodate visiting vessels for up to 30 days. Concrete floating docks will be used throughout the marina, and a 200-foot-long dock will be included along the outer edge. Construction of the marina will require landside excavation, accomplished by dozers, skip loaders, trucks and other small equipment; a groin wall mill also be built around the marina. Dredging of approximately 62,000 cubic yards of bayfloor sediments by either clam shell or hydraulic dredge to a depth of -12 MLLW will also be required. Finally, 18 ..Mfk W^ ,ME • 2 • concrete pilings will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks. The beach compatible material would be disposed of at one of eight potential sand disposal locations near the project site. Action Area The proposed project occurs in EFH for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plans (FMPs). In addition, the project occurs within estuarine habitat, and in the vicinity of seagrass habitats, which are considered habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagic Species FMP. HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH which are rare, particularly susceptible to human -induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded any additional regulatory protection under MSA; however, federally permitted projects with potential adverse impacts to HAPC will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. EFH Comments Based on information provided in the DEIR and the Marine Biological Impact Assessment prepared by Coastal Resources Management, Inc., NMFS believes that the proposed action would adversely affect EFH for various federally manages species within the Pacific Groundfish and Coastal Pelagics FMPs. Dredging, pile installation, and long- term operation of the marina constitute the main activities that would adversely affect EFH. The adverse effects of dredging on EFH may include: 1) direct removal/burial of organisms; 2) turbidity/siltation effects, including light attenuation from turbidity; 3) contaminant release and uptake, including nutrients, metals, and organics; 4) release of oxygen consuming substances; 5) entrainment; 6) noise disturbances; and 7) alteration to hydrodynamic regimes and physical habitat. The dredging would impact approximately 0.66 acres in Newport Harbor. Another potential project concern is the spread of the invasive alga Caulerpa taxifolia from project activities. As you may be aware, this alga has been introduced to our coastline. Evidence of harm that can ensue as a result of an uncontrolled spread of the alga has already been seen in the Mediterranean Sea where it has destroyed local ecosystems, impacted commercial fishing areas, and affected coastal navigation and recreational opportunities. Although it is not known to be present within Newport Harbor, it has been detected in* two other locations in Southern California. If the invasive alga is present within the project area, the dredging activities would adversely affect EFH by promoting its spread and increasing its negative ecosystem impacts. The disposal of dredge material in estuarine and/or nearshore habitats can cause adverse effects to EFH, including direct burial of marine organisms, turbidity, or alteration of 0 3 0 hydrodynamic regimes and physical habitat. Moreover, although the "Marine Biological Impact Assessment" concludes that the dredge material is suitable for beach disposal with regard to particle size and contaminant concentrations, it also refers to the well - documented presence of elevated levels of contaminants throughout Newport Bay, including nearby Rhine Channel. Therefore, in order to accurately assess any potential impacts from the disposal of this material, NMFS will require more detailed information regarding the disposal site. Specifically, the timing, location and depth of disposal, any sensitive habitats'nearby, and any measures for dealing with contaminated sediments should be described. Pile driving activities have the potential to adversely impact EFH through modification of the substrate, disturbance of benthic communities, slight increases in turbidity, and sound attenuation. The DEIR and associated Marine Biological Impact Assessment refer to the installation of concrete pilings, but there is no information provided regarding the diameter of these pilings or the installation method (aside from the statement "18 cement piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks"). Given the small project area and the lack of sensitive habitat, any adverse impacts to EFH associated with this activity are expected to be no more than minimal. However, the additional information listed above will be required to make this determination. Long-term operation of the marina would adversely affect EFH as a result of poor tidal flushing and the discharge of various pollutants associated with vessel and marina operation and maintenance. Insufficient tidal flushing would be detrimental to marine organisms by causing a decrease in dissolved oxygen levels and water transparency, and an increase in water temperature and sedimentation. It can also lead to eutrophication, a process in which excessive amounts of nutrients introduced into a system induce abundant growth of algae and other organisms, the decay of which depletes oxygen levels. The Marine Biological Impact Assessment states that maintenance dredging