Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout33 - Marinapark Resort and Community Plan & Draft EIRTO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Supplemental Report Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, Icampbell(cDcity.newport- beach.ca.us Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan on June 3, 2004. The meeting was noticed through a mailer to nearby properties and an advertisement in the Daily Pilot. Attendance by the public was less than anticipated with the Council Chambers being filled to approximately 2 /3rds capacity. Attached is a summary of comments that were either made by Planning Commissioners or members of the public. The minutes of the meeting will be prepared and forwarded to the Council for the public hearings scheduled for July. Prepared by: d, Senior Planner Attachments Submitted by: Sharon Z. Woo / Assistant City nager 1. Summary of comments received at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004 Planning Commission and Public Comments Alarmapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 Project site is only remaining open space on peninsula and should remain open space; Project development will effectively block public access to beach; Views from 2 "d stories of homes on Balboa Blvd. will be blocked; More analysis of impacts on Harbor and Bay needed; Marine Recreation Alternative is better than project and could be improved upon to have lesser impacts than project; 28 -foot slips are not large enough to accommodate craft consistent with "yachting resort" description; Market research information should be submitted to show viability of project and project alternatives; Boat slips included for resort guests are not the best use for the general public; More emphasis on effect on the water part of tidelands is needed; Conclusions regarding consistency of project with Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan are not supported in the analysis; Details on mitigation for biological impacts not yet known; Proposed project is a water - enhanced use, not a water - dependent or coastal- dependent priority use; Analysis is needed to determine if the boat slips are truly an integral part of the resort format; It appears the pierhead line would need to be moved to accommodate the boat slips; Need to determine how many bedrooms and parking spaces are included in Marinapark mobile home park; Bay water quality is already compromised and beach was closed one of every two days last July; Traffic can only be exacerbated by project; Owners of summer homes will not be here to vote in November election; 1 Planning Commission and Public Comments Marinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 Description of project as "yachting resort" is not meaningful; Yachters stay on their yachts, not at resorts; Retention of site as open space with no buildings would ensure retention of views to the bay; Parks Department submitted proposal in response to City Council Request for Proposal that is not included in the EIR as project alternative; Marine Recreation Alternative does not include back -up data supporting conclusion that more traffic is generated by this alternative than by project; Procedurally, EIR text should identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives to the project, not the project itself; Number of parking spaces in Marine Recreation Alternative could be reduced to lessen impacts; Project is clearly the economically superior alternative; Marine Recreation Alternative included to make project look good; Number of additional vehicular trips that would exceed 1% of movements at Newport/PCH in PM peak hour and at Hospital/Newport in AM peak hour should be indicated; EIR needs to indicate why additional 520 daily vehicle trips is determined to be "not significant" impact e.g. what number of additional trips would be significant; Project does not satisfy the "project objective" relating to additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating; Project does not meet recreation needs of citizens; Project conflicts with General Plan Land Use, Harbor and Bay, and Recreation and Open Space Elements; Project reduces public access to the beach and bay but should increase public access; Planning Commission and Public Comments Nlarinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session June 3, 2004 City needs to provide justification for changing land use designation from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreational and Marine Commercial other than simply to accommodate this project; Economic viability of Marine Recreation Alternative should be analyzed; Project is not consistent with Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the General Plan Harbor and Bay Element including those relating to impacts of land use changes on water - dependent and water - related land uses and with Recreation and General Plan Open Space Element relating to need for aquatics and swimming pool facilities, upgrading of Las Arenas Park, and not mentioning resort hotel, as well as the need for boat launching and bilge pumping facilities; The "No Project" alternative in the EIR assumes passage of legislation that would allow continued use of site as mobile home park; Per EQAC comments, "Recreation" section of EIR needs to be supplemented with facts and analysis to support conclusions therein; Impact on recreational opportunities needs to be addressed Parking analysis needs to be expanded as relates to loss of current parking and to documentation of demand generated by project; Marine Recreation Alternative conclusions require qualitative or quantitative support in EIR; Conclusion that smaller resort hotel will entail lesser impacts needs to be supported by facts. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 - 3210, Campbell a(").city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort and Community Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) ISSUE: Review of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (formerly the Regent Newport Beach) and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). RECOMMENDATION: Review the proposed project and DEIR, receive public comments, and provide direction on issues to be addressed at the Planning Commission public hearing on July 8, 2004 and at City Council public hearings on July 13 and July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION: Background: Under terms of the agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Sutherland Talla Hospitality (now Marinapark LLC), the City is required to hold one Planning Commission public hearing and one City Council public hearing on the project EIR. Pursuant to the agreement, the Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council whether or not the EIR should be certified, but will not recommend whether to approve or disapprove the project. The City Council is to certify the EIR, if appropriate, and schedule the election on the General Plan amendment, but will not approve or disapprove the project. In making its decision on the details of the ballot measure, the City Council will have the ability to make some changes to the General Plan amendment request submitted by Marinapark LLC and the Planning Commission may include suggested changes to the General Plan amendment with its recommendation to City Council. The Marinapark site is zoned Planned Community (PC), and the required project approvals include a Planned Community Development Plan. The Planning Commission and /or City Council will have approval authority for this plan and any use permit, site plan or other subsequent approval required in the PC text. In addition, the City Council has the authority to approve a lease for use of this tidelands property. The Study Session is intended to give the City Council and the public the opportunity to understand the project proposal, to begin reviewing the potential environmental impacts of the project, and to identify issues that need to be addressed for the Planning Commission's public hearing on the Final EIR on July 8, 2004 and for the City Council's public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13 and July 27, 2004. Proiect Description The Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan is proposed on property currently occupied by the Marinapark Mobile Home Park, Las Arenas Park, Balboa Community Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, four public tennis courts, one -half basketball court, a children's play area, and a metered parking lot on an 8.1 -acre site on Balboa Blvd. between 15th and 18th Streets. The project applicant, Marinapark LLC, proposes to remove and /or demolish existing structures on the property and build a 110 -room luxury resort hotel that will include a lobby and registration area, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, a swimming pool, separate spa and administration buildings, 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The following public facilities would be included in the project: surface parking lot, four tennis courts, a new two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility, and a tot lot. EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the project and circulated for public comment on April 26, 2004. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, the review period is 45 days and will end on June 9, 2004. During this time, affected government agencies and the public may submit written comments on the Draft EIR. To date, the City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee and the Southern California Association of Governments have provided written comments on the Draft EIR (Attachment A). The Planning Commission and members of the public provided comment on the Draft EIR at a public study session on June 3, 2004; a summary of comments will be provided to the City Council on June 4. At the end of the Draft EIR circulation period on June gin written comments received and written responses to these comments will be included with the Draft EIR document in the form of the Final EIR for the project. On July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make its recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not to certify the Final EIR. The City Council will hold public hearings and consider the Planning Commission recommendation on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and on July 27, 2004. On July 27tH the City Council may certify the Final EIR if it determines that, after reviewing the document, the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Draft EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Draft EIR identifies the range of potential environmental impacts that could result from construction and operation of the 110 - room Marinapark Resort. The range of impacts analyzed in the DEIR was based on an Initial Study (included in the DEIR) that concluded that no further analysis was needed for environmental issues related to agricultural resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation. The