The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About18 - PA2003-218 - Marinapark Final EIRCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 July 13, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager's Office Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager 644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan (PA 2003 -218) 1700 West Balboa Boulevard Final Environmental Impact Report Fiscal Impact Analysis APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) RECOMMENDATIONS; 1. Review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and receive public comments during the public hearing; 2. Review and comment on the draft fiscal impact analysis; and 3. Continue the public hearing to July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION: Environmental Impact Report: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the draft Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project on July 8, 2004. At the conclusion, the Commission adopted the attached Resolution, recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, with the Reduced Intensity alternative identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Commission Discussion: The Commission reviewed the statutory intent and purpose for preparing, circulating, and certifying an Environmental Impact Report, and focused their discussion on several areas of impact analysis included in the DEIR and in comments received during the public circulation period. These areas were traffic, revised dock plan, hazardous Marinapark EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 2 materials, tidelands boundary, loss of recreation facilities, parking, alternatives to the project, land use compatibility, noise, and revised /additional mitigation measures. City staff and consultants summarized the analysis and conclusions in the DEIR and responded to Commission questions as each was introduced. This report highlights issues where information was clarified or added, or changes to the EIR were recommended. Traffic Staff noted that the trip generation rate used to analyze the proposed hotel was not the rate found in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Manual, but a rate that had been developed by Austin Foust Associates, the traffic consultant, in a study of resort hotels. This rate is higher than ITE's resort hotel rate for peak hours, and therefore results in a more conservative traffic analysis than would have been the case using the ITE rate. The DEIR should be amended to cite the correct source for the trip generation rate. The traffic consultant also noted that the traffic study assumed that only 24 mobile homes (those occupied by full -time residents) were occupied and generating traffic. The tables in the DEIR are correct; the text on page 5.5 -3 should be amended to delete the reference to a "fully occupied mobile home park" and explain the assumption regarding 24 occupied units. Alternatives Because the DEIR found the proposed project to have less environmental impact than any of the alternatives except no project, it concluded that the project is the environmentally superior alternative. The City Attorney advised the Commission that CEQA requires the lead agency to identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives to the project. Michael Houlihan of Michael Brandman Associates, who prepared the EIR, provided the Commission with a comparison of the Marine Recreation and Reduced Intensity alternatives. The DEIR shows that impacts from both alternatives would be less than significant, but the Reduced Intensity alternative would have less impact in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, biological resources and water quality. Based on this analysis, he recommended that the Reduced Intensity alternative be identified as the environmentally superior one, and the Commission accepted the recommendation. Public Comments: Four pieces of written correspondence were received at or prior to the Planning Commission hearing, and they are attached to this report. Eight members of the public spoke at the hearing. In addition to commenting on the environmentally superior alternative and project impacts they would experience, public comments raised a few issues to which staff responded. Marinapark EIR and Fiscal impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 3 Employees The DEIR states that the hotel will have 50 employees in total, but the project proponent has stated that there will be no more than 50 employees at any one time. In addition, existing luxury hotels in the region have a higher number of employees per guest room. Staff responded that hotel employees would work on varied schedules depending on work assignment (e.g., housekeeping vs. grounds maintenance), day of week, and whether there is a ballroom function. Therefore, there will not be shift changes involving all employees at the same time, which could have greater traffic and parking impacts. In addition, the small size of the proposed ballroom (3,600 square feet) was noted as a reason for a lower employee requirement than other hotels with larger conference and banquet facilities. Alternatives The Commission was asked to consider the Marine Recreation alternative as the environmentally superior one. Speakers also suggested that another alternative should be analyzed in the EIR, one that would be consistent with the existing General Plan but would not retain the mobile home park. The City Attorney advised that the Marine Recreation alternative accomplishes that because it is consistent with the existing General Plan and includes removal of the mobile home park. Traffic A question was raised regarding the impact of car rental activities at the hotel, and the City Attorney noted that such activity is not part of the project description, and would not be permitted without additional review. Another question was whether the use of taxis by hotel guests would change traffic impacts, and staff noted that the traffic counts done to establish the trip generation rate included all vehicles arriving and leaving the hotel. Fiscal Impact Analysis: The City's agreement with Sutherland Talla Hospitality requires that a fiscal impact analysis be prepared before the City Council certifies the EIR. Staff retained Applied Development Economics (ADE), the firm that is doing the fiscal impact work for our General Plan update, and they have analyzed the proposed project using the fiscal impact model that was developed for the General Plan work. ADE's draft report is attached. It may be revised prior to the City Council hearing on July 27, based on comments from the Council and public at the meeting on July 13. To provide a complete understanding of impacts, the fiscal analysis includes revenue expected from rent on the property and costs to close the mobile home park. In the case of rental revenue, the analysis assumes the lease terms that have been developed Marinapark EIR and Fiscal Impact Analysis July 13, 2004 Page 4 by the Council committee on lease negotiations, which will be discussed by the full Council in closed session on July 13. That discussion could result in amended terms, which will require revisions to the fiscal impact analysis. For closure of the mobile home park, the analysis assumes the costs suggested by a draft of the relocation impact report, which will not be finalized prior to July 27. For other costs and revenues, the analysis uses projections in the market study prepared by PKF Consulting for the project proponent and reviewed for the City by Keyser Marston Associates. Finally, cost and revenue factors developed for the fiscal impact model and reviewed by the General Plan Advisory and Update Committees and the Economic Development Committee were used for items not specifically projected for this project. The fiscal impact analysis concludes that the current land uses generate positive net revenue of $696,000 per year, which is attributable primarily to lease revenue. The projected impact of the project is positive net revenue of $3,544,773 (in 2004 dollars) in year 4, when the project is stabilized. This positive impact is projected to increase for the five years after stabilization included in the analysis. For the project, rent would generate approximately half the net revenue, and transient occupancy tax would generate over $1,00,000. Submitted by: Sfiaron Wood Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Planning Commission Correspondence 3. Fiscal Impact Analysis ATTACKlo.4ENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. 16.10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REGARDING THE MARINAPARK RESORT AND COMMUNITY PLAN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALBOA BOULEAVARD BETWEEN FIFTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH STREETS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 200311021). WHEREAS, Marinapark LLC (formerly Talla Sutherland Hospitality), 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650, Newport Beach, California, has applied to the City of Newport Beach for approvals necessary to develop a 110 -room luxury resort hotel, related ancillary facilities and community facilities on an 8.1 acre site on the north side of Balboa Boulevard between 15 "h and 18th Streets; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse, which assigned State Clearinghouse Number 200311021; and WHEREAS, the NOP and an Initial Study were distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties for a 30 -day public review period commencing on November 4, 2003, and ending on December 3, 2003; and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was distributed to agencies. interested organizations, and individuals by the City. The distribution list is available at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department; and WHEREAS, a 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to State law, which commenced on April 26, 2004 and ended on June 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, all comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were responded to in the Response to Comments document dated July 2004, distributed separately due to bulk and hereby designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -2 of this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. All comments and responses were considered by the Planning Commission during its review of the Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on July 8, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time the Final Environmental Impact Report, comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. a listing of persons and organizations that provided written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments, and responses to those comments, was considered. Notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was duly given and testimony was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the hearings. WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies potential significant impacts to the environment and certain mitigation measures designed to reduce or avoid these impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2003 1 1 021) designated by reference as Exhibit EIR -1 of this Resolution has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR adequately analyzes project- related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report identified by State Clearinghouse No. 200311021, with Section 7.4 of the Draft EIR amended to read as follows: "Based on the analysis in this EIR and on the requirements of Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, he reduced intensity alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project." ADOPTED this 8 °i day of July 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT BY: Larry Tucker. Chairman BY: Jeffrey Cole, Secretary 1) EXHIBIT EIR -1: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] EXHIBIT EIR -2: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT FIR [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] MRS. CAROL MARTIN 1824 West Ocean Front Newport Beach, California 92663 July 8; 2004 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. Re: Response to Marina Park DEIR Gentlemen: RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH JUL 0.8 2004 ?181T0111 112 j112131415 6 Thank you for the explanations of those issues I addressed regarding Marinapark's DEIR. I agree that the plan's change of dock design may mitigate some sealife issues. I disagree with these points: Traffic for Events The answer is inadequate. Whether or not events are the developer's intention, the facilities are clearly in the plan and therefore parking and traffic provisions for these ancillary uses need to be addressed. Metered Parkin! Lot These spaces are currently available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Accessibility only during hours of operation of the Girl Scout House and the Community Center is a reduction of public parking, which is so valued in this location and protected by City policies. Sidewalk R'idth on Balboa Blvd. can be an environmental issue in addition to a site plan issue if consideration is given to the ambiance of the pedestrian's experience when sharing space with others and their pets. A 4 -foot sidewalk adjacent to grass or sand is environmentally different from the same width sidewalk adjacent to oncoming traffic and a fence. In consideration of the frequency with which local residents utilize walling as a means of transit or recreation, this change in environment needs to be acknowledged and in addition the safety of children utilizing this route should be analyzed. I believe these issues require further analysis: Traffic Flow I repeat, "adequate provision should be shown for access routes that do not slow local traffic unassociated with the development ". Pursuant to the information pros -tided in the Response to the DEIR this is not addressed at the 17th Street left turn into the hotel entrance. In addition l0vph service vehicles entering the 15`b St service entrance through a limited access alley will significantly impact traffic flow at 15`s Street and Balboa Blvd. This has not been addressed adequately. Acoustics/Noise All responses fail to acknowledge the environmental impact of how noise travels across water echoing as it progresses and does not include mitigation measures to prevent intrusion on Lido Isle and the Lido Peninsula. This project's architectural design has potential for creating periodic increase in ambient noise levels across the water above levels now existing. Prevention of the problem should be the goal rather than dependence on enforcement of the city code to remediate the intrusion after construction is completed. Dock Whereas I would agree that the change of.dock design shod reduce disruption of sea life and improve water quality, the new plan for a 360 foot dock has not been analyzed in relation to environmental impact. These comments should be included. Thant: you for your attention to these issues. Sincerely, Carol Martin Central - Newport Beac A', Commun P.O. Sox B&4 Ncwpun. Dcach, Cal i(cm a 92601 July 7, 2004 Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92659 Association PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUL 0 g 2004 PM 71819110111112 111213141516 Re: Draft EIR- Marinapark Resort and Community Plan- Responses to Comments Members of the Planning Commission: Directors of the Central Newport Beach Community Association ( CNBCA) have reviewed the Response to Comments to referenced EIR and the staff report for referenced project for your meeting of July 8, 2004 and wish to offer the following comments: Recommendation In order to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR, the Planning Commission must find that the EIR adequately analyzes project - related impacts, identifies feasible mitigation measures and discusses project alternatives. We feel that, in its current state, the EIR cannot meet the criteria for these findings and thus must be augmented and recirculated. Inadequacies Despite comments made by CNBCA and others to the NOP and the DEIR, Recreation continues to be deleted from analysis as being not significantly affected. The response (H5) does not address the impact of the proposed change of zoning and use on the overall recreation policies of the City as embodied in the LCP and Recreation Element of the General Plan. In other responses concerning recreation, this site is equated with resident serving (Quimby type) recreation and ocean beach and completely fails to recognize the unique characteristics of the site as being on a bay beach. There is little such beach with its potential for still water activities (use by small children, swimming, hand boat launching, boating lessons, etc.) available to the public. The public marine oriented recreation use of this site is wholly consistent with the Tidelands Trust, a factor dismissed by response H5. The effect of this project on recreation is a significant effect pursuant to CEQA and should be analyzed as such. Modifications to the dock design were made pursuant to responses received. The Marine Recreation Alternative design described in the EIR was not altered in the responses. Consequently this alternative continues to bear negative analysis from a dock design that is not feasible. This alternative should be redesigned into a project that is feasible. Response H39 regarding the Marine Recreation Alternative is not adequate to address concerns over the skewing of intensity that casts the hotel alternative in a favorable light. Responses (including H21) use the deficiencies in coastal access under present conditions as a defense to continue to perpetuate deficiencies. Proposed access to the beach is through an imposing gate system at the entry to a luxury hotel — not inviting to the ordinary beach user, and the existing pathway to the beach adjacent to the American Legion will also be the service entry to the hotel, an unpleasant and potentially unsafe beach access. Currently there is little visual access to the bay through the site. This is used in the responses as an excuse to again provide very little visual access through hotel gates. Generous visual access should be included as a mitigation measure for the impact of the substantial bulk of proposed facilities. Visual access is a consideration of the Coastal Commission policies (reference Sea Scout Base). Responses to concerns regarding employees continue to refer to 50 hotel employees (H3 et. al.). At the City Council meeting of June S, 2004, in response to a question posed by Councilman Nichols, the project developer, Mr. Sutherland, stated that there will be an employee pool of approximately 150 people but it is anticipated that 50 maximum will be on- site at any given time. There must be an analysis of the impact of 150 employees not 50. In citing an unemployment rate of 4.1% in Orange County as a reason for the project not attracting non - residents to work at the hotel, the respondent fails to recognize that economists consider 4% as full employment thus rendering the answer inadequate. Response H7 addresses access from Fifteenth Street down the alley to the garage structure and service area. It states that the alley will be used only by the 50 employees and service vehicles therefore there•is no impact from using this access. If this is correct, despite there being 150 employees and 100 parking spaces, a mitigation measure should be imposed that access to the garage be controlled with only 50 vehicles allowed. Revisions to Exhibit 4 -1, Response H14, are appreciated. The graphic depiots Fifteenth Street north of Balboa Boulevard and West Bay east of Eighteenth Street as metered parking lots. They are public streets with perpendicular parking and are not different in use from any of the other metered parking south of or along Balboa Boulevard. There is a public beach at the end of Fifteenth Street. There has been a very short period of time, which included a major holiday, to analyze the Response to Comments. An EIR is supposed to be an impartial information document for decision makers. The Responses to Comments are defensive, in some cases inadequate and provide advocacy for the hotel project rather than impartial analysis. Your Commission's consideration of CNBCA concerns regarding inadequate analysis of alternatives, submission of incorrect employee information and suggested mitigation measures would be appreciated. Again, our recommendation is that additional analysis and augmentation of the EIR be performed and that the EIR be recirculated. At a minimum, additional time should be given for public analysis of this complex project and its documentation by continuing this item- Very truly yours, Louise Fundenberg, President [QJ Central Newport Beach Community Association JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, NI.D. 2221 East 16th Street Office Phone: (-/ 14) 848 -0770 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office Fax: (714) 848 -6643 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Email: JonV3@aol.com November 25, 2003 James Campbell, Senior Planner �� c.�A-Clc � City of Newport Beach p Planning Department '0 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Re: Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study (IS) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Title: Regent Newport Beach Hotel Project Applicant: Sutherland Talla Hospitality Dear Mr. Campbell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Regent Newport Beach Hotel at the area commonly known as Marinapark. Please put me on the distribution list for any notices concerning this project. I just received notice of availability of this document on November 20, 2003, and received the Initial Study itself on Novembei 23, 2003. Due to the citywide interest in this project and an upcoming citywide vote on the project, this Initial Study should have received wider distribution throughout the City. The Initial Study itself does not include a Distribution List, and I request that list be included in the DEIR. I believe there was inadequate public notice of the NOP and IS. I believe the Draft EIR should contain more information than the Initial Study indicates will be included in the DEIR. Under Section 1.6, Cumulative Impacts, an analysis should be made of the cumulative impacts of hotels possibly ringing the bay, induced by the development of this project. Also, the Cumulative Impact of loss of REOS from the General Plan should be analyzed, as the St Mark Presbyterian Church project, with loss of 10.81 acres of REOS is being processed concurrently with this project, which will lose an additional 8.1 acres of REOS from the City's General Plan. Under Section 1.7, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, the alternative proposed by the PBR Commission a couple of years ago should be included in the DEIR and analyzed for feasibility and possible adoption by the decision makers. Also, an alternative of creating a passive park serving as a window to the bay along Balboa Blvd should be considered, with removal of the mobile homes, similar to the El Moro situation at Crystal Cove State Park. Under Section 1.8.1, Effects Not Found To Be Significant, the IS finds that impacts to recreation are less than significant or of no impact. However, the project changes the General Plan Land Use designation from Recreational and Environmental Open Space to a District Plan, resulting in loss of 8.10 acres of REOS. This is a significant impact and should be considered as such, including the cumulative impacts of loss of REOS designations of other areas in the City, such as the St. Marks project. The St. Marks project is being processed concurrently with the Regent Newport Beach Hotel project, which will result in a loss of an additional 10.81 acres of REOS. The loss of JAN D. N'A\DERSLOOT, NI.D. 2221 East 1601 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Home Phone: (949) 548 -6326 Office Phone: (7 14) 84S -U77() Office Fax: 714) 848 -6643 Email: JonV3 a;aol.com 8.10 acres of REOS from the Regent Hotel plus 10.81 acres of REOS lost with St. Marks is a cumulatively significant loss of 18.91 acres that should be analyzed and mitigated. Analysis should include traffic and other environmental impacts from both projects since REOS open space is being converted to more intensive uses. Mitigation sites for replacement open space should include land such as the Lower Castaways site. Other mitigation strategies such as retaining more open space in the project site that would retain the REOS designation should be considered, such as 50% retained as open space. Such a strategy, including replacement open space at Castaways, should ensure that no net loss of REOS in the City occurs with either or both of these projects. Section 3, Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, Environmental Checklist Responses, I. Aesthetics, Environmental Checklist Responses; a) scenic vista, b) scenic resources, c)existing visual character. The DEIR should include an analysis of the scenic vista and scenic resources if the current General Plan designation of REOS is ultimately fulfilled; that is,, removal of the mobile homes and other view blocking structures. Under the existing REOS designation, there could be a Ride -open vista of the bay for the public along Balboa Blvd, probably the last opportunity to reclaim and preserve a bay view for the public in perpetuity. The proposed project will forever take away this view, and that is a significant impact. The view corridor that is proposed for the project is pathetic compared to the potential views created by the current REOS designation. Thank you again for the opportunity to make comments and please put me on the distribution list for further notices, including my email address of JonV3aaol.com. Sincerely, `Jan D. Vandersloot, MD v C SPON Comments — Marinapark EIR 1 The obiectives are written so that only a hotel proposal will be selected as the Preferred Alternative. The objectives overemphasize the need for the site to generate revenue for the City, which is inappropriate for the future use of a park. Who ever heard of a city park is being required to generate revenue to offset citywide police services costs, or pay for the cost to comply with tideland environmental regulations? The objectives predetermine the conclusion that the park shall be converted to a hotel. This contradicts Government Code 21001 that requires government agencies to develop standards and procedures and to consider alternatives. Fiscal issues have taken precedence over action to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environment. An example that confirms the EIR is biased toward the hotel is demonstrated by the City's dismissal of its own Environmental Quality Advisory Committee's (EQAC) concern about the limited scope of the objectives. The EQAC writes: "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. Coven 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" In response, the City writes. "The project luxury resort hotel concept for this site was first presented to the City in 2000 in response to a Request for Proposals sent by the City of Newport Beach to potential developers of the Marinapark site. Marinapark Resort (formerly regent Newport) was selected by the City Council from among the proposals submitted because the proiect offered potential benefits to the Cites the others did not includiniz generation of significant revenues to the City's General Fund. Accordingly, the potential benefits of the Marinapark Resort project that were the basis for its selection for the project site have merely been restated as the project objectives" (Response to Comments, Pages 36 and 37). Aside from the disturbing realization that the City is actively seeking proposals to develop public parks with commercial uses, the City has admitted that the selection of EIR alternatives has been manipulated so that only the hotel will meet the project objectives. The notion that parks need to generate significant revenue is counter to the purpose for having a public park. Marinapark consists of only 8.1 acres. By contrast, there is a much larger amount of commercial land on the peninsula. If luxury hotels make economic sense on Balboa Peninsula, a developer may purchase and rebuilt any of the many low cost hotels on the peninsula with no loss of parkland and similar economic benefits to the project. Parks should not be irrevocably developed with commercial interests in order to balance the City's apparent lack of fiscal solvency. The few open spaces in the City, and on Balboa Peninsula in particular, should be protected for our children and future generations. This is especially true as additional residential projects, such as the South Coast Shipyard, will increase demand for limited public recreational opportunities on the peninsula. 