HomeMy WebLinkAboutWintersburg Flood Control Channel - H-Item submitted by Mayo Council/Agency Meeting Held:!c W-7
Sso,ao
Deferred/Continued to:
®'Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Cler Signature
Council Meeting Date: October 6, 1997 Department ID Number: CD 97-54
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Adminis r
PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director-A��Y
SUBJECT: East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel Improvements
(Brought back from September 15, 1997 Study Session)
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue:
On September 2, 1997, Mayor Bauer submitted item H-5 requesting discussion of the East
Garden Grove Wintersburg (EGGW) flood control channel improvements as they pertain to
impacts to the Huntington Harbour and the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration areas. Mayor
Bauer's request was submitted in response to issues raised in the County's Environmental
Impact Report (No. 560) on the EGGW improvement program. The City Council continued
the item to a study session to be followed by action on the issue at a subsequent City
Council meeting.
The City Council had a study session on September 15, 1997 to receive information on the
alternative flood control configurations of the EGGW improvements and identified issues
which the Council wanted addressed under any alternative. These issues are being brought
back at a regular Council meeting for action.
:R\ C
Funding Source: N/A
Recommended Action: c>
Motion to: --
,1—S-end-a-letter to the appropriate County staff, County decision making bodies, and
Bolsa Chica Steering Committee identifying the City's concerns and requesting
they be taken into consideration for any flood control alternative considered fo
Bolsa Chica area.
FL
kCQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTS
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
Alternative Action(s):
Take action supporting the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel improvements as
proposed by the County of Orange.
Analysis:
The City Council held a study session on September 15, 1997 to receive information from
representatives of Orange County Flood Control on its proposed improvements to the East
Garden Grove Wintersburg (EGGW) flood control channel. The County made a brief
presentation on its proposal to provide 100-year flood conveyance through the EGGW
channel by allowing for unrestricted storm water flow into the proposed full tidal area of Bolsa
Chica wetlands restoration and out through the proposed tidal inlet. Information was also
provided on the split alternative, which was being considered by the Bolsa Chica Steering
Committee, and allows for EGGW channel flows to continue to exit through outer Bolsa Bay
into Huntington Harbour and out through Anaheim Bay; under this alternative, flows above
the existing capacity would be allowed to enter into the Bolsa Chica wetland through a weir
and would exit through the proposed tidal inlet.
The County explained that it was their intention to take the project before the County Board
of Supervisors in October so that they could initiate the project as soon as possible and
reduce some of the existing drainage problems in the area. The Council then discussed the
need for taking a position on a particular alternative. Staff clarified that up to this point, the
City staff only provided comments on the adequacy of the County's EIR and did not express
support for any specific alternative. Staff did express concerns that potential water quality
impacts to the wetlands were not adequately addressed and that the split alternative was not
addressed thoroughly enough to support the conclusion that it was environmentally inferior
to the proposed project.
The final implementation of a flood improvement program will ultimately occur in a
coordinated effort between the County and the State and Federal agencies involved in the
Bolsa Chica restoration, since both projects are connected either through one project's need
for the tidal inlet to provide an adequate flood outlet and the others need for a fresh water
source for the wetland restoration. As such, the ultimate configuration of the channel within
the Bolsa Chica is not likely to be decided until the State/Federal restoration plan has been
determined. Once the restoration plan has been laid out, the most effective alternative can
be crafted.
The Council members discussed the two alternatives and identified issues of concern. The
Council members unanimously agreed that the flood improvement program should occur
through a cooperative effort between the County and the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee,.
and that it was imperative that the following issues be addressed in any flood control
program pursued:
CD97-54.DOC -2- 09/30/97 8:37 AM
r�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIvN
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
• Flood Protection. Although water quality impacts from the EGGW channel into the
wetlands are a concern, the primary purpose of the flood improvement program is flood
protection for residents and property in the area. Any flood program pursued needs to
provide adequate flood protection to residents in Huntington Beach.
• Shoreline Erosion & Beach Safety. The beaches and shoreline cliffs are a significant
resource to the area. These features need to be preserved and protected.
Implementation of the flood control program/restoration plan should ensure that the tidal
inlet is designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact to the beach or shoreline
cliffs, public recreation or be detrimental to public safety, health or welfare of beach
users.
• Huntington Harbour Safety. The Huntington Harbour area is a residential area with
beach and boating uses. Potential increases in surge and scouring effects in the
Harbour channels have been associated with past flood program alternatives.
Implementation of the flood control program must ensure that the program is designed in
a manner which will have no adverse impact to safe boat circulation/navigation in the
Harbour channels and safe use of Harbour beaches.
• Huntington Harbour Water Quality. The Huntington Harbour area currently
experiences high pollutant levels after storm events which have the potential to adversely
effect residents in the Huntington Harbour area. Implementation of the flood control
program must ensure that the program is designed in a manner which will have no
adverse impact to water quality in Huntington Harbour.
Members of the Council recommended that these issues be forwarded to agencies involved
in the flood control program as the project progresses so that they will be addressed under
any proposal under consideration. Draft letters to the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee and
the Orange County Board of Supervisors have been provided as Attachments No. 1 and 2.
Environmental Status: N/A
Attachment(:
City Clerk's
. . - NumberDescription
............................ . . ...........
_....
_ .. .... .
...................................................
.........................
........................
...................................................
1 Draft letter, from the Mayor to Bolsa Chica Steering Committee,
identifying the City's issues.
2 Draft letter, from the Mayor, to Orange County Board of Supervisors,
identifying the City's issues
CD97-54.DOC -3- 09/30/97 8:37 AM
^Tki N-j'-7-
-x
City of Hu- ntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Telephone(714)536-5553
October 8, 1997
Supervisor Jim Silva
Orange County Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 687
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach Flood Control Concerns
Dear Jim:
As you are aware, the City has expressed.concerns regarding the proposed flood channel
improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel. It appears
that the County of Orange and the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee have different plans
for directing out flows of the channel.
The City realizes that the County Flood Control District's goals are effective flood
control goals. The Bolsa Chica Steering Committee's focus is on the restoration plan and
not necessarily flood control. Because of the interrelation between the flood control plan
and restoration area the City believes that development of the flood improvement
program should occur through a cooperative effort between the County and the Bolsa
Chica Steering Committee. The City Council is concerned with potential flood control
problems and we are looking towards solving these problems through collaborative work
between the County and Federal Agencies working on the restoration of the Bolsa Chica. .
