HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Comment Letter on The Revised Draft Environmental Impac APR =V D B ITY COUNCIL, (!�) CC1yVL
-W DLB&�
CD 94-90
VEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
crry - Date: November 21, 1994
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development
����?A0�
Subject: DRAFT COMMENT LETTER ON THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE
REVISED DRAFT EIR FOR THE BOLSA CHICA.
Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue,Recommendation,Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for City Council consideration is the City's response to the supplement to Revised
Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR)No. 551, prepared by the County of Orange. The
supplement was prepared in response to new information regarding the eligibility of the World
War II Battery 128 structures (commonly referred to as the bunkers) for listing on the National
Register of Historical Places. Subsequent to release of the Revised Draft EIR, the National Parks
Service made a finding that the structures were eligible for listing. The supplement addresses the
anticipated project impacts associated with demolition of structures eligible for listing on the
National Register and recommends measures to mitigate demolition of the structures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to: "Direct staff to transmit to the County of Orange EMA, its comments on the
supplement to the revised draft EIR on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program by
the November 23, 1994 close of the comment period."
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
In September of this year, the National Parks Service made a determination that the W.W.II
Coastal fortification known as Battery 128 ( and commonly referred to as the bunkers was eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This determination, for all practical
purposes, up-graded the structures to be considered historically significant.
In response to this determination, the County of Orange circulated a Supplement to the RDEIR
on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program(LCP) for a 45-day review period which closes on
November 23, 1994. The supplement was prepared to analyze the Bolsa Chica project impacts
E - 7
associated with demolition of structures eligible for listing on the national register and
recommends measures to mitigate demolition of the structures.
The supplemental document was reviewed by staff with assistance from the City's consultant.
The comments generally are concerned with two issues: (1) The availability of support
documents for review, and (2) The adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. A summary of
staff concerns relative to these issues has been provided below.
The supplemental document only generally identifies that the project will need to comply with
conditions and mitigation measures required under previously issued demolition permits or other
permits required by State and federal agencies, but never specifies what these mitigation measures
include. Upon attempt to review the supporting documentation cited in the supplement to
determine what specific mitigation measures where going to be imposed, the City's consultant
found that several of these documents were unavailable at the County. Unavailable documents
included a complete copy of the previously prepared study(prepared by SRS July `90) that was
the basis for the mitigation measures and the Army Corps of Engineers mitigation
recommendations developed to supplement these measures. Since the details of the proposed
mitigation were not available, it was not possible to determine the adequacy of the proposed
mitigation. As such, the staff is recommending that the County specify the mitigation measures
for removal of the Battery structures and that those mitigation measures at minimum include
preparation/approval of archival reports, as would be required for demolition of any"listed"
property.
HABS/HAER Program
The staff is recommending that the mitigation include preparation and approval (by the National
Parks Service) of archival documentation of Battery 128 in accordance with the guidelines of the
Historic American Buildings Survey and the Historic American Engineering Record
(HABS/HAER) prior to further demolition of the structures. The HABS/HAER process entails the
production of a series of archival quality materials including professional quality format style
photographs, scaled engineering drawings, and accompanying detailed written documentation. Once
the National Parks Service has approved the documentation the materials are curated at the Library of
Congress).
Interpretation Program
In addition, the staff believes that although the facilities may have never been completed or
utilized, information received at the October 31, Council Sub-committee hearing suggested that
the structures where part of a larger facility which played an interesting part of Orange County's
history. The staff is concerned that with demolition of the structures, that local knowledge of the
historical significance of the site will also disappear. Staff, therefore, recommends that the
County consider including a program of public interpretation about the history of facilities. This
program of public interpretation should be carried out under the supervision of parties who meet
the professional qualifications of historian under the Secretary of Interior's standards and could be
included in interpretation facilities provided in the Bolsa Chica area.
RCA- 11/21/94 2 (CD 94-90)
Staff has concluded that due to the partially demolished state of the structures preservation is not
practical and that impacts of demolition of the structures can be adequately mitigated through
implementation of the HABS/HAER and interpretation programs identified above.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The City Council may make the following alternative motion:
A. "The City Council may modify the City's response to the Supplement to the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report on the Bolsa Chica and forward it to the County of Orange
for consideration."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Draft comment letter on the supplement to Revised Draft Environmental Impact
Report No. 551 on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program.
MTU:MSF:JO:kjl
RCA- 11/21/94 3 (CD 94-90)
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT
November 21, 1994
Paul Lanning
EMA/Environmental Planning Division
County of Orange
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, Ca 92702-4048
Dear Mr. Lanning:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Supplement to the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report No. 551 for the Bolsa Chica project. Staff, in coordination
with our consultants, have reviewed the supplemental document and have several concerns
regarding the availability of support information on Battery 128 and the adequacy of the
proposed mitigation measures.
Availability of Resource Documents Cited in the Supplemental RDEIR:
The supplemental document only generally identifies that the project will need to comply
with conditions and mitigation measures required under previously issued demolition
permits or other permits required by State and federal agencies, but never specifies what
these mitigation measures include. The City's consultant contacted the County to review
the supporting documentation cited and described in the Supplement to the RDEIR to
evaluate their adequacy and to attempt to determine what specific mitigation measures
where going to be imposed. Many of these documents were unavailable, specifically the
following documents:
1. Copy of the National Park Service form#10-900 National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form for Battery 128.
2. A complete copy of the Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS) Historic Significance
Report, Parts I & I, July 1990.
3. A copy of any mitigation plan(s) developed by the Army Corps of Engineers to
supplement SRS's 1990 mitigation measures.
4. A copy of any memorandum of agreement (MOA) or similar form of agreement
developed by the Corps.
Adequacy of Mitigation Measures:
Since the above documents and the details of the proposed mitigation were not available,
it was not possible to determine the adequacy of the proposed mitigation. As such, the
City is recommending that the County specify the mitigation measures for removal of the
Battery structures and that those mitigation measures at minimum include
preparation/approval of archival reports, as would be required for demolition of any
"listed" property.
The City believes that this is appropriate, since determination that Battery 128 was eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, for environmental purposes, is
equivalent to a listed property.
The City is recommending that mitigation measures include preparation and approval (by
the National Parks Service) of archival documentation of Battery 128 in accordance with
the guidelines of the Historic American Buildings Survey and the Historic American
Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) prior to further demolition of the structures. The
HABS/HAER process entails the production of a series of archival quality materials including
professional quality format style photographs, scaled engineering drawings, and accompanying
detailed written documentation. Once the National Parks Service has approved the
documentation the materials are curated at the Library of Congress).
In addition, the City believes that although the facilities may have never been completed or
utilized, information received at the October 31, Council Sub-committee hearing
suggested that the structures where part of a larger facility which played an interesting
part of Orange County's history. The City is concerned that with demolition of the
structures, that local knowledge of the historical significance of the site will also
disappear. The City, therefore, recommends that the County consider including a program
of public interpretation about the history of facilities. This program of public
interpretation should be carried out under the supervision of parties who meet the
professional qualifications of historian under the Secretary of Interior's standards and
could be included in interpretation facilities provided in the Bolsa Chica area.
In general, the City concurs that due to the partially demolished state of the structures
preservation is not practical and that impacts of demolition of the structures can be
adequately mitigated through implementation of the HAB S/HAER and interpretation
programs identified above.
The City also has a general concern regarding the accelerated processing schedule that the
County is following to take this project to the Board of Supervisor's by the end of the
year. With the close of the comment period on the supplemental document falling so close
to the County Planning Commission's target date for action on the project and the holiday
falling between the close of the comment period and the hearing date, the City is
concerned that there will not be adequate time for the Planning Commission to receive and
assimilate all of the information required to act on the RDEIR and Supplement.
Upon submittal of the City's comment letter on the Supplement to RDEIR No. 551, the
City we would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate that we recognize the necessity
for cooperation between the City, County, Koll and responsible agencies to create an
appropriate, mutually beneficial plan for the Bolsa Chica area. We believes that only
through a collective effort will any progress be made in the Bolsa Chica area and
encourages the initiation of open communication between the County, City and applicant.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to working with you on further
processing of the Bolsa Chica LCP.
Sincerely,
Linda Moulton-Patterson
Mayor
g:\osugi\blsachca\letters\srdeirl.doc
cc: City Council
Page 17 - Council/Agency Minutes - 11121194
(City Council) EARLY PAYMENT OF MEADOWLARK GOLF COURSE NOTE -APPROVED
(600.10) -Approved the option for early payment of the Meadowlark Golf Course Note Payable.
(City Council) - THREE AGREEMENTS - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR
BEACH AND PARK PROJECTS - PURKISS-ROSE - NUVIS - HEIMBERGER-HIRSCH -
APPROVED (600.10) -Approved and authorized execution of an Agreement between the city
and Purkiss-Rose, R.S.I. for Landscape Architect Services; approved and authorized execution of
an Agreement between the city and Heimberger-Hirsch for Landscape Architect Services;
approved and authorized execution of an Agreement between the city and Nuvis for Landscape
Architect Services.
(City Council/Redevelopment Agency)APPROVAL OF LEASE BETWEEN IDS FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INCORPORATED AND ABDELMUTI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-OFFICE SPACE
OCEANVIEW PROMENADE - MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA -APPROVED
(600.30) - Approved the lease between IDS Financial Services, Incorporated and Abdelmuti
Development Company as summarized in the Basic Lease Provisions Attachment No. 1 to the
Request for Council Action dated November 21, 1994; approval is as to the fact of the Lease
only; and appropriate $15,191 to meet Redevelopment Agency's lease obligation as required
under the Owner Participation Agreement with the Abdelmuti Development Company.
COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN VOTED NO.
(City Council) PIER PLAZA - PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS - PURKISS
ROSE RSI -ART CONSULTANT SERVICES -APPROVED (600.10) -Authorized Phase II of the
previous, Council-approved design agreement with Purkiss Rose RSI, and authorized staff to
expend an amount not to exceed $74,000 for the preparation of plans and specifications for the
Pier Plaza which includes $46,000 for art consultant services
(City Council) DRAFT COMMENT LETTER - SUPPLEMENT TO THE REVISED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA-APPROVED AS AMENDED
(440.60)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator dated November 21, 1994
transmitting the Draft Comment Letter on the Supplement to the County's Revised Draft EIR for
the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program.
Councilmember Sullivan spoke in support of preserving the World War 11 Bunkers
Page 18 - Council/Agency Minutes - 11/21/94
A motion was made by Leipzig, second Sullivan to direct staff to transmit to the County of Orange
EMA, by the November 23, 1994 close of the comment period, its comments on the Supplement
to the Revised Draft Environmental Report on the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, as
amended to delete the entire last paragraph on Page No. 2 and to include as the third paragraph
following the subtitle Adequacy of Mitigation Measures: "The City of Huntington Beach
recommends that these structures be preserved." Also that on the following paragraph add the
words "if destruction is to occur then". The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan
NOES: Silva, Robitaille
ABSENT: None
(City Council) RENEGOTIATED AGREEMENT- SHELTERVISION - BUS SHELTERS IN
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY-APPROVED (600.10)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator dated November 21, 1994
regarding the approval of renegotiated contract between the city and Sheltervision Media,
Incorporated, dba Sheltervision to provide bus shelters in the public right-of-way.
City Treasurer Watson was congratulated by Council for the renegotiated contracts.
A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Leipzig, to approve and authorize execution of the
License Agreement between the city and Sheltervision Media, Incorporated, dba Sheltervision to
Provide for Transit Advertising Shelters. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
(City Council) RENEGOTIATED AGREEMENT- PATRICK TARGET MEDIA - BUS SHELTERS
IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY-APPROVED (600.10)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator dated November 21, 1994
regarding approval of renegotiated contract between the city and Patrick Target Media to place
bus shelters in the public right-of-way.
A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Leipzig, to approve and authorize execution of the
License Agreement between the city and Patrick Target Media to provide for transit advertising
shelters. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
(City Council) ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUSINESS LICENSE
TAX INCREASES - RENTAL OF MOBILE HOME - HEARING DENIED (340.30)
The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator dated November 21, 1994
transmitting an announcement of the proposed plan to revise the Business License Ordinance.
.............
..........
lop
'md
moil
_WK
ON
gi
77.
S .7 IM."OS
....... CSa .........
IN
NO
MA
tp
..........
s.
J4,
;Ell ........ ......
...............
lop A
xgm�
......... .
PRY
...............
..:a ss ,.::,.:..r, .�..,:•....:t n.,>.,:,,.;,.v v::,,: . ..»,. ..: > x .�!, x:a t ^a�aa' rat*•:rr an:: ,,...�» �str. .>. <e,»,ws:.... .:..... :.:.a,:. :Y,.. r.... .. s'+.::04;...,t, �; :. ;3,'io< .�:``. L� •r$T:. ,�� '
r.
\
.•.._•,,:... .... ., .., ..:n..:.r .. r. ., :.,..�:,. ......s,:. ...:... . :. >£>. .�. »`ems.w ra.
... : ..:. :...... ..s... :. :>:, n ,n.. ):,, n :r::n..,:..,. .� � r:r:�. .!z r ::vJo';, r.F .<•ua
+%
r
ax. ....._ ...n.......,, .. ......n..<.....�....r+t:,.;'o ::.�.. .:,::« a:„ t3�>5.. "R�>>. .\;.^4•` `Via,.gg I 'rr ,..::n»:n:>..::a»:.:n,.. `G4?zt. w32•<'
....... .............. n .....:yv....... ............,c.n.....,.v..... ...::r ....,... .... ... ..: ,..::v:»....:.::. ,.l tlr" E:h�$::,.J:s.a i.
1 �(
r. l ... ..... .. ..... ..•. .....::::»r�.3,.,;:,.,::.r::.;r':::::»:..»:.ssn,..a:>�tt'T�JxR:r:, ,. oz.r:,
................_.................:n :.:,.............,..........:.....t....,..••. ......:. .. .. ..............,... .,.......:::..:.,:::::.. :�Ya:fo:, .a.its .i.� :.Axti,:�
)
. ...,<........ ..........r........ .. ......... .......... ..............................:...:.......:... .....:: ..:).,. .\. T.J. .r?: �'.
............................,.... ,.................:........ .n.....:... .. ........ . .............,.....:.::.: ..... ....... .. .,.... ,as
z.
H4
fi U
,
3
2,
rJ;v:
;
k n
g= £
a f 2 Si n
f= i
f
a
EEE 'Y' E; s2 s
:
a t
S 1 ss YY++i r
y �
3
T
i'Rt\,<4y. J<x �• w 3.t
�R� � a r �a a 3? ✓x' �. *�� F, : .. ,� �nAa..D.,eaA` � a4�,;gyz<, w t., �.; �a.' :. ( .
& -t��� �, '^�`;�' `::r��:� .F'4➢4A: - {:•:: �o.^ ''.':,�. ::;_�, ai( � aria :' �.,a+. � .,. � , 'y`��f+.� a:>b`F.`��. T.. J;><Rom` 'a� .r
�y 1
( s
....... ......
IV.
As
;4L
...........
XV
—n
...............
nos"'.
T 17
31
�tA
.................. .arb£ts+.raw
m wo-Aw
PINK
L r
1 4
ff
-:1
.............
fn
1'— 17—
Ar,
Alf
L.
off
r.3• ` ��.y.. Y� �,sr ksi 9 �•+'Y:P.,ba S'�` x., ��.z> z fi�
Om
G BOW
k
» u ;" '�
� r x ��� fay ,<'
.. � , ,_ ti���""4?" a a%k�0�' s,• ,as x�¢ > ki' II5'n^FL � : 'C § �' � D �
ky
i e
' 'tta �` � G r,.:'�axk ':�, � ��� 3:' 'p>AF` s: •r';- a`i
own
a •,
Ps
a>�
r
e�
a 4
K X
X�>
A
YkO>ASa� a8ka �,. �'SR
'T f -lip
oft
" � ... .,„ >.. :. z....;.: .' �""°'"ytkoe»,o.o...... ..MR?' J�� �k Ja:f¢�1,� � ,,a a:k• I e � k
a a
�,�
R at, z'.�'cdc6 rf; k
` �WR '�' Z � �; k .:` ,., •w s y^'e ,ik #r'p"A it At ...a""t°f
Z.- f ASTO
'#'�`4<Y:r�> �.p,J`'�y''r�� NJ C�(`.W1,R��`k' ': � +d_ G � y7° � .: .�:� �b' 3 •�„f��i3��� 3 Z,<k.
° r�r `Y S r✓. .:. :: f lf,. `F, :# .7'..-: .;�,:, spa. a.$ ...
% � r
S
T r KK •
P�{ . • PRAEE� �
Q ti �N
United • tes Department of tl�e Interior A1��RICA
a �
NATIONAL PARK SF,RX710?
P.O.Box 37127
WiltihillglUll,D.C.20013-7127
t�IV•.t1.Y kr:rl`.R T(i: 413
To: Claudia Nissley, Director Sept. 23, 1994
Western Office of Review Orange County, CA
Advisory Council On Historic Preservation World War Il Bunkers
730 Simms Street #410 D.OX
Golden, Colorado 80401
The Director of the National Park Service is pleased to inform you of our determination pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and Executive Order 11593 in response to your request for
a determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Our determination
appears on the enclosed material.
As you know, your request for our professional judgment constitutes a part of the Federal planning process.
We urge that this information be integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act analysis and the
analysis required under section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, if this is a transportation
project, to bring about the best possible program decisions.
This determination does not serve in any manner as a veto to uses of property, with or without Federal
participation or assistance. The responsibility for program planning concerning properties eligible for the
National Register lies with the agency or block grant recipient after the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has had an opportunity to comment.
We are pleased to be of assistance in the consideration of historic resources in the planning process.
Attachment
qF P ?P' 1 94 1 1 : 44 2023431 83F PAGE . 002
E.a. 11593
DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY NOTIFICATION
National Register of Historic Places
National Park Service
Name of Property: World War II Bunkers--Bolsa Chica Mesa
Location: Orange County State: CALIFORNIA
Request submitted by: ADCO/Claudia Nissley
Date received: 8/10/94 Additional information received:
Opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer:
X EI)glble _Not Eligible _No Response ,Need More Information
Comments:
The Secretary of the Interior has determined that this property is:
x Eligible Applicable criteria: A, C —Not Eligible
Comments:
- See attached comments -
„Documentation insufficient
(Please see accompanying sheet explaining additional materials required)
Keeper of th Natl al Register
Date: a3
wnso.2¢
c�P 17)A qa 1 1 : 45 2023431836 PAGE . 003
•
PROJECT NAME: Bolsa Chica Mesa Development
LOCATION: City of Huntington Beach
Orange County, California
SUMMING AGENCY: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Western Office of Review
The World War 11 coastal defense fortification at Bolsa Chica Mesa (a.k.a. Battery 128) is
eligible under National Register Criteria A and C, as a significant local example of World Warr
II-era military construction. Battery 128 and its associated Plotting and Spotting Room (PSR)
are reflective o# the Army's significant 1940 Harbor Defense Board Program for updating
defensive installations along America's exposed shoreline. These World War II-era programs
were a culmination of design ideas and planning strategies that began with the Endicott and Taft
Board reports on coastal defense released in 1886 and 1906.
The construction of Battery 128 represented a critical component of the overall defensive system
envisioned for the strategic Los Angeles Harbor area, Coastal protection during the World War
11 era was no longer the realm of a single post or gun emplacement that could protect a whole
harbor, but rather the coordination of an extended system or network of defensive outposts.
Evaluated within the context of Southern California's regional defense network, the extant Dolsa
Chica gun emplacement is a significant example of a distinctive property type--the large-scale
16" coastal defense gun bunker--that reflected the latest generation of military hardware and
technology available during the period. The resources at Bolsa Chica retain sufficient integrity
for listing in the National Register and are still capable of conveying their historic significance,
particularly in light of the general level of integrity observed for such World War II resources.
As a result of its destruction and subsequent loss of integrity, Battery 242 at Bolsa Chica Mesa
[the twin 6" gun emplacement] is not eligible for listing in the National Register.
Reviewer: Paul Lusignan
Date: September 23, 1994
AABolsa.doe
SEP 29' ' 94 11 : 45 2023431836 PAGE . 094
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACT MY LEP
Date: October 3, 1994
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CD94-76
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administr
Prepared by: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community DevelopmentL/P'- .
Subject: APPROVAL OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE BOLSA
CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
Consistent with Council Policy? [XI Yes [ 1 New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue,Recommendation, Analysis,Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: ,eo&
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
On Tueday, August 23, 1994, the County of Orange released a revised draft EIR on the Bolsa
Chica project for a 45 day public review period. City staff in coordination with the City's
consultants conducted a thorough review of the Draft EIR and have prepared the a draft of the
City's comments on the document which was reviewed by the City Council on Monday,
September 26, 1994. Refinements were recommended by the City Council at that time.
Transmitted for Council's approval is the final draft of the City's comment letter on the revised
draft EIR.
RECOMMENDATION:
Motion to:
A. "Approve the City's comment letter and direct staff to forward it to the County of
Orange by October 6, 1994."
ANALYSIS:
Due to the nature of the project and its potential to greatly impact the City of Huntington Beach,
the City's consultants and staff have conducted an exceptionally thorough review of the Bolsa
Chica Draft EIR. A draft of the comment document was presented to Council on September 26,
1994. The comments primarily focused on the following three general issue areas:
❖ Content and procedural inadequacies with respect to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act
❖ Section-by-Section Evaluation of the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the
revise draft EIR
❖ Section-by-Section analysis of the long-term impacts, alternative projects and mitigation
measures included in the revised draft EIR.
The final draft of the document before the Council for approval has undergone some alterations
since it's September 26, 1994 draft. Changes primarily consist of additional input and direction
received at the hearing, and corrections to terminology and typographical errors as recommended
by staff and Council.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
Copies of the final draft of the City's Comment Letter and the transcript of the public testimony,
received at the September 26, 1994 meeting which will be forwarded to the County of Orange
along with the City's comments, will be available at the City Clerk's Office on Monday, October
3, 1994.
MTU:W:JO:lp
RCA 10/3/94 2 CD 94-76
J , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor Moulton-Patterson
and City Council Members
i
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community De el ment
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: FINAL DRAFT OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
DATE: September 30, 1994
Attached for you review is the final draft of the City's comment letter on the revised draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica project. The final draft has been
agendized for approval by the City Council at Monday's meeting (October 3, 1994).
A draft of the letter was presented to the City Council on Monday, September 26, 1994.
The final draft has undergone some alterations. Changes primarily consist of additional
input and direction received at the hearing, and corrections to terminology and
typographical errors as recommended by staff and Council.
rn
-o a
w z
If you have any questions, please contact Julie Osugi, Associate Planner, at x5274. C= z
7� 'rn
rn
g\osugi\b1sachca\distmm1 Ldoc R,rn
� r
cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator T
\ Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
I Connie Brockway, City Clerk
777
N �
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUWINCTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor Moulton-Patterson
and City Council Members
i
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Duel ment
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: FINAL DRAFT OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
DATE: September 30, 1994
Attached for you review is the final draft of the City's comment letter on the revised draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica project. The final draft has been
agendized for approval by the City Council at Monday's meeting (October 3, 1994).
A draft of the letter was presented to the City Council on Monday, September 26, 1994.
The final draft has undergone some alterations. Changes primarily consist of additional
input and direction received at the hearing, and corrections to terminology and
typographical errors as recommended by staff and Council.
If you have any questions, please contact Julie Osugi, Associate Planner, at x5274.
gAosugi\blsachca\di storm 11.doc
cc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator
Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning
Connie Brockway, City Clerk
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNiINGTON BEACH
TO: Connie Brockway
City Clerk
FROM: Julie Osugi
Associate Mj nner
SUBJECT: Proposed Final Draft Comment Letter on the Revised Bolsa Chica
EIIt
DATE: October 3, 1994
Attached are 10 copies of the proposed final draft comment letter on the Revised Draft
Bolsa Chica EIR. As you know the comment letter is going before the City Council this
evening for final approval. You may provide any extra copies (beyond those you need for
your files) to the public at the cost of copying which was $10.30 per copy.
If you have any questions, please contact me at x5274.
gAosugi\blsachca\distmm 13.doc
cc: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development
PROPOSED FINAL DRAFT DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1"4 (310) 281-6309
' 8652-003
' October 5, 1994
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
Environmental Planning Division
300 North Flower Street; P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
' ATTN: Mr. Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division
' Re: Comments of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") on the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (the "REIR") prepared by the Orange County
(the "County") Environmental Management Agency (County Project No.
' 551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071064) with respect to The Bolsa Chita
Project Local Coastal Program
' Gentlemen and Ladies:
This firm represents the City of Huntington Beach in connection with its
' review and analysis of the above-referenced REIR.
The City applauds the County's decision to discard the draft environmental
' impact report circulated in December 1993 through February 18, 1994 (the "DEIR") in
favor of a new environmental document.'-' The City hoped that the REIR would rectify the
inadequacies of the DEIR (detailed at length in the comment on the DEIR dated February
' 17, 1994 (the "Comment") submitted to the County by this firm on behalf of the City).
The same professional staff and consultants which reviewed the DEIR have reviewed and
l/ Ythat is, in fact, what the County has done. As is detailed below in this letter, the true meaning of the
REIR and its effect on the DEIR as an environmental document is obscured in a morass of confused and tangled
references. See Footnote 4, infra and accompanying text.
Proposed Final Draft Dated Septen*er 30. 1994 ` Co
1
Y
1121
el/ %,0 , r _s o '
F3
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 2
assessed the REIR on behalf of the City. Unfortunately, we have been forced to conclude,
for the reasons detailed below, that the new document still fails to define the project as
required by law, analyze the whole of the County's proposed action, clearly define the
environmental setting of the project and otherwise fails to fulfill the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended ("CEQA").
This letter represents the combined input and analysis of this firm, the ,
professional and technical staff of the City, P&D Environmental Services, Noble
Consultants, Inc. (with respect to coastal engineering, hydrology and water quality issues),
John Minch & Associates (with respect to cultural resources issues), Public Economics
(with respect to fiscal feasibility and related issues), Albert Grover and Associates (with
respect to traffic and circulation issues) and Edward Heath, C.E.G. (with respect to issues '
of seismicity and liquefaction). It is divided into three main sections. The first section is
an introduction which provides a general overview of many of the areas in which the City
finds the REIR to be deficient. The second section contains a chapter-by-chapter analysis ,
of the REIR, and the third and final section sets forth the City's conclusion and formal
request for revision and recirculation of the REIR. For the convenience of the reader, an
index of the comments contained in this letter is attached as Annex No. 1 and a list of the '
documents submitted to the County with this letter, each of which is incorporated into this
letter and made a part hereof by this reference, is attached as Annex No. 2Y
21 Each of the documents attached to this letter is referred to as an 'Annex' and is incorporated into this ,
comment later by reference as if set forth herein at length. 7 he Continent submitted to the County on February
17, 1994 continuer to raise issues which are germane to the two projects considered in the RELR and to the Koll
proposed project included as Alternative 'G' of the REM In order to avoid the needless reproduction of the '
Comment and the voluminous documents appended to and included in the Comment(all of which were delivered
to the County on February 17, 1M),the Comment and those documents referenced therein as Annexes are also
incorporated into and made a part of this letter by this reference as if set forth herein at length. For ease of
distinction between the Annexes to the original Comment and Annexes to this later, documents annexed to the
Comment are referred to as 'COMMENT ANNEX No. _" (with the number referring to the original Comment
Annex number assigned to the document in the Comment) and new Annexes appended to this later are simply
referred to as an 'Annex No._',with the Annex No. corresponding to the tabs attached to this letter. Capitalized
terms in this loner have the same meaning as in the Comment or in the REIR unless provided otherwise.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 3
r
I. Introduction - Overview of CEQA Violations
The City analyzed the DEIR prepared in December 1993 by the County and, for the
reasons noted in the Comment, concluded that the DEIR failed to fulfill the requirements of
CEQA. The Comment determined that implementation of the Bolsa Chica development
r could not lawfully proceed until the County rectified the CEQA violations detailed in the
Comment and recirculated the DEIR and all relevant technical data.
The County's preparation and the circulation of the REIR, however, does not
address or rectify the legal inadequacies identified in the Comment. The City remains
justifiably concerned regarding the impacts of the so-called "scaled-down" project on the
1 City and its citizens. Even the most limited of the segmented project(s) suggested in the
REIR (i.e., the 2500-unit Mesa Component coupled with Lowlands Option A) will have
significant adverse impacts which are not adequately disclosed, considered or mitigated in
r the REIR. Since the City surrounds the project site, those impacts will be most acutely felt
and abided by the citizens and residents of the City.
As is noted in the REIR, the LCP Area has been the subject of a number of
environmental reviews, including the 1993 DEIR prepared by the County and the 1992 joint
environmental impact report ("EIR")/environmental impact statement ("EIS") (the joint
EIR/EIS circulated by the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") in
1992 is referred to as the "EIR/EIS") prepared and circulated by the City in cooperation
with the Corps (and with the input of other federal agencies) at a time when the landowner
of the largest portion of the site, Koll Real Estate Group ("Koll") proposed to annex the
Bolsa Chica. property into the City. As was noted in the Comment, the City received
numerous responses to the EIR/EIS which heightened the City's appreciation and
understanding of the impacts which development will cause in the sensitive environmental
setting of the project site. The County, like the City, also received voluminous comment
from local agencies, State agencies and federal agencies noting many flaws and deficiencies
in the DEIR's analysis; however, the REIR does not adequately respond to the Comment or
the over-370 other comments which the County received regarding the DEIR, each of
which is incorporated herein by this reference. The City expects that the County will
respond to each of those comments in the manner required by CEQA.
r
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
1
• • 1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 4 ,
A. THE REIR STILL FAILS TO FULFILL THE CORE PURPOSE of INFORMING 1
DECISION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENyntoNMENTAL
CONSEOUENCEs OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE '
STAGE.
1. The Poor Organization of the REM Prevents it from Fulfilling its '
Purpose. In Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the
University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988), opinion modified, 47 Cal. 3d 982
(1989)("Laurel Heights I"), the California Supreme Court noted that it is the policy of the
State to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental
quality of the State," and, in that regard, the Court stated: ,
The EIR is . . . intended "to demonstrate to an
apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, ,
analyzed and considered the ecological implications of
its-action." . . . [citations]. . . Because the EIR must be
certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document
of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed,
the public will know the basis on which its responsible
officials either approve or reject environmentally
significant action, and the public, being duly informed,
can respond accordingly to action with which it
disagrees. . . . [citations]. . . The EIR process protects ,
not only the environment but also informed self-
government.
Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 392. '
Thus, an EIR serves at least two functions, i.e., protection of the environment via the
disclosure of the impacts of a proposed project prior to its approval and disclosure to the
public of the environmental decisions made by its elected representatives. In the case of the
REIR, a program EIR which covers a vast amount of information, the document must '
clearly explain to the citizenry the description of the project, its environmental setting, the
significant and potentially significant impacts which will occur from project implementation
and alternatives to the project. This information must be presented at a level of detail
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 5
' which permits full assessment of the impacts of the project. ,o CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") § 15147.1' The information must be written in plain language so that
decision makers and the public can "rapidly understand the documents." Guidelines
§ 15140. As noted below, the REIR fails to fulfill these requirements and is not a valid
under CEQA.
document und
r2. Flawed CEQA Procedures and Documentation Prevent the REIR
from Sounding the Alarm Bell Required by CEQA. The Comment noted:
An environmental impact report must inform the public of'the basis on
which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally
' significant action.' Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco.
Inc. v Repents of the University of California.47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988),
opinion modified. 47 Cal. 3d 982 (1989)(Zaurel Heights I'). Thus, an
' ED?is an 'environmental `alarm bell'whose purpose is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have
readied ecological points of no return.' Id.
I The County's DEDt fails to sound the alarm required under CEQA. The
structure, language and organization of the DED?is cot fusing and the
document does not fully identify or analyze the environmental impacts abide
' could result from the purposed development. The DER? incompletely
describes the development and includes neither the depth of analysis nor the
degree of scientific and technical investigation mandated for a project of
this scale. It relies in many instances on technical studies not included
within appendices to the document and not circulated or made available for
public review. Without that supporting data, no independent analysis of the
basis for the DEM's conclusions is possible. the public is thus asked to
' accept the conclusions of the DEIR 'on faith', in violation of CEQA's basic
purpose of providing information to decision-makers and the public.
The manner in which the County has prepared and circulated the REIR not only fails
to rectify the foregoing ailment, it has made matters worse.
1
31 The Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act are promulgated by the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research,pursuant to the authority granted under California Public Resources
Code("PRC") §§ 21083,21087,and are codes at 14 California Code of Regulations("CCR")§§ 15000-1538Z
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 5, 1994
Page 6 ,
i
• First, the REIR is as disorganized and superficial as the DEIR which
prompted the foregoing comment. The document has an extraordinarily ,
cumbersome organizational structure which obfuscates its informational
purpose. In the middle of any topical analysis it is difficult to determine if
the text is addressing one topic or another, one alternative or another, one
portion of the project or another, or a significant or potentially insignificant
impact. Frequent page turning to identify some reference point is mandatory
in order to make any kind of sense out of the REIR. The ambiguity
introduced by the use of such things as "Project Design Features" (PDF) and
"Standard Conditions" (SC) still remains, especially in light of the County's
continuing refusal to circulate the implementing documentation (which would ,
better define the scope, restrictions and limits of the proposed development)
together with the REIR during the public comment period. What is the legal
obligation of the County to monitor PDFs and SCs if they are not formally '
identified as mitigation measures? If the PDFs and SCs are intended to be
part of the project they should be expressly stated as an integral part the
project description. In that way the "project" design would limit potential
impacts. Instead, the REIR chops up the impact analysis of the report and
hides potentially significant and significant impacts within PDFs and SCs
which are neither sufficiently defined nor shown to mitigate the impacts to ,
which they are addressed. If they are truly intended to mitigate project
impacts, as they appear to be, then CEQA demands that the REIR first
identify the impact and treat the so-called PDF or SC as mitigation. This ,
issue is virtually identical to the point raised at pages 14 to 15 of the
Comment. If the REIR had simply adhered to the approach demanded by
CEQA, it would render the document far more intelligible.
• Second, the REIR is schizophrenic in its treatment of the DEIR. With one
breath, the REIR is intended to wholly replace the DEIR and render the
DEIR a nullity, yet with another breath, the DEIR not only retains its vitality
but is wholly incorporated into REIR by reference.' Thus, the reader
41 Page 2-9,lines 23-26,indicates that the RELR 'supersedes the 1993 Drat'and states affirmatsvely(and
incorrectly)that a response by the County to comments made on the 1993 Drat 'are not legally required,'thus
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 7
' reviewing the REIR is left to ponder the question of whether the County is
still considering the project suggested in the DEIR as a potentially viable
project or has it truly discarded the former environmental analysis? The
REIR offers no answers'
• Third, even though the REIR is intended (at least in some fashion) to be a
new environmental document which supersedes the former DEIR, the County
failed to notify affected State, federal or local agencies of their intention to
prepare a new document. The County has evaded the entire consultation and
comment process mandated under CEQA.6'
41(..continued)
indicating an intent to do away with the DER as any sort of environmental analysis on which the County might
rely prior to undertaking any appro►+al of a project. In contrast,page 2-3, lines 42-48 expressly incorporates the
DEIR into the REIR forpurposes of analyzing Alternative 'G'. The RE1R's tangled references cloud the County's
intent regarding the continued vitality of the Koll proposal analyzed in the DEIR. Does the County intend to
consider that alternative as a viable land use plan? Tfhe REM never does make up its mind Section 6 4.1 of the
DEIR does not disapprove this alternative and thus, the Kola proposal may yet be under consideration by the
County even though the REIR expressly states that it is intended to supersede the DEJX The unclear status of the
DER is another of the many instances where the County's tangled process confounds CEQA's intention of
providing the public and decision-makers with a clear indication of the environmental consequences of the County's
intended actions.
51 The Los Angeles Tunes, reporting on a press conference held by the County Director of Planning at
' Huntington Beads City Hall stated, 'The Koll plan is still on the table,the County's environmental impact report
merely offers the company some alternatives. . . and sends a message that the company's own plan might not be
approved.' D.Haldane, 'Under Pressure. O._C. Offers 2 Scaled Down Bolsa Plans,"Los Angeles Trines, Orange
County Edition, August 16, 1994,Part A,Page 1, Column 5,Metro Desk Thus,it appears that the original Koll
' alternative may still be under serious consideration despite the statement that the RELR supersedes the DEIR.
61 As is noted in greater detail below,this omission has, apparently, led the federal agencies preparing the
EIS to commence NEPA review of a proposed project which differs in significant respects from the project
considered in the REIR. This out-of-synch,split review is supposed to be prevented by the consultation process
embodied in the circulation of a notice of preparation for the County's new REIR coupled with the CEQA and
NEPA mandates for cooperation between State and federal agencies. By ignoring those requirements,the County
has further complicated and confused an already flawed and disrupted environmental review process.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 8
Thus despite the Coun 's defective efforts to sound the alarm bell required b ,
�P tY � Y
CEQA, the sound of the alarm is muffled and inaudible due to the layer-upon-layer of
flawed CEQA procedures, inadequate CEQA documentation and absolute disregard of
CEQA's requirements for cooperation and consultation with other affected agencies.
Although this is not the only fault of the REIR, the muddled, confused and legally-defective ,
process used by the County in preparing and circulating the REIR and DEIR coupled with
the tangled, disorganized and confusing text of the document heightens the REIR's
ineptitude and legal inadequacy to the point where it does not discharge the compulsory
demands of CEQA. Approval of any program or project by the County under these
circumstances would be unlawful. The County must start its environmental process over
from the beginning by publishing a new notice of preparation and circulating a legally-
adequate EIR (preferably as a joint EIR-EIS) which fulfills the requirement of applicable
law.
3. The County's Environmental Analysis Does Not Fulfill the
Requirements of CEQA. CEQA is supposed to cause the lead agency to engage in a
process which:
• First: Defines the "Project" in a manner readily comprehensible to
other agencies and the public and considers whether a project is
statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review and, if so,
requires the lead agency to provide public notice of that
determination; then,
• Second: If the project is not exempt, requires the lead agency to
identify the significant impacts or potentially significant impacts of a ,
project through the conduct of an initial study which is a matter of
public record; then,
• Third: Requires the lead agency to give notice to the public and other
affected public agencies that either:
(i) the lead agency has determined that a project has no potential to
cause a significant environmental impact (in which event a negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration will be adopted); or,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r • •
r
r Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 9
(h) that the project may cause one or more significant environmental
impacts (in which event the lead agency must deliver notice to the
public and other affected agencies, via the notice of preparation
process, that an environmental impact report must be prepared); then,
r • Fourth: If an EIR is to be prepared, requires the lead agency and the
other affected public agencies to consult with one another regarding
the scope of the EIR and the alternatives to the project; then,
' • Fifth: Requires the lead agency to prepare an EIR to consider the full
environmental consequences of its proposed approval of the project.
This document must do all of the following:
(1) Provide public agencies and the public in general with
r detailed information about the effects which a proposed
project is likely to have on the environment;
r (2) List ways in which the significant effects of such a
project might be minimized;
r (3) Indicate alternatives to the project. PRC § 21061; and
(4) State:
(i) the significant effects on the environment of the
project, including effects which may be
rindividually limited but cumulatively
considerable (i.e., the cumulative impacts of the
rproject),
(ii) any significant effects on the environment which
rcannot be avoided if the project is implemented,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 10
(iii) any significant effects on the environment which
would be irreversible if the project is
implemented,
(iv) any growth inducing impacts of the project,
(v) mitigation measures proposed to mitigate the
significant effects on the environment, ,
(vi) alternatives to the proposed project, and
(vii) the relationship between local short-term uses of
the human environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity.
PRC §§ 21100(a), 21150.
As is noted in detail in the Comment and below in this letter, the County, in
preparing the REIR, failed to notify the affected public agencies of the revised project
considered in the document. The REIR fails to identify the significant and potentially
significant impacts of the project, often concluding that an impact is insignificant based on
the promise to implement an as-yet undefined mitigation measure. Often, the true
mitigation measures relied upon to mitigate significant and potentially significant impacts
are not identified in the REIR as mitigation measures. Instead, the REIR avoids conceding
the existence or significance of an impact by referring to mitigation measures as "Project
Design Features", even where the purported feature is not a part of the project description
and is not yet designed. Due to these and the other inadequacies noted in the Comment and '
in this letter, the REIR is not a valid basis for County or other agency decisionmaldng
under State law.
B. THE REIR FAILS TO EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM oR PROJECT IN
LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
An environmental impact report must consider a particular governmental ,
action and its consequences in light of the environmental setting in which the project (or
program) will exist. 5= Guidelines § 15125. The project description must be consistent ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 11
throughout the document and the scope of the project should be readily understandable. ,
Further, in order for an EIR to fulfill its goal of providing public disclosure of the
' environmental consequences of the proposed action, the document must provide a clear
description of the existing environmental setting, for that is the baseline against which
impacts must be compared. The REIR does not clearly describe or adequately consider the
setting in which the project will exist nor does it provide an understandable and accurate
project description which is applied consistently through the document. .
' 1. The REIR Fails to Convey a Clear and Useful Environmental
Baseline. The REIR does not provide a consistent or useful description of the
environmental setting. This comment was first raised by the City's Comment to the DEIR.
In response, the County's REIR states:
A comment was received on the 1993 Draft suggesting that an EIIi must
provide a 'single,simple, and short narrative of the environmental setting
of the project.' CEQA does not require that a description of a project's
environmental setting be 'short', 'brief or contained in a single statement
in the Project Description. CEQA also does not prescribe the form of the
document, but encourages a format which allows meaning jul understanding
of a project and its effects. Me County has taken great care in considering
the appropriateness and amount of information contained in the
environmental setting sections given the complexity of the site and the
Proposed Project. Further, the County views that segregating the baseline
information into those sections where the information is relevant saves the
reader from a continuous search of the Project Description chapter to find
the baseline information which is relevant to the chapter then under review
by the reader 7 he analysis contained in this Revised Draft EIR is designed
to benefu the reader and decision-makers by facilitating their understanding
' of not only the proposed project but also the specific environmental
consequences associated with its implementation through the presentation of
a clearly written environmental setting and thorough analysis of impacts.
REIR at p. 9, lines 1-13.
L The foregoing response is neither accurate nor sufficient. Although the theory stated
in the foregoing passage is partly correct, the implementation of that theory in the REIR is
defective. The County has not, as claimed, facilitated the reader's understanding of the
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency t
October 5, 1994
Page 12
1
project or its consequences with a "presentation f cl 'p � seqo a early written environmental setting
and thorough analysis" of the Project's impacts.'-' '
For example, the environmental setting stated as the baseline for assessing land use
impacts in Chapter 4.1 rambles for four and one-half pages of text interrupted with charts '
and tables (REIR p. 4.1-3 through 4.1-11) describing everything from the fact that the
project site is within the Coastal Zone to the right of the surface landowner to relocate
wellheads on active oil wells at the landowner's expense.a' However, nowhere does the ,
land use environmental setting even mention the existing ESHAs. Does that omission mean
that the County feels the existing ESHAs are not "relevant" to land use considerations? The
reader must return to the description of the environmental setting after first discovering the
presence of the ESHAs on page 4.1-41 and again, literally hundreds of pages later, when
the ESHAs are finally described (in anything more than a passing reference) in the
environmental setting section of Chapter 4.8 regarding terrestrial biology. It requires a
high degree of vigilance, an extremely long attention span and a ready supply of paper clips
and bookmarks for the reader to refer to the environmental setting describing the ESHAs at
pages 4.8-21 through 4.8-22 of the REIR and then refer back to the land use section to
determine the baseline for impacts caused by the change in land use from the existing open
space and ESHAs to the medium to high density development proposed in the REIR.
Rather than saving, "the reader from a continuous search of the Project Description ,
chapter," the organization of the document causes the reader to search the individual impact
71 Furthermore,the Coum y's response ignores the dictate of Guidelines§ 15120(b)which requires,in cases '
such as this,where the EIR does not provide a separate section for each mandatory element of the EIR, that the
document must 'state where in the document each element is discussed.' Given the long-winded,sporadic and ,
dispersed descriptions of the environmental baseline, the use in Table 2-1 of the term 'various'to describe the
page location of the required environmental setting element is not sufficient to state where in the document the
required element is located
81 In yet another example of the REIR's inconsistent analysis, the environmental setting includes a vague r
description of the Surface Use Agreement(REIR at p. 4.1-8,line 15),but does not provide any way for the reader
to review that document to assess the impact of the document on the current land use of the site. ?his document
was neither described in detail nor appended as an appendix to the document nor included in the Bibliography
of the REIR How is the reader to know how this Agreement affects the land use baseline against which project
impacts are to be judged? If the document is irrelevant to those impacts,why is it included in the environmental
setting description? Fit is as relevant as the inclusion in the environmental setting would suggest,why was it not '
made available for public review?
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 13
r
' analyses within the document for prior references to impact and the existing environmental
setting. This hides and obscures the true impact of the proposed development 91 Proper
organization of the document would have rectified this violation of CEQA. For example,
the insertion of a single sentence in the land use environmental setting stating that, "Four
FSHAs have been identified at Bolsa Chica: Rabbit Island, Coastal Dune, Warner Avenue
' Pond and the Eucalyptus Grove on the Bolsa Chica Mesa," (M REIR at p. 4.1-41, lines
17-18) together with a cross-reference to page 4.8-21 would prevent the reader from having
to search the entirety of the document to understand the land use issues in light of the
1
1
' 91 Further, the REIR continues to use the County's General Plan LUE and the program (the "1986LCP")
conditionally certified by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC") in 1986 (a copy of the 1986 LCP was
attached to the Comment as COMMENT ANNEX No.3)as the baseline instead of considering as the baseline the
condition of the current, undeveloped status of the land As was noted in the Comment:
Guidelines§ 15125(e)expressly states, 'When a proposed project is compared with an adapted
plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions as well as the potential future
conditions discussed in the plan.' Thus, as in the case of the newly proposed development of
Bolsa Chica, when a proposed project is an agency decision changing planting or toning
' policies or ordinances, the potential impacts must be compared with both(i)those which would
ultimately occur under the existing plan and ri)the eventual future conditions that would result
under build-out under both the existing plan and the contemplated plan in light of a full analysis
of the existing physical conditions. See Environmental Planning and Information Council v.
' County gf El Dorado. 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (1982); City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v Bd of
Supervisors. 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-7(1986); Christward Ministry v. Superior Court. 184
Cal.App.3d 18i0,190-91 (1986). Tfhe analysis of theDE1R regarding land use and other impacts
' is fundamentally,flawed in that it continuously compares the current project to the formerly
proposed marina/residential development and omits to consider the impact using the current
conditions as the baseline See, e.g..DEIR § 4.1.3.1 at p. 4.1-35. and 4.1-41. The foregoing
inadequacies must be corrected (and the corrected document recirculated), if the DER is to
fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
Comment at pp. 4-5
' The RE1R continues to ignore the foregoing requirements of State law without eVianation or justification.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 14 '
r
terrestrial biology setting as required for the reader to understand the true environmental
baseline and impacts of the projectA01 '
2. The REIR Does Not Adequately Describe Which "Project" Is
Being Analyzed. As noted above, an environmental impact report must consider a ,
particular governmental action and its consequences in light of the environmental setting in
which the project (or program) will existAll "An accurate, stable and finite project
description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." Coun of '
Ingo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App. 3d 185, 193 (1977). What is the project
analyzed by the REIR? Is it the preparation and adoption of a new LCP? If so, as detailed
below, the County is = the appropriate Lead Agency under CEQA. Is it the construction ,
of a long-term capital development project including 2500 to 3200 new homes (or would it
really be the 4,286 homes suggested in Alternative G?) with related infrastructure and
neighborhood commercial facilities? If so, the use of a program EIR format is '
10/ This is symptomatic of the poor organization of the REIR which requires the reader to engage in an
ongoing process of referring back and forth within the docurnent in order to understand the development and its
impacts.
11/ Page 2-3 of the REIR reveals the County's notion that the REIR is intended solely to provide background
environmental analysis to be used in the approval process. what is the purpose of extensive public and '
government agency review of an FIR which does not purport to be specific environmental assessment for any of
the required plans or documents relating to the various discretionary approvals leading to entitlement? The REIR
does not (nor does it appear the County intends it to)evaluate a particular project in light of its environmental '
setting, as required under CEQA See PRC§§ 21100, 21150(requiring a local agency to prepare and certify
an EIR 'on any project which they propose to carry out or approve); Guidelines § 15121(a) (requiring that an
environmental document (such as an EIR) 'inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the
significant environmental effect of a ect'). The term 'project'is broadly defined by CEQA and the Guidelines
(see Guidelines § 15378)to encompass the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical
change in the environment. where many approvals are required, as in the case of the project considered in the
REM, the 'project'refers to the entirety of the activity and not to each governmental approval. where a project '
could be characterized as a regulatory approval(such as a zone change) or a physical development, Guidelines
§ 15378(d)states that the project should be considered the development proposal. By not evaluating a particular
project(whether that project is the whole of the activities requiredfor the adoption of she LCP or the development '
of between 2,500 to 3,200 homes on the project site), the REIR fails to fulfill the most basic requirement of an
environmental document under CEQA.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 15
impermissible -- a staged EIR is required. 5= Guidelines § 15167; Co Guidelines
§ 15168.'v
The REIR never does tell the reader what "project" or "program" the REIR
is considering. The definition of the "project" under consideration is the very heart of any
' EIR and will determine a host of issues including the proper lead agency to conduct the
environmental review, the scope of alternative projects and alternative sites which must be
analyzed in the EIR and the propriety of mitigation measures to alleviate and eliminate
environmental impacts of the project. 3-1 The REIR takes great lengths to avoid a stable
and finite description of the scope of the project it analyzes.
' a. The County Cannot Act as Lead Agency if the "Project" Is
Adoption of a New LCP. The REIR implies (but never states) that the "program"
considered by the document is the Bolsa Chica LCP being prepared and certified by the
County together with related County approvals and activities.—IF This answer is consistent
with the County's decision to use a program EIR and the statements at page 2-3 of the
REIR that (i) no particular development project is currently being considered or approved
by the County and (H) that compliance with CEQA will be assessed at the time of project
r12/ Thu problems with the project description are rendered far worse,such that the description becomes even
less comprehensible, by the inclusion of f)a mitigation bank which appears as part of the.'project'for selected
' purposes under Lowland Option A, as a PDF for other purposes under that option and as a 'faux-mitigation
measure'for still other purposes and(11i)two Lowlands options within the same EIR such that the true planning
densities for the Mesa Component may vary by at least 10% of its density.depending on which Lowlands Option
is chosen.
' 131 Guidelines § 15124 requires the project to be described in a way that will be meaningful to the public,
to the other reviewing agencies and to the decision-makers. See OPR Discussion following Guidelines § 15124.
' The project description is required so that a consistent point of departure is presented for the evaluation and
analysis of the project's interim and ultimate effects on the environment.
141 Another indication of the document's confusing and misleading inconsistencies can be discovered in the
' REM's Glossary which,for example,mis-defines the term 'BoLsa Local Coastal Program (LCP) to mean, 'Mhe
planning document that the City of Hunti Eton Beach will prepare consisting of the Land Use Plan,Specific Plan
and Wetlands Restoration Plan(WRP).' Thu City assumes that the Bolsa LCP will in fact consist of the revised
' Land Use Element of the County's General Plan and the WRP which the County is preparing for consideration
by the CCC.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 16 ,
approval for each development project instead of at the time of certification of the REIR
(which presumably will occur concurrently with the County's adoption of the Bolsa Chica ,
LCP and the related general plan amendment, MPAH amendment and the other approvals
for which the REIR is to be relied upon as stated in Table 2-2 and at page 2-4 of the
REM).
If the project under consideration in the REIR is the preparation and adoption
of County approvals and actions required for the adoption of a local coastal program under ,
the provisions of the California Coastal Act, the County should n=act as Lead Agency
under CEQA and the County should not have prepared the EIR for the proposed LCP.
Section 21080.9 of CEQA states: '
[CEQA] shall not apply to activities and approvals by any local government
as defined in Section 30109W . . . as necessary for the preparation and
adoption of a local coastal program pursuant to Division 20 (commencing
with Section 30000)[i.e., the Coastal Act]; provided, however, that
certification of a local coastal program . . . by the California Coastal '
Commission pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500) of
Division 20 shall be subject to the requirements of[CEQA]. For the purpose
of Section 21080.5, a certified local coastal program . . . constitutes a plan
for use in the California Coastal Commission's regulatory program.
By thus exempting from CEQA the County's activities in adopting the proposed LCP, the L
Legislature clearly intended that the CCC would be the agency responsible for determining
environmental consequences of actions and development within the Coastal Zone. This
intent is further evidenced by Guideline § 15265 which expressly states:
CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal
Act . . .by . . .[1] any local government, as defined in Section 30109 of the Public '
Resources Code, necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal
program . . . .
151 PRC $ 30109 defines the term 'local gowrnment 0 as meaning, 'any chartered or general law city, '
chartered or general law county or any city and county.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
•
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 17
rSubsection (c) of the Guideline explains the intent of this rule is to shift "the burden of
CEQA compliance from the local agency . . . to the California Coastal Commission." By
shifting this burden, the Legislature intended that the State's precious coastal resources
would not be adversely affected by more limited or parochial interests of local agencies, but
rather, would be treated as part of an important, delicate and integrated ecosystem which
must be carefully preserved and enhanced on a statewide basis as contemplated by the
California Coastal Act.16Y Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the County is not an
appropriate agency to prepare an EIR with respect to a local coastal program or the local
agency activities and approvals (e.g., general plan amendment, etc.) required for its
implementation.
Further, the REIR misstates the role of the CCC in considering the LCP proposed
by the County and its environmental impacts. Page 2-7, lines 1-6, states, without
explanation, that the CCC's certification of the LCP is "exempt from the CEQA
requirement for the preparation of an EIR" and that the REIR prepared by the County may
be relied upon by the CCC in fulfilling its "obligation to comply with CEQA's policies,
evaluation criteria and standards." This passage is inaccurate and misleading.
As noted in the above-quoted sections of CEQA and the Guidelines, the certification
of a local coastal program is considered part of a certified regulatory program. Such a
' program is not subject to Chapter 3 of CEQA pursuant to PRC § 21080.5. SCC AIW
' 161 The foregoing conclusion is supported by the express intent of the Legislature in enacting the California
Coastal Act and establishing the coastal zone. PRC§30001 expressly states that the Legislature finds "That the
California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people
' and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem,'and that, -it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the
coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.' Further, PRC § 30001.5 states the Legislature's
finding that the basic goals of the coastal zone include the enhancing and restoring of the -overall quality of the
coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources.' Although PRC§ 30004(a)ac*nowledges that
' local government planning procedures must play an integral part of regulating the coastal zone, subsection (b)
of that same section expressly states the Legislature's intent to provide 'maximum state involvement' in federal
actions relating to the coastal zone and 'to coordinate and integrate the activities of the tna agencies whose
' activities impact the coastal zone'by providing :For continued state coastal planning and management through
a state coastal commission.' This intent corresponds with Section 21080.9 of CEQA which mandates that the CCC
and not the local agency act as lead agency for the adoption of a local coastal program under the Coastal Act.
' See also California Coastal Commission, 'Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California's
Coastal Zone' (a copy of which is attached to this letter as Annex No. 24)at page 4.
Itoposed nmg Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 18 '
t
Guidelines § 15251(f) (expressly listing the program of the CCC involving the preparation,
approval and certification of local coastal programs as a certified regulatory program). '
Guidelines § 15250 explains that a certified regulatory program is not wholly exempt from
CEQA's requirement to prepare adequate environmental documentation (as suggested in the
REIR), but that such programs are exempted from the requirement to prepare duplicative '
initial studies, negative declarations and EIRs since the certified program already requires
sufficient written documentation of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and
alternatives in a "substitute document" which makes the submission of a separate EIR or '
other environmental document an unreasonable duplication of information already required
in the substitute document. So PRC § 21080.5(a), (d); Guidelines § 15252, 15253.
Where a document prepared pursuant to a certified regulatory program fails to include in
the substitute document all of the information and disclosure required under CEQA, the
document is subject to challenge. Sz, LL, Environmental Protection Information Center
v. Johnson 170 Ca1.App.3d 604 (1985). '
The CCC (and riot the County) is required to assess the impacts of the proposed
LCP and to mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible as well as identify alternatives ,
to the proposed project which could lessen project impacts. The CCC does not have the
power to rely on the County's REIR for this purpose since the Coastal Act requires the
Commission to undertake its own independent environmental investigation. If the project is ,
truly the adoption of the LCP, the REIR is invalid.
b. If the "Project" is the Development of the Mesa and the ,
Lowlands, the REIR Incorrectly Uses a Program EIR in Lieu of a Staged and
Supplemental EIR. The REIR states at page 2-3, lines 1-3, that it is a "program EIR"
within the meaning of Guidelines §§ 15165 and 15168. As was noted in the Comment, a ,
program EIR is one type of "tiered" environmental review mandated under PRC § 21093.
That section provides, in part, that tiering of EIRs should streamline environmental
procedures, avoid repetitive discussions of environmental impacts in successive EIRs and ,
ensure that EIRs for later projects which are consistent with previously approved policies
concentrate on the particular environmental effects which may be mitigated or avoided in
connection with the approval for the later projects. '
A program EIR is a first-tier EIR which is not generally required to analyze
the specific impacts of each specific aspect of the larger plan to be adopted in connection ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 19
with the program EIR. Such review is reserved until consideration of each construction
project occurring after the adoption of the plan or program. So Guidelines §§ 15146,
15152, 15168(c). If, the REIR is intended to analyze the environmental impacts of the
development described in Chapter 3 of the document, the use of a program EIR is not
appropriate unless it adequately addresses, analyzes and, where possible, mitigates all of the
' potential impacts from the project in the same manner as if a project EIR were prepared in
accordance with Guidelines § 15.161. The REIR circulated by the County does not do so
and cannot stand as the basic environmental review for the planning or construction of even
2,500 units within the island of County area surrounded by the City.
The improper use of a program EIR was first brought to the County's
attention in the Comment. This issue is one of the few issues raised in the Comment which
the REIR attempts, albeit ineffectively, to address directly. Page 2-3, lines 29-30 states
that "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR
to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Given the
omission of a stable, finite statement of the "project" the REIR is evaluating, it is not
possible for the reader to know which activities and approvals are "subsequent" activities
within the program and which are the items purportedly reviewed and analyzed in the
program EIR.0 Guidelines § 15168(b) states that use of a program EIR intended to:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action;
171 The REIR's inadequate response to the issues raised at pages 12-13 and pages 51-55 of the Comment
misinterprets and mucharacterma the issue raised by the City. The use of a tiered environmental review is
proper, even though the use of a Program E1R is not. By using a program MR,the County may proceed with any
future development which it determines to be consistent with the program considered in the REIR without further
public notice, review or opportunity for public comment pursuant to Guidelines § 15168(c)(2), so long as the
County makes a finding that the particular development did not cause a new signUicant environmental impact
which was not considered in the REIR. In contrast, if a staged E1R were used (and as noted below, due to the
decades-long duration of the construction of the development, the wide array of agencies who must approve
different aspects of the development, and the apparently limited progress of design of the development, a staged
EIR rather than a program EIR is the lawfully required vehicle for tiered review of the environmental impacts of
' the LCP and related development), Guidelines§ 15167(b)requires a supplement to the EIR to be prepared when
any later approval is required for the project.
Proposed final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 20
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-
by-case analysis; '
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations;
(4) Allow the.lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility
to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and ,
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
None of the foregoing program EIR objectives are realized by the REIR. Its consideration
of effects and alternatives is cursory rather than exhaustive. It avoids appropriate
consideration of the cumulative impacts of the entirety of the development with past,
present and future developmentsAY Rather than avoiding duplicative discussions of policy
considerations, it wholly avoids any discussion whatsoever regarding broad policy
alternatives, overlooking the many and significant conflicts of the project with State and
County land use and development policies expressed in, among other things, the State's
Coastal Act and the County's general plan. It fails to state or discuss a consistent policy
objective or project objective. Further, the REIR does not consider a project which would '
implement the varying objectives stated in the REIR. It is bereft of analysis of potential
programwide mitigation measures, often delaying the formulation of legally required
mitigation measures until the development's impacts can be assessed after approval and
implementation. Thus, none of the advantages offered by the use of a program EIR are
achieved by the County's REIR. This alone compels the conclusion that the County has not
used the program EIR in the manner State law intends. That conclusion is strengthened by
examination of the Guidelines and the intended application of a staged EIR to the proposed
Bolsa Chica development.
A "staged EIR" is designed to evaluate the broad implications of long-term '
developments such as the development considered in the REIR. A staged EIR should be
181 Indeed, as is noted in Parts I.O and II.S of this letter, the REIR avoids any consideration of the ,
cumulative impact of the loss of one of the few remaining intact wetland/upland ecosystems in Calfornia if the
project is implemented
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October S, 1994
Page 21
used, "where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from
governmental agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before
construction will begin." Guidelines § 15167. The OPR discussion following Guidelines
§ 15167 explains:
' The staged EIR was developed as a device to deal with the problem of
a large development project which would require many years for
planning, engineering and construction but would need a number of
' approvals from public agencies before the final plans would be
available. Where those final plans would not be available the Lead
Agency preparing an EIR for one of the early approvals would have
difficulty providing enough information about the project to evaluate
the effects of the entire project as would otherwise be required. . . [1]
The device of the staged EIR provides a special relaxation of the
requirement of the EIR on a development project to examine the
entire project in detail. To make up for this lack of detail with the
early approval, the section requires preparation of a supplement with
later approvals when additional information becomes available.
The actions considered in the REIR include broad plans and outlines (such as
t the WRP, dredging and maintenance plan, grading plans, etc.) which have not been
completely designed and for which full conceptual plans (much less final plans) have
apparently not been prepared. Construction of the earliest phase of the development is not
planned to commence until sometime during 1996 at the earliest and wetlands restoration
and implementation of the proposed ATIP will be delayed well beyond that date. The
construction of the Mesa Component is anticipated to last more than 20 years. Thus, the
County is in the exact position contemplated in the foregoing OPR discussion explaining the
intended use of a staged EIR since, at this early stage of the long-term development, the
County cannot provide, "enough information about the project to evaluate the effects of the
entire project as would otherwise be required."19/
191 Even if the CCC prepares the environmental documentation for the proposed development, a staged ED?
approach will be required to permit the CCC to set the broad policy outlines of the program while requiring local
' agencies implementing the plan to engage in a formal environmental process providing public disclosure and
(continued. .)
Proposed Final Daft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 5, 1994
Page 22 ,
The foregoing factors mandate that a staged EIR be used to permit the County, as
8 g �8 Pe tY�
the first lead agency, to consider the whole of the development in general terms and to
address the specific environmental review required for each subsequent approval at a later '
time when the plans for each individual development have been developed. The staged EIR
is expressly intended to be used by the first lead agency in preparing a document where, as ,
here, many other responsible agencies will be required to issue approvals related to the
development. The projects considered in the REIR will require approvals from a panoply
of State, federal and local agencies, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following '
approvals from the noted federal, State and local agencies:
A 5uthiontX _:
::.LocalJStats's...:.. :.;.::: ff,:X
1. LCP/LUP County Board of Supervisors. Pub. Res Code § 35000 ,
Coastal Commission
2. EIR County Board of Supervisors Pub. Res Code §21000 '
Pub. Res Code §21100
3. General Plan Amendment County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code § 65300
4. Planned Community County Board of Supervisors '
Zoning
S. Wetlands Restoration County Board of Supervisors
Program and Implemen- Army Corps 33 USC § 1344(§ 404)
tation Action Plan 33 USC §§403, 407
Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000
6. Devdopment Agreement County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code §65864
7. Coastal Development City of Huntington Beach City LCP
Permits
191(..continued)
consideration of impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures for each local agency approval required for
development implementing the plan ultimately approved by the CCC.
Proposed Final Daft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 23
i
.........:
.. .
8. Coastal Permit Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code§ 35000
9. Approval of LCP Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq.
10. Approval of EIR Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq.
11. Approval of Development Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code§ 350W et seq.
Agreement
12. Approval of Permits Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35WO et seq.
(Prior to cert. of LCP)
ft
13. Permits under §§401, Army Corps 33 USC § 1344(§404)
402&404 of Clean RWQCB 33 USC §§ 403, 407
Water Act and § 10 of
Rivers and Harbors Act
' 14. Consistency under Coastal Army Corps 16 USC § 1456
Zone Management Act Coastal Commission
15. EIS preparation and Army Corps 42 USC § 4321
certification under NEPA.
16. Certification under § 401 Army Corps 33 USC § 1341
of Clean Water Act
17. Compliaaoe with §7 of Army Corps 16 USC § 1531-1544
Endangered Species Act USFWS
and Calif. ESA NMFS
CDFG
18. Taking Permit under Army Corps 16 USC § 1531-1544
§ 10 of Endangered USFWS
Species Act NMFS
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 5, 1994
Page 24
19. Compliance with Fish and USFWS 16 USC §§ 661-666 '
Wildlife Coordination Act EPA
NMFS
11 CDFG '
20. Compliance with §491 et US DOT 33 USC §491 et seq.
seq. of Bridge Act USCG
21. Compliance with § 106 of 16 USC §470 '
NBPA
22. Compliance with § 208 of 33 USC 11251 et seq.
Federal Water Pollution (P.L. 92-5W)
Control Act of 1972
* * s
The County's use of a program EIR does not achieve the advantages intended
by that type of document. The use of a staged EIR to analyze the long-term Bolsa Chica
development is p da& what the Guidelines intend. If the "project" evaluated by the
REIR is supposed to be the long-term development of Bolsa Chica, the County has used an
improper environmental document and the REIR should be revised and recirculated as a
staged EIR.
3. The Project Description of the REIR is Inaccurate and
Incomplete. The project description set forth in the REIR is inaccurate and incomplete as
to the project's scope, objectives and phasing (particularly with regard to the phasing of
grading and stockpiling of large amounts of dredged material during grading activities and
the concomitant disturbance to sensitive biological resources). Its inappropriate approach to
the discussion and application of mitigation measures (similar to the problems noted in the
Comment at paragraph I.F and in COMNJENr ANNEX NO. 7) makes it impossible to
understand the relationship between development and environmental mitigation as proposed
by the REIR. These deficiencies require a second recirculation of a new, overhauled,
complete and more clearly written document which analyzes and discloses the information
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 25
missing from the REIR. SM Laurel Heights ImVmvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v.
The Regents of the University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (1993) (-Laurel Heights H-) (a
new public comment period is required if the lead agency adds significant new information
to the EIR after the close of the comment period but prior to certification -- such significant
information includes substantial changes to the project).
a. The REIR Omits Consideration of Important Elements of
the Revised Development Proposal. New elements of the Project are not adequately
assessed in the REIR. For example, the reconstructed and extended Warner Avenue Bridge
is barely mentioned. The traffic impact during the construction period is not addressed.
What detours will be used when this new essential element of the project is under
construction? What land use impacts does this bridge extension have? How will it affect
access to adjacent properties? Has a conceptual plan been drawn up, or was the bridge
extension merely an afterthought required by the omission of the new tidal inlet which was
included in the last version of the project?
The reader is left to ponder certain of the other elements of the proposed
' project. What development is proposed for the 2.4 acres in Edward's Thumb adjacent to
Talbert Avenue? The purpose of this part of the City Portion analyzed in the REIR is not
stated. Section 4.1.1.1 on page 4.1-3 states the uses of all other portions of the City
portion. Why is no use stated for this portion?
The REIR also leaves unmentioned the need for federal and State agency
' approvals for significant portions of the Mesa Component. Throughout the document, the
reader is left with the impression that there would be no federal or State agency
involvement or approval required for the development of the uplands. This is not true.
Pursuant to the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, USFWS and CDFG must either
give their input regarding the potential impacts of the development on habitat for threatened
or endangered species or, if the project proceeds on the Mesa without any federal
approvals, USFWS must approve any removal of habitat for endangered species on the
Mesa prior to any development or planning approvals which could impair those habitats or
harm the affected species. Both of those agencies (as well as many others noted in.the
chart of approvals included in subpart 2 above), stated strong reservations regarding the
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 26
approach of the DEIR to "relocation" of ESHAs on the Mesa.W The REIR neither
mentions those comments nor attempts to respond to them. This omission appears designed
to permit the County to respond to those comments after the close of the public comment
period on the REIR; however, since the agencies' comments note significant new impacts
which are not adequately discussed in the REIR and note a need for further and better
defined mitigation measures, the County is legally compelled to circulate (at a minimum)
responses to the agency comments (with a separate public comment period fulfilling the
requirements of CEQA) prior to certification of any environmental document as fulfilling ,
the demands of CEQA.
b. Project Description Omits Description of Project Phasing.
As in the case of the DEIR, the REIR does not contain an adequate description of project
phasing. The description of the phasing of the development does not indicate whether
phases will be constructed concurrently or whether different portions of each phase might
be constructed at different times. The limited description of phasing gives the reader
absolutely no information about how the site would be dredged and graded and how or
specifically where on the site material from grading or excavation would be stockpiled or
used on the site (and in this regard it must be noted that at least 1,550,000 cubic yards and
as much as 3,456,407 cubic yards of earth will be moved in the course of development).
20/ USFWS commem ed negatively on the DEIR, stating, 'the Service suggests the-subject draft ED? is
inadequate as a basis for local and State decision-making.' Letter from USFWS Ecological Services to County
dated February 17,1994(a copy of which is attached as Annex No. 7). In its comment the Service expressly noted
that it would be involved in the review of the project for compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act.
The Service was concerned about the treatment of impacts on the bird populations on the Mesa as well as the
lowland It was also concerned that a proper ecological baseline for assessing the impacts of the development on
upland and lowland habitat areas had not been created or circulated for public review. The lack of appropriate
study to establish an environmental baseline, the failure to circulate those studies and the failure to assess the
viability of establishing suitable new habitat,as initially suggested in continent on the DEIR, continue unabated
in the REDt. CDFG also commented negatively on the DEIR, stating that the development proposed in that
document did not appear to be 'feasibly implementable' and recommending against certification of the DEIR.
Letter from CDFG to County dated February 18, 1994 (a copy of which is attached as Annex No. 8). CDFG '
disapproved the DEIR as a basis for local agency decision making based, in part, on its concerns regarding the
proposed relocation of Mesa ESHAs to the Huntington Beach Mesa. That proposal a continued without substantial
modification in the REIR. In its comment CDFG noted, 'the significant reliance upon the Huntington Beach Mesa
as an area in which to produce compensatory ESHA does not adequately consider the potential incompatibility of '
the proposed linear park and the habitat values associated with the compensatory ESHA acreage.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 27
As was stated in the Comment (and ignored in the REIR), a series of drawings which
shows how the anticipated cuts and fills from each phase would affect the site should be
prepared and inserted in the document.211 Since this project extends over such a long
period of time, it is not expected that the phasing plan would be completely exact, but that
it would conceptually present the time during which each area of the site might undergo
some form of disturbance during the project's implementation. Phasing information is
essential to an analysis of the temporary impacts to onsite habitats and to determine whether
or not any net loss of each of the various habitats which occur within the project site.
There is also no description of the construction process and the types and
numbers of equipment and personnel which would be involved. This is essential to address
construction impacts, which may be substantial due to long-term, potentially continual use
of heavy equipment, transport of contaminated soil or dredge spoil, earthmoving, deep
dynamic compaction and soil stockpiling, among other activities. It seems that the traffic
analysis lacks a precise assessment of the earthmoving component of construction activities
as well. This is a serious deficiency in the REIR.
C. The Project Description Uses Varying Statistics of Acreage.
The REIR project description is imprecise about the project acreage and boundaries. The
document should be thoroughly reviewed to make sure that all discussions of acreage are
consistent and include the 22 acres in the City of Huntington Beach, and that all graphics
which show the project site include the proper project boundary. The number of acres to
be devoted to each use varies markedly from section to section in the REIR. For example,
it is unclear if the acreages of open space and developed land for Lowland Options A and B
should be the same or different:
' • Section 2.2, page 2-7, Lines 14 to 22 notes a total project area of 1,588 acres
(plus 22 acres within the City of Huntington Beach);
• Section 2.2, page 2-15, Lines 28 states that Lowland Option A will result in
1,284 acres of open space; and
' 211 Drawings sinular to those which were prepared in the County's recent Prima Deshecha Landfill®P ED?
which depict phased grading activities are required.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 28
• Page 2-15, Lines 44 and page 2-16, Lines 4 state that Lowland Option B will
result in 104 developed acres and 1,202 open space acres; however, in another
section (Section 3.3, page 3-9, In. 41), the REIR states that Lowland Option B will
result in 185 acres to be developed (filled). There is thus an 81 acre gap in the two
descriptions of the developed portion of Lowland Option B.
There is also an $2 acre discrepancy in the acreages of the Lowlands in Lowland Option A
versus Lowland Option B (1,284-1,202=82). The difference in the two above-quoted
descriptions of Option B is 81 acres (185-104=81); this nearly accounts for the "missing"
82 acres in the previous definitions of Option B. The reader should not be left to guess as
to the basic statistics regarding the project.
Similarly inconsistent descriptions of acreages occur throughout the
document. This inconsistency is compounded when the figures are used in Table 1-1,
Section 1.1.2 page 1-3, which compares Lowland Option A to Lowland Option B. The 185
acre lowland development (fill) number seems to be the figure applied, however at least 15
acres of the development (fill) area are shifted into the Recreation/Open Space category
under Option B (Planning Area 3D?).
The foregoing inaccuracies are compounded in the "Acreage By Ownership"
table and accompanying map (Figure 3-5, Section 3.2, page 3-8), which shows that the Koll
Real Estate Group owns 917.3 lowland acres, and the remaining 411.6 acres, for a total of
1,328.9 acres, is owned by other property owners. This does not correlate to other project
acreage totals elsewhere in the REIR (e.g. 1,588). The only apparent way to rationalize
these discrepancies, while conserving Option A and Option B, as variously and
inconsistently described in the REIR, is to allow Koll to "credit" itself with the acreage of '
all the other lowland property owners.2' Section 3.3.2 Figures 3-6a through 3-7b seem
22/ This approach is erroneous but is consistent with the overall approach of the REIR, which treats the site
as if the entirety of the Mesa and Lowlands were owned by a single owner willing to trade Mesa development
entitlements in exchange for some degree of cooperation regarding dedication and restoration of the wetlands.
This approach, which is identical to the approach of the DER, prompted vehement objections from Irell &
Manella,raised on behalf of the Fieldstone Company,a copy of which is attached to this Letter as Anna No. 11.
Fieldstone's anorney commented that theDEIR, 'unnecessarily confuses and complicates the issues associated with
Fieldstone's independent development of its property with the issues associated with the Koll Company's
(continued..)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
�. Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 29
to include the Fieldstone property, with an introduced 3.7 acre discrepancy. Even so, the
City of Huntington Beach acreage of 12.7 (or alternately 13.2) acres must be rounded down
to 12 acres, and alternately added twice, or occasionally not at all. This is very confusing
and must be resolved so that the REIR is consistent and it is clear who owns and/or
controls the acreages of the proposed project. All text, tables, and figures must be
rationalized. The REIR should be rewritten to clearly and consistently state the open space
and development acreages of Options A and B and the acreages for the (a) total project
area, (b) acres of open space, and (c) development (fill) areas. The accuracy of the REIR
is open to serious question since it cannot identify the various land use area without the
noted significant ambiguity, discrepancies and inconsistencies. The REIR must be rewritten
r so that it is consistent and clear.
d. The Objectives of the Project Vary from Section to Section.
One of the key elements of a valid project description is the statement of the project's
objectives. Guidelines § 15124(b). The objectives of the project will determine whether
mitigation measures and project/site alternatives are feasible and still fulfill the objectives of
the project. Guidelines § 15126(d). The project objectives seem to change from one page
to another, such that it is unclear what they really are. So REIR at pp. 14, 2-16, 3-47
and 48, and 6-7 and Part I.L, below. In the alternatives chapter it appears that a specific
set of objectives has been selected for the purpose of rejecting certain alternatives, since a
much different and shorter list is used than appears in Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 of the REIR.
e. Inclusion of Alternate Project Descriptions Further
Obscures the Project Description. The Comment noted that the publication of a DEIR
which purported to analyze two "co-equal alternatives" (as originally denominated in the
NOP) undercuts the value of the DEIR as an informational document for the public. The
REIR continues this flaw by providing two co-equal alternatives for the Lowlands
Component. For the same reasons as were noted at pages 29-31 of the Comment with
respect to the "co-equal alternative" considered in the DEIR, the inclusion of two separate
22/(..continued)
development of its various properties in Bolsa Chica. . .'. This comment continues, 'The DEM improperly treats
Fieldstone's property and independent project as if it were part of the Koll Company's project.' Thus,Fieldstone
opposes the lumping together of its proposed 'modest extension of an existing single family residential
neighborhood over a relatively small land area'with the more gargantuan implications of the former 4,286 unit
or current 2500-3200 dwelling unit(or is it still 4,286 unit?)project.
Proposed Fred Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 30
co-equal Lowlands alternatives makes an already unmanageable document even more
confusing and causes the document to violate, among other requirements, Guidelines
§ 15140 which requires that a document must be written to be rapidly understandable by the
public.
4. The County's REIR Misstates the Relationship between
Development Approvals and Environmental Review. As noted above, the County's
whole approach to the nexus between environmental review and approval of development is
off the mark. Page 2-1 of the REIR cites Guidelines § 15121 for the proposition that the
information in an EIR does not limit the discretion of the agency approving a development.
Although this reference accurately states the text of the Guideline, it ignores its context
and meaning and seems to imply that the content of the REIR places no limitation on the
County's ability to lawfully approve any project it chooses so long as some environmental
documentation is prepared. This is ominous indeed given the lurking shadow of the Koll
proposal inadequately analyzed in the DEIR. Clearly, CEQA requires an agency to
consider and approve all of the environmental impacts from, mitigation measures for and
alternatives to the project as =Wssed before h�project is approved. 5M PRC § 21151(a)
(local agencies must certify the completion of EIRs with respect to projects which they
inn to approve); Guidelines § 15090(b) (the lead agency shall certify that the final EIR
was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision making
body reviewed and considered the final EIR prior to approving the project). Guidelines
§ 15121 means that the petty details of a project are not limited by the information in the
EIR , bW the project may be lawfully approved gi y if all of the impacts of a project are
adequately disclosed by, discussed in, and mitigated pursuant to a legally adequate EIR.
Most important, the local agency is precluded from approving a project which could result
in significant impacts not considered or which require new mitigation measures not
provided for in the EIR. Comp�gr PRC § 21166. The REIR's statement that
"certification of an EIR does not constitute approval of any development activity," seems to
disregard the requirement for an adequate EIR to have been prepared, circulated and
lawfully certified prior to any project approvals. Neither the DEIR nor the REIR is an
adequate discussion or disclosure of the impacts of the projects considered in those
documents, and the County is precluded from approving any action with respect to my
project until a legally adequate document is prepared and lawfully certified.
Proposed final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 31
C. OMISSION OF 1MPLEMENmNG DOCUMENTS AND BASELINE STUDIES
FRUSTRATES ATTEMPTS AT WORTHWHILE PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE PROGRAM
AND TM REIR.
1. Failure to Circulate Implementing Documents Frustrates
Meaningful Public Review. Like the DEIR before it, the REIR purports to analyze a vast
and complex series of governmental and administrative actions and approvals. Each of the
approvals will shift and alter the various environmental impacts from the development. The
development cannot be implemented until various local, State and federal documents
(including the proposed local coastal program, development agreement, general plan
( g P � P gam, oP � , g
amendment, wetlands permits and other documents, all of which are collectively referred to
in this letter as the "implementing documents") are issued or adopted. None of these
documents have been made available for public review during the public comment period
on the REIR. Some of the documents (such as the development agreement which appears
to form an integral part of land dedications and other aspects of the project) have neither
been drafted nor agreed to in concept.21' Because, as in the case of the DEIR, the
implementing documents were not circulated with the REEK, crucial information is lacking
which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the project.''''—y As a result,
231 To be complete,the Bolsa Chiea Local Coastal Program (LCP)must contain both a Land Use Plan and
two Implementing Action programs:A Wetlands Restoration Program and a Planned Community Program. If the
REZR is to be a valid EIR (evert for the LCP), it must be circulated with and include adequate environmental
assessment of,a Planned Community Program and Community Profile Amendment which would define permitted
land uses,zoning regulations,site development standards,and processing procedures for development within the
Planned Community. Those programs are neither available nor described in sufficient detail in the REIR.
241 Indeed, the REDe expressly states:
In conducting its impact analysis,the County examined the Proposed Project as set forth in the County's
Proposed LCP. That LCP includes all specific design proposals of the applicant which are incorporated
within the Proposed Project.
If the Proposed Project is already designed and is speciflcaliy described in the Proposed LCP,why isn't
that description repeated in the REIR? Why wasn't the Proposed LCP appended to the REpi so the reader could,
like the preparer of the REM, evaluate potential impacts of the specific design proposals set forth in the LCP?
The County has, as in the case of the DEN, refused to circulate any of the specific implementing documents with
(continued..)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 32
the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing
and phasing of the project, without information on anticipated residential dwelling unit
types within defined planning areas, and without information regarding the costs of
mitigation measures (such as the ATIP) and the revenues from the project which are
purported to fund those measures. The implementing documents and project information
are critical elements of the program or development under consideration in the REIR, and it
is not possible to dredge sufficient information regarding the project and the content of the
implementing documents from the incomplete, vague and inconsistent descriptions of the
REIR. The County has continued to hide the true form of its approvals until after the ;
opportunity for comment on the impact of those approvals has passed. This precludes
adequate public participation in the CEQA process and violates CEQA's intent and
requirement for informed public participation and decision-maldng 151
24/(..continued)
its environmental analysis. The failure to do so deprives the Hader and the deeisionmakers of the ability to assess
whether the County, -in conducting its impact analysis-properly evaluated the impacts and effects of the -specific
design proposals of the applicant which are incorporated into the Proposed Project,-as claimed in the foregoing
passage of the REX Why does the County continue to frustrate and evade the State-mandated environmental
review process by refusing to share the more meaningful specific design proposals for the development with the
public reviewing the REIR? The failure to disclose this information is fatal to the County's CEOA process.
25/ Tfhe City has attempted to obtain the in it requires to evaluate the REIR and has been diligent
in its ongoing efforts to obtain copies of the implementing documentation and technical studies referred to in the
REIR from the County,however,the County has been steadfast in its refusal to circulate those documents with the
RER The City attempted to obtain drafts of the implementing documents with a formal California Government
Code Public Records Act request,a copy of which is attached to this letter as Annex No. 25. Tfu County's initial
response to that request is attached to this letter as Annex No. 26 and it justification for refusing to respond to
that request during the comment period on the REIR is attached as Annex No. 44. As of the date of this letter,
no further response has been received from the County and the County seems intent on impermissibly separating
review of iu punning and zoning documents from the legally mandated public environmental assessment of those
documents. See also Annex No. 43 (formally requesting a legible copy of the proposed grading plan),Annear
No. 35(formally requesting copies of the technical data on which the County relied in preparing its trq ffic impact
analysis), Annex No. 34 (requesting copies of technical studies relied on in the REM) and Annex No. 39
(responding to that request).
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 33
2. The REIR Further Frustrates Public Review by
Exceeding the
Permitted Limits on Incorporation by Reference of Uncirculated Documents. In
1 addition, the REIR makes improper use of incorporation of by reference of technical
studies. Page 2-3, lines 37-40 of the REIR states:
As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Revised Draft
EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports.
Guidelines § 15150 is far more limited in its scope and application than is suggested by the
REIR. Incorporation by reference is permissible only for documents which are a matter of
public record or generally available to the public. Further, subsection (f) of the Guideline
states that incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or
technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the
analysis of the problem at hand. Subsection (e) provides that documents such as a city's
general plan, a former EIR, or a general study from an AQMD of air pollution emissions
from a particular process are the types of documents which the Guidelines intend to be
incorporated by reference. In contrast, the REIR incorporates by reference (and does not
�j circulate) specific surveys and studies (including studies of the particular nesting and
foraging species at the Mesa and in the Lowlands) as well as hazardous materials
investigations which are not generally available to the public and bear directly on the
' analysis of the problem at hand. The County cannot frustrate CEQA's intent to provide
full public disclosure of environmental issues by improperly relying on the concept of
incorporation by reference to obscure and limit the public's access to the limited data
available regarding the impacts of the proposed development.
1 D. THE COUNTY HAS FAILED TO FULFILL TTs OBLIGATIONS UNDER CEQA TO
CONSULT wrrH AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INPUT OF OTHER AGENCIES
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The County has assumed the role of the lead agency under CEQA. CEQA
requires the lead agency to consult with other agencies which will have approval authority
over or will suffer adverse impacts from the proposed project, such as the City and federal
agencies which must approve the project. As noted on page 2-6 (lines 21-28), the County
has relied on the notice of preparation prepared and circulated with respect to the DEIR to
provide the required notice of the REIR to the required agencies. The deficiencies and
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 34
legal short-comings of the County s initial process with respect to the consultation required
after circulation of the NOP were detailed at length in the Comment and need not be
repeated here; however, suffice it to say that the notice and consultation process which was
flawed with respect to the DEIR is wholly inappropriate and legally inadequate to fulfill the
County's duties to its sister agencies (and the public) with respect to the REIR.
The County has avoided further consultation with affected agencies such as
the City by failing to prepare and circulate for comment a new notice of preparation
pursuant to PRC § 21080.4 which requires the lead agency to send notice of the County's '
determination that an EIR for the project is required. Since the REIR addresses a
significantly different project than the 1993 DEIR, the noticing procedures of CEQA have
not been fulfilled. By changing the project and causing a wholly-rewritten document to be
prepared and circulated without prior notice, the County has deprived the affected agencies
the opportunity to comment regarding the proper scope and content of the REIR. In the
past, when the County has prepared EIRs for projects which have changed since the
original draft EIR, it has issued a new NOP. This was true, for example, for both the
Sunset Aquatic Park and the Theo Lacy Branch Jail Expansion. In the case of the latter,
comments on the prior documents were also included in the Subsequent EIR.
By failing to send a notice which specified the proposed changes in the
project and to seek comments from affected agencies, the County has once again evaded the
requirement that the scope and content of an EIR must be determined in consultation with
"each responsible agency and . . . those public agencies having jurisdiction by law over
natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust for the people of the State
of California." PRC § 21080.4. Guidelines § 15082(a) specifically states that the notice of
preparation is to go to all responsible agencies and to "every federal agency involved in
approving or funding the project." By ignoring this requirement, the County has not only
segmented the federal agency approvals from the approvals considered in the REIR (further
detailed in Part I.E, below), but also has permitted the federal agencies to move forward
with a federal EIS which apparently will consider a project which is different in significant
respects from the project considered in the REIR.
On March 3, 1994, the Corps prepared and published the NEPA-required
notice of intent to prepare an EIS in connection with Section 404 and Section 10 permits for
dredging and fill of and discharge into waters of the United States. 59 Fed. Reg. 10116.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 35
The notice of intent expressly includes as part of the proposed development the non-
navigable tidal inlet deleted in both Lowland options considered in the REIR. The federal
' agencies seem to be considering a project which the County implies is not currently under
consideration for approval. As noted below, the consultation process which a lead agency
is required to undertake is designed to avoid a situation, such as this, where different
agencies are considering different project proposals for the same site. The County's failure
to prepare a new notice of preparation regarding the revised project and new REIR is a
further mortal flaw in the County's CEQA process.
E. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A
NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF CEOA.
1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals. As is noted in various places
within the REIR, the proposed wetlands restoration program, stated to be a project
objective, will require a number of federal approvals under different federal statutes. So
Chart in Part I.B, above.
Among the most significant, but W the only, federal approvals will be
permits issued by the Corps in connection with the proposed dredging, filling and
development within the jurisdictional wetlands of the Corps and the wetlands restoration
plan outlined in the DEIR (the "WRP").M' In addition, either a consultation process must
occur under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or, if no federal approvals are
obtained, a taldng permit must be issued by the Service under Section 10 of the Act, as
261 The establishment of a mitigation bank and, if Lowlands Option B is approved, the WRP, still appear to
form the sole justifications to override the acknowledged impacts(and,presumably the unacknowledged impacts
as well)of the proposed development of this environmentally sensitive site. Thus,the basic approach of the DERZ
(which trades off upland and lowland habitat areas in exchange for a future promise to perhaps facilitate
restoration of a portion of she remaining wetlands area)is continued in the REA The mere w funded and unlikely
(especially in light of the positions stated by the CCC and federal agencies) potential for future wetlands
restoration (but ga& if enough public money is collected from sources other than the developer and if the oil
operations onsue are discontinued) cannot rationally be relied upon by the County tojustify the construction of
a new suburbia surrounded by the City, regardless of the impact to the City.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 36
well as analogous State permits.0 Without these and other federal permits from the
Corps, USFWS and other affected agencies, no development in the Lowlands or on the
Mesa can occur.2
The REIR expressly excludes consideration of the potential impact of the
federal permits required for implementation of the proposed development. Since the REIR
appears to rely on the establishment of a mitigation bank (in the case of Lowlands Option
A) or the restoration of the wetlands (in the case of Lowlands Option B) as the justification
for the development's impacts (and since that restoration is stated at pages 1-4 and 3-47 to
be a primary objective of the development), the REIR implicitly assumes that the required
federal and State permits would eventually be issued after the commencement of
development in non-wetland areas. Such an unsupported assumption is not permitted under
CEQA and is contradicted by the evidence in the record before the County. By ignoring
the requirement for federal permits and allowing development on areas of the site other than
jurisdictional wetlands to proceed without obtaining federal permits for wetlands restoration,
the REM, like the DEIR, segments the project into two projects: one consisting of the
development of between 2,500 and 3,200 homes (or potentially 4,286 homes) on area of
the site other than the jurisdictional wetlands, and the second consisting of the eventual
restoration or residential development of the wetlands if, as and when oil operations are
discontinued and sufficient funding obtained.
The process employed by the County in preparing both the DEIR and the
REIR without consultation or cooperation with the Corps and other affected federal agencies
violates Guidelines § 15226 which mandates a joint NEPA and CEQA environmental
review and planning process "to the fullest extent possible." These issues are fully detailed
271 USFM expressly noted in its kner,attached to this kner as Annec No. 7,that it'felt otherwise excluded
from[the County's]process of preparing the subject EIR and 'Wetland Restoration Plan"but noted that u would
assert its right to be part of the environmental review for the project through the NEPA EIS process.
281 As was noted in subpart M.D.3 of the Continent,and above in this letter,correspondence from the affected
State and federal agencies have consistently questioned the propriety of the federal permits which would be
required to build the project, both as proposed by Koll and as scaled down in the REIR. The CCC, GDFG and
federal agencies appear highly unlikely to issue permits required for implementation of both the Mesa Component
and either of the Lowland Options for the project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 37
at pages 6-9 of the Comment.' Even in those cases where a federal agency refuses to
cooperate in the preparation of a joint document, Guidelines § 15228 requires the lead
agency to persist in its efforts to cooperate with the federal agency.V Here, the County
continues to be the agency which consistently refuses to participate in the joint State/federal
planning and environmental review process mandated by CEQA.
The County's continuing refusal to engage in a joint process with the affected
federal agencies impaired the public's analysis of the DEIR and impairs analysis of the
REIR. Given that the primary project objectives (as stated in Chapters 1 and 3 of the
REIR) include restoration/creation of wetlands and relocation of ESHAs, all of which must
undergo federal environmental review and obtain federal permits, coupled with the
extremely negative comments received by the County on the DEIR from the federal
agencies, the omission of federal agency input places the County's planning efforts in direct
conflict with the policies and intentions of the federal and State agencies which must
approve the project proposed by the County. The County's plans will unquestionably be
altered significantly by the need to conform to the federal requirements.
2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development.
The DEIR segmented the project by defining the "project" under consideration as Qnb the
development within the County, excluding from the DEIR's consideration the development
of some 598 units within areas which were within the study area (i.e., the project site) but
were not within the County LCP. This divided a portion of Koll's intended development
into another segment not considered as part of the project under review in the DEIR. As
was noted in the Comment, the County is responsible for assessing the local and Statewide
291 See Comment at Now 7 do 8 and accompanying text.
301 As noted in the Comment, the preparation of separate state and federal environmemal clearance
documents substantially complicates the process and can lead to additional conftcts and protraction of the
environmental review process to the extent that changes due to federal environmental requirements require
subsequent recirculation of the CEQA document. This forecast became reality when, in March 1994, the Corps
issued its notice of intent to prepare an EIS which included the tidal inlet removed from the development proposals
in the REIR The County's refusal to consult with affected agencies as required by law has created a situation
where the local and federal agencies are reviewing signicandy different projects for the same site.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 38
impacts of "the whole of an action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change
in the environment," not i= the portions within the County's jurisdictionAl
The REIR attempts to rectify the segmentation of the County controlled
portion of the project from those portions within the City by stating that no development is
currently planned for the City portions. The problem with this approach is that it ignores
the long-term approach which a general plan amendment (such as the amendment required
to implement the proposed LCP) is supposed to entail. So Government Code § 65300
(requiring that the County's general plan must be a long term document). By excluding the
areas of the project within the City, the County has ignored the likelihood that development
of the Mesa Component will encourage development of the adjacent City parcels. Thus,
the County's REIR considers only the impact of a portion of the project, in violation of
CEQA. The County should have considered the potential impacts of development of the
entire site, rather than considering the impact of construction of 2,500-3,200 (4,286?)
dwelling units limited to the County's jurisdiction.
3. Segmentation of Remediation Actions. Page 11 of the Comment
noted that implementation of the project was segmented from the process of making the site
"clean" for the development to occur. The REIR continues, like the DEkR before it, to rely
on the development of a plan in the future to attempt to limit the hazards and assess the
impacts of the unquestionably vast amount of site remediation which will be required. The
characterization of the yet-to-be-developed Remedial Action Plan ("RAP") as a PDF (m
REIR at p. 4.3-11 line 43 et seq.) is in clear violation of CEQA. How can a non-existent
and ill-described remediation plan be said to be part of the "design" of the developer's
Proposed project?
As discussed at length in Part I.F, below, at a minimum, the RAP is a
disguised mitigation measure proffered to abate a significant impact to a level of
insignificance. Disguising the potential significance of the impact and hiding the
undesigned and undefined mitigation measure as a so-called PDF violates CEQA's
requirement that an EkR must alert the public and the decision-maker to all of the
significant impacts from the project and then identify how the developer will mitigate those
311 See Commem at Note 10.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 39
r
impacts. The Coun 's method of hiding impacts and their proposed mitigation throu h the
P� tY B P� P� 8
use of PDFs is not permitted under CEQA.
The REIR, like the DEIR, defers investigation and analysis of the likely
impacts from the required substantial remediation of hazardous substances/waste until some
time in the future; even though the REIR still contemplates that development on the Mesa
will commence in 19%. Further, the RAP contemplates a piece-meal remediation of
different portions of the site as different areas are subjected to grading and construction.
There will, therefore, be foreseeable adverse impacts to the new residents of the Mesa from
adjacent remediation activities. The degree and severity of those impacts will depend upon
the project phasing, the phasing of the remediation activities and the scope and nature of the
contamination. However, the REIR gives no information regarding the phasing of these
activities (e.g. there is no information relating the construction of residences to the progress
of remediation activities). Since the studies indicating the nature and scope of the problem
have not been prepared, the methods of remediation have not been identified, and the
timing of residential occupancy versus the phasing of the remediation have not been
specified, the REIR gives the reader no basisfor determining the impact of remediation on
the adjacent residents in particular and the environment in general. These facts alone
indicate the grave deficiency in depending on the development of future studies for
mitigation of the known and foreseeable problems which will result from residential
development of formes oil producing and adjacent properties.
Further, the REIR's proposed use of the RAP to limit the impact from as yet
undetermined levels of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes is one of the many
instances in which the document depends on mitigation measures (or "PDFs") to be
developed and specified in the future, fir the development of studies and standards not yet
completed and af= the close of the public comment period on the REIR.
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1-
•
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 40
F. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT 'TIED To PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.
1. Since Wetlands Restoration is a Primary Goal of the Project, that
Restoration Must Be a Condition to Development. The DEIR stated, and the REIR
restates, that the Bolsa Chica Wetlands have been recognized as a degraded wetland.-V
Although the REIR acknowledges that wetlands development and restoration will require
federal approvals, including approvals from the Corps under Sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, it does not consider
the potential impact of those reviews on the County's land use plans and other approvals.
Even though the program considered by the REIR must be subjected to a federal environ-
mental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC § 4321 ("NEPA") the
County has not worked in conjunction with the Corps to produce a joint document which
attempts to fulfil the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA.
As noted above, the restoration of the wetlands is the sole justification for the
impacts to the environment which unquestionably will result from my development at the
project site. Chapter 12 of the REIR notes eight significant and unavoidable environmental
impacts. As was true of the REIR, there are other impacts which are assumed to be
insignificant but which are, in fact, significant adverse impacts on the environment
notwithstanding the mitigation measures, PDFs, and SCs suggested in the REIR.
Accordingly, the County must specifically find that the benefits of the project outweigh the
321 See REIR page 4.1-7, lines 19-22 and DEZR § 4.1.1.1,page 4.1-6 citing California Department of Fish
and Game Report on Identification of Degraded Wetlands in Bolsa Chica,dated December 11,1981,attached to
the Comment as ComvxNT ANNzr No.12. Both the DE1R and the REM neglect to mention that the CDFG report
concluded that even though the wetlands as a whole were a degraded system, a significant portion comprising
hundreds of acres were not degraded and were already fully restored and functioning wetlands. Further,the REIR
continues the DEIR's failure to disclose that CDFG objected to the characterization of the wetlands as degraded
in its comment rincluded within CommEwANNEr NO. 10)to the EMUS. The REIR's discussion of the CDFG
report is one of a number of'half-truths'of the DEIR continued in the recirculated document which continues the
inaccurate and misleading discussion of the DEIR. Finally,the DEIR and the REM both omit any consideration
of the Governor's new wetlands policy, 'California Wetlands Conservation Policy,' Executive Order W59-93
(Aug. 23, 1993)which notes the significance of the Bolsa Chica wetlands and considers their restoration. A copy
of the Governor's policy was attached to the Comment as COMMEW ANNEX No. 35. The REM also omits
discussion of the CCC's Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland Projects in California's Coastal Zone,
June 15, 1994 a copy of which is attached as Annex No. 22, discussing that the acreage of critical wetlands
ecosystems including Bolsa Chica are dramatically decreasing in number.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 41
potential adverse impacts in a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of
Guidelines § 1509IM1
Since the stated objectives of the project focus on the restoration and creation
of significant wetlands and ESHAs, the overriding consideration in this case must include
the planned wetlands restoration.1y In order for this consideration to justify the
development of the entire project, the obligation to restore the wetlands must arise with the
M
331 Since the mitigation measures required by the RER are not sufficient to mitigate all of the potential
impacts to a level of insignificance, the County must both adopt the,findings required under PRC § 21081
regarding the infeasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives which would lower the potential impact and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as contemplated by Guidelines § 15093 stating the particular reasons
(based on substantial evidence in the record)why the environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits
of the proposed project. The discussion following Guidelines § 15093 states, in this regard.
The coin in Citizens for QNAU Growth v.Mount Shasta.198 Cal.App.3d 433
(1988), held that when an agency approves a project that will significantly
affect the environment, CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to
affirmatively show that it has considered the identified means [mitigation
and/or alternatives/of lessening or avoiding the project's significant effects
and to explain its decision allowing those adverse changes to occur. In other
words, an agency may only get to overriding considerations after the agency
has made the appropriate findings;then,and only then,may an agency go on
to explain why a Project may go forward notwithstanding its effects.
341 This concision is bolstered by RER, Page 3-47 which states that the objectives of the Project include
W reversing 'the degradation of wetlands on the site and expand the size and quality of the wetlands through a
Program of reconfiguration, consolidation, creation and restoration', fli) conveying the portion of the Lowland
not used for development to public agencies for wetlands restoration,flood control or other 'public uses' (even
though there is no binding commitment to convey any property under Lowland Option A unless and until the entity
acquiring the property pays full market value—however defined—to purchase the property)and rim)coordinating
the wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil operations. Further, among the more specific goals to be
achieved is to provide for the creation,protection, restoration and maintenance of significant wetlands, ESHAs
and marine resources, and to maintain restore and enhance the biological productivity and quality of coastal
waters and wetlands to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms.
' Proposed Feel Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 42
fife development under the approvals considered in the REIR (or if applicable, the
DEIR).3S1 The REIR differs from the DEIR in that there appears to be no binding
commitment of the developer to restore or fund the restoration of the wetlands once the
development of the Mesa has commenced. The nature and extent of actual mitigation
remains, at best, a mystery.2y Further, there is no requirement for bonding of restoration
obligations nor any other device provided in the REIR to ensure that there will be sufficient
funds to implement the restoration plan once oil operations are discontinued. This is
critically important given that the wetlands restoration would not commence until after oil
operations have ceased.1" The omission of funding or security from any restoration
351 The passage of the RED? at pages 3-17 to 3-18 is a mere restatement of the problem, not a legally
sufficient response to the issues raised herein or with respect to the Comment. Further,as is discussed at length
with rasped to the County's inadequate discussion of alternatives, Page 6-6,lines 18 to Sl, reveals the County's
true response with rasped to this issue. The County apparently believes, without aid of supporting evidence in
the REIR, that the removal and destruction of the existing uplands portion of the Bolsa China ecosystem to
accommodate the landowner's request for permission to alter significantly the existing and historical land use
(which has persisted for at least 80 years) by removing sensitive habitat areas in favor of higher density urban
development has no relationship(nor apparently any impact)on the immediately adjacent wetlands areas. As is
explained in detail in Part LF,below,this thinly veiled reference to the recent Supreme Court decision in Dolan
v. City of Tigard _U.S. _, 114 S. 0. 2309(1994),completely misreads the extent to which the County and
other agencies may properly exercise zoning and planning controls over a precious natural resource through the
valid exercise of their police powers. Further, this comment ignores the statements of the REM, including,for
example, the statement at page 4.8-12,lines 13-25 that the Mesa and Lowlands habitats are,. 'ecologically linked
as part of the broader coastal ecosystem.' There is, accordingly, a clear new between the proposed initial
development of the Mesa and restoration of the Lowlands.
361 The DEW estimated the cost of wetlands restoration at$48 Million. Newspaper articles from mid-1993
estimated the figure at close to$100 Million. The REIR now estimates that costs of restoring the wetlands will
be about$30 million, excluding the cost of land acquisition. The REIR avoids any disclosure of r)the method
of calculating the coat of the wetlands restoration, ri) the potential cost of land acquisition or (Iii) how non-
developable Lowlands which have produced oil royalties over the past 70 years would be valued Will the
Lowland owner receive the value of non-developable, defunct oil producing property or the higher value which
it assumes would have been realized if development entitlements were granted? The RED?does not consider this
issue and the County's response to comments must detail this extremely crucial aspect of the mitigation bank
proposed under Lowland Option A.
371 The VMP proposed in the DEIR (and in the REIR) was substantially revised to a more 'cost-effective'
plan which delayed restoration until the existing oil operations were phased out as the reserves were depleted
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 43
commitment leaves open the very real possibility that funds for the implementation of the
WRP may be unavailable when the time for implementation approaches over the next 20
1 years or moreA
The REIR assumes that neither the County nor the CCC could lawfully
require the developer to contribute to the restoration of the Wetlands as a condition to Mesa
development approvals. Thus, the REIR ignores the nexus between the destruction of
upland habitat for Lowland Option A and its potential adverse effect upon endangered
species in the lowland and wetland portions of the site 3" Loss of upland habitat will
result in increased predation in lowland and wetland areas by raptors, adversely affecting
endangered bird species. Loss of upland habitat for coyote could also mean increased fox
populations and the increased potential of fox predation on endangered bird species in the
lowland. The integrated function of the varied parts of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem depends
on more than just the lowland and wetland portions of the site. It is the diversity of
habitats on this large area of coastal land which makes it so biologically rich.
37/(..continued)
Page 4.1-49 of the DE1R indicated and the RE1R continues to state that those reserves are expected to be depleted
only over the next 20 years,however, if the price of oil increases at any time during that period, it is likely that
the time required to remove existing oil operations will be increased Also,oil operators have great incentive to
continue oil operations indefinitely in order to postpone ranedwiton/clean up costs. As those cons increase during
the neap 20 years, the oil operators' incentive to continue even marginally profitable extraction operations will
likewise increase.
381 The project described in the RE1R severs the linkage between development and restoration of the wetlands
which was expressly stated as the basis for the CCC conditional censcation of the 1986 LCP on which the REIR
relies. The CCC's 1986 findings, as quoted on page 4.1-37 of the REM reflect the CCC's position that
development, or at leart higher levels of development, on the Balsa Chica site is conditioned on the restoration
of the wetlands. These findings state that, 'The modification(from plans for Balsa Chica prior to 19861 is
designed to allow as much flexibility as passible in the methods available to satisfy the need to secure at the outset
of development assurance that the restoration essential in justifying the development will actually occur.' Contrary
to this position,the Revised E1R makes development of the Balsa Mesa completely independent of the restoration
of the LCP area's wetlands. There is a significant question as to whether this 'severing' is appropriate, or will
meet the approval of the CCC.
391 The RED?(page 4.8-12)and the comments of the affected agencies make it clear that there is a significant
connection between the wetlands and the upland habitat on the Mesa.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 44
2. Federal and State Agencies which must Approve Wetlands
Restoration Have Objected to the WRP and Development of Lowlands. The permitting
process applicable to the wetlands restoration proposed in the REIR was described at length
at pages 31 to 32 of the Comment 40! The REIR continues to defer consideration of the
federal permits and the federal environmental review to a later time, yet to be determined.
As was noted in Part I.E above, if the Corps or any other responsible federal agency
refuses to issue the permits required for the restoration of the wetlands, a central objective
of the program contemplated by the REIR will not occur and, for this reason alone, the
REIR continues to be fatally flawed under State law.41/
As was noted and described at length at pages 36 through 41 of the ,
Comment, all of the agencies whose approval will be required for wetlands restoration have
commented very negatively on the approach continued by Lowlands Option B of the REIR.
These agencies have all stated that it is not permissible to offset residential development in
the Lowlands against a promise to fund wetlands restoration. In addition, USFWS stated a
strong concern that the so-called restoration would, under either Lowlands Option A or
Lowlands Option B, harm the wetlands. The position of USFWS and the other affected
agencies was not the least bit altered by the proposals in the REIR AY The wetlands
401 For t convenience
the of the reader, a chart detailing the Corps penrutthng process was attached to the
Comment as COMMEW ANNEr NO. 22 and a brief article describing the process as applicable in California was
auached to the Continent as Com mmT ANNEX NO. 23.
411 See Letter to Koll from the Los Angeles District Director of the Corps attached to the Comment as
COmmmT ANMM No. S in which the Carps expressly states, among other things (i)Koll's position is that no
restoration of wetlands will occur unless the Corps permits Koll to fill wetlands in connection with the proposed
residential de►e1opment in the Lowlands, (ii)that the Corps believes that a is required to review the entirety of
the project, including the uplands as part of its public interest and NEPA review process, and (Iii)the use of
profits from the development of a residential contimnay in the wetlands to fund the restoration of other wetlands
does not make the development in the wetlands a restoration or water-dependent project entitled to Section 404
permits. This letter strongly indicates that the Corps may not issue the wetlands permits required for restoration
or Lowlands development. Further,this letter indicates that the Corps may be less inclined to issue permits if the
Mesa development has already commenced at the time the project a considered by the Corps.
421 Tfhe Comments of the USFWS and CDFG were described above. In addition,the CCC and NAM voiced
rrhement objection to the approach taken in the DEIR and continued in Lowland Option B of the REM The
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 45
proposals of the REIR do not address any of the concerns expressed by the agencies which
must approve the project. Further, the REIR has raised a host of new concerns and issues
requiring further study and documentation since the County, in violation of CEQA, has
eliminated the tidal inlet rather than exploring alternatives to the inlet. Thus, as was
discussed at length in the Comment, a primary objective within the project description is
unlikely to be fulfilled by the development proposed in the REIR. Under Lowland
Option A there is no source stated for funding the WRP, and the WRP has the potential to
exacerbate rather than reverse the degradation of the wetlands. Under Lowlands Option B
the funding is partially provided; however, in addition to the substantive problems with the
WRP, the problem of permitting residential development in the lowlands (vehemently
objected to by all of the permitting agencies) is the qIIidpr41 for that funding°-31
421(...continued)
comments of the CCC and the NMFS to the DEIR are attached to this kner as Annex No. 9 and Annex No. 10,
respectively. In its comment,NMFS stated that it did not believe that residential development in the Lowlands was
the only method to provide funding for the resmration of the wetlands over the nett 25 years and that the proposed
Lowland development was not consistent with the Coastal Act. Further, USFWS not only questioned the legality
of the proposed wetlands development under Lowland Option B, but also seems to question whether the proposed
wetlands restoration is truly beneficial, stating:
There is also no indication in the 'Wetlands Restoration Plan'. . . that the preparers of that
plan had been provided and utilized any of the information said to have resulted from [the
surveys cited in the DEIRJ. This could explain the specious contentions of adequate mitigation
or.biological benefits that appear throughout the document. We believe some elements of the
proposed 'restoration' project could have just the opposite effect than the EIR contends.
Claimed biological restoration benefits could become actual damage or predicted enhancement
actually could result in degradation. . . .Even absent any development impacts,the construction
of the WRP may damage wildlife resources it purports to benefit.
USFWS'concerns are expressly applicable to the proposed wetlands restoration under both Lowlands Option A
and Lowlands Option B. Its concerns regarding the WRP in the DEIR (a fuel tidal restoration program)are only
worsened by the REIR's omission of any tidal inlet and creation of what is more properly characterized as a muted
tidal inlet. Farther,the REIR must take into account the historic di,,fheulry in establishing restored wetlands habitat
as is noted in the Procedural Guidance for Wetlands Projects attached to this letter as Annex No. 24.
431 It is useful to review the comments of CDFG on the DEIR at this point. Page 6 of CDFG's February 18,
1994 comment stated:
(continued..)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency i
October 5, 1994
Page 46
The clear indication from the federal agencies continues
en 'es u to be that the
proposed wetlands restoration will not proceed as proposed by the County; yet, the REIR
(like the DEIR before it) makes no mention of the negative position of the federal and State
agencies toward the proposed project, even though that position is a critical factor to
consider in approving the project and even though the negative position of the affected
agencies was communicated directly to the County. Since the issuance of State and federal
permits is so vital to the fulfillment of the project's objectives, the REIR must inform the
public and the decision-makers of the low probability that wetlands restoration could ever
proceed in the manner contemplated by the REIR. The omission of this information makes
the REIR misleading and requires a further circulation of an accurate and legally valid EIR
prior to any approval by the County d4'
43I(...continued)
There are essentially two potential wetland restoration motifs for the lowland wetlands. These
are a full tidal alternative with an ocean connection and a muted tidal alternative with no ocean
connection. The muted tidal alternative afar less costly than the full tidal alternative. If we
superimpose a muted tidal restoration alternative upon either[the Koll proposal)or Alternative E
[4,286 units on the Mesa and development on 38 lowland acres in the pocket and Edwards
Thumb],mitigation carts are marksiol decreased, and Proposed development Pcoftability is
markedly increased Therefore, it follows that significantly decreased development acreage
would generate prvfuability equivalent to that associated with Alternative E and the [Koll
Proposal],if a muted tidal restoration motif is superimposed. Thus we can significantly decrease
developmental impact while maintaining constant economic feasibility if we simply shift
restoration motif. . . . That is,assuming superimposition of a muted tidal restoration motif,how
much of the currently proposed development acreage may be deleted while maintaining bottom-
line profitability to the applicant consistent with gplieant funded restoration of the remainder
of the lowland?
The County seems to have taken the first part of this suggestion to heart in that the new wetlands restoration plan
appears to be the less-costly muted tidal alternative suggested in CDFG's comments. However, the County has
ignored the purport of the CDFG in making this suggestion;i.e., to decrease mitigation costs so that applicant
funded restoration is feasible without significant development in the lowlands. why does the REIR lessen the
electiveness of the tidal restoration by deleting the ocean connection without,as CDFG suggested, requiring the
developer who will ultwuteiy benefit from decreased restoration costs to pay for the restoration of the wetlands?
441 This sentiment was echoed by the comment on the DEIR from CDFG which expressly stated, 'Findings
and determinations made under CEQA requirements must take into consideration all other State and Federal laws
brought to bear upon a given planning issue or area.' The REIR continues the basic flaw of the DER by
(continued..)
Proposed Find Daft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 47
G. TBE REIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT of FUTURE STUDIES
AND UNMONnogm PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION.
1. Reliance on the Development of Future Studies to Define
Mitigation and Impacts in the Future. In many instances, detailed further in Section H of
this letter and Annex No. 4 attached to this letter, the REIR relies on the preparation of
future studies and analysis for its conclusion that a given potential impact will not be
significant asp This results in conclusions which are not supported by evidence since there
is no technical or scientific data offered to support the contention that the future studies and
mitigation measures to be derived therefrom will mitigate the potentially significant impacts
to below a level of significance. Furthermore, reliance on unperformed and unpublished
studies deprives the public of the opportunity to analyze the results and provide meaningful
comments to the decision-makers, as is required under CEQA. Further, the REIR does not
adopt objective criteria for performance, and, therefore, the analysis of the REIR violates
CEQA's requirement that environmental documents develop feasible and effective
mitigation measures at the earliest stages of planning for land use approvals.
As was stated in the Comment, the use of unspecified mitigation measures
based on future studies and development of future plans is not permitted under CEQA.°
For example, in Sundstmm v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988) the court
disapproved a negative declaration which required the development of mitigation measures
fir the issuance of the negative declaration since such a deferral of environmental
assessment violated CEQA's policy that specific impacts must be identified before the
441(..continued)
proceeding with the Coumy planning analysis as if that analysis properly occurred in a vacuum devoid of the need
for any other approvals from other local, State or federal agencies.