DEIR includes a description and analysis, by subject area (Land Use, Biological Resources, Air Quality, Traffic, etc.), of each impact determined to be potentially significant. Based on this analysis, a level of significance is assigned to each potential impact: "No Impact'; "Not Significant'; or "Significant." Mitigation measures are identified for "significant" impacts. A level of significance is again assigned to each potential impact according to the extent that proposed mitigation measures may reduce the severity of the impact. Alternatives to the project that may result in lesser impacts on the environment than the proposed project are also evaluated in the Draft EIR. As shown in the "Executive Summary' (Page 2 -1) of the DEIR, the analysis concludes that, with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no significant impacts to the environment would result from construction and operation of the Marinapark Resort. Potential environmental effects of the proposed project which can be mitigated so that no significant impacts result are indicated below. Mitigated Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure Geology and Soils Liquefaction of soils during an Building design and construction earthquake incorporating structural components that resist soil collapse Hydrology and Water Quality Degradation of water quality Overload storm drain system Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Construction of on -site detention basins 5 Impact Biolooical Resources Cement walkway results in loss of shoreline habitat for shorebirds Disruption of benthic resources through loss of soft bottom habitat Long -term impacts to fish resources through loss of soft bottom foraging habitat Mitigation Measure Development of shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips Development of benthic habitat replacement site Disruption of California least tern Preparation and implementation of a and California brown pelican Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan foraging behavior through site incorporating best management practices grading and bay dredging and construction noise Periodic loss of eelgrass through maintenance dredging Loss of halibut nursery habitat Construction, vessel movement, and increased turbidity levels could affect Eelgrass Restoration Project Bulkhead and support pilings for boat slips will result in long -term loss of sand beach and soft bottom habitat Development of a plan for restoration of eelgrass habitat pursuant to Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Development of a benthic habitat replacement site and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices Development of benthic habitat replacement site and revision of slip plans to include elevated walkway from beach to slips and development of a benthic habitat and shorebird foraging habitat replacement site Impact Air Qualit Dust resulting from construction activities Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase t Mitigation Measure Compliance with Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Use pre- coated materials, high pressure low- volume paint applicators with 50% efficiency, lower volatility paint The Executive Summary of the DEIR also includes environmental components that would not be adversely affected by project development and operation as shown below. :Areas of No Impact/Less Than Significant Impact Land Use: Project development is consistent with General Plan Policies and the Harbor and Bay Element and the Newport Beach Municipal Code and with the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan policies on public access, views, parking, dock facilities, public restrooms and historic resource inventory; project complies with Zoning Code for Community Plans; project is compatible with nearby land uses and maintains public beach access and replaces existing recreation facilities; structures nearest the Bay will be one -story and structures adjacent to 15th and 18th Streets will be similar in scale to nearby buildings; Transportation: The project will generate a net increase of 520 average daily trips during the "shoulder" e.g. fall and spring. season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact. The project would generate a net increase of 360 average daily trips during the summer season which, compared to existing traffic, does not represent a significant impact; Noise: The project is consistent with the City's performance standards for locating land uses in noisy environments; restriction of construction hours would reduce adverse effect of equipment noise to less than significant level; noise modeling indicates no increase in traffic - related noise levels; Aesthetics: The architectural features of buildings included with the project are consistent in size and scale with existing development and existing views to the bay from public rights - of -way will be substantially maintained; Public Services and Utilities: Existing public facilities and resources for police and fire protection were deemed adequate to serve the project based on interviews with the respective department representatives; facilities and infrastructure for solid waste disposal, water service, wastewater service, natural gas, and electricity were all deemed adequate for the needs of the project based on information from the respective service providers. Alternatives to the Marinapark Resort project are analyzed in the DEIR and their potential impacts are compared with those of the proposed project. Any of the alternatives may be determined to be environmentally superior if, overall, the magnitude of impacts is less than that of the proposed project. Each alternative, however, must also be evaluated in light of the project objectives identified by the City of Newport Beach and set forth in the DEIR as follows: • Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; • Redevelop the site with land uses that are consistent with, and permitted by, the legal restrictions on the use of tidelands; • Reduce the current and anticipated future deficit between t6ideland revenue and tideland expenditures; • Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents; • Enhance public access and community faci8lities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users; • Ensure that site redevelopment does not generate noise, glare or traffic that could adversely impact the residents in the vicinity or the American Legion adjacent to the site; • Provide for additional marine - related facilities that can be used by coastal visitors for sailing and boating. U Alternatives analyzed in the DEIR, the magnitude of overall impact compared with the project, and the extent to which each meets project objectives identified above are as follow: "No Proiect/No Development Alternative" This alternative assumes that existing mobile homes and recreational facilities remain. No additional environmental impacts would result but this alternative would not meet project objectives for area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, reduction of tidelands deficit, generation of additional revenue, or provision of additional marine - related facilities. "Marinapark Marine Recreation Alternative" This alternative assumes removal of the mobile homes and development of new recreational facilities including 2 charter boat moorings, 20 boat slips, parkland, a Girl Scout/Community Center, tennis /basketball courts, and beach and boat slip parking area. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils, aesthetics, and public services and utilities as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with land use and planning would be similar to those of the project. Impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, geological resources, transportation, air quality, and noise would be greater as compared with the proposed project. The Marine Recreation Alternative would meet project objectives related to area revitalization, consistency with tidelands restrictions, and provision of additional marine - related facilities. This alternative, however, may not reduce the tidelands revenue deficit and may not generate additional general fund revenue or enhance public access without an expenditure of tax revenue. "Reduced Intensity Alternative' This alternative assumes development of an 80 -room luxury resort hotel, a 4,500 square -foot restaurant, and 12 boat slips. This alternative would result in lesser impacts to geology and soils and to aesthetics as compared with the proposed project. Impacts associated with traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities would be greater for this alternative than for the proposed project. Similar impacts would be incurred for hydrology and water quality, geological resources, and land use and planning. Based on consideration of the relative impacts of each alternative compared with the proposed project, and on the extent to which each alternative and the proposed project satisfy the objectives set forth by the City of Newport Beach for redevelopment of the proposed project site, the proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Plan is deemed to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative consistent with guidelines set forth in CEQA. CONCLUSION: The Study Session will allow members of the City Council and the public to better understand the proposed project and to evaluate conclusions about potential environmental impacts set forth in the Draft EIR for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan. The Study Session will prepare the City Council for public hearings on the Final EIR on July 13, 2004 and July 27, 2004, and for City Council determination after public hearing on July 27, 2004 whether or not to certify the Final EIR. If the City Council certifies the Final EIR on July 27`h, the City Council may at that time adopt a resolution calling for the proposed General Plan amendment for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan to be placed before the Newport Beach electorate in November. Prepared by: Submitted by: `James W. Cam bell, Senior Planner Attachments fix X A A haron Z. Wood Assistant City r6Vager 1. Correspondence 2. Project conceptual plans — separate large format drawings l Exhibit No. 1 Correspondence al This Page Left Intentionally Blank io SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t (213) 2361800 f (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov Officers : President: Councilmember Ron Roberts. Tearemla • first Vile Resilient; Sllpnvl W r Hank Rubber. Imperial County • Second Vice Reliant: Movur torn YOrmg. Pori Hueneme • Immediate Pas :P"I'lem: COancilmember Bev Perrv. Brea Imperil County: Hank Kuiper. Imperial CoanN to Shield'. 81AILAV Las Angeles County: Yranne BralhwaNe Brake. 10SAngpleS Crur1V • Zev)ShbSIAvS,V. Los Angeles (oun;v • Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel • Paul Bowlen, Cerritos • Tony Cameras, Los Angeles Ma:Zarel Clary. RoSemead • Gene Dani✓15. Paramount • Mike Oispenza. 