It is imperative that the following issues are addressed in your studies:
• Flood Protection. Although water quality impacts from the EGGW channel into
the wetlands are a concern, the primary purpose of the flood improvement
program is flood protection for residents and property in the area. Any flood
program pursued needs to provide adequate flood protection to residents in
Huntington Beach.
Anio,Japan SISTER CITIES Waitakere. New Zealand
• Shoreline Erosion & Beach Safety. The beaches and shoreline cliffs are a
significant resource to the area. These features need to be preserved and
protected. Implementation of the flood control program/restoration plan should
ensure that the tidal inlet is designed.in a manner which will have no adverse
impact to the beach or shoreline cliffs, public recreation or be detrimental to
public safety,health or welfare of beach users.
• Huntington Harbour Safety. The Huntington Harbour area is a residential area
with beach and boating uses. Potential increases in surge and scouring effects in
the Harbour channels have been associated with past flood program alternatives.
Implementation of the flood control program must ensure that the program is
designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact to safe boat
circulation/navigation in the Harbour channels and safe use of Harbour beaches.
• Huntington Harbour Water Quality. The Huntington Harbour area currently
experiences high pollutant levels after storm events which have the potential to
adversely effect residents in the Huntington Harbour area. Implementation of the
flood control program must ensure that the program is designed in a manner
which will have no adverse impact to water quality in Huntington Harbour.
The City appreciates your consideration of its issues. .If you have any questions regarding
our issues or need assistance from the City, please contact me at (714) 536-5553.or Julie
Sakaguchi, Associate Planner, at(714) 536-5274.
Sincerely,
Ral" hiBauer
P
Mayor
cc: City Council
Michael T.Uberuaga,City Administrator
Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator
Melanie Fallon,Community Development Director
Les Jones,Director of Public Works
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner
Herb Nakasone,Orange County,Manager Program Development Division
Sara Bavan,Orange County Flood Control,Flood Program Chief
Neil Jordan,Orange County Flood Control,Sr.Civil Engineer
William Steiner,Chairman Orange County Board of Supervisors
Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
g:\admltr971097js2.doc
City of Huntington Beach
+�7 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Telephone(714)536-5553
October 8 1997
Melanie Denninger
California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612-2630
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach Flood Control Concerns
Dear Melanie:
As you are aware, the City has-expressed concerns regarding the proposed flood channel
improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel. It appears
that the County of Orange and the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee have different plans
for directing out flows of the channel.
The City realizes that the Steering committee's focus is on the restoration plan and not
flood control; however, due to the interrelation between the flood control plan and
restoration area the City believes that development of the flood improvement program
should occur through a cooperative effort between the County and the Bolsa Chica
Steering Committee. Potential flood problems must be addressed and resolved as part of
your process. It is imperative that the following issues are addressed in your studies:
• Flood Protection. Although water quality impacts from the EGGW channel into
the wetlands are a concern, the primary purpose of the flood improvement
program is flood protection for residents and property in the area. Any flood
program pursued needs to provide adequate flood protection to residents in
Huntington Beach.
• Shoreline Erosion & Beach Safety. The beaches and shoreline cliffs are a
significant resource to the area. These features need to be preserved and
protected. Implementation of the flood control program/restoration plan should
ensure that the tidal inlet is designed in a manner which will have no adverse
impact to the beach or shoreline cliffs, public recreation or be detrimental to
public safety,health or welfare of beach users.
Anio,Japan SISTER CITIES u aitakere. New Zealand
• Huntington Harbour Safety. The Huntington Harbour area is a residential area
with beach and boating uses. Potential increases in surge and scouring effects in
the Harbour channels have been associated with past flood program alternatives.
Implementation of the. flood control program must .ensure that the program is
designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact to safe boat
circulation/navigation in the Harbour channels and safe use of Harbour beaches.
• Huntington Harbour Water Quality. The Huntington Harbour area currently
experiences high pollutant-levels after storm events which have the potential to
adversely effect residents in the Huntington Harbour area. Implementation of the
flood control program must ensure that the program is designed in a manner
which will have no adverse impact to water quality in Huntington Harbour.
The City appreciates your consideration of its issues. If you have any questions regarding
our issues or need assistance from the City, please contact me at (714) 536-5553 or Julie
Sakaguchi, Associate Planner, at(714) 536-5274.
Sincerely,
Ralph Bauer
Mayor
cc: City Council
Michael T.Uberuaga,City Administrator
Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator
Melanie Fallon,Community Development Director
Les Jones,Director of Public Works
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner
Herb Nakasone,Orange County,Manager Program Development Division
Tom Matthews,County of Orange
Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
g:\admltr97\1097 j s l.doc
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
Attachment No. 1
Draft letter from the Mayor to Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
identifying the City's issues.
October 6, 1997
Melanie Denninger
California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway
Oakland, CA 94612-2630
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach Flood Control Concerns
Dear Melanie:
As you are aware, the City has expressed concerns regarding the proposed flood channel
improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel. It appears
that the County of Orange and the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee have different plans
for directing out flows of the channel.
The City realizes that the Steering committee's focus is on the restoration plan and not
flood control; however, due to the interrelation between the flood control plan and
restoration area the City believes that development of the flood improvement program
should occur through a cooperative effort between the County and the Bolsa Chica
Steering Committee. Potential flood problems must be addressed and resolved as part of
your process. It is imperative that the following issues are addressed in your studies:
• Flood Protection. Although water quality impacts from the EGGW channel into the
wetlands are a concern, the primary purpose of the flood improvement program is
flood protection for residents and property in the area. Any flood program pursued
needs to provide adequate flood protection to residents in Huntington Beach.
CD97-54.DOC -4- 10/02/97 10:58 AM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
• Shoreline Erosion & Beach Safety. The beaches and shoreline cliffs are a
significant resource to the area. These features need to be preserved and
protected. Implementation of the flood control program/restoration plan should
ensure that the tidal inlet is designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact
to the beach or shoreline cliffs, public recreation or be detrimental to public safety,
health or welfare of beach users.
• Huntington Harbour Safety. The Huntington Harbour area is a residential area
with beach and boating uses. Potential increases in surge and scouring effects in
the Harbour channels have been associated with past flood program alternatives.