451 See also Continent at Note 15 and accompanying teu.
461 Attached to the Comment as COMMENT ANNEX No. 7 is a table which ana67ed each of the Mitigation
Measures listed in the DEIR and indicated that over 60%of the DEIR's Mitigation Measures were invalidated by
this flaw which has been disapproved in the above-noted and other court decisions. The table attached to this
letter as Amur No. 4 atutbw the flaws of the mitigation measures and PDFs offered in the RELR and reveals that
the vast majority of the measures in the RELR continue to be legally flawed and invalid as mitigation measures
under CEQA
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 48
t
project progresses to a point where the agency responsible for approving the project has
t
limited flexibility. In Sundstrom, the court found that a permit condition regarding sludge
disposal from the project was flawed in that the record showed that adequate disposal would
be hard to achieve and since various departments within the County and the Coastal
Commission recommended that the project be disapproved until (if ever) this problem could
be resolved. In Oro Fino Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App.3d 872,884-
5 (1990), the court disapproved mitigation to be based upon the development of a full land
reclamation plan in the future, since CEQA requires (i) that the environmental information
presented in an environmental document must be complete and relevant, (ii) that mitigation
measures must be 'timely set forth and (iii) that decision-makers must make environmental
decisions in an accountable fashion. The court held that deferral of formulation of precise
mitigation measures until after project approval improperly denied the public of their right
to participate in environmental decision-making.
It seems that the County intends to proceed with the development of the
mitigation and remediation plans for the project without further environmental review or
participation of(or information to) the public. If further environmental review were
intended, the commencement of the project by 1996 would be doubtful at best. By relying
on the development of future plans for mitigation and remediation, the REIR attempts to
evade the public disclosure and discussion which lies at the heart of CEQA.E' This
requirement is particularly important in the context of a program EIR such as the DEIR and
the REEK which set overall policy for the development of the entire project site.
2. Reliance on "SCs" and "PDFs" Precludes the REIR from
Providing the Public Disclosure and Accountable Decision-Making Required by CEQA.
The treatment of mitigation measures in the REIR remains in violation of CEQA. The use
of so-called project design features ("PDFs") and standard conditions ("SCs") to mitigate
what might otherwise be significant environmental impacts represents an approach that flies
in the face of the intent of CEQA and its requirements for clear disclosure of environmental
impacts and the measures intended to mitigate those impacts.
471 Anadhed to this letter as Annr_s No. 16 is a chart which depicts how the use of SO and PDFs evade
CEQA's requirement for the ident fication and disclosure ofpotentially significant impacts and significant impacts.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 49
1 Due to the REIR's "PDF/SC" approach, the proposed project's impacts are
not listed and the mitigation measures disguised as PDFs and SCs are not listed as
mitigation for those impacts as required by CEQA. This approach invalidates the REIR
since not all significant impacts are disclosed nor are all of the mitigation measures
proffered to reduce those impacts identified in the document as required by PRC § 21100
and Guidelines § 15126. This approach constantly downplays impacts in a document which
has as its purpose the disclosure of adverse effects. The REIR reads as if the County is
trying to obscure the fact that a project of this magnitude on this sensitive a site would have
many adverse effects, along with the potential benefits it might bring. Information appears
to be consistently interpreted in a way which ignores or sets aside impacts which may be
significant. The document should be written so that it is completely forthright, clear and
candid about all of the adverse impacts and plan inconsistencies associated with the project.
Unfortunately, it is not. Because of this a new NOP should be issued, the document should
be redrafted to address its deficiencies, and the REIR should be recirculated.
The REIR defines PDFs and SCs as follows:
PDFs and Standard Conditions (SCs)have also been identified and discussed in the
Dru?EIR which avoid potential impacts or reduce impacts to an insignificant kw
PDFs are those measures or physical features which, although not required, have
been incorporated into the Proposed Project SCs include regulatory requirements
dictated by local, state and/or federal mandate which must be impkmeltted.
RE1R at p. 4.1-1
The foregoing discussion is at odds with the approach mandated by
CEQA.0 If a restriction on the project is not a part of the project description and is
relied on to "avoid potential impacts or reduce impacts to an insignificant level," the
potential or significant impact must be identified and the mitigation measure analyzed. This
legally mandated approach enables an EIR to present to the public and the decision-maker a
comprehensive list of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and a
list of those measures which are intended to ameliorate those consequences.
u 481 A full description of that approach is provided in Part LA of this letter.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• • 1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 5, 1994
Page 50
The public cannot evaluate whether the unspecified (and often undesigned)
PDFs or SCs proposed in the REIR are mitigation measures491 and, if so, will actually
mitigate the impact. This approach severely impairs the REIR and makes it a legally
inadequate document in light of the "full public disclosure" mandates of CEQA. For
example, Chapter 10 of the REIR lists among the PDFs and SCs relied upon to mitigate
impacts PDF-3 of the Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Section, which states:
The Proposed Project includes a monitoring and maintenance program for the removal of
sediments carried by the EGGW Channel into the full tidal area.
REIR at p. 10-3, lines 46-Z
Page 4.4-9 lists the same PDF in the REIR's analyses of surface and groundwater
Y
hydrology but provides no further information. On page 4.4-13, the reader receives its
only glimpse of the broad outline of the PDF in the following passage.-M
As Lowland Option A will incorporate the elements of the WRP, Lowland Option A will
also implement the PDF that calls for the regular removal of EGG Channel sediment
deposition form the full tidal area. This PDF spec(fical1y provides that annual surveys
within the full tidal area will be conducted in late spring or early summer to determine
sedlrrtentation rates. Excess sedimentation in the full tidal area will be rertwved through
hydraulic dredge operations and only dredge spoils suitable for beads replenishment will be
place on the downcoast beaches. Unsuitable dredge spoils will be disposed of off-site
subject to County and State regulations. 77terefore, the potential effect of sedbnent
deposition into the full tidal area is not considered sign(AcaW.
491 The REM's statement at page 4.1-1 that PDFs,which are relied on to avoid impacts or reduce impacts
to an insignificant level, are 'not required'is particularly alarming. Does the County mean to say that it may
remove or modify these purportedly impact-reducing features or conditions? If a PDF (or SC) is relied on to
mitigate an otherwise significant or potentially significant impact,it is required to be included in the project under
CEQ1l. ,
501 This is another example of how the organization of the document frustrates meaningful review. The PDF
is listed in a manner which does not describe the program meaningfully. Later, the document refers to the PDF
without referring to the PDF number assigned to the program in the preceding list. The reader is not certain that
the PDF referred to on the later page is the PDF-3 listed in the list of PDFs. `
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
N Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 51
Does the "monitoring and maintenance program for the removal of sediments carried by the
EGGW Channel into the full tidal area" exist? Who will fund this plan? Is this supposed
to be part of the WRP or is it a separate plan? What level of contamination of the wetlands
is "acceptable"? What would the impact on aquatic and marine life be? How long will
unacceptable levels remain in the wetlands until the periodic dredging of the sediments is
performed? What are the air, noise, traffic and other impacts of the dredging, hauling and
dumping of the contaminated sediments?5" The REIR answers none of these questions.
Under these circumstances how is the reader to understand the impact of the EGGW runoff
and how the so-called PDF mitigates that impact? The reader's (and decision-maker's)
evaluation of the impact is further complicated by the lack of any reference in the water
hydrology section to the water quality impacts of the polluted sediments of the EGGW
Channel running into the newly "created" wetland area.s2'
A second example comes from Chapter 4.8 of the REIR which states as
PDF-7;
1U WRP requires the Applicant, in coi uncdon with the County Animal
Control and the CDFG, to devise and implement a plan to control the
presence of invasive and/or feral pets into wiMfe areas. Information on
the demmenial effect of domestic cats on common and sensitive species of
birds shall be supplied to each original homeowner who purchases
property in the residential units. The plan is to be approved by OCEMA
prior to issuance of occupancy permits.
' REIR at p. 4.8 39, lines 39-44.
511 Guidelines § 15126(c) requires the environmental effects of a mitigation treasure to be disclosed and
considered in an ER, albeit in less detail than the impacts of the project itself. If the dredging of sediments is
a mitigation measure, at least some description of the environmental effects of the plan is required If it is apart
of the project (anus, if so, the omission of the plan from the project description is a fatal flaw), an even more
detailed description is warranted under CEQA and the Guidelines.
521 Page 4.5-33 of the RER states that pollutants in the runoff contained in the EGGW Channel would settle
into the new tidal areas at the mouth of the shortened channel and that concentrations of contaminants may exceed
State-mandated levels.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
� � 1
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 5, 1994
Page 52
r
This plan is neither defined nor effective to mitigate the potentially disastrous impact of pet
intrusions into the nesting areas of sensitive speeies.51 Merely providing notice to pet
owners will not prevent intrusion. Further, only the first purchasers of units will receive
notice -- the persons to whom they sell will not. The above-quoted PDF must be contrasted
with the statement at page 4.1-50 (lines 31-36) of the REIR, stating:
The Proposed Project calls for buffer zones and fencing to eliminate
the potential for physical intrusion by humans and non-native animals
into the proposed wetlands restoration area. These features will
eliminate the potential for any significant adverse potential disruption
to wetlands biota caused by such potential human intrusion.
Therefore, no mitigation is required for new residential uses adjacent
to wetland areas. Also see Sections 4.7 and 4.8 (Marine/Aquatic and
Terrestrial Biology, respectively) and Section 4.17 (Recreation) for
related evaluations of potential impacts and mitigation measures.str
Chapter 4.1 indicates that no special measures are required to prevent human or "non-native
animal" (doesn't this mean pet?) intrusion, yet Section 4.8 includes a PDF especially
r
531 Although them am bmq%s to creating a regulatory environment which permits.adaptive management '
which reacts to the conditions at the site,in order for the environmental assessment of the proposed management
techniques to pass muster under CEQA, the EDe evaluating a project implementing adaptive management must
provide at least a general description of the primary plan for management of potential impacts as well as detailing
objective criteria which will determine the success or failure of the primary plan and describe the range of
alternative secondary plans which will serve as a contingency measure in the event the primary plan proves
ineffective. In contrast, the REIR does not define any plans with specificity and does not define the contingency
plans which will avoid significant impacts if the primary Plan fails to do so.
541 While the reader may be grateful for one of the few cross-references designed to be helpful in the never-
ending process of Page.kpping which must be endured to glean meaning from the REIR,the reference is so vague
and general as to be practically useless. Furthermore, the use of the (apparently non-PDF, non-SC, non- ,
mitigation measure) buffer and fence is of highly doubtful utility as most parents will tell you that a buffer and
fence is more of an inviting challenge than an effective barrier to the average ten year old child,especially a child
living in the medium to high density neighborhood proposed for the Mesa. It is a virtual certainly that children
(with and without their pets)will find their way into and beyond the 'buffered'areas and will disrupt the animals
living there.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 53
1
designed to address that condition. Would the potential for intrusion by residents and their
pets be a significant impact absent mitigation or not? The reader never finds out for sure.
3. REIR Erroneously Labels Legal Requirements of General
Application as Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Procedures. In many
t cases the REIR relies upon the application of legal regulations of general application (such
as the County's building or grading code) and the standard conditions or practices stated in
the REIR as mitigation for potentially significant impacts. These regulations and practices
' are cited but are rarely described to the reader and thus, the reader is given no way to
evaluate the feasibility or the effectiveness of the proposed measure to mitigate the
particular impact. For example, the reader is expected to know what is in the County's
Excavation and Grading Code and then assess if these requirements will adequately mitigate
against potential impacts to sensitive wetland areas located in an area which is also subject
to flooding. If the reader is not familiar with the Code, how can an adequate review be
' made? How can a biologist know if species of concern will be protected? The specific
relevant conditions of the Code must be described in the REIR.
Further, mitigation monitoring is not adequately provided for PDFs, SCs or
the stated mitigation measures. The description of the monitoring to be provided for PDFs
and SCs is stated at page 2-11, lines 42-43 as follows:
The Orange County EMA shall ensure complwnce with all PDFs through its standard
procedures for the approyad of pennits and applications(i.e., the Mitigation Mondtoring
Plan).
Are the "standard" procedures the only mitigation monitoring plan? Will PDFs and SCs be
I monitored in a manner different than the monitoring for the stated mitigation measures?
What are these standard permit approval procedures and how do they effect monitoring?
The REIR must answer these questions and the document must be recirculated so that the
1 public can assess the validity of the mitigation measures and monitoring procedures which
rely on the County's standard procedure.
' 4. Obscure Description of Mitigation Bank Clouds its Purpose and
Meaning. Lowland Option A provides neither for development of the Lowlands nor for
their restoration. Instead, this option purportedly requires the establishment of a mitigation
bank as a mechanism to implement funding in the future as other private developers require
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 54 ,
offsite mitigation for other projects within the State. At times, the mitigation bank, as a
part of the WRP (M Chapter 6 of the WRP), is described as a PDF. 5= REIR at p.10-7, '
lines 30-45AV At others, it is a part of the project itself. Sm REIR at p. 3-9, lines 37-
39. At times, the successful establishment of the mitigation bank is an integral requirement
of Lowland Option A (=, gam,,, page 3-9 which describes the proposed project and states
that "Lowland Option A requires the establishment of a successful mitigation bank to
acquire, restore and maintain wetlands and the non-tidal areas in the Lowland). Yet, page
6-8 of the WRP provides that the developer's commitment to sell (and it must be noted that ,
this sale is to be made at full fair market value and no indication is given for the basis of
determining that value)LI is limited to a five year period in the first instance. If the bank
has not collected sufficient funds to purchase the lowland properties at the end of that five
year term (and the date of commencement of that term is neither stated nor implied), the
landowner has the option to enter into another five year agreement. There appears to be no
obligation to renew the existing agreement. Further, the same page indicates that the
manager of the mitigation bank must collect and hold funds until enough funds have been '
collected to purchase all of the wetlands ecosystem. Partial purchases appear to be
prohibited. This prohibition, combined with the short-term obligation of the landowners to
sell and the muddled definition of the purchase price for the property, clearly indicates that,
contrary to the project description in Chapter 3 of the REIR, the establishment of a
successful mitigation bank is not necessarily a component of Lowland Option A" Thus,
551 The list of NRP features which Chapter 10 of the RELR enumerates as PDFs is long and varied The
plans for installation of dikes, removal of levees, control of oil spills, turbidity barriers and other elements are
all designated as PDR. In fact, then are very few significant features of the RW which are not designated as
PDFs and the W", in its entirety truly appears, at times, to be a PDF as much as any other project design
feature.
561 The basis for determining fair market value of the Lowland is absolutely critical in assessing the potential
feasibility of the mitigation bank If value is to be determined based on the current non-developable status of the '
property, the value per acre is likely to be atremely low. If, however, value is to be based on the land-owner's
assumed potential value of the land as developed (or with development entitlements), that value could easily
increase tenfold Both the RW and the REIR maintain a stony silence on this issue and,therefore, it is virtually '
impossible to assess the viability of the mitigation bank
571 Given the dearth of any commitment on the part of the landowners to sell their lowland property and the
lack of information regarding how to calculate the purchase pride for their property (referred to, in a covert
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 55
the reader is left in a quandary by virtue of the confused and misleading treatment of the
mitigation bank in the REIR. The County must determine exactly how it believes this
aspect of the project will function and then accurately describe that function in a rewritten
and recirculated REIR.
H. THE REIR OMITS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON
THE CrrY AND OMITS ANALYSIS OF FISCAL FEASIBn= OF MITIGATION
MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES TO MrriGATE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
1. )Fiscal Impacts on the City. The REIR fails to address, consider or
analyze the significant adverse fiscal impacts of the proposed development on the City. If
' the Project is developed in the County and remains in the County, regardless of whether the
Project is developed with Lowland Option A (2,500 dwelling units, Mesa development
only) or Lowland Option B (3,200 dwelling units, with development of up to 900
' residential units in the Lowlands), the development will cause significant adverse fiscal
impacts on the City. These impacts, if left unmitigated, will likely impair the ability of the
City to provide adequate public services (including police, fire and other services) to the
residents of the City or emergency service to the residents of the development.
The impacts on the City arising from Lowland Option A are summarized below,
with the corresponding impacts of Lowland Option B stated in parentheses following the
impact for Lowland Option A:
1. A $655 thousand ($692 thousand) annual drain on the City's operating
budget at buildout and every year thereafter. This annual deficit increases to
$5.43 million ($5.47 million) when impacts on City Fire Department
' operations are included.
' 57/(..continued)
reference at page 6-8 of the WRP as the 'agreed upon per acre fee in exchange for fee title to the property'),
there is a great likelihood that the ultimate project will be an urban density development of the Mesa with neither
wetlands development nor wetlands restoration (as was true in the case of the project considered in the DEIR).
The problem of Justifying the project based on its loosely defined objective of restoring wetlands without
conditioning the development on a feasible implementation of that objective is fatal to the County's CEQA process
as is detailed in Part LF of this letter.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 5, 1994
Page 56 ,
2. $11.8 million ($12.6 million) in unfunded City capital facilities impacts.
3. $16.8 million ($17.3 million) in cumulative costs to the City at buildout,
$60.2 million ($62.3 million) in cumulative costs at buildout if Fire
Department impacts are included.
2. Fiscal Feasibility of Mitigation Measures. If an EIR is to rely on a
mitigation measure to reduce an adverse effect on the environment to a level of
insignificance, the measure must be feasible. Guidelines § 15364 and PRC § 21061.1 both
make it clear that a "feasible" mitigation measure is one which is capable of being carried
out taking into account, among other things, economic and technical considerations. As '
detailed below, the schemes relied upon in the REIR to mitigate the significant and adverse
impacts of the proposed project are infeasible within the meaning of CEQA and,
accordingly, cannot lawfully be relied upon as a mitigation which reduces the impacts, as is
assumed in the DEIR.
Perhaps the most blatant example of improper reliance on potentially
infeasible mitigation measures is the REIR's continued dependence on the area traffic
improvement program (the "ATIP") to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project. Even if
one were to assume that the fully implemented ATIP were sufficient to mitigate the massive
impacts from introduction of between 2,500 and as many as 4,286 homes into the area, the
REIR fails to analyze how this very expensive program would be funded. The mere
development of the program will not mitigate the traffic impact. Its implementation '
requires a burdensome expenditure of funds. The REIR does not consider the source of
those funds nor does it appear to make the full funding of the ATIP a condition to the
development of the proposed project at any stage of development AY Thus, the REIR, like ,
the DEIR before it, uses the development of the ATIP as the mitigation of the traffic impact
without considering or providing analysis or information regarding whether implementation
of the plan is economically feasible. Such mitigation is illusory at best and is not '
581 As is noted in the discussion of consistency of the project with the County's general plan in Part ILA(and
consistency with the City's General Plan noted in Annear No. 3)of this letter, the County's general plan requires
a project such as this to develop definite mitigation measures so that transportation planning and land use planning '
occur concurrently. The unfunded and inadequate A77P does not fulfill the general plan's policy of requiring
adequate mitigation of circulation impacts prior to the commencement of development.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 57
sufficient, as is assumed by the REIR, to mitigate traffic impacts to a level of
insignificance. During the construction and the operation of the project, there will be
' significant and unmitigated adverse impacts throughout the vicinity of the project (on PCH
and elsewhere) at least until the ATIP is fully implemented (if ever), and perhaps beyond.
The REIR's illusory mitigation of traffic impacts is typical of the approach throughout the
document. The defects of the mitigation measures are detailed in the table attached as
Annex No. 4.
' Attached to this letter as Annex No. 6 is a preliminary fiscal analysis
prepared by Public Economics analyzing the fiscal impact of the revised project proposed
by the REIR on the City. These fiscal impacts will cause indirect and direct environmental
' impacts due to the decrease in City public services and unreimbursed degradation of City
capital facilities which will be caused by the project. As is noted in Annex No. 6, in order
for the project to avoid a significant environmental impact due to the reduction of available
' City services, the final EIR must also mitigate the fiscal impact of the project on the City
by requiring the developer to compensate the City fully for the impacts of the project on the
City prior to the issuance of any permits for development.59/
I. THE REIR SCATTERS AND SELECTS THE COMMENTS To WHICH THE COUNTY
WISHES To RESPOND AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES To
ALL omaNTs RAISED REGARDING THE DEIR.
1. Scattering of Response to Comments. Some of the comments raised
with respect to the DEIR are responded to in the REIR although, as noted herein, these
responses appear to be limited in scope, few in number and inadequate. Page 2-9 states
that responses to comments on the 1993 draft may also be made as part of the response to
the REIR comments. Thus, comments on the 1993 DEIR will be scattered between
' purported responses in the text of the circulated REIR and direct responses with the
County's forthcoming response to comments to the REIR. This approach will confound
591 In a written response to the County's NOP,the County's own chief,MPIPlanning and Acquisition stated,
"Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Local Park Code requirements for subdivision Harps shall be
satisfied through the payment of in-lieu fees.' DEIR, Vol I Appendices at 59. The County mutt apply the same
standard to all fiscal impacts on the City related to the project.
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 5, 1994
Page 58
attempts to assess the adequacy of the County's response to comments in violation of the '
e9 Y tY
CEQA requirement that all comments be included in the Final EIR together with responses
which, "describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g. revisions to ,
the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections)." Guidelines Section
15089(b).
2. Arbitrary Selection of Comments for R - - ,rtrary C is o Response. Page 2 1 (fines 33
38) of the REIR states:
After the circulation of the 1993 draft, comments were received from local,
state and federal agencies, as well as the general public. These comments,
too, have been reviewed and where appropriate addressed in the Revised ,
Draft EIR.
On what basis will the County determine where a response to the comments received with '
respect to the project proposed in the DEIR is "appropriate" to address? The County
cannot, as suggested in the REIR, arbitrarily select which comments to which it wishes to ,
respond. Since (i) the DEIR is incorporated into the REIR by reference, (ii) the Koll
proposal analyzed in the DEIR is not rejected by the REIR, and (iii) the proposed projects
considered in the REIR are "scaled down versions" of the 1993 DEIR development
proposal (p.p.2-91n 5-6), the County's response to comments must include a response to all
comments made with respect to the 1993 DEIR, including the City's Comment. If the
County believes that a comment is no longer applicable to a proposed development plan
under consideration by the County, the County's formal written response must say so and
must state in detail the reasons supporting that conclusion.
All substantive comments must be responded to in detail. In this regard, '
Guidelines § 15088 states:
In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's ,
position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments
must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions
were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in the response.
Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 59
rFurther, Browning-Ferris Industries of California. Inc. v. San Jose, 181 Cal.App.3d 852
(1986); Gallegos v. California Bd. of Forestry, 76 Cal.App.3d 945 (1978); Twain Harte
r Homeowners Assoc.. Inc. v. Tuolumne, 138 Cal.App.3d 664 (1981) and Clcaa v.
Stanislaus, 118 Cal.App.3d 348 all state that a lead agency must respond to all significant
environmental comments in a level of detail commensurate to that of the comment.
Accordingly, the County cannot selectively choose which aspects of the City's comments
(including both the comments to the DEIR and the comments to the REIR) it wishes to
acknowledge. All of the City's comments must be responded to in detail with supporting
rfacts which answer the concerns raised in each comment.
3. Incorporation of Continent and Comment Annexes by Reference.
r The development proposal considered in the DEIR is not rejected by the County in the
REIR and may remain as a land use plan still being considered by the County. Sm footnote
3, supra. Accordingly, as noted above, the Comment and all of the Comment Annexes
r attached to the Comment are incorporated into this letter by reference and made a part
hereof as if set forth herein at length. All comments raised in the City's February 17,1994
Comment (as well as the comments raised in this letter) must be addressed in a formal
rresponse. The County's response must address each comment in detail commensurate with
the detail of the comment.
rJ. THE REIR DOES NOT CONSIDER KOLL'S ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IN
ASSESSING MmGATION IMPLEMENTATION.
r1. The County Must Take Koll's Environmental Record into
Account. As was noted in the Comment, a lead agency must consider the record of the
project proponent with respect to environmental matters. In Laurel Heights I, the
California Supreme Court stated that, "[b]ecause an EIR cannot be meaningfully considered
in a vacuum devoid of reality, a project proponent's prior environmental record is properly
r the subject of close consideration in determining the sufficiency of the proponent's promises
in an EIR." 47 Cal.3d at 420.
r This is a particularly appropriate inquiry in a case, such as the proposed
development of Bolsa Chica, where the project proponent is being relied upon to fund and
perform long-term mitigation and environmental restoration programs which are not yet
rdefined or funded. The reasons for including the environmental record of the applicant in
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October S, 1994 ,
Page 60
the REIR were detailed at length in the Comment and do not need to be repeated. The City '
expects the County to respond in detail to this issue and to the statements made (and the
materials submitted -- included at CONmENr ANNEx No. 27) at the January 31, 1994 City
Council hearing regarding the DEIR, a transcript of which was transmitted to the County '
under separate cover during the DEIR public comment period. That transcript and
submitted materials continue to form a part of the public comment on the DEIR.
Accordingly, in reviewing that material, the County should consider:
the length, number and severity of prior environmental errors and the
harm caused; whether the errors were intentional, negligent or
unavoidable; whether the proponent's environmental record has
improved or declined; whether he has attempted in good faith to
correct prior problems; and whether the proposed activity will be
regulated and monitored by a public entity.
Id. at 420. ,
The results of the County's investigation and its determination of the ,
likelihood of implementation based on its independent review and analysis of the foregoing
factors should appear in the recirculated REIR.
2. Koll has Complained Elsewhere that the Very Actions Taken by
the County Violate CEQA. Fundamental fairness demands that the County's REIR must,
at a minimum, meet the same standard for CEQA compliance as The Koll Company (a real ,
estate development company which is an affiliate of the Koll Real Estate Group) and Sierra
Point Associates Two (a partnership that also involves Koll affiliates) (collectively referred
to herein as "The Koll Company") vigorously advocated in connection with the recent San
Francisco Airport Expansion EIR.
The Koll Company owns a 130-acre mixed-use development located five ,
miles north of the Airport. The site is located partly within the City of Brisbane, partly
within the City of South San Francisco, several miles from the City and County of San ,
Francisco's southern border. Koll forcefully objected to the certification of the final EIR
for the airport expansion while, at the same time, proposing its massive development
project in Bolsa Chica. '
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 61
' a. Background to San Francisco Airport Expansion EIR. On
November 3, 1992, the San Francisco Airport Commission approved the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("SF FEIR") covering the proposed expansion of the San
Francisco International Airport. The expansion generally involved the construction of a
new international terminal, a consolidated rental car garage and ground transportation
center that will also accommodate shuttle vans and buses, an on-site electric light rail
system linking the terminals, parking lots, hotels, and maintenance and cargo facilities.
Due to increased air passenger demand and overtaxed airport
facilities, in 1986 the City and County of San Francisco embarked upon-a long-term project
to address the Airport's needs. Simultaneously, the San Francisco Planning Department
conducted an environmental review that culminated in the SF-FEIR.
In response to this approval, two writs were filed challenging the
adequacy of the SF-FEIR. One of the writs was filed by The Koll Company.
' In its writ The Koll Company antasserted numerous legal arguments
which apply with equal force in the case of the development considered in the DEIR and
the REIR. The Koll Company's assertions included the following:
(1) Fair Share Funding. "Petitioners, as business people of
the same community, support a robust SFO. But the unmitigated environmental effects of
the Airport's planned expansion will hit Petitioners particularly hard. The expansion will
' bring gridlock to U.S. 101—and an attendant worsening of air quality....Too, if San
Francisco succeeds in avoiding having to mitigate the impacts of its expansion on traffic,
Petitioners know what lies ahead:...the cities of Brisbane and South San Francisco will look
to Petitioners to fund the improvements needed to get traffic flowing again."W (p.2 of
legal position of the Koll Company in Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition for
Writ of Mandate, filed September 27, 1993, in the case of Sierra Point Associates Two and
601 Compare this argument with the funding arrangements for the A77P. Koll has proposed a project which
will over-burden the already overtaxed transportation infrastructure existing in the vicinity of the project site,yet
Koll undertakes no obligation to fund the AT7P required to remedy the situation. Rather,Koll aspects that owners
of other q,8site properties or the jurisdictions in which those properties are located must fund the portions of the
A77P which go beyond the so-called Koll fair share component. This is the very malady of which Koll complains
when it is the owner of the offsite property.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994 ,
Page 62
The Koll ComMnny vs. City and County of San Francisco Airports Commission. et al.,
County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Koll Petition")) A copy of the Koll Petition is attached hereto as Annex No. 12.
"When San Francisco writes that petitioners [including The ,
Koll Company] are concerned that they may one day have to pay to ameliorate traffic
congestion on Highway 101..., it dodges the point: petitioners [The Koll Company] don't
mind mitigating their own traffic impacts, but they do not want to have to pay to clean up
the mess San Francisco will leave. They are willing to pay their 'fair share' of needed
transportation improvements" (Koll Reply Memorandum, Superior Court, County of San
Joaquin, Case No. 254220, filed September 13, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "Koll
Reply Memorandum" and incorporated herein by reference as Annex No. 14).
2 AftUaa and Feasibilily of Mitigation Measures*
Failure to Mitigate Mitigatable Impacts. "Respondents failed throughout the EIR to analyze
properly the potential impacts of the project. In some cases Respondents omitted impacts
entirely; in other cases they understated the impacts; and in still other cases they deferred
analysis of them to future studies to be undertaken after the EIR was certified" (Koll
Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed December 4, 1992, Superior Court of the County of San
Mateo, Case No. 379595 (which petition was later consolidated with County of San Joaquin
Superior Court, Case No. 254220), hereinafter referred to as "Koll San Mateo Petition"
and incorporated herein by reference as Annex No. 13, pp. 13-14), in violation of CEQA.
"The Court should send a message to San Francisco that they
must disclose their project impacts honestly and adopt feasible mitigation measures."U,
(Koll Petition, p.30).
The SF-FEIR fails to identify significant environmental
impacts such as traffic ("As the analysis of (traffic) impacts is inadequate, so also are the
consideration of mitigation measures ..., like the proverbial castle built on a foundation of
sand", Koll Petition, p.18 and "An adequate analysis would have focused specifically on
local impacts and proposed meaningful mitigation measures for the specific areas.
611 Compare this statement to the DEIR's and the REM's practice of avoiding public disclosure of significant
and potentially significant impacts of the Bolsa Chica development through the use of'PDFs' and 'SCs'.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 63
r ...Another mitigation measure, with admittedly high economic cost, but perhaps great
benefit, would be double-decking sections of U.S. 101 where widening would be infeasible
' due to lack of gaining additional right-of-way",01 (Koll Petition, p.23-24), noise,
wetlands, endangered species, aquatic life ("...there is no natural resource in the Bay Area
more dear than the Bay itself", Koll Petition, p. 17), and conflicts with adopted planning
documents.0'
The SF-FEIR fails to analyze environmental impacts rigorously
("A conclusion that a project (particularly one having the breadth of the SFO expansion)
will have no significant effect on a particular element of the environment must be supported
by rigorous analysis in the EIR", Koll Petition, p.9-10).
"But like Dante's inferno, LOS F has descending levels of
hell"(Koll Petition, p. 18-19), with reference to unacceptable and unmitigated traffic
' impacts. "
"Many of the mitigations...are ascribed to others as
' implementing agencies without indication of concurrence by those agencies. Mitigation
measures should not be included in the EIR until written concurrence by the implementing
agencies... have been obtained. The EIR should also include the probability of
implementation of the mitigations within the time frame of the Airport expansion, and
assessment of the cumulative effectiveness of the measures..." (Koll Petition, p. 24),
complaining of dubious mitigation measures.911
i
621 This is in conflict with the approach in the REIR in which higher cost mitigation measures are routinely
discarded or excluded from any discussion or consideration whatsoever on the basis of cost alone.
631 This is exactly the fault with the REIR and the DEIR—these documents do not disclose the conflicts of
the development with existing land use policies of the County,the Coastal Act and other State and federal agencies
and ignore the serious difficulty the project would have in obtaining permits from State and federal agencies.
' 641 Koll seems to have forgotten all about Dante in its heated attempt to obtain approvals for its project.
651 Yet,the RELR continues to omit any consideration of thefeasibility of implementing the PDFs,SCs,A77P,
the WRP,sueceisfully funding the mitigation bank or thefeasibility of implementing the other mitigation measures,
i.e., those measures which are actually stated to be mitigation measures in the REIM
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994 ,
Page 64
"Why then is there no fiscal responsibility by the lead agency
for mitigating the offsite impacts of its own project?" (Koll Petition, p. 33, complaining of
lead agency's failure to fully mitigate impacts outside the boundaries of the airport
expansion site).'
The SF-FEIR fails to describe and consider feasible mitigation
measures on traffic, transportation, air quality and noise.
The SF-FEIR fails adequately to address and mitigate off-site
adverse environmental impacts ("In the end, the Airports Commission adopted only those
mitigation measures that directly relate to on-site changes and programs and made illusory
offers...to perhaps pay some of the costs of off-site mitigation......Koll.Petition, p.26; and '
Koll complains that only on-site traffic mitigation measures were adopted, Koll Petition,
p.27).
"...the environmental effects of mitigation measures, ,
particularly when they entail development in endangered species habitat, require discussion
in an EIR with the other components of the project." (Koll Petition, p. 12), with reference ,
to inadequate mitigation measures.0
(3) Consultation with other Agencies. " CEQA stresses the '
importance of lead agencies consulting with regional transportation-planning
agencies....Lead Agency's consultation with these responsible agencies was perfunctory
661 T his complaint is particularly interesting in light of the Coumy's continuing ref&sal to address pages 15-16 ,
of the Comment, which noted the impact of the Proposed Project on the City and stated that mitigation measures
should require the developer to compensate the City for those impacts. ,
671 Compare this to the discussion in this letter and the Comment regarding the adequacy and propriety of
the discussion in the DER?and the REIR of mitigation measures, including the 'relocation'of ESHAs to permit ,
Koll's development.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
' October 5, 1994
Page 65
1
' only" (Koll Petition, p. 24), complaining of inadequate consultation with other
governmental agencies.0'
1 "Although the Master Plan will have statewide, regional and
areawide impacts, Respondents failed to consult adequately with the necessary agencies as
required by CEQA" (Koll San Mateo Petition, p. 33), complaining that "Respondents'
1 actions in approving the Master Plan without the required consultation constituted an abuse
of discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties under CEQA" (Koll San Mateo
Petition, p.33).12'
4 f Pr m EIR Francisco's EIR i O Use o o,gra San ranc s s a
'program EIR,' San Francisco writes...(though later, when convenient, it calls it "[a]n EIR
on a single project.....A program EIR should '[p]rovide an occasion for a more exhaustive
consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual
action,' '[e]nsure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis,' and '[a]llow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and
programwide mitigation measures.' Guidelines § 15168(b). San Francisco's EIR mocks
' these provisions. And when San Francisco intimates that there might be future, in-depth
environmental review of the Master Plan.... it doesn't tell the whole truth: now that the
Airports Commission has approved the Master Plan, no other 'discretionary' acts are
' needed to carry the Plan out. What that means is that there will be no additional
681 Compare this statement with the process undertaken by the County to exclude State,federal and local
agencies which are directly affected by the Bolsa Chica development from any participation in the County's
planning or environmental review process. The Counry's failure to publish anew NOP with respect to the revised
' project and its continuing refusal to work in conjunction with other agencies is exactly the sort of clandestine
approval process of which The Koll Company complains.
691 The Bolsa Chica development will likewise have statewide significance,yet the County has ercluded all
other agencies from its planning and environmental review process. This project represents a loss of one of the
last significant undeveloped uplands/wetlands ecosystems;yet, the County treats the proposed development as if
there were no cumulative or statewide impact associated with the imposition of an urban development within this
rapidly disappearing resource.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• • i
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994 ,
Page 66
environmental impact reports done on the Master Plan projects, unless they are ordered by 1
this Court" (Koll Reply Memorandum, p.24-25).Ll
(5) Alternatives Analysis. The SF-FEIR fails to identify or ,
consider feasible alternatives to the Master Plan ("From the standpoint of sound planning,
the most serious shortcoming in San Francisco's environmental review of its project may lie
in its analysis of alternatives", (Koll Petition, p. 7) and "If a project brings traffic to
gridlock, an obvious mitigation measure would be the construction of additional traffic
lanes." (Koll Petition, p. 10)ZY '
"As for alternatives, take the case of a proposed 2,000-unit
housing project. The EIR ought to examine the alternative of a 1,000-unit project, as well 1
as the alternative of locating the project elsewhere" (Koff Petition, p. 10), complaining of
inadequate alternative projects' analysis..'.'—�'
The SF-FEIR's analysis of alternatives utterly fails to meet the
objectives, stated in the SF-FEIR, of the project sponsor (Koll Petition, pp.45-46).
(6) Clarity of the EIR. Koll objects to the Airport
Commission's use of."gobbledegook" (Koll Petition, p.39)211
70/ It is arguments such as this and the arguments noted in this letter which require the County to use a
staged EIR rather than a program EIR for the consideration of the proposed development.
711 This suggests that a valid EIR should consider alternatives to project components. The City agrees and
,finds that the County's response to criticism of the design of the formerly proposed tidal inlet very troubling.
Certainly the REIR should have considered a variety of tidal alternatives to enhance the tidal cleansing of the '
restored wetlands as required to meet the objectives stated for the project. Yet, like the SF-FEDR, the RELR fails
to assess alternatives to a central project component and simply excludes that component in its entirety.
72/ This exact fault, i.e., the lack of a proper range of reasonable alternatives, is true of the DER and the 1
REIR.
731 Gobbledegook is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Edition)to mean 'unclear '
wordy jargon.' That definition has application to many portions of the REM.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 67
(7) Inaftuate Project Descrip 'on. The project description
is inaccurate ("When an EIR is prepared for a project, it must contain an accurate
' description of 'the project.'... An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine
qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR", Koll Petition, p.8-9)A
' The SF-FEIR improperly relies on inadequate data ("The
'baseline' data from distant monitoring stations are misleading...San Francisco uses air-
pollution data for the years 1987 through 1989 gathered at two air-quality monitoring
stations....ten miles away...where the air quality is better than almost any place else in the
Bay Area....The EIR's baseline air-quality data, then are less than fully useful, for they
paint a too-rosy picture of existing conditions", Koll Petition, p.35).M
...the Master Plan and the EIR rely on some studies that were
referenced, but not included, in those documents. Because those studies were not included
in Respondents' compilation of environmental data relevant to the Master Plan, the public
did not have an opportunity to review and comment on those studies and analyses" (Koll
San Mateo Petition, p.25), complaining that "Respondents' failure to make some documents
available with meaningful time for public review and comment and failure to include other
documents was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties
pursuant to CEQA." (Koll San Mateo Petition, p. 25-26).N
r
741 Here, too,Koll agrees with the Continent made above in this letter. A finite project description must be
included for any EIR to have meaning.
751 This is identical to the argument made in this letter and in the Comment that the environmental setting
must be understandable to the reader. As detailed above, the dispersed and verbose environmental setting
descriptions scattered throughout the REIR do not fulfill this requirement. Indeed this comment echoes the
comment which USFWS lodged with the County that it should complete, 'appropriate biological survey work,
' especially the bird utilization of the area.' In its comment letter attached to this letter as Annex No. 7, USFWS
complained, 'We now find that the draft EIR repeatedly cites allegedly completed or ongoing surveys but the actual
results are not disclosed,provided in appendices or provided separately. See Annex No. 7. Recently, USFWS
met with Koll and again stated the need for additional surveys to establish an adequate environmental baseline,
yet, informal consultation with that agency reveals that no surveys had been forwarded to USFWS as of
September 22, 1994.
761 This is precisely the problem which the reader of the REIR has in attempting to assess the assumptions
and conclusions stated in that document.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 68
(8) Segmentation of the Project. The SF-FEIR
impermissibly "segments" the project. "Breaking a project into components--'segmenting'
or 'piecemealing' it--so that just one component is analyzed in an EIR, serves to understate '
the environmental consequences of the project. The practice has been uniformly condemned
by the courts", Koll Petition, p.9. "What San Francisco did here is what the U.0 Regents
did in the Laurel Heights Improvement Assn, case....It is no answer to say that, when and '
if the Airports Commission formally approves a plan of runway expansion, an EIR will be
done for that discrete project. For the practice of piecemealing prevents an adequate look
at the range of environmental impacts posed by the total project." (Koll Petition, p.16). '
The project description fails to include the whole of the
proposed project (lands west of the airport, excluded from the project description, Include
"a habitat for the San Francisco garter snake, and endangered species, and the red-legged
frog, a candidate for the endangered species list." "[Mere no analysis whatever was made
of the impacts to the west-of-101 lands, because it was pretended all along that nothing
would be done there." " The impacted land is home to not a mere rare species, but to one
on the endangered list." (Koll Petition, pp.11 and 13)Z"
(9) Failure to Consider Cumulative Impacts. "The EIR
fails to discuss adequately the cumulative impacts of the project and of other closely related
past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, including the following
elements of the environment, as examples:
"(a) the remaining habitat of the San Francisco garter ,
snake, and endangered species (the Master Plan calls for the construction of two facilities,
and contemplates the construction of a third, in such habitat);
"(b) the remaining wetlands surrounding San Francisco
Bay (the Master Plan calls for construction of facilities in wetlands owned by the Airport ,
just west of U.S. Highway 101);...
77/ Thu argument, like the ones above, bears an uncanny resemblance to the arguments made in this letter; '
yet Koll would dismiss those arguments in the case of Bolsa Chica.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 69
"The EIR fails to discuss adequately the cumulative impacts of
the project and of other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects on traffic flows and air quality. The inadequacy of the cumulative impacts
analysis contained in the EIR is due to several factors. One is the unexplained and illogical
assumption that only projects being planned in four nearby cities (South San Francisco,
Millbrae, San Bruno and Burlingame) need be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
.." (Koll San Mateo Petition, pp.20-22), complaining failure to address cumulative
impacts is a violation of CEQA.
(10) Failure to ReWpond Adequately to Comments.
Respondents failed to provide good faith, reasoned responses to the comments received on
' the draft EIR ("San Francisco's Responses catalogue these objections, but then provide no
substantive rejoinder to this evidence that these proposed mitigation measures are infeasible,
or irrelevant, and do not discuss or propose any other feasible measures", Koll Petition,
' p.25).
"Respondents failed to adequately respond to comments
regarding the environmental impacts of mitigation measures,...The response admits that
'exact locations' for such lots have not been identified, and then leaves the issue for
unidentified 'implementing agencies'" (Koll San Mateo Petition, p.26), complaining that
' "Respondents' failure to respond adequately to public comments was a prejudicial abuse of
discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties pursuant to CEQA" (Koll San Mateo
Petition, p. 27).11'
(11) InadNuate Monitoring Program. Respondents failed to
adopt an adequate mitigation monitoring program.
"In order sure the u e to as success of any mitigation measures, CEQA also
requires that the agency adopt a reporting or monitoring program 'designed to ensure
compliance during project implementation'" citing Public Resources Code § 21081.6 (Koll
San Mateo Petition, p. 18).
781 This is a problem which occurs repeatedly in the REIR. For example, what happens when the developer
' discovers that the proposed site of the 9 million gallon reservoir is not suitable for that facility. The REIR contains
no description of any alternate site or how the use of that alternate site would alter the land use plan.
Proposed Fnsl Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 70
Thus, as noted above, Koll seems to agree with practically every legal position taken by r
this letter and the Comment. However, the County and Koll ignore the foregoing
understanding of the law in their effort to conclude the environmental process without
fulfilling the requirements of CEQA as so well elucidated by The Koll Company in the San
Francisco Airport Expansion case.
K. THE REIR FAIIS To DISCLOSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND '
CONTINUES TO USE INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
1. The REIR Fails to Label Adverse Significant Effects of the Project ,
if there Are also Beneficial Impacts. Peculiarly, the EIR takes several different adverse
effects and neutral or beneficial effects and, through some mystical and apparently '
mathematical process, determines that although an adverse impact is by itself significant,
the net result of various effects taken together is insignificant. This is totally unacceptable
and a clear violation of CEQA. Each adverse effect must be clearly identified and '
disclosed as exactly what it is. That is the purpose of CEQA, to disclose all potential
adverse impacts so that decisionmakers can make informed choices on whether or not to
approve projects and so that the public can evaluate their elected officials' treatment of '
potentially harmful effects on the environment. Hiding one impact behind a potential
project benefit is not honest, lawful or proper disclosure.
The above technique constantly downplays impacts in a document which has as its purpose '
the disclosure of adverse effects. The EIR reads as if the County is trying to obscure the
fact that a project of this magnitude on this sensitive a site would have many adverse
effects, along with the potential benefits it might bring. Information appears to be
consistently interpreted in a way which ignores or sets aside impacts which may be
significant. It is as if the document is a Negative Declaration, trying to avoid all potential
significant adverse effects, rather than an EIR for a complex development program for a
controversial site. The document should be up front and completely clear about all of the
adverse impacts and plan inconsistencies associated with the project. Unfortunately, it is
not. Because of this a new NOP should be issued, the document redrafted to address its
deficiencies, and the EIR should be recirculated.
Proposed Fine!Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 71
' 2. The REIR Continues to Use Improper Standards of Significance.
Like the DEIR before it, each subchapter of Chapter 4 of the REIR states the standard of
significance used to determine whether the adverse impacts on the environment from the
project are "significant". As was noted in the Comment, the stated standards in the DEIR
were very close to the standards required under CEQA but were not adequate. This flaw is
' continued in the REIR.
For example, the REIR still relies on the proposed land use plan included in
' the 1986 LCP as its baseline for determining the impacts of the proposed project and the
sufficiency of the current proposal for wetlands restoration. As was noted in the Comment,
that reliance is misplaced since (i) the 1986 LCP was conditionally approved and, thus, did
' not approve the proposed wetlands restoration plan, (ii) the DEIR acknowledged that the
1986 LCP is not in accord with current CCC policies and (iii) the 1986 LCP intended that
development of the Mesa would be used, in part, to fund the wetland restoration.22' The
1986 LCP and the County's land use plan based on that document is a dead letter and
should not be relied upon in assessing the consistency of the project with County plans and
policies.
79/ The current LCP was only conditionally certifted by the Coastal Commission. Five specific portions of
the development proposed in the LCP would require further approvals before implementation. See, e.r..DEDR
at page 4.1-23. The fine issues requiring further study and review were.
(1) feasibility of navigable ocean entrance;
(2) feasibility of navigable connection to Huntington Harbor;
(3) the Wetlands Restoration Plan;
(4) alignment of BCSE and potential connection to Graham, Talbert and Springdale;and
(5) 'detailed issues related to the MWD property.'
' Thus, contrary to much of the land use discussion of the DEIR and REIR, the 1986 LCP was not fully approved
and, even though it considered a combined marina and residential development, that approval was not fully
effective until, among other things, the Coastal Commission approved the wetlands restoration plan and the
circulation element of the new extension of Balsa Chica Street. Further, as was noted in the Comment, Chapter
7.2.4 of the DEIR expressly noted that the 1986 LCP is not consistent with current CCC policies. The Coastal
Commission's conditional approval of the 1986 LCP was based, in part, on a finding that the intensive
development of the Balsa Mesa would fund at least a portion of the wetlands restoration and that such a nexus
was a critical part of the approval of the 1986 LCP. That nexus is conspicuously absent from the Koll proposal
considered in the DEIR or in the current County proposal(s).
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 72
Further, Chapter 4.2 continues to ignore and label as insignificant the
construction of a residential subdivision astride an active fault line. As was noted in the
Comment, Guidelines § 15126(a) expressly states:
[A]n EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify
as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the '
subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting
people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there.
In the case of Bolsa Chica, the REIR still ignores the attraction of new and existing '
residents to the parks and residential development which will straddle known fault lines,
some known to be active and others which may be active. '
The foregoing is by no means exhaustive and merely illustrates instances in
which the REIR fails to state the appropriate standard for determining the significance of
the project's impact on the environment. The County must re-examine each and every one
of the standards in each impact area and substantially revise those standards in the '
recirculated REIR and wholly rewritten final EIR.
3. The IM EIR/EIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts which
both the DEIR and the REIR Identify as Insignificant. The project considered by the
REIR is similar to the project considered under the 1992 EIR/EIS but provides for fewer
units; however, as was noted in the Comment, many of the impacts noted as significant in
the EIR/EIS appear to remain significant impacts. Neither the REIR nor the DEIR
adequately justifies why impacts which formerly were identified as significant are now
identified as insignificant. The following items were identified as unavoidable significant
adverse impacts of the project considered in the 1992 EIR/EIS:
1. Permanent loss of open space. '
2.* Permanent loss of beach.
3. Filling of wetland in coastal zone.
4. Groundwater impacts. '
5.* Beach sand erosion.
6. Loss of upland foraging habitat for raptors.
7. Significant impact on burrowing owls if they are relocated offsite. ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 73
8.t PCH lane requirements cannot be implemented
9. Air quality - long term vehicle (mobile source) & energy (stationary source)
emissions.
10.t Air quality secondary emissions.
11. Fugitive dust (PM10) during construction.
12.t Air quality impacts of use of heavy equipment etc. during construction.
13. Water demand will exceed City's Water System Master Plan. Projected water
demands, plus contribution to cumulative water demands.
14. Cumulative demands for energy - (a) fossil fuels, (b) electricity and (c) natural gas
15. Degraded views from public areas.
16. Cumulative consumption of non-renewable resources.
Of the 16 significant adverse impacts identified in the 1992/1993 EIR/EIS,
' two impacts, noted with an asterisk (*), appear not to apply to the development considered
in the REIR. Of the remaining 14 adverse impacts only the three impacts noted above with
a dagger (t) are noted as unavoidable impacts in the REIR.80' The reasons why each of
the foregoing impacts (other than those noted with asterisks or daggers) are identified as
insignificant in the REIR must be explained in detail in the recirculated REIR.
' The Comment and COmmENr ANNEx N0.19, CobmENT ANNEX No. 20
and CONME4T Amu No. 21 indicate that the preparer of the EIR/EIS had significant
difficulty obtaining the detail required for appropriate analysis. Commwr Amu No. 22
' noted inadequacies in the screen check draft of the EIR/EIS, inadequacies which were not
adequately addressed in the DEIR and still are not addressed in the REIR. As was noted in
the Comment, the DEIR does not present the project in more detail and since the project
considered in the DEIR was substantially similar to the project considered in the EIR/EIS,
the comments of the preparers of the EMIEIS are relevant to the DEIR and the County
must create more detailed plans as initially requested by the preparers of the DEIR.
i
801 The REIR also notes additional impacts not identifted in the 1992 EBUNS, including,for exampk, the
potential for breaks in utility lines crossing the earthquake faults on the site.
1 Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 74
Further, those comments remain relevant with respect to the project proposed in the REIR
and must be responded to as part of a recirculated and rewritten environmental impact
report-
L. THE REIR'S CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONTINUES TO BE
INADEQUATE.
1. REIR merely Repeats the Inadequate Alternatives Analysis of the
DEIR. Pages 41 through 47 of the Comment detailed the requirement for adequate
consideration in an EIR of alternatives to the project and alternative locations for the
project. That portion of the Comment and COMMENT ANNEx NO. 8 detailed why the
DEIR's analysis of alternatives was not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. ;
With the exception of Alternative G (the Koll proposal analyzed in the
DEIR), the alternatives analysis of the DEIR is merely repeated in the REIR. The issues
raised in the Comment are not addressed by the REIR in any fashion. Accordingly, the
inadequacies noted in the Comment apply with equal force to the REIR.
2. REM Ignores Agency Requests for Consideration of Other
Alternatives. As was noted above in this letter, the agencies who must approve the
proposed development prior to implementation requested consideration of additional
alternatives in their comments on the DEIR. These comments, like the comments of the
City, have been ignored by the County in preparing the REIR.
For � expressly requested,example, CDFG ex ressl uested, in its comment on the DEIR, that ,
P
the County consider, "the least environmentally damaging, feasibly implementable project
alternative." CDFG concluded that the DEIR did not identify or consider an alternative
which fulfilled this requirement. Yet, the County in preparing the REIR did not even
attempt to craft an alternative which addressed the concern raised in CDFG's comments. '
The Mesa Component continues to require the destruction of existing habitat areas. Both
Lowlands Options continue the problems noted in the USFWS comment. The recirculated
and rewritten EIR should attempt to address and respond to the concerns raised in the
comments to the DEIR and the REIR and must address in specific detail the alternatives
suggested in the Comment as well as the following alternatives:
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 75
■ No ESHA - Mesa Only Alternative -- A maximum of 1,000 units of low to
medium low density coupled with (i) a requirement for implementation of
wetlands restoration (under both a full tidal and muted tidal basis,
considering the alternatives for tidal inlets discussed below in Part I.L.3 of
this letter) concurrently with the issuance of the first permit for development
of the Mesa, (ii) retaining intact the Warner Pond and Eucalyptus Grove
ESHAs on the MESA, (iii) requiring removal and full remediation of all oil
and gas activities on the Mesa prior to the issuance of the first permit for
development and (iv) requiring proper disposition of any sensitive
archeological or paleontological resources on the Mesa.
■ Mesa Proposal with Modified Tidal Inlet -- A maximum of 1,000 to 2,000
units of low to medium density housing coupled with a wetlands restoration
plan which includes the indirect ocean connection to Huntington Harbor and
the redirection of the EGGW Channel (as considered in the REIR) coupled
with one or more direct ocean connections which may include (a) an open
tidal inlet of different design and location than the inlet considered in
N Alternative G and which addresses the problems noted in the Comments to
the DEIR to the maximum extent feasible and (b) one or more culverts or
other direct but covered inlets to provide full tidal flushing in the wetlands
without the impacts noted in connection with the tidal inlet considered in the
DEIR.
■ Annexation Alternatives in which each of the other Alternatives analyzed in
the REIR is considered both as a County project and as a City projectAl
811 As was noted in the Continent and is noted in this letter, the annexation of the project to make the site
a part of the City prior to development may alleviate some of the impacts of the project to City infrastructure and
1 City services. Also, annexation after development will create significant planning, recreational and other
deficiencies in the project area since the project, as currently proposed, is being designed tofu fill only the more
liberal standards of the County rather than the more rigorous City standards. Accordingly, the suggested
annexation alternatives will alter some of the environmental effects of the project and must be considered for the
RED? to fry fill CEQA.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994 ,
Page 76
3. REIR Improperly Rejects Alternatives for Significant Project
Components.
a. Alternatives to Wetlands Restoration Plan. The REIR takes a
somewhat petulant stance in those instances where it does attempt to respond directly to
comments on the DEIR. For example, Page 6-7 states in reference to the City's Comment:
The City of Huntington Beach specifically requested that an 'Alternatives S
WRP' be analyzed under various scenarios. The Alternatives WRP,
however, provides no demonstrably feasible means of impkmewatfon. It
relies on:
(1) Dedication of land by the landowner, which cannot be
compelled without both a 'nexus' between the proposed
development and 'rough proportionality'between the
scope of the required dedication and the impact of the
project;or
(2) Acquisition of the land through condemnation by a public agency, an extremely
costly prospect which has been available to public agencies throughout the evolution
of the Bolsa Chica planning process, but which no public agency has offered to
undertake and which no public agency (including the City of Huntington Beach)
appears financially capable of undertaking at any foreseeable time in the future;and
(3) .Funding of restoration activities 'by public or private funds,'none of which has
been identified at present despite diligent efforts.
For these reasons, the Alternatives WRP has not specifically been included
as a "design alternative' to the project alternatives, although the feasibility
of acquisition, restoration and long-term maintenance without the
participation of the landowner is addressed within this Chapter.
The County just said a mouthful. As was noted earlier in this letter, the first justification
listed in the foregoing statement is a simple misunderstanding of the law applicable to so-
called "regulatory takings" and an overbroad interpretation of the recent Supreme Court
decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, w=, and the Court's prior decision in Nollan v.
California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). It is difficult to respond to the first
point raised in the REIR without turning this letter (which, like the REIR, is supposed to
address itself to environmental impacts rather than constitutional law) into a treatise on the
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
I
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 77
law applicable to the County's lice power under the Constitution. Suffice it to say that
PP tY Po Po Y
the proposed degrading of the coastal ecology by the development of thousands of homes
within ecologically sensitive habitat areas and open space has far less to do with Ms.
Dolan's proposed expansion of her existin2 hardware store or the Nollan families'
remodelling and expansion of their existing beach home than the County appears to imply.
Further, the justification stated in the first paragraph of the foregoing REIR passage ignores
Chapter 4.8 of the REIR which expressly notes that the upland and lowland regions are
biologically and ecologically related.
The County's second justification is far more revealing than the County perhaps
intends. Condemnation requires only that a public agency pay the landowner the fair market
value of the property taken. The County expressly states that condemnation would be an
"extremely costly prospect." Yet, when considering the feasibility of the mitigation bank,
required under Lowlands Option A, all of the County's cost estimates exclude the cost of
land acquisition. If the cost of land acquisition would be prohibitively expensive (as is
assumed by the County in refusing to analyze or consider the Alternatives WRP), it follows
that cost must also be prohibitively expensive for purposes of the mitigation bank. The
REIR offers no explanation of this anomaly and the reader must, therefore, assume that the
County has truthfully indicated that the mitigation bank is not feasibly implementable due to
the cost of land acquisition.
As to the third justification offered by the County, the reader receives no
' information regarding the availability of public or private funds to finance the estimated $30
million required to implement the muted tidal wetlands restoration proposed in the REIR.
Although the paucity of this information is assumed not to impair the validity of the
County's proposed mitigation bank, the County bases its rejection of the proposed
Alternatives WRP on the same exact lack of information.
b. Alternatives for Tidal Inlet. Another example of the County's
petulant attitude comes from the County's outright rejection of any form of ocean
connection which would permit full tidal flushing of the restored wetlands without analysis
of any sort whatsoever. A properly prepared environmental document would consider the
potential for other means of full tidal flushing rather than merely responding, as did the
REIR, by simply rejecting the whole notion because comments to the DEIR disapproved the
County's design of the tidal inlet. This is not the approach required under CEQA. At a
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 78
minimum the revised REIR should consider der a variety of locations and designs for the tidal
inlet, including both open inlet and culvert-based designs. The REIR should consider an
open inlet design which, unlike the inlet proposed in the DEIR, with jetties which do not
create the adverse erosion and recreational impacts which were identified by a variety of
persons commenting on the DEIR. For example, a tidal inlet could be designed in a
manner similar to the jetty at Talbert inlet, an existing inlet which does not cause severe
impacts as identified in the comments to the tidal inlet suggested in the DEIR. '
4. The Alternatives Analysis Improperly Alters Project Objectives to
Reject otherwise Feasible Alternatives. Page 1-4 of the REIR states the objectives of the
Project as follows:
The primary objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows.
► provide a mix of housing at Bolsa Chico;
P. reverse the degradation of wetlands on the site and a pond the size and quality of
the wetlands through a program of reconfiguration, consolidation, creation and
restoration;
► convey a portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa to the County for use within the
Bolsa Regional Park;
► convey the portion of the Lowland not used for residential development to one or
more public agencies for limited public uses (wetlands restoration,flood
control); 'and
821 As stated in Section ILA.3 of this letter,the REIR must also consider alternatives for supplying reclaimed
water to the project given OCWD's statement that Green Acres project will not deliver reclaimed water to the
project as stated in Armes No. 29.
831 As noted earlier, Lowland Option A does not provide for a conveyance of the Lowland properties for
public benefit. It provides the opportunity for the Lowland property owner to sell its property to an as yet
undefined purchaser at an as yet undefined purchase price. This is not a benefit to the public but appears to be
an arm's length business transaction by the Lowland property owners. Accordingly, this project objective cannot
serve as an overriding consideration under CEQA if Lowland Option A is adopted.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 79
0. coordinate wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil operations on the site.
REIR at page 1-4, lines 11-26
The development proposed in the REIR does not necessarily fulfill all of these objectives
since (i) the proposed development no longer provides for a mix of housing but only
provides for a series of multi-unit urban apartment complexes unless Lowland Option B
(providing for single family residential development of the Lowlands) is approved, (ii) if
Lowlands Option A is approved, the reversal of the degradation of the wetlands is open to
serious question since no source for funding either the cost of restoration or the cost of land
acquisition is identified (and as noted above, wetlands restoration has often been
unsuccessful and page 6-6 of the REIR inadvertently concedes that the cost of paying fair
market value for the land will be "an extremely costly prospect") and (iii) the "legal means"
for conveying the portion of the Huntington Beach Mesa to facilitate completion of the
regional park "has not been identified" (= REIR at Page 3-16, lines 20-27). Yet, the
foregoing passage (and the REIR at 3-47) expressly states that the foregoing are the stated
objectives of the project considered in the REIR.
In stark and direct contrast, Chapter 6 of the REIR states that for purposes of
the alternatives analysis:
[O]ne of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project is the
implementation of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan
by, among other things:
- Providing a diverse mix of housing on the project site;
Developing a Wetland Restoration plan which will provide for the
legal and financial mechanisms to implement the establishment of a
wetlands system of no less than 1,000 acres; and
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 80
- Conveying portions of the site for public infrastructure, road
rights-of-way, the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, local parks and trail
systems and wetlands restoration areas.
REIR at page 6-7, lines 19-33.w
It is these objectives (and not the objectives stated at Chapters 1 and 3 of the REIR) which
are used to assess whether an alternative would fulfill the proposed objectives of the
development considered in the REIR. For example, Page 6-15 compares Alternative A of
the REIR to the Proposed Project based on the alternatives ability to provide "diverse
housing", "wetlands restoration" and "dedication". The alternative is rejected as not
feasible because (i) a viable funding source has not been identified and (U) implementation
of restoration would extend beyond the 12 to 20 year horizon proposed for full buildout of
the project, "including restoration." REIR at-page 6-15, lines 22-34. How is the project
considered in the REIR any more feasible than the alternative? Mitigation of other projects
could provide funding with or without the establishment of the mitigation bank under
Lowlands Option A. The time required to implement the restoration under the Proposed j
Project is conceded at Table 3-3 (page 3-46) of the REIR to require at least 26 years.
Given the incentive of oil operators to defer phase out of oil operations in order to defer
remediation costs, the time for implementation of the Proposed Project implementation
could be far longer, yet the REIR rejects an alternative because it could not be implemented
within 12 to 20 years. This is not analysis which fulfills the requirements of CEQA.
S. Requirement for Analysis of Alternative Locations. The REIR
continues to omit proper consideration of alternative locations for the proposed residential
apartment development considered in the REIR. As was noted in the Comment, an EIR,
such as the REIR, which considers broad land use policies must provide a broad analysis of
alternative locations for the developments proposed in the EIR. Those comments (located
841 This statement also appears with somewhat different emphasis at page 2-16,lines 39-45 of the REIR which
states, 'the objective of the Proposed Project is to implement key elements of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition
Concept Plan . . . As was noted at length at pages 57-W of the Comment, the project proposed in the DEN
could not accurately be said to implement that plan. The REIR strays even furtherfrom the Bolsa Chica Planning
Coalition Concept Plan by expressly contemplating that Mesa development would proceed regardless of whether
any wetlands restoration is approved or funded. For the reasons noted in the Continent,there is no basis for the
REIR's reliance on the BCPC plan for any purpose.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 81
r
rat pages 44 to 47 of the Comment) are applicable to the REIR and must be addressed by
the County in an adequate alternatives analysis forming part of a new and recirculated
environmental document.
M. THE REIR OMrrS ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE RISK OF UPSET AND
RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT.
The potential for contamination in, on and under the site, the site's prior and
' ongoing use for oil extraction, and the natural characteristics of the site, including the
presence of oil and gas resources, earthquake faults and liquefaction potential are
inadequately considered in the REIR. The REM must include a full and detailed discussion
of risk of upset. The potential hazards to existing and future project residents from site
cleanup, damage caused by potentially major seismic events, effects of accidental spills on
the marsh, accidental release of invasive plant or animal species, and other potential risks
the project presents to the natural environment and to human inhabitants, yet these potential
impacts are dismissed as insignificant without sufficient explanation.
For example, the REM assumes that Department of Real Estate ("DRE")
disclosures to future unit owners would render insignificant any potential impacts due to
disruption of abandoned wells by future landowners. DRE disclosures are not required
when units are resold. Thus, the disclosure required under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 will
not be given to all residents of the project. Even if the notice were effective to make the
danger insignificant (and the City does not believe that it is), the notice would not even
ireach all of the persons occupying the site and, therefore, is completely ineffective.
Further, as described above, the PDFs relied upon to prevent impacts due from the hazard
of continuing oil operations adjacent to a medium to high density urban residential project
are neither designed nor disclosed, nor are they shown to be effective to mitigate the
hazards to project residents in the event of an upset situation.
N. DISCUSSION OF SHORT TERM IMPACTS VERSUS LONG-TERM PRQDUCnmy
IN TIC REIR CONTMU TO BE INADEQUATE.
i. PRC § 21100 requires, among other things, that an EIR must assess both (i)
the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity and (ii) any significant irreversible
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 82
environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be
implemented. PRC § 21100.1 makes it clear that a project such as the County's alteration
of its most basic land use and transportation planning documents requires a full discussion
and analysis of those issues, yet the REIR remains relatively silent on both points. The
short consideration devoted to these issues in Chapter 7 of the REIR is far from sufficient.
Chapter 7 fails to mention long-term productivity.
O. THE REIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OF THE PROJECT ,
A valid environmental impact report must consider, in addition to the
primary and secondary impacts of the project itself, the cumulative impact of the project
taking other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects into
account. Guidelines §§ 15130, 15355. The Guidelines expressly note that cumulative
impacts "can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place
over a period of time." Guidelines § 15355. Although Chapter 5 of the REIR attempts to
consider some of the impacts of the proposed development, the REIR's analysis fails to
consider its most significant cumulative impacts.
As was noted in the Comment, the REIR must assess the impact of the
project on the cumulative loss of wetlands and uplands habitats when aggregated with other ,
projects having an impact on wetlands. In this regard, the CCC commented in its response
to the EIRMS:
Mhe area of historic wetland have regional importance as
areas for potential wetland restoration. Given the historic loss
of 91% of California's wetlands, both the loss of wetland and
the loss of potential restoration sites must be considered a
significant cumulative adverse impact of the proposed project.
The REIR does not ever consider the cumulative impact from the loss of wetlands which
would result from the Lowlands development and the construction of the related
infrastructure.& Even if the WRP were fully implemented (and there is no assurance that
851 See California Wetlands Conservation Policy, Execwivie Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 1993)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 83
it could be implemented at all or that if implemented it would restore the wetlands), there
still would be a net loss of wetlands during the construction and implementation period.
1 In addition, as was noted by the CCC at page 35 of its Procedural Guidance attached
to this letter as Annex No. 24, California wetland restoration projects have generally failed
to prevent net loss of wetlands and loss of wetland habitat values due to "a lack of project
completion, limited project success and unclear goals and evaluation criteria" caused, in
part, by "insufficient technical details in the design," and inadequate identification of the
type and quantity of habitat lost through development and inadequate baseline data
regarding the biological, physical and chemical condition of the restoration area. The
proposed WRP is rife with all of the defects identified in the CCC document and, according
i to the CCC's analysis or prior experience in California, the WRP is likely to fail, even if
implemented.ff
Further, the entire project site, including both the upland and lowland
portions, are frequently used by birds migrating along the Pacific flyway. The growth and
development in the County and in coastal areas Statewide have continually decreased the
' habitat for migratory birds. The loss of the open space at Bolsa Chica, with its
combination of habitat values, is, in and of itself, a significant impact when aggregated with
the other development which has already taken place." The County does not take the
fformer development into account, as it must in a valid evaluation of the cumulative impacts
from the project.
' 861 See also T. Fenner, The Cwnulatfv+e Impacts to San Diego County Wetlands under Federal and State
Regulatory Programs: 198.5 to 1989 a dopy of which is attached to this letter as Annex No. 41.
871 These impacts also indicate that the project represents a significant irreversible environmental change
within the meaning of PRC §§ 21100 and 2100.1. The loss of the opportunity for restoring and retaining an
integrated ecosystem in the area cannot be revmed. This loss is even more significant in that the project site a
located within close proximity to heavily urbanized settings devoid of any notion of the natural environment which
existed before development. Thus,the potential for the restoration of the entire Bolsa Chica ecosystem represents
not only a potential benefit for wildlife and marine animals, it also presents an opportunity to display and teach
the tens of millions of surrounding urban residents about the natural setting of the area in which they live. Such
a lesson is bound to increase awareness of the environment in general and, in so doing, improve long term
productivity as encouraged by CEQ1l.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 5, 1994
Page 94
The project site is also one of p � the few remaining large open spaces in
southern California where a significant combined wetland, lowland and upland ecosystem
remain in existence in a single location. This confluence of habitat areas presents
opportunities which are not even considered in the REIR. For example, the upland is
dismissed by the REIR as having insignificant biological value since it is vegetated by non-
native grasses. However, the REIR misses the fact that this open space presents the County
with one of its last remaining opportunities to establish a significant upland environment
with native vegetation and access to adjacent (and as conceded by the REIR, ecologically ,
connected) lowlands and wetlands habitats. There are few, if any undeveloped areas left in
the region which present such opportunities for establishment and/or restoration of such a
combined ecosystem. If native vegetation were re-introduced on the Mesa, the new habitat
area would provide unique opportunities to implement recovery programs for threatened and
endangered species populations and could permit recovery of candidate species prior to
those species becoming threatened or endangered. The REIR must consider the loss of this
potential as a significant cumulative impact.
The entire approach of the REIR to an analysis of cumulative impacts is
flawed. The point of such analysis is to prevent the ongoing degradation of the
environment by examining projects on one-by-one basis. Yet the REIR states, for example,
"Although this cumulative loss of open space is potentially significant, impacts to any
unique visual features must be analyzed on a project-by-project basis in the context of their
specific visual environments." REIR at p. 5-10, lines 15-16. That is exactly contrary to
the whole point of cumulative impacts analysis. The loss of "unique visual features when
examined on a project-by-project basis may well appear to be insignificant; however, once
the lead agency views the loss of that feature in the broader context of the loss of other
similar features within the broader region it should assess whether the total loss of such a '
feature creates a cumulative impact. The County's analysis warps and distorts the
cumulative impact analysis required by CEQA to the point where it is wholly invalid.
The REIR must be revised and recirculated to appropriately address the cumulative
impacts of the proposed project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 85
H. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the REIR.
A. CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 3
Pages.51 through 66 of the City's Comment contained specific comments
tregarding the first three Chapters of the DEIR. These remarks generally still apply with
equal force to the REIR. Further, the comments in Part I. of this letter also apply in large
measure to the first three chapters of the REIR. In addition, the City notes the following
specific comments regarding those chapters of the REIR:
1. Chapter 1 - Executive Summary.
a. Page 1-2, Lines 12, 13 and 14: These lines indicate that
Lowland Option B will allow for the fill of "104 acres of generally degraded jurisdictional
' wetlands" for the development of a maximum of 900 residential units along the inland edge
of the Lowland. PRC § 30233 does not allow for the filling of wetlands for residential
development and related infrastructure improvements. Therefore, it is unlikely that adoption
of the proposed Bolsa Chica project with Lowland Option B would be certified by or
acceptable to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
b. Page 1-3: Option B calls for an additional 900 units in the
lowland plus the 2,500 units on the mesa up to a total of 3,200 units as indicated by the table
on Page 1-3. Thus the allocation of units between the Mesa and lowland is never specified
under Lowland Option B. The Mesa Component will vary between 2,300 units and 2,500
units (a variation of approximately 10%) and the Lowland Option B Component will vary
between 700 and 900 units (a variation of approximately 29%). Since the number of units in
each area of the proposed development may affect significant impacts of the project, the
allocation of units must be better defined for the reader to understand the severity and
probability of potential significant impacts.
C. Project timing and phasing information included on page 1-4 of
' the Executive Summary and repeated on page 3-45 in the Project Description consist only of
the broad statements that the overall project is anticipated to be built out over 12 to 22 years;
that initial construction is anticipated to occur in 1996; and that the first phase of residential
development is the Bolsa Mesa and the last phase is the Lowlands (for Lowland Component,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 86
Option B — which includes residential develop
ment). This level of phasing and project
timing information is inadequate for evaluating the impacts of a project of the magnitude of
Bolsa Chica. At a minimum, the EIR or an accompanying planning document, such as a
Specific Plan, should present information on the order of the Project's planning area
development and the relationship between the timing of residential development and the
provision of public facilities and infrastructure to support the residential development as well
as information regarding the phasing of grading, compaction and excavation activities and
the staging of millions of cubic yards of earth onsite.
d. Page 1-4, Line 39: CEQA requires that a DEIR consider all
reasonable alternatives. The DEIR fails to consider the alternatives that annexes the project
into the City. Alternative A.through Alternative J should be considered both as: 1) a City
project; and, 2) a County project.
e. Page 1-6, Lines 41 and 42, under Issues to be Resolved: These ,
lines state that the County will have to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the
policies contained in the California Coastal Act, particularly those related to development of
the Wetlands in Lowland Option B. From the City's understanding of the Coastal Act, and
from the statements in the DEIR comments received by the County from the CCC, the State
Coastal Conservancy and other affected agencies, a Bolsa Chica project including Lowland '
Option B is inconsistent with Section 30233 of the Act. The REIR fails to note the
objections of the affected public agencies (such as the letters attached to this letter as Annex
Nos. 8, 9 and 10) nor does it adequately explain how the proposed project would proceed ,
despite those objections.
f. Page 1-7, Summary of Impacts, Bolsa Chica LCP, Consistency ,
with County of Orange General Plan: This table contains a statement that components of the
proposed project are generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Orange County
General Plan, although an amendment of the LUE, Transportation Element and MPAH will
be necessary to accommodate the project. Further the statement makes the broad
generalization that no significant physical impacts would occur from amending the LUE and
reducing the overall residential density of the project. However, from reviewing the Land
Use Section of the REIR there is little real analysis of the project's conformity to all of the
individual elements of the County of Orange General Plan. The proposed project appears not
to conform to the County General Plan.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 87
r
rg. Page 1-7, Table 1.3, Consistency with County LCP: The
County LCP for Bolsa Chica cannot be used as the document for the legal standard of review
for the proposed Bolsa Chica project because the LCP was only conditionally approved by
the CCC and none of the conditions for approval of the LCP have been put into effect by the
County. Furthermore, the proposed project is significantly different from the Bolsa Chica
project considered by the CCC in 1986. Therefore, the statement made in this table about
the proposed Bolsa Chica project being consistent with the County LCP is inaccurate and
misleading.
' h. Page 1-7, Table 1.3: The REIR indicates that the elimination of
the tidal inlet will not result in significant adverse impacts. If an inlet is determined to be
necessary for successful restoration of the full tidal wetlands, the loss if the tidal inlet may
become significant. The REIR must explore a variety of alternate mechanisms for tidal
flushing and full habitat restoration of the wetlands for the public and the decisionmakers to
' acquire a full understanding of the environmental consequences of any County approval for
the project.
' i. Page 1-8, Table 1.3: The REIR indicates that buffer zones and
fencing will be used to eliminate the potential for physical intrusion by human beings and
non-native animals into the proposed wetlands restoration area. Domestic animals can have a
rsignificant negative impact on a natural environment. Intrusion by domestic cats is
particularly is very difficult to control. Water elements such as canals, moats, etc. may be
needed to sufficiently minimize access by domestic animals. Additional study in this area
' appears to be required.
j. Page 1-9, Table 1.3, Consistency with California Coastal Act:
The project as now proposed is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. The statement made in
this section of the table says that a detailed consistency analysis for the proposed Bolsa Chica
project with the California Coastal Act will be necessary during the processing of the specific
LCP. Considering the significance of fulfilling the requirement for consistency with the
Coastal Act, a full and accurate consistency review must be made (and the proposed
' development must be determined to be consistent) before this project is considered or
approved by County decisionmakers. Further, the County's consistency review must be
circulated as part of a revised REIR so that the full environmental assessment required by
1
Proposed RrW Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 88
law is available to the public for review prior to consideration of an approval for this
P P Y
project by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
k. a 1-9 Table 1-3: No mention is made of corrosion problems
� �
related to utility installations as was made in the previous DEIR on page 4.2-20, lines 36-43.
This is an important facet of utility operation, costs money, and thus should be addressed so
as to completely state the problem and possible mitigation measures. Since no water system
can be constructed without underground buried metal equipment, a corrosion study is called
for in this area. The study should discuss the reasons for the corrosion potential, options for
dealing with it, the impacts of the options on the environment and by what process the
expected corrosion within the project will be monitored. Corrosion can cost several million ,
dollars per year of the new residents' money and the chemical reactions involved can
possibly introduce undesirable elements into the soil. As reported on page 4 in the
publication by the American Water Works Association entitled, External Corrosion - ,
Introduction to Chemistry and Control (AWWA M27, 1987), the National Bureau of
Standards reported that the total annual cost of corrosion in the United States was on the
order of$70 billion in 1975. Furthermore, it states that the health of water consumers is ,
threatened whenever extensive corrosion breaches the sanitary integrity of the water system.
Uncontrolled corrosion can also be a major contributor to the problems of unreliable or
inadequate fire-control systems. It concludes by saying that "It is evident that the ability to
control corrosion in water utility systems can contribute greatly to dollar savings, public
health protection, and safety of the public." The revised and recirculated REIR must address
the impacts of corrosion to public health and public utilities directly and state the basis for its
conclusions of the existence or absence of any significant impact.
1. Page 1-10 (Table 1.3): Underground utilities constructed along
a fault zone are indicated in the study to have an unavoidable and significant impact. Park
3A/3B has been placed along the Newport-Inglewood fault line. The park should be
relocated or, if buildings or sports courts are planned on this site, mitigation of potential park
facilities and seismic hazards to the users of the park, will be necessary and must be
analyzed in the REIR.
M. Page 1-10, Table 1-3, Impact 4.2-3: A geologic investigation ,
will not mitigate the potential rupture of the nine million gallon reservoir. It will determine
if the site can be made to economically support the life of such a facility. If the site is
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 89
deemed unsuitable, how will the development be supported by water storage should the
reservoir site be relocated away from the immediate vicinity of the project? Performing a
geologic investigation will not work to mitigate the problems associated with the North
Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. It will only determine the suitability of the site.
Based on the information in the REIR alone, it appears that neither the County nor the City
' should locate a reservoir in the area of the development. The City has no obligation to
locate a reservoir on the Bolsa Chica property nor in the area of the Bolsa Chica. The City's
only obligation is to provide a site for which the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property can
construct a reservoir to mitigate the impacts of that development in accordance with the
Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement.
in. Page 1-11, Table 1-3: The REIR does not explain why or how
the PDF requiring soil remediation will mitigate the oil field or soil hazards. Neither the
County nor the State has a standard for hydrocarbon contaminated soil with residential,
' and/or commercial development. The County should develop a cleanup standard for
hydrocarbon contaminated soil or use the City of Huntington Beach Standard 431-92 which is
' attached to this letter as Annex No. 19.
o. Page 1-12, Table 1.3, says there will be a 50-foot residential
' setback from active oil wells. PDF-4 (Section 10.3.1, p. 10.3) states setback will be at least
100 feet. Which is correct?
' p. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, states that construction will not take place
within fifty (50) feet of an operating well, or within ten (10) feet of an abandoned well.
Methane barriers and venting systems must also be required. The Uniform Fire Code
' Section 79.1101 (attached as Annex No. 15) covers some aspects of construction. However,
most standards are applied at the time of plan check; i.e., wall ratings, thickness of glass,
sprinkler protection, standards for diking, etc. The REIR does not address pipeline distances
and depths. Set back distance will depend on pressure and depth of the pipeline.
q. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, states that the remedial action plan for
soils contamination will be based on a health risk assessment. A Health Risk Assessment is
not the basis for a remedial action plan. A Phase II Site Assessment is the correct tool for
developing the work plan. City Standard 431-92 should be used to determine acceptable
' levels of hydrocarbon contamination in affected areas.
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 90 ,
r. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, Impact 4.3-1: In addition to locating
abandoned wells and testing for gas, an oil well review will be required along with an
approved site review from the State Division of Oil and Gas. PRC § 3208.1, enforced by
the State Division of Oil and Gas, requires a site review of any property prior to construction
to prevent any possible damage to life, health, and property from any abandoned well. A ,
copy of that section is attached for ease of reference as Annex No. 20.
S. Page 1-13, Table 1-3, "Grading/Bolsa Chica Mesa: "The ,
comment that "an insignificant amount of recharge (i.e., groundwater replenishment) may
occur . . .; however ground water quality is not expected to be significantly impacted" is an
opinion based on no facts or statements of authority. What defines "insignificant" adverse
effect on ground water quality? It is unknown what the impacts will be without further study ,
of this phenomenon. The quantities, effects and impacts of the recharge or its potential
should be addressed because of the sensitive nature of the issue of seawater intrusion into this ,
area. How will the recharge impact the potential for seawater intrusion? What effect will
the recharge have on the stability of the slopes of the mesa, since the groundwater table
would be expected to be higher? The Orange County Water District (OCWD) is the '
governing authority on groundwater in this jurisdiction. No mention is made of OCWD in
this comment or its explanation further on in the REIR, Section 4.4. The same comment
applies to the Effect entitled "Grading/Wetlands Restoration" where it refers to impacts to the '
Bolsa aquifer.
t. Page 1-14, Table 1-3, 'Grading/Lowland Development": The ,
comment "Redundancy in the pumping system of the Proposed Project will effectively reduce
these potential impacts to a less than significant level" is not true because siltation will cause
all pumps in a given drainage system to malfunction. This observation is based on the
experience of operating the City's storm water pumping stations that are similar to the
stations proposed in the project for the last 34 years. Redundancy will not solve the
problem. The siltation must not be allowed to occur. This can be accomplished in any ,
number of ways, the most common involving the use of desiltation basins on the interior of
the drainage catch basins. The speed of the runoff entering the catch basin is slowed by the
desiltation basin, which in turn allows the silt being carried by the water to drop to the ,
bottom of that basin.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 91
U. Page 1-15, Table 1-3, Impact 4.4-1: Any preferred mitigation
involving groundwater must be approved and endorsed by OCWD. No reference is made to
this fact in the REIR. OCWD is an independent district not associated with the County of
Orange. Approval by the County of Orange alone will not be sufficient.
' V. Page 1-15, Table 1-3, Impact 4.4-2: The geotechnical study
referenced as a mitigation measure must be performed prior to the certification of the REIR
by the County and must be performed under the jurisdiction of OCWD, not the County of
Orange. Any action involving groundwater issues of the Santa Ana River groundwater basin
must also be approved by OCWD. No mention is made to OCWD in this regard. OCWD
should perform the study at the developer's expense. In any case, the study should be
performed, and the document recirculated, before the REIR is certified by the County.
W. Page 1-22 (Table 1.3): Concern is expressed in the REIR
regarding contaminants in the water of the EGGW Channel. The study indicates that the use
of trash racks, grease and oil separators, and BMPs for proper disposal of the materials
collected in these structures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. This may
not be true and further support is needed for this conclusion. What measures will be used
when the flood control channel's water level exceeds normal due to storms? Such an
occurrence could have a significant impact on the wetlands.
X. a 1-24 able 1.3 : The impact of construction on existing
�g (T ) Pan g
adjacent residences has not been adequately analyzed. The City is currently experiencing a
problem in the Holly-Seacliff area where new residential development has caused skunks to
leave the open area and infiltrate existing residential neighborhoods. The development in the
lowlands and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa can have equally troublesome effects on existing
adjacent residences. The REIR must be revised to reflect any such possible effects.
Y. Page 1-24 (Table 1.3): The REIR refers to Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) being developed both in the Mesa and Bolsa Chica Regional
Park (BCRP). There is no indication that the timing of the development of these ESHAs has
been carefully considered so that they are developed prior to destroying existing habitat.
Z. Impact 4.8-3, Page 1-27 (Table 1.3): The implementation of
Lowland Option B has the potential to increase public visitation to the wetlands, thereby
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 92 ,
creating possible disturbance to habitat and wildlife. Mitigation factors for this impact
include (1) public education; (2) identification of a group or agency for enforcement of ,
access restrictions; and (3) the rerouting of people from internal trails during nesting season.
This impact cannot be listed as insignificant until an organization is identified and funding is
determined so these mitigation measures are certain to be implemented.
aa. Page 1-30, Table 1-3: There may be hazardous materials in
fugitive dust. Past history has shown that these dusts will also contain noxious odors that '
will generate complaints. A work plan specifically addressing this issue must be developed
and circulated for public review along with contingency plans in case the original plan does
not work. These plans should be specifically described in (and appended to) a recirculated
REIR.
ab. Page 1-39 (Table 1.3): The REIR states: "Since the Bolsa '
Chica Mesa is designated and developed in the County and Huntington Beach General Plans,
the planned development is not unexpected and the Mesa will eventually incur seasonal
impacts regardless of the type of development ultimately approved. In the context of ,
surrounding residential and commercial land uses, the development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa
is not considered a significant impact." It is incorrect to make the assumption that because
future development is expected, there will be mitigation of impacts to view corridors, etc. ,
These types of aesthetics issues need to be analyzed and the impacts minimized wherever
possible.
ac. Table 1.3, Section 4.13: The Natural History Foundation of
Orange County no longer exists because it declared bankruptcy in 1992. Recommendation:
The REIR must identify and designate an alternate, permanent curator/repository for
collected cultural resources.
ad. Page 1-41, Table 1-3, Section 4.16, "Water":
A County Service Area, a water district, or mutual water company will = have to be
formed to provide water service. The City could provide this service directly, as it currently
does to the unincorporated County area of Sunset Beach (practically next door) and the '
Surfside Colony, which is located in the City of Seal Beach. Thus, this statement is false.
However, the City is not obligated to provide water service to the development if it should
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994 ,
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 93
' choose not to do so. The REIR should identify specific proposals for providing water to the
proposed development.
' ae. Page 1-42, Table 1-3, Section 4.16 "Public Services and
Utilities - Fire Protection/Emergency Services": The project will also produce emergencies
' within the City limits. Emergencies such as vehicle accidents, vehicle fires, medical
emergencies as well as increasing traffic will slow Huntington Beach Fire response to City
residents resulting in a downgrade of current life safety services. The REIR does not, as it
' must, identify this as a significant unavoidable impact of the development nor does it attempt
to propose a mitigation measure to mitigate the significant impact.
' 2. Chapter 2 - Introduction.
a. Page 2-5, Table 2-2: Who are the local water districts? In
order to properly assess the information contained in a report such as this, it needs to provide
specific information or else the document will fail to be a "document of accountability" for
decision makers as required by CEQA and the Supreme Court decision in Laurel Heights I.
The report cannot be evaluated properly if information is unknown or is being withheld.
Further, this table should note that the State of California, Department of Health Services, is
involved in the process of distributing domestic water supplies as well as reclaimed water
supplies. Any water source and delivery system necessary for this project will also need to
seek approval from this agency.
b. Page 2-6, Section 2.1.6, Availability of the REIR, Line 23:
The statement is made that the County has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the
CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EdR, with the
NOP distributed on June 18, 1993. As noted above, the spirit and intent of these Sections of
CEQA have not been met since no new NOP was ever distributed by the County to
Responsible or Trustee Agencies on the substantially revised Bolsa Chica projects considered
in the REIR.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 94 ,
3. Chapter 3 - Project Description.
a. Section 3.3.1 (Differences from Previously Proposed Project) of ,
the REIR outlines the changes in the proposed project from the Bolsa Chica project
considered in the DEIR. Important changes were made in the Bolsa Chica project which ,
responsible and trustee agencies knew nothing about until the REIR was released for review.
Some of these changes have resulted in new significant impacts which were not caused by the
projects considered in the DEIR, such as the lengthening of the Warner Avenue Bridge and ,
additional dredging in the vicinity of the bridge and other locations. These actions will have
obvious adverse impacts on traffic and benthic and mudflat habitats. The County has been
derelict in its duty to inform these agencies of project changes, let alone solicit their input on ,
issues that should have been included in the REIR. Therefore, the County has not complied
with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines.
b. Page 3-17, Lowland Option B, Lines 30 and 31: These lines ,
indicate that 104 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by development of the
Lowland as proposed in Lowland Option B. By impacted, the City interprets this to mean ,
that the wetlands will be dredged and or filled to make way for residential units that will be
developed in this area. As noted earlier in the City's comments, dredging or filling of
wetlands for residential purposes is prohibited by the Coastal Act. The City believes that '
this activity will not be allowed by the CCC and that any Bolsa Chica project including this
Option cannot be approved by the CCC. At a minimum, the REIR must discuss the conflict
with the Coastal Act and the position expressed by the CCC as stated in Annex No. 9 to this '
letter and included in CoMMERr Amwx No. 10.
C. Page 3-18, Lines 36-48: In lines 40-42, it is mentioned that
water to serve the project "may" be stored in a reservoir that "may" be constructed by the
City in the project area. This is a speculative statement because no land has yet been
acquired by the City and the area may be unsuitable for such a facility. In lines 43-44, the
idea that the reservoir will be constructed below ground is also speculative since no decisions
have been made in this regard by the City. In lines 44-45, it mentions that "additional
storage will be constructed" but does not say by whom. In lines 45-47, the wording is such
that it is implied that the reservoir is a water source for the project. This is not the case with
this reservoir or any other owned by the City. The reservoir will only store water obtained
from the various water sources the City currently has. Its purpose is to handle water demand '
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
1
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 19%
Page 95
' pealing needs for the entire City. In fact, there are many occasions occurring on a daily
basis wherein property directly adjacent to an existing City reservoir are not served by that
' facility because it is not cost efficient to do so at that particular time. This would also be the
case with this project should a reservoir be constructed by the City adjacent to it.
d. Page 3-21, Lines 20-25: The REIR states that proposed local
sewer lines will be 6" to 10" in diameter. However, Figure 3-9a shows 6" to 12" lines.
What are the correct pipe sizes? Have these facilities been correctly analyzed and sized?
' The correct information regarding the sewer line dimensions must be provided.
e. Page 3-21, Lines 1-16: In lines 1-3, reference is made to a
"new discharge pipeline and pump station." It is not clear where this is located or what its
purpose is. In lines 8-15, significant reference is made to the OCWD project called "Green
Acres." The REIR is counting on the connection to that project to meet a significant demand
' for water in the proposed project. In fact, OCWD has recently taken the Bolsa Chica area
off its list of customers for Green Acres and is redesigning the pipeline to serve Huntington
Beach accordingly.w
' For the new pipeline to serve this development at a later date after
construction has occurred would be a strain on that system. The statement made that
"parallel 8-inch water lines will also be installed within the local road system to convey
reclaimed water to the site from the OCWD Green Acres Project when it is constructed and
reclaimed water form that facility is available" misleads the reader as there is no indication
' given that OCWD has expressly stated that there is no assurance that the project would OM
be constructed. One obvious alternative to the loss of the concept of Green Acres water is for
881 A letter to the County from the OCWD,dated February 9,1994, commenting on the DE1R apt essly noted-
Due to limited funding resulting from a downturned economy,the Phase Hexpansion into Huntington Beach
has been greatly reduced to include only eTanding service into south Huntington Beady (i.e.,general area
within vicinity of the Southern California Edison Power Plant). Expansion of the project into central
Huntington Beads, a necessary prerequisite for providing reclaimed water service to the Bolsa Ouca
Project,has been placed on an indefinite hold. Therefore, the construction of reclaimed water facilities in
the future that would be located in close proximity to the Bolsa Chica project cannot be assured.
' A copy of the OCWD comment on the DEIR is attached to this letter as Anna No. 29.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 96 ,
the development to construct its own reclamation facility to produce reclaimed water for '
oP ty
irrigation. Another is for the development to construct a seawater desalination facility to
provide the needed supplemental water. Although both facilities would be very costly to ,
construct (millions of dollars) and operate ($2,100 per million gallons of reclaimed water,
$6,000 per million gallons of desalted seawater), the REIR should consider these alternatives.
The retail cost to the residents of the new development would be such that water rates could
be 2-5 times as much as that paid by the City's customers currently.
f. Pages 3-22 and 3-23: References to a "proposed reservoir, ,
proposed pump station and the OCWD Green Acres water lines" are presumptive and
misleading to the reader. Neither the County nor the developer has any basis on which to
assume that these facilities will be constructed, especially in light of the statements made by
OCWD with respect, for example, to the Green Acres Project (noted above). Notwithstan-
ding the uncertainty surrounding the funding and fiscal feasibility of this infrastructure, the
REIR proceed on the basis of an assumed certainty that the projects will be built timely '
enough to permit the entire project's water supply to be predicated on them. There is no
certainty that these projects would ever be constructed and the water supply to the project, is, '
therefore questionable. This uncertainty must be disclosed and mitigated in a rewritten and
recirculated REIR.
g. Section 3.3.7, Wetlands Creation and Restoration, page 3-35, '
Lines 2, 3 and 4: A statement is made that construction and grading will be planned to result
in a balance in the amount of cut and fill during the initial phases of the project and that in '
subsequent phases, if not also balanced onsite, may require additional CEQA review. This
creates two significant problems. First, the REIR improperly concludes that a balanced earth
movement of millions of cubic yards of earth onsite is not a significant impact. Not true, '
since there will be significant air emissions, noise, dust and other impacts from even onsite
operations. Second, the wetlands restoration plan should be far enough along at this time to
know if additional phases of wetlands restoration will require export or import of soils and
an analysis of the impacts of soils import or export should be included in the REIR. This
analysis should include a look at quantities, sources or points of disposal, types of vehicles
used to transport, phasing, number of vehicle trips per day, whether dredge material will be
deposited anywhere on the site, whether any contaminated soil will be exported and where
contaminated soil will be dumped. To do any less is to ask decisionmakers to approve this
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 97
rproject without full knowledge or disclosure of its significant impacts and potentially
significant impacts, a clear violation of CEQA.
' h. Section 3.3.7.7, Acquisition/Creation/Restoration Cost Estimates
and Funding Mechanism, Line 43: The statement is made that Lowland Option A's wetland
restoration program is approximately $30 Million. In the 1993 EIR, the City of Huntington
Beach was informed by the DEIR that this cost was S49 million. The REIR must detail the
precise reasons for this difference in cost.891
i. Page 3-26, Line 7: Reference is made to "a localized pump
station." Elsewhere in the REIR's discussion on drainage it is mentioned that two pump
stations are necessary (page 28). Which is correct?
j. :Page 3-27 and 3-28: The existing "Springdale Pump Station" is
currently named the "Bolsa Chica Pump Station" and has been since the 1970's. This error
should be corrected.
k. Page 3-36, Lines 11 and 30: Reference is again made to the
"Springdale Pump Station." This is actually the "Bolsa Chica Pump Station." The name is
incorrect throughout the REIR. It should be changed throughout. As such, this will be the
' last mention of this error in this document.
1. Pages 3-37 and 3-38 (Figure 3-13a): Figure 3-13a (the
"Proposed Wetlands Grading Plan") has apparently been photographically reduced to one
tenth its original size, and it is not legible. It is, therefore, not possible to review and
evaluate proposed grading. The grading concept is crucial to the viability of a wetlands
restoration plan and to the ability of that plan to provide a full range of wetland habitats.
Thus, a revised legible grading plan must be provided.
' m. Page 347, lines 12 to 14: The federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
permitting
has essentially five programs, found in Sections 401 through 405, designed to
891 Further, the estimated cost o the WRP under both Lowland ion A and w n f Opt Lowland Option B is identical
' emen though substantially dii erent plans are considered The RETR must explain this surprising coincidence by
detailing the basis for each cost estimate.
Proposed R"Daft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Change County Environmental Management Agency 1
October 4, 1994
Page 98
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. '
Y l� 8nty
For this project, permits pursuant to Sections 401, 402 and 404 would need to be secured
prior to construction of the project. ,
n. Page 3-48, lines 41-42: "The feasibility of the proposed
financing mechanisms [financing mechanisms for wetlands restoration] will be addressed in
subsequent chapters." The feasibility of the mitigation bank for Option A, or even the
adequacy of the $30 million cost to be borne by the developer in restoring the Wetlands '
under Option B is not addressed in sufficient detail in the REIR. The WRP in the REIR's
Appendix A outlines the legal and procedural format for the mitigation bank (WRP pages 6-1
through 6-15) but does not discuss financial feasibility of the mitigation bank or identify
potential sources of funds for that bank. Furthermore, the adequacy of the $30 million cost
of wetlands restoration is not verifiable as a result of the lack of supporting information on
these costs. Thus, the REIR does not deliver on its commitment to evaluate the feasibility of ,
the financing mechanisms as promised in the Project Description chapter.
B. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING
1. The REIR Fad to Explain the Reasons the Project Differs from the
1986 LCP on which it Improperly Relies in Assessing Land Use Impacts. The REIR does 1
not discuss changes in the revised project from the project described in the 1986 Bolsa Chica
LCP. There are a number of substantial differences between these two projects, including
the deletion of the proposed navigable ocean entrance, 75-acre or larger marina and
commercial area, inward realignment of a segment of Pacific Coast Highway, deletion of the
Cross Gap Connector, navigable interior waterway system into Huntington Harbor and a
minimum 25-foot clearance Pacific Coast Highway bridge over Outer Bolsa Bay. There is '
not one word of explanation as to why these facilities are being deleted from the revised
project, just that they are not included in the Proposed Project. Guidelines § 15125 requires
an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general ,
plans and regional plans, yet there in no such analysis included on the differences in the 1986
LCP (presumed by the County to be the plan of record) and the revised LCP.90i1
901 If the tic between Mesa development and wetlands restoration is severed, as was suggested in the DER?and
is suggested in the REIR (see Pan LF above)then Mesa development should be reevaluated without regard to any '
(continued..
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 99
2. Inconsistency with Coastal Act Policies and Provisions Make Project
Implementation Unlikely. An overriding concern about the implementability of the project
' as a whole is the fact that it flies in the face of Coastal Act requirements which do not permit
the sacrifice of coastal resources for non-coastal dependent uses such as the residential
development considered in the REIR. The REIR is rife with inconsistencies with and
' violations of the Coastal Act, including the following:
a. LCP/LUP Consistency. Pages 4.1-33 to 4.1-42, 1996 Land Use
' Plan: This section of the REIR discusses certification of the 1986 LCP by the CCC, its
applicability to the revised Bolsa Chica project and the consistency of the revised project with
the applicable Coastal Act Policies. However, as stated by the CCC letter of February 17,
1994 regarding the DEIR, the standard for review of the Bolsa Chica project must be the
Coastal Act itself and not the conditionally certified 1986 Bolsa Chica LCP. The REIR uses
the 1986 LCP to justify the fill of the wetlands on the Bolsa Chica project site for residential
' purposes. This is in violation of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, since it does not permit
destruction of coastal resources for non-coastal dependent land uses such as residential. This
comment was raised in the City's Comment and the comments of the CCC and the CDFG on
' the DEIR, yet the REIR continues the same flaw without justification or comment.
b. Public Access/Recreation Related Coastal Act Policies. The
' project considered in the REIR conflicts with Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requiring that
developments in the coastal zone maximize public access and recreational opportunities. The
revised project/LCP deletes the 75-acre or larger marina and commercial area. In the
revised LCP, "visitor serving" facilities have been reduced to a 10 acre commercial area,
sometimes referred to as a neighborhood commercial site (which is it?) This is a very
significant change from what was originally contemplated for this project. The deletion of
the marina will also impact the ability of the revised project to meet PRC § 30213 which
901(..continued)
potential for that dewtlopment to fund restoration of the wetlands. The question of appropriate intensity and type
of de►+elopment should be taken back to 'square one.' Why is 2,5W units on 214 acres the appropriate lend of
' development on the Mesa, if it is not supporting wetlands restoration as was required wrier the 19M LCP?
Considering the types of surrounding development, coastal access, traffic impacts, limitations on Pacific Coast
Highway improvements, pressures on casting County and City of Huntington Beach facilities and services, and
' impacts on casting and future coastal and wetlands resources, the Mesa Component should be reevaluated at lower
densities than is currently suggested in the REIR.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 100
calls for the provision of low-cost visitor and recreational facilities and public recreational '
opportunities. This change, the reasons for the change and the ability of the new project to
fulfill the foregoing requirements of the Coastal Act must be disclosed and analyzed in the '
REIR.
C. Marine Resources.
(1) Implementation of Lowland Option B conflicts with PRC
§ 30233 which prohibits diking, filling, and dredging of coastal waters and wetlands since it ,
is proposed that at least 104 acres of wetlands would be filled to make way for 900 homes in
this area. Notwithstanding the applicant's belief that filling of wetlands meets the
requirements of Section 30233(a)(3) and 30411 because dedication of the Lowland and
funding for the wetland restoration is dependent on the residential development in the
Lowland, such filling of wetlands is in violation of the Coastal Act. The CCC, CDFG, '
Corps and other affected agencies all have stated this position. The conflict between the
proposed residential development of lowlands areas and the proposed project must be
disclosed and analyzed further in the subsequent recirculated and rewritten REIR. ,
(2) Page 4.1-38, Lines 12 to 19, Section 30411 of the
Coastal Act: The REIR takes Section 30411 out of context in that it presents this Section of
the Coastal Act in a manner which implies that degraded wetlands can be restored in
conjunction with other feasible development where that "development" is the construction of
900 residential units in the Lowlands. This is misleading and inaccurate as this is neither the
intent nor the meaning of this section of the Coastal Act. The clear intent of PRC § 30411
is the restoration of wetlands as part of a new boating facility. This REIR's misconception
is further strengthened by the statement in the REIR that "residential development on .
remedial fill has been interpreted by the CCC to meet these requirements (see approvals for
Playa del Rey LUP, Mola Development/Hellman Ranch in Seal Beach and Coastal
Conservancy Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan)." The CCC has stated unequivocally '
that the development of non-coastal dependent residential units in the Lowlands is in direct
violation of the Coastal Act; yet, the REIR continues to misinterpret and twist the Coastal
Act in a vain attempt to guide the reader into the inaccurate conclusion that the REIR project '
is a valid project which is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
1
1
i •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 101
(3) Page 4.1-38, Lines 1 to 10, Section 30233(a) of the
Coastal Act: The REIR does not identify the allowable uses of wetlands. Section 30233
only allows the diking, filling or dredging of wetlands for specified reasons in this section,
none of which include such activities for the housing related projects proposed in the REIR.
d. Scenic Value. The project also conflicts with PRC § 30251
which requires the protection of the scenic value of coastal areas. The REIR acknowledges
on page 12-2 that residential development will significantly alter the undeveloped appearance
of the Bolsa Chica Mesa within the public viewshed as seen from Pacific Coast Highway at
Warner Avenue. This is in direct conflict with the foregoing requirements of the Coastal Act.
This conflict must be disclosed and analyzed in the newly rewritten and recirculated REIR.
e. Coastal Dependent Uses. The REIR's proposed project is also
in conflict with PRC § 30255 which acknowledges the priority of coastal dependent uses near
the shoreline. The Bolsa Chica project as it now is proposed is a non-coastal dependent
housing project. This conflict should be analyzed and acknowledged in the Revised EIR.
f. ESHAs. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that
environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be "protected against any significant disruption
of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those
areas." Further, that section states that development in area adjacent to ESHAs must be
sited and designed to prevent impacts and must be "compatible with the continuance of those
habitat and recreation areas." The project proposed in the REIR is at odds with these
Coastal Act provisions in that it requires the destruction of one ESHA (the eucalyptus grove)
and the potentially significant disruption of another (Warner Pond) coupled with an attempt
to establish new compensatory habitat areas within the regional park atop Huntington Mesa.
The REIR does not adequately address the destruction and disruption of the ESHAs as an
unmitigated significant impact. These impacts are significant regardless of whether the new
habitat is created.91'
r
911 Since there appears to be no requirement for the new habitat to be successfully established prior to the
destruction or disruption of the existing habitat areas,the destruction of the edsting ESHAs must be considered a
significant and unmitigated impact of the proposed project. Further this is an impact which could feasibly be
mitigated by the insertion of a condition that no grading or other activities occur in the vicinity of the existing
ESHAs (with the appropriate radius to be established by the CCC, CDFG and USFWS)until the new habitat areas
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 4, 1994
Page 102 ,
r
g. Natural Hazards. The revised Bolsa Chica project proposed in
the REM is in conflict with PRC § 30243 which requires the minimization of risks from
natural hazards, assures geological stability and structural integrity, amongst other things.
The REIR acknowledges as an unavoidable significant adverse impact of the project that the
active fault splays associated with the North Branch Fault may cause surface rupture in the '
proposed location of the 9 million gallon water reservoir area, resulting in the loss of water
for domestic and fire-fighting use. People and property may also be injured as water pours ,
from the damaged tank and from potentially severe ground shaking resulting from the
location of recreational facilities, and homes, on top of and in the immediate vicinity of a
known active fault and probable splay faults. Underground utilities constructed within and '
crossing the Alquist-Priolo Act exclusionary zone may also be damaged from fault movement
or rupture. Further inundation or gas explosions or fires could occur. Further, the shaking
due to the proximity of residential units in the proximity of and the location of recreation '
areas atop a known active fault increases the likelihood that a seismic event will result in
injuries or worse. The conflicts of the project's exposure of people and property to natural
hazards must be disclosed and analyzed in the revised and recirculated REIR.
3. The REIR Fails to Note Significant Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the County's General Plan. Section 4.1.2 of the REIR considers the
consistency of the proposed development with applicable plans, programs, and policies. This
section of the REIR states that Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an ER to
discuss, within the discussion of the existing environmental setting, any inconsistencies
between a proposed project and "applicable general plans and regional plans."n' This
Section then goes on to address the existing general plans, regional plans, zoning and state
911(..continued) r
have been determined to be fully functional by the CDFG and USFM. Since this condition appears very feasible
(and is exactly the condition contemplated by the BCPC Plan—a copy of which was attached to the Comment as
COMMENT ANNEr No.26)the County cannot lawfully approve the proposed development unless it either r)adopts
the proposal condition or (i) otherwise provides evidence that, contrary to the prior experience with wetland
habitats as documented in Annex Nos. 24 and 41, the new habitat creation is certain to succeed.
921 As noted above,this Guideline also requires that the RE1R compare the proposed project with the existing
conditions at the site. The REM does not adequately do so.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
i
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 103
' and federal policies relevant to the revised Bolsa Chica Project. Certain inconsistencies with
the County general plan were noted at pages 68-71 of the Comment; however, these
' inconsistencies remain unaddressed in the REIR. The City has again reviewed all Elements
of the County General Plan to determine the proposed project's conformity with these
Elements. Conflicts with the County's General Plan include the inconsistencies noted at
pages 68-71 of the Comment and the following:
a. Page 4.1-11, Lines 42, 43, and 44: It is noted on these lines
that the County General Plan consists of the Land Use, Transportation, Resources, Housing,
Growth Management, Noise, Public Services and Facilities, Recreation, and Safety Elements.
However, the purported consistency finding of the proposed Bolsa Chica project is made only
with respect to the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the General Plan. Why were
only these Elements analyzed in detail and the other Elements of the General Plan ignored?
Section 15125(b) of CEQA requires a discussion of the inconsistencies between the proposed
project and applicable general plans which includes all elements of the general plan. These
analyses must be completed to render the REIR's discussion of land use impacts legally
adequate.
b. The City reviewed the Transportation Element of the County
General Plan and determined that this Element and Master Plan of Arterial Highways is
inconsistent with the Proposed Project and must be amended to include the deletion of the
conceptually proposed alignment for Pacific Coast Highway through a portion of the Bolsa
Chica project, since the realignment of PCH through this project is no longer being pursued
' by the property owner. This would be in addition to the deletion of the extension of Bolsa
Chica Street to Garfield Street from the MPAH as mentioned in the consistency analysis in
the REIR. The amendment of the Transportation Element and the MPAH should be included
in the Project description or must be made an express mitigation measure for the project to
insure that this amendment is properly made.
C. The REIR notes that the proposed project would create
unavoidable significant adverse impacts on PCH due to traffic generated from the Bolsa
Chica project. Specific impacts on PCH were described on page 12-1 (Inventory of
Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts) of the REIR. One of these impacts was the
reduction of LOS at various intersections along PCH to "E" or "F". This is in conflict with
Transportation Element policy 3.2 on page TE-1-10 of this Element which requires the
i
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
• • r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 104
County to " ensure that all intersections within the r[ ] a unincorporated portion of Orange County
maintain a level of service "D" according to the County Growth Management Plan '
Transportation Implementation Manual. There was no analysis of this conflict with the
General Plan as required by Guidelines § 15125(b).
d. Page 4.1-20, Lines 5 to 47: The REIR lists residential goals '
and policies of County General Plan with which the project is consistent. However, this list
fails to reveal which elements of the General Plan contain the stated goals and policies, so it r
is very difficult to determine if the project is actually consistent with the various elements of
the General Plan. Due to the REIR's failure to specify the source of the stated policies, the
reader cannot kmow whether or not the stated goals and policies are accurately quoted or
whether they are paraphrased to suit the REIR discussion.
e. The County must prepare a consistency analysis for the Growth
Management Element. The revised Bolsa Chica project is not consistent with the following
policies found on page GM-4 and GM-5 of this Element:
(1) Development Phasing. According to this policy a r
development should be phased in accordance with an applicable Comprehensive Phasing Plan
adopted by the County. The REIR omits any meaningful discussion of a phasing plan being
for the revised Bolsa Chica project. An analysis of this policy must be included in the newly
written and recirculated EIR which the County must prepare for the project prior to any
project approval. r
(2) Balanced Community Development. This policy requires
that a balanced community be developed which encourages employment of local residents and ,
provides for both employment and employee housing opportunities with the County or
Growth Management Area. The proposed project only includes 10 acres of commercial
development which will not employ the up to 8.580 project residents in this already housing
rich area of the County. Obviously the project is not in compliance with this policy and
there is no analysis in the REIR to disclose or justify this clear conflict with the County's
own growth management policies as expressed in the County's General Plan. An analysis of
the significant inconsistency with this policy must be included in a new and recirculated
REIR.
r
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 105
(3) Public Facilities Plans. This policy requires that a
comprehensive public facilities plan be established for fire, sheriff/police and library
facilities. The REIR does not describe or even mention the requirement for development of
any such plan for this project as required under the County's General Plan. An analysis of
the project's consistency with and a full description of the means to be employed to fulfill
this policy must be prepared and included in the new and recirculated REIR.
f. The County must also prepare a consistency evaluation of the
proposed project with the Resources Element of the County General Plan. The City's review
of this Element reveals that the revised project is in conflict with the Energy Resources
component of this Element. Goal 2 "Encourages the utilization of existing energy resources'
to their highest potential and the development of alternative energy sources consistent with
sound energy conservation practices and techniques to meet the County's future energy
demand." Existing oil resources could be lost if oil production facilities are phased out
before all recoverable oil is removed to make way for restoration of wetlands in the Lowland
portion of the project site. An analysis of this policy and the impact (if any) of the proposed
project on the timing of the phasing out of oil production should be included in the revised
REIR which must be prepared and recirculated for this project.
g. Page 4.1-26, Lines 25 through 29: The statement is made that
under Lowland Option B the 852-acre wetland restoration minimum would not be met, but
that the Applicant would be required to provide off-site replacement at a 2:1 ratio or
negotiate directly with CDFG to resolve any concerns of that agency regarding interim
wetlands maintenance. It is unacceptable for the minimum number of acres of wetlands not
to be restored as proposed in the BCPC Plan and the 1996 LCP. Also, the REIR provides
no analysis as required by CEQA as to where an off site mitigation site for wetlands
restoration would be located. Also, it is speculative that the project applicant could negotiate
any deal with CDFG on the number of wetlands that would have to be restored as part of the
revised Bolsa Chica project. It is also speculative that a 2:1 ratio would satisfy current
requirements of the USFWS and CDFG, since higher ratios have been required in recent
years due to the limited field success in the restoration and creation of new wedands.ml
931 Recent informal discussions with CDFG ad USFWS have indicated that currently replacnent ratios of
L 5.1 are common. See afro Annex No. 41 which indicates that the cumnt experience with the failure of prograrns
(continued..)
Proposed Final Dreg Dated Soptamber 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 106
h. Page 4.1-28, Consistency Analysis: County Zoning, Lines 5
through 12: The REIR relies on its characterization of the Al zone as being an interim zone
in those areas which the General Plan may designate for more intensive urban uses in the
future. However, if the current proposal is consistent with existing zoning due to the
existence of the 8 year old 1986 LCP, why didn't the County change the zoning for the
property to reflect the land use designations included in the 1986 LCP? If the County truly
believed the 1986 LCP was valid it should have adopted consistent zoning. As it stands, the
Al zone cannot properly be characterized as a mere holding zone for any development which
the County subsequently chooses to adopt, thus eliminating the possibility that gg proposed
development will be considered consistent with the existing zoning.
4. The REIR Omits Discussion of Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the City's General Plan. In addition to the above-noted
inconsistencies with the County's own General Plan, the development proposed in the REIR
is also inconsistent with the policies and objectives of the City's General Plan. Although the
property is located within the County's jurisdiction, and is therefore, subject to compliance
with the County General Plan, the City's General Plan is also relevant since (i) the location
of the project site within an island of County jurisdiction surrounded by the City mattes it
likely that the residents of the project will turn to the City for a large proportion of municipal
services and (ii) the status of the property as an island of unincorporated County makes it
likely that there will at some time be interest in annexing the property into the City"' If
the property is annexed prior to build out, subsequent development projects under the
proposed plans may not be consistent with the sections referenced below and, therefore, may
not be approvableA If the property is not annexed or is annexed after build out, it will be
an isolated island full of mftastructurelservice deficiencies unless the area is planned to the
city's standards, as identified in its General Plan. A summary of the General Plan Policies
with which the proposed plans are not consistent is attached to this letter as Annex No. 3.
931(...continued)
to successfully create or restore wetlands habitat would require replacement ratios of over 10:1 if these ratios are
to insure that then will be no net lass in habitat values or wetlands acreage.
941 The property is already within the Cay's sphere of influence under the Local Agency Formation Law.
951 Prior to approval of any entitlanent,the city is required to find that the project conforms to the General Plan.
?he city is unable to approve a project that does not comply with the General Plan.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 107
5. The REIR Fails to Mitigate Adequately the Incompatibility of Oil
Production and Residential Development. Impact 4.1-1 may not be sufficiently mitigated
by the oil spill plans remaining in effect as suggested in Mitigation Measures 4.1-la and
4-1-lb. Based upon the discussion in the REIR, the Oil Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan appears not to have been reviewed by County staff to determine if it
adequately addresses everyday problems that occur with oil production. What mechanism is
in place to handle odors, small leaks, noise and nuisance complaints? What construction
standards will be imposed on structures constructed near oil wells or tank farms? Further,
since the development will depend in part on City services such as the Fire Department, City
staff must review these documents to assess their adequacy. Those documents are not
described in the REIR nor are they appended as exhibits. This makes the document flawed
in that it does not provide disclosure of the mitigation measure and therefore renders it
impossible to determine its effectiveness. Mitigating measures that are in this Plan need to
be reviewed to determine if they are adequate enough to handle any potential problems. The
Plan does need to be reviewed by City staff. The REIR states that this Plan will be in
operation throughout the entire project. This would include site remediation, hazardous
waste removal, and construction. The Plan will also be used for problems that may occur
with oil wells that remain in operation.