'almbale • Judy Dunlap. In¢lewoad • En[ Gxvfth, Los Angeles Wend, Gresm. Les Angeles • Frank Shrine, Cudahy IemeS Hahn. LOS Angela.• ladce Hahn, LOS Amgebs • ISadorP Halt. Complon • Tom tAROrAu. LOS Angeles • Borman Low✓nlhal. Long Reach • Martin Ludlow. LOS Angeles • Keith McCann,, DO.Ae, • Llewellyn Millar. Claremont Cindy Mi5tikOwSkl. LOS Angeles • Paul Nmnaikd. Torrance • Pam O'Connor. Santa Momm • All, Padika.lat Angeles • Bemad Pads, 1m5 Angeles Ian Perrv. Los Angeles • Bral ne Pmri Pilo Rivera to Raves. LOS Angeles • Craig Smith. Los Angeles Dick Stanluid. A1m5a • lean Svte:, Walnut • Paul Talbot. Alhambra • Sidney Orley. PaSarema • IDnia Ayes Umnga. Long Beath • Alcamo Villmmigosa. cos Angeles • Dennis Washburn. CaLibaSas • lad Weiss. 105 Angeles • Bob muselian Glendale Dennis Zine, LOS AOgeIeS Drange Countp this Norbv. Orange Caumv Ronald Bales. Las Alamitos • Lou Bone. luSlin Ait Brown. Buem Park • Richard Chave, Anaheim Debbie COOL. Hlllington Beach • Cali Delmore, Laguna Niguel • Richaml Dion. Lake Abet • Alla Dole, La Palma • Bev Perry. Ron rod Rid4eway. Newport Beam R iversiile County: Marion A hov. Rirerside Count' • Thomas Bradley. Lake [ISinorn • Bonnie Hillkiager. Moreno Vapev • Ron love6Ege. Riverside • Glee Penis, Cathleen! CIm • Ron Pecans, Temecula San Bemardino County: Paul Slane. San Bermndino County • Bill AleeaAm. Panto, C" 11n age • Edward Bu RnOn. lawn oI Apple Valley • Lawrence Dale. Bd Slnn • Lee Ann Garcia. Grand Terrace • Susan Longville. San Bernardmc CAN Ovn:. Ontario • Samoan Rooenw. Riabo Ventura County: IuCv Misels. Ventura Gamakv Glen Became. Simi Vile" • Can Mnienome San Buena,enlum • loni Young. Pon Hueneme Cargo County ➢ansPOrmtion Auomnity: Charles Smith, Orange Counly Riverside County Transportation Commission: Robin Lowe, Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission: Bill Davis. Simi Valley ® hmna Oa$2NI. A,Ti sSPS'iolun May 19, 2004 Mr. James Campbell Senior Planner Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. Community Plan Dear Mr. Campbell: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MAY 2 6 2004 PM 71819110111112111213141516 1 20040258 Marinapark Resort & Thank you for submitting the Marinapark Resort & Community Plan 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 Marinapark Resort & Community Plan, 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). The proposed project is not a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. 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 April 16 -30, 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinahouse 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 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review /I MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell, Senior Planner Planning Department, City of Newport Beach From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ( "EQAC ") City of Newport Beach Subject: The City of Newport Beach's Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR") for the implementation and development of the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (the "Project ") Date: May 28, 2004 Project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the A Brief Summary of Our Concerns. We recommend that the City reconsider and revise the DEIR and/or respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. Because of the concerns listed below, we believe that the City should revise the document and re- circulate the revised document for public review and comment. We make these recommendations for several reasons: (1) The DEIR fails to describe the Project fully and accurately, thereby undercutting the public's and decision maker's ability to understand the Project, determine impacts of the Project and evaluate mitigation measures. (2) The DEIR fails to recognize and analyze potentially significant impacts discussed in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation for the DEIR including impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. (3) The DEIR fails to discuss and analyze all Project related impacts including those associated with Transportation/Circulation, Land Use, Hydrology and Water Quality and other issues, as well as cumulative impacts for all issues analyzed. (4) The DEIR fails to analyze fully the growth inducing impacts of the Project and/or provide mitigation for such impacts. (5) The DEIR fails to analyze and discuss fully the Project alternatives and assess objectively the environmentally superior alternative. /2 EQAC Page 2 May 28, 2004 II. Introduction: EIR Standards. which: An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document ".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects." CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section 21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.) Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at full disclosure." Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural Association 0986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "(tjhe degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must be specific enough to further informed decision making and public participation. The EIR must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376. Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282 (holding that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Reizents of University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20,34 (noting that environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant impacts: mitigation 13 EQAC Page 3 May 28, 2004 measures must really minimize an identified impact. II. Section 1: Introduction and Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 1.6). The Introduction discusses general CEQA issues, formatting of the DEIR, the IS/NOP, the scoping process and effects found not to be significant. The latter— "Effects Found Not to be Significant " — raises substantive concerns. Section 1.6 notes that, during the scoping process, various impacts were found to be potentially significant, whereas others were found not to be significant. These latter include "Hazards and Hazardous Materials," and "Recreation." For various reasons discussed below, these are potentially significant impacts: the DEIR should include a detailed discussion and analysis of such impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. A. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Appendix A of the DEIR includes the Initial Study, Environmental Checklist and the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. The Checklist Item No. VII addresses Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Item No. VII b) indicates that it is less than significant that the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. However, Item No. VII c) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact by emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing school. Item No. VII d) indicates that the Project may have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated in that the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites and as a result would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Discussion of these Items is helpful. Under Item No. VII b), the Discussion notes that, because of the presence of motorized construction equipment, there is a small risk of gasoline or diesel spillage. However, the Discussion concludes that such is less than significant. Under Item No. VII c), the Discussion notes that the Project is within one - quarter mile of Newport Elementary School. It states that an inventory of materials and quantities used in construction and operation of the Project will be created. If necessary, any hazardous materials will be identified and mitigation measures proposed. As for Item No. VII d), the Discussion explains that past or present on -site and off -site uses have the potential to result in the release of toxic substances. "[P]roject implementation will require the removal of onsite structures, which depending on date of construction may contain lead or asbestos materials. A regulatory database review will be conducted for the proposed project, results of the database review will be summarized in the EIR and the review results included in their entirety as an appendix to the document. Mitigation measures will be recommended as appropriate." I tl EQAC Page 4 May 28, 2004 The DEIR does not address the IS/NOP analysis. Instead, the DEIR concludes that the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. For gasoline or diesel spillage, the DEIR includes a similar analysis as the IS/NOP: the risk is less than significant. For proximity to schools including Newport Elementary, the DEIR is silent. As discussed below, it refers to a (Limited) Phase II Soils Assessment but concludes no significant impact. The Phase II assessment is not attached as an appendix. The DEIR notes that the analysis identified small concentrations of trace petroleum hydrocarbons, metals and organocholorine pesticide in and around portions of the Project site. Submarine sediment samples indicated low concentrations of various but unidentified hydrocarbons. The DEIR fails to keep the promise of the IS/NOP: the DEIR includes no "regulatory database review and summary." Moreover, it fails to include the Phase II study or make such available for public review. Incidentally, the DEIR states that such contaminants are below action levels; yet it provides no indication as to what those action levels are. Given the promise of the IS/NOP, the DEIR should be revised to include items discussed above, and the revised DEIR should include a thorough analysis of all such impacts. Moreover, the conclusions of the Phase II study seems implausible. The Project's location is near the mouth of the Rhein Channel which we understand is regarded as highly polluted. Although the IS/NOP appeared to recognize this challenge, the DEIR fails to consider and analyze the Project's impacts including destruction and removal of existing docks and structures, construction and installation of new docks and structures, and other Project related activities on submarine sediment in and around this problematic water body. In addition, we understand that Chevron or another company had a storage facility near the Project site in the past. The DEIR should include an analysis and/or study of any emissions from the storage site and any Project related impacts arising from disturbance and/or release of any hazardous materials from such site or contamination from such site as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. Also, as discussed below, notwithstanding the DEIR's conclusion that the Project will have no significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials, the DEIR discusses the Project's hazards and hazardous materials impacts in relation to biological resources. The DEIR's analysis of hazards in relation to biological resources undercuts the DEIR's conclusions that Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials are insignificant. B. Recreation. The DEIR also