may also be required as a result of poor flushing; however, it is unclear how dredging would address this issue. Moreover, if implemented, any dredging would bring about the adverse effects discussed previously. Because the project site is already known to have poor tidal flushing (an approximate tidal flushing cycle of 30 days) and degraded water quality, any additional impacts would only exacerbate these issues. To address this concern, the proposed project includes a mitigation measure in which -mechanical -devices will be installed within the marina basin to enhance the movement and mixing of water to meet the EPA guidelines of adequate tidal flushing. One option includes the use of four propeller -type devices, or oloids, that have been shown to meet the EPA guidelines through modeling. Although NMFS is generally supportive of this mitigation measure, we would encourage the inclusion of additional information regarding the operation and maintenance of these devices. For instance, any potential for impingement and/or entrainment of marine organisms, eggs, and larvae associated with the oloids should be described. Also, methods -to avoid interactions with other marine life (e.g., enclosures or screens for the devices) should also be included. Finally, any information on maintenance of the devices and long-term water qualitymonitoring to ensure they continue to be effective would be useful and should be considered for inclusion in the Marina Management Plan. 0 4 Marinas are often associated with periodic discharges of various pollutants, including oils, greases, and other wastes, which negatively impact local marine life. Moreover, antifouling paints used on boat hulls release large amounts of copper, which affects growth, development, and reproduction of various marine organisms. If the additional boats moored at the newly constructed marina use copper -based antifouling paints, it will lead to an increase in copper concentrations (already at elevated levels in Newport Bay) at the project site. NMFS believes the use of non -toxic alternatives to copper -based anti- fouling hull paints should be included as an important component of the long-term operating plans for the marina (e.g., as a requirement in the Marina Management Plan). Information on non -toxic antifouling strategies can be found on the following University of California Sea Grant Extension Program website: httn://seagMM.ucdavis.edu/nontoxicdemo.htm Marine Mammal Protection Act Comments Marine mammals likely to be in the immediate project area are the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) and in rare cases, the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii). Sections in 3.5.2.2 of Appendix D and page 5.3.1.4 in the Biological Resources portion of the DEIR discuss the fact that sea lions will likely avoid activities and there is little chance for them to be harmed. Page 5.3-16 states that demolition and construction tasks for the project have aspects that could potentially affect Newport Harbor marine resources, including marine mammals. Specific comments are found below. Seals and sea lions are protected under the MMPA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq. Under the MMPA, it is generally illegal to "take" a marine mammal without prior authorization from NMFS. "Take" is defined as harassing, hunting, capturing, or killing, or attempting to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Except with respect to military readiness activities and certain scientific research conducted by, or on behalf of, the Federal Government, "harassment" is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal in the wild (Level A), or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B). Should the proposed activities cause take of a marine mammal, it may be necessary to obtain a permit under the MMPA from NMFS. The DEIR indicates that 18 cement piles will be driven into the sediments to secure the docks, but few details were given. The noise generated from pile -driving or other construction could affect marine mammals located within the vicinity of the project site, however, the DEIR did not provide information on underwater sound pressure levels associated with construction and operation, the timing, or the duration of the activity. NMFS recommends including detailed information on possible impacts to marine mammals from underwater sound in the final EIR including a detailed description of the proposed pile driving, including the type of pile driver, noise levels associated with the pile driving, and proximity to marine mammals in the area. 0 5 0 Dredging will involve the removal of bayfloor sediments by either a clam shell dredge or by hydraulic dredge for the purpose of providing necessary depths to accommodate vessels to depths of -12 ft MLLW. In addition, page 5.3-17, under the Marine Mammals section, discusses how California sea lions have a potential to be present during the dredging period, but dredging is expected to have a "less -than -significant impact" on individuals that may be in the general dredging vicinity. Further, the DEIR indicates that it is likely that individuals would avoid the dredging operation, and although individuals may be curious, there is a low potential for harm to an individual or the population within Newport Bay, as there are no records of sea lions being