2. The impact analysis should assume the mobile homes are removed. The mobile homes are not consistent with the General Plan. And in accordance with the General Plan, the mobile homes will be removed. The City has put mobile home residents on notice that their leases will not be extended. Ultimately, the entire site will become public open space. By including the mobile homes in the baseline land use assumptions for Marinapark, the EIR assumes that the environmental impacts they create will remain forever. By retaining the mobile homes in the baseline, the hotel project appear better by comparison. For example, on Page 5.5 -2, the DEIR discusses traffic as follows: "Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the number of trips in the project area above that contributed by existing uses. Since the project site currently has a mobile home park that generates traffic, the additional traffic generated by the proposed project will be the net increase of the difference between the number of project generated trips and the number of existing trips from the mobile home park residences." In summary, the City reduces the traffic impact for the hotel by the amount of traffic generated by the mobile home park. This means that the hotel proponent will not need to mitigate all the traffic generated by his project because he gets a credit for the mobile homes. The DEIR uses this same logic to other environmental impacts, such as: • Aesthetics. The mobile homes block views to the harbor. By comparison, the hotel is not better or worse. • Air Quality. Any air pollution generated by vehicles originating from the mobile home park is credited against air emissions generated by hotel patrons. • Noise. Any noise generated by vehicles originating from the mobile home park is credited against noise generated by vehicles driven by hotel patrons. • Public Services and Utilities. Public services and utilities used by mobile home park residents are credited against public services and utilities used by the hotel. Since the mobile homes' days are numbered, and they are not consistent with the General Plan, it doesn't make sense that the applicant gets to credit the environmental impact of the mobile homes against his proposal. The EIR should compare the environmental impacts of the project with the site absent the mobile homes. This will result in a fair choice between aquatic, beach, and community facilities versus an alternative not consistent with the General Plan that offers a hotel on most of the property with limited public facilities and coastal access. To see how this makes a significant difference, consider the aesthetic impact of the hotel once the mobile homes are removed from the site. If the public knew they had a choice between unobstructed harbor views or a hotel, they would choose the unobstructed views. The addition of the hotel would probably change the DEIR conclusion that there is no aesthetic impact, to a conclusion that the hotel causes a significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact. The fact that this choice is not given to readers of the DEIR contradicts Public Resources Code Section 21005 that requires disclosure of relevant facts. The same point can be made toward the DEIR approach toward other environmental impacts, such as traffic, air quality, noise, and public services and utilities. 3. The permanent conversion of parkland to a commercial use should be categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact The EIR has not adequately justified the need to replace parkland with a hotel. All land on Balboa Peninsula has been developed. If the City loses this land for a park, there is no replacement land on the peninsula. While it is true that the ocean side of the peninsula has many wide sandy beaches, this is not an overabundance of public open space on the harbor side. The ability to relax on a significant amount of open space to enjoy views of the harbor is a markedly different experience than using the beaches along the ocean. The harbor side park may be more interesting than the ocean, given the high degree of maritime activity that occurs at the harbor, from pleasure craft of all sizes and ages, to sea life, birds, and views of the islands and beyond. These will all be greatly restricted to a confined area if the hotel project were built. In fact, the tot lot and tennis courts face Balboa Boulevard, and have no relation to the harbor. An example of how the City has not expressed appropriate regard for the future recreational potential of the Marinapark is exemplified by the City's response to Carol Martin's comments regarding the loss of recreational opportunities. Ms. Martin writes: "Open Space The loss of 8.1 acres of Newport Beach's Open Space Element in a recreational area requires mitigation. How will the loss of the Las Arenas Park and beach be mitigated by equal open space elsewhere? This document fails to address this issue." The City responds as follows: "Neither Las Arenas Park nor the public beach will be lost due to the project. As noted on pages 1 -6 and 5.4 -12 of the DEIR, all park facilities other than the basketball half -court will be replaced, and the beach will remain open and accessible to the public. The portion of the site on which the hotel is proposed is currently occupied by the mobile home park, and does not provide open space or recreational opportunities. The Recreation and Open Space Element calls for the retention of the existing park facilities and beach and notes that the site "... affords future opportunities for park, recreation, and aquatic facilities which are not yet fully planned." The element does not indicate specific facilities that should be provided on the site. The project includes an amendment to the Recreation and Open space element, which would remove the reference to future opportunities at the project site." (Response to Comments, page 143) To summarize the City's response to Ms. Martin's comment, the City has stated that it intends to trade approximately 6.0 acres of mobile homes for a 6.0 acre hotel by simply removing a General Plan policy to provide recreation and open space on the entire site. In effect, the City has made up its mind that public will never be permitted full recreational use of the park, and will not be compensated for the loss of 6.0 acres of open space. Once again, parks should not be irrevocably developed with commercial interests in order to balance the City's apparent lack of fiscal solvency. The DEIR does not give the public the opportunity to understand the tradeoffs presented by the project when it determines the permanent loss of approximately 6.0 acres of General Plan open space will be used for a hotel. 4. The "No Proiect" Alternative should be revised The "No Project" alternative incorrectly includes mobile homes as a long -term land use. Under the current General Plan policies, the mobile homes are a short-term use, inconsistent with the General Plan, and slated for removal once the current leases expire. On Page 7 -2 of the DIEPZ the `No Project" alternative is described as follows: "The No Project/No Development alternate assumes that no new land uses (including infrastructure improvements) would be added to the project site. The existing mobile homes and recreational facilities would remain. While no development would be permitted under this alternative, the underlying General Plan and zoning designations would be retained, thereby allowing development of the project site in the future." The "No Project" alternative incorrectly assumes that the mobile homes remain. If the City does not change the General Plan, the "No Project" alternative would represent an environmentally superior alternative by a greater margin than the DEIR indicates. Once again, the DEIR does not accurately represent the facts concerning the public's choices for the site, and in doing so, fails to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21005. 4. Detailed DEER Comments Listed below are detailed comments regarding needed corrections to the DEIR. PrkLect description 3. 1.1 There appears to be an error in the existing land use description. Clarify whether the reference should be to "residents" as written or actually to dwelling units. 3.1.2 The project description should include a table showing acreages and /or square feet of existing land use designations on the site as well as proposed land uses (General Plan, Zoning) and development square footages. Since the project includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, this is needed to fulfill the intent of CEQA that the reader be able to understand the nature of the proposed project. Related Proiects 4.2 Table 4 -1 should be revised to add the proposal to convert 500 Superior from R&D to office. Land Use 5.4.3 Paragraph 2 The public access points referenced should be identified on the site plan. Paragraph 5 The building setback for the beachside walkway is mentioned but there is no discussion of walls and fences that would separate the hotel from the walkway. In order to support the conclusion of no significant impact, there should be a Mitigation Measure requiring that any wall or fence be set back a minimum of 6 feet from the sidewalk, with landscaping installed between wall and walkway. Page 5.4 -8 The Land Use Plans Policies and Regulations section needs to include a full description of the proposed GPA. Without this information the reader cannot understand or evaluate the project as required by CEQA, and the conclusion of no significant impact is unsupported. Furthermore, the analysis of Policy C consistency refers to the Traffic section of the EIR, which contains no mention of the employee and ballroom related trips. This section must describe what measures will be used to "minimize congestion" as required by Policy C. Page 5.4 -9 This section (as well as several subsequent sections) reference two public access points along Balboa Blvd flanking the hotel lobby building. The Site Plan in Exhibit 3 -3 shows two pairs of gates between Balboa Boulevard and the beach at the referenced location. Gates generally function in an urban landscape as a visual "keep out" message. In addition, these gates appear to be providing access to the hotel swimming pool. The EIR needs to discuss how the public access described will be reconciled with the needs for swimming pool safety code requirements. Page 5.4 -11 It is not clear how a high level of City services would be ensured by a future negotiation on the part of the City as suggested in the analysis in the first paragraph. If the inclusion of timeshare units in the project may require a development agreement due to potential impact, such impact needs to be determined an analyzed in this EIR. This section inappropriately defers analysis to some later time and defers mitigation to some action on the part of the City Council. Therefore the conclusion of consistency with General Plan Policy G is inappropriate and inconsistent with CEQA. Page 5.4 -12 Discussion of consistency with Policy 5.1 (see comment regarding Pg 5.4 -9 above). Page 5.4 -13 A hotel is not a water dependent use. The analysis of the Harbor and Bay Element fails to note that the private hotel component of the project is inconsistent with policies HB 1. 1.2 and HB 1.2.4. It should also be noted that the public marine park Alternative would be consistent with these policies. Page 5.4 -20 This section states that the Municipal Code specifies that a dock may not extend beyond the U.S Pierhead line. How does the obtaining of a permit from another government agency make the project consistent with the Municipal Coe.? This needs to be clarified or the conclusion needs to be changed. Additionally, the discussion of the NCCP should cite the studies done to support the conclusion that no biotic resources occur on the site. 5.4.5 This section proposes no mitigation measures. As noted in the above comments, some mitigation measures may be necessary. Aesthetics Exhibit 5.8 -4 Photo 3 illustrates the importance of open design fencing in maintaining views. A mitigation measure should be added to the EIR to require that all fencing and walls be comprised of open design (such as wrought ion) in order to preserve and enhance harbor and open space views consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the spa building described as "two story" actually is shown in the photo as having a significant one story component adjacent to eh project entry. This helps maintain an open view corridor and should also be requires a mitigation measure. Exhibit 5.8 -5 Photo 4 shows a number of trees and shrubs on a berm between the tennis courts and Balboa Blvd. Is the setback sufficient to accommodate the plantings illustrated? How will light and ventilation be provided to the parking area underneath? The photo also shows a clear view of a boat on the bay. How will such a view be assured, since this point is shown on the site plan as parking structure egress? The mitigation measure referenced in the comment on Exhibit 5.8 -4 above would preserve this view. Without such a measure, the illustration will be a pretty picture that is discarded when the "real' design is developed for the project. Pg 5.8 -11 The lighting analysis should include the likelihood of architectural lighting, its potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary. Public Services and Utilities Tables 5.9 -2, 5.9 -4, 5.9 -6, 5.9 -8 and 5.9 -10 should be revised to include the cafe use and the new boat slips. Without a full tabulation of the project uses, the analysis is inadequate, and the conclusion is unsupported. Other CEOA Section 6.1 — Significant unavoidable adverse impacts Due to the inadequate analysis noted in the comments above, the conclusion that all impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance is premature. Section 6.3 Irreversible Commitment to Resources that would be involved in the proposed action if implemented This section acknowledges the more or less permanent presence of large structures on the site. However it fails to discuss the implications of public land being used for a private business serving only visitors able to pay a very high price. The removal of this public property from a truly open public commitment should be discussed and analyzed. Section 7.4 The conclusion makes no sense and needs to be corrected. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS MARINAPARK RESORT July 8, 2004 Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by Applied Development Economics 2029 University Avenue • Berkeley, California 94704 • (510) 545 -5912 1029 J Street, Suite 310 • Sacramento, California 95514 • (916) 441 -0323 %vW- -' %.adeuSa.c0m CONTENTS Introduction............................................. ..............................1 Project Description ................................. ..............................2 Land Use Overview ............................................................... Phasing...................................................... ..............................3 Fiscal Impact Analysis ............................. ..............................5 LIST OF TABLES 1 Proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Facilities ......................... ..............................3 2 Projected Phasing For Marinapark Fractionals and Rental Occupancy Stabilization ..............................4 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uses, 2004 ........6 4 Impact of Marinapark Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................8 5 Net Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2009), in 2004 Dollars ...................... ..............................9 6 Marinapark Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006 - 2014..... 11 INTRODUCTION This memo presents our analysis of the fiscal impacts of the proposed iMarhnapark resort on the Cite- of Newport Beach, in comparison -with the impacts of the site's existing uses. This analysis estimates the annual operating costs and revenues for all services provided to die existing uses and the proposed project through the Newport Beach General Fund, the Tidelands Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and the 1Aeasure M Fund. Based on the assumptions and inputs outlined below, it projects the fiscal performance of the development from its initial year of operation through five years after rent stabilization, for a total of nine pears. This projection reflects escalations in costs and revenues as the development ages, and is thus presented in future dollars. M PROJECT DESCRIPTION LAND USE OVERVIEW The site of the proposed i\- lannapark Resort in Newport Beach is roughly- bounded by Newport Bay and a public beach to the north, Veterans Memorial Park and the American Legion Building to the east, 18`h Street to the west, and Balboa Blvd. to the south. Encompassing 81 acres, the site currently houses the 56 -space Marinapark Mobile Home Park, the Balboa Communitc Center, the Neva B. Thomas Girl Scout House, the Balboa Power Squadron (a boating club), Las Arenas Park, four tennis courts, and a half basketball court,'I'he mobile home court currently has 24 full-time and 32 part -time residents. The primary component of the proposed project is a 110 - room luxury- resort hotel. Lip to 12 of the rooms may be sold as fractionals, while the remaining 98 rooms will be available for rent. The 19,830 - square foot hotel lobby will include a registration area, retail, a cafe, a restaurant, a bar, a ballroom, and supporting facilities. Other uses associated with the hotel include a business administration building (2,154 square feet) and a spa villa (6,191 square feet). The project also includes reconstruction of the Girl Scout House and tennis courts, a tot park, and a shared parking facility for the resort and community- uses. A summary of the proposed uses is presented in Table 1. TABLE 1 Proposed Marinapark Resort and Community Facilities Land Use RESORT Luxury Resort Hotel Hotel Lobby Building Lobby Registration Retail Cafe Restaurant Bar Ballroom Supporting Facilities Total Business Administration Building Spa Villa COMMUNITY Community Center /Girl Scout House Tot Park Public Tennis Courts PARKING Structure Surface Handicap Total Parking TOTAL ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA PROJECT SITE AREA OVERALL FLOOR AREA RATIO Rooms /Square Feet/ Spaces /Acres 110 rooms /66,949 sf 3,000 sf 483 sf 600 sf 550 sf 1,124 sf 1,154 sf 3,603 sf 8,316 sf 19,830 sf 2,154 sf 6,191 sf 6,191 sf 3,000 sf 4 courts 100 spaces 100 spaces 9space s 209 spaces 101,315 sf 8.10 Acres Source: ADC, based on information provided by Nfichael Brandman As'sociatcs PHASING This analysis estimates the fiscal impact of the Marinapark resort during each year of its development. Although it is expected that all of the project components will be in place when the hotel begins operations in 2007, it will take several `ears for rental rates to stabilize. According to PhF Consulting and Keyser Marston Associates, this should occur during the fourth year of hotel operations, in 2010. In addition, fractionals will be released over a period of three )-ears, beginning the year before development is complete (2006), and ending during the second year of operations (3008). A sunnmatti of expected fractional sales, occupancy C 3 rates, and number of occupied roorrIs through stabilization is presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 Projected Phasing For Marinapark Fractionals and Rental Occupancy Stabilization Source: -\DE, based on mf,,-tnatI,,n lu"NI'led 6\ P Ki (."!I "Ji I Ing and I i'I ,.-I Mals!"11 As"'c III : &11 Year Project Component 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 (Unit of Measure) (Construction) (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3) (Stabilization) Fractional Sales 10 48 38 Rental Ocduppricy.Rate: (pe ent) . .. Tic 6 !.O'J/o 67.0% 74.01/o 76.0% Annual Rental Rooms Available (units) 35,110 35,770 35,770 3b'l 10 ..0mupied-Roorns (units) , 21,820 23,970 26,470 27,190. Source: -\DE, based on mf,,-tnatI,,n lu"NI'led 6\ P Ki (."!I "Ji I Ing and I i'I ,.-I Mals!"11 As"'c III : &11 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS GENERAL FUND AND TIDELANDS FUND FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This fiscal analysis addresses the revenues generated and costs incurred by the Marinapark resort development as they impact the City of Newport Beach General Fund and Tidelands Fund. The capital costs stemming from construction of public infrastructure and facilities related to the project would be fully funded by the project developer and are not detailed in this report. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS Using the Newport Beach fiscal impact model developed for the City's General Plan Update, ADF, estimated the annual costs and revenues associated with both Marinapark's existing land uses and those associated with the proposed development. The results of these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Next, we considered the net impact of die hotel project at stabilization when compared to the existing uses (Table 5). Finally, -we estimated the annual costs and revenues of the proposed project over time, from the first year of operations to five years after stabilization, for a total of nine years (Table 6). Existing Site Impacts The impact analysis of the site indicates that the current land uses generate positive net revenues of $696,000, with $718,000 in revenues against 521,000 in expenditures. This positive impact occurs despite the predominance of residential land uses (the mobile home park) because the City owns the site and collects land lease revenue from both the residents and the Balboa Power Squadron (Table 3). LA TABLE 3 Impact of Existing Marina Park Land Uses, 2004 Revenues Mobile Power GENERAL FUND Total _._Home Park Squadron GENERAL FUND .^ °.l'. : •,,g11 $0 Property Tax $570 5570 $0 Sales Tax $5589 $5,589 $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 Franchise Fees $581 $581. $O Business Licenses .. S277 $277 $0 ,.. . _. Motor Vehicle- in.Lieq, $950 ':$950. $0 Other Intergovernmental $432 $432 $0 .. - ..,Chargesjo.r.Sewice, . $2,3: .... .2,337 . s0 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $862 $862 SO . Licerises and .Permits $0 $103 $0 Use of Property $1,458 $1,458 $0 .:OtherRevenue. $153: $153° ..::...:: $0 Interest Income $1 $1 $0 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $13,',12 $13,312 $0 TIDELANDS FUND $523 $523 SO I I(wr« �, Permits, and Fees •' ; Q $318 $0 charges for Service $9 $694,559 $1,935 Use of Money a ^c'rroperty 5 ..3,:13 S-! 1,47 Q jl;'35 GAS TAX $855 ;4) MEASURE M SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $7u4,599 $;u2,664 $1,i3� TOTAL REVENUE $717,911 $.715,976 S1,935 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government .^ °.l'. : •,,g11 $0 Police ;(;,22- $0,227 .. $0 F.re ?„ S(: s0 Public Works $ >,62G $ ^,(.2o ..V$0 Community Development So Community Services 51,633 $4,p3; $p CIP SIree.!s $1 lo S14�. $0 _0therCI1?- Projects. : :..