regards the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities as insignificant. However, Project features and configuration themselves require environmental analysis in order to make such conclusion. The Project "will replace all recreational facilities except the basketball half- court." DEIR, 1 -6. This raises several problems. At the outset, the demolition and replacement of existing facilities will have short-term construction impacts on all of these recreational opportunities. Without more analysis and IS EQAC Page 5 May 28, 2004 discussion, such impacts appear to be significant, at least in the short term. Further, the replacement of such facilities is problematic: without further analysis and perhaps mitigation, it is unclear that the replaced facilities will provide access and have features similar to the existing facilities. Further, the elimination of the half -court basketball facility requires further analysis and discussion. This resource appears to be unique: it's configuration and alignment may make it more popular than full court facilities in the area. Also, the Project's resort proposes joint use of the recreational facilities. Without more analysis, such use may significantly and adversely affect residents' use of the Project facilities. Finally, a crucial Project alternative is a recreation alternative. In order to assess, analyze and evaluate the alternatives, the DEIR should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DEIR should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. III. Section 2: Executive Summary . The Executive Summary attempts to summarize the Project Description (discussed below), the areas of controversy /issues to be resolved, and a summary of impacts and mitigation. Section 2.2 addresses areas of controversy /issues to be resolved. It notes: "The area of controversy associated with the proposed project is the intensification of land uses on the project site. The location of the tideland boundary is an issue that is to be resolved." Both of these are problematic. As to the area of controversy, "intensification of land use" improperly simplifies the issues: the area of controversy is the replacement of the current designated use— Recreational and Environmental Open Space — with a commercial use which requires a General Plan Amendment and other approvals. The DEIR's statement about the issue to be resolved— tideland boundary— is surprising. The DEIR should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DEIR's failure to resolve this issue undercuts its usefulness. Moreover, Section 3.4 indicates that, among other permits, the Project will require a lease of tidelands. In order for the public and decision makers to understand the Project's impacts on tideland boundaries and the impacts of this lease, the DEIR should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DEIR, the document cannot fulfill its own requirements. Section 2.5 includes a table which identifies Project impacts and mitigation. For a discussion of Project impacts, see our discussion below. However, as to mitigation, Table 2 -1 raises a general problem: deferral of mitigation measures. As indicated above, CEQA requires /-6 EQAC Page 6 May 28, 2004 environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. For each mitigation measure identified in Table 2 -1, each measure is deferred to some future event or permit issuance. In order to understand the nature and extent of mitigation and to assess whether the proposed mitigation fully and adequately addresses the impact, the DEIR should fully identify and discuss all mitigation measures, discuss how such measures will lessen impacts to a level of insignficance, and if necessary, provide alternative mitigation measures for any measure which does not fully mitigate identified impacts. IV. Section 3: The Proiect Descrintion Section 3.1.1 discusses Site Characteristics. Among other things, the DEIR notes that the Project site is bound by "a public beach and Newport Bay to the north." Although Section 3. 1.1 discusses many of the current site characteristics, it fails to discuss the location and character of the tidelands issue. This issue may affect the Project, the analysis of the Project impacts, the alternatives analysis and related matters. The DEIR should include a full discussion of the tidelands boundary issue, resolve the issue, locate the boundary, and discuss all Project related impacts. Among other features, the Project includes twelve (12) new boat slips and replacement of public tennis courts on the deck of the proposed parking structure. As to the boat slips, the DEIR states that this feature will require dredging of approximately 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment to create the boat basin; this "clean sand" will be placed on shore side of a proposed Project related bulkhead. This raises several issues. The Project includes twelve (12) new marina slips with four (4) available for public use and eight (8) available for Project guests. The current forty-six (46) American Legion slips will remain. However, the DEIR fails to discuss the relation of the American Legion slips to the Project feature slips. Also, the IS/NOP and the DEIR recognize that the Project may affect hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed above, these two documents are inconsistent in their assessment of the Project's impacts on hazards. However, given that the Project requires removal and relocation of 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of bay sediment, the DEIR should fully address the character of this sediment, analyze any impact to hazards and hazardous materials, and, if necessary, provide mitigation. Further, it is unclear where this excavation will occur especially in relation to the tidelands boundary. As noted above, the DEIk fails to discuss the tidelands location. The DEIR should provide a clear description of the location of this excavation in relation to the tidelands, and if necessary, provide adequate mitigation. Regarding the tennis court, the Project description notes their location but fails to address public access to this Project feature. Indeed, the Project description fails to discuss all sorts of public access issues. How does the public gain access to the beach? Does the beach remain a public beach? What are the public access features for all Project related structures including the community center, tot lot, and parking? 1-7 EQAC Page 7 May 28, 2004 Also, the Project is entitled the "Marinapark Resort & Community Plan." The Project description includes no reference to the "Community Plan" The revised DEIR should fully explain the Project including the "Community Plan." Incidentally, the Project description includes some internal inconsistencies which require explanation and resolution: First, exhibit 3 -3, Site Plan, shows the Girl Scout House and the Spa Villa to be 4,166 square feet each; however Table 3.2 -1 on the next page states that the Girl Scout House /Community Center and the Spa Villa will be 6,191. Second, the Site Plan shows shared parking at the comer of 18a' Street and Balboa Boulevard, but further in the document, in the Aesthetics section, the computer - generated visual simulations shows two -story villas at this comer. Section 3.3 discusses Project Objectives. These Objectives include several economic /commercial objectives: "Complement efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula; Provide additional general fund revenue that will help the City maintain or enhance the high level of public safety and municipal services provided to Newport Beach residents. Enhance public access and community facilities on the site without any expenditure of tax revenue and without any fiscal impact on the Girl Scouts and other users." DEIR, 3 -8. The DEIR includes no detailed discussion of these and other objectives. However, it is unclear that such objectives are appropriate for the Project site and the current environmental analysis. The only Project Alternative in the DEIR which meets these economic objectives is the Project. Given these economic objectives, the DEIR should include an economic analysis which shows how and why the Project meets these and other objectives, provides a detailed discussion of City revenues from the Project including lease payments, taxes and other sources of revenue, and other economic considerations appropriate. Section 3.4 addresses "Intended Uses" of the DEIR. The section identifies various discretionary approvals by the City. It notes: "Other actions necessary to implement the project are identified later in the section under `Other Discretionary and Ministerial Actions. "' DEIR, 3 -9. However, the DEIR contains no such section. The DEIR should be revised to include a full list of all discretionary approvals by all agencies. Finally, the DEIR inadequately covers permitting and approvals: the election requirement. We understand that the City proposes to submit this Project to the voters. The DEIR should discuss this requirement, and explain its relation to the CEQA process and Project approval. Fai EQAC Page 8 May 28, 2004 V. Section 4: General Descriution of Environmental Setting. Section 4.1 addresses the environmental setting. As indicated above, nothing in the DEIR locates the tidelands boundary. These section should be revised to include a discussion and, perhaps, a map of such boundary. Further, we understand that the Marinapark mobile home park is a park on City owned land with a lease. The DEIR recognizes that the park is a 40 -year facility but fails to discuss the lease hold, its term, the landlord and other crucial and important terms. Section 4.2 discusses related projects. It notes that the City provided several related projects; presumably, Table 4 -1 is the list provided. However, it is incomplete. First, as indicated in the Project objectives, DEIR recognizes that in the Project vicinity, the City and others are engaged in "efforts to revitalize Balboa Village and enhance other commercial areas on the Peninsula." These efforts are related projects and should be included in the cumulative impacts list. Among other efforts, we understand that several plans to develop live /work projects in and around the Project vicinity are pending. Likewise, these plans should be included in the cumulative impacts list. VI. Section 5: Project Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation. A. Section 5.1: Geology and Sods. Section 5.1 address geotechnical impacts of the Project. The DEIR includes a geotechnical report for the site. Among other things, the DEIR notes that "[liquefaction occurs when shallow, fine to medium- grained sediments saturated with water are subjected to strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction usually occurs when the underlying water table is 50 feet or less below the surface." DEIR, 5.1 -2. Also, the DEIR notes that expansive soils are those which can give up or take on water. Id. The DEIR notes that, although the onsite soils are not expansive, "[t]he potential