harmed by the Upper Newport Bay dredging operation or the transport of dredge material by barges and tugs through Newport Harbor. Sea lions may occasionally swim into the marina, but according to the DEIR, they are not expected to haul out if measures are taken to deter their presence. NMFS recommends including detailed information on why it is expected that dredging will not have an impact on transiting pinnipeds and also provide information on what types of deterrence measures are expected to be taken to prevent animals from hauling out in the marina in the final EIR. Harassment of marine mammals may occur if hauled animals flush the haul out site and/or move out of the immediate aquatic area to increase their distance from pile driving or dredging -related activities, such as noise associated with the dredging, pile driving, presence of workers, or unfamiliar activity in proximity to a haul out site. Percussive piles, such as an impact hammer or drop hammer, generally result in the greatest noise production when compared to other methods of pile installation. Although percussive pile driving does not produce a continuous noise, the high amplitude and repeated blows of the hammer every few seconds can affect ambient noise levels in the surrounding acoustic environment. The force used to drive a pile, or power setting of the hammer, pile type and diameter, and hardness of the substrate the pile is driven, are important factors in determining the amount of energy released into the surrounding waters. Because of the high amplitude and wide frequency spectrum of pile driving noise, many species can potentially be affected. The measured sound exposure levels of a clamshell dredge may range between 75-88 dBA (re 20 µPa) at 50 feet. Animals have been observed flushing from haul out sites at a sound exposure level of less than 100dBA, and it is possible that marine mammals may modify their behmior as a result of the noise produced by the pile driving and dredging operations. Sounds introduced into the sea by man-made devices could have a deleterious effect on marine mammals by causing stress or injury, interfering with communication and predator/prey detection, and changing behavior. Acoustic exposure to loud sounds, such as those produced by pile -driving activities, may result in a temporary or permanent loss of hearing (termed a temporary (TTS) or permanent (PTS) threshold shift) depending upon the location of the marine mammal in relation to the source of the sound. NMFS is currently in the process of determining safety criteria (i.e., guidelines) for marine species exposed to underwater sound. However, pending adoption of these guidelines we have preliminarily determined, based on past projects, consultations with experts, and published studies, that 180 dB re I µPaRms (190 dB re 1 µPaRms for pinnipeds) is the 6 impulse sound pressure level that can be received by marine mammals without injury. Marine mammals have shown behavioral changes when exposed to impulse sound pressure levels of 160 dB re 1 µPaRms. Studies have also shown that when exposed to the 90 dBA sound pressure level (the presumed cause) harbor seals flushed from the beach on San Nicholas Island, CA, but many returned to land within several hours (see 68 FR 52132 September 2, 2003). Mitigation measure, MM 5.3-A.1, includes a construction and post -construction marine biological mitigation monitoring plan that will include pre -construction, construction, and post -construction monitoring of the health of marine life at the project site and a final determination of areas impacted by the project. NMFS offers its expertise and assistance to the applicant in development of this mitigation plan. In addition, NMFS recommends that the applicant consider including a design feature, particularly to the low-lying docks on the water, to non-lethalry deter pinnipeds, specifically California sea lions, from hauling out. NMFS offers their expertise and assistance, should the applicant want to explore design modifications. Based on the information provided, NMFS is not able to make a determination, at this time, as to whether it may be necessary for the applicant to apply for an Incidental Harassment Authorization, under section 101 of the MMPA. Once the information is received, NMFS will be able to re-evaluate the potential take of marine mammals. Please note, that in the event of a construction vessel collision with a marine mammal, Mr. Joseph Cordaro, the NMFS Southwest Regional Office's Stranding Coordinator must be immediately contacted at 562-980-4017 and a report must be sent to the NMFS Southwest Regional Office. Thank you for consideration of our comments. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Chavez at (562) 980-4064 or EriC.ChaveZ6a waa.gov Sincerely, 141111 Robert S. Hoffman Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation Division TxoMAs R. Rossi June 2, 2009 Mr. Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Re: Marina Park EIR Comments/Concerns Dear Mr. Kiff: I recently met with Mr. Timothy D. Bundy, Architect and Mr. Mark Reader, P.E. & Project Manager Public Works Department regarding the above -referenced matter. Mr. Reader instructed me to lodge my written concerns with you. You may recall that I own the single family residence located at the corner of 18w Street & West Bay Avenue (1801 West Bay), and that I have grave concerns regarding the Girl Scout Building's ("Building") impact on my property. To restate my concerns we discussed in your office prior to my meeting with Mr. Bundy and Mr. Reader, and that I embodied in my written EIR comments as you directed me to do, I have observed and appreciate that great care has been given to ensuring the protection of view corridors, etc for the properties located on Balboa Blvd across the street from the Marina Park Project ("Project"). I believe that in some cases those views have even been substantially enhanced. 3419 Via Lido, Suite 641 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Ofc.949-675-5500 Fax 949-675-1400 www.RossiProperties.com My property above all others is very likely the most impacted by the proposed Building, and I believe that I am entitled to the same level of concern for my property by the City of Newport Beach and those involved with the design and implementation of the Project as has been given my Balboa Blvd neighbors. I have on several previous occasions made inquiry at Project Committee meetings, and expressed my grave concerns to the Project architects, my councilmen (more than one over the years) and others regarding my view, quiet enjoyment and property value being negatively impacted by any structure or other use situated near my property or in conflict with my panoramic view which currently includes harbor lights, the hills at and around Newport Center/Spyglass Hill, etc. Each time I inquired, I was informed that the Girl Scout Building would be a 'low profile" single -level structure for "Girl Scout only" events but that there was not yet any design that definitively described the actual height, size, type and exact placement of the subject building. I was further assured that my concerns would indeed be given appropriate and sensitive consideration as the Projects plans progressed. Much to my surprise, I have now determined that apparently the Building has a proposed roof height of twenty nine feet, with extensive horizontal massing as well. This will eliminate or substantially reduce the view my property currently enjoys by approximately eighty percent. This condition will cause extreme negative impact on my property value and is very unfair. In addition to view obstruction, my concerns regarding hours of operation, any rental or other use of the Girl Scout Building for private events such as parties or other non -Girl Scout -related activities remain unresolved. Obviously, any use that would place or generate additional parking/traffic burden (especially at early or late hours) close to my property would have additional substantial negative impact on it. I was assured by the Marina Park Planning Committee that non -Girl Scout -related activities would not be permitted, but I have no concrete evidence of such restrictions. If such use restrictions exist, I would appreciate written confirmation of same at your earliest convenience. I certainly hope my concerns will be timely addressed and remedied. Please let me know what the next step will be for us to resolve this matter in an equitable and fair manner. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to my concerns. I look forward to your written response. Y1 TI 101 0 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Walker Parking Consultants 2550 Hollywood Way, Suite 303 Burbank, CA 91505 Voice. 818.953.9130 Fax: 818.953.9331 www.walkerporking.com October 6, 2008 Anthony Brine, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Parking Management Recommendations — Marina Park Project Newport Beach, California Dear Mr. Brine, Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present this letter report covering the parking management alternatives for the Marina Park project on Balboa Peninsula. SUMMARY In discussing parking management issues with other community centers and sailing facilities in Southern California we have determined that parking management issues at similar facilities present unique and distinct challenges. We also determined that parking capacity issues at Marina Park are likely to occur during peak summer weekends, indicating that a permanent, year-round solution may not be the most efficient solution for this area. Rather, flexible solutions that can be modified and managed rapidly may be the best way to ensure efficient and available parking. We recommend that the City develop the following initiatives to help manage parking at Marina Park: 1. Charge a fee for parking to help turn over the spaces and ensure the lot is available for beach goers and Marina Park patrons. 2. Parking fees should be enforced 24 hours per day to help manage overnight parking by residents that may otherwise interfere with access to the Marina Park community center. 3. Install multi -space meters at the lot to enable automatic payment for all spaces in all lots to efficiently manage the payment system. 4. Install flip signs to quickly, inexpensively and efficiently reserve spaces during events at the community center, Girl Scout House, marina, and sailing center. In general, parking in Balboa Peninsula is impacted during the summer weekends from June to September. The peak demand period begins in the early afternoon and does not subside until nearly sunset. If events at Marina Park do not coincide with these peak demand periods, parking can be managed with simple economic cues. During peak summer periods, events should be scheduled either early in the morning (e.g. beginning at 8:OOAMj or later in the evening to avoid the impact from the beach visitors. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Newport Beach is creating a new plan for Marina Park that includes a community center, sailing center, and marina. The site is located between 15' Street and 18" Street along the bay side of the Newport Peninsula and currently includes various recreational uses and approximately 60 mobile homes. The proposed plan for the site consists of al0,200 square foot community center, an 11,200 square foot sailing center and caf6, a recreational park, and a 28-berth visitor marina. The Girl Scout House will also be relocated from it's current u 11 -4 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 6 September 2008 Page 2 of 6 location to the northeast corner of the project site. The recreational amenities at the park will include a playground, tennis courts, basketball courts, beach volleyball courts, and open park areas. In addition, docks and slips for sailing programs and improved beach access will be provided. Figure 1 outlines the proposed location of the Marina Park development. Figure 1: Project Study Area Source: Google Earth Pro, Accessed September 24, 2008. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan and parking areas. Fiaure 2: Proiect Site Plan Source: City of Newport Beach, September 2008. WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS PROJECT BACKGROUND Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 6 September 2008 Page 3 of 6 Access to Marina Park will be critical to the success of the development. A parking study examining the myriad uses was conducted by Austin -Foust in July 2008. Our understanding is that the City is satisfied with the projections from the Austin -Foust report; therefore, we have not studied the parking generation for this project. Our understanding is that parking at the Marina Park project is being developed to ensure that patrons and visitors using the facilities at Marina Park have appropriate parking and access to those facilities. During the summer months, parking will likely be problematic because as the Newport Peninsula beach lots and nearby on -street parking becomes unavailable many beach goers will likely park in any nearby space. With over 150 spaces in the main lot and the nearby "Girl Scout' lot, the Marina Park complex (Marina Park) will likely be used by beach visitors or other excursionists on the central part of the Peninsula. If the price for parking at Marina Park is attractive, beach goers and nearby residents will immediately fill the lot, leaving the Marina Park users unable to park anywhere near their intended destination. IF beach goers and residents have a greater willingness to pay than Marina Park patrons then the Marina Park parking lot will be unavailable to Marina Park patrons throughout much of the summer, and particularly during the weekends. Our belief is that demand for parking on Newport Peninsula is nearly unlimited during the busy summer season. If supply is continually developed and subsidized, effectively removing economic considerations, parking will continue to be a problem throughout Newport Beach and near the Marina Park area specifically. PARKING MANAGEMENT In our earlier discussion and analyses we referred to many of the elements of parking management. Parking Management includes myriad strategies aimed at making better use of the available parking supply in any defined area. Proper parking management incorporates a number of goals, but a core principle is that parking spaces should be used efficiently. Parking spaces that sit unoccupied are a inefficient as they represent significant financial and land resources, as well as the opportunity costs of the funds and real estate, that is not devoted to productive uses. This is especially true in a desirable place such as Newport Beach. It is also true where a competition for impacted parking spaces exists a short distance away. The time and frustration that results from the search for a convenient space in these impacted areas also represents inefficiencies. Parking management practices attempt to address Inefficiencies through restrictions and parking pricing. We aim to allocate parking spaces for which there is high demand with user restrictions and/or prices to park. For spaces for which there is low demand, we relax parking restrictions and lower prices in order to maximize their utilization. If spaces in high demand are free and/or spaces in low demand are priced, inefficiencies are created. We note that parking spaces are a finite resource and represent a real cost. We wish to allocate that resource as efficiently as possible. Finally, although not always politically popular, pricing is virtually always the most effective way to manage parking spaces. ALTERNATIVES This report is focused on managing the future parking at the Marina Park development. In an effort to conform to the likely requirements of,the California Coastal Commission, our recommendations try to support equal access to all visitors and patrons of Marina Park as well as the beach going public. This is particularly important during the summer months From June to September. As we have observed from