$79.4 S SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $20,8"1 5',801 $0 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 s0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $fi $0 CIP 5230 $230 SO GAS TAX $175 $175 $0 MEASURE M $118 $118 $0 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $523 $523 SO TOTAL EXPENDITURES $21,417 $21,417 $fl _ NET $696,494 $694,559 $1,935 Source: ADL, City of Nc�cport Beach 6 Project Impact & Net Impact at Stabilization Analysis of the proposed project indicates that in the year that hotel rents stabilize (year 4), the Marinapark resort will generate positive net revenues of about $354 million (in 2004 dollars), with $3.57 million in revenue against 526,000 in expenditures. Large revenues are generated due to both the prospective land lease tenns and die transient occupancy tax generated by the project (fable 4). Subtracting the revenues generated by existing site uses from this amount results in a net revenue increase of $155 rr llion for the Newport Beach budget, including the General Fund, Tidelands Fund, Gas Tax Fund and Measure M Fund (Table 5). &I TABLE 4 Impact of Marinapark Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Lodging GENERAL FUND Property Tax 566,98() Sales Tax $2,533 Transient Occupancy Tax $997,697 .. .. Franchise Fees . $1,177 Business Licenses $153 . - Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu. $1 Other Intergovernmental $514 - — Charges.for Service $2,782 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,027 Licenses.and Permits . $123 Use of Propery $1,736 _ Other. Revenue ..1 $182 Interest Income $16,895 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND P1,091,899 TIDELANDS FUND Uce'ises, Permits, and Fees Charges for Service... $11 use of Money and Property $_ girl GAS TAX -. -- .. $o MEASURE M real SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $'_',4 %9,U59 TOTAL REVENUE $3,170,958 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,286 .. , _ -:.: .. .._.,......::, Police $7.772 Pere $1.947 - - - Public Works 5(, 69$ Cnrovitinity Developmew • 740 Community Services $0. CIP Streets ;345 Other CIP Projects $950 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND S24,239 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $(1 Oil and Gas $0 CIP $254 GAS TAX S1,009 MEASURE M $683 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS_ $1,947 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 526,185 NET $3,544,773 Somcc: ADL. City of Newport Beach, hewer Marston Associates, PIi ' Consulting Note: Public uses arc not Gstcd because they do not generate ally C -)StS or revenue,, in this ;ecuarin. ll TABLE 5 Net Impact of Marina Park Hotel at Stabilization (2010), in 2004 Dollars Revenues Existing Proposed S61 charges,for Service Site „ Project Net Impact GENERAL FUND c- 103,413 g' u- ; I:) $1,77,4397 Property Tax $570 $66,980 $66,410 -.. Sales Tax $5,589 $2,33 ($3,055) Transient Occupancy Tax S0 $997,697 8997,697 Franchise.Fees $581 $1,177 $596 Business Licenses $ 2_77 $253 ($24) .. Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu $951 - $0 . ($950) Other Intergovernmental 5432 $514 S82 ::.Charges for Service.: $2,337 $2,782. $445 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $862 $1,027 $164 . . =.. Licenses'anJ.Permits,. - `$103 . :$123: : $20 Use of Property $1,458 $1,736 $278 Other Revenue: ..: $153. . 5182 _ $29 Interest Income $1 576,895 $16,895 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND 513,312 51,091,899 S1,078,,iM TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $318 $3 -11 S61 charges,for Service . $9 g 11:.:: : :. .$2 of Money and P, :,,,ry c- 103,413 g' u- ; I:) $1,77,4397 .GAS TAX .... $85j:: ?" -...($855) MEASURE M $3 $t'u" $857 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $; 04,599 $2,4.79,059 $1,774,461 TOTAL REVENUE $717 ,()I1 $3,,70,953 $ 2,853_,047 Expenditures $696,494 $3,544,773 $2,848,279 GENERAL FUND General Government 52,841 $2,286 ($555) ..- .. ol ice ':;i:::..- $6,227 $7s772 .:.. � � $1,545 Fire SO $4,947 $4.947 ... .. . �'. PublicVJOrks:: $5;626 :' ..' . �i- $6,698; .�� . .. �. 1,072 Community Development $622 $740 $118 - - Communi N Services $4,633- ... .: : $D: _($4,633) CIP Streets $146 2..2.2.2 $845 $699 °. ..:..,. Other. CIP.Projects, :: $798 . ` ..4950 $d 52 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $211,894 524,239 $3,345 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 Sli Oil and Gas SO $0 $0 CIP $230 $254 S24 GAS TAX 5175 $1,009 $834 MEASURE M $118 $684 $565 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $523 $1,947 $1,423 _ TOTAL EXPENDITURES $31,41' $26,185 S4,7168 NET (CAST) /REVENUE $696,494 $3,544,773 $2,848,279 Source ADE., Cttc of Newport Beach, Reeser Marston :Associates, PI F Consulting Project Impact Over Time Based on our projections, the project will initially generate a negative fiscal impact for the City, but by the time the project commences operations in 2007, the fiscal impact is a net positive. In year one of operations the proposed project will generate $2.16 nulhon in net revenues, with $2.19 in revenue against $28,600 in expenses (in 21)07 dollars). Net revenues are predicted to increase steadily through five years after stabilization. At this point, the development is expected to generate $3.07 million (in 2014 dollars) in net revenues, with $3.1 million in revenues against $36,000 in expenses (fable 6). [This space intentionally left blank) 10 TABLE 6 Marinapark Fiscal Impact Projections, 2006 -2014 Revenues Development Year Year2 Yearl (2005) (2006) (2007) Operations Year (2008) Year (2009) GENERALFUND Chargesfor Service. :.. !:... � .. :... .. $12 Property Tax $71,080 572,Si�1 573,951 :Sales -Tax $50,454 $56,799 $61,372 Transient Occupancy Tax $878,745 $997,269 $1,134,178 Franchise Fees $1,286 $1,324 $1,364 Business Licenses $2 77 S285 $293 Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu $0 $0. - .. $0 Other Intergovernmental - -- --_.. . __. _....... _.. _.. ._ .. $561 $578 $596 Charges forSennce $3,040:, $3,131. $3,225 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures 51,122 $1,156 $1,190 . Licenses and Permits. $134 : $138 $142 Use of Property $1,897 $1,954 $2,012 Other Revenue `....,_:- ...._ .:..::.:.. ... $199- $-()5.- x$212 Interest Income $18,462 $19,016 $19,586 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $1,07,256 $1,154,356 $1,298,121 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $2,498 $414 $426 $439 Chargesfor Service. :.. !:... � .. :... .. $12 - .:. $12-: i:: `$13' Use of Money and Property $565,000 $580,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 $1318,868 . $7765 Community Development $80, $h.;; X858 MEASURE M _ -.. - - $•� $939 $967 $997 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $565,000 $580,000 $1,161,365 51,161,406 $1,320,316 TOTAL REVENUE $565,000 $580,000 $2,188,622 $2,315,763 $2,618,438 Expenditures GENERALFUND General Government $2,498 $2,573 $2,650 ..:- :.:......-.$8,492 . -:. $81747.:. _:.$9,010 Fire $5,406 $5,568 $5,735 _Public Works, .:...:.:. .:...:: :. .., -.:, ... .. ..: - $7,319 -: $7,539.. . $7765 Community Development $80, $h.;; X858 Community Services _ -.. - - $•� $n $p, CIP Streets $' -.' £ "51 5979 Other CIP Projects .. :. $1,031) $1,:� l� $1,102 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $0 $0 $26,481• 5':,2x1 $28,099 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 $0 CIP 51,080,000 $0 5278 $286 $294 GAS TAX $1,102 $1,136 $1,170 MEASURE M 5747 5770 $793 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,080,000 $U $2,127 $2,191 $2,257 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,080,000 $0 _ $28,614 $29,472 $30,356 NET ($515,000) $580,000 $2,160,008 $2,286,291 $2,588,082 CUMULATIVE NET ($515,000 $65,000 $2,225,008 $4,511,299 $7,099,380 Source: ; \bS, Citp of Newport Beach, Kcyscs Nfirstun Associates, PIMP Consulting L Revenues ____ Stabilized Year 4 - _(2010) Year 5 (2011) Year 6 (2012) .._..... _.. ..., _._ Year 7 (2013) Year B (2014) _... Year 9 (2014)_ GENERALFUND .....:, :,. :$13. ; ;.,'. ..4:..$14... :...:..$14 $14 .. ... , $15 $15 Property Tax $75,430 S76939 $78,478 580,047 $81,648 $53,231 Sales Tax $64,921 $66,869 - .. $68,875. .. $710,941 �- $73,069 $75,261 Transient Occupancy Tax $1,198,432 51,234,833 $1, ^_74,034 $1,310,435 51,349,636 $1,391,638 Franchise Fees $1,405 . $1,447 $1,491 $1,535 51,581 $1,629 Business Licenses $302 $311 8321 $330 5340 $350 Motor Vehicle -in -Lieu. ..... $0. .: $o.. $0_ -. $0 $0 $0 Other Intergovernmental $613 $632 $651 $670 $690 $711 Charges for Service . - $3321 ....$3,421 $3=524: : -_$3,629 - $3.,738 $3,850 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,226 $1,263 $1,301 $1,340 $1,380 Licenses and Permits.....:.; ::.: ;......: ..:.: $147. ... . $151 $155. - $.160..`:... . $165 __$_1,421 $170 Use of Property $2,073 52,135 $2,199 $2,265 $2,333 $2,403 Other Revenue .218': :. $ - $.._4 $231 $ 238: $245 $253 Interest Income 520,174 $20,7'9 S21,403 $22,045 $22,706 $23,387 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $1$68,263 S1,409,0(j5 51,452,661 $1,493,636 $1,537,533 $1,584,355 TIDELANDS FUND Licenses, Permits, and Fees $452 $466 $480 $494 $509 X524 Charges.for.Service ..' .:.. :.... ... .....:, :,. :$13. ; ;.,'. ..4:..$14... :...:..$14 $14 .. ... , $15 $15 Use of Money and Property $1,309,581 $1$49,182 $1,391,166 5:1,411 627 $1,474,498 Sl.�I0-:)l GAS TAX ... .. .. ,.,... :: i:: -. $0. ,-.:: .:.: $Cl i:..:$II $11-: :-__. - g6 $o MEASURE M $1,026 S1,057 $1,010 51,1'2 $1,15.4 51,190 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,311,072 $1,350,718 $1,392,749 $1,439,.:.,7 $1,476,177 $1,521,521 TOTAL REVENUE $2,679,335 $2,759,723 $2,845,410 $22,926,894 $3,013 710 $3,105,875 Expenditures GENERAL FUND General Government $2,73• $'.yL' $2,896 $2,983 53'rl $3,165 Police ?0,281 $9,558 $9,845 $10,141 $10,441 =10,758 Fire $0 $0 S6,2(.- $0 $6,64') 5: ,848 `Public Works S -,99M $8,238 $8,485 s8, 3'% 53-41 $9,272 Community Develoorient $884 $`)lC $1,278 $1,316 S:." 5;n 24 Community. Services ,: $i, $u $0 $0 :u . $0 CIP Streets $1,00`, $1,1 $1,:�-�� $1.11" I,, k5 $1,170 Other CIP, Projects $1,135 . . $1;169 ,. $1,20- $1,240 51,277 .; $1,316 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND _ 5 `,,942 ^9,811 34,74•, $'I,o2o $�_,�75 ' $33,552 TIDELANDS FUND Harbor Resources $0 $0 $0 $0 50 $0 Oil and Gas $0 $0 s0 $0 $0 $0 CIP $303 $312 $322 $331 53-41 $352 GAS TAX $1_205 $1,241 $1,278 $1,316 $1,356 $1,397 MEASURE M $816 $841 8866 $892 $919 $946 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $ 2,324 $2,394 $2,466 $2,540 $2,616 $2,695 TOTAL EXPENDIT_U_RES $31,267 $32,205 $33,171 534,166 535,191 $36, 1_47 NET $2,648,069 $2,727,518 $2,812,239 $2,892,728 $2,978,519 _ $3,069,628 CUMULATIVE NET (COST) /REVENUE $9,747,449 $12,474,967 $15,287,206 $18,179,934 $21,158,453 $24,228,081 $nurce: ADP, Ciro of Newpnrt Reach, Keyser A- larston Aesociatcs, PKF G,nsulting I• 12 FISCAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The Newport Beach fiscal impact model, developed for the City's General Plan Update, was used as the framework for the analysis. Known characteristics about existing arid proposed uses —such as building square footages, assessments, population, and number of employees—were input into the model to generate costs and revenues. V' here costs and revenue items specific to the project were known, they were substituted for the model- generated outputs. In the case of the proposed project, this procedure was followed for property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax (TOT), and use of property. The fast portion of the analysis looks at fiscal impacts of the existing site and proposed site at stabilization, and calculates the difference between the two. For a valid comparison, both of these impacts were calculated in 2004 dollars. The second portion of the analysis looks at the fiscal impacts of the proposed project over time and, thus, must take inflation into account. To this end, we utilized the three percent inflation rate assumed by PKF Consulting in their calculations. This rate is consistent with Consumer Price Index trends Oyer the past several years. REVENUES Property Tax Because of their public and nonprofit status, most of the existing uses on the I\Iarinapark site are exempt from paying property taxes. However, personal property and improvements related to the mobile home park are taxable, as are boats. The sum of these assessments was multiplied b5 the County tax rate of one percent and then by 17 percent to obtain the Cite- share of property tax. According to Keyser Marston's estimate, at stabilization the project will generate a property tax of $394,000 (in 2004 dollars), wbich is equal to one percent of the property's assessed value. AIDE applied a rate of 17 percent to this value to determine the portion of the property tax allocated to the Newport Beach General Fund. For the fiscal impact projections, property taxes were inflated by two percent each year (with 2004 as the base year) in accordance with C 13 Propositiotrl3.' Because we projected to only fire years after stabilization, we assumed that the property would not be sold and reassessed during the period of our analysis. Sales and Use Tax The existing uses on the site generate no taxable sales onsite, but our analysis accounts for off -site purchases by the mobile home park residents. The sales tat estimate for the proposed project is based on the food and beverage revenue projection prepared by PKF, Inc. The figure is about 20 to 25 percent higher than average for existing hotels in Newport Beach, reflecting the upper end market segments the project is anticipated to sen-e.' TOTTax A TOT of ten percent is levied on guest room receipts in Newport Beach. This rate was applied to PhF's projected room rental revenue for each Year of the proposed development. Use of Property A significant portion of the revenues generated by both the existing and proposed uses comes from use of property, or lease payments. In the case of the existing uses, mobile home park residents pay the Cite- a total of roughly 5700,000 per year in rent, while the Balboa Power Squadron pars an annual rent of `01,935. The proposed Marurapark resort is expected to pay an annual base land lease of $550,000 per year during the construction phase and increasing to $1.1 trillion per year once the project begins operation. The base rent would be credited against additional "percentage rents" equal to 7 percent of room I Under the provisions of Proposition 13, property- assessments may only be raised by a maximum of two percent each year until the property- changes ownership (with a few exceptions). Once sold, the property is reassessed to market value and the tyro- percent increases begin again. Taxes are limited to one percent of assessed value, plus any additional taxes up to two percent passed by two - thirds of the voters. 2 CIC Research, Inc. Profile of T - inlnrr to \ eu for! Bem$ 2001. p. 31. Based on surveys conducted by CIC Research, hotel /motel guests in Newport Beach generated about $108.3 million in taxable sales in 2001. For the projected stabilization year of 2010, this would equate to about 4475 per room, vs. the 1590 per room projected by PhF, Inc. 14 income, 3 -5 percent of food and beverage income, and 10 percent of other miscellaneous income. In addition, the developer would make option payments during the initial `ears following voter approval of the project and receipt of the required permits. Other Revenues 'I'he remaining revenue categories were calculated based on per- capita and per - employee factors as described above. EXPENDITURES As with the revenues, the General Fund expenditures in Tables 3 through G were estimated based on per- capita and per - employee cost factors that were developed for the Newport Beach General Plan Update. According to the Draft EIR prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, existing fire and police capacities will be sufficient to serve the needs of the proposed project. Consequently, the project is not expected to incur significant expenditures in these categories. The cost figures shown for these services reflect the average cost of additional calls for service anticipated for the project. C 15 -i o, L4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Office of the City Attorney TO: Mayor & Members of the City Council FROM: Robert Burnham RE: Marinapark Resort 8s Community Plan CEQA Standards for Adequacy 8v Recirculation DATE: July 13, 2004 This memo summarizes the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines that are relevant to the standards for certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the standards for recirculation of a Draft EIR after the public review process has commenced. According to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency shall certify an EIR if it represents a good faith effort at full disclosure of the significant environmental effects of a project, identification of possible ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. CEQA does not require the analysis in an EIR to be exhaustive. The absence of information - even relevant information - does not preclude certification unless the failure to include the information precludes informed decision making and informed public participation. The standards for the recirculation of a Draft EIR are similar. A Draft EIR must be recirculated when "for putblic comment. According to the CEQA Guidelines: document is available for p "New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement." CEQA niiide,anes Section 15088.5(a)). bert Burnham CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item 18 July 13, 2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (PA 2003 -218) 1700 West Balboa Boulevard APPLICANT: Marinapark LLC (Formerly Sutherland Talla Hospitality) ISSUE Should the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR).for the Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (formerly the Regent Newport Beach)? RECOMMENDATION Review the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), receive public comments during the public hearing, and continue the public hearing to July 27, 2004. DISCUSSION Background The project background, project description, and a summary of the Draft EIR are provided in the report provided to the City Council for the June 8th study session (Attachment 1). EIR Certification Process A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project and circulated for public comment from April 26, 2004, through June 9, 2004, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). During that time, Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 2 Draft EIR. The Planning Commission received public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project at a study session on June 3, 2004, and then provided comment and requested clarification and additional information on various impacts analyzed in the document. Planning Commission comments and responses to those comments are included in the Final Environmental Impact Report together with comments received during the public circulation period for the Draft EIR and the respective responses to those comments. The City Council also held a study session on June 8; no additional comments on the DEIR were received. On July 81h, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing, and recommend to the City Council whether or not to certify the Final EIR. A summary of Planning Commission deliberations and the adopted Resolution recommending City Council action on the EIR will be sent to City Council members on July gtn In order to provide adequate opportunity for public input, the City Council will hold public hearings 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, after reviewing the document and considering the Planning Commission recommendation, the Council finds that: 1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2) the City Council reviewed and considered information contained in the Final EIR; and, 3) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council as the legislative body of the City as lead agency in preparation of the Final EIR. At that time, the City Council may also take action as appropriate to place the General Plan Amendment proposed with this project on the November ballot. Final EIR Summary: The Marinapark Resort and Community Plan Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, a listing of persons and organizations that commented on the Draft EIR during the public circulation period, a compilation of those comments, and responses to those comments provided by the City as lead agency for the project pursuant to CEQA. Comments and Responses to Comments The Final EIR includes all written comments on the Draft EIR received through June 9th and comments received from three agencies after that date. Correspondence from each commenter is accompanied by responses to comments set forth in that correspondence. Responses were prepared by the City's EIR consultant and City staff. Responses may provide clarification on an issue by referral to an EIR section, may include additional discussion as Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 3 clarification of an issue raised by the commenter and addressed in the EIR, or may indicate an additional or revised mitigation measure formulated in response to a comment. Comments not relating to environmental impacts may simply be noted for the record. In response to comments received, additional mitigation measures have been formulated and previously defined mitigation measures have been modified to further reduce adverse impacts. These mitigation measures and the reasons for their inclusion or modification are as follow: Mitigation Measure LU -1 Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR included those associated with bulkhead and groin wall placement, dredging, fill placement on the sandy beach, and extension of the slips beyond the pierhead line. Although the impacts associated with placement of this structure were determined to be less than significant, the project proponent has agreed to incorporate the modified dock specifications into the project as set forth in Mitigation Measure LU -1 to further reduce potential impacts. The modified dock eliminates the twelve boat slips originally proposed and replaces them with a 260 -foot long "marginal' dock. This will reduce the amount of dredge material from 1,750 cubic yards to a maximum of 500 cubic yards, reduce the amount of bay bottom that will be disturbed, and eliminate the need for approval to construct improvements beyond the pierhead line. Mitigation Measure HM -1 This new mitigation measure requires that the project proponent provide a listing of all hazardous materials and their quantities that may be used or stored on the project site during construction. The impact relative to hazardous materials used or stored on site during construction previously was determined to be less than significant with mitigation and the new mitigation measure was added to further reduce the potential impact level in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure BR -6 Modification of the dock plan as in Mitigation Measure LU -1 results in a reduction in the area of benthic and shorebird foraging habitat that is disturbed and a consequent reduction in the amount of replacement habitat that must be developed off -site. Revision of this mitigation measure reflects the reduced habitat replacement area. Marinapark EIR July 13, 2004 Page 4 Mitigation Measure HWQ -1 Modification of this mitigation measure adds a requirement that in -water construction activities be limited to the period from October 1 to March 31. This mitigation measure was modified in response to comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating this would be a condition of permit approval for construction of the dock. The time period restriction will prevent construction activities that would interfere with wildlife reproductive activities. PUBLIC NOTICE A Notice of Public Hearing was published on July 3, 2004, in the Daily Pilot. The notice was also mailed on July 2, 2004, to owners of property within 300' of the proposed project and to those who previously requested notification of public hearings on this matter and the notice was posted at the site in multiple locations. Submitted by: James Campbell Sharon Wood Senior Planner Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. June 8, 2004, staff report to City Council 2. Draft Environmental Impact Report 3. Response to Comments ATTACHMENT 1 [June 8, 2004, staff report to City Council] This Page Left Intentionally Blank 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, icampbell(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. I 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. Project 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 9th 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 27 tH 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. Miiigated Impacis Impact Mitigation Measure Geoloav 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 1 4F Mitigated Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure Biological Resources Cement walkway results in loss of Development of shorebird foraging habitat shoreline habitat for shorebirds replacement site Disruption of benthic resources through loss of soft bottom habitat Long -term impacts to fish resources through loss of soft bottom foraging habitat 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 1b Mitigated Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure Air Qualit Dust resulting from construction Compliance with Air Quality Management activities District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase 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. 1�' 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. Warinapark 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. 0 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 27th, 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: o ames W. Cam bell, Senior Planner Attachments haron Z. Wood Assistant City P6Wager 1A ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #200311021 [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] 1� This Page Left Intentionally Blank ��O ATTACHMEMT 3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS SCH #200311021 [Distributed separately due to bulk. Available for public review at the City's Planning Department] 11,\ City of Newport Beach Planning Department Memorandum To: City Council From: James Campbell, Senior Planner Date: July 7, 2004 Re: Marinapark Resort & Community Plan Environmental Impact Report Attached are the two Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (one dated February 17, 2004 and the other dated April 9, 2004) for the Marinapark project EIR (SCH# 200311021). This Page Left Intentionally Blank 1 JUL CS 2004 4:37PM HP LRSERJET 3200 P.2 tPETRA E'rtimnm. nW-1 Divirlon COSTA ME9a . FAN CItGO . MJRRIETA - SANTA CL 4RITA . CNTARIO February 17, 2004 J.N. 143 -04 Mr. Randy Mason CASH AND ASSOCIATES P.C. Box 2715 Huntington Beach, Califomia 92647 Subject: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; Regent Marira Site, T.ocated 'West of Bay Avenue and North of Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California Dear Mr. Mason: The Environmental Division of Petra Geotechnical Inc. (Petra) is pleased to ptesunL this Limited Phase Tt rmviranmental Site Assessment summary letter for the above - referenced subject site. The purpose of this assessment is Le provide the clicni with screening level information regarding the potential for the presence of subsurface contamination in the sediments to be dredged from the beach portion of the subject site during comtructior of s new marina. This investigation was conducted in accordance with the requested and authorized scope of work presented in our proposal 1061 -04 dated January 30, 2004. SITE LOCATION The subject site is located northwest of the intersection of Bay Avenue and 15t' Street in the City of Newport Beach, California. According to the 1981 photo - revised topographic map of the Newport Beach Quadrangle, prepared by the United Sratcs Geological Survey (USGS), the site is located in the northeast portion of Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, at an elevation of approximately five feet above mean sea level 4 site vicinity man is included as Figure 1. A mobile home park and swimming beach currently occupy the zubjcct site. A site pl.;p is included as Figure 2. ce'TELD WORK On February 3, 2004, Petra advanced two soil borings using hand tools in the northern portion of the site near the low tide line. Samples were collected at one -foot, three -feet, PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3185.A AIMCy AV09U0 • ece:a Mee, a OA 9232G , Td: (714) 549 -8921 I, PBX: (714) 540.7972 nnNlep2pGlfT -In C.G�gI n�1 150J Ego a pco_1 C. jfIC CCFryS nF!v- avi_e��nu -Wnv Wdnn :sn 909Z- on -npr JUL 06 2004 4:37PM HP LRSERJET 3200 CASH AND ASSOCIATES Resent Marina Site, Newport Reach February 17, 2004 J.N. 143 -04 Paec 2 and four -feet below ground surface (bgs) from the borings. Due to the saturated conditions of the sediments, and resulting caving conditions, the target depth of six feet was not reached. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSTS At the request of the client, grain sim analyses were oonductad on the samples obtained from the two borings. Initially, ASTM Standard L140 -00 (percent passing #200) wag proposed. $owever, due to thz coarser nature of the sediments penetrated, ASTM Standard C 136 -96A was used to provide grain size analysis. The laboratory data sheets are attached to this letter. LABORATORY CHE _ICAL ANALYSIS Soil samples collected were preserved on ice and transported to Orange Coast Analytical Laboratory in Tustin, California, an En,,ironmcntal Laboratory Accreditation Fro €tam (FLAP) accredited labotxtury, to be analyzed, Sample security was maintained and documented using sample labels and chainof-custody records. Copies of the official laboratory reports and chain -of- custody records are attached. The 1.0, 3.0, and 4.0 bgs samples from cash boring location were compositcd to one sample by the laboratory prior to analysis. The two composite samples were analyzed for California Assessment Test Metals by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mtr:hod 6010B/7471, polychlorinated biphcrryls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8052, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) by EPA Method 8015M, senu- volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) by EPA Method 82700, and organocNorine pesticides (OCFs) by EPA Method 8081A. Grain Size Analysis- The laboratory data sheets indicate the materials in the upper four feet are primarily fine to medium gained sand. The soil sample from Boring 2 at the four -foot depth contained soma gilt and clay size sediment. P.3 !6P -d "V9 P-0 -I c:roroccn� AVyi_91_WI u:annr - -n 17nn7_0n_1nr JUL CS 2004 4:38PM HP LHOERJET 3200 4a_J p.4 CASH AND ASSOCIATES Febniary l7, 21304 Regent Marina Site. Newport Beach J.N. 143 -04 Page 3 Metals- were not dctectJ-d in elevated concentrations in either soil sample. The concentrations detected were within anticipated ranges for California eons. PCBs- were not present in detectable concentrations in either soil sample. TPH- was detected at 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg1kg) in soil from Boring 2_ , TPH concentration of 10 mg/kg is insignificant and does not represent an environmental condition at these boring locations, SVOCs -were not present in detectable concentrations in either soil sample. OCPs- were not present in detectable concentrations is either soil sample. CONCLUSIONS The results of this Limited Pbase II Soil Assessment indicate concentrations of SVOCs, OCPs, and PCBs were not present in either soil sample obtained from the beach portion of the site. A concentration of 10 mg/kg TPH was detected, but is significant. In addition, the concentrations of metals detected in the two composite soil samples were witirin anticipated background ranges for metals. No further assessment or remediation is warranted at these locations. Petra appreciates the opportunity of providing services to Cash and Associates on this project. If there are any questions or comments regarding the scope of work performed or methodology, please call the undersigned at (714) 549 -9921. Respectfully submitted, Petra Geotechnical, Inc, ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Brian Villalobos Senior Project Geologist CEG 1295 �v1L^JVlltO.'J\iOOJ�i�?d•1rh•m MU.M.ykc ndnm Attachments: • Figure 1 and Figure 2 • Laboratory Chemical Reports Oin'J ocn -1 r,CRnC C ^.:q4 David Darrow Division Manaeer REA 20202 MqY1:N I ON 9l!Cn >nn7_9n_lnr J JUL 06 ZOO4 k ;36PM HP LRSEP,JET 3200 P,5 FIGURE'S it PETRAL !69 -d 900'd F90 -! 9F60F996V6 nuy"vI -- I. nnu -Wnii t;.!nn:cn 40Gi- 9P -lOf 9 JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LASER= 3200 P.8 LABORATORY CHEMICAL REPOR irS it PETRA q _"re-d C49!5�0'd ecf�_� C-gjrq ?595 �NNl:ul- i� "nu-WOu� W, (n:c0 VO�Z- ° -Q-'Of JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJET 3200 =a ORANGE COAST ANALYTICAL, INC. 3002 Dow, Suite 532, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 832.0064 Fax (714) 832 -0067 4620 E. Elwood, Suite 4, Phoenix, AZ 85040 (460) 735 -0960 Fax (460) 736 -D970 LABORATORYREPORTPOPM Laboratory Name: ORANGE COAST ANALYTICAL, INC. Address: 3002 Dow Suite 532 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 832 -0064 Laboratory Certification (ELAP) No.: 1416 Expiration Date: 2005 Laboratory Director's Name (Print) : Mark Noorani Client Petra Environmental Project No.: 143-04 Project Name: cash Laboratory Reference: PTE 14624 Analytical Method; 60108. 7471A, 8082. 8081 8270 80156 Date Sampled; 02/03/04 Date Received: 02/03/04 Date Reported: 02/11/04 Sample Matrix; Soil Chain of Custody Received: Yes Laboratory Director's Signature: I !E? —= n 0 /oln', F-0 —! ccRH^=EVE gKV-vapi_vi n:_iN y_ INd7n:G0 VnnZ- 9n -1nr JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJET 3200 P -10 Perry Environment.! ATTN: Mr. Brien Vlllalobos 3165 -A Airway Costa Meee. CA 92626 Semple Ooscdpstan: Sall Lahontory Relonnca #.• PTE 14624 Cgam PmJect ID: Cash C419n[Pryacr#.• 149 -04 SEW VOLA77LEOROANICS BYGC/US (EPA 82790 Sampled: — 02/03/04 02/03104 Received.- — 07103104 02/03/04 Ezt=Cted; 02/05104 02JOS104 02/05/04 Analyzed: 02/09/04 02/09104 02/09/04 Reported: 02/11/04 07/71/04 02/11104 Lab Sample #: M8 04020015 04020017 Client Smrrple #: — Composite Composite SB -1 -l.a sB -2 -1.D ES-1-3.0 58.2 -3.0 SS -14.0 8 &2 -4.0 Watlon Factor: 1 1 1 ANALYTE CAS 9 Yglkg pglkg W949 Acsraphtheno B332.9 ciao ciao loll Acenaphthylane 208 B-a cl Do c7Da ciao Anlllno 62.533 clog 4100 4100 Anthmcone 120 -12 -7 ciao c1W ciao Benzoic acid 65 -65-0 41000 claoa 41000 Bonzo (a) anthmzena 56 -653 ciao ciao ciao 8sazo (b) 0uoranthohc 2059? -2 4250 45a 4250 Boma x nuorenlhena 207 -09-9 x250 4250 c26g Boma (g,h,!) parylone 191 -24.2 CZ50 260 Q50 Same (a) pyrane 50.328 250 4250 250 Semyl alcohol 100 -5" 4100 ciao ciao bls- (2- chforoethoyy) methane 111 -91 -1 ciao clog ciao bts- (2-chloroaNyl) other 111 -444 c1g0 clog ciao bb- D:-chloroisopropyt) ether 108.60 -1 ciao 4100 <100 bis- (2- athylhoXY1) phthelolo 117-81 -7 clog ciao <100 4- Bromophenyl phony) other 101 -55-3 clog ciao <100 Butyl beryl phthalate 85$6.7 4103 ciao ciao 4- Chloroenfnne 109 -47A ciao ciao clog 2- Chtoronaphthalano 91 -55.7 cl0o ciao <100 4- Chtcro-3- malhylphonol 59-SD -7 clan clop 4100 2- ONarophenol 8S -S7 -6 <100 000 ciao 4- Chloraphenyt phonyl other 7005 -72.3 4100 <1DO ciao Chryseno 218 -01.9 ciao ciao <100 Dlbonz (o,h) and acana 53.783 4100 clog ciao Dlbonzofuran 132 -64-9 000 <100 ciao Dl -n -butyl phthaate 64 -74-2 250 <250 c25o 1,30chlorobenzene 541 -73.1 ciao clan ODD 1,4- D1chlorobenzcno 10646 -7 ciao ciao 4100 1,2- Dlchlorobonzona 95 -5D1 clog ciao clog 2.4- 016hlorophond 120`83 -2 ciao cloo clog Olothyl phthalato 94 -66-2 ciao c10o clog 2,4- Dlmethytphanci 105 -67-8 ciao 4100 clog Ofinethy(phiholele 131 -11-3 4100 ciao ciao 4,6- DIni4'o- 2•melfrylphenol 534 -52 -1 41000 clo00 41000 )Pe -J nrnll in ocn_I C: Cn: C:R�a nt }Nnovl_e- nne_ty„v1 tN.+7n: cn vno?- on-lnr JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LR3ERJET 3200 P.11 VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC/M0 (EPA 82700) (confined) Laboratory Refarenc,n 9: PTE 14624 Ur /enrProlecNOr Cash 07/enr Pml ect N: 14304 9ampleC:. — 02/as104 02/03/04 Recdved: — 02/03104 02/03/04 Eerroomd: 02/05/04 02/05/04 02105104 Ane /y2ed: 02/09/04 02109/04 02109/04 Reported: 02/11104 02111106 62111!04 Leb Semple N; MS 04020016 04020017 Crlanr Sample #: — Composke Compoelte 55.1 -1.0 SS -2 -1.0 S15-1.3.0 SS -2.9.0 08.14.0 SB.24.0 Dllueen Favfn /: 1 1 1 AIVALm /con YJ CAS P9*0 MOW p9/ka 2,4- Dlnitrophonol 51.28.5 -10DO 4000 -1000 2,4.01n1trotoluano 121.14 -2 -250 -250 -2513 2.6- Dinlnotoluane 606.20.2 -250 4240 <250 DI -n."yl phthalate 117 -a4-0 X250 -250 <250 Fluorardhene 20644-0 -100 -100 -100 FlUOrana W73 -7 -100 -100 400 HaMcNarobanzone 118 -741 -100 .100 -100 H.=.hI=bUtadleno 67-693 -100 ciao -100 H.xa hlv ocyclepantcdlono 77.47 -4 600 -500 -500 Heaoddaroathana 67.72.1 400 - 100 -100 tndeno (1,23cd) pi mm 123.395 Q50 <250 Q50 Icophorone 76 -58 -1 400 -100 -100 2- Mathy1naphthalene 61.57-6 1100 -1110 -100 2- Methylphanal 65.48 -7 -100 -100 400 3 B 4-Me7hylphenol 108364,10644.5 -100 c100 <100 Nephthalona 81.20.5 400 -100 -100 2- Nltrmelllne 88.74- 450 -250 *SO 3- Nltroanillne 99 -09.2 <250 <250 <50 4- Nitroanlluv 100.01E -250 -250 1150 Nitrobenzono SMS3 -100 -100 -100 2- Nltrephanol 68 -75-5 <1 DO -100 <100 4- Nltrophenol lao -02 -7 -1000 -1000 -1000 N- Nllrosodlphanylam{ne eB30-0 407 ciao .100 N- Nhroaa&l - prcpylan1no 621.64.7 400 .100 .100 N- Nllrosodrr�hYlamine 62 -75.9 <100 400 cioo Perrtachlonphenvl 67-W-5 4ono -1000 .1000 Pnawntnrone 85-01.5 -100 Ciao .100 Phenol IOS -95-2 -100 400 -100 Pyrena 129 -0a0 -100 0100 -100 1,2,4- TMohlorobanzeee 120.62.1 400 400 -100 2,4,5- THoh1nmphenol QS -9S4 clog 400 -100 2,4,6- Trichlorephenel 09-0602 -100 <100 clog Aeoeprab)e Surrogate %RC %RC %RC Y.RO 2.Fluorophencl 23 -115% 85 52 83 Phenol4H 32 -120% Be 95 88 NRrobemono -d9 16 -141% 93 92 64 2- Fluorobipheoyl 36 -123% 54 62 as 2,4,6- Trlbrornwhenal 14.141% 114 108 112 Torphehyl -d14 48- 151% 97 BS 98 INf' Orange Coast Arralytical, Irtc- !E9 -d MUM d 999 -1 coppoccgoa nliv- ,vvi_:nnnc_unw W_,/. ^.n wnnv_on_nnr JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJET 3200 Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian villelohos 3165- AAlrway Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Laboratory Roference 0: PTE 14624 Client Project /D: Cash Client Project 4, 143 -04 EXTRACTABLE FUEL HYDROCARBONS EPA 8016118: CCID Sample Description: Soil Sampled: — 02/03/04 02/03/04 Received: — 02/03/04 02/03/04 Extracted: 02/05/04 02/05/04 02/05/04 Analyzed: 02/06/04 02106/04 02/06/04 Reported: 02/11/04 02/11/04 02/11/04 Lob Semplu 9: MB0205 04020016 04020017 Client Sample X. — Composite Composite 58 -1 -1.o S3-2 -1.0 se-1-3.0 SB -2 -3.0 EB -14.0 SB -2 -4.0 Dilution Factor. • 1 1 1 ANALYTE mg /kg mg /kg mg/kg C7 -9 N.D. N.D. N.D. C10 -11 N.D. N.D. N.D, C12 -13 N.D. N.D. N.D. 014-15 N.D. N.D. N.D. C16 -17 N.D. N.D. 0.17 C18-19 N.D. N.D. 0.58 C20 -21 N. D- N.D. 0,82 C22 -23 N.D. N.D. 1.4 C24 -25 N.D. N.D. 1.3 026 -27 N.D. N. 0. 2.0 C28 -30 N.D. N.D. 2.4 C31 -32 N.D. N.D. 0.66 C33 -34 N.D. N.D. 0.35 C35 -36 N.D, N.D, 0.15 TOTAL <8.0 <6.0 10 Extractable Fuel Hydrocarbons (EFH) are quanlltated against a dle5el #2 standard. V.12 0 159_1 qcn /c i.Qa oCp_� e:;n cccRb4 q�iy +- vi_-- nnu_wnv: �:� +m ^.+ ann +_pn_ +m JUL p6 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJET 3260 p.13 Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Vlllalobos 3185 -A Airway Co= Mesa, CA 92626 Laboratory Referenoa Nr PTE 14624 Cllent Project 1D: Cash client Project it 143-D4 OR6ANOCHLORINA7ED PESTICIDES fFPA BOBIA) sample Descrlpflori: Soil " Sampled: - 02103!04 02/03(D4 Received, -- 02103ID4 02/03/04 Extracted: 02x09/04 02/09/04 CM9104 Analyzed: 02/10/04 0211 Df04 02/10104 Reported: 02/11/04 02xI VO4 02111104 Lab Sample N, MB0209 04020016 04020017 Cfwnt Sample #: -- Composlfe Compasfta SE-1-I'D SB -2 -1.0 SB -1,3.0 SB -2,3.0 S13-1.4.0 SB -2A.0 011ution Factor, 1 1 1 AMALYTE CAS 9 pg/kq fig /k8 (ig/kg Aldrin 309.00 -2 2.0 <2.0 <2.0 alpha -BHC 319.84 -6 <5.0 <5.0 <S.D bate -BHC 319.85.7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 delta -BHC 319 -86 -8 <10 <10 <9O gamma -BHC (Undane) 6 &89-9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Chlordane 57 -74-9 <30 <3D 20 4,4' -DDO 72 -54-8 <10 <10 <10 4,4' -DDE 72 -559 <5.0 <5.0 X5.0 4,4' -DDT 5D -29.3 <10 <10 <10 Dieldrin 6D -57 -1 <2.0 2.0 2.0 Endosuffan 1 959 -SM <10 <1D <1 D Endosuffan 11 33212 -65,9 <5.0 <5.0 c5.0 Endasuttan aulfate 1031 -07-6 <5D <50 <50 Endrin 72 -23-B <10 <10 <10 Endrin aldehyde 7421 .93-4 <15 <15 <15 Heplachlor 75-448 QO Q0 X2.0 Heptachlor epoxide 1024 -57 -3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Methoxychlor 72 -c3 -5 <150 <150 <150 Toxaphene 8001.35 -2 <40 440 <40 Acceptable Surrogate %RC %RC %RC %RC TCMX 0.144% B6 95 64 JUL 06 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJM —T 3200 p.14 Petra Enylronmantal ATTN: Mr. Brian Villalobos 3185 -A Airway Casa Mena, CA 52626 Laboratory Reference M: PTE 14624 GlentPrio/W D: Cash gtentPro /actk 143 -04 pOLYG4LORI1VATED BIPHENYL'S (EPA 808 SampleDasulptlon: Sol[ Sampled. -- 02/03/04 02103/04 Racelvad. -- 02103104. 02/03104 Ertractad: 02/06/04 02/06/04 02106/04 AnaWnd: 02/05/04 02J0S104 02109104 Reported.., 0011/D4 02111/04 02111 IN Lab Sample 9, M80206 04020016 04020017 alent Sample li: -- Compcsita Composite S &1 -1.0 SS -2 -1.0 53 -1 -3.0 S5 -2-0.0 56.1 -4.0 SO-24.0 Dilution Factor. 1 1 1 ANALYTE CAS k trykg p81kg Ng/kg FCB -1016 12674 -11 -2 <25 <25 <25 FCB -1221 11110428 -2 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1232 11141 -16.5 <25 <25 <25 FCB- 1242 53469 -21 -9 25 <25 <25 PCB -1248 12672 -29.6 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1254 11097 -E9 -1 <25 <25 Q5 PCB -1260 11096 -82 -5 <25 <25 X25 Accaptoble Surrogate %RC %RC %RC %RC Decachlorobiphanyl 42 -12G% 79 63 110 h� !c]_J 9CI /:'0'l . -., -. , ^:OC ^. ^,_iC ng4�]ll 1_]_nnL'- M1' ^l'J JUL 06 2004 4:42PH HP LRSERJET 3200 Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Villsloboa 31 BSA A)rway Costs Mena, CA 92626 CCR METALS Sample Descrlpflon: Soil Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14624 Clfent Pro /act ID: Cash Chant Project#: 143.04 Sampled: - 02/03/D4 02/03/04 Received. - 02/03/04 02/03/04 Reported., C2/11104 02/11/D4 02/11/04 Lab Sample R: MB 04020016 04020017 CliantSample Composite Composite SS -1.1.0 SB•2 -1.0 SB•1 -3.0 SB•2 -3.0 SB•1 -0.0 SB -2 -0.0 ANALYTE EPA DATE mglkg mgkg mglkg METHOD TESTED Antimony 6010B 02/05/04 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Arsenic 60108 02/06/04 <1.0 1.4 1.8 Barium 6010B 02!06/04 <0.5 3.8 5.0 Beryllium 50108 02106/04 <0.5 <0,5 <0.5 Cadmium 6010B 02/06/04 <0.5 <0.5 <0.6 Chromium (Total) 50108 02/06/04 <0.5 2.1 2.5 Cobalt 6010B 02/00/04 <0.5 <0,5 0.55 Copper 60105 02/06/04 <0.5 2.4 4.6 Lead 6010B 02/06/04 <1.0 1.9 2.3 Mercury 7471A 02/05104 <0.1 <0.1 0.33 Molybdenum 60108 02/06/04 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Nickel 6010B 02/06/04 4.5 1.1 1.4 Selenium 6010B 02/05/04 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Silver 60108 02/06/04 <0.5 <015 <0.5 Thallium 60108 02/05/04 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Vanadlum 60108 02/06/04 <0.5 3.9 5.1 Zinc 5010B D2/06/04 <0.5 5.5 6.1 P.15 1(D IEO_J fir[ /G [� J OCf_ C: Fn r: prhF nvv- 7VtTn JUL CS 2004 4:42PM HP LRSERJET 3200 OA/QC REPORT for Extractable Fuel Hydrocarbons (EPA 809513) Reporting units: ppm 1. Matrix Spike (MS) /Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 02/06!04 Laboratory Sample No : 04020009 Laboratory Reference No : PTE 14624 P.16 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD Is MS % MSD RPD ACP %MS(MSD) ACP RPD Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery Of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP) z1 DD Percent Recovery Of MSD: {(MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSD) l (MS +MSD)} x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent Acceptable Relative Percent Difference 2. Laboratory Control Sample Date of Analysis : 02/019/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10748 Analyte SP CONC RESULTS % RECOVERY ACCEPTABLE % Extractable Fuel 100 89 89 55 -130 Hydrocarbons AV. Ana /yto R9 MS MSD l MS % MSD RPD CONC RPD Extractable Fuel 0.0 100 97 85 97 85 13 55 -137 23 Hydrocarbons Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD Is MS % MSD RPD ACP %MS(MSD) ACP RPD Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery Of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP) z1 DD Percent Recovery Of MSD: {(MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSD) l (MS +MSD)} x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent Acceptable Relative Percent Difference 2. Laboratory Control Sample Date of Analysis : 02/019/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10748 Analyte SP CONC RESULTS % RECOVERY ACCEPTABLE % Extractable Fuel 100 89 89 55 -130 Hydrocarbons 0 Ito -J n;A/� -I' ocn -I .. ^ph: mlv°;i_- 'n +1'..I. .._ 111"Inl Cn III. -C r_•rr JUL 06 2004 4 :42PM HP LRSERJET 3200 QAIQC REPORT for Orgsnochlorinated Pesticides (EPA 8081) Reporting units: ppb 1. Matrix Spike (MS) f Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date ofAnalysls : 02110/04 Laboratory Sample No : 04020016 Laboratory Reference No : PTE 14624 P -17 Anatyto R! SP CONC MS MSD %MS %WISD RPD ACP W ACP RPD Gamma -BHC 0,0 20 14.0 17.0 70 BS 19 29 -1<f7 40 Heptachlor 0.0 20 13,0 17.0 65 85 27 23 -143 40 Afdrin 0.0 20 16.0 ,0 80 105 27 21 -140 40 Dieldrin',^ 0.0 50 1.D .0 2 12 143 12 -1 SD 42 Endrin'," 0.0 50 1.1 .0 j47, 2 14 146 14 -160 38 DDT 0.0 50 35.0 0 70 94 29 35 -155 38 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD ',6 MS "n MSD RPD ACP 'A ACP RPD 2. Laboratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Dupllcate Results Percent Recovery of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP) x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD: {(MSD -R1) / SP) x 100. Relative Percent Difference: ,r(MS -MSC) / (MS+MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable ReIabva Percent Difference Matrix splka recovery was low due to matrix interferences, the laboratory canlrol limit was acceptable. RPD exceeded the laboratory control limit, due to mairix interferences. Date of Analysis: 0211 0/04 Laboratory Standard No: OCA 10911 Anslyfe SP CONC RecoMs V. Recovery ACP % Gamma -BHC 20 17.0 85 29 -135 He taohlor 20 17.0 85 33 -130 Aldrin 20 17.0 as 31 -118 Dieldrin 60 44.0 as 30 -137 Endrin 50 52.0 104 37 -146 DDT S0 410 86 37 -146 I LH -d 0.50 /C0'41 850-1 s5E05£:0g6 nh {ylayi_c,g- ,u_wnLa IR A:" gpp7- ❑n_1nr JUL 06 2004 4:43PM HP LRSERJET 3200 =QC REPORT for Polychlorinated Elphenyl's (EPA 8082) Reporting units: ppb 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis: 02/09/04 Laboratory Sample No: 04020016 Laboratory Reference No: PTE 14624 P- 18 Analyta R7 SP CONC MS MSD %MS %MSD RFD ACPY ACPPPD PCB -1018 1 0.0 250 1 190 220 1 76 1 88 1 15 1 46-126 26 PCB -1260 1 0.0 1 250 190 240 1 76 96 23 42 -160 35 Definition of Terms: R1 SP CONC MS MSD %MS % MSD RPD ACP % ACP RPD Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS: ((MS -R1) I SP) x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD; ((MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSD) / (MS *MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference 2. Laboratory Control Sample Date of Analysis : 02/09/04 Laboratory Standard No: OCA 10981 Anaoe SP CONC Resuffs % Recovery ACP N PCB -1016 250 230 92 46 -129 PCB-1260 250 240 96 40 -159 lq 'co_J icnit'n.A ccn_I C:;nccctnc �Fiu ..v l_- ',n,�J_W ^v: 'tiAon: on pnn7_an_I0r JUL06 2004 4:43PM HP LRSERJET 3200 QA/QC REPORT for Seml- VelatIle Organic Compounds (EPA 8270C) Reporting Unifs: ng 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Splka Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 02109/04 Laboratory Sample No : 0402OD16 Laboratory Reference No: PTE 14624 P -19 Analyze R1 SP CONC MS MSD %M3 YoMSD RPD ACP% ACP RPD Phenol 0.0 100 69 69 6o 69 D 33.108 27 2- Chloroohenol O.D 100 70 70 70 70 0 35 -108 25 1,4- Dichlorcbenzens 0.0 50 43 42 Be 84 2 36••106 26 N-Nitrwodpropylamina 0.0 ED 47 47 1 94 1 94 1 0 I 40••119 27 1,Z,4- Tnchlorobenzane 0.0 50 42 41 84 82 2 3"/••113 24 4- Chloro-3 -math I henol 0.0 100 7D 72 70 72 3 38118 23 Acen hthene 0.0 s0 40 39 BO 78 3 32••114 27 Penta-hloro hanol 0.0 100 65 63 65 e3 3 15.424 24 Pyrans O.D 50 43 42 86 B4 2 46.427 24 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS % MSD RPD ACP % ACP RPD 2, Lahoratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concenta6ri Added to Sample Metro Spike Results Matra Spike Duplicate Resuft Percent Recovery of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP? x 1DO Percent Recovery of MSD: ((MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSDj / (MS+N•SD)} x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relativa Percent Difference Date of Analysis : 02/09104 Laboratory Standard No: OCA70823c, OCA10324b Analyte SP CONC Resukc Y Recovery ACP K Phenol 100 71 7' 33-110 2- Chloro henol 10D 72 72 33-116 1.4- Dichlorchenzens 50 45 90 35 -113 N- Nkmsodi ra amine 50 48 96 36 -126 1,2,4- Trictdorobenzens 50 44 88 35.121 4- Chloro- 3-meth I henol 100 73 73 38-122 AcenaoMhsna 50 41 62 31 -123 Pentachlaro henel 100 69 69 25 -116 Prrene 50 q6 92 de -128 Aa Ira -- n ^P /r7n "n - I Oren- r JUL OS 2004 4:43PM HP LRSERJET 3200 cuvQC REPORT for Metals Reporting units: ppm 1. matrix Spike (MS)I Matrix Spike Dupllcate(M5D) P. 20 Laboratory Reference No : P f t 14t1Z4 - Date Spike SP CONC ACP Analyfe Date QGSample R1 SP CONC MS MSD %MS %MSD RPD .ACP% RPD Antimon • Tasted 02/06104 04020009 O.D 20.0 B,9B 8.61 45 46 7 75 -126 20 Arsenic 02/06/04 04020009 2.0 .20.0 19 -7 t9.B B9 BB 1 75 -125 75 20 20 Barium 02/06/04 04020009 120 40.0 152 151 60 76 1 1 -125 75 20 Beryllium 02106/04 04020009 0.0 10.D 9,43 9.36 94 94 6(1-120 -125 02/06/04 Cadmium 02/06/04 04020009 '0.0 10.0 9.11 8.94 81 89 2 75 -125 75 20 20 Chromium (Total) 02/06/04 04020009 14 20.0 32.9 31.6 96 88 4 -125 75 20 Cobalt 02!06104 04020009 6.9 20.0 26.4 25.7 BB 64 3 2 -125 75 2l) Copper 02/06/04 04020009 32 20.0 52.1 50.9 101 95 89 -125 75 20 Lead 02/06/04 04020009 8.4 20.0 23.2 22.9 B4 B3 1 2 -125 BO e0 Marcu 02/06/04 04020008 0.0 1.00 1.08 1.10 108 110 1 -120 75 -125 2D Mal bdenum 02/06/04 04020009 0.0 20.0 17A 17.3 67 87 2 75 20 Nickel 02/06 /04 04020009 14 20.0 30.9 30.3 85 82 1 -125 75 -125 20 Selenium 02/06!04 04020009 0.0 20.0 15.3 15.2 77 76 2 75 20 Sflvef 02/06/04 04020009 0.0 20.0 18.8 18.3 93 92 1 -125 75 20 Thalllum' 02/06/04 04020009 0.0 20.0 14.1 14.0 71 70 85 2 -125 75 -125 20 Vanadium 02/05/04 04020009 38 20.0 55.8 54.9 89 2 75 -125 20 7Jnc 02/06/04 04020008 ' S1 40.0 84.9 93.5 B5 B1 Definteon of I arms R1 SP CCNC MS MSD %MS % MSD RPO ACP % ACP RPD Result of QC Sample Spike Concentfatlon Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS; {(MS -IR /SP)x100 Percent Recovery of MSD: {(MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: t(MS-MSD) / (MS+MSD)) x 100 x2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference Matrix spike fecovery was low, the method controlsample recoverywae acceptable, 3, Lapora�ry C:OnVOI Sample - Date Spike SP CONC Results % Racovcry ACF' Y. Ana /yte Tested 56n4ard /D 90 80 -120 AnVMon 02/06/04 oCA 11028 20.0 17.9 80-120 Arsenic 02/06/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.4 92 88 eadum 02106 /04 OCA 11026 40.0 35,4 92 SO-120 Be um 02/06!04 OCA110282 10.0 9,15 90 80 20 Cadmium 02106/04 OCA 11028 10,0 9,02 92 80 -120 Chromium Total 02106/04 OCA 11028 20,0 18.3 92 80 -1120 Cobalt 02/06/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.3 92 6(1-120 copper 02/06/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.4 91 BD -9Z0 Lead 02106/04 OCA 11028 20,0 18.1 60 =120 Mercury 02/06104 OCA 11006 1.00 1.03 103 9A 80-920 Molybdenum 02/06104 OCA 11022 20.0 187 91 BO - -'120 Nlckal 02106/04 OCA 11028 20.0 182 87 8o -'IZO Selenium 02106104 OCA 11026 20.0 17.4 89 BO -'120 .Sdw 02/06/04 OCA 11028 200 17.7 89 ThaIDDm 02/OBro4 OCA11D2B 20.0 17.8 92 Bo-12Q Vanadium 02/08/04 OCA 11028 200 18.4 BO - '120 Zinc 02/06/04 OCA 11028 40.0 35.8 90 cisnap Coast AnalvIcaL Inc. 1FOJ nCn /17n'� ocn -� c::n: ^,C: «: nuw _pi_.,�n�.. �•� -„� ��.,,,,. ,, ,, ..,,, -„ ... JUL 06 2004 4:43PM HP LRSERJET 3200 mw ti W4, r O 0 � rn 3 4 m � n O o m x i°ul! y SO o m m b °+y o W L x C O S I- C V nrC� n z ' � J n U t _ o a � N z co y N x �ou9 � N C o U w -m m n (soul did p.21 269-d OEO /ZZO "d PH-1 9c8nr pvp. MOW-Tv In JCp;Cn finr�_On_�n^ N a' 0. O m I,= V a N 0 E m E w 4 9 4 N 0 N , d W p C Nm C a 0 n d E W FaF N ��L 1 � � T W \ W T T_ LL .J En 1 y z C co x x b� � x F E R m. m.. LL.''.% T� LIZ iC 6 l I^� p N lfil it t Ts 269-d OEO /ZZO "d PH-1 9c8nr pvp. MOW-Tv In JCp;Cn finr�_On_�n^ N a' 0. O m I,= V a N 0 E m E w 4 9 4 N 0 N , d W p C Nm C a 0 n d E W FaF N ��L JUL 06 2004 4:44PM HP LASERJET 3200 P -22 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS LASORA TOR Y REPORTS * PETRA 9�) JUL 09 2004 :44PM HP LASERJET 3200 J O 0 L h rj O O z O F O w O Lu m LL m = O LL m N O d m c O m a N y { C4 Qrn W H d j W mOz qaw Y.J n a • J Lu W 0 W W Lu w O Q U d w Icc -i OM /t7r'J Gp0_I ... . C I. p.23 z L� E v 0 0 5 J a m �A i ■■■N ■■ ■n�n■o ■MEN ■ ■1 ■�n■mmom vME ....MEN M MINE so I �m lll� ... ...........i.ONE .:. ................ • .. ®.......... !. .... .v.O...W.r.. .., ..n.�.n■p.�n0 MEN • . • ■O...n......ME �. .....■..�■. ... n.