for liquefaction during a major seismic event is considered to be high." As noted above, liquefaction may depend on depth to groundwater. The DEIR should state depth to groundwater at the site, discuss the soils character, explain why, though the sands will hold water, they are not expansive and related issues. Moreover, Section 5.1.4 considers two mitigation measures. As before, this section fails to discuss depth to groundwater. The two mitigation measures depend upon permit issuance: the first depends upon issuance of a grading permit and concerns aspects of the grading plans. However, it fails to state the depth if any of such grading. The second depends upon issuance of a building permit and concerns slab alternatives. However, the section fails to determine which slab type will be employed. IO� EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: Hvdroloav and Water Ouality. Section 5.2 concerns hydrology and water quality. This section notes that the Project will have short -term construction impacts on water quality and hydrology, long term operational impacts and cumulative impacts. Construction impacts include soils erosion, trash and debris which may leave the Project site. In addition, construction activities in connection with the marina will include re- introduction of contaminants through construction activities which may "resuspend" bottom sediment as well as increase in turbidity. Long term operational impacts include increased flow concentrations at a majority of Project related storm drains with a decrease in several such drains. In addition, the Project will increase peak flows during 100 -year storm events along 18th and 15th Streets while flows along Balboa Boulevard would decrease somewhat. Water quality impacts of the Project include trash, debris, oil and grease, and other pollutants including heavy metals, oxygen demanding substances, nutrients and organic compounds. Further, installation of a cement walkway from the resort to the marina will interrupt tidal flows and water circulation, and may create stagnant water conditions. Finally, the DEIR recognizes that the Project "will substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on existing storm drain systems." It will "also increase urban pollutants that would substantially contribute to a potential significant cumulative impact on surface water quality." The DEIR includes five mitigation measures. Most of these mitigation measures defer mitigation measures until issuance of grading permits. This analysis and mitigation is problematic for several reasons. The impacts analysis fails to discuss current drainage and percolation, as well as the proposed drainage and percolation of the Project. Also, the DEIR fails to consider several potential mitigation measures. Increasing pervious surfaces may limit surface water run -off. Indeed, Section 7, the Alternatives Analysis, states that the Project is superior to the Marine Alternative due to its increase of pervious surfaces. Yet the DEIR fails to discuss this issue, analyze the nature and extent of such surfaces, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. In addition, the Project together with other revitalization efforts may significantly affect the storm drain capacity. Yet, the DEIR does not consider whether the Project may require re- sizing of storm drains in the vicinity. Also, none of the mitigation measures address the Project's cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation of such impacts could include establishment of stormwater mitigation program for a comprehensive upgrade of the storm drains on the Peninsula. The Project could contribute its fair share to such a mitigation program. LO EQAC Page 10 May 28, 2004 Further, as indicated above, such deferral of specific mitigation measures does not comply with the requirements of CEQA which requires full discussion of all impacts and mitigation. Deferral of the development of various mitigation measures until some permitting or pursuant to various regulatory bodies including the City and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board is not informative: precise Project features and mitigation are deferred until after the public and decision makers have had an opportunity to review, comment and in the case of decision makers, decide on the DEIR and the Project. The DEIR should be revised to discuss fully all water quality and hydrology impacts, and provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures to lessen any such impacts. C. Section 5.3: Biological Resources. Section 5.3 concerns the Project's potential impacts on biological resources. Section 5.3.1 addresses existing conditions including sediments and habitats and marine biological communities near the Project. As indicated above, the DEIR includes no detailed discussion of hazards and hazardous materials. Section 5.3.1 repeats the earlier discussion regarding low levels of pollutants. Further, in discussing sub -tidal bay floor sediments, the DEIR states that environmental site assessment indicates the presence of low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. This is inadequate: as indicated above, the Project will require excavation of between 1,250 to 1,750 cubic yards of "bay mud." Testing on the upper one -half foot fails to test the full extent of this excavation. The DEIR should be revised to include a full analysis of hazards and hazardous materials so that the entire environmental analysis of the Project's impacts including hazards and hazardous materials and biological resources. Also as indicated above, the analysis indicates that contaminates including those in sub -tidal bay sediments are below action levels for soils on land but fails to provide the action levels. The revised DEIR should provide this information, or indicate that they are the same as those for soils on land. In addition, in connection with the existing conditions regarding bay fishes, the DEIR relies on a otter trawl net sampling of fish species known to occur in Newport Bay that was conducted for eighteen (18) months between 1974 and 1975. This sampling would seem to be too out -of -date to be of any value in assessing the number of species in the Bay and the proposed Project's potential impact on those fish species. The DEIR should be revised to include a more recent sampling or more recent information on the fish species known to occur in Newport Bay and consider the Project's impacts on identified species. Also, if for some reason the thirty year old study remains useful, the revised DEIR should explain the utility of this thirty year old study and alternatives. In assessing the Project's impacts on shoreline habitats and resources, the DEIR states that "(t)he proposed cement walkway from the resort hotel to the boat slips will result in the loss of approximately 490 square feet of sandy shoreline which is foraging habitat for shorebirds. This long -term loss is considered significant." Page 5.3 -7 Since the site currently has an existing concrete walkway, it is unclear how the new walkway will have this kind of impact. Based on the 21 EQAC Page 11 May 28, 2004 conclusion that there will be this significant impact, it appears that the Project walkway must differ from the existing walkway, e.g. project out further into the shoreline. This is not clear from the Project Description or anywhere else in the DEIR. Further, the DEIR is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DEIR characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page 5.3 -9, the DEIR states: "No direct mortality of shorebirds and seabirds will occur. The long -term presence of the boat slips, bulkhead and concrete walkway will however, reduce shorebird and seabird resting and foraging habitat, however, this is not considered a significant impact." An accurate assessment of the impacts to birds should be provided in the Final EIR, and this inconsistency should be corrected. The DEIR contains another and important inconsistency. Section 5.3.3 recognizes that Project construction will have an impact on benthic communities in the Project area. However, Section 5.3.3 concludes that "[t]he loss of benthic infauna and epifauna due to dredging will be a short-term less than significant impact." This conclusion is problematic: dredging will continue through the life of the Project. Thus, such impact may be more than short term. Moreover, Section 5.3.6 states that, regarding biological resources, "[w]ith the implementation of the above mitigation measures, only one significant unavoidable adverse impact would remain." DEIR, 5.3 -13. "This impact would occur during the short-term and would be on the benthic resources that would be removed from the bayfloor during project and maintenance dredging activities." Id. However, Section 6.1 concludes that there are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The DEIR should be revised to resolve this inconsistency: either the impact on benthic resources is significant or not. Moreover, such impacts will be more than long term: impacts on benthic resources will occur during Project construction as well as maintenance dredging. Also, as indicated above, all Biological Resources Mitigation Measures are deferred until the issuance of either a grading permit or a permit from a resource agency. This deferral of mitigation is not permissible under CEQA. In addition, most of the Mitigation Measures list various regulatory plans, e.g. stormwater pollution prevention plan ( "SWPPP ") which describes best management practices (`BMPs "). However, the analysis is incomplete and generic; all of these Mitigation Measures appear to be boilerplate, with no direct reference to the impacts to biological resources present at the proposed Project site or the actual mitigation proposed. The DEIR should include an appropriate expert analysis to discuss Project specific impacts and mitigation as well as to develop the various regulatory plans. The discussion of mitigation measures in this section seems more appropriate for a program level analysis. The Final EIR should more fully discuss the impacts and mitigation proposed. zz EQAC Page 12 May 28, 2004 D. Section 5.4: Land Use and Planning. Section 5.4 addresses the proposed Project's consistency with various elements of the General Plan. Section 5.4.1 describes existing conditions including the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It provides regarding the Project site: "The existing mobile home park use will be allowed to continue until the end of the existing lease. At that time the City will make the decision as to whether the lease should be further extended, or the property converted to public use." DEIR, 5.4-4. The DEIR then states that this description "indicates that the existing mobile home park is not consistent with the existing land use designation for the site." Id. However, in Section 5.4.3 which addresses Project impacts, the DEIR fails to discuss and analyze the Project's consistency with this requirement of conversion "to public use" at