other parking studies conducted in the area, parking during weekend days throughout the summer will be nearly impossible to manage due to the significant demand and presumed willingness of infrequent beach goers to pay for parking during their excursion to the 11 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 6 September 2008 Page 4 of 6 Newport beaches. To mitigate demand and help manage the parking, we have come up with several alternatives for the City to consider. The following is a list outlining the possible parking management strategies to help prioritize parking at Marina Park. Install automated multi -space meters. In an area that has virtually unlimited demand for parking and a commensurate shortage of land, one of the few solutions to help manage parking is to allocate the spaces to those who are most willing to pay. That is, we recommend installing parking meters. This may seem inherently unfair, or regressive; however, it helps alleviate parking in the less expensive, less desirable areas by removing vehicles that are willing to pay a premium for a space from the on -street spaces they would otherwise occupy. Given the size and circulation of the parking lots at Marina Park, we believe that multi -space pay -and -display meters will be the best solution, used in conjunction with any other combination of parking management that we outline in this report. 2. Charge for overnight parking. To help ensure that residents or businesses do not over utilize the Marina Park parking lot, we recommend that a paid parking system be in operation at all times. This will ensure that there are no cars occupying the lot that are not there for a specific event or purpose. This will help ensure the lot does not become a long-term storage area for vehicles. 3. Do not accept master park permits. Another measure that should be included in the plan is that the Marina Park lot should not accept Newport Beach master park permits, blue pole permits or any other exempt parking permiYthat is accepted in other areas of the City. Again, this will help ensure that the Marina Park lot is available for Marina Park patrons, visitors and guests. These first three recommendations will help ensure that the lot is primarily utilized by day visitors to Marina Park and not by long-term excursionists to other destinations or by residents seeking inexpensive and convenient parking. The alternatives below may help supplements these solutions by segmenting parking at Marina Park. It should be noted that these alternatives are more nuanced than the first three recommendations and have additional limitations that should be considered by the City. BEST OPTIONS —THOUGH NOT LIKELY TO BE APPROVED BY COASTAL COMMISSION 4. Marina Park Only Parking. The most obvious solution to achieve the City's goal of ensuring the Marina Park lot is only used by its intended patrons is to restrict Marina Park parking to only the patrons, visitors and guests of the Marina, Sailing Center, Girl Scout Center, Community Center or Park. Of course this would be extremely difficult to enforce because it would not be readily apparent which vehicles were using the Marina Park facilities and which vehicles where using the beach or other nearby land uses. In addition, we do not feel that this solution would be agreeable with the Coastal Commission's stated goal of ensuring equal access to ALL beach visitors. Validation. If there is a pricing mechanism for the Marina Park lot, all patrons, visitors, users, and guests could receive a validation sticker to off -set or eliminate their cost to park in the lot. If pricing at the Marina Park lots is significantly higher than the surrounding spaces, it is likely to discourage all but the most price - insensitive patrons to park elsewhere. Of course, this agairr means that the lot will be underutilized except when there is an event at Marina Park. From our experience it is unlikely that the Coastal Commission will agree to this sort of validation system since it creates a preferential parking system that limits or restricts access to the nearby public beaches. WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 6 September 2008 Page 5 of 6 6. Reverse Validation. If the price to park at the Marina Park lot was twice as high as nearby on -street or surface lot users of Marina Park facilities could be offered a rebate on their parking fees For whichever activity they are pursuing at Marina Park (reverse validation). Rather than validate parking (offsetting the price of parking) the user could pay the same price for parking as other users (beach visitors, residents and others seeking parking) but bring their parking receipt into the Marina Park offices to receive a discount on their sailing lesson, community center activity, or moorage fee. This system could be a bit confusing to infrequent users and may not be readily accepted by many Marina Park patrons, visitors, or guests. While technically everyone would pay the same fee for parking, the Coastal Commission may not approve such a minor technicality. As a result of these uncertainties, this may not be the most desirable solution. OTHER OPTIONS — NOT RECOMMENDED Pricing. If the Marina Park lot is priced higher than nearby beach lots and on -street spaces it is likely that the lot will fill up only after all other areas spaces fill ensuring that the Marina