�00 ME n M. ME ■��■� ■■ ■�nn ME ME ■..........0... ONE ME ME EMN ME MEN MEE • G GI rl I p CI - GI RI G FI bl w f. 1 Icc -i OM /t7r'J Gp0_I ... . C I. p.23 z L� E v 0 0 5 J a m �A JUL 06 2004 4:45PM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.24 Job No.: AU 0�or SIEVE Client Name: _ eeqjfl 3oring No.: S$ -f Sample No,: Depth (ft.): ANALYSIS • COARSE & 6ff. Requested by. & Ifg- Tested by: EO Checked by: Description: •S —a Date: Date: E �y Date_ . Moisture Content of Total Air -Dry Soils Container No. Wt. of Air -Dry Soil r Cont. (gm.) M. of Air -Dry Soil + . (gm.) .t 11` p Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) i M. or Container (grn.) , Wt of Container (gm.) Dry Wt_ of Soil (gm.) 3�.2, D Moisture Content After Wet Sieve Container No. Wt. of Air -Ory Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (am.) Dry W. of Soil Retained ±x200 Sieve (gm.) U.S_ Sieve Size mm. Cumulative Weight Dry Sol] Retained (grn Spec. Required Percent °6 Retain Passing 6" (152.4) 19 (76.2) 1 112" (98.1) I _ 314" 3181• (9.5) )� No.4 (4,75) q 2, (o Q �• f No.8 (2,38) No. 15 (1.18) No. 3D (D.60) No. ED (0.30) J&—Z' 1 r No. 10o (0.15) L l r v �• No. 200 (0.075) PAN Gravel: Cc = (D30)21(D10 X D60) _ Cu = D60 / D10 = Sand: Fnes: GRP Symbol: Remarks: „4 ' - ' " ^I - 'I % .^.'t_i 1`.:°e: ^] -'.G CW „ li.... g11N'wf _]'tnn4_wnY� waen:Co W7 -e0-1111` JUL 06 2004 4 :45PM HP l_RSERJET 3200 P.25 Job No.: 4_ SIEVEANALYSIS Client Name: Ce Cfi 4 Boring No,: —/ Sample No.: Depth (1t.): OF FINE& COARSE %d,1 Requested by: & -f 2 -- Tested by: LOP Checked by: i r Description: '(e "r -4WPETRA Date: Date: G a Dale: . Moisture Content of Total Air -Dry Soils Container No. Wt. of Air -Dry Soil + Cant. (gm.) VA. of Air -Dry Soil +�Cae!(9-m.) 21, L Dry M. of Soil+ Cont. (gm.) N2 of Container (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Dry Wt of Soll (gm.) ? } / moisture Content (°/) �, Z After wet Sieve Container No. — M. of Alr -Dry Soil+ Cont. (gm.) Wt: of Container (gm.) Dry Wt. of Sail Retained #200 Sieve (gm.) U.S. Sieve Size (mm. Cumulative Weight Dry Soil Retained (gm -) Spec. Reauired Fercent °! I Retain Passing 6" (152.4) 3" (76.2). 1 1/2" (38.1) 314" No. 4 (4.75) g I 7Y No. a (2.36) No- 16 (1.16) No, 30 (0,50) No. 50 (0.30) 23 ,3 r1� 3r Nc.100 (0.15) A _ (> Na. zoo (0.075) 3S2 Y 8 G `f PAN CC = (D30)21(D10 x 060) Cu = D60 ! 010 = Gravel: Sand: Fines; GRF Symbol.' Remarks: r t ico -r `D JUL 06 2004 4:45PM HP LRSERJET 3200 lo- 2S Job No.: P5� —Oy • Client Name: Baring No.: Sample No.: Depth(fL): ANALYSIS cArff 4- Af3 I O. Requested by: Tested by: Checked by: Description: At Date: Date: _a4 /� Date: . Moisture Content of Total Air -Dry Soils Container No. VA of Air -Dry Soil + Cont. (gm.) W. of Air -Dry Soil +. (gm.) Dry WL of Sol[+ Cont. (gm.) jy40 M. of Container (gm.) VA. cf Container (gm.) I p Dry WL of Soil (gm.) ? g, / Moisture Content After Wet Steve Container No. M. of Air -Dry Soil+ Cont, (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained #200 Sieve (gm.) U.S. Sieve Size mm. Cumulative weight 9 Dry Soil Retained (gm.) Sec. P Required Percent 0/11 fietaln Passing 6" (152.4) 3" (76.2) 1 12" (3a.1) 314" (19.0) ata" (9.5) No. 4 (4.75) % 9� No. 6 (236) No. 16 (1.15) �8 � � ;k� 3 No. 30 (0.60) p (� 1? 9f No. 50 (0.30) No. 100 (0.15) No. 200 (0.075) 7w,7 7,� PAN Gravel; Cc = (D30)2 / (010 x D50) Cu = D60 / D10 = Sand: Fines: GRP Symbol: Remarks: =w:w�ee�Corme r62_4 nrp /�?gA acn —i cc70rec696 n�lvivvi_ »nnu_y{nu� iry,7gn: cn 4nn7— gp —�nf JUL 06 2004 4;45PM HP LASERJET 3200 p -27 ., I■ NNIII111NNNNn11NN� \NIIIINNNIIIInNN�llllll■ N INNm1111NN�II1mNN'iN1111NNW111 NWWNIIIIN � 11 ME INN InI li II II11�N�Nl N i - INN�INIIINW ®Nlnl ■NWI►IIIIINN�NIIn ■N�IIN� � INNNI1uNN ®NIA ®■WWII�111■�WNI�IIN��nlul� W IIN�naNWllllll ■W�N1111m=1111NN�lllni■ W INN ®Nn 111 NNlnll IInNNWN1111N N INWIMN WIIIIWNWIN 111111 ■WmIII1NN m - , ImWII1nINN ®IIIIIINNmttlll NWIU1nN�N1111N�m = I■NNIIIII Emil own NIIIIN INNIIn�Nf11n�1 IR1NWI11NNNNIIInIN IN��NIIf ®1111'1NWmn111'11pNa11 1111111nW m IN ® NIIIN�WiNItN�iiilNW�luiuuNN ■Nluluii � 1N�N11N 1NNNI1111NNmN1i11N IniN� ®NUNN Inl■ m ' INNER nINNWIIIf11NsNimNWII INN NN mN INHIn111HmIINN ®NIIf11I1111NHI11111N WNlnllim ®Intl lllnlN�1 lnINNN101N .INN�1u1NNN11111NN IIIIN1110il�lll on ■ �N�NN ■ rN■N�NN . . ,. :- .. 4 75 c .. .: iH VM?O � 090— C"Ar .«a II` -- I - -- . a aNYUIVnIf11IImIVil11N : :��iiIVn11N�IN�INVIWN�mu1 ® ® iH VM?O � 090— C"Ar .«a II` -- I - -- JUL 06 2004 4 :4SPM HP LASERJE7 3200 P.28 a gS 4 •' . -. IIIYIIISSI1111N � . u■�isel�uiiii�i'iii AS�n�11�. �A�11i�.��III111�..IN111��1��11 min iii � Illm.11llll � � •:, D. �111111N .®IIIIIIN�IIIIIINVnIIINN 18111N INSSIIIIIIN. ®II nIN.�111111NSSII�INSSIIInIN ,1 SSII ®II.S1r1111N.�II 11115.11111N I��A ®Aln .�I IIIN��II�IIIN.�IINIIN � INVI ®IIN. ®IIIn�.111N�.AUru..11N11 . - IN�I. �® In111�..1111,IN..111111��..A1 »I . _ = ,1 INS. III» III IISSIINII�S�INIIIN .SIIIIIISi111111NS.I11111N .�III111NS.111111 SINN � IN�IIIIIINS IIInINS�lllll� \S.IIIIUN®lnl � INS.III» ®S In1�S�INllllssln111 .18111 � INSN. nIImS ®A1111N.SAillli►iSN111�11ni1N � ININ SSIIIIINS .IIIIIINI \.IIn11NS�III111N � S m�INNmtIr� .�Im11111L�IIn1n.18111N 'INS.IIn111. ®IIIII�S.IIIIIIN��I n11NSSIIInIN IN018111N��11111NS�111111NR 'Sllln NS.111nn i IN�nI» INSIIIS .In1rINS��I1111��5�111111N . INVIII111NS ®nInINS�III1111S.12I11NS.1N11N I PoorlyGraded Sand -�-- Sa .. rrznl MIMIRIUMMI .. ... . , .. r NNE �■■� 1 JUL 06 2O04 4]46PM HP LASERJET 3200 P-29 C S !EP -� yr /rtrn'd 0.0 -1 CCFA CCCFDF ln� �I . i■ �Inw�ii�lii�i�i�IlNniiii�ii�� i ' nuolwi��■ m® n�iu�n�ul�ur ■■�■i■IAlln�m■nniiiii■ - . �■ ��i11 11 ■��Iml1■I■II�In1111�■I■1■Inlll lulll■ � -' �■vnlll�n ®IU111n�nlh ��nlll�nlll nl■ �u�uM ■n■nin■n�ilu�■I■slnun■�Iniln ■■ I�vlulil■ �®IIIII� ■��IIIIII \��nu��■�nlll■ !� Illmi■ ' iiillnin■i®iulliin�mi�ii%�illll � ■� - inl�mnn ®Iml'n■mmll■nauminii�■mi■lunn , 1 ■�Illln ■�Iml �IIIIII ■��Ililll■ ■� n■n�nnn■�I� �Inw ®ii�►�Inllnu�nuiln � ., ■ ®III VIII� nnn■�Imin� ,■ H�nlln� ®Ilflll■�nlu�■IIIII��IIINI H��IIIIII ■t ®Intl ��nllll ■��IINI �Inlll■ , ��II INII ■�InO� ■��Inlll��ll� ■��n111N IN I��nll� ■��1111 ��1 N ��nll �nl�ln�lml ®/��II�I�1 I� in ■n�lm1 Illy/ Illlln�ll.11l ■vllaln / n��Ini11�I1A11 ■�nll®■n■Inlnll�ll�lllll� C C. 1 c• ( ' GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS . I !EP -� yr /rtrn'd 0.0 -1 CCFA CCCFDF cr �.. .. U •v •v 'ti y„ N 1 n ti W� 0 .� -� r N [�h '� \ PETRA COSTA MESA • SAN DIEGO • TENEECULA April 9, 2004 J.N. 204 -04 Mr. Steve Sutherland BAY PACIFIC, LLC. 4500 Campus Drive, Suite 650 Newport Beach, California 92660 Subject: Report of Limited Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment, Regent Marina Site, Located West of Bay Avenue and North of Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California Dear Nfr. Sutherland Petra is pleased to present this report of our recent limited Phase H Environmental Site Assessment. This report presents the results of environmental assessment work conducted on March 17, 2004. The work was conducted in accordance with our proposal number 1115 -04 dated February 27, 2004. Should you have any questions regarding this report please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. ENVIRONMENT4L DIVISION Brian Villalobos Senior Project Geologist C.E.G. 1298, C.Hg. 794 <wSENVIRON2004V.04 -04 \Final Report> =?TiA GECieCF'.NI�gL. IN:,. 376c -A Airway Avenue Costa Mesa. CA 92625 Tel: (714) 549 -8921 r ax: (714)549 -3400 David Darrow Division Manager R.E.A. 20202 EXECUTItiE SUMMARY Report of Limited Phase IT Environmental Site Assessment; Recent Marina Site, Located West of Bay Avenue and North of Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California INTRODUCTION Petra conducted environmental site assessment work at the proposed Regent Marina site, =Newport Beach, California. The work consisted of drilling and sampling three borings at a depth of 0.5, 2.5 foot and 5 feet below the mud line in the Rhine Channel to assess the environmental condition of submarine sediments on site. The five foot samples were archived. The soil samples were analyzed by dry weight in a State approved laboratory. In addition, representative samples of the subsurface sediments were collected for grain size analysis. FINDINGS The geologic and chemical information obtained indicates the following: • The Rhine Channel in the vicinity of the site is underlain by one to three feet of bay mud consisting of organic silty and clayey sand. Beneath the bay mud is medium and coarse sand with shell fragments. • Trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the one -half foot samples in all three borings and in the two and one half foot sample in Boring BP -2. The detected concentrations were less than 40 milligrams per kilogram (mo /ktr) J ' • Semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCS) were not detected in any of the collected samples. • The orgaro- chlorine pesticide 4,4' -DDE was detected at a concentration of 1 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) in the one half foot sample in boring BP -3. • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected in any of the collected samples. • Metals concentrations were within the anticipated background range for soils in Southern California. 53 BAY PACIFIC, LLC April 9, 3004 Limited Phase II Investigation J.N. 304 -04 Proposed Regent Marina Paee ii CONCLUSIONS The limited phase two sampling of submarine sediments indicates that slight degradation of the sediments have occurred. Very low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons are present in the upper one -half foot of the bay mud. The hydrocarbons are not present at levels which require regulatory involvement or remediation. A single sample contained a very low concentration of a organo- chlorine pesticide (13 ug l g 4,4 -DDE). This concentration is well below action levels for soils on land. 3q TABLE OF CONTENTS P age 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............... ............................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF `YORK .............. ............................... 1 3.0 FIELD SETTING ............... ............................... 2 3.1 Previous Site Use ........... ............................... 2 32 Site Location and Description . ............................... 3 3.3 Assessment Area ........... ............................... 3 4.0 PREVIOUS Ei A'IRONIIEtiT_-�-L LWESTIGATION ..................3 5.0 FIELDWORK ................. ............................... 3 5.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling ............................... — 3 6.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL TESTING ........................ 4 6.1 Grain Size Analyses . ........ ............................... 4 62 Chemical Analyses . ......... ............................... 5 7.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ...... ............................... 6 8.0 CONCLUSIONS ................ ............................... 6 9.0 REFERENCES ................. ............................... 7 FIGURES APPENDIX A Boring Logs APPENDIX B Grain Size Laboratory Data APPENDIX C Chemical Laboratory Data P Report of Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment; Regent Marina Site, Located West of Bay Avenue and North of Newport Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the a limited Phase 11 environmental site assessment conducted at the proposed Regent Marina site in Newport Beach. The work was conducted on March 17, 2004. The work was conducted according to our February 27, 1004 proposal. The purpose of the investigation was to assess the environmental condition of submarine sediments on site. Previous environmental sampling on the beach portion of the project was conducted for by Petra for Cash and Associates with results presented in a letter dated February 17, 2004. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK The approved scope of work to assess the bay sediments consisted of the following tasks: Task 1 - Soil Sample Collection Drill three borings to a depth of five feet below the "mudline" in a line east -west along the alignment of the proposed outer -most docks. The borings were to be drilled by using a vibrocore sampling system mounted on a drill barge. The vibrocore system allows for continuous soil retrieval to the total target depth. The soil core was logged in the field by a geologist. Samples were collected as follows: • Soil samples were collected from the sampling sleeve from the bay mud at a depth of one -half foot below the surface of the sediments. Soil samples were also collected at 2.5 and 5 feet below the sediment surface. The soil samples were placed in acetate tubes, capped and placed on ice for transportation to the laboratory for analysis. • Representative soil samples were also collected for grain size analysis. JO BAY PACIFIC, LLC April 9, 2004 Limited Phase iI Investigation 7N. 204 -04 Proposed Regent - Marina Page 2 Task 2 - Laboratory Analysis Nine soil samples were collected (three from each boring) as discussed above. The soil samples from the one -half foot and two and one -half foot depth were analyzed as follows: • Six soil samples by dry weight for California Assessment Test Metals by EPA Method 601013/742 1. • Six soil samples by dry weight for PCBs by EPA ititethod 3082. • Six soil samples by dry weight for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA Method 801 5M. • Six soil samples by dry weight for semi - volatile organic compounds by EPA rlethod 8270C. • Six soil samples by dry, weight for organ- chlorine pesticides by EPA Method 8081A. Task 3 - Grain Size Analysis Grain size analysis by ASTM Standard 1140 -00 (percent passing 11200) and by ASTM Standard C136 -96A was conducted on soil samples collected from each boring. The analysis were conducted on representative samples of the sediment units penetrated. 3.0 FIELD SETTING 3.1 Previous Site Use Based on preliminary aerial photographic review obtained from Petra's in house aerial photographs the site has been occupied by a beach and the Rhine Channe; since at least the early 1927. 31 BAY PACIFIC, LLC April 9, 2004 Limited Phase II Investigation J.N. 204 -04 Proposed Regent Marina Page 3 3.2 Site Location and Description The site is located on 0.7 acres of land and bay located west of Bay Avenue and north of Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California.. The site is currently undeveloped. The site is occupied by a swimming beach on the south side and the Rhine Channel on the north. The Veterans Marina is located immediately to the south and mobile home park is located immediately to the east. The site location is shown on Figure 1 "Site Location Map." 3.3 Assessment Area The environmental assessment conducted during this investigation was confined to three locations on the seaward portion of the proposed marina site. The area of investigation is the area of proposed floating docks. Creation of the docks including installation of piles will require dredging and drilling. The assessment area is shown on Figure 2, " Site Plan." 4.0 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT WORT{ Petra completed a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for Cash and Associates. The area of investigation for the investigation was the landward portion of the proposed marina site. The results of the investigation were provided by letter dated February 17. 2004. The previous investigation did not detect contamination of the beach sediments on site. 5.0 FIELD AVORh 5.1 Drilling and Soil Sampling Drilling and sampling was conducted on March 17, 2004. The vibrocore drilling technique was used to collect soil cores from the bottom of the bay. The vibrocore 3� BAY" PACIFIC, LLC Limited Phase E Invest'.tration Proposed Regent Marina April 9, 2004 J.N. 204 -04 Page 4 system employs a vibrating head which is connected to an aluminum casing cut to the desired length of core penetration. The aluminum casing was cut to allow penetration of seven feet of sediment. The vibrating head is lowered until the casing is in contact with the surface of the submarine sediments. Vibration is applied until the aluminum casing has penetrated to the target depth allowing the vibrating head to come to rest on the surface of the sediments. A continuous core of sediment was extruded from the sample easing and geologically logged. Sediment samples were collected from the core and placed in brass sampling tubes. Sediment samples were collected from one 0.5, 2S and 5 feet from the top of the bay mud. The brass sampling tubes were capped with a teflon sheet and plastic cap, labeled, and placed in a cooler until transport to the laboratory for analysis. Samples, representative of the sediment types, were collected in plastic bats for ;rain size analysis. The boring logs of the sediment cores are provided in Appendix A. 6.0 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL TESTING. 6.1 Grain size Analysis Grain size analysis was conducted on the samples obtained from the three borings. The sediment samples from BP -1 at one foot, BP -2 at one foot, and BP -3 at one foot were analyzed for grain size distribution by AST�1 D 1 i40 -00. The test method provides an analysis of the percentage of sediment passing the '"200 sieve which is the demarcation between sand and clay /silt. The sediment samples from BP -I at 2.5 feet, BP -2 at 4 feet, and 3P -3 at 3 feet were analyzed for grain size distribution using AST-N1 C 136 -96a. The analysis provides a information to prepare grain size distribution curve of the fine and coarse aggregate materials. The sediment sample from BP -2 at 1 foot was analysed for grain size distribution using ASTM D 422 -90. The test method allows an assessment of the percentage of silt and clay sized sediment grains. J` BAY PACIFIC, LLC April 9, 2004 Limited Phase II Investigation J.N. 204 -04 Proposed Regent Marina Page 5 6.2 Chemical Analyses The submarine sediments were sampled from the vibrocore sleeve at points representing depths of 0.5, 2.5, and 5 feet below the surface of the bay mud. The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples were submitted for laboratory analysis. The five foot samples were archived to be analyzed if the upper samples contained chemical contamination. The sample were submitted to Orange Coast Laboratories of Tustin, California The samples were analyzed as follows: The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples from BP -1, BP -2, and BP -3 were analyzed by dry weight for California Assessment Test ? Metals by EPA Method 601013/742 1. • The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples from BP -1, BP -1, and BP -3 were analyzed by dry weight for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by EPA Method 8052. The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples from 13P -1, BP -2, and BP -3 were analyzed by dry weight for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8015M. The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples from BP -1, BP -2, and BP -3 were analyzed by dry weight for semi - volatile organic compounds by EPA Method 8270C. • The 0.5 and 2.5 foot samples from BP -1, BP -2, and BP -3 were analyzed by dry weight for organo- chlorine pesticides by EPA.Method 8081A. The laboratory data indicated the following: Trace amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in the 0.5 foot samples in all three borings and in the 2.5 foot sample in Boring BP -2. The detected concentrations were 24 mg/kg in BP -1 at 0.5 feet, 39 mg/kg in BP -2 at OS feet; 11 m2/,k2 in BP -2 at 15 feet, and 27 mg /1:g in BP -3 at D.5 feet. Aa BAY PACIFIC, LLC Limited Phase II Investi gation Proposed Regent Marina April 9, 2004 TNT. 204-04 Page 6 Semi - volatile organic compounds (SVOCS) were not detected in any of the collected samples. • The organ- chlorine pesticide 4,4' -DDE was detected at a concentration of 13 micrograms per kilogram (uglkg) in the 0.5 foot sample in boring BP -3. Polychlorinated biphenvls (PCBs) were not detected in any of the collected samples. • iVletals concentrations were within the anticipated background for soils in. Southern California. 7.0 GEOLOGIC 4r` D EYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geologic materials encountered during this investigation are described by depth in the boring logs presented in Appendix A. The sediments encountered consisted of 1.5 to three feet of silty clay and clayey sand "bay mud." The bay mud is dark blue gray in color, has a strong organic odor, and locally contains thin very fine sand layers and shell fragments. The bay mud was thickest in boring BP -2. Resting beneath the bay mud is dark blue gray sand. The sand was poorly graded and massive in BP -1 and BP -2. BP -3 contained some coarse sand layers. The contacts between the differing grain size layers is gradational. No debris or discoloration was observed in the sediment cores. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS The geologic and chemical data obtained during this investigation indicates the following: Submarine sediments have been slightly degraded by TPH. The soil samples collected from the 0.5 foot depth contained less than 40 mgikg TPH. The low concentrations of TPH which is may be the product of sediment washed in during stonnwater run -off. a1 BAY PACIFIC, LLC April 9, 2004 Limited Phase H Investigation J.N. 204 -04 Proposed Regent Marina Page 7 • The chemical 4,4' -DDE was detected in the 0.5 foot sample in BP -2. • The bay mud sediment consist of organic silty and clayey sand. • The sediments beneath the bay mud consist of medium to coarse sand with shells. 9.0 REFERENCES PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. "Limited Phase H Environmental Site Assessment; Regent Marina Site, Located West of Bay Avenue and North of Balboa Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California" dated February 17, 2004. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION "Final Problem Statement for the Total Maximum Daily Load For Toxic Substances In Newport Bay and San Diego Creek," dated December 15, 3000. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - REGION 9 "Total Nfaximum Daily Loads For Toxic Pollutants, San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, California" dated June 14, 2002 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,' AGENCY, Environmental Response Team, "Sediment Sampling "SOP' 2016, dated November 17, 1994. UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1965, 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle, photo revised 1931. FIGURES it PETRA 0 �r C Taw: TraisLV �. �F —x r sr 7;�iSs'ie ::a�rc�`• � 3�- S h 7112 y7117� ��r.��'s� ■�,\ �_�,_J' Ca�ujFnousc . �r 1I�+�1s •y T _t. if -' � 'i : � ". v / Tl � 7 ` 1 Ma K i Park i /h r .. ' �mori al`k! 9 r j, 'z ll': � p 1. �ygf5� s. \I t +u`�c 32 LA Harbor SITE tS zMt '1 Lgn �. 8 r LiZm �;Ni 34 �•., U 8f 1 colhns S NEWPORT , BEACH � - - _; � ��... " .G� Bay .3�0 T. e _ 4 a SITE LOCATION MAP Ref: Portion of USGS VEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE, 7.5 Minute Topographic Series 1965, (Photorevised 1981) SCALE: 1 inch = 2000 feet PETRA Environmental Division JN 204 -04 l FIGURE 1 ll APPENDIX A BORING LOGS PETRA 0 M PETRA EXPLORATION LOG Page : o: J Project: Limited Phase II - ESA Borins No.: BP -2 Location: Regent Marina Date: 3/17/04 Job No.: 204 -04 i Drilling Method: Vibracone , Logged By: BV Drilling Co.: TEG Oceanographic + Approved By: Samples I field and Laboratory Tests W I Material Description "- a Slows i RI R 1 { Other PID OVA DeN.!• e Per U1, u c Lab (pp'n) (PPM) (Feet) Depth N Water. Not EI)CDUr tered Totai Depth of Barim�: 5 F.. r ji 6 in. ! III Tests Bav Mud. Siltv Clav (CL): Dark bluish -gray; some thin fine sand stringers. 1 — F lij %-% I j— --------------------------- Sand (SP): Bluish -gray saturated, poorly graded sand medium J sand; 10 % shell fragments (small)., I i � l I Ij ! I1 I i 1 Petra Geotechnical, Inc. PLATE A -2 A �i t; I 21 �I CI nil �I CI 1- - sand. --- ---------------------------- Sand I SP'c Bluish -gray; poorly graded; medium to coarse sand; 20 % shells. broken fragments; saturated. to 1.3 feet: Sharp contact. ;.0 feet: Whole shell. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. PLATE A -1 ql llfkPETRA EXPLORATION LOG ps, cf 1 Project Limited Phase II - ESA Boring No.: BP -1 i Location: Recent Marina I Date: 3117104 Job No.: 204 -04 T Drilling Method: Vibracone Logged Bv: BV Drilling Co.: TEG Oceanographic Approved Bv: Samples Field and Cabora:ory Tests j I W Material Descri tion p a Blows R R PID OVA Other Depth Cith- e Pe: u e n ° (pP °h) (PP-) Lab (Feet) oloey I Dcoth to Weser: Not Encountered Total Depth of Borm2: 6 ft. r 6 in. I Tess i �i t; I 21 �I CI nil �I CI 1- - sand. --- ---------------------------- Sand I SP'c Bluish -gray; poorly graded; medium to coarse sand; 20 % shells. broken fragments; saturated. to 1.3 feet: Sharp contact. ;.0 feet: Whole shell. Petra Geotechnical, Inc. PLATE A -1 ql C f `c a c w. "I c a is y 1 V 0k :0- EXPLORATION LOG Page I of ; Pioiecc Limited Phase II - ESA Boring No.: BP -3 Locaiion: Regent Marina Date: 3/17/04 Job No.: 204 -04 I Drilling Method: Vibracone I Logged By: BV Drilling Co.: TEG Oceanographic Approved By: Samples Field and Laboratory Tests W. a Blows PID OVA Other Material Description t I RIP Depth Lids- e I` Per u' e Lab (Feet) olosy Depth ro Water: Not E:1000ntered Total Depth of Sonde: o ft. r 6 in. ° f ° (MD pm) Tests Bay ;Vlud. Clayey Sand (SC): Brownish moray in upper 4 inches becoming dark blue Bray below; organic odor; sticky. --------------------- ----- - - - - -- S._nd (SP): Coarse: 20 %shell tragments. I —=-- - - - - -- ------------------- jand (S PI: Medium sand; -0 °o shell'iragments. 4 i Sand (SP)i \-Tedium :o coarse sand; whole shells; blue Bray; 20 0'0 shell iragmenrs, Petra Geotechnical, Inc. I 1 i I f I i tt l PLATE A -3 -AA APPENDIX B CHEMICAL LABORATORY REPORTS 56 ._ .. - •"' �� ill 1. ,I I lI l y C:ienf Name: q.P f /� Re^uesteC ✓> J �( `ti/' 7 C/ LV�./ by: p `- TEStz•? by: ��c F — Cate: 'z Y / Ca:e: �" Sample Iva. i Wet' +Veicht _ �d 1 ( -� C I eeiore Wash Den finer � — =-- — 37 - p;:=r W-- Container I ---' 3 7 CEpth Dry Weight USCS L wt. Cont. ' �9. Soil 8 cont. or / Coior ! yuC �✓Y 1 C. % { F7• VA -Cent. q�, 9b NR. Ccr.t. 1 9q.aC Ivle:;`ad Usec: CCrsinar t 3 % i �! ", ul'r�i. We, so i s , 'I ail 7Lt. { Flip. � 3 _A a d: i ime Saake,,. Hrs. Cry Soil L'ri. f I 1' j. 1 ®I Fass #20'0 { I 'i, Piet. T oc S ample IVa. bVet Weight 1 1 cgtcre Wash: I Ccntainer -- i C:.ntainar f . ; Depth 1 Dry ` ie'.gnt USCS 1 4 Lt. Cont. { ( Soil & Cott. Soil & cont , Color I �1.C.',= 4'R. ant. , , jv. Conc I et :ed zed: A Cantzir.er Wet Soil Y,Y. .