the end of the existing lease. Also, this section indicates that the Project will not divide the community, because "[a]ccess to and through the project site is maintained." DEIR, 5.4 -8. However, as indicated above, public access to and through the Project is unclear. Moreover, as discussed in Section 5.7, Noise, the Project will serve as a sound barrier which will block vehicular noise from Balboa Blvd. to the Project. If the Project serves as such a barrier, it likely will divide the community. The DEIR should be revised to show the access points and routes from Balboa Blvd. through the Project to the Bay. In addition, Section 5.4.3 discusses the Land Use Element, Policy C which provides: "Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the harbor." DEIR, 5.4.9. Emphasis added. However, the DEIR's discussion of parking requirements shows that, although the Project will provide a total of 209 surface and subterranean parking spaces, the Project demand is only 92 spaces under the current Code requirements; the Project will result in a total of 117 excess parking spaces. This raises a few problems or questions. First, the code requirements appear at odds with Policy C's requirements. Moreover, the Code requirements seem skimpy: one space for every two rooms; one space for 300 square feet of the proposed Community Center and Girl Scout House; and four spaces for the four tennis courts. Likely, each visitor enjoying a Project/resort room will require one parking space; likely, each individual using the tennis courts will require parking. The DEIR should include a further study regarding the parking demand of the Project to ensure that Policy C of the Land Use Element is met. W EQAC Page 13 May 28, 2004 In our earlier comments on the NOP for the proposed Project, we noted that the Project Description failed to discuss employee, contractor and supplier parking and access. The DEIR also fails to discuss how parking and access will be provided within the proposed Project for these groups. The Section goes on to say that the proposed Project will provide 117 parking spaces beyond what is required by the code. Perhaps these "excess" parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees, contractors and suppliers, but this issue is not addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to address the issue of parking for these groups, because parking on the Peninsula is such an important issue. As indicated here and below, Section 5.4 addresses the Project's parking demands and Section 5.5, Transportation/Circulation includes no parking analysis. This confusion creates another problem. Although Section 5.4 discusses the Project's parking requirements, it fails to discuss existing parking including street parking. We believe that the Project will result in a loss of parking spaces from current levels. Based upon our information and calculations, the following is a tabulation of the parking spaces which the Project will cause to be lost: Metered public parking at 18th street curbside 5 Metered public parking at 18th street lot 23 Community Bldg. Staff 2 Girl Scouts dedicated and gated 10 Public Parking at Tot lot 2 Total Lost Spaces 42 Given this loss of 42 spaces as a result of the Project, there is an excess of only 75 spaces That is, the loss of parking spaces as a result of the Project must be counted against the excess parking spaces. The DEIR should be revised to include a thorough parking analysis under Section 5.6 and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Further, the Project is proposed as a Five Star resort hotel with 110 rooms and fifty -eight (58) employees. We understand that other Five Star hotles in the area require a much higher ratio. As indicated above, the DEIR has eliminated Recreation from the environmental issues to be addressed, even though Recreation had been included in the NOP. The DEIR states that the half court basketball court doesn't get much use, according to City's recreation staff, and therefore, will not be replaced. Page 5.4 -12 However, residents of the Peninsula do, in fact, use the court. Because the court is protected from the wind by its location on the Bay side of the Peninsula and between the tennis courts, it is preferred over the full court located on the ocean side at the elementary school. In fact, the City has recently completed some repairs to the court, presumably because it is used. The Final EIR should address this impact and provide necessary mitigation. Further, the DEIR states that the proposed Project would replace the four tennis courts with the same number of courts, but the hotel would offer tennis lessons on the courts. How will this impact the current heavy use of the tennis courts? The Final EIR should include a Recreation section, which analyzes these proposed Project's impacts and provide necessary mitigation. Further, Section 5.4.1 and following sections include a discussion of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan stating that it has "been determined to be applicable to the ZL/ EQAC Page 14 May 28, 2004 proposed project ..." In fact, the DEIR states that "(t)he project site is designated Recreation and Environmental Open Space." DEIR, 5.4 -3. The DEIR mentions that Charter Boats and Boat Tours may pass the Project. The Project may accommodate some of these boats. The DEIR should address all impacts associated with such Iarge boats and propose necessary mitigation. In addition, any Project permit should condition such use so that any and all such impacts are mitigated, or if not, should restrict such use. One of the objectives of the Recreation and Open Space Element is to "(m)aintain and enhance the scenic character of the City." The policy which supports this objective seeks to "protect and enhance existing view opportunities, especially public views of the ocean, harbor, and upper bay...." Section 5.4.3 states that the Project would provide view corridors from Balboa Boulevard to the Bay; and therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with the objective of the Recreation and Open Space Element. However, the views from Balboa Boulevard through the majority of the proposed Project site will be obstructed by 24 -foot, 27 -foot or 34 -foot buildings which will act as a sound barrier. The Final EIR should analyze this impact more realistically and provide necessary mitigation. Finally, the DEIR states that, because the Project is compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan, the Project will not have any cumulative land use impacts. However, the Project requires discretionary actions, e.g. amendments, regarding the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan as well as a Coastal Development Permit. As discussed above, the Project together with other projects listed in Table 4 -1 as well as the efforts to revitalize the Peninsula may create significant cumulative impacts in connection with land use. The DEIR should be revised to discuss and address such cumulative impacts. Incidentally, the DEIR offers inconsistent building setback requirements on 18th Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed along the 18th Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18th Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 5.5: Transportation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: IVMarinapark Resort and Community Plan TPO: Traffic Analysis. This analysis focuses on 7 intersections during weekdays of the "shoulder season," fall and spring when schools are in session. The intersection closest to the proposed project is Newport Blvd. and 32 "d St. Sections 5.5.5 concludes that the Project will have no significant transportation and circulation impacts; Section 5.5.6 concludes that therefore no mitigation measures are needed. However, Table A -1 to Appendix E recognizes what every summer visitor to the Peninsula and full -time resident knows: the summer weekend traffic in the vicinity of Balboa Blvd. and 20th St. is already at LOS E or worse which exceeds the City's standard of acceptable service, LOS D. Although the Project traffic may not exceed the 1 % increase threshold, it likely will contribute to the existing traffic problem. Moreover, as indicated above, the Project together with other projects 'Z - EQAC Page 15 May 28, 2004 identified in Table 4 -1 as well as the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula likely will have cumulative impacts which require mitigation. The City may wish to consider improved traffic flow measures in this area to include, for example, limited on- street parking, better turn -out lanes and improved traffic signal timing/synchronization. In our comments on the IS/NOP for the Project, we requested that the DEIR "analyze and, if necessary, propose mitigation for Project impacts on seasonal traffic problems ". It further requests that the DEIR "discuss and analyze the Projects design and impact on the intersections at 15th, 16th, 17' and 18th streets with Balboa Blvd." The DEIR did not take the suggestion and none of these intersections were addressed. The DEIR should be revised to address these intersections, provide an environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on transportation in the vicinity, and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Further, traffic associated with Resort employee, construction and service vehicles is not mentioned in the DEIR. Are there plans to schedule deliveries and plans for off -site employee parking to minimize traffic impacts? Correlatively, the DEIR does not address traffic access and internal circulation at the site. As indicated above, the DEIR states that the Project will not have significant impacts on vehicular access and, by implication, no impacts on internal circulation. Yet, the document is silent on these issues. The DEIR should be revised to address and consider vehicular access and internal circulation, identify any Project related impacts, and propose necessary mitigation. Also, the Project may have short-term impacts on transportation and circulation. Section 5.6 suggests that the Project will require a construction traffic management plan. Yet, Section 5.5 contains no analysis of the short-term construction impacts of the Project on transportation and circulation. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the short term construction impacts on traffic and circulation, discuss the construction traffic management plan, and, if necessary, propose adequate mitigation. Finally, as discussed briefly above, the DEIR attempts to address parking demands in connection with the Land Use analysis which discusses code requirements for the Project. However, the DEIR should include an actual study on the parking demands for the Project which considers and addresses all Project features. However, Section 5.5 should include a parking study which addresses the Project's parking demands, access to parking lots, and related issues. The DEIR should be revised to address these potentially significant impacts and, if necessary, propose mitigation. F. Section 5_6: Air Ouality. Without any analysis of hazards and hazardous materials in or around the Project site, the DEIR concludes that the Project will have no impacts on air quality in that the Project will "not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants or generate objectionable odors." DEIR, 5.6 -12. Z6 EQAC Page 16 May 28, 2004 However, without the hazardous materials analysis, this conclusion is difficult to support. As indicated above, the Project is near several areas subject to significant contamination. Such may have migrated to the site. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of such materials and pollutants, the air quality analysis should be revised to include and refer to the pollutant analysis, and if necessary, mitigation should be proposed. G. Section 5.7: Noise. Section 5.7 addresses potential noise impacts associated with the Project. As indicated in Section 3.1.1 and elsewhere, the Project is partially surrounded by residential neighborhoods. Such are sensitive noise receptors. Section 5.7.3 recognizes that the Project's heating, air conditioning and ventilation equipment may create minor amounts of noise but concludes that such noise is commonplace. However, the Project's operations will include other non - commonplace noise sources including delivery and trash trucks, employee transportation and other vehicular noise sources not present under the current configuration. The DEIR should be revised to include a noise study of the Project impact on residences including those along 19th St. and West Bay, and 18th St. and West Bay. If necessary, the revised document should propose adequate mitigation measures. In addition, the Project may attract other noise sources including Charter Boats and Boat Tour operators. Such new sources likely will generate noise sufficient to adversely affect the residential neighborhoods. The DEIR should analyze all such impacts including noise impacts to residential neighborhoods across the bay and propose adequate mitigation. Further, Section 5.7.3 indicates that a primary noise source is traffic and that the Project will not be affected by noise from traffic on Balboa Blvd., because the buildings will block noise from Balboa Blvd. However, given this sound barrier, the Project may generate noise from various events which noise may adversely affect neighbors across the bay. Section 5.7 contains no discussion or analysis of such noise generation and impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include such an analysis and, if necessary, propose mitigation. Section 5.7 shows that noise levels associated with the Project will not be significantly higher than they are now except during the construction phase. Since Municipal Noise Codes are formulated in terms of 24 -hour average noise levels, it is likely that short term noise impacts may be significant without mitigation. In view of this, we recommend that the DEIR include mitigation measures to ensure that construction'companies and crews should be required to use all reasonable care to minimize noise generation by silencing loud equipment when feasible, avoiding early morning deliveries, controlling construction -site radios, and so forth. These considerations will minimize neighborhood disturbance and potential complaints. Construction companies should be encouraged to build subassemblies off -site when possible. The supporting noise impact analysis, Appendix G, notes that construction equipment noise will reach 90 dB when operating at full load. This will probably result in exceeding acceptable noise levels at the original or relocated Tot Lot(children's play area) during construction. Mitigation of this effect in the form of sound barriers around the Tot Lot should be required. 77 EQAC Page 17 May 28, 2004 H. Section 5.8: Aesthetics. Section 5.8 concerns the potential aesthetic impacts of the Project. Section 5.8.2 discusses Project impacts including those associated with public views, building heights, and setbacks. Among other things, the DEIR indicates that the Project will enhance public views. However, the DEIR is silent on the manner of enhancement. As indicated above, the DEIR maintains that the Project will create sound barrier so that vehicular noise will not reach Project visitors. Given this feature, it is unclear how the Project will enhance public views but diminish noise from Balboa Blvd. As indicated above, the DEIR contains some inconsistencies regarding set backs. The computer - generated visual simulations are helpful in illustrating the type of architecture and the overall look of the buildings. However, the simulations appear to have altered the lighting between the before and after condition. For instance, Exhibit 5.8 -2 clearly shows the architectural features of the Project in the after condition; the lighting in the before condition makes it impossible to assess what is there. In addition, there are some inconsistencies with what is being said in the text and what is being illustrated in the simulations; and in some cases, the computer simulations are misleading. In addition, there are inconsistencies within the text. The text on Page 3 -5 states that "(t)he maximum height proposed for the two -level villas is 27 feet while the proposed tower will be 34 feet in height." The text on Page 5.8 -2 states that "the hotel will have a maximum height of 24 feet. The main lobby will have a height of 34 feet." However, the computer simulation, Exhibit 5.8 -3 shows a tower that appears to be 10 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. Will the main lobby area be 10 feet taller than the other hotel buildings? Considering that the hotel lobby is almost 20,000 square feet, which is nearly 20 percent of the "Total Enclosed Floor Area," Table 3.2 -1, Page 3 -5, the height and overall scale are not accurately represented in the computer - generated visual simulations. Also, all of the computer simulations show no overhead utility lines, though such lines exist today. Yet the DEIR contains no discussion of this Project feature. Please confirm that these utilities will be placed underground as a part of the Project In our comments on the IS/NOP, we stated the DEIR should analyze and address Project related aesthetic impacts to the character of Balboa Blvd., which will be substantially altered by the volume and mass of the structures that are proposed. The DEIR states that the setback for the proposed Project from Balboa Boulevard is 15 feet. Does this include the main lobby with a height of 34 feet? Again, this is not clear from the computer simulations. However, if that is the case, that volume and mass will have a considerable aesthetic impact on the character of Balboa Boulevard. Finally, Section 5.8.3 addresses cumulative impacts. It concludes that, because the projects listed in Table 4 -1 are remote from the Project, it would not contribute to any cumulative impacts. However, as indicated throughout, additional projects must be considered including the revitalization efforts in the Peninsula. The DEIR should be revised to consider and assess the cumulative impact of the Project together with the efforts to revitalize the area, and if necessary, propose mitigation. zs EQAC Page 18 May 28, 2004 I. Section 5.9: Public Services. 1. Section 5.9.1: Police Services. Section 5.9.1 concludes that, based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Police Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Lieutenant Klein and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. Further, in our comments on the IS/NOP, we requested information regarding the number of service calls both for the Project as well as the other Project Alternatives. The DEIR contains no such information. In addition, the City has experienced demands on police services during the summer including on the Fourth of July. The Project may require additional staffing at this time as well as others. The DEIR should be revised to include the requested information, provide additional information concerning peak demands on police services including the Fourth of July, and , if necessary, provide mitigation, e.g. private security for the Project. 2. Section 5.9.2: Fire Services. Section 5.9.2 concerning fire services draws a similar conclusion as above for similar reasons: based upon a discussion with and/or statement from a member of the City's Fire Department, the Project will have no significant impact on police services. The DEIR fails to discuss the authorization and position of Mr. Lerch and his authority regarding manpower and service levels. In addition, Section 5.9.2 observes that: "[W]ith two fire stations located within one mile of the project site, emergency response time would be adequate." This may be misleading: we understand that the responding station may not be the closest station. Moreover, staffing at the stations differ: only one of the referenced stations has medical personnel. In addition, as indicated above, the DEIR does not discuss access and internal circulation. Although the DEIR promises that emergency access roads and resources will be provided, the DEIR contains no discussion for such access and resources. The DEIR should be revised to provide this discussion. Also, this section states that for fire suppression, "the municipal water supply should be adequate." DEIR, 5.9 -3. This statement should be stronger. The DEIR should be revised to include a study of the availability of fire suppression resources to ensure that the water supply will be adequate in the event of a fire. z9 EQAC Page 19 May 28, 2004 Both Section 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 indicate that the Project together with others will have no cumulative impacts on these services. However, as indicated above, the DEIR's cumulative impacts analyses for all impacts focuses upon Table 4 -1. The DEIR's cumulative impacts analysis should also consider the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula to ensure that the Project together with the Table 4 -1 projects as well as the revitalization efforts do not have cumulative impacts on various resources including fire and police services. 