Park has as much availability as possible for as much time as possible. One drawback to this strategy is that during peak demand periods this lot will eventually fill up and Marina Park patrons will not have access. Another problem is that the lot will be significantly underutilized throughout the remainder of the year, as neither beach visitors, residents, nor Marina Park patrons will want to park in the most expensive spaces except during high demand days or during busy events. Create priority areas for the Marina Park users. Another option is to create a parking system that sets aside (either with nesting gates or chains) a certain number of spaces for visitors that have Marina Park reservations for daily activities. As classes, events, or other reservations are made for the Marina Park users, parking could be paid in advance, along with their other fees, that guarantees the Marina Park user that they will have a parking space when they come to Marina Park. This option would be fairly labor intensive because it would likely require that spaces be set aside in advance of any classes or events at the center and would essentially reduce the total number of available parking spaces for much of the day. A parking attendant would be recommended to ensure that parking is appropriately assigned. This sort of inefficiency is not desirable from a parking management perspective and would not likely be approved by the Coastal Commission. RECOMMENDED OPTIONS Install flip signs. Rather than create "Marina Park Parking Only` areas, a sign that changes dependant upon the expected amount of daily visitors can be installed. We often call these "flip signs" since they can flip open to display a message or flip closed to display a different message (or no message). Flip signs can be installed in some or all of the spaces (including near the Girl Scout Center) at Marina Park. When the facility has an event during the peak season, the signs can display a "Reserved For Marina Park Visitors Only" (or "Reserved for Girl Scout House") sign. When there is no event, the sign can be flipped closed; opening the space to all visitors or guests to the area. Event reservations can be used to help determine the appropriate number of spaces to reserve. PARKING LOT OPEN PARKING emedco.com C, • 4& WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Tony Brine Marina Park New Community Center 6 September 2008 Page 6 of 6 10. Increase bicycle/pedestrian facilities. Demand for parking can be reduced by providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities that make it easier and more pleasant to bicycle or walk to nearby destinations. This strategy could prove to be particularly valuable for a community center in an area like Balboa Peninsula. Some cities have also begun experimenting with bike stations or full -service bike lockers near destinations that provide lockers, changing rooms and showers for bicycle commuters. Bikestation services include secure, indoor bicycle parking available to members with a membership pass. In the Seattle Bikestation there is free attended bicycle parking during operating hours. Bicycle repair services and commuter retail items are also available at this Facility, as well as public transportation schedules, bike maps, and a personalized service matching new bicycle commuters with experienced cyclists who can help them plan a commute route, provide tips on bicycle commuting, and generally serve as mentors.' Bikestations are currently in use in several California cities including Long Beach, Palo Alto, and San Francisco. RECOMMENDATIONS The goal of this report is to provide the City with parking management solutions that will likely help provide the appropriate amount of access to Marina Park without restricting beach goers from parking at the area lots. We believe that a combination of solutions will be the most effective approach to achieving this goal. Namely, we believe that paid parking will be essential to help manage this facility. A multi -space, pay -and -display system that operates 24-hours per day will likely be the most efficient solution to help manage the parking. In addition, a fee that is slightly higher than the nearby on -street spaces will likely ensure that the Marina Park lots are the last to be occupied during busy summer peak demand periods. Flip signs that alternate between "Reserved For Marina Park Visitors Only" and 'Parking Available" should be installed to help manage parking during events at Marina Park. To accomplish this, the Marina Park lots can estimate the number of users for any event, and flip open the "Reserved Parking" side of the sign to help ensure that Marina Park patrons have access to the facility. At all other times, the signs can be flipped closed, or display a 'Parking Available" message to enable all vehicles on the Peninsula to use the parking facility. Finally, while not necessarily a parking management technique, demand for parking in general could be reduced at Marina Park by providing ample bicycle and pedestrian access and facilities. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Mark Linsenmayer WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS cc: Steffen Turoff Richard Raskin Leigh DeSantis Rosalinh Ung ' Metro King County Government, hitp://Iransit.metrokc.gov/tops/bike/6ikestation.himl, accessed September 29, 2008.