Another question involves the construction standards of oil operations adjacent
to structures. Fire Department construction standards only deal with the drilling of oil wells
in populated areas which is contained in Uniform Fire Code Section 79.1101 (attached to this
letter as Annex No. 15). Additional construction standards for construction of homes in
existing oil fields, would be required during the plan check process. These standards should
be described in detail in a revised and recirculated REIR.
a. Page 4.1-8, Line 37: The REIR talks about responsible agencies to
monitor the clean up of contaminated soil and ground water. To what standard will soil
contamination be cleaned? Who will monitor and review this data? Who will be the lead
agency? Will the City's Soil Cleanup Standard 431-92 be used for level of acceptance?
Local agencies should handle the hydrocarbon contamination. Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for water contamination. The Department of Toxic
�. Substance Control (DTSC) is responsible for hazardous wastes. Each agency will have
certain mitigation requirements based on reported levels of contamination. The levels of
contamination and the mitigation requirements warranted based on those levels should be
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
r�
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 108
included in a revised and recirculated REIR. Otherwise, the reader has no way to determine
the level of impact or whether the mitigation measures proposed in the REIR are sufficient to
mitigate that impact.
b. Page 4.1-10: Based on the map which shows the location of all oil
wells, it seems that the figure of ten (10) feet from an abandoned oil well may not be
realistic for future construction. Methane barriers and venting systems should be required.
c. 4.1-55, Line 47: The REIR states that it will take twenty (20) years
to remove all existing oil field related pipelines tanks, etc. There is no mitigation measure to
address this problem and this impact should be identified as significant. If oil production is
to continue for twenty (20) years, it must co-exist with urban development. The City
receives complaints on a daily basis from citizens regarding noise, odors, dust, leaks, and
other associated oil production problems. Article 15 of the City Municipal Code regulates
oil operations. These regulations not only allow oil operators to co-exist, but to operate
safely in populated areas. The County must adopt similar standards before the project is
approved, or else the ongoing oil operation will never be compatible with the residential use
as is claimed in the REIR.
d. Page 4.1-56, Line 15 (Mitigation Measure 4.1-1a): A more
detailed explanation of how the Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan works
is required for the reader to assess its meaning and effectiveness to mitigate the significant
impact of oil field/residential compatibility. How will this plan mitigate the hazardous
material incident potential within the proximity to the project? The REIR must Wm discuss
how the County will provide hazardous material response services to the project area. This
discussion should include how the project area will pay for these services (fiscal impacts). If
the County proposes to include the project area under the ORCO Fire Department's provider
umbrella of the Orange County Hazardous Material Joint Powers Authority, the City and
Newport Beach Hazardous Materials Units will be providing the service without
reimbursement. Implementing hazardous materials response under the County's provider
umbrella has a significant impact on the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Newport
Beach Fire Department and needs to be addressed in the REIR with appropriate mitigation of
those foreseeable impacts on those cities' services.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 109
e. Page, 4.1-56, Line 21, (Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b): The REIR
suggests that by notifying all potential buyers of on-site residences, that the hazards of the oil
production facilities in the area for up to twenty (20) years will be mitigated. A more
comprehensive mitigation plan for the impacts of oil production is required to mitigate the
impact of residential development immediately adjacent to working oil production facilities.
6. The REIR Ignores the Impacts of High Density Residential
Development on the Surrounding Community and Community Services. The REIR does
not address the increased severity of impacts on public services and utilities of the Project's
high residential densities within the development areas 2y The REIR shows average
residential development density on the Mesa at 11.7 dwelling units per gross residential acre.
When the area required for streets is taken into account, this density becomes as high as 14.6
units to the acre on average. This is an average density of development that dictates multi-
story, multifamily construction. With this being the composite average, then significant
portions of the project will be at densities far above this average. The high density of the
project and the implications of the project's proposed development density are not disclosed
in the REIR. A multitude of additional impacts relating to this atypically high level of
development are not adequately considered in the EIR. Impacts to public safety services
such as police (e.g., impacts on police patrol) and fire protection (e.g., impacts on types of
equipment required and on fire access) are examples of areas of deficient analysis due to not
disclosing or having dealt with the project's high development density. The high density will
have fiscal and financial implications that are crucial to the evaluation of the project
described in the REIR and its assessment of its significant environmental impacts.
7. Miscellaneous.
' a. Page 4.1-23, Lines 16-28: No mention is made of the proposal
in the Wetlands Restoration Plan (Appendix A) to drill a groundwater well for the Edwards
Thumb area. This point is significant to that area as well as to the groundwater in the area
because of the potential to cause seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and settlement
961 Then are certain inconsistencies in the densities set forth in the REAR. For example, the density of
Planning Area 9 is supposed to be limited to a density of 12.5 d.u.per acre but Table 3.1 shows an average gross
density for this area of 12.70 dwelling units per acre. ?he net densities for this(and the other)planning areas will
be considerably higher.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 110
of the soil underlying the existing adjacent neighborhoods. A discussion on the potential for
these noted impacts should be included in this report.
b. Page 4.1-51, Lines 39-40: The statement that the design and
location of water and wastewater facilities will avoid or minimize impacts on coastal
resources or views assumes too much without revealing the basis for those assumptions. In
fact, none of the planned facilities being relied on for water supply for the project are firm in
their commitment and thus, it is not possible to know at this point what impacts the final
design might have. A water supply for this development should be planned such that all
affected agencies have full knowledge of the developer's proposals and support the analyses .
and proposals of the developer from the start of the consideration of any required approvals
for the project. In the REIR, none of the affected agencies is referenced as having been
contacted about their involvement in providing a water supply. The City has no firm
proposal to supply this area. The other proposals suggested in the report are also
unsupported and speculative. The REIR presents a wholly incomplete and inadequate
description of the proposed water supply for the project. A water supply that is firm, real
and constructible must be identified in the REIR for the report to truly convey to the public
an understanding of the impacts from the project. A complete description of the facility
locations should be identified in order for responsible agencies to assess the environmental
impacts. It must have all affected agency input and tentative acceptance indicated in the
report. The impacts to any agencies affected should be identified and mitigation measures
formulated.
C. Page 4.1-53, Line 34, Option B: The REIR does not show if
either of the proposed fire station sites are adequately located to meet Orange County
(ORCO) Fire Department standards of five (5) minutes for fire emergencies and eight (8)
minutes for paramedic services. As is noted in Annex Nos. 22 and 23, prompt response time
is critical to providing effective emergency services.
d. Page 4.1-54, Line 4, Option B: This section states that the
ORCO lowlands fire station would mitigate current Huntington Beach response deficiencies
in the Lowland residential area. More information is needed as to how the ORCO station,
without an agreement, would relate to the City of Huntington Beach response times.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
t • •
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page I l l
IC. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
1. Stratigraphy and Soils. Page 4.2-1, Section 4.2.1.2, gives no
description of sediments below 35 feet. As was requested by C.D.M.G., Standard
Penetration Tests must be performed to confirm soil densification below 30 feet and the
results must be circulated in an appendix to the recirculated REIR so that there is public
disclosure of the true conditions at the site. These tests were requested in the C.D.M.G.
comments (made with other State agencies) dated August 25, 1994. The REIR also fails to
comply with C.D.M.G.'s request that the deep dynamic compaction (DDC) and stone column
r soils densification processes proposed to mitigate potential soils liquefaction impacts must be
re-evaluated at a higher ground acceleration value of 0.4 to 0.45g. Despite the misleading ..
discussion of ground acceleration at page 4.2-8, lines 1-28, the REIR continues to evaluate
these impacts based upon a ground acceleration of 0.25g (=, gg, page 4.2-9, lines 46-
47).Z,/
2. Faulting and Seismicity.
a. Page 4.2-2, 4.2.1.4: The discussion of the Newport-Inglewood
Fault does to here state that the fault caused the destructive magnitude M 6.3 Long Beach
Earthquake with its epicenter near the coast between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach.
b. Further on in this section no mention is made of the offshore
San Clemente Escarpment Fault that is believed to be capable of producing a magnitude
M 7 - M 7.5 earthquake and may also be the most likely nearby fault to produce a local
Tsunami.
C. The Alquist-Priolo Exclusionary Zones presented at page 4.2-7
of the REIR appears to differ in significant respects from the zones contemplated by the City
971 The description of the seismic setting of the project remains technical and, as in the case of the DER,
requires further explanation. See Continent at Note 84. Different scales for magnitudes are given. No information
is provided to enable the lay public(or the County's Board of Supervisors)to decipher these references. As noted
in the Comment and above in this letter, Guidelines § 15140 which mandates, 'EZRs shall be written in plain
language and may use appropriate graphics so the decision-makers and the public can rapidly understand the
documents.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 112
shown in Annex No. 41 to this letter. The County's zone is wider than the City's at points,
yet narrower at others. The County must detail the basis for this discrepancy.w
3. Geologic Hazards
a. Page 4.2-4,Seismic Shaking: This section discusses the WCC
(1983) probabilistic analysis of the level of ground motion to be used for the Bolsa Chica
Project and their justification for using 0.25g acceleration for design purposes. This section
also discusses the C.D.M.G.'s suggestion that based on "advanced knowledge" of seismic
stresses and fault slip rates, a much higher ground acceleration of 0.45g should be used.
The REIR does not resolve this wide difference in evaluation techniques and analysis and
continues to use inappropriate design criteria.
b. A minimum of a 0.4g acceleration level should be used in the
analysis of the liquefaction potential of the saturated sediments in the lowland area and the
proposed mitigation measures of DDC and stone column densification processes be tested
against this same level of ground shaking. This higher acceleration level is more of the
ground shaking potential of a major earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault.
C. Page 4.2-8, Seismic Stress and Slip Rate: The Fault table in t
this section, as well as the probabilistic analysis should include the offshore San Clemente
Escarpment Fault.
d. Page 4.2-10, Fault Movement: This section discusses the active
Newport-Inglewood Fault and its various branches through the planning area and studies in
line with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act by WCC (1987a and 1991). They
accurately define the North Branch Fault as having the highest potential for producing
surface fault rupture. However, this relatively high potential for surface ground rupture
through the planning area is not, as it should be, designated a Significant Impact in REIR.
Based on the WCC Reports (1987a and 1991) an Alquist-Priolo Exclusionary Zone for
habitable structures has been established through the area but it is treated as a "Standard
981 Further, the County must detail why splay faults are considered a potentially dangerous condition with
respect to surface rupture under the proposed 9 million gallon reservoir but there is no Alquist-Priolo Fxciusionary
zone is proposed for that area of the project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 113
Condition" (SC-5) rather than as a Mitigation Measure to a Significant Impact. The potential
for surface ground rupture must be defined as a significant impact in Section 4.2.4.2 - Long
Term Impacts, and then provisions made for the mitigation measures in Section 4.2.5.1,
mitigation of Long Term Impacts.
e. Page 4.2-33, Lines 1-8: Lines 4 and 5 state, "No significant
impacts are anticipated." The only reference made to support this statement is to the Uniform
Building Code as adopted by the County. Mitigation of all potential seismic impacts is based
on the requirement for using 0.40g as a design standard for residential structures. What
about utility designs? Utilities such as natural gas, sewer and water lines all utilize the
passive resistance of the soil to contain these systems. During a seismic event, this
resistance is reduced in many rases, causing utility pipeline failure. A criteria for utility
design must be included in the report that will provide reasonable protection for these
facilities against a seismic event, including resistance to soil liquefaction if the soil studies
indicate such potential. These facilities should be designed for equivalent force resistance if
the project is to remain viable and be considered as having been constructed in accordance
with modern design practice. This will not be true if the utility systems both on and off the
properties are not designed consistent with the buildings.
f. Page 4.2-34, Lines 11-19 and 25-31: In lines 11-19, reference
is made to a five million gallon reservoir. This appears to be the sole reference to such a
facility of this size. It is not known if this refers to the potential nine million gallon
reservoir mentioned elsewhere in the REIR. Additionally, without the significant geologic
studies suggested as mitigation measures for the nine million gallon facility, the idea that "no
significant adverse impacts are anticipated" is questionable. By whose expertise is this
statement made? Furthermore, in lines 25-27, the statement is made that the site is
potentially unsuitable for such a facility. Impact 4.2-3 is a very significant impact that may
be impossible to mitigate for a structure constructed in the area of the project. The REIR
should go into more detail about proposed methods of constructing such facilities in close
proximity to major active seismic areas. This is because the data presented in the report
casts sufficient doubt as to whether the Uniform Building Code's seismic design criteria is
applicable to a facility in close proximity to a major earthquake fault. Expected seismic
loadings should be addressed and suggestions for dealing with extraordinary loadings should
be discussed. Authoritative predictions should be listed as to the potential for survival of a
1 water reservoir and its associated components, as well as the water distribution system. As
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 114
reservoirs are identified as emergency water facilities that will be critical for use after a
seismic event, this facility must be designed to be operable after such an event. If the ,
reservoir should fail, the dangers to residents should also be identified, such as flooding. As
location is basic to the design process, further study as outlined above is called for in the
best interests of the City and the residents of the developments.
4. Liquefaction.
a. Page 4.2-14: This section discusses the potential for
Liquefaction in the lowlands as was presented in several TETC reports (1990 and 1991).
The TETC reports conclude that the top 30-35 feet of soil in the lowlands contain liquefiable
soil which could lead to from 2 to 5 inches of post earthquake settlement. This analysis is
based on using a ground acceleration of 0.25g. What if the site was subjected to 0.4g from a
local earthquake? Based on their analysis they recommend soil densification as one method
to reduce the potential for liquefaction as a Project Design Feature (PDF-1) rather then as a
mitigation measure to a Significant Impact. Again, the liquefaction potential of the lowland
soils must be identified as a Significant Impact in Section 4.2.4.2 - Long Term Impacts. A
legally valid EIR might then recommend Mitigation Measures in Section 4.2.5, Mitigation
Measures for Long Term Impacts and then assess whether the remaining danger to persons
and property was a "significant impact" for purposes of CEQA.
b. The discussion of PDF-1 does not fully address the nature and
extent of either the DDC or Stone Column Techniques for soil densification. Accordingly, it
not possible for the reader to access accurately the effectiveness of the disguised mitigation
measures.
S. Tsunamis
a. Tsunamis are discussed in this section but there is no evidence ,
that an extensive study was conducted of the potential of a significant Tsunami's effect on the
Lowlands, nor for that matter on the residential development in the uplands. The REIR does
not discuss what a 6.6 to 9.8 feet runup would do to the proposed development at 5 feet
above mean sea level. They also do not analyze what a major earthquake on the San
Clemente Escarpment Fault might produce in the way of a Tsunami. The subject is not
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
r � �
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 115
1
adequately addressed in the REIR and potentially significant impacts, including potential
danger to the project residents and their homes is left undisclosed and unanalyzed.
b. Page 4.2-30, Lines 27-30: The statement that the potential for
tsunamis to cause impacts is remote must be supported by reference to an authority. The
REIR provides no support of evidence to corroborate the conclusions stated with respect to
the potential for tsunamis and for them to cause damage or injury. Established data
regarding the potential for tsunamis and seiche runup must be cited in the report or the
results of special studies done for the project on this subject must be presented. The
established data or special report must provide evidence to support the conclusions of the
report or else the report will not fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
6. Truck Routing for Contaminated Excavation Spoils Export. The
REIR indicates that during grading, the import and export of dirt etc. will occur. No
mitigation is mentioned regarding the use of City streets and the impact on roadways and
traffic. A traffic plan, outlining direction and streets to be used during this process, must be
developed. The Plan should include contingencies for hazardous wastes that may become
involved in traffic collisions on any portion of the traffic route.
7. Subsidence. The REIR avoids consideration of subsidence relative to
oil field impacts. The developer should be required to perform a subsidence survey to
determine if any change in elevation has occurred since the survey was performed in 1986.
The oil producer plans to abandon oil wells over the next twenty (20) years. Will the oil
producer choose to utilize new technology, such as slant drilling and/or water injection for
continued oil production? These points combined, the developer should be required to
perform a survey on an ongoing periodic basis, every two (2) years, for the next twenty (20)
year period or however long oil production continues in the area. Oil removal may be a
major contributor to subsidence. The impacts of a twenty (20) year oil operation on the
development, including an analysis of all abandoned oil well reports, should also be included
in the REIR. A subsidence survey needs to be performed prior to REIR approval. A
subsidence study will allow for the identification of mitigation measures. If not done, and
subsidence is occurring due to man made occurrences, the situation could result in the
continued sinking of property causing damage to structures as well as the infrastructure.
Attached to this letter as Annex No. 21, is a brief statement on subsidence and maps showing
' the rate of subsidence around the site.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
r
i •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 116
S. Improper Impact Significance Criteria. Page 4.20-19, lines 15-47
lists the significance criteria purportedly used by the REIR to assess seismic and geological ,
impacts; however, these criteria are not properly applied in identifying impacts from the
project. For example, if the potential for surface fault rupture, ground shaking, and
liquefaction are assessed under the criteria listed here, they must all be considered
"Significant Impacts" to the proposed development and the REIR must then list appropriate
"Mitigation Measures" intended to reduce the impacts. Then and only then can the REIR
attempt to make a determination that the mitigation measures proffered to alleviate the
identified impacts are effective to reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. This
process of identifying impacts, then identifying mitigation measures and then assessing the
remaining impact after mitigation is required to fulfill CEQA's mission of providing
disclosure to the public and agency decision-makers in an atmosphere of public
accountability. Sm&Lc& 19, immediately below.
9. REIR Ignores Impacts from Onsite Grading Activities. Page
4.2-21, 4.2.4.1, Short Term Impacts: Grading on the Mesa under either Lowland Option A
will require moving over 1,550,000 cu. yds. of soil and under Option B will require moving
over 3,450,000 cubic yards of soil. Even if this massive operation occurs over a period of
years with proper noise and dust control it is likely to create significant air, traffic, noise and
other impacts, yet the REIR does not detail the timing, phasing, truck routing or other
aspects of this operation.'' Grading of Lowlands under Option B will also require
compaction of approximately 2,400,000 yds. of soil and gravel which is in and of itself a
significant grading operation with its own potentially significant impacts. The RE1R limits
the criteria which it uses to determine whether an impact is significant to the import or
export of over 100,000 cubic yards of earth, thus presupposing that there is no potential for
the movement of up to 3,500,000 cubic yards over, through and across a site 2 miles wide,
to create any impact. The basis for such an assumption must be detailed and supported by
991 For exampk, if a fully-loaded doable bottom dump truck is assumed so hold 17 cubic yards of non-
compacted soil,3,450,000 of soil will require a total of 202,942 truckr. Over what period(s)will these trucks be
loaded and unloaded? How and when will these truda and the associated heavy earth-moving equipment be brought
to or from the site? How many acres of earth surface will be disturbed at one time? (This statistic will be crucial
in determining the amount of PMro emissions generated from earth moving operations). Of course,the RE1R does
not provide anything approaching this level of detail because the project is far too early in its design andplanning. ,
This is a prime example of why the Guidelines mandate the use of a staged EIR which MWres further public
environmental review as the design of the project proceeds. See Comment at Note 94.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 117
i
revidence. Further, Page 4.2-33 of the REIR notes that grading on the Mesa as well as in the
Lowland will require significant earth movement and is likely to create extensive noise, dust
and traffic impacts. The REEK must identify and justify how proposed specific and
object fiable mitigation measures will reduce this effect to insignificance as is assumed in the
REIR. Limiting the offsite trips to 15 per hour (is that one way trips or round trips?) does
not eliminate the likely particulate, emission, noise and other impacts of the grading
operation nor reduce the export to less than 100,000 yards (which is the criteria for
significance stated in the REIR).100'
10. REIR Ignores Significant Ground Shaking Impacts. Page 4.2-30,
Long Term Impacts, Mesa Component: This section includes discussions on the potential for
' surface fault rupture and the evaluation under the Algmst-Paolo Act and the subsequent
establishment of an exclusionary zone for habitable structures, and concludes that the
potential for surface fault rupture is an insignificant impact.1011 There is a potential for
surface rupture and severe ground shaking throughout the site and, as noted above, this
potential must be labelled as a significant and unavoidable impact of the project.
' 11. Inadequate Discussion of Surface Rupture.
a. Page 4.2-34, Long Term Impacts, Mesa Component: This
section of the REIR should include the full discussion of the potential for hazardous Surface
Fault Rupture on the North Branch Fault of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the need
to address the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act requirements and the need to establish
an Exclusionary Zone for residential and other habitable structures as true mitigation
measures.
' b. Lowland Option B: This section should include a discussion of
the potential for strong seismic shaking induced liquefaction in the lowland area. It should
also include a discussion of the impact on the proposed lowland development of the potential
100/ Given the huge number of trunks required to movie the massive amount of earth (both on the site and for
import/export hauls), how long will the grading operation take if this mitigation measure is strictly enforced?
101/ As noted above in this letter, the exclusionary zone considered in the RE1R differs significantly from the
established zone note in Annex No. 42. The geological basis for this distinction must be identified in the REIR
Proposed Feel Dreh Dated September 30, 1994
r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 118
tsunami hazard. It does not appear that the tsunami hazard has been adequately addressed in
the REIR.
C. Page 4.2-35, Lines 35-41: The REIR states that the "North
Branch Fault may exist and cause surface rupture in the proposed location of the 9 million
gallon water reservoir. Therefore, such rupture may result in the loss of water for domestic
and firefighting use.t0"" The REIR recommends a "geologic investigation" for the
mitigation. Further explanation of this "geologic investigation" is required, the funding
source must be identified and proposed contingency plans which address the results of the
investigation must be developed and provided to mitigate the potentially significant impacts
of surface rupture. Proposed mitigation measure 4.2-3 is inadequate because it completely ,
fails to mitigate the impact. Performing a study does nothing to mitigate Impact 4.2-3. The
study referenced in this mitigation measure should be performed now, in conjunction with the
consideration of the REIR, and its results discussed in this document. The study should
contain all elements necessary to determine if the site selected is suitable for a nine million
gallon reservoir facility in accordance with established engineering principles. The future of
the available water supply system for this project may rest with this concern. If the site is
determined to be unsuitable, the REIR can then address alternatives to the proposed site and
analyze them in the same manner. In the end, at least one workable site should be listed in
the report with certainty. To stave off the true impact of the potentially active North Branch
Fault with further study is an inadequate effort for the purpose of providing real facts needed
to consider a development proposal of this magnitude.
12. Impact of Corrosive Soils is Not Mitigated.The idea, stated at Page 4.2-
25, Lines 18-20 of the REIR, that "common construction practice" will alleviate the very
significant impact of corrosion in this area is folly. In fact, common construction practice does
little to deal with corrosion of water utilities. The corrosion issues in the Bolsa Chica are
significant due, among other things, to the close proximity of sea water. Based on the City's
experience in the Huntington Harbor area's water distribution system, extraordinary efforts will
1021 No mention is made in the REIR as to the required f ire f ow danandt for the project area It is estimated
that this project would require a f ire flow of up to 4,000 gpm over and above the domestic water flow requirements.
Further f ire flow study is required including bade up water storage.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 119
be required to mitigate the high potential for corrosion-L—' This would include the special
coating of metallic parts, metallic parts made from noble materials (such as Type 316 stainless
steel), and a cathodic protection system plan that would include every affected metallic part
placed underground. "Normal construction practice" or other typical standards will not meet
the long term needs of the City's water utility or any other. If special measures are not taken
over and above "normal construction practice," the system installed will not last the usual
minimum 50 year design period. If owned and maintained by the City, significant maintenance
efforts will be involved in the frequent replacement of corroded parts. This would translate into
not only a significant cost to the City or to the development's residents, but also into a time
budget problem as an abnormal amount of time would be spent by work crews performing the
maintenance. This also adds significant aggravation and inconvenience for the residents as their
streets would be constantly torn up. It is estimated that as much as $100,000 per year could be
spent on maintenance due to corrosion in this area if proper mitigation measures are not included
in the project.
13. Mitigation Measures Are Not Effective.
ra. Mesa Component: This section should include a description of the
mitigation measures needed to preclude the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and thus
establish a sufficiently wide exclusionary zone for habitable structures to evade impacts, if
possible.
b. Impact 4.2.3 concerns potentially active fault splays in the area of
the proposed 9 million gallon water reservoir on the Mesa. If further geologic investigation
determines the site to be unsuitable, then the reservoir must be relocated to a proven suitable
site. The REIR should present alternative sites (both onsite and offsite) for the relocated tank.
This would eliminate the potential for an Unavoidable Significant Impact as listed in
Section 4.2.6. In addition,the presence of potential splay faults and their potential impacts must
be analyzed.
C. The REIR should include descriptions of mitigation measures
necessary to prevent damaging liquefaction in the saturated sediments of the Lowlands if they
1031 See also Comment at page 88.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 120
are to be developed. This should include an in depth explanation of the DDC and rock column
options with engineering data provided in an appendix to assure the method's effectiveness.
d. After the rewritten and recirculated REIR provides in depth and
complete evaluation of the potential Tsunami Hazard to the proposed development, as
recommended above, appropriate mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate those hazards must
be provided here to the extent feasible.
D. CHAnER 4.3 - HAZARDOUS SussTANcEs
1. Inadequate Response to Comment. Substantially all issues raised in the
Comment regarding the DEIR continue to apply to the REIR. Sm Comment at pages 81-86.
Further, virtually all of the specific data formerly included in the DEIR has been deleted from
the REIR. There is no information on the presence of heavy metals or DDT. TPH surveys that
have been done are only generally described. This information should have been included in
the REIR. As it stands, the responses to the Comment and the issues raised in this letter must
be recirculated, together with the results of the technical studies required, in a new, rewritten
REIR which adequately discloses the nature and extent of the existing hazardous
materials/contamination at the site, evaluates the health risks(both to humans and to the wetlands
biota) and requires legally adequate, specific mitigation measures to address the significant and
potentially significant impacts so identified.
2. Cost of Remediation Must Be Further Detailed and Allocated. Without ,
more information on the cost and extent of remediation, it is not possible to evaluate the
economic feasibility of site clean up. A further complicating aspect of this question is the degree
of oil operator responsibility for the costs of remediation. The REIR does not delineate the
allocation of costs of remediation and site restoration between costs to be paid by project
development and costs which ought to be born by the oil operators. Delineation of these costs
will have an impact, in particular, on the financial feasibility of the mitigation bank required
under Lowland Option A.
3. Further Study and Disclosure of Nature and Extent of Contamination
is Required. The Project site has been intensively developed for oil and gas exploration,
extraction and related operations. The REIR acknowledges the need for additional
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 121
characterization work and future environmental testingin several instances 4.3.1 line
Gam, g.�., ,
36; 10.3, line 46; 10.5.1, line 26). This work must be completed and the results of the studies
disclosed in an appendix to the REIR in order to understand the true hazards of developing
residential properties adjacent to an oilfield in operation for 80 years. The nature and extent of
existing contamination and the extent of the required remediation (as well as the techniques and
phasing of that remediation) must be disclosed to the decision makers and the public prior to
setting in motion the grand development scheme presented in the REIR.
4. Further Study and Disclosure of Health Risks to Project Residents is
Required. Several sections of the REIR indicate that further health risk assessments must be
performed. In order for the public and the decision makers to understand the environmental
consequences of planning the project site for medium to high density urban development (with
the concomitant potential exposure of thousands of people to potentially hazardous substances),
the health risk assessment must be included as-part of the REIR. As currently written, it is not
possible for the reader to determine how the future health risk assessment will form the basis
for the County's standard nor what human-health risk (1 in a million, 1 in hundred thousand?)
level the County would accept as an "insignificant" environmental impact.
5. Reabandoning of OR Wells Must Be Accomplished under Current
Standards. Sections 4.3.3.2 and 10.3.2 (SC-1 for Hazardous Materials) states that, "All oil
wells will be abandoned in accordance with state and local regulations." The City assumes that
this means that all oil and gas related operations, including without hmitatim, wells, pipelines,
etc. will be abandoned in accordance with regulations in effect today. Those regulations offer
a higher degree of safety than the regulations under which older wells were abandoned and must
be implemented, as a mitigation measure, to limit the significance of the impact of the
abandoned operations on the adjacent medium to high density neighborhood proposed in the
REIR. Thus, all wells abandoned prior to the effective date of, for example, the 1984
regulations, must be re-abandoned in accordance with 1994 standards and, in the future, all well
must be abandoned in accordance with whatever more restrictive regulations are subsequently
adopted by agencies having jurisdiction over such matters. The Division of Oil and Gas must
perform a site review prior to the development of the property. An oil well review should be
conducted on all oil wells abandoned to prior day codes. PRC § 3208.1 (a copy of which is
attached as Annex No. 20) requires site reviews. If a site review is not performed, leaking
abandoned oil wells will present major problems with respect to methane gas, and possibly oil
i
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 122
leaks. Page 4.3-15 Line 3. Further, as a mitigation measure the wells should
� agsh be required
to fulfill the more restrictive measures of the City regarding abandonmenOw-
6. C' Standards for Soil Remediation Should Be A lied. What clean
rt3' PP
up standard is going to be used to remediate the soils? The County does not have a soil clean
up standard for residential development in abandoned oil fields. If the County does not
remediate soils to the City standards City residents and project residents may be significantly
impacted. During the development of the Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, GeoScience ,
Analytical conducted research locally, on a State level and Federally to obtain information
necessary to establish levels of hydrocarbon contamination that were acceptable for the general
public as well as for the environment. GeoScience Analytical's report, (attached as Annex No. '
18), answers many questions regarding the issues of hydrocarbon contaminated soil as well as
other hazardous waste constituents. The County has no such standard and needs to adopt the
City's Standard for this project or conduct a similar study.
7. Phase II Assessment Is Required. The REIR does not mention the need
for a Phase II Site AssessmentA02-1 The basis for and scope of this requirement is detailed at ,
length at pages 92-96 of the Comment. During remediation a Health and Safety Plan will be
required. Site Auditors will be needed to audit the field activities at various times to evaluate
the execution of sample identification, sample control, chain of custody procedures, field
documentation and sampling operations. The Site Auditor is also responsible for maintaining
a safe working environment and ensuring that "ON" site conditions are not allowed to cause
"OFF" site problems. The need for a Phase II site assessment is based on the lack of
information pertaining to the entire site that is not adequately covered in the REIR. Unknown
sumps,pipelines, chemical contamination, water contamination, along with the lack of analytical
1041 The REZR does not eWrasly state what standard will be use to re radiate contamination at well sites. As
noted in the Comment, then are significant diffmnees between the County's standards and the Cay's and given
the location of the proposed project within an island surrounded by the City,the City's standards should be applied
A copy of the City's Standards for soil remediation is attached to this letter as Annex No. 19.
1051 The REM attempts to address the existing environmental setting without a Phase H Site Assessment. Such
an assessment is necessary to understand the potential impacts from the project. Some environmental testing was
done in areas of brown contamination,however a closer review of all areas should be addressed Refer to pages
92-96 of the Comment. Although this issue was identified to the County sa (6)months ago, it still has not been
addressed in the RE1R.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
rOrange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 123
test data is a major problem when remediation is started. Unknowns must be planned
Pin J P
for prior to any remediation on site. This need was identified in the City's Comment to the
DEIR and has not been addressed in the REIR. The concerns are further detailed in Annex Nos.
18 and 19. The summary of impacts table summarizing the hazardous materials impact section
' states that the oil operator will be required to remediate all area of known contamination. Is
this true for unknown areas as well? Will there be an agreement signed between the developer
and the oil operator for these "known and unknown sites?" Past history has demonstrated that
once the oil operator is gone, the burden falls upon the property owner or the developer.
' a. a 4.3-13 Line 1: This is an understatement. There is
� � ere a high
' probability that additional area of contamination and abandoned oil pipelines will be found
during the construction phase. 5= Comment at pages 83-4, 87-91.
' b. Page 4.3-14, Line 34, Soil Contamination: A Phase II Site
Assessment will characterize the project area and eliminate the potential for unknowns.
' C. Page 4.3-15, Line 31, Mitigation Measures: Again the need for a
complete Phase II Site Assessment.
8. Community Contingency Plan Is Required. A Community Contingency
Plan should be required due to problems with on site remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated
soils. Even if the grading mitigation plan were an acceptable method of handling those situations
mentioned in Section 4.3, unknown situations which are likely to arise in the context of the
project site must be dealt with by performing a full Phase II Site Assessment of the entire site
' and developing (prior to project approval) a remediation action plan which includes a plan for
dealing with potentially dangerous situations in the event of upset.10- A sample Community
1061 Page 7-1 of the REIR states:
Decades of oil production activities have taken place in the Project Ana,predominantly in the
lowlands and on Huntington Beale Mesa. These activities will continue while they are
economically productive and in accordance with a phasing plan for wetlands restoration and
protection. For the most part,the oil operations will be phased out as oil resources are depleted.
' This may result in oil facilities in close proximity to wetlands and/or urban uses. Potential
(continued..)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 124
Contingency Plan, which deals with the matters required to address public safety is attached to
this letter as Annex No. 17. The sample is a Community Contingency Plan for the NESI site
located in Huntington Beach.
9. Further Testing for Lead and other Contaminants is Required. Page ,
4.3-9, Line 49: The REIR indicates that no soil sampling has occurred in the area of the
seasonal ponds where sandblasting and painting were conducted. Also no tests for lead
contamination have been performedAW Past tests are not sufficient and a Health Risk ,
Assessment, again, is not the appropriate method for examining site contamination. The
proposed grading mitigation plan must be circulated for public review by the lead agency. The
REIR states that this document forms the foundation for the remediation of all areas of ,
contamination whether identified or not.
10. Further Study of Potential Impacts from Gas Lane Is Required. Page ,
4.3-15, Line 49, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: The fourteen (14) inch, one hundred fifty (150)
pounds per square inch (psi) "wet gas line" that runs through the site is required to be located
no closer than twenty (20) feet from any buildings. Twenty (20) feet is not a safe distance. ,
Further study of an appropriate distance from buildings is necessary. A study should be
performed to establish a safe route for any major pipeline. Explosion and fire hazards have
occurred in past instances. For example, in the Seacliff Development adjacent to the Bolsa
Chica, a pipeline ruptured in 1981 spewing oil over numerous homes and also releasing natural
gas. If an ignition had occurred, innocent victims could have been injured of killed. Even
though the pipeline was located in the street, the product release covered an area of ,
1061(...continued)
impacts associated with continues oil production activities include fire explosions,and vandalism
is the form of tampering with machinery.
Despite this forthright assessment of the true impacts of the project, the earlier chapters of the REIR
conclude that the potential impacts from explosions and fire are not significant without aid of supporting data or
reasoning. The presence of these admitted potential impacts(each of which have an evident potential for injury or
death)coupled with the lack of a proper contingency plan or assessment of the hazardous materials on the site makes
the potential for disaster even greater.
107/ As was noted at page 91 of the Comment, the history of the site indicates that lead and other metals are
likely to be encountered,yet, the REM does not reveal the methods used or the results of any testing of the project
site. ?his information must be included in a recirculated REIR.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
• •
I Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 125
I
approximately 300 to 500 feet. Pipeline setback is a critical issue that has not been adequately
analyzed in the REIR.
E. CHAPTER 4.4 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
I 1. Groundwater Well at Edwards Thumb Could Cause Significant
Impact. Page 4.4-10, Lines 10-13: The proposal to construct a groundwater production well
in the Edwards Thumb area (a proposal not adequately disclosed in the REIR in general or the
' project description in particular) should be added to the explanation of PDF-6. The well is a
significant item that could impact the groundwater in the area.
2. Potential Impacts Will Exist Even with Operation of Proposed Pump
Stations.
I a. Page 4.4-11, Lines 1-2 and 47-49: In lines 1-2, sediment
referenced in these lines and in lines 46-50 on page 4.4-10 could be carried to the City's existing
Bolsa Chica Stormwater Pump Station. This could impact the operation of the station as well
' as affecting its reliability. Furthermore, cleanup of this sediment and other debris that may be
carried with it would result in a cost to the City on the order of$1,000 to $50,000, depending
on what substances are contained in the transported material. In lines 47-49, the statements
I made offer no reference of authority. At the very least, the OCWD should be cited as to
whether this statement could be true.
' b. Page 4.4-12,Lines 39-40: Redundancy in the pumping system as
noted may not effectively reduce potential impacts of siltation based on the City's experience in
operating 15 similar stations over the past 30+ years. Siltation can cause many types of
Iproblems, and if the main station is inundated with enough silt to cause a malfunction, the
backup station will usually suffer the same fate. The only effective and practicable solution is
to stop the siltation from reaching the stations. Typical solutions involve design of desiltation
Istructures into the drainage system upstream from the pump stations. These structures are
designed to affect the water flow such that the silt drops out of the flowstream and is collected
in a container that must be later cleaned out. Silt production can also be reduced at the source
ithrough various onsite means, such as a containment wall surrounding a site or desiltation
structures built into the site drainage system. Any desiltation structure utilizing accepted
' engineering designs should be acceptable in this case. In line 50 of page 4.4-13, reference is
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 19%
Page 126 ,
made to a "direct fuel" alternative power source. As operator of 15 storm water pumping
stations employing the most effective, advanced technology in the water industry, City personnel
are unfamiliar with this terminology. No other information can be found on that alternative.
The author should explain what "direct fuel" is so that the reader can rapidly understand the text
as required by CEQA and the Guidelines.
c. Page 4.4-14, Lines 1-3 and 38-40: In lines 1-3, the idea that
having alternative fuel sources to operate a pump station will reduce concerns regarding the '
station's failure to a level of insignificance is a falsehood. From the City's experience, loss of
fuel is only one item (and one of the least likely items) which will cause a pump station to fail
in a storm event. Pump clogging from foreign objects entering it via the storm drainpipe ,
system, controller failure, sensor failure and mechanical breakdown are all much more likely
occurrences that will cause the station to stop operation. None of these possibilities is discussed.
As a result, the discussion presented is inadequate. Mitigation measures that will address the ,
most common pump station failures should be addressed, such as the need for desiltation
structures in the drainage system to reduce pump station silt buildup, effective trash racks in the
drainage system and at the pump station to reduce pump clogging, adequate backup of control ,
systems and their associated sensors, and finally, an electronic system that will monitor the
condition and operation of the pump station so that if it fails during a storm event, proper
personnel will be dispatched promptly to return the station to operation.
d. Page 4.4-15, Lines 21-23: Rerouting of the Bolsa Chica Pump
Station (correct name) must be reviewed and approved by the City, who operates that pump ,
station and is responsible for the drainage area served by the station. If the City exercises its
right to deny approval of the rerouting, what options exist for the proposed project? Sm aim
REIR at Page 4.4-19, lines 1-3, 14 and 20. 1
3. Further Mitigation Is Required to Improve Water Quality Flowing into
the Wetlands from the EGGW Channel. Page 4.4-16, Lines 41-50: Line 41 states that the '
water quality from the north pump station will be the same as that in the EGGW Channel. The
City's experience has not been the same due to the seasonal nature of storms in this area.
Consequently, the majority of the runoff into the City operated pump stations that discharge into
the EGGW Channel during the months of April through September is water from lawn irrigation
and the hosing down of private property. On the way to the storm drain, the water picks up
anything that lies in the gutters and carries it into the pump station. As the stations operate on
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
r
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 127
1
' an automatic cycle, the water gets pumped into the EGGW Channel at various intervals. Many
of the intervals are lengthy enough for the water to become potentially septic. As such, the
water quality in the channel may be degraded to unacceptable levels. Mitigation measures are
required if the channel water quality is impacted significantly. Measures might involve more
frequent pumpdowns of the pump station forebays, disinfection processes that would reduce
degradation of water quality in the forebays or some other means to meet the necessary water
quality standards. Furthermore, the first rains of the season usually carry a significant amount
of automobile fluid into the storm drains which does impact the water quality of the pump station
discharge. This has been sufficiently documented across the country, resulting in NPDES
standards for same, which should be detailed in the recirculated REIR .
4. Insignificance of Ground Water Impacts Must be Supported by
Evidence.
a. Page 4.4-13,Lines 5-7, 19-21, and 50: The statement that no long
term adverse impacts to ground water are expected is unsupported by adequate authority. It is
not known whether OCWD, manager/overseer of the Santa Ana River groundwater basin, has
been consulted or has endorsed this comment. Such a statement should be supported by OCWD.
Furthermore, just because the California RWQCB and Orange County EMA have cleanup
oversight of the SOVI gas plant, it can't be said that the potential impact to groundwater quality
is not considered significant. Having authority over the cleanup does not mean that significant
impacts on the groundwater has not already occurred. Groundwater cleanup is a lengthy
process, usually taking many years. If groundwater cleanup is necessary, what are the expected
parameters?
b. Page 4.4-16, lines 47-48, the statement that the south pump station
discharge to the seasonal pond area will increase recharge of the semi-perched zone. What are
the groundwater quality impacts of this? What does OCWD or any other authority have to say
about this? No answers are contained in the REIR. The report should document the review of
the potential for groundwater degradation with OCWD. OCWD should determine the problems
associated with this issue and suggest or require appropriate mitigation measures.
r
1
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
t
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 128
S. Potential for Impacts of Quality of City Water Supply Must Be
Disclosed and Analyzed. Page 4.4-14, lines 38-40, it is stated that there may be potential '
degradation of the groundwater quality due to tidal inundation. What is the effect on the
groundwater quality of the City's water supply? The City relies on groundwater for about 3/4
of its water supply. If degradation of the groundwater occurs in the vicinity of the City's wells, '
what are the impacts to the City? This issue is significant and should be discussed. If the
groundwater table is degraded to such a degree to render the City's wells unusable, the impacts
to the City and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) will be significant. Since the City has
only its connections to MWD to rely on if its wells are no longer usable, this would mean an
impact of an additional 26,000 acre-feet(8.5 trillion gallons)of water would need to be supplied
to the City by MWD. Since MWD is currently in a position such that it cannot supply all ifs ,
contracted demands, this would further burden that agency's system. Additionally, it would
mean that the City's customers would have to pay three times as much as they do now for water,
meaning significantly higher water bills. Secondarily, the City's customers would experience '
a significant reduction in the water quality they are used to, since MWD water contains about
twice as many salts as the City's groundwater.
6. Miscellaneous. ,
a. Page 4.4-7,lines 16-18: By how much will the amount of sediment
increase, both with a rock or hard surface lining of the EGGW channel and without? This same
question was asked in the Comment and remains unanswered in the REIR. The County must
respond by (i) explaining how and whether the EGGW channel will be lined as suggested, ,
showing its estimation (and the basis for its estimation) of the amounts of sediments under each
scenario and the expected impacts from the anticipated increase in sedimentation.
b. Page 4.4-8, Lines 26-36: The statement contained in lines 6-9 on
page 4.5-25 is significant and should be added to this paragraph.
C. Page 4.4-11, lines 10-13: How much is the increased sediment
loading? This question was, like many others, raised in the Comment and not answered in the
REIR. Here again, the County must detail the estimated increase in sediment loading, its basis
for that estimate and the anticipated harm from this effect.
Proposed Final Draft Dated S"tember 30, 1994 '
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 129
1
rd. Page 4.4-13, lines 30-32: Maintenance dredging is stated to be by
hydraulic method. If so, where is the location of the detention pond to process unsuitable
r material? Is this method feasible within proposed wetland area? What noise, odor, hazardous
materials and risk of upset impacts will this process have to the wetlands and to the residents
of the City and the project?
re. Page 4.4-14, lines 42-45: This paragraph appears to have nothing
to do with Impact 4.4-2. If the REIR intends to inform the reader of a relationship between
these statements, it must be more specific as to how the Edward's Thumb well relates to
inundation of the full tidal area and the potential impacts to ground water quality.!,-
' f. Page 4.4-17, Lines 26-27: No reference of authority is given for
this statement. Once again, the OCWD is not referenced either, so without their concurrence
this statement is not substantiated adequately.
g. Page 4.4-18, Lines 23,40 and 41: The REIR suggests that all of
the groundwater mitigation measures listed be reviewed and approved by the County of Orange.
' The reviewing agency should be "the Orange County Water District," which is a separate and
distinct agency whose purpose is to manage and oversee the operation of the groundwater basin
in reference.
' h. Page 4.4-19, line 14, reference should be made to the authority of
approval of the OCWD for the groundwater issue discussed in Mitigation Measure 4.4-5.
' i. Page 4.4-19, line 20, the mitigation for Mitigation Measure4.4-7
is listed as being the same as for Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. This mitigation will not work
because Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 contains no elements for dealing with the shallow groundwater
problem identified in Impact 4.4-7, for which Mitigation Measure 4.4-7 is supposed to mitigate.
A means to eliminate the potential for inundation of subterranean structures and possible springs.
This would place a significant burden on utility companies utilizing underground vaults.
Significant deterioration over time will result. The City would need to spend an estimated
$20,000 in additional funds each year to pump out these structures each time they must be
' entered as well as to replace the interior piping, equipment vault structure hardware. Drainage
' 1081 See Comment at page 113 at 1 Z
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 130
pump stations will work longer hours pumping water infiltrating the drainage systems, resulting
in increased fuel and maintenance costs on the order of$1-10,000. Residents may experience '
grass and shrubs dying as a result of their receiving too much water from the inundation.
Further study is called for to address the mitigation of the above items.
F. CHAPTER 4.5 - WATER OUA=
1. NPDES Permit Is Required. The Revised EIR identifies the need to
secure a 401 and 404 permit but does not mention the need for a 402 (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)) permit. This permit is issued at the State level and ,
would be processed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.
2. Deletion of Tidal Inlet.The revised project has deleted the tidal inlet from '
the project. The new project plan proposes that the wetlands restoration and tidal waterway
enhancement will discharge solely into Huntington Harbor. Additional backup material and/or
clarification is required to support the impact assessment of the more isolated tidal system. The ,
Draft EIR cites recent consultant studies which purportedly show that the new wetlands system
will improve water circulation, thereby enhancing water quality. However, the reader must
accept the validity of the findings on faith since the details of the analysis are not described in
the REIR, nor are those report readily available. The REIR briefly mentions that water quality
conditions in the proposed project were assumed based upon a residence time analysis. This is
a simplistic hydraulic model approach which merely calculates flow velocities and excursion. '
A more sophisticated analysis should have been performed to model the actual temporal and
spatial variation of dissolved oxygen levels within the wetlands channel network as affected by
benthic demand,temperature and other parameters. Similarly,point source and non-point source
pollutant loadings should be better studied to describe the expected flushing and water quality
aspects of the proposed improvements. It is not clear to the reader, that the proposed system
of full tidal and muted tidal channels and embayments truly achieves the stated "highest quality '
water feasible for the wetlands system" as so declared by the WRP. The REIR's analysis
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 '
•
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 131
focused too much attention on velocity-type impacts and made rather quick assumptive and
unsubstantiated reasoning as the basis for water quality impact conclusions.M
3. Adequacy of REIR Analysis. The REIR reverses the County's position
with respect to tidal inlet impacts. The DEIR was unequivocal in its conclusion that the tidal
' inlet was a vital necessity to the overall flushing and circulation characteristics of the wetlands
component. The inlet alternative has now been declared to be too impacting for reasons that
were not presented in the DEIR. This reversal in impact analysis leads one to question the
validity of declarations now stated in the REIR. For example, it appears as if the inlet was
never required to produce the water quality objectives for wetlands restoration in the first place;
so, what assurance is there that the project will now perform to expectations? Further, as noted
in Part I.L, above, the negative comments on the particular design of the County's formerly
proposed ocean connection should not result, as appears to be the case, in the County attempting
to wash its hands of the matter in the entirety. To the contrary, the County should be striving
to provide the ocean connection which the DEIR attempted to justify while altering the design
of that connection in a manner which mitigates the negative impacts noted in the comments to
the DEIR. Mere deletion of a component which the County's own environmental review
indicated was critical to complete wetlands restoration is not sufficient analysis under CEQA.
4. Additional Information Required. More supportive technical information
' is required to describe the wetlands design process, i.e., how the new proposal was formulated,
together with analysis to support more fully its ability to maintain high levels of water quality.
Too much of the WRP design has been left to post-project monitoring and broadly outlined
' procedures to check if the system will work as intended. Such policy is ill-advised as it may
well be too late to take necessary corrective action after the fact. All parties involved will
attempt to avoid the expensive remedial responsibilities which will be required if the proposed
muted tidal system and periodic dredging of contaminated sediments does not perform and the
restoration must be redesigned after implementation has commenced. Therefore, the REIR must
disclose all risks, uncertainties and design sensitivities now and, in so doing, the WRP should
1091 As is noted in Pan U,above, the County must not merely reject the notion of including a tidal inlet based
on the negative comments on the particular design of the tidal inlet proposed in the DEIX The County must acplore
a reasonable range of alternatives for this critical component of the wetlands restoration. Alternatives may include
the current proposal as well as some combination of that proposal with an inlet(of the sane and of different design
from the inlet proposed in the DEIR) and/or a culvert connection.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 132 '
clearly address and disclose the matrix of corrective action that might be required along with
specific response and responsibilities of the various agencies and parties who will perform the
required remediation.
S. Metals Contamination. Page 4.5-11, Line 1, Trace Metals: Metals are '
located throughout the project site. Most of the metals have been found in bays and estuaries.
These are most probably related to the production of oil on the site. What agency will approve
and monitor the cleanup of these sites? Since these metals are considered a regulated hazardous ,
waste will the Department of Toxic Substance Control be the lead agency or will it be delegated?
The same question applies to detected pesticides. According to the REIR and Table 4.5-9,
certain areas exceed acceptable levels of metals. With metal levels exceeding regulated levels;
local agencies do not have the authority to monitor or approve their cleanup. The DTSC is the
agency that oversees hazardous waste cleanup. DTSC needs to review and approve the cleanup
plan for the method of removing and the disposal of these metals. Metals should not be ,
remediated and left in place. Currently in an area in Huntington Beach, metal contamination
was found in the soil. The developer was required to remove the metals from the site and
dispose of them as required by Federal law. Metals in water, bays and estuaries are more
difficult to remove. A detailed plan for removing metals must be developed as part of the
recirculated REIR.
6. Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan.
a. WRP p. 1-19, § 1.5.3.4:The revised EIR has not demonstrated that
this objective, "highest quality water feasible", will be achieved as a result of the project design.
b. WRP P. C-A-7, § 1.2.4.1: Dissolved oxygen levels of 3 seem to
be a sub-standard goal in conflict with earlier highest quality objectives. Insufficient modeling
analysis has been done to verify that standards will be met.
C. VW p. C-A-26, § 1.4.2.Le: Annual sampling is inadequate to
truly monitor project waterways. If a program is necessary to check for possible problems, what
are those problems and how can they be rectified? More discussion is required in the EIR on
project risks, uncertainties, and sensitivities.
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 133
' d. WRP p. C-A-64, § 1.5.3.1.e: What if design hydraulic regime
is not shown to be achieved by monitoring? Discuss project risks, uncertainties, and sensitivities
in EIR and what methods might be required to address potential problems. Who will be
responsible for taking corrective action?
e. WRP p. C-B-18, § 2.4.1.c: The REIR must discuss what water
quality control measures will be necessary to remedy potential problems, and who will be
responsible for their implementation.
' 7. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 3-29, lines 45-48: The new wetlands system relies on
connection to Huntington Harbor, yet the statement is made that a future tidal inlet may be
desirable to achieve wetlands objectives. The proposed project concedes that a tidal inlet is too
impacting (and as noted elsewhere, the City takes issue with that approach), however the
inference is that the inlet may be necessary to achieve water quality objectives in the wetlands
area. More discussion is necessary to outline under what circumstances the inlet may be
required or why it may be needed. Does this mean that the revised proposal has the potential
for less than desirable water quality conditions?
b. Page 3-45, lines 38-41: Does the project phasing result in short
term water quality impacts due to size of scale limitations?
' C. Page 4.5-26 Lines 15-20,Remedial Action Plans(RAP):The R.EIR
states that County EMA will be responsible for ensuring compliance through it's standards.
What standard will they use and enforce. The RAP is based on a Health Risk Assessment, again
this is not the proper tool for remediating existing conditions. The proper tool is a
comprehensive Phase II Site Assessment as stated in a previous section of this document.
. d. Page 4.5-32,Lines 15-20: Reference is made to the special BMP's
referenced ("filtered catch basins, oil/water separators, or equivalent measures") to improve the
quality of the urban runoff. Who will maintain these devices/structures? How will they be
maintained? Who will monitor the results of their use to ensure the implied result? None of
these questions is answered. Without proper maintenance and monitoring, these
devices/structures will not provide the mitigation measures needed. It is expected that the
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 4, 1994
Page 134 ,
residents of the development will be the s 'op paying a costs to perform this work, which can be on the
order of an additional$1,000 - $50,000, to maintain the quality of the urban runoff. '
e. Page 4.5-33, Lines 35-49: The concepts discussed in this section
do not reference concurrence by OCWD or any other reference of authority. Further, the letter
from OCWD to the County attached to this letter as Annex No. 29 indicates that the fault does
W act as an effective horizontal barrier as is assumed in the REIR.
L Page 4.5-34, Lines 28-42: The same comments noted in Option '
A will be the same here for Option B.
g. Page 4.5-35, Lines 1-14: OCWD must concur that the project has
no long term significant impacts. Otherwise the statements in the REIR to that effect are without
foundation and have no credibility. The County should have prepared the REIR in consultation '
with the OCWD and the REIR should note the opinion and input of OCWD.
G. CRAmR 4.6 - COASTAL HYDRAULICS ,
1. Sediment Increase in Huntington Harbor. The points raised in the
Comment still apply. There is no mention of possible sediment increase in the harbor adjacent
to the Percy and Warner docks. While increased tidal flow should have a beneficial effect on
water quality,it may have an adverse effect on sediment build-up which would require dredging.
This area already requires periodic dredging. The mitigation plan should include frequency of '
dredging, funding sources and methods, and information regarding testing of sediment for
hazardous materials and proposed sites for disposition of those materials.
2. :Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.5-31, Lines 1-3: Who will be responsible for debris ,
removal? How much material must be handled at what frequency?
b. Page 4.5-33, Line 23: How much dredging will need to be done
and by whom? This was raised in the Comment and is not addressed in the REIR
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 135
! C. Page 4.6-3, Line 15: High flow velocities under Warner Avenue
Bridge under existing conditions are stated to reach 12.8 fps; however, the REIR listed the value
as 11.5 fps. Which is correct, and why the difference? What is the impact of the higher high
flow velocity.
d. Page 4.6-3, Line 33: Residence time analysis is too simplified a
method for water quality assessment. Relative differences in residence times do not necessarily
imply better conditions between the existing and proposed project conditions. A more
sophisticated simulation of no levels and non-point and point source pollution dispersion
throughout system would be a more appropriate tool to evaluate the design of the wetlands area
and sensitivities in its performance.
e. Page 4.6-13, Line 41-42: Lower residence times do not of
themselves imply improved water quality. More specific analysis of proposed project using
' more sophisticated analysis is required to substantiate assumption made. For example, what if
newly created water areas have high benthic demand and high Bon loading during warm water
conditions?
' f. Page 4.6-14ff, Line 35-50;1-38 What is the specific criteria for
linlQng project effects to bulkhead erosion? It is conceivable that much debate could take place
arguing over the cause of future erosion in an attempt to show that the project may not be the
culprit. Monitoring without clear criteria and responsibility links does not provide sufficient
mitigation assurances.
e 11-4, Lines 34-37: What is the criteria for increased bed
scour and how is it to be determined that the project is at cause, and who makes the
determination?
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
!
Orange County Environmental Management Agency !
October 4, 1994
Page 136 !
!
H. CHAPTER 4.7 - MARDWAouAnc BIOLOGY"w
1. Hazardous Materials Impacts;Inspection of Oil Facilities. Page 4.7-31, !
Line 28 and following deals with existing oil operations near the wetlands. Who will conduct
the inspections of the existing facilities and enforce the applicable requirements of law? The
plan should be reviewed and approved by the enforcing agency. The Oil Field Enforcement
Section of Orange County("OFF.SOC")will have responsibility for enforcing oil related issues.
What will OFESOC's response time be to complaints,problems, oil leaks, or other issues in this '
area. The REIR needs to identify the level of service that will be provided especially given the
introduction of sensitive residential receptors immediately adjacent to oil facilities which will
continue in active use for at least the next 20-25 years. !
2. Significant Impact to Shorebird Feeding at Mudflats.
a. Page 4.7-33: The document states that the dredging of Outer Bolsa '
Bay would temporarily disrupt shorebird feeding on the mudflat areas and result in a permanent
loss of mudflat habitat. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact because "new '
mudflat habitat will be created in the full tidal area." Assuming new mudflat habitat is created
at some point that provides foraging opportunities equitable to what was lost, this temporary loss
would still be a significant impact on shorebirds. The Bolsa Chica Wetlands provide important
and critical foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds (refer to Point Reyes Bird Observatory
studies on shorebird movement in the Pacific Flyway). The loss and degradation of mudflat
habitat at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, even for a few seasons, would be a significant adverse '
impact on shorebirds in the Pacific Flyway.
b. Page 4.7-36: The mudflats in the fully tidal area that are proposed ,
for creation "will take some time to be colonized by benthic invertebrates." It is important to
be more specific so that the extent of impacts to shorebirds can be ascertained. It is an error
to state that "shorebirds will have to feed elsewhere until channel dredging is completed in Outer ,
Bolsa Bay" and assume that there will be no impact on those shorebirds. The available suitable
foraging habitat in the region is limited, with competition for those resources.
110/ Many of the Comments on Chapter 4.7 apply with equal force to Chapter 4.8 and should, therefore, be ,
responded to by the County with respect to both Chapters.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 137
r
r
3. Comments on the WRP. The following comments relate to the potential
biological impacts and other aspects of the WRP:
a. WRP, Section 4.2.3, Page 4-14: In the neat to last paragraph
regarding the water well for Edwards Thumb, no mention is made of the quantity of water that
will be pumped out. To assess anything regarding the groundwater table, this amount needs to
be detailed. Further, the REIR must provide evidence regarding the potential subsidence impacts
from the pumping of groundwater.
b. WRP, Section 4.2.5, Page 4-17: The last sentence in the second
paragraph refers to irrigation. What water sources (both drinking and reclaimed water) are
planned for this area?m/
C. WRP,Section 6.2.3,Page 6-28: Reference is made to a water well
in the first sentence on the page. Where are the details on this well? Impacts?
The same comment is made for "e" on page 7-19 of the WRP.
d. Provisions for turbidity barriers are proposed to minimize impacts
on foraging birds during WRP implementation (WRP, Page 5-5); the WRP also specifies that
rgrading and construction activities shall avoid impacts on endangered and threatened species
during the nesting season. These statements in the WRP contradict the statement in the REIR
' that "most" of the construction will be phased to avoid impacts on the least tern during the
breeding season, (Page 4.847, Line 41).
' e. Post-construction monitoring of the restoration project to document
success is limited to only once annually after the first year. This is not of a sufficient frequency
to document and timely rectify potential problems.
L WRP,Page C-A-11 and C-B-12: "Prior to the removal of occupied
habitat in RPA 3A (for the Belding's savannah sparrow], approximately 15 pairs of the
r
111/ As noted elsewhere in this later and in Annex No. 29,the identified source of reclaimed water for irrigation
within the project will not be available. Further, there is no firm commitment on the part of any agency to provide
drinking water for the project.
Proposed Ft"Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 138
population impacted by construction activity will be successfully relocated to other appropriate
high quality habitat." Relocation of passerines has not been demonstrated to be successful and '
has never been tried on the Belding's savannah sparrow (Abby Powell, National Biological
Survey, pers. comm.). In addition, how will areas of"high quality habitat" that are not already
occupied by other Belding's savannah sparrows be located and selected?
g. WRP, Pages C-A-76, C-A-86,C-B-26, and C-B-40: Each of these
pages references maintenance and monitoring of the Edwards Thumb well pump. A frequency '
of annually is too little, based on the City's experience. Monthly maintenance and monitoring
is recommended since, among other things, the pump will be subjected to some of the worst
possible working conditions; i.e., infrequent use in a coastal environment. Repairs will be
frequent unless the original design is appropriate to protect the equipment and proper, rigorous
maintenance procedures are followed closely. The electric motor will short out frequently,
necessitating periodic complete rewinding of the motor(each time costing perhaps 1/3 of the cost
of a new motor). Three occurrences of this failure and the cost of a new motor has been spent.
The motor must be protected in a housing that will keep it warm and dry to reduce this problem.
The well itself, if left unused for long periods, will become encrusted with scale, corrosion and
other materials in the water. This will require the periodic removal of the pump and motor to
remove these items. The cost to perform such work will be in the range of$1,000-$10,000 per
occurrence. Finally, the pump will suffer deterioration from non-use. Pump replacement will '
typically cost$1,000- $10,000 depending on the equipment used. Who will pay for these costs?
Who will perform or coordinate the maintenance?
It has been the City's experience with identical types of equipment that equipment will be subject
to vandalism. Security must be provided. What type of fencing or other security will be
provided? What is the proposed housing for the equipment? What aesthetics impact will the ,
housing and security required for the equipment have on the surrounding area?
Since the Edwards Thumb restoration appears to depend on the well, the costs associated with
it and the mechanism to maintain it are significant in the outcome of the restoration of this area
and the potential impacts of the project. Accordingly, the REIR must detail the costs and
maintenance mechanisms to show that they are both effective and feasible.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30. 1994 '
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 139
h. WRP a C-A-30: There are no provisions in the maintenance
�g
plans for weeding for cordgrass; however, without regular weeding, non-native species can
become established rapidly in revegetated areas.
i. WRP, Page C-A-32: Weed eradication for other vegetation is
proposed monthly during the first year and quarterly thereafter. For the remaining four years,
quarterly will likely be insufficient. In addition, further detail on the weed eradication plan
should be included: how will it be supervised; will a manual with photographs be provided to
the weeding crew so that they can easily identify weeds from native species, etc.
j. WRP, Page C-A-34 and C-B-35: Surveys to document the number
' of breeding pairs and territories for the Belding's savannah sparrow will be conducted for two
days once each year in June. Was a biologist familiar with savannah sparrow breeding biology
consulted to design this monitoring measure? June is rather late in the breeding season for this
species. In addition, the "2-one day surveys" are far too few surveys to adequately cover all
potential habitat area for this species, unless numerous biologists are used to survey different
' area of the marsh.
k. WRP, Section 1.7.3, Page C-A-99: The groundwater monitoring
Iactivities should be closely coordinated with OCWD.
1. Appendix E, Pages E-2 and E-3, Sections 1.D.5 - 1.D.7:
' The studies and data referenced in this section should all be reviewed by the OCWD in addition
to those agencies listed due to the potential for groundwater contamination.
4. Mitigation Banking. Chapter 6 of the WRP provides a description of the
mitigation bank proposed for Lowlands Option A. This description presents the following
unresolved issues:
' a. Page 6-1, first paragraph: Who approves the private, non-profit
entity or combination thereof as the potential bank manager?
b. Page 6-1, third paragraph: The mitigation bank concept will work
only if there are a sufficient number of applicants (i.e. mitigators) with both (i) permission to
pay funds to the mitigation bank in lieu of onsite mitigation for their projects and (ii) adequate
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 140
financial resources to pay the bank for the permitted offsite restoration. The REIR does not i
identify any applicants and, therefore, the potential for establishing a successful mitigation bank
appears speculative at best. '
C. Page 6-4, first paragraph: It is stated that funds are used to
establish, monitor and maintain replacement wetlands and habitats after the loss has occurred. '
The County should require sufficient funds to be established prior to permitting any wetland
loss.
d. Page 6-5, third full paragraph: Who appoints the non-profit, '
private entity?
e. Page 6-5, fourth full paragraph: Is it a requirement for the uplands '
to have all permits prior to the land being made available for acquisition? If the upland
developer were dedicating the lowland property it would seem to make sense, but if the lands
must be acquired, why have this condition? Are there some other conditions (i.e. phasing of
entitlements, development rights, grading permits) associated with the land being made
available? If the developer has all permits and entitlements couldn't he initiate construction '
before the WRP was implemented? Development on the Mesa and removal of upland foraging
habitat for raptors could mean that the raptors would predate endangered species(i.e. California
least tern chicks) in the lowlands and wetlands."v
f. Page 6-7, third paragraph: The Bank Manager has substantial
responsibilities for the success of the program. Who will oversee the performance of the Bank ,
Manager?
g. What portion of the overall program will be credited to the ,
currently designated project?
h. Feasibility issues:Many questions need to be addressed with respect
to the "mitigation bank" which is a program which is unique in its scope. The following
112/ This is but one le o the ' o theproposed Mesa neat on the acent lowland. This
�P f �P� .f �1
impact provides the County with a more than sufficient legal nexus to condition the development of the Mesa on some
level of wetland protection or restoration.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 141
questions are raised by the description of the "mitigation bank" within the REIR and Chapter 6
of the Wetlands Restoration Program:
(1) What is to be the basis for the appraisal of the wetlands
area when it comes to determining the amount of reimbursement to the landowner for wetlands
tacreage by those participating in the mitigation bank?
(2) What would be the range of the area for which Bolsa Chica
would act as a bank--Unincorporated Orange County, Orange County, Southern California, or
an even wider area?
�. (3) Would or could participation in the mitigation bank be
mandatory?
(4) Why would the public from far-off jurisdictions want to see
the loss of their local open space/conservation area mitigated by the payment of cash to the
mitigation bank to fund the restoration of wetlands at the distant location of Bolsa Chica? It is
very likely that the electorate of those jurisdictions would prefer that the developer be required
to provide mitigation onsite. This could severely jeopardize the successful implementation of
the mitigation bank.
(5) The use of a mitigation bank necessarily means a net loss
y
of conservation area in the region it covers, because it permits offsite mitigation at Bolsa Chica
for projects that would otherwise have to provide mitigation onsite. The REIR must consider,
analyze and address this impact of the mitigation bank.
(6) Would there be enough mitigation acreage in the region
covered by the bank to enable the restoration of a significant amount of Bolsa Chica wetlands
acreage within a reasonable time flame? If mitigation were restricted to acreages of like-ldnd,
�. as stated in the REIR, then the concern over how much restoration could occur within the stated
timeframes becomes greatly exacerbated. The recirculated REIR must address this issue.
(7)What would be the cost of the various types of mitigation acres
within the bank and would these be sufficiently low so as to induce use of the bank?
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 142
r
All of the foregoing questions need to be addressed before it is possible to assess the feasibility
of the mitigation bank concept as proposed in the MR.
S. Previous Comments on 1993 WRP Not Addressed in 1994 WRP.
Generally, in contrast to most comments on the DEIR, the REIR reflects many of the comments
raised by the Comment on the WRP. The City thanks the County for its consideration of those r
comments; however, certain of the issues raised regarding the WRP by the Comment were not
addressed, including the following:
a. There is still lacking a sufficient discussion of the issue of phasing,
soils staging, oil operations and remediation activities. Will Koll (if Option B is implemented)
be responsible for remediation of soil contamination at the oil pads? This is not addressed, and
it is not clear from the cost estimates in Appendix F whether this cost is included.
b. How will oil production be converted to muted tidal? By
excavation of all contaminated soil or bacteria treatment? This can be very costly (millions of
dollars).
C. Page 4-24: The footnote states that the trees will require irrigation.
High salinities may inhibit the survival and stunt the growth of these tree species. Therefore,
soil testing should be conducted prior to planting and recommendations by a soil consultant ,
should be provided. In addition, it takes several years for riparian trees to become established;
oak trees may take decades.
d. Page 4-24: Planting more mature trees does not necessarily speed
up development of the canopy.
e. Will permanent levees be continuous so they completely separate
habitat types? A figure showing the design is required for the reader to understand the proposal.
f. No remediation plan for problems within the first two years
following implementation is presented in the REIR as it must be to assess the probability of the
program's success.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 143
g. A detailed maintenance and monitoring plan should be developed
prior to implementation.
h. Page 4.7-25: A spring 1991 survey conducted by Michael
Brandman Associates at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for benthic invertebrates and fishes did not
find any live specimens of the California brackish water snail (Tyroma imitator). However,
numerous shells of California brackish water snail were found during the survey and it is
believed that a relic population may still occur in the area (Rick Ware, pers. comm. 1994).
i. Page 4.7-25: The USFWS issued a final rule (Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Tidewater Gobi:
February 4, 1994, Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 24: 5494-5499; Ware, R. 1994. Marine
biologists, Coastal Resources Management. Personal communication regarding )yonia imitator
at Bolsa Chica.) in which the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryt) was determined to be
an endangered species. The document states that the tidewater goby was listed "as present in
Outer Bolsa Bay prior to the opening of the tide gates," and that "extensive surveys have been
done in Bolsa Chica in the last 15 years and none have collected any tidewater gobies." Based
on these recent surveys and the change of habitat in Outer Bolsa Bay since the opening of the
tide gates, the document concludes that the tidewater goby listed as present previously is an error
and "most likely, another species was misidentified." However, there may have been suitable
habitat for the tidewater goby in outer Bolsa Bay prior to opening of the tide gates and there may
currently be suitable habitat for the tidewater goby elsewhere in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. In
addition, the methods for the aquatic studies cited in the document are not included or referenced
other than the word "sampled." It appears that there were no directed or focused surveys
performed for the tidewater goby. Without surveys specifically designed to detect the tidewater
goby, the conclusion(s) of the document with regards to this species is not supported and has to
be doubted.
j. Page 4.7-32: The Warner Avenue Pond on the Bolsa Chica Mesa
will not be filled or lost to urban development, but will be "buffered by a park." There is no
indication of what type of park this will be or the level of use it will receive. What will buffer
the Warner Avenue Pond from the park? How will human and feral pet intrusion be limited?
Further, the backbone circulation plans for the project (Figures 3-1 la and 3-11b) show that the
current location of the Pond will be framed by the newly created intersection of Warner Avenue
and the main road on top of the Mesa. What additional impacts to the habitat area will be
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 144
caused b the construction of the road? How will y o sufficient buffers be maintained during
construction? What effect would the noise, dust and runoff from the completed road have on
the habitat value of the pond.
I. CHAPTER 4.8 - TERRESTRIAL Bioway
1. No Support Is Given for REIR Conclusions. As was apparent in the
DEIR, the conclusions regarding the significance of impacts are not adequately supported by the
information presented in the Existing Conditions sections. In some eases, the conclusory
statements regarding impacts on sensitive species and raptors are actually contradictory to the
foregoing information. 5= below at 19.k of this letter.
2. Insufficient Information Regarding Phasing Precludes Meaningful
Review of Decades-Long Interim Impacts. The REIR does not represent an improvement from
the DEIR in terms of disclosing the short-term biological impacts of the proposed development.
Although section headings entitled "short-term impacts" and "long-term impacts" have been
added, the text presented differs little from that presented in the DEEP.. The text and tables still
discuss only long term "net loss." There is still no disclosure of the impacts on plant
communities and sensitive species that would occur in the interim years between the initiation
of construction proposed in 1996 and completion of the WRP in the year 2020 (WRP, pages 6-
21 and 7-8). These interim impacts may differ for each of the alternatives; however, they
should be presented at a minimum for Proposed Project's Lowland Option A and Lowland
Option B. The REIR must include information for "Habitat Type", "Existing Area", "Area to
be Lost", "Area to be Gained", and "Net Loss or Gain."MY As currently written, the reader .
cannot determine by evaluating the tables and other information in the REIR the estimated
interim habitat loss during project phases, and whether the interim loss would truly be "short-
term" or extend for a longer period, potentially as long as the entire 24 year (or potentially
longer) period from project initiation in 1996 to projected completion of the WRP in 2020 (or
at such later time as the oil operators voluntarily cease operations). Interim impacts may be
1131 It would be helpful to the reader if the RE1R were to conform to some reasonabk version of the usual E1R
format. However, regardless of the format chosen (and the Guidelines specifically state that no particular format
is required), the information regarding interim impacts and losses must be clearly stated Given the decades-long
duration of the so-calked interim period, these impacts may be long-term impacts even though they are not
permanent. The REM is deficient in that u does not consider and present information regarding the severity or
duration of interim impacts.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 145
significant if, for example, they result in loss of habitat area before new habitats are successfully
established."a
3. Impact Significance Is not Determined Using Consistent Criteria. The
criteria used to determine the significance of an impact varies from impact to impact. For
example, project impacts on the red-tail hawk and black-shouldered kite are not considered
significant because the species are not listed as threatened or endangered. However, impacts
on the black-tail jackrabbit (another species not listed as endangered or threatened) are not
deemed significant because there are 40 square miles of habitat in the project area. Impacts on
numerous additional sensitive species that may be candidate species but are not yet listed as
threatened or endangered (i.e., burrowing owl, salt marsh shrew, loggerhead shrike) are
1 addressed, but conclusions are drawn differently.The REIR must state proper significance criteria
and then apply them to the facts at hand in a consistent manner if the reader is to rapidly
understand the document as required by CEQA.
4. Lack of Survey Information. The REIR still presents no information
regarding survey methods for general as well as sensitive species. For example, "target species"
are those for which the USFWS generally requests that directed (focused) surveys be
conducted.t'—s' Table 4.8-4 summarizes information on sensitive species that occur or could
occur in the project area, and Figure 4.8-3 summarizes recorded sightings for these species, but
no information is regularly and consistently presented on the dates and intensity of surveys. For
1141 For example, if there are 300 acres of existing habitat and 350 acres of habitat 'with project' (50 acres
net gain), there could be as much as 300 acres lost and 350 acres revegetated and the net effect of a loss of 300
acres could persist for as long as 24 years or more. On the other hand, the statement of 50 acres of net gain could
suggest that as much as 300 acres will remain totally undisturbed and 50 acres will be added during the WRP.
T hese different scenarios present very different short-tern and long-term impacts and,accordingly,the phasing and
timing of loss of habitat and creation of habitat(as well as a description of where the old and new habitat areas
are located)must be presented in the recirculated RERL
1151 Of course a target survey is required for any species listed as endangered or threatened The Peregrine
Falcon is listed and is often sighted at Bolsa Chica;however, its presence there is not well-documented. Often,the
references in survey literature notes the presence of the peregrine without noting more. The RE1R mast describe
and develop the available information regarding this listed species. The reader of the REIR is left with no
information regarding the endangered nature of this species, its activities at BoLsa Chica or whether its activities
are on the Mesa,the lowlands,or both. To be a complete and valid document,the REM must address each of these
issues with respect to all candidau, threatened and endangered species brown or suspected to c=at the sue.
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i • i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 146
r
example, for the burrowing owl and the southwestern pond turtle, it is stated that no recent
sightings have been recorded, but it is not clear whether focused surveys been conducted for
these species. The pond turtle is difficult to locate without special survey techniques; the
burrowing owl is stated as "possibly nesting on the mesas", but there is no discussion of focused
surveys to verify the presence or absence of this species on the mesas. However, it is apparent
that the authors of this section are aware of the need for focused surveys for some species, as
"focused surveys" were conducted for the salt marsh bird's beak (p. 4.8-9, Line 41), but no
other "focused surveys" are cited.!-'
S. REIR Fails to Address Local S' ' icance of bn cts. The REIR does
Pa
not assess whether impacts are significant within coastal Orange County or Orange County as
a region. Because Bolsa China is a pocket of open space supporting large areas of native as well
as disturbed habitats, as an ecosystem it supports a wide diversity of species that are not found,
or are found in limited areas, elsewhere in coastal Orange County. For example, the removal
of important habitat for wintering red-tail hawks would be locally significant for coastal Orange
County and regionally significant for Orange County, even if, as claimed, there is foraging
habitat available in Irvine Ranch and the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. These areas are
several miles away from Bolsa China and may already support capacity populations of red-tail
hawks in winter. However, the project definitions have been modified so that "region" is no
longer coastal southern California(as was true of the DEIR)but all of Los Angeles, Orange, and
San Diego counties that are within the range of the species. Thus, Irvine Ranch, which may not ,
be considered "coastal" is now included in the definition of "region", allowing the project
applicant improperly to expand the potential range of the species and thus conclude that project (r
impacts on red-tail hawk are not regionally significant.11117/
1161 For the information of the reader, attached to this lever as Annex Nos. 32 and 33 am examples of such
surveys,performed for the Wesurn Snowy Plover and Belding's Savannah Sparrow,respectively. Also, a survey
protocol for the Burrowing Owl is attached as Annex No. 31.
117/ This technique, taken to even a limited extreme would render all local or regional impacts insignificant.
Nearly all impacts could potentially be reduced to less than significant if one looks at the impact on a sufficiently
broad scope. For example, the loss of open space would not be significant if one evaluated impacts on the basis
of the entirety of the State of California as the region, since the State has a substantial amount of open space;
however, if the region were viewed as coastal Orange County, the loss of open space will be very significant.
Similarly, the evaluation of impacts solely in the context of the loss of the resource from the region defined as
(continued...)
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 147
6. Project Design Features Make Determination of Project Impacts
Impossible. Project Design Features (PDF's) continue to be included as PDFs and are not
presented as mitigation measures as was true in the DEIR. The problem with the use of PDFs
is detailed in Part I. of this letter. The incorporation of Project Design Features allows the
project applicant to avoid admission of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts that would
clearly occur without the PDFs and may occur with the PDFs. This reduces the number and/or
level of significance of project impacts based on items which are neither part of the project
description nor required as mitigation in project approvals. Further, the use of PDFs obscures
the impact.significance information and, accordingly, the potentially significant impacts of the
project prior to mitigation are not properly disclosed. Per CEQA, impacts must first be disclosed
as "significant" or "not significant"; then mitigation is presented for significant impacts. A final
discussion of the CEQA level of significance after mitigation then concludes the discussion. The
REIR avoids presentation of material in this customary format and although no particular format
is legally required, the format of a valid EIR must present this material in a manner which
permits the reader to rapidly understand the impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed
project. The REIR's format fails this most basic of CEQA requirements. The structure of the
REIR simply confuses the reader and prevents disclosure of impacts since the reader cannot
determine from the presented information whether or not impacts on sensitive species or habitats
ma_v be significant whether in the long term or in the interim between project initiation in 1996
and completion of a particular PDF or of the WRP in 2020.
7. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 7 Consultation Process.
Impacts and measures to avoid or minimize impacts on endangered and threatened species can
be addressed during the Section 7 consultation process that is required to obtain the 404 permit
from the Corps. Normally, a Section 7 consultation is required when a project "may affect" an
endangered or threatened species. A Section 7 consultation would be required in this case, as
there will be impacts on snowy plover nesting habitat, and on least tern foraging habitat during
the WRP (as only "most" of the construction will be phased to avoid impacts during the breeding
1171. .continued
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, may fail to acknowledge the significance of the effects. For
example,the burrowing owl has been nearly extirpated from Orange County(Pete Bloom,pers. comm.). Thus,the
removal of any habitat in Orange County for this species has been identified in recent environmental documentation
as a significant impact. However, by looking at the impact with respect to the distribution of the species in Los
Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties the RE1R is able to disguise the effect as insignificant, although it is a
declining species in San Diego County also (Unity, 1984).
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 148
season, Page 4.8-47, Line 41). However, the revised REIR fails to address this fact, although
the WRP (Page C-A-74) indicates that there will be a Biological Opinion (the product of a
Section 7 consultation). The fact that potential impacts on federally endangered and threatened
species will be addressed during Section 7 consultation should be included in the short-term
impacts section of the REIR.
8. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 10 Taking Permit Process.
If the developer never obtains federal permits for development of wetlands, then the Section 7
consultation process will not apply; however the taking of habitat area for private development
would still require permits from USFWS under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species
Act. The REIR makes no mention of this requirement nor does it describe the potential
restrictions on implementation of the proposed development which may occur due to the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.1tai
9. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.8-28, Line 33-35: "At present, the snowy plover is
considered a visitor to Bolsa Chica...only four pairs have regularly nested...". This statement
is contradictory. If four pairs nest at Bolsa Chica, the snowy plover is a wintering as well as
breeding species, regardless of the number of breeding pairs present.
b. Page 4.8-36,Line 10-16: This section on the California gnatcatcher
fails to disclose whether Guthrie's 1993 surveys were "directed surveys per USFWS guidelines."
The 1993 surveys are discussed in the same sentence with surveys conducted in 1971 and 1982;
this was long before consideration of the gnatcatcher as a sensitive species. Given this fact and
the fact that "directed surveys" would have been important to disclose, it is reasonable to
conclude that these were not directed surveys. However, a sighting on April 25, 1993 of an
adult male gnatcatcher off Seapointe Drive by P&D's ornithologist Doug Willick suggests that
the gnatcatcher may in fact be an, albeit rare, breeding species at Bolsa Chica.
1181 For the information of the reader, a copy of two Section 10 permits for incidental taking of endangered
species habitat are anadred to this letter as Annex No. 30.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 149
C. Page 4.8-38, Line 33: "Direct loss of individuals of a State or
Federal listed Threatened or Endangered Species" is considered a significant impact. In the
December 1993 DEIR, this condition (Page 4.7-39, Line 16) includes "disturbance" to listed
species as well as "direct loss". Why was "disturbance" of endangered species removed from
the revised EIR as a potentially significant impact? Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species
Act prohibits disturbance in the form of harassment (or in the form of loss or degradation of
foraging habitat) of federally listed endangered or threatened species.
d. Page 4.8-39, Line 19: Annual monitoring following the first year
for five years is not of sufficient frequency to document problems that may be occurring with
the restoration plan. In addition, a wildlife biologist should be present, in addition to a botanisi,
to document successful occupation of the restored habitats by wildlife species.
e. Page 4.8-40, Line 1: As stated under general comments, PDF's
are not subject to the requirements for mitigation monitoring required under PRC § 21081.6.
For example, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5 presented in the DEIR has been eliminated and instead
presented as a PDF in the REIR. This measure states that two new nesting sites for the snowy
1 plover will be created prior to the removal of two historic nesting sites. However, because this
is now a PDF and not a mitigation measure, no performance criteria for the success of these
nesting sites will be required, and even though page 2-11, Lines 43-44 states that the County
will "ensure compliance" with the PDF through "its standard procedures for the approval of
permits and applications," no monitoring to document nesting within these.compensatory sites
by snowy plovers be occur as is compulsory since, however labelled, this requirement must be
treated as a mitigation measure.
f. Page 4.8-43, Table 4.8-5: No explanation is provided for the
decrease from the DEIR in existing acreage for non-native grassland (from 313 to 254) and
increase in ruderal (from 368 to 406).
g. Page 4.8-46,Line 18: The impact on the wandering sldpper is not
considered significant as "a larger area of habitat will be preserved, such as Rabbit Island." Is
there documentation that the habitat on Rabbit Island is actually used by the skipper, or is does
it actually only appear suitable?
Proposed Final Daft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 150
h. Page 4.8-48, Line 26-37: The impact of the loss of Belding's
savannah sparrow habitat will be minimized by the retention of 200 acres of pickleweed.
However, not considered is the potential loss of foraging habitat. Surveys by USFWS and
others at Bolsa Chica indicate that this species nests in pickleweed, but forages in pickleweed
as well as other habitats throughout the marsh.
i. Page 4.8-54, Line 6-14: Impacts on red-tail hawks are deemed not
significant; however, this contradicts the information presented on Page 4.8-20, Lines 44-45,
which states that "there are no other documented areas within the region that support such large
numbers of wintering red-tail hawks." The fact that Irvine Ranch and the Laguna Coast
Wilderness Park may provide foraging habitat for this species does not sufficiently nullify the
foregoing information. In addition, the conclusion regarding the impact on red-tail hawks states
that the impact is not significant as the red-tail hawk is not a sensitive species. Similarly,
impacts on the black-shouldered kite are not significant as it "is not listed as threatened or
endangered" (Page 4.8-55, Line 11). Significance conclusions for biological resources must be
drawn considering biological criteria rather than legal characterizations. And, per the criteria
presented on Page 4.8-38, Lines 33-42, this impact must be considered significant as it would
represent, as described on both page 4.8-54 and 4.8-20, a "substantial effect on a species or
native plant or animal community."
j. Page 4.8-55,Line 33-35: An ESHA will be established with native
trees, roosting poles, and nest boxes on the Huntington Beach Mesa to reduce the impact on
raptors by the removal of eucalyptus to less than significant. The fact that raptors likely roost
in the eucalyptus because of the upland foraging opportunities nearby is not discussed. In
addition, (1) the presence of a regional park on Huntington Beach mesa may preclude the use
of this area by some raptor species because of human disturbance; (2) as the establishment of
the ESHA is a PDF, rather than a mitigation measure, inadequate monitoring is provided to
document whether raptors are actually using the provided structures (and no monitoring plan is
presented for this in the WRP); (3)because of the loss of raptor prey base (namely, loss of the
Bolsa Chica Mesa replaced by the regional park's smaller, linear piece of open space composed
of manicured lawns), there is skepticism that the ESHA would even be used by raptors, and, (4)
no provisions as requested in previous comments to discourage use of nest boxes by kestrels are
provided. Because the Huntington Beach Mesa is closer to tern nesting islands than the existing
raptor roosting/nesting habitat, this PDF, when implemented, may actually result in additional
predation over that which is already occurring at the tern islands. This PDF may thus result in
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 151
a significant impact on sensitive bird species if it succeeds in creating kestrel nesting
habitat.'-19' For these reasons, the conclusion that the ESHA would offset the loss of
eucalyptus on the mesa is not supported.
k. Page 4.8-55, Line 49: Although the text states that the burrowing
owl may be a possible nesting species on Huntington Beach Mesa, (Page 4.8-20, Line 30), and
that elimination of suitable grassland habitat on Bolsa Chica Mesa and ruderal habitats in the
lowland would be "a significant loss of habitat for this species" (Page 4.8-55. Line 48-49), the
REIR concludes that the impact "is not considered significant" (Page 4.8-55, Line 50) as the
habitat for the species is "barely suitable." Aside from the fact that the conclusion is directly
contradicted by the foregoing information (a significant inconsistency which is to say the least
confusing to the reader), the "barely suitable" statement is not supported with a cited reference
or any description of what leads the County to that conclusion. Was a raptor biologist
consulted? If so, who and what information formed the basis for his or her conclusion? If not,
what other method was used to evaluate the quality of the habitat for burrowing owls to conclude
that the habitat is "barely suitable"?
10. Comments on DEIR Are Not Addressed in the REIR. The following
list of comments reflect certain of the issues raised in the Comment regarding terrestrial biology
impacts which are not reflected or adequately addressed in the REIR:
a. Page 4.8-2 to 4.8-21: Descriptions of vegetation communities
� P g
should include a brief discussion of existing habitat quality.
b. Page 4.8-22 Line 50: The letter from the USFWS listing the target
a8 � g g
species that should be considered for the project should be included as an appendix.
C. Dates on Page 4.7-28 (now Page 4.8-29, Lines 2 and 3) should be
corrected from "1977 and 1978" to "1987 and 1988" (this sentence discusses nesting by terns
during 1977 and 1978 on the South Island at Bolsa Chica, which did not exist in 1977/1978).
1191 CEQA demands that this potentially significant impact of the mitigation measure be analysed in the RERZ,
albeit in less detail than is legally required for the project itself.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency f
October 4, 1994
Page 152
d. No criteria is presented for the identification of significant local
effects. Impacts should be evaluated with respect to the impact of a proposed development or
project on the existing status of a resource as evaluated on a local, regional or, in some cases,
national basis. For example, the significance of an impact may be assessed on a county-wide
basis, or on the basis of coastal Orange/Los Angeles counties. The choice of how to evaluate
local or regional impacts will often determine whether the impact is significant. For example,
the question of what percentage of habitat of that remaining in Orange County would be removed
by the project may well differ from what percentage of state-wide habitat would be removed.
The analysis of impacts for the black-tailed jackrabbit(Page 4.8-53,Lines 28-31)was conducted
based on the percentage of county-wide habitat affected; however, impacts are not consistently
evaluated in this fashion.
e. Page 4-8-60, Lines 12-16: The potential loss of vegetation due to
a8 Po g
failure of the WRP (particularly given the fact that monitoring will only occur once annually
following the first year) is not addressed.
L Impacts section: There is no discussion or quantification of impacts
for grading limits nor of the impacts at various phases of construction. These impacts, though
temporary in duration, may nonetheless be significant effects and must be analyzed in a rewritten
and recirculated REIR.
g. Page 4.8-50,Line 40: The loss of a contiguous block of non-native
grassland, given the fact that it is the last substantive block of contiguous habitat in the vicinity
of the project is not acknowledged as significant. This comment would still hold, although the
grassland acreages presented in the DEIR (318 acres) have been reduced to 254, while ruderal
acreages have increased by nearly the same amount.
h. Page 4.8-53, Line 28: There is no explanation of how the "40
square miles" of habitat for the black-tailed jackrabbit was derived.
i. Page 4.8-54, Line 24-25: "If cats are present in relatively low
numbers, the impact on buds is not expected to be significant." The problems with this
statement were noted in the Comment on the DEIR and this statement has not been revised or
supplemented to include any supporting reference. Were any biologists consulted that specialize
in urban wildlife management? One cat removed six least tern adults within one week at
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 153
Terminal Island in 1986. In addition, Belding's savannah sparrows, which nest on the ground,
may be particularly susceptible to predation by cats, as cats are known predators of passerines.
This could be considered a significant impact, even with the proposed and implemented plan to
control the presence of invasive species into wildlife areas.
j. Page 4.8-46, Lines 49-50: It is stated that impacts on foraging
habitats for surface-foraging birds would be short-term as conditions "should" return to normal
following construction; however, phasing of the WRP could result in turbidity impacts for as
much as 24 years. A mitigation measure to limit construction and/or monitor turbidity during
tem nesting season should be analyzed for its ability to limit this potentially significant effect
of the project.
k. Page 4.8-47,Line 1: Data or references supporting the conclusion
that abundant foraging habitat is available in Huntington Harbor are not presented. Anecdotal
finformation suggests that the Harbor generally provides marginal foraging habitat for surface
foraging birds.
1 J. CHAPTER 4.9 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Response to City Comment. In general, the County has responded to
several of the issues raised in the City's Comment on the DEIR, but has pointedly ignored many
other City comments. The Transportation and Circulation Section of the REIR still contains
numerous technical and procedural flaws that require a complete reanalysis of traffic impacts to
provide decision-makers with accurate information regarding such impacts and the costs of
mitigating those impacts.
2. City Traffic Analysis Should Be Used. The REIR states that roadway
link capacities and impacts are based on a Level of Service (LOS) "E" as an acceptable level.
City criteria dictate that links must operate at LOS "C" or better. Many of the links analyzed
in the REIR are within the City and the City criteria should be utilized for all of those links.
Therefore, the entire TIA must be redone using the City criteria for link analysis (City of
Huntington Beach, Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, July, 1993). The revised
TIA should then be recirculated with the REIR.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 154
3. No Analysis of Construction Traffic. There is no analysis of
Construction Traffic, and no quantification of anticipated daily construction traffic and impacts.
The previous DEIR anticipated 2,400 total weekly truck trips during construction for
filling/grading activities alone. CEQA requires that construction impacts be quantified and
analyzed. vdm Guidelines 115126.
4. Street Impacts from Freeway Ramp Metering Must Be Considered.
While there is a discussion of impacts to freeway ramps, there is no analysis of the impacts on
surface streets due to ramp metering and potential resultant queuing, nor is there an analysis of
impacts to freeway links. This is a required for a TIA and an EIR analyzing impacts within the
City as is true of the REIR (City of Huntington Beach, Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines,
July, 1993).
S. Inadequate Mitigation Cost Analysis. The REIR and TIA do not contain
an adequate cost analysis for public review. Page 11 of the "CMP Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines" for Orange County states (in part) that "This element is at the heart of the CMP
process; that is, to identify the costs of mitigating a land development decision on the CUT
system." Inadequate cost data is presented in the TIA for public review. Appendix "M" to the
TIA (Mitigation Costing Worksheets) does not detail any assumptions made in developing costs,
nor does it show any calculations used in developing costs. Additionally, costs are not broken
down into "Applicant" costs versus "Costs to be borne by local agencies". Since the TIA is
incomplete and therefore inadequate, it cannot be used as the basis of the REIR, and both must
be redone.
6. Impact of Deleting Cross Gap Connector From MPAH Not Sufficiently
Analyzed. Page 4.9-13, Line 1, "Cross Gap Connector": The REIR states that the BCSE has
a "very united effect" on area traffic operations. This statement is not correct. The roadway
and circulation system proposed for the Bolsa Chica Project will be an integral part of the City's
Police and Fire response routes, and will cause adverse impacts if not constructed. The Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) recommends extension of Bolsa Chica road
(the Cross Gap Connector)connecting with Garfield Avenue including connections to Springdale,
Graham, and Talbert Avenue. These roadways are absolutely necessary in meeting the City's
Police and Fire Departments response goals as required in the City's Growth Management
Element. The specific Fire Department standards are as follows:
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County ]Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 155
1. Arrival of first engine company for fire/rescue/medical aid incidents within five
(5) minutes, eighty (80) percent of the time and in all cases within ten (10)
minutes.
2. Arrival of first paramedic unit within five (5) minutes eighty (80) percent of the
time.
3. Arrival of first ladder company within ten (10) minutes ninety eight (98) percent
of the time and in all cases within fifteen (15) minutes.
The Fire and Police Departments need the "Cross Gap Connector" to serve as a major
transportation link in providing public safety services to the Holly Seacliff Development and also
the Huntington Beach "Lowlands." Safety services would be provided with one (1) fire/police
station located at Springdale Street and the Cross Gap Connector. This station would provide
fire,paramedic, police, and ambulance service to both areas, as well as the rest of the City using
the Cross Gap Connector. Without this key roadway, emergency vehicles will be required to
travel much greater distances to provide service. Without the Cross Gap Connector, the City
fwill need two (2) fully staffed fire stations to meet the growth management response time
standards.
Page 4.1-21, Line 32-36: The REIR states here that with ATIP the impacts of not having the
BCSE "will either be avoided or reduced to an insignificant level." This is inaccurate. Without
the BCSE, major increases to City public safety response times will occur.
' The fiscal impacts to the City without the Cross G Connector are as follows:
1� ty Gap
One time capital expense for two fire stations 5.6 million
Operation and staffing costs for two fire stations per year 4.1 million
Note: A ten (10) year period cost (without inflation) would be 41 million dollars. This cost
would be ongoing.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
• • i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 41, 1994
Page 156
In addition, without the Cross Gap Connector, emergency egress for citizens living in the area
will be compromised when evacuation is needed due to flood, earthquake, fire, hazardous
material release, tsunami, etc.
7. Transportation Impacts to Fire/Police/Public Safety Are Not Analyzed.
Roadways, links, and intersection volumes - are only reviewed from the perspective of traffic
volumes and not from the perspective of the impacts on emergency vehicles response time and
delays. The project will significantly impact existing City intersections and City public safety
service delivery. The REIR needs to discuss, evaluate, and mitigate traffic circulation impacts
on City public safety response as well as impacts on citizen egress. This should include a
review of the project impacts on the City Circulation Element, Growth Management Element;
and the Fire Master Plan. .The REIR does not discuss the fact that Pacific Coast Highway
frequently floods and significantly impacts general circulation and public safety response. The
periodic closing of Pacific Coast Highway impacts public safety services and citizen egress and
access. If the project is built, the impacts on public safety and citizen access and egress must
be mitigated.
S. Unfunded ATIP Provides Illusory Mitigation Only. The REIR again
utilizes the establishment of an Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) as the Mitigation
Measure for solving all transportation and circulation impacts. However, no funding
commitments are made by the Applicant regarding ATIP. Additionally, the REIR states that
the project developer will administer the ATIP," and "... construction improvements will be
undertaken by the project developer where feasible." The entire ATIP mechanism is an
avoidance of the establishment of concrete mitigation measures for project impacts, and an
avoidance on the part of the developer to commit to funding such mitigation measures.
a. Assessment District as a Financing Mechanism for the ATIP
Is Not Adequately Analyzed. On page 4.9-45, Line 32, an assessment district is suggested
as a possible financing mechanism for the Bolsa Chica share of ATIP costs. The feasibility
of an assessment district may only be evaluated in conjunction with an evaluation of all the
potential costs to future Bolsa Chica homeowners. The use of an assessment district to
finance offsite traffic mitigations can only be evaluated in conjunction with information
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 157
allowing for determination of all other potential cost burdens on future Bolsa Chica property
owners. The REIR does not provide this information.'
b. Fair Share Funding Analysis Further Obscures ATI P
Funding Source. The bifurcation of required improvements into the "full construction
component" and the "fair share contribution component" is another example of where the
REIR to obfuscate the question of funding of required improvements. Nowhere is there a
commitment on the part of Koll or the county to fund either of these components.
C. Skewed Traffic Analysis Understates the Project's Fair Share
of Traffic Impacts. While the REIR readily admits that Pacific Coast Highway north of
' Warner Avenue is heavily congested during the peak hours, the Mesa Project traffic
distribution still shows 30% of the project traffic egressing the project site via Warner
Avenue to PCH. Given existing (and worsening) conditions on PCH, this distribution
appears to be an attempt (on paper) to force project traffic into an area (PCH) where the
County/developer will bear no improvement costs, versus showing a greater percentage of
project traffic utilizing City roadways and intersections, as appears to be more likely, thereby
increasing the project's percentage of required improvements and therefore increased
percentage of costs to fund these improvements.
d. ATIP Administration should be Provided By the City, the
Agency Most Severely Affected By the Project. Because the vast majority of project traffic
impacts occur within the City and the vast majority of required transportation infrastructure
' improvements are required at City facilities, if an ATIP Committee is established, it must be
administered by the City and not OCEMA or the Applicant. The City must determine
phasing and scheduling of required improvements, as it is the City residents who are
adversely impacted by the proposed project impacts.
120/ On page 1-30 of the Summary of Impacts, under 4.9 Transportation and Circulation, it is recognized that
a mq jor problem exists with the A77P in that other jurisdictions outside of the unincorporated County may not choose
to cooperate with the A77P, or if they do cooperate, may not be willing to assign the same priority and timing to
various intersection improvements as the other participants. With this statement in the EIR by the Project proponent,
the uncertainty of implementing the A77P as a comprehensive mitigation program becomes evident.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
M
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 158
e. No Funding Is Contemplated from other Affected Agencies.
The REIR admits that "the proposed project may have a significant long-term adverse impact
on PCH and in other areas within the traffic study area to the extent that jurisdictions other
than the County of Orange do not cooperate in funding of construction roadway segments or
intersection improvements identified for fair share contribution in the ATIP or to the extent
that funding sources for the share of improvements costs not funded by the proposed project
are unavailable when the improvements are required." This statement is as admission that
the entire ATIP scheme is highly speculative and does not fulfill the requirements of
"mitigation measures" as defined by Guidelines § 15126 (c)). For this reason alone, the
REIR is inadequate and must be rejected as failing to fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
f. Funding for ATIP Is Not Likely to Be Available. Page 4-9-
80, Lines 42 and 43, and page 4.9-81, Lines 2 and 3 and Lines 25 and 26: These pages
contain impacts that are affected by the extent.that jurisdictions do not cooperate in funding
improvements identified for fair share contribution in the ATIP. The County appears to put
a significant burden on surrounding cities to perform a significant overhaul of their capital
improvement programs in order to help this major development mitigate its transportation
problems (e.g., the developer would contribute only 4% to the widening of PCH from
Golden West to the Los Angeles county line). How, for instance, could a city the size of
Seal Beach find the funds to construct 96% of the PCH Project? The County, however,
implies that cities would be "uncooperative" if they didn't fund these projects. The
combined total of the cities' share of "fair share" projects identified in the ATIP over a 20
year period will be astronomical. The "fair share" component of the ATIP is an illusion.
The bulk of these projects simply will not happen in a timely manner even if the surrounding
cities cooperate. There simply will not be sufficient Gas Tax, Measure M or grant funds
available to the surrounding cities in the next 20 years to fund these projects, not to mention
projects already on the master plans of the cities. There is only one way to be able to build
the "fair share" component of the ATIP when scheduled. The County, the Developer and
the surrounding cities should enter into a development agreement which requires the
Developer to fully fund said improvements.
The REIR contains the statement that the county has some ability to
influence other local agencies cooperation with regional traffic improvements through the
Arterial Highway Financing Program and the county's role in the administration of Measure
M Funds. The county has absolutely no role in administration of either fund. OCTA now is ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 159
1
rin charge of all administration. How could County staff possess any ability to influence
cooperation if the County is in control of no identified funds? In addition, as of May of
1993, the Orange County Transportation Authority Board decided that Arterial Highway
Financing Program (AHFP) funds were to be used only for highway or bridge rehabilitation
projects. If the County is unsuccessful in efforts to "influence", the "fair share" component
of the ATIP results in total failure. If these projects do not get built, what stops the
developer from proceeding with the project? While the County does have its own Gas Tax
Funds which they could donate to a deserving project, the document does not contain any
indication that the County would volunteer these funds.
9. Miscellaneous Comments on Analysis of Traffic Impacts.
a. Page 4.9-1, Line 49 and Page 4.9-2, Lines 1-2, and Table
4.9-1: While this Table serves as a general guideline for roadway capacities, it also implies
that the capacity of all six-lane divided highways is the same. In actuality, adjustments must
be made for mitigating factors such as number of driveways, etc. The "theoretical" capacity
of Adams Avenue crossing the Santa Ana River is identical to the "theoretical" capacity of
Beach Boulevard between Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenue. However, because of the
number of vehicles utilizing driveways, etc., the "real world" capacity is substantially less
for Beach Boulevard. Such real-world adjustments must be made throughout the analyses. If
this is not done, both traffic impacts and required mitigation measures are underestimated.
b. Page 4.9-2, Lines 19-20: "The peak hour traffic forecasts for
turning movements were derived from the SARA model peak period forecasts." An
explanation of what was included in this derivation is required.
C. Page 4.9-8 Lines 31-34: The intersections Beach
Blvd./Edinger and Beach Blvd./Warner are also at LOS "E". The County's recent traffic
counts should confirm this.
d. Page 4.9-13, Lines 1-14: The discussion of the BCSE does not
take into account the overriding necessity for public safety access along this route. The
City's Fire Chief has stated that, without BCSE, additional fire stations must be built.
Further, the City's Police Chief also has strong concerns relating to response times.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
r
� � r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 160
i
e. Page 4.9-24, Lines 25-26: The TIA and REIR utilize LOS "E"
for links, while City policy utilizes LOS "C" for links. Therefore, the entire TIA and
Transportation and Circulation portion of the REIR must be redone using the appropriate
criteria. In this case, the City Growth Management Plan and City Traffic Impact Assessment
Preparation Guidelines contain the appropriate criteria. ,
f. Page 4.9-34, Lines 26-28. It is stated that "the ATIP has been
developed to provide the necessary mechanism for the financing, monitoring and
implementation of phased circulation improvements." This statement reiterates the point that
the ATIP is unfunded. What guarantees are presented to ensure funding of required
mitigation measures? 1
It should also be noted that the REIR describes required transportation system infrastructure
improvements as "Project Design Features." As such, the Applicant must commit to funding
these "PDFs" which, in actuality, are mitigation measures required to reduce project impacts
to acceptable levels.
g. Page 4.9-34, Line 33 through Page 4.9-35, Line 30. This r
discussion centers on the "Full Construction Component" versus the "Fair Share Contribution
Component," and implies that Koll will be responsible for full construction of certain ,
required improvements and partially responsible for other required improvements. However,
nowhere does the report show any dollar value of improvements required by the project. To
allow informed decision-making, actual dollar value costs of all required improvements must
be calculated, along with a determination of Koll's funding commitment and the unfunded
dollar value of improvements required. The City requires a complete analysis of the City's
"share" of required improvements.
h. Page 4.9-35, Line 2: The word "key" should be inserted
between the words "the" and "corridors".
i. Page 4.9-35, Lines 11-17. The discussion of required freeway
interchange improvements should include any required freeway mainline improvements.
j. Page 4.9-45, Lines 16-17. To allow "substitute improvements
providing comparable traffic capacity subject to the approval of the ATIP Advisory
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
1
r • •
rOrange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 161
Committee", when the Project Developer is proposed to administer the ATIP, is a prime case
of "the fox guarding the hen house". The City must have sole discretion over impact
mitigation for City streets and intersections.
k. Page 4.9-45, Lines 23-29: The discussion contained in these
rlines suggest that these funds are readily accessible and that other agencies and projects are
not competing for the same programs. Nothing could be further from the truth and the
feasibility for funding must be disclosed and analyzed in the REIR.
1. Page 4.9-45, Line 45: "Full construction improvements will be`
' undertaken by the Project Developer Where Feasible." Who determines feasibility? Is it the
County, the Developer, or the City wherein the impacts occur? What factors determine
' feasibility, e.g., physical factors, economic factors, etc.?
M. Page 4.9-46, Lines 14-18: The discussion contained in these
lines implies that, since there is a Advisory Committee of all jurisdictions and the developer,
jurisdictional matching funds will be made available for all "fair share" projects in the time
period designated. If very little "new" (developer) money is put into the pot, this implication
' appears highly unlikely and funding sources must be identified for the improvements required
to mitigate project impacts.
n. Page 4.9-46, Line 20: "The project developer will administer
the ATIP". This is totally unacceptable to the City. The City should administer the ATIP,
as the vast majority of required ATIP improvements which are, in fact, mitigation measures,
1 occur within the City.
o. Page 4.9-46, Line 33-35: "Roles and responsibilities of the
ATIP Advisory Committee will be defined and established by the Applicant and approved by
the Director of EMA." Once again, this is another instance of "the fox guarding the hen
house". The City must determine roles and responsibilities of the ATIP Advisory
rCommittee.
P. Page 4.9-49, Lines 20,21: The REIR states that a jurisdiction
must undertake specific actions if it is to comply with the CUP. This implies that the
' Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 162 ,
proposed project could put a city out of compliance with the CMP and that the only way for
P� P J P tY P Y Y
the City to comply would be to fund their share of a "fair share" project; however, if the
development puts a city in violation of the CMP, the developer should fully fund the
necessary highway improvement, not the impacted public agency.
q. Page 4.9-52, Lines 8-9: "The percentages of project generated
trips allocated to various roadway segments are based upon the SARA Model travel demand
trip tables." Have these tables been post-processed to account for real-world conditions in '
the project area? If so, the procedure must be documented.
r. Page 4.9-53, Figure 4.9-20 and Page 4.9-54, Figure 4.9-21:
Several trip distribution factors shown on this figure do not appear to make sense, including
the following:
• Why are there 12% internal trips for this scenario (Mesa Project), and
only 3% internal trips for the Lowland Scenario?
• It is unreasonable to expect 30% of all trips to utilize Warner Avenue
to PCH, considering the capacity problems and increasing congestion
on PCH north of Warner Avenue. Please explain this assumption. '
• While SARA distributes traffic to centroids by the shortest path, it is
not realistic to assume that traffic utilizing neighborhood commercial
facilities would drive through existing housing tracts to access such
facilities. For example, Figure 4.9-21 shows 1% of project traffic
turning north off of Slater Avenue between Edwards Street and ,
Goldenwest Street. While "model-wise" this is the shortest distance to
the commercial facilities at the southwest corner of the Warner
Avenue/Goldenwest Street Intersection, there physically is no way to
get to these facilities from Slater Avenue without utilizing Warner
Avenue or Goldenwest Street. The net effect of this improbable
distribution pattern is to drastically understate actual intersection and
link impacts in the project area. This has a significant effect on the
degree of improvement required at certain intersections and along
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 163
' certain links, and could significantly increase the cost of required
improvements.
S. Page 4.9-57, Lines 28-29: The projected daily traffic volumes
must be compared to LOS "C" daily link capacities, not LOS "E" capacities. The City
Growth Management Plan and City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines
mandate LOS "C" on links.
t. Page 4.9-72, Lines 33-44: This is a totally inadequate
discussion of construction traffic impacts. To state that there will be no significant
construction impacts because of the proximity of the project to designated truck routes is
' ludicrous. A complete construction phase impact analysis must be conducted, including
numbers of trucks, hours and days of operations, impacts to link and intersection capacities,
safety issues, etc. The preparation of a Traffic Control Plan in and of itself does not
' guarantee that there will be no impacts due to construction traffic. In fact, preparation of a
Traffic Control Plan means that significant construction traffic impacts are expected.
U. Page 4.9-80, Lines 11-17: The only short-term impacts found
to be significant are those occurring at 5 intersections on PCH. This can only be true if the
project applicant commits to funding all required improvements at all intersections and along
' all links where mitigations are required to achieve acceptable Levels of Service.
' v. Page 4.9-80, Line 20 through page 49-81, Line 5: Here again,
the only significant long-term impacts identified are those to 5 intersections along PCH.
This would be true only if the applicant commits to funding all required improvements at all
intersections and along all links where mitigations are required to achieve acceptable Levels
of Service.
1 W. Page 4.9-81, Lines 14-28: While widening of PCH may not be
a feasible alternative to mitigate project impacts, there is no analysis of the possibility of
constructing intersection improvements at the five identified PCH intersections to improve the
' LOS at the intersections. There is also no discussion of increasing PCH capacity through
methods that do not require additional right-of-way.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• • r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 164
10. Comments on the Bolsa Chica T mWw Impact Analysis
,
Y
a. Pursuant to CUP requirements, there must be a discussion of ,
impacts (if any) to the freeways in the area (County of Orange CMP-TIA Requirements, and
City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines). This was not done in the TIA
report-
b. A map detailing "other large General Plan Developments" ,
assumed to be in place by the Years 2000, 2005 and 2010 is not provided. Such a map is
required to determine if future year traffic scenarios are adequately determined.
C. Signal Warrant Analyses for future traffic signals must be ,
provided, particularly at new intersections in the study area. These analyses quantify the
need for any new proposed traffic signals. ,
d. The link threshold LOS criteria for Huntington Beach is LOS
"C" and not LOS "E" as assumed in the study. ,
e. Certain key elements of model forecasting methods are not
explained fully, e.g., refinement of peak period volumes at intersections and links. Identify
the intersections at which the refinements were required, and identify those refinements. ,
Such refinements can significantly affect model outputs and resultant impact analyses.
f. Provide roadway system conceptual plans of alternatives used in ,
the analysis to clarify the distribution of traffic from the project.
g. Identify project access, CMP links, intersections and links by '
jurisdiction, and identify the location of major trip generators in the study area.
h. Truck construction traffic needs to be quantified by type of t
vehicles, tonnage per day, peak period distribution and hours of operation.
i. Appendix "A", the turning movement counts at study r
intersections, needs to be rearranged in the order of ICU analysis for convenience of
reviewing the report. The traffic count data at some intersections was collected in 1988, and ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 165
is obsolete and must be redone. City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines
mandate that traffic counts must have been collected within the previous one year period.
' Also, the hours assumed for the peak period varies at the various study intersections, and
should be consistent.
j. Fair share costs of the project for all recommended mitigations
are not estimated.
' k. Some of the intersections analyzed are not fully mitigated. One
example of this is the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (N/S) at Seal Beach Boulevard
(EN) for the following situation:
Traffic Condition: LCP-Bolsa Chica Mesa Only Scenario (Option "A")
Lane Configuration: Initial Alternative
' Year 2010: a.m. and p.m. analysis
This intersection operates at LOS F. Why is this intersection not mitigated to
Ian acceptable LOS?
1. Separate the Traffic Scenarios in the appendices for easy
identification and reference.
11. Comments on the "Executive Summary" of the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
a. Page S-1 and S-2, Section: Introduction
"As a result of the requirements of the CUT and GNP the stud area
�1 � Y
includes facilities of regional importance up to 4 miles from the project
' itself."
' This statement is partially true with regard to the study area selection.
Since the project is located in the unincorporated area of the County, the project needs to
follow the GMT criteria for dissipating the traffic on all streets that the project traffic uses,
irrespective of whether or not those streets belong to the CUT network. The GNP criteria
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 166
states that where project traffic represents more than 1% of existing roadway capacity, that '
location should be analyzed. Satisfying the GMT criteria fulfills the CMP criteria
automatically. '
b: Page S-2 and S-3, Section: Introduction
Exhibit S-A does not identify the project' 'ect location to allow a ,
clear understanding of the influential area selected in the study.
C. Page S-2 Section: Introduction
The paragraph on Level of Service (LOS) does not include the link '
threshold LOS per CMP and GNP criteria for the study. The City LOS "C" criteria for link
analysis must be utilized (City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation '
Guidelines, July, 1993).
d. Page S-4, Section: Project Description
The project description in the current report is entirely different from
the previous DEIR submitted for review and revision. The project description and roadway
alternatives have been so altered that this current study is a DEIR for an entirely new
project. There is no comparison between the results of the "revised" study and the previous
study. Therefore, on the basis of the vast difference in project description and approach ,
(including modelling analysis), this study is a new project traffic impact analysis, not a
revised final draft report.
e. Page S-4, Section: Project Description ,
The project description does not indicate the project opening year and
phases of construction.
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 167
f. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
"This is an increase of about 300,000 trip-ends
per day compared.to the estimated existing
conditions trip-ends total of about 1.8 million trip-
ends per day."
What is the basis of this statement with regard to the increase in future
traffic in the City? Currently, the City is revising its General Plan. Please provide data
detailing the basis of these additional trip-ends per day.
' g. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
"This represents 1% of the trip-ends generated
' within the City of Huntington Beach each day
under Year 2020 conditions."
This statement is misleading, considering the 300,000 trip-ends per day
to be generated in the City. The project generates close to 8% of the daily trip ends with
Option A each day under Year 2020 conditions. Also, if the P.M. peak period traffic in
' Huntington Beach is assumed to be 10% of the daily traffic in the Year 2020, using 300,000
trips per day gives 30,000 trips during the p.m. peak period. Therefore, the project
generates close to 9% of the p.m. peak period trip ends with Option A. Similar errors
' in percentage contribution by the project are listed under Option B.
h. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
Table S-1 Project Trip Generation Table does not indicate the source
J P
' for the trip generation rates.
12. Specific Comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis
' a. Page 1-3, Section 1.1: Project Description. The three roadway
alternatives described should be shown on conceptual roadway plans to better understand the
access points to the project sites.
Proposed Final Draft Dated Saptember 30, 1994
• r
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 168
r
b. Page 1-10, Section 1.2: Study Approach. In Exhibit 1-C,
identify the intersections which are either new or modified in the study area. Also, list the
study intersections by jurisdiction.
C. Page 1-17, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. "For this
reason, the peak hour assignment of project traffic has been performed using a manual ,
assignment procedure, which overlays the peak hour project traffic on the "no project" model
forecasts." Does this statement mean that all peak hour project traffic was manually
distributed using the trip distribution and traffic generation adopted in the study? Explain
and clarify the manual assignment process used in the study.
d. Page 1-18, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. "The ,
minimum allowable growth percentage for the highest peak hour of each intersection,
therefore, has been set at 20%." Does the above statement apply to the project peak period
traffic contribution at study intersections shown in Exhibit 1-C?
e. Page 1-24 and 1-26, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies: ,
"Peak hour traffic forecasts for turning movements have been derived directly from SARA
Model peak period forecasts." The above statement seems to apply only to the "no project
forecasts". Clarify the statement's applicability. '
L Page 1-29, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. Under
calculations (page 1-28), Item 8 states that "Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS ,
calculations because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, no counts are
taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends."