� E S- Tame �zke�'. Hrs. Cry Soil Wt. I , a Foss CC j I ,a Pat. :,200 Sam,ple I�ia. ' Niet 'vVE:CiIf I I n Eafcfe Dias N -� .. _ Depth 1 Cry Weight { Container . , Container USCS i I NR, Cant. I I Soil 8 Cont. I I Scit 3 Cant. Cv^ICr j 1 M.C.'a � ( I Wt. Cont. ' Wt. Cont. II wle'•h•cd Used: A Container ! ; Wet Scil W'- ` I Sail hurt. E Time Soaked: Hrs. Dry Sail'M. ' °o Fass CO ' ,a Aet. R 00 Sample sNo. 1 Wet Weight l Before Wasn l A;',er Was; Container - I OPo�` I Cry Wemm Container US CS i � Wt. Cunt. { cont- I Soil & Cont. { Scii & � IM. Cont. ' Yet. mat-Cc seL:: , COn[cirEr I Wet Svi!vt. I ( Sol 1M. i _ Time Scaked: Hrs. Cr Soil Wt. f 6 Pass r 00 j2. ? a ^ ??j WarlC Tr =Ce Cr. t2. 6 fill ?'3`- A ?;, °•v2y wence �2 -S27 C.:mrerca Can +.er Cr. S,z. 10.. �1t— CA ?t21= a Gieridaie, t- �,' CA Q--26 � 'em2cUla, CA 9�5 ?0 an Giegc, CA ?2t2.. 6' Job No.: �O y, p C ' ?` -. .= .�rw_y ?w�uc 2/c'20 Commerce en:=f Dr. Sie. H73 —' Cas;a Mesa, CA 92525 1 T3secula, CA. Stec C W:Uarr- ,ra•F�s I _25 V >crld =_de hr. Ste. O LI HOO La ;es_'da Ave Ste. 2C2 _sari Diego, CA. 92 i 29 Giendale,�CA S12ri r �L Reoueste_ by: Date: Client Name: �g✓ YpC/ iG C- -esied bv: _ /_ iii S Gate: Checkeo by: Cate: Sample ,NO. I { Q / 'Net Weight + 152, .3 �.33Y. /,3 Retere Wasi Container - _ ._ : k",er `stash. Container 1 f Depth — Dry Weight USCS I , Nl M. Cant. I I I Soil & Cont. I + , � I Soil & Cont. c. 7 L Color ' M.C. '_ ' , 'Vdt. Cont. O Wt. Cont. ' -J Methoc Use ^: _A I Container / I Wet Soii Wt. f I Soil Vvt �- - B Tine Stake ?: Hrs Gry Scil wt. �' j �` /� I °ass ,6 ReL ;2-3(3 , �. Sample INC. ` � I Wet `sJeignt ,S-7r, ly , Sefo.e Wash - Atter Was- Depth i I Cry Weight L327. S� I ! I Container Container { �� uSCS Wt. Cant. + Soii & Cont. f 3' 2 .S� Soil & Cant. Color I M.C. °a j ��- 7 j Wi. Cont. i V\,-, Cont. .� ..� Method Used _A Container z W =t Soil Scii Wt. Time Soaked: Hrs. Dry Soil W ". I 3 Z2, s� I °6 Pass ;#200 1 ,o Ret. {200 I S Sample No. Wet Weight I ceto;e Wasn -, � After Wasnn c _ r 7{ Depth I I Dry Weicht .Container Container uSCS I I W. Cont. I D I Soil & Cont. i Soil & Cont. Color , M. C. % 1 W. Cont. , , W. Cont. ' Method 'Used' ,A Container I Wet Soil Wt. I Soil VIA. { % Pass ,-200 — 5 Time Soaked: Hrs. Dry Soil Wt. J I Sample fJe.� V!et'N =fight f oefore 'rJas` '� .'� Aher NJash Dept. I I Cry Weicht Container Container U'SCS � � W. Cont- � I Soil & Cort. � I Soil Can!. Ccicr ' ' M.C. % i Wt. Cont Wt. Cont. . A,ieS7o: 'Jseg: _A Container Wei J'aii 'Jv ". j Soil Wt. Time Soa.Ked . I Dry SGII V. I Racg nD ,6 Fet..`200 , ' ?` -. .= .�rw_y ?w�uc 2/c'20 Commerce en:=f Dr. Sie. H73 —' Cas;a Mesa, CA 92525 1 T3secula, CA. Stec C W:Uarr- ,ra•F�s I _25 V >crld =_de hr. Ste. O LI HOO La ;es_'da Ave Ste. 2C2 _sari Diego, CA. 92 i 29 Giendale,�CA S12ri Job No.: o-�10 y- C/ Clien; Name n .. c " -- Recuestec by: Cate. Samole No.: • ,[7 qq a 7 /' l> / Tasted by: I Cate: Depth Ghecked by: Data Cescription: Moisture Content of Total Air -0ry Soils Container Nc. Z —TT of Air -0ry Sal _ Cont . (gm VA. of Air-Dry Soil - Cont. (grr..) E10. 6 �/ Dry Wi. of Soil Cont- (gm.) W2. of Container (cm.) ici. + wi. of Container (gm.) Cry Wt. of Soil (gm.) 17 p - ) Moisture Content Contzir.ar No. l e' After V`rat Sieve , of Air -Dry Soil + Cont, (gn.) we. of Container (gim. Gry Wt. or Soii Retained #200 Sieve (gin U.S. Sieve Size Cumulative 'Aie:cht SCeC. Percent .a I Cry Soil F,eta'med (gm.) I I Retain Passion tmm.; 3" (75.2) I 1 112" (32.1) I l i No. 4 P57 q No. a (2.36) i y.S . 6 S j i 9 ©- q 5,3 .No. 30 (O.ec) �,�,� %, 3 S j 7 •.L No. 50 (0.30) �.Sq• 7 � 1 � 1N:a `b. 100 (0.15) No. 200 (0.075) A 7b��• 0 y i ( 2.`� _ PAN Gravel'. 1 - Sand: i 010 Cc = (D3U;= J (DI 0 x D5O) _ Fines: Cu= 0501010= CAP Symbct DEG I r.emc: ks. F 2'520 C.crnmerce Can; r St "- i ' "$_ -A Alrue' /. =venue er r, e. 703 1 7s__b ' +'7o:IG `raG'e 0, '— Cos.z Mesa. CA'?25Z5 —' i emecjI2, OA. 920ti I'-'. San oisoo, CA C'N'Sfac` °t'.ral' -Ms 5 te.0 �i 3500 Le Crescanca Ave GenCale, CA 91 Z7- Ph. (91 e) 5-'1 251 _ev 11 v a, -A 1.'•�� U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 ° 3 2 L5 1 /41123/8 3 4I 6 810141620 30 40 50 70100j40200 100 1 1 I 11. I I I III I.I Ili IIII I lull I I I 90 III L I I I I ilk I I i II III I I i I I I I E80 R I III : III I I :IIII III E_ T ° I II II I II P 4 N60 R 1 1 1 Ilf I I1 11 I I I I I I Y 50 I I I kill 111 1 1! dl I! I I h 1 1 11.1 I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 `V40 , I I i .a I I I I IIII :1 1 ' 1111 1 11 I I I I III I E G T 30 I i i'. I 11 I: I III 111 'I I I I I. I I I I 1 III 201 I III IIII i. 111 1 11111 I 111 11 I III IIII I, I I I III i i f: IIII is I l l 11 11 :f I f fll I I I l f If' I I I II!I l i I Il jll'I I ill' ! I III II 10 I I I'I IIII IIIIi'! I� I'I I:I' I i I I IIII III 1 oli l II: III Ili I! illll�ll I I l l IIil 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL I coarse 1 fine 1 SAND SILT OR CLAY Icoarsel medium fine Specimen Identification I CiassF cation V MC% I LL I PL I P1 Cc Cu ej PB -1 2.0 -5.0 Poorly Graded Sand wl Gravel & Shells I 113 4.8 I i I I Specimen Identification I D100 D60 D30 ` 050 %Gravel %Sand °,oSilt I %Clay •I PB -1 2.0 -5.0 19.00 I 0.70 0.339 0.5396 I 5.1 92.4 2.4 I 1 J. IN. 204 -04 ' March: 2004 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I PLATE B-2 � jctNC.. o y- oy s I � � I I as :� d� e1. QIEni iVcG1E: Sample No.: Depth (ft.): Desorption: f ffJJ� A d4_ V /�' 7 Requested by: _261)'S 'I es.ed by: cracked by: Dale. Date: Date: n•• CGS:a MESA, G4 �-. =tz] emE'�Lla, CA =25sG San rJIE^, 0, CA z2129 Glendale, CA =12'.4 ph. (, 1 -) j_y -3c21 �'• `crci a =6 -6: _a rh, (a =dj a3. -6530 Fh. (813) .ct -i2a Moisture Content of Total Air -Dry Soils .- a:•(SCcl 5_e -al'?7 Fax (35a >ac -3215 Ccntainer No. -- Z�p Wt. of Air -Dry Soil : Cont. (gm.) Wt. of ,Air -Dry Soli + Cent (gm.) w g I Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (cm.) yE�• �� Wt. of Ceccamer (gm.) I --®— , V`A. of Container (gm.) io I O Cry Wt. of Soil (gm.) !�� •S - Moisture Content (%) �, 2 .� ' Af;erv!iet Sieve Container No. , IM. of Air -Dry Soil + Cart. (gm.) Wt, of Container (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained .F200 Sieve (gm.) U.S. Sieve SIZE cumulative W8i Gra Dry Soil Retained (am.) I Ferent I Spec. Required I � Retain j °6 Passing (75.2) 1 11/2° 3i4" (tc 9) I i (° -) NC. 4 (4.7E_) Nc. a (2.36) j �. 6� `, (=:'N.-S I I I; 7`dn..6 No. t6 No. 3e (0.60) ; 39,0 I I II �/. 2- No. 50 (0.301 // p { No. 100 (0.1S) No. 200 -' (0.07S) I'� •i� I - i • ) PAN Crave!: Sand : Fines: CRP symbol: I D10 C30 D6v Cc = (D30)2 / (^v10 x Coo) _ Cu= D6G /GnG= Femari<s. �: aE -A. ndViav avenue r! 2 �<G C cmmerla Center ri. Ste iG_ 12_125 Work Trade Dr. Ste. C` !� �80G �a IdESCe(1i'c Ave SC & CGS:a MESA, G4 �-. =tz] emE'�Lla, CA =25sG San rJIE^, 0, CA z2129 Glendale, CA =12'.4 ph. (, 1 -) j_y -3c21 �'• `crci a =6 -6: _a rh, (a =dj a3. -6530 Fh. (813) .ct -i2a Fa- ;-• -aa .- a:•(SCcl 5_e -al'?7 Fax (35a >ac -3215 .a ;a; a) s_�l U S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS i HYDROMETER c d 3 2 1.5 1 3/41/2 8 3 4 6 810/41620 30 40 50 70100140200 100 I I :I I I I III I 1 90 i i II llG 1 1V I l f' f i f f R80 I 11 :1 1 1 1 liIIH I I i t 111 IT-11 IT-11 I I I i li I I i l i I I I N70 T 71 I I I I I Ill 1 1 111 11 1 I l l I i €I 60 " it.':I € IILL I R 11 I .I I I' I I I I; 111 oC B l I I I I I, III - I F I I II i 1I w40 1 11 II III II I I. II I !II I' I I Ilil !I II I G T 30 20 I I i II 1 1" I i 1 111 11111 I I II I "r 1111 III I I ! II 10 I I I 111:1 Ii i � VIII I I � I I Ili ! 111 � I 01. I I i11i i l! Iii I it I I t i II t 00 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES ) coarse fine GRAVE SAND Icoarsel medium I fine SILT OR CLAY Specimen Identification I Classification MC%j LL PL PI Cc Cu •+ PB -2 4.0 Poorly Graded Sand w/ Gravel & Shells 1.25 2.7 I I I Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay • P18-2 4.0 9.50 0.52 0.355 0.4580 0.3 96.5 3.1 I J. -N. 304 -04 I March, 2004 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS PLATE B -4 PETRA GEOTECHNICAL, INC. �-lient Name: Sample No.: ^eptn (P.): Desc.,vion: >6•�y {'S'C / =�o c, -,� > Requested ey: Tested by: Lvi� Checked by: Gate: Gate: Date: Moisture Gonent of Total Air -Cry Soils Container No. j 2 � ! W. of Aii Ory Soil - cont. (gm.) �Prt, of Air -Dry Soil - Cont. (gm.) I s'Z �. , SC7 I Cry Wt. of Soil - Cant. (gm.) '"A. cf Container (g-m ! 'sit. of Container (gm.) Gry Wt. of Soil (am.) 1P�9. / I Moisture Content ( %) //7-77 After Wet Sieve Container No. Wt. of Air -Dry Soil +C:nt. (gm.) I VVA. of Container (gm,) Dry'•Nt. of Soil Retained T26G Sieve (gm.) I <_l5. SICVe JiZe (nm 1 GU mUlailve 'A/eight Gry Soil Retained (gm.) SFaC. Raquired Percent °6 R.e[ain i Passing 2 3r'4" (15.0) i 72- i/O ,yi'^ 2 7.2 sfE° Ss, j S . SS r No. a (4.;5) No. 16 No. SC (C.30) No.10C (0.15) I ua7. el No.2C0 (0:075) PAN Gravel: 010 C3C 0 Cc = (D3C)z 1 (G 10 x Co "C) _ Gu= GEClG10= Sand: Fnes: i GRP Svmcel: Ramar'a. 31 c5 Ainvay .vence ? °Z7 Gom rc ree Cen L22 i25 World Trace Cr, Ccs:a ,Mesa, CA. 92525 �! -- mec,ia, CA 9_'_90 —' Can Diego. CA 52129 Fh. (7i a) :cc_a92i Fh. (909) oc° -51 ?3 Fn. (848) �u5 -So OG Fax 1- - 2 -1 Fa- (G)0) °9° -5197 . ax (c52) X59 -3215 ]w;blacP ^vaFC:ns 5te. G 3500 ✓_a - :escznta Ave Sta. 203 .encaie, CA r ,. (° 18) v U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 5 1 314 1/2 318 3 4 6 810 741610 30 40 50 0100140200 100 { I i 1 I I I: ( IIII I I III. III I! l i l I I i i i1 Ill1 I l i 111 1 1 1 i II I! l�!11 1 1 90 ( I I 1I � IIII( l I 1 !11111 PB0 I II I I{ I I I :I I IIII I I ! i 1 R 1 111�i1 fl, iii 11:1 iil E l( I.II i( I i f1 .I I Ill I I T 70 I i + ! I I ++ ; I I I i i if I I 60 F; LII,1 II,I I! i! I LL R5° ( 1 1 1[ 1 I iII IIII I I rIl i 1111111 I I Y 4 t 0 I 111 1 _1 I G T 30 1 1 III I ±1: 1 1 Ili l I I I 1 II l 1[ 1 ii!1 l 1[ 11 11[ 11111 !111'1] 1 1:.11 l 1[ ! 1[ l 20 1[!I; 1111 11 h 111 +! { 1 1 1 1111 l 10 a{ i( III I 11 1: I 111 I I III I I I I 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES I GRAVEL I coarse fine I SAND 1 SILT OR CLAY - coarse) medium I fine I Specimen Identi`ication I Classification MC% LL PL j PI I Cc I Cu •I PB -3 3.0 I Poorly Graded Sand w/ Gravel & Shells I 1.05 4.8 i I 1 1 1 1 Specimen Identification D100 I D60 I D30 I D50 ! %Gravel { %Sand I %Silt 1 %Clay • PP-3 3.0 37.50 0.84 I 0.396 1 0.6504 I 8.7 09.5 1.6 i I 1 I I I I i I I I J.N. 204 -04 I GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS March, 2004 PET%A GEOTECHNICA.L, I IC. I PLATE B -5 Job Md.: 26 st - 0 Ze WB Client Name: e, J P�c_ I Y 1 c, L L L Requested by: Date. Semple No.: -Ir- Tested by: Date: Depth (n.): 1 Checked by: Date Description: CL C-1cirreCuor. for Specific Gr2 Wt. of Air-Cry Soil + Cont. \M. of Container Cry Wt. of Scil (gm.) Coarse Sieve M. of .Air -Dr/ Soil + Ccnt. (c Or/ VA. of Soil + Cant. (gm.) VA. of Container (gm.) 3� Moisture Content VA. e Dry Sod (cm.) U.S. Sieve Size Cumulative Vil. I % of Dry Soil :n, Re, Ones (gm.; Cumulative IM. :7, 7 Size 3;4" :f Dry Sci! No. 4 /0.7 -33 Me. Pan -37 k1cisture Moisture Content Arter Hydrometer Content of Total of T Wet Sieve Ret. Air-Ory Sails Soils on 120C Cumulative IM. -7 -717 7� Size A ctuaf HV� F :f Dry Sci! /0.7 -33 Sieve atter Hydrometer & Wet Sieve U.S. Sieve Cumulative IM. Total Size A ctuaf HV� F :f Dry Sci! No 10 v . 2 71 11_ No. 40,7� INC. SOP No. 100 7. 73 No 200 Fan Hydrometer of Air-Dry Scil (gm.) VA, of -Dry Soil �gm.) /Q 0 0eflCCCUlF,t 125CC Cf a °.° Solution Date Time Elapsed Time (min.) Water Temperature c Composite Correction 152 H A ctuaf HV� F 1% Soil Particle Total diameter SamQ ie 2 71 11_ 5 120 �2 250 1_440 I I FZemar,As: 312Z-A Airway Avenue hI 2-e2n _-cr7,rrer:a Canter Dr. Ste. 103 L7 19225 World Tl-- e Cr. Ste. 0 380o a Irmscenta Ave Z(e. ad Costa .Mesa. CA 92e2' Temecula. CA 92590 San Clego. CA 92129 CA 9'T-= 51 U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN iNCHES i U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS V HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 15 1 3/41/23/8 3 4 6 10141620 30 40 50 70100140200 100 I I I IN Ii i!II I IiIIG IIII I I I� I I IIII ! I I I I I I I II 11 E60 R I II I I: I I I I I i I �� I. III I III O 70 T F I I I' I I I_ I I I III 'I I IIII N6° R I I iiCl I l i ! E lii I l l 1 LI 1 1. 50 9 ! i i i li li I I lI I' i 1111 i 1 f'I `40 G H. i lii 1 l I I I1 T1 1! I I 1 1 if f hll i I I T 30 I :IIi II I :1 {1 I 11111 I I l I I I 20 1! I i1:11I I 11111 i t IIII ? I' , I i 10 I IIII I I ( I I II i I 11 I: 1 I :IIII II I I I I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0,001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES i GRAVEL } coarse fine SAND SILT OR CLAY icoarsel medium fine Specimen Identification Classification I MC% LL PL 1 PI Cc Cu • PS -2 1.0 Fine Sandy Clay (CL) I I I 1 I I I I I I Specimen Identification D100 i D60 I D30 D50 %Gravel %Sand %Silt i %Clay •) PB -2 1.0 2.36 1 0.03 1 0.0092 0.0 I 32.1 24.2 43.7 I I I I I i J.V. 304 -04 ; GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS March, 2004 PETRk GEOTECHNICAL, INC. I PLATE B-3 APPENDIX C GRAIN SIZE LABORATORY DATA PETRA G1 I ■ ORANGE COAST ANALYTICAL, INC. A 3002 Dow, Suite 532, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 832 -0064 Fax (714) 832 -0067 4620 E. Elwood, Suite 4, Phoenix, AZ 85040 (480) 736 -0960 Fax (480) 736 -0970 LABORATORYREPORTFORM Laboratory Name: ORANGE COAST ANALYTICAL. INC. Address: 3002 Dow Suite 532 Tustin. CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 832 -0064 Laboratory Certification (ELAP) No.: 1416 Expiration Date: Laboratory Director's Name (Print) : Mark Noorani Client: Petra Environmental Project No. Project Name: 204 -04 Reaent Marina Laboratory Reference: PTE 14688 2005 Analytical Method: 6010B, 7471A, 8082 8081, 8015CCID. 8270C Date Sampled: 03/17/04 Date Received: 03/17/04 Date Reported: 03/25/04 Sample Matrix: Soil Chain of Custody Received: Yes Laboratory Director's Signature:C % //� rj� Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Villalotos Laboratory Reference m: PT= 14688 3135 -A Airway Client Project ID: Regent Marina Costa Mesa, CA 92526 Client Project a#: 204 -04 EXTRACTABLE FUEL HYDROCARBONS (EPA 8015M): CCfD Sample Description: Soil Sampled: - -- 03117/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17104 Received: - -- 03/17104 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted: 03/17/04 03117/04 03/17104 03/17/04 UP 7/04 C3/17/04 03/17iC4 Analyzed: C3/17104 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04, Reported: 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/2504 03i25/04 03/25/C4 03/25/04 03/25/04 Lab Sample #; MB0317 04030101 04030102 04030103 04030104 04D30105 04030106 Client Sample #: - -- BP -1 @ 0.5 EP -1 @ 25 SP-2 t�Jc OS BP -2 @ 2-2.5 BP -3 @ 0.5 EP -3 @ 2.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ANALYTE mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg ma /kg C7 -9 N. 1). N, 0. N. D. N. D. N. 1:1. N.D. N. D. C10 -i1 N. 0. N.D. N. 0. N, 0. N. D. N. C. N. D. C12 -13 N. ID. N. 1). N. D. N. D. N. 0. N. D. N. D. C14 -15 N. D. 0.13 N. D. 0.38 N. D. 0.42 N. 0. C16 -17 N. D. 0.48 IN. (D. 1.2 0.27 0.88 N. D. C1a -19 N. 0. 0.87 N. D. 2.0 0.41 i.2 N.D. C20 -21 N. 1). 1.4 N, D. 2.7 0.62 1.8 N. D. C22 -23 N. 0. 2.2 N.D. 3.5 1.1 2.E N. D. C24 -25 N. D. 2.6 N. D. 4.2 1.2 2.9 N. D. C26 -27 N. 1), 4.9 N. D, 6.6 2.7 5.1 N. D. C28-30 N. D. 6.6 N. D. 10 2.7 6.0 N. D. C31 -32 N. 1). 3.1 N. D. 4.8 1.2 2.8 N. 0. C33 -34 N. D, 1.4 N. D. 2.9 0.67 2.0 N. D. C35 -36 N. D. 0.46 N.D. t2 0.15 0,87 N. D. TOTAL <8.0 24 <8.0 39 11 27 <8.0 E:aractacle Fue! Hyarocarhons (EFii) are quantitated against a diesel #2 standard. IN- _ Orange Ccast Analytical, Inc. 0 SEW VCLATILE ORGANICS BY GC /N1S (EPA 8270C) (continued) Laboratory Reference r: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent .Marina Client Project'.: 204 -C4 _ Sampled: -- 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17'04 Received: - -- 03/17/04 03/17/04 C3/17,'04 Extracted: 0323104 03/23/C4 03/23/04 03/23/C4 Analyzed: 03/24/04 03/24/04 03/24/04 03/24/04 Reported.- 03/2504 03125iO4 03/25iO4 03/25iG4 Lab Sample: M6 04030101 040 ?0102 04030103 Client Sample :: - -- 6P -1 @ 05 EP -1 @ 25 6P -2 @ 0.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 1 ANALYTc (can't) CAS pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg 2,4- Cinitrachenol 51 -28 -5 <1000 <1000 <1000 <; OCC 2,4- Dinitrotoluene ' 121- 14- -2 <250 <250 <250 <250 ,E- Cinitrtaluene EC6 -20-2 <25G <250 <250 <250 Di- n -actyl phthalate 117 -84 -0 <250 <250 <250 <250 — Fluoranthene 2CE -44 -0 <100 <100 <100 <100 Flucrene 86 -73 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 Hexachiorobenzene 118 -741 <1G0 <100 <100 <1C0 HexachlofobLtadlene 87 -68 -3 <100 <100 <100 <100 Hexachloracydcpentadiene 77 -47 -4 <EG0 <500 <500 <SCO Hexachloroethane 67 -72 -1 <100 <;CC <100 <100 Indena(1,2,3 -cd) pyrene 193 -39 -5 <250 <250 <250 <250 scphorone 73 -59 -1 <1O0 <,CO <100 <100 2- Methylnaphthalene 91 -57 -6 c,CO <100 <100 <1O0 2- Methylphenol 95 -48 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 3 3 4- Methylphenol 108 -39- 4,106 -44 -5 <1Cc <100 <100 <100 Naphthalene 91 -20 -3 <100 <100 <100 <100 2- Nitroaniline 88 -744 <250 <250 <150 <2EG 3- Nitroaniline 99 -09-2 <250 <250 <250 <250 4- Nitroaniiine 100 -01-0 <2EO <250 <250 <250 Nitrocenzene 98 -95 -3 <100 <1CC <100 <100 2- Nitropnerol 88 -75 -5 <100 <100 <100 <100 4-14itrophenol 100 -02 -7 <; 000 <1000 <1000 <1000 N- ,Nitrosodipnenylamine 86 -30 -6 <100 <100 <100 <100 N -N itrosodi- n -pro cylamine 621 -64 -7 <100 <1O0 <100 <100 N- Nitrosorinethyla min e 62 -75 -9 <100 <100 <100 <100 Pentachlorophenol 87 -86 -5 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 Phenanthrene 85 -01 -8 <100 <100 <100 <100 Phenol 108 -9E -2 <100 400 370 <100 Pyrene 129 -00 -0 <100 <100 <100 <100 1,2,4- Tnchlorobenzene 120 -82 -1 <1120 <leo <100 <100 2,4,5- Thchlorophenal 95 -95 -4 <100 <100 -100 <100 2,4,6- Trichlorophenol 83 -06 -2 <100 <100 <100 <100 Acceptable Surrogate' -RC %RC %RC oI.RC °6RC 2- Fluoraphenal 23 -119% 90 83 77 87 Phenol-d6 32 -120% 96 87 84 90 Nittrccencene -dE 18 -141% 100 85 91 89 2Fiuorcbiphenyl 39- 123% 102 92 96 SC 2,4,5- Tribrcmcphenol 14 -141% 99 96 91 100 Terpnenyi -d14 48 -151 °6 107 97 104 94 INIT_ . Orange Coast analyric =l, Ica �� SE;NIf VCLATILE CP.GA.NICS BY GC /NIS (EPA 8270C) (continued) Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project'.: 204 -04 . _ Sampled. -- 03117/04 03/17iO4 03/17104 Received: - -- 03/17104 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted: 03/23/04 03/23/04 03/23104 03/23/04 Analyzed: 03/24/04 03/24/04 03124/04 03/24/04 Reported: 03/25104 03/25/04 03/25iO4 03/25104 Lab Sample NIB 04030101 04030102 04030103 C,'ient Sample #: - -- SP -1 @ 05 8P -1 @ 2.5 6P -2 @ OS Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 1 ANALYTE (con't) CAS # pg /kg pgikg pg /kg pglkg 2,4- Dinitnahenol 51 -28 -5 <1000; 000 <1GG0 <t 000 2,4- Dinitrotoluene 121 -14 -2 250 <250 <250 <250 - Dinitrataluene 606 -20 2 <250 <250 <250 <250 Di- n -cctyl phrhaiare 117 -84 -0 <250 <-50 <250 <250 — Flucranthene 206 -44 -0 <1GO <100 <100 <100 Fluorene 86 -73 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 Hexachlorobenzene 118 -74 -1 <100 <100 <100 <1C0 Hexachlorobutadiene 87 -68 -3 <100 <100 <100 <100 Hexachlorocycdopentadiene 77 -47 -4 <500 <500 <500 <5C0 Hexachloroethane 67 -72 -1 <100 <100 <100 <100 Indeno(1,2,3 -cd) pyrene 193 -39 -5 <250 <260 <'50 <250 Isophcrone 78 -531 <100 <100 <100 <100 2- Methylnaphthaiene 91 -57 -6 <100 <100 <100 <100 2- Methylphenol 95 -48 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 384 - Methylphenol 108 -39- 4,10644 -5 <100 <;oo <100 <100 Naphthalene 91 -:0.3 <100 <100 <100 <100 2- Nitroaniline 38 -744 <250 <250 <250 <250 3 -, Nitroaniline 99 -09 -2 <250 <250 <250 <250 4- ,Nitroaniline 1CO -01 -6 <250 <250 <250 <250 Nitrobenzene 98 -95 -3 <100 <100 <1 C0 <100 2- ?Yrrophenol 63 -75 -5 <100 <100 <100 <100 4n14itropcenol 1CO -02 -7 <1000 <loco <1 CCO <1000 l- Nitrosodiphenylamine 86 -30-6 <100 <100 <100 <100 N- Niirosodi- n- procylamine 621.64 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 N- Nitrosodimethylamine 62 -i5 -9 <100 <1C0 <100 <100 Penrachlorophenol 67 -86 -5 <1000 <1000 <1000 <1000 Phenanthrene 85 -01 -8 <100 <100 <100 <100 Phenol 108 -95 -2 <100 400 370 <100 Pyrene 129 -00-0 <100 <100 <700 <100 1,2,4- Tric11hlorebenzene 120 -82 -1 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4,5- Trichioroohenol 95 -95 -4 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4,5- Trichlorophenol 88 -06-2 <100 <100 <100 <100 Acceptable Surrogate %RC !'RC %RC %RC %RC 2- Flucrophenol 23 -.19:5 90 83 77 87 Phenol -dc' 32- 120 1.0 96 87 84 90 Nitrotenzene-o6 18-14:% 100 85 91 89 2-rlucrobiphenyl 39 -23 °1 102 92 96 9d 2,',6- TribrcmcphencI 1,4 -14- °0 99 96 91 100 Terphenyl -c.4 48 -151% 107 97 104 94 INIT Orange Coasz AnahrJCal, Icc. �� Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. 51-12n Villalcbos 3165 -A Airway Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SEMI VOLATILE ORGANICS S GC /MS Sample Description: Soil Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14638 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 204 -04 Sampled: -- 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Received: - -- 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted, 03/23104 031213104 03123/04 03/23/04 Analyzed: 03/24/04 03124/04 03/24104 03/24104 Reported: 03/25104 03./25/04 03/25104 03125/04 Lab Sample #: MB 04030101 04030102 04030103 Client Sample m: - -- BP -1 @ 0.5 BP -1 @ 2.5 BP -2 @ 0.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 1 ANAL YTE CAS # pglkg 'Vg/kg pglkg pglkg Acenaphthene 83 -32 -9 4100 4100 4100 4100 Acenaphthylene 206 -96 -8 4100 4100 4100 4100 Aniline 62 -53 -3 4100 4100 4100 4100 Anthracene 120 -12 -7 4100 4100 c;00 4100 Benzoic acid 65 -850 41000 41000 41000 41000 Benzo (a) anthracene 56-H-3 4100 4100 4100 4100 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 205-99-, 4250 4250 4250 050 Benzo (k) fluoranthere 207 -08 -9 4250 4250 4250 4250 Benzo (g,hj) perylene 191-24-2 4250 4250 4250 4250 Benzo (a) pyrene 50 -32 -8 4250 4250 4250 4250 Benzyl alcohol 100 -51 -6 4100 4100 4100 4100 bis- (2- chloroethozy) methane 111 -91 -1 4100 4100 4100 4100 his- (2- chicroethyl) ether 111-44 -4 4100 4100 4100 4100 bis- (2- chioroisopropyl) ether 108 -60 -1 4100 4100 4100 4100 bis- (2- ethy1hexyl) phthalate 117 -81 -7 4100 4100 <100 <100 4- Sromophenyl phenyl ether 101 -55 -3 <100 <100 4100 4100 Butyl benzyl phthalate 85 -68 -7 <100 <100 4100 4100 4- Chloroaniline 106 -47 -8 4100 4100 <100 <100 2- Chloronaphthaiene 91 -58 -i <100 4100 4100 ',00 4- Chloro- 3- methylphenoi 59 -50 -7 <100 <100 4100 <100 2- Chlorophenol 95 -57 -6 <100 <100 x100 4100 4- Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005 -72 -3 4100 4100 4100 4100 Chrysene 218 -01 -9 4100 4100 <100 <100 Dibenz(a,h) anthracene 53 -70 -3 <100 <100 <100 <100 01benzofuran 132 -64 -9 <100 <100 <100 <100 Di- n- buy! phthalate 84 -74 -2 <250 <250 <250 <250 1,3- 0ichlorobenzene 541 -73 -1 <100 <100 <100 <100 1,4- Dichlorcbenzene 106 -46 -7 <100 <100 <100 <100 1,2- Dichlorcbenzene 95 -50 -1 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4- Dichlorophenol 120 -83 -2 <100 <100 <100 <100 Diethyl ohthalate 84 -66 -2 <100 <100 <100 <100 2,4- Dimethvphenol 705 -67 -9 <100 <100 <100 <100 Oimelhyl phthalate 131 -11 -3 <100 <100 <130 <100 4, S.Dinhro- 2- .methylphenol 63= 62 -1 11000 '7000 <1000 <;C00 INIT_ Orange Cosst Analytica!, Inc. W� SCNII `JOLATiLE ORGANICS 5Y GC/MS (EFA 82; OC) (continued) Laboratory Reference `: PTE 14F68 Client Projecth): Regent Marina Client Project 2: 20404 -- Sampled: 03/17;04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Received: 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted.' 03/23/04 03/23/04 03/23/04 Analyzed: 03/24104 03/24/04 03/24/04 Reported: 03/25/04 03/25,'04 03/25/04 Lab Sample #: 04030104 04030105 04030108 Client Sample 2: 6P -2 @ 2.5 SP -3 @ 0.5 BP -3 @ 2.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 ANALYTc (con't) CAS pg /kg pg /kg pg/kg 2.4- Dinitrophenol 51 -28 -5 <1000 <tOCO <1CC0 2,4- Dinitrotoluene 121 -14 -2 <250 <250 <250 2,6- Dinitrotoluene 606 -20 -2 <250 <250 <250 Di- n -actyl phthalate 117 -84 -0 <250 <250 <250 - Fluoranthene 206 -44 -0 <100 <100 <100 Fluorene 86 -73 -7 <100 <100 <100 Hexachiorobenzene 118 -74 -1 <100 <100 <100 Hexachlorabutadiene 87 -68 -3 <100 <100 <100 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77 -47 -4 <5C0 <500 <500 Hexachloroethane 67 -72 -1 <100 <100 <100 Irdeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene 193 -39 -5 <250 <250 <250 Isophorone 78 -59 -1 <100 <100 <100 2- Methy1raphthatene 91 -57 -6 <100 <106 <100 2- Methylphenol 95 -48 -7 <100 <1CO <100 3 & 4 ,Methylphenol 108 -39- 4,106 -44 -5 <100 <100 <100 Naphthalene 91 -20 -3 <1CO <100 <100 2- Nitroaniline 86 -744 <250 <250 <250 3- Nitroaniline 99 -09 -2 <250 <250 <250 4- Nitroaniline 100 -01-6 <250 <250 <250 Nitrobenzene 98 -95 -3 <100 <100 <100 2- Nitrcchenol 88 -75 -5 <100 <100 <100 4- Nitrochencl 100 -02 -7 <1000 <1000 <1000 N-Nitroscdiphenylamine 86 -3C -6 <l CO <1CO <100 N- Nitrosodi- n- propylamine 621-64 -7 <100 <100 <100 N- Nitrosodimethylamine 62 -75 -9 <100 <100 <100 Pentachlcrophenol 87 -86 -5 <1000 <1000 <1000 Phenanthrene 85 -01 -8 <100 400 <1C0 Phencl 108 -95 -2 <100 <100 690 Pyrene ;29 -00 -0 <100 <;OC <100 1,2,4- 7richlorobenzene 120 -82 -1 <100 <100 <100 2.4,5- Trichlorophenol 95 -95 -4 <100 <100 <100 2,4,6- Trichlcrcpnenol 88 -06 -2 <100 <100 <100 Acceptable Surrogate %RC %RC ?'RC ?4RC 2- Fluoroohenoi 23 -119% 83 92 87 Phencl-d6 32 -120% 86 93 92 Nitrcbenzene-d5 18 -141% 86 66 91 2- Flucrobiphenyl 39- 123% 93 92 96 2.4,6- Tribramophenol 14441% 86 105 98 Terphenyl -d14 48-151% 95 92 95 IN7 prance Coast.Anaiytical, Inc. �11 Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian vihalobns 3185 -A Airway Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sample Description: Sail Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14588 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 204 -04 SEMI VOLATILE ORGANICS BY GC,'MS (EPA 8270C) Sampled: 03 117/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Received: 03117104 03/17/04 03117104 Extracted: 03/23/04 03/23/04 03/23/04 Analyzed: 03/24/04 0324/04 C3/24104 Reported: 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 Lab Sample #: 04030104 04030105 04030106 Client Sample #: BP -2 @ 2.5 BP -3 @ 0.5 BP -3 @ 2.