3. Section 5.9.3: Solid Waste. Section 5.9.3 addresses solid waste issues. Section 5.9.3 estimates that, in the existing condition, the Project site generates 522.31 pounds per day of solid waste. This section estimates that the Project will generate 403.5 pounds per day. These totals come from Tables 5.9 -1 and 5.9 -2. However, the estimate of waste generation for the existing condition seems high. Table 5.9- 1 addresses the existing condition and projects that the mobile home park generates 481.6 pounds per day. Although this estimate is based upon State of California estimates that a household generates between 4 and 8.6 pounds per day. Table 5.9 -1 uses 8.6 pounds per day. This is problematic for several reasons. The DEIR fails to explain why the existing condition uses the maximum expected trash generation. Further, the DEIR fails to consider that many residents in the existing condition are only part time residents. Both of these would significantly lessen the estimate of the existing condition. Also, the projection for the Project seems low and fails to consider the type of solid waste generated by the Project. Much of the waste generated by the Project would include wet kitchen trash which would require more frequent collection. Also, we are unaware of any similar resort or hotel within the City that would generate such a small amount of solid waste. Section 5.9.3's cumulative impact analysis is likewise inadequate. The section contains no cumulative impact analysis: it merely concludes that the amount of waste would be an incremental contribution and would not be significant. The DEIR should be revised to study the solid waste generation both for the existing condition and the Project condition, and if necessary, propose mitigation. 4. Section 5.9.4: Water Service. Section 5.9.4 addresses water supply and service. Further, this section indicates that the Project will require relocation of the existing water main to a different alignment on the site. It concludes that this relocation will have no impacts. However, without more explanation, this is questionable. Residents, schools and other businesses in the area will suffer during the construction and relocation process. The DEIR fails to recognize this impact and provide mitigation for these short term impacts. US EQAC Page 20 May 28, 2004 5. Section 5.9.5: Wastewater Service. Section 5.9.5 addresses waste water issues. Under existing conditions, the site generates a total of 7,093 gallons per day; the Project is proposed to generate more than three times this much: 22,553 gallons per day without any increased capacity to handle the increase flows. Moreover, the cumulative impacts analysis concludes that the Project together with future development will not create significant impacts. However, given that the Project will significantly increase demands on an aging infrastructure and the cumulative effect of the revitalization efforts on the Peninsula, the DEIR should include a study to insure that capacity and infrastructure are adequate and that the Project will have no significant wastewater impacts. 6. Section 5.9.6: Gas: and Section 5.9.7: Electricity. Both sections conclude that the Project will have no impact on these services. Both sections recognize that the Project will require twice as much gas and electricity as the existing condition. Moreover, both sections indicate that, even with this doubling together with future development including the revitalization of the Peninsula, the Project will not have cumulative impacts. The DEIR should be revised to include an analysis of the adequacy of resource supply as well as consider alternative sources, e.g. solar to replace electric consumption. If necessary, the DEIR should propose adequate mitigation. VII. Section 6: Other CEOA Considerations. Section 6.1 addresses significant and unavoidable impacts. It concludes that the Project will have no such impacts. As indicated above, Section 5.3 indicates that, even after mitigation, "only one significant unavoidable impact would remain" on benthic resources in or around the Project site. DEIR, 5.3 -13. The DEIR should be revised or explained so that this problem is resolved, and the public and decision makers may understand the Project's impacts as well as the need for any additional findings. Section 6.2 concerns growth inducing impacts. As indicated above, the Project is part of a revitalization effort for the Peninsula. As such, the Project may have growth inducing impacts. As elsewhere in the DEIR, Section 6.2 fails to consider the Project in relation to these revitalization efforts. The DEIR should be revised to consider the Project's growth inducing impacts when considered with these revitalization efforts, and if necessary, propose mitigation. VIII. Section 7: Alternatives to the Proposed Proiect. A. Section 7.1: The No Proiect Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing state is the project alternative. Section 7.1.2 states that the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it maintains the site in its existing condition. Nonetheless, because the No Project 31 EQAC Page 21 May 28, 2004 Alternative will not meet any Project Objectives, the DEIR concludes that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. However, Section 7.1 is inadequate. First, the DEIR's analysis of the existing site is inadequate. The DEIR fails to discuss and explain all of the environmental impacts associated with the current use and the existing condition including hazardous materials, water quality, land use, and other issues of the existing condition of the site. As to the Project Objectives, as indicated above, some of the Project Objectives are problematic: the advancement of economic goals do not seem to be appropriate environmental goals. Further, and more importantly, the DEIR fails to discuss exactly how the Project meets or advances these economic goals. B. Section 7.2: The Marinanark Marine Recreation Alternative. Section 7.2.1 discusses the Marine Alternative which includes parkland, land for the Girl Scout Center /Community Center, tennis and basketball courts, over 248 parking spaces, boat moorings and a boat launch. Section 7.2.2 is the impacts analysis for the Marine Alternative. This section concludes that the Marine Alternative would result in: less impacts than the Project to geology and soils, aesthetics and public services; similar impacts as the Project for land use and planning; and greater impacts than the Project for hydrology and water quality, biological resources, transportation/circulation, air quality and noise. Many of these latter stem from the analysis' estimate that the Marine Alternative would generate more traffic. However, this estimate is without substantiation or analysis. Indeed, it seems unlikely that this alternative will generate significantly more traffic. The DEIR should be revised to provide a full and complete traffic analysis of the Marine Alternative including variants and discuss the impacts in relation to the Project. If the Marine Alternative generates less traffic, then other impacts including air quality, noise, traffic and other related issues would be lower. If so, then the Marine Alternative could be the environmentally superior Alternative. However, this conclusion is based upon specific features of the Marine Alternative which could be modified to eliminate such impacts. For instance, Section 7.2.2 notes that the Marine Alternative will have greater water quality impacts, because it would include greater parking areas and impervious surfaces. As discussed above, the DEIR fails to discuss the amount of pervious surfaces for the Project. Moreover, the Marine Alternative could use alternative paving methods for the parking spaces including pervious pavers. Such would lessen any water quality impacts for the Marine Alternative. Or again, this section indicates that the Marine Alternative will have greater impacts on biological resources, because it would include "larger boat slips and boat launch" than the Project. Again, these features can be changed. Section 7.2.2 recognizes that the Marine Alternative's impacts on biological resources could be mitigated. 32- EQAC Page 22 May 28, 2004 As for land use, the DEIR states that both the Project and the Marine Alternative are "compatible with surrounding land uses consistent with the General Plan." DEIR, 7 -4. However, the analysis fails to discuss whether the Marine Alternative will require a General Plan Amendment. The DEIR should be revised to provide more detail and analysis for the Marine Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank and its feasibility. C. Section 73: The Reduced Intensitv Alternative. Section 7.3 addresses the Reduced Intensity Alternative which would include an 88 room hotel, a 4,500 square foot restaurant and 12 boat slips. Section 7.3.3 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Project. Among other things, Section 7.3.2 concludes that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have greater transportation and circulation impacts, because it would result in 869 average daily trips as opposed to the Project's 640 average daily trips. However, many of those trips are associated with the large restaurant. A different project feature, e.g. a smaller restaurant and/or parkland, would reduce such trips, perhaps below the Project level. As before, the Reduced Intensity Alternative fixes on features that may create significant impacts whereas other possible features with fewer impacts are not analyzed. The DEIR should be revised to consider other features for the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and reconsider and discuss the evaluation of its environmental rank. IX. Miscellaneous Considerations. We note that the Project in the IS/NOP is entitled the Newport Regent Beach Hotel. The Project for the DEIR is entitled the Marinapark Resort Hotel and Community Plan. The DEIR should explain the change and the proposed Community Plan. X. Conclusion. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DEIR be revised to address the issues raised above. 33 Please see C -3389 for the Project Conceptual Plan :36 'D7/20C4 11 : 13 C. 2E5 RAI Recreational Advisors International June 7, 2004 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Re: EIR — Marinapark Project "RECEIVE A ER AGENDA PRIMED:" o — 4t 33 Via Fax: 949- 644 -3229 cc: City Council Harbor Commission John Corrough While I can point out a wide range of technical deficiencies in the draft EIR, they will obviously be addressed by many who know and care about our harbor and have more direct knowledge of the specific issues. What I wanted to address and underscore is the obvious failure of the report to properly outline and describe alternatives to the proposed project. Many of us who have enjoyed this great harbor for many decades have great concern, ye, fear of the further loss of the dwindling assets that we , the public, own or control that are desperately needed to maintain the very environment that made Newport Beach great. Before losing another jewel why doesn't the Council deem that the FIR is insufficient and direct the author to conduct surveys of the marine industry locally to ascertain the variety of alternative uses for this property for the purpose of ensuring the continued vitality of our harbor. By that I mean not only shipyards and repair operations but visitor serving docks, showers, waterfront restaurant etc. Let us not be guilty of trading away one of our few remaining public assets for other than the highest purpose. I'm not just talking about revenue, as it may be that proper use of this land will not directly generate city income but may be insurance that our overall harbor economic health will continue. Sincerely, ichard S, Stevens Chairman 3344 G Coast Highway, Suite 3) 4, Carona del Mar, CA 92815 (949) 721 -9825 (949) 721 -1047 FAX ivww. recadvisors. corn