Traffic Counts are one of the most important elements in conducting a Traffic Impact
Analysis. Even though the peak period selected for the study is identified (on page 1-
28, Item 6, "peak periods") as 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:30 p.m., a careful ,
review of the traffic counts in Appendix "A" shows inconsistencies in the peak hour
used for traffic count measurements. The traffic counts are obtained from various
sources with different a.m. and p.m. peak periods. For a study of this dimension, it
is inadequate and does not follow any order. Counts must be redone on a consistent
basis to allow for proper analysis of existing conditions and future impacts.
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 169
g. Pages 2-21 through 2-24, Section 2.3: Existing Peak Hour
Traffic Conditions. Exhibits 2-C to 2-F are not legible. Provide readable Exhibits 2C to
' 2F. 211
h. Page 2-25, Table 2-3: Provide tables indicating jurisdiction.
i. Page 3-2, Section 3.2: Project Roadway System Alternatives.
The three different roadway alternatives should be shown as conceptual plans for better
understanding of the descriptions provided in the report.
j. Page 3-9, Section 3.4: Project Trip Generation. In Table 3-1
' indicate the ITE Code Number used in obtaining the trip generation rates. Trip generation
rates for the "specialty commercial" may be taken from the San Diego Association of
Governments Trip Generation Rate Tables.
' Under "Multi-family residential" indicate the type and number
of multi-family units to be built, e.g., high rise condominiums, apartments, low-rise
townhouses, etc. This type of classification will help to understand the interaction between
zones.
1 For single-family detached residential and multi-family
residential, why are 1982 trip rates from EMA are being used? Are these the most current
rates available?
' k. Pages 3-12 and 3-14 Section 3.5: Project Trip Distribution.
� � P
Exhibits 3-B and 3-C, source for the internal trips (12% and 3%) indicated for Mesa and
Lowland developments. The 12% internal trips indicated in Exhibit 3-B for the Mesa project
is very high when compared to the total trip generation estimated in Table 3-1, page 3-9.
' Are these internal trips obtained from the model? If not, how were they obtained? This
high internal trip rate appears to be an attempt to understate project traffic impacting City
facilities.
' 1211 See Annet No.35.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 170
1. Page 3-12, Section 3.5, Project Trip Distribution -- Exhibit 3B: '
The 30% trip distribution on Warner Avenue to PCH seems to be high considering the
available capacity to the north of Warner on PCH. Is this high percentage distribution ,
justified? This appears to be another attempt to understate project traffic volumes on City
streets.
In. Page 3-12, Section 3.5, Project Trip Distribution -- Exhibit
3-B: the 16% WBR and 14% WBL are high percentage distribution considering PCH is
already at capacity. To understand the impact of the westbound traffic on the City roadway '
network if PCH cannot be expanded in the future, it is essential to run the SARA model with
turning movement restraint at Warner Avenue and PCH. Also, the study must provide LOS f.
link analysis, and cost analysis with traffic not going to PCH. ,
n. Pages 3-15 to 3-16, Section 3.6 Project Average Daily Traffic:
In Exhibit 3-E, to the north of Seapointe Street on PCH the ADT's have reduced from those
shown in Exhibit 3-D (For example, from 3.3 to 3.1). This needs to be verified, as the
distribution in Exhibit 3-B has not changed, nor have the trip generation rates changed.
K. CHAPTER 4.10 - Ant OUALrry
1. Need to Reference Traffic Assum tions. The text repeatedly refers to
P reP� Y
the air quality handbook and the sources for its emission factors but should also reference
additional traffic assumptions. Mitigation measures are reasonably detailed and text is clear ,
in the unavoidable adverse impacts.
2. Need for Further Meteorological Data. Page 4.10-1: It would be ,
useful to summarize meteorological influences within the project area (i.e. prevailing winds,
inversion layers/characteristics, local topographical issues, maritime influence).
P 4.1 1: The REIR ,3. Monitoring Locations Are Not Identified. age 0-
should include a map that identifies the locations of the monitoring stations versus the project
site.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
t
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 171
4. Lack of Intersection Air Quality Data. Page 4.10-10, Lines 45-50,
Page 4.10-11, Lines 1-20: The REIR should provide at least a summary table of significant
' intersections depicting existing, projected future conditions, without the project, projected
future conditions with the project, and oftentimes comparison with the build alternatives. In
this manner, even if the project does not show a significant impact, it can be compared with
other relevant scenarios. Further, the potential for the project to cause CO or other emission
hot spots should be evaluated and disclosed by the REIR.
' 5. Analysis Includes Conflicting Data.
a. Page 4.10-11, Lines 37-45: The text concludes that although
the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Westminster Avenue yields an 8-hour average
of 9.12 ppm which exceeds the CAAQS value of 9.1 ppm, that by the year 2010 the ambient
concentration would be low enough such that there would not be a significant impact. If this
' is true, why wasn't a lower ambient used in the model? Is this rationale consistent with the
Handbook?
b. Page 4.10-17, Lines 33-35: Need to clarify why 12 percent of
the trips that are "internal to the project" are apparently excluded in the total trip generation.
Even though the trip length is shorter, this trip type still loads the atmosphere with
' pollutants.
6. Consistency with AQW Is Not Sufficiently Analyzed. Page 4.10-8:
' The air quality section does not specifically mention which set of land use assumptions were
used within the existing AQMP, yet it mentions on Page 4.10-8, Lines 33-36, that "New or
' amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and Projects with potentially significant air
quality impacts need to undergo a consistency review. In this case, the Proposed Project will
require a General Plan Amendment, therefore, a consistency determination is necessary".
' What is the current "reigning" General Plan Land Use Element? Based upon review of the
General Plan section of the EIR, it appears the document is assuming that the County of
Orange Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (1986) represents the current planning
' scenario to the site, even though this plan is not considered to be operant by the Coastal
Commission. Although it is apparent that the development of the applicant's proposed
project is somewhat downsized from this 1986 version, conditions previously set forth by the
' CCC are met in this plan. Since the previous land use plan was only conditionally certified,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
• • r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 172
r
the City does not believe this is an approved document. It is also unclear if the densities of
development the 1986 plan allows were included in the assumptions for the AQMP? This
document states that "if development in the County LCP area has been considered in the '
AQMP, the project will generally be found to conform ..." Please clarify what is meant by
"if". Was the plan included in the AQMP or not?
7. Consistency with GMP Is Not Properly Analyzed. There are flaws
in the analysis and further study is necessary to address consistency with SCAG's Growth
Management Plan. ,
a. Page 4.10-8, Line 28-49, Page 4.10-9, Lines 1-32, Consistency.
with SCAG Growth Management Plan (GMP): According to the South Coast Air Quality ,
Management District (AQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, page 12-1),
information should be provided in the EIR to determine consistency of the project with the
AQMP and other applicable regional plans. The SCAG GNP is included as "other
applicable regional plans".
b. The REIR assesses consistency with the GNP by evaluating the
project's effect on jobs/housing balance. This method is inconsistent with the approach
recommended by the AQMD, which states:
"[Consistency] can be accomplished b comparing the project's density,
[ Yl P Y Pig P J
location, and land use pattern with the adopted local General Plan and '
associated zoning ordinance and maps that were in place in 1989 when the
GMP was adopted. If the project will result in a significant change in the
density, location, and land use pattern, then it is considered to be inconsistent ,
with the GNP For General Plan Amendments and projects involving a
significant change to the General Plan, a comparison of the growth projections
in the appropriate regional statistical area (RSA) for the build-out year should '
be performed to determine consistency." (CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
page 12-2.)
The consistency analysis in the REIR does not compare the project's density, location and '
land use pattern with the adopted County General Plan, nor does it compare growth
projections in the appropriate RSA.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 173
r
L. CHAMR 4.11 - NoISE
1. Confusing Organization Obscures Analysis. The Noise Section of
the EIR and the technical appendices appears to have all the constituent components that
address noise exposure. However, this section does not address the issues raised in the
City's Comment at pages 162-167. Further, this section would be more understandable if
some of the "hard data" provided in the technical appendices were pulled forward in
' summary fashion into the REIR. This exercise would provide some explanation for the
conclusions reached in the main body of the text which currently appear to be unsupported.
Also, there are a number of statements that require clarification and statements that appear
' wrong or are simply worded in a confusing manner.
2. Local Noise Monitoring to Establish Baseline. The County should
conduct noise monitoring in the local community to establish an existing ambient noise level
beyond the site, since construction noise and traffic noise from the land development can
then be compared to the exiting ambient noise level in the community. Sm Comment at page
163, 15.
3. Miscellaneous.
' a. Page 4.11-1, Line 35: Define SOVI as it is the first time it is
mentioned in this section.
b. Page 4.11-2: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-7
' is the subject of the discussion pertaining to the Pacific Coast Highway. Please confirm.
C. Page 4.11-2: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N 8
is the subject of the discussion pertaining to Warner Avenue. Please confirm.
d. Page 4.11-3, Lines 22-23: Caltrans standards are in Leq, not
Ldn. Doesn't the County of Orange have a typical day-evening-night split for arterials in
Orange County which would translate into modelling input parameters to calculate Ldn or
CNEL?
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 174
e. Page 4.11-3, Line 48: Add a period to 58 1, so it reads "58.1".
f. Page 4.11-4, Lines 1-3: What is the source for the Ldn
estimates? (nomograph, model?)
g. Page 4.11-4, Lines 13-18: Using hard site conditions is
conservative. The REIR must identify how the hard site condition was arrived at, and if it is
consistent with the County's typical assumptions.
h. Page 4.11-4, Lines 17-18: It would be helpful to know what
areas are already out of compliance with City's 60 Ldn criteria.
i. Page 4.11-4, Lines 23-41: The accepted California noise metric
is CNEL, not Ldn, albeit the differences between the metrics are minimal. In the previous
Comment it was suggested that one-hour equalized Leq measurements should also be
included. It is assumed that Lines 27-31 provides the rationale for using Ldn. Was the City,
County and State consulted prior to the decision to use Ldn? Please elaborate.
j. Table 4.11-1: This table is confusing. The purpose of this r
table is unclear since it is not related to any of the local streets.
k. a 4.11-4, Lines 40-41: How was the 78 percent increase r
�
arrived at?
1. Page 4.11-6 Lines 3-20: How will the PDF's be monitored and r
reported? Will the PDF's be subject to Assembly Bill 3180 reporting requirements? If not,
how will the applicant or lead agency know if performance criteria were met?
In. Page 4.11-6, Lines 42-49: This discussion is confusing and '
warrants some clarification. Specifically, "The peak-hour noise levels are approximately 2 to
3 dBa less than the modified Ldn values while the remainder of the days sessions would be
an additional 2 to 3 dBa less."
n. Please explain how peak-hour noise levels can be less. It is
assumed that what is meant is that the peak-hour traffic-related noise is less (i.e. 6 to 9 AM '
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 175
and 4 to 7 PM), not the peak-hour noise. The text should clarify if this is due to reduced
vehicle speeds due to a poorer level of service. This needs clarification. Next, if the
remainder of the days session (school day) 9 AM to 3 PM is an additional 2 to 3 dBa less,
than noise levels are between 5 and 6 dBa less than predicted. How can this occur? If the
peak-hour traffic-related noise is 2 to 3 dBa less than predicted (i.e., between 6 to 9 AM
and 4 to 7 PM), then one would assume the intervening hours must be louder not quieter,
other wise what is the peak hour traffic-related noise less than? The remaining hours are
between 7 PM and 5 AM when little traffic noise is generated. Please clarify.
' o. Page 4.11-6, Line 50 to Page 4.11-7, Lines 1-5: This
discussion references the California State Department of Education as the appropriate
' jurisdiction in determining acceptable limits for noise around schools. The noise level of 70
dBa is mentioned, but does not relate it specifically to Ldn or Leq (i.e. peak hour noise).
Also, it does not identify which schools in the area are potentially impacted with or without
the project. Please clarify.
P. Page 4.11-7: Construction equipment associated with wetland
restoration (i.e. dredging) is very loud and could produce noise levels that exceed noise
standards. The text should be revised to include construction-related noise as it relates to
wetlands restoration.
q. Pages 4.11-8 and 4.11-9: It would be helpful if at least a
summary table was shown in the EIR text that addresses noise exposure for those major
roadway segments that have residential, schools, or other sensitive receptors adjacent to
them. Even if there are no significant impacts, the reader would be able to see the
assumptions for ADT and the respective Ldn values without referring to another technical
volume. The lack of mention of traffic noise impact to specific locations in the community is
surprising considering the interest and controversy surrounding this project.
' r. Page 4.11-9, Lines 35-41: This discussion is appropriate but
should be referenced to an acceptable noise criteria and included as a mitigation measure to
ensure it is implemented and reported consistent with mitigation monitoring/reporting
requirements. Without such a discussion there is no guidance for performance criteria (i.e.
60 Leq, 65 Leq).
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• • 1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 4, 1994
Page 176 ,
S. Page 4.11-9 Lines 6-15: There is no back-up discussion r
ag p o 0
tables to refer to that support the conclusion that local roads "will not have their traffic-
generated noise increased significantly". Continual reference to the Appendix is not
particularly easy for the reader to follow.
M. CRAFTER 4,12 - CuLTURAL REsouRCEs
1. Further Studies Required Prior to Approval of the Proposed '
Project. The cultural resources section of the REIR is inadequate because each of the
following concerns, some of which are discussed in further detail below, require the
preparation of further studies and disclosure and analysis of the results of those studies prior'
to project approval.-
• The mitigation measures are inadequate to prevent the significant ,
cultural resources impacts which the REIR states they avoid.
• Additional mitigation measures are necessary (and appear to be
feasible) to mitigate direct project impacts appropriately.
• The cultural resource analysis is flawed in many respects.
• Information in the REIR is incomplete and unclear. _
• Facts stated in the REIR are often erroneous or unsupported, some of
the assumptions and conclusions are unreasonable, erroneous,
unsupported, and/or insupportable.
• Some of the tables, maps, etc. are in error and/or contradictory.
• Some significant impacts are determined to be non-significant.
122/ The wmpleted studies should be summarized in the revised REM with the studies themselves appended as
Exhibits.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r • •
r
r Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 177
r
r • Some significant cultural resources are determined to be
non-significant.
r • Some resources were destroyed before they could be tested for
significance (and must therefore be considered significant).
r • The REIR has not demonstrated that all significant impacts have been
stated and mitigated to the extent feasible.
' • The proposed mitigation measures are not adequate to mitigate project
impacts to cultural resources.
r • The REIR remains rife with obfuscation, etc.
r 2. Unanswered Issues Raised m the Comment. The following issues
which were raised in the Comment were either not addressed at all or were only partially
answered in the REIR and are therefore reiterated below.
a. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements (pages 167-168 of the
Comment). The REIR states that the gun emplacements on the Mesa were constructed by
r the Corps during the early years of WWII. See p. 4.12-7, Lines. 1-4. In contrast, the
documentation supplied to the County in connection with Koll's 1990 applications for
demolition permits indicated that the emplacements were constructed in 1944 and were not
r completed or fitted with weapons. This was the basis for permitting the demolition to
proceed and now is brought into questions by the REIR. What is the true history and
potential significance of these historical assets?
' b. Deferred Study (page 168 of the Comment). The REIR states
that a research design for material analysis for the Bolsa Chica region is currently in
rpreparation (page 4.12-32, Lines. 43-44); therefore, impact to Bolsa Chica region sites
cannot be deemed insignificant until completed. The mitigation section identifies areas in
which data recovery excavations will occur but does not address the extent of the area to be
revaluated or what will be done with the excavations.
r
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 178 '
C. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer; '
California Register Criteria (page 169 of the Comment). PRC § § 21084, 21084.1 define
a project which would adversely affect a historic resource as including resources eligible for
listing in gither the National Register Qr the newly-created California Register of Historic
Places. The REIR improperly relies on a determination made prior to the creation of the ,
California Register. Furthermore, there are other determinants of whether a resource is of
significance to a particular community or represents an example of a period of Cali
history. Mere adherence to the National Register standards for eligibility for listing is ,
clearly not the CEQA definition of an impact to a historic resource under PRC § 21084.1.
Consultation with the SHPO would be invaluable in determining the site's eligibility for
listing in the California Register. That determination must be made before the REIR can be
considered complete under CEQA.-`
d. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites.
(1) ORA-78 (pages 169-170 of the Comment): Table 1.3
states that the historic components of site ORA-78 have not been formally evaluated. The '
significance of these historic resources must be determined by a qualified historical
archaeologist and/or architectural historian and evaluated by the REIR.
(2) ORA-82 (page 170 of the Comment): On page 4.12-23, '
Lines. 46-47, the REIR's Cultural Resources section reported that "most of the site within
the County LCP area has not been subject to either test excavations or data recovery." It is '
presented as an assumption that the County will test, assess, excavate if necessary and
mitigate all negative impacts to this site (Table 1.3, 1-37). Without more complete
information, the accuracy of this assumption cannot be evaluated. Unless a major amount of
excavation and analysis is underway, covering the apparently unstudied portion of this very
important site within the LCP study area, it is very unlikely that the negative impacts of the
LCP study area development plan will have been adequately mitigated. No objective criteria ,
have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data
1231 The SHPO is concerned regarding this site. Attached to the Comment as COMMENT ANNEX No. 56 are ,
various items of correspondence from SHPO to the Corps, CCC and to Koll's counsel, noting SHPO's concern
regarding the overly intrusive and potentially destructive manner in which 'important archaeological properties'
were being reported, urging that a more comprehensive and sensitive approach be taken.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 179
recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will
mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. This will be a county responsibility under the
conditions of the Applicant's preferred plan. Is their responsibility guaranteed in some way
(e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? The REIR should address the result of testing/data
recovery activities conducted within the LCP area rather than exclusively the results of work
conducted outside the LCP area.
(3) ORA-290 (page 172 of the Comment): The REIR is
' inconsistent in its treatment of ORA-290. Table 4.12-2, page 4.12-9, indicates that ORA-
290 is destroyed. In contrast, page 4.12-26, Lines. 26-30, of the REIR's Cultural Resources
section states that a remnant of the site exists.
(4) ORA-291, -292, -1308, -1309 (page 172 of the Comment):
No carbon dating has been performed for these sites (Table 4.12-2).
' (5) ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365H, -366, -1308, -1309 (page
172 of the Comment): If properly studied, these sites have the potential to yield significant
scientific data. Most of these sites have been inadequately studied so that an accurate
assessment of their significance and the required mitigation measures is impossible. Such
work must be completed and evaluated by the REIR.
e. Miscellaneous.
(1) (pages 172-173 of the Comment) No regional study
comparing LCP study area resources to regional resources has been conducted or is proposed
in the REIR. A regional study plan should be developed and implemented. The regional
study plan would minimally seek to obtain the age of all known LCP study area sites and
compare the significance of LCP sites to regional and cultural resources. The "significance"
of a site, as an isolated example of prehistoric activity, may be lower than if the site is
viewed as part of a group of sites in the region. For example, the findings that [five]
prehistoric sites are not important, [four] of which have not been dated, fails to consider
these sites as part of a regional system of sites and ignores the REIR contribution to the
cumulative impacts of the proposed project.]
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 180
(2) (page 173 of the Comment:) Impact 4.12-4: This
impact states that park development activities may impact cultural resources on prehistoric
sites [and historic resources] located on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The proposed '
mitigation measures for sites on the Huntington Beach Mesa appear to assume impacts will
be mitigated by future completion of evaluation and work in progress or to be done. No
objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether the work (e.g., data '
recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be adequate or mitigate project impacts
to known or yet to be discovered resources. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4a merely states that
the impacts of Park development have been considered in a separate EIR which identified ,
mitigation measures. These measures will be implemented by the County." In contrast, for
archaeological sites located in the area of the Linear Regional Park, the REIR provides that
in IiM preservation or the "capping" of sites will take place to prevent disturbance to the site.
(3) Impact 4.12-2 (pages 173-174 of the Comment): This
impact states that undocumented sites in the Lowland may be impacted by wetlands ,
restoration activities. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 (PDF) states that surveys will be conducted
to determine the presence of significant resources, and that mitigation measures shall be
implemented for significant sites "at the expense of the Applicant." The Applicant's
financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who
will fund the work if the Applicant cannot? Surveys should be conducted to locate all
resources within the wetlands restoration areas of the LCP study area, their significance
should be determined, appropriate mitigation measures must be developed and addressed in
the REIR. ,
3. Discovery of Human Remains. More information has been provided
in the REIR than the DEIR regarding the human skeletal material discovered at ORA-83, and
the REIR indicates that the results of the analysis of the human bone fragments and their '
significance will be compiled in a report on the data recovery program."-' The REIR
explains that in June 1994, the most likely descendants reburied all of the human bone ,
fragments and associated grave goods that were discovered during the data recovery program
at ORA-83, and that such reburial was conducted in accordance with the reburial agreement
with the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and the recommendations of the most likely
1241 The presence of hurnan remains at this site has continued to be the focus of significant controversy. See ,
levers attached as Annex Nos. 36 and 3&
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 181
e
idescendants. The REIR further states that ORA-83, which was judged significant, has been
excavated and that other than grading monitoring, no further work is proposed. See page
4.12-39, Lines. 25-47. The REIR should disclose additional information regarding the
methodology of the controlled grading program so that a determination may be made whether
such a program is adequate and will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Someone
will eventually become responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the
County or the City?
1 4. Cultural Resources Research Design. The REIR never clearly states
whether a research design has been developed for the proposed project. This frustrates
attempts to evaluate the thoroughness or accuracy of the cultural resources analysis in the
REIR. The County must prepare and include in the new and recirculated REIR a clear,
consistent, scientifically sound, professional, adequate cultural resources research design
("CRRD") which must be implemented for all known and as yet undiscovered cultural
resource sites. The CRRD must address at least the following:
a. Adequately address all usual, professional research questions.
b. Completely describe all research methodologies.
C. Completely describe and document the area and volume of all
site excavations.
d. Completely describe and document the analysis intended, and
e. Document the project proponent's ability-to carry out the work.
5. Inadequate Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions.
ia. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b: The capping of sites (page
4.12-43, ln. 49), contrary to the REIR, does not entirely eliminate the need to conduct data
recovery on a site. Capping merely removes a site from scientific study, or minimally makes
such study much more difficult. Capping does greatly reduce the project's adverse impact to
a site, and consequently reduces the amount of data that should be recovered prior to the
site's removal from scientific.study. This mitigation measure should be modified to include
the minimal data collection from the effected sites to at least enable a preliminary assessment
of the nature and extent of each site, a list of the type of artifacts contained within the site,
and the significance of capped sites and associated artifacts.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
� • 1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 182 e
b. Non-Significant Sites: Five sites have been determined to have
not been tested for significance and are therefore not significant because they have been
destroyed. No site should be destroyed without testing for significance and destroyed sites
can not be determined to be non-significant because they were destroyed. On the contrary,
untested destroyed site must be determined to be significant.
C. All LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated,
tested for significance, sites determined to be significant must be excavated, and their
significance in relation to regional cultural resources should be determined and addressed in
the REIR (IMA, 1994).
d. Archival material exist for archival material collected from the
destroyed sites listed on Table 4.12-1. These materials must be properly analyzed.
Recommendation: An additional mitigation measure should be written to ensure that no site
will be destroyed without being tested for significance and that all archival materials
properly analyzed. Otherwise, the statement in section 4.12.4.1, page 4.12-39, In. 29-33,
that the prehistoric components of Ora-83, and Ora-85 will be evaluated in their regional
context should be considered invalid.
6. The REIR Fails to Inform the Reader of the Scope of Research.
The REIR does not clearly described the scope of the research and physical investigation
which has been performed and, here again, the reader is forced to speculate as to the
completeness or accuracy of the scope and techniques employed in investigating the cultural
resources of the site. The County must rewrite the REIR to document the work that has
been completed and the work which remains to be done.
7. The REIR Does Not Provide for Adequate Site Management or
Testing. The project proposed in the REIR does not propose adequate mitigation of the
projects significant, or its potentially significant, impacts on cultural resources of the project
site. In order for the REIR's treatment of the potential and known cultural sources of the
site to mitigate impacts of the project, the County must, at a minimum, implement all of the
following:
a. Develop a detailed plan for site management ensuring all sites
will be tested for significance and ensuing the results and findings of significance tests will
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 183
be thoroughly and professionally documented in accordance with professional SOPA, local,
state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines, requirements, etc.
b. The reports of findings should include at least the nature and
extent of each site, a list of the type of artifacts contained within the site, and the
significance of the site and associated artifacts.
c. The cultural resources research design for this project must
adequately analyze all previously collected archival material, from all on-site cultural
resources sites. Only then can potential project impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered
cultural resources of the project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
d. All cultural resources sites must receive documented, objective,
professional analysis adequate levels of attention.
e. The archaeologist's attention (i.e. time, research budgets, etc.)
must be appropriately apportioned to adequately test and mitigate all significant impacts to
known and potential significant resources.
f. All LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated
and tested for significance. Sites determined to be significant must be excavated, and their
significance in relation to regional cultural resources should be determined and addressed in
the REIR.
g. All untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate
the REIR potential impacts.
h. If the sites have not been tested then that work must be
performed and the REIR recirculated before the REIR is submitted for approval.
8. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites. The following issues
supplement the issues identified under "Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites" first
identified in the Comment and reiterated under 12.d, above.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 184
a. Ora-78: The current document is not internally consistent as to
the continued existence of this site. Table 1.3, page 34 states that this site, as well as a
number of others, no longer exists. Yet, Section 4.12.1.3, page 4.12-7, In. 40 to 43, reports
that as recently as 1992 an intact, and previously unrecorded portion of ORA-78 was located.
The earlier DEIR incorrectly indicated that the site was unimportant. If this site has been
destroyed, the REIR must determine and document how this occurred and specifically and
thoroughly explain how other sites will be managed to prevent the loss of sites and associated
data.
b. Ora-84 Ora-86 mesa component), Ora-288 Ora-289 Ora-290
Ora-85H: All of these sites are indicated in the current document as destroyed. The data
presented in Table 4.12-1 indicates that all of these sites have received some degree of
archaeological attention in the past, and yet many have not received an adequate level of
analysis (e.g., carbon dating of all sites). The REIR does not indicate that there has been
study of archival material collected from these sites. CEQA requires that the cumulative
impact of a project be evaluated, and not merely the immediate site specific impacts. JMA's
January 13, 1994 review comments recommended providing for the proper analysis of
archived excavation material from the majority of these sites are still warranted in the current
design. Additional scientific study/analysis is required to enable determination of potential
impacts to cultural resources within the project area.
C. Ora-83: Considerably more detail is provided for this site in the
REIR than in the DEIR. The added information concerning human skeletal material seems
adequate. This site seems to hold the greatest interest for the applicant's archaeological
consultant, perhaps to the detriment of the other significant archaeological resources in the
area. The REIR states (Section 4.12, page 4.12-39, Lines 25-47) that this site, as well as
Ora-85, have been excavated, and that other than grading monitoring, no further field work
is proposed.
d. Ora-86 (lowland component), Ora-88H, Ora-292, Ora-293/294,
Ora-365H, Ora 366, Ora-1308, Ora 1309: Based on Table 4.12-3, the significance of these
sites has yet to be determined. The REIR text is inconsistent with this, stating on page
4.12-37 Lines 14 and 15 that all sites have been tested. If site testing yielded only
ambiguous results, this should be so stated and the nature of further work necessary to
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 185
provide clear, more conclusive results, must be detailed and recommended. The results and
findings of further work must be scientifically documented.
e. ORA-78: The question raised by the REIR regarding the
significance of ORA-78 based on the discovery of the marine invertebrate Donax sp. was
adequately addressed in the REIR. PDF-5 (page 4.12-34, Lines 20-25) includes a
representation that the historic components of ORA-78 will be evaluated for significance at
the Applicant's expense. The Applicant's financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any
r� way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot?
r f. ORA-83H: The historic resources at this site were determined
to be insignificant because better examples are preserved elsewhere. The REIR should
identify the sources which made this determination.
I� g. ORA-84: The REIR indicates that this site has been destroyed.
The data presented in Table 4.12-1, and on page 4.12-21, indicates that this site has received
some degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, it does not appear that there
has been any study of archival material collected from ORA-84. CEQA requires that the
cumulative impact of a project (as opposed to mere immediate site specific impacts) be
evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-84
is required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the
project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected unless
all previously collected archival material from ORA-84 are adequately analyzed. Only then
can potential project impacts to existing and currently undiscovered cultural resources of the
project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
h. ORA-85: This site, which was judged significant, has been the
subject of data recovery excavations. The REIR is inconsistent in its reporting of the status
of such excavations. Page 4.12-22, In. 35, of the REIR reports that data recovery
excavations have been completed by SRS and analysis and reporting is in process. In
contrast, Table 1.3 (page 1-35) states that the landowner has merely implemented an
extensive recovery program for ORA-85 and will incorporate PDFs to avoid or minimize
impacts to the site. The REIR must clarify the status of the excavation program at ORA-85.
The REIR further reports that completion of a data recovery excavation program is generally
considered to be appropriate mitigation for an archaeological site. However, because the
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 186
entire site was not excavated prior to an grading activities a controlled program
P Y 8 g � gang P 8ram
shall be conducted by the project archaeologist in the field area to recover any cogged stones
or other important artifacts which may remain in the disturbed portion of the site. Further,
the REIR states that the grading program shall be monitored by a qualified Native American.
The REIR should disclose additional information regarding the methodology of the controlled
grading program so that a determination may be made whether such a program is adequate
and will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Someone will eventually become
responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the County or the City?
i. ORO-85H: The REIR indicates that this site has been
destroyed. Page 4.12-23, Lines. 15-25, indicates that this site has received some degree of
archaeological attention in the past. A photographic record of archival material collected
from ORA-85H was compiled; however, it does not appear that there has been any study of
such material. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project (as opposed to the
mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of
archived excavation material from ORA-85H is required to enable the determination of
potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural resources
research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected archival
material from ORA-85H are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project impacts to
existing and currently undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed and
appropriately mitigated.
j. ORA-86 (Lowlands component): The Effects Found To be
Insignificant portion of Table 1.3, pg. 1-34, has been revised to eliminate the statement that
impacts to the site will be reduced to insignificant. No carbon dating has been performed for
this site (Table 4.12-2 of the Cultural Resources section of the REIR). Testing of this site
has not been completed. The REIR has been revised to state that the lowland portion shall
be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to determine whether they represent unique or
important cultural deposits. If they are determined to be unique or important cultural
deposits, the certified archaeologist will recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be
implemented which could include the implementation of a data recovery program or the
"capping" of the site which shall be implemented at the expense of the lowland Applicant. Is
the Applicant's financial responsibility guaranteed in some way(e.g., by a bond, contract,
etc.)? Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot? The REIR further states that all data
recovery excavations shall be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the
Proposed Final Draft Dated Septernber 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 187
lowland wetlands restoration activities or lowland urban development activities for these
sites. The significance of untested/excavated sites must be determined and addressed in the
REIR.
k. ORA-86 (Mesa component): The REIR indicates that this site
has been destroyed. Page 4.12-21, Lines. 2-14, indicates that this site has received some
degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, no carbon dating has been performed
on this site. Further, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival material
collected from ORA-86 (Mesa component). CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a
project (as opposed to the mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional
scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-86 (Mesa component) is
required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the
project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected unless
all previously collected archival material from ORA-86 (Mesa component) are adequately
analyzed. Only then can potential project impacts to existing and currently undiscovered
cultural resource of the project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
1. ORA-88: JMA has determined that ORA-88 is a significant
prehistoric site with potentially significant historic features. Impact 4.12.5, Table 1.3, page
1-37, has been revised to state that a qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural
historian will be engaged to conduct an evaluation of ORA-88. This evaluation will be
conducted at the County's expense and the County will implement the recommendations of
the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant historical
cultural resources. Is the County's responsibility to pay for the evaluation guaranteed in
some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? In order to provide for the assessment of
whether proposed or on-going work will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project
impacts to cultural resources, the REIR has been revised to state that significance criteria to
be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP and Appendix K to the CEQA
Guidelines. The historic features are noted in the REIR's Cultural Resources section 4.12
(page 4.12-26, In. 19) but not evaluated.
M. ORA-288: The REIR indicates that ORA-288 is destroyed.
Page 4.12-23, Lines. 38-40, indicates that this site has received some degree of
archaeological attention in the past; however, no carbon dating has been performed on this
site (Table 4.12-2). Further, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 188
material collected from ORA-288. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project
(as opposed to the mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated: Additional scientific
study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-288 is required to enable the
determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural
resources research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected (�
archival material from ORA-288 are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project
impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed
and appropriately mitigated.
n. ORA-289: The REIR indicates that ORA-289 is destroyed.
Page 4.12-22, Lines. 7-13, indicates that this site has received some degree of archaeological
attention in the past; however, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival
material collected from ORA-289. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project
(as opposed to the mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional scientific
study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-289 is required to enable the
determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural
resources research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected
archival material from ORA-289 are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project
impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed
and appropriately mitigated.
o. ORA-290: Page 4.12-26, Lines. 24-31, indicates that this site
has received some degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, no carbon dating
has been performed on this site (Table 4.12-2). Moreover, it does not appear that there has
been any study of archival material collected from ORA-290. CEQA requires that the
cumulative impact of a project (and not merely the immediate site specific impacts) be
evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-
290 is required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within
the project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected
unless all previously collected archival material from ORA-290 are adequately analyzed.
Only then can potential project impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource
of the project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
p. ORA-365: The REIR has been revised to include the results of
data recovery excavations. However, a portion in the LCP area has not yet been tested
Proposed Final Draft Datad September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 189
(Table 4.12-3). This portion has the potential to yield significant scientific data. Such work
must be completed and evaluated by the REIR so that an accurate assessment of the
significance of the untested portion and the required mitigation measures can be made.
Impact 4.12.5, Table 1.3, page 1-37, has been revised to state that a qualified historical
archaeologist and/or architectural historian will be engaged to conduct an evaluation of ORA-
365. This evaluation will be conducted at the County's expense and the County will
implement the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian
regarding significant historical cultural resources. Is the County's responsibility to pay for
the evaluation guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? In order to provide
for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work will be or are adequate or are or
will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources, the REIR has been revised to state that
significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP and
Appendix K to the CEQA Guidelines.
q. ORA-86 (Lowland component), -88H: Table 4.12-3 indicates
the significance of these sites has yet to be determined. In contrast, Page 4.12-37 of the
Cultural Resources section states that all of the known prehistoric cultural sites on Bolsa
Chica Mesa have been tested and subjected to data recovery programs. The REIR must be
revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If properly studied, these sites have the potential to
yield significant scientific data. Most of these sites have been inadequately studied so that an
accurate assessment of their significance and the required mitigation measures is impossible.
Such work must be completed and evaluated by the REIR.
r. ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365H, -366, -1308, -1309: Table
4.12-3 indicates the significance of these sites has yet to be determined. In contrast, Page
4.12-37 of the Cultural Resources section states that all of the known prehistoric cultural
sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have been tested and subjected to data recovery programs. The
REIR must be revised to eliminate this inconsistency.
S. ORA-1308 and -1309: Table 1.3 (page 1-36) of the REIR states
that the lowland portion of these sites shall be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to
determine whether they represent unique or important cultural deposits. If they are
determined to be unique or important cultural deposits, the certified archaeologist will
recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented which could include the
implementation of a data recovery program or the "capping" of the sites which shall be
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 190
implemented at the ex
pense xpense of the lowland Applicant. Is the Applicant's financial
responsibility guaranteed in some way(e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? Who will fund the
work if the Applicant cannot? The REIR further states that all data recovery excavations
shall be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the lowland wetlands
restoration activities or lowland urban development activities for these sites. The
significance of untested/excavated sites must be determined and addressed in the REIR.
9. Miscellaneous.
a. The REIR is inconsistent in its treatment of the existence of a
cultural resources research design for known and as yet undiscovered cultural resource sites.' ,
For example, on page 4.12-32 Project Design Feature-1 states that the research design is
currently in preparation (Lines 43-44) while Lines 29-31 states that a research design exists
and is being implemented. The REIR must be revised to eliminate this inconsistency.
b. PDF-2 (page 4.12-34, Lines 1-13) includes a representation that
the requisite data recovery investigations, testing, analysis, and reports shall be completed at
the Applicant's expense. The Applicant's financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any
way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot?
C. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b (page 4.12-43, In. 49), as well as
other portions of the Cultural Resources section, refer to site "capping." The capping of
sites does not entirely eliminate the need to conduct data recovery on a site. Capping merely
removes a site from scientific study, or minimally makes such study much more difficult.
Capping does greatly reduce the project's adverse impact to a site, and consequently, reduces
the amount of data that should be recovered prior to the site's removal from scientific study.
10. Specific Recommendations. The following recommendations are
based on information presented in the preceding sections of this letter regarding Chapter
4.12.
• Eliminate all discrepancies and inconsistencies in the REIR regarding the
existence or non-existence of a research design covering the proposed project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 191
• Prepare a clear, consistent, scientifically sound cultural resources research
design to be implemented for all known and currently undiscovered cultural
resource sites. The research design must adequately address all usual,
professional research questions, completely describe all research
methodologies, completely describe and document the area and volume of all
site excavations, completely describe and document the analysis intended and
document the project proponent's ability to complete the work.
' • Revise the REIR to document the work that has been completed and the work
which has yet to be done.
• Develop a detailed plan for site management ensuring all sites will be tested
for significance and ensuring the results and findings of significance tests will
be thoroughly and professionally documented in accordance with professional
SOPA, local, state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines, requirements, etc.
• Reports of findings should include at least the nature and extent of each site, a
list of the of artifacts contained within the site and the significance of the
type � gm
site and associated artifacts.
All cultural resource sites should receive objective, adequate levels of
attention.
The archaeologists' attention i.e. time research budgets, etc. should be
appropriately apportioned to adequately test and mitigate all significant
resources.
• All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources sections and
mitigation measures of the REIR should be made available to allow reviewers
to determine if they are complete and accurate.
• All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources section of the REIR
should be included in a technical appendix to the REIR which is made
available only to archaeologists.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 192
i
• A more in-depth review of the REIR Cultural Resources sections and technical
reports is warranted.
• Additional scientific study/analysis is uired to enable determination of
�l
potential impacts to cultural resources within the LCP study area.
I�
• Additional mitigation measures must be developed to address all potentially
significant cultural resources sites or sites for which the significance has not
been determined.
• Several cultural resources sites determined insignificant appear to be significant
and therefore should be reevaluated.
• Al LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated, tested,
excavated and their significance in relation to regional cultural resources
should be determined and addressed in the REIR.
• The portion of ORA-82, within the LCP area, must be tested and evaluated by
the REIR.
• Carbon dating and testing of the lowland portion of ORA-86 must be
conducted and mitigation measures developed as appropriate.
• Carbon dating must be conducted for all undated sites.
• The content, scope and methodology of any on-going research for ORA-82 and
ORA-85 must be provided and described by the REIR in order to enable an
assessment of the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures for these two
sites.
• Re-evaluate the significance of ORA-88H, -291, -292, 293/293, -365H, -366, -
1308, -1309: provide the research designs referred to and used to evaluate
these sites; list the criteria used to evaluate the significance of these sites;
present an alternative to data recovery/excavation; present and evaluate scope
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 193
of work and criteria to measure success for data recovery work to be
conducted; etc.
• Make information regarding ORA-290 consistent throughout the REIR.
• All'untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate the REIR
potential impacts. Testing must be performed before the REIR is submitted
for review.
Apply (include) all comments regarding cultural resources in Chapter 4 to
Chapter 11.
• Re-evaluate the magnitude of project impacts to cultural resources in Chapter 6
and mare it consistent with all REIR text.
• Develop a plan to monitor for and deal with cultural resources during dredging
of the tidal inlet.
• The REIR provides for the monitoring of all construction grading activities. If
cultural resources are encountered during the grading process, all construction
activities in the immediate vicinity must stop until a testing program is
developed and conducted. Further, sites determined to be significant must be
excavated to mitigate impacts. .
• Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b should be modified to include the minimal data
collection from the effected sites to at least enable a preliminary assessment of
the nature and extent of each site, a list of the type of artifacts contained
within the site, and the significance of capped sites and associated artifacts.
• Archival material collected from the destroyed sites listed in Table 4.12-1 must
be properly analyzed.
• An additional mitigation measure should be written to ensure that no site will
be destroyed without being tested for significance and that all archival
materials from such sites will be properly analyzed.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 194
• Destroyed sites cannot be determined to be insignificant because they were
destroyed. Rather, any destroyed site must be tested to determine its
significance.
N. CHAMR 4.13 - PALEoNToLwicAL REsouRCEs ,
The City has no comments with respect to this Chapter other than to reiterate
the comments made with respect to cultural resources. .
O. CHAPTER 4.14 - AEsTHETIcs
1. Failure to Answer Comment. The REIR does not address the issues
raised in the City's Comment at page 177, all of which appear to continue to apply.
2. Loss of Existing Specimen Trees. . Page 4.14-17, Lines 6-8: The
REIR states that the "...large specimen trees constitute an important source of aesthetic
variety with in the larger LCP area, and they serve as a focal point to draw attention to the
Bolsa Chica Meas, particularly for those foreground and middleground views within 1 mile
or so of the Mesa." However, no measures are proposed to mitigate the loss of the
"aesthetic value" of this feature.
3. Artist's Conception of Project Views. The artist's conceptions appear
to understate the aesthetic impacts of the project, especially when the reader examines the
computer simulation drawings on which those views are based. The computer simulations
reveal substantially greater massing of buildings than is shown in the artists conception.
a. The concept drawings include trees which are approximately 30
feet tall and do not include a time reference on when this view is anticipated. It is unlikely
that such a large number of large specimen trees will be planted at time of construction.
These trees greatly soften the view of the residential development.
b. The simulated drawings are extremely cluttered, but do show
that development of the site is anticipated to be a solid mass of structures with few visual
breaks. They also show several levees that will run the length of the lowland development
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 195
for Lowland Option B; however, the visual impacts of this expanse of concrete, that at points
is nine feet tall, is not discussed or revealed in the artist's conceptions.
C. Scales of drawings showing profiles between existing residences
are so large, it is difficult to determine if grade differences will actually be as insignificant as
they appear.
4. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.14-20, Lines 27-31: The REIR analyzes the view
impacts on Warner Avenue based upon speeds of automobiles travelling along the arterial.
However, Warner Avenue is also used by cyclists and pedestrians to access the beach area.
Although higher volumes of motorists travel this route, cyclists and pedestrians travel at
slower speeds and are better able to enjoy the views.
b. Page 4.14-45, Lines 9-11: The REIR states the proposed project
is consistent with the Coastal Act's intent to restore and enhance visual quality in the visually
degraded area since it includes wetland restoration that would not likely occur separate from
the proposed development actions. However, since the funding and implementation for the
WRP under Option A is uncertain, it is highly possible that the WRP will not occur under
this option either.
C. Page 4.14-45, Lines 23-29: PDF-1 identifies implementation of
local parks and recreational facilities through a Development Agreement. However, to date,
neither the County nor the REM commits to the execution and delivery of a Development
1 Agreement. PDF-3 states that views of construction activities will be "shielded" as feasible.
"Shielded" should be changed to read "screened from view"
d. Page 4.14-47, Lines 28-34: The REIR describes the view
impacts of implementation of the Bolsa Chica Regional Park plan as if it were part of the
project. To the contrary, the BCRP still requires numerous CDP approvals before
construction can begin. Thus the REIR's reference is confusing, since the County has
already separated out the park property and completed certification of a separate EIR for the
Bolsa Chica Regional Park General Development Plan. So although a portion of the regional
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 196
park is located within the project site it is considered as a separate project. (Note: The City
has approved of the separating of the projects and has already conceptually approved the
regional park development plan and EIR, as well as a CDP for the 1st phase of the park.)
e. Page 4.14-58, Line 28-37: The REIR identifies that views of
the Bolsa Chica are available from Graham Street, but then states further that the extension
of Graham Street will enable current residents to partake of otherwise unavailable views of
the restored wetlands. It is true that these residents will have "otherwise unavailable views
of the restored wetlands" if it is assumed that the wetlands would not be restored without the
project. But, assuming this is not what they are intending to convey, it is difficult to see
how the extension of Graham will provide any additional view opportunities of anything
other that dwelling units.
P. CHAmg 4.15 - SocioEcamwics
1. Further Stud of Socioeconomic Impacts Is Required. Further stud
Y Pa �l Y
is required to analyze environmental issues raised by the projected increase in population and
housing units. The study should analyze the type of units to be generated by the proposed
project, affordable housing impacts, impacts on regional housing needs, financial feasibility,
phasing, and fiscal impact.
2. Financial Feasibility of the Project and Mitigation Is Not Analyzed
in the REIR. The REIR fails to provide an assessment of, or information which enables the
City to assess, the Project's overall financial feasibility or the Project's ability to fund its '
impacts on public facilities while at the same time funding its commitment to mitigations
such as ATIP and wetlands restoration. Additionally, and very importantly for the City, the
REIR fails to provide any analysis or information relating to the fiscal impacts of the project
either on the County or the City. 5= Part I.H, above.
a. The Project Will Have Significant Fiscal Imoacts on the City_
which Will Cause Adverse Physical Effects. The six to nine thousand potential residents
from the Project will require the full range of public facilities and services typically provided
by local government -- such as, fire and police protection; streets and street maintenance;
parks and recreation; libraries; and infrastructure (sewer, water, and storm drainage)
construction and maintenance. In nearly all cases where the REIR addresses impacts on
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 197
these public services and facilities, the City is mentioned as a major provider of these
services and facilities. The project is surrounded by the City and any services and facilities
not provided onsite are most likely to have to be provided from the City. While the REIR
tacitly recognizes the City as the logical source and most economical provider of essential
facilities and services, the REIR does not address the financial/fiscal impact on the City of
the necessary arrangements for the provision and use of these facilities and services by
project residents. Sm Part I.H, above.
b. Project Financial Feasibility. While under normal conditions
assessment of the financial feasibility of a development project is outside the scope of an
EIR, Bolsa Chica includes unique considerations which make this type of assessment
important during the evaluation phase of the Project. On page 4.1-37, the REIR refers to the
1986 CCC certification of the Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica
which stated, "Increased density of development on the Mesa and the developable lowland
were to be allowed in order to make restoration of wetlands and ESHAs feasible." Also on
the same page of the REIR, the point is again made that a primary justification for CCC
approval of the 1986 LUP was the necessary linkage between restoration and development.
As stated in the EIR with regards to the reasons for certification of the 1986 County LUP,
"the substantial funding necessary to restore the site can be best achieved through
development." Applying the same reasoning to the REIR, in order for the document and its
promise of wetlands restoration to have meaning it must provide an analysis of the financial
feasibility of the project and of the wetlands restoration as part of the REIR review and
approval process. The levellintensity of development necessary to carry out the
environmental restoration features as well as the mitigation measures and PDFs of the project
under Lowland Component Option A and B can only be evaluated when the whole picture of
project financial feasibility is disclosed and analyzed. Without a picture of the feasibility of
tthe project, it is not possible to evaluate the ability of the project to fulfill the stated project
objectives. Barring outside funding sources, the sole funding for the proposed wetlands
restoration would be the project sales and the income capacity (in the case of Option B) or
the receipt of offsite mitigation funds from as-yet unidentified sources (under Option A).
Except for cost estimates for the WRP, for which broad estimates, excluding land value, are
presented in Appendix E of the WRP, no cost estimates or revenue projections are provided
for the project. Residents will pay for any and all costs associated with the environmental
reconfiguration, as well as other mitigation measures such as the ATTP. Project sales
revenues, homeowner association dues, property taxes, plus other assessments, fees, and
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 198
special taxes are the sources of funding available to pay for Project development costs, to
offset Project impacts on public facilities and government services, to finance and maintain
Bolsa Chica revitalization, and to pay for mitigation programs such as the ATIP. The type
and intensity of development and its associated impacts on the restoration areas, as well as
the surrounding communities, should be justified based on evidence demonstrating that the
level of permitted development is necessary to finance restoration and allow an acceptable
return to the developer. The City, as well as the County, must rewrite the REIR to take into
account the project's overall financial feasibility and the ability of the project to fund
mitigation and PDFs as is assumed in the current REIR. At a minimum, the REIR must
provide enough project financial information to enable the reviewing entities to estimate this
feasibility independently.
C. REIR Does Not Identify Public Financing~Needs or
Mechanisms. The REIR does not provide coherent, coordinated information on the full
range of public facilities required and/or impacted by the project. The cost, individually and
collectively, of these facilities should be addressed in the REIR or in an accompanying public
facilities financing plan. How these facilities will be paid for will impact options of the local
governments in offsetting the cost of other Project impacts. Will the cost of these public
facilities be subsumed under project costs and included in home pries, or is the County or
the developer planning to use assessments, fees, or special taxes above the basic one percent
property tax to fund facilities, improvements, and even on-going fiscal deficits resulting from
the costs of local government services to the Project area? Has the developer and the County
left the other affected jurisdictions to pay for the impacts of the project? The REIR and/or
an accompanying plan must provide adequate information to assess the Project's capacity to
finance the public facilities required to service the project. Absent this information, it is not
possible to determine the significance of potential impacts to the City infrastructure and City
services.
d. Lack of Project Information Precludes Adequate Review of
Fiscal. Feasibility o�gation Measures. Crucial information is lacking for the City's
assessment of the project. The City must attempt to evaluate the project's impact without
data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project. Due to the County's refusal to
circulate implementing documents and relevant fiscal information together with the REIR, the
City must attempt to assess the project's impact and the ability of the developer to mitigate
those impacts without marketing information on anticipated sales values and without at least i*
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 199
broad descriptions of anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning
areas. Also notably lacking in the REIR or an accompanying plan is information on the
anticipated cost of the public facilities, public services, mitigation measures, PDFs, or
programs such as the ATIP proposed for the project. The REIR's deficiency in presenting
adequate information with respect to project timing, development phasing, marketing, and the
cost of public facilities and infrastructure creates a significant problem for the City in
assessing the project's impact on the City. The REIR states on page 4.16-12, under
"Standard Conditions" ("SC-3") that a Fiscal Impact Report will be prepared for the Bolsa
Chica Project and that it, "will be reviewed by County officials and specific conditions of
approval will recommended to the Board of Supervisors to address potential funding
deficiencies caused by the project." However the fiscal impact analysis which will
presumably provided by this report is too-little-too-late if it is not a part of a more
comprehensive analysis of the financial feasibility of the project's public infrastructure and
mitigation requirements. By failing to circulate the fiscal analysis with the REIR, the County
has rendered it impossible to evaluate the potential impacts when reviewing the REIR.
e. Loss of Tax Revenues Will Make Fiscal Impacts Worse.
According to the County Auditor-Controller's office, in 1993-94, 1994-95, and probably
continuing indefinitely into the future, as a result of State-mandated property tax shifts at the
local level from government and special districts to schools, the County has available only a
little more than one-third (37 percent) as much general fund property taxes as compared to
prior years. Property taxes are, by far, the largest revenue source available to the County to
offset costs of providing services to the project. Residential projects such as that proposed
for Bolsa Chica have typically in the past barely paid their way fiscally in Orange County.
With the shifts in property taxes over the last few years, it becomes an important question as
to whether the Bolsa Chica Project could be a significant net drain on the County and/or
other local government. The REIR and implementing documents providing a description of
the Project for purposes of the public review process must account for this potential problem
from the very outset of the project approval process.
3. Incomplete Information Regarding Housing Distributions at
Buildout. Information is incomplete regarding the source of the assumptions used to
estimate the distribution of housing units by type at buildout and the resulting population
forecasts.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 200
4. Affordable Housing and Impact on Regional Housing Needs. The
REIR states that the project will meet the SCAG GUY jobs/housing balance goal in the jobs-
rich Northwest Orange Subregion by providing additional housing (Page 4.15-5, Lines 1 to
4). However, there is no discussion regarding the provision of affordable housing or the
impact of the project on regional housing needs as determined in SCAG's Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) and incorporated in Orange County's Housing Element. On page
4.1-20, under Land Use and Related Planning, the discussion of consistency of the proposed
Project with the Orange County General Plan fails to mention or address the issue of the
Project's consistency with affordable housing needs. The Project's ability to provide its
share of County affordable housing does not appear to be addressed anywhere in the REIR.
S. Analytical Flaws in Jobs-Housing Balance. There are flaws in the
analysis in the areas of sub-regional population, housing and employment forecasts used in
the REIR (see comments below). Page 4.15-1, Table 4.15-1: The population, housing and
employment forecasts for the Northwest Orange Subregion presented in 4.15-1 appear to be
incorrect. According to the Regional Growth Management Plan, forecasts for this subregion
are as follows:
:. Total.. ... .... ` ...... .:< _' <.
I..
Population 1,502,500 1,722,500 220,000 15%
Housing 536,600 654,200 117,600 22% ,
Employment 727,800 941,500 213,700 29%
Jobs/Housing
Ratio 1.M 1.," 0.08 6%
The forecasts presented in the REIR significantly overstate the projected growth for this
subregion. This section needs to be updated with the correct numbers and the analysis
revised where appropriate.
a. Page 4.15-1, Table 4.15-1: The definition of the Northwest
Orange Subregion should also include the City of Santa Ana; it does not include the City of
Laguna Beach.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 201
b. Page 4.15-3, Line 17: Should read "employment to housing
ratio of 1.27:1 in 1984" (not 1987).
C. Page 4.15-3, Lines 21 to 26: Housing, employment and
jobs/housing balance ratios should be revised to reflect the correct SCAG forecast numbers
for the Northwest Orange Subregion.
d. On page 4.15-5, line 14-16, the statement is made with regard
to the proposed commercial development within the project that, "If implemented, the
employment opportunities, albeit minor, will help offset the current jobs-housing imbalance
at the local level." This statement is confusing because, while taken alone, development of
the commercial center would help ameliorate the jobs-housing imbalance in Huntington
Beach, however, when combined with the remainder of the proposed development, the
impact of 2,500 homes on the Project's jobs-housing balance would greatly outweigh the
contribution of jobs by this commercial development.
e. Page 4.15-6, Tables 4.15-3a and 3b: There is no source for the
assumption as to the distribution of housing units by type (i.e., single family detached, single
family attached, multi-family). Based on information presented in the REIR, this distribution
could vary significantly. For example, there could be all single-family detached units instead
of single family detached and attached, or there could be no multi-family units. Each of
these changes in assumptions would change the projected buildout population and distribution
of housing units by type, with resulting implications to a range of issues addressed in the
REIR, such as air quality, transportation, noise, public services and utilities, recreation, etc.
Given the potential variability in the number and type of housing units to be developed, the
REIR should explore a range of development options and assess the impacts of these options
on socioeconomics, consistency with SCAG plans and other affected issues.
6. Fimancial Feasibility/PhasingiRwal Impact of Development. The
Comment on the DEIR noted that the document failed to provide any information of the
phasing, financial feasibility or fiscal impact of the proposed development (Comment at
pages 178 to 181). The Comment noted that this information was important because:
(1) The financial feasibility of the proposed project directly affects the ability to fund the
wetlands restoration program, a central feature of the proposed project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 202
(2) Phasing of residential development the project could significantly impact the ability to
implement some of the mitigation measures and project design features.
(3) The City of Huntington Beach is identified as a major provider of public services and
utilities. Therefore, the fiscal impact of the project could significantly impact the
ability of the City to provide these services.
The REIR has failed to address any of these concerns.
Q. CHAPTER 4.16 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTuz=
I.
water Service From Scaled-Down Project Will Still Significantly
Impact City Water System. The project considered in the REIR, though smaller than the
project considered in the DEIR, still has the potential to add significant capital and
maintenance cost requirements to the existing City water system infrastructure should the
developer choose the option of having its water service from the City. As identified in the
1988 Water Master Plan of the City and its 1994 Update, these costs would be for two
significant facilities:
1. A water storage reservoir and associated pumping station and
transmission pipelines;
2. A new water supply well.
It should be stressed that the above facilities are separate and distinct from the facility
discussed in the REIR. The reservoir discussed in the REIR is a facility that is planned to be
constructed to mitigate the impacts of another development called Holly-Seacliff, located
elsewhere in the City. This fact is documented in City of Huntington Beach Development
Agreement 90-1, approved by the City Council on November 5, 1990.
The capital costs for the above facilities is significant:
1. Nine million gallon reservoir,
pump station and pipelines $ 6,640,0W
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 203
2. Water well 1,300,000
TOTAL $ 7,940,000
The above facilities would serve to mitigate the direct impacts of this project. However,
these projects, if built separately and distinctly without connection to the existing City water
system, cannot serve this project adequately. They must be connected into the existing
system to realize their full benefit. As such, this means that the existing system has a value
to the project. To be fair, this value must be paid for by the developer as part of the
mitigation of the water supply impacts, should the project be serviced by the City system.
This is, in essence, a "buy-in," as the existing customers of the City system have been those'
who have "advanced" the money previously to build in the capacity that this project would be
using. The cost of the "buy-in," or as detailed in the latest draft of the Water Master Plan
Update, a "Capital Facilities Charge," is proposed to be $2,380 per equivalent dwelling unit.
An equivalent dwelling unit is a unit of demand equal to that demand drawn by a residential
3/4 inch metered service.
Additionally, if the proposed new Capital Facilities Charges discussed in the 1994 Water
Master Plan Update are calculated for the proposed project and its alternative, the following
would be the financial obligations that would be incurred as a minimum. With a Capital
Facilities Charge of$2,390 as delineated in the Update, the developer's project would incur
an obligation of$5,950,000 for Option A, based on 2,500 units. Option B would incur an
obligation of$7,616,000 based on 3,200 units. An additional 200 units, if constructed in the
lowlands under Option B, would add $476,000. Since these fees would be used by the City
to mitigate the impacts of the development over time, the developer could choose to provide
those mitigation measures instead of paying cash to the City. This option would have a
quicker effect of mitigating the impacts of the development, in most cases, because the
development would be conditioned to have those facilities constructed prior to some
significant time point in the property's development. In either case, some sort of mitigation
of the impacts of the new water connections and fire fighting requirements would need to be
met by the developer.
Ongoing costs for a water system typically include those for operation and both long and
short term maintenance. These costs are normally paid for by the water customers (as they
consume water) through their payment of water utility bills (revenue). Assuming the utility
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 204
follows accepted accounting practices involving depreciation and reserve funding, these
revenues are adequate to fund these ongoing costs.
2. Water Supply Impacts.
a. Assumptions Reg ding Water Smo-y�ject Are Not
Correct. The entirety of the proposed water supply for the proposed project is based on the
completion of planned OCWD projects. If OCWD does not complete its master plan, the
assumptions in the REIR will not be valid. This would mean that the availability of a firm
water supply for the project would be ungrounded. No discussion is offered on the effects of
the project should OCWD not complete their master plan. In this regard, it must be noted:
(1) Page 4.16-16, Lines 13-15, 27-31, 33-40, and 45-50:
Lines 13-15 indicate that no significant adverse impacts are expected if water demand is
reduced as indicated. This statement should be qualified by adding to the beginning of the
sentence, "If the projects identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan are constructed."
Otherwise the sentence is false.
(2) Page 4.16-16, Lines 27-31, it is unimown when the
Water System Master Plan will be implemented, due to monetary constraints. Additionally,
the project will need a water storage reservoir to serve the development as the reservoir
discussed throughout the report is a mitigation measure for another development and has no
capacity to serve this project. Additionally, discussion on how water from MWDOC might
be obtained should be added as this could result in a substantial cost, thereby having a fiscal
impact on the project's future residents. Why was this comment ignored when stated to the
County of Orange in the previous DEIR? It is a major point that is so basic to the
availability of the water for the project that it must be addressed without fail.
(3) Page 4.16-16, Line 33, the statement that a service
agreement would be needed to serve water outside the City is untrue, as stated above. The
City currently serves water outside its limits without such agreement. In line 39, the idea
that no impacts would occur to the City system should be revised to read that any impacts
would be mitigated by the construction of the additional facilities.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 205
(4) Page 4.16-18, Lines 1-6: The two options for water
supply, as presented, do not provide enough information to judge the adequacy of potential
water supplies. Nowhere is there any reference of authority that substantiates the claims
presented in the REIR. Not all options are presented, least of all one that most likely would
be the least fiscally impacting on the project's future residents, which most likely will be
` service directly by the City without a middle agency or company. Option analysis should
include description, construction cost, reliability, availability, operation and maintenance
costs, and an economic analysis that would show the fiscal impacts to the rate payer. It is
impossible to determine if any adverse impacts are expected with any degree of certainty
because not enough information is contained in the REIR to do so. This paragraph has
questionable statements in it.
(5) Pages 4.16-23 to 4.16-29: This section deals with the
long term impacts of the proposed project. Water supply is not discussed anywhere in this
section. It appears that it should be in light of the importance of it and the significant
potential for inadequacy. The uncertainty of water supply to this region is very real as
evidenced by the significantly increased efforts of MWD and OCWD to increase available
supplies. The loss of available water by MWD from the Sacramento Delta area and the
Colorado River have significantly impacted their ability to serve its customer agencies. The
future of water supply in the area depends on the expenditure of vast sums of money, which
is hard to get in these economic times. Any future water supplies will cost much more due
to the additional treatment costs required of their poorer raw water qualities. Groundwater
availability also depends on the expenditure of significant amounts of money, and no funding
source has been identified. The long term outlook for water in Southem California is not
firm and very dependent on the availability of funding. These points need to be discussed
and considered as part of this REIR.
A full statement of the assumptions of the REIR must be identified in the report, along with
other options for providing a firm water supply for the project.
b. Impacts to Regional Water SuMply. Significant impacts
regarding the water supply situation are large enough, based on the overall water supply to
Orange County, that an unqualified statement saying that "no significant adverse impacts are
expected...." is simply not correct. Currently, the Metropolitan Water District, Orange
County's supplier of supplemental water from the Colorado River and Sacramento Delta, is
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 206
having problems meeting all of its contracted demands at the present time. A long term
solution is progressing, but it is not expected to produce results before 2010. Additionally,
the Orange County Water District's Groundwater Management Plan, a master plan for
groundwater in Orange County, is not expected to produce additional water for the retail
purveyors before 2010. Currently, OCWD is having a difficult time maintaining the Basin
Production Percentage of 75%. Its Board of Directors has even discussed lowering this
percentage in order to preserve the amount of water stored in the groundwater basin for
drought periods.
C. Project Does Not Have Rights to Water Supplies. Page 4.16-2,
Lines 5-50: Line 8 states that "the site has water supply rights with these two agencies." bi'
fact, the site has no real rights to water that are any guarantee to supply. Both agencies
control the access to the two most common sources of water in Orange County. MWDOC
controls the access to the imported water available from the Metropolitan Water District.
OCWD manages and controls the access to the Santa Ana River groundwater basin. No
agency in Orange County has any real water supply rights as a result of a legislative act that
formed OCWD in 1933 and a legislative act that formed MWDOC in 1951. Every water
supply agency has equal access to the supplies that may be available. These two agencies are
responsible for the equitable distribution of the available supplies. Contrary to the statement
in Line 14, OCWD does not "sell" water. Its sole purpose is for the effective and efficient
management of the groundwater basin.
Line 18 states that "70 percent" of the domestic water in north Orange County is derived
from the groundwater basin. In fact, this number varies annually and can be as high as
100% or as low as 0%. No guarantee exists on = quantity due to the variability of
available water supplies in the area. This point is significant because the project is relying on
the idea that a majority of the water supply for it will be derived on a source whose available
quantity can vary significantly. No discussion is made as to how water for the residents will
be supplied if an sufficient amount is not available. A retail agency is penalized if they
should exceed the established groundwater supply percentage. The cost is significant,
amounting to at least $750 per million gallons, and must be passed on to the retail customer.
Should a retail agency consistently exceed the groundwater supply percentage, the agency
could be further penalized by the OCWD for such action, which is contrary to the ability of
OCWD to effectively manage the basin. In this case, where will the water be supplied from?
Will an attempt be made to purchase it from the City? If so, how much would be needed?
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 207
How often might this occur? Lines 18-36 deal purely with the speculative plans of OCWD.
The intent of this section appears to be an attempt to say that because OCWD has a great
sounding master plan for expanding the availability of groundwater, the project has no
problem with water supply. To say that water supply for this development will be no
problem because of the OCWD master plan, considered speculation by some, is foolhardy.
OCWD has never answered the problems of the groundwater basin's aquifer transmissivity.
The pumping depressions that currently exist along the north Orange County east are very
real and no current acceptable solution exists to mitigate them. To add this project to the
groundwater basin will only increase the pumping depressions, thereby making water for the
City and its neighbors much less available, and at certainly a higher cost due to deeper
pumping levels. Furthermore, deepening the pumping depressions increases the chances for
seawater intrusion of the basin, which renders the basin in this area unusable. This
translates into additional costs for the City, which could range from $100,000 in additional
pumping costs for the increased use of energy to lift groundwater from increasing lower
depths due to the pumping by the development, to $7 million if the City's wells are lost due
to seawater intrusion caused by the development's pumping, rendering the City's wells
useless. If this were to happen, the development's wells would also most likely be useless.
With no supplemental domestic water available from MWD, to where would the development
turn? To the City? If so, in what quantity? What other sources of water are available to the
development in such a case? The OCWD should perform a study, at the developer's
expense, to determine the effects of this proposal, exactly the same as it has done to
determine the impacts of the Irvine Ranch Water District's wellfield in Santa Ana and the
City of Newport Beach's wellfield to be located in Fountain Valley.
n n d. Construction of a Reservoir Is Not a Water Source. Page 4.16-
15, Lines 14-20, 25-35, and 40-48: The reference in Lines 14-20 to a nine million gallon
reservoir is based on assumptions not supported by fact. The reservoir may not be built in
this area. In addition, reservoirs are not a water source but rather a facility used for storing
water in times of low demand and pumping the water back into the water system at times of
high water demand. The water supply for the project should not rely on the reservoir
without cooperating with the City. Additionally, the reservoir of reference would be built as
a mitigation measure for the development known as Holly-Seacliff. It in no way should be
considered as a mitigation for Bolsa Chica. The REIR should be written to consider that the
project must provide additional storage capacity to serve the development and provide
equitable compensation for the City to provide the required water resources, which also
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 208
includes an additional water well. The draft 1994 Water Master Plan Update/Financing Plan
currently under review provides for a form of equity in this regard, suggesting the payment
of$2,380 per equivalent dwelling unit as proper compensation. In lieu of the suggested
compensation for the City to mitigate the impacts of the development, should the water be
supplied by the City, the developer could build the same improvements needed for the
project mitigation and dedicate them to the City when completed. This would also I
effectively mitigate the development's water supply impacts.
In Lines 25-35, not all options are presented for water supply. The most obvious one, which
has been excluded, is for the City to provide all water service directly. No independent
water company or water district is necessary. The City currently provides such service to
the unincorporated County area of Sunset Beach, as well as the area known as the Surfside
Colony, which is located in the City of Seal Beach. This section should include a fiscal
impact analysis at the developer's expense that will explain the costs associated with each
option and what each will mean to the customers that will buy the water. It will most likely
be seen that the City serving the area directly will offer the least cost alternative.
Lines 40-48 again discuss the issue of the 70% figure in regards to groundwater. This figure
can vary from 0-100% depending on conditions within the groundwater basin. Although
OCWD does have a master plan to help ensure the groundwater supply, it has not
demonstrated that the plan will live up to its estimates. The financing of that plan has not
been discussed with its constituents, who consist of the north County water agencies, like the
City. To base the entire outlook for a new development of this magnitude on the hopes of a
groundwater master plan that is untried is difficult to fathom. In Line 47, the statement that
OCWD will increase the percentage of groundwater usage to 90% is a hopeful one at best.
It has not been proven by anyone that the basin's aquifer system has the capacity to transmit
enough water to provide an equitable distribution of any newfound groundwater. Facts that
support the evidence of this problem are the occurrence of pumping depressions in the
groundwater basin in the Huntington Beach wellfield, the Costa Mesa wellfield, and the
Fountain Valley wellfield. If water were being transmitted by the basin aquifer system in
sufficient quantity, these depressions would not be apparent. OCWD has yet to provide an
acceptable explanation other than the apparent lack of aquifer transmissivity.
e. No Sully of Reclaimed Water is Available. Lines 38-50 deal
with the proposed OCWD Green Acres project and its availability to this project. Currently,
Proposed R"Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 209
the design of the pipeline that will bring Green Acres water into Huntington Beach does not
include the capacity to serve the Bolsa Chica area. The current design, presently underway,
stops the pipeline on Warner Avenue east of Bolsa Chica Street, in front of the development
project known as Meadowlark. This is approximately one mile from the project site. To
even imply that OCWD is including this project in its Green Acres plan is inaccurate and
misleading.'& This means that since no Green Acres water will be available to the
development, the supplemental water needed to avoid exceeding the Basin Production
Percentage will not be available. This would require the development to pump 100%
groundwater. As detailed above, this will lead to problems with cost and the ability of
OCWD to effectively manage the groundwater basin. This must be studied further in order
to develop effective solutions to the problem of lack of supplemental water. A reclaimed
water treatment plant could be constructed as part of the development, but significant
environment problems would be associated with that proposal, which would involve sewage
treatment. It is unknown how the development would propose to adequately address this
issue in such a way that a firm supplemental water source would be available.
3. Ground Water WeUs Will Have Impact. Page 4.16-16. The ground-
water wells that are identified will have a real impact on the local environment and their
effects should be identified and discussed in this REIR. What mitigating impacts will be
offered? Are they sufficient? This can't be answered with the available information in the
iREIR. Since it will reduce the amount of available groundwater for all existing water
agencies and their customers and increase the amount of water that they will need to
purchase from MWD to compensate for this loss, further study is definitely needed. The
study, performed by a recognized consultant familiar with Orange County and its water
supply structure, should be funded by the developer and completed and accepted prior to the
adoption of this document. A consultant well qualified to perform this study would also be
familiar with the master plans of MWD, MWDOC, OCWD, and the City. Since the water
supply impacts resulting from this development are regional rather than local due to the
interdependence of each water supply agency upon each other, the effects discussed must be
done with this fact in mind.
1251 The County has been made fully aware that the Green Acres Project does not have sufficient funding to
reach the project site. See Annex No. 29.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 210
4. Aquifer Impacts. Page 4.16-17, Lines 5-18, it is stated that there is
capacity in the existing aquifers with no impacts on the aquifers. This statement is hardly
credible, since the City already experiences lowered pumping levels due to the coastal
depressions in the groundwater basin. Water well pumping levels have dropped 20 - 100 feet
in various areas of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa over the last five ,
years, and the reason is not from the recent drought. This has resulted in increased pumping
costs for those agencies on the order of$100,000 - $250,000 per agency. This occurrence
also reduces the quantity of water that can be pumped from a well because of reduced
equipment efficiencies. To compensate for this, the equipment can be changed for about
$100,000 per well, or the shortfall in groundwater can be made up by purchasing additional
water from MWD for approximately $200,000 per well per year. Additionally, the two
wellsites out of the project area are not identified as to location. It is difficult to assess the
impacts to the City if the locations are not known. In general, however, it can be stated that
they will have an impact. How much cannot be determined without the locations. In Line
16 the idea that mitigation measures will be implemented if needed is neither realistic nor
supported by appropriate evidence of the feasibility of such mitigation. There has not been
an obviously successful mitigation of the installation of a new well anywhere in Orange
County in recent years. As there is only so much water to go around, another "straw" only
means less for those already receiving their water from the basin. It is estimated that the
City could lose about I% of its current groundwater supply if this project pumped its own
wells. This loss would be due to the redistribution of the available groundwater supply by
OCWD. The financial impacts of this loss amount to at least $70,000 per year at current
water costs. The mitigation measures need to be discussed now. Any time later will be too
late. To base the water supply for this development on speculation and pretense is absurd.
Why all the secrecy? The information should be openly shared so that a true assessment can
be made.
In Lines 20-28, the potential for seawater intrusion is real. What will the impact be on
Huntington Beach? The REIR should openly deal with this issue. Without further study, it
is impossible to determine. The study, done in conjunction with OCWD, should determine
the potential for seawater intrusion and formulate a mitigation plan to compensate for any
intrusion or groundwater degradation. This study should be funded by the developer.
In Lines 33-34, the separate connections mentioned are large cost items, in the millions of
dollars. This consists of 7 miles of large diameter pipeline through established arterial
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 211
jroadways. The idea that negotiations would have to be made is too late in coming. The
arrangements must be made now in order for any governing body to judge whether there is
enough water available. The idea of "later" in the water supply issue is not going to work.
Any "negotiations" or other plans to obtain MWD or other supplemental water must be
accomplished, documented and accepted prior to consideration of this REIR by the County of
Orange. The importance of a project water supply that is firm and will be dependable is of
prime importance in considering the viability of a project such as this one.
In Lines 44-46, the statement is made that the Sunset Heights reservoir would not be built if
the project is served by its own water company. This is truly not the case. The reservoir is
a mitigation measure for another development and must be built. It may not be built within
this project's boundaries, but it must be built.
5. Miscellaneous Water Comments.
a. Page 4.16-3, Lines 1-7: In Line 6, "Bolsa Chica Street and Los
Patos Avenue" should read "Warner Avenue approximately 1000 feet east of Bolsa Chica
Street." In Line 7, "Edwards Street should be replaced with "Goldenwest Street."
b. Page 4.16-14, Lines 35-50: In lines 42-43, the sentence
beginning, "The water to be supplied..." has no apparent significance to this REIR. One can
only speculate what was supposed to be said here. In line 44, it should be noted that the
local road system of the project will not carry reclaimed water to the project. The OCWD
reclaimed water project called Green Acres does not have the current capacity to serve this
project and is not currently planned to service the project site.
C. Page 4.16-17, Lines 10-13 discuss the average demands of the
project but not the peak demands. Water systems are designed based on peak domestic
demands and fire demands. The report is deficient in providing this analysis.
d. Page 4.16-26, Line 13: Removal of oil drilling and storage
facilities will have a major impact on County staff or Fire Department staff. Stringent
regulations and standards make oil site and facility cleanup difficult and time consuming.
Recent Huntington Beach Fire Department history shows that significant time is expended by
staff to thoroughly analyze, review, and inspect sites for Federal, State, and Local
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 212
government compliance. The REIR must be more specific and identify the hours necessary
to conduct oil well abandonment and remediation activities. The report should describe what
type of study, analysis, and testing will be conducted on existing as well as previously used
areas. These activities should then be quantified to give a more accurate accounting of time
for each function. Each phase of the project should be specifically analyzed for oil well
history and site contamination.
6. Wastewater and Related Impacts.
a. Page 4.16-18, lines 13-20: The REIR refers to Figure 3-9a and
states that two major lift stations will lift sewage from the Bolsa Chica project to the CSDOC
Los Patos trunk sewer located at the intersection of Los Patos and Bolsa Chica Street.
Neither the narrative nor the figure indicates how sewage from the proposed lift station "D"
will get from the City's existing 12" force main in Warner Avenue at Edgewater to this
intersection. Additionally, if construction is required within the City's boundaries, how will
construction impact local residents? Would it be feasible to use the City's existing 12" force
main?
b. Page 4.16-18, lines 22-24: The REIR indicates an estimated
total daily wastewater flow that will be generated by the Bolsa Chica development.
However, there is no reference to peaking factors or peak flow from the project. There is no
statement as to how these numbers were derived. What generally accepted criteria was used
for projecting wastewater flow from the project?
C. Page 4.16-19, lines 6-16: The REIR states that the CSDOC
Slater Pump Station and the CSDOC upstream sewer system have been redesigned to include
the Bolsa Chica development. There is no documentation provided to support this statement.
The capacity of wastewater facilities to serve the project is crucial to the project. Thus, the
appropriate documentation must be provided.
d. Page 4.16-19, lines 25-32: The REIR states that a new pump
station may be constructed to replace the City's lift Station "D" located along Warner at
Edgewater. There is no agreement between the City and the developer for joint use of this
lift station. The ability to enter an agreement with the City for the operation and
maintenance of Lift Station "D" is crucial to the proposed wastewater plan. Thus, a '
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 213
reference to such an agreement must be included or an alternate means of accommodating
wastewater discharge from the project must be identified.
7. Significant Unmitigated Impact to FSre Protection & Paramedic
Services. Page 4.16-29, Lines 14-15: The statement that "no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts will occur to public services" is not true. This REIR once again fails to mitigate
the fact that building one (1) County fire station on site does not provide the fire and medical
resources necessary to meet current County response standards for fire and medical
emergencies. When fire/paramedic resources respond to hospitals in Huntington Beach,
Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, or other County area emergencies, no fuWparamedic
resources are left in the project area.. In fact, the closest County paramedic unit is fifteen
(15) to twenty (20) minutes away. This is almost 100 percent below the County response
standard. This project, as proposed, does not mitigate the fire impacts unless either the
1 Sunset Station is permanently staffed with paramedic and fire resources or the staffing at the
on site station is doubled for both fire and medical resources.
A detailed Fire Protection Plan should be required for the project to assure acceptable and
consistent fire protection and emergency planning. The location of fire stations and
equipment defines the basic fire protection coverage of any area. Stations should be located
rto provide an average response time of five (5) minutes or less, to all portions of the project.
Annex No. 22 attached to this letter, shows that "flashover" occurs anywhere between six (6)
and ten (10) minutes, and causes fires to double in intensity every one (1) minute.
Therefore, it is the goal of any fire protection system to apply extinguishing agents prior to
flashover, thereby minimizing life loss potential and fire loss. In addition, the document
attached to this letter as Annex No. 23 shows that the Emergency Medical Services(EMS)
delivery system is to begin definitive care at an EMS call within four (4) to six (6) minutes
of cessation of heart action. When possible, Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) should
begin within four (4) minutes and definitive paramedic care within eight (8) minutes).
The ORCO Fire Department does not have an adopted fire and medical response standard.
Verbally, they have indicated to Huntington Beach Fire Department staff, that their fire and
medical response standard is to provide a Basic Life Support (BLS) unit at any emergency
call within five (5) minutes eighty (80) percent of the time and a Advanced Life Support
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 214
(ALS) unit within eight (8) minutes ninety (90) percent of the time. This verbal standard
will not be met with the current fire station configuration as shown in the REIR because the
back-up stations for the project are well beyond the distance and time requirements necessary
to meet the objectives.
With a proposed project population of approximately 8,000 the number of fire department
emergency calls for this project could be as high as 800 per year. The average time spent
per emergency in the City is forty-five (45) minutes. Using this forty-five (45) minute
criteria as a standard, the back-up ORCO Fire Department resources would have to respond
from areas that are eight (8) to fifteen (15) minutes away when simultaneous calls occur and
additional resources are needed. This delayed response causes major emergency response
impacts and leads to larger fires and poor EMS results.
It should also be noted that when the City Fire Department analyzed past Bolsa Chica
proposals, all buildings were required to be fire sprinklered and all roofs were to be fire
resistive. These mitigating requirements were required to enhance the fire protection system
designed exclusively for the Bolsa Chica which also included one (1) additional fire station
and equipment.
S. Miscellaneous FnWSafety Comments
a. Page 4.1-53, Line 34, Option B: The REIR does not show if
either of the proposed fire station sites are adequately located to meet Orange County
(ORCO) Fire Department standards of five (5) minutes for fire emergencies and eight (8)
minutes for paramedic services. As is noted in Annex Nos. 22 and 23, prompt response time
is critical to providing effective emergency services.
b. Page 4.16-1 (Fire Protection/Emergency Medical), Line 25,
Hazardous Materials Response: The Orange County Fire Department provides a Hazardous
Materials Response Team, but not as the initial response to the project area. Actually,
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach provide the service and will be affected by the
development of this project. No mitigation of this impact is discussed or identified in the
REIR.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 215
C. Page 4.16-1, Line 29: The REIR states that the average
response time to emergencies for ORCO's Station #3 is five (5) minutes. Response time
must be defined. The proposed project is 1.5 miles from ORCO's Station #3 which
translates to an eight (8) minute response time to the perimeter of the proposed project.
Response time to remaining areas will be greater. See page 4.16-25.
Because the Sunset Beach fire station is a paid call station you may or may not get the rank
distribution of one (1) captain, one (1) engineer and one (1) firefighter as identified. This
will result in less effective fire protection. The backup services provided by Station #44
located in Seal Beach are actually fourteen (14) minutes away. None of these stations
provides paramedic services within eight (8) minutes and, therefore, paramedic service
demands are not mitigated as proposed in the REIR.
d. Page 4.16-1, Line 34: Assuming that no Automatic Aid
' Agreement can be reached with the Huntington Beach Fire Department, the REIR needs to
address how ORCO will meet the service demands of the project. This analysis should
include identifying what service demands will be placed on other cities such as Costa Mesa,
Fountain Valley, Westminster, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. The REIR needs to discuss
the use of other cities' fire resources and the impacts on these cities, as well as the impacts
on Huntington Beach if other cities' fire resources are diverted to the project area. The
potential for an agreement with other cities is not a mitigation for deficient fire protection.
e. Page 4.16-1, Line 39: The two (2) closest City fire stations are
Station 7-Warner and Station 5-Lake. However, Station 7-Warner has a four (4) person
paramedic engine and not a three (3) person engine and a two (2) person paramedic van.
Also, Station 5-Lake staffing is not correctly identified. Station 5-Lake also has a three (3)
' person engine and a two (2) person ambulance.
Once again, this REIR fails to identify how ambulance service will be provided to the project
area. The paramedic service specified in this REIR cannot function without ambulance
service. Therefore, as written, the REIR does not completely analyze the impacts on life
safety.
L Page 4.16-1, Line 49: Humana Hospital is now Huntington
Beach Medical Center.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 216
g. Page 4.16-12, Line 30, Short Term Impacts: The REIR states
that no short term impacts for fire protection and emergency medical services have been
identified. The project will be most vulnerable to fire during construction due to the lack of
built-in fire protection systems and exposure to combustible wood framing. Fire protection
facilities; i.e., fire stations, apparatus, manpower, and water systems must be in place prior
to combustible construction.
h. Page 4.16-17, Line 3: The identified water demand is for
domestic supply only. The fire flow requirements for the project area are not identified or
discussed. When the project was proposed for the City, fire flow requirements were
estimated at 4,000 gallons per minute. The question is, "What are the fire flow requirements
of the project and can the private water company meet them?"
i. Page 4.16-24, Line 6: OCFD's fire and paramedic response ,
time standards will not be achieved even if an Orange County fire station is built in the
project area. Response time standards will not be met when second or third alarm calls
occur or when the paramedic unit or the fire unit leave the area for a hospital, a county-wide
response or move up. See REIR at page 4.16-29, Line 15.
j. Page 4.16-24, Line 19: Lowland Option B will also impact the ,
City by producing fire, rescue and medical calls on City streets which will reduce current
service levels or will require an increase in City fire services. This impact is not discussed
or mitigated in this REIR.
k. Page 4.16-24, Line 25: As stated above, ORCO's paramedic
response time standard will not be mitigated by one on site paramedic unit or one paramedic
engine.
1. Page 4.16-24, Line 33: The fact that the Cross Gap Connector
is not included creates an unmitigated impact on the City's fire protection system. The Holly
Seacliff Development is currently under construction and will contain over 4,000 homes at
build out. The Holly Seacliff Development will be impacted by not having the Cross Gap
Connector.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 217
M. Page 4.16-24, Line 36: Building a County fire station does not
eliminate service deficiencies in City areas nor would building a City fire station mitigate
County fire deficiencies in County areas. The fact of the matter is that the County fire
protection services cannot mitigate the impacts of the project by building one fire station in
the project area. A fire protection system includes and requires more units and back up
resources to provide fire and medical protection to the project area.
This project has unmitigated fire and medical needs that will not meet current County
standards unless.additional County fire services are provided or the City provides service to
the area. The inference that the County resources can mitigate current City deficiencies is a
smoke screen for the fact that the County Fire Protection system as proposed cannot provide`
adequate fire and medical protection to this area unless off site County stations; i.e., Sunset
Beach and others are staffed with full time engines and paramedic units. In fact, current
medical and fire services to the Sunset Beach.area are really provided by the City either as
first responder or back up.
n. Page 4.16-24, Line 45: Where are details and configuration
showing the access bridge over the EGGW Channel for the Bolsa Chica Mesa Station?
Again, without the Cross Gap Connector how are units going to respond? Which routes
will they be using? What will the response times be?
' o. 4.16-24, Line 47: How will the new station at the terminus at
Springdale or Talbert respond to the 900 homes they serve? Is this the total population they
serve in this county district? How will they respond to Mesa without the Cross Gap
Connector? Will the fire unit go North to Warner Avenue to Bolsa Chica and then South to
the Mesa?
Page 4.16-24 Line 48: Yes Fire Station 7-Warner could
provide first response to the project area. The fact is that as a County project, it will not.
Therefore, mentioning City resources in this REIR and inferring benefits to the project are
inappropriate and dishonest. The REIR needs to demonstrate how the County and the project
developer will mitigate the fire and medical deficiencies, not how the City will provide
required services to a County project. Reference to City resources is inappropriate unless the
project alternative is considered where the property is developed as a City project.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 218
q. 4.16-25 [Table 4.16-7]: The REIR does not discuss how the
i
County will provide paramedic back-up service or ambulance service to the project. If and
when a paramedic unit is provided within the County project area, paramedic back-up
services will be 6.5 miles away with a response time of more than fifteen (15) minutes. This
second County paramedic unit does not adequately provide back-up paramedic response to
the project.
Ambulance response and ambulance service levels are not described in the REIR. The
complete basic and advanced life support system also includes a transportation component.
The ambulance transportation component should include the location of the ambulances,
response times, and location of second and third ambulance units, and response times.
r. Page 4.16-25, [Table 4.16-6 and Table 4.16-7]: The REIR in
these two (2) tables shows the locations of Orange County Fire Department's resources
nearest the proposed project. Careful analysis of this information shows that even with the
proposed fire stations either for Option A or Option B, the Orange County Fire Department
does not have adequate fire or emergency medical resources to cover the project area without ,
an automatic aid agreement with the City. Automatic aid agreements generally work on the
basis of providing reciprocal protection for both parties. In this case, geographically, the
Orange County Fire Department's resources are too distant to provide meaningful reciprocal
protection to the City of Huntington Beach. Therefore, an Automatic Aid Agreement
between the parties is unlikely and should not be used as a mitigation for County service
needs. ,
The REIR does not consider the service delivery alternative of the County contracting with
the City whereby the City will provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the
project. Under this alternative the project could receive adequate fire protection.
s. Page 4.16-26, Line 1: The REIR states that the demand for fire
protection services will be "fully mitigated" with one (1) fire station either on the Bolsa
Chica Mesa or on the Lowlands. Not true! The demand for fire protection services cannot
be fully mitigated through the construction of one (1) County fire station on the Bolsa Chica
Mesa or in the Lowland. A new fire station at the Bolsa Chica will increase fire protection
but will not fully mitigate the fire protection needs of the project. The REIR needs to show
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30. 1994
f
' Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 219
' how this impact will be "fully mitigated" considering current ORCO fire station locations
and staffing relative to the project area, including back up services.
t. Page 4.16-26, Lines 9-11: The REIR states that both facilities
and personnel will be required to mitigate the "anticipated paramedic deficiencies". Further
' explanation of facilities and personnel is needed..
U. Page 4.16-26, Line 11: The fire protection mitigation described
above does not mitigate the paramedic impacts of the project.
No mention is made of the fact that the project impacts the City in that service demands will..
increase because of vehicle fires, vehicle rescues and related medical calls.
V. Page 4.16-26, Line 22: The REIR states that "the proposed
project will result in emergencies that are beyond the current response capabilities of the
ORCO FD". No statement is given as to how to mitigate these deficiencies.
W. Page 4.16-28, Line 50: All phases of the project, including
Phase I, will have inadequate fire and medical protection if the County provides services.
Under Phase I of the project, Sunset Beach fire station will be the closest County fire station.
The Sunset Beach fire station will not meet Orange County's fire and medical response
standards. Therefore Phase I of the project will require the immediate construction of a fire
station. However, fire protection impacts in the entire project area will never be fully
mitigated as the REIR infers.
9. 20-Year Impacts on City Services During Project Construction.
Page 4.16-12, lines 35-37, states that there are no short term impacts from the Project on
public services and utilities, except for waste collection and disposal. However, it is
typically the case that police, fire and even emergency medical services are impacted by
Large scale construction such as that required for the project. Police will be required to
protect against vandalism and theft during construction; construction accidents are to be
expected over a 20-year build-out; and fire, at any point during construction is a major
concern for large scale residential development projects, especially where construction is
ongoing adjacent to oil production activities. Fire departments typically require expedited
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency ,
October 4, 1994
Page 220
access and adequate water pressure for residential construction projects from the Point of
framing construction on.
10. Fiscal Impacts on Public Services.'L' On page 4.16-12 Section
4.16.3.2, Standard Conditions, SC-3, states that a Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") will be
prepared on the Project. In recognizing the need for an FIR this paragraph implicitly ,
underscores two major deficiencies of the REIR. The first deficiency is that adequate public
and public agency review of the REIR cannot take place without sufficient accompanying
information to determine if the Project is financially and fiscally feasible. If, after analysis,
the Project is found to be financially and/or fiscally unsound, the measures to correct this
situation may cause a significant reconfiguration of the Project, which in turn would require - '
changes to, and re-circulation of, the REIR. The second short-coming evidenced by the
REIR's discussion of the need for an FIR is that the EIR states the need for an analysis with
respect to the Project's impact on the County funds (e.g., General Fund, Library District,
Fire Fund), even though, because of relative proximity, a significant portion of impacts from
the Project will be on services and facilities provided by the City. The REIR fails in some
cases to address Project public facilities and services impacts on the City and in all cases, the
REIR fails to quantify and propose mitigations to these impacts on the City, even when it is
clear that the City will be more greatly impacted than the County.
11. F>`scal Impacts to City Infrastructure. The economic impacts on the
City's public facilities, caused.by proposed development within the Bolsa Chica Project area
has not been fully addressed. Both increased use for construction activities, and increased
use by new residents will cause a substantial acceleration of normal wear and tear
deterioration on contiguous city streets. This will increase the cost of maintenance on these
streets, to a considerable degree, during the entire build-out period of 25 years. The only
proposed mitigation measures to be imposed on the landowner for increased utilization of city
streets appears to be a share of the costs related to improvements to increase the capacity of
the streets so that they can adequately handle the increase. The cost of substantial damage to
existing facilities, directly caused by all phases of the proposed development, and who will
pay for that damage, is not adequately addressed.
12. Analysis of Lupacts on City Police Services.
1261 See also Part L H of this letter. ,
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 41 1994
Page 221
a. Lowland Option A (no annexation). If the project were
constructed as contemplated by Koll, the Huntington Beach Police Department anticipates
that it would attend to the following incidents on an annual basis:
(i) 50 calls for backup assistance to the sheriffs;
(ii) 149 traffic accidents in Huntington Beach; and
(iii) 3,207 traffic infractions.
(iv) 86 various criminal victimizations.
The above incidents would require approximately 2,449 additional officer hours requiring the
police department to increase its personnel by two officers, at a current cost of$160,000 per
year.
This Option, as well as the other alternatives that propose development but do not include a
fully accessible cross-gap connector for all traffic, is unacceptable for public safety
considerations. If the cross-gap does not connect with Graham, Springdale and Talbert
streets, mutual aid to and from this development could be impeded-
b. Lowland Option A (annexation). If the development was
undertaken within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), the
rHuntington Beach Police Department anticipates that its approximate staffing requirements
for 2500 dwelling units would increase by an additional 8 employees. These employees, and
their respective annual salaries, in current dollars, are as follows:
2 Police Officers: $160 000
Traffic Officer: 86,000
Dispatcher: 54,000
Detention Officer: 56,000
1 Criminalist: 66,000
Records Clerk: 38,000
Crossing Guard: 6.500
8 Employees $466,500
This Option, as well as the other alternatives that propose development but do not include a
fully accessible cross-gap connector for all traffic, is unacceptable for public safety
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 222
considerations. If the cross-gap does not connect with Graham, Springdale and Talbert
streets, mutual aid to and from this development could be impeded.
C. Lowland Option B (no annexation). If the project were
constructed as contemplated by Koll, as a result of the implementation of Lowland Option B,
an estimated 2,491 additional staffing hours would be anticipated, or two police officers for a ,
current cost of$160,000.
This Option is unacceptable because it does not include the cross-gap connector.
d. Lowland Option B ,annexation). If the development was
undertaken within the City (i.e, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is
estimated that ten additional employees would be required to adequately service this area at a
total current cost of$626,500. The additional employees required would be:
3 patrol officers
1 traffic officer
1 detective ($80,000)
1 dispatcher
1 detention officer
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
1 records clerk
1 crossing guard ,
This Option is unacceptable because it does not include the cross-gap connector.
e. Alternative A. This Alternative is acceptable. Since there is no i
development proposed in this Alternative, no additional staffing will be needed whether the
area is annexed or not. The Cross-Gap Connector can be completed at a later date under this
proposal. Signalization at Warner and the Bolsa Chica Mesa road and landscaping of the
mesa that does not attract or conceal criminal activity are our primary concerns.
f. Alternative B. This Alternative is acceptable. The Huntington ,
Beach Police Department does not anticipate any significant increases in police service with
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 223
this Alternative. Access for emergency vehicles in the park area are critical. The Cross-
Gap Connector can be completed at a later date.
g. Alternative C (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 1,320 officer hours would be
required to handle the increased permanent and temporary populations. This would require
one additional Huntington Beach Police Officer at a cost of$80,000.
' Because the Cross-Gap Connector is not included in this Alternative, the police department
does not support this Alternative.
h. Alternative C (annexation). If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), the Huntington
Beach Police Department anticipates that an additional 2,470 officer hours would be required
' to handle the increased permanent and temporary populations. This would require the
following four additional employees at a current cost of$222,500:
2 patrol officers
1 detention officer
' 1 crossing guard
Because the Cross-Gap Connector is not included in this Alternative, the police department
does not support this Alternative.
i. Alternative D (no annexation)., If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that the police department would need to add 4,420
hours of additional public safety service time, requiring three more officers at a current cost
of$240,000.
Because this Alternative also includes the Cross-Gap Connector, the police department
supports this plan. However, it should be noted that provisions should be made to include a
location for an additional firelpolice station.
j. Alternative D (annexation), If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), the Huntington
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 224
Beach Police Department anticipates that it would need to hire the following additional
eighteen employees, at a total current cost of$1,119,000:
7 patrol officers
2 traffic officers
2 detectives '
1 dispatcher
1 detention officer
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
2 records clerks
2 crossing guards
Because this Alternative also includes the Cross-Gap Connector, the police department
supports this plan. However, it should be noted that provisions should be made to include a
location for an additional fire/police station. ,
k. Alternative E (no annexation). Because the number of dwelling
units is the same as that in the Applicant's proposed project, the impact on the police
department is the same. Staffing requirements and costs are the same as those mentioned
above.
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include the Cross- '
Gap Connector.
1. Alternative E (annexation). Because the number of dwelling
units is the same as that in the Applicant's proposed project, the impact on the police
department is the same. Staffing requirements and costs are the same as those mentioned
above.
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-
Gap Connector.
In. Alternative F (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 765 officer hours would be
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 225
required for this Alternative. Thus, one additional officer would need to be hired at a
current cost of$80,000.
rThe police department opposes this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-Gap
Connector.
' n. Alternative F (annexations. If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is estimated
that two additional patrol officers would be required to handle the increased number of calls
for service at a current cost of$160,000.
The police department opposes this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-Gap
Connector.
o. Alternative G (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 3,686 officer hours, or two
additional officers, would be required at a total current cost of$160,000.
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include a fully
accessible Cross-Gap Connector.
p. Alternative G (annexation). If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is estimated
that the following additional fifteen employees would be required at a current total cost of
$953,000:
7 patrol officers
1 traffic officer
1 detective
1 dispatcher
1 detention officer
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
1 records clerk
2 crossing guards
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 226
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include a fully
accessible Cross-Gap Connector.
q. Alternative H. This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as it would not impact the department. ,
r. Alternative I. This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as it would not impact the department. ,
S. Alternative J. This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as it would not impact the department.
13. Miscellaneous Police Department Comments
a. Construction of the Cross-ft CgnnC r. The police ,
department favors the construction of a fully accessible extension of Bolsa Chica Street for
all traffic that connects Garfield, Springdale, Talbert and Graham as specified in the
County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. There are numerous advantages to such a plan,
including the following:
1) Although regional traffic flow may not be significantly impacted as indicated in the ,
Applicant's options, local traffic flow will be greatly improved.
2) The connector would aid in any emergency evacuation in this area should it become
necessary.
3) Emergency response times for police units responding to the north end of the City and
harbor areas from the vicinity of City Hall would be greatly improved. The County
proposed to assign a police unit in this development. The back-up unit will probably
be responding from Sunset Beach. No data is available from the sheriffs that analyzes
response times for their backup units, but it is likely that we will have closer units to
respond in an emergency. When seconds are critical, speedy access is most
important. The fire department is completing a graphical analysis that depicts the
advantage of a new station at Springdale as well as the cross-gap connector. The
Proposed Final Daft Dated September 30, 1994
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 227
previous maps drawn with LandTrak are of poor quality and do not adequately display
the advantage of the connector for police.
4) In the Applicant's options, residents would be forced to exit the development by
traveling northbound, away from most of Huntington Beach's retail establishments,
particularly the downtown area.
The need for the connector exists today. Development in this area will further contribute to
its necessity. Without the connector and additional staffing resources to handle the increase
in population as proposed by the applicant or the county, our response times will continue to
erode. Over the past five years, from 1987 to 1992 our priority one response times have
increased by 35% from 5.21 to 7.03 minutes.
b. County's Need for Additional Resources. Throughout the
REIR, the County's need for additional public safety personnel is explicit. References are
made that impacts will be felt by Huntington Beach primarily in the form of emergency
backup support for the sheriffs. Since this project is completely enveloped by this city, all
ingress and egress will impact our traffic enforcement and collision calls. These impacts and
costs are discussed under each alternative. Some of the City's residents will be victimized
while in the City requiring the assistance of the City's police force. In short, development in
the magnitude proposed by the Applicant, in the modified project and some of the other
alternatives will require additional Huntington Beach public safety resources to handle this
extra population growth. Exact personnel requirements are discussed under above under the
' heading "Fiscal Analysis of City Police Services."
C. Additional Sub-Station. As the population in the Bolsa Chica
area grows, the police department will need a sub-station in Bolsa Chica to service the local
residents. The absence of the Bolsa Chica extension in the Applicant's options would defeat
any potential benefits of a station in this development since Springdale, Talbert and Gothard
' streets would not connect, giving further support for the Cross-Gap Connector. A County
fire or police station would enhance their mutual aid efforts if all streets were connected.
d. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Concerns for
Parks. Parks within the proposed project should be designed as follows in order to minimize
potential for criminal activity:
Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency r
October 4, 1994
Page 228
(i) Parks and paths (for walking, biking, and running, etc.)
should be seen from the street by passing motorists and patrol officers. Therefore care
should be taken to limit the height of berms and hedges along the street.
(n) Parks should be designed for easy patrol access in cars. '
(iii) Lighting should be situated so as not to compete with the
landscaping. The placement of lights should not be directly above a tree where the tree will
grow to compete with the light, therefore the light is simply lighting up the tree and not the
ground (instead, a shadow is cast upon the ground). ol
(iv) This concept is often taken for granted, however is
extremely important. The developers must determine the tune of activity for which this perk
is intended. After this is determined, there are many more things that can be done with the ,
environment to influence behavior and direct activity. (For example, low hedges direct
people into desired areas, prickly bushes and vines (for example bougainvillea) discourage
loitering or climbing of walls/fences).
(v) Trees and hedges should be maintained in order to retain
visibility. (Hedges should be 3' and below, and trees should be maintained so the trunk has '
height (leaving at least 7' from the ground up) to maximize visibility.
R. CHAPTER 4.17 - REc tmnoN
1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient.
(a) In general, the points raised in the Comment have not been answered
and therefore still apply. There is a shortfall in park acreage per the City standard. Option
A designates 78 acres of park land but that includes 49 acres for Bolsa Chica Regional Park
("BCRP"), which leaves 29 acres for neighborhood/community parks. In reality, only 17
acres are designated for Park 3A/3B. Based on 2.5 persons per unit for 2,500 units, the City
park standard of 5 acres equates to 32.5 acres.
(b) In Option B, 94 acres are designated for recreational park space minus
49 acres for BCRP, leaving 45 acres designated for community/neighborhood parks. This
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 229
appears to meet the park standard of 40 acres based on 2.5 persons per unit for 3,200 units.
However, neighborhood and community parks, in fact, total only 32 acres for 3A, 3B and
3D. Area 3C is beach entry and not a park. Area 3E is the nature trail. Consideration
should be given to including the one acre under 3E if the appropriate types of facilities were
developed in 3A, 3B and 3D. Of significant concern to the City is the fact that Park 3A/3B
' is very linear and only section 3A is designated for any type of active recreation. It is
unlikely that the sports fields can be developed on this site. The only sports field designated
is on the 15 acre park site referred to is 3D. Area 3D is not included in Option A and,
therefore, may never be developed.
(c) The REIR indicates that the County is currently developing its cultural
and historical plan. To date, these plans have not been finalized and impacts may be
significant.
' 2. Lack of Urban Parks. The REIR indicates that trading urban parks
for the BCRP will not meet the neighborhood/community park needs of the residents. This
is even more true today with the recent revision to the BCRP master plan that eliminates the
nodes of open turf play areas.
3. Description of Park Facilities Must Be Provided. Minimum
neighborhood park acreage is proposed for both options; however, the document should
include a breakdown of acres per type of facility or activity. Emphasis must be placed on
providing adequate neighborhood park acreage and athletic fields to meet the population
proposed under both options.
4. Funding for Park and Public Greenbelt Maintenance. The REIR
alludes to the creation of street lighting and landscape area assessment districts and other
means to fund maintenance. However, these are listed merely as considerations. A
mechanism must be in place to pay for all maintenance in the event of project site annexation
or the City will face the possibility of having to absorb this cost through the City's general
fund.
' S. Geology/Seismicity. The points raised in the Comment still apply.
The REIR continues to show that park land will be developed across active fault lines. This
will limit the ability to construct facilities such as a recreation center, rest rooms and hard
Proposed Final Draft Gated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 230 - '
surfaced court areas which will result in an ability to provide necessary recreational facilities
for the future residents of this area.
6. Slope Stability. The REIR indicates that the impact of slope stability
will be reduced to insignificant with the "implementation of standard grading and '
construction code requirements." This conclusion is neither analyzed nor supported.
Further, the acknowledged presence of expansive or corrosive soils, however, may have an
impact on the integrity of the slopes. The REIR must provide further information in
connection with the possible effects of expansive or corrosive soils.
7. Contaminated Soil. Section 4.3 (Hazardous Substances) of the REIR
refers to contaminated soil but not to County standards. The REIR must be revised to
include soil standards.
S. Corrosive Soil. The impact of corrosive soils on concrete, metal, etc.
should be analyzed to determine the possible effect of such soils on park development
(including the proposed park irrigation system, the concrete foundation for proposed rest
rooms, etc.).
9. Impact of Placement of Dredged Sediments on Beach. Dredging '
will be an ongoing issue if the channel is widened under the Warner Avenue Bridge. In fact,
impacts on boats, marine safety dock, Percy Dock, and adjacent residential areas should be
evaluated. All possible impacts caused by the widening of Harbor Channel should be
evaluated.
10. Elevate Parks Above Flood Plain. The points raised in the Comment
still apply. If parks are included within the Santa Ana River flood plain, they should also be
raised to at least one foot above flood elevation. If park land is used within a residential
area to hold runoff and/or control flood levels, parks may be unusable by the proposed ,
residential development during the rainy season. If parks are developed as catch basins and
flood control areas, proper drainage and diversion should be developed in order to insure
year round neighborhood use. These areas could be short-tern, temporary catch basins so as
not to deny the public use of its parks and, thereby, generate public complaints. Water
sitting on the turf for a significant amount of time would also have a detrimental impact on
the park.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
i
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 231
' 11. Public Safety Impacts on Increased Site Visitations. Improved
wetlands will mean increased visitation which will need to be addressed by park rangers
and/or Amigos de Bolsa Chica.
1 12. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing. The REIR
indicates that there will be a Class II bike trail along PCH. Public Works Traffic
Engineering should address the need for a Class I trail.
0. Tidal Inlet Alternatives Must Be Considered. With regard to the
1 restoration of the wetlands area, it continues to be the Community Services opinion that an
open inlet for tidal exchange will have impacts on oceanfront recreation and public safety;
however, an underground tidal exchange system would accomplish some of the desired
results with regard to restoration of the wetlands as well as preserve the oceanfront. Other
designs for an open inlet may also be desirable. The REIR must consider a variety of
' alternatives for this extremely important aspect of the proposed wetland restoration.
S. CHAPTER 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYsrs
1 1. Cumulative Impact From Loss of Wetland/Upland Habitat. As
described above in this letter, Bolsa Chica represents one of the few remaining instances
' where upland and wetland habitats exist in juxtaposition to one another. This presents
significant opportunities for creating habitat restoration for a variety of native species. Other
open spaces have been developed to the point where less than 10% of the former wetlands
area in the State remains in any form. By developing the upland or the lowland, the habitat
value of the area as existing and the potential to create significant new habitat will be lost
due to the development of one of the last coastal open spaces in the region. This must be
considered a significant cumulative impact.
2. Cumulative Oil Impacts: Page 5-5, Line 11: This statement says that
1 oil production will continue until resources are depleted or not economically feasible. Some
projections are that the oil could be produced for another twenty (20) years. If technology
advances, it is possible that oil production could increase. A site for future consolidation
projects should be addressed in the document. Early on in the document it talks about
phasing out oil production. What length of time has been set for the phasing out of oil
production? An oil operator may choose to close down its operation. If this occurs, oil
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency '
October 4, 1994
Page 232
wells must be abandoned to the Division of Oil and Gas "DOG" Standards and the site ,
must be restored to its original condition prior to oil production. This procedure is currently
enforced in Huntington Beach. No time limit is placed on an oil operator as to when they
must abandon an oil well. State regulations prohibit the mandatory abandonment of non-
producing oil wells. However, safety regulations must be enforced by the controlling
agency. The REIR does not cover the issue of oil abandonment. '
Examples of areas where problems have occurred as a result of construction on or near oil
sites was requested. Below is a list of sites that fall into this category:
1. Oxnard Dunes (Oxnard Ca) - Residential track built over oil waste '
disposal site.
2. Manhattan Beach - Residential tract with leaking methane gas coming ,
from contaminated soil.
3. Santa Maria - The repurchase of an entire sub-division, caused by '
contaminated soil.
4. Bakersfield - Resolution Trust Corporation, taking over an entire ,
apartment complex due to soil contamination, uninhabitable.
5. Westminster - Homes built over an oil field dump sife. EPA Superfund
site.
6. Santa Barbara - Leaking oil well located in a back yard with no access
for re-abandonment.
7. Newport Beach - Oil well leaking under a home.
8. Los Angeles - Oil fields, numerous problems with soil contamination.
9. Huntington Beach - Three (3) areas with leaking oil wells and methane '
gas, along with some Hydrogen Sulfide (HZS) present.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 233
' 3. Miscellaneous Comments.
' a. Section 5.1.5, Page 5-3, line 7: The revised size of commercial
space under the "village" concept should read 500,000, not one million, square feet.
b. Page 5-3, line 14: Main Pier Phase II consists of two distinctly
different projects. One is completed and one is pending.
C. Page 5-3, line 27: Surfcrest North is now called Surfcrest.
d. Page 5-3, line 33: Surfcrest South is now called Oceancrest.
e. Page 5-4, lines 22, 23: It is not clear which PCH improvements
are being referred to in these lines.
f. a 5-4, lines 29-30: Two phases of the Golden West Project,
� P J
amounting to over $4 million have been completed to date. Phase 3 is under construction.
The final phase should be completed within the next 3 years.
' g. Section 5.2.6, Page 5-7, lines 24-26: The City of Huntington
Beach completed this widening project in 1991 and has no future plans for a physical
widening of the highway.
' h. Section 5.2.16.2, Page 5-11: This section discusses water and
sewer service fees and it mentions community facilities districts. Would these fees and
districts finance system improvements outside of the project boundaries if the project caused
said facilities to be undersized? Specifically, if the City of Huntington Beach were to furnish
the project water, additional reservoir capacity would be necessary.
i. Section 5.2.16.3, Page 5-11: This section must be expanded to
include more information regarding site-specific waste reduction plans.
' T. CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
' 1. General Comments.
' Proposed Find Draft Dated September 30, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency t
October 4, 1994
Page 234 '
a. The analysis of alternatives in the REIR is an almost verbatim
reprise of the alternatives analysis of the DEIR. Accordingly, the issues raised in the
Comment continue to apply and must be responded to in the recirculated REIR.
b. As noted in Part ME of the Comment and in Part I.L, above,
the discussion of alternative projects and alternate locations for the proposed project is
inadequate and must be expanded and the REIR recirculated. For example, a greater range
of Lowlands alternatives and the alternatives suggested in Part ME of the Comment as well ,
as the additional alternative referred to in Part I.L of this letter should be included in the
recirculated REIR.
C. A table indicating further information which is required for the .
DEIR to more adequately present the alternatives which are considered in the DEIR was
presented in CoNmERr ANma No. S. A revised version of that table is attached to this
letter as Annex No. 5.
d. In discussing the feasibility of the various project alternatives '
which are presented in the DEIR (m page 7-7 and the subsections for each alternative), the
DEIR presented no substantial evidence to support its conclusions. The REIR is no better in
this regard. Evidence regarding contacts which made to investigate the availability of ,
funding, such as correspondence with organizations which provide such funding, should be
included in the REIR. For some alternatives, it is not enough to say that the applicant is not
interested in proceeding with them (DEIR page 7-27, lines 33-36). There may be other
potential developers who might wish to pursue any number of these alternatives, as long as
they represent a reasonable potential for earnings. The lack of such other developers is not
demonstrated, nor is the potential financial feasibility of the various alternatives properly ,
compared with the proposed project. If the alternatives are to be rejected based, in part, on
the fiscal feasibility of the alternative, that feasibility must be documented and compared to
the feasibility of the proposed projectAW The REIR must present a pro-forma for each
alternative project which is rejected on the basis of economic feasibility and compare it to all
of the options presented, including a pro-forma for the proposed project itself. In the
127I For example,Alternative C and Alternative E seem to have been rejected, at least in part, based upon the ,
financial feasibility of those alternatives, however, no data regarding the financial feasibility of those projects is
presented in the DUR or the RERL
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 ,
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 235
absence of such data and analysis, it is not possible for the public or for the decision-makers
of the County to assess the accuracy of the REIR's conclusion that less environmentally
' alternatives are not feasible.
e. CEQA requires that an EIR consider all reasonable alternatives.
The REIR continues the DEIR's failure to consider the potential annexation of the project
into the City. As is noted above, the location of the project within the City would lessen the
impacts on Police, Fire and other public services. Alternative "A" through Alternative "7"
should be also considered under a scenario in which the project is first annexed into the City
and the project thereafter proceeds as a City project. Further, as was noted in the Comment,
additional offsite alternatives must be considered. The consideration of offsite alternatives
for a major land use planning document such as the amendment to general plan and the LCP
considered in the REIR must not be a perfunctory review of one or two straw-man
alternatives as is the case here.
2. Alternatives Required for Critical Project Components. As is noted
above in this letter, the REIR must consider alternatives for vital project components such as
the water supply for the residential development, the tidal inlet for the wetlands restoration
and the site of the proposed 9 million gallon reservoir. The approach of the REIR appears to
' be to select or reject a single version of each of these components without a sufficient
discussion of why other alternatives were rejected as too impacting on the environment.
Without that discussion, the public never does understand the environmental consequences of
any approval of the currently proposed project by the elected decisionmakers as is required
by CEQA.
3. Clean Water Act Consistency Must Be Considered. The REIR does
not mention that the project will need to prepare a 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis pursuant
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Guidelines, which are a part
of federal governments implementation of the Clean Water Act. This omission is significant
because the alternatives analysis required through the Guidelines provides critical public
information regarding potential impacts which are required pursuant to CEQA and NEPA
regulations. Even though the applicant proposes to prepare separate CEQA and NEPA
documents, the contents of the 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis needs to be included in the
CEQA document since compliance with the § 404 program is required for local projects as
well as federal projects.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
! ! 1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 236
a. Omission of 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis pains bn CEQA
Compliance. The omission of the required 404(b)(1) analysis significantly impairs the
County's ability to comply with CEQA since the Corps is directed by the EPA, through the '
404 program, to gather as much information as is reasonably possible when evaluating
projects, such as the project considered in the REIR which may have a significant impact on
wetlands. Consequently, an alternatives discussion prepared strictly for CEQA purposes will
likely not meet the minimum 404(b)(1) requirements. In the case of the alternatives
discussion prepared for the REIR, the minimum 404(b)(1) requirements clearly have not been
met and the federal law will require a broader range of alternatives to be considered. Due to
the split review process insisted upon by the County, the public and the decision makers will
not have the opportunity to review the 404(b)(1) alternatives when considering the County's "
local agency approvals. This approach is not consistent with CEQA's intent to cause a
reasonable range of alternatives to be publicly considered.
b. Description of 404(b)(1) Analysis. The benchmarks for the ,
404(b)(1) assessment is found in three separate sections of the preamble to the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines.
(1) First, the 1980 preamble to the Guidelines revised the
1975 water dependency provision by creating two explicit but rebuttable presumptions. First,
the preamble points out that the Guidelines presume that "...there are practicable alternatives
to "non-water dependent" discharges proposed for special aquatic sites." Secondly, the
Guidelines' preamble presumes that "...alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are '
less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem and are environmentally preferable." With these two
presumptions made, the preamble places the burden of proof on the applicant to "...persuade
the permitting authority that both of these presumptions have clearly been rebutted in order
to pass the alternatives portion of these Guidelines."
In reviewing the proposed project alternatives for the revised '
Bolsa Chica project, the REIR does not make clear that selection of the off site alternative
(MCAS Tustin and/or El Toro) is not a practicable alternative and that the proposed project
could only be developed in wetlands. Further, it has not been adequately rebutted that
developing either of the air stations would be more environmentally damaging than altering
the wetlands. It would be reasonable to assume that the average citizen could deduce that a
housing project does not need to be placed in a wetland to achieve the basic purpose of
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 237
housing people. Whereas the actual judgement of whether or not a project is water
dependent lies with the EPA and/or the Corps, the above logic would lead one to conclude
' that the project is not water dependent and that practicable upland alternatives are probably
available.
(2) The second benchmark from the Guidelines' Preamble to
consider is what constitutes a practicable alternative. The preamble states that practicable
alternatives "...depend on cost, technical and logistic factors." Also, "...an alternative must
' be capable of achieving the basic purpose of the proposed activity." Lastly, "...In order for
an "external" (or off site) alternative to be practicable it must be reasonably available or
obtainable", parenthesis added. In short, and according to the preamble, "...the Guidelines
always prohibit discharges where there is a practicable, less damaging alternative...".
Where the REIR.fails with respect to the second benchmark is
that there is not enough comparative data, namely, cost, technical or logistic, to reasonably
support a conclusion that the off site alternative is impracticable. Further, given the current
land use status of the various military base reuse proposals, one should seriously question
whether or not Alternative 7 meets the reasonably available or obtainable criteria as stated in
the Guidelines. If one concludes that use of the military bases should not be considered until
reuse plans have more fully matured, then it would stand to reason that the off site
' alternative has not been fully explored and is, therefore, not consistent with the Clean Water
Act.
(3) The third and final benchmark to consider is whether or
not all potentially affected federal agencies have been provided with an opportunity to review
the project alternatives. Since CEQA procedures do not necessarily require submittal of the
REIR to the same federal agencies which could be asked to review the 404(b)(1) Alternative
Analysis, it is not clear if a review of project alternatives have been made available to all
necessary federal agencies. The preamble to the Guidelines recognizes that some
environmental documents, namely NEPA documents, could meet the 404(b)(1) requirements
if they are so constructed from the onset. However, the Revised EIR does not have a
404(b)(1) Alternative Analysis included in the technical appendices nor does the alternatives
' discussion in the Revised EIR meet the minimum requirements of the Guidelines. Therefore,
it is concluded, that for purposes of this particular project, the minimum necessary
alternatives study and review has not been completed pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 238
Page 6-1, Geology and Seismic Impact: For Alternatives A - Park and Lowland Restoration, '
B - Bio diversity park, H - No Project, and 1 - No Development/No Restoration, there
should be no significant geologic or seismic impacts as long as no habitable structures are '
placed within the Alquist-Priolo Exclusionary Zone.
U. CHAPTERS 10 THROUGH 12 - SCs. PDFs. & MITIGATION MEASURES.
As is noted in a number of prior references in this letter, and was noted
throughout the Comment, many of the mitigation measures proposed for the project are not '
proper under CEQA. The Comment set forth a detailed explanation of the problems with the
mitigation measures of the DEIR. Those problems, flaws and inadequacies are continued
without improvement in the REIR. The most crucial flaws of each of the mitigation
measures listed in the Comment were indicated in CoNmENT ANNEx No. 7. Attached to
this letter as Annex No. 4 is a table which evaluates each of the PDFs, SCs and mitigation
measures with respect to the flaws noted in the Comment and in Part I.G of this letter. '
M. Conclusion. '
The City remains concerned about the failure of the County to proceed in accordance
with CEQA. For the reasons detailed above in this letter, the potential harm to the residents '
of the City, and of the project, will be substantial if the project proceeds without the
environmental review and mitigation required by State law.
The restoration of the wetlands, which continues to form the sole justification for the ,
County's approval of the project, remains unlikely to occur. It would occur, if at all, 20 to
30 years Q#gr_ construction of at least a 2,500 unit housing project atop the Mesa. The '
wetlands restoration is an unfunded and speculative promise to implement an untested
program at such time, if any, as oil producers voluntarily elect to stop operating. There is
no time at which the restoration would be regmr to commence. Further, the restoration '
plan would be implemented only if Koll were permitted to develop residential units in the
Lowland, a highly unlikely prospect given the positions expressed by the agencies which
must approve any such development. Further, as was noted in the Comment, the Lowland '
residential development appears to be a low margin project of questionable profitability once
the cost of the WRP (and if funded, the ATIP) is taken into account.
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 239
Although the REIR does respond in some measure to the issues raised in the City's
prior Comment, the REIR continues most of the flaws of the DEIR and continues to be
inadequate under State law. The City, therefore, respectfully requests the County to
' recirculate a new and wholly rewritten REIR which addresses the inadequacies noted in this
letter. Without a new and legally adequate REIR, the proposed project cannot legally
proceed.
' Respectfully submitted,
ERvnv, COEMv & JES"
Roger J. Holt
Steven A. Roseman
By:
' Steven A. Roseman of Ervin, Cohen &Jessup,
Special Legal Counsel to the City of Huntington Beach
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994
F+ i
- �
L
ANNEX NO. 1
Index to Comments
I. Introduction - Overview of CEQA Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. THE REIR STILL FAILS TO FULFILL THE CORE PURPOSE OF
INFORMING DECISION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT
THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. The Poor Organization of the REIR Prevents it from Fulfilling
its Purpose 4
2. Flawed CEQA Procedures and Documentation Prevent the
REIR from Sounding the Alarm Bell Required by CEQA . . . . . 5
3. The County's Environmental Analysis Does Not Fulfill the
Requirements of CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. THE REIR FAIIS TO EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PROJECT
IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . 10
1. The REIR Fails to Convey a Clear and Useful Environmental
Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
N2. The REIR Does Not Adequately Describe Which "Project" Is
Being Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a. The County Cannot Act as Lead Agency if the
"Project" Is Adoption of a New LCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. If the "Project" is the Development of the Mesa and the
Lowlands, the REIR Incorrectly Uses a Program EIR in
Lieu of a Staged and Supplemental EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. The Project Description of the REIR is Inaccurate and
Incomplete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
a. The REIR Omits Consideration of Important Elements
of the Revised Development Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
b. Project Description Omits Description of Project
Phasing 26
C. The Project Description Uses Varying Statistics of
Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
d. The Objectives of the Project Vary from Section to
Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
e. Inclusion of Alternate Project Descriptions Further
t Obscures the Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4. The County's REIR Misstates the Relationship between
Development Approvals and Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . 30
' Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -1-
C. OMISSION OF IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS AND BASELINE STUDIES
FRUSTRATES ATTEMPTS AT WORTHWHILE PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE
PROGRAM AND THE REIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1. Failure to Circulate Implementing Documents Frustrates
Meaningful Public Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2. The REIR Further Frustrates Public Review by Exceeding the
Permitted Limits on Incorporation by Reference of
Uncirculated Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D. THE COUNTY HAS FAILED TO FULFII.L ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER
CEQA TO CONSULT WITH AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INPUT OF
OTHER AGENCIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . 33
E. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A
NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF
CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development . . 37
3. Segmentation of Remediation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
F. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . 40
1. Since Wetlands Restoration is a Primary Goal of the Project,
that Restoration Must Be a Condition to Development . . . . . . . 40
2. Federal and State Agencies which must Approve Wetlands
Restoration Have Objected to the WRP and Development of
Lowlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
G. THE REIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE
STUDIES AND UNmowroRED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR
MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1. Reliance on the Development of Future Studies to Define
Mitigation and Impacts in the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2. Reliance on "SCs" and "PDFs" Precludes the REIR from
Providing the Public Disclosure and Accountable Decision-
Maldng Required by CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3. REIR Erroneously Labels Legal Requirements of General
Application as Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4. Obscure Description of Mitigation Bank Clouds its Purpose
andMeaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -11-
H. THE REIR OMITS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
ON THE CITY AND Own ANALYSIS OF FISCAL FEASIm m OF
mmGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES TO MmGATE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
1. Fiscal Impacts on the City 55
2. Fiscal Feasibility of Mitigation Measures 56
I. THE REIR SCATTERS AND SELECTS THE COMMENTS TO WHICH THE
COUNTY WISHES To RESPOND AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE
RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS RAISED REGARDING THE DEIR . . . . . . 57
1. Scattering of Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2. Arbitrary Selection of Comments for Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3. Incorporation of Comment and Comment Annexes by
Reference . 59
1. THE REIR DoEs NOT CONSIDER KoLL's ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD
IN ASSESSING MmGATION IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1. The County Must Take Koll:s Environmental Record into
Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Koll has Complained Elsewhere that the Very Actions Taken
by the County Violate CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
K. THE REIR FAILS To DISCLOSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND CONTINUES TO USE INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF
SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
1. The REIR Fails to Label Adverse Significant Effects of the
Project if there Are also Beneficial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2. The REIR Continues to Use Improper Standards of
Significance 71
3. The 1992 E UEIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts
which both the DEIR and the REIR Identify as Insignificant . . . . 72
L. THE REIR S CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONTINUES TO BE
INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
1. REIR merely Repeats the Inadequate Alternatives Analysis of
the DEIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2. REIR Ignores Agency Requests for Consideration of Other
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -�-
3. REIR Improperly Rejects Alternatives
for Significant Project
Components . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
a. Alternatives to Wetlands Restoration Plan . . . . . . . . . . 76
b. Alternatives for Tidal Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4. The Alternatives Analysis Improperly Alters Project Objectives
to Reject otherwise Feasible Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5. Requirement for Analysis of Alternative Locations . . . . . . . . . . 80
M. THE REIR Omm ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE RIsK OF UPSET
AND RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE
PRoJEcT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
N. DISCUSSION OF SHORT TERM IMPACTS VERSUS LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY IN THE REIR CONTINUES TO BE INADEQUATE . . . . . . . 81
O. THE REIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
II. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the REIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A. CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
B. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
1. The REIR Fails to Explain the Reasons the Project Differs
from the 1986 LCP on which it Improperly Relies in Assessing �.
Land Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2. Inconsistency with Coastal Act Policies and Provisions Make
Project Implementation Unlikely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
a. LCP/LUP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
b. Public Access/Recreation Related Coastal Act Policies . . . 99
C. Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
d. Scenic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
e. Coastal Dependent Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
f. ESHAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
g. Natural Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3. The REIR Fails to Note Significant Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the County's General Plan . . . . . . . . . . 102
4. The REIR Omits Discussion of Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the City's General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
5. The REIR Fails to Mitigate Adequately the Incompatibility of
Oil Production and Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -iv-
' 6. The REIR Ignores the Impacts of High Density Residential
Development on the Surrounding Community and Community
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7. Miscellaneous 109
C. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SmshucrTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill
1. Stratigraphy and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
2. Faulting and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3. Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4. Liquefaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5. Tsunamis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
6. Truck Routing for Contaminated Excavation Spoils Export . . . . 115
7. Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 115
8. Improper Impact Significance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
9. REIR Ignores Impacts from Onsite Grading Activities. . . . . . . 116
10. REIR Ignores Significant Ground Shaking Impacts . 117
11. Inadequate Discussion of Surface Rupture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
12. Impact of Corrosive Soils is Not Mitigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
13. Mitigation Measures Are Not Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
D. CHAPTER 4.3 - HAZARDOUS SuBsTANcEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
1. Inadequate Response to Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2. Cost of Remediation Must Be.Further Detailed and Allocated. . 120
3. Further Study and Disclosure of Nature and Extent of Contamination is Required . • . 120
4. Further Study and Disclosure of Health Risks to Project
Residents is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5. Reabandoning of Oil Wells Must Be Accomplished under
Current Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
6. City Standards for Soil Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7. Phase II Assessment Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
8. Community Contingency Plan Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
1 9. Further Testing for Lead and other Contaminants is Required . . 124
10. Further Study of Potential Impacts from Gas Line Is Required 124
E. CHAPTER 4.4 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . 125
1. Groundwater Well at Edwards Thumb Could Cause Significant
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
2. Potential Impacts Will Exist Even with Operation of Proposed
Pump Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -v-
3. Further Mitigation Is Required to Improve Water Quality
Flowing into the Wetlands from the EGGW Channel . . . . . . . 126
4. Insignificance of Ground Water Impacts Must be Supported by
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5. Potential for Impacts of Quality of City Water Supply Must Be
Disclosed and Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
F. CHAPTER 4.5 - WATER QUALxry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
1. NPDES Permit Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2. Deletion of Tidal Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3. Adequacy of REIR Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4. Additional Information Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5. Metals Contamination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6. Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
G. CHAPTER 4.6 - CoAsTAL. HYDRAuLics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
1. Sediment Increase in Huntington Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
2. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
H. CHAPTER 4.7 - MARDWAQUATIc BIOLAGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
1. Hazardous Materials Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
2. Significant Impact to Shorebird Feeding at Mudflats . . . . . . . . 136
3. Comments on the WRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
4. -Mitigation Banking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5. Previous Comments on 1993 WRP Not Addressed in 1994
W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
I. CHAPTER 4.8 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 144
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. No Support Is Given for REIR Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 j
2. Insufficient Information Regarding Phasing Precludes
Meaningful Review of Decades-Long Interim Impacts . . . . . . . 144
3. Impact Significance Is not Determined Using Consistent
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
4. Lack of Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5. REIR Fails to Address Local Significance of Impacts . . . . . . . 146
6. Project Design Features Make Determination of Project
Impacts Impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -vi-
' 7. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 7 Consultation
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
8. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 10 Taking Permit
i
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
9. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
10. Comments on DEIR Are Not Addressed in the REIR . . . . . . . 151
J. CHAPTER 4.9 - TRANSPORTATION AND CntcmATION . . . . . . . . . . . 153
1. Responseto CityComment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
2. City Traffic Analysis Should Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3. No Analysis of Construction Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
4. Street Impacts from Freeway Ramp Metering Must Be
Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5. Inadequate Mitigation Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
6. Impact of Deleting Cross Gap Connector From MPAH Not
Sufficiently Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7. Transportation Impacts to Fire/Polim'Public Safety Are Not
Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8. Unfunded ATIP Provides Illusory Mitigation Only. . . . . . .........156
a. Assessment District as a Financing Mechanism for the
ATIP Is Not Adequately Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
b. Fair Share Funding Analysis Further Obscures ATIP Funding Source • . 157
C. Skewed Traffic Analysis Understates the Project's Fair
Share of Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
d. ATIP Administration should be Provided By the City,
the Agency Most Severely Affected By the Project . . . . 157
e. No Funding Is Contemplated from other Affected
Agencies 158
L Funding for ATIP Is Not Likely to Be Available. . . . . 158
9. Miscellaneous Comments on Analysis of Traffic Impacts . . . . . 159
10. Comments on the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . 164
11. Comments on the "Executive Summary" of the Traffic Impact
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
12. Specific Comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . 167
K. CHAPTER 4.10 - UAL Y AiR
Q
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
1. Need to Reference Traffic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
2. Need for Further Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
' 3. Monitoring Locations Are Not Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4. Lack of Intersection Air Quality Data 171
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -vli-
• • e
5. Analysis Includes Conflicting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
6. Consistency with AQMP Is Not Sufficiently Analyzed . . . . . . 171
7. Consistency with GNP Is Not Properly Analyzed . . . . . . . . . 172
L. CHAPTER 4.11 - NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
1. Confusing Organization Obscures Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
2. Local Noise Monitoring to Establish Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
M. CHAPTER 4.12 - CuLTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
1. Further Studies Required Prior to Approval of the Proposed
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
2. Unanswered Issues Raised in the Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
a. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements (pages 167-168 of
the Comment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
b. Deferred Study (page 168 of the Comment) . . . . . . . . 177
C. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer; r
California Register Criteria (page 169 of the Comment) . 178 +�
d. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . 178
e. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
3. Discovery of Human Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4. Cultural Resources Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
5. Inadequate Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions . . . . 181
6. The REIR Fails to Inform the Reader of the Scope of Research . 182
7. The REIR Does Not Provide for Adequate Site Management or
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
8. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
9. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
10. Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
N. CHAPTER 4.13 - PALEONTOLOGICAL RESouRCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
O. CHAPTER 4.14 - AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
1. Failure to Answer Comment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
2. Loss of Existing Specimen Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
3. Artist's Conception of Project Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
4. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 'V�-
P. CHAPTER 4.15 - SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
1. Further Study of Socioeconomic Impacts Is Required . . . . . . . 196
2. Financial Feasibility of the Project and Mitigation Is Not
Analyzed in the REIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
' a. The Project Will Have Significant Fiscal Impacts on the
City which Will Cause Adverse Physical Effects . . . . . 196
b. Project Financial Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
C. REIR Does Not Identify Public Financing Needs or
Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
d. Lack of Project Information Precludes Adequate
Review of Fiscal Feasibility of Mitigation Measures . . . 198
e. Loss of Tax Revenues Will Make Fiscal Impacts Worse . 199
3. Incomplete Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4. Affordable Housing and Impact on Regional Housing Needs . . . 200
5. Analytical Flaws in Jobs-Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
6. Financial Feasibility/Phasing/Fiscal Impact of Development . . . 201
Q. CHAPTER 4.16 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTnxrms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
1. Water Service From Scaled-Down Project Will Still
Significantly Impact City Water System • : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . 202
2. Water Supply Impacts 204
a. Assumptions Regarding Water Supply to Project Are
Not Correct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .b. Impacts to Regional Water Supply 205
C. Project Does Not Have Rights to Water Supplies . . . . . 206
d. Construction of a Reservoir Is Not a Water Source . . . . 207
e. No Supply of Reclaimed Water is Available . . . . . . . . 208
L 3. Ground Water Wells Will Have Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
4. Aquifer Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
5. Miscellaneous Water Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
6. Wastewater and Related Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7. Significant Unmitigated Impact to Fire Protection & Paramedic
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
8. Miscellaneous Fire/Safety Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
9. 20-Year Impacts on City Services During Project Construction . 219
10. Fiscal Impacts on Public Services . . . . 220
11. Fiscal Impacts to City Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
12. Analysis of Impacts on City Police Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Proposed Final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -ix-
13. Miscellaneous Police Department Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
\r
a. Construction of the Cross-Gap Connector . . . . . . . . . . 226
b. County's Need for Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . 227
C. Additional Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
d. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Concerns for Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 ,
R. CHAPTER 4.17 - RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient . . . . . . . . . . . 228
2. Lack of Urban Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
3. Description of Park Facilities Must Be Provided . . . . . . . . . . 229
4. Funding for Park and Public Greenbelt Maintenance. . . . . . . . 229
5. Geology/Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
6. Slope Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 �.
7. Contaminated Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
8. Corrosive Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
9. Impact of Placement of Dredged Sediments on Beach . . . . . . . 230
10. Elevate Parks Above Flood Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
11. Public Safety Impacts on Increased Site Visitations . . . . . . . . 231
12. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing . . . .........231
13. Tidal Inlet Alternatives Must Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
S. CHAPTER 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
1. Cumulative Impact From Loss of Wetland/Upland Habitat. . . . 231
2. Cumulative Oil Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
3. Miscellaneous Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
T. CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROTECT . . . . . . . . . 233
1. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 ,
2. Alternatives Required for Critical Project Components . . . . . . 235
3. Clean Water Act Consistency Must Be Considered . . . . . . . . 235
TIAnERS 10 THROUGH 12 - SCS PDFS MITIGATION MEASURES. . 238
U. C , &
M. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Proposed final Draft Dated September 30, 1994 -g-
N
--�
Annex No. 2
1 List of Annexes
Annex No. Desc motion
' 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Index to Comment
2. . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Annexes
3. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Inconsistencies of Project with City General Plan
M4. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Analysis of PDFs, SCs and Mitigation Measures
5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Analysis of Alternatives
6. . . . . . . . . . .. . . Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Public Economics
7. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from USFWS-Ecological Services to County dated February 17, 1994
8. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from CDFG to County dated February 18, 1994
9. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from CCC to County,dated February 17, 1994
10. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from NMFS to County dated February 18, 1994
11. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to Paul R. Lanning from Irell & Manella dated February 16, 1994
commenting on DEIR on behalf of Fieldstone Company
12. . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, fled
September 27, 1993, in the case of Sierra Point Associates Two and The Koll
Company vs. City and County of San Francisco Airports Commission, et al.,
County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220
13. . . . . . . . . . . . Koll Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed December 4, 1992, Superior Court of
the County of San Mateo, Case No. 379595 (which petition was later
consolidated with County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220)
14. . . . . . . . . . . . Koll Reply Memorandum, Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, Case No.
254220, filed September 13, 1993
15. . . . . . . . . . . . Uniform Fire Code Section 79.1101
16. . . . . . . . . . . . Chart Showing PDF Process As Evasion of CEQA
17. . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Community Contingency Plan
18. . . . . . . . . . . . GeoScience Analytical, Inc.'s Report in Connection with Hazardous Substance
Issues
19. . . . . . . . . . . . City of Huntington Beach Soil Clean-Up Standard, City Specification 431-92
20. . . . . . . . . . . . Public Resources Code Section 3208.1
21. . . . . . . . . . . . 1976 Statement Regarding Subsidence ,
22. . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Growth Vs. Reflex Time Graph
23. . . . . . . . . . . . Time CPR Started Vs. Probability of Recovery from Cardiac Arrest Graph
24. . . . . . . . . . . . California Coastal Commission Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland
Projects in California's Coastal Zone, dated June 15, 1994 ,
25. . . . . . . . . . . . Document Production Request from Ervin,Cohen&Jessup,on behalf of the City
of Huntington Beach, to Paul Lanning, dated September 13, 1994
26. . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Document Production Request from Paul Lanning, dated September
19, 1994
27. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated March 24, 1994, from the California Regional Water Qualify
Control Board, Santa Ana Region to Paul Lanning I
28. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated April 6, 1994, from the State of California Department of
Transportation to Paul Lanning ,
29. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated February 9, 1994, from the Orange County Water District to Paul
Lanning Containing Comments on the DEIR
30. . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit issued to Phillip Brylski on May 10, 1994
allowing the taking of the Pacific Little Pocket Mouse and Federal Fish and
Wildlife Permit issued to Shell Oil co. and MWD for incidental taking of the
California Gnatcatcher, 59 Fed. Reg. 31646, June 20, 1994.
31. . . . . . . . . . . . Draft Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, dated October 30, 1992
32. . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of the Western Snowy Plover on Camp Pendleton,San Diego, California,
dated September 1992
33. . . . . . . . . . . . A Survey of Belding's Savannah Sparrows in California
34. . . . . . . . . . . . Second Request for Reference Documents Cited in the Bibliography of the REIR
from the City of Huntington Beach to Tom Mathews, dated September 7, 1994
35. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated September 12, 1994, from Albert, Grover & Associates to Paul
Lanning Requesting Back Up Data and Studies Pertaining to the "Transportation
and Circulation" Section of the REIR
36. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter,dated February 16, 1994,from the Native American Heritage Commission
to Paul Lanning
37. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated February 7, 1994, from the California Governor's Office of
Planning and Research to Paul Lanning
r38. . . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum, dated February 16, 1994, from the Chairman of the Orange
County Historical Commission to Paul Lanning
M39. . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Document Production Request,dated September 1, 1994, from Paul
Lanning to the City of Huntington Beach
40. . . . . . . . . . . . Receipt from State Clearing House for Circulation of DEIR
M 41. . . . . . . . . . . . T. Fenner, "The Cunurlative Impacts to San Diego Wetlands under Federal and
State Regulatory Programs: 1985 to 1989", January 6, 1992
42. . . . . . . . . . . . City of Huntington Beach Alquist-Priolo Zone Maps
r43. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to the County from City Public Works Department, dated September 26,
1994 requesting a legible copy of the proposed wetlands grading plan
r44. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to Roger J. Holt,Esq. from OCEMA refusing to deliver documents to the
City until after the close of the public comment period on the REIR.
1
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
W
Annex No. 3
eta
;Pow
P1 -Q1CV::X a
...........
......... .
11 Open Space/ To conserve land resources which Page 14 of the cityA general plan identifies the "northwest" Bolsa Chica
Conservation enhance the physical, social and area and the Bolsa Chica in general (including the bluffs and the
Element— economic life style of the area by marshlands) as first priority areas with the greatest potential preservation as
2.1.2.1(1) preserving and protecting open space resources and, on page IS, identifies preservation of the natural
outstanding geographical and integrity of the bluffs and outstanding physical features as a critical issue.
topographical features.
Page 17 of the cityA general plan identifies the "northwest" Bolsa Chica
areas as an open space/conservation area of the highest priority. It
identifies the following resources as valuable open space/conservation
resources: the bluffs, tree stands, potential historical sites, archaeological
sites, and scenic and mineral resources for the areas between the bluffs.
(The policy only refers to the lowland, assuming that the "bluffs" are those
of the Huntington and the Bolsa Chica Mesas)
The proposed plans include the removal of trees and grading to(what
appears to be) the bluff edge.
12 Open Space/ To ensure the continued existence The proposed plans focuses on the relocation versus the preservation of •
Conservation of distinctive biological resources existing vegetation and wildlife.
Element— contained within the boundaries of
2.1.2.3(1) the Huntington Beach sphere of
influence by preserving significant
vegetation and wildlife habitat now
existing in the Planning Area.
..... .........
...........
...04....
eq
Nk
,AN
AM
.... .......
..........
...... ......
U111
16 Open Space/ Scenic Corridor: Linear area The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a scenic corridor as
Conservation protected from disharmonious depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element-2.1.4(1) development or preserved in a a resource area of severely restricted or no development. Option B
natural state; includes scenic proposes development within this area.
roadways and open space •
greenbelts.
16 Open Space/ Resource Preserve: Applies to The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a Resource Preserve as
Conservation land set aside primarily for the depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element--2.1.4(3) protection of natural and cultural a resource area of severely restricted or no development. The restoration
resources, activities proposed under both options for this area are consistent with this
designation.
16 Open Space/ Water Area: applies to salt and The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a Water Area as
Conservation fresh water areas considered for depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element--2.1.4(5) both conservation and recreation a resource area of severely restricted or no development. The restoration
purposes. activities proposed under both options for this area are consistent with this
designation.
16 Open Space/ Planned Open Space Development: The remaining areas are identified as Planned Open Space Development
Conservation Applies to special resource areas, which allows for residential development as indicated to the left. However,
Element--2.1.4(7) permitting open space uses and based upon the computer simulated drawings, it does not appear that the
other kinds of uses, including proposed development maximizes open space benefits on the mesa.
residential, which maximize open
space benefits by incorporating
natural resources into the
development plan.
-2-
.. .......
he
............
.........
..........
....... ................ ............
. .........
23 Seismic-Safety To insure that structures for The property is located within the Alquist-Priolo special studies zone and
Element-- human occupancy, critical proposes to construct residences in proximity to the 50 foot setback.
2.2.2.2(3) structures, and other vital Development of these structures may not comply with the City& General
emergency facilities are designed Plan if they are not constructed to withstand adequate seismic hazards as
to minimize damage from potential identified by DOG. •
hazards so as to continue to
function.
31 Seismic-Safety Prohibit construction of future See above.
Element— critical facilities within 50 feet of
2.2.4.2(11) a known fault trace.
34 Seismic-Safety If the Bolsa Chica is developed, an See Fire Department Comments
Element-- imbalance of community fire
2.2.4.3(13) protection will occur. Increased
construction and population in that
area would require an Engine
Company to be established. An
additional ladder company would
also be needed within five to ten
years.
43 Recreation City park goal of five(5)acres Page 4.17-7 of the DEIR states that the County& standard is 2.S acres per
Element-2.4.1 per 1,000 population. 1,000 residents. Provision of park land based upon this standard will result
in a park deficient area when the property is annexed to the City.
-3-
XE:
45 Recreation The existing and proposed The cityA standards for a neighborhood park are facilities that are generally
Element--Existing recreation facilities--shows four 2.5 to 5 acres in size and are designed to serve the area within a 1/4 mile
and Proposed neighborhood parks within the radius. Although the individual park sites proposed in the project generally
Recreation Bolsa Chica area. complies with the size requirements for "neighborhood parks" the
Facilities Figure distribution of parks in option b are not consistent with the cityA
conservation plan.
49 Circulation Develop a system of arterial The plan deletes the cross-gap connector which based upon
Element-- streets and highways that insures traffic/police/fire comments will result in impacts that are not consistent
3.1.2.2(1) the safe and efficient movement of with this policy.
people and goods.
57 Circulation The cityA circulation plan shows a The plan deletes the cross-gap connector.
Element--Figure cross-gap connector.
3-6 Circulation
Plan of Arterial
Streets and
Highways
77 Housing Element.- Utilize the following criteria for The project includes the development of the school property on-site as •
-3.3.4.1(a)(2) identifying and evaluating potential recreational and residential uses and does not indicate what facilities in the
sites for low and moderate cost area are open and will be able to accomodate project generated students.
housing. Sites should be located
with convenient access to schools,
parks and recreational facilities.
-4-
................. -------
.........
me
..........
.....................
m
47
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The project has been designed to County standards and may not meet City
-3.3.4.1(b) identifying and evaluating potential standards which upon annexation to the City will automatically result in
sites for low and moderate cost service defficient areas. See department comments for city standards.
housing. Sites should be •
adequately served by public
facilities, services and utilities.
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The higher densities, which are more conducive to providing affordable
-3.3.4.1(c) identifying and evaluating potential units, are located on the mesa which is traversed by an active fault.
sites for low and moderate cost
housing. Sites should be
minimally impacted by seismic and
flood hazards. Where such
hazards can not be avoided,
adequate mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into the design of
all proposed development.
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The higher densities, which are more conducive to providing affordable •
-3.3.4.1(e) identifying and evaluating potential units, are located adjacent to existing low density residences along Los
sites for low and moderate cost Patos. The transition between the two areas has not adequately been
housing. Sites should be evaluated to determine if the proposed development standards will allow for
compatible with surrounding compatible development of the two areas.
existing and planned land uses.
...............
.......... ............
.............
..............
X r:
...................
X ,
85 Land Use To develop and maintain high The proposed plans include the removal of trees and grading to(what
Element-- standards of visual beauty within appears to be) the bluff edge.
3.4.2.1(1) all areas of the city by preserving
areas of significant scenic beauty
such as waterways, bluffs, trees •
and historical landmarks.
96 Land Use To capitalize on the outdoor and The proposed plans include grading to(what appears to be) the bluff edge
Element— environmental potential of the City and fill and development of the lowland.
3.4.2.2(3) by maximizing the preservation of
historic, scenic, geological,
topographical, and archaeological
sites.
86 Land Use To provide for the proper The project proposes to relocate Warner Avenue Pond and the project is not
Element-- development, maintenance, compatible with this policy.
3.4.2.3(2) improvement, preservation, and
use of the Cityk natural resources
by maintaining existing City lakes.
86 Land Use To provide for the proper The proposed plans include grading to(what appears to be) the bluff edge •
Element— development, maintenance, and fill and development of the lowland.
3.4.2.3(3) improvement, preservation, and
use of the OVA natural resources
by maintaining natural topography.
-6-
rr rr rr r rr rr r r � r rr rr rr r rr rr rr r■
s:: a .. ....... . ... ...:.....
.............. ... . .. ..... . . .. .....
.... .......... ... ..... . . ..... .. ... .....
. .. ... . ..... ....
........... ... .. . ........
..... ................ .... .... ... .. ....
. .. ... .. ...... .... ........
... .....
... ....... ... ..... . .... .. .... .... ..
.................
Of
87 Land Use To ensure a full range of The proposed project does not include adequate facilities for water service
Element— community facilities that provide to the area, since the proposed water reservoir is actually one needed to
3.4.2.6(1) for the general public& health, meet demands of a different project in the city of Huntington Beach.
safety, and welfare by providing •
utility systems to meet projected
demands.
87 Land Use To ensure a full range of The proposed project does not include any meeting facilities such as
Element-- community facilities that provide community centers to serve area residents.
3.4.2.6(2) for the general publicb health,
safety, and welfare by providing
meeting centers for civic and other
groups.
92 Land Use Low density residential land use The project has a low density residential range of a maximum 6.5 du/gross
Element--3.4.3.1 designation in the cityA General acre.
(Residential)(2) Plan consists of single family
detached dwelling units
constructed at a density of a
maximum of 7 units per gross acre •
and located with convenient access
to commercial sites, parks and
schools.
-7-
CIA
: l '>>'
92 Land Use Medium density residential land The project proposes medium low density residential (at a maximum density
Element--3.4.3.1 use designation in the city§ of 12.5 du/acre). The City does not have such a designation.
(Residential)(3) General Plan primarily consists of
multi-family attached dwelling
units, but allows for detached •
patio homes and are constructed at
a density of a maximum of 15
units per gross acre and located
with convenient access to
commercial sites, business areas,
cultural facilities, transportation
routes, parks and schools. These
areas are to provide a transition
area between low and higher
density areas.
93 Land Use Medium-High density residential The CountyA medium high designation allows for a maximum of 18
Element--3.4.3.1 land use designation in the cityA du/acre.
(Residential) General Plan consists of more
(4) intense multi-family residential
dwelling units constructed at a
density of a maximum of 25 units •
per gross acre and located with
convenient access to commercial
sites, major transportation routes
and are serve as transition areas
between medium and high density
residential areas.
-8-
rr r� rr rr rr r �r rr �r rr r� r rr �r rr r� rr rr rs
.... .......
A 6
N ...........
tun r
102 Land Use The CityA Public/Quasi- Except for the fire station site, none of these facilities are proposed to
Element— Public/Institutional designation serve the area.
3.4.3.1(1) includes schools, libraries and fire
facilities, etc.
118 Community Prior to issuance of a development The project has been designed to County standards and is deficient in many
Facilities Element- entitlement, the City shall make different areas.
-3.4.6.1(3) the finding that adequate services
can be provided to serve the
proposed development, consistent
with policies contained in the
General Plan at the time of
occupancy.
-120 Community Design and route new sewers to The plan requires the construction of additional pump stations.
Facilities Element- eliminate the need for pump
-3.5.6.3(4) stations where possible.
120 Community Require that new developments in It is not possible to know whether such items have been incorporated into •
Facilities Element- areas of known subsidence the plans; please refer to Public Works comments.
.3.5.6.3(6) construct-low flow storm drains
and minimize the use of cross
gutters.
120 Community Require that new development I dont know if this has been incorporated into the plans; please refer to
Facilities Element- employ catch basins and storm Public Works comments.
-3.5.6.3(7) drains with baffled compartments
where uncontrolled drainage could
damage sensitive areas.
-9-
.. ........ ........... ......
.... ........
em n
. .......... .. ...
..........
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual The project includes significant development on top the Bolsa Chica men.
3.6.2.3(1)(c) resources within the coastal zone
by prohibiting development along
the bluffs rising up to the Bolsa
Chica mesa within the cityl •
jurisdiction)which will alter the
natural landform or threaten the
stability of the bluffs.
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual Without review of the proposed development standards, it is not possible to
3.6.2.3(1)(d) resources within the coastal zone determine if the proposed project conforms with this policy.
by encouraging cluster
development in areas designated
for residential use within the
coastal zone.
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual The plan focuses on the relocation of mature trees at best.
3.6.2.3(1)(g) resources within the coastal zone
by requiring the preservation of
existing mature trees within the
coastal zone to the maximum
extent feasible.
-10-
...........
.......... . .....
... .... ...
Um mm
x:A.
131 Coastal Element— Promote measures to mitigate the The plan does not comply with the provisions of the Coastal Act, as stated
3.6.2.4(1)(f) adverse impacts of human in the comment letter from the Coastal Commission staff.
activities on marine organisms and
the marine environment by
limiting diking,dredging and •
filling of coastal waters, wetlands,
and estuaries to the specific
activities outlined in section 30233
and 30607.1 of the Coastal Act
and to those activities required for
the restoration, maintenance,
and/or repair of the Municipal
Pier; conduct diking, dredging and
filling activities in manner that is
consistent with section 30233 and
30607.1 of the Coastal Act.
132 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance This is a factor if we are able to determine that there is a connection
3.6.2.5(1)(a) environmentally sensitive habitats between the lowland and mesa areas. The plan is also inconsistent if the
including the Bolsa Chica which is proposed "buffer" areas are not adequately designed to prevent •
within the sphere of influence of human/animal intrusion and do not address the issues identified in Coastal
the City of Huntington Beach by Element--3.6.2.5(1)(b)identified below.
approving only that development
adjacent to wetlands and
environmentally sensitive habitat
areas that do not significantly
degrade habitat values and which
are compatible with the
continuance of the habitat.
............ ........
..........
..........
...........
OEM
132 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance
3.6.2.5(1)(b) environmentally sensitive habitats
including the Bolsa Chica which is
within the sphere of influence of
the City of Huntington Beach by
requiring new development 40
contiguous to wetland
environmentally sensitive habitat
areas to include buffers which will
consist of a minimum of 100 foot
setback from the landward edge of
the wetland where possible. If
existing development of site
configuration precludes a 100 foot
wide buffer, the buffer shall be
established according to the factors
listed in policy lc and shall be
reviewed by the Department of
Fish and Came.
•
-12-
.............
Ike":
.........x ...........
132-133 Coastal Element-- Preserve and enhance,
3.6.2.5(1)(c) environmentally sensitive habitats
including the Bolsa Chica which is
within the sphere of influence of •
the City of Huntington Beach by
ensuring that buffer specifications
take into consideration the
following factors:
• Biological significance of
adjacent lands--The buffer
should be sufficiently wide to
protect the functional
relationship between wetland
and adjacent upland.
• Sensitivity of species to
disturbance--Ile buffer should
be sufficiently wide to ensure
that the most sensitive species
will not be disturbed •
significantly by permitted
development based on habitat
requirements of both resident
and migratory species and the
short-and long-term
adaptability of various species
to human disturbance.
13-
...............
...........
thl M
...........
.......... . . ..... ....
...........
mm
n
• Susceptibility of parcel to
erosion--The buffer should be
sufficiently wide to allow for
interception any additional
material eroded as a result of •
the proposed development
based on soil and vegetative
characteristics, slope and
runoff characteristics, and
impervious surface coverage.
• Use of existing cultural
features to locate buffer zones-
-Where feasible, development
should be located on the side
of roads, dikes, irrigation
canals, flood control channels,
etc., away from the
environmentally sensitive area.
•
-14-
............ .... ....... ..... .....
.................. . .....
-;k
...........
MIA ..............
n ..........
.........
iii:vomnjen
UM er
..... .... .
133 Coastal Element— The city General Plan recognizes The plan proposed by the REIR does not promote full tidal flushing and
3.6.2.5(2)(a) that the wetlands in will require relies on the indirect connection to Huntington Harbor and the redirection of
improvements before their the urban runoff from the EGGW channel to provide water required for
potential is realized and includes wetlands restoration.
the following policy for enhancing •
the biological and aesthetic quality
of these areas.
Promote the improvement of the
biological productivity and
appearance of wetland habitats by
promoting the re-establishment of
tidal flushing in wetland areas.
- --- -- ------------ ---- ---- - - �I
mmml� LIM .=
Annex No. 4
....... ..X-POF
. ... .. ......
X -:A -M
d
got..:! t ill I
Ludy.
W
.. ............
. .........
...............
.. .........N
.........
...........
X.........
...... .... ......ININING"
NO:ft"06: ...
...........
The project does not Incorporate any PDFs and there
are no standard conditions which will be required for
. ..............X:
PI Land Use and Related annIng.
The Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure X X X
..............................
Plan(OSPCCP)and Spill Contingency Plan(OSCP) This mitigation
enacted between the oil field operators and measure provides no
appropriate state agencies will remain In effect for Information regarding
how the plans will be the duration of the oil activities at Bolas Chico.
These plans will be amended as required for each Implemented or will
Residential Planning Area and will require the •mitigate Impacts.
approval of the state contracting agencies at that Far greater detall
...........
time. must •be provided.
All potential buyers of onsita residences shall be X
notified of the potential hazardous conditions Merely notifying the
with onsite oil production activities. Such.associated first buyers of
Information shall be disclosed the Department of Real residential units of
...... Estate reports prior to unit sales. the potential hazards
does not mitigate
the Impact.
....................
OL TAW: ... . ................ .........ICIT- . ....... ..........
Ground Improvement for Lowland development
con sisting of dynamic deep compaction JDDC) will be
mod on localized areas needing stabilization,
perfor
down to a depth of 25 feat below ground surface
(bgs). The technique Induces surface settlement due
P....i.psgo to compression of loose sand layers and cratering
ix
X created by repeatedly dropping weights.
.............. ... .. ........
. ...... ... ltpat6 li4i' 6�i�AAI NO S66: 44 164��66
................ .........
. ........
sed 66 u tlns
illy
Mitigation... 0 1 Fkk
toc I Stockpiling of the surficiall layer, which generally X X
,
... .......... ...
....................
consists of soft fine-grained lclayey silt,silty Erosion control will It Is not certain whether the
clay), will be accomplished to a depth of I foot be of critical generally applicable erosion
above the water table at the time of ground Importance but the control and grading
Improvement to Increase the efficiency of DDC erosion control procedures of the County
work. After DDC, the stockpile material will be procedures are not Coda would be sufficient to
-site •for engineered fills and will be specified or eliminate Impacts to a
....... raused on
subject to erosion control as specified In Section described sufficiently sensitive receptor such as the
4.3. to permit public wetlands. This Issue In
review or particular must be addres
consideration. in detail.
Placement of at least 1-foot-thick granular
. . .. blanket to provide a stable working platform for
...........
round Improvement equipment.
9
0 For some areas,depending on depth to
groundwater, additional fill may be required to be
................
... . ......
... .... ............
pieced
I cad prior to DDC Improvements. This fill
R
thickness may very from I to 3 feet.
.........
X X► Field testing and monitoring of adjacent X
No standard Is epee-
......... neighborhoods for any effect from the above It Is not certain whether
ified as to what compaction activities required proscribed ground Improvement measures.
..... .........
constitutes an unac- In the lowland could be under-
ceptable disruption taken without creating signi
.................
to the adjacent real ficant impacts to the existing
dential areas nor Is residential neighbors of the
any remedial action
proposed project or to the
suggested if unsc- residential neighborhoods
captable effects from
posed to be constructed atop
the compaction the Mesa prior to the com-
..........
mencement of compaction.
activities occur.
1. Alternatively, Installations of atone columns in X X X
No explanation Is No explanation Is provided those areas where needed stabilization in excess
.. . ..... .....
provided as to what regarding installation of the
of 25 feet bgs is warranted.and within 1100-foot
...... levels of vibration are
zone near existing residential areas to prevent columns nor regarding the
. . ... ..
acceptable
possible damage from vibration.
........ manner In which they work.
. . ...... ....
.. ....WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW..........
-2-
'ter W M = M
mum
......................
X. 777 77777777777. ... ..........
..... .. .... ...... ..
.... ........
........... .. ............ ..........
00 ...
Mid SUA
..........
............
loail
4 'POF.*:SC';:` ::-';Future .1
U., :.."so hl I X
t AMC sah ch IV: adid
IWtideddn OASUNNO
id
Construction of a cutoff wall to reduce any potential X X X X
X:
XX effect from sell:water, freshwater, and Irrigation This item Is required to No criteria are given There Is significant The Installation of the cutoff
water from the seasonal ponds Into the existing mitigate a potentially to determine the doubt that the cutoff wall In an effective manner In
residential neighborhood to an Insignificant level. The significant Impact success or failure of wall will be effective open to doubt and further
Proposed Project provides for a monitoring program this measure nor of to achieve Its stated Information regarding the
for those homes closer then 50 feet to the the level of vibration purpose. manner of Installation and the
Installation of the high density polyethylene(HOPEI or disruption to the intended effect of this wall
cutoff well. This program Includes notification of adjacent residences should be provided.
residents when construction activities will which will be
The program also Includes vibration acceptable. No plan commence.
-rb
. . . .. . ..... :_.. measurements reviewed by the County at distance* to alleviate Impacts
............. . ........
. ..... ....
of 25 and 60 feet from wall Installation to assure that to the residents or
vaments will not be damaged during their homes Is
.......... existing Impro
.............
construction o provided.
f the HOPE cutoff wall.
. .. .. . ..... . ... ... ....
In order to avoid any adverse Impacts to buildings or X X X X
public works structures from saismically Induced This Is expressly The Consultant shall Insufficient The reader has no we of
slope or bluff failure,the Applicant's gootachnical offered to avoid a Identify and evaluate Information Is given knowing the degree of
consultant shall Identify and evaluate all areas prone potentially significant all areas prone to regarding the means mitigation required to address
to such failures on the Boise ChIca Mesa and shall Impact. such failures on the and methods of the acknowledged potential
provide the Information to the County. The County Bolas Chica Mesa reducing this Impact. impact nor any way In which
shell review the consultant study and may utilize the and shall provide the to assess the effectiveness of
Information an part of Its review of final maps for Information to the means which the County may
x
X
.... . .........
. ...................
X those areas covered by the consultant study. County later propose after studies are
completed.
X
..........
...... ....
Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit for grading X X X
on the Boise ChIca Mesa or the Lowland, the Elsewhere,the REIR Since the soils inves- Since the back-
Applicant shall submit a gootachnlcal report to the relies on this SC to tigation has not been ground data are not
Manager. Development Services.for approval. The mitigate potential performed or circula- available It is not
report shall Include the Information and be In a form Impacts from siltation. ted for review.the possible to know
as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, erosion and soil/slopa reader and the what mitigation
Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and failure. County cannot measures will be
Grading Code Section 7-1-819. understand the needed to eliminate
-X X significance of significant impacts
..............
grading impacts from grading
.. .... ............
-3-
.... ........... ....
...........
......... .......".'.".......................- .,
.. ..
............................
% X
. . .. ..
.. ....ason ea0 n Vn:i "utWf OV0
.......... .................
'w.'.
,
n:' eo"p"o' p.a...l.l..v
NOa"lion,Moboutd 6,... DF 0 C to a
. . Opts: r" of IQ ...:...
.:...............
............
....XX................. ......
X.. The Project applicant's grading plan shall provide X X X
............. stabilization of manufactured slopes to the Since the back-
.................. ............. satisfaction of the Manager,Development Services......... ground data are not
..................
...... ....... ........ .......
.................
... .... ....... rw................. . a may Include.but Is not limited to, buttressing of available It Is not
................. .. ....... .. ..................... ................................ ..........
.................:..:::: ::: ::,;: .
..... ............ fills,rock bolting,grouting. slope gradient laVbacks.
..... ........ . .....:.............
................. ...I.................... possible to know
... ........ ........................................
..................
and construction of retaining walls;and for natural
....... ...................... what mitigation
..... . .............I....... -....-......... ................
... slopes.use of drainage control and establishing measures will be
. .. ......... .............................
vagetation. needed to eliminate
............................................
significant Impacts
X
-N,
............ . .
from grading
............................. ..
The Applicant shall Incorporate measures to mitigate X X X
.... ........ .. . ............... expansive soil conditions,compressiblel coils pBible
x.,
......... 11 conditions. and Impacts from trenching as
-XX so
outlined In a site-specific Tentative Tract Map Review
X and Rough Grading Plan Review reports prepared by
-X .. ................
the project gootachnical consultant.
........ . Recommendations shall be based on surface and
..............
subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis.
The gootachnical consultants site-spoollic reports
..............................
shall beepproved by a certified engineering geologist
and a registered civil engineer, and shall be
......................... .............................. ... .......
completed to the satisfaction of the County.
X..
......................
... .........
The Project applicant shall design and construct all
X ......... ..............
structures In accordance with mandated current UBC
requirements.
. ....... ...
.. ... ....
The Proposed Project shall avoid construction of X
....... .......
X X
-Priolo Special Surface rupture and There remain unavoidable
.............. habitable structures within the Alqulst
Studies Zones.
significant Impacts due to
.. .. .. .... . ... ground shaking will
...................................
•
........................ ......
cause damage attracting residents to homes
. ............... ... .............. .. ....... ...... ..... ..... ..
.. ..... ....... ... ... ... ....
..............
beyond the proposed and recreation facilities across
..................... . .. .. ........ ....................................
exclusionary zone. an active fault zone.
-4-
Ems
ago W
... ........ .... ......
.......... ........ ......
X X
D Ou i6d" F......S FutufA Study... .. ........
Mtfd!m,6"::Meas
ure 0.::.
. ..... ..... .................... ..... ................ . . .............
... ................ . ........ ... .............
.. ......... . ... .... .......
..............
.. ........ .....
X
..........
dAburUV::::; .....
Midgot on, .................................
....... ......
.............
11. ...... .......
.... ...........
The Project applicant shall comply with County X X
grading regulations which limit truck traffic for The REIR must @how how this
importing or exporting material to 15 trips per hour. restriction will elongate the
already gargantuan grading
operation of the proposed
Nowhere dose the
project
document tie this restricti
00
with the grading phasing
ti. i . . ..... .
.........Measure... DDC for ground Improvement shall be designed by a X X X
Registered Civil Engineer and Gootachnical The DDC shall be
Consultant so that vibration levels do not damage designed after CEGA
a scant structure or provide unacceptable nuisance review
d
ovals as determined and approved by the County.
Prior to Implementation of the DDC for ground X X X
Improvement, the Applicant's goo technical consultant
shall also prepare and present to the County an
evaluation of an alternative method of compaction
Involving the use of a rolling surcharge and
dowatering of near-surface soils with wall points.
The Information on both the DDC measures and the
alternative rolling surcharge measure shall be
provide d to the County, and the County shall approve
the prefer ad technique prior to Issuance of grading
permits for the Lowland.
Prior to Issuance of a grading permit for construction X X X
of the 9-million-gallon by the City of Huntington The REIR should What happens when the site
............... Beach, or other agency, a geologic Investigation shall have determined the is determined to be
..............
be performed to determine the suitability of the site. suitability of the site unsuitable?
..... so that the
ix determination could
be reviewed
:...:.::.:.:.:.:.:...:....:.:..:.: .:. ...:.:....:.... ...:::: .. ::
D>O<>W;>
.:Not:don
Shwn :..NoNilt
X:Y. . .wn.to.:ba: .aarwml
call
MI
:•:;;:�::.;.:> . ,;•::. .:..: .:.. ;.,+dtll�bd,a+PDF::or:.S�':.> :::Future;:Stud ::::<•:::;:::::»::<:::.:> �•ao..Miel bt :fm sot.::;..: .:.oc:;Taohhlabll
ur .i 21a <;` To prevent discharge should the force
P 0 of sewage
mein from the
new be sheared sews a lift station
0
the follow
ing 0 0 re design measures are recommended:
ab 1 eokflo w s e stalled 1 r venter could b en
stalled
immediate) see e f breakage,t of the potential area o
Y 0 .
P
eta 12 1 the liftlion 1 well)well could be oversized to
t accommode to extra capacity until the broken main
can be repaired,and 3 an automatic breaker
1 1
installed
in the pum
p circuit to shut off the system in
P P Y
the even to sever
e seismic movement
Midpbtia fNaerauh 42.4ti:" Utilities that are expected to cross the fault could )(
Include natural pas for residential use, water,
telephone, electrical
P
ne s e trfoal ower, storm
and etc drains Whenever possible
utility lines should be routed
to
prevent traversing the fault. If utility lines must
traverse the fault, the following measures shall be
?' implemented: the natural pas Iinele)should have
automatic shutoff valves installed which would
actuate
ctu te in the v s ant of severs seismic movement the
water mains sh
ould uld have manual valves located
l 1 I t on
either side of
the fault;telephone and cable services
P
should have junction ,boxes onopposing sid es of the
Ju
fault which o I c u d provide foremergency
r
P
recon a to n ct n during P 0 repairs of underground lines
Sanitary e zone on sewer lines crossing the fault should be
constructed of ductile Iron pipe.
•
-6-
�r M Mae UN Ii r s VW WON W M IM air- NN ON rs M
. :::.:
........ ... ... .. :..:...:...::...... .......: .::Mltf mtlon;M�a�uta::;>:;;:;::;:>::> ::.1 fn r:aleNactaa:on.:;: ..<Mas+run.Nat:Stwnwn..:>::Na :S.hawnanb `. oa::. oalty`
i'p G..................... ...:.. ... ............ .......................... ............ .... . ........................ ........fi.................. mid...fa+e.......................... ...................... ............ ............. .
:.;.,,.. y;. �:..:..s.:.::;:::� . :%::ii: i:.i•:i'::;:;:5 ;?3i i. ;;: ii :.:i;:i<::>:asisi:i :i:::a'i :i<i:::ir;:i:: :is?f.`f'5.: :;`.:..::...:.:.:..::.:::..:..::.;:.:;.>,;::::.;:.:.y., .;;..;..::•:S:a;a::.•;::•;::;;::`<;;:;x;i;:::;;:: ::;:;.:::.:.:::.;:;;.;:;:,.;:.:.:
:>::::: ;;.:..::::, :. a <::: a `isle d
fwN noon:Meatw..s:No..:........ ...................................................................:..,.......................................CA Ieed.er. .OF..at. .. turs.f3tud ;.te Mt. A.p............s......:. ......,...4........b.. .......+1.4...:::.:
)b 13:8 t NA NC xAli d1U U A . Eff
ofl. <1Dii�1`r l itlurfti::: ;:<::;::<.:»<:>::;::;:.<:>:>>::>:><>;<:::::::<::>:>:>:::::::>><.:::<.<.. .;.;;»;< «< :::::.:: :;r ::>::;:<>.:... ......::>:.;;;::::::;:;;:;,::>.::: ;:;:>;::•:::::..
A Remedial Action o en RA will 111 be developed by X X X x
Is Even w R t ere s n fficient
e Icontaminationthat lth the AP he There I I eu'. the applicant for cleanup of
Pp P
Impacts e Information
u to s ate on project baseline found exist on the site. The RAP may b t
Y P P J
res
idents siden a the REIR
e proposed a is and existing disclosed ed In'. developed ed In sees related to the r os h tin is e phases 0 P P P P
full
residents in the s d rmf s the of theproject. The AP a on the results ree to determine
e t. T R will be based PI
•
from the ongoing of the act.
of existingenvironmental testing at the site andof extent th t
0 0 P 0
future environmental testing to beco
nducted as oil existen
ce of oil
production
e ietion ction end other
are hexed out. The need for r mad he operations t.
P P
hazard e I conditions determined based hazardous materials of existing o edit on will be de rmin e
�> o t s t
Y 0
;`. on a Health Risk Assessment
ffor the areas proposed oeed should be consider
ed
for residential development)or an Ecological Risk significant---Further,
s the RAP will have f the areas proposed for wetlands h e
Assessment
or a s ed r
1 P P
restoration).
. Remedial action will be completed for Impacts Itself, noneo f
e which considered
o in ich are oons ere or
each phasingarea prior to buildinghomes th
1
disclosed i e sad in REIR
sae f e areas f proposed residential c o those are o
p P
i e
o i Influence nth Introduction o tidal development) or i f
csee f those
oee areas of proposed full tidal or mut
ed
d flu ti
dal al Influence).
1
•
.7.
: ..•.;
POF C ...........
/S. ....... ... Yaxt.: ...::.. . .::: '::>: .Measur I :>
:. ::. . :.....::...:.::::... ..:..:.::::.: :::::::... o ....::.:::::.:,.. n :.::.:,. ...mproper HaIlenGa ov : ::Mneeure fVot.:Sbown Nat:Stwwn;tn,be foonomloelt
etlon::Messt,re.Mlti No.... .. . ..:.:......... :..::..::::...: ..:;
Ois lead es:PDF fo Mitl bt
d. ..-..:. .. :... W►. . .. Y:.:.... .. 0 q.lnipaot or Teohh(oelly Fea lble
A Gredin Miti etion Pan will be develo ed b th s
0 0 P Y X X
applicant for each area prior to Initiation of grading e Th R I E R should N curve e Pp 0 o means r P 0 o metho
d is
Y
activities. G will Include
t villas. The Grading Mitigation Plan i ud have
e been prepared Identified
0 0 in the REIR to locate P P
theloca s o e abandoned Uon fall soUvs Inactive, end oil after
�t i the completion
P
let on e!I abandoned oil facilities
wells and pipelines within the area along with of a full survey some of P 0 om which me e P b as
Y
Y
measures o be a facilities from t b taken to protect these fa iti s m disclosing he t
P much as 75 ears old. It Is
0 Y
disturbance urin development
d grading and site devei m nt location of the
0 not possible to say e 0 0 P whether
P Y
act(v1Ues. Active oil facilities will be protected b abandoned wells and the grading le P Y n n to be
0 0 P
r fences and o appropriate e s Burin r in! b rm grading end e oth roil roducin
developed in the future 0 0 o u wo P 0
P
site development activities;inactive or abandoned facilities -Without
th ut P be suffice to sufficient address
th
( alines will be removed prior o grading s i
P
t n and site that Information the
P P 0 9 potential Impacts of s massive
P P
development
nt eativitise end abandoned oil wells will
reader assess e earth moving P
vin operation In s
be re-abandoned at greater depths If they are likely to the impacts or the former(and still partially
encountered
be n untered or disturbed during
u u In grading or site
>< >�<?'>>>>< ><<»<>. effectiveness of the
0 0 0 active)oil field.
development
msnt activities.
The Grading Miti
a ton Plan
proposed
d mitigation
will Include the location of any known soil
contamination within the area. If contaminated
n d soil
will be disturbed Burin the grading or site
0, 0 0
development activities the Grading Plan
P
r
0
e e ' ft will Include a plan for r m diation o he
contaminated soil. The Grading Mitigation ation Plan will
also provide details of the steps to be taken If
unex acted conditions are encountered du
ring
rin
P 0
grading or site development, such as additional
9 0 P
pipelines. abandoned wells t or soil contamination.n.
sP F=.1><>< ;z ';;;'# >;> The WRP Includes a plan for the installation of berms X
P i
IY- et and dikes around the tidal influenced Brea o
protect them from possible oil spills resulting from
ongoing of production activities.
PID d
0
I t
P
i
Homes will be set back at least 100 feet from
X
e o orating i el and 0 feet from abandoned
oil wells 1 ned wells
What basis
t ae�s doe e
P s th
County have for
choosingthese
h se
setba
cks?
T The REIR
provides
idea no answ
er.
-8-
X:: . ..... ..... ---
Pn. � .... tA>n
: :;;.:Mitigatint Meatlure::::::>:::::::<:>: ::.Im ►.o.sr Hallenad on::.;: ::::Mesaln..Nat,Sbown... :.:Nut
:::::::.:: :.::::.::.. p
p. :.>::::::.;:.:.:;:>:..::.
:.:...:.:.:.:.......:.:...:....::..::............ .... :..:.:..::::. .:
i :.::...::. .:::•. :•::.... ..:.:.:.,;
r;.;a;�o;r:::. x:•,::::;: •;::
M.ttdatioK. saeute No.::.;. :: .:.::.:.::::..::::::: ::>:: : >:> ;:<: . .:. ..:.:.:.::.. :.Ole ulesrl.e .
.............. .:....:. :..... p e PDFor SC Futute:$turfy.;:::.•>::; :>;:.;::: :::to Mitigbts.Impeet:;:'„.:: ':or Taolittioblly'FbeeibleQ. o
Y
:«::<::::: ::.;:.::.:::.;:..:.:•;:::::.::>.:;:;.
ndl one :. .....;:::::.:........ ;.;::;;....:.:: >; .;:;.:::;
All oil wells will be abandoned In accordance with
X.
state and loc
al
regulations.
iliud ettori°Meeeu :: ;,;;::> . ... :......::..:...:.:.
d .. ..n: rbd....: :: r. .: ..... ..........
MMlp�tiWt MeaMufA 4 3 1. Prior to grading In residential areas,all abandoned oil X X X
we
lls shall be rel
ocated and tested for release of
e O eule- No in As noted above an The CD G 0
r Information provided f etion is dad
P
vi
0
e sae. Wells shal
l I be reebendoned as necessaryin
accurate curets surve Is lions regarding
n how this process
t
Y 0 0 P
ac cordance w ith current C OG regulations. re wired to ascertain ain concern saf
ety- would reduce Impacts from
th
e P P
potential scope noxious odors which gas leaks
which are
of the problem and impact the adjacent discovered
the effectiveness residential f use o r will
mitigation. The REIR likely also be
P
rovides no such encou ere nt d and
and
Information
t e may b t a not abated.d.
del•Y Y he survey
a t s ry to
the future.
Mltig�tidn;Mtaasut 4 9 2 Department of Real Estate disclosure shall be X
provided o future
t fur landowner o s concerning he
[:
t
DRE disclosure a 0 s re
location
of any abandoned wells or other
Vonly given on the _.
appurtenances.
first sale of the unit-
renters and
purchasers from
persons other
than
he t developer
r will
not receive
these
disclosures
Ill"eii""':lMeur `'4`9e3's> The pressurized es line shall be relocated M.::.:o;: . .:.......:...... P 9 t •o that it X
Is a minimum
mum of fee
t ewe from habitable le
The new routing for
structures.
the line dose not
appearRE in the RE
IR
Mitipetion Meeeurr' 9 :;;;•: The pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that It X
does not cross e th New o - le rt In wood Fault zone t in The new routing
P 0 T for
9
a residential
aid ntlel planning area an
d nd automatic shut-off ins dose n P 9 the I of
valves shall be Installed which
h h activate
t In the eve
nt
appear in the REIR
of severe seismic movement
iX
.
-9-
....................... ............
.........
.. ................ X.
........... ....... .... ......... ......... .......
..........
n
......4!�!MOQONO WOO r .. ....
......... ........ ... ... . ......
. . . ............. .. .. ............. .... ......
.. ........ ..
. .I . .. ... .... ............ .... . ......
xx-
41
..... ... . . .
..........
.......... ..... .. ............
.......... ....... .......... ....... . .......... ...
------ -----
...................... ..... ........
D% 0 1I...A .9. R QN11WATM 1.4YORO.ViD. Y.
. ..........
Pt-
.............
..............
x x All grading activities In the lowlands(below elevation
.............
The phasing of the SARP is
a 5.0 MSL)for both re idential development and for
welland restoration will take place after completion not disclosed in the REIR
...... of the MaInstarn Santa An&River Project phases I Further,there Is no
through 6.These Improvements are designed to contingency stated regarding
............. remove the project area from the Santa Ana River what happens fits ARP Is
..... floodplain. These improvements are currently discontinued or delayed?
a completed 998.
......... I n
Compare Mitigation Measure
............
scheduled to b leed I
4.4-8
........... ........
All storm water pump stations will be constructed to x x x
Include redundancy In power sources Ii.e.,they will
. . ... ......
have an alternative power source such as natural
gas,direct fuel, etc.) and pump capacity.
x x x The Proposed Project Includes a monitoring and
maintenance program for the removal of sediments REIR gives no
carried by the EGGW Channel Into the full tidal area. Information on the
frequency of
dredging nor the
method and location
of disposition of
contaminated spoils-
Dredging and
dumping operation
will have its own
. .........
secondary Impact
which may be
significant.
he Proposed Project Includes a monitoring program T x
P ........
which Includes berm to elevation surveys. If greater
...............
..... than anticipated settlement occurs,fill will be placed
t return the berm to its planned elevation.
o
-lo-
aw Im
......... .......
................
.. ........... . ... ...
...............
eels PDFet
X.-X:. ...... I ............
. . . ... ....
fWd tioell
te. it) to
. . .. .... . ..... ........ ...
x With Implementation of Lowland Option B, the x
Proposed Project Includes construction of a What contamination
subsurface auto"wall and periodic monitoring of levels are
wells In the area will be provided under both Options acceptable?
.. ..............
...............
A and B of the Lowland Component to determine
m I pacts to near surface ground water. If any.
.... ..............
The Proposed Project Includes a watland restoration
program •which Includes the relocation and
Improvement of the tide gates at the mouth of the
EGGW Flood Control Channel to prevent upstream
propagation of the lowland tidal Influence In
accordance with OCFCD criteria and standards.
..... ........
.... ........
NMI
.. ... ......
..........
. .........
X'X
..........
All grading and construction activities associated x
with project Implementation will adhere to the
relevant conditions established by the Orange County
K Grading and Excavation Code.
SO
tot
Prior to Issuance of a grading permit for RPAs ID, 4A, x x
SA, and SC,the Applicant's gootoohnical consultant
shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the
potential occurrence of natural near-surface
groundwater and artificially Induced groundwater to
determine the potential of shallow groundwater
recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands
restoration. Studies shall Include,but shall not be
limited to, subdrains,Impermeable soil caps on finish
grade.subsurface barriers such as cutoff walls or
Interceptor d rains, or French Drains with dowatering
walls. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by
. .. . . ....
....... the County and Implemented by the Applicant.
ov:X .............. ... r-
................
d.
... ............ . ........ ...
..... .... .. ... ..... . . ... . . ... ... ....
.. ............. ..... ecru . .... ..N�c *W off
.......... ......
..........
i�* 64:ist
.........0.0.ROM....
ti .......X: . ....... *W�'dirPMR, Oote:.. padt'..*i;
a M ..........
IN .. ....
. ..... ... .. ....
A40"A'' ..... ...
or
ffilids blk.
U..V 0`44o To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal X X X
Inundation, the Applicant's gootachnical consultant
shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the
X.:
Impact of saltwater intrusion into the upper
...........
Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provide
............
recommendstions to prevent this If either a full tidal
..........
............
or muted tidal area Is constructed In the Role@
Pocket. The report shall Include, not be limited to,
Impermeable soll caps and subsurface barriers. The
report and design recommendations shall be reviewed
•
by the County and this mitigation shall be
. . ... implemented through the WRP.
Nffon ...ur'*A;4. -!3.a,:`...:-- To prevent adverse hydrological Impacts In the X X
Edwards Thumb area,the Applicant's gaotechnioal
consultant.prior to we lands restoration,ishall
evaluate transmissivity and other hydrogeologic
characteristics In the Edwards Thumb area and the
Lowland near the existing residential neighborhood In
.......... order to evaluate the Impacts of Irrigation and
. .........
Impounded water on groundwater levels In the
..........
existing residential neighborhood. Such an
Investigation would, at a minimum,be expected to
require the Installation of monitoring wells and the
performance of pump test for data collection. This
detailed study shall Include but not be limited to the
7 a
following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff
Wall.subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through
this process,It Is Important that a definitive
geotechnical design be approved by the County
which would assure that no significant adverse •
impacts would result from changes in groundwater
level. The specific mitigation will be approved by the
X County implemented by the Applicant.
The Applicant's civil engineer shall provide a design X
end construction schedule to reroute the Bolas Chica
..... pump station discharge water without disruption.
The County shall and approve this design prior to
.....................
..........
Issuance of grading,permits for Planning Areas 10
......... .......
Xor
and 11.
-12-
MMONIMMM MAN man
. .........
. ......... .....
.. ........
.. ......
T 0
to�Mit Oat M
�OU '60: D :aK :' ... ... I .:.: :Or:UtUtd.,_ W 6A . . Bo
hn........N. ...... .... . .... 'id", P K 66, 0-,--S dot
Mid ti
ad. Oft 6adurd nod
..............
Mitigetla
...... ......... ...at.m:.4,. Prior to Issuance of a grading permit for RPA9 ID, 4A, x x
SA.and SC,the Applicant's geotachnioall consultant
shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the
potential occurrence of natural near-surface
groundwater and artificially Induced groundwater to
..... determine the potential of shallow groundwater
recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands
................
restoration. Studies shall Include,but shall not be
.... limited to. subdrains,Impermeable soil caps on finish
grade, subsurface barriers as cutoff walls or
.. ..... ...
. .. . .. . .... ....
•
....
Interceptor drains.or French Drains with dawatering
... ....
. ... .... ... ....
.. . ........ . ...... . ....... walls. The preferred mltlgation shall be approved by
the County and Implemented by the Applicant.
..... ...........
Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit for the x x
Regional Park,the Park developer shall Incorporate
design measures.In a manner meeting the approval
of the County, that prevent additional runoff caused
... .... ....
by now Park development from further erosion to the
.............. .....................
. .......................
Huntington bluff and Impacting the seasonal ponds In
the x1e.,.........'',...... h Lowland.
MI ..... .......
a Same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-4-
-13-
pOFlSC.: next Mlt) Atln. r
o n Maasu A Improper tteUanae on Mnasur Not Shown. :Not Shown ro be�oanoml
Mitldetlon.,Mant! a No
..
OiefWlesd es PDF°.or:SC :Futuro`Sfudj� :.'» ao Mitigate impact er'Teohnioelly;Fsea(ble Ally
NMdpetion MAAhurp 4 4f! < Santa Ana River Floodolain X
If the Santa Ana River floodplain within the project Future environmental
limi is is not removed b the joint Orange
': Y 1 g assessment of these
County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River Issues will be
Project(SARP)at the time of grading for proposed required in a
buildings,structures,and residential developments subsequent REIR
within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, under any and all
appropriate additional mitigation measures,including circumstances
the filing of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be •
required for each building, residence,or structure
within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, which
demonstrates that the as-built lowest floor is at least
Y
1 foot above the 100 ear flood elevation. This shell
be accomplished prior to receiving Use and
Occupancy Certification, in a manner meeting the
approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction. To the
extent required by CEQA,these mitigation measures
Will be developed through a supplemental and
focused environmental review under CEQA.
•
-14-
X, ......i : . ... . OXI N
.t!
i .................
�M00* 01 .-..-
o:
t:S '
64b:
4................... ............l900 U SO&At F- a "m D6vVS u joMlt DO !mPd btTa hIYFia:
ill. w-:-::'
...........
6 t i6`it" M6, Additionally, as appropriate,mitigation against X
X.:
;liri flooding of any proposed buildings,structures.and
...................
residential development from any known residual
.........................
...................a
flood plain (i.e., other than the Santa Ana River)shall
be provided In a manner meeting the approval of the
...... appropriate local jurisdiction before grading permits
are issued for the proposed buildings, structures,and
residences within the delineated residual floodplain.
... . ..................
.............
Furthermore,If these residual floodplaine are shown
.............
on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps IFIRM) when •
the Santa Ana River floodplain map Is revised as a
consequence of SARP.then a certified elevation
certificate which demonstrates that the as-built
............ % -V r
......... lowest,floor Is at least I foot above the 100 as
flood elevation of the FIRM in affect shall be
submitted or a Letter of Map Revision ILOMR)from
FEMA for revising the FIRM shall be obtained, then
...... .....
the LOMR shall be processed through FEMA In a
manner meeting the approval of the appropriate local
.........................
jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy
Certifications for these buildings,structures,and
-X: ........X-X
residences. To the extent required by CEGA, these
. ..... ..........
...... mitigation measures will be developed through a
.X . ... SUP
plemental and focused environmental review.
..........
Before grading permits are Issued for Lowland parcels X X X
which are adjacent to or are Impacted by the existing
EGGW Channel, the Applicant shall design and
construct the EGGW Channel within the Project Area
(upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge)In
:::!.............
acco •
rdance with OCFCID criteria and standards. The
•.......... EGGW Channel shall be capable of conveying the
-year, 50 percent
discharge resulting from a 100
confidence level storm over the EGGW Channel's
........... fully developed tributary watershed as stated In
..............
Orange County EMA's COSMOS Project Report.
....... .......
PpF. ;......... .....:.:.. :. :. . ;•:;;::.::;:;::.::,.:. ::Mttlpatlon;Mea�ure.;.:....: imP►oper Rnll�WN nn MAbain Nat Shawn NaR S.Aown to be COMO tnatl
.:...::. :.:.::...:..:. ..:....::. . ..:.: :. .:.:.....: :..::::. .::..:.:.
>:IWtttlp ....M.sA..re N ...... :::�:::>:...::.::.:.:::;.;.::.:::>.:<��;::>>: :<. ..tlu ........ .DFar:.St3;:•: :::Ftlture>SIUd :«•;;;;>;:.::•;:.;:.;;•;: o:Mltl"bts.lm eo . .: ::;.ar. eolilNodl>:,Fed Ible
::::.::.::..: : :.;;:::.: :::.;.::.;::..;..;:;;.;:;
:... :::........ . ..:.: ....... ... ......... ..:..
WA'lift QUAIIT�I< :;;:;::::..;;.;:.;:::.;.:::...:..::::.::::::.:•:.::::.:.::::.:. ::.::.::...:.:::.::::.:::::;.;.;
:::.:,,.:::..:..::::.::.:
oNM bi►�Idn:fait we :.::.: <:;> ::..:pqs
:.;
Of A RAP will b developed for cleanup of s Bevel
cP P
contaminationo s that is found to exist on the site. See PDF•t under
RAP maV be developed inph
ases related to the Hazardous
Subs
tances.
ce s.
s theproject.
phases of The RAP will be
proposed p
base
d on the results of existing
s Its eti0 n environmental testing
at the site end futursen env
ironmental testing be
•
conducted as oil operations
are phased out. The
need for remediation of any existing conditions will
be determined based on a Health Risk Assessment
for the areasproposed for reside tf
1 residential development)
1
P
or an Ecological Risk Assessment(for the erase
proposed for wetlands restoration). Remedial action
will be completed for each phasing area prior to
building fin in the case of those areas of
proposedresidentialdevelopment)
e nt1 or Introduction of
a tid 1 influence 1 proposed
of sae in the ease of those areas ro e d
P p
full tidal or muted tidal Influence).
1
•
-18-
■r �r arr rs air rr rs- + m ter = oft r r
WM moo
...........
.... ........
Y,
;0W.18 js M UFO'.
:
:S 0406611 Fbasibhi
............. .......
Mitt Ito0.8duteJ.6'.
A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed for each X
-2 under planning area prior to Initiation of grading activities. Sea PDF
The Grading Mitigation Plan will Include the locations Hazardous Substances.
of all active,Inactive, and abandoned oil wells and
pipelines within the area. along with measures to be
taken to protect these facilities from disturbance
during grading and site development activities.
Active oil facilities should be protected by fences
and/or appropriate berms during grading and site
development activities,Inactive or abandoned
pipelines should be removed prior to grading and site
development activities;and abandoned oil walls
should be ra-abandoned at greater depths It they are
likely to be encountered or disturbed during grading
or site development activities. The Grading
...... Mitigation Plan will Include the location of any known
...........
soil contamination within the area. If contaminated
soil will be disturbed during the grading or site
......... development activities, the Grading Mitigation Plan
will Include a plan for re la of the
c
ontaminated soil. The Grading Mitigation Plan will
also provide details of the steps to be taken It
unexpected conditions are encountered during
grading or site development, such as additional
pipelines,abandoned wells,or soil contamination.
X X
The WRP Includes a plan for the Installation of berms X
and dikes around the tidally-Influencad areas to See PDF-3 under
protect the from possible it spills resulting from Hazardous Substances.
... ..... ....
ongoing oil production activities.
.. . .......... . . ..
The WRP Includes a program of maintenance X X X
dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to
remove sediment, resulting from urban runoff, that
may contain unacceptable concentrations of
pollutants.
The WRP includes the use of turbidity barriers.silt X X X
curtains or an equivalent measure to contain turbidity
In localized areas during dredging activities.
..........
-17-
i::i3i: .•i:'<; i:'.`fiiiiii::i:::::;i:::r;< .;..::.
Ill atl. n a r ::
......::..:::.:.::.::::... ........ .......,.:. ..M... ..o..:.M�,.�u,A.::...:..::. .1 ro er.:HallAnaa:onc: :Maaatn. ..
:..;.:.<>:::>;:;:;,::.................. ...... ... Q mp:. :,::.:.... .. ........... .. N... hgwri :. :Not.Shuwn,fn booarwnNoalf :.
U e
:Ole eed:eb:PDF.or.SQ:><:: ::::
.. .. . ... .::.::.:.... ........... ... :. . ,y..:.�:.::::.:: .:te;Mltibt+te.mpeot :or.
Di-
.....•r. ? EE:»>: ??i:;is p::'iii:ia;is E:;P;::;iri?`:?::isi:::;:`ii;i:??:>':::iii+;::io:'•ii:isE#i:;^i.:::i P:;i:P i::3::2:%i:;:;6;:? ;::•;;;:<...;::.::..:>::<.:::.;
A►Ktl Or1 :.:....................
e<' C ?
The Pro> ' A i e............:: jct ppl o nt shell obtain a Stets General X X X
Construction Activity Stormws er r t Pe mtt from
N The standard
RWQCB bef
ore gr
ading begins.
s. As art of this
0 n0 0l P procedures may not
permit,the Applicant will prepare a Stormwater be sufficient to
Pollution Prevention
r vention Plan
1 SWP1
PP which establishes
prevent
t significant t
e 8 st Management
t Practices
( 1 proper BMPe for ro
Impacts h P P cts tot e
P
storage.handling,use and dis
posal ossl f fuels e
e .
o and
P sensitive receptors'
P
t to
other toxic materials as •well as es
tablishing fuel end I
0 the Immediate d ate
en meant anos rase e awe from drainage ways.
vicinit
y
Y
Ths Project applicant shall submit a Water Quality X X X X
e e Mane m nt Plan WQMP to the( Count of Orange
0 1
Y e
for approval prior to Issuance of building per
mits.
The WQMP may
Inc tr
ash Include the use of eh racks and
0
rease an
d P Q oil separators o►equivalent
ant mea
sures a to
Q
improve the quality of urba
n runo
ff, and other BMPs
P
o Improve e t r the quality o
P 9 Y
f runoff from the residential
development.
Th X X Xe oilo erefor s S III Preventlon,C ,
and Contingency Plan SPCC P must bereviewed( and
0 Y 1
revised whenever
h never the operations
ns undergo a
P 0
significant change or as necessary
ae r to rave it ill
0 0
prevent o spills
Y P P
from occurring p and Impacting newly
-constructed
newl - n co atructed
wetlands areas
r prior to each phase of grading
activities.
The Project applicant shall prepare a workplan for X X
well installation and operation which includes well
co
n etruction details and schedules Th
e
e
pumping
work lan will be submitted to the RW C Q Bend the
fo OCWD r approval prior to installation of the well.
I addition,
n ton a well per
mit will be obtained from
P
OCHCA.
-18-
. . ............
..................... ...... ..:.
................
.. ........
40441116 M ::VOA .0.010.0 V.
........... ...... J..
tau
a hit aa 11 fbdd ble Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or X X
......... prior to the Issuance of any grading permits,
...... ......... .
....................
.. .........
whichever comes first,the following drainage studies
shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager,
Development Services:
► A drainage study of the subdivision,Including
diversions, off-sita areas that drain onto and/or
through the subdivision,and justification of any
............
diversions;and
► When applicable, a drainage study evidencing
............................ that proposed drainage patterns will not overload
existing storm drains;and
..I .. ......
►
Detailed drainage studies Indicating how the tract
map grading.In conjunction with the drainage
....... ....
conveyance systems,Including applicable
swalas.channels,street flows,catch basins,
storm drains, and flood water retarding, will
x a How building pads to be safe from Inundation
from rainfall runoff which may be expected from
X
...... all storms to up and including the theoretical
00
X-
I -V ear flood.
:YX
......
.. .. ... ...
Information contained on the requisite erosion control
..................
p
Ian shall include but not be limited to:
a
.........X.. I. The name and 24-hour telephone number of the
person responsible for performing emergency
.. ..... erosion control work.
1. The signature of the civil engineer or other
.. .................... .
ualified individual who prepared the grading plan
%: xx q
and who Is responsible for inspection and
X
..............
....... monitoring of the erosion control work.
.................
I. All desilting and erosion protection facilities
seary to protect adjacent property from nece
X.
sediment deposition.
-19-
........................ ....... .... ........... .......... ....... ..............
.......... ........ ..................... ...........
..................... ......
S ho"' 01 a6h mi, all
M
........................
.... ............. ..:.. .. .. ....
... ..... .... ...
P�F
............ eot or
... ..... ............
..........
it 1. .. ::::: ::: :. Ju
MtI6 ... ........ .. i ad"a" PDO .064: a i
a on: bdturt SOut .:::6fSC:._. ur......... ..01 J..gG
.. ........ .......................... .........
...... The streste and drainage devices that will be
completed and paved by October 15.
.. ...........
P, The placement of sandbags or gravelbage, slope
............ ...
... ........
planting or other measures to control erosion
.. .........
............. ....... from all slope@ above and adjacent to road@ open
.......... ......
.................... to the public. Use of gravelbage are encouraged
...........
overeandbage.
............ .....
............. ........................ The plan shall Indicate how access will be
...........
provided to maintain dasliting facilities during
wet weather.
............ .... .... . . ...... ......
........... .. ........ .... . ....
.... ........ ... ........
.. ............ ..........
....................
... . ...... ...........................
....... .... .........Mitigation mea&ureq:::::::
.... ..... .... ......
No
....................... .... . .............. . ... . ..
....... .......
............
.166 1.. ........... ..............
.... .......
.......... .... ............p... ...... . ...............
sial6d1orthle',lin apt ... .. .... .............
..........
............
.... ..........
..................... ....... ... ..... .............
..................... ................ ............. ........ .
.... .......
i a
.................... .............
X-X
.......... ....... ....... ....
.............
. . Outer Boise Bay will be widened under the Warner x
................................
This PDF will Avenue Bridge and Immediately to the east to reduce
..........
flow velocities. produce Its own
potentially adverse
impacts
............. ... ........... ..... ......
X...........
T Warner Avenue Bridge will be lengthened to x
he
it as
reduce flow v oc I This PDF will
.....................
produce its own
potentially adverse
impacts
•
.................... .........
................. ...
....P The channel under Anaheim Bay Bridge will be x
X X reinforced with rip-rap as needed to prevent scouring. This PDF will
............................
produce Its own
potentially adverse
impacts
-20-
.........•......
...........
ft a ur . ..............
9 ...Q K a i
Shots protection Ii.e., rip-rap) will be Installed along X
both banks at Outer Soles Bay to prevent scouring This PDF will
0
from Increased tidal flows.
....... produce Its own
potentially adverse
Impact
s
A current training structure will be constructed in
Huntington Harbor Immediately west of Warner
. ..........
Avenue Bridge to direct flows away from adjacent
docks.
•
.......... ........
ends Col d
........ ...
. ...............
C a":S ... ... I.... ..Add _x;
ate)' r f I U t6d,16:1 rest, 6 a..,4;0JM a' dq
OA .. .... ......
............
C ST�1kk.':HYDRAUL1C*:;::::::
The applicant shall Implement a monitoring program X X X
to assess the existing baseline bothymettio condition
throughout Huntington Harbor and to record any
changes to that condition as the result of project
Implementation. If the program reveals in
channel bed scouring caused by the Proposed Project
............
which worsens the existing scour at the footings of
bulkheads In Huntington Harbor, the applicant shall
..........
........... ....I. .....
contribute funds on a pro rate basis for remedial
........... ......
action required to mitigate the Incremental scouring.
The monitoring program shall Include the following
.............
Items:
-21-
---------- ...........
...........
.... .... .. .. ......... .......
...........
Opel
ax
. .. ...... ............. ....Nat Shown.....
::S
oa.IV .sea b
60U*ad.: 0 DFJ r P.
toWitightes:M do
N �.Uturq,
Pre-Construction Monitorina
Ufa...; 01::: 1 Establish baseline bathyrnatry, sediment X X X
. ............
. . ..........
Continued properties,tidal elevations,and current velocities
........ .....
throughout Huntington Harbor through two
complete surveys. The first survey shall occur a
minimum of 3 to 4 years prior to tidal Inundation
............ of RPA IC of the WRP and the second survey
...... ...........
......... shall occur I weak prior to construction of tidal-
Inundated areas. The•surveys shall Include
.......... measurements of bathymetry along all bulkhead
... . . . . .. ....
footings and sediment sampling and testing for
... .. ........... . .. .... .. ..
areas with observed occur. Tidal gages and
.... .. ... .. . .. .... ...
current meters•shall record tidal elevations and
... .. . . ....... . '"'*.
............... .... .......... ... . ...... ... .. .....
..... ................ ....
currant velocities at a maximum of four
. .............. .........
representative locations In the Harbor during the
. ... . .. ... . .......
.. .. . . ........
bothymetry survey.
.. . ........ .. .. ...
..... .... 2. Annual monitoring of bothymetry Immediately X X X
after high flow events such as spring tides and/or
................ storm flows (determination of survey dates to be
..........
... .. .......
t the discretion of a registered engineer
.............
:pacializing In hydraulic processes)at scour areas
....... .. .
identified In the first complete survey. Annual
... ...... ... .
................. . .........
surveys shall begin a minimum of 3 to 4 years
.. .... . .. ... ...
. . .. ...... . . .........
prior to tidal Inundation of RPA 16 of the WRP
. . ....... . . . .. . ... ...
.. . ........ ... . .. .
and continue until RPA IS Is complete.
..........
3. One tide gage and one current motor shall X X
X
continuously monitor tidal elevations and our rent
velocities at one location from a minimum of 3 to
4 years prior to tidal inundation of RPA 18 of the
WRIP until construction of RPA I B Is complete.
.22-
..........
............ ...................
...........
. .... ....
............... ...................
..........
.i,k.A.
tMillgatelmipad
belly
a'S d ............ t
........ t orl -1ptut : N. .........
on:
..MOASUrd No. ...
P -Construction Monitor
at
...... ............................
Post-construction monitoring shall apply to X X X
. ................. ...
Implementation of Phases I and 3 which are full and
muted
u ad areas. Phasing areas 2. 4, 5,and 6 are either
..................
..............
non-tidal or possess relatively small tidal prisms and
............
...... .........
will not significantly affect scouring In Huntington
Harbor.
Ask&
1. One bathymetrio and tidal survey shall be X X X
completed within one week following
construction and flooding,of now tidal areas.
.... ....... ......
The survey shall Include measurements of
bathymetry. tidal elevations and current
velocities In scour areas Identified from earlier
. ............
complete surveys.
..........
..... ........
2. Monthly bethymetric and tidal monitoring during X X X
. . ...............................
...........::
.......... he first quarter after completion of tidal
t
...............
. ..... ...
. .......... . . ............
... ..........
. ........ restoration areas RPAe 18-1 D, 3A and 31).
.. ..........
..........
3. Annual bathymetric and tidal monitoring for five X X X
years after completion of Phases I and 3. Each
survey shall occur Immediately after a spring
tide, or a storm with a recurrence Interval of
greater than or equal to I year. Monitoring may
be reduced to a biannual basis I year after
completion of RPA9 1113-111), 3A, and 31),If
....... ... ANRL
Increased scouring Is not recorded.
. . .......................
4. It the results of post-construction monitoring X X X
Indicate exacerbation of the existing scouring
condition in the Harbor, a complat6 survey of
Huntington Harbor shall be completed 5 years
after construction of Phase 3 is complete. A
complete survey shall not be required if records
Indicate that Increased scouring has not
...... .. occurred.
.. ... ........
.23-
TAXI <::;:...::,;<::::. ::Mill atlott:Measura<: I s`.Pq�/S : .. ... ... :..:...: .::. .... .: . :.:o. .:...::.:.: ::::::. :..mprop..l:fletlenau nn... ;Musatn:Nat 5bown :Not 0,401,Cf:.okrtiimloall
: :,. :. ...:.:..:.:..::.:.:.:..::...::::.:::.:::.:.:.::::.::..:.::::... :......: ..:....:.:. :......... .:..::.;:::.::;::. ..:: :
tt attonMaasu a .. • .,• ..:....
f No..... :<;:..:r:::::::;:.;:.;:::»::;,;:>:::;: :01 Wiad::aa;P F.ot SC:::: :; ::::>:;:;:;>:;
:MI d. 4� P..,. .:.. Futura;.S.tudy...::::: ao Mu lost a..lpeot or Ta6hnloallY;fsae(bie.;
S. One
tide 9 gage r motor shall B and one curent X X X
continuously monitor tidal elevations and curren
t t
velocities m the beginning o o hies et one location from in f
g g
construction of the WRP until years after
concomplete.construction f bass 3D is ono P
MARIN JAWATIC 0 OLOOY.... .'
p►olrotbe'ilan Featufat. <::::::::::;;<r:;:::>;;::;:.::::.;;:.
:.:...:•.:::•::..::.::..:::
A RAP will be developed for cleanup of X
a contamination that is found to exist on the site. The See PDF-1 under
..........................................
RAP may be developed in phases related to the Hazardous Materials.
proposed phases of the project. The RAP will be
based on the results of existing environmental testing
at he t site and future environmental testing to be
conducted as oil operations are phased out. 'no need
for remedietion of any existing conditions will be
determined based on a Health Risk Assessment(for
I
areas proposed for residential development) or an
Ecological Risk Assessment(tor the areas proposed
...........................................................
for wetlands restoration). Remedial actions will be
completed for each basin area riot to building
p g.P P g
o e h m s 1 in the case of those erase of proposed
residential development) or Introduction of tidal
Influence fin the case of those areas of proposed full
id e t al or muted tidal Influence).
•
-24-
.................:....
PCF7SC Te►zt :<.: M.Itigatlon:;Measure::......:. :.:Impfo er.;RAHenaa on Mnetuifa Not Shown ;> Na1i.5.ha�wn to........ of nominbll
:. : a :
:Dis0uleAd..4 P.1).F.;or SC FuturtiSf�dy to Mitlpptb lmpeol OF::. eohfilosllyFedelt►le'
WRP con
tains ntelns
lmw
s Co ri end
::.<:.::::.::::•:::•:::::.. Conservation Monitoring
i Me ntenencs Plen o separate s•
consisting o e e s e Ian tin f three s e
0 P P
Construction Moni
toring torl Post Five
n e Melntenenoe
0
and
Year
Yea Monito
ring and Maintenance;end a on Term
ng to Long
nl o Mo t rin Plan. The Conservation Monitoring and
onservet n Moni ri
0
t
0
Maintenance Plans will ensure protection of the
habitats during construction,monitor each phase for
ear o 5 s et construction Y P
n ction and correct any
ii'> def c enole s s In the habitat, final) monitor
and mo t r the
Y
0 rest red habitats for the ion teen.
0
ard
roe Applicant
' Ths of shall obtain e State General X
Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from See SC-1 under Water
be Quality.CaliforniaRWQCB fore grading begins. As art of
0 0 0 P
this permit, the Appli
cant will prepare s S PPP
which est
ablishes BMPs for
proper storage.handling,
end disposal e useof fuels and other toxin materials,
as wall as establishing fuel and areas
away from drainage
e ways.
•
The PP
Project Pro1 applicant shall submit a WOMP to the X
County of Orange for approvalpr
ior to Issuance of See SC-2 under Water
building permits. The WQMPmeY include the use of Quality.
grease 1 separators>, t rash racks end a end of o
0
equivalent ms e rea to Improve
a the quality of urban
runoff, and other BMPs to improve the quality icy of
run
off from the residential development.t.
e t be reviewed and The oil operator's SPCCP must X
revised whenever the operations undo Sea nde revsroe SC-3 under Water
0
significant change or as necessary to prevent oil spills Qualit
y.
e and a the newly-constructed occurr n a im ctin
from occurring Impacting
prior each phase ofgrading'. wet lends erase to h
P P
activities.Mit(ptit16"Mveit,ve ..
MWOedoi!Megtaura 4 E. I The dredging of Outer Bolas Bay shell be
end summer
n the spring m months
accomplished during th
P 0 P 0
only.
-26-
.............
MOW
oally
.... ............
... . ......
tore.
-66 PD ':
.......PCIS ....
#OU ik U 6: Kid .0 0
S' A .............
... ...... .... . ... ... .....
. .... ....
.... ....
MAL
. . ..........
10RIUS ........... ...
; .::::;. ...................
........... .... . .. ..............
... . .....
.................. .........
............ ....
.. ........
.... ......
aintonance IM&M), as X PIDFO Construction Monitoring&M X X
described In the WRP, requires a botanist to monitor
N 64"
all grading activities,conduct pro-construction
meetings with construction contractors,provide
ongits assistance to construction personnel,and
stake out perimeters of existing habitats. Fueling,
maintenance,and spillage requirements and regular
..... . .......
equipment Inspection are also required. Measures for
..........
............
construction noise are established.
Five-Year Post-Construction M&M, as described In X X X
the WRP. requires a botanist to conduct a walk over
survey of each habitat type each month for the first
year, and annually for the following 4 years at the
...................
... ..................
... and of the growing season. Any decline in
v ag6tation or failure to meet pro-established
standards will be romadiated after consultation with
............
the proper resource and regulatory agencies.
Romediation Includes, but is not limited to replacing
plants and adjusting soil conditions.
..... .......
X
Long-Term M&M, as described In the WRP, provides X X
for monitoring surveys using the same methods
outlined In the Fivo-Year Post-Construction M&M.
The long-term M&M begins when the 6-year post
............. .... construction Is complete and continues for 10 years
. ........ or until the managing agency has de ar ins that the
goals are achieved.
The WRP requires the existing OSPCCP.and an X
OSCP be amended to Include each RP ,as as It Is
.. .................
comp le ted.
The WRP requires 20 acres of native woodland X X X
habitat, which Includes roosting poles and nesting The relocation of this The REIR provides no
boxes, to be placed In the Regional Park on ES may or may Information on the timing of
..... .. ........ . . ............ Huntington Beach Mass to replace the eucalyptus not be successful. establishing the now habitat
versus destroying the old.
ESHA displaced on the Bolea Chico Mesa.
..........
.27-
...........
...............
......................... .............. ..........
................
...... ..... .............
... .. . ... .......... . call
.................. .. ... .. .
........... at DFISC: ...Sao
.............
joxit a ........... ...... ...oPot's-i...O!'Xio �i ......... CA 6*436:i
fiVi$04 ad d:a9:PDF;�' not:
... .... .. ..... W.
.... . ........ ..
......................................................
The WRP requires the revagetation of southern x x
ter lent within the project area to replace the
population lost on the Bolts Chico Mass.
. ....... ......
............. ....
-.............
.. ... ............
The WRP requires the Applicant, In conjunction with x x x x
..............
the County Animal Control and the CDFG. to devise
...........I
..... .. ..... :,:,::...........
...... .... Human Intrusion(especially by
...... ..... .... ........................... and implement a plan to control the presence of children)and intrusion by pate
............
................
... Invasive and/or feral pate Into wildlife areas.
................ are likely to have devastating
..........
.......... ............x
................ ............. .....X.: Information on the detrimental effects of domestic Impacts on nesting bird
...... •
populations and the REIR
i onto on common and sensitive species of birds shall
...................
be supplied to each original homeowner who
............
PP no comprehensive
.............
..... ......
... ........
purchases property In the residential units. The plan plan to mitigate or control this
......... .....
......................... .. I8 to be approved by OCEMA prior to Issuance of impact sufficiently. The
occupancy permits. impact should be stated to be
.............................................
significant and unavoidable.
..................
............
...... .... ...........
....... The WRP requires minimization of Impacts to the x x
spiny rush located on Rabbit Island.
... ...............
The WRPrequires a picklowead salvage program. x x
.. ...........
.....................
The retention of a minimum of 200 acres of
oickloweed onsits during all construction and
.....................
restoration phases shall be achieved as required by
CDFG (1985)and the 1986 Certified LCP.
............
...................
........ .....
PFr
The WRP requires that,prior to the removal of two of x
...........................
the historic western snowy plovar nesting sites
d
.. ........................ uring watland restoration, two now nesting sites be
established.
....... The LCP provides that flood lamp shielding and x
sodium bulbs be used in developed areas to reduce
a a
. .. .... .......... . .... ..
th mount of stray lighting Into the wildlife areas.
.................. ... .........
..... ...... ...........
77: . .... .......... .........
...........
............
. ..........
.................
Standard
C ......
............. . .....
X..
........................... Standard Conditions that also affect the Terrestrial
.. ...............
Biology section can be found in Sections 4.4 ISurface
.......... .. ....... . ....
and Groundwater Hydrology), 4.5 lWatar Quality),
.. ....
acBiolo
and 4.7 Marine/Aqu ).
-28-
.. ........
. ..... ... ...
. . .... ... .
...........
.. .... .... .in Sh''Ox
..... .. .......
.........
lly
.:.:,:Or:::: 410 a
....... ......
..........................
0
ure a D --toty Cs T.
611:1 add :No
... . .......... W
........... ...
..... . ...
..... ....
as..on, assures,
ARW 00*� A program shall be Implemented by the Applicant In X X X
consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the
effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the
red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness
Is found to be significant,a plan shall be developed
and Implemented which will encourage the continued
presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red
fox at Bolea Chloa. The plan shall Include specific
.... measures designed to create and maintain
adequate habitat for the coyote In the undeveloped
portions of the project site so that the coyote may
maintain Its ongoing role as a control agent for the
red fox. OCEMA shell approve this program before
restoration of the Lowland.
It raptors begin to pray upon nesting sensitive target X X X
species or other sensitive species, the Applicant shall
.................
. .........
.. .........
consul
t with CDFG and USFWS and prepare a
relocation program for these raptors.
X X
incorporated Into the LCP that specifies how public
41 to. A management plan shall be developed and
40
... .............. ..........
..... .. .... ...
. ...... ........
visitation of the natural areas will be controlled or
.. .......
....... ..... . . ....
... . . . ......... ... ..
managed. The plan shall Include, at minimum:
.... . ....
....... ...
... methods for public education on sensitive
.......... . . .... .
..............
habitats and plants,
identification of the group or agency which will
enforce access restrictions and the restrictions to
............
be employed in the various habitats,and
1� restriction of people from Internal trails during the
nesting season(i.e., March 15 to August 151 of
Federal and State listed Endangered and
Threatened bird species.
-29-
..........
.................... ......
.... ........
................. ..
....... ... ...
.. ............... ......... ........ ..........an .. ......... ...
.... ......
'a if
X Impf
............
.00 Not SNOWW�ij::] OtShdwn1dibil w6illy
JAILI dtl6n::
00..lest.66'POF got T Iowa a
MI I..... .....
A management plan shelf be developed that specifies 46"
x x
how habitats shall be maintained and managed over
............
X.: the long term. This plan shall be Included In the WRP
:x
-Term M&M Plan. The plan shall Include,at a.... Long
minimum:
.. ........
..........
Methods for ongoing wood eradication. It is
unlikely that the landscaping practices of private
... ...........
homeowners can be controlled, and therefore an
. .........
.. ......................
..........
. ..............
................... .. ... . ............... ongoing program of monitoring and wood
•
eradication shall be essential for long-term
x preservation of native habitats.
............
............ ......... ....... ..........
Methods for public education, Including
...........
. .......... Information regarding Invasive exotica that
...............
... ...... ........
homeowners could avoid planting In their yards.
................
................... ► An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be
prepared prior to construction lose Section
...... .................
.............
...... 4.5.31. It straw bales are used for erosion
....................
:.... I.I.................
...... control, rice straw or equivalent wood-free straw
....... shall be used to prevent additional Introduction of
exotic species Into native habitat.
.. .. .... ...... .......... ......I. . I
q....... .... .......
.............. ......... . . ......
.....................
........... ........
........ .. i N
RA TA ' ' Abu
........... ........ ......
00.. ... ...........
.......... .:
.::..T NSP..R TIONAND
................
The proposed project will only partially Impact the x
x
deficiencies Identified within the study area. The Funding for the ATIP Is not
......................
identified and is not likely to
Area Traffic Improvement Program(ATIP)has been
...... ........... developed to provide the necessary mechanism for be forthcoming from the
the financing,monitoring and implementation of affected agencies.
phased circulation Improvements.
-X
......... ...........
The proposed project also Includes a Transportation
.................... Demand Management JTDM)Program in compliance
with the South Coast Air Quality Management
.................
............ ....
: xxx
District ISCAOMD)Regulation XV and in accordance
... ............
with the Orange County and the City of Huntington
...........
Beach Trip Reduction and Travel Demand
... .. . .....
Man
.................. agament ITDM)Ordinances In order to Increase
.....................
average vehicle occupancy and decrease peak hour
...........
trip generation and congestion.
.......XX
.30-
taxi
:....:...... :MIN atlon:
:...::::::...:...:.. .:....:. :.:.:::;..:: :.:..:::.:.:.::;.:..::::.:::.:::::::.::::.;:..::::::::::.:.:..:.:::.;.:::::.. ....... .. .. a .......... ..� ►.o er:.Rallenaa: :: :.::Mae
:.::. ........ .. ............................................................ . ................... ..........a.. .::::.: Lr!P....P....... . ar►.. aln:Not 5bown: . :.;NaR:Sf�iwn..lo::bra?oaiiomioall
.......... :.........................................:..................... ...........:.:....... .:......................... ... :...
n:�1110elUfb :::.::::.:::..:..::::::..:.::::::....::::.:::.:....:::...::..: :: :... ::.: ::: :.:.:::;::..:r' <::>»:::<::<:::>:>::z::: is ;:::.:.. :::>:>:.::::>:•:>;.:
Noy::;:.;:.;:.>: .::::..:::.:.;::::>::;::> . .. :...,....::............:..:...............:..::..:.:::.:..::::::•:.:.::. ::
bed.a
t1tt .. e P F: re:Stud
p...:.. .:... :• . .::.. .. ..Wr. . ... �► .... ::FBael
tndrd Condltlonr?>:><;:
Prior to the start of construction for each phase of X X X
devel
opment.men t the
project
eot developer shal
l submit s Since REIR does not
describe these standards,it is
Construction Traffic Controt Plen to be prepared b a
registered traffic engineer
end submitted to the 0not possible for the reader to
Count
y of
Oran
ge e for approval. Approval ehe I.be
aeeee•the mitigation
required prior rlor to Issu
ance grading permits. A e o f 0 edl er I s II proposed b this PDF.
P Y
traffic
control wo
rk to 0 r construction shell to
conform
the late et editions
t one of the StateCalifornia t of Cel
Department of Transportation M Ma
nual of Traffic
Controls Stan
dard Plan a s Standard Specifications,
and Spacial
I Prov
isions.
Notes Indicating the need to obtain County approval X X
of a construction r t sflic routingle n construction No criter
ia la
P r 18
lan wi
ll be pla
ced on the 0redinOP
pla
n end
Provided to tell
the
n I eluded h n I the const
ruction c bid package. If
reader when such e
P 0
det
ermined necessary b the Manager,Development
Oe elo m nt
plan
will be required V 0 P
Ser
vices.OC EMA that
h s construction redin haul and when It will not.
0 9
0 r ad musts e b establishe
d,the project developer shell
P P 1
Indicate this on all grading n lane Further, the
0
construction
t on bid shell also Include package
i cud the need
for s co 0 nstruction redin0 haul road.
Without
W 3»>>>>'sz�:'•3? `'>z>�?��� <'>#z» the
h upeizing of PCH beyond Its MPAH X X X
designation.It wi
ll be necessary 0
s to develop a
No funding fo rY P r the
0
e is e 0 1 i nc Plan
per the requirements
manta of the
Y P 4 Implementation of the plan Is
Con ee io t n Management Program CM P . The CMP
0 ( 1 0 identified.
0
recognizes the e r
0
t not II projected roadway sy
stem
P 1 Y Y
deficiencies are avoidable
i e le through local actions and
•
decisions
. When a deficiency I is identified howev
er,a jurisdictio
n must undertake specific actions
t s ci is cti na if it is
1 P
to com
ply with P
PY
h the CM in the ogee of stele
highways, theCalifornia C Iifornle Department of
Transportation
rtetion Ce rens has primary e It r responsibility
onsibili 1 1 t
P P ry P Y
for
prep
aring deficiency plane. Thepl
an mus
t
Identify
the need for Isolated location or an
ereaw d s
deficie
ncy with areewlds deficiency plans
s being
the P
preferred approach. The applicant shal
l pay It
s
XX no-
rate fairpreparing the deficiency
share of r t plan.
0 P P Y
-31-
.. .. ....... . ......
.............. ..............
....................
............. . . .............
atlon
.....................
..........
Wit 4:
.................
.�R Tk.
......... ....... ..............
.... .. .. ..
......... .................
........... .
0.
tut 't M t OW] 0 ::JDr:Tdo no
...........
0 ...............................X,
t. M N
i.W. 00outo..
.......... .... .. .... ..................
...... .......
.......... . ... ........... .
.............
........................... ............
. .... ....
---- . . ..................... ............ .. . .................. ........
.................................
..............................
..........
A U -:a..Th OW o7:n
1 1 1 W.U.-ar.....
6:"At gat 6 as OW.:.:a t tog ........ :
..........
................. ...........
..... ..... . ..................... .......... ......... .........
. ... ....... .........
..........
................ ........ .....
..................
7X�
AM. ALITY:
7 7
.... .......... ...... ........ .... ... .......
................. ............ ........... ............
.......... ........
........................
... ...................... ....................
...............
................. ...
................. ....... ......
In''0' iddrdW"i KQ ............... ........ ......................... ...... . ... ... ...
X
All required actions necessary to comply with
X.:...............
S
CAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no
X
............
-a •
lto sufficient to cause a nuisance,
.............. dust Impacts off
.......................
end SCAGIVID Rule 403. which restricts visible
emissions from construction,shall be Implemented as
a part of the Proposed Project. Prior to the approval
of a grading permit,the applicant shall demonstrate
tot
he Manager, EMA Development Services,that
such compliance will be achieved and that all such
is
actions shall be listed on each grading plan under the
X.7
General Notes Section.
The following supplemental measures are X
Incorporated Into the Proposed Project In order to
reduce fugitive dust emissions to the extent feasible
Burin construction operations. The County shall
verify that these measures have been Implemented in
onjunction with normal site Inspections.
------------X
►
spread soil binders on the site,unpaved roads.
and In parking areas;
I. water the site and equipment in the morning and
vaning,
...........................
X ► reestablish grourW cover on the construction site
.. ........
. .. ... . ... through seeding and watering,except In
wetlands restoration areas;
pave on-site haul roads;
m- phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of
large areas to erosion over extended periods of
time;
.32-
...... .. . .. .... . .. ......... ....
. .... ................
Text
.......... X ........
X.-
oonnrnloally
. ..... M.asoun;Nat 5frpwn Not....
. ...... .......
COU [a
a Ibl 04 Ututt: tddV.::: o it ta:.m act::::::: %
I schedule activities to minimize the amounts of
exposed excavated soil during and after the and
7 7
of work periods;
dispose of surplus excavated material In
..........
............ .:
accordance with local ordinances and use sound
engineering practices:
X
....................
s- restore landscaping and Irrigation that are
.. ..........
.............. .........
........................
removed during construction In coordination with
.... ... .
.................... . ..... ...................... . ....
local public agencies;
sweep streets on a daily basis It silt Is carded
Xx
X, over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs
X a-o a result of hauling:
sus end grading operations during high winds In
...........
..........
accordance with Rule 403 requirements;
X.
1. wash off trucks leaving site;
N
I. maintain a minimum 12-Inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks;and
7:1
..........
s- cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or
...............
. ......... .
other suitable means.
........ .......... .. ...... ......... ..... ..
. ........ The Proposed Project shall Include pedestrian X X
.. ... ...... ...................... . .....
Pa
...... .. . ... . thways,bus stops and bikewaya In order to No funding Is provided for the
.............
....... ...
encourag e alternate forms of transportation. The ATIP nor is there any
..... ... . ...... ..
......... .. ... ....... .
....... .. .. .. . ... .. . ..
.............. .. ..
. ... ...... .. .. .... . .... .
....... .... . . ..... .... .....
Proposed Project shall also Incorporate measures to quantification of the benefit
X.
....... ........ ...
Improve traffic flow, specifically the ATIP and lane of providing bike paths.
. . .. ........
and intersection Improvements.
........ Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its X X
associated air emissions consistent with the
design of the AQMP will be be into the
project. These measures Include methods of
Improving traffic flow(i.e. A P and lane anod
Intersection Improvements) and methods of
..............
............ ..
stimulating alternative forms of transportation
X
.............
...........
................ Il.a.,bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes).
.33-
PgISC Taxt MlNpadon:.Meatlur .ImVrnPor.:fiallena�►an.... .Madtura Not.Sdown"... ;Na1t. ho.. :....:::::..:.:::.::::....:....................................:....................... .. .. .:::. : .:.:. :..... .:.
S.;.:wn:to:be.�?oalwr►IaMt
dbnsMe..e..
:.f+rYd a .... ...... : ... ;;;::. :::<,:::..,.,.<:::•;:::;;::..::. >,:>:::::;:::<::::>::::::
Oil leed:be.l'OF..et:Suwrs•.0�.:.. ., .:.. ........ ... ..... .st;:::;:;:.::::.;:...;.;. ,.:::.:. ......
.....: : :.. .. ....... .......................t....Ml.. #t....... .. ............ ............... .cell .Feaelbts..:::::::.:....
... .. ....... ...1/.. ..... .. .. ... ..... _d.. ....mp.. Y::...
c�nd�rd Cbrteldoi :<: ::::::<:;:><>:;:::>:>;>:..<:::;:<:><»: ::: . :::.:....:::.. : .::..>;:;<.::.::.::;.;::::::;:.;:::;.:::;.;:<.:;:.>.:::::,:;:.:::;::......
1It : .. . , :eR�IA� ee fit ;;ahs no`5GMYe e urod oaddreeaAlr,Qe :... .
Mhipetiori Maenii�e :
Mldda1lc4 MeeeuN 4 10 1.: : Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle X X
travel
is II 'e However, o he extent feasible b rrut d. How v t t
How does
Y d s one
the Applicant's s contractor exhausta emissio
ns from determine the extent
con
struction ton equipment shell be controlled In e to whic
h the
manner that Is consistent with standard mitigation contractor can •
measures dictated the SCAQMD. The measures to comply with
be Implemented are as follows:
P AQMD'e iti ati m on
g
measures?
......
use low emission on-site mobile constructio
n
equlpment;
maintain equipment ment in tuns permanufacturer's
q
specifications;
use 0
atalytic converters ongesoIi e-
Powered
equipmen
t;
retard
t rd diesel Injection e by engine action timing 4
e
.. .. ..i,: degrees;
► use reformulated,tow-emission diesel fuel;
electric
substitute
t nc and asolin - owere d,and,
where applicable,methanol-end propene•
powered equipment for diesel-powered
......>..:,:.,,::.:... :.... equipment where feasible;
where applicable,equipment will
not be left idling
for prolonged periods(i.e.,more than 2 minu
tes);1 X.
,
and
Y. ► ourteil(cease or reduce)construction during
periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations
(i.e.,Stage 2 smog alerts).
-34-
....................
.
. .. ... ... .....
..........
.......... ..
....... ...... .4. 4-4
] O
u .WJA.T0 .ii tO : t
...
The County shall verify use of the above measures
d urino normal construction site Inspections.
In addition to PDF-11 and PDF-2, water trucks will be
x
on-site at all times during grading operations arW will
regularly water the site to keep the soil moist and
... ......... ........ ...
........................
........ .... . . .... .. . .... . .
......... .
prevent fugitive dust. These Impacts are,therefore,
reduced to a level of Insignificance.
............................... .. .
Mltlppt
..........
N The Applicant*hall opacity the use of emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic cement,neither of which produce
.. .... ....... significant quantities of VOC emissions thereby
.........................
reducing this Impact to a level that Is less than
..... ..............
. . .... .......
significant.
. . ....... ....
Nat.*" The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume,
x
low-pressure manual application of points and
coatings on structures. Where applicable.pro
............
-primed and sanded wood molding and
finished or pro
trim products and pro-primed wallboard shall be used.
Additionally, applicable,the Applicant shall specify
the use of non-polluting powder-coated metal
XX. ......
od t
....... pr uc a.
- ................... ..........
..........................
Alt.10406wmoii 4.Wi The Applicant shall assist the County In Implementing
....... .......
10, Transportation Demand Management measures
related to the Proposed Project fref: "A Reference
...............
......................... .... .....
Guide to Transportation Demand Management")
XXXX
published by SCAG. Such measures$hall include
.............
..................................... coordinating transit service to the development
............................ ... ..............
............. ...... ...... ...
through provision of bus stopa. transit stops, shuttle
........................ ................
a 0
......... t ps.bus shelters turnouts, and bicycle/transit
Interface.
..... ......
.... .. ....
-35-
.... ....... .. . ....
ipq�lSG............. "X' . ......
.. . ...........
. ...........
64.a on, adi N I—_ X.
..... .. ..........
............ .. .....
........... ..... .... . .
........ ........
W4 The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary X
source emissions O.a., emissions associated with How Is the County
.... ............. ..... .. ...........
.. . ... ...I...........- ..
.........................
. . . ........
stationary sources within the development) through going to determine
........ ........... j::
................
. .. .......... the
m measures listed below. During design review and
...................... the*maximurn
prior to issuance of building permits, the County will extent feasible*?
............. ..
.... . ... .... assure confirmation that the measures have been
. ... .........
....................
. ... .... Incorporated to the maximum extent feasible. As
.... ........
stated previously, the project will comply with Tide
24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall •
.................. .......
Incorporate to the maximum extent feasible,the
..... . ... ... .... . ... .. .
...... ....... .. - -... . . ... . ....
following design measures:
m- Include nergy costs In the capital expenditure
analyses:
......... .....
N .......
...... ............ 6 Incorporate appropriate passive solar design;
....................
minimize electricity distribution losses,•
..... limit Installed lighting loads;
... .. .....
. ........ Install lamps that give the highest light output
............
. ....... .......
X X
per watt of electricity consumed;
.............................
......................
I. control mechanical systems or equipment with
X X
X 'iX
.........
time clocks or computer system;
. ............... .... ...... .....
.......... Is lighting system-or process-heat for
...... ............... .... D. racyc
.....................
.........................
..........
space heating during cool weather, and exhaust
..........
�*X.
this heat via calling plenums during warm
....... .....
weather;
. ........ ..
.............
... .. . ... . ... ..... ... ..... 1� cascade ventilation air from high-priority
............ . .... ..
(occupied spaces)areas to low-priority(corridors.
...... . .... . ....... ... . . .. ... .. ........
.. .. ........... . ... .. . ... . ........ equipment, and mechanical spaces)areas before
. ..... . ........... ...
. .. .. ..... ..........
being exhausted:
.. ...... .. . . .
►
... .. ........
facilitate the use of electric and maintenance
...........
equipment through the placement of exterior
-family
... . ...... ............. outlets both front and rear for all single
.................
.......................
............ dwellings;
....... ...
-36-
:.::::..:...:.:
:::
TMxt :.;:::...... .... d MtLon;.MOMurM.;......:::>:>.::::::.:.:.:::::::..:.:.:.•.:.. ..Mt ra r:fi•Henaa;an;::. ::Mns a salt .:;:
:.:::.,::::.:::..::....:.:::<...:..:... ........... .. o. ..................................... ...mP....p+s. MurM.Nut:Shawn.... ...N01: .I R: bM.F.anoint .
Mltf eN n.Meeeirs:No.. :.; :`>:::>;::;:::: <:.a:::i:>6::`:>::<:>:<:.::::::r>:;;>:>::;>::>:<:>:>:>:::<:.;:::::;::::>:<:;;:>:.>:.;.>: • ::.:......<::,:::..
...... .. .. .. :;...: ::.;.;:<.::.:;:<.::;:;:::::.::::.:::.:.;:::;:::::.:::::.:..;:.;:.;•.:::.;..:.;..:.:;..;::.;.:•.;:.;:::::::.. stud i
p. ......:. ..............P................... .. ............. . .....:............. ..to.Mit ets. m aot........ ..ar..Teohntoall ..F•belM•...................
Y, , p: � f.:..:: Y
provide share tree
s•to reduce building
heatin ool n c t needs;and
0
/
0
► reduce the production of particulate matter by
Installing
nets lin fireplaces sl•designed o t burn natural a
0 P 0
r s
0
to the exclusion of wood where applicable.
Nf)I>�E
o e•p►a1• E b fan�eeiurr>;.:<.:>:<: :;':;:'.:.... . :><:;:>?;.:><::::>:;;:;:>::;:<>:>:'<:>'>::'<::?::'z>:. :<::::>::r:::;:::;;:::>;;..:
All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or X X
of m b Is operated within 1 000 se of a dwelling f tunit EPA construction
p ..
shall beequiPPs d with prop
er
ly operating an
d estimates already ed
Y
maintained
mufflers.
s. take Into account the
use of mufflers.
>?>»t c::;:: Stock PIlin 0 and/or vehl le•te01n0 areas shell be
located as far as practicable from dwelling wel i0
n unite
•
-37-
...............
--- . .......
..... ...... ....... .. ' ..f,
'N'
"F'OV:114..... OtSh6w1w.40 0 V��:
...... . ....
.... .............
PDFISC
...... .....
Ti
Mki
...............
'SC ''S ... 'if
t.*Old'mip"C":U"t' 11 ............ .
..........
. .... . ...
........ ....
... ... .................
M''" -
.................
.40
...............
Allnewreeld n al ot and dwelling units shall be X X X
.......... sound attenuated against present and projected noise There Is no analysis No analysis of the
. ........
so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 80 dBA of existing baseline event generated
Ldn In outdoor living areas and an Interior standard of conditions presented noise le.g.one-hour
45 BA Ldn In all habitable rooms. Evidence not any reason to L")has been or will
-certified acoustical consultant, defer the gathering be provided.
prepared by a County
that these standards will be satisfied In a manner of suc information.
consistent with applicable zoning regulations, shall be No analysis of or
submitted to the County. An acoustical analysis will Although objective mitigation for noise
be prepared and submitted, which will be followed by standards are Impacts on wildlife •
a report describing the acoustical design features of provided, no wetlands or ESHA's
the structures proposed by the applicant. information is given has been or will be
as to how these provided.
standards will be
met.
The no report
should be made
available for public
review and comment
prior to EIR
certification and
must consider noise
.... .........
Impacts at all phases
of construction.
An acoustical study shall be prepared once site plans X X
are finalized to ensure that any commercial activity No objective
..........
noise Is not intrusive because oft time of day, standards are
noise character or overall exterior level Into the provided.
............
a jacent or nearby residential community. An d
analysis will be prepared and submitted acoustical
...........
..................... ..........
.... ...... .......
Prior to Issuance of building permits, which will be
....... ....
followed by a report describing the acoustical design
features of the structures proposed by the applicant
..... . .....
of the commercial uses.
-38-
F
.nxt... .................•:.... ::.:.;.;:..:,.:....:.:..:::..::::;:...::.::;;::>:.;:;...:::: Mid atlon; ,
..... ..::::...�.;::..:::::.............
::Mfg............................. .. :............... .............:.:::..:::::.:.::::::::::::.:..::.....:.................::.:::.�:::::::.::::..:::::.::..::::.:...:... o.................... ► ............ ...Im .ro dr.:Nnfiettab..orL:.::.:;M.
.. ..... .....::................... ........................................,.. ....................... :.................... .............. ,:................. .......V...P.............................. ......................... ...Na1t.S.hA.vrft..tn..W.�.oannmiaall ...
n:.Maeurr No.:...::... ::.:.:::::.:..:::.::..:.:.. ....... ..........:.:..............:..:.::. ..::...:::..: ::......
_d............ .. . .: . .... .. ...........................:.:,::.:.:::.:.:.:::::,...........:...:::.:.::.:.....:..:.....:.:...:.::.:.:... pir triers>er> :. t:. C:<; :. :::::::.>;:.>;:.>:; :;.
::.:.:.:.......,........ ...................... ........:fl.:.:::.:.:.: .RG►..:.0.:.3..::.:. .::Fytute:stud .::::.::::::::.:::
Y.. .. .... . tl p Y...:.:... ...
'4tandard Cori :>>::;;:;:::::::>:::<:::>::::::..:::;>:::;:::::<:::>::::< .:............:::. >::::«;.;.:.
dltions
.. All operations shall comply with Orange County X X
Co
dified
ed Ord Control).
Ordinance, Division 8 Noise
1 Since the d n t ordinance
a e was neither included
In nor circulat
ed with
the RE IR this
measure is
Impossible to
xx
evaluate.
.:,1............::.;;;.:,:.;;;;.;;.;:.;;;;;.;:.;;;;:,,:.;;::;;. All construction shall comply with Tills 24 Field X X
Sound Transmission Class(FSTC1 and Field Impact Since these
Insulation
t on Class
FIIC standards.
1 1
eterxlerds were
ei e n th r Included In
no circulated
r c ulet d with
the REIR this
easure m is
Impossible to
evaluate.
;Mld40 " MsrrU ea
M(ttdatiolllls.aelirs 4.�1,1l;; Prior to extendingthe segment of Bolaa Chice Street X X
from its current terminus at Warner Avenue to the Although objective The reader has no we 0 1 y of
Boise Chloe Mesa, the Applicant I she I conduct e n t standards are
0 kn win whether 45dB A
0
acoustical analysis
s to confirm no
ise se Impacts
to end
Y provided, no P e Interior Hole levels a be
Pcan
determine the extant
t nt of specific noise reduct
ion e ,inform lion is give
n
n
achieved.
0
measures e our a necessary t o achieve the 45 d8 A Interior
0 rY as to how these
noise lev
el el In residences
n s adjacent
to Boise Chice
1 standards will be
Street between Werner and the
t Mesa Connect
or. met.
Mlti etlon`.Meiurs4:11`»� ' Prior to the Issuance of building permits for
n..:::: e P X X
residential development t In the Lo
wland wland under Option
t n Although
Alth u active
P e The reader has no we o e 1 f
B the Applicant Y
t shell conduc
t an acous
tical analysis
P ae d P standards Y knowing whether 45dBA
to confirm noise Impacts
n I is end determine s th exten
t of P provided, no
P interior noise levels can be
• ecific noise reduction measures
ur a nece
ssary
P r to Information Y
Inform bon is give
n
e 0 achieved.
achieve the 45 d8 A Interior no
ise e e I v I in residen
ces o as to how these
G adjacent to Graham Street.
m tr et Sp
ringdale
ele St
reet an
d a 1 standards will e
P ad b
Talbert Avenue.
me
t.
-39-
><Mid tton:Maaeur :::::. ro ar:flatlanaann tNiiit?uieNat Shown NoIc.Shawti'.to:.t7. oanomloatt
PpF/;3 .. .............. .:... :....
.; : h(
teed: a;..D ;.oc..$C:.:..:. . cura:�tud >::... ::>::;>::>::>:.>::..,...... .... soh bli feuetfits'.>>:........ :.
ti don.Mess►,re.Na............ ................................:...........................:................:.::...........:::::::.::,: :::�� ...... ....4....P.................. .. !............... ............:..::::. :..t.:.......0.::.:,.::p...:..:.:.:.:. .:.:.:T..........4.....y..............................
aVi :>? >>> » ':>s» > :>»<##>%{ '�t' _ '>s #> > > > ?>>s>'?< > > '<>«»< <'> >s `>%><>z<»``:'>`»>':»<'>' '><s><>z>s> <>f >s>z <>> ��<�<»i `<" <>'>> �<»> ;'::
V
....:..:::.:::
ppF� The research design for recovered materiel analysis X X X
for the Boise Chico Region currently In preparation Now can this report Whet is the result of
the archaeologists'
arch deal n shell be evalua
ted b the
shall be completed. s rase The V 0
review?contain s discussion of Important research topics for public if it Is not yet
recovered materiel analysis th
at ca
n be
addressed prepared?
ed?
employing Chico sites. The
Ise h to n data from the Bo
P YI 0
research designshall be re
viewed
by
at le
ast thre
e
uslified archaeologists.as re
quired Ired b C CC
>: q 0 qu Y
0 Idel
u Ines.
;::::>::::: ::;::: A data recovery program shall be implemented and X X X
pq. ►Y a e
completed for Important or unique archaeological No objective There remains much
resources Ina rase proposed
ossd for urba
n deve
lopment ment
standards ar
e controversy
regarding K II'son Bolse Chloe Mesa and for proposed urban provided.
development
and wetlands restoratio
n under Lowland
compliance
lie ce with the
a
recovery Th
e Issue of who Is requirements of I w
work for the
data r sscope of k<> Option B.The
P
Y
excavations shall be determin
ed b the project
ec t "qualified" Na
tive with respect
ect to th
e
d a approved
ved b the Am
erican le highly archaeological
reviews and
>' archaeologist end Y 0
0 PP Y 9
e I resources at the site.
co
ntroversial..
ewe archaeologists s ear reviewer
three qualified P
4
established P
o CC permit co
nditions. The
This measure leaves
pursuant
event t C ve excavations shall be comp
leted prior t 0 mitigation wholly in
'> date recovery 0 Y
ry
a P
Issuance
ce of a grad
ing Permit an
d ehsII be monitored
nitored Koll's hands without
Y a qualified NativeAm
erican. The
data recov
ery rY Government review
program ram sha
ll be consi
dered complete when the poo
r
or control.
review
0 a the data recovery
c udea that
r ou I
group con
excavati
ons hav
e been co
mpleted Isted In accordance with
z".
eY
r Once data recovery scop
e of work.its
approved
P 3 ex
cavations ha
ve be
en completed. a report of the
data rc
a b
e eve ryP 0
ro rem ed
prepared by the
shall be rs r t
ro t ec archaeologist lot an
d Y h reviewed b the pear
P
P1
re
view team
, and su
bmitted
ad appropriate
to a ro riet e
governmental
tel an
d acade
mic Institutions. Data
' recover
y Invest
igations,et Ions tasting,analysis, and reports
shell be completed
let ed at the App
licant's's expense.
.
.40-
....................
...... ..... .............
...... ....
..........
:X. O.M.1W.
:1.PVT
Y:;�il. QpV.:A Wn..
...... .... .... ....... . ........ .....................
..............
son a' -.40: MOW I
01...:6 -FQF:6,W, U M act::: :::bV F" IbI.048 eadurO.O."
Ou 1.01: t 0....
For ORA-83/1144,prior to any grading activity at this X X
..........
............ Its a controlled grading program shall be conducted The Issue of who Is a
. . ...............................
by the project archaeologist In the field area to qualified*Native
...........
other Important recovers cogged stones or American Is highly
. . .......... ................
........... artifacts which may remain In this disturbed portion controversial.
.......... of the site. The controlled grading program shall be
.............
monitored by a qualified Native American.
..................... .......
In addition to compliance with the standard condition X X
....... ....
set forth below which requires that a County-certified The Issue of who Is a
•
..........
............ archaeologist be retained to establish procedures for qualified* Native
...................
............
... ............................... ........
arc aao h logical resource surveillance prior to gradin0 Americe is highly
and to monitor grading within 500 feet of all controversial.
.............
............
recorded archaeological sites.the Project Applicant
shall also retain a qualified Native American to
...........................
monitor all grading activities monitored by the
.....................
............
County-certified archaeologist on Bolea Chloe Mesa
and for Implementation of Lowland Option B.
The historic components of ORA-78 as well as all X X X
other facilities, structures and features more than 45 CEQA specifically Many of the historic and
Years old within the County LCP Area shall be states that NRHP archaeological resourcewhava
I ated.for.sigrifloance-by-a qualified historical.. ........ ova u criteria are not the already been disturbed
archaeologist and/or architectural historian. This only yardstick for pursuant to demolition permits
..........
evaluation shall be conducted at the Applicant's measuring historic granted by the County In
expanse and the Applicant shall Implement the Impacts. The 1991 These permits were
recommendations of the historical archaeologist separate analogous first approvals for the project
and/or architectural historian regarding significant requirements of the construction.
historical cultural resources. Significance criteria to California Register
be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the (focusing on Items of •
NRHP and Appendix K to the CEGA Guidelines. significance in
California history)
must also be used.
-41.
. ...........
.................
. ... IiAtti ..a.........Measure
. . r
...... :
...... .
... ..t "b.... ..O.r.'' lyi.. .. I -POFO 'S r:: soA. dil
X X
The Project Applicant for Lowland Option B will have X
the two potentW archaeological site@ In the Lowland, The Issue of who Is a Will the NRHP
................ ..............
ORA-1308 and-1309. and the Lowland component qualified" Native criteria be used to
of ORA-86.tested by a County-conified archaeologist American is highly Judge the
to determine whether they represent unique or controversial. significance of these
................
Important cultural deposits. If they are determined to sites?
be unique or Important deposits,the County-certified
archaeologist will recommend appropriate measures
to be Implemented by the Project Applicant which
*hall be Implemented at the expense of the Project
Applicant. If a date recovery program Is required.It
shall be completed prior to Issuance of a grading
permit for Lowland wetlands restorations activities or
Lowland urban development activities for these sites.
The test program and the date recovery program shall
be monitored by a qualified Native American.
Reports on both the test program and the date
recovery program,It one Is required, will be prepared
by a County-certified archaeologist documenting the
testing and excavations that ware performed,the
cultural materials,If any. discovered, and analyzing
the significance of the site. The report will be
submitted to the UCLA Archaeological Information
....... ......... ...
Center where they will be kept on file for reference
. ... ...
by other archaeologists.
....... ......... ...
-42-
;. ..
P0�7SIr Yszt :;. ::.: ....:;:...:::.:.... MItIpAtlun:CNeaaurA;.. Im ar.:ftallsn�I:un.::. ;Muaeuita,Nat.Stwwn Not.Shown_ta:beart:a
::.:::::: :..::.:p.aM
;•:::::r:::::::>:
IWd'edon:Meeeuie No..:::::. : ;::: :<;::;>:;<:>::>:>>s::::::>;:;:::: ::>:<.;•.;:;»:;>>:::;::::::::><>::>.::<:::: :.: >::
d.. ..... ....... ..... ..........:...:.:.: .::.:>:..<:::::.,.:.:..::.:....:....................::.::::.:.:::::.:::::.::..:..... .:.....:.:.::.: ee;Pot..otsir....::..trtirfe:.� iti bts:frrr t1bt::::::::.:..or..TeohhlaeD .Fe
.. ....... .......... :.. ,........... .:...,:.:.. .. WL. .... F ...........
. M..p: p..: .:.... V.., eetble::::...:.. :.
...:......:.:..::.:..:.::..:::...
ettantlt►rd t7ondldonr ......
th Prior to permit. he Project X
6..... :.. .. .::............:..:. a issuance of a grading p m t,t
A lice a Chief,
PP
nt shell provide written evidence to the
P
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section,that a County-
certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be
r
present the pre-grading conference, shell establish
.,. procedures for archaeological resource surveillance,
a e project and shell establish in cooperation with the t
P Pl
developer. temporarily halting or procedures for m r
0 P P Y P •
redirecting work to permit th
e sampling,
0.
Identification and evaluation of the artifacts as
app
ropriate.riete. If additional
tionel or unexpected
archaeological features are discovered,th
e
archaeologist shall report such findings to the proj
ect
developer end to he Manager,Harbors,Beaches end
the 0
Per I/ he
Parke/Program Pro re Planning Division. t! m PI
0 0
a significant,
rcheeolo foal resources are found to be
o
the archaeologi
cal observer shelI determine
appropriate ectione,in coop
erationeretion with the project
e c t
developer, for exploration and/or selvage. Prior to
the Issuance f precise radio permit,the
o e r c
P grading
archaeologist shall submit a follow u report to the
0 P P
Manager,Harbors, / 0
Beaches and Parks Pro ram
Planning Division which shall include the period of
Inspection, analysis of artifacts found and the
P an Y any
P repository present re sent oaito of the artifacts. Excavated finds
shall be offered o he Count of Orange,t tor
V
designee,on a first refusal basis. The Applicant may
0 PP Y
retain said finds if written assurance Is provided the •
P
r t
the will be properly reserved in Orange Cou
nt),
-.
Y P YP 0 1
P
unless said finds are of special significance, or a
p 0
a County Indicates desire
museum In Orange e C un nd ee e d sire o stud
Y
t
0 Y
and/or display them at the time,In wh
ich case items
shell be donated to the Count o designee. e I r i n e. These
Y. 0
ectione as wall as final mitigation and disposition
oaition of
the resources shell be subject to the approval v ro el of the
Manager, Harbors,Beeches and Parke/Program
Planning Division.
-44-
. . . .... ... . .. ... ...... .....
.............
.. ........ ......
..............
.. .... .. ..... ".Nat-X -::fAtI96tI.06w.0
.................
S .. ........ ..
.......... 0:iau!' FOFW.Zr W -f hn 6 IV.::
.... .......
ii�fulur
:10.
..Gat mp
W......
xx
NO..
......... If Native American remains are discovered within the x x x
XI.
Bolea ChIca lowlands area,the Project Applicant for No standards for
............
. ...... ....... .............. ........................ .. ............................. .. ...........
Lowland Options A or 6 shall comply with the accepting or
. . ...... ....... ..
... ...... ........... ............. . .......... .....
procedures set forth In Section 97.98 of th rejecting the
ISO a
California Public Resources Code and shall consult recommendations of
.................
...... .....
...................
with the most likely descendants designated by the the Native American
Native American Heritage Commission to obtain Heritage Commission
"commandations on the treatment and disposition are provided.
.. .... ... .... . .....
with appropriate dignity of the human remains and
a esociated grave goods.
.....................................
C=S A County-certified archaeologist shall be retained by x x x
the applicant to complete literature and records These searches
......................
searc a........... h 9 for recorded sites and previous surveys. In should be conducted
addition, a field survey shell be conducted bye prior to certification
-cartified archaeologist unless the entire County of the REIR.
X,
proposed project site has been documented as
previously surveyed In a mannar which meats the
approval of the Manager,Harbors Beaches and
Parke/Program Planning Division. A report of the
literature and records search and the field survey
IX
shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager,
Harbors,Beaches and Parka/Program Planning
..........................
Division. Mitigation measures may be required
depending on the recommendations of this report.
-45-
.. ;;::<::`:... ; ; : :;:: ;::;:;:::': a o u 1 ro a..NAllanatf..on:..: :Maaaura.Nat:P. ...........::..:............................,.... .......:.................................................................................................... .........o........................................ ...lrW...P......:........................ ..................::.:...:.: $.ho.......bR:;Eoanominell
..... .... ...........::....:...Y..
:.....::.:::.:::::...:,: :: . .:::::................::.::.::::::::::::.::::::.:::::::::.:::::::::::::.::.:.:::::::::::::,:::::::::::. :....
abeu a Nti :><::::::: <>::...........................
.......<:>:::::;:: :: ::;::::;::>::> ;::>:::»»:.>::>>:::::>:»::::>::>:<>:::::>::><::: ; o::
N etldn.M.. ...t. ....,.... ... ....... . 11 ... ed...1...... . S Ixf ............. .... t Mi.. ....l.. aot....... ..o . .a... .... ........... ............
Cou retained X
A n ertif ed archaeologist i hell be rate b o i roh o st•
the app
licant licant to perform ma subsurface
ace test level
Investigation and collection as app
ropriate.
rfe te.
The iset level report evaluating the•Ice•hellInclu
de
discus os a condition
discussion o significance de h nature,f t 1
0 p
and extent of the resources),final mitigation
recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated
s shall e find h I be offered the County of Oren or
to nt
Y 0
designee. on first refusal basis. Applicant ma
y
Y
retain•eId finds if written assurance Is provid
ed
d that
•
they will be properly Press rved InOren e Coun
ty.
Y.
e finds s if unless said s are o • cis • n foence r a
fi f I i o
P 0
use Orange e to study
!' m um in County tndlo •s desire
0
Indicates
<> and/or displaythem et the time In which case
Items
donated o 0 shall bs dons t the County. designee. Final
or
tY. 0
mitigation shell be carried out based upon the report
a determinationas t he site'recommendationsnd s o f e
o the Manager,Harbors,Beaches and
disposition b ns Herbo 8 she
P 0 .Y
Parke/Program
ro ram Planning Division. Possi
ble
determinations Include.but are notli li
mited to
e salvo partial a ,iti mitigation r servetlon s i salvo or no m n
MOM 0 P 0 P 9
cs n e sea ry
Prior to Issuance of a grading permit,the proje
ct X
applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief
P P
Section, heCounty-
certifieds Ion Gredin lion t s MA ulet t E /R /
0 0
archaeologist has been retained o conduct'. arch t h n rs t o t
0
e archaeologicalu ce Iva e excavation of the resources e in
•a
0
e xc ted find r the
permit area. Excavated e shall I b e offered to
f Orange, r designee,o i refusal County o n o nee n e first feel
the t
Y 0 . 0
•
e I Ilce e retain aid finds written bas
is.s. The applicant m n s if w t n
P p Y
ass
urance rence Is that they will be
properly rl
Y
nt s served i Orange County, unless said finds are of
preserved
e n
fl Y•
special significance,or museum In Orange coun
ty
Y
Indicates s desire to study and/or
r dis
play leY them at the
s shall be donate the
e case item d to time.In which
h
County, or des
ignee.nee. A final report of the salv
age
e
fed o a e II be submit t and rove b the
operation she d
Pp Y
Man
ager,ar Harbors. Reaches andParke/Program
Pla
nning, Division, prior to any flradin
grading in the
arch
aeological fcel site areas.
.
-46-
it �r r ■r wi r r r r r r r �r rr r �■ r� r� ■r
. . ........... ...... ...... .............. ..... ...
..............
: . ..... - ......... ..... ...
..................
-T* . .........
....................
.............. .... ... .
. ... ........
... .... ....
................
tau a
:'01.....1 1"'' P
64.........
66
F sa.... ... ......... ....... .... .
.... .....
...................
.........
........ . ............
X.,
.... ............
. ........
............... ......
............
............. .......
...... .....
I . ............
I ........ 1.1
. ...... .... ....
............
The two potential archaeological sites In the X
Lowland. ORA-1308 and-1309.and the Lowland Sea PDF-8 above.
.. ........ ... -86,shall be tested by a County-
component of ORA
.......... certified archaeologist to determine whether they
............
..... represent unique or Important cultural deposits. It
. ........... ................. they are determined to be unique or Impo ant
rt
............. .. . ... .. ... . . ...
-certified archaeologist will
deposits,the County
....... ............. ....... .. . ... recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be
.. . .... ........ ... ........ •
Implemented by the Lowland applicant which could
. ... .... . ...
...... .. ..... . .... ...
..... . .......
Include the Implementation of a data recovery
..... . .. .......
............ .....
Po or the"capping"of the site which shall be
........ . .. . . ... ...
.... ..... ....
......... ......... .... . ................. .....................
...................
Implemented at the expense of the Lowland
..................
............
applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be
..........
........... . .........
PI let prior to Issuance of a grading, permit for
00m a
............
.........
. .........
Lowland wetlands restoration*activities or Lowland
................
............
..............
urban development activities for these sites.
. ..........
.......... ..................
...... ....
A systematic cultural resources survey of the X
Lowland shall be carried out by a qualified,County- Sao PIDF-7 above.
certified archaeologist to determine It cultural
...... . .... ......... ......................... ...
resources are present and,It so,to evaluate their
. .......................... .
significance. If found to be significant,mitigation
............... ...... ... . ... . ...... .................. measures consisting of preservation In open space or
..................
data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be
Implemented at the expense of the Lowland
applicant. All data recovery excavations shall be
completed prior to Issuance a grading permit for
Lowland wetlands restoration activities that may
........................................
Impact any sites discovered.
..... ........... ..............
................
Areas of the Lowland that have the potential to
X
contain buried archaeological sites shall be monitored
by a County-certified archaeologist and should
Include areas within Lowland adjacent to the Boise
..... ...........
Chico Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs.
-47-
. .
-
Site*on the Huntington Reach Mesa that will be X
^
-48-
Mlti atlon:Meaaura:....... 1 ro. fFt•IlAriad on Maseun`Nat:5hown Nat S o`
TAzt :;....:.: ::.:.:;>..;..: r►W p h.wn to b•Eaano►nloally .
Mlti tltioil a ilu s.. r No.. ..
::;:::::>.::::.<::<• >::>:•::•: : • I•sd as PD d. . .....M... .. .... ...
F or SC:':>. ::Futurtl::Siud`'?: > ...... :;to:Mill ets,im act. or. doh"i......,;:•;::::::..;;;::;:<:.;::;•;:::>:.:>::::::::<:>: :::. :.�.Wi ,: .... •. V .: 8 ,.: P.: ..•::,.:: T.., .noglly,Fetletbls...:...
flti . tlOflAAAilUiti►4:12 ?>: The Count shall evaluate all historic components of X
:: ..::. .:.:.:::. Y nrP
RA 88 an
d-385 as well as all other facilities.
• See •5 above.PDF
struc
tures years
s and features more then 45 r old with
Y
t
the Co
unty LCPA Arse. A qualified historical
al
archaeologist and/or architectural historian shell be
engaged to conduct this evaluation. This evaluation
shell be conducted at the County's expense and the
County shall Implement recommendations of the
historical archaeologist end/or architectural historian
< regarding
0 0
historical cultural resources
.
Significance
criteria to be employed sh Id ou be the
eligibility criteria for the NRHP and Appendix K to the
:...::: CEOA Guidelines.
>.::
::.
;PALSdWTOtQGICA�gESbURCE8[; :;> ..
prol•arOeblan XX
Febtufe•
;;. :..
, . 'et• oNoPDSe;t • R ro
eanilerd Conditions.,. ;
A-Cou i
# ?> »> z <... »<> n cart fled paleontologist shell be retained
ty p g n by X X
the applicant to complete literature PP P
r furs and records
The searches and
searches recorded
h s for r cord d sites and previ
ous surveys.
e. In surveys referred to In
add field
addition, a f eldsurvey Y shell be conducted b s this SC should be
Count certified paleontologist elsontolo Is t unless he e
n
t entire conducted prior to
Y
Proposed protect site has been documented as certification of the
PY Y r previously surveyed in a manna which meets the REIR.
approval of the Manager, Harbors,Beaches and
Parke/Program Planning Division. e
e
A report of the
P
literature and records searches and field survey shell
be submitted to a ePP Y
appro
ved b the Manager, Harbors,
e e Bach a and Parke/Program Planning Division. Future
mill etion shell depend upon e n the recommendations i
9 P n
the report.
-49-
D l' » :..: . . ...:.::..,..Ml.t.:lq .....
.M..e......u:.:.: : ::..:. . ..
.. . .:.
: . .:
n.a...lro........
:: ly.a�..a.?e.o(balrswn.i.oa.::l.lp tlo
: : :. ....: :: :n. at b
tuc........ .... ::. :::
.. .....:...... >::»: :.o: .....::::. e.PDF ::::....;:>< meatMIttat .. eW1 .
Y.::,..,..
Prlor to the Issuance of a grading pe►mit,the proje
ct X X
applicant s s
hell provide written evidence to the Chief.
Control of mess
P
EMA Rs/ uletion red action that s County-/G In Section, excavation
e
0 tY-
Y
cer
tified
paleontologistoaeth sb been retained by th
e single pr
ofessional
s lio ant too i salvage prepare
PP conduct re- rad n • er
0 P P will be Impracticable.
P 0 0
a oetelopus of the exposed resources. Excavated
finds shall be Orange,
offer the County of ra s or
offered to
h 0
designee,o I
n s first refusal basis. The applicant may
Y
re el t n said finds If written assurance Is provided that
the will be
properly prese ed in Orange County.
a
s
mess sold
finds are special significance.or s
r of s of I
P
S;
museum In Orange t desire to
t
0
County Indicates a de study
Y
and/or display them the time in which case Items i
t
shall be donated to the County, or designee. The
Pal
eontologist ist shall submit e follow-upreport rt for
a rove)b the MaBeaches
PP
ne er Harbors and
Y 0
er P ke ro r/P am Planning Division, for review er►d
0 0
approval, s Include methodology,which hall
en
anal is of ar fa ti cts found a catalogue of artifacts
analysis 0
and their
Present repository.
►Y•
•
-50-
• . a i ar � r a s a r r r r ar r s r �
................ ... . ::.;....::. .:
.::.:.:.::.:::...::.::::..:..:.:....
::..... ::Text;:..::;.:.:.;;•::::::;:::>.;:.>;;>:<:>::;::>:::;::>:::;_::;.:;.>::::::;.:>.>:>::.;;:::>:>:;:;:>::::;;::;:::::>::>;.:::::: :;:Mltl atlon..M.veeut :.. ..
::,::.::::,:::::::::::::::::::::.::.:.:..:.:.::....::.:::::...............::........... .........0...:....:......: ...:A::::.:::..... ...Impro er.fie(lanaa.nn.... ..Meatnice.Nut.Shown..: ::.Na1c.:S.hc.wn.to..be.loanomjoall .:
p.................:.......... ............................................ ...... ................................. ............V..
MiU etlon Mee�ure No ;<:' :.<:;:: >;::;....:..::.: :::.::•;:<.:.::•::•;.;;.:.::::::::::.:::.::;;<..:.:....::....:•. :. ::.: ::..:.....,.:...... ,:.;:.....:•.. :::.:.: ;.,.......;,,.:.:::::»>:::::r >:.<: :..... ..... .
................................. . ::Di ulsed:e�PDF;er SC.. utu e S d ;:::'•>:»< i 's :I:::<::::: >:::;:::.;::.::.;..;.:<.;;.::;.:;.,.::;:;.>.:<:..::.:::.:;:::.;::;;;:.;.....:.:;::;..»;.;:::;.: F. t .. to ao.M U gets: m eat..... ..or.Teehniobll .Ferre(bls..:... ...'.q..:.. .. .. .::. .:.,....:..... .. :.........:.... :... .. :.:. 40 . ..:,.... .. . .. .. V. .. . .. .. ,....,..p: .. .. P: :.... .: Y..:,:. ..
Prior to the Issuance of s grading permit, the project X
applicant shall provid
e written evidence to the Chief,
EMA e I Section, that e County-
....... /R u sUon Gradin
0 0certified paleontologist has been retained to observe
radio catalogue i aotiviUss alva sandfossils
and s
grading 0
as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at
the
pro-gradingconference,shell establish
P
rodedures
fo
rpaleontologicaland shell
resource
s steblish. in cooperation with the project developer.r
.
procedures fortam temporarily redirectinghalting or work
•
to permi
t sampling,
Identification, end evaluation of
the fossils. If major paleontological aleon olo ical resources are
t
discovered which require long-term halting or
redirecting of grading,the paleontologist shall report
such findings to the project developer and to the
Manager. Harbors,Beaches o s 8 soh send
0
Planning
n in Division. The paleontologist shall determine
0 P 0
e ro riate actions in cooperation with the project
PP P P P j
developer. which ensure proper exploration and/or
r
salv0
age. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
County of Orange, or its designee,on afirst-refusal
basis e applicant s e a a. Thm retain in sold finds if written
V
assurance Is provided that the will be properly
Y P P Y
P0 Co
unty,reserved in Orange Count unless said finds are of
Spec
fel significance, or a museum n Orange Count i
0Y
Indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the
time In which case Items shall be donated to the
county, or designee.
nee These actions,as weII as
final
mitigation and disposition of the resources shelf be
0 P
subject to the approval by the Manager, Harbors, •
Beaches and 0.
Parks/Program Planning, Division. Prior
to the Issuance of a O precise grading permit, the
-up report foreontolo fat eheII submit a followPal
approval b the Manager, Harbors Beaches and
P 0 P V
Parks/Program Planning Division I which shall Include
0
e
catalogue e analysis
the period of inspection, a cat nd of
P0
the fossils found and resent repository of the
. P V P
observation fossils. Monthlyradio r n reports shall
be
O 0
b e Inspector on all projects submitted to the radio acts
grading P P I
1 which exceed 00 000 cubic Verde, unless no
c c
-51-
. ......... ------- ...... .... .............. .... ...
.......... .....
X., ....... .......
...................... ..............
4� -X
. .........
"00-.M ....
.............
X—xx ..................
-X ...... .... - . . .. - .: .......
. :-:i;::
.................... ......... Ox . :::: - ' :::: :
PD�ISwrpEoanomtoeill
:Iru
........ :FDF: C a oa.yJ a"'
K,
...............
I w
::i:::: X. S
gin bit: t f
............. ........ .................. ...
.............. . ... . ........
........ ... .
..................CES ...............
..........
:;X':': X. ......
.................................
..........
PAL 0 TOLO"d"'It:
.. ... . ..... . . . .. ..........
.. .................. ........
.......... .............. ...........
. ........... . ...... .......... ........... .....
X:
. .................. .. ..................
Thi,REIR-0-ii 6`446640.W-60-a"140"O"madiuras ire requirid .... ...
.............
�oletil0e�lan'futures is
................
................ .......... ... ........ ..
.......... ............ ........ ......... X
.............. ....... ......
..........
......... ...........
X. v..... ......... ...........
....... .......... .............. ............ ... . .... . ....
. ......... . .....
. .. ....... ..................X .. .......
............ .
............ ..................... .
.............. ...............
............. ................ ....
...... ............
..............
po ..........
...... As part of the Development Agreement for the x x x
........ ...
.................
.. ....
.......... .... .... Proposed Project.the Applicant will Implement the No method for such No Information is given
......... ..
Local Parke and Recreation Facilities described in this Implementation Is regarding the financial I
provided. an the development.
EIR In Section 3.3.8.
.....................
All graded slopes will be completely hydroseeded x
X
....... within 90 days following completion of grading.
............
Views of construction activities will be shielded as x
x
.1... ......... feasible by measures that can Include placement of
x.:
temporary fencin0.landscaped berms,and/or
.............................
landscaping.
.................................................a
..................
... ..........
X
X .........
x,X. .................. .. ........
X
-$tjh46d Con dItI444
.......... ........
................ ... ....
.... .... .. ... ...
... ..... .........
............ ......... ......... ...
X: ....................
:REIR C.M:Are.re ..... .:::e:,:::," ........
,:% :: .................... ...
Or ........ ....... ...........4004,44 6kid .. ... .A...A ......
.0 06 hot now.,
............. ....... .......
................................. .........
... ..........
. ...................
X:'X, .............. ........
:...AOrHncs.. ..................
..................................
. .................. ......... ...... ...........
..........
x. . Land Including use of native vegetation. and x
414 setbacks from Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue
.
hall be used to break up long linear views of houses
from
X x offelts.
Prior to Issuance of any building permit, the Applicant x x
X 4 14.1 b shall demonstrate all exterior lighting has been No approval criteria Li ghting will still
designated and located so that all direct rays are are given. affect wildlife,
.......... confined to the property in a manner meeting the especially along the
I I the Manager, Building Permits. BCSE.
approve o I
-52-
...............
, ..........----- .. .Xx d
..............
. .. ... ...
WW.. .. . ... . P ....A
a WM 1 . .... .... .. .......
....
X
$hour* Prior to Issuance of any grading permit or recordation X;X of any a pplicable tract/parcel map,the Applicant shall No approval criteria
'
......................
submit,subject to the approval of the County are given.
Manager HBP Planning Division,an urban edge
treatment plan which Includes but Is not limited to:
building he and setback limits;landscape and fuel
modification treatments.provisions for walls, fences
ps gradients and ratios ll.e., 2:1 -4: 1)
ors
proposed;slope drainage structures.and architectural
•
pe design themes.
or l arlasce
. .. .. ..... .. ... ....
. .........
Oo. . . ....
. ........ .. .. ...........
... ....... ... ...... . ....... ............
.. . ....... X.
-:X: ....... ......1110010 CONOMICSii
... ....... .. ..........
..........
.......... .....
......... ...... ..............
.. .......
...... ........ 'ad address...6-At OU.r td..".. td 1"0 tHa..::0'.'PDF' have I......... ... .:tv 6 R-EIR: 146V lid 0. OV.0..06".h 6 crated.. . .. .. ...0 n 0: dis go:
..4 1, A (0 so ::Oto 00 060. ........
.. ..... .......
....... ... .......
........ .... as ................
. .............
.......... V—q
. ............
:::x ...-X
... . . .. ..................... .... X.
... . .... ... . ::X
. ... .....
... ..... ... ..
............ . ...... ... ... . . ... ... .. .. ..... ...
.. ..
"O"'S " . . .. . . . . - ... : ..- -.. ". ......................... ...... ........ ......... X
...........
.. .... ..
.... . .. . .......... .. I...I ..-.I...I
go..OW�....6004to 11 1. ..11. .. . . .. . ......
..........
. ........ .... ............
.............................. .. .. .. . .. .............
. ........ ..... . . .... ... ........
X, -X-
X ..
-:%-XX X:
R E I R Otiik6i that;ho.:M tigat a.. ...... ::Sr :raqu.r ..... . ..
me Ou n
a
..........
. ........
X
X . ....
CANO'Vtt M
...... ....... ... or
.........
n a.:....pas • X.
0..... ................... ..............
....... . ....... .....
X.... ....... X
.:P alp
In:
XT I is Deed:
643, "A
...................... ..... P. .. ..... . . . ..I. . .. ..:...' ;: .. . .
........... .......
-X
X X:
. .... .... ....... . .....
2, .. ..
X
:X
x:................ -.'.
. .... ........
.. ......
..... ...
........ . ........ ...... :x
... ... .. ....... .................... .... .. ........... .... .
...... ..............
.............
..... Water and energy conservation features will be X X
Incorporated Into now residential development as per What Is the basis for
..............
Title
.:F...
24 of the California Code of Regulations. These this determination? •
X: features are expected to reduce project water
..... ... .....
X:
demand by at least 10 percent.
T a Applicant will pay the applicable school X
h
X.
.. .. ..... development fees as mandated by State Law.
-53-
..........
.... ........
...........
. ... .........
... ..........................
. .
....... . .............. . ....
Mt" t "M.. . . . '
......0. We 0, . b Toohy FOAb .....
A Fiscal Impact Report(FIR)will be prepared for the X X
Solon ChIca project which analyzes the fiscal Impacts The FIR should be
.. ..... . . .
. .... ... ..
of the project on County funds(e.g..General Fund, prepared prior to
.............. Ubrary District,Fire Fund, ate.).The FIR will be certification of the
reviewed by County officials and specific conditions......... ......... .. REIR.
of approval will be recommended to the Board of
............
...........
Supervisors to address potential funding deficiencies
caused by the project. It the FIR Indicates that the
cost of providing library services to the project
.... ....
..........
exceed the Ubrary FurW revenues generated by the
•
development, the Applicant will be required, as part
... . . ... ....
...............
of the project approval,to enter Into an agreement
... .. ..
with the County to provide additional funding for the
.......... . ..................
. ........... ..
...... . .. ..
xpansion of library services.
.... ..............
Mki
..........
...........
-at
...........
..... ...... .......
The Applicant shall be required to enter Into a X X
secured agreement with the County to provide She The police services No Information Is given
I cement services such as facilities. which can be regarding the financial Impact
law on or
ant.or other infrastructure necessary for provided by the on the development.
squipm
adequate law enforcement services to the Proposed
County are not
Project. sufficient to meet
..............
...... County standards for
......... response time.
Midpetia r a 4 1 0 The Applicant shall be required to enter Into a X X
secured fire protection agreement with the County or
Even with the No Information 18 given
Its successor fire protection agency. The agreement construction of a regarding the finenc a mpa
-hall Include the following. now station, the fire on the development.
protection services
... which can be
provided by the
County are not
sufficient to meet
County standards for
............... .......
response time.
-54-
PdP Taxt.. :.: . ...: . ... !!Atli ation::Mta.Asuca;»:::::::::: ro er;NnllgnaN:nn IMAubsurr Nat Shawn Na.t:Shown to bta;Fiignoiploally
ISrr..:... ... .:........:.............. ... hrW...P ... :........... ............. ........:,..::............... ....................................:::.:::........:.......
:.::. .;:. ::.:. ::.:::.:.;.....:.:.::::::... ::..:::... . :Ih r TOO
..: ....1 ..:Easel
:::::::.:,:;:.:;::<.;;;:.;:;.;:::;:.::.:::.>,>::::.::;.:.::.::.::::.:::::...:.. Is a .PDK. : .C.... .. uttrre:St :.................. .. o. ti at .�.. act:::::::::::: .o . t niorl .........4................:...
t�id adt,n eesurs.roo.....:..:::, .........................................................................:..::::...:.......................... ..OKt .....ad..�.........era...:.:. :.:E...............�d ................... ...t..N ..p..:4:,....t ..: ... .....:...Y......... ..... ....
,M :.. .:,:. ..:......:::...:::..................:....... .. tNr ......... ..... ..:. Y.............. ..
for dedication
of an ade
quate sit
e et n
w for constr
uction
on of
a full
within the eat area
e project Y
P j
0
subject t e fire station.ui pod s rnished
q PP
and fu
N.
the approval of the OCFD or successor agency;
► Provision for funding of land acquisition,
hin he new
construction, equipping and furni• t
t s 0. q PP 0
firs station adequate fire acc
ess,wat
er
st and q
distribolion and supporting inf
rastructure
by the Applica
nt;I t•and
► Ion
commencement of fire stet Provision for oomm no t r
operation
In acc
ordance with dev
elopment
m ant
phasing.
faAt�lyetion;M 'Au ;:�t'.1.A3.`` The Project Applicant will pay the statutory school
e enter into an
o e of or e ee as applicable the project,
f Is t
P P 1 P
o provide
a school district t d agreement with he affected e
nt t t P
those measures deemed necessary ossee to
address
the
eur s
ludo e
e include th eo the of which m n Impact of project.
Y P P 1
payment of
schools, the e
Ym
construction I oo Ion of new t
P additional fee for th
e use of temporary ry
facilities. But
_
- - pro de
to A sapplicant berequired n e t shall i o van th n
P
more than re
qui
red
by CEQA and the th
en
app
licable
statutory
P
provisions
atone relatin
g to school
fe ctlitiea
X.
5.
proo
pn
Orange X
ant ll dedicate to the Count of
The
Applicant will
48 scree of land within the Bolaa Chica Project Area
acre Boise
d for completion of the 108
-approved e
Regional Pa
rk ark as Ide
ntified the County
9 in o
0M0e
0
9 .1 2 GDP
-55-
..............
... . ............. .. ................
..........................
.. ........ ...... .. .......... .....
..... ....... Oil-
............
...... :j:].fAffi*A fib.....M#`- i*W4A WMAVA-- 11016"i"IWAIN, fasi
.::' :, : :iii N..........
Uid:
:XX
-X
...... .. .......
K ................
H ::::-.:xx
...... ...... V.
tu it got P
........ ..... a.
. .... ......
....................... .. ....WOO.A......... . . ...X. :::M; .0 .M aoVi I F001toc
...................
With the Implementation of Option 6 of the Lowland x
Component, the Applicant will dedicate to the County
X.I.........
............ of Orange.or such entity approved by the Board of
Supervisors,787 acres of land with the Project Area
...........
required for the creation of a 1.006-sore Boles Chics
.... .. Wetlands Area as Identified In the 1989 Boles Chios
..........
.......... .... ......
.. . ... Planning Coalition Concept Plan.
.............-
. . ...........................................
. ......................................
.... ........ ........................
Wit
h the Implementation of Option A of the Lowland x
. . .... ............... .......................
.. ............................................................................................................ Component, the Applicant will dedicate
....... . .......... ..............................
... ..... ..... ..................................
......... ..........................
. . ..... . ................................
.......... . .......................................
approximately 2 acres of parkland beyond the
•
.............................
....................................
.......................... .......
. .................... ... .
................... .................... dedication requirements of the County's Local Park
. .............................
.... ........ .
.................
.. ...........
................... ..............................
Code.
With the Implementation of Option B of the Lowland x
Component, the Applicant will dedicate
aPproximately I I acres of pa a beyond the
.... rkl nd
dedication requirements of the County's Local Park
Code.
....... .
lX Al recreationl. . facilities described In this section will
x x
X.:
... ..... be Implemented as part of the Proposed Project. No Information Is given
............................ regarding the financial Impact
.....................
ox. ....... ...
.......... .... .. on the development.
. .. ... .....
X . ....... ................
.............
. .. . ........... .....
... ..... ....... 7:xx:
X
....... .......
..........
It Option A of the Lowland Component Is
x
Implemented, the Applicant shall dedicate to the
..............
......................
. ....... ... ..................................
................................. . .........
.........................
County of Orange a combination of 14.42 acres of
land and local park Improvements to satisfy the
I I ... ......
........ ......... ........
....... ...............I
County's Local Park Code requirements.
•
...... ..........
.......................
. .. .....r ................
S
a ,�.2%:::.::: ::.:�...:..:.�:::...:.:.�....:
If Option 8 of the Lowland Component is
x
......... im plemented. the Applicant shall dedicate to the
........... County of Orange a combination of 20.02 acres of
..........I.. .....I..... ....
X
11 .. ................. land and local park Improvements to satisfy the
... ............
.. ..............
County's Local Park Code requirements.
.. ........
.... . ...... ...... . . .......
... . ............... ........
r
a
% . ..................
AAidpptlon.Msesurets::,"
:F%: ... ......
....... ..................... .................. .. ....
........................... x;
X.
X
Mu got on:M000"ro-st
�1
ANNEX NO. 5
The following table sets forth a summary analysis sis of the alternatives considered in
1 Chapter 6 of the REIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica
Development and notes certain of the problems and infirmities under CEQA of the
REIR's alternative project analysis. This table is not intended to summarize the
infirmities of the REIR under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter,
' dated October 4, 1994, delivered to the County of Orange by Ervin, Cohen &Jessup,
in-its capacity as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach, for full particulars.
i tC; :`''>......:?; ::;y`i<:S c{:< i;f E i;;i$i:9 of
e o a# e ommants n. einat� rd :. :A tt n o. R o ..Rtt ue. :....:...::.::.. dd4 .. In.. rmstton..
:..A)teme ..a..::::::.::f3esenpf�o:..:.::.:.:::...�:...::::....::...........::....:......... .....:.::...::.....:......:.....:....................................::.... .......:9.::....:;
R.:
EI
At#erttanyeaE — Discussion notes potentially The REIR omits:
Mixed open space and recreational significant impact from increased
uses with EGGW channel retained as a human intrusion and loss of upland 1. A statement of the purchase price
Rstoratfoi public facility; no new housing habitat; however,these impacts which would be paid to acquire the
RE1FC provided were discounted in the analysis of Mesa or the Lowlands under this
sGH z6i23<' 3 the proposed project(which alternative. Accordingly,it merely
— Oil operations in Lowland would includes park uses)in Ch.4 of the assumes that funding would not be
continue until voluntarily abandoned by REIR availablele �t hout considerin
g the degree
the oil operators of funding required.
— Acknowledges significant traffic
— Road constructed on Balsa Mesa to impacts from 4 000 weekend trips 2. Consideration of the potential for
mP
access recreational use but cross combs w h n f r sc u t combined with beet traffic—rw only onion o the Stud Area to be
gap
a
Y P Y
connector/BCSE would not be built funds contribute toward ATIP purchased for recreational or
conservation purposes in order to
— Contemplates a reouiremenr that — Alternative acknowledges that decrease the impacts b (a)redL
mP sie P Y g
n' s e r b a the in i v the entire site must b chased incompatibility of the proposed residential density and the overall
purchased Y mP tY D tY P
private organization or governmental project with existing development number of units while making the
entity and surrounding uses but this was project more compatible with the
not identified as a significant existing neighborhood surrounding the
im
pact in the REIR end should have project end b preserving ESHAs such
E o ass
nnPac ( )
P 1 P
been as the Warner Pond and lc1 avoiding the
disruption of significant archaeological
Reasons for Dismissal— This sites on the Mesa.
alternative
ve was dismissed becaus
e
it:
— fails to fulfill the objective of
providing g
n e mix of housing on the
Lowlands and the Mesa;
— does not provide a definitive
means of wetlands expansion and
restoration;
n and
— does not provide a definitive
plan to bring the wetlands into
public ownership
Conclusion:Since no funding of the
recreational uses is provided,this
alternative will not fulfill its
objectives providing 1
es of ovmdin additional
P g
recreational space.
Attemattve bon
......:.......... ....
acnp Comments on A)tesnsbve et+d, AddiboeaE Infcrmstfoa Requcred
:.::.;.
REiR`e Reasons:f:. .Di..: ... .•:.;:.:; •.:•:::.::.:.:.
::......:..:..:.:::. .........:.:.:::.:...:...
AlLematibeB — Virtually the entire site would be Reasons for Dismissal— This The REIR omits: (1) A statement of the
&odiwrsity dedicated to conservation purposes alternative was dismissed because purchase price to acquire the site.
'Park;z'rr: ; it: Accordingly,it merely assumes that
Generally is compatible with funding would not be available without
surrounding land uses although the — provides no housing considering the degree of funding
"Evrotr'> enhanced wildlife habitat might cause — provides no definitive means of required; (2) Consideration of the
.::,:mentai)y some conflict with the surrounding wetlands expansion and potential for only a portion of the Study '
Supenor residential uses restoration;and Area to be purchased for biodiversity
i
iativs — provides no definitive plan to park purposes in order to decrease the
— Would permit creation of significant bring the wetlands into public impacts by(a) reducing residential
r passive recreation r n opportunities owner dense and the overall number of units
ownership P PP P density
while making the project more
Some funding may be available for Conclusion:Since this plan would compatible with the existing
si ' Hoff n ac w do i r require n neighborhood o od surrounding he project he site from USFWS e u re either cooperation of ne b rho a ndi t ct
e the the co er
q q P e fl PI
n S he I e' preserving HAs such s e
t landowners or the completion bon and b e E e th
)n'�P P fl
of eminent domain proceedings Warner Pond and(c)avoiding the
followed by the development of a disruption of significant archaeological
restoration plan,the time frame for sites on the Mesa and 3 A
implementingicomparison of the 'min for the
this Ian would tr
0 P
extend beyond the time frame implementation of the WRP versus the
identified by Koll to achieve timing for the acquisition and
restoration goals. implementation of the biodiversitY Park
alternative.
Reasons for Dismissal— This The REIR's analysis of this alternative is
:%Com me 6W" —500 room luxury hotel with support alternative was dismissed because particularly suspect in that it assumes
Rksoit'[ [ and conference facilities it: (for no apparent reason)that this
HousinQ'z> '<> — provides housing on the Mesa project would not include any traffic
Afierriaty —tennis courts/recreation facilities in only partial satisfaction of the improvement or mitigation and
including an 18-hole golf course objective of providing a mix of erroneously states that the impacts on
n
environment would be greaterthe housing on the Mesa end the the emn n
—200,000 sq.ft. of commercial shop, Lowlands under the proposed project. Project
restaurants — provides no means of wetlands restoration timing may not be
expansion and restoration;and significantly different from the timing
xP fl Y
— 1 residential units in a high — r "v Ian to here.
500 t provides no definitive
P fl P
density configuration bring the wetlands into public
ownership The REIR omits:
hikingtrails and interpretive center
rP
n of the 1. Consideration s alternative if
Conclusion:Page 6-30 states that
a
—contraction of roadways and although this alternative would the development were conditioned on
utilities;but no cross-gap connector fulfill many of the objectives of the establishment and at least partial
would be constructed Koil is not interested in funding of an ATIP as contemplated
project, fl
pursuing
this alternative. The REIR un
der Koll's project.
—Lowland restoration might occur but also notes that wetlands
would be separately funded and restoration could proceed under 2. Consideration of this alternative with
se aratel considered this alternative in the same manner a low-rise development(such as the
P Y P
as under the
project, funding Red Lion
Hotel on San
ta Barbara
coming from the development. beachfront) which does not have the
The REIR assumes no ATIP would aesthetic or view impacts of the
be included in the alternative. proposed project and with buffers and
ell for mitigation of
theme wall as relied o
land use impacts in the proposed Koll
project).
3. A comparisonthe likely phas
ing
9
and timing of the restoration under this
alternative versus the timing and
phasing under the Koll proposal.
-2 '
............
..........
..........
............
ltjteratfiyaQ This alternative substantially meets CCC staff has noted that the 1986
all of the objectives of the project LCP land use plan would no longer be
.......................
5.700 mixed residential housing and implements the 1986 LCP. compatible with CC goals and policies,
unite in the Lowlands and on the Mesa yet this plan is relied on in Section 4.1
per 1986 LCP Reasons for Dismissal— This of the REIR when assessing consistency
alternative was dismissed because with Coastal Act policies and
Marina with navigable channel it: consistency with the County General
access would have greater adverse Plan. This is a blatant internal
impacts then the proposed plan in inconsistency in the REIR.
—Cross Gap Connector will be terms of noise,traffic, air quality
constructed together with realignment and loss of a further ESHA at —The REIR is rejects this alternative
of PCH inland Rabbit Island based on the difficulty of obtaining
federal permits while it ignores the
—would require the Corps to issue same issue in its analysis of Alternative
Section 10 and 404 permits which G and the proposed projects of the
would be difficult to obtain REIR.
ve,E". 3.200 dwelling units on the Mesa This alternative assumes The analysis of this alternative correctly
and in limited pocket area(38 acres) implementation of the ATIP to states that many of the impacts from
immediately adjacent to the Mesa and mitigate traffic impacts which are the project would occur here with equal
on a portion of Edwards Thumb similar in scope to the impacts from severity.
.....................
the project.
v6i non-navigable tidal inlet would be There is no way to judge the timing of
.. ......>Auai `€€ constructed as in the case of the
This alternative fulfills the wetlands restoration because no
Project objectives of the project and is projections of timing are given either for
' — similar in scope and nature to the project WRP or for the alternative.
Would require higher densities in Lowland Option 8;however,the
order to yield 3,200 units without REIR implies that Koll might not
development on Lowlands areas other willingly fund the WRP under this
than the pocket and Edwards Thumb alternative.
as indicated on Figure 6-5
This alternative will require OCFCD
—Cross Gap Connector would not be to reconvey the EGGW channel
constructed but a more intense road easement.
system would be constructed on the
Mesa,into the pocket and access Development of the pocket is
would be provided into Edwards dependent upon the purchase of
Thumb portions of that property from
MWD
Would include limited neighborhood
commercial us" Reasons for Dismissal-None given
1
1
1
-3-
x: .............
X
Ft
........ .... ..............
'Ad
.... .....
...... .........
- ------------ ------ ----
R i.
... . ... ....RE[
....... ...........
1,000 low density units an the Mesa The REIR states this alternative REIR notesthat this alternative is not
does not provide a viable means of consistent with Coastal Act policies
No Cross Gap Connector wetlands expansion and favoring restoration of the wetlands but
restoration;however,this omits to note:
No Lowlands development alternative is not distinguishable in
Alternative G is similarly inconsistent
that regard from Lowland Option A
No restoration or tidal inlet but with Coastal Act policies which
Lowlands are retained as open space The REIR assumes no ATIP for this discourage filling of wetlands for
alternative without explanation or residential development
justification for doing so.
This alternative would retain the
Reasons for Dientissal— This option for future restoration by
alternative was dismissed because preserving the Lowlands as open space
it: until a funding source for the restoration
provides housing on the Mesa could be located
in only partial satisfaction of the
objective of providing a mix of The REIR omits:
housing on the Mass and the —An explanation of the project-related
Lowlands impacts which would be mitigated in
— provides no means of wetlands the wetlands under this alternative.
expansion and restoration;and
— provides no definitive plan to
bring the wetlands into public
ownership
Conclusion:Page 6-49 indicates
that this alternative assumes that
only project related impacts would
be mitigated and no requirement or
plan for wetlands restoration would
eimlb entdm
...... .......
. . .........
. . .. ...............
4,286 dwelling units The environmental consequences See City Comment dated
are anticipated to be significantly February 17, 1994
tidal inlet greater than for the project(s)
proposed in the REIR
rym density of 36 d.u./acre
wetlands restoration plan
no cross-gap connector
X
Proposed REIR project
Assume*OW some development The use of the term'No Project The REIR should explain exactly what
..... ...........
. ...........................
............. .. .. ..
would proved, accordance Alternative"for this alternative is development could occur under the
oul but only in
... . ........
with existing zoning designations misleading and is not in accord existing zoning and the potential
with customary CEGA practice. locations of that development.
Scope and location of the
V ..... development permitted under this Reasons for Dismissal: This The REIR omits consideration of the
H�i
project is not specified
ix-
alternative would fulfill none of the inconsistency of the current zoning with
project objectives the General Plan
.......... .......
me.twe Vi* No development would occur on the Reasons for Dismissal- This
site alternative would fulfill none of the
project objectives
XXXX
. .. ..- .:::::: —This alternative is commonly referred
to as the"no project alternative' under
... .......... ...
CEGA
....... ...
-4-
r I
Q�
---J
' r rr -r� -rr -�r r■ -r- �r_ rw_ rr_ rr_ r _ ar _ r -- �r _ r� _ r r� �r
SIGNIFICANCE •
NO
IMPACT ANALYSIS REMAINING
PROJECT NO EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT
DESCRIPTION EFFECT
EFFECT BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT
REMAINING
EFFECT
UF C
�i
��
��
m CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor Moulton-Patterson
and City Council Members
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
DATE: September 23, 1994
Due to the nature of the project and its potential to severely impact the City of Huntington
Beach, the City's consultants and staff have conducted an exceptionally thorough review
of the Bolsa Chica revised Draft EIR. The City's Special Counsel, in coordination with
the Staff has prepared a draft of the City's comments on the revised Bolsa Chica draft
EIR. Transmitted for Council's review is the draft of the City's comment letter on the
revised draft EIR.
A presentation on the draft comment letter will be made before the City Council on
Monday, September 26, 1994, by the City's special counsel. An index of the comments
has been provided as Annex No. 1 of the draft letter. The comments on the revised draft
EIR primarily focused on the following three general issue areas:
0 Content and procedural inadequacies with respect to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act
0 Section-by-Section Evaluation of the adequacy of the environmental analysis
contained in the revised draft EIR
0 Section-by-Section analysis of the long-term impacts, alternative projects and
mitigation measures included in the revised draft EIR
Staff requests that you review the attached draft letter prior to the meeting to familiarize
yourselves with the comments. Staff will be available at the meeting to address Council's
comments and questions. A final draft of the letter, including any refinements suggested at
Mondays meeting, will be brought before the City Council for approval on Monday,
October 3, 1994.
i
(Note: Presentation of the draft letter and Council comments regarding the letter, will be
followed by a hearing to take the public's comments on the draft document. A court
reporter will be present to take a transcript of the meeting which will be forwarded on the
County of Orange.)
Staff recommends that the Council review the draft comment letter, and direct staff to
incorporate any revisions the Council deems appropriate and bring the final draft of the
document before the Council for approval at the October 3, 1994, City Council meeting.
g:\osugi\blsachca\distmmo8.doc
Distribution: Linda Moulton-Patterson,Mayor
Ralph Bauer, Councilman
Vic Leipzig, Councilman
Grace Winchell, Councilwoman
Dave Sullivan, Councilman
Jim Silva,Councilman
Earl Robitaille, Councilman
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development &� e&
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
DATE: September 23, 1994
On September 28, 1994, the Orange County Planning Commission will be conducting a public
hearing on the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report at City Hall. The Community
Development Department is prepared to testify at the hearing with regard to the following
issues. It should be noted that the outline is merely a draft and can be modified at the
discretion of the City Council at their September 26, 1994 hearing.
i
Land Use and Related Planning
1. The REIR fails to explain the reasons the project differs from the 1986 LCP on which it
improperly relies in assessing of land use impacts.
2. Inconsistency with Coastal Act Policies and provisions make project implementation
unlikely.
a. LCP/LUP Consistency
b. Public Access/Recreation Related Coastal Act Policies
C. Marine Resources
d. Scenic Value
e. Coastal Dependent Uses
f. ESHAs
g. Natural Hazards
I
Page Two
3. The REIR fails to note significant inconsistencies between the proposed project and
the County's General Plan.
4. The REIR omits discussion of inconsistencies between the proposed project and the
City's General Plan.
5. The REIR fails to mitigate adequately the incompatibility of oil production and
residential development.
6._ The REIR ignores the impacts of high density residential development on the
surrounding community and community services.
7. Miscellaneous
MSF:HZ:jr
(994jr10)
Written Comments on the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Bolsa
Chica Project should be Submitted Directl�to:
Paul R. Lanning
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
300 N. Flower Street
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
By 4:00 p.m., Thursday, October 6, 1994.
County of Orange
Planning Commission Public Hearing
on the Revised Draft EIR for the Bolsa Chica Project
Verbal testimony presented to the City Council should also be presented
directly to the County of Orange Planning Commission at their public
hearing on the Revised Draft EIR; it is important that they hear your
comments first hand. The hearing will be held at the time and place
identified below:
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 1994
Place: Huntington Beach City Council Chambers
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach.
(310) 281-6309
DISCUSSION DRAFT DATED SEPTEMBER 23., 1994
8652-003
October 4, 1994
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
Environmental Planning Division
300 North Flower Street; P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
ATM: Mr. Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division
Re: Comments of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") on the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (the "REIR") prepared by the Orange County
(the "County") Environmental Management Agency (County Project No.
551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071064) with respect to The Bolsa Chita
Project Local Coastal Program
Gentlemen and Ladies:
This firm represents the City of Huntington Beach in connection with its
review and analysis of the above-referenced REIR.
The City applauds the County's decision to discard the draft environmental
impact report circulated in December 1993 through February 18, 1994 (the "DEIR") in
favor of a new environmental document.11 The City hoped that the REIR would rectify the
inadequacies of the DEIR (detailed at length in the comment (the "Coimiuent") on the
1/ If that is, in fact, who the Coway hat done. As is detailed below in this lour,the trite meaning of the
REIR and its effect on the DEIR at an environmental docwnart is obscmd in a nkwws of confused and tangled
s
refer+eww. i2a Footnote 3, ion and accompanying tart.
Discussion Draft Dated Sptwvtw 23. 1994
On rl" I e In C;� C e...r. s kce.
Y
•
• Uuann W. Murray, Ph.D.
Biological Consultant
17461 Skyline Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Qa
(714) 848-5394 (�"""' /
September 26, 1994
Open Letter to the City Council
Dear Council members:
I am unable to testify tonight about the county's plan for restoration of the Bolsa Chica, so
I am putting my comments in letter form.
The plan to dredge the outer Bolsa is unacceptable. Outer Bolsa Bay is the only natural
wetlands remaining at the Bolsa Chica. The fully tidal mudflats of the outer Bolsa, not the
muted tidal wetlands of the inner Bolsa, is a feeding ground for migratory shorebirds. Ten
thousand Blackbellied Plovers and thousands of Western Sandpipers feed on the outer Bolsa
Bay mudflats every winter. These mudflats are a key stopover during spring and fall
migration for other migratory shorebirds. These mudflats would be destroyed with the
county's plan.
A muted tidal system is biologically inferior to a fully tidal wetlands, with lower species
diversity and lower numbers of individuals. A four year study by the volunteer scientists of
the Bolsa Chica Conservancy shows that the inner Bolsa Bay, a muted tidal system, lags
behind the outer Bolsa in recovery of normal salinity levels after rainfall. A muted tidal
wetlands is poorly flushed, poorly oxygenated, and makes a poorer habitat for wetlands
organisms. Cordgrass in the inner Bolsa has failed to thrive. The only healthy, self-
sustaining stands of cordgrass exist in the outer Bolsa, which the county plans to destroy.
What they would create would not replace what they destroy. The county plan would doom
all hopes of recovery of the endangered Clapper Rail at the Bolsa Chica.
Please demand that any restoration plan at the Bolsa Chica include a new ocean opening,
not a muted tidal system.
Sincere�l ,
Louann W. Murray, Ph.D.
_--
-
i
September 26, 1994 h
D �] '
Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson
City of Huntington Beach 1
6 1994
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648 ✓µ
Dear Linda: CiTY GFF'C:1
Thank you for your letter of September 13, 1994, which included a copy of the City
Council's letter to Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, requesting his assistance in the
acquisition and preservation of the entire 1,700 acres of the Bolsa Chica.
In order to continue the open communication required to resolve the Bolsa Chica issue, I
would like to update you and the other Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition members of our
recent contact with the Department of Interior. On September 22, 1994, Koll Real Estate
Group met with and conducted a tour of its Bolsa Chica property with senior representatives
of the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Our discussions were cordial and informative in nature. No specific proposals
were detailed by any of the agencies for land exchange, land acquisition or wetlands
restoration. In fact, it was discussed that no specific funding sources have been identified
by the agencies to accomplish the City Council's goals identified in your letter. We will
continue to talk with these groups.
i
However, in view of no clear alternatives, Koll Real Estate Group continues to believe its
proposal of reasonable development and feasible,guaranteed wetlands restoration for Bolsa
Chica is in the best interest of all the Coalition members and for the citizens of not only
Huntington Beach, but all of Orange County and beyond. We look forward to the Orange
County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings on this project and would
welcome your positive leadership in the process so that the joint objective of wetlands
restoration and economic growth for Orange County can be realized.
I
As always, we shall keep you informed of all developments. In the meantime, do not
hesitate to call me if you have any questions.
c� z
Very truly yours, H
Richard M. Ortwein ^'
President y
I � �
I Z
j cc: Amigos de Bolsa Chica: Chuck Nelson, President /
County of Orange: Harriett Wieder, Supervisor, Second District
Department of the Interior
Huntington Beach City Council
State Lands Commission: Jim Trout
lop /P�
"EP
Big. 99,4
orange county chapter CITES ;
building industry association Of southern california,Inc. Cl-ry
9 Executive-Circle, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92714 0
(714) 553-9500 FAX (714) 553-9507
September 26, 1994
The Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson
Mayor, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson:
On behalf of the Building Industry Association/Orange County
Chapter (BIA/OC) , we would like to express our support of the
proposed Bolsa Chica project. BIA/PC represents nearly 1,000
builders, developers, and affiliated businesses in Orange County,
encompassing over 30,000 employees.
BIA/OC supports the proposed Bolsa Chica project. We believe the
Bolsa Chica project successfully balances environmental and
economic needs by restoring nearly 1,000 acres of wetlands and
infusing more than $2 billion into the local economy. We also
recognize that the project will result in thousands of new jobs in
the building industry in Orange County.
For these reasons, BIA/OC plans to comment on the EIR and play an
active role in supporting the Bolsa Chica project at public
hearings before the County Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors, which have jurisdiction over this project.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you
for your consideration.
Sincerely,-
Bart Hansen, President
Building Industry Association
Orange County Chapter
cc: Huntington Beach City Councilmembers
BIA/OC Executive Committee
PRESIDENT 2ND VICE PRESIDENT SECRETARY IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
BART HANSEN H. LAWRENCE WEBB SCOTT ALLEN DONALD E. MOE
SHAWNTANA DEVELOPMENT GREYSTONE HOMES CITATION BUILDERS /VSANTA MARGARITA COMPANY
1ST VICE PRESIDENT TREASURER ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MONICA FLORIAN LES THOMAS MARK HOOVER CHRISTINE M. DIEMER
THE IRVINE COMPANY M.J. BROCK&SONS FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO,
Bolsa Chica
•
RECEIVED FROM Ce9rwY•. �'
AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT
THE COUNCIL MEETING OFOFFICE OF THE
Revised Draft TY CLERK
CONNIE 3ROb4CWAVl CIl'Y CLERK
Environmental Impact Report
•
September 26, 1994
r•
Background". '
♦ The issue under consideration in not
whether the project is good or bad: �
The sole issue is whether the County
is conducting its environmental
review and land-use approval process
in the manner required under State
Law.
�
Background
♦ The Revised EIR does not respond to
most i ssues raised in the City's February �
171 1994, comment letter. The County is
legally required to respond in detail
commensurate with each comment prior
to certifying the revised EIR and prior to
any approval related to the project.
�
Background
♦ Prior to preparing the Revised EIR, the
County was obligated to prepare a new •
notice of preparation under CEQA and to
consult with the City and other affected
agencies - the County did not do so.
♦ The Revised EIR continues the basic flaws �
of the 1993 DEIR:
. Document is poorly organized and confusing in
violation of CEQA
Comments on Revised EIR
♦ The Project Description of the Revised EIR
is legally 'inadequate. �
. Project objectives vary
. The segmentation of project understates the
actual anticipated project impact
. Significant elements of the current proposal are
not included or evaluated 0
. The Revised EIR implies that the project would
create wetlands restoration
Comments on Revised EIR
♦ The Revised EIR does not adequately
present the environmental setting of the �
proj ect.
♦ The Revised EIR does not fully disclose the
significant environmental effects of the
proj ect
•
♦ The Cumulative impacts of the project are
not fully considered in the Revised EIR
Comments--on Revised EIR
♦ The Revised EIR does not properly include all
feasible mitigation measures �
♦ The Revised EIR does not consider a
reasonable range of alternative projects and
alternative locations for the proposed project
to reduce project impacts
•
♦ The Comment Letter requests the County
prepare a new, wholly rewritten EIR that
addresses the inadequacies of the Revised EIR
Bolsa Chica
Land Use and
Related Planning Issues
ls,
Land Use and Related Planning Issues
♦ The Revised EIR fails to explain the reasons the
project differs" from the 1986 LCP on which it �
improperly relies in the assessment of land use
impacts
♦ The Revised EIR is inconsistent with Coastal
Act Policies
•
♦ The Revised EIR fails to note significant
inconsistencies between the proposed project
and the County's General Plan
Land .Use and. related Planning Issues
♦ ' The Revised EIR omits discussion of
inconsistencies between the proposed project and
the City's General Plan
♦ The Revised EIR fails to adequately mitigate the
incompatibility of oil production and residential
.development
The Revised EIR ignores the impacts of high ,
density -residential development on the surrounding
community and community services.
HECEIVE0 PRcm
AND MADE 0.AIF THE RECORD
THE COUNCIL MEETING OF AT
uts PPIOk 6R E THE CITY CLERK
O&WAY,CITY CLERK
BOLSA CHICA 1970-1992: STATUS OF HABITATS
I OVER THE PAST TWENTY YEARS
I
i
I
By
Keith B. Macdonald, Ph.D.
CH2M HILL
I 2510 Red Hill Avenue
Santa Ana, California 92705
i
I C. Robert Feldmeth, Ph.D.
Ecological Research Services
P.O. Box 298
` Claremont, California 91711
and
James S. Henrickson, Ph.D.
Independent Environmental Consultants
Department of Biology
California State University, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California 90032
i
i
Prepared for
THE KOLL COMPANY
4343 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, California 92660
October 30, 1992
1002313B.SEA/1
10R.SN2
Urbanization was encroaching on Bolsa Chica in 1970, but the interior pickleweed flats
were largely buffered from housing developments by annual grasslands and agricultural
croplands (Dillingham, 1971: Figures V-5 and XIII-2). There were no point source
discharges of upland stormwater/urban drainage onto the site. Then, as now, sub-
surface groundwater flow was presumably controlled by the Slater Drain, located near
the northeast boundary of the property and emptying into the East Garden Grove-
Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (Bilhom, 1986b).
3.2 POST-DHI.INGHAM SITE CHANGES
Significant changes to the site began to occur following the 1973 Settlement Agreement
that resolved public and private ownership interests in the Bolsa Chica Lowland.
Between 1973 and 1980, approximately 275 acres of the easternmost interior
lowlands—previously mostly cattle pasture and annual grassland (Dillingham, 1971:
Figure V-5; see Figure 2 herein)—were converted to housing, the prior headwaters of
Freeman Creek were filled, and Springdale Pump Station was installed, discharging
stormwater and urban runoff, collected from the new housing area, into the Lowland.
Subsequent development of Sea Cliff IV, a residential development/golf course project
on Huntington Beach Mesa, resulted in a second source of discharge of stormwater
and urban runoff into the Lowlands, via a gully cut into the edge of Huntington Mesa
(Bilhorn, 1986a, Figure 1).
In 1977, the California Department of Fish and Game initiated construction of Phase I
of the Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve (California Resources Agency, 1972,
Knaggs and Mall, 1980). Approximately 150 acres of lowland adjacent to the coast,
including Inner Bolsa Bay and South Bolsa Slough, were diked off from the remainder
of the Lowland. The new Reserve dike crested at +4 feet MSL and the old Gun Club
one-way flap-gates were replaced with three, two-way tide gates (invert elevation minus
5 feet MSL; David Cannon, pers. comm., June 1992). In mid-October 1978, a single
tide gate was opened and the Ecological Reserve was returned to (muted) tidal action
for the first time since 1899. A second tide gate was opened in March 1980 (Knaggs
and Mall, 1981) and the reserve has operated with two gates open since that time.
The original Reserve dike design incorporated a water control structure where the
North Main/Freeman Creek Channel entered the Ecological Reserve. The structure
was to operate like the Gun Club flap-gates, closing on the rising tide to prevent flood-
ing of the Lowland and opening on the ebb to allow free outflow of drainage from
Freeman Creek. Unfortunately the control structure was built at too low an elevation
making it impossible for water to drain from Freeman Creek into the Ecological Re-
serve. At this point (1978 to 1979), the interior Lowlands became a fully diked
impoundment. Seawater was no longer able to seep or percolate into Lowland chan-
nels and urban runoff or stormwater moving downstream no longer had any escape
route.
10023153.3E W3
i0nam 3-3
-7
OFESSIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN CULTt1RAt. 6UKE IMONMORS
•
September 26, 199.4
'Mayor Linda Moulton-Patterson
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,California 9264
RE! Revisied Draft EIR # 551
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers
As *the federally. recognised professional Native American
monitor, I represent the Juaneno Band of ,Mission Indians
Acjachemen Nation for this project. T wish to express
my comments, recommendations, concerns and the accusations
made by the Koll company and ther. archaeological team.
As .the professional monitor and Site representative for
this project, I have reviewed the revisied Draft EIR
# 551 and is deficent in the cultural resources section
in the following ,ways
1 . In April 26, 1994 human remains were encountered by
the Kolls company archaeological team. • (Question) Why
was I not notified as the site representative for the
Juaneno Band.
2. As the site representative and - as of today I have
had no contact by the archaeologist or the Kol:l companys
representative. (Question) Why:
3. There 'had been numerous accusations against Mr. Sam
Dunlap who is a professional Dative American monitor
and is under my direction that needs to be cleared up
that the Koll company and th,e.ir archaeologist started.
A. They claim that -they could not get in contact with
me or Mr. Sam Dunlap: (Question) We all work for their
archaeologist and the Doll company before December 24,
1993 and they all had ,our phone numbers, also my family
of 4 who is employed by their archaeologist did not even
contact me. WHY?
46747 PALA ROAD TEMECULA, CA 912592
B. Haulting the project on April 27, 1994 for more money.
(Answer) I halted the project as per directive of Mr.
David Belardes Tribal Chairperson of the Juaneno Band
of Mission Indians because their were no monitors on
site just crew workers. (Question) Why was excavations
done without monitors.
C. All monitors were ordered off the site on April 27,
1994. (Question) This is in violation of no Native
American monitors as per conditions of the Koll companys
agreement
D. On April 28, 1994 monitor Domingo Belardes returned
to the site as their monitor to do the excavations.
(Question) As the site representative he is under my
direction and I did not know he was there under what
conditions or terms. Anyones quess?
4. The Draft EIR showes conflict of intrest between the
nearest descendants and the Tribal Chairpersons of their
Tribe. (Answer) This is unaceptable between the Native
American Community and the State Native American Heritage
Commission in Sacramento.
5. In the Draft EIR there is no mention of what procedures
has taken place after the new findings in April 26, 1994 .
6. The Draft EIR now states that a qualified Native
American monitor will be retained. (Question) What happen
to the Professional Native American monitor that
represents the Juaneno Band.
As the Juaneno Bands site representative for this project
I have consulted, monitored and mitigated over 300
archaeological sites in Northern and Southern California.
This is the first time I feel that the Koll company and
their archaeological company has callous disregared for
Native American concerns and this is a indication of
their future intent. As the site representative all
reports and statements made after April 27, 1994, I find
them to be erroneous and incomplete for this project.
I am requesting a continuance of this EIR until these
matters can be resolved.
I am confident that you will respond to my comments and
requests made in this letter.
Respectfully,
Philli Ibanez
Juaneno Band Site Representative
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS. PUBLIC'NOTICE' The County;ot'orange.re-
leased a'sevised draft EIR. .
County of Orange ) NOTICE OF, which' analyzes the env!- uses 'Ithe Iowland...This
HEARING-TO ronmental impacts associ-. :alternative'proposds'fill of
RECEIVE VERBAL. ated with two landrplan•op- approximately,188•'acres in
COMMENTS ON THE tions. The two:alternatives, the lowland and designates
I am a Citizen of the United States and a REVISED DRAFT. ' have been briefly de•• approximately•'169 acres
ENVIRONMENTAL ' scribed-below: .(it should Low Density. ;Residential
resident of the County aforesaid; I am ,IMPACT REPORT FOR 'be noted that neither.of the (3.5 to'6.5 units/acre) use.
THE BOLSA CHICA aternatives includes a tidal It allows for a maximum of
over the age of eighteen years, and not a .PROJECT LOCAL - Inlet of the 'Bolsa 'Chita 900 residential units on the,
i COASTAL PROGRAM Street Extenslon •depicted lowland. Should' 'devel-
party to or interested in the below DATE/TIME:. Monday, on 'prevlous Pleris; 'how- opmen&of the,�lowland be
entitled matter. I am a'principal clerk of September26,1994at6;30 ever„•both,plans propose niazimized, &s°altbrnit1ve
p.m. improvements to the East would restrict residential
LOCATION: City Coun• Garden GrovelWlntersburg development on the Bolsa'
the H U NTI N GTO N BEACH INDEPENDENT, a cil.Chambers'at,the Hun- Channel and bodicatio- •of Chico mesa.to a maximum•
newspaper of general circulation printed 2000 Be'' Street,.
Center, y g of 2,300 units.This alteina-
2000 Main• Street,. Hun, approidmatel 49 acres.to
r the •Bolsa Chica• Regional five also designatess ap--
tington Beach,CA;,. Park proximately 16 acres in the
and .pu'blished in the City of Huntington NOTICE 15 HEREBY Alternative A.-Thlsalterna• lowland for local park.and
GIVEN that the Huntington five d e s.i g n a t e s a p- trail uses.
Beach, County of Orange, State of Beach City 'Council will Proximately 214 'acres for ALL WRITTEN COM-
hold at hearing on thd-date �residentlal uses. Densities MENTS should be sent to:
California, and that attached Notice is a and at the time indicated 'include a mix of. Medium- Paul' Lanning,• EMA/Plan-
true and complete copy as was printed above to receive oral;com- 'Low Density Residential ning'Division,County of Or:
ment on the.adequacy.of '•(6.5 to 12LS units/acre) and ange,.P.O Box 4048,Santa
and published in the Huntington Beach the Revised Draft Environ• Medium-High'Density Real- Ana,CA 92702-4048 by the
mental 'impact,.Report for dential (12.5 to 18.0 units/ close of the,comment pe-
and Fountain Valle issues of said Ithe, Bolsa Chia Project
r. acre) and allow.for.Bevel-
Y Local Coastal Program. dement: of-'a maximum ALL INTERESTED -PER-
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Oral comments will be re- 2,500 residential units on SONS aWlnvited to attend
corded; put into transcript the Bolsa Chide mesa area. said hearing-and :express
form and forwarded'tb Od It also Includes 10•acres comments on the 'ad-
EMA/Planning-,Divts!oh•by designated for• nelghboi• equacy of the revised Draft
4t00,pan_ on October 6, hood commercial land EIR itthere-aie.any further
1994(the close of the pub- uses'and,approximately 17 questions please call Julie
lic comment period). acres on the mesa for local Osugi,Associate Plariner at
September 15, 1994
This hearing, is not In. park uses.• Alternative A (714)536.5271.
tended -to•supersede-the does•not include any Bevel- Connie •Brockway,
County Planning Commis- opment on the'lowland. It Huntington Beach City
sion's Public Hearing designated •approximately Clerk, 200.0••Mahi
scheduled at the".,City•of 1,284 acres as open space Street; 'Huntington
Huriiington Beach'Ci1ji•Hall conservation.uses fo'r;wet- Beach,.CA. 1714)•536•
on Wednesday,September 5227,
lands .restoration through
I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the establishment of a mill- Published Huntington
28;11994 at 4:06 p.m. The gation•Bank to acquire, re-_ Beach-Fountain,Valley In.
the foregoing is true and correct. Clty:;Strongly-=encourages store, and maintain wet- dependent September 15,
inteibitede parties.. to lands, and,the non-tidal 1994•• " '
present their comments a_t areas in the,lowland. 093=975
both hearings. . ' Alternative, B: Alternative '
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: B proposes land'uses on
Executed on September 15 , 199 4 The proposed project con- the Bolsa Chica-mesa that
slsts of an amendment to aie Identical-to those lden-
at Costa Mesa California. -the•-land .use •and zoning
r titled in Alternative- A,
designatibns-,for'. ap- above;except that it'poten'
proximately 1,588.acres lo= Bally allows for ,Bevel=
cated within the unincorpo- opment of fewer residential
rated,area of the County of units: This alternative. al-
Orange. .The project 'Is lows for development,of'a
being processed by the maximum 3,200 residential.
-County of Orange and In- units lud the lowland and
wolves the preparation;;df mesa'area .Alternative',B
;several documents incl0d proposes a.mix of resi-
t/) ing: a local coastal ,pr'a den Jal,'open space.recre-
gram•(LCP) and an envi�
R- .ation and'.conserJation
Signature nature 'ronmental Impact' report'
Z� (EIR). Proposed project
components are also 'sub-
ject to federal permitting
and; •therefore,'•require'
preparation of an en'Ron-
mental Impact• statement
(EIS)• which is..,currently'
�r being prepared'by the U.S.
5�` Army Corps of Engineers. •
s !J
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
SS. PUBLIC NOTICE The County of Orange re-
leased a revised draft EIR uses in the lowland. This
County of Orange ) NOTICE OF which analyzes the envi- alternative proposes fill of
HEARING TO ronmental Impacts associ- approximately 188 acres in
RECEIVE VERBAL ated with two land plan op-' the lowland and designates
COMMENTS ON THE tions. The two alternative approximately 169 acres
I am a Citizen of the United States and a REVISED DRAFT have been briefly de_, Low Density Residential
r ENVIRONMENTAL scribed below. (It shdbld (3.5 to 6.5 units/acre) use.
resident of the County aforesaid' I am IMPACT REPORT FOR IIt allows for a maximum of
, r be noted that neither of the
THE BOLSA CHICA alternatives Includes a tidal 900 residential units on the
over the age of eighteen years, and not a r PROJECT LOCAL inlet or the Bolsa Chica ,lowland. Should devel-
COASTAL PROGRAM Street Extension depicted 'opment of the lowland be
party to or interested in the below r DATEMME: Monday, on previous plans; how. imaximized, this alternative
entitled matter. I am a al clerk of p ber 26,1994 at6:30
principal .m.
p p p.m. ever, both plans propose would restrict residential
,
LOCATION: City Coun• improvements to the East 'development on the Bolsa
the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a I cil Chambers at the Hun- Garden Grove/Wintersburg 'Chica mesa to a maximum
r tington Beach Civic Center, Channel and Dedication of ;of 2,300 units.This alterna-,
newspaper of general circulation printed 2000 Main Street, Hun- approximately 49 acres tb live also designates ap-
the Bolsa Chica Regional proximately 16 acres in the
NOTICE IS HEREBY Park).
and published in the City of Huntington tington Beach,CA. , park for local ark and
GIVEN that the Huntington Alternative A:This alterna-' trail uses.'
Beach County of Orange State of Beach City Council will tive designates ap ALL WRITTEN COM-
r hold at hearing on the date proximately 214 acres for MENTS should be sent to:
California, and that attached Notice is a and at the time indicated residential uses. Densities Paul Lanning, EMA/Pfan.
above to receive oral com- include a mix of Medium- ning Division,County of or.
true and complete copy as was printed ments on the adequacy of Low Density Residential ange, P.O Box 4048,Santa
and published in the Huntington Beach the Revised Draft port for Me u -Hi units/acre) and Ana,CA the comment
by the
mental Impact Report for Medium-High Density Resi- close of the comment pe-
and Fountain Valle issues of said the Bolsa pChica pProject' dential (12.5 to 18.0 units/ riod.
y Local Coastal Program.) acre) and allow for devel- ALL INTERESTED PER-
newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: Oral comments will be re- opment of a maximum SONS are invited to attend
corded, put into transcript 2,500 residential units on said hearing and express
form and forwarded to OC the Bolsa Chica mesa area. comments on the ad-
EMA/Planning Division by It also Includes 10 acres equacy of the revised Draft
4:00 p.m. on October 6, designated for neighbor- EIR. If there are any further
1994(the close of the pub• hood commercial land questions please call Julie
lic comment period). uses and approximately 17 Osugi,Associate Planner at
This hearing is not in. acres on the mesa for local (714)536-5271.
September 15, 1994 tended to supersede thel park uses. Alternative A Connie Brockway,
Count Planning. Commis- does not include any devel- Huntington Beach City
y : opment on the lowland. It Clerk, 2000 Main
sched Public ':Hearing designated approximately Street, Huntington
scheduled at the .City ,of g PP y Beach CA. (714) 536-
Huntington Beach Ci1y,Hall 1,284 acres as open space 5227.�
on Wednesday, September conservation uses for wet-
I lands restoration through Published Huntington
declare, under enalty of perjury, that 28, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. The the establishment of a miti- Beach-Fountain Valley In-
P `!
the foregoing is true and correct. City Strongly encourages gallon bank to acquire, re- dependent September 15,
interested parties to store, and maintain`wet-
4.
present their-comments at lands, and the non-tidal] 093.975
both hearings. areas In the lowland.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alternative B: Alternative
on
Executed on September 15 199 _4 The proposed project con- Be Bolsa Chica mesa oses land sthat
r sists of an amendment to
at Costa Mesa California. the land use and zoning are identical to those iden.
designations for ap• tified in Alternative A,
proximately 1,588 acres lo• above,except that it poten-
cated within the unincorpo. tially allows for devel.,
rated area of the County of opment of fewer residential
Orange. The project :is units. This alternative al.
being processed by -the, lows for development of a
County of Orange and,in maximum 3,200 residential
volves the preparation of units in the lowland and
several documents includ• mesa area. Alternative B.
/6 -4 ing: a local coastal pro- proposes a mix of resi-
gram (LCP) and an envi- dential, open space recre-
ronmental,impact report ation and conservation
Signature (EIR). Proposed project
components are also sub-
ject to federal permitting
and, therefore, require
preparation of an environ-
mental impact statement
(EIS) which is currently
being prepared by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
NOTICE OF HEARING
TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
DATE/TIME: Monday, September 26, 1994 at 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000
Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a
hearing on the date and at the time indicated above to receive oral comments on the
adequacy of the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Project
Local Coastal Program. Oral comments will be recorded, put into transcript form and
forwarded to OC EMA/Planning Division by 4:00 p.m. on October 6, 1994 (the close of
the public comment period).
This hearing is not intended to supersede the County Planning Commission's Public
Hearing scheduled at the City of Huntington Beach City Hall on Wednesday,
September 28, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. The City strongly encourages interested parties to
present their comments at both hearings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of an amendment to the land
use and zoning designations for approximately 1,589 acres located within the
unincorporated area of the County of Orange. The project is being processed by the
County of Orange and involves the preparation of several documents including: a local
coastal program (LCP) and an environmental impact report (EIR). Proposed project
components are also subject to federal permitting and, therefore, require preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) which is currently being prepared by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
The County of Orange released a revised draft EIR which analyzes the environmental
impacts associated with two land plan options. The two alternatives have been briefly
described below. ( It should be noted that neither of the alternatives includes a tidal inlet
or the Bolsa Chica Street Extension depicted on previous plans; however, both plans
propose improvements to the East Garden Grove/Wintersburg Channel and dedication of
approximately 49 acres to the Bolsa Chica Regional Park).
Alternative A: This alternative designates approximately 214 acres for residential uses.
Densities include a mix of Medium-Low Density Residential (6.5 to 12.5 units/acre) and
Medium-High Density Residential (12.5 to 18.0 units/acre) and allow for development of
a maximum 2,500 residential units on the Bolsa Chica mesa area. It also includes 10 acres
designated for neighborhood commercial land uses and approximately 17 acres on the
mesa for local park uses. Alternative A does not include any development on the lowland.
It designates approximately 1,284 acres as open space conservation uses for wetlands
restoration through the establishment of a mitigation bank to acquire, restore, and
maintain wetlands and the non-tidal areas in the lowland.
Alternative B: Alternative B proposes land uses on the Bolsa Chica mesa that are
identical to those identified in Alternative A, above, except that it potentially allows for
development of fewer residential units. This alternative allows for development of a
maximum 3,200 residential units in the lowland and mesa area. Alternative B proposes a
mix of residential, open space recreation and conservation uses in the lowland. This
alternative proposes fill of approximately 188 acres in the lowland and designates
approximately 169 acres Low Density Residential (3.5 to 6.5 units/acre) use. It allows for
a maximum of 900 residential units on the lowland. Should development of the lowland
be maximized, this alternative would restrict residential development on the Bolsa Chica
mesa to a maximum of 2,300 units. This alternative also designates approximately 16
acres in the lowland for local park and trail uses.
ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, EMAIPlanning
Division, County of Orange, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 by the close of
the comment period.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express comments
on the adequacy of the revised Draft EIR. If there are any further questions please call
Julie Osugi, Associate Planner at (714) 536-5271.
Connie Brockway
Huntington Beach City Clerk
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA.
(714) 536-5227
g:\osugi\b1sachca\1g19-26.doc
rF
e� rAn
v\
r ^_ CA
L Q C) %,n/�
\
t
w-�
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUKINGTON BEACH
TO: Connie Brockway
City Clerk
FROM: Julie OsugiU
Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION DRAFT COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT EIR FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.
DATE: September 21, 1994
Attached is a memo to the City Council explaining that the draft comment letter will not
be available until Friday, September 23, 1994, and will be distributed to them on that date.
Please see that they get a copy of the memo.
For your information, I have also attached a draft of the cover memo that will be attached
to the draft comment letter when it is distributed to the City Council on Friday.
Refinements to the memo will be made based upon the draft letter. Final copies will be
delivered to you along with copies of the draft comment letter will be delivered to you on
Friday, September 23, 1994 as soon as we receive them.
I have also prepared a handout informing the public of where to send written comments
and to present their verbal comments to the County Planning Commission at the
September 28, 1994, public hearing here at City Hall. Copies of the handout will be
available at Monday's meeting. (A copy has also been attached for your information.)
Several copies have also been enlarged to poster size and will be posted in and around the
Council Chambers.
If you have any questions, please contact me at x5274.
gAosugi\blsachca\di stmmo 10.doc
cc: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development
Attachments
PECITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
`TO: Honorable Mayor Moulton-Patterson
and City Council Members
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development .
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
DATE: September 21, 1994
Staff, with the assistance of consultants, have conducted an thorough review of the Bolsa
Chica revised Draft EIR. Due to the short review period, the City's special counsel is still
in the process of refining the draft comment letter. A draft of the comment document will
be distributed to Council on Friday, September 23, 1994 and a summary of the letter will
be presented at the September 26, 1994 meeting. Staff will be available at that meeting to
address Council's comments and questions.
(Note: Presentation of the draft letter and Council comments regarding the letter, will be
followed by a hearing to take the public's comments on the draft document. A court
reporter will be present to take a transcript of the meeting which will be forwarded on the
County of Orange.)
g:\osugAb1sachca\distmmo9.doc
cc: Connie Brockway, City Clerk
DRAFT
F�J , CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
0 INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor Moulton-Patterson
and City Council Members
FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Director of Community Development
VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE REVISED
BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
DATE: September 23, 1994
Due to the nature of the project and its potential to severely impact the City of Huntington
Beach, the City's consultants and staff have conducted an exceptionally thorough review
of the Bolsa Chica revised Draft EIR. The City's Special Counsel, in coordination with
the Staff, has prepared a draft of the City's comments on the revised Bolsa Chica draft
EIR. Transmitted for Council's review is the draft of the City's comment letter on the
revised draft EIR.
A presentation on the draft comment letter will be made before the City Council on
Monday, September 26, 1994, by the City's special counsel. The comments on the
revised draft EIR primarily focused on the following issue areas:
10
-0
Staff requests that you review the attached draft letter prior to the meeting to familiarize
yourselves with the comments. Staff will be available at the meeting to address Council's
comments and questions. A final draft of the letter, including any refinements suggested at
Monday's meeting, will be brought before the City Council for approval on Monday,
October 3, 1994.
(Note: Presentation of the draft letter and Council comments regarding the letter, will be
followed by a hearing to take the public's comments on the draft document. A court
DRAFT
reporter will be present to take a transcript of the meeting which will be forwarded on the
County of Orange.)
Staff recommends that the Council review the draft comment letter, and direct staff to
incorporate any revisions the Council deems appropriate and bring the final draft of the
document before the Council for approval at the October 3, 1994, City Council meeting.
g:\osugi\blsachca\distmmo8.doc
Distribution: Linda Moulton-Patterson,Mayor
Ralph Bauer, Councilman
Vic Leipzig, Councilman
Grace Winchell, Councilwoman
Dave Sullivan, Councilman
Jim Silva, Councilman
Earl Robitaille, Councilman
Comment Deadline: October 6, 1994 (4:00 p.m.)
Name
Address
City/state/Zip
Date
Paul R. Lanning
Orange County EMA
Environmental Planning Division
300 N. Flower Street
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE REVISED DRAFT EIR FOR THE BOLSA
CHICA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Lanning:
ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP
MEMORANDUM
•
ATTORNEY Q115W PROZZWD DOCUMENT
This Document is subject to the Attorney-Client PrrwleQe snd represents.the
work product and analysis of ERVIN, COHEN&JESSUP created in connectfon
with. fts;:'representadon of:the`City of..HuntinWan Beach Nelther, this
• document nor its contents shordd be disclosed to any person without the
advance`consent of the City Atforney or.Ervrn Cohen &Jessup.. . ;
• TO: The Bolsa Chica Strategic Planning Committee
Department Heads City of Huntington Beach
Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney
Paul D'Alessandro, Esq., Assistant City Attorney
• FROM: Steven A. Roseman & Roger J. Holt
DATE: September 23, 1994
SUBJECT: First Draft of Comment to Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report
• ("REIR") Dated August 22, 1994
Attached for review and comment is a confidential preliminary draft of the above-
referenced Comment Letter together with Annex Nos. 1-5 and Annex No. 16 thereto.
The attached draft is a work in progress. I look forward to receiving your comments
on the draft as soon as possible so that a final draft can be submitted for City Council
consideration no later than September 29, 1994. Accordingly, it would be greatly
appreciated if 1 could receive all comments no later than September 27, 1994.
Thank you for your assistance.
•
•
ATTORNEYC1ffNT PRY IWQED DOCUMENT
This Document is subject to the Attouney-C/iant iwvdbPs and reprasarets.a
• work producfand ama ysra o .ER."V, COHEN� lESSIlP ae�stedM cortrtectio
wtt/t its represer�tatron o! the ;.City of Httrttinytonn Leh Nerfhrr.dyis:
document nor its contents shatdd be diadosed to any w thoutahs Parson
advance consent of the City A ttarttsy or Ervfrr,;Cohen&./sisup.
• (310) 281-6309
DISCUSSION DRAFT DATED SEPT EMBER 23, 1994
8652-003
•
October 4, 1994
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
Environmental Planning Division
300 North Flower Street; P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
• ATTN: Mr. Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division
Re: Comments of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") on the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report (the "REIR") prepared by the Orange County
(the "County") Environmental Management Agency (County Project No.
• 551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071064) with respect to The Bolsa Chita
eject Local Coastal Program
Gentlemen and Ladies:
This firm represents the City of Huntington Beach in connection with its
review and analysis of the above-referenced REIR.
The City applauds the County's decision to discard the draft environmental
impact report circulated in December 1993 through February 18, 1994 (the "DEIR") in
favor of a new environmental document.li The City hoped that the REIR would rectify the
inadequacies of the DEIR (detailed at length in the comment (the "Comment") on the
1/ y that is, in fact, what the County has done. As is detailed below in this later,the true meaning of the
REIR and its effect on the DER as an environmental document is obscwad in a morass of confused and tangled
• references. &C Footnote 3, infra and accompanying test.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
e
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 2
r
DEIR dated February 17, 1994 submitted to the County by this firm on behalf of the City).
The same professional staff and consultants which reviewed the DEIR have reviewed and
assessed the REIR on behalf of the City. Unfortunately, we have been forced to conclude,
for the reasons detailed below, that the new document still fails to define the project as
required by law, analyze the whole of the County's proposed action, clearly define the
environmental setting of the project and otherwise fails to fulfill the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended ("CEQA").
This letter represents the combined input and analysis of this firm, the
professional and technical staff of the City, P&D Environmental Services, Noble
Consultants, Inc. (with respect to coastal engineering, hydrology and water quality issues),
John Minch & Associates (with respect to cultural resources issues), Public Economics
(with respect to fiscal feasibility and related issues), Albert Grover and Associates (with
respect to traffic and circulation issues) and Edward Heath, C.E.G. (with respect to issues
of seismicity and liquefaction). It is divided into three main sections. The first section is
an introduction which provides a general overview of many of the area in which the City
finds the REIR to be deficient. The second section contains a chapter-by-chapter analysis
of the REIR, and the third and final section sets forth the City's conclusion and formal
request for revision and recirculation of the REIR. For the convenience of the reader, an
index of the comments contained in this letter is attached as Annex No. 1 and a list of the
documents submitted to the County with this letter, each of which is incorporated into this
letter and made a part hereof by this reference, is attached as Annex No. 2Y
2/ Each of the documents attached to this later a referred to as an 'Annex' and a incorporated into this
comment letter by reference ar if set forth herein at length. The Comment submitted to the Counry on February
17, 1994 continua to raise issues which are germane to the two projects considered in the RE1R god to the Koll
proposed project included as Alternative 'G' of the REIR. In order to avoid the needless reproduction of the
Comment and the voluminous documents appended to and included in the Continent, the Comment and those
documents referenced therein as Annexes are also incorporated into and made a part of this leer by this reference
as if setforth herein as length. For ease of distinction ben een the Annexes to the original Continent and Annexes
to this later, documents annexed to the Comment are referrod to as "CMURNr ANNE r NO. _" (with the
number referring to the original Comment Annex number assigned to the document in the Comment) and new
Annexes appended to this later are simply referred to as an 'Annex No with the Annex No corresponding
to the tabs attadred to this later.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
• October 4, 1994
Page 3
•
I. Introduction - Overview of CEQA Violations
The City analyzed the DEIR prepared in December 1993 by the County and, for
the reasons noted in the Comment, concluded that the DEIR failed to fulfill the
• requirements of CEQA. The Comment determined that implementation of the Bolsa Chica
development could not lawfully proceed until the County rectified the CEQA violations
detailed in the Comment and recirculated the DEIR and all relevant technical data.
The County's preparation and the circulation of the REIR, however, does not
• address or rectify the legal inadequacies identified in the Comment. The City remains
justifiably concerned regarding the impacts of the so-called "scaled-down" project on the
City and its citizens. Even the most limited of the segmented project(s) suggested in the
REIR (i.e., the 2500-unit Mesa Component coupled with Lowlands Option A) will have
significant adverse impacts which are not adequately disclosed, considered or mitigated in
the REIR. Since the City surrounds the project site, those impacts will be most acutely felt
• and abided by the citizens and residents of the City.
As is noted in the REIR, the LCP Area has been the subject of a number of
environmental reviews, including the 1993 DEIR prepared by the County and the 1992 joint
environmental impact report ("EIR")/environmental impact statement ("EIS") (the joint
• EIR/EIS circulated by the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") in
1992 is referred to as the "EIR/EIS") prepared and circulated by the City in cooperation
with the Corps (and with the input of other federal agencies) at a time when the landowner
of the largest portion of the site, Koll Real Estate Group ("Koll')proposed to annex the
Bolsa Chica property into the City. As was noted in the Comment, the City received
• numerous responses to the EIR/EIS which heightened the City's appreciation and
understanding of the impacts which development of the project site will cause in its
sensitive environmental setting. The County, like the City, also received voluminous
comment from local agencies, State agencies and federal agencies noting many flaws and
deficiencies in the DEIR's analysis; however, the REIR does not adequately respond to the
Comment or the over-370 other comments which the County received regarding the DEIR.
The City expects that the County will respond to each of those comments in the manner
required by CEQA.
•
DitCU8aion Draft Dated Septernber 23, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency a
October 4, 1994
Page 4
•
A. THE REIR STILL FAms TO FULFILL THE CORE PURPOSE OF INFORMING
DECISION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECLSIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE
STAGE.
•
1. The Poor organization of the REIR Prevents it from Fulfilling its
Purpose. In Laurel Heights . .,.wuvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v Regents of the
1Tni:,--r;i1y of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988), opinion modified, 47 Cal. 3d 982
(1989)("Laurel Heights I"), the California Supreme Court noted that it is the policy of the
State to "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environmental
quality of the State," and, in that regard, the Court stated:
The EIR is . . . intended "to demonstrate to an
apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact,
analyzed and considered the ecological implications of
its action." . . . [citations]. . . Because the EIR must be
certified or rejected by public officials, it is a document
of accountability. If CEQA is scrupulously followed,
the public will know the basis on which its responsible
officials either approve or reject environmentally
significant action, and the public, being duly informed,
can respond accordingly to action with which it
disagrees. . . . [citations]. . . The EIR process protects
not only the environment but also informed self-
government.
Laurel Heigh ,LI, 47 Cal.3d at 392.
Thus, an EIR serves at least two functions, i.e., protection of the environment via the
disclosure of the impacts of a proposed project prior to its approval and disclosure to the
public of the environmental decisions made by its elected representatives. In the case of the •
REIR, a program EIR which covers a vast amount of information, the document must
clearly explain to the citizenry the description of the project, its environmental setting, the
significant and potentially significant impacts which will occur from project implementation
and alternatives to the project. This information must be presented at a level of detail
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 5
•
which permits full assessment of the impacts of the project Guidelines § 15147. The
information must be written in plain language so that decision makers and the public can
"rapidly understand the documents." Guidelines § 15140. As noted below, the REIR fails
to fulfill these requirements and is not a valid document under CEQA.
2. Flawed CEQA Procedures and Documentation Prevent the REIR
from Sounding the Alarm Bell Required by CEQA. The Comment noted:
An environmental impact report must inform the public of'the basis on
S which its responsible officials either approve or reject environmentally
significant action.' Laurel Heights Imnrovanent Assn gf San Francisco.
Inc. v. Regents of the University of California. 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 (1988),
minion modified. 47 Cal. 3d 982 (1989)('Laurel Heights I'). Thus, an
EIR is an 'environmental 'alarm bell'whose purpose is to alert the public
and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have
readied ecological points of no return.' 14
Thu County's DEIR fails to sound the alarm required under CEQl. The
structure, language and organization of the DEIR is confusing and the
document does not fully identify or analyze the environmental impacts which
could result from the proposed development. Thu DEIR incompletely
. describes the development and includes neither the depth of analysis nor the
degree of scientific and technical in►exigation mandated for a project of
this scale It relies in many instances on technical studies not included
within appendices to the document and not circulated or made available for
public review. Without that supporting data, no independent analysis of the
basis for the DEIR's conclusions is passible. The public is thus asked to
accept the conclusions of the DEIR 'on faith', in violation of CFQ!'s basic
purpose of providing information to decision-makers and the public.
The manner in which the County has prepared and circulated the REIR not only fails
to rectify the foregoing ailment, it has made matters worse.
First, the REIR is as disorganized and superficial as the DEIR which
prompted the foregoing comment. The document has an extraordinarily
cumbersome organizational structure which obfuscates its informational
purpose. In the middle of any topical analysis it is difficult to determine if
the text is addressing one topic or another, one alternative or another, one
• portion of the project or another, or a significant or potentially insignificant
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 6
•
impact. Frequent page turning to identify some reference point is mandatory
in order to make any kind of sense out of the REIR. The ambiguity
introduced by the use of such things as "Project Design Features" (PDF) and
"Standard Conditions" (SC) still remains, especially in light of the County's
continuing refusal to circulate the implementing documentation (which would !
better define the scope, restrictions and limits of the proposed development)
together with the REIR during the public comment period. What is the legal
obligation of the County to monitor PDFs and SCs if they are not formally
identified as mitigation measures? If the PDFs and SCs are intended to be
part of the project they should be expressly stated as an integral part the •
project description. In that way the "project" design would limit potential
impacts. Instead, the REIR chops up the impact analysis of the report and
hides potentially significant and significant impacts within PDFs and SCs
which are neither sufficiently defined nor shown to mitigate the impacts to
which they are addressed. If they are truly intended to mitigate project
impacts, as they appear to be, then CEQA demands that the REIR first
identify the impact and treat the so-called PDF or SC as mitigation. This
issue is virtually identical to the point raised at pages 14 to 15 of the
Comment. If the REIR had simply adhered to the approach demanded by
CEQA, it would render the document far more intelligible.
•
• Second, the REIR is schizophrenic in its treatment of the DEIR. With one
breath, the REIR is intended to wholly replace the DEIR and render the
DEIR a nullity, yet with another breath, the DEIR not only retains its vitality
but is wholly incorporated into REIR by reference.21 Thus, the reader
31 Page 2-9, lines 23-26, indicates that the REIR 'supersedes the 1993 Draft 0 and states 4a'trmatively(and
incorrectly) that a response by the County to comments made on the 1993 Draft "are not legally required,"thus
indicating an intent to do away with the DEIR as any sort of environmental analysis on which the County might
rely prior to undertaking any approval of a project. In contrast,page 2-3, lines 42-48 expressly incorporates the
DEIR into the REIR for purposes of analyzing alternative 'G'. 7h a REIR's tangled refs wkw cloud the County's
intent regarding the continued vitality of the Koll proposal anabud in the DEDZ Does the County intend to
consider that alternative w a viable land use plan? The REIR never does make up its mind Section 6 4.1 of the
DEIR does not disapprove this alternative and thus, the Roll proposal may yet be under consideration by the
County even though the RED?expressly states that it is intended to supersede the DEDZ The unclear status of the
(continued..)
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 7
!
reviewing the REIR is left to ponder the question of whether the County is
still considering the project suggested in the DEIR as a potentially viable
project or has it truly discarded the former environmental analysis? The
REIR offers no answer.'
• Third, even though the REIR is intended (at least in some fashion) to be a
new environmental document which supersedes the former DEIR, the County
failed to notify affected State, federal or local agencies of their intention to
prepare a new document. The County has evaded the entire consultation and
i comment process mandated under CEQAY
Thus, despite the County's defective efforts to sound the alarm bell required by
CEQA, the sound of the alarm is muffled and inaudible due to the layer-upon-layer of
flawed CEQA procedures, inadequate CEQA documentation and absolute disregard of
CEQA's requirements for cooperation and consultation with other affected agencies.
Although this is not the only fault of the REIR, the muddled, confused and legally-defective
process used by the County in preparing and circulating the REIR and DEIR coupled with
the tangled, disorganized and confusing text of the document heightens the REIR's
•
31(...continued)
DEIR is another of the many instances when the Courty's tangled process confounds CEQA's intention of
providing the public and decision-makers with a clear indication of the environmental consequences of the County's
intended actions.
41 The Los Angeles Tunes, reporting on a press conference held by the County Director of Planning at
Huntington Beach City Hall stated, 'The Koll plan is still on the table,the County's environmental impact report
merely offers the company some alternatives. . . and sends a message that the company's own plan night not be
approved' D.Haldane, 'Under Pressure. O.C. Offers 2 Scaled Down Bolsa Plans.'Los Angels TTunes, Orange
County Edition, August 16,1994.Part A,Page 1,Column S,Metro Desk Thus,it appears that the original Koll
alternative may still be under serious consideration despite the statement that the REIR superseders the DEIR
S/ As is noted in greater detail below,this omission has, apparently,lad the federal agencies preparing the
EIS to commence NEPA review of a proposed project which di8`ea in significant aspects from the project
considered in the REM This oat-of-syneh, split review is suppored to be prevented by the consultation process
embodied in the circulation of a notice of preparation for the County's new REIR coupled with the CFQA and
NEPA mandates for cooperation between State and federal agencies. By ignoring throe requirements, the County
has further complicated and confused an already flawed and disrupted environmental review process.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
f
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 8
ineptitude and legal inadequacy to the point where it does not discharge the compulsory
demands of CEQA. Approval of any program or project by the County under these
circumstances would be unlawful. The County must start its environmental process over
from the beginning by publishing a new notice of preparation and circulating a legally-
adequate EIR (preferably as a joint EIR-EIS) which fulfills the requirement of applicable •
law.
3. The County's Environmental Analysis Does Not Fulfill the
Requirements of CEQA. CEQA is supposed to cause the lead agency to engage in a
process which: •
• First: Defines the "Project" in a manner readily comprehensible to
other agencies and the public and considers whether a project is
statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA review and, if so,
requires the lead agency to provide public notice of that
determination; then,
• Second: If the project is not exempt, requires the lead agency to
identify the significant impacts or potentially significant impacts of a
project through the conduct of an initial study which is a matter of
public record; then, •
• Third: Requires the lead agency to give notice to the public and other
affected public agencies that either:
(i) the lead agency has determined that a project has no potential to •
cause a significant environmental impact (in which event a negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration will be adopted); or,
(ii) that the project may cause one or more significant environmental
impacts (in which event the lead agency must deliver notice to the
public and other affected agencies, via the notice of preparation
process, that an environmental impact report must be prepared); then,
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
T
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 9
• Fourth: If an EIR is to be prepared, requires the lead agency and the
other affected public agencies to consult with one another regarding
the scope of the EIR and the alternatives to the project; then,
• Fifth: Requires the lead agency to prepare an EIR to consider the full
environmental consequences of its proposed approval of the project.
This document must do all of the following:
(1) Provide public agencies and the public in general with
detailed information about the effects which a proposed
project is likely to have on the environment,
(2) List ways in which the significant effects of such a
project might be minimized
(3) Indicate alternatives to the project. PRC § 21061; and
(4) State:
• (i) the significant effects on the environment of the
project, including effects which may be
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable (i.e., the cumulative impacts of the
project),
't (ii) any significant effects on the environment which
cannot be avoided if the project is implemented,
(iii) any significant effects on the environment which
would be irreversible if the project is
implemented,
(iv) any growth inducing impacts of the project,
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 10
(v) mitigation measures proposed to mitigate the
significant effects on the environment,
(vi) alternatives to the proposed project, and
(vii) the relationship between local short-term uses of
the human environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity.
PRC §§ 21100(a), 21150.
As is noted in detail in the Comment and below in this letter, the County, in
preparing the REIR, failed to notify the affected public agencies of the revised project
considered in the document. The REIR fails to identify the significant and potentially
significant impacts of the project, often concluding that an impact is insignificant based on
the promise to implement an as-yet undefined mitigation measure. Often, the true
mitigation measures relied upon to mitigate significant and potentially significant impacts
are not identified in the REIR as mitigation measures. Instead, the REIR avoids conceding
the existence or significance of an impact by referring to mitigation measures as "project
design features", even where the purported feature is not a part of the project description
and is not yet designed. Due to these and the other inadequacies noted in the Comment and •
in this letter, the REIR is not a valid basis for County or other agency decisionmaking
under State law.
B. THE REIR FAms To EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM oR PROJECT IN
LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL Sm-mo.
•
An environmental impact report must consider a particular governmental
action and its consequences in light of the environmental setting in which the project (or
program) will exist. ,= CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") § 15125 Y The project
description must be consistent throughout the document and the scope of the project should
be readily understandable. Further, in order for an EIR to fulfill its goal of providing •
61 The Guidelines for Implewntatioa of the Cal{forma EnArmmental Quality Act are prMWgated by the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research,pwsuant to the authority granted w Wer California Public Resources
Code("PRC") §§ 21083,21087,and are cadi,Pied at 14 California Cade of Regulations("CCR")§§ 15000-15387.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 11
•
public disclosure of the environmental consequences of the proposed action, the document
must provide a clear description of the existing environmental setting, for that is the
baseline against which impacts must be compared. The REIR does not clearly describe or
adequately consider the setting in which the project will exist nor does it provide an
understandable and accurate project description which is applied consistently through the
document.
1. The REIR Fails to Convey a Clear and Useful Environmental
Baseline. The REIR does not provide a consistent or useful description of the
• environmental setting. This comment was first raised by the City's Comment to the D13R.
In response, the County's REIR states:
A comment was received on the 1993 Draft suggesting that an EIR mutt
provide a 'single, simple, and short narrative of the environmental setting
of the project.' CEQA does not require that a description of a project's
• environmental setting be 'short', 'brief or contained in a single statement
in the Project Description. CEQA also dots not prescribe the form of the
document, but encourages a format which allows meaningful understanding
of a project and its effects. The County has taken great dare in considering
the appropriateness and amount of information contained in the
environmental setting sections given the complexity of the sin and the
Proposed Project. Further, the County views that segregating the baseline
information into those sections where the information is relevant saves the
reader from a continuous search of the Project Description chapter so,find
the baseline information which is relevant to the chapter then wrier review
by the reader. The analysis contained in this Revised Draft E1R is designed
to benefit the reader and decision-makers by facilitating there understanding
• of not only the proposed project bw also the specific envirvnnne ntal
consequences aLwdated with its implementation through the presentation of
a clearly written environmental setting and thorough analysis of impacts.
RELR at p. 9, lines 1-13.
• The foregoing response is neither accurate nor sufficient. Although the theory stated
in the foregoing passage is partly correct, the implementation of that theory is defective.
The County has not, as claimed, facilitated the reader's understanding of the project or its
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
! ! !
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 12
41
consequences with a "presentation of a clearly written environmental setting and thorough
analysis" of the Project's impacts.'-'
For example, the environmental setting stated as the baseline for assessing land use
impacts in Chapter 4.1 rambles for four and one-half pages of text interrupted with charts a
and tables (REIR p. 4.1-3 through 4.1-11) describing everything from the fact that the
project site is within the Coastal Zone to the right of the surface landowner to relocate
wellheads on active oil wells at the landowner's expense.-V However, nowhere does the
land use environmental se. ..g even mention the existing ESHAs. .Does that omission mean
that the County feels the c-•' ting ESHAs are not "relevant" to land use considerations? The
reader must return to the ,ription of the environmental setting after first discovering the
presence of the ESHAs or, page 4.1-41 and again, literally hundreds of pages later, when
the ESHAs are finally described (in anything more than a passing reference) in the
environmental setting section of Chapter 4.8 regarding terrestrial biology. It requires a
high degree of vigilance, an extremely long attention span and a ready supply of paper clips
and bookmarks for the reader to refer to the environmental setting describing the ESHAs at
pages 4.8-21 through 4.8-22 of the REIR and then refer back to the land use section to
determine the baseline for impacts caused by the change in land use from the existing open
space and ESHAs to the medium to high density development proposed in the REIR.
Rather than saving, "the reader from a continuous search of the Project Description
chkafter," the organization of the document causes the reader to search the individual impact 41
71 Furthermore, the County's response ignores the dictate of Guidelines 115120(b)which requires,in cases
such as this, where the ELR does not provide a separate section for each mandatory element of the EM, that the
document must 'state when in the document each element is discussed' Given the long-winded,sporadic and
dispersed descriptions of the environmental baseline, the use in Table 2-1 of the term 'various'to describe the
page location of the required environmental setting element is not sufficient to state where in the document the
required element is located
81 In yet another example of the RE1R's inconsistent analpis, the environmental setting includes a vague
description of the Suface Use Agreement (REIR at p. 4.1-8, line 15)but does not provide any wayfor the reader
to review, that document to assess the impact of the document on the current land use of the site. This document
was not described in detail,nor appended as an appendU to the document nor included in the Bibliography of the
REM How is the reader to bhow how this Agreement affects the land use baseline against which project impacts
are to be judged? If the document is irrelevant to those impacts, why is it included in the environmental setting
description? If it is as relevant as the inclusion in the environmental setting would suggest, why was it not made
available for public review?
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 13
•
analyses within the document for prior references to impact and the existing environmental
setting. This hides and obscures the true impact of the proposed development.91 Proper
organization of the document would have rectified this violation of CEQA. For example,
the insertion of a single sentence in the land use environmental setting stating that, "Four
• ESHAs have been identified at Bolsa Chica: Rabbit Island, Coastal Dune, Warner Avenue
Pond and the Eucalyptus Grove on the Bolsa Chico Mesa," (= REIR at p. 4.1-41, lines
17-18) together with a cross-reference to page 4.8-21 would prevent the reader from having
to search the entirety of the document to understand the land use issues in light of the
•
91 Further, the RE1R continues to use the County's General Plan LITE and the program (the "1986 LCP")
conditionally certified by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC") in 1986 (a copy of the 1986 LCP was
attached to the Comment as CommENT ANNEX No. 3)as the baseline instead of considering as the baseline the
condition of the current, undeveloped status of the land As was noted in the Comment.
Guidelines§ 15125(c)arpressly states, 'Where a proposal project is compared with an adopted
plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions as well as the potential future
conditions discussed in the plan.' Thus, as in the case of the newly proposed development of
Bolsa Chica, where a proposed project is an agency decision changing planning or Zoning
policies or ordinances, the potential impacts must be compared with both(a)those which would
ultimately occur under the existing plan and(11i)the eventual future conditions that would result
under build-out under both the existing plan and the contemplated plan in light of a full analysis
• of the existing physical conditions. So Environmental Planning and Information Council v
County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350 (1982); City of Carmel-bv-theJgg v. Bd -of
Lunervisors. 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-7(1986); ChrUtward Ministry v. Superior Court, 184
CaLApp.3d 180,190-91(1986). The anal air of the DE1R regarding land ure and other impacts
is Jundamental1y,clawed in that it continuously compares the current project to the formerly
proposed marinalresidential development and omits to consider the impact using the current
conditions as the baseline. &,la,DE1R 14.1.3.1 at p. 4.1-35. and 4.1-41. The foregoing
inadequacies must be corrected (and the corrected document recirculated), if the DER is to
fu ylll the requirements of CEQA
Comment at pp. 4-5
The REIR continues to ignore the foregoing requiranents of State law without cWtanation or justification.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
i i •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 14
terrestrial biology setting as required for the reader to understand the true environmental
baseline and impacts of the project.''
2. The REIR Does Not Adequately Describe Which "Project" Is
Being Analyzed. As noted above, an environmental impact report must consider a •
particular governmental action and its consequences in light of the environmental setting in
which the project (or program) will exist.u' "An accurate, stable and finite project
description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of
Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App. 3d 185, 193 (1977). What is the project
analyzed by the REIR? Is it the preparation and adoption of a new LCP? If so, as detailed
below, the County is 1141 the appropriate Lead Agency under CEQA. Is it the construction
of a long-term capital development project including 2500 to 3200 new homes (or would it
really be the 4,286 homes suggested in Alternative G?) with related infrastructure and
neighborhood commercial facilities? If so, the use of a program EIR format is
10/ This is symptomatic of the poor organization of the REIR which requires the reader to engage in an
ongoing process of referring back and forth within the document in order to understand the development and its
impacts.
I1/ Page 2-3 of the REIR reveal:the County's notion that the RE1R is intended solely to provide background
environmental analysis to be used in the approval process. The RE1R does n" (nor does it appear the County
intends u to) evaluate a particular project in light of its environmental setting, as requited wrier CEQA See
PRC §§ 21100,21150(requiring a local agency to prepare and certify an EM'on any project which they propose
to carry out or approve), Guidelines 4 15121(a) (requiring that an environmental document (such as an ELR)
'inform public agency decision-im Am and the public generally of the significant environmental effect ova
project'). The term 'project' is broadly dgned by CEQA and the GW&Una (M Guidelines 3 15378) to
encompass the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment.
Mwe many approvals are required, as in the case of the project comridend in the REIR, the 'project'refers to a
the entirety of the activity and not to each governmental approval When a project could be characterized as a
regulatory approval (such as a zone change) or a physical development, Guidelines 115378(d)states that the
project should be considered the development proposal. By not evaluating a particular project (whether that
project is the whole of the activities required for the adoption of the LCP of the development of between 2,500
to 3,200 homes on the project site), the RE1R fails to fulfill the mart basic require neat of an environmental
document under CEQA
Discussion Draft Dated Septernbw 23, 19"
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 15
•
impermissible -- a staged EIR is required. 5= Guidelines § 15167; Comnarg Guidelines
§ 15168. v
The REIR never does tell the reader what "project" or "program" the REIR
is considering. The definition of the "project" under consideration is the very heart of any
EIR and will determine a host of issues including the proper lead agency to conduct the
environmental review, the scope of alternative projects and alternative sites which must be
analyzed in the EIR and the propriety of mitigation measures to alleviate and eliminate
environmental impacts of the project.12' The REIR takes great lengths to avoid a stable
i and finite description of the scope of the project it analyzes.
a. The County Cannot Act as Lead Agency if the "Project" Is
Adoption of a New LCP. The REIR implies (but never states) that the "program"
considered by the document is the Bolsa Chica LCP being prepared and certified by the
County together with related County approvals and activities u' This answer is consistent
with the County's decision to use a program EIR and the statements at page 2-3 of the
REIR that (i) no particular development project is currently being considered or approved
by the County and (ii) that compliance with CEQA will be assessed at the time of project
•
12/ The problems with the project description are rendered far worse,such that the description becomes even
less comprehensible, by the inclusion of r)a mitigation bank which aAwars as part of the 'project'for selected
purposes under Lowland Option A, as a PDF for other purposes wrier chat option and as a 'faux-mitigation
measure'for still other purposes and ri)two Lowlands options within the same E1R such that the true planning
densities for the Mesa Component may vary by at least 10% of its density, depending on which Lowlands Option
is chosen.
131 Guidelines 115124 requires the project to be described in a way that will be meaningN to the public,
to the other reviewing agencies and to the decision-makers. SW OPR Discussion following Guidelines 115124
The project description is required so that a consistent point of departure is presented for the evaluation and
analysis of the project's interim and ultimate effects on the enWrownewt.
141 Another indication of the documents cor fusing and misleading ineoniisteneies can be discovered in the
REIR's Glossary which,for example mu-dgUa the term 'Boka Local Coastal Program (LCP) to mean, '[Tjhe
planning document that the City gf Huntington Beast will prepare conetisting of the Lewd Use Plan,Specific Plan
and Wetlands Restoration Plan(WRP).' The City a fumes that the BOW LCP will in fact consist of the revised
Land Use Element of the County's Gehaal Plan and the WRP which the Cowhty is preparing for consideration
S by the CCC.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 16
approval for each development project instead of at the time of certification of the REIR
(which presumably will occur concurrently with the County's adoption of the Bolsa Chica
LCP and the related general plan amendment, MPAH amendment and the other approvals
for which the REIR is to be relied upon as stated in Table 2-2 and at page 2-4 of the
REIR).
If the project under consideration in the REIR is the preparation and adoption
of County approvals and actions required for the adoption of a local coastal program under
the provisions of t h ealifornia Coastal Act, the County should W act as Lead Agency
under CEQA and the County should not have prepared the EIR for the proposed LCP. r
Section 21080.9 of CEQA states:
[CEQA] shall not apply to activities and approvals by any local government
as defined in Section 30109di . . . as necessary for the preparation and
adoption of a local coastal program pursuant to Division 20 (commencing
with Section 30000)[i.e., the Coastal Act]; provided, however, that
certification of a local coastal program . . . by the California Coastal
Commission pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 30500) of
Division 20 shall be subject to the requirements of [CEQA]. For the purpose
of Section 21080.5, a certified local coastal program . . . constitutes a plan .
for use in the California Coastal Commission's regulatory program.
By thus exempting from CEQA the County's activities in adopting the proposed LCP, the
Legislature clearly intended that the CCC would be the agency responsible for determining
environmental consequences of actions and development within the Coastal Zone. This
intent is further evidenced by Guideline $ 15265 which expressly states:
CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal
Act . . .by . . .[1] any local government, as defined in Section 30109 of the Public
Resources Code, necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal
program . . . .
151 PRC 130109 definer the tem wkxvi governinent' ar meaning, 'any dkuUred or general law city,
dwrtered or general law county or any city and county.
Discussion Daft Dated September 23. 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 17
•
Subsection (c) of the Guideline explains the intent of this rule is to shift "the burden of
CEQA compliance from the local agency . . . to the California Coastal Commission." By
shifting this burden, the Legislature intended that the State's precious coastal resources
would not be adversely affected by more limited or parochial interests of local agencies, but
rather, would be treated as part of an important, delicate and integrated ecosystem which
must be carefully preserved and enhanced on a statewide basis as contemplated by the
California Coastal Act.-W Pursuant to the foregoing authority, the County is not an
appropriate agency to prepare an EIR with respect to a local coastal program or the local
agency activities and approvals (e.g., general plan amendment, etc.) required for its
• implementation.
Further, the REIR misstates the role of the CCC in considering the LCP proposed
by the County and its environmental impacts. Page 2-7, lines 1-6, states, without
explanation, that the CCC's certification of the LCP is "exempt from the CEQA
• requirement for the preparation of an EIR" and that the REIR prepared by the County may
be relied upon by the CCC in fulfilling its "obligation to comply with CEQA's policies,
evaluation criteria and standards." This passage is inaccurate and misleading.
As noted in the above-quoted sections of CEQA and the Guidelines, the certification
of a local coastal program is considered part of a certified regulatory program. Such a
program is not subject to Chapter 3 of CEQA pursuant to PRC 121080.5. jz &LW
Guidelines § 15251(f) (expressly listing the program of the CCC involving the preparation,
approval and certification of local coastal programs as a certified regulatory program).
161 The foregoing conclusion is supported by the express intent of the Legislator in enacting the California
Coastal Act and establishing the coastal zone. PRC 130001 expressly states that the Legislature finds 'T)at the
California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring merest to all the people
and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem," and that, 'it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the
coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction.' Further, PRC 130001.5 states the Legislator's
finding that the basic goals of the coastal zone include the enhancing and restoring of the 'overall quality of the
coastal zone environment and its natural and asocial reesources.' Although PRC 130004(a)admowledges that
local government planning proeadurra must play an integral part of regulating the coastal zone, subsection (b)
of that same section expressly states the Legislator's intent to provide 'maximum state iovolvenent I in federal
actions relating to the coastal zone and 'to coordinate and luegrnte the activities of the many agencies whose
activities impact the coastal zone'by providing :For continued swe coartd planning and management through
a state coastal commission.' 7his intent correspond r with Section 210M 9 of CEQA!which mandates that the CCC
and not the local agency act as lead agency for the adoption of a local coastal program under the Coastal Act.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 18
Guidelines 1 15250 explains that a certified regulatory program is not wholly exempt from
CEQA's requirement to prepare adequate environmental documentation (as suggested in the
REIR), but that such programs are exempted from the requirement to prepare duplicative
initial studies, negative declarations and EIRs since the certified program already requires
sufficient written documentation of environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and
alternatives in a "substitute document" which makes the submission of a separate EIR or
other environmental document an unreasonable duplication of information already required
in the substitute document. SM PRC 1 21080.5(a), (d); Guidelines 1152529 15253.
Where a document prepared pursuant to a certified regulatory program fails to include in
the substitute document all of the information and disclosure required under CEQA, the
document is subject to challenge. &M, L&, Environmental Protection Information Center
v. Johnson 170 Cal.App.3d 604 (1985).
The CCC (and not the County) is required to assess the impacts of the proposed
LCP and to mitigate impacts to the maximum extent feasible as well as identify alternatives
to the proposed project which could lessen project impacts. The CCC does not have the
power to rely on the County's REIR for this purpose since the Coastal Act requires the
Commission to undertake its own independent environmental investigation. If the project is
truly the adoption of the LCP, the REIR is invalid.
. b. If the "Project" is the Development of the Mesa and the
Lowlands, the REIR Incorrectly Uses a Program EIR in IAeu of a Staged and
Supplemental EIR. The REIR states at page 2-3, lines 1-3, that it is a "program EIR"
within the meaning of Guidelines 11 15165 and 15168. As was noted in the Comment, a
program EIR is one type of "tiered" environmental review mandated under PRC 121093.
That section provides, in part, that tiering of E1Rs should streamline environmental
procedures, avoid repetitive discussions of environmental impacts in successive EIRs and
ensure that EIRs for later projects which are consistent with previously approved policies
concentrate on the particular environmental effects which may be mitigated or avoided in
connection with the approval for the later projects.
A program EIR is a first-tier EIR which is not generally required to analyze
the specific impacts of each specific aspect of the larger plan to be adopted in connection
with the program EIR. Such review is reserved until consideration of each construction
project occurring after the adoption of the plan or program. %= Guidelines 11 15146,
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 19
•
15152, 15168(c). If, the REIR is intended to analyze the environmental impacts of the
development described in Chapter 3 of the document, the use of a program EIR is not
appropriate unless it adequately addresses, analyzes and, where possible, mitigates all of the
potential impacts from the project in the same manner as if a project EIR were prepared in
• accordance with Guidelines § 15161. The REIR circulated by the County does not do so
and cannot stand as the basic environmental review for the planning or construction of even
2,500 units within the island of County area surrounded by the City.
The improper use of a program EIR was first brought to the County's
• attention in the Comment. This issue is one of the few issues raised in the Comment which
the REIR attempts, albeit ineffectively, to address directly. Page 2-3, lines 29-30 states
that "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR
to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Given the
omission of a stable, finite statement of the "project" the REIR is evaluating, it is not
possible for the reader to know which activities and approvals are "subsequent" activities
within the program and which are the items purportedly reviewed and analyzed in the
program EIRA' Guidelines § 15168(b) states that use of a program EIR intended to:
(1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and
alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action,
(2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-
by-case analysis,
•
IN The R,EM's inadequate response to the issuer raised at pager 12-13 and pages Sl-53 of the Comment
misinterprets and mudwractenzes the Lssue raised by the City. The use of a t{md environmental review is
proper, even though the use of a grogram E1R it not. By using a program EIR,the County may proceed with any
future development which it determines to be consistent with the program considered in the REBt without further
public notice, review or opportunity for public comment pursuant to Guidelines 115168(e)(2), so long as the
(♦ County maker a finding that the particular development did not cruse a new significant environmental impact
which was not considered in the REA in contrast, if a staged EIR were used (and as noted below, due to the
decades-long duration of the construction of the development, the wide array of agencies who must approve
different aspects of the development, and the apparently limited progress of design of the development, a staged
EIR rather than a program EIR is the lawfully required vehick for tiered review of the environmental impacts of
the LCP and related development) Guidelines 115167(b)requires a supplement to the EIR to be prepared when
any later approval is required for the project-
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 20
(3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations,
(4) Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide
mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility
to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
(5) Allow reduction in paperwork.
None of the foregoing program EIR objectives are realized by the REIR. Its consideration
of effects and alternatives is cursory rather than exhaustive. It avoids appropriate
consideration of the cumulative impacts of the entirety of the development with past,
present and future developments.1y Rather than avoiding duplicative discussions of policy
considerations, it wholly avoids any discussion whatsoever regarding broad policy
alternatives, overlooking the many and significant conflicts of the project with State and
County land use and development policies expressed in, among other things, the State's
Coastal Act and the County's general plan. It fails to state or discuss a consistent policy
objective or project objective. Further, the REIR does not consider a project which would
implement the varying objectives stated in the REIR. It is bereft of analysis of potential
programwide mitigation measures, often delaying the formulation of legally required
mitigation measures until the development's impacts can be assessed after approval and
implementation. Thus, none of the advantages offered by the use of a program EIR are
achieved by the County's REIR. This alone compels the conclusion that the County has not
used the program EIR in the manner State law intends. That conclusion is strengthened by
examination of the Guidelines and the intended application of a staged EIR to the proposed
Bolsa Chica development.
A "staged EIR" is designed to evaluate the broad implications of long-term
developments such as the development considered in the REIR. A staged EIR should be
used, "where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from
governmental agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before
181 Indeed, as is noted in Parrs L O and II.S of dds letter, die RER avoids airy eomideratioe of the
cumulative impact of the lass of one of the few remaining intact wetland/Upland ecos)We s if the Project is
implemented.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 21
•
construction will begin." Guidelines § 15167. The OPR discussion following Guidelines
§ 15167 explains:
The staged EIR was developed as a device to deal with the problem of
• a large development project which would require many years for
planning, engineering and construction but would need a number of
approvals from public agencies before the final plans would be
available. Where those final plans would not be available the Lead
Agency preparing an EIR for one of the early approvals would have
• difficulty providing enough information about the project to evaluate
the effects of the entire project as would otherwise be required. . . [�]
The device of the staged EIR provides a special relaxation of the
requirement of the EIR on a development project to examine the
entire project in detail. To make up for this lack of detail with the
• early approval, the section requires preparation of a supplement with
later approvals when additional information becomes available.
The actions considered in the REIR include broad plans and outlines (such as
the WRP, dredging and maintenance plan, grading plans, etc.) which have not been
• completely designed and for which full conceptual plans (much less final plans) have
apparently not been prepared. Construction of the earliest phase of the development is not
planned to commence until sometime during 1996 at the earliest and wetlands restoration
and implementation of the proposed ATIP will be delayed well beyond that date. The
construction of the Mesa Component is anticipated to last more than 20 years. Thus, the
• County is in the exact position contemplate in the foregoing OPR discussion explaining the
intended use of a staged EIR since, at this early stage of the long-term development, the
County cannot provide, "enough information about the project to evaluate the effects of the
entire project as would otherwise be required."12`
•
191 Evan if the CCC prepares the envirommemtal documentation for the proposed devekpmemt, a staged EIR
approach will be required to permit the CCC to set the broad policy outilma of the program while local
agencies implementing the plan to engage in a formal environmental process providing public&relature and
consideration of impacts, alternatives and mitigation nwasum for each local agency approval required for
development implementing the plan ultimately approved by the CCC.
Discussion Dreh Dated Septembsr 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 22
The foregoing factors mandate that a staged EIR be used to permit the County, as
the first lead agency, to consider the whole of the development in general terms and to
address the specific environmental review required for each subsequent approval at a later
time when the plans for each individual development have been developed. The staged EIR
is expressly intended to be used by the first lead agency in preparing a document where, as
here, many other responsible agencies will be required to issue approvals related to the
development. The projects considered in the REIR will require approvals from a panoply
of State, federal and local agencies, including (but not necessarily limited to) the following
approvals from the noted federal, State and local agencies:
. . _ •
.. .. .
v 5 �kuthmtY
Local7State. : --
LCP/LUP County Board of Supervisors. Pub. Rea Code f 35000 1. 0
Coastal Commission 41
2. EIR County Board of Supervisors Pub. Rea Code 121000
Pub. Res Code 121100
3. General Plan Amendment County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code 165300
4. Planned Community County Board of Supervisors •
Zoning
5. Wetlands Restoration County Board of Supervisors
Program and implemen- Army Corps 33 USC 11344(f 404)
tation Action Plan 33 USC If 403, 407
Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code 135000
•
6. Development Agreement County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code 165864
7. Coastal Development City of Huntington Beach City LCP
Permits
Coastal Coatatsstcyn
•
8. Coastal Permit Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code f 35000
9. Approval of LCP Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code 135000 at seq.
10. Approval of EIR Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code 135000 et seq.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 23
•
. . .... ...
. . . .. . ... . _ .. ...
.
DPP ! SWry Authonttr
11. Approval of Development Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code 135000 et sal.
Agreement
12. Approval of Permits Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code 135000 at seq.
(prior to cent. of EigiiiL
13. Permits under 1 404 of Army Corps 33 USC 11344(1 404)
• Clean Water Act and 110 33 USC If 403, 407
of Rivers and Harbors Act
14. Consistency under Coastal Army Corps 16 USC 11456
Zone Management Act Coastal Commission
15. EIS preparation and Army Corps 42 USC 14321
certification under NEPA.
16. Certification under 1 401 Army Corps 33 USC 11341
of Clean Water Act
• 17. Compliance with 17 of Army Corps 16 USC 1 1531-1544
Endangered Species Act USFWS
and Calif. ESA NMFS
CDFG
18. Taking Permit under Army Corps 16 USC 1 1531-1544
• 110 of Endangered USFWS
Species Act NMFS
19. Compliance with Fish and USFWS 16 USC ff 661-W
Wildlife Coordination Act EPA
NMFS
• CDFG
20. Compliance with 1 491 at US DOT 33 USC 1 491 at seq.
seq. of Bridge Act USCG
21. Compliance with 1 106 of 16 USC 1 470
NHPA
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0 •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 24
Authontx
22. Compliance with § 208 of 33 USC § 1251 et seq.
Federal Water Pollution (P.L. 92-500)
Control Act of 1972
The County's use of a program EIR does not achieve the advantages intended
by that type of document. The use of a staged EIR to analyze the long-term Bolsa Chica
development is precisely what the Guidelines intend. If the "project" evaluated by the
REIR is supposed to be the long-term development of Bolsa Chica, the County has used an
improper environmental document and the REIR should be revised and recirculated as a
staged EIR.
3. The Project Description of the REIR is Inaccurate and
Incomplete. The project description set forth in the REIR is inaccurate and incomplete as
to the project's scope, objectives and phasing (particularly with regard to the phasing of
grading and stockpiling of large amounts of dredged material during grading activities and
the concomitant disturbance to sensitive biological resources). Its inappropriate approach to
the discussion and application of mitigatie measures (similar to the problems noted in the
Comment at paragraph I.F and in CommENr ANNEx No. 7) makes it impossible to
understand the relationship between development and environmental mitigation as proposed
by the REIR. These deficiencies require a second recirculation of a new, overhauled, 41
complete and more clearly written document which analyzes and discloses the information
missing from the REIR. Sm Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco. Inc. v.
The Regents of the University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (1993) ("Laurel Heights II") (a
new public comment period is required if the lead agency adds significant new information
to the EIR after the close of the comment period but prior to certification — such significant 41
information includes substantial changes to the project).
a. The REIR Omits Consideration of Important Elements of
the Revised Development Proposal. New elements of the Project are not adequately
assessed in the REIR. For example, the reconstructed and extended Warner Avenue Bridge
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 25
•
is barely mentioned. The traffic impact during the construction period is not addressed.
What detours will be used when this new essential element of the project is under
construction? What land use impacts does this bridge extension have? How will it affect
access to adjacent properties? Has a conceptual plan been drawn up, or was the bridge
• extension merely an afterthought required by the omission of the new tidal inlet which was
included in the last version of the project?
The reader is left to ponder certain of the other elements of the proposed
project. What development is proposed for the 2.4 acres in Edward's Thumb adjacent to
• Talbert Avenue? The purpose of this part of the City Portion analyzed in the REIR is not
stated. Section 4.1.1.1 on page 4.1-3 states the uses of all other portions of the City
portion. Why is no use stated for this portion?
The REIR also leaves unmentioned the need for federal and State agency
• approvals for significant portions of the Mesa Component. Throughout the document, the
reader is left with the impression that there would be no federal or State agency
involvement or approval required for the development of the uplands. This is not true.
Pursuant to the federal and State Endangered Species Acts, USFWS and CDFG must either
give their input regarding the potential impacts of the development on habitat for threatened
or endangered species or, if the project proceeds on the Mesa without any federal
• approvals, USFWS must approve any removal of habitat for endangered species on the
Mesa prior to any development or planning approvals which could impair those habitats or
harm the affected species. Both of those agencies (as well as many others noted in the
chart of approvals included in subpart 2, above, stated strong reservations regarding the
approach of the DEIR to "relocation" of ESHAs on the Mesa 2W The REIR neither
•
201 USFWS commented negatively on the DER, stating, 'the Service suggests the subject draft E1R is
inadequate as a basis for local and State decision-malting.' Letter f vm USFWS Ecological Services to County
dated February 17,1994(a copy of which is attached as Annex No. 7). In its comment the Service expressly noted
that it would be involved in the review of the project for compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act.
The Service was concerned about the treatment of impacts on the bird populations on the Mesa as well as the
lowland It was also concerned that a proper ecological baseline for assessing the impacts of the development on
upland and lowland habitat areas had not been created or circulated for public review. 7 he lack of appropriate
study to establish an environmental baseline, the failure to circulate those studies and the failure to assess the
viability of establishing suitable new habitat,as initially suggested in comment on the DER, continue unabated
• (continued...)
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency 41
October 4, 1994
Page 26
41
mentions those comments nor attempts to respond to them. This omission appears designed
to permit the County to respond to those comments after the close of the public comment
period on the REIR; however, since the agencies' comments note significant new impacts
which are not adequately discussed in the REIR and note a need for further and better
defined mitigation measures, the County is legally compelled to circulate (at a minimum) •
responses to the agency comments (with a separate public comment period fulfilling the
requirements of CEQA) prior to certification of any environmental document as fulfilling
the demands of CEQA.
b. Project Description Omits Description of Project Phasing. •
As in the case of the DEIR, the REIR does not contain an adequate description of project
phasing. The description of the phasing of the development does not indicate whether
phases will be constructed concurrently or whether different portions of each phase might
be constructed at different times. The limited description of phasing gives the reader
absolutely no information about how the site would be dredged and graded and how or •
specifically where on the site material from grading or excavation would be stockpiled or
used on the site (and in this regard it must be noted that at least 1,550,000 cubic yards and
as much as 3,456,407 cubic yards of earth will be moved in the course of development).
As was stated in the Comment (and ignored in the REIR), a series of drawings which
shows how the anticipated cuts and fills from each phase would affect the site should be
prepared and inserted in the document.ul Since this project extends over such a long •
period of time, it is not expected that the phasing plan would be completely exact, but that
it would conceptually present the time during which each area of the site might undergo
•
201(..continued)
in the REIX CDFG also commented negatively on the DER, stating that the development proposed in that
document did not appear to be 'feasibly implanentable0 and recommending against c ri fication of the DERE
Letter frorm CDFG to County dated February 18, 1994 (a copy of which Is attached as Annex M. 8). CDFG
disapproved the DE1R at a baris for local agency decision malting based, in part, on its concerns regarding the
proposed relocation of Mesa ESHAr to the Huntington Beaus Mesa. TJnat proposal a continued wahow substamial •
modification in the REM In as comment CDFG noted, 'dw sign#leant reltanc+e gPon dw Huntington Beads Mesa
as an area in which to produce compensatory ESHA dots not adequately consider the potential incompatibility of
the proposed linear parr and the habitat values associated with the compensatory ESHA acreage.
211 Drawings similar to those which were prepared in the County's recant Prima Deshecha Landoll GDP EIR
which depict phased grading activities are required •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 27
•
some form of disturbance during the project's implementation. Phasing information is
essential to an analysis of the temporary impacts to onsite habitats and to determine whether
or not any net loss of each of the various habitats which occur within the project site.
• There is also no description of the construction process and the types and
numbers of equipment and personnel which would be involved. This is essential to address
construction impacts, which may be substantial due to long-term, potentially continual use
of heavy equipment, transport of contaminated soil or dredge spoil, earthmoving, deep
dynamic compaction and soil stockpiling, among other activities. It seems that the traffic
• analysis lacks a precise assessment of the earthmoving component of construction activities
as well. This is a serious deficiency in the REIR.
C. . The Project Description Uses Varying Statistics of Acreage.
The REIR project description is imprecise about the project acreage and boundaries. The
• document should be thoroughly reviewed to make sure that all discussions of acreage are
consistent and include the 22 acres in the City of Huntington Beach, and that all graphics
which show the project site include the proper project boundary. The number of acres to
be devoted to each use varies markedly from section to section in the REIR. For example,
it is unclear if the acreages of open space and developed land for Lowland Options A and B
• should be the same or different:
• Section 2.2, page 2-7, In. 14 to 22 notes a total project area of 1,588 acres
(plus 22 acres within the City of Huntington Beach);
• Section 2.2, page 2-15, In. 28 states that Lowland Option A will result in
1,284 acres of open space; and
• Page 2-15, In " and page 2-16, In. 4 state that Lowland Option B will result
in 104 developed acres and 1,202 open space acres; however, in another section
(Section 3.3, page 3-9, In. 41), the REIR states that Lowland Option B will result in
• 185 acres to be developed (filled). There is thus an 81 acre gap in the two
descriptions of the developed portion of Lowland Option B.
There is also an B2 acre discrepancy in the acreages of the Lowlands in Lowland Option A
versus Lowland Option B (1,284-1,202=82). The difference in the two above-quoted
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 28
descriptions of Option B is 81 acres (185-104=81); this nearly accounts for the "missing"
82 acres in the previous definitions of Option B. The reader should not be left to guess as
to the basic statistics regarding the project.
Similarly inconsistent descriptions of acreages occur throughout the 41
document. This inconsistency is compounded when the figures are used in Table 1-1,
Section 1.1.2 page 1-3, which compares Lowland Option A to Lowland Option B. The 185
acre lowland development (fill) number seems to be the figure applied, however at least 15
acres of the development (fill) area are shifted into the Recreation/Open Space category
under Option B (Planning Area 3D?).
The foregoing inaccuracies are compounded in the "Acreage By Ownership"
;abie and accompanying map (Figure 3-5, Section 3.2, page 3-8), which shows that the Koll
Real Estate Group owns 917.3 lowland acres, and the remaining 411.6 acres, for a total of
1,328.9 acres, is owned by other property owners. This does not correlate to other project
acreage totals elsewhere in the REIR (e.g. 1,588). The only apparent way to rationalize
these discrepancies, while conserving Option A and Option B, as variously and
inconsistently described in the REIR, is to allow the Koll to "credit" itself with the acreage
of all the other lowland property owners.-' Section 3.3.2 Figures 3-6a through 3-7b
seem to include the Fieldstone property, with an introduced 3.7 acre discrepancy. Even so, 41
the City of Huntington Beach acreage of 12.7 (or alternately 13.2) acres must be rounded
down to 12 acres, and alternately added twice, or occasionally not at all. This is very
confusing and must be resolved so that the DEIR is consistent and it is clear who owns
•
221 This approach is erroneous but is consistent with the overall approach of the REIR, which treats the site
as if the entirety of the Mesa and Lowlands were owned by a single owner willing to trade Mesa development
entitlements in exchange for some degree of cooperation regarding dedication and restoration of the wetlands.
This approach, which it identical to the approach of the DEIR, prompted vehement objections from Irell do
Manella, raised on behalf of the Fieldstone Company,a copy of which a attached to this Letter as Annex No. 11.
Fieldstone's attorney commented that theDEIR, 'unnecessarily cot faces and complicates the issues associated with
Fieldstone's independent development of its property with the issues associated with the Koll Company's
development of its various properties in Boka Chico. . .'. This comment cominum, 'The DEIR improperly treats
Fieldstone's property and independent project at if it were part of the Koll Company's pr ject.' T hw,Fieldstone
opposes the lumping together of its propond 'modest vitension of an existing single family residential
neighborhood over a relatively small land area'with dw more gargantuan implications of the former 4,2W unit
or current 2500`3200 dwelling unit (or it it still 4,2W unit?)project.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 29
•
and/or controls the acreages of the proposed project. All text, tables, and figures must be
rationalized. The REIR should be rewritten to clearly and consistently state the open space
and development acreages of Options A and B and the acreages for the (a) total project
area, (b) acres of open space, and (c) development (fill) areas. The accuracy of the REIR
is open to serious question since it cannot identify the various land use areas without the
noted significant ambiguity, discrepancies and inconsistencies. The REIR must be rewritten
so that it is consistent and clear.
d. The Objectives of the Project Vary from Section to Section.
• One of the key elements of a valid project description is the statement of the project's
objectives. Guidelines § 15124(b). The objectives of the project will determine whether
mitigation measures and project/site alternatives are feasible and still fulfill the objectives of
the project. Guidelines § 15126(d). The project objectives seem to change from one page
to another, such that it is unclear what they really are. %z REIR at pp. 1-4, 2-16, 3-47
• and 48, and 6-7 and Part I.L, below. In the alternatives chapter it appears that a specific
set of objectives has been selected for the purpose of rejecting certain alternatives, since a
much different and shorter list is used than appears in Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 of the REIR.
e. Inclusion of Alternate Project Descriptions Further
• Obscures the Project Description. The Comment noted that the publication of a DEIR
which purported to analyze two "co-equal alternatives" (as originally denominated in the
NOP) undercuts the value of the DEIR as an informational document for the public. The
REIR continues this flaw by providing two co-equal alternatives for the Lowlands
Component. For the same reasons as were noted at pages 29-31 of the Comment with
respect to the "co-equal alternative" considered in the DEIR, the inclusion of two separate
co-equal Lowlands alternatives makes an already unmanageable document even more
confusing and causes the document to violate, among other requirements, Guidelines
§ 15140 which requires that a document must be written to be rapidly understandable by the
public.
• 4. The County's REIR Misstates the Relationship between
Development Approvals and Environmental Review. As noted above, the County's
whole approach to the nexus between environmental review and approval of development is
off the mark. Page 2-1 of the REIR cites Guideline 115121 for the proposition that the
information in an EIR does not limit the discretion of the agency approving a development.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 30
Although this reference accurately states the text of the Guideline, it ignores its context
and meaning and seems to imply that the content of the REIR places no limitation on the
County's ability to lawfully approve any project it chooses so long as some environmental
documentation is prepared. This is ominous indeed given the lurking shadow of the Koll
proposal inadequately analyzed in the DEIR. Clearly, CEQA requires an agency to •
consider and approve all of the environmental impacts from, mitigation measures for and
alternatives to the project as proposed before JW project is approved. So PRC § 21151(a)
(local agencies must certify the completion of EIRs with respect to projects which they
intend to approve); Guidelines § 15090(b) (the lead agency shall certify that the final EIR
was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision making •
body reviewed and considered the final EIR prior to approving the project). Guideline
§ 15121 means that the petty details of a project are not limited by the information in the
EIR , big the project may be lawfully approved Qnly if all of the impacts of a project are
adequately disclosed by, discussed in, and mitigated pursuant to a legally adequate EIR.
Most important, the local agency is precluded from approving a project which could result •
in significant impacts not considered or which require new mitigation measures not
provided for in the EIR. Compg PRC § 21166. The REIR's statement that
"certification of an EIR does not constitute approval of any development activity," seems to
disregard the requirement for an adequate EIR to have been prepared, circulated and
lawfully certified prior to any project approvals. Neither the DEIR nor the REIR is an •
adequate discussion or disclosure of the impacts of the projects considered in those
documents, and the County is precluded from approving any action with respect to my
project until a legally adequate document is prepared and lawfully certified.
C. OMISSION of IMPLEaNmNG DOCUMENTS AND BASELINE STUDIES
FgUSTRATEs ATTEMPTS AT WORTHM= PUBLIC REyIEw of THE PRooum •
AND THE DEM.
1. Failure to Circulate Implementing Documents Frustrates
Meaningful Public Review. Like the DEIR before it, the REIR attempts to analyze a vast
and complex series of governmental and administrative actions and approvals. Each of the •
approvals will shift and alter the various environmental impacts from the development. The
development cannot be implemented until various local, State and federal documents
(including the proposed local coastal program, development agreement, general plan
amendment, wetlands permits and other documents, all of which are collectively referred to
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 31
•
in this letter as the "implementing documents") are issued or adopted. None of these
documents have been made available for public review during the public comment period
on the REIR. Some of the documents (such as the development agreement which appears
to form an integral part of land dedications and other aspects of the project) have neither
• been drafted nor agreed to in concept.21' Because, as in the case of the DEIR, the
implementing documents were not circulated with the REIR, crucial information is lacldng
which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the projectA As a result,
the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing
and phasing of the project, without information on anticipated residential dwelling unit
• types within defined planning areas, and without information regarding the costs of
mitigation measures (such as the ATIP) and the revenues from the project which are
purported to fund those measures. The implementing documents and project information
are critical elements of the program or development under consideration in the REIR, and it
is not possible to dredge sufficient information regarding the project and the content of the
•
231 To be complete, the Bolsa Mca Load Coastal Program (LCP)mart contain both a Land Use Plan and
two Implementing Action program:A Wetlands Restoration Program and a Planned Community Program. If the
REIR is to be a valid EIR (even for the LCP), it mast be circulated with and include adequate environmental
assessment of,a Planned Community Program and Community Profile Amendment which would define permitted
• land uses, zoning regulations,site development standards,and processing procedures for development within the
Planned Community. Those programs are neither available nor described in suf'ictew detail in the REIR
241 Indeed, the REIR expressly states.
In conducting its impact analysis,the County examined the Proposed Project as set forth In the County's
Proposed LCP. That LCP includes all specific design proposals of the applicant which are incorporated
within the Proposed Project
If the Proposed Project is already designed and it specificolty described In the Proposed LCP, why isn't
that description repeated in the REIR? Wiry wasn't the Proposed LCP appended to the REIR so the reader could,
like the preparer of the REDR, evaluate potential impacts of the specific design proposals set forth in the LCP?
• The County has, as in the case of the DER, refused to circulate any of the specific implementing document:with
its environmental analysis. The failure to do so deprives the reader and the decision maker of the ability to assess
whether the County, 'in conducting iu impact anabwis 0 properiy evaluated the impacts and effects of the 'speeif ie
design proposals of the applicant which are incorporated into the Proposed Project,'as claimed in the foregoing
passage of the REM Why does the County continue to frustrate and evade the Start-nwndated environmental
review process by refusing to share the more meaningful sped is design proposals for the development with the
• public reviewing the REIR? Tlu failure to disclare this ipjbrmadox is fatal to the Cownty's CEQA process.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 32
•
implementing documents from the incomplete, vague and inconsistent descriptions of the
REIR. The County has continued to hide the true form of its approvals until after the
opportunity for comment on the impact of those approvals has passed. This precludes
adequate public participation in the CEQA process and violates CEQA's intent and
requirement for informed public participation and decision-making. •
2. The REIR Further Frustrates Public Review by Exceeding the
Permitted Limits on Incorporation of Uncirculated Documents by Reference. In
addition, the REIR makes improper use of incorporation of technical studies by reference.
Page 2-3, lines 37-40 of the REIR states: •
As permitted by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Revised Draft
EIR has referenced several technical studies, analyses, and reports.
Guideline § 15150 is far more limited in its scope and application than is suggested by the •
REIR. Incorporation by reference is permissible only for documents which are a matter of
public record or generally available to the public. Further, subsection (f) of the Guideline
states that incorporation by reference is most appropriate for including long, descriptive, or
technical materials that provide general background but do not contribute directly to the
analysis of the problem at hand. Subsection (e) provides that documents such as a city's
general plan, a former EIR, or a general study from an AQMD of air pollution emissions
from a particular process are the types of documents which the Guideline intends to be
incorporated by reference. In contrast, the REIR incorporates by reference (and does not
circulate) specific surveys and studies (including studies of the particular nesting and
foraging species at the Mesa and in the Lowlands) as well as hazardous materials
investigations which are not generally available to the public and bear directly on the •
analysis of the problem at hand. The County cannot frustrate CEQA's intent to provide
full public disclosure of environmental issues by improperly relying on the concept of
incorporation by reference to obscure and limit the public's access to the limited data
available regarding the impacts of the proposed development.
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 33
D. THE COUNTY HAs FAMED To FULFILL rrs OBLIGATIONS UNDER CEOA TO
CONSULT wrrH AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INPUT OF OTHER AGENCIES
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
• The County has assumed the role of the lead agency under CEQA. CEQA
requires the lead agency to consult with other agencies which will have approval authority
over or will suffer adverse impacts from the proposed project, such as the City and federal
agencies which must approve the project. As noted on page 2-6 (lines 21-28), the County
has relied on the notice of preparation prepared and circulated with respect to the DEIR to
• provide the required notice of the REIR to the required agencies. The deficiencies and
legal short-comings of the County's initial process with respect to the consultation required
after circulation of the NOP were detailed at length in the Comment and need not be
repeated here; however, suffice it to say that the notice and consultation process which was
flawed with respect to the DEIR is wholly inappropriate and legally inadequate to fulfill the
• County's duties to its sister agencies (and the public) with respect to the REIR.
The County has avoided further consultation with affected agencies such as
the City by failing to prepare and circulate for comment a new notice of preparation
pursuant to PRC § 21080.4 which requires the lead agency to send notice of the County's
• determination that an EIR.for the project is required. Since the REIR addresses a
significantly different project than the 1993 DEIR, the noticing procedures of CEQA have
not been fulfilled. By changing the project and causing a wholly-rewritten document to be
prepared and circulated without prior notice, the County has deprived the affected agencies
the opportunity to comment regarding the proper scope and content of the REIR. In the
• past, when the County has prepared EIRs for projects which have changed since the
original draft EIR, it has issued a new NOP. This was true, for example, for both the
Sunset Aquatic Park and the Theo Lacy Branch Jail Expansion. In the case of the latter,
comments on the prior documents were also included in the Subsequent EIR.
By failing to send a notice which specified the proposed changes in the
• project and to seek comments from affected agencies, the County has once again evaded the
requirement that the scope and content of an EIR must be determined in consultation with
"each responsible agency and . . . those public agencies having jurisdiction by law over
natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust for the people of the State
of California." PRC § 21080.4. Guidelines § 15082(a) specifically states that the notice of
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 34
preparation is to go to all responsible agencies and to "every federal agency involved in
approving or funding the project." By ignoring this requirement, the County has not only
segmented the federal agency approvals from the approvals considered in the REIR (further
detailed in Part I.E, below), but has permitted the federal agencies to move forward with a
federal EIS which apparently will consider a project which is different in significant
respects from the project considered in the REIR.
On March 3, 1994, the Corps prepared and published the NEPA required
notice of intent to prepare an EIS in connection with Section 404 and Section 10 permits for
dredging and fill of and discharge into waters of the United States. 59 Fed. Reg. 10116.
The notice of intent expressly includes as part of the proposed development the non-
navigable tidal inlet deleted in both Lowland options considered in the REIR. The federal
agencies seem to be considering a project which the County implies is not currently under
consideration for approval. As noted below, the consultation process which a lead agency
is required to undertake is designed to avoid a situation, such as this, where different
agencies are considering different project proposals for the same site. The County's failure
to prepare a new notice of preparation regarding the revised project and new REIR is a
further mortal flaw in the County's CEQA process.
E. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE of THE PROJECT INTO A .
NUMBER of SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION of CEOA.
1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals. As is noted in various places
within the REM, the proposed wetlands restoration program, stated to be a project
objective, will require a number of federal approvals under different federal statutes. So 41
Chart in Part I.B, above.
Among the most significant, but nM the only, federal approvals will be
permits issued by the Corps in connection with the proposed dredging, filling and
development within the jurisdictional wetlands of the Corps and the wetlands restoration
plan outlined in the DEIR (the "WRP")2y In addition, either a consultation process must 0
251 The enabiiihment of a,Mitigation bank and, ifLowlad:Option D Is gpprowd, the ORP,hill appear to
form the sole justifications to override the acknowledged impact:(ad,pra+wtaNY the uwc*nowkdged knpacri
(continued...) •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
41
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 35
•
occur under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or, if no federal approvals are
obtained, a taldng permit must be issued by the Service under Section 10 of the Act, as
well as analogous State permitsA Without these and other federal permits from the
Corps, USFWS and other affected agencies, no development in the Lowlands or on the
• Mesa can occur.''
The REIR expressly excludes consideration of the potential impact of the
federal permits required for implementation of the proposed development. Since the REIR
appears to rely on the establishment of a mitigation bank (in the case of Lowlands Option
• A) or the restoration of the wetlands (in the case of Lowlands Option B) as the justifcat+.on
for the development's impacts (and since that restoration is stated at pages 1-4 and 3-47 to
be a primary objective of the development), the REIR implicitly assumes that the required
federal and State permits would eventually be issued after the commencement of
development in non-wetland areas. Such an unsupported assumption is not permitted under
• CEQA and is contradicted by the evidence in the record before the County. By ignoring
the requirement for federal permits and allowing development on area of the site other than
jurisdictional wetlands to proceed without obtaining federal permits for wetlands restoration,
the REIR, like the DEIR, segments the project into two projects; one consisting of the
•
25/(...continued)
as well)of the proposed development of this environmentally sensitive site 71wu,the basic approach of the DE1R
(which trades off upland and lowland habitat areas in exchange for a fature promise to perhaps facilitate
restoration of a portion of the remaining wetlands area)is continued in the REN T the mere unfunded and unlikely
(especially in light of the positions stated by the CCC and federal agencses) potential for future wetlands
• restoration (but gab if enough public money is collected from sources other than the developer and if the oil
operations onsue are discontinued) cannot rationally be relied upon by the County to justify the construction of
a new suburbia within the confines of the City, regardless of the impact to the City.
261 USFWS expressly noted in its kner,anaduad to this later as Antra No. 7,that it 'felt otherwise excluded
froth[the County's]process of prepanng the subject EIR and 'Werk sd Restoration Plan"but noted that it would
• assert is right to be pan of the environmental review for the project through the NEPA EIS procew.
271 As was noted in subpart II.D.3 of the Comumenr,and above in this kaw,correspondence from the affected
Stag and federal agencies have consistently quernoned the propriety of the federal permits which would be
required to build the project, both as ptnpaad by Koll and as scaled down in the REIR 71he CCC, DFG and
federal agencies appear highly unlikely to issue permits required for im'plawasrarion of both the Mesa Component
• and either of the Lowland Options for the project
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• S
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 36
development of between 2,500 and 3,200 homes (or potentially 4,286 homes) on areas of
the site other than the jurisdictional wetlands, and the second consisting of the eventual
restoration or residential development of the wetlands if, as and when oil operations are
discontinued and sufficient funding obtained.
41
The process employed by the County in preparing both the DEIR and the
REIR without consultation or cooperation with the Corps and other affected federal agencies
violates Guidelines § 15226 which mandates a joint NEPA and CEQA environmental
review and planning process "to the fullest extent possible.' These issues are fully detailed
at pages 6-9 of the Comment.-' Even in those cases where a federal agency refuses to
cooperate in the preparation of a joint document, Guidelines § 15228 requires the lead
agency to persist in efforts to cooperate with the federal agency.' Here, the County
continues to be the agency which consistently refuses to participate in the joint State/federal
planning and environmental review process mandated by CEQA.
The County's continuing refusal to engage in a joint process with the affected
federal agencies impaired the public's analysis of the DEIR and impairs analysis of the
REIR. Given that the primary project objectives (as stated in Chapters 1 and 3 of the
REIR) include restoration/creation of wetlands and relocation of ESHAs, all of which must
undergo federal environmental review and obtain federal permits, coupled with the
extremely negative comments received by the County from the federal agencies, the
omission of federal agency input places the County's planning efforts in direct conflict with
the policies and intentions of the federal and State agencies which must approve the project
proposed by the County. The County's plans will unquestionably be altered significantly by
the need to conform to the federal requirements. 41
281 ,M Conunew at Nora 7& 8 and accompanying tart.
291 As noted in the Comment, the pupa wwn of separate state and JPederal environmental clearance 41
documents substantially camplicaues the pr+ocem and can lead to additional conflkta and protraction of the
environmental review procerr to the client that danger due to federal environmental require nenu require
subsequent recirculation of the CEQA docvmaw. Ale foresaw became reality when, in Marro 1994, the Corps
prepared its notice of intent to prepare an EIS win kh included the tidal inlet removed from the development
proposals in the REIR Tine county's refusal to commit with affected agenaer as required by law has created a
situation where the local and federal agencw are reviewing sign#kantly different projects for the same sue. 41
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
! Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 37
•
2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development.
The DEIR segmented the project by defining the "project" under consideration as Qi y the
development within the County, excluding from the DEIR's consideration the development
of some 598 units within areas which were within the study area (i.e., the project site) but
• were not within the County LCP. This divided a portion of Koll's intended development
into another segment not considered as part of the project under review in the DEIR. As
was noted in the Comment, the County is responsible for assessing the local and Statewide
impacts of "the whole ef an action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change
in the environment," not i= the portions within the County's jurisdiction.30i'
The REIR attempts to rectify the segmentation of the County controlled
portion of the project from those portions within the City by stating that no development is
currently planned for the City portions. The problem with this approach is that it ignores
the long-term approach which a general plan amendment (such as the amendment required
! to implement the proposed LCP) is supposed to entail. &a Government Code § 65300
(requiring that the County's general plan must be a long term document). By excluding the
areas of the project within the City, the County has ignored the likelihood that development
of the Mesa Component will encourage development of the adjacent City parcels. Thus,
the County's REIR considers only the impact of a portion of the project, in violation of
• CEQA. The County should have considered the potential impacts of development of the
entire site, rather than considering the impact of construction of 2,500-3,200 (4,286?)
dwelling units limited to the County's jurisdiction.
3. Segmentation of Remediation Actions. Page 11 of the Comment
! noted that implementation of the project was segmented from the process of making the site
"clean" for the development to occur. The REIR continues, like the DEIR before it, to rely
on the development of a plan in the future to attempt to limit the hazards and assess the
impacts of the unquestionably vast amount of site remediation which will be required. The
characterization of the yet-to-be-developed Remedial Action Plan ("RAP") as a PDF (m
REIR at p. 4.3-11 line 43 et seq.) is in clear violation of CEQA. How can a non-existent
! and ill-described remediation plan be said to be part of the "design" of the developer's
proposed project?
! 301 ,C Comment at Note 10.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 38
41
As discussed at length in Part I.F, below, at a minimum, the RAP is a
disguised mitigation measure proffered to abate a significant impact to a level of
insignificance. Disguising the potential significance of the impact and hiding the
undesigned and undefined mitigation measure as a so-called PDF violates CEQA's
requirement that an EIR must alert the public and the decision-maker to all of the
significant impacts from the project and 2= identify how the developer will mitigate those
impacts. The County's method of hiding impacts and their proposed mitigation through the
use of PDFs is not permitted under CEQA.
The REIR, like the DEER, defers investigation and analysis of the likely
impacts from the required substantial remediation of hazardous substances/waste until some
time in the future; even though the REIR still contemplates that development on the Mesa
will commence in IM. Further, the RAP contemplates a piece-meal remediation of
different portions of the site as different area are subjected to grading and construction.
There will, therefore, be foreseeable adverse impacts to the new residents of the Mesa from
adjacent remediation activities. The degree and severity of those impacts will depend upon
the project phasing, the phasing of the remediation activities and the scope and nature of the
contamination. However, the REIR gives no information regarding the phasing of these
activities (e.g. there is no information relating the construction of residences to the progress
of remediation activities). Since the studies indicating the nature and scope of the problem
have not been prepared, the methods of remediation have not been identified, and the
timing of residential occupancy versus the phasing of the remediation have not been
specified, the REIR gives the reader no basis for determining the impact of remediation on
the adjacent residents in particular and the environment in general. These facts alone
indicate the grave deficiency in depending on the development of future studies for
mitigation of the known and foreseeable problems which will result from residential
development of former oil producing and adjacent properties.
Further, the REIR's proposed use of the RAP to limit the impact from as yet
undetermined levels of hazardous substances and hazardous wastes is one of the many
instances in which the document depends on mitigation measures (or "PDFs") to be
developed and specified in the future, d= the development of studies and standards not yet
completed and &&I the close of the public comment period on the REIR.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 39
•
F. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.
1. Since Wetlands Restoration is a Primary Goal of the Project, that
Restoration Must Be a Condition to Development. The DEIR stated, and the REIR
• restates, that the Bolsa Chica Wetlands have been recognized as a degraded wetland.31
Although the REIR acknowledges that wetlands development and restoration will require
federal approvals, including approvals from the Corps under Sections 401 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, it does not consider
the potential impact of those reviews on the County's land use plans and other approvals.
• Even though the program considered by the DEIR must be subjected to a federal environ-
mental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC § 4321 (*NEPA") the
County has not worked in conjunction with the Corps to produce a joint document which
attempts to fulfil the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA.
As noted above, the restoration of the wetlands is the sole justification for the
impacts to the environment which unquestionably will result from my development at the
project site. Chapter 12 of the REIR notes three eight significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts. As was true of the REIR, there are other impacts which are
assumed to be insignificant but which are, in fact, significant adverse impacts on the
• environment notwithstanding the mitigation measures, PDFs, and SCs suggested in the
REIR. Accordingly, the County must specifically find that the benefits of the project
311 JU RElR page 4.1-7, Tina 19-22 and DEIR 14.1.1.1,page 4.1-6 citing California Department of Fish
and Gana Report on Idendfication of Degraded Wetlands in Bola China,dated December 11, 1981,awadtad to
• the Comment as Commmr ANNzr No.12. Both the DEIR and the REIR neglect to mention Chest the CDFG►report
concluded that even though the wetlands as a whole were a degraded syatan, a sign&4caw portion comprising
hundreds of acres were 01 degraded and were alheady fully restored and functioning wetlands. Further,the REM
continues the DEIR's failure to disclose that CDFG objected to the lion of the wetlands as degraded
in its comment(tnduded within ComMaNTANNzr No. 10)to the EDtAFJI Tire DEM's discussion of the CDFG
report is one of a number of'half-truths'continued in the recirculated document which continues the inaccurate
® and misleading discussion of the DEIR Finally, the DEIR and the REIR both omit any consideration of the
Governor's new wetlands policy, 'Calfbswia Wetlands Coarervadon Policy,' Ewcwive Order W59-93(Aug. 23,
1993) which notes the significance of the Bolsa China werlandr and considers their nstora don. A copy of the
Governor's policy was attached to the Comment as COMMENT ANNXr No. 35. 71he REM also omits discussion
of the CCC's Procedural Guidaneefor the Reveiw of Wetland Projects in Ca4 ornia's Coastal Zone, a copy of
which is attached as Annex No. 22, discussing that the aowge of critical wetlands eeaaystenns are dramatically
• decreasing in number.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 40
•
outweigh the potential adverse impacts in a statement of overriding considerations within
the meaning of Guidelines § 15093.2v
Since the stated objectives of the project focus on the restoration and creation
of significant wetlands and ESHAs, the overriding consideration in this case must include
the planned wetlands restoration.221 In order for this consideration to justify the
develor^.ent of the entire project, the obligation to restore the wetlands must arise with the
•
321 Since the mitigation measures required by the REIR are not suffident to mitigate all of the potential
impacts to a level of insignificance, the County rmw bout adopt the findings required under PRC § 21081
regarding the infeasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives which would lower the potential impact god a
Statement of Overriding Considerations as contemplated by Guidelines § 15093 stating the particular reasons
(based on substantial evidence in the record)why the environmental impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits
of the proposed project. The discussion following Guidelines 115093 states, in this regard:
The court in Citizens for Quality Growth y. Mount Shasta.198 Cal.App.3d 433
(1988). held that when an agency approves a project that will signif icontly •
affect the environment, CEQA places the burden on the approving agency to
affirmatively show that u has considered the identified means /mitigation
and/or alternatives] of lessening or avoiding the project's significant effects
and to explain its decision allowing those adverse danger to occur. In other
words, an agency may only get to overriding consideration toes the agency
has made the appropriate findings;then,and only that.may an agency go on
to explain why a project may go forward notwithstanding its effects.
331 This conclusion is bolstered by REM, Page 3-47 which states there the objectives of the Project include
(i)reversing 'the degradation of wetlands on the site and expand the size and quality of the wetlads through a
program of reconfiguration, consolidation, creation and restoration', (U) conveying the portion of the Lowland
not used for development to public agencies for werlauis re wrwion,flood control or other 'public uses' (even
though there is no binding cornmiment to convey any property under Lowland Option A unless and until the the
entity acquiring the property payer full market value — however dgUed — to purchase the property) and (iii)
coordinating the wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil apa+ations. Further, among the more specific
goals to be achieved is to provide for the creation,protection,restoration and maintenance of signif icons wetlands.
ESHAs and marine resources, and to maintain restore and enhance the biological productivity and quality of
coastal waters and wetlands to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 41
•
r� development under the approvals considered in the REIR (or if applicable, the
DEIR),Iy The REIR differs from the DEIR in that there appears to be no binding
commitment of the developer to restore or fund the restoration of the wetlands once the
development of the Mesa has commenced. The nature and extent of actual mitigation
• remains, at best, a mystery.91 Further, there is no requirement for bonding of restoration
obligations nor any other device provided in the REIR to ensure that there will be sufficient
funds to implement the restoration plan once oil operations are discontinued. This is
critically important given that the wetlands restoration would not commence until after oil
operations have ceasedA The omission of funding or security from any restoration
•
341 The passage of the REM at pages 3-17 to 3-18 is a men restatement of the problem, not a legally
sufflcient response to the issues raised herein or with respect to the Comment. Further, as is discussed at length
with respect to the County's inadequate discussion of alternatives, Page 6-6, lines 18 to Sl reweals the County's
true response with respect to this issue. The County apparently believes, without aid of supporting evidence in
the REN, that the removal and destruction of the existing uplands portion of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem to
accommodate the landowner•'s request for permission to alter significantly the existing and historical land use
(which has persisted for at least 80 years) by removing sensitive habitat areas in favor of higher density urban
development has no relationship(nor apparently any impact)on the immediately adjacent wetlands areas. As a
explained in detail in Part LF,below, this thinly veiled reference to the recent Supreme Court decision in Dolan
Y. City of TYgar+d _ U.S. _, 114 S. 0. 2309(1994),canpletely misreads the extent to which the Courhry and
• other agencies may properly exercise zoning and planning controls over a precious natural resource through the
valid exercise of their police powers. Further, this comment ignorer the statements of the REM, including,for
example, the statement at page 4.8-12,lines 13-23 that the Mesa and Lowlands habitats are, 'ecologically linked
as part of the broader coastal eaosytt m 9 Then is, accordingly, a clear naafis between the proposed initial
development of the Mesa and restoration of the Lowlands.
• 351 The DE1R estimated the caw of wetlands restoration at$48 Million. Alewspaper articles jinni mid-1993
estimated the figure at close to$I00 MiUlm The REIR now estimates that costs of restoring the wetlands will
be about$30 million, eaxluding the cost of land acquisition. The REM avoids any dlteloatre of(i)the method
of calculating the cart of the wetlands restoration, (11i) the potential court of land acquisition or ril)how nom-
developable Lowlands which have produced oil royakier over the part 70 years would be valued. Will the
Lowland owner naive the value of nondevelopable, defunct oil producing property or the higher value which
• would it assumes would have been realized ifdevelopment entitlements were granted? The REM does nor consider
this issue and the County's response to comments must detail this ear mwiy crucial aspect of the mitigation bank
proposed under Lowland Option A.
361 The WRP proposed in the DER (and in the REIR) was substamdally revised to a shore 'cart-effective
plan which delayed restoration until the existing oil operations were phased our as the reserwes were depleted.
• (continued...)
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 42
r
commitment leaves open the very real possibility that fund for the implementation of the
WRP may be unavailable when the time for implementation approaches over the next 20
years or more."
The REIR assumes that neither the County nor the CCC could lawfully •
require the developer to contribute to the restoration of the Wetlands as a condition to Mesa
development approvals. Thus, the REIR ignores the nexus between the destruction of
upland habitat for Lowland Option A and its potential adverse effect upon endangered
species in the lowland and wetland portions of the site.-W Loss of upland habitat will
result in increased predation in lowland and wetland areas by raptors, adversely affecting
endangered bird species. Loss of upland habitat for coyote could also mean increased fox
populations and the increased potential of fox predation on endangered bird species in the
lowland. The integrated function of the varied parts of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem depends
on more than just the lowland and wetland portions of the site. It is the diversity of
habitats on this large area of coastal land which makes it so biologically rich.
361(..continued)
Page 4.1-49 of the DEM indicated and the RE1R continues to state that those reserves are expected to be depleted
only over the next 20 years: however, if the price of oil increases at any time during that period, it is likely that •
the time required to remove misting oil operations will be increased Also,oil operators have great incentive to
continue oil operations indef initeiy in order to postpone remediation/clean Mp coasts. As those costs increase during
the next 20 years, the oil operators' incentive to continue even marginally profitable extraction operations will
likewise increase.
371 The project described in the REBt sewn the linkage between development and restoration of the wetlands f
which was expressly stated at the basis for the CCC conditional certification of the 1986 LCP on which the RE1R
relies. The CCC's 1986 findings, as quoted on page 4.1-37 of the RE1R reflect the CCC's position that
development, or at least higher levels of development, on the Bois Chiea site is conditioned on the restoration
of the wetlands. These fusdings state that, *7he modification(from plans for Bola Chiea prior to 19861 is
designed to allow as much fle ibiliry at passible in the methods available to satisfy the nod to secure at the owes
of development assurance that the restoration essential injusty5an8 the development femPhasts added]will actually
occur.' Contrary to this position,the Revised E1R makes development of the Bois Mesa completely independent
of the restoration of the LCP area's wetlands. Then is a significant question as to whether this 'severing' is
appropriate, or will meet the approval of the CCC.
381 The RaR (page 4.8-12) and the comments of the affected agencies makes it clear that there is a
significant connection between the wetlands and the upland habits on the Mesa.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 43
2. Federal and State Agencies which must Approve Wetlands
Restoration Have Objected to the WRP and Development of Lowlands. The permitting
process applicable to the wetlands restoration proposed in the REIR was described at length
at pages 31 to 32 of the Comment 12' The REIR continues to defer consideration of the
federal permits and the federal environmental review to a later time, yet to be determined.
As was noted in Part I.E above, if the Corps or any other responsible federal agency
refuses to issue the permits required for the restoration of the wetlands, a central objective
of the program contemplated by the REIR will not occur and, for this reason alone, the
REIR continues to be fatally flawed under State law. ''
•
As was noted and described at length at pages 36 through 41 of the
Comment, all of the agencies whose approval will be required for wetlands restoration have
commented very negatively on the approach continued by Lowlands Option B of the REIR.
These agencies have all stated that it is not permissible to offset residential development in
the Lowlands against a promise to fund wetlands restoration. In addition, USFWS stated a
strong concern that the so-called restoration would, under either Lowlands Option A or
Lowlands Option B, harm the wetlands. The position of USFWS and the other affected
agencies was not the least bit altered by the proposals in the DEIR y' The wetlands
i
391 For the convenience of the reader, a chan detailing the Corps'permitting process was attached to the
Comment as CommENT ANNEX No. 22 and a brief arricle describing the process at applicable in California was
attached to the Comment as CommENT ANNEX No. 23.
401 See Letter to Koll from the Los Angeles District Director of the Corps anadned to the Continent as
CommENT ANNEX No. S in which the Corps ahpressly states, among other things 0)Koll's position is that no
restoration of wetlands will occur unku the Corps permits Koll to fill wrtlandr in connection with the proposed
residential development in the Lowlandr, (il)that the Corps believes that it it required to review the entirety of
the project, including the unlandr as part of its public interest and NEPA review process, and rii)the use of
profits from the development of a residential community in the wetlands to fund the restoration of other wetlands
does not make the development in the wetlands a restoration or water-dependent project entitled to Section 404
permits. This letter strongly indicates that the Corps may not issue the wetlands permits required for restoration
or Lowlandr development. Further, this letter indicates that the Corps may be Iris inclined to issue permits if the
Mesa development has already comnnenced at the time the project is considered by the Corps.
411 The Continents of the USFWS and®FG were described above. In addition,the CCC and NMFS voiced
vehement objection to the approach taken in the DER and continued in Lowland Option B of the RERE Time
(continued...)
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 44
r
proposals of the REIR do not address any of the concerns expressed by the agencies which
must approve the project. Further, the REIR has raised a host of new concerns and issues
requiring further study and documentation since the County, in violation of CEQA, has
eliminated the tidal inlet rather than exploring alternatives to the inlet. Thus, as was
discussed at length in the Comment, a primary objective within the project description is
unlikely to be fulfilled by the development proposed in the REIR. Under Lowland
Option A there is no source stated for funding the WRP and the WRP has the potential to
exacerbate rather than reverse the degradation of the wetlands. Under Lowlands Option B
the funding is partially provided; however, in addition to the substantive problems with the
WRP, the problem of permitting residential development in the lowlands (vehemently 1
objected to by all of the permitting agencies) is the quid pro quo for that funding e_v
411(...continued)
comments of the CCC and the NMFS to the DER are attached to this kner as Anne No. 9 and Arent No. 10,
respectively. In its comment,NMFS stared that it did not believe that residential development in the Lowlands was
the only method to provide funding for the restoration of the wetlands over the nea 25 years and that the proposed
Lowland development was not consistent with the Coastal Act Further, USFWS not only questioned the legality
of the proposed wetlands development under Lowlands Option B but seams to question whether the proposed
wetlands restoration is truly benefZcial, stating:
There is also no indication in the 'Wetlands Restoration Plan' . . . that the preparers of that
plan had been provided and utilized any of the information said to have resulted from [the
surveys cited in the DEIRJ. This could aWlain the specious contentions of adequate mitigation
or biological benefits that appear throughout the document. We believe some ekments of the
proposed 'restoration' project could have just the opposite effect than the ER contends.
Claimed biological restoration benefits could become actual damage or predicted enhancement
actually could result in degradation. . . .Even absent any dewk p ww impacts,the construction
of the WRP may damage wildlife resources it purports to baseftt.
USFWS'concern are tVressly applicable to the proposed wetlands restoration under MA Lowlands Option A
and Lowlandr Option B. Its concernr regarding the WRP in the DER(a full tidal restoration program)are only
worsened by the RE1R's omission of any tidal inlet and creation of what is more properly daracteritad as a muted
tidal inlet.
421 It is useful to review the comments of CDFG on the DER ar this point. Page 6 of CDFG's February 18,
1994 comment stated:
(continued..) 0
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
4 Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 45
•
The clear indication from the federal agencies continues to be that the
proposed wetlands restoration will not proceed as proposed by the County; yet, the REIR
(like the DEIR before it) makes no mention of the negative position of the federal and State
agencies toward the proposed project, even though that position is an important factor to
W consider in approving the project and even though the negative position of the affected
agencies was communicated directly to the County. Since the issuance of State and federal
permits is so critical to the fulfillment of the project's objectives, the REIR mw inform the
public and the decision-makers of the low probability that wetlands restoration could ever
proceed in the manner contemplated by the REIR. The omission of this information makes
r the REIR misleading and requires a further circulation of a more accurate and legally valid
EIR prior to any approval by the County.1'
42/(...continued)
Then are essentially two potential wetland restoration motifs for the lowland wetlandr. These
are a full tidal alternative with an ocean connection and a muted tidal alternative with no ocean
connection. The muted tidal alternative is far leas costly than the full tidal alternative. If we
superimpose a muted tidal restoration alternative upon either[dw Koll proposal]orAltennativ e E
[4,286 units on the Mesa and development on 38 lowland acres in the pocket and Edwards
Thumb], mitigation carts are markedly]decreased, and proposed development profitability is
markedly increased. Aerefore, it follows that significantly decreased development acreage
• would generate profitability equivalent to that associated with Alternative E and the [Koll
proposal],if a muted tidal restoration motif is superimposed T his we can significantly decrease
developmental impact while maintaining constant economic feasibility if we simply shift
restoration motif. . . . That is,assuming superimposition of a muted tidal restoration motif,how
much of the currently proposed development acreage may be deleted while maintaining bottom-
line profitability to the applicant consistent with applicant restoration of the remainder
• of the lowland?
The County seems to hags taken theffrst pan of this suggestion to heart in that the new wetlands restoration plan
appears to be the less-costly muted tidal alternative suggested in ®FG's comments. However, the County has
ignored the purpose of the CDFG in making this suggerttiom;i.a., to decrease mitigation casts so that applicant
funded restoration is feasible without significant development in the lowlands. Why does the AM lessen the
• effectiveness of the tidal restoration by deleting the ocean connection without,ar®FG suggested, requiring the
developer who will ultimately benef It fnams decreased restoration casts to pay for the restoration of the wetlands?
431 This sentiment war edwed by the comment on the DEIR from CDFG which cWwsly stated, 'Findings
and determinations made under CEQA reequiranents mwt take into consideration all other State and Federal laws
brought to bear upon a given planning issue or area.' The REIR continues the basic flaw of the DElR by
(continued...)
Discussion Draft Dated Septamber 23, 1994
•
• a
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 46
G. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES
AND UNMONITORED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION.
1. Reliance on the Development of Future Studies to Define a
Mitigation and Impacts in the Future. In many instances, detailed further in Section II of
this letter and Annex No. 4 attached to this letter, the REIR relies on the preparation of
future studies and analysis for its conclusion that a given potential impact will not be
significant.°' This results in conclusions which are not supported by evidence since there
is no technical or scientific data offered to support the contention that the future studies and
mitigation measures to be derived therefrom will mitigate the potentially significant impacts
to below a level of significance. Furthermore, reliance on unperformed and unpublished
studies deprives the public of the opportunity to analyze the results and provide meaningful
comments to the decision-makers, as is required under CEQA. Further, the REIR does not
adopt objective criteria for performance and, therefore, the analysis of the REIR violates
CEQA's requirement that environmental documents develop feasible and effective
mitigation measures at the earliest stages of planning for land use approvals.
As was stated in the Comment, the use of unspecified mitigation measures
based on future studies and development of future plans is not permitted under CEQA 11'
For example, in Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988) the court
disapproved a negative declaration which required the development of mitigation measures
fa ter the issuance of the negative declaration since such a deferral of environmental
assessment violated CEQA's policy that specific impacts must be identified before the
i
431(..continued)
proceeding with the County planning anabuis as if that analysis properly ocrws+eid in a vacuum devoid of the need
for any other approvials froth other local, Stag or federal agencies.
441 ,C also Comment at Note 15 and acaompaoVing teat.
451 Attached to the Comment at CommENT ANNE r No. 7 is a table which analysed each of the Mitigation
Measures listed in the DEIR and indicated that over 60% of the DEUt s Mitigation Measww were invalidated by
this flaw which has been duapprowed in the above-noted and other court decisiow Tlhe table attached to this
letter as Annex No. 4 analyzes the flaws of the mitigation measures and PDFs offerod in the JtEIR and meals that
the majority of the measures in the REIR are not valid mitigation measwwt under CEQA �
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 47
•
project progresses to a point where the agency responsible for approving the project has
limited flexibility. In Sundstrom, the court found that a permit condition regarding sludge
disposal from the project was flawed in that the record showed that adequate disposal would
• be hard to achieve and since various departments within the County and the Coastal
Commission recommended that the project be disapproved until (if ever) this problem could
be resolved. In Oro Fino Mining Corp, V. County of El Dorado, 225 Cal.App.3d 872,884-
5 (1990), the court disapproved mitigation to be based upon the development of a full land
reclamation plan in the future, since CEQA requires (i) that the environmental information
presented in an environmental document must be complete and relevant, (ii) that mitigation
• measures must be timely set forth and (iii) that decision-makers must make environmental
decisions in an accountable fashion. The court held that deferral of formulation of precise
mitigation measures until after project approval improperly denied the public of their right
to participate in environmental decision-making.
It seems that the County intends to proceed with the development of the
mitigation and remediation plans for the project without further environmental review or
participation of (or information to) the public. If further environmental review were
intended, the commencement of the project by 1996 would be doubtful at best. By relying
on the development of future plans for mitigation and remediation, the REIR attempts to
• evade the public disclosure and discussion which lies at the heart of CEQA W This
requirement is particularly important in the context of a program EIR such as the DEIR and
the REIR which set overall policy for the development of the entire project site.
2. Reliance on "SCs" and "PDFs" Precludes the REIR from
• Providing the Public Disclosure and Accountable Decision-Making Required by CEQA.
The treatment of mitigation measures in the REIR remains in violation of CEQA. The use
of so-called project design features ("PDFs") and standard conditions ("SCs") to mitigate
what might otherwise be significant environmental impacts represents an approach that flies
in the face of the intent of CEQA and its requirements for clear disclosure of environmental
impacts and the measures intended to mitigate those impacts.
4& Attached to this ktter as Anne% No. 16 is a chart which dgmcta how the use of SO and PDFs evade
CEQA's requirement for the identification and disclosure ofpocauklty significant impacts and sig,yicont impacts.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 48
•
Due to the REIR's "PDF/SC" approach, the proposed project's impacts are
not listed and the mitigation disguised as PDFs and SCs are not listed as mitigation for
those impacts as required by CEQA. This approach invalidates the REIR since not all
significant impacts are disclosed nor are all of the mitigation measures proffered to reduce
those impacts identified in the document as required by PRC § 21100 and Guidelines i
§ 15126. This approach constantly downplays impacts in a document which has as its
purpose the disclosure of adverse effects. The REIR reads as if the County is trying to
obscure the fact that a project of this magnitude on this sensitive a site would have many
adverse effects, along with the potential benefits it might bring. Information appears to be
consistently interpreted in a way which ignores or sets aside impacts which may be •
significant. The document should be written so that it is completely forthright, clear and
candid about all of the adverse impacts and plan inconsistencies associated with the project.
Unfortunately, it is not. Because of this a new NOP should be issued, the document
redrafted to address its deficiencies, and the REIR should be recirculated.
•
The REIR defines PDFs and SCs as follows:
PDFs and Standard Conditions (SCs)have also been identijied and discussed in the
Draft E1R which avoid potential impacts or reduce impacts to an insignificant level.
PDFs are those measures or physical features which, although not regwrad, haw
been incorporated into the Proposed Project. SCs include regulatory requirements
dilated by local, state and/or federal mandate which must be implemented.
REZR at p. 4.1-1
The foregoing discussion is at odds with the approach mandated by •
CEQA.E1 If a restriction on the project is not a part of the project description and is
relied on to "avoid potential impacts or reduce impacts to an insignificant level," the
potential or significant impact must be identified and the mitigation measure analyzed. This
legally mandated approach enables an EIR to present to the public and the decision-maker a
comprehensive list of the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action and a
list of those measures which are intended to ameliorate those consequences.
471 A full description of that approach is provided in Part LA of this letter. •
Discussion D►sft Dated Septomber 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 49
•
The public cannot evaluate whether the unspecified (and often undesigned)
PDFs or SCs proposed in the REIR are mitigation measures.0 and, if so, will actually
mitigate the impact. This approach severely impairs the REIR and makes it a legally
inadequate document in light of the "full public disclosure" mandates of CEQA. For
• example, Chapter 10 of the REIR lists among the PDFs and SCs relied upon to mitigate
impacts PDF-3 of the Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Section, which states:
The Proposed Project includes a monitoring and maintenance progro m for the removal of
sediments carried by the EGGW Channel into the full tidal area.
• RELR at p. 1 Q3, lines 4&Z
Page 4.4-9 lists the same PDF in the REIR's analyses of surface and groundwater
hydrology but provides no further information. On page 4.4-13, the reader receives its
only glimpse of the broad outline of the PDF in the following passage:421
As Lowland Option A will incorporate the elements of the WRP, Lowland Opdon A will
also implement the PDF that calls for the regular removal of EGG Channel sed wuxt
deposition form the f&X tidal area. 77ds PDF sped leolly provides that annual surveys
within the full tidal area will be conducted in late spring or eariy summer to determine
sedimentation rates. Excess sedirnentadom in dw full ddol area will be removed through
• hydraulic dredge operations and only dredge spoils suitable for beadle repknishment will be
place on the dowmcoast beaches. Unsuitable dredge spoils will be disposed of of site
subject to County and State regulations. Therefore, du potential ejfat of sediment
deposition into the full tidal area is mot considered signyleant.
•
481 The REIR's statement at page 4.1-1 that PDFs, which are relied on to avoid inipacts or reduce impacts
to an insignificant level, are 'not required' is particwlariy alarming. Does the Ca Ny mean to say that it may
remove or modify these purportedly impact reducing features or conditions? If a PDF (or SC) is relied on to
• mitigate an otherwise significant or potentially signfiieont inWact,it is required to be included in the project wrier
CEQA
491 This is another example of how the organization of due doeumau frwstratew meaningful review. The PDF
is listed in a manner which don not describe thus program meaninSWly. Later, the docw ww refers to the PDF
without referring to the PDF number assigned to the program in the preceding Un. The reader is not certain that
• the PDF referred to on the later page is the PDF-3 listed in the list of project design features.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
• • 4
Orange County Environmental Management Agency a
October 4, 1994
Page 50
Does the "monitoring and maintenance program for the removal of sediments carried by the
EGGW Channel into the full tidal area" exist? Who will fund this plan? Is this supposed
to be part of the WRP or is it a separate plan? What level of contamination of the wetlands
is "acceptable"? What would the impact on aquatic and marine life be? How long will
unacceptable levels remain in the wetlands until the periodic dredging of the sediments is
performed? What are the air, noise, traffic and other impacts of the dredging, hauling and
dumping of the contaminated sediments?—V The REIR answers none of these questions.
Under these circumstances how is the reader to understand the impact of the EGGW runoff
and how the so-called PDF mitigates that impact? The reader's (and decision-maker's)
evaluation of the impact is further complicated by the lack of any reference in the water •
hydrology section to the water quality impacts of the polluted sediments of the EGGW
Chanr.C.: running into the newly "created" wetland area.1'
A second example comes from Chapter 4.8 of the REIR which states as
PDF-7:
M WRP requins the Applicant, In codunction with the County Animal
Control and the CDFG, to devise and b nplement a plan to control the
presence of invasive and/or feral pets into wil We anal. Igformadion on
the detrimental effect of donesde cats on common and sensitive species of
birds shall be supplied to each original homeowner who purchases •
property in the residential units. flue plat is to be approved by OCEMA
prior to issuance Qf occupancy permits.
REIR at p. 4.8-39, lines 39.44.
•
501 Guidelines 115126(c) requires the enviroo nental effects of a mitigation measure to be disclosed and
considered in an EIR, albeit in less derail than the im'paois of the project Welt. V dw dredging of sediments is
a mitigation measure, at least some description of the environmental gftw,of the pion is required. If it is a part •
of the project (and, if so, the omission of the plan from the project description is a fatal flaw), an even more
detailed description is warranted under CEQA and the Gwdehaw
511 Page 4.5-33 of the REIR stater that pollutants in the runoff contained in the EGGW Channel would settle
into the new tidal areas at the mouth of the shortened dmnnd and that concentrations of contaminants may exceed
State-mandated levels. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 51
•
This plan is neither defined nor effective to mitigate the potentially disastrous impact of pet
intrusion into the nesting areas of sensitive species. Merely providing notice to pet owners
will not prevent intrusion. Further, only the first purchasers of units will receive notice --
the persons to whom they sell will not. The above-quoted PDF must be contrasted with the
• statement at page 4.1-50 (lines 31-36) of the REIR, stating:
The Proposed Project calls for buffer zones and fencing to eliminate
the potential for physical intrusion by humans and non-native animals
into the proposed wetlands restoration area. These features will
• eliminate the potential for any significant adverse potential disruption
to wetlands biota caused by such potential human intrusion.
Therefore, no mitigation is required for new residential uses adjacent
to wetland areas. Also see Sections 4.7 and 4.8 (Marine/Aquatic and
Terrestrial Biology, respectively) and Section 4.17 (Recreation) for
• related evaluations of potential impacts and mitigation measures.2'
Chapter 4.1 indicates that no special measures are required to prevent human or "non-native
animal" (doesn't this mean pet?) intrusion, yet Section 4.8 includes a PDF especially
designed to address that condition. Would the potential for intrusion by residents and their
pets be a significant impact absent mitigation or not? The reader never finds out for sure.
1
3. REIR Erroneously Labels Legal Requires of General
Application as Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Procedures. In many
cases the REIR relies upon application of legal regulations of general application (such as
the County's building or grading code) and the standard conditions or practices stated in the
REIR as mitigation for potentially significant impacts. These regulations and practices are
cited but are rarely described to the reader and thus, the reader is given no way to evaluate
521 While the reader may be grateful for one of the few craw-references designed to be helpful in the never-
ending per*ofpageJhpping which mart be endured to glean meaning fi+vm the REM, the reference is so vague
and general as to be practically useless. Furthermore, the use of the (apparently non-PDF, non-SC, non-
mitigation measure) buffer and fence is of highly doubtful utility at mart panes %Q tell you that a buffer and
fence is more of an inviting challenge than an effective barrier to the average ten year old child,especially a child
living in the medium to high density neighborhood proposed for the Mesa. 7 he comm likelihood is that children
(with and without their pert)will find their way into and beyond the 'bi ff fired"arcar and will disrupt the animals
living then.
Discussion Draft Dated September 22, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 52
the feasibility or the effectiveness of the proposed measure to mitigate the particular impact.
For example, the reader is expected to know what is in the County's Excavation and
Grading Code and then assess if these requirements will adequately mitigate against
potential impacts to sensitive wetland area located in an area which is also subject to
flooding. If the reader is not familiar with the Code, how can an adequate review be
made? How can a biologist know if species of concern will be protected? The specific
relevant conditions of the Code must be described in the REIR.
Further, mitigation monitoring in the description of the monitoring to be
provided for PDFs d SCs stated at page 2-11, lines 42-43 which states, "The Orange •
County EMA shall ensure compliance with all PDFs through its standard procedures for the
approval of permits and applications (i.e., the Mitigation Monitoring Plan)." Are the
"standard" procedures the only mitigation monitoring plan? Will PDFs and SCs be
monitored in a manner different than the monitoring for the stated mitigation measures?
What are these standard permit approval procedures and how do they effect monitoring?
The REIR must answer these questions and recirculate the document so that the public can
assess the validity of the mitigation measures and monitoring procedures which rely on the
County's standard procedure.
4. Obscure Description of Mitigation Bank Clouds its Purpose and
Meaning. Lowland Option A provides for neither development of the Lowlands nor for
their restoration. Instead, this option purportedly requires the establishment of a mitigation
bank as a mechanism to implement funding in the future as other private developers require
offsite mitigation for other projects within the State. At times, the mitigation bank, as a
part of the WRP (= Chapter 6 of the WRP), is described as a PDF. Sm REIR at p.10-7,
lines 30-45.51' At others, it is a part of the project itself. So REIR at p. 3-9, lines 37-
39. At times, the successful establishment of the mitigation bank is an integral requirement
of Lowland Option A (,=, g,L, page 3-9 which describes the proposed project and states
that "Lowland Option A requires the establishment of a successful mitigation bank to
•
531 The list of WRP featum which Ohapter 10 of the REIR emmmerotes ar PDFs it long and Varied. The
plans for installation of dikes, ranoNal of k ees, control of oil spill, turbidity barriers and other e/etnews are
all designated as PDFs. In fact, then are Nay few sign{kaw featum of the WRP which are not designated as
PDFs and the WRP, in its entirety truly appears, at tinsel, to be a PDF as much as any other project design
feature. !
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 53
•
acquire, restore and maintain wetlands and the non-tidal area in the Lowland). Yet, page
6-8 of the WRP provides that the developer's commitment to sell (and it must be noted that
this sale is to be made at full fair market value and no indication is given for the basis of
determining that valued is limited to a five year period in the first instance. If the bank
• has not collected sufficient funds to purchase the lowland properties at the end of that five
year term (and the date of commencement of that term is neither stated nor implied), the
landowner has the option to enter into another five year agreement. There appears to be no
obligation to renew the existing agreement. Further, the same page indicates that the
manager of the mitigation bank must collect and hold funds until enough funds have been
• collected to purchase all of the wetlands ecosystem. Partial purchases appear to be
prohibited. This prohibition, combined with the short term obligation of the landowners to
sell and the muddled definition of the purchase price for the property clearly indicates that,
contrary to the project description in Chapter 3 of the REIR, the establishment of a
successful mitigation bank is not necessarily a component of Lowland Option AA Thus,
the reader is left in a quandary by virtue of the confused and misleading treatment of the
mitigation bank in the REIR. The County must determine exactly how it believes this
aspect of the project will function and then accurately describe that function in a rewritten
and recirculated REIR.
1
541 ?he basis for determining fair market valor of the Lowland is absolutely critical in assessing the potential
feasibility of the mitigation bank if value is to be dow7mineid based on the current non-devolopable states of the
• property, the value per am is likely to be caremely low. If, however, value is to be based on the land-owner's
assumed potential value of the land as developed (or with development extitlements), that value could easily
increase ten fold Both the WRP and the REIR maintain a stony silence on this issue and,therefore, it is virtually
impossible to assess the viability of the mitigation bank
551 Given the dearth of any eom miam m on the part of the landowners to sell their lowland property and the
• lack of information regarding how to calculate the purchase price for their property (refereed to, in a covert
reference at page 6-8 of the WRP at the 'agreed upon per acre fee in awhange for fee title to the property'),
there is a great likelihood that the ultimate project will be an urban detivity develapmm of the Mesa with neither
wetlands development nor wetlands restoration (at was true in the cane of the project considered in the DEIR).
?he problem of justifying the project based on its loosely dejind objective of restoring wetlands without
conditioning the development on a feasible impknientatlon of that objective is fatal to the County's CEQA process
• as is detailed in Pan I.F of this letter.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 54
•
H. THE DEIR OMITS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBILPTY OF THE
MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT
UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED wrrHOUT IDENTIFYING
THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS.
•
If an EIR is to rely on a mitigation measure to reduce an adverse effect on
the environment to a level of insignificance, the measure must be feasible. Guidelines
§ 15364 and PRC § 21061.1 both make it clear that a "feasible" mitigation measure is one
which is capable of being carried out taldng into account, among other things, economic
and technical considerations. As detailed below, the schemes relied upon in the REIR to
mitigate the significant and adverse impacts of the proposed project are infeasible within the
meaning of CEQA and, accordingly, cannot lawfully be relied upon as a mitigation which
reduces the impacts, as is assumed in the DEIR.
Perhaps the most blatant example of improper reliance on potentially
infeasible mitigation measures is the REIR's continued dependence on the area traffic
improvement program (the "AIU*) to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project. Even if
one were to assume that the fully implemented ATIP were sufficient to mitigate the massive
impacts from introduction of between 2,500 and as many as 4,286 homes into the area, the
REIR fails to analyze how this exorbitantly expensive program would be funded. The mere
development of the program will not mitigate the traffic impact. Its implementation
requires a burdensome expenditure of funds. The REIR does not consider the source of
those funds nor does it appear to make the full funding of the ATIP a condition to the
development of the proposed project at any stage of developmentA Thus, the REIR, like
the DEIR before it, uses the.development of the ATIP as the mitigation of the traffic impact
without considering or providing analysis or information regarding whether implementation
of the plan is economically feasible. Such mitigation is illusory at best and is not
sufficient, as is assumed by the DEIR, to mitigate traffic impacts to a level of
insignificance. During the construction and the operation of the project, there will be a
•
561 As is noted in the disc=ion of eonsistaxy of the project with du Coway's general plan in Parr ILA(and
consistency with the City's General Plan noted in Anna 3)of dds letter, d w Coumy's general plan requires a
project such as this to develop definite mitigation measum so that tramportation planning and land use planning
occur concurrently. The unfunded and inadequate A77P does not f&PU the general plop's Policy of requiring
adequate mitigation of circulation impacts prior to the eomme wenew of dsvelWmewt- r
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 55
•
significant and unmitigated adverse impact throughout the vicinity of the project (on PCH
and elsewhere) at least until the ATIP is fully implemented (if ever), and perhaps beyond.
The REIR's illusory mitigation of traffic impacts is typical of the approach throughout the
document. The defects of the mitigation measures are detailed in the table attached as
• Annex No. 4.
Attached to this letter as Annex No. 6 is a preliminary fiscal analysis
prepared by Public Economics analyzing the fiscal impact of the revised project proposed
by the REIR on the City. These fiscal impacts will cause indirect and direct environmental
impacts due to the decrease in City public services and unreimbursed degradation of City
capital facilities which will be caused by the project. As is noted in Annex No. 6, in order
for the project to avoid a significant environmental impact due to the reduction of available
City services, the final EIR must also mitigate the fiscal impact of the project on the City
by requiring the developer to compensate the City fully for the impacts of the project on the
• City prior to the issuance of any permits for development 0
I. THE REIR SCATTERS AND SELECTS THE COMMENTS TO WHICH THE COUNTY
WISHES TO RESPOND AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEOUATE RESPONSES TO
ALL COMMENTS RAISED REGARDING THE DEIR.
1. Scattering of Response to Comments. Some of the comments raised
with respect to the DEIR are responded to in the REIR although, as noted herein, these
appear to be few in number and are inadequately addressed. Page 2-9 states that responses
to comments on the 1993 draft may also be made as part of the response to the REIR
comments. Thus, comments on the 1993 DEIR will be scattered between purported
responses in the text of the circulated REIR and direct responses with the County's
forthcoming response to comments to the REIR. This approach will confound attempts to
assess the adequacy of the County's response to comments in violation of the CEQA
requirement that all comments be included in the Final EIR together with responses which,
•
57/ In a written response to the C unty's NOP, the Comm's own chief, MP/Planning and Acquisition
stated, 'Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Local Park Cade regWromemrfor subdivision maps shall
be satisfied through the payment of in-lieu fees.' DEIR, Vol I Appendices at 59. The County must apply the same
standard to awl focal impacts on the City related to the project.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
r
• • a
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 56
•
"describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g. revisions to the
proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections)." Guidelines Section
15089(b).
2. Arbitrary Selection of Comments for Response. Page 2-1 (lines 33- •
38) of the REIR states:
After the circulation of the 1993 draft, comments were received from local,
state and federal agencies, as well as the general public. These comments,
too, have been reviewed and where appropriate addressed in the Revised
Draft EIR.
On what basis will the County determine where a response to the comments received with
respect to the project proposed in the DEIR is "appropriate" to address? The County
cannot, as suggested in the REIR, arbitrarily select which comments to which it wishes to
respond. Since (i) the DEIR is incorporated into the REIR by reference, (ii) the Koll
proposal analyzed in the DEIR is not rejected by the REEK, and (iii) the proposed projects
considered in the REIR are "scaled down versions" of the 1993 DEIR development
proposal (p.p.2-91n 5-6), the County's response to comments must include a response to all
comments made with respect to the 1993 DEIR, including the City's Comment. If the
County believes that a comment is no longer applicable to a proposed development plan
under consideration by the County, the County's formal written response must say so and
must state in detail the reasons supporting that conclusion.
All substantive comments must be responded to in detail. In this regard,
Guidelines § 15088 states:
In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency's
position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments
must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions
were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in the response.
Conclusory statements unsupported by factual intormatiou will not suffice.
Further, Wig-Ferris Industries of California. Inc. v. San Jose, 181 Cal.App.3d 852
(1986); Gallegos v. California Bd. of Forestry, 76 Cal.App.3d 945 (1978); Twain Harte
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1894
r
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 57
•
Homeowners Assoc.. Inc. v. Tuolumne, 138 Cal.App.3d 664 (1981) and Qcaa v.
Stanisl&U, 118 Cal.App.3d 348 all state that a lead agency must respond to all significant
environmental comments in a level of detail commensurate to that of the comment.
Accordingly, the County cannot selectively choose which aspects of the City's comments
0 (including both the comments to the DEIR and the comments to the REIR) it wishes to
acknowledge. All of the City's comments must be responded to in detail with supporting
facts which answer the concerns raised in each comment.
3. Incorporation of Comment and Comment Annexes by Reference.
• The development proposal considered in the DEIR is not rejected by the County in the
REIR and may remain as a land use plan still being considered by the County. 5Z footnote
3, supra. Accordingly, as noted above, the Comment and all of the Comment Annexes
attached to the Comment are incorporated into this letter by reference and made a part
hereof as if set forth herein at length. All comments raised in the City's February 17,1994
Comment (as well as the comments raised in this letter) must be addressed in a formal
response. The County's response must address each comment in detail commensurate with
the detail of the comment.
J. THE DEIR DoEs Nor CONSIDER KoLL's EmuoNMENTAL RECORD iN
• Asswswe MnmATION IMPLEMENTATION.
1. The County Must Take Koll's Environmental Record into
Account. As was noted in the Comment, a lead agency must consider the record of the
project proponent with respect to environmental matters. In Laurel Heigh, the
California Supreme Court stated that, "[b]ecause an EIR cannot be meaningfully considered
in a vacuum devoid of reality, a project proponent's prior environmental record is properly
the subject of close consideration in determining the sufficiency of the proponent's promises
in an EIR." 47 Cal.3d at 420.
This is a particularly appropriate inquiry in a case, such as the proposed
development of Bolsa Chica, where the project proponent is being relied upon to fund and
perform long-term mitigation and environmental restoration programs which are not yet
defined or funded. The reasons for including the environmental record of the applicant in
the REIR were detailed at length in the Comment and do not need to be repeated. The City
expects the County to respond in detail to this issue and to the statements made (and the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 58
•
materials submitted -- included at CommE2rr ANNEx No. 27) at the January 31, 1993 City
Council hearing regarding the DEIR, a transcript of which was transmitted to the County
under separate cover during the DEIR public comment period. That transcript and
submitted materials continue to form a part of the public comment on the DEIR.
Accordingly, in reviewing that material, the County should consider:
the length, number and severity of prior environmental errors and the
harm caused; whether the errors were intentional, negligent or
unavoidable; whether the proponent's environmental record has
improved or declined; whether he has attempted in good faith to
correct prior problems; and whether the proposed activity will be
regulated and monitored by a public entity.
Id. at 420.
The results of the County's investigation and its determination of the
likelihood of implementation based on its independent review and analysis of the foregoing
factors should appear in the recirculated REIR.
2. Koll has Complained that the Very Actions Taken by the County •
Violate CEQA. Fundamental fairness demands that the County's REIR must, at a
minimum, meet the same standard for CEQA compliance as The Koll Company (a real
estate development company which is an affiliate of the Koll Real Estate Group) and Sierra
Point Associates Two (a partnership that also involves Koll affiliates) (collectively referred
to herein as "The Koll Company") vigorously advocated in connection with the recent San
Francisco Airport Expansion EIR. •
The Koll Company owns a 130-acre mixed-use development located five
miles north of the Airport. The site is located partly within the City of Brisbane, partly
within the City of South San Francisco, several miles from the City and County of San
Francisco's southern border. Koll forcefully objected to the certification of the final EIR •
for the airport expansion while, at the same time, proposing its massive development
project in Bolsa Chica.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 59
•
a. Background to San Francisco Airport Expansion EIR. On
November 3, 1992, the San Francisco Airport Commission approved the Final
Environmental Impact Report ("SF-FEIR") covering the proposed expansion of the San
Francisco International Airport. The expansion generally involved the construction of a
0 new international terminal, a consolidated rental car garage and ground transportation
center that will also accommodate shuttle vans and buses, an on-site electric light rail
system linking the terminals, parking lots, hotels, and maintenance and cargo facilities.
Due to increased air passenger demand and overtaxed airport
• facilities, in 1986 the City and County of San Francisco embarked upon a long-term project
to address the Airport's needs. Simultaneously, the San Francisco Planning Department
conducted an environmental review that culminated in the SF-FEIR.
In response to this approval, two writs were filed challenging the
• adequacy of the SF-FEIR. One of the writs was filed by The Koll Company.
In its writ, The Koll Company asserted numerous legal arguments
which apply with equal force in the case of the development considered in the DEIR and
the REIR. The Koll Company's assertions included the following:
•
(1) Fair Share Funding. "Petitioners, as business people of
the same community, support a robust SFO. But the unmitigated environmental effects of
the Airport's planned expansion will hit Petitioners particularly hard. The expansion will
bring gridlock to U.S. 101...and an attendant worsening of air quality....Too, if San
Francisco succeeds in avoiding having to mitigate the impacts of its expansion on traffic,
Petitioners know what lies ahead:...the cities of Brisbane and South San Francisco will look
to Petitioners to fund the improvements needed to get traffic flowing again."N (p.2 of
legal position of the Koll Company in Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition for
Writ of Mandate, filed September 27, 1993, in the case of Sierra Point Associates Two and
•
581 Compare this argwnew with the fwdimg arrongenentr for the A77P. Koll has proposed a project which
will over-burden the already overtaxed transportation infrastructure aiming in Ae vicinity of de project site,yet
Koli feels no obligation to fed the A27P required to remedy the s4vadow. Rather, Koll c9wW that owners of
other offsue properties or theJur"ctions in which dwee properties are located must f od cite portions of the A77P
which go beyond the so-dolled KnR fair share ownponent This is dw very malady of which Koll complaina when
• it is the owner of the offsite property.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1904
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 60
The Koll Company vs City and County of San Francisco Airports Commission et al.,
County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Koll Petition")) A copy of the Koll Petition is attached hereto as Annex No. 12.
"When San Francisco writes that petitioners [including The 41
Koll Company] are concerned that they may one day have to pay to ameliorate traffic
congestion on Highway 101..., it dodges the point: petitioners [The Koll Company] don't
mind mitigating their own traffic impacts, but they do not want to have to pay to clean up
the mess San Francisco will leave. They are willing to pay their 'fair share' of needed
transportation improvements" (Koll Reply Memorandum, Superior Court, County of San 41
Joaquin, rase No. 254220, filed September 13, 1993, hereinafter referred to as "Koll
Reply Memorandum" and incorporated herein by reference as Annex No. 14).
(2) AdQuacy and Feasibility of Mitigation Measures:
Failure to Mitigate Mitigatable Impacts. "Respondents failed throughout the EIR to analyze
properly the potential impacts of the project. In some cases Respondents omitted impacts
entirely; in other cases they understated the impacts; and in still other cases they deferred
analysis of them to future studies to be undertaken after the EIR was certified" (Koll
Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed December 4, 1992, Superior Court of the County of San
Mateo, Case No. 379595 (which petition was later consolidated with County of San Joaquin
Superior Court, Case No. 254220), hereinafter referred to as "Koll San Mateo Petition"
and incorporated herein by reference as Annex No. 13, pp. 13-14), in violation of CEQA.
"The Court should send a message to San Francisco that they
must disclose their project impacts honestly and adopt feasible mitigation measures.
(Koll Petition, p.30).
The SF-FEIR fails to identify significant environmental
impacts such as traffic ("As the analysis of (traffic) impacts is inadequate, so also are the
consideration of mitigation measures ..., like the proverbial castle built on a foundation of
sand", Koll Petition, p.18 and "An adequate analysis would have focused specifically on •
local impacts and proposed meaningful mitigation measures for the specific areas.
591 Compare this statement to the DUR's and die AW s practice of avoiding public disclosure of significant
and potentially significant impacts of the Boka Chien development &rough She we of'PDFs'and 'SCs'. 9
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 61
•
...Another mitigation measure, with admittedly high economic cost, but perhaps great
benefit, would be double-decking sections of U.S. 101 where widening would be infeasible
due to lack of gaining additional right-of-way",601 (Koll Petition, p.23-24), noise,
wetlands, endangered species, aquatic life ("...there is no natural resource in the Bay Area
• more dear than the Bay itself", Koll Petition, p. 17), and conflicts with adopted planning
documents.1'
The SF-FEIR fails to analyze environmental impacts rigorously
("A conclusion that a project (particularly one having the breadth of the SFO expansion)
will have no significant effect on a particular element of the environment must be supported
by rigorous analysis in the EIR", Koll Petition, p.9-10).
"But like Dante's inferno, LOS F has descending levels of
hell"(Koll Petition, p. 18-19), with reference to unacceptable and unmitigated traffic
• impacts.§'
"Many of the mitigations...are ascribed to others as
implementing agencies without indication of concurrence by those agencies. Mitigation
measures should not be included in the EIR until written concurrence by the implementing
agencies... have been obtained. The EIR should also include the probability of
implementation of the mitigations within the time frame of the Airport expansion, and
assessment of the cumulative effectiveness of the measures..." (Koll Petition, p. 24),
complaining of dubious mitigation measures.61'
601 This is in con,j3ict with the approach in the REIR in which higher coat mitigation meatura are routinely
discarded or excluded from any discussion or consideration whatsoew on the basis of can alone.
611 7W is exactly the fault with the REM and the DER —these documents do not dLrclaw the con,f Bets of
the development with existing land use policies of the County,the Coastal Act and other State and federal agencies
and ignore the serious& lculty the project would haw in obtaining pennies fran State and federal agencies.
•
621 Koll seems to have forgotten all about Dante in its heated attempt to obtain quint approvals for its
project.
631 Yet,the REIR continues to omit any consideration of theJeasibilify of implementing the PDFs,SCs,AT7P,
the wRP,successfully finding the mitigation bank or the feadbility of implementing the other mitigation measures,
i.e., those measura which are actually stated to be mitigation meatura in the REIX
Discussion Dreg Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 62
"Why then is there no fiscal responsibility by the lead agency
for mitigating the offsite impacts of its own project?",(Koll Petition, p. 33), complaining of
lead agency"s failure to fully mitigate impacts outside the boundaries of the airport
expansion site.§y
•
The SF-FEIR fails to describe and consider feasible mitigation
measures on traffic, transportation, air quality and noise.
The SF-FEIR fails adequately to address and mitigate off-site
adverse environmental impacts ("In the end, the Airports Commission adopted only those
mitigation measures that directly relate to on-site changes and programs and made illusory
offers...to perhaps pay some of the costs of off-site mitigation,...",Koll Petition, p.26; and
Koll complains that only on-site traffic mitigation measures were adopted, Koll Petition,
p.27)•
•
"...the environmental effects of mitigation measures,
particularly when they entail development in endangered species habitat, require discussion
in an EIR with the other components of the project." (Koll Petition, p. 12), with reference
to inadequate mitigation measures.0
(3) Consultation with other Agencies. " CEQA stresses the •
importance of lead agencies consulting with regional transportation-planning
agencies....Lead Agency's consultation with these responsible agencies was perfunctory
641 ?his a mplaint is particularly interesting in light of the Coumy's continuing refusal to address pages 15-16 •
of the Comment, which noted the impact of the Proposed Project on the City and stated Slat mitigation measures
should require the developer to compensate the City for show Lnpacts.
651 Compare this to the discussion in this letter and the Continent regarding the adequacy and propriety of
the discussion in the DER and the RE1R of mitigation measures, including the 'relocation'of ESHAs to permit
Koll's development. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 63
•
only" (Koll Petition, p. 24), complaining of inadequate consultation with other
governmental agencies.ff
"Although the Master Plan will have statewide, regional and
• areawide impacts, Respondents failed to consult adequately with the necessary agencies as
required by CEQA" (Koll San Mateo Petition, p. 33), complaining that "Respondents'
actions in approving the Master Plan without the required consultation constituted an abuse
of discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties under CEQA" (Koll San Mateo
Petition, p.33).0
•
(4) Use of Program EIR. "San Francisco's EIR is a
'program EIR,' San Francisco writes...(though later, when convenient, it calls it "[a]n EIR
on a single project'....A program EIR should '[p]rovide an occasion for a more exhaustive
consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual
• action,' '[e]nsure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-
case analysis,' and '[a]llow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and
programwide mitigation measures.' Guidelines Sec. 15168(b). San Francisco's EIR mocks
these provisions. And when San Francisco intimates that there might be future, in-depth
environmental review of the Master Plan..., it doesn't tell the whole truth: now that the
Airports Commission has approved the Master Plan, no other 'discretionary' acts are
needed to carry the Plan out. What that means is that there will be no additional
•
66/ Compare this statement with the process undertaken by the County to aalade Stan,federal and local
agencies which are directly affected by the Bola Chita de►rlopment from any participation in the County's
planning or environmental review process. 7be County's failure to publish anew NOP with raped to the revised
project and its contutuing refusal to work in conjunction with other agencies is cractly the sort of clandestine
• approval process of which Tlhe Koll Company complains.
67/ Tlhe Bolsa China development will likewise have statewide significance,yet the County has ududeid all
other agencies from its planning and environmental review process. 7 his project represews a lass of one of the
last significant undeveloped uplands/wetlands ecas)wnw,yet, the County treats the proposed dewloprnent ar if
there were no cumulative or statewide impact associated with the imposition of an urban devrloprment within this
• rapidly disappearing resource.
Discustion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 64
environmental impact reports done on the Master Plan projects, unless they are ordered by
this Court" (Koll Reply Memorandum, p.24-25).L'
(5) Alternatives Analysis. The SF-FEIR fails to identify or
consider feasible alternatives to the Master Plan ("From the standpoint of sound planning,
the most serious shortcoming in San Francisco's environmental review of its project may lie
in its analysis of alternatives", (Koll Petition, p. 7) and "If a project brings traffic to
gridlock, an obvious mitigation measure would be the construction of additional traffic
lanes." (Koll Petition, p. 10)0
.As for alternatives, take the case of a proposed 2,000-unit
housing project. The EIR ought to examine the alternative of a 1,000-unit project, as well
as the alternative of locating the project elsewhere" (Koll Petition, p. 10), complaining of
inadequate alternative projects' analysis..''
The SF-FEIR's analysis of alternatives utterly fails to meet the
objectives, stated in the SF-FEIR, of the project sponsor (Koll Petition, pp.45-46).
(6) COX of the EIR. Koll objects to the Airport
Commission's use of "gobbledegook" (Koll Petition, p.39)AI
681 It is arguments such as this and the arguments noted in this later which require the County to use a
staged EIR rather than a program EDt for the consideration of the proposed development.
691 This suggests that a wolid EIR should consider alternatives to project oomp ments. Tire City agrees and
finds that the Counry's response to criticiser of the design of the formerly propwed tidal inlet very troubling.
Certainly the REDR should have considered a w wiety of tidal alternative to enhance the tidal cleansing of the
restored wetiands as required to meet the objective stated for the project. Yet, like the SF-FEIR, the RElR fails
to assess alternatives to a central project component and simply atdudes that conwonem in as entirety.
70/ This exact fault, i.e., the lack of a proper range of reasonable altmiati►es, is true of the DER and the
RE1R.
71/ Gobbledegook is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary (2d College Edition)to mean 'unclear
wordy jargon.' That definition has application to many portions of the REDS. �
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 65
•
(7) Inadequate Project Description. The project description
is inaccurate ("When an EIR is prepared for a project, it must contain an accurate
description of 'the project.'... An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine
qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR", Koll Petition, p.8-9)?'
•
The SF-FEIR improperly relies on inadequate data ("The
'baseline' data from distant monitoring stations are misleading...San Francisco uses air-
pollution data for the years 1987 through 1989 gathered at two air-quality monitoring
stations....ten miles away...where the air quality is better than almost any place else in the
• Bay Area....The EIR's baseline air-quality data, then are less than fully useful, for they
paint a too-rosy picture of existing conditions", Koll Petition, p.35)U'
"...the Master Plan and the EIR rely on some studies that were
referenced, but not included, in those documents. Because those studies were not included
• in Respondents' compilation of environmental data relevant to the Master Plan, the public
did not have an opportunity to review and comment on those studies and analyses" (Koll
San Mateo Petition, p.25), complaining that "Respondents' failure to make some documents
available with meaningful time for public review and comment and failure to include other
documents was a prejudicial abuse of discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties
•
pursuant to CEQA." (Koll San Mateo Petition, p. 25-26)7y
72/ Here, too,Koll agrees with the Comment made above in this letter. A f mite project description must be
included for any EIR to have meaning.
731 This is identical to the argument trade in this letter and in the Comment that the environmental setting
must be understandable to the reader. As detailed above, the dispersed and verbose environmental setting
descriptions scattered throughout the RM do not fulfill this requirement. Indeed this comment echoes the
comment which USFWS lodged with the County that a should complete, 'appropriate biological survey work,
especially the bind utilization of the area.'In its comment letter attached to this kner as Armes No. 7, USFWS
complained. 'we now find that the draft EIR repeatedly cues allegedly completed or ongoing surveys but the actual
• results are not disclosed,provided in appendices or provided separately. See Annex No. 7. Recently, USFWS
met with Koll and again stated the head for additional surveytis to establish an.adequate environmental baseline,
yet, informal consultation with that agenry reveals that no surveys had been forwarded to USFWS as of
September 22, 1994.
741 Ais is precisely the problems which the reader of the REM has in attempting to assess the assumptions
• and conclusions stated in that document.
Discussion Daft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 66
•
(8) Segmentation of the Project. The SF-FEIR
impermissibly "segments" the project. "Breaking a project into components--'segmenting'
or 'piecemealing' it--so that just one component is analyzed in an EIR, serves to understate
the environmental consequences of the project. The practice has been uniformly condemned
by the courts% Koll Petition, p.9. "What San Francisco did here is what the U.0 Regents •
did in the Laurel Heights ImRrovement Assn, case....It is no answer to say that, when and
if the Airports Commission formally approves a plan of runway expansion, an EIR will be
done for that discrete project. For the practice of piecemealing prevents an adequate look
at the range of environmental impacts posed by the total project." (Koll Petition, p.16).
•
The project description fails to include the whole of the
proposed project (lands west of the airport, excluded from the project description, Include
"a habitat for the San Francisco garter snake, and endangered species, and the red-legged
frog, a candidate for the endangered species list." "[Mere no analysis whatever was made
of the impacts to the west-of-101 lands, because it was pretended all along that nothing
would be done there." " The impacted land is home to not a mere rare species, but to one
on the endangered list." (Koll Petition, pp.11 and 13).2
(9) Failure to Consider Cumulative Impm. "The EIR
fails to discuss adequately the cumulative impacts of the project and of other closely related
past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, including the following •
elements of the environment, as examples:
"(a) the remaining habitat of the San Francisco garter
snake, and endangered species (the Master Plan calls for the construction of two facilities,
and contemplates the construction of a third, in such habitat); •
"(b) the remaining wetlands surrounding San Francisco
Bay (the Master Plan calls for construction of facilities in wetlands owned by the Airport
just west of U.S. Highway 101);...
•
751 This argument, like the ones above, bears an uncanny resanblance to the arguments made in this kver,
ya Koll would dismiss those arguments in the case of Baka Dim
Discussion Draft Dated Ssptanbsr 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 67
•
"The EIR fails to discuss adequately the cumulative impacts of
the project and of other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable
future projects on traffic flows and air quality. The inadequacy of the cumulative impacts
analysis contained in the EIR is due to several factors. One is the unexplained and illogical
• assumption that only projects being planned in four nearby cities (South San Francisco,
Millbrae, San Bruno and Burlingame) need be considered in the cumulative impacts analysis
...." (Koll San Mateo Petition, pp.20-22), complaining failure to address cumulative
impacts is a violation of CEQA.
• (10) Failure to Respond AdeaV&tdy to Comments.
Respondents failed to provide good faith reasoned responses to the comments received on
the draft EIR ("San Francisco's Responses catalogue these objections, but then provide no
substantive rejoinder to this evidence that these proposed mitigation measures are infeasible,
or irrelevant, and do not discuss or propose any other feasible measures", Koll Petition,
• p.25).
"Respondents failed to adequately respond to comments
regarding the environmental impacts of mitigation measures,...The response admits that
'exact locations' for such lots have not been identified, and then leaves the issue for
unidentified 'implementing agencies'" (Koll San Mateo Petition, p.26), complaining that
"Respondents' failure to respond adequately to public comments was a prejudicial abuse of
discretion and a violation of their mandatory duties pursuant to CEQA" (Koll San Mateo
Petition, p. 27).7y
(11) Inadcq= Monitoring Prog=. Respondents failed to
adopt an adequate mitigation monitoring program.
'In order to assure the success of any mitigation measures, CEQA also
requires that the agency adopt a reporting or monitoring program 'designed to ensure
compliance during project implementation9' citing Public Resources Code Sec. 21081.6
(Koll San Mateo Petition, p. 18).
761 This is a probkm which occwrs repeatedly in the REDZ For crampk, what htWpens when the dewkper
discovers that the proposed site of the 9 miXon gallon reservoir is gg suitable for dint fadliry. T he REDR contains
• no description of any alternate site or how the we of that alternate site would alter the land we pJan.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 68
41
Thus, as noted above, Koll seems to agree with practically every legal position taken by
this letter and the Comment. However, the County and Koll ignore the foregoing
understanding of the law in their effort to conclude the environmental process without •
fulfilling the requirements of CEQA as so well elucidated by The Koll Company in the San
Francisco Airport Expansion case.
K. THE REIR INACCURATELY FAILS To DLscLoSE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTs AND CONTINUES To USE INAPPROPRIATE •
STANDARDS OF SK3NIFICANCE.
1. The REIR Fails to Label Adverse Significant Effects of the Project
if there Are also Beneficial Impacts. Peculiarly, the EIR takes several different adverse
effects and neutral or beneficial effects and, through some mystical and apparently •
mathematical process, determines that although an adverse impact is by itself significant,
the net result of various effects taken together is insignificant. This is totally unacceptable
and a clear violation of CEQA. Each adverse effect must be clearly identified and
disclosed as exactly what it is. That is the purpose of CEQA, to disclose all potential
adverse impacts so that decisionmakers can make informed choices on whether or not to
approve projects and_so that the public can evaluate their elected officials' treatment of
potentially harmful effects on the environment. Hiding one impact behind a potential
project benefit is not honest, lawful or proper disclosure.
The above technique constantly downplays impacts in a document which has as its purpose
the disclosure of adverse effects. The EIR reads as if the County is trying to obscure the •
fact that a project of this magnitude on this sensitive a site would have many adverse
effects, along with the potential benefits it might bring. Information appears to be
consistently interpreted in a way which ignores or sets aside impacts which may be
significant. It is as if the document is a Negative Declaration, trying to avoid all potential
significant adverse effects, rather than an EIR for a complex development program for a •
controversial site. The document should be up front and completely clear about all of the
adverse impacts and plan inconsistencies associated with the project. Unfortunately, it is
not. Because of this a new NOP should be issued, the document redrafted to address its
deficiencies, and the EIR should be recirculated.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 69
•
2. The REIR Continues to Use Improper Standards of Sficance.
Like the DEIR before it, each subchapter of Chapter 4 of the REIR states the standard of
significance used to determine whether the adverse impacts on the environment from the
project are "significant". As was noted in the Comment, the stated standards in the DEIR
• were very close to the standards required under CEQA but were not adequate. This flaw is
continued in the REIR.
For example, the REIR still relies on the proposed land use plan included in
the 1986 LCP as its baseline for determining the impacts of the proposed project and the
• sufficiency of the current proposal for wetlands restoration. As was noted in the Comment,
that reliance is misplaced since (i) the 1986 LCP was conditionally approved and, thus, did
not approve the proposed wetlands restoration plan, (ii) the DEIR acknowledged that the
1986 LCP is not in accord with current CCC policies wd (iii) the 1986 LCP intended that
development of the UM would be used, in part, to fund the wetland restoration.W The
0 1986 LCP and the County's land use plan based on that document is a dead letter and
should not be relied upon in assessing the consistency of the project with County plans and
policies.
• 77/ The current LCP was only conditionally cerriffed by the Coastal Commission. Five specific portions of
the development proposed in the LCP would require further approvals before in g*me station. 4W, e.p..DEIR
at page 4.1-23. The five issues requiring further study and review wen:
(1) feasibility of navigable ocean entrance;
(2) feasibility of nawgabk connection to Huntington Harbor;
• (3) the Wetlands Restoration Plan;
(4) alignment of BCSE and potential connection to Graham, Talbert and Springdak;and
(S) 'detailed issues related to the MWD property.'
Thus, contrary to much of the land use discussion of the DEIR and REM, the 19M LCP was not fully approved
and, even though it considered a combined marina and residential development, flew approval was not fully
• effective until, among other things, the Coastal Commission approved the wetlands restoration plan and the
circulation element of the new caension of Bolsa Chiea Street. Further, at was noted in the Comment, Chapter
7.2.4 of the DELR expressly noted that the 1986 LCP is not consistent with current CCC policies. The Coastal
Commission's conditional approval of the 1986 LCP was based, in part, on a finding that the intensive
development of the Bolsa Mesa would fund at hurt a portion of the wedandr restoration and that such a new
was a critical part of the approval of the 1986 LCP. flew nems is eaerpicuously absent fear the Koll proposal
• considered in the DEIR or in the current County proposal(s).
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency .
October 4, 1994
Page 70
Further, Chapter 4.2 continues to ignore and label as insignificant the
construction of a residential subdivision astride an active fault line. As was noted in the
Comment, Guidelines § 15126(a) expressly states:
[A]n EIR on a subdivision astride an active fault line should identify
as a significant effect the seismic hazard to future occupants of the
subdivision. The subdivision would have the effect of attracting
people to the location and exposing them to the hazards found there.
In the case of Bolsa Chica, the REIR still ignores the attraction of new and existing
residents to the parks and residential development which will straddle known fault lines,
some known to be active and others which may be active.
The foregoing is by no means exhaustive and merely illustrates instances in
which the REIR fails to state the appropriate standard for determining the significance of
the project's impact on the environment. The County must re-examine each and every one
of the standards in each impact area and substantially revise those standards in the
recirculated REIR and wholly rewritten final EIR.
3. The 1992 ER/EIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts which
both the DEIR and the REIR Identify as Insignificant. The project considered by the •
REIR is similar to the project considered under the 1992 EIR/EIS but provides for fewer
units; however, as was noted in the Comment, many of the impacts noted as significant in
the EIR/EIS appear to remain significant impacts. Neither the REIR nor the DEIR
adequately justify why impacts which formerly were identified as significant are now
identified as insignificant. The following items were identified as unavoidable significant •
adverse impacts of the project considered in the 1992 EIR/EIS:
1. Permanent loss of open space.
2.* Permanent loss of beach.
3. Filling of wetland in coastal zone. •
4. Groundwater impacts.
5.* Beach sand erosion.
6. Loss of upland foraging habitat for raptors.
7. Significant impact on burrowing owls if they are relocated offsite.
•
Discussion Dreh Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 71
•
8.t PCH lane requirements cannot be implemented
9. Air quality - long term vehicle (mobile source) & energy (stationary source)
emissions.
10.t Air quality secondary emissions.
• 11. Fugitive dust (PM10) during construction.
12.t Air quality impacts of use of heavy equipment etc. during construction.
13. Water demand will exceed City's Water System Master Plan. Projected water
demands, plus contribution to cumulative water demands.
14. Cumulative demands for energy - (a) fossil fuels, (b) electricity (c) natural gas
• 15. Degraded views from public areas.
16. Cumulative consumption of non-renewable resources.
Of the 16 significant adverse impacts identified in the 1992/1993 EIR/EIS,
• two impacts, noted with an asterisk (*), appear not to apply to the development considered
in the REIR. Of the remaining 14 adverse impacts only the three impacts noted above with
a dagger (t) are noted as unavoidable impacts in the REIR.21V The reasons why each of
the foregoing impacts (other than those noted with asterisks or daggers) are identified as
insignificant in the REIR must be explained in detail in the recirculated REIR.
• The Comment and COMMENr ANNU N0.19, CommEn AN?= No. 20
and CommEmr ANN= No. 21 indicate that the preparer of the EIR/EES had significant
difficulty obtaining the detail required for appropriate analysis. COaIrr A NM No. 22
noted inadequacies in the screen check draft of the EIR/EIS, inadequacies which were not
• adequately addressed in the.DEIR and still are not addressed in the REIR. As was noted in
the Comment, the DEIR does not present the project in more detail and since the project
considered in the DEIR was substantially similar to the project considered in the FJR/EIS,
the comments of the preparers of the EIR/EIS are relevant to the DEIR and the County
must create more detailed plans as initially requested by the preparers of the DEER.
•
781 The REDR afro now additional impacts woe identified in dw IM EIR/EIS, including,for example, the
• potential for breab in utility liner cr=ing the eardMpoke fauki on dw sits.
Discussion Draft Dated Septern1w 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 72
•
Further, those comments remain relevant with respect to the project proposed in the REIR
and must be responded to as part of a recirculated and rewritten environmental impact
report.
L. THE REM's CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONTINUES To BE •
INADEQUATE.
1. REIR merely Repeats the Inadequate Alternatives Analysis of the
DEIR. Pages 41 through 47 of the Comment detailed the requirement for adequate
consideration in an EIR of alternatives to the project and alternative locations for the
project. That portion of the Comment and Commuvr ANMM No. 8 detailed why the
DEIR's analysis of alternatives was not sufficient to fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
With the exception of Alternative G (the Koll proposal analyzed in the DEIR)
the alternatives analysis of the DEIR is merely repeated in the REIR. The issues raised in •
the Comment are not addressed by the REIR in any fashion. Accordingly, the inadequacies
noted in the Comment apply with equal force to the DEIR.
2. REIR Ignores Agency Requests for Consideration of Other
Alternatives. As was noted above in this letter, the agencies who must approve the
proposed development prior to implementation requested consideration of additional
alternatives in their comments on the DEIR. These comments, like the comments of the
City, have been ignored by the County in preparing the REIR.
For example, CDFG expressly requested, in its comment on the DEIR, that
the County consider, 'the least environmentally damaging, feasibly implementable project •
alternative.' CDFG concluded that the DEIR did not identify or consider an alternative
which fulfilled this requirement. Yet, the County in preparing the REIR did not even
attempt to craft an alternative which addressed the concern raised in CDFG's comments.
The Mesa Component continues to require the destruction of existing habitat areas. Both
Lowlands Options continue the problems noted in the USFWS comment. The recirculated •
and rewritten EIR should attempt to address and respond to the concerns raised in the
comments to the DEIR and the REIR and must address in specific detail the alternatives
suggested in the Comment as well as the following alternatives:
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 73
•
■ No ESHA - Mesa Only Alternative -- A maximum of 1,000 units of low to
medium low density coupled with (i) a requirement for implementation of
wetlands restoration (under both a full tidal and muted tidal basis,
considering the alternatives for tidal inlets discussed in Part LL of this letter)
• concurrently with the issuance of the first permit for development of the
Mesa, (ii) retaining intact the Warner Pond and Eucalyptus Grove ESHAs on
the MESA, (iii) requiring removal and full remediation of all oil and gas
activities on the Mesa prior to the issuance of the first permit for
development and (iv) requiring proper disposition of any sensitive
• archeological or paleontological resources on the Mesa.
■ Mesa Proposal with Modified Tidal Inlet -- A maximum of 1,000 to 2,000
units of low to medium density housing coupled with a wetlands restoration
plan which includes the indirect ocean connection to Huntington Harbor and
• the redirection of the EGGW Channel (as considered in the REIR) coupled
with one or more direct ocean connections which may include (a) an open
tidal inlet of different design and location than the inlet considered in
Alternative G and which addresses the problems noted in the Comments to
the DEIR to the maximum extent feasible and (b) one or more culverts or
• other direct but covered inlets to provide full tidal flushing in the wetlands
without the impacts noted in connection with the tidal inlet considered in the
DEIR.
■ Annexation Alternatives in which each of the odier Alternatives analyzed in
• the REIR is considered both as a County project and as a City project.2'
791 As was noted in the Concert and is rested in this kner, the annexation of the project to snake the site
• a part of the City prior to deweloprnew may alleviate saw of the impacts of the project to City infrastructure and
City services. Also, annexation alter dewdopnent will create sigrleant planning, recreational and other
deficiencies in the project area since the project, as currently p vpared a being designed to frtR only the more
liberal standards of the County rather than frilling the mono rigorous City stadards. Accordingly,the suggested
annexation alternatives will alter sonic of the environnwntal effects of the project and must be considered for the
REIR to ful,fill CEQI.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency .
October 4, 1994
Page 74
3. REIR Improperly Rejects Alternatives for Significant Project
Components. The REIR takes a somewhat petulant stance in those instances where it does
attempt to respond directly to comments on the DEIR. For example, Page 6-7 states in
reference to the City's Comment:
•
The City of Huntington Beads specifically requested that an 'Alternatives
WRP' be analyzed wrier various scenarios. The Alternatives WRP,
however, provides no demonstrably feasible meant of implementation. It
relies on:
(1) Dedication of land by the landowner, which cannot be •
compelled without both a 'nexus' between the proposed
development and 'rough proportionality'between the
scope of the required dedication and the impact of the
project, or
(2) Acquisition of the land through condemnation by a public agency, an caremely •
costly prospect which has been available to public agencies throughout the evolution
of the Bolsa Chica planning process, but which no public agency has offered to
undetake and which no public agency rineluding the City of Huntington Beads)
appears financially capable of undertaking at any foreseeable time in the future;and
(3) Funding of restoration activities 'by public or private f uds,0 none of which has
been identijied at present despite diligent efforu.
For these reasons, the Alternatives WRP has not specifically been included
as a 'design alternative' to the project alteratives, although the feasibility
of acquisition, restoration and long-term maintenance without the •
participation of dw landowner is addressed within this Chapter.
The County just said a mouthful. As was noted earlier in this letter, the first justification
listed in the foregoing statement is a simple misunderstanding of the law applicable to so-
called "regulatory takings" and an overbroad interpretation of the recent Supreme Court
decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, Sm, and the Court's prior decision in Nollan V. •
California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). It is difficult to respond to the first
point raised in the REIR without turning this letter (which, like the REIR is supposed to
address itself to environmental impacts rather than the fine points of constitutional law and
practice under the Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) into a
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 75
•
treatise on the law currently applicable with respect to the County's and other agencies'
police power under the Constitution. Suffice it to say that the proposed degrading of the
coastal ecology by the development of thousands of homes within ecologically sensitive
habitat areas and open space has far less to do with Ms. Dolan's proposed expansion of her
• existing hardware store or the Nollan families' remodelling and expansion of their existing
beach home than the County appears to imply. Further, the justification stated in the first
paragraph of the foregoing REIR passage ignores Chapter 4.8 of the REIR which expressly
notes that the upland and lowland regions are biologically and ecologically related.
• The County's second justification is far more revealing than the County perhaps
intends. Condemnation requires only that a public agency pay the landowner the fair market
value of the property taken. The County expressly states that condemnation would be an
"extremely costly prospect." Yet, when considering the feasibility of the mitigation bank,
required under Lowlands Option A, all of the County's cost estimates exclude the cost of
• land acquisition. If the cost of land acquisition would be prohibitively expensive (as is
assumed by the County in refusing to analyze or consider the Alternatives WRP), it follows
that cost must also be prohibitively expensive for purposes of the mitigation bank. The
REIR offers no explanation of this anomaly and the reader must, therefore, assume that the
County has truthfully indicated that the mitigation bank is not feasibly implementable due to
• the cost of land acquisition.
As to the third justification offered by the County, the reader receives no
information regarding the availability of public or private funds to finance the estimated $30
million required to implement the muted tidal wetlands restoration proposed in the REIR.
Although the paucity of this information is assumed not to impair the validity of the
• County's proposed mitigation bank, the County bases its rejection of the proposed
Alternatives WRP on the same exact lank of information.
Another example of the County's petulant attitude comes from the County's outright
rejection of any form of ocean connection which would permit full tidal flushing of the
• restored wetlands without analysis of any sort whatsoever. A properly prepared
environmental document would consider the potential for other means of full tidal flushing
rather than merely responding, as did the REIR, by simply rejecting the whole notion
because comments to the DEIR disapproved the County's design of the tidal inlet. This is
not the approach required under CEQA.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• • a
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 76
•
4. The Alternatives Analysis Improperly Alters Project Objectives to
Reject otherwise Feasible Alternatives. Page 1-4 of the REIR states the objectives of the
Project as follows:
The primary objectives of the Proposed Project are as follows: •
P. provide a mix of housing at Bona China;
I. reverse the degradation of wetlands on the site and expand the size and quality of
the wetlands through a program of reconfiguration, consolidation, creation and
restoration; •
► convey a portion of the Huntington Beads Mesa to the County for use within the
Bolsa Regional Park,
► convey the portion of the Lowland not used for residential development to one or
more public agencies for limited public uses (wetlands restoration,,flood •
control);and
► coordinate wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil operations on the site.
REM at page 1-4, lines 11.26
•
The development proposed in the REIR does not necessarily fulfill all of these objectives
since (i) the proposed development no longer provides for a mix of housing but only
provides for a series of multi-unit urban apartment complexes unless Lowland Option B
(providing for single family residential development of the Lowlands) is approved, (ii) if
Lowlands Option A is approved, the reversal of the degradation of the wetlands is open to •
serious question since no source for funding either the cost of restoration or the cost of land
acquisition is identified (and as noted above, page 6-6 of the REIR inadvertently concedes
that the cost of paying fair market value for the land will be "an extremely costly
prospect," and (iii) the "legal means" for conveying the portion of the Huntington Beach
•
801 As noted earlier, Lowland Option A does not provide Jbr a conveyanm of the Lowland properties for
public benefu. It provides the opportunity for the Lowland property owner to sell its property to an as yet
undefined purchaser at an as yet undefined purchase price This it not a benefit to the public but appears to be
an arm's length business transaction by the Lowland property owners. Accordingly, this project objective cannot
serve as an overriding consideration under CEQA if Lowland Option A is adopr&L •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 77
•
Mesa to facilitate completion of the regional park "has not been identified" (M REIR at
Page 3-16, lines 20-27). Yet, the foregoing passage (and the REIR at 3-47) expressly states
that the foregoing are the stated objectives of the project considered in the REIR.
In stark and direct contrast, Chapter 6 of the REIR states that for purposes of
the alternatives analysis:
[O]ne of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project is the
implementation of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan
• by, among other things:
Providing a diverse mix of housing on the project site;
Developing a Wetland Restoration plan which will provide for the
• legal and financial mechanisms to implement the establishment of a
wetlands system of no less than 1,000 acres; and
Conveying portions of the site for public infrastructure, road
rights-of-way, the Bolsa Chica Regional Park, local parks and trail
• systems and wetlands restoration areas.
REIR at page 6-7, lines 19-33.ut.
It is these objectives (and not the objectives stated at Chapters 1 and 3 of the REIR) which
• are used to assess whether an alternative would fulfill the proposed objectives of the
development considered in the REIR. For example, Page 6-15 compares Alternative A of
the REIR to the Proposed Project based on the alternatives ability to provide "diverse
housing", "wetlands restoration" and "dedication". The alternative is rejected as not
feasible because (i) a viable funding source has not been identified and (ii) implementation
•
811 This statement also appears with somewhat different emphasis at page 2-16,liner 3945 of the REDR which
states, 'the objective of the Proposed Project is to Lmpknww key elements of the Holm Chica Planning Coalition
Concept Plan . . . '. At war noted at length at pages 57-60, the project proposed in the DEIR could not
accurately be said to implement that plan. The REIR strays ewn furdw from the Bolsa Ouca Planning Coalition
• Concept Plan. For the reasons noted in the Continent, them is no bads for the REDUs reliance on that plan.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 78
•
of restoration would extend beyond the 12 to 20 year horizon proposed for full buildout of
the project, "including restoration." REIR at page 6-15, lines 22-34. How is project
considered in the REIR any more feasible than the alternative? Mitigation of other projects
could provide funding with or without the establishment of the mitigation bank under
Lowlands Option A. The time required to implement the restoration under the Proposed •
Project is conceded at Table 3-3 (page 3-46) of the REIR to require at least 26 years.
Given the incentive of oil operators to defer phase out of oil operations in order to defer
remediation costs, the time for implementation of the Proposed Project implementation
could be far longer, yet the REIR rejects an alternative because it could not be implemented
within 12 to 20 years. This is not analysis which fulfills the requirements of CEQA.
5. Requirement for Analysis of Alternative Locations. The REIR
continues to omit proper consideration of alternative locations for the proposed residential
apartment development considered in the REIR. As was noted in the Comment, an EIR,
such as the REIR, which considers broad land use policies must provide a broad analysis of •
alternative locations for the developments proposed in the EIR. Those comments (located
at pages 44 to 47 of the Comment) are applicable to the REIR and must be addressed by
the County in an adequate alternatives analysis forming part of a new and recirculated
environmental document.
M. THE REIR Omrrs ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION of THE RISK OF UPSET AND •
RELATED DANGERS To THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS of THE PROJECT.
The potential for contamination in, on and under the site, the site's prior and
ongoing use for oil extraction, and the natural characteristics of the site, including the
presence of oil and gas resources, earthquake faults and liquefaction potential are •
inadequately considered in the REIR. The REIR must include a full and detailed discussion
of risk of upset. The potential hazards to existing and future project residents from site
cleanup, damage caused by potentially major seismic events, effects of accidental spills on
the marsh, accidental release of invasive plant or animal species, and other potential risks
the project presents to the natural environment and to human inhabitants, yet these potential •
impacts are dismissed as insignificant without sufficient explanation.
For example, the REIR assumes that Department of Real Estate ("DRE")
disclosures to future unit owners would render insignificant any potential impacts due to
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 79
disruption of abandoned wells by future landowners. DRE disclosures are not required
when units are resold. Thus, the disclosure required under Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 will
not be given to all residents of the project. Even if the notice were effective to make the
danger insignificant (and the City does not believe that it is), the notice would not even
• reach all of the persons occupying the site and, therefore, is completely ineffective.
Further, as described above, the PDFs relied upon to prevent impacts due from the hazard
of continuing oil operations adjacent to a medium to high density urban residential project
are neither designed nor disclosed, nor are they shown to be effective to mitigate the
hazards to project residents in the event of an upset situation.
•
N. DISCUSSION OF LONG-TERM IMPACTS IN THE REIR CONTINUES TO BE
INADEQUATE.
PRC § 21100 requires, among other things, that an EIR must assess both (i)
• the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity and (ii) any significant irreversible
environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed project should it be
implemented. PRC § 21100.1 makes it clear that a project such as the County's alteration
of its most basic land use and transportation planning documents requires a full discussion
and analysis of those issues, yet the REIR remains relatively silent on both points. The two
pages of consideration devoted to these impacts in Chapter 7 of the DEIR is far from
sufficient. Chapter 7 fails to mention long-term productivity.
O. THE DEIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
OF THE PROJECT
•
A valid environmental impact report must consider, in addition to the
primary and secondary impacts of the project itself, the cumulative impact of the project
taldng other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects into
account. Guidelines §§ 15130, 15355. The Guidelines expressly note that cumulative
• impacts "can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place
over a period of time." Guidelines § 15355. Although Chapter 5 of the REIR attempts to
consider some of the impacts of the proposed development, the REIR's analysis fails to
consider its most significant cumulative impacts.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 80
•
As was noted in the Comment, the REIR must assess the impact of the
project on the cumulative loss of wetlands and uplands habitats when aggregated with other
projects having an impact on wetlands. In this regard, the CCC commented in its response
to the EMIEIS:
•
Mhe areas of historic wetland have regional importance as
area for potential wetland restoration. Given the historic loss
of 91% of California's wetlands, both the loss of wetland and
the loss of potential restoration sites must be considered a
significant cumulative adverse impact of the proposed project. •
The REIR does not ever consider the cumulative impact from the loss of wetlands which
would result from the Lowlands development and the construction of the related
infrastructures' Even if the WRP were fully implemented (and there is no assurance that
it could be implemented at all or that if implemented it would restore the wetlands), there •
still would be a net loss of wetlands during the construction and implementation period.
Further, the entire project site, including both the upland and lowland
portions, are frequently used by birds migrating along the Pacific flyway. The growth and
development in the County and in coastal area Statewide have continually decreased the •
habitat for migratory birds. The loss of the open space at Bolsa Chica, with its
combination of habitat values, is, in and of itself, a significant impact when aggregated with
the other development which has already taken place. The County does not take the former
development into account, as it must in a valid evaluation of the cumulative impacts from
the project.
•
The project site is also one of the few remaining large open spaces in
southern California where a significant combined wetland, lowland and upland ecosystem
remain in existence in a single location. This confluence of habitat areas presents
opportunities which are not even considered in the REIR. For example, the upland is
dismissed by the REIR as having insignificant biological value since it is vegetated by non- •
native grasses. However, the REIR misses the fact that this open space presents the County
with one of its last remaining opportunities to establish a significant upland environment
82/ See California wetlands Consen ation Policy, Ewntive Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 1993) •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 81
•
with native vegetation and access to adjacent (and as conceded by the REIR, ecologically
connected) lowlands and wetlands habitats. There are few, if any undeveloped areas left in
the region which present such opportunities for establishment and/or restoration of such a
combined ecosystem. If native vegetation were re-introduced on the Mesa, the new habitat
• area would provide unique opportunities to implement recovery programs for threatened and
endangered species populations and could premit recovery of candidate species prior to
those species becoming threatened or endangered. The REIR must consider the loss of this
potential as a significant cumulative impact.
• The entire approach of the REIR to an analysis of cumulative impacts is
flawed. The point of such analysis is to prevent the ongoing degradation of the
environment by examining projects on one-by-one basis. Yet the REIR states, for example,
"Although this cumulative loss of open space is potentially significant, impacts to any
unique visual features must be analyzed on a project-by-project basis in the context of their
• specific visual environments." REIR at p. 5-10, lines 15-16. That is exactly contrary to
the whole point of cumulative impacts analysis. The loss of "unique visual features when
examined on a project-by-project basis may well appear to be insignificant; however, once
the lead agency views the loss of that feature in the broader context of the loss of other
similar features within the broader region it should assess whether the total loss of such a
• feature creates a cumulative impact. The County's analysis warps and distorts the
cumulative impact analysis required by CEQA to the point where it is wholly invalid.
The REIR must be revised and recirculated to appropriately address the cumulative
impacts of the proposed project. '
•
• Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 82
•
U. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the REIR.
A. CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 3
The City's Comment contained lengthy observations regarding the first three •
Chapters of the DEIR. These remarks still apply with equal force to the REIR. Further, the
comments in Part I. of this letter also apply in large measure to the first three chapters of the
REIR. In addition, the City notes the following specific comments regarding those chapters
of the REIR:
1. Chapter 1 - Executive Summary. •
a. Page 1-2, lines 12, 13 and 14: These lines indicate that
Lowland Option B will allow for the fill of 104 acres of generally degraded jurisdictional
wetlands for the development of a maximum of 900 residential units along the inland edge of •
the Lowland. Coastal Act Section 30233 does not allow for the filling of wetlands for
residential development and related infrastructure improvements. Therefore, it is unlikely
that adoption of the proposed Bolsa Chica project with Option B would be certified by or
acceptable to the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
b. Page 1-3: Option B calls for an additional 900 units in the •
lowland plus the 2,500 units on the mesa for a total of 3,400 units. However, the table on
Page 1-3 indicates a total of 3,200 units in Option B. This discrepancy should be clarified.
C. Project timing and phasing information included on page 1-4 of
the Executive Summary and repeated on page 3-45 in the Project Description consist only of •
the broad statements that the overall project is anticipated to be built out over 12 to 22 years;
that initial construction is anticipated to occur in 1996; and that the first phase of residential
development is the Bolsa Mesa and the last phase is the Lowlands (for Lowland Component,
Option B -- which includes residential development). This level of phasing and project
timing information is inadequate for evaluating the impacts on the City of a project of the •
magnitude of Bolsa Chica. At a minimum, the EIR or an accompanying planning document,
such as a Specific Plan, should present information on the order of the Project's planning
area development and the relationship between the timing of residential development and the
provision of public facilities and infrastructure to support the residential development.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
i
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 83
d. Page 1-4, Line 39: CEQA requires that a DEIR consider all
reasonable alternatives. The DEIR fails to consider the alternatives that annexes the project
into the City. Alternative A through Alternative J should be considered as: 1) a City project;
and, 2) a County project.
•
e. Page 1-6, Lines 41 and 42, under Issues to be Resolved: These
lines state that the County will have to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the
policies contained in the California Coastal Act, particularly those related to development of
the Wetlands in Lowland Option B. From the City's understanding of the Coastal Act, a
• Bolsa Chica project including Lowland Option B would be inconsistent with Section 30233 of
the Act for the reason stated above.
f. Page 1-7, Summary of Impacts, Bolsa Chica LCP, Consistency
with County of Orange General Plan: This table contains a statement that components of the
• proposed project are generally consistent with the goals and policies of the Orange County
General Plan, although an amendment of the LUE, Transportation Element and MPAH will
be necessary to accommodate the project. Further the statement makes the broad
generalization that no significant physical impacts would occur from amending the LUE and
reducing the overall residential density of the project. However, from reviewing the Land
• Use Section of the REIR there is little real analysis of the project's conformity to all of the
individual elements of the County of Orange General Plan. Therefore, it is that the proposed
project may not confor to the County General Plan.
g. Page 1-7, Table 1.3, Consistency with County LCP: The
County LCP for Bolsa Chica cannot be used as the document for the legal standard of review
• for the proposed Bolsa Chica project because the LCP was only conditionally approved by
the CCC and none of the conditions for approval of the LCP have been put into effect by the
County. Furthermore, the proposed project is significantly different from the Bolsa Chica
project considered by the CCC in 1986. Therefore, the statement made in this table about
the proposed Bolsa Chica project being consistent with the County LCP is inaccurate.
h. Page 1-7, Table 1.3: The REIR indicates that the elimination of
the tidal inlet will not result in significant adverse impacts. If an inlet is determined to be
necessary for successful restoration of the full tidal wetlands, the loss if the beach tidal inlet
may become significant.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 84
•
i. Page 1-8, Table 1.3: The REIR indicates that buffer zones and
fencing will be used to eliminate the potential for physical intrusion by human beings and
non-native animals into the proposed wetlands restoration area. Domestic animals can have a
significant negative impact on a natural environment. Intrusion by domestic cats is
particularly is very difficult to control. Water elements such as canals, moats, etc. may be •
needed to sufficiently minimize access by domestic animals. Additional study in this area
may be required.
j. Page 1-9, Table 1.3, Consistency with California Coastal Act:
The City does not believe that the Bolsa Chica project as now proposed is consistent with the •
Coastal Act. The statement made in this section of the table says that a detailed consistency
analysis for the proposed Bolsa Chica project with the California Coastal Act will be
necessary during the processing of the specific LCP. Considering the City's concerns about
the consistency of the revised Bolsa Chia project with the Coastal Act, the City requests that
such a consistency review be made before this project is considered by decisionmakers, with •
the County's consistency review available to the City for review before consideration of this
project by the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
k. Page 1-9, Table 1-3, No mention is made of corrosion problems
related to utility installations as was made in the previous DEIR on page 4.2-20, lines 36-43. •
This is an important facet of utility operation, costs money, and thus should be addressed so
as to completely state the problem and possible mitigation measures. Since no water system
can be constructed without underground buried metal equipment, a corrosion study is called
for in this area. The study should discuss the reasons for the corrosion potential, options for
dealing with it, the impacts of the options on the environment and by what process should the
expected corrosion within the project be monitored. Corrosion can cost several million •
dollars per year of the new residents' money and the chemical reactions involved can
possibly introduce undesirable elements into the soil. As reported on page 4 in the
publication by the American Water Works Association entitled, External Corrosion -
Introduction to Chemistry and Control (AWWA M27, 1987), the National Bureau of
Standards reported that the total annual cost of corrosion in the United States was on the •
order of $70 billion in 1975. Furthermore, it states that the health of water consumers is
threatened whenever extensive corrosion breaches the sanitary integrity of the water system.
Uncontrolled corrosion can be a major contributor to the problems of unreliable or
inadequate fire-control systems. It concludes by saying that "It is evident that the ability to
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 85
•
control corrosion in water utility systems can contribute greatly to dollar savings, public
health protection, and safety of the public."
1. Page 1-10 (Table 1.3): Underground utilities constructed along
•' a fault zone are indicated in the study to have an unavoidable and significant impact. Park
3A/3B has been placed along the Newport-Inglewood fault line. The park should be
relocated or, if buildings or sports courts are planned on this site, mitigation will be
necessary.
,
M. Page 1-10, Table 1-3, Impact 4.2-3, A geologic investigation
will not mitigate the potential rupture of the nine million gallon reservoir. It will determine
if the site can be made to economically support the life of such a facility. If the site is
deemed unsuitable, how will the development be supported by water storage should the
reservoir site be relocated away from the immediate vicinity of the project? Performing a
geologic investigation will not work to mitigate the problems associated with the North
Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault. It will only determine the suitability of the site.
Based on the information in the REIR alone, it appears that the City should not locate a
reservoir in the area of the development. The City has no obligation to locate a reservoir on
the Bolsa Chica property nor in the area of the Bolsa Chica. The City's only obligation is to
provide a site for which the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property can construct a reservoir
to mitigate the impacts of that development in accordance with the Holly-Seacliff
Development Agreement.
n. Page 1-11, Table 1-3, The REIR does not explain why or how
the PDF requiring soil remediation will mitigate the oil field or soil hazards. Neither the
County nor the State have a standard for hydrocarbon contaminated soil with residential,
and/or commercial development. The County should develop a cleanup standard for
hydrocarbon contaminated soil or use the City of Huntington Beach Standard 431-92 which
was attached to the Comment as COMMENT ANNM NO. 38
• o. Page 1-12, Table 1.3, says there will be a 50-foot residential
setback from active oil wells. PDF-4 (Section 10.3.1, p. 10.3) states setback will be at least
100 feet. Which is correct?
Discussion Draft Dated Septembsr 23. 1994
I
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 86
•
P. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, states that construction will not take place
within fifty (50) feet of an operating well, or within ten (10) feet of an abandoned well.
Methane barriers and venting systems must also be required. The Uniform Fire Code
Section 79.1101 (attached as Annex No. 15) covers some aspects of construction. However,
most standards are applied at the time of plan check; i.e., wall ratings, thickness of glass, •
sprinkler protection, standards for diking, etc. The REIR does not address pipeline distances
and depths. Set back distance will depend on pressure and depth of the pipeline.
q. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, states that the remedial action plan for
soils contamination will be based on a health risk assessment. A Health Risk Assessment is •
not the basis for a remedial action plan. A Phase H Site Assessment is the correct tool for
developing the work plan. What standard will be used to determine acceptable levels of
hydrocarbon contamination. City Standard 431-92 should be used in these areas.
r. Page 1-12, Table 1-3, Impact 4.3-1: In addition to locating •
abandoned wells and testing for gas, an oil well review will be required along with an
approved site review from the State Division of Oil and Gas. The Public Resources Code
Section 3208.1, enforced by the State Division of Oil and Gas, requires a site review of any
property prior to construction to prevent any possible damage to life, health, and property
from any abandoned well. •
S. Page 1-13, Table 1-3, "Grading/Bolsa Chica Mesa:"
The comment that "an insignificant amount of recharge (i.e., groundwater replenishment)...
is not expected to be impacted" is an opinion based on no facts or statements of authority.
What defines "an insignificant amount?" It is unknown what the impacts will be without
further study of this phenomenon. The quantities, effects and impacts of the recharge or its
potential should be addressed because of the sensitive nature of the issue of seawater
intrusion into this area. How will the recharge impact the potential for seawater intrusion?
What effect will the recharge have on the stability of the slopes of the mesa, since the
groundwater table would be expected to be higher? The Orange County Water District
(OCWD) is the governing authority on groundwater in this jurisdiction. No mention is made •
of OCWD in this comment or its explanation further on in the REEK, Section 4.4. The same
comment applies to the Effect entitled "Grading/Wedands Restoration" where it refers to
impacts to the Bolsa aquifer.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 87
t. Page 1-14, Table 1-3, "Grading/Lowland Development", The
comment "Redundancy in the pumping system of the Proposed Project will effectively reduce
these potential impacts to a less than significant level" is not true because siltation will cause
all pumps in a given drainage system to malfunction. This observation is based on the
experience of operating the City's storm water pumping stations that are similar to the
stations proposed in the project for the last 34 years. Redundancy will not solve the
problem. The siltation must not be allowed to occur. This can be accomplished in any
number of ways, the most common involving the use of desiltation basins on the interior of
the drainage catch basins. The speed of the runoff entering the catch basin is slowed by the
• desiltation basin, which in turn allows the silt being carried by the water to drop to the
bottom of that basin.
U. Page 1-15, Table 1-3, Impact 4.4-1, Any preferred mitigation
involving groundwater must be approved and endorsed by OCWD. No reference is made to
• this fact in the REIR. OCWD is an independent district not associated with the County of
Orange. Approval only by the County of Orange will not be sufficient.
V. Page 1-15, Table 1-3, Impact 4.4-2, The geotechnical study
reference as a mitigation measure should be performed under the jurisdiction of OCWD, not
the County of Orange. Any action involving groundwater issues of the Santa Ana River
groundwater basin must be approved by OCWD. No mention is made to OCWD in this
regard. It would be preferred if OCWD performed the study at the developer's expense. In
any case, the study should be performed, and the document recirculated, before the REIR is
certified by the County.
• W. Page 1-22 (Table 1.3): Concern is expressed in the REIR
regarding contaminants in the water of the EGGW Channel. The study indicates that the use
of trash racks, grease and oil separators, and BMPs for proper disposal of the materials
collected in these structures will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. What
measures will be used when the flood control channel's water level exceeds normal due to
• storms? Such an occurrence could have a significant impact on the wetlands.
X. Page 1-24 (Table 1.3): The impact of construction on existing
adjacent residences has not been adequately analyzed. The City is currently experiencing a
problem in the Holly-Seacliff area where new residential development has caused skunks to
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 88
•
leave the open area and infiltrate existing residential neighborhoods. The development in the
lowlands and on the Bolsa Chica Mesa can have equally troublesome effects on existing
adjacent residences. The REIR must be revised to reflect any such possible effects.
Y. Page 1-24 (Table 1.3): The REIR refers to Environmentally •
Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) being developed both in the Mesa and Bolsa Chica Regional
Park (BCRP). There is no indication that the timing of the development of these ESHAs has
been carefully considered so that they are developed gr& to destroying existing habitat.
Z. Impact 4.8-3, Page 1-27 (Table 1.3): The implementation of •
Option B has the potential to increase public visitation to the wetlands, thereby creating
possible disturbance to habitat and wildlife. Mitigation factors for this impact include (1)
public education; (2) identification of a group or agency for enforcement of access
restrictions; and (3) the rerouting of people from internal trails during nesting season. This
impact cannot be listed as insignificant until an organization is identified and funding is •
determined so these mitigation measures can be implemented.
aa. Page 1-30, Table 1-3, There may be hazardous materials in
fugitive dust. Past history has shown that these dusts will also contain noxious odors that
will generate complaints. A work plan specifically addressing this issue must be developed •
and circulated for public review along with contingency plans in case the original plan does
not work. These plans should be specifically described in a recirculated REIR.
ab. Page 1-39 (Table 1.3): The REIR states: 'Since the Bolsa
Chica Mesa is designated and developed in the County and Huntington Beach General Plans,
the planned development is not unexpected and the Mesa will eventually incur seasonal •
impacts regardless of the type of development ultimately approved. In the context of
surrounding residential and commercial land uses, the development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa
is not considered a_significant impact.' It is incorrect to make the assumption that because
future development is expected, there will be mitigation of impacts to view corridors, etc.
These types of aesthetics issues need to be analyzed and the impacts minimized wherever •
possible.
•
Discu"on Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 89
•
ac. Table 1.3, Section 4.13, The Natural History Foundation of
Orange County no longer exists because it declared bankruptcy in 1992. Recommendation:
The REIR must identify and designate an alternate, permanent curator/repository for
collected cultural resources.
•
ad. Page 1-41, Table 1-3, Section 4.16, "Water":
A County Service Area, a water district, or mutual water company will = have to be
formed to provide water service. The City could provide this service directly, as it currently
does to the unincorporated County area of Sunset Beach (practically next door) and the
• Surfside Colony, which is located in the City of Seal Beach. As such, this statement is false.
Additionally, the City is not obligated to provide water service to the development if it
should choose not to. In fact, water service should only be provided by the City if all
impacts of the new development's demands are mitigated to the City's satisfaction.
ae. Page 1-42, Table 1-3, Section 4.16 "Public Services and
Utilities - Fire Protection/Emergency Services": The project will also produce emergencies
within the City limits. Emergencies such as vehicle accidents, vehicle fires, medical
emergencies as well as increasing traffic will slow Huntington Beach Fire response to City
residents resulting in a downgrade of current life safety services. The RE1R does not
propose a mitigation for this impact.
2. Chapter 2 - Introduction.
a. As noted above, the RE1R does not state the specific project or
program which it is evaluating. What is the purpose of extensive public and government-
agency review of an E1R which does not purport to be specific environmental assessment for
any of the required plans or documents relating to the various discretionary approvals leading
to entitlement?
b. Page 2-5, Table 2-2: Who are the local water districts? In
•, order to properly assess the information contained in a report such as this, it needs to be
location specific. The report cannot be evaluated properly if information is unknown or is
being withheld. Further, this table should note that the State of California, Department of
Health Services, is involved in the process of distributing domestic water supplies as well as
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 90
•
reclaimed water supplies. Any water source and delivery system necessary for this project
will need to seek approval from this agency.
C. Page 2-6, Section 2.1.6, Availability of the REIR, Line 23:
The statement is made that the County has complied with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the •
CEQA Guidelines by preparing and issuing a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR, with the
NOP distributed on June 18, 1993. The spirit and intent of these Sections of CEQA have not
been met since no new NOP was ever distributed by the County to Responsible or Trustee
Agencies on the substantially revised Bolsa Chica projects considered in the REIR.
•
3. Chapter 3 - Project Description.
a. Section 3.3.1 (Differences from Previously Proposed Project) of
the REIR outlines the changes in the proposed project from the Bolsa Chica project •
considered in the DEIR. Important changes were made in the Bolsa Chica project which
responsible and trustee agencies knew nothing about until the REIR was released for review.
Some of these changes have resulted in new significant impacts which were not caused by the
projects considered in the DEIR, such as the lengthening of the Warner Avenue Bridge and
additional dredging in the vicinity of the bridge and other locations. These actions will have •
obvious adverse impacts on traffic and benthic and mudflat habitats. The County has been
derelict in its duty to inform these agencies of project changes, let alone solicit their input on
issues that should have been included in the REIR. Therefore, the City does not believe that
the County has complied with Section 15082 of CEQA.
b. Page 3-17, Lowland Option B, Lines 30 and 31: These lines •
indicates that 104 acres of jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by development of the
Lowland as proposed in Lowland Option B. By impacted, the City interprets this to mean
that the wetlands will be dredged and or filled to make way for residential units that will be
developed in this area. As noted earlier in the City's comments, dredging or filling of
wetlands for residential purposes is prohibited by the Coastal Act. The City believes that •
this activity will not be allowed by the CCC and that any Bolsa Chica project including this
Option cannot be approved by the CCC.
•
Discussion Draft Datod Saptwnbar 23, 1994
•
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 91
•
C. Page 3-18, Lines 36-48: In lines 40-42, it is mentioned that
water to serve the project "may" be stored in a reservoir that "may" be constructed by the
City in the project area. This is a speculative statement because no land has yet been
acquired by the City and the area may be unsuitable for such a facility. In lines 43-44, the
• idea that the reservoir will be constructed below ground is also speculative since no decisions
have been made in this regard by the City. In lines 44-45, it mentions that "additional
storage will be constructed" but does not say by whom. In lines 45-47, the wording is such
that it is implied that the reservoir is a water source for the project. This is not the case with
this reservoir or any other owned by the City. The reservoir will only store water obtained
• from the various water sources the City currently has. Its purpose is to handle water demand
peaking needs for the entire City. In fact, there are many occasions occurring on a daily
basis wherein property directly adjacent to an existing City reservoir are not served by that
facility because it is not cost efficient to do so at that particular time. This would also be the
case with this project should a reservoir be constructed by the City adjacent to it.
•
d. Page 3-21, Lines 20-25: The REIR states that proposed local
sewer lines will be 6" to 10" in diameter. However, Figure 3-9a shows 6" to 12" lines.
What are the correct pipe sizes? Have these facilities been correctly analyzed and sized?
The correct information regarding the sewer line dimensions must be provided.
•
e. Page 3-21, Lines 1-16: In lines 1-3, reference is made to a
"new discharge pipeline and pump station." It is not clear where this is located or what its
purpose is. In lines 8-15, significant reference is made to the OCWD project called "Green
Acres." The REIR is counting on the connection to that project to meet a significant demand
• for water in the proposed project. In fact, OCWD has recently taken the Bolsa Chica area
off its list of customers for Green Acres and is redesigning the pipeline to serve Huntington
Beach accordingly.11'
831 A later to the County from the OCWD,dated February 9,1994,commming on the DER expressly noted:
•
Due to limited funding resulting fi in a downturned economy,the Phase if expawion into Huntington Beach
has been greatly reduced to include only cWanding service into south Huntington Bed (l.e.,general area
within vicinity of the Southern California Edison Power Plant). Expansion of the project into central
Huntington Beach, a necessary prerequisite for providing reclaimed water service to the Bolsa China
Project,has been placed on an indefinite hold therefore, the construction of reclainwd water facilities in
• (continued...)
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 92
•
For the new pipeline to serve this development at a later date after
construction has occurred would be a strain on that system. The statement made that
"parallel 8-inch water lines will also be installed within the local road system to convey
reclaimed water to the site from the OCWD Green Acres Project when it is constructed and
reclaimed water form that facility is available" misleads the reader as there is no indication •
given that OCWD has expressly stated that there is no assurance that the project would ever
be constructed. One obvious alternative to the loss of the concept of Green Acres water is for
the development to construct its own reclamation facility to produce reclaimed water for
irrigation. Another is for the development to construct a seawater desalination facility to
provide the needed supplemental water. Although both facilities would be very costly to •
construct (millions of dollars) and operate ($2,100 per million gallons of reclaimed water,
$6,000 per million gallons of desalted seawater), the REIR should consider these alternatives.
The retail cost to the residents of the new development would be such that water rates could
be 2-5 times as much as that paid by the City's customers currently.
f. Pages 3-22 and 3-23: References to a "proposed reservoir, •
proposed pump station and the OCWD Green Acres water lines" are presumptive and
misleading to the reader. Neither the County nor the developer has any basis on which to
assume that these facilities will be constructed, especially in light of the statements made by
OCWD with respect, for example, to the Green Acres Project (noted above).
Notwithstanding the uncertainty surrounding the funding and fiscal feasibility of this •
infrastructure the REIR proceed on the basis of an assumed certainty that the projects will be
built timely enough to permit the entire prcject's water supply to be predicated on them.
There is no certainty that these projects would ever be constructed and the water supply to
the project, is, therefore questionable. This uncertainty must be disclosed in a recirculated
REIR. •
g. Section 3.3.7, Wetlands Creation and Restoration, page 3-35,
Lines 2, 3 and 4: A statement is made that construction and grading will be planned to result
in a balance in the amount of cut and fill during the initial phases of the project and that in
•
83/(...continued)
the future that would be located in dare prauvaty to the Boka China project cannot be arsurv&
A copy of the OC%D comment on the DER Lr auaeheid to this letter as Annex No. 29.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 93
•
subsequent phases, if not also balanced onsite, may require additional CEQA review. The
City believes that the wetlands restoration plan should be far enough along at this time to
know if additional phases of wetlands restoration will require export or import of soils and
that an analysis of the impacts of soils import or export should be included in the REIR.
• This analysis should include a look at quantities, sources or points of disposal, types of
vehicles used to transport, phasing, number of vehicle trips per day, whether dredge material
will be deposited anywhere on the site, whether any contaminated soil will be exported and
where contaminated soil will be disposed. To do any less is to ask decisionmakers to
approve this project without full knowledge of its impacts which is a clear violation of
• CEQA.
h. Section 3.3.7.7, Acquisition/Creation/Restoration Cost Estimates
and Funding Mechanism, Line 43: The statement is made that Lowland Option A's wetland
restoration program is approximately $30 Million. In the 1993 EIR, the City of Huntington
• Beach was informed by the DEIR that this cost was $48 million. The REIR must detail the
precise reasons for this difference in costa"
i. Page 3-26, Line 7: Reference is made to "a localized pump
station." Elsewhere in the REIR's discussion on drainage it is mentioned that two pump
• stations are necessary (page 28). Which is correct?
j. Page 3-27 and 3-28: The existing "Springdale Pump Station" is
currently named the "Bolsa Chica Pump Station" and has been since the 1970's. This error
should be corrected.
• k. Page 3-36, Lines 11 and 30: Reference is again made to the
"Springdale Pump Station." This is actually the "Bolsa Chica Pump Station." The name is
incorrect throughout the REIR. It should be changed throughout. As such, this will be the
last mention of this error in this document.
•
841 Further, the estimated dart of the NRP under both Lowland Option A and Lowland Option B is identical
even though substantially di event plant are considered. The REIR Haar explain this surprising coincidence by
• detailing the basis for each cast estimate.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 94
•
1. Pages 3-37 and 3-38 (Figure 3-13a): Figure 3-13a (the
"Proposed Wetlands Grading Plan") has apparently been photographically reduced to one
tenth its original size, and it is not legible. It is, therefore, not possible to review and
evaluate proposed grading. The grading concept is crucial to the viability of a wetlands
restoration plan. Thus, a revised legible grading plan must be provided. •
M. Page 3-47, lines 12 to 14: The federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
has essentially five permitting programs, found in Sections 401 through 405, designed to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
For this project, permits pursuant to Sections 401, 402 and 404 would need to be secured •
prior to construction of the project.
n. Page 3-48, lines 41-42: "The feasibility of the proposed
financing mechanisms [financing mechanisms for wetlands restoration] will be addressed in
subsequent chapters." The feasibility of the mitigation bank for Option A, or even the •
adequacy of the $30 million cost to be borne by the developer in restoring the Wetlands
under Option B is not addressed in sufficient detail in the REIR. The WRP in the REIR's
Appendix A outlines the legal and procedural fortnat for the mitigation bank (WRP pages 6-1
through 6-15) but does not discuss financial feasibility of the mitigation bank or identify
potential sources of funds for that bank. Furthermore, the adequacy of the $30 million cost
of wetlands restoration is not verifiable as a result of the lack of supporting information on •
these costs. Thus the REIR does not deliver on its commitment to evaluate the feasibility of
the financing mechanisms as promised in the Project Description chapter.
B. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING
•
1. The FJM Fails to Explain the Reasons the Project Differs from the
1986 LCP on which it Improperly Relies in Assessing Land Use Impacts. The REIR does
not discuss changes in the revised project from the project described in the 1986 Bolsa Chica
LCP. There are a number of substantial differences between these two projects, including
the deletion of the proposed navigable ocean entrance, 75-acre or larger marina and •
commercial area, inward realignment of a segment of Pacific Coast Highway, deletion of the
Cross Gap Connector, navigable interior waterway system into Huntington Harbor and a
minimum 25-foot clearance Pacific Coast Highway bridge over Outer Bolsa Bay. There is
not one word of explanation as to why these facilities are being deleted from the revised
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 95
•
project, just that they are not included in the Proposed Project. Guidelines § 15125 requires
an EIR to discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable general
plans and regional plans, yet there in no such analysis included on the differences in the 1986
LCP (presumed by the County to be the plan of record) and the revised LCP. '
•
2. Inconsistency with Coastal Act Policies and Provisions Make Project
Implementation Unlikely. An overriding concern about the implementability of the project
as a whole is the fact that it flies in the face of Coastal Act requirements which do not permit
the sacrifice of coastal resources for non-coastal dependent uses such as residential. The
• REIR is rife with inconsistencies with and violations of the Coastal Act, including the
following:
a. LCP/LUP Consistency. Pages 4.1-33 to 4.1-42, 1986 Land Use
Plan: This section of the REIR discusses certification of the 1986 LCP by the CCC, its
• applicability to the revised Bolsa Chica project and the consistency of the revised project with
the applicable Coastal Act Policies. However, as stated by the CCC letter of February 17,
1994 regarding the DEIR, the standard for review of the Bolsa Chica project must be the
Coastal Act itself and not the conditionally certified 1986 Bolsa Chica LCP. The REIR uses
the 1986 LCP to justify the fill of the wetlands on the Bolsa Chica project site for residential
• purposes. This is in violation of Section 30233 of the Coastal Act, since it does not permit
destruction of coastal resources for non-coastal dependent land uses such as residential. This
comment was raised in the City's Comment and the comments of the CCC and the CDFG on
the DEIR, yet the REIR continues the same flaw without justification or comment.
•
851 If the tie between Mesa development and wetlands restoration is severed, as war suggested in the DEIR and
is suggested in the RE1R (in Part LF above)then Mesa development should be reevaluated without regard to any
• potential for that development to f ind rawration of the wetlands. The question of appropriate intensity and type
of development should be taken back to 'square one.' Why it 2,5W unite on 214 acres die appropriate level of
development on the Mesa, if it is not supporting wetlands reston vion as was required under the 1986 LCP?
Considering the types of surrounding developww. cnartal accem. traffic in'pacts, limitations on Pacific Coati
Highway improvements. pressures on existing County and City of Huntington Beach facilities and servicar, and
impacts on existing and future coastal and wetlands resources, the Mesa Conronent should be reevaluated at lower
• densities than a currently suggested in the REM
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 96
•
b. Public Access/Recreation Related Coastal Act Policies. The
project considered in the REIR conflicts with Section 30210 of the Coastal Act requiring that
developments in the coastal zone maximize public access and recreational opportunities. The
revised project/LCP deletes the 75-acre or larger marina and commercial area. In the
revised LCP, "visitor serving" facilities have been reduced to a 10 acre commercial area, •
sometimes referred to as a neighborhood commercial site (which is it?) This is a very
significant change from what was originally contemplated for this project. The deletion of
the marina will also impact the ability of the revised project to meet PRC § 30213 which
calls for the provision of low-cost visitor and recreational facilities and public recreational
opportunities. This change, the reasons for the change and the ability of the new project to •
fulfill the foregoing requirements of the Coastal Act must be disclosed and analyzed in the
REIR.
C. Marine Resources.
(1) Implementation of Lowland Option B conflicts with PRC •
§ 30233 which prohibits diking, filling, and dredging of coastal waters and wetlands since it
is proposed that at least 104 acres of wetlands would be filled to make way for 900 homes in
this area. Notwithstanding the applicant's belief that filling of wetlands meets the
requirements of Section 30233(a)(3) and 30411 because dedication of the Lowland and
funding for the wetland restoration is dependent on the residential development in the •
Lowland, such filling of wetlands is in violation of the Coastal Act. The CCC, CDFG,
Corps and other affected agencies all have stated this position. The conflict between the
proposed residential development of lowlands areas and the proposed project must be
disclosed and analyzed further and in the subsequent recirculated and rewritten REIR.
•
(2) Page 4.1-38, Lines 12 to 19, Section 30411 of the
Coastal Act: The REIR takes Section 30411 out of context in that it presents this Section of
the Coastal Act in a manner which implies that degraded wetlands can be restored in
conjunction with other feasible development where that "development" is the construction of
900 residential units in the Lowlands. This is misleading and inaccurate as this is neither the •
intent nor the meaning of this section of the Coastal Act. The clear intent of PRC 130411
is the restoration of wetlands as part of a new boating facility. This REIR's misconception
is further strengthened by the statement in the REIR that "residential development on
remedial fill has been interpreted by the CCC to meet these requirements (see approvals for
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septen*er 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 97
•
Playa del Rey LUP, Mola Development/Heilman Ranch in Seal Beach and Coastal
Conservancy Los Cerritos Wetlands Restoration Plan)." The CCC has stated unequivocally
that the development of non-coastal dependent residential units in the Lowlands is in direct
• violation of the Coastal Act; yet, the REIR continues to misinterpret and twist the Coastal
Act in a vain attempt to guide the reader into the inaccurate conclusion that the REIR project
is a valid project which is consistent with the requirements of the Coastal Act.
(3) Page 4.1-38, Lines 1 to 10, Section 30233(a) of the
Coastal Act: The REIR has fails to include phrasing which identifies the allowable uses of
• wetlands. Section 30233 only allows the diking, filling or dredging of wetlands for specified
reasons in this section, none of which include such activities for housing related projects.
d. Scenic Value. The project also conflicts with PRC § 30251
which requires the protection of the scenic value of coastal areas. The REIR acknowledges
• on page 12-2 that residential development will significantly alter the undeveloped appearance
of the Bolsa Chica Mesa within the public viewshed as seen from Pacific Coast Highway at
Warner Avenue. This is in direct conflict with the foregoing requirements of the Coastal Act.
This conflict must be disclosed and analyzed in the newly rewritten and recirculated REIR.
• e. Coastal Dependent Uses. The REIR's proposed project is also
in conflict with PRC $ 30255 which acknowledges the priority of coastal dependent uses near
the shoreline. The Bolsa Ckuca project as it now is proposed is a non-coastal dependent
housing project. This conflict should be analyzed and acknowledged in the Revised EIR.
• f. 1F—qiAs. Section 30240 of the Coastal Act requires that
environmentally sensitive habitat areas must be "protected against any significant disruption
of habitat values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those
areas." Further, that section states that development in areas adjacent to ESHAs must be
sited and designed to prevent impacts and must be "compatible with the continuance of those
• habitat and recreation areas." The project proposed in the REIR is at odds with these
Coastal Act provisions in that it requires the destruction of two ESHAs coupled with an
attempt to establish new compensatory habitat areas. The REIR does not adequately address
this as an unmitigated significant impact.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 98
•
g. Natural Hazards. The revised Bolsa Chica project proposed in
the REIR is in conflict with PRC § 30243 which requires the minimization of risks from
natural hazards, assures geological stability and structural integrity, amongst other things.
The REIR acknowledges as an unavoidable significant adverse impact of the project that the
active fault splays associated with the North Branch Fault may cause surface rupture in the •
proposed location of the 9 million gallon water reservoir area, resulting in the loss of water
for domestic and fire-fighting use. People and property may also be injured as water pours
from the damaged tank. Underground utilities constructed within and crossing the Alquist-
Priolo Act exclusionary zone may also be damaged from fault movement or rupture. Further
inundation or gas explosions or fires could occur. Further, the shaking due to the proximity •
of residential units in the proximity of and the location of recreation area atop a known
active fault increases the likelihood that a seismic event will result in injuries or worse. The
conflicts of the project's exposure of people and property to natural hazards must be
disclosed and analyzed in the revised and recirculated REIR.
•
3. The REIR Fails to Note Significant Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the County's General Plan. Section 4.1.2 of the REIR considers the
consistency of the proposed development with applicable plans, programs, and policies. This
section of the REIR states that Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to •
discuss, within the discussion of the existing environmental setting, any inconsistencies
between a proposed project and "applicable general plans and regional plans." This Section
then goes on to address the existing general plans, regional plans, zoning and state and
federal policies relevant to the revised Bolsa Chica Project. The City reviewed all Elements
of the County General Plan to determine the proposed project's conformity with these
Elements. Conflicts with the County's General Plan include the following: •
a. Page 4.1-11, Lanes 42, 43, and 44: It is noted on these lines
that the County General Plan consists of the Land Use, Transportation, Resources, Housing,
Growth Management, Noise, Public Services and Facilities, Recreation, and Safety Elements.
However, the purported consistency finding of the proposed Bolsa Chica project is made only •
with respect to the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the General Plan. Why were
only these Elements analyzed in detail and the other Elements of the General Plan ignored?
Section 15125(b) of CEQA requires a discussion of the inconsistencies between the proposed
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 99
•
project and applicable general plans which includes all elements of the general plan. These
analyses must be completed to render the EIR adequate.
b. The City reviewed the Transportation Element of the County
• General Plan and determined that this Element and Master Plan of Arterial Highways is
inconsistent with the Proposed Project and must be amended to include the deletion of the
conceptually proposed alignment for Pacific Coast Highway through a portion of the Bolsa
Chica project, since the realignment of PCH through this project is no longer being pursued
by the property owner. This would be in addition to the deletion of the extension of Bolsa
• Chica Street to Garfield Street from the MPAH as mentioned in the consistency analysis in
the REIR. The amendment of the Transportation Element and the MPAH should be included
in the Project description or must be made an express mitigation measure for the project to
insure that this amendment is properly made.
• C. The REIR notes that the proposed project would create
unavoidable significant adverse impacts on PCH due to traffic generated from the Bolsa
Chica project. Specific impacts on PCH were described on page 12-1 (Inventory of
Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts) of the REIR. One of these impacts was the
reduction of LOS at various intersections along PCH to "E" or "F". This is in conflict with
Transportation Element policy 3.2 on page TE-1-10 of this Element which requires the
• County to "[e]nsure that all intersections within the unincorporated portion of Orange County
maintain a level of service "D" according to the County Growth Management Plan
Transportation Implementation Manual. There was no analysis of this conflict with the
General Plan as required by Guidelines 115125(b).
• d. Page 4.1-20, Lines 5 to 47: The REIR lists residential goals
and policies of County General Plan with which the project is consistent. However, this list
fails to reveal which elements of the General Plan contain the stated goals and policies, so it
is very difficult to determine if the project is actually consistent with the various elements of
the General Plan. Due to the REIR's failure to specify the source of the stated policies, the
• reader cannot know whether or not the stated goals and policies are accurately quoted or
whether they are paraphrased to suit the REIR discussion.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 100
•
e. The County must prepare a consistency analysis for the Growth
Management Element. The revised Bolsa Chica project is not consistent with the following
policies found on page GM-4 and GM-5 of this Element:
(1) Develggment Phasing. According to this policy a
development should be phased in accordance with an applicable Comprehensive Phasing Plan
adopted by the County. The REIR omits any meaningful discussion of a phasing plan being
for the revised Bolsa Chica project. An analysis of this policy must be included in the newly
written and recirculated EIR which the County must prepare for the project prior to any
project approval. •
(2) Balanced Community Development. This policy requires
that a balanced community be developed which encourages employment of local residents and
provides for both employment and employee housing opportunities with the County or
Growth Management Area. The proposed project only includes 10 acres of commercial •
development which will not employ the up to 8.580 project residents in this already housing
rich area of the County. Obviously the project is not in compliance with this policy and
there is no analysis in the REIR to disclose or justify this clear conflict with the County's
own growth management policies as expressed in the County's General Plan. An analysis of
the significant inconsistency with this policy must be included in a new and recirculated
REIR.
(3) Public Facilities Plans. This policy requires that a
comprehensive public facilities plan be established for fire, sheriff/police and library
facilities. The REIR does not describe or even mention the requirement for development of
any such plan for this project as required under the County's General Plan. An analysis of
the project's consistency with and the means to fulfill this policy must be prepared and
included in the new and recirculated REIR.
f. The County must also prepare a consistency evaluation of the
proposed project with the Resources Element of the County General Plan. The City's review •
of this Element reveals that the revised project is in conflict with the Energy Resources
component of this Element. Goal 2 "Encourages the utilization of existing energy resources
to their highest potential and the development of alternative energy sources consistent with
sound energy conservation practices and techniques to meet the County's future energy
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 101
•
demand." Existing oil resources could be lost if oil production facilities are phased out
before all recoverable oil is removed to make way for restoration of wetlands in the Lowland
portion of the project site. An analysis of this policy should be included in the revised REIR
which must be prepared and recirculated for this project.
•
g. Page 4.1-26, Lines 25 through 29: The statement is made that
under Lowland Option B the 852-acre wetland restoration minimum would not be met, but
that the Applicant would be required to provide off-site replacement at a 2:1 ratio or
negotiate directly with CDFG to resolve any concerns of that agency regarding interim
• wetlands maintenance.w It would be unacceptable to the City if the minimum number of
acres of wetlands could not be restored as proposed in the 1986 LCP. Also, the REIR
provides no analysis as required by CEQA as to where an off site mitigation site for wetlands
restoration would be located. Also, it is speculative that the project applicant could negotiate
any deal with CDFG on the number of wetlands that would have to be restored as part of the
• revised Bolsa Chica project. It is also speculative that a 2:1 ratio would satisfy current
requirements of the USFWS and CDFG, since higher ratios have been required in recent
years due to the limited field success in the restoration and creation of new wetlands.
h. Page 4.1-28, Consistency Analysis: County Zoning, Lines 5
• through 12: The REIR relies on its characterization of the Al zone as being an interim zone
in those areas which the General Plan may designate for more intensive urban uses in the
future. However, if the current proposal is consistent with existing zoning due to the
existence of the 8 year old 1986 LCP, why didn't the County change the zoning for the
property to reflect the land use designations included in the 1986 LCP. If the County truly
• believed the 1986 LCP was valid.it would have adopted consistent zoning.
4. The REIR Omits Discussion of Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the City's General Plan. In addition to the inconsistencies with the
County's own General Plan, the development proposed in the REIR is not consistent with the
policies and objectives of the City's General Plan. Although the property is located within
• the County§ jurisdiction, and is therefore, subject to compliance with the County General
Plan, the City§ General Plan is also relevant since (i) it is likely that there will at some time
861 Recent infomal dttcwswns with CDFG and USFWS haw indkawed that c>rrre aty repkwensent ratios of
• 5.1 are common.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 102
•
be interest in annexing the property into the City and (ii) the location of the project site
within an island of County jurisdiction surrounded by the City makes it likely that the
residents of the project will turn to the City for a large proportion of municipal services. If
the property is annexed prior to build out, subsequent development projects under the
proposed plans may not be consistent with the sections referenced below and, therefore, may •
not be approvable.1 If the property is not annexed or is annexed after build out, it will be
an isolated island full of infrastructure/service deficiencies unless the area is planned to the
city§ standards, as identified in its General Plan. A summary of the General Plan Policies
with which the proposed plans are not consistent is attached to this letter as Annex No. 3.
S. The REIR Fails to Mitigate Adequately the Incompatibility of OR •Production and Residential Development. Impact 4.1-1 may not be sufficiently mitigated
by the oil spill plans remaining in effect as suggested in Mitigation Measures 4.1-la and
4.1-lb. Based upon the discussion in the REIR, the OR Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure Plan appears not to have been reviewed by County staff to determine if it •
adequately addresses everyday problems that occur with oil production. What mechanism is
in place to handle odors, small leaks, noise and nuisance complaints? What construction
standards will be imposed on structures constructed near oil wells or tank farms? Further,
since the development will depend in part on City services such as the Fire Department, City
staff must review these documents to assess their adequacy. Those documents are not
described in the REIR nor are they appended as exhibits. This makes the document flawed •
in that it does not provide disclosure of the mitigation measure and therefore renders it
impossible to determine its effectiveness. Mitigating measures that are in this Plan need to
be reviewed to determine if they are adequate enough to handle any potential problems. The
Plan does need to be reviewed by City staff. The REIR states that this Plan will be in
operation throughout the entire project. This would include site remediation, hazardous •
waste removal, and construction. The Plan will also be used for problems that may occur
with oil wells that remain in operation.
Another question involves the construction standards of oil operations adjacent
to structures. Fire Department construction standards only deal with the drilling of oil wells •
in populated areas which is contained in Uniform Fire Code Section 79.1101 (attached to this
871 Prior to approval of any emtid a ment. the city it requirml to fiid that the project oomfornra to the General Plan.
Ae city it unable to approve a project that doer mot comply with the General Ram. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 22, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 103
•
letter as Annex No. 15). Additior construction standards for construction of homes in
existing oil field, would be requires during the plan check process. These standards should
be described in detail in a revised and recirculated REIR.
• a. Page 4.1-8, line 37: The REIR talks about responsible agencies to
monitor the clean up of contaminated soil and ground water. To what standard will soil
contamination be cleaned? Who will monitor and review this data? Who will be the lead
agency? Will the City's Soil Cleanup Standard 431-92 be used for level of acceptance?
Local agencies should handle the hydrocarbon contamination. Regional Water Quality
• Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for water contamination. The Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) is responsible for hazardous wastes. Each agency will have
certain mitigation requirements based on reported levels of contamination. The levels of
contamination and the mitigation requirements warranted based on those levels should be
included in a revised and recirculated REIR. Otherwise, the reader has no way to determine
• the level of impact or whether the mitigation measures proposed in the REIR are sufficient to
mitigate that impact.
b. Page 4.1-10: Based on the map which shows the location of all oil
wells, it seems that the figure of ten (10) feet from an abandoned oil well may not be
realistic for future construction. Methane barriers and venting systems should be required.
c. 4.1-55, line 47: The REIR states that it will take twenty (20) years
to remove all existing oil field related pipelines tanks, etc. There is no mitigation measure to
address this problem and this impact should be identified as significant. If oil production is
• to continue for twenty (20) years, it must co-exist with urban development. The City
receives complaints on a daily basis from citizens regarding noise, odors, dust, leaks, and
other associated oil production problems. The Article 15 of the City Municipal Code
regulates oil operations. These regulations allow oil operators to co-exist, but to operate
safely in populated area . The County must adopt similar standards before the project is
approved, or else the ongoing oil operation will never be compatible with the residential use
as is claimed in the REIR.
d. Page 4.1-56, line 15 (Mitigation Measure 4.1-1a): A more detailed
explanation of how the Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan works is
required for the reader to assess its meaning and effectiveness to mitigate the significant
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 104
•
impact of oil field/residential compatibility. How will this plan mitigate the hazardous
material incident potential within the proximity to the project? The REIR must 15Q discuss
how the County will provide hazardous material response services to the project area. This
discussion should include how the project area will pay for these services (fiscal impacts). If
the County proposes to include the project area under the ORCO Fire Department's provider •
umbrella of the Orange County Hazardous Material Joint Powers Authority, the City and
Newport Beach Hazardous Materials Units will be providing the service without
reimbursement. Implementing hazardous materials response under the County's provider
umbrella has a significant impact on the Huntington Beach Fire Department and Newport
Beach Fire Department and needs to be addressed in the REIR with appropriate mitigation of •
those foreseeable impacts on those Cities' services.
e. Page, 4.1-56, line 21, (Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b): The REIR
suggests that by notifying all potential buyers of on-site residences, that the hazards of the oil
production facilities in the area for up to twenty (20) years will be mitigated. A more •
comprehensive mitigation plan for the impacts of oil production is required to mitigate the
impact of residential development immediately adjacent to working oil production facilities.
6. The REIR Ignores the Impacts of High Density Residential
Development on the Surrounding Community and Community Services. The REIR does
not address the increased severity of impacts on public services and utilities of the Project's •
high residential densities within the development areas. The REIR shows average residential
development density on the Mesa at 11.7 dwelling units per gross residential acre. When the
area required for streets is taken into account, this density becomes as high as 14.6 units to
the acre on average. This is an average density of development that dictates multi-story,
multifamily construction. With this being the composite average, then significant portions of •
the project will be at densities far above this average. The high density of the project and
the implications of the project's proposed development density are not disclosed in the REIR.
A multitude of additional impacts relating to this atypically high level of development are not
adequately considered in the EIR. Impacts to public safety services such as police (e.g.,
impacts on police patrol) and fire protection (e.g., impacts on types of equipment required •
and on fire access) are examples of areas in the analysis that are deficient as a result of not
disclosing or having dealt with the project's high development density. The high density will
have fiscal and financial implications that are crucial to the evaluation of the project
described in the REIR and its assessment of Project impacts. High density reduces market
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• •
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 105
•
and tax valuations and, therefore, the fiscal (tax) and financial (residents' property values
and likely average income) of the Project.
7. Miscellaneous.
•
a. Page 4.1-23, Lines 16-28: No mention is made of the proposal
in the Wetlands Restoration Plan (Appendix A) to drill a groundwater well for the Edwards
Thumb area. This point is significant to that area as well as to the groundwater in the area
because of the potential to cause seawater intrusion, degraded water quality, and settlement
• of the soil underlying the existing adjacent neighborhoods. A discussion on the potential for
these noted impacts should be included in this report.
b. Page 4.1-51, Lines 39-40: The statement that the design and
location of water and wastewater facilities will avoid or minimize impacts on coastal
• resources or views assumes too much without revealing the basis for those assumptions. In
fact, none of the planned facilities being relied on for water supply for the project are very
firm in their commitment and thus, it is not possible to know at this point what impacts the
final design might have. A water supply for this development should be planned such that all
affected agencies have full knowledge of the developer's proposals and can support the
• analyses and proposals of the developer from the start of the consideration of this report. In
this report, none of the affected agencies is referenced as having been contacted about their
involvement in providing a water supply. The City has no firm proposal to supply this area.
The other proposals suggested in the report have no concrete evidence to support them
either. In effect, this development has no complete water supply proposal presented in this
document.
•
A water supply that is firm, real and constructible must be identified in the REIR for the
report to truly convey to the public an understanding of the impacts from the project. A
complete description of the facility locations should be identified in order for responsible
agencies to assess the environmental impacts. It must have all affected agency input and
• tentative acceptance indicated in the report. The impacts to any agencies affected should be
identified and mitigation measures formulated.
C. Page 4.1-53, Line 34, Option B: The REIR does not show if
either of the proposed fire station sites are adequately located to meet Orange County
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 106
•
(ORCO) Fire Department standards of five (5) minutes for fire emergencies and eight (8)
minutes for paramedic services.
d. Page 4.1-54, Line 4, Option B: States that the ORCO lowlands
fire station would mitigate current Huntington Beach response deficiencies in the low lands •
residential area. More information is needed as to how the ORCO station, without an
agreement, would relate to the City of Huntington Beach response times.
C. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SmsbacrrY •
1. Stratigraphy and Soils. Page 4.2-1, Section 4.2.1.2, gives no
description of sediments below 35 feet. As was requested by C.D.M.G. Standard
Penetration Tests must be performed to confirm soil densification be performed below
30 feet and the results must be circulated in an appendix to the recirculated REIR so that •
there is public disclosure of the true conditions at the site. These tests were requested in the
C.D.M.G. comments (made with other State agencies) dated August 25, 1994. The REIR
also fails to comply with C.D.M.G.'s request that the deep dynamic compaction (DDC) and
stone column soils densification processes proposed to mitigate potential soils liquefaction
impacts must be re-evaluated at a higher ground acceleration value of 0.4 to 0.45g. The
REIR continues to evaluate these impacts based upon a ground acceleration of 0.25g ( ,
page 4.2-9, lines 46-47) despite the misleading discussion of ground acceleration at
page 4.2-8, lines 1-28.
2. Faulting and Seismicity.
•
a. Page 4.2-2, 4.2.1.4: The discussion of the Newport-Inglewood
Fault does to here state that the fault caused the destructive magnitude M 6.3 Long Beach
Earthquake with its epicenter near the coast between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach.
b. Further on in this section no mention is made of the offshore •
San Clemente Escarpment Fault that is believed to be capable of producing a magnitude
M 7 - M 7.5 earthquake and may also be the most likely nearby fault to produce a local
Tsunami.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 107
•
3. Geologic Hazards
a. Page 4.2-4,Seismic Shaking: This section discusses the WCC
(1983) probabilistic analysis of the level of ground motion to be used for the Bolsa Chica
Project and their justification for using 0.25g acceleration for design purposes. This section
also discusses the C.D.M.G.'s suggestion that based on "advanced knowledge" of seismic
stresses and fault slip rates, a much higher ground acceleration of 0.45g should be used.
The REIR does not resolve this wide difference in evaluation techniques and analysis and
continues to use inappropriate design criteria.
•
b. A minimum of a 0.4g acceleration level should be used in the
analysis of the liquefaction potential of the saturated sediments in the lowland area and the
proposed mitigation measures of DDC and stone column densification processes be tested
against this same level of ground shaking. This higher acceleration level is more of the
• ground shaking potential of a major earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault.
C. Page 4.2-8, Seismic Stress and Slip Rate: The Fault table in
this section, as well as the probabilistic analysis should include the offshore San Clemente
Escarpment Fault.
d. Page 4.2-10, Fault Movement: This section discusses the active
Newport-Inglewood Fault and its various branches through the planning area and studies in
line with the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act by WCC (1987a and 1991). They
accurately define the North Branch Fault as having the highest potential for producing
• surface fault rupture. However, this relatively high potential for surface ground rupture
through the planning area is not, as it should be, designated a Significant Impact in REIR.
Based on the WCC Reports (1987a and 1991) an Alquist-Priolo Exclusionary Zone for
habitable structures has been established through the area but it is treated as a "Standard
Condition" (SC-5) rather than as a Mitigation Measure to a Significant Impact. The potential
for surface ground rupture must be defined as a significant impact in Section 4.2.4.2 - Long
• Term Impacts, and then provisions made for the mitigation measures in Section 4.2.5.1,
mitigation of Long Term Impacts.
e. Page 4.2-33, Lines 1-8: Lines 4 and 5 state, "No significant
impacts are anticipated." The only reference made to support this statement is to the Uniform
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 108
•
Building Code as adopted by the County. Mitigation of all potential seismic impacts is based
on the requirement for using 0.40g as a design standard for residential structures. What
about utility designs? Utilities such as natural gas, sewer and water lines all utilize the
passive resistance of the soil to contain these systems. During a seismic event, this
resistance is reduced in many cases, causing utility pipeline failure. A criteria for utility •
design must be included in the report that will provide reasonable protection for these
facilities against a seismic event, including resistance to soil liquefaction if the soil studies
indicate such potential. These facilities should be designed for equivalent force resistance if
the project is to remain viable and be considered as having been constructed in accordance
with modern design practice. This will not be true if the utility systems both on and off the •
properties are not designed consistent with the buildings.
f. Page 4.2-34, Lines 11-19 and 25-31: In lines 11-19, reference
is made to a five million gallon reservoir. This appears to be the sole reference to such a
facility of this size. It is not known if this refers to the potential nine million gallon •
reservoir mentioned elsewhere in the REIR. Additionally, without the significant geologic
studies suggested as mitigation measures for the nine million gallon facility, the idea that "no
significant adverse impacts are anticipated" is questionable. By whose expertise is this
statement made? Furthermore, in lines 25-27, the statement is made that the site is
potentially unsuitable for such a facility. Impact 4.2-3 is a very significant impact that may
be impossible to mitigate for a structure constructed in the area of the project. The REIR •
should go into more detail about proposed methods of constructing such facilities in close
proximity to major active seismic areas. This is because the data presented in the report
casts sufficient doubt as to whether the Uniform Building Code's seismic design criteria is
applicable to a facility in close proximity to a major earthquake fault. Expected seismic
loadings should be addressed and suggestions for dealing with extraordinary loadings should •
be discussed. Authoritative predictions should be listed as to the potential for survival of a
water reservoir and its associated components, as well as the water distribution system. As
reservoirs are identified as emergency water facilities that will be critical for use after a
seismic event, this facility must be designed to be operable after such an event. If the
reservoir should fail, the dangers to residents should also be identified, such as flooding. As •
location is basic to the design process, further study as outlined above is called for in the
best interests of the City and the residents of the developments.
•
Discussion Draft Dated Soptambar 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 109
j 4. Liquefaction.
a. Page 4.2-14: This section discusses the potential for
Liquefaction in the lowlands as was presented in several TETC reports (1990 and 1991).
The TETC reports conclude that the top 30-35 feet of soil in the lowlands contain liquefiable
soil which could lead to from 2 to 5 inches of post earthquake settlement. This analysis is
based on using a ground acceleration of 0.25g. What if the site was subjected to 0.4g from a
local earthquake? Based on their analysis they recommend soil densification as one method
to reduce the potential for liquefaction as a Project Design Feature (PDF-1) rather then as a
• mitigation measure to a Significant Impact. Again, the liquefaction potential of the lowland
soils must be identified as a Significant Impact in Section 4.2.4.2 - Long Term Impacts. A
legally valid EIR might then recommend Mitigation Measures in Section 4.2.5, Mitigation
Measures for Long Term Impacts and then assess whether the remaining danger to persons
and property was a "significant impact" for purposes of CEQA.
b. The discussion of PDF-1 does not fully address the nature and
extent of either the DDC or Stone Column Techniques for soil densification. Accordingly, it
not possible for the reader to access accurately the effectiveness of the disguised mitigation
measures.
S. Tsunamis
a. Tsunamis are discussed in this section but there is no evidence
that an extensive study was conducted of the potential of a significant Tsunami's effect on the
Lowlands, nor for that matter on the residential development in the uplands. The REIR does
not discuss what a 6.6 to 9.8 feet runup would do to the proposed development at 5 feet
above mean sea level. They also do not analyze what a major earthquake on the San
Clemente Escarpment Fault might produce in the way of a Tsunami. The subject is not
adequately addressed in the REIR and potentially significant impacts, including potential
danger to the project residents and their homes is left undisclosed and unanalyzed.
•
b. Page 4.2-30, Lines 27-30: The statement that the potential for
tsunamis to cause impacts is remote must be supported by reference to an authority. The
REIR provides no support of evidence to corroborate the conclusions stated with respect to
the potential for tsunamis and for them to cause damage or injury. Established data
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 110
•
regarding the potential for tsunamis and seiche runup must be cited in the report or the
results of special studies done for the project on this subject must be presented. The
established data or special report must provide evidence to support the conclusions of the
report or else the report will not fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
•
6. Truck Routing for Contaminated Excavation Spoils Export. The
REIR indicates that during grading, the import and export of dirt etc. will occur. No
mitigation is mentioned regarding the use of City streets and the impact on roadways and
traffic. A traffic plan, outlining direction and streets to be used during this process, must be
developed. The Plan should include contingencies for hazardous wastes that may become •
involved in traffic collisions on any portion of the traffic route.
7. Subsidence. The REIR avoids consideration of subsidence relative to
oil field impacts. The developer should be required to perform a subsidence survey to •
determine if any change in elevation has occurred since the survey was performed in 1986.
The oil producer plans to abandon oil wells over the next twenty (20) years. Will the oil
producer choose to utilize new technology, such as slant drilling and/or water injection for
continued oil production? These points combined, the developer should be required to
perform a survey on an ongoing periodic basis, every two (2) years, for the next twenty (20) •
year period or however long oil production continues in the area. Oil removal may be a
major contributor to subsidence. The impacts of a twenty (20) year oil operation on the
development, including an analysis of all abandoned oil well reports, should also be included
in the REIR. A subsidence survey needs to be performed prior to REIR approval. A
subsidence study will allow for the identification of mitigation measures. If not done, and •
subsidence is occurring due to man made occurrences, the situation could result in the
continued sinking of property causing damage to structures as well as the infrastructure.
Attached to this letter as Annex No. 21, is a brief statement on subsidence and maps showing
the rate of subsidence around the site.
S. Improper Impact Significance Criteria. Page 4.20-19, lines 15-47 •
lists the significance criteria purportedly used by the REIR to assess seismic and geological
impacts; however, these criteria are not properly applied in identifying impacts from the
project. For example, if the potential for surface fault rupture, ground shaldng, and
liquefaction are assessed under the criteria listed here, they must all be considered
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 111
•
"Significant Impacts" to the proposed development and the REIR must then list appropriate
"Mitigation Measures" intended to reduce the impacts. Then and only then can the REIR
attempt to make a determination that the mitigation measures proffered to alleviate the
identified impacts are effective to reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. This
• process of identifying impacts, then identifying mitigation measures and then assessing the
remaining impact after mitigation is required to fulfill CEQA's mission of providing
disclosure to the public and agency decision-makers in an atmosphere of public
accountability.
D 9. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Iasiguificant
a. Page 4.2-21, 4.2.4.1, Short Term Impacts: Grading on the
Mesa under either Lowland Option A will require moving over 1,550,000 cu. yds. of soil
and under Option B will require moving over 3,450,000 cubic yards of soil. Even if this
i massive operation occurs over a period of years with proper noise and dust control it is likely
to create significant air, traffic, noise and other impacts, yet the REIR does not detail the
timing, phasing, truck routing or other aspects of this operation.' Grading of Lowlands
under Option B will also require compaction of approximately 2,400,000 yds. of soil and
gravel which is in and of itself a significant grading operation with its own potentially
• significant impacts.
b. Page 4.2-30, Long Term Impacts, Mesa Component: This
section includes discussions on the potential for surface fault rupture and the evaluation under
the Alquist-Priolo Act and the subsequent establishment of an exclusionary zone for habitable
structures, and concludes that the potential for surface fault rupture is an insignificant impact.
• There is a potential for surface rupture and severe ground shaking throughout the site and, as
881 For euample, if a fully-loaded double bottom dump truck is assumed to hold 16 cubic yards of non-
compacted soil, 3,450,000 of soil will require a total of 215,625 trucks. Over what periods)will these trucks be
loaded and unloaded? How and when will these trucks and the wsociateid heavy earth-roving sopment be brought
to orfvm the site? How many acres of earth surface will be dinurlred at one dime?(This statistic will be crucial
in determining the amount of PMN a Wwwwr generated from earth nerving weradows). Of course, the RE1R doss
not provide anything approaching this level of detail because the project is far too early in its design and planning.
This is a prime cuunple of why the Guidelines mandate the use of a staged ElR which reguires further public
environmental review as the design of the project proceeds.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 112
•
noted above, this potential must be labelled as a significant and unavoidable impact of the
project.
10. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Significant.
•
a. Page 4.2-33, 4.2.4.2, Short Term Impacts: Grading on the
Mesa as well as for Lowland Option B will require significant earth movement and is likely
to create extensive noise, dust and traffic impacts. The REIR must identify this as a
Significant Effect or Impact and then justify how proposed specific and objectifiable
mitigation measures will reduce this effect to insignificance. Limiting the offsite trips to 15 •
per hour (is that one way trips or round trips?) does not eliminate the likely particulate,
emission, noise and other impacts of the grading operation.12'
b. Page 4.2-34, Long Term Impacts, Mesa Component: This
section of the REIR should include the full discussion of the potential for hazardous Surface •
Fault Rupture on the North Branch Fault of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone and the need
to address the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act requirements and the need to establish
an Exclusionary Zone for residential and other habitable structures as true mitigation
measures.
C. Lowland Option B: This section should include a discussion of •
the potential for strong seismic shaking induced liquefaction in the lowland area. It should
also include a discussion of the impact on the proposed lowland development of the potential
tsunami hazard. It does not appear that the tsunami hazard has been adequately addressed in
the REIR.
11. Impact of Corrosive Soils is Not Mitigated. The idea, stated at Page
4.2-25, Lines 18-20 of the REIR, that 'common construction practice' will alleviate the very
significant impact of corrosion in this area is folly. In fact, common construction practice
does little to deal with corrosion of water utilities. The corrosion issues in the Bolsa China
are significant due to the close proximity of sea water. Based on the City's experience in the •
Huntington Harbor area's water distribution system, extraordinary efforts will be required to
891 Given the huge number of vuckr required to nave the nwasive amount of earth (both on the sue and for
imporr/export haub), how long will the grading operation take if this mitigation measure is smaly enforced? •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 113
•
mitigate the high potential for corrosion. This would include the special coating of metallic
parts, metallic parts made from noble materials (such as Type 316 stainless steel), and a
cathodic protection system plan that would include every affected metallic part placed
underground. "Normal construction practice" or other typical standards will not meet the
• long term needs of the City's water utility or any other. If special measures are not taken
over and above "normal construction practice," the system installed will not last the usual
minimum 50 year design period. If owned and maintained by the City, significant
maintenance efforts will be involved in the frequent replacement of corroded parts. This
would translate into not only a significant cost to the City or to the development's residents,
• but also into a time budget problem as an abnormal amount of time would be spent by work
crews performing the maintenance. This adds much annoyance and inconvenience for the
residents as their streets would be constantly tom up. It is estimated that as much as
$100,000 per year could be spent on maintenance due to corrosion in this area if proper
mitigation measures are not included in the project.
• 12. Mitigation Measures Are Not Effective.
a. Mesa Component: This section should include a description of
the mitigation measures needed to preclude the potential hazard of surface fault rupture and
thus establish a sufficiently wide exclusionary zone for habitable structures to evade impacts,
if possible.
b. Impact 4.2.3 concerns potentially active fault splays in the area
of the proposed 9 million gallon water reservoir on the Mesa. If further geologic investi-
gation determines the site to be unsuitable, then the reservoir must be relocated to a proven
• suitable site. The REIR should present alternative sites (both onsite and offsite) for the
relocated tank. This would eliminate the potential for an Unavoidable Significant Impact as
listed in Section 4.2.6.
C. The REIR should include descriptions of mitigation measures
• necessary to prevent damaging liquefaction in the saturated sediments of the Lowlands if they
are to be developed. This should include an in depth explanatim of the DDC and rock
column options with engineering data provided in an appendix to assure the method's
effectiveness.
•
Discussion Drsft Dated Ssptsmbsr 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 114
•
d. After the rewritten and recirculated REIR provides in depth and
complete evaluation of the potential Tsunami Hazard to the proposed development, as
recommended above, appropriate mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate those hazards
must be provided here to the extent feasible.
•
e. Page 4.2-35, Line 35: The REIR states that the "North Branch
Fault may exist and cause surface rupture in the proposed location of the 9 million gallon
water reservoir. Therefore, such rupture may result in the loss of water for domestic and
firefighting use." The REIR recommends a "geologic investigation" for the mitigation.
Further explanation of this "geologic investigation" and the funding source is needed. •
No mention is made in the REIR as to the required fire flow demands for the project area.
It is estimated that this project would require a fire flow of up to 4,000 gpm over and above
the domestic water flow requirements. Further fire flow study is required including back up
water storage. •
f. Page 4.2-35, Lines 39-41: This proposed mitigation measure is
inadequate because it completely fails to mitigate the impact. Performing a study does
nothing to mitigate Impact 4.2-3. The study referenced in this mitigation measure should be
performed now, in conjunction with the consideration of the REIR, and its results discussed
in this document. The study should contain all elements necessary to determine if the site •
selected is suitable for a nine million gallon reservoir facility in accordance with established
engineering principles. The future of the available water supply system for this project may
rest with this concern. If the site is determined to be unsuitable, the REIR can then address
alternatives to the proposed site and analyze them in the same manner. In the end, at least
one workable site should be listed in the report with certainty. To stave off the true impact of •
the potentially active North Branch Fault with further study is an inadequate effort for the
purpose of providing real facts needed to consider a development proposal of this magnitude.
D. CHAPTER 4.3 - HAZARDOUS SuBgrANCEs •
1. Inadequate Response to Comment. Substantially all issues raised in the
Comments regarding the DEIR continue to apply to the REIR. Further, virtually all of the
specific data formerly included in the DEIR is deleted in this edition. There is no information
•
Discussion Draft Dated Sspton*er 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 115
•
on the presence of heavy metals or DDT. TPH surveys that have been done are only generally
described. This information should have been included in the REIR. As it stands, the responses
to the Comment and the issues raised in this letter must be recirculated, together with the results
of the technical studies required, in a new, rewritten REIR which adequately discloses the nature
• and extent of the existing hazardous materials/contamination at the site, evaluates the health risks
(both to humans and to the wetlands biota) and requires legally adequate, specific mitigation
measures to address the significant and potentially significant impacts so identified.
2. Cost of Remediation Must Be Further Detailed and Allocated. Without
j more information on the cost and extent of remediation, it is not possible to evaluate the
economic feasibility of site clean up. A further complicating aspect of this question is the degree
of oil operator responsibility for the costs of remediation. The REIR does not delineate the
assignment of costs of remediation between costs to be born by project development and costs
which ought to be borne by the oil operators. Delineation of these costs will have an impact,
in particular, on the financial feasibility of the mitigation bank required under Lowland
Option A.
3. Further Study and Disclosure of Nature and Extent of Contamination
is Required. The Project site has been intensively developed for oil and gas exploration,
• extraction and related operations. The REIR acknowledges the need for additional
characterization work and future environmental testing in several instances (,=, e,gL,4.3.1,line
36; 10.3, line 46; 10.5.1, line 26). This work must be completed and the results of the studies
disclosed in an appendix to the REIR in order to understand the true hazards of developing
residential properties adjacent to an oilfield in operation for 80-years. The nature and extent of
existing contamination and the extent required remediation(as well as the techniques and phasing
of that remediation) must be disclosed to the decision makers and the public prior to setting in
motion the grand development scheme presented in the REIR.
4. Further Study and Disclosure of Health Risks to Project Residents is
Required. Several sections of the REIR indicate that further health risk assessments must be
• performed. In order for the public and the decision makers_ to understand the environmental
consequences of planning the project site for medium to high density urban development (with
the concomitant potential exposure of thousands of people to potentially hazardous substances),
the health risk assessment must be included as part of the REIR. As currently written, it is not
possible for the reader to determine how the future health risk assessment will form the basis
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 116
•
for the County's standard nor what human-health risk (1 in a million, 1 in hundred thousand?)
level the County would accept as an "insignificant" environmental impact.
S. Reabandoning of OR Wells Must Be Accomplished under Current
Standards. Sections 4.3.3.2 and 10.3.2 (SC-1 for Hazardous Materials) states that, "All oil •
wells will be abandoned in accordance with state and local regulations." The City assumes that
this means that all oil and gas related operations, including without limitation, wells, pipelines,
etc. will be abandoned in accordance with regulations in effect today. Those regulations offer
a higher degree of safety than the regulations under which older wells were abandoned and must
be implemented, as a mitigation measure, to limit the significance of the impact of the •
abandoned operations on the adjacent medium to high density neighborhood proposed in the
REIR. Thus, for example, all wells abandoned prior to the effective date of the 1984 regulations
must be re-abandoned in accordance with 1994 standards and, in the future, all well must be
abandoned in accordance with whatever more restrictive regulations are subsequently adopted
by agencies having jurisdiction over such matters. Further, as a mitigation measures, the wells •
should be required to fulfill the more restrictive measures of the City regarding
abandonment.l
6. City Standards for Soil Remediation Should Be Applied. What clean
up standard is going to be used to remediate the soils? The County does not have a soil clean •
up standard for residential development in abandoned oil fields. If the County does not
remediate soils to the City standards City residents and project residents may be significantly
impacted. During the development of the Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, GeoScience
Analytical conducted research locally, on a State level and Federally to obtain information
necessary to establish levels of hydrocarbon contamination that were acceptable for the general
public as well as for the environment. GeoScience Analytical's report, (attached as Annex No. •
18), answers many questions regarding the issues of hydrocarbon contaminated soil as well as
other hazardous waste constituents. The County has no such standard and needs to adopt the
City's Standard for this project or conduct a similar study.
•
gol The REnt does not expressly state what standard will be use so mediate contamination at well sites. As
noted in the Comment, then an sigmficaw diffw= w between dw Cosay's standards and the Cisy's and given
the location of the proposed project within an island surrounded by the City,the Cisy's standards should be applied
A copy of the City's Standards for soil nmediation was attadied so she Camant as Col/mENT ANNEr No. 38. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 117
•
7. Phase H Assessment Is Required. The REIR does not mention the need
for a Phase II Site Assessment. During remediation a Health and Safety Plan will be required.
Site Auditors will be needed to audit the field activities at various times to evaluate the execution
of sample identification, sample control, chain of custody procedures, field documentation and
• sampling operations. The Site Auditor is also responsible for maintaining a safe working
environment and ensuring that "ON" site conditions are not allowed to cause "OFF" site
problems. The need for a Phase H site assessment is based on the lack of information pertaining
to the entire site that is not adequately covered in the REIR. Unknown sumps, pipelines,
chemical contamination, water contamination, along with the lack of analytical test data,
• presents a major problem when remediation is started. Unknowns must be planned for prior to
any remediation on site. This need was identified in the City's Comment to the DEIR and has
not been addressed in the REIR. The concern is found in Annex No. 18 and 19 and questions
dated January 27, 1994. The summary of impacts table summarizing the hazardous materials
impact section states that the oil operator will be required to remediate all areas of known
• contamination. Is this true for unknown areas as well? Will there be an agreement signed
between the developer and the oil operator for these "known and unknown sites?" Past history
has demonstrated that once the oil operator is gone, the burden falls upon the property owner
or the developer.
8. Community Contingency Plan Is Required. A Community Contingency
Plan should be required due to problems with on site remediation of hydrocarbon contaminated
soils. The Grading Mitigation Plan is an acceptable method of handling those situations
mentioned in Section 4.3. However, unknown situations must be dealt with in a Phase H Site
Assessment. A sample Contingency Plan, (attached to this letter as Annex No. 17), is a copy
of a Community Contingency Plan for the NESI site located in Huntington Beach.
•
9. '.Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.3-1 The REIR addresses the existing environmental setting,
however a Phase H Site Assessment is necessary for the project. Some environmental testing
was done in areas of known contamination, a closer review of all areas should be addressed.
Refer to Phase H statement in the Comment. Although this issue was identified to the County
six (6) months ago, it still has not been addressed in the REHL
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 118
•
b. Page 4.3-9, Line 49: The REIR indicates that no soil sampling has
occurred in the area of the seasonal ponds where sandblasting and painting were conducted.
Also no tests for lead contamination have been performed. Past tests are not sufficient and a
Health Risk Assessment, again, is not the appropriate method for examining site contamination.
The Grading Mitigation Plan needs to be reviewed by the lead agency as well as an outside •
consultant. This document is the foundation for the remediation of all area of contamination
whether they are identified or not.
C. Page 4.3-13, Line 1: This is an understatement. There is a high
probability that additional areas of contamination and abandoned oil pipelines will be found •
during the construction phase.
d. Page 4.3-14, Line 34, Soil Contamination: A Phase II Site
Assessment will characterize the project area and eliminate the potential for unknowns.
•
e. Page 4.3-15,Line 3, Long Term Impacts: The Division of Oil and
Gas must perform a site review prior to the development of the property. An oil well review
should be conducted on all oil wells abandoned to prior day codes. PRC § 3208.1 (a copy of
which is attached as Annex No. 20) requires site reviews. If a site review is not performed,
leaking abandoned oil wells will present major problems with respect to methane gas, and
possibly oil leaks.
f. Page 4.3-15, Line 31, Mitigation Measures: Again the need for a
complete Phase II Site Assessment.
g. Page 4.3-15,Line 49,Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: The fourteen(14) •
inch, one hundred fifty (150) pounds per square inch (psi) "wet gas line' that runs through the
site is required to be located no closer than twenty (20) feet from any buildings. Twenty (20)
feet is not a safe distance. Further study of an appropriate distance from buildings is necessary.
A study should be performed to establish a safe route for any major pipeline. Explosion and
fire hazards have occurred in past instances. For example, in the Seacliff Development adjacent •
to the Bolsa Chica, a pipeline ruptured in 1991 spewing oil over numerous homes and also
releasing natural gas. If an ignition had occurred, innocent victims could have been injured of
killed. The pipeline was located in the street, however, the product release covered an area of
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 119
•
approximately 300 to 500 feet. Pipeline setback is a critical issue that has not been established
in the REIR.
E. CHAPTER 4.4 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
•
1. Groundwater Well at Edwards Thumb Could Cause Significant
Impact. Page 4.4-10, Lines 10-13: The proposal to construct a groundwater production well
in the Edwards Thumb area should be added to the explanation of PDF-6. The well is a
significant item that could impact the groundwater in the area.
•
2. Potential Impacts Will Exist Even with Operation of Proposed Pump
Stations.
a. Page 4.4-11, Lines 1-2 and 47-49: In lines 1-2, sediment
• referenced in these lines and in lines 46-50 on page 4.4-10 could be carried to the City's existing
Bolsa Chica Stormwater Pump Station. This could impact the operation of the station as well
as affecting its reliability. Furthermore, cleanup of this sediment and other debris that may be
carried with it would result in a cost to the City on the order of$1,000 to $50,000, depending
on what substances are contained in the transported material. In lines 47-49, the statements
• made offer no reference of authority. At the very least, the OCWD should be cited as to
whether this statement could be true.
b. Page 4.4-12, Lines 39-40: Redundancy in the pumping system as
noted may not effectively reduce potential impacts of siltation based on the City's experience in
operating 15 similar stations over the past 30+ years. Siltation can cause many types of
problems, and if the main station is inundated with enough silt to cause a malfunction, the
backup station will usually end with the same fate. The only realistic solution is to stop the
siltation from reaching the stations. Typical solutions involve design of desiltation structures
into the drainage system upstream from the pump stations. These structures are designed to
affect the water flow such that the silt drops out of the flowstream and is collected in a container
• that must be later cleaned out. Silt production can also be reduced at the source through various
onsite means, such as a containment wall surrounding a site or desiltation structures built into
the site drainage system. Any desiltation structure utilizing accepted engineering designs would
be acceptable in this case.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 120
•
C. Page 4.4-14, Lines 1-3 and 38-40: In lines 1-3, the idea that
having alternative fuel sources to operate a pump station will reduce concerns regarding the
station's failure to a level of insignificance is a falsehood. From the City's experience, loss of
fuel is one of the least likely items to cause a pump station to fail in a storm event. Pump
clogging from foreign objects entering it via the storm drainpipe system, controller failure, •
sensor failure and mechanical breakdown are all much more likely occurrences that will cause
the station to stop operation. None of these possibilities is discussed. As a result, the discussion
presented should be considered inadequate. Mitigation measures that will address the most
common pump station failures should be addressed, such as the need for desiltation structures
in the drainage system to reduce pump station silt buildup, effective trash racks in the drainage •
system and at the pump station to reduce pump clogging, adequate backup of control systems
and their associated sensors, and finally, an electronic system that will monitor the condition and
operation of the pump station so that if it fails during a storm event, proper personnel will be
dispatched promptly to return the station to operation.
•
d. Page 4.4-15, Lines 21-23. Rerouting of the Bolsa Chica Pump
Station (correct name) will result in a significant potential liability for the City, who operates
that pump station and is responsible for the drainage area served by the station. If adjacent
neighborhoods were to be flooded at some point due to the rerouting, the City could be liable
for damage estimated to be several million dollars. Rerouting of that station's discharge would •
require review by the City and would require its approval. If the City exercises its right to deny
approval of the rerouting, what options exist for this proposed plan? In the converse, if the
discharge is rerouted, would the rerouter then assume the liability resulting from the rerouting?
e. Page 4.4-19, Lines 1-3, 14, and 20: In lines 1-3, the City, as
owner of the Bolsa Chica Pump Station, must approve any rerouting of its facility. This is not •
mentioned. Liability is a key issue here. If any rerouting of the pump station's discharge is
accomplished, and flooding of adjacent neighborhoods were to occur in a storm event, the City
could be held liable for millions of dollars in property darnage. This could mean a significant
financial problem for the City as a result. Confidence in the City could be reduced as a result
as well. Lower property values and increased insurar►ce costs for those homeowners could also •
result. The costs of these effects appear significant but exact values are unknown.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 121
•
3. Further Mitigation Is Required to Improve Water Quality Flowing into
the Wetlands from the EGGW Channel. Page 4.4-16, Lines 41-50: Line 41 states that the
water quality from the north pump station will be the same as that in the EGGW Channel. The
City's experience has not been the same due to the seasonal nature of storms in this area.
• Consequently, the majority of the runoff into the City operated pump stations that discharge into
the EGGW Channel during the months of April through September is water from lawn irrigation
and the hosing down of private property. On the way to the storm drain, the water picks up
anything that lies in the gutters and carries it into the pump station. As the stations operate on
an automatic cycle, the water gets pumped into the EGGW Channel at various intervals. Many
of the intervals are lengthy enough for the water to become potentially septic. As such, the
water quality in the channel may be impacted significantly enough to degrade the water in the
channel to unacceptable levels. Since the current practice has been standard acceptable practice,
mitigation measures would need to be implemented if the channel water quality is impacted
significantly. Measures might involve more frequent pumpdowns of the pump station forebays,
disinfection processes that would reduce degradation of water quality in the forebays or some
other means to meet the necessary water quality standards. Furthermore, the first rains of the
season usually carry a significant amount of automobile fluid into the storm drains which does
impact the water quality of the pump station discharge. This has been sufficiently documented
across the country, resulting in NPDES standards for same.
4. Insignificance of Ground Water Impacts Must be Supported by
Evidence.
a. Page 4.4-13,Lines 5-7, 19-21, and 50: The statement that no long
term adverse impacts to ground water are expected is significant but unsupported by adequate
• authority. It is not known whether OCWD, manager/overseer of the Santa Ana River
groundwater basin, has been consulted or has endorsed this comment. Such a statement should
be supported by OCWD. Furthermore,just because the California RWQCB and Orange County
EMA have cleanup oversight of the SOVI gas plant, it can't be said that the potential impact to
groundwater quality is not considered significant. Having authority over the cleanup does not
• mean that significant impacts on the groundwater has not already occurred. Groundwater
cleanup is a lengthy process, usually taking many years. If groundwater cleanup is necessary,
what are the expected parameters?. In line 50, reference is made to a "direct fuel" alternative
power source. As operator of 15 storm water pumping stations employing the most effective,
advanced technology in the water industry, City personnel are unfamiliar with this terminology.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 122
•
No other information can be found on that alternative. The author should explain what "direct
fuel" is so that others can also understand what is attempting to be conveyed in the text.
b. Page 4.4-16, lines 47-48, the statement that the south pump station
discharge to the seasonal pond area will increase recharge of the semi-perched zone. What are •
the groundwater quality impacts of this? What does OCWD or any other authority have to say
about this? None of answers is contained in this REIR. The report should document the review
of the potential for groundwater degradation with OCWD. OCWD should determine the
problems associated with this issue and suggest or require appropriate mitigation measures.
•
S. Potential for Impacts of Quality of City Water Supply Must Be
Disclosed and Analyzed. Page 4.4-14, lines 38-40, it is stated that there may be potential
degradation of the groundwater quality due to tidal inundation. What is the effect on the
groundwater quality of the City's water supply? The City relies on groundwater for about 3/4
of its water supply. If degradation of the groundwater occurs in the vicinity of the City's wells,
what are the impacts to the City? This issue is significant and should be discussed. If the
groundwater table is degraded to such a degree to render the City's wells unusable, the impacts
to the City and the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) will be significant. Since the City has
only its connections to MWD to rely on if its wells are no longer useable, this would mean an
impact of an additional 26,000 acre-feet(8.5 trillion gallons)of water would need to be supplied •
to the City by MWD. Since MWD is currently in a position such that it cannot supply all its
contracted demands, this would further burden that agency's system. Additionally, it would
mean that the City's customers would have to pay three times as much as they do now for water,
meaning significantly higher water bills. Secondarily, the City's customers would experience
a significant reduction in the water quality they are used to since MWD water contains about
twice as many salts as the City's groundwater.
6. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.4-7, lines 16-18: By how much will the amount of sediment
increase, both with a rock or hard surface lining of the EGGW channel and without? This same •
question was asked in the Comment and remains unanswered in the REIR. The County must
respond by (i) explaining how and whether the EGGW channel will be lined as suggested,
showing its estimation and the basis for its estimation of the amounts of sediments under each
scenario and the expected impacts from the anticipated increase in sedimentation.
•
Discussion Dreh Dated Septsmbw 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 123
•
b. Page 4.4-8, Lines 26-36: The statement contained in lines 6-9 on
page 4.5-25 is significant and should be added to this paragraph.
C. Page 4.4-11, lines 10-13: How much is the increased sediment
• loading? This question was, like the immediately preceding issue, raised in the Comment and
not answered in the REIR. Here again, the County must detail the estimated increase in
sediment loading, its basis for that estimate and the anticipated harm from this effect.
d. Page 4.4-13, lines 30-32: Maintenance dredging is stated to be by
hydraulic method. If so, where is the location of the detention pond to process unsuitable
material? Is this method feasible within proposed wetland area? What noise, odor, hazardous
materials and risk of upset impacts will this process have to the wetlands and to the residents
of the City and the project?
e. Page 4.4-14, lines 42-45: The paragraph comprising appears to
have nothing to do with Impact 4.4-2.
f. Page 4.4-17, Lines 26-27: No reference of authority is given for
this statement. Once again, the OCWD is not referenced either, so without their concurrence
this statement is not substantiated adequately.
g. Page 4.4-18, Lines 23,40 and 41: The REIR suggests that all of
the groundwater mitigation measures listed be reviewed and approved by the County of Orange.
This should read "the Orange County Water District," which is a separate and distinct agency
whose purpose is to manage-and oversee the operation of the groundwater basin in reference.
•
h. Page 4.4-19, line 14, reference should be made to the authority of
approval of the OCWD for the groundwater issue discussed in Mitigation Measure 4.4-5.
i. Page 4.4-19,line 20, the mitigation for MM 4.4-7 is listed as being
• the same as for MM 4.4-4. This mitigation will not work because MM 4.4-4 contains no
elements for dealing with the shallow groundwater problem identified in Impact 4.4-7, for which
MM 4.4-7 is supposed to mitigate. A means to eliminate the potential for inundation of
subterranean structures and possible springs. This would place a significant burden on utility
companies utilizing underground vaults. Significant deterioration over time will result. The
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
•October 4, 1994
Page 124
•
City would need to spend an estimated $20,000 in additional funds each year to pump out these
structures each time they must be entered as well as to replace the interior piping, equipment
vault structure hardware. Drainage pump stations will work longer hours pumping water
infiltrating the drainage systems, resulting in increased fuel and maintenance costs on the order
of $1-10,000. Residents may experience grass and shrubs dying as a result of their receiving •
too much water from the inundation. Further study is called for to address the mitigation of the
above items.
F. CHAPTER 4.5 - WATER OUALPPY •
1. NPDES Permit Is Required. The Revised EIR identifies the need to
secure a 401 and 404 permit but does not mention the need for a 402 (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)) permit. This permit is issued at the State level and
would be processed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. •
2. Deletion of Tidal Inlet.The revised project has deleted the tidal inlet from
the project. The new project plan proposes that the wetlands restoration and tidal waterway
enhancement will discharge solely into Huntington Harbor. After review of the REIR, we
believe that additional backup material and/or clarification from the applicant is required to •
support the impact assessment of the more isolated tidal system. The Draft EIR cites recent
consultant studies which purportedly show that the new wetlands system will improve water
circulation, thereby enhancing water quality. However, the reader must accept the validity of
the findings on faith since the details of the analysis are not described in the REIR, nor are those
report readily available. The REIR briefly mentions that water quality conditions in the
proposed project were assumed based upon a residence time analysis. This is a simplistic •
hydraulic model approach which merely calculates flow velocities and excursion. A more
sophisticated analysis should have been performed to model the actual temporal and spatial
variation of dissolved oxygen levels within the wetlands channel network as affected by benthic
demand, temperature and other parameters. Similarly, point source and non-point source
pollutant loadings should be better studied to describe the expected flushing and water quality •
aspects of the proposed improvements. It is not clear to the reader, that the proposed system
of full tidal and muted tidal channels and embayments truly achieves the stated "highest quality
water feasible for the wetlands system" as so declared by the WRP. The REIR's analysis
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 22, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 125
•
focused too much attention on velocity-type impacts and made rather quick assumptive and
unsubstantiated reasoning as the basis for water quality impact conclusions.
3. Adequacy of REIR Analysis. The REIR reverses the County's position
with respect to tidal inlet impacts. The DEIR was unequivocal in its conclusion that the tidal
inlet was a vital necessity to the overall flushing and circulation characteristics of the wetlands
component. The inlet alternative has now been declared to be too impacting for reasons that
were not presented in the DEIR. This reversal in impact analysis leads one to question the
validity of declarations now stated in the REIR. For example, it appears as if the inlet was
• never required to produce the water quality objectives for wetlands restoration in the first place;
so, what assurance is there that the project will now perform to expectations? Further, as noted
in Part I., above, the negative comments on the particular design of the County's formerly
proposed ocean connection should not result, as appears to be the case, in the County attempting
to wash its hands of the matter in the entirety. To the contrary, the County should be striving
to provide the ocean connection which the DEIR attempted to justify while altering the design
of that connection in a manner which mitigates the negative impacts noted in the comments to
the DEIR. Mere deletion of a component which the County's own environmental review
indicated was critical to complete wetlands restoration is not sufficient analysis under CEQA.
• 4. AdditionalInformationRequired. More supportive technical information
is required to describe the wetlands design process, i.e., how the new proposal was formulated,
together with analysis to support more fully its ability to maintain high levels of water quality.
Too much of the WRP design has been left to post-project monitoring and broadly outlined
procedures to check if the system will work as intended. Such policy is ill-advised as it may
well be too late to take necessary corrective action after the fact. All parties involved will
0 attempt to avoid the expensive remedial responsibilities which will be required if the proposed
muted tidal system and periodic dredging of contaminated sediments does not perform and the
restoration must be redesigned after implementation has commenced. Therefore, the REIR must
disclose all risks, uncertainties and design sensitivities now and, in so'doing, the WRP should
clearly address and disclose the matrix of corrective action that might be required along with
• specific response and responsibilities of the various agencies and parties who will perform the
required remediation.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 126
•
S. Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan.
a. WRP p. 1-19, § 1.5.3.4:The revised EIR has not demonstrated that
this objective, "highest quality water feasible% will be achieved as a result of the project design.
b. WRP p. C-A-7, § 1.2.4.1: Dissolved oxygen levels of 3 seem to
be a sub-standard goal in conflict with earlier highest quality objectives. Insufficient modeling
analysis has been done to verify that standards will be met.
C. WRP p. C-A-26, § 1.4.2.1.e: Annual sampling is inadequate to •
truly monitor project waterways. If a program is necessary to check for possible problems, what
are those problems and how can they be rectified? More discussion is required in the EIR on
project risks, uncertainties, and sensitivities.
d. WRP p. C-A-64, § 1.5.3.Le: What if design hydraulic regime •
is not shown to be achieved by monitoring? Discuss project risks, uncertainties, and sensitivities
in EIR and what methods might be required to address potential problems. Who will be
responsible for taking corrective action?
e. WRP p. C-B-18, § 2.4.1.c: The REIR must discuss what water
quality control measures will be necessary to remedy potential problems, and who will be
responsible for their implementation.
6. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 3-29, lines 4548: The new wetlands system relies on •
connection to Huntington Harbor, yet the statement is made that a future tidal inlet may be
desirable to achieve wetlands objectives. The proposed project concedes that a tidal inlet is too
impacting (and as noted elsewhere, the City takes issue with that approach), however the
inference is that the inlet may be necessary to achieve water quality objectives in the wetlands
area. More discussion is necessary to outline under what circumstances the inlet may be •
required or why it may be needed. Does this mean that the revised proposal has the potential
for less than desirable water quality conditions?
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
1
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
• October 4, 1994
Page 127
•
b. Page 3-45, lines 38-41: Does the project phasing result in short
term water quality impacts due to size of scale limitations?
C. Page 4.5-32,Lines 15-20: Reference is made to the special BMP's
referenced ("filtered catch basins, oil/water separators, or equivalent measures") to improve the
quality of the urban runoff. Who will maintain these devices/structures? How will they be
maintained? Who will monitor the results of their use to ensure the implied result? None of
these questions is answered. Without proper maintenance and monitoring, these
devices/structures will not provide the mitigation measures needed. It is expected that the
• residents of the development will be paying the costs to perform this work, which can be on the
order of an additional $1,000 - $50,000, to maintain the quality of the urban runoff.
d. Page 4.5-33, Lines 35-49: The concepts discussed in this section
do not reference concurrence by OCWD or any other reference of authority. Without this
• concurrence, the concepts may not be acceptable to the City. There is no reasonable way for
the City to ascertain them on its own.
e. Page 4.5-34, Lines 28-30: The same comments noted in Option
A will be the same here for Option B.
• f. Page 4.5-35,Lines 1-14: OCWD must concur that the project has
no long term significant impacts. Otherwise the statements in the REIR to that effect are without
foundation and have no credibility. The County should have prepared the REIR in consultation
with the OCWD and the REIR should note the opinion and input of OCWD.
• g. Page 4.5-11, Line 1, Trace Metals: Metals are located throughout
the project site. Most of the metals have been found in bays and estuaries. These are most
probably related to the production of oil on the site. What agency will approve and monitor the
cleanup of these sites? Since these metals are considered a regulated hazardous waste will the
Department of Toxic Substance Control be the lead agency or will it be delegated? The same
• question applies to detected pesticides. According to the REIR and Table 4.5-9, certain areas
exceed acceptable levels of metals. With metal levels exceeding regulated levels, local agencies
do not have the authority to monitor or approve their cleanup. The DTSC is the agency that
oversees hazardous waste cleanup. DTSC needs to review and approve the cleanup plan for the
method of removing and the disposal of these metals. Metals should not be remediated and left
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 128
•
in place. Currently in an area in Huntington Beach, metal contamination was found in the soil.
The developer was required to remove the metals from the site and dispose of them as required
by Federal law. Metals in water, bays and estuaries are more difficult to remove. A detailed
plan for removing metals must be developed as part of the recirculated REIR.
•
h. Page 4.5-26 Line 20, Remedial Action Plans (RAP): The REIR
states that County EMA will be responsible for ensuring compliance through it's standards.
What standard will they use and enforce. The RAP is based on a Health Risk Assessment, again
this is not the proper tool for remediating existing conditions. Again the proper tool is a
comprehensive Phase 11 Site Assessment as stated in a previous section of this document. •
4.5-11, Line 1, Trace Metals: Metals are located throughout the project site. Most of the
metals have been found in bays and estuaries. These are most probably related to the production
of oil on the site. What agency will approve and monitor the cleanup of these sites? Since these
metals are considered a regulated hazardous waste will the Department of Toxic Substance
Control be the lead agency or will it be delegated? The same question applies to detected •
pesticides. According to the REIR and Table 4.5-9, certain areas exceed acceptable levels of
metals. With metal levels exceeding regulated levels, local agencies do not have the authority
to monitor or approve their cleanup. The DTSC is the agency that oversees hazardous waste
cleanup. DTSC needs to review and approve the cleanup plan for the method of removing and
the disposal of these metals. Metals should not be remediated and left in place. Currently in
an area in Huntington Beach, metal contamination was found in the soil. The developer was •
required to remove the metals from the site and dispose of them as required by Federal law.
Metals in water, bays and estuaries are more difficult to remove. A detailed plan for removing
metals must be developed as part of the REIR.
i. 4.5-26, Line 20, Remedial Action Plans (RAP): The REIR states •
that County EMA will be responsible for ensuring compliance through it's standards. What
standard will they use and enforce. The RAP is based on a Health Risk Assessment, again this
is not the proper tool for remediating existing conditions. Again the proper tool is a
comprehensive Phase H Site Assessment as stated in a previous section of this document.
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated Soptambor 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 129
•
G. CHAPTER 4.6 - COASTAL HYDRAULICS
1. Sediment Increase in Huntington Harbor. The points raised in the
Comment still apply. There is no mention of possible sediment increase in the harbor adjacent
• to the Percy and Warner docks. While increased tidal flow should have a beneficial effect on
water quality, it may have an adverse effect on sediment build-up which would require dredging.