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 ANALY7E CAS # p9lkg p4 /k9 p9 /k9 Acenaphthene 83 -32 -9 <100 <100 <100 Acenaphthylene _ 108.96 -8 <100 <100 <100 Aniline 62 -53 -3 <100 <100 <100 Anthracene 120 -12 -7 <100 <100 <100 Benzoic acid 65 -85 -0 <1000 <1000 <1000 Benzo (a) anthracene 56 -55 -3 c00 <100 <100 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 205 -99 -2 <250 <^50 <250 Senzo (k) fluoranthene 207 -08 -9 <250 <250 Q50 Benzo (9,h,i) perylene 191-24-2 <250 <250 <250 Benzo (a) pyrene 50 -32 -8 <250 <250 <250 Benzyi alcohol 100 -51 -6 <100 <100 <100 bis- (2- chlorcethoxy) methane 111 -91 -1 <100 <100 <100 bis- (2- chloroethyl) ether 111 -44 -4 <100 <100 <100 bis- (2- chloroisopropyl) ether 108 -60 -1 <100 <100 <100 bis- (2- ethylhexyl) phthalate 117 -81 -7 <100 <100 <100 4- Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101 -55 -3 <100 <100 <100 Butyl ben_zyl phthalate 85 -68 -7 <100 <100 102 4- Chlaroaniline 106 -47 -8 <100 <100 <100 2- Chloronaphthalene 91 -58 -7 <100 <100 <100 4- Chloro- 3- methyiohenal 59 -50 -7 <100 <100 <100 2- Chlorophenol 95 -57 -8 <100 <100 <100 4- Chlcrophenyl phenyl ether 7005 -72 -3 <100 <100 <100 Chrysene 218 -01 -9 <100 <100 <100 Dibenz(a,h) anthracene 53 -70 -3 <100 <100 <100 Dibenzofuran 132 -64 -9 <100 <100 <100 Di -n -butyl phthalate 64 -74 -2 <250 <250 <250 1,3 -0ichlorobenzene 541 -73 -1 <100 <100 <100 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 106 -46 -7 <100 <100 <100 1,2- Dichlcrobenzene 95.50 -1 <100 <100 <100 2,4- Dichloropnencl 120 -83 -2 <100 <100 <100 Diethyl phthalate 84 -66 -2 <100 <100 <100 2,4- Oimethylphenoi 105 -67 -9 <100 <100 <100 Dimethyi phthalate 131 -11 -3 <100 <100 <100 4,6- Dinitro- 2- rnethpohenol 534 -52 -1 <1000 <1000 <1000 INl Orange Coast Anaiyticai, inc. p Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Villaloccs 3185 -A Airvvay Costa Mesa, CA 92525 Laboratory Reference* PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 2C4 -04 ORGANOCHLORINATED PESTICIDES (EPA 8081A) Sample Description: Soil Sampled: 03 /17/04 03/17/C4 03/17/04 Received: 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted: 03/18/04 03/18/04 03/18/04 Analyzed: 03/22/04 03/22/04 03/22/04 Reported: 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/25iO4 Lab Sample #: 04030104 04030105 C4C30106 Client Sample #: BP -2 2.5 EP -3 @ 0.5 BP -3 @ 2.5 Dilution Factor: i 1 1 ANALYTE CAS # pg /kg Ng /kg pg /kg Aldrin 309 -00 -2 <2.0 Q.0 <2.0 aipha -BHC 319 -84 -6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 beta -BHC 319 -85 -7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 delta -BHC 319 -86 -8 <10 <10 <10 gamma -EHC (Undone) 53 -89 -9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 ' Chlordane 57 -74 -9 <30 <30 <20 4,4' -DDD 72 -54 -8 <10 <10 <10 4,4' -DDE 72 -55 -9 <5.0 13 <5.0 4,4' -DDT 50 -29 -3 <10 <10 <10 Dieldrin 60 -57 -1 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Endosulfan1 959 -98 -8 <10 <10 <10 Endosulfan II 33212-65-9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Endosulfan sulfate 1031 -07 -8 <50 <50 <50 Endrin 72 -20 -8 <10 <10 <10 Endrin aldehyde 7421 -93 -4 <15 <15 <15 Heptachlcr 76 -44 -8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Heptachlor epcxide 102457 -3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Methoxycnlor 72 -43 -5 <150 <150 <150 Tcxaphene 8001 -35 -2 <40 <40 <40 Acceptable Surrogate %PC %RC %RC %RC TCMX D -144% 88 89 75 INT — Cr2nae ; =ceSt 21n21ytic21, Inc. I ` Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Briar. VlllalObOs 3185 -A. Airway Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 204 -04 ORGANOCHLORINATED PESTICIDES (EPA 8081A) Sample Description: Soil Sampled: - 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Received: - 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted: 03/18/04 C3/18/04 03/18/04 03/18/04 Analyzed: 03/22/G4 03/22/04 03/22/04 03/22/04 Reported: '1325/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 Lab Sample #: MB0318 04030101 04030102 04030103 Client Sample #: - -- BP -1 @ 0.5 BP -1 @ 2.5 Br' 21 @ 0.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 1 ANALYTE CAS # pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg Aldrin 309 -00 -2 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 alpha -BHC 319 -84-6 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 beta -BHC 319 -85 -7 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 delta -BHC 319 -86 -8 <10 <10 <10 <10 gamma -BHC (Lindane) 58 -89 -9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Chlordane 57 -74 -9 <20 <30 <30 <30 4,4' -DDD 72 -54 -8 <10 <10 <10 <10 4,4' -DDE 72 -55 -9 <9_0 <5.0 <5,0 <,5.0 4,4' -DDT 50 -29 -3 <10 <10 <10 <10 Dieldrin 60 -57 -1 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <20 Endosulfan1 959-98 -8 <i0 <10 <10 <10 Endcsulfan If 33212 -E5 -9 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Endcsulfan sulfate 1031 -07 -8 <50 <50 <50 <50 Endrin 72 -20 -8 <10 <10 <10 <10 Endrin aldehyde 7421 -93 -4 <15 <15 <IS <15 Heptachlor 76 -44 -8 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0 Heptachlor epoxide ;024 -57 -3 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Methoxychlor 72 -43 -5 <150 <150 <150 <150 Toxaphene 8001 -35 -2 <40 <40 <40 <40 Acceptable Surrogate 5/PC °;RC %RC %RC 5/RC TCMX D -144% 65 113 65 75 INT Orange Coast Analytcal, I nc. / _ Petra Environmental AT T iN: Mr. Bran Viilalobcs 3185 -A AmNay Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: R=- -gent Marra Client Project", 2C4 -04 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL'S (EPA 8082) Sample Description: Soil Sampled: 03117104 03/17/C4 03/17/04 Received: 03 /17/04 03/17/04 03/11/04 Extracted., 03 /18/04 03/18/04 03/18/04 Analyzed: 03/19/04 03/19/04 03/19/04 Reported: C3/25/04 03/25/C4 03/25/04 Lab Sample #: 04030104 04030105 04030106 Client Sample #: EP -2 @ 3.5 BP -3 @ 0.5 EF -3 @ 2.5 Dilution Factor: 1 1 1 ANALYTE CAS # pgjkg pg /kg pg /kg PCs -1010' 12574 -11 -2 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1221 111104 -28 -2 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1232 11141 -16 -5 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1242 53459 -21 -9 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1248 12672 -29-6 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1254 11097 -69 -1 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1260 11096-82 -5 <25 <25 <25 Acceptable Surrogate %RC %RC %RC 46RC Decachlor0cipnenyl 42- 125 0,'0 63 74 80 NT Cr2nce Coast Analy?icai, Inc. I Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Villalobos Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 3185 -A Airway Client Project ID: Regent Marina Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Client Project #., 2C4 -04 YCHLORINATED BIPHENYL'S Sample Description: Soil Sampled: — 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Received: — 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 Extracted., 03/18/04 03il8/04 03/18/04 03/18/04 Analyzed., 03/19/04 03/19/04 03/19/04 03/19/04 Reported: 03 /25/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 Lab Sample #: MB0318 04030101 04030102 04030103 Client Sample #: -- BF -1 @c 0,5 BP -1 @ 2.5 BP -2 Q 0.5 Dilution Factor: 1 11 1 1 ANALYTE CAS # pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg pg /kg PCB -1016 12674 -11 -2 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1221 111104 -28 -2 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1232 11141 -16 -5 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1242 53469 -21 -9 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1248 12672 -29 -6 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1254 11097 -69 -1 <25 <25 <25 <25 PCB -1260 11096 -82 -5 <25 <25 <25 <25 Acceptable Surrogate %RC %RC %RC "RC %RC Decachicrobiphenyl 42 -129% 94 86 74 74 INT_ Orange Coast Analyticzl, Inc. 1(Y Petra Environmental A.TTN Mr. Brian Viiialobos 3185 -A Airway Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 Sample Description: Soil Sampled: Received: Reported: Lab Sample n: Client Sample :: ANALYTE EPA DATE METHOD TESTED Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 204 -04 CCR METALS 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/C4 03/17/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 03/25/04 04030104 04030105 04030106 BP -2 @ 2.5 BP-3@0.5 SP-3@2.5 mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg Antimony 6010B 03!22,'04 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Arsenic 60106 03/22/04 4.0 4.9 1.6 Barium 6010E 03!22104 26 38 4.1 Eeryilium 60108 03/22'04 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Cadmium 60108 03/22/04 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Chromium (Total) 60106 03/2/04 12 15 2.4 Cobalt 60108 032204 3.1 3.1 <0.5 Copper 6010E 03/22/04 14 75 1.7 Lead 60108 0322/04 7.7 24 <1.0 Mercury 7471A 0322/04 0.22 1.5 <0.1 Molybdenum 60108 0322/04 <1.0 <1 n <1.0 Nickel 60108 0322/04 7.4 9.0 1.2 Selenium 60108 0322/04 <5,0 <5.0 <5.0 silver 60108 03/2-2/04 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 Thallium 60106 03/22104 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 Vanadium 60106 03/22/04 22 29 4.4 Zinc 60106 0322/04 35 90 3.8 INT-.- Crange Coast Analytical, Inc. 15 Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Vilalobos 3 185 -A Airway Costa Mesa, CA 92625 Sample Description: Soil Sampled: Received Reported Lab Sample #: Client Sample #: ANALYTE EPA Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium (Total) Cobalt Copper Lead Mercury Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc METHOD 60108 6010B 6010B 60106 60109 60103 60109 60108 60108 7471A 60108 6010B 6010B 60108 60108 60100 60108 Laboratory Reference #: PTE 14688 Client Project ID: Regent Marina Client Project #: 204 -04 CCR INT= Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. 1i - -- C3117/04 03/17104 03/17104 -- 03117104 03/17/04 03117104 0325104 0325104 03/25,'04 03/25104 MB 04030101 04030102 04030103 - -- 8P -1 @ 0.5 BP -1 @ 2.5 9P -2 @ 0.5 DATE mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg mg /kg TESTED 03/22104 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 03/22104 <1.0 5.1 2.0 5.9 0322104 <0.5 36 4.1 32 03=4 <0.5 <0.5 <115 <0.5 03122104 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 0322104 <0.5 15 2.3 15 03/22104 <0.5 3.5 <0.5 3.1 03122104 <0.5 24 1.2 42 0322104 <1.0 14 <1.0 i9 0322104 <0.1 0.50 <0.1 28 03122104 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.3 0322J04 <0.5 9.7 1.2 9A 03/22104 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 0322104 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 03122104 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 <5.0 03122J04 <0.5 28 4.5 28 03/22/04 <0.5 51 3.8 665 INT= Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. 1i Petra Environmental ATTN: Mr. Brian Villatobos 3185 -A Airnay Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sample Description: Sail Sampled: Received Reported Lab Sample m: Client Sample m: ANALYTE Percent Moisture EPA DATE METHOD TESTED - -- 03i ?3ivd Laboratory Reference T: PTE 14628 Client Project 1D: Regent Marna Client Project,",: 204.04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03117!04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/17/04 03/25,'04 03/25/04 03/25/04 04030104 04030105 04030106 SP -2 kD 2.5 SP -3 ae 0.5 BP -3 lM 2.5 UNITS 32 42 17 -- °e (wAv) INT_ Grange --cast Analytical, Ina 15 Petra Environmental A i N, Mr. Brian Villalobcs 3185 -A Airway Costa Mesa, CA 92526 Sample Description: Soil Sampled: Received: Reported: Lab Sample r: Client Sample: ANALYTE Percent Moisture INTO EPA DATE METHOD TESTED - -- 03/23/04 Laboratory Reference,.: PTc 141588 Client Project 10: Recent Marina Client Project #: 20404 INORGANICS - -- 03117104 03/17/04 031:7/04 - -- 03/17104 03117/04 03/17104 0325104 03/25/04 03/25/04 03125/04 MB 04030101 04030102 04030103 - -- SP -1 @ 0.5 8P -1 @ 2.5 8P -2 @ 0.5 UNITS - -- 38 13 49 % (whv) Orange Ccasi'nalyicai, Inc. �'✓ QA/QC REPORT for Extractable Fuel Hydrocarbons (EPA 801513) Reporting units: ppm 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 03/17/04 Laboratory Sample No : 04030049" Laboratory Reference No : PTE 14688 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS % NISD RPD ACP %MS(MSD) ACP RPD 2. Laboratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery Of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP) x100 Percent Recovery Of MSD: ((MSD -R1) / SP; x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSO) / (MS +MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range o` Percent Acceptable Relative Percent Difference MS /MSD POP exceeded the laboratory control limit. Recover met acceptance criteria. Sample is heterogeneous. Sample homogeneity could not be readily achieved. Date of Analysis : 03/1,7/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10748 Analyte SP CONC RESULTS °o RECOVERY ACCEPTABLE °a Extractable Fuel ACP Analyte R9 82 MS MSD N. MS % MSD RID CONC RPD Extractable Fuel 65.0 f 100 .22 197 57 132 47 55 -137 23 Hydrocarbons 1 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS % NISD RPD ACP %MS(MSD) ACP RPD 2. Laboratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery Of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP) x100 Percent Recovery Of MSD: ((MSD -R1) / SP; x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSO) / (MS +MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range o` Percent Acceptable Relative Percent Difference MS /MSD POP exceeded the laboratory control limit. Recover met acceptance criteria. Sample is heterogeneous. Sample homogeneity could not be readily achieved. Date of Analysis : 03/1,7/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10748 Analyte SP CONC RESULTS °o RECOVERY ACCEPTABLE °a Extractable Fuel 100 82 82 55 -130 Hvdrocarbons 1� iNI T — – Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. QAlQC REPORT for Metals Reporting units: porn 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Lduuldtul y RCICI Analyte Date Spike SpCONC ACP Analyte Date QC Sample R7 Standard ID M° MSD %MS %MSD RPD 03/22/04 RPD 20.0 Tested 92 80 -120 CONC 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.5 93 80 -120 Barium Antimony" 03/22/04 A04030024 0,0 20.0 3,80 3.72 19 19 2 9.67 20 Arsenic 03/22/04 A04030024 9,9 200 28.0 28.7 91 94 2 bAC 20 Barum` 03/22/04 A04030024 140 40.0 167 169 68 73 1 Copper 20 Beryllium 03/22/04 A04030024 O Sc" 10.0 10.4 10.5 98 99 1 20 Cadmium 03/22/04 A04030024 0.0 10.0 9.47 9.58 95 9fi 1 20.0 20 Chromium (Total) 03/22/04 A04030024 21,0 20.0 37.6 38.5 83 88 2 75 -125 20 Cobalt 03/22/04 A04030024 7.1 20.0 23.4 23.8 82 B4 2 75 -125 20 Copper 03122104 A,04030024 23 20.0 41.6 43.0 93 100 3 75 -125 20 Lead 03/22/04 A04030024 7.2 20.0 23.5 23.5 82 82 0 75 -125 20 Mercury 03/22/04 A04030024 0,0 1.GO 1.03 1.05 103 105 2 BO -120 20 +Mob;bdenum' 03/22/04 A.04030024 0.0 20.0 14.8 14.8 74 74 G 75 -125 20 Nickel 03 /22/04 A04030024 22 20.0 37.6 38.5 78 83 2 75 -125 20 Selenium 03/22/04 A04030024 0.0 1 20.0 1 16.7 17.0 84 2 75 -125 20 Silver 03/22/04 A04030024 0.0 20.0 19.5 19.8 98 2'S -125 20 Thallium 03/22/04 A04030024 0.0 20.0 14.9 15.2 75 E85 2 75 -125 20 Vanadium 03/22/04 A04030024 30 2Q0 46.5 47.3 83 2 75 -125 20 Zinc 03/22/04 A0403002d 34 40.0 j 065.2 665 78 2 75 -125 20 Definition or Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD %MS % MSD RFD ACP % ACP RPD Result of QG Sample Spike Concentration Added to San-pie Matrix Soike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS: ((MS -R 1) / SP) x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD: ((rvlSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Re!aiive Percent Difference: {(PAS -MSD) / (MS +MSD;) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for N1S /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference Matrix spike recover/ was low, the method control sample recovery was acceptable. J� (NIT Oranne Cr`act Lnelvfira_I inc. Analyte Date Spike SpCONC Results %Recovery ACP °6 Tested Standard ID Antimony 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.4 92 80 -120 Arsenic 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.5 93 80 -120 Barium 03!22/04 OCA 11028 40.0 36.7 92 80 -120 Beryllium 03/22/04 OCA 11028 10.0 9.67 97 80 -120 Cadmium 03/22/04 OCA 11028 10.0 9.30 93 80-120 Chromium (Total) 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18 8 94 80 -120 Cobalt 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 T 18.5 93 80 -12C Copper 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.5 20 Lead 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.2 20 Mercury 03/22/04 OCA 11006 1.00 1.G9 20 Molybdenum 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.3 M9480-1 20 Nickel 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.7 20 Selenium 03/22/04 OCA 11028 20.0 18.5 20 Silver 03122/04 OCA 11028- 20.0 18 0 20 Tlhallium 03+22'04 OCA 11028 20.0 1 18.1 120 Vanadium 0322/04 OCA 11028 ( 20.0 1 18.7 94 80 -120 Zinc 03/22!04 OCA 11028 1 40.0 37.2 93 I 80 -120 J� (NIT Oranne Cr`act Lnelvfira_I inc. QA/QC REPORT for Polychlorinated Biphenyl's (EPA 8082) Reporting units: ppb 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 03/19/04 Laboratory Sample No : 03040102 Laboratory Reference No : PTE 14669 Analyte R1 SP CONC MS MSD %MS %MSD RFD ACP% ACP RFD PCB -1016 0.0 250 190 200 76 80 5.1 45 -126 28 PCB -1250 0.0 250 320 330 128 1 132__L 3 1 42 -160 1 35 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS °6 MSD RPD ACP ACP RPD Result of Laboratory Sample Number - Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS: f(MS -R1) / SP) x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD: ((MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSD) / (MS +MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference 2. Laboratory Control Sample Date of Analysis : 03/19/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA 10981 Analyte SP CONC Results % Recovery ACP % PCB -1016 250 220 88 46 -129 PCB -1260 250 230 92 40 -159 ICA INIT — Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. QAIQC REPORT for Semi - Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA 8270C) Reporting Units: ng 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 03/24/04 Laboratory Sample No : 04030102 Laboratory Reference No : PTE 14688 Analyte Rt SP CONC MS MSD %MS %MSD RPD ACP% ACP RPD Phenol 7.4 100 75 75 68 68 0 33 -108 27 2- Chlorochenol 0.0 100 76 74 76 74 3 35 -1 C8 25 1,4- 0ichlorobenzene 0.0 50 44 39 88 78 12 36 -106 26 N- Nitrosodiprooylamine 0.0 50 50 50 100 100 0 40 -119 27 1,2,4- Trichlarobenzene 0.0 50 43 43 66 86 0 37 -113 24 4- Chloro -3- methylphenol 0.0 0 74 71 74 71 4 38 -118 23 Acenaphthene 0.0 0 40 41 80 82 2 32 -114 27 Pentachlorophenol 0.0 0 550 60 58 60 58 3 15 -124 24 Pyrene 0.0 48 49 96 98 2 46 -127 24 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS % MSD RPD ACP % ACP RPD 2. Laboratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS: ((MS -R1) / SP} x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD: ((MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: ((MS -MSD) / (MS +MSD)} x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference Date of Analysis : 03/24/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10323d, OCA10324c Analyte SP CONC Results °a Recovery ACP % Phenol 1CC 58 68 33 -110 2- Chlorophenol 100 73 .73 33 -118 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 50 45 90 35 -113 N- Nitrosadipropylamine 50 54 108 36 -126 1,2,4- Trichloro benzene 50 45 90 35 -121 4- Chloro- 3- methylphenol 100 76 76 36 -122 Acenachthene 50 41 82 31 -123 Pentachloraphenol 100 57 57 25 -116 Fyrene 50 53 106 42 -126 1NIT — — Orange Coast Analytical, Inc. QA/QC REPORT for Organochlorinated Pesticides (EPA 8081) Reporting units: ppb 1. Matrix Spike (MS) / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MSD) Date of Analysis : 03/22/04 Laboratory Sample No : 0403102 Laboratory Reference No: PTE 14669 Analyte R1 SP CONC MS MSD °6MS %MSD RPD ACP% ACP RPD Gamma -BHC 0.0 20 22 19 110 95 15 29 -137 40 Heptachlor 0.0 20 22 21 110 105 5 23 -143 40 Aldrin C.0 20 22 22 110 110 0 21 -140 40 Dieldrin" 0.0 50 49 1.3 98 3 190 12 -150 42 Endrin` 0.0 50 53 1.3 106 3 190 14 -160 38 DDT 0.0 50 65 55 130 110 17 35 -155 38 Definition of Terms R1 SP CONC MS MSD % MS % MSD RPD ACP c/ ACP RPD 2. Laboratory Control Sample Result of Laboratory Sample Number Spike Concentration Added to Sample Matrix Spike Results Matrix Spike Duplicate Results Percent Recovery of MS: {(MS -R1) / SP} x 100 Percent Recovery of MSD: {(MSD -R1) / SP) x 100 Relative Percent Difference: {(MS -MSD) / (MS-MSD)) x 100 x 2 Acceptable Range of Percent for MS /MSD Acceptable Relative Percent Difference Matrix spike recovery was low, the laboratory control sample recovery was acceptable. Date of Analysis . 03/22/04 Laboratory Standard No : OCA10911 Analyte SP CONC Results % Recovery ACP % '. Gamma -BHC 20 19 95 29 -135 Heptachlor - 20 19 95 33 -130 Aldrin 20 19 15 31-118 Dieldrin 50 48 96 30 -137 Endrin 50 51 102 37 -146 DDT 50 55 110 37 -146 GI INIT 0r2 ijqnc crgc: An-lvfir_I Inr ICI z ° I J d j 00, w1 U "tn 0 0 _� oL U cn, o LL o o c10 cQo co � X co O O Qi ? C cl c� � J � Q ca U c� J N Z � Q v (n N x R O LL O � b W U) o 0 0 Z D U m ccoN�' Was! ' o I a I �l I U li z c _a Y ca V Q U Lz- U j CL U� i w y FR W I I °' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CO "X'L ` "�I`GrNDA . CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ri0. - -� -17 0 — TO FROM SUBJECT: Agenda Item 33 June 8, 2004 HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, jampbell (D. city. newport- beach. ca. us 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. Project 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 caf6, 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 9th, 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 27 "', Is 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 GeolDgy-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 Preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Water Quality Management Plan incorporating best management practices 10 Overload storm drain system Construction of on -site detention basins j . �.k`� � -<r „�: � °srt7' ;.;i-: . Mitigated lmpacts;.��: 4`.::,.= « ?::'t�'w'+fx�e��3',►,; Impact Biological 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 0 :0. . Mitigated Impacts Impact Mitigation Measure Air Qualit Dust resulting from construction Compliance with Air Quality Management activities District Rule 403 and adopt and implement a construction traffic management plan Exceed thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases through use of paint and other coatings in construction phase 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: 0 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. IM • 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 27th, 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: �w 2�x ,fames W. Cam bell, Senior Planner Attachments fYX A VlYk haron Z. Wood Assistant City ager 1. Correspondence 2. Project conceptual plans — separate large format drawings • LJ C 0 Exhibit No. 1 Correspondence 0 0 This Page Left Intentionally Blank E /U OTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 west Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 900173435 t (213) 236 1800 If (213)2361825 www.scag.ca.sov OlBaeel: Pes!dent Cnun;ilmrrbar Ran eodern. Teme,aD • heo Vice President SuDerylto: Hans spite Impe ial CnunPr • `xtOnd Vice v;e;idee:: Mama rem Yoeag, Po:: H'.nem- - Pa 1: Caenclode2 mer Be, P' -" area 1 nit, Hank V.wpm, I.,.dll Caanly h *GHry Ins Angeles County: Yvonne Bra:modte Burke. LotAmP6COarIV• Ze,Yarosla, V, to:ArgeleS Cnarry • Harry Baidwm. Sin Gao•iel • Pau: ow!ea. Ce:ntos • Tony Can-:1111. tot Avgetet Ma'Rdrid Clark. Rosemead • Gene Danirls. Pa:amwnt • Mrs. Orsproia. natmdte • ledn Da .laP Inelewoad • Eric Gar -N, Lu, aoede, - W -np'; 6 Lot Angeles • fravk 4c'u12, luJahV • LO.et hard. Lm Angeler • Iaura Hann. L0: Angeles • kadme Hall, Comp:oe • ion (aeon;•, Los Angeles • Beer,, Lowenthal. long ?eau • tdariP. h:dmv.. In Arednt • Y, In NI;Cariny Dwmey • Llewellyn M :IIer.Ch»emonl - Ci�ay Misr it owekl. Los Angeles • Pan � Nell" Tarrant, • Pam OYOnman Saua M.,e: • Al,, P.ldnla. LOS Angeles • Bernard Parks, Los Angeles Ian Perry. Los Al,eleS • Beabne Prw. 010 R:vrra fE Reues. la; Anee:eS • GOr, Slah. LOS Ano -lei Did SlnclJd. Azusa • Turn A:er. Walcut • Paul ism , Alhamma • S::nev Tv!er, Pasadena • Ionia Fovea ollmn, Lone Beach • Alneou,' eskc,maO,,, L" Angeles • Dennis WaSb aura, Ca:eoaeat • laak A1.1 , Vb AneeleS • BOh YO.lfiol, Glendale D -hnir Zme. Los Angeles Orange County: Chris NorbV, Orange Cuunty Run.nd Bales. Lot Alamitos • Lod Bane. Tustin A•1 3rnwn. Been, Park • P ,1h1O Chaves. Anahn. PlItNe COW, Holein,glon Beath • C.Ikoq- D- YIN'R, LS,r.a Mond • R,Iha,J D:aon. take Furl' •A:ll Date, La Palma • Se, Perry. Brea Tod 9I dgrxay. NewpOlt Beach Riverside County: Marion AsC:ey, Rners:de Coirvp • Thomas BO11,11, take (Island, • Boncie f ii;4mw' Moreno Vaaev , Red lcoe•.dge, Riverled, • Greg Peals. Catbemal Citr • Ran R•ped" @mecuts San Bernardino Cnunty: Paul ,tare. Say Be• nno COudy • But Arera'ider. Paecho Cuama +g.' • L:wad Bwgnuo, 1m.r Of Apple '.al!rr • laxren1, Dale, Be-H -e • Lee Ann Garcia. G•a.vd teuaze• SOaa Longciltr, S,� 8,mard1nc- GaryO,al.Orwe, • 0swan Rme:ban. Rlal•o Ve nly: ludv repels, VeAcd,a r1evoly , G . Sim, Valley • Cme Mo :.cnue. San Be a• ram rands. Port HUerema Orange County Transportation Authority: Charles Bdmin, Orange Count, Riverside County TranspOnalion Commission: Rub:r Lowe. Hemel Ventura County Tnnsponation Commission; Bill Davis, Simi valley ® I-lej.riseedlace t'r st9 s'ir /aa 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. Campbeii: 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 Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. It you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1867. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFFREY M. SMITH, AICP Senior Regional Planner Intergovernmental Review �1 Jam✓ li MEMORANDUM 0 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 Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the captioned DEIR for the Project. 1. 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. 0 /Z EQAC Page 2 May 28, 2004 II. Introduction: EIR Standards. An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental document which: ".. 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 (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied). In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he 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. Regents 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 ofonsite 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" 0 I LI 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 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 DE1R should include an analysis of the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities. C. Conclusion. The DE1R should be revised to include a full environmental analysis of the Project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, and recreation. 