Implementation of the flood control program must ensure that the program is
designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact to safe boat
circulation/navigation in the Harbour channels and safe use of Harbour beaches.
• Huntington Harbour Water Quality. The Huntington Harbour area currently
experiences high pollutant levels after storm events which have the potential to
adversely effect residents in the Huntington Harbour area. Implementation of the
flood control program must ensure that the program is designed in a manner which
will have no adverse impact to water quality in Huntington Harbour.
The City appreciates your consideration of its issues. If you have any questions regarding
our issues or need assistance from the City, please contact me at (714) 536-5553 or Julie
Sakaguchi, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5274.
Sincerely,
Ralph Bauer
Mayor
cc: City Council
Michael T. Llberuaga, City Administrator
Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director
Les Jones, Director of Public Works
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Julie Sakaguchi, Associate Planner
Herb Nakasone, Orange County, Manager Program Development Division
Tom Matthews, County of Orange
Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
CD97-54.130C -5- 09/30/97 8:37 AM
y
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
Attachment No. 2
Draft letter from the Mayor to Orange County Board of Supervisors
identifying the City's issues.
October 6, 1997
Chairman William Steiner
Orange County Board of Supervisors
10 Civic Center Plaza
P.O. Box 687
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach Flood Control Concerns
Dear Chairman Steiner:
As you are aware, the City has expressed concerns regarding the proposed flood channel
improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg flood control channel. It appears
that the County of Orange and the Bolsa Chica Steering Committee have different plans
for directing out flows of the channel.
The City realizes that the County Flood Control District's goals are effective flood control
goals. The Bolsa Chica Steering Committee's focus is on the restoration plan and not
necessarily flood control. Because of the interrelation between the flood control plan and
restoration area the City believes that development of the flood improvement program
should occur through a cooperative effort between the County and the Bolsa Chica
Steering Committee. The City Council is concerned with potential flood control problems
and we are looking towards solving these problems through collaborative work between
the County and Federal Agencies working on the restoration of the Bolsa Chica. It is
imperative that the following issues are addressed in your studies:
• Flood Protection. Although water quality impacts from the EGGW channel into the
wetlands are a concern, the primary purpose of the flood improvement program is
flood protection for residents and property in the area. Any flood program pursued
needs to provide adequate flood protection to residents in Huntington Beach.
CD97-54.DOC -6- 09/30/97 2:17 PM
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-54
• Shoreline Erosion & Beach Safety. The beaches and shoreline cliffs are a
significant resource to the area. These features need to be preserved and
protected. Implementation of the flood control program/restoration plan should
ensure that the tidal inlet is designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact
to the beach or shoreline cliffs, public recreation or be detrimental to public safety,
health or welfare of beach users.
• Huntington Harbour Safety. The Huntington Harbour area is a residential area
with beach and boating uses. Potential increases in surge and scouring effects in
the Harbour channels have been associated with past flood program alternatives.
Implementation of the flood control program must ensure that the program is
designed in a manner which will have no adverse impact to safe boat
circulation/navigation in the Harbour channels and safe use of Harbour beaches.
• Huntington Harbour Water Quality. The Huntington Harbour area currently
experiences high pollutant levels after storm events which have the potential to
adversely effect residents in the Huntington Harbour area. Implementation of the
flood control program must ensure that the program is designed in a manner which
will have no adverse impact to water quality in Huntington Harbour.
The City appreciates your consideration of its issues. If you have any questions regarding
our issues or need assistance from the City, please contact me at (714) 536-5553 or Julie
Sakaguchi, Associate Planner, at (714) 536-5274.
Sincerely,
Ralph Bauer
Mayor
cc: City Council
Michael T. Llberuaga, City Administrator
Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director
Les Jones, Director of Public Works
Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director
Julie Sakaguchi, Associate Planner
Herb Nakasone, Orange County, Manager Program Development Division
Sara Bavan, Orange County Flood Control, Flood Program Chief
Neil Jordan, Orange County Flood Control, Sr. Civil Engineer
Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
CD97-54.DOC -7- 09/30/97 8:37 AM
RCA ROUTING SHEET
INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel
Improvements (Brought back from September 15, 1997
Study Session)
COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 6, 1997
AM
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attomey) y Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attomey) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attomey) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS
REVIEWED RETURNED FOR ED
. .... _.. .. . .....
Administrative Staff ( )
Assistant City Administrator (Initial)
City Administrator (Initial) ( ) )
City Clerk ( )
.. ..... ... .... .... .. .. . .. ........ ........ ....... ... _.. ..........
EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM.
Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use
EAST GARDEN GROVE WINTERSBURG
(EGGW) FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
Background
♦ Two studies/processes currently underway
pertaining to restoration of the Bolsa Chica
Wetlands and the East Garden Grove Wintersberg
Flood Control Channel.
1 st Study:
❖ County has prepared Draft Environmental
Impact Report(EIR) on possible
improvements EGGW Flood Control Channel.
❖August 1997, City staff commented on Draft
EIR stating our concerns that potential water
quality impacts to the wetlands were not
adequately addressed.
2
10/6/97 -'
-tom
�ATE any nm09;0 77 '
Background (con't.)
2nd Study:
❖Bolsa Chica Steering Committee is charged with restoring
the wetlands but they will also have to address options
(EIS) regarding the EGGW flood control channel as it
relates to restoration.
3
City Council Study Session
Flood Control Issues as identified by City
Council at September 15, 1997 Council
Study Session:
♦ Flood Protection for Residents in Huntington
Beach is our highest priority
♦ Shoreline/Bluff Erosion and Beach Safety
♦ Huntington Harbor Water Quality
♦ Huntington Harbour Safety (Beach Use and
Navigation)
4
10/6/97
Recommendation from
City Council Study Session
♦ Direct Staff to Prepare Letter from City to
Responsible Agencies Regarding City Issues.
♦ Two letters have been prepared for Mayor's
signature stating City's concerns regarding flood
control and requesting that it be resolved as part of
both studies.
❖O.C. Board of Supervisor's
❖Bolsa Chica Steering Committee
5
10/6/97
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
19 /I_o
HUWINLTON MACH 9/15197
TO: Honorable Mayor Bauer and City Council �m•
9/1 7/97
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga
City Administrator
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon .�� c
Director of Community Development
DATE: September 10, 1997
SUBJECT: BOLSA CHICA/EGGW FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
COMMENTS
In response to the City Council's September 2, 1997, action regarding the East Garden
Grove (EGGW) Flood Control Channel, staff has prepared a brief synopsis on the City's
comments on the EGGW and has compiled the list of background information for the
September 15, 1997 study session to discuss the possible alternative configurations of the
EGGW Flood Control Channel.
Bolsa Chica/East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Comments
Background:
Bolsa Chica LCP EIR
The Bolsa Chica LCP proposed routing the EGGW flood control channel into the full
tidal area of the wetlands restoration area. The intent of this plan was to direct the
channel flows through the full tidal and out through the tidal inlet versus the Harbour.
Some EGGW channel flows would still reach the Harbour, but only after they have
traveled through the full tidal area,through inner Bolsa bay, through the tide gates into
Outer Bolsa bay and finally into the Harbour. This route was expected to dilute any
pollutant flows before it reached the Harbour and was therefore expected to result in
water quality benefits to the Harbour(over existing conditions, under which the EGGW
flows go directly into Outer Bolsa Bay and then into the Harbour).
SrcrD y SESS.�a�li
EGGW EIR
The EGGW flood control EIR(recently prepared by the County) only addressed
improvements up to the Bolsa Chica project. At the point where the concrete channel
presently stops, the project proposes to install tide gates and refers to the Bolsa Chica
LCP project for the remaining portions of the channel improvements. The project
generally identifies the same flow route as above from the EGGW channel to the
Harbour. However, the EIR also addressed several alternatives to the proposed project;
one of which the City supported in its comment letter.
City's Comments on EGGW EIR
There has been concern expressed over the potential impact of flood channel pollutants to
the wetlands restoration area. In the City's comment letter on the draft EIR for the
EGGW project, the City expressed support for a modified version of Alternative 8b (see
attached description; modifications are those proposed in the draft letter from the Amigos
de Bolsa Chica, also attached); under this alternative, existing flow paths (up to existing
capacity) into Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour would be permitted. A portion
of the east channel wall would be lowered to allow flows in excess of current capacities
to enter into the Bolsa Chica tidal area. It is unclear how this will impact long-term water
quality within the Huntington Harbour area over the existing condition, as the EIR only
does a comparison of impacts to water quality as compared to those resulting from the
proposed project.
Attached Documents
• Letter from Mayor Bauer to Jim Silva(dated August 5, 1997)
• City's comment letter on the draft EIR for the EGGW(dated August 6, 1997)
• Draft letter from the Amigos de Bolsa Chica
• Page 2-9 of the EGGW Draft EIR describing Alternative 8b.
If you have any questions regarding this material, please contact Julie Sakaguchi at
x5274.
cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Linda Niles, Senior Planner
Julie Sakaguchi, Associate Planner
g:\adm1tr97\997js 1.doc
MEETING ASS1, .NCE NOTICE -AMERICANS' WITHIPABILITIES ACT
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our
community who require special assistance to participate in City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. If
you require,American sign language interpreters, a reader during the meeting,and/or large print agendas,to make
arrangements, please call: Office of the City Clerk(714)536-5227. To make arrangements for an assisted
listening system(ALD)for the hearing impaired, please call: Building Maintenance Department(714)536-5534.
72 hours prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to a meeting.
REVISED A C TION
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber
Civic Center, 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
5:00 P.M. - Room B-8
[5:10 P.M.]
Call City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting To Order
Roll Call Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
[Present -- Julien: Absent, Garofalo arrived 5:13 p.m.]
Public Comments Regarding Study Session & Closed Session Agenda Items
(City Council) Study Session - Bolsa Chica - East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood
Control Channel (EGGWFCC) Improvements - Environmental Impact Report (550.20) -
Staff report from the Community Development Department submitting background information
on the proposed East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, including information
on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Plan, Environmental Impact Report and a brief synopsis of
the City's comments on the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel
Environmental Impact Report. The study session is to discuss the possible alternative
configurations of the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel.
err::.eed>st :::#�avecrai<n:::cerc
rn :.ef:tl e:. ......:try:: e:acatdr::esseat:fer:>:: :»:
..........................
::::::::: ::::::::::: .................................................................
i::i:: Y:i:::::: iiiiiiiiiiiiii::::.::.::.:::::: ::: i::isiiii ::: ::::ii i::i::iii::isisli}:::'.:::'[ .:iii::i"i::}':i::i'i:;<iiiii::::::: :<.i:.ii:.i:.i:.i:<.ii:.i::.i:.iii'.:ii:i::?:i:::Y:i:::ii:........:i::i::?:.....:....:i .....:..... :
irn a or :: :. x�:::staff:evaluat+ ::: lte:: f.# <::> ::: ►�a0�f:: : :i(�*���f:f:.c�-....��e::t.v :. >:: t:. .>::::>
. .........................:.:.:: :: :. .:::::::::::: :::::.::................................:.................:::. ..:: ::// .:....h... ::.:.
p:::.:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::.::.::::::.:::::::::�....:......................
{ ) h an t.... efs #�vx� ervsfe� }Safety at swimmers xtd s >1t�rs .....:.....:..
:. ,... :: :: ....:..:...::.1...........:......:Y:.......:.. ...:.....:..: i:. ..::...:... ...:LL.i:
rvit:: ::ol/ntairts<::4 >:: afe : :::in:F/nntrn t�crn:::f#arrbQur>for:,:swimmers
:..... ..::::::.::.:::::::::::::::: .: ::::.::::::::::::. ....................... :::. ►::::::::::::.:........:........................ .:a� : .....bo .::.::.::.:
...: .:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::.............:.....................::::.:.::.:::::......:......:::::::::::::::...:::::::::::::::::::::.................::::::::.... :::::::
S.>::::: a...... nalr . >:::tn:::#�tarbo tx::>>::: :> ><k apt
:: ...................... ............. ........................................... .:....:....s : tzca::: stetcrn:>an > ;:>: ulead:::::>::>: »::::
:..::::. :::::::::: .:::::::: ::::::: : : C ... ::::::::::::............ .::::::::::: :.::::::::::::
rote :t: »:: >::>::>::»:
:.:::.:;::::::::::::.:: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.:.::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.::::::::::............:......:........................:::::::::::.........:::::.....::::.:::::::::::.
i:::::::i::i::•:':i:•i::••i".i'.iiiii:::.ii:.ii:::.i:•i:•i:•i:•i:•isi.i:•ii:•i::.iiiiii:.::.iii:i:::i:'LLi ::::.i:.i::i'.i'.:i:':'.:i":iiiii'.;':ii::i......:............::::::: :: :::: : :ii:iii:::::::::: ::::i::i::i::i::i::i::i:
>'.::i'.::: : :.ii:-.: : 'i:L. .....ii ..:...i::.::.....::..:...:......i....i.......:..::. :'. 'iii:•i:•iiii:.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.::::.::::.......::.::.......:.i.............................
>Z ::::Jer#yen.:.Agent:::::::::t�:.#e..nn:.ne t..e .enda:.:10 819 :::::.:::::::::::......:::::::::..............................:::::::......:::::::::::....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::: .:...:::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.: .:: :::..................::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:............:.::::::.
..........................................................................................................:..� : �. :.:::::::::::::.:::::::::::::.
COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARD ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS(TELEPHONE NO. 714 374-4215)ALSO ON THE INTERNET --
h ttp://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us
J� #ff City of Huntington Beach
•
2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR `
Telephone(714)536-5553 .
August 5, 1997
Supervisor Jim Silva
District 2
10 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Dear Supervi r Silva:
As you know,the County of Orange has prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg(EGGW)Flood Control Channel.
The document has been out for public review and has raised concerns in the City regarding the
potential effects to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. As proposed the EGGW flood control channel will
empty directly into what will become the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area. The water quality
of the channel effluent can potentially have a great effect on the ecology of the entire Bolsa Chica
system.
The City of Huntington Beach recommends that the EGGW channel improvements be modified to
incorporate means such as the controllable flow gate, suggested by the Amigos de Bolsa Chica(per
their July 11, 1997 letter to Ron Tippet),to control the flow of storm water runoff into inner Bolsa.
The controllable flow gate would allow for optimization of storm runoff flows into the wetlands by
enabling water flow management based upon pollutant load as well as biological needs for
freshwater input into the marsh.
The City appreciates your consideration of this issue. Please let me know if I can be of any
assistance with this matter.
Sincerely,
Ralph Bauer, Mayor
City of Huntington Beach
cc: City Council
Michael T.Uberuaga,City Administrator
Melanie S.Fallon,Community Development Director
Howard Zelefsky,Planning Director
Linda Niles, Senior Planner
Julie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner
°.Anjo,Japan- Tom Livengood,Amigos de Bolsa C�,,r�
��iSI'ER CITIES Wailal.-rrr. \rN Zealand
4 '
Gib f Huntington Beach
Y o ng
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFOPIA92648
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SENT VIA FAX
Building 536-5241
Planning 536-5271
August 6, 1997
George Britton,Manager
Orange County EMA
Environmental and Project Planning Services
300 North Flower Street,Third Floor
Santa Ana,California 92702-4048
Attn: Ron Tippets, Senior Planner,Chief
Lisa Cebellis,Project Planner
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report No.560,East Garden Grove-
Wintersburg/Oceanview Channel System(CO5/C06)
Dear Mr.Tippets:
The City of Huntington Beach appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the above
Environmental Impact Report,and is forwarding our formal comments at this time as a follow-up to our
general comments noted in our faxed letter dated July 25, 1997. As you are aware we had raised concerns
about the ultimate project impacts when we were asked to review the previously routed Negative
Declaration IP 95-132 on the proposed Garden Grove-Wintersburg(C05)Channel Improvements prior to
completion of this EIR. We appreciate your acceptance of these comments after the July 11, 1997 date
since the Community Development Department did not receive a copy of the EIR,and was only made
aware of the comment period on or about that date. Many of the issues raised as concerns in our letter
dated November 4, 1996 for Negative Declaration IP 95-132 are also issues that have been identified in
this EIR. The City of Huntington Beach staff have the following comments:
Section 3 Project Description
3.5 Phasing
The Phase descriptions on pg. 3-6 do not completely match the shading on exhibit 3-9. A portion of Reach
12 shown on the exhibit as being part of Phase IV is identified as being part of Phase III in the list on pg.3-
6;Phase IV on the list identifies portions of Reaches 1 and 9,but the exhibit only shows Reach 9 is part of
Phase IV;Phase II on the list identifies portions of Reaches 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,and 13,and all of Reach 6,
but the exhibit shows it being portions of Reaches 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,and 13,and all of Reaches 6&7;
Reach V on the list identifies portions of Reaches 9, 12, 16, 17,and 19,but the exhibit shows it being
portions of Reaches 9, 12,and 16,and all of Reaches 17 and 19.
As noted on pg.3-6,for purposes of a project completion estimate,this EIR is assuming that the project
would be completed in a 12-to 60-year period. In accordance with CEQA standards,and since this
timeline is so protracted,the analysis contained in this EIR may need to be updated periodically. The
Orange County EMA
Ron Tippets
Comments on EIR No.560
updates may be necessary depending on the number of years passed prior to construction of subsequent
Phases. The updates would be necessary due to changes in conditions identified in this EIR resulting from
either earlier phases of this project or changes to conditions of development in the areas of the project that
are not anticipated in this EIR. The CEQA requirements need to be clearly referenced and identified in
this section of the document so that the possible need for subsequent updates will be clearly understood.
Section 4-General Description of Environmental Setting
4.2 Related Projects
City of Huntington Beach-No.6 should be identified as a portion of the Ocean View High School
Property,and the description needs to be updated. The construction of a Home Depot on the site has since
been approved in place of the previously approved residential development,and construction of Ocean
View School District offices is anticipated in the future on a portion of the site.
Additionally,the Meadowlark Airport Site is now being proposed to be developed as 320 single family
residential units instead of the previously proposed 600 units.
5.3 Water Resources
5.3.2 and 5.3.3 Project Impacts and Cumulative Impacts
The City has concerns regarding the potential effects of contaminants and pollutants from the channel on
the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Although briefly referenced in this EIR, staff feels that there is not adequate
information or analysis in the EIR to adequately determine the impacts that could be anticipated,and
- therefore,appropriate mitigation measures cannot be developed at this time. Additional data relative to the
quality of the water exiting the channel needs to be provided in order to adequately identify potential
impacts to the Bolsa Chica and recommend appropriate mitigation measures in the EIR. Evidence to
support the conclusion that the pollution levels will not be increased from existing levels due to the change
in channel design needs to be added to the EIR as well. This issue has also been identified in EIR 551 as a
potentially significant adverse impact on the newly-created tidal bay,and should be expanded upon in this
EIR.
5.3.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures HWQ-1,-2,and-3 propose that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be prepared
after approval of the EIR. The City of Huntington Beach is very concerned that this Plan be adequately
prepared and that the City have the ability to review and comment on the plan before it is approved and
initiated. City staff proposes that the plan be prepared and reviewed by the City prior to
adoption/certification of the EIR.
5.4 Transportation/Circulation
5.4.2 Project Impacts
The short-term impacts associated with construction traffic(pgs.5.4-2,5.4-3)for Reach 2 are identified as
potentially significant,however,it is noted that those impacts will be mitigated by requiring applicable
haul route permits from the appropriate jurisdictions. The City of Huntington Beach is very concerned that
the impacts from 336 dump trucks per day,or 42 per hour will not be able to be mitigated by simply
saying a haul route permit will be required. There is inadequateanalysis in the EIR to
gAniles\env\eggweir.doc 2 —
Orange County EMA
Ron Tippets
Comments on EIR No.560
make this determination. It seems likely that considerable impacts will be created by this number of dump
trucks traveling through the intersection of Golden West and Warner(which is currently at LOS D during
peak hours),and traveling along the channel maintenance roads adjacent to residential zones. Additional
discussion is needed in the EIR to identify the anticipated impacts from construction traffic,and more
detailed discussion is needed in the recommended mitigations to ensure that the impacts from the number
of truck trips proposed per day or per hour will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
5.6 Noise
The City of Huntington Beach has concerns for the noise impacts associated with construction traffic and
construction vibration from the sheet pile driving proposed for the project,particularly in Reach 1. There
is inadequate analysis in the EIR to identify the significance of impacts to the Bolsa Chica wetlands that
will be generated from the sheet pile method of construction. Mitigations are required for impacts to
residential structures,however,no mitigation measures are proposed for impacts to the resources in the
wetland. Additional analysis and recommended mitigations should be included in the noise section of the
EIR that address the impacts to the Bolsa Chica.
5.7 Biological Resources
Impacts
Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitat
The City of Huntington Beach is most concerned about possible impacts to the Bolsa Chica resources. The
EIR states that the project will be examined for consistency with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration
Program and the Bolsa Chica LCP,and that is strongly supported by City staff. However,staff is still
concerned about the level of detail included in the EIR particularly in the Biological Resources section.
Additionally,staff has concern for the level of detail included in the EIR in the Section 7,Alternatives,
which we have addressed below.
The EIR identifies that the proposed project would result in impacts to the earthen channel bottom in Reach
1 which has the highest biological value associated with flood control channels. These impacts are not
adequately identified or analyzed in the EIR. Additional information needs to be added to this section to
determine whether additional mitigation measures are necessary. The EIR needs to identify what effects,
if any,the increase in the speed of water flows will have on the wetland and other resources downstream
due to the majority of the project being a concrete lined channel. The effects on the wetland from
increased turbidity and decreased water quality which will result from the change in channel configuration
needs to be addressed as well.
The EIR also identifies that there will be a loss of 10.2 acres of rip-rap channel bottom,20.9 acres of rip-
rap channel banks and 19.3 acres of rip-rap channel maintenance roads in Reaches 2-5,and 13. It is also
stated that the net increase of 17.7 acres of high quality earthen channel bottom in Reach 1 outweighs the
loss of the rip-rap areas. This is not clearly supported by information provided in the EIR. Additional
analysis and support need to be added to the EIR to support this conclusion.
The EIR also identifies that there will be no impact to wildlife movement corridors because the project area
does not function as a major wildlife movement corridor. Staff is concerned that this may not be an
accurate statement due to the fact that the channel passes through Mile Square Park,and can be accessed
from the Slater Channel which passes through Huntington Central Park. In addition,as pointed out in the
Amigos de Bolsa Chica letter dated July 11, 1997,the channel runs either immediately adjacent to or
gAniles\env\eggweir.doc 3 —
Orange County EMA
Ron Tippets
Comments on EIR No.560
within a few hundred feet of numerous neighborhood parks as well as Meadowlark Golf Course. These
open areas may offer a variety of animals daytime cover,and nighttime foraging opportunities,and may be
used as"freeways"to connect the sites. This issues needs to be expanded upon and more accurately
discussed in the EIR.
5.7.4 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures BR-1 and BR-2 note that the blooming periods are from May to August for these
plants. Prior to certification,the EIR should be updated to identify whether these plants were present
during the field inspections for the project.
Section 7-Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The City is concerned with the proposed Alternative 8 which proposes to empty directly into what will be
come the Bolsa Chica wetlands restoration area. The quality of the channel effluent can potentially have a
great effect on the ecology of the entire Bolsa Chica system. This plan would expose the existing wetlands
and subsequently restored wetlands to high levels of pollutants in the"first flush"of a rain storm which the
City of Huntington Beach feels would be unacceptable.
Alternative 8b proposes that the first flush would be directed to the outer Bolsa and divert flood waters to
the restored wetlands only if flow exceeded 3000 cfs,the capacity of the outer Bolsa channel. The City
supports some storm runoff flowing into the inner Bolsa,however,the anticipated instances of this
happening have not been adequately identified in the EIR and need to be identified and considered in the
analysis.
Additionally,staff does not feel that the EIR clearly identifies that the proposed alternative(Alternative 8)
is environmentally superior to Alternative 8b for the reasons identified in the Amigos de Bolsa Chica letter
dated July 11, 1997. Staff feels that additional analysis and discussion is needed in the EIR to support
Alternative 8 over Alternative 8b,or consideration needs to be made for modifying Alternative 8b as
suggested in approach No.2,and listed on page 2 of the abovementioned letter.
If you have any questions on the above comments,please contact me at(714)536-5271 or Julie Sakaguchi
at 536-5274.
Sincerely,
�CJo �
Linda S.Niles
Senior Planner
cc: City Council
Michael T.Uberuaga,City Administrator
Ray Silver,Assistant City Administrator
Melanie S.Fallon,Community Development Director
JAard Zelefsky,Planning Director
V ulie Sakaguchi,Associate Planner
Les M.Jones II,Public Works Director
Dave Webb,Principal Engineer
Tom Livengood,Amigos de Bolsa Chica
gAniles\env\eggweir.doc 4 —
July 11, 1997
County of Orange
Environmental and Project Planning Services -
300 North Flower Street, Third Floor
Santa Ana, CA 92702A04048
Attn: Ron Tippets
Dear Mr. Tippets:
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the EIR for the
East Garden Grove/Wintersburg/Oceanview Flood Control Channel
Improvements Project. Since our primary interests are focused on
the Bolsa Chica and adjacent habitats, our comments will generally
be confined to Reaches 1 and 2 .
t
We would also like to take this opportunity to extend our
appreciation to the County of . Orange for its many years of
effective flood control operations.
Existing Conditions
1'. What is the evidence to support the statement on 2A027 , 5.7^011
A021 that the EGGW system is not a major corridor for mammals? The
Ocean View Channel passes through Mile Square Park, and Huntington
Central Park can be reached via the Slater Channel . In addition,
the EGGW Channel runs either immediately adjacent to or within a
few hundred feet of numerous neighborhood parks as well as
Meadowlark Golf Course. All of these open areas no doubt afford a
variety of animals daytime cover as well as nighttime foraging, and
it seems very likely they would use the relatively safe flood
control channels as freeways to connect these sites.
2 . Section 4A02 needs to be updated. At least two projects, # 1,
the Bolsa Chica, and 7#6, the Ocean 'View School District sites,
have changed. Also, the property referred to in item 1 is in the
Bolsa Chica lowlands, not on the mesa, and the project referred to
in item 6 is on property of Ocean View High School, not Ocean View
School District.
Project Alternatives
1. Alternative 4, the basin in Mile Square Park, is inadequately
. described in the EIR. hdditional detail would be necessary before
making an informed decision about this alternative. The EIR
suggests that it would be a less expensive alternative, but without
even stating rough estimates of cost. The basin would also have
significant environmental benefits in retaining silt and other
pollutants " and preventing them from discharging into the 'Bolsa
Chica..
Even if such a basin is excluded from further consideration as an
alternative, it should be seriously considered as a mitigation
measure to achieve pollution reduction.
2 . The arguments (Page 7A025) in favor of Alternative 8 are not
compelling. This plan would expose the restored wetlands to "high
levels of pollutants in the "first flush" of a rain storm and is
therefore unacceptable. Alternative 8b on the other hand would
direct the first flush to the outer Bolsa and divert flood waters
to the restored wetlands only if flow exceeded 3000 cfs, -_ the
capacity of the outer Bolsa channel. However, it is not clear how
often that would occur. It would be desirable to allow some storm
runoff to flow into the inner Bolsa as occasional influxes of fresh
water into tidal wetlands improves their quality.
The argument on Page 7A029 that Alternative 8b would cause greater
flooding in the o��t.er Bolsa is untenable. Wouldn't the volume
flowing into the outer Bolsa be controlled by the design of the
weir, as is explained in numerous sections, such as 7 . 10. 1 and
7A028? Also, the adverse impact on land use and planning (7 . 10. 3)
for 8b is identified in 7 . 10. 2 as not significant, although
"greater than in Alternative 8 . " As we argue, the adverse impact
on long term water quality would seem to be less in Alternative 8b
than in 8 . Overall, it would appear Alternative 8b or a version of
it as described below would be environmentally superior to
Alternative 8 .
Two approaches would improve Alternative 8b and make" it
acceptable.
1. Lower the threshold of the weir structure to a level which
guarantees some water delivery to the wetlands every winter.
2 . Even better, construct a controllable flow gate to allow
optimized flow into the wetlands. This is the only approach that is
consistent with the philosophy of adaptive management of the
ecosystem. Water flow management decisions would be based on the
r pollutant load of the water at any time as well as the biological
need for freshwater input to the marsh.
3. Of the numerous project alternatives, Amigos de Bolsa Chica
vigorously rejects Alternatives 9 and 9a. These alternatives call
for massive channel dredging within Outer Bolsa Bay, the most
pristi a wetland portion of Bolsa Chica. Loss of that sensitive
habita is simply unacceptable. Furthermore, 9 and 9a preclude
opportunity for any freshwater flows through the new restoration
area. Such flows are essential for the success of the restoration
in achieving its biological objectives.
3 V \
Mitigation Measures
1. The mitigation measures listed. on pages 2-16 and 2-17 (Table
2-1, Water Resources) include the preparation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) . The- SWPPP is to be prepared and
approved by the Chief Engineer at RWQCB and it is to be prepared
after approval of the EIR.
Instead, the SWPPP should be prepared first and then be approved as
part of the EIR. In this way, the provisions of the SWPPP would be
incorporated as mitigation measures within the EIR so that the
public would have the strongest possible assurance that the
measures will be monitored and accomplished.
2 . There is no discussion of how floating debris will be prevented
from entering the wetlands. Brief mention is made on page 7A027
that tidal gates alone will screen trash but there is no discussion
or support of that statement. What is the plan to trap floating
debris? Along these same lines, many stretches of the EGGW
channels are immediately adjacent to commercial and high density
residential development, potential sources of trash and debris.
These developments frequently have trash dumpsters immediately next
to the channels and trash in the channels at these sites is more
obvious than at other locations. Are any provisions planned to
reduce this source, such as higher walls?
Mitigation measures should include a debris raking device just
upstream of the terminus of the channel. The vertical walls that
are to be created will greatly enhance the effectiveness of such a
system: no matter how the water level rises or falls, a device of
fixed width will do the job. In the existing trapezoidal channel,
the width changes with changing water levels, making the existing
boom system ineffective.
3 . Mitigation measures should include a temporary storm water
holding pond within the Bolsa Chica area, such as the pocket
between the present channel and the foot of the Bolsa, Chica mesa.
Such a pond would allow storm flow velocity to slow, depositing
silt`, debris, and pollutants before they exit to the Bolsa Chica
and ultimately the ocean.
4 . From the discussion on pages 5.7^O10 and 5.7A025 concerning
bird diversity in Reach 2 and others with rip-rap on 5.7^010, it
would appear that these areas represent habitat values as great if
not greater than that of Reach 1. This is confirmed by personal
observations; great numbers of herons, egrets and other. species are
frequently observed hunting in Reach 2 . What evidence is there that
the soft bottom of Reach 1 will truly offset the loss of the -
rip-rap habitat of Reach 2?
4. Impacts
1. The statement in the third paragraph on page 5. 3-12 that
improvements in the channel system would not increase the amount of
pollutants is false. The present-day high levels of vegetation and
associated microbiota in Reaches 1 and 2 contribute to the
reduction of pollutants through natural processes of
biodegradation. The;-,e populations will be eliminated by converting
the channels to hard surfaces, resulting in higher levels of
pollutants exiting the channel terminus. What is the evidence that
pollution levels will remain the same? What mitigation measures
are planned to offset the increase in pollutant levels?
2 . Regarding the reference to EIR 551 in the same paragraph on
page 5.3^012 , EIR 551 states, "This (contaminants from urban
runoff) represents a potentially significant adverse impact on the
newly-created tidal bay. " This statement should be repeated in the
present document since it points out a very serious flaw in.. the
proposed plan: depending on which alternative is followed,
urban pollutants will either continue to pass into Huntington
Harbour or be diverted into the newly restored wetlands and
ultimately into a heavily used shoreline. It is the responsibility
of EIR 560 to document fully the impacts of the project which it
analyzes. EIR 560 does not do so. How is this impact going to be
mitigated?
3 . Not even a rough estimate is made for the volume of
construction-related sediment that will be generated and delivered
to the Bolsa Chica. Such an estimate is essential to evaluate the
impacts of the Flood Control project.
Baseline Information
1. The EIR does not present information detailing historical
volumes or rates of flow of storm water in the EGGWFFC. These
numbers are essential for informed public analysis of the need for
the project, the proposed alternatives, and the proposed mitigation
measures.
The EIR should present:
a. the volume of water actually flowing through the system every
year for which there are records,
b. the difference between (average) summer (low flow) and winter
flow rates.
c. flow rates for major storm events for which there are records.
2 . The data relative to the quality of the water exiting the EGGW
channel (Page 5. 3A04 and Table 5. 3^01) are totally inadequate. . It
doesn't make sense to rely on samples taken in the inner Bolsa to
reflect water quality of the EGGW "Channel effluent in the outer
Bolsa. There was no two-way connection between the inner and outer
bays prior to 1978, and after that, the samples could be showing
water quality of the Inner Bolsa only or the outer Bolsa, depending
on direction of, the tidal flow. This may account in part for the
enormous ranges observed in the parameters. The Dillingham Report
(1971) shows two sampling sites in the outer Bolsa immediately
adjacent to the EGGW channel terminus. Are there more recent.
studies at those sites?
Summary.
The East Garden Grove/Wintersburg/Oceanview flood control channel
empties into what will become one of the largest and most valuable
restored tidal wetlands in the state. Data with regards to water
quality of the charnel effluent are almost nonexistent. Regardless
of the uncertainties related to the final plan of the Bolsa Chica
wetlands restoration, greater attention must be directed toward the
impact the channel effluent will have on the ecology of the entire
Anaheim Bay-Huntington Harbour-Bolsa Chica system. Such
information is almost totally lacking in the EIR. From this aspect
we find the present EIR inadequate.
Sincerely,
David Carlberg, Ph.D.
Victor Leipzig, Ph.D.
ALTERNATIVE 84: OUTER BOLSA BAY/BOLSA CHICA SPLIT
This alternative would generally provide the same improvements to the C05/C06 Channel System as
proposed under the recommended Alternative 8. However, Alternative 8 assumes that all storm water
from the C051C06 Channel System would be directed through the proposed Bolsa Chica project tidal area
directly to the ocean through a new ocean outlet. With Alternative 8b, no direct access to the ocean outlet
would be permitted. Instead, the existing flow path through the existing tide gates, Outer Bolsa Bay,
Warner Avenue Bridge, and Huntington Harbour would be permitted up to their existing capacity of
approximately 3,.000 cfs. The channel upstream of the existing tide gates would be improved (about
approximately 3,400 feet) with a rectangular channel with sheet piles and a soft bottom. A portibn of the
east channel wall would be constructed lower to form a long weir which would divert flows exceeding
approximately 3,000 cfs into the proposed Bolsa Chica project tidal area. The existing tidal gates would
remain in place in order to adequately control storm water flow and regulate the tidal influence of the
downstream reaches of the channel system.
.i ALTERNATIVE 9: OUTER BOLSA BAY
This alternative would generally provide the same improvements to the C05/C06 Channel System as under
the proposed project. However, this alternative assumes that all storm water flows from C05/C06 would
continue to flow into Outer Bolsa Bay and the development of the wetland restoration portion of the Bolsa
Chica project would not occur. The conveyance of stormwater under this alternative would require the
improvement of the existing tidal gates to adequately control the tidal influence and stormwater flowing
r ' from the improved C05/C06 Channel System. Since the wetland portion of the Bolsa Chica project is not
assumed under this alternative, the construction of new tidal gates located approximately 3,400 feet
upstream of the existing tidal gates is not assumed and Reach 1 would be improved with a rectangular
r channel with sheet piles and a soft bottom to the existing tidal gates. Because of the increased flow over
existing conditions, a wider channel would also need tq be dredged in Outer Bolsa Bay as well as a new,
longer bridge at Warner Avenue. ,
ALTEILNATIirE 9a: OUTER BOLSA BAY WITHOUT TIDAL GATES
Similar to Alternatives 8 and 9, this alternative would generally provide the same improvements to the
C05/CO6 Channel System as under the proposed project. However, this alternative assumes that all storm .
water flows from C05/C06 would be directed into Outer Bolsa Bay. Unlike Alternative 9, the existing tidal
gates would be removed under this alternative to allow swrgl.water to flow freely from the C05/C06
WJB/0766Do13.2 2-9 Executive Summary
� p
• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEMO
Cep/ /-► .
To: City Council Members
From: Mayor Ralph Bauer
Date: August 25, 1997
Subject: "H"Item for September 2, 1997City Council Meeting
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel
I am asking for discussion of the County EIR with reference to the
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel and possible action to recommend
diverting the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel into the new Bolsa Chica
Restoration.
xc: Mike Uberuaga
Connie Brockway
�1-5