111. 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, 0 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 DE1R's statement about the issue to be resolved — tideland boundary— is surprising. The DE1R should resolve this issue in its analysis of the existing site. The DE1R'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 DE1R should include a detailed discussion of the tidelands location, and the nature and extent of such lease. Without resolving this issue in the DE1R, 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 Project Description. 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 DEIR 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? )-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 18`h 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. r1 LJ 0 EQAC Page 8 May 28. 2004 • V. Section 4: General Description 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 Soils. 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. I(� EQAC Page 9 May 28, 2004 B. Section 5.2: Hydrology and Water Ouality. 0 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. • M01 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 perniitting 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 53: Bioloeical 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 0 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 DE1R. Further, the DE1R is inconsistent in discussing this impact. As stated above, on Page 5.3 -7, the DE1R characterizes the loss of foraging habitat for shorebirds as significant. However, on Page 5.3 -9, the DE1R 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 E1R, and this inconsistency should be corrected. The DE1R 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." DE1R, 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 DE1R 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 DE1R 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 E1R 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 "[alccess 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. 0 Z3 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 z ,-/ 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 large 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 -I 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 18'h Street. In the discussion relating to land use compatibility, the DEIR states that "(t)he structures proposed along the 18ih Street will have a setback of 14 to 17 feet. Page 5.4 -8 However, the Aesthetics Section lists a building setback for 18'h Street as 5 feet. This inconsistency should be corrected in the Final EIR. E. Section 5.5: Transnortation/Circulation. Section 5.5 addresses transportation and circulation. This analysis is supported by a special traffic study, Appendix E: Marinapark 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. 10 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 2S 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 15', 16th, 17th 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 Oualitv. 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. r1 26 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 19'' St. and West Bay, and 18a' 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. 27 EQAC Page 17 May 28, 2004 H. Section 5.8: Aesthetics. 0 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 9 I. is 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. VA 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. • 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 CEQA 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 Protect. 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 S1 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 Intensity 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. 0 33 0 TO: 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. `J Prepared by: es W. Campbell, Senior Planner Attachments Submitted by: G � Sharon Z. Wood0 Assistant City nager 1. Summary of comments received at the Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 2004 Planting Commission and Public Comments Marinapark Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Studh Session June 3, 3004 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 2nd 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; Planning Commission and Public Comments Marinaparl, Resort and Community Plan EIR Planning Commission Study Session • June 3, 3004 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; 9. 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; 0 Project reduces public access to the beach and bay but should increase public access; 1) Planning Commission and Public Commems Atarinapark Reson 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. 0 3 • n U RAI Recreational Advisors International June 7. 2004 Planning Department City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA 92859 Re: EIR — Marinapark Project �4 ii[iFf u�. 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 EIR 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 L. Coast Highway, Suire 314; Corona del Mar, CA 92875 1Q.241 771_aR75 (Q49) 721- 1047FAX www.recadwsors cam 941 WEST BAY AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92661 July 13, 2004 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Re: Marinapark Development Project Gentlepersons: I am a 30+ year resident of our City with a home on Balboa Peninsula's West Bay Avenue. Parenthetically, I should add that this home now has - -- at least for the moment - -- an unobstructed view of the Bay over the City's 10'h St. Public Beach. I also have about 25 years of management and consulting experience in the Hospitality Industry. In another life. I was also President and CEO of the firm that owned The Ne ort Ensign newspaper when it was in its prime during the development wars of the late 70's and early 80's. With this letter. I'd like to offer several personal observations regarding the proposed Marinapark TimeShare Hotel project which you are currently considering for the Las Arenas Park property. First, let me go on record as being appalled at the lack of Staff creativity and political sensitivity to our community's needs. What persistently unimaginative, lazy and shortsighted planning! Is anyone listening to our citizens' often - expressed wishes for more open space and less development? With a range of more community- benefiting options available for this once -in -a- lifetime site, proposals for its commercial development should never have been solicited in the first place! You are considering commercial development of the largest remaining undeveloped Bayfront property left on the Peninsula. Is this the best you can offer present and future residents of our City?? Is a Timeshare Hotel, with its ever - changing flow of transient traffic, that is located 0.1 of a mile from a large grammar school and two churches - -- the latter with extensive pre - school and after - school programs - -- a better choice than a park ?? How will a Girl Scout meeting facility located on the site itself sound to the parents of current and potential young Girl Scouts ?? Clearly, many people in positions of civic responsibility don't seem to have gotten the message that has been repeatedly delivered to them by the residents over the last quarter-century. In this case, it appears that Santayana was right when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Secondly, the longevity of this proposal is really amazing, especially in view of the obvious political risks associated with abrogating the specific intent of the City's General Plan in such an egregious manner. (I remember helping to organize a presentation to another City Council nearly three years ago on an earlier incarnation of this same proposal from the same Developer.) I wonder why it keeps turning up like a bad penny. Even more amazing is the fact that this proposal lives despite the fact that it is obviously and seriously flawed from an economic standpoint. Hospitality Industry management people with whom I have reviewed the project concur with my judgment that the concept itself appears operationally naive in the extreme. A 110 -unit "Five Star Timeshare Hotel and Destination Resort" (whatever these terms mean to the parties involved) is, among other things, simply not large enough to provide an adequate operating return on the invested capital it will take to develop the site. This is a tough, competitive, over saturated hospitality market - -- just ask the operators of any of the area's hotels. Marinapark isn't likely to ever show an operating profit. The more luxurious and "Five Star' it is, the greater the chance that it will never show black ink from operations. The Developer (and his banker) knows this, of course. His carrot isn't in operations, which he would probably attempt to subcontract in the usual industry manner. It's in Timeshare sales. Potential one -time sales revenue from the Timeshare sale of as few as 14 units (12% of 110 units, per the proposal) could conservatively be projected in the $20 million plus range, even assuming no more than an 80% sales success rate. Once the initial Timeshare revenue potential is exhausted, the Developer is gone. The City now has to deal with a facility that is inherently not viable as a going concern. Does it authorize expansion? Allow more (or even all) units to be Timeshared? Permit downgraded service and support to reduce operating costs? This "hit and run" pattern of Timeshare development is a familiar one in the industry. The lure of additional tax revenue is a siren song to municipal managers, so the story has been repeated many times over in Sunbelt communities from Hawaii to Florida. As the saying goes, "...everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die." Only one person seems to prosper from most of these deals. and it isn't the operator or the municipality left holding the bag! Your challenge and ours lies not in worrying this particular proposal to death one more time. Rather it is in having the vision and foresight to put it aside once and for all. It's time for us to move on to encourage and guide the creative non - commercial exploitation of this rare site in a manner that will truly benefit our community and the lifestyle of all its residents for decades to come. You will find no shortage of community help and support for such a move. Res Jo ph F. O'Hora Philip L. Arst "RECEIVED A ER AGEND 2601 Lighthouse lane PRINTED!' — 13 [04 S Corona del Mar, CA 92625 July 13, 2004 Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: Staff Report "Fiscal Impact Analysis" July 13, 2004, Supplemental Agenda Item #18 Dear Mayor Ridgeway and Members of the City Council: A personal review of the Fiscal Impact Report on the Marina Park Hotel /Timeshares raises a number of disturbing issues. It needs to be completely redone and resubmitted to the public for comment because of the following discrepancies. This letter reflects my personal opinion and not that of any organization. The principal source of projected revenue to the city shown as "Use of Money and Property is not defined. If it is a result of the city's lease agreement with the applicant, the lease agreement must be released for public comment at least 72 hours before public hearings in order to give the public sufficient time to comment. 2. The combination of the Fiscal Impact Report with the EIR review of the Marina Park Hotel /Timeshares as a single council agenda item has limited public inputs to one five minute presentation on both major programs. Consequently, the Council will not receive full public inputs on either item bringing into question the adequacy of the hearings. The claim that the hotel /timeshare will be a five star level facility that will average $447 room rentals in year 1 of operations and $489 in stabilized operation in 2010/2011 is contradicted by previous testimony of Mr. Sutherland that projected 100 employees staffing the hotel and provides parking for only this number. For a hotel to be five star to command those rates it must have an extremely high ratio of employees per room to provide exceptional services, several very high class restaurants and bars on the premises (Not the Crab Cooker and Old Spaghetti Factory.) and supply a large number of guest services. A telephone survey of four -star hotels in Orange County indicated that they averaged three employees per room. Local hotels with considerably greater facilities are: Four Seasons ($340 -$460) and the Balboa Bay Club ($255- $450.) 4. No major hotel operator has signed up to run the hotel. None of the projections mean anything because no major hotel operator is standing behind them nor proposing use of their reservation systems to market the hotel /timeshares. There is no established Tidelands/Uplands demarcation line. The timeshare portion of the hotel may be expanded considerably thereby seriously reducing TOT revenues to the city. Overall, the Hotel /Timeshares are shown to be a very poor deal for the city. Factors have been cited that will reduce the claimed net revenues for the hotel. There is no evidence that the hotel can meet the high expectations set for it. High room fees, location in an undesirable area, lack of national hotel chain backing and economic cycle downturns could easily cut projected net revenues considerably. In contrast, previous city council testimony by the Marina Park Mobile Home community has indicted that they would pay approximately $1.7 million per year to the city for longer - term leases. This sum would be steady, guaranteed and not be subject to business downturns. Good business practices would dictate that the city follow the prudent course of a guaranteed steady income instead of betting on the hotel market. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of this analysis that represents my personal opinion. Respectfully, Philip Arst (Original Signed) cc: Lavonne Harkless 1� -13 -L)L/ MISCELLANEOUS #�) 1401 -1402 (a) The holding of a public hearing upon any application for a permit to conduct such drilling; (b) The requiring of the removal of all derricks and other surface structures used in the drilling of such well upon completion or abandonment of such well; (c) The fiunishing of a faithful performance surety bond and the maintenance of public liability and property damage insurance by the permittee in amounts deemed adequate by the City Council. (d) The screening by landscaping and the beautification of any production and maintenance facilities used in the operation of any such well; (e) Provisions for the payment to the City of such amounts as in the sound discretion of the Council are adequate amounts for the consideration or granting of such permit, the holding of such hearing, the making of initial and periodic inspections, the granting of easements under City property and for royalties or rentals; (f) The requirements that no such well shall traverse any land under the area of the City wherein drilling is prohibited at a vertical depth of less than 400 feet from the surface of the ground; and (g) Such other conditions as the City Council may prescribe by ordinance. (As amended effective April 23, 1958). Section 1402. Water -front Property. The City Council shall not sell or convey any water -front or beach property, excepting to the State or to the County for use as a public beach or park. 'Pf' Notwithstanding any other provision of this Charter, the City Council shall have the authority to lease City-owned property, including tide and submerged lands so long as the lease is limited to the term permitted by State law. Nothing in this Section shall invalidate any lease of such property in existence at the time of the effective date of the Charter nor the future leasing or re- leasing of any such property under lease at the effective date of this Charter. There shall be reserved forever to the people the public use of a strip of bay front land above mean high tide not less than 85 feet in depth of the city-owned water -front property bounded on the west by the southeasterly line of Nineteenth Street and bounded on the east by a line parallel thereto lying 349.90 feet northwesterly of the northwesterly line C -43 i i MISCELLANEOUS 1402 — 1402(c) of Fifteenth Street, said frontage to be bay front frontage. (As amended effective January 11; 1957, and November 3, 1992). Section 1402(a). Exception to Section 1402. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1402, the City Council may sell and convey that parcel of City -owned property fronting on the Rivo Alto Canal described as Lot 4, Box 434, Canal Section, Newport Beach, as per map recorded in Book 4, Page 98, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California. (Added by amendment effective January 25, 1961). y Section 1402(b). Exception to Section 1402. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1402, the City Council may sell and convey that parcel of City-owned property fronting on Newport Bay described as follows: All of Lot 1, Block 223, as shown upon a map of Section `A,' Newport Beach, recorded in Book 4, Page 21, of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, California, and all that portion of Block 222 of said Section `A' described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly comer of said Block 222; running thence south 46° 50'30" East along the Northeasterly line of said Block 222 to the most northerly comer of Lot 1, Tract 814, as shown upon a map recorded in Book 24, page 36, Records of said County; running thence southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, Tract 814, to a point in the Southwesterly line of said Block 222; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Block 222 to the most Westerly comer of said Block 222; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Block 222 to the point of beginning. (Added by amendment effective January 25, 1961). Section 1402(c). Exception to Section 1402. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1402, the City Council may sell and convey that parcel of City -owned real property described as follows, to -wit: Lot 6, Block 218, as shown upon a map of Section `B,' Newport Beach, recorded in Miscellaneous Maps, Book 4, page 27, Records of Orange County, California, together with a portion of Lot 4, Section 33, Township 6 South, Range 10 West, S. B. B. & M., bounded on the south by the northerly line of said Lot 6, on the north of the easterly extension of the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of said Lot 6, and on the C -44 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (PA2003 -218) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in connection with the application (State Clearinghouse # 2003 3 1 1 021) of Marinapark LLC for General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -008 on property located at 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. 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 151h and 18`b Streets. The Project, which would be preceded by closure of the existing mobilehome park and removal of the mobilehomes, involves the construction of a 1 10 -room luxury resort hotel consisting of approximately 100,000 square feet that includes food service areas, a ballroom, a swimming pool, spa and administration buildings. The Project also involves the installation of 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The four tennis courts will be reconstructed in their current location, an expanded public parking lot will be constructed and a new, larger two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility will be constructed as part of the Project. Although the comment period ended on June 9, 2004, the City encourages members of the general public to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Copies of the Draft EIR and related documents are available for review= and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (949) 644 -3200 and at the City's website: http: / /www.city.newport- beach .ca.us /P1nTlanningMain.html NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report on July 13, 2004 and on July 27 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. e LaVonne M. Hark-less, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (PA2003 -218) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in connection with the application (State Clearinghouse # 2003 3 1 1 02 1) of Marinapark LLC for General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -008 on property located at 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. 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 15a' and 18a' Streets. The Project, which would be preceded by closure of the existing mobilehome park and removal of the mobilehomes, involves the construction of a 110 -room luxury resort hotel consisting of approximately 100,000 square feet that includes food service areas, a ballroom, a swimming pool, spa and administration buildings. The Project also involves the installation of 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The four tennis courts will be reconstructed in their current location, an expanded public parking lot will be constructed and a new, larger two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility will be constructed as part of the Project. Although the comment period ended on June 9, 2004, the City encourages members of the general public to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Copies of the Draft EIR and related documents are available for review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (949) 644 -3200 and at the City's website: bttp: / /uww.city.neAort- beach .ca.us /Pln /PlannineMain.htmt NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report on July 13, 2004 and on July 27 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Marinapark Resort and Community Plan (PA2003 -218) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act in connection with the application (State Clearinghouse # 20033 1 1 021) of Marinapark LLC for General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -008 on property located at 1700 W. Balboa Boulevard on the Balboa Peninsula. 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 15`h and 181h Streets. The Project, which would be preceded by closure of the existing mobilehome park and removal of the mobilehomes, involves the construction of a 110 -room luxury resort hotel consisting of approximately 100,000 square feet that includes food service areas, a ballroom, a swimming pool, spa and administration buildings. The Project also involves the installation of 12 boat slips and a subterranean parking garage. The four tennis courts will be reconstructed in their current location, an expanded public parking lot will be constructed and a new, larger two -story Community Center and Girl Scout facility will be constructed as part of the Project. Although the comment period ended on June 9, 2004, the City encourages members of the general public to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Copies of the Draft EIR and related documents are available for review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (949) 644 -3200 and at the City's website: http: //w ww.city.newport- beach .ca.us /Pln/PlanningMain.html NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold public hearings on the Environmental Impact Report on July 13, 2004 and on July 27 2004, at the hour of 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a parry to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: July 3, 2004 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 3, 2004 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOW OFPHIHCHEAM and inspection at the Nlai RESOH 01, City Department, City of Newport Beach, C M 3300 Newport Boule- A2103.21 vard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, (949) NOTICE IS HEREBY 644 -3200 and at the GIVEN that a Draft City's website: Environmental Impact hffp://www.city.newport- Report has been pre- be a ch. c a. u s /PI n/ pared in accordance PlanningMain.html with the California NOTICE IS HEREBY Environmental Quality FURTHER GIVEN that Act in connection with the City Council of the the application (State City of Newport Beach Clearinghouse # will hold public hearings 2003311021) of Mari- on the Environmental napark LLC for General Impact Report on July Plan Amendment No. 13, 2004 and on July 2003 -008 on property 27 2004, at the hour located at 1700 W. of 7:00 p.m. in the Balboa Boulevard on the Council Chambers of the Balboa Peninsula. The Newport Beach City Hall, Marinapark Resort Hotel 3300 Newport Boule- and Community Plan is vard, Newport Beach. proposed on property California, at which time currently occupied by and place any and all the Marinapark Mobile persons interested may Home Park, Las Arenas appear and be heard Park, Balboa Community thereon. If you challenge Center, the Neva B. this project in court, you Thomas Girl Scout may be limited to raising House, four public tennis only those issues you or courts, one -half bas- someone else raised at ketball court, a chit- the public hearing dren's play area, and a described in this notice metered parking lot on or in written corre- an 8.1 -acre site on spondence delivered to Balboa Blvd. between the City at, or prior to, 15th and 18th Streets. the public hearing. For The Project, which would information call (949) be preceded by closure 644 -3200. of the existing mobile- LoVonne M. Harkless, home park and removal City Clerk of the mobilehomes, City of Newport Beach involves the construc- Published Newport tion of a 110 -room Beach /Costa Mesa July luxury resort hotel 3,2004 Sa674 mately 100,000 square feet that includes food service areas, a ball- room, a swimming pool, spa and administration buildings. The Project also involves the in- stallation of 12 boat slips and a subterranean Parking garage. The four tennis courts will be reconstructed in their current location, an expanded public parking lot will be constructed and a new, larger two - story Community Center and Girl Scout facility will be constructed as part of the Project. Although the comment period ended on June 9, 2004, the City encour- ages members of the general public to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EM). Copies of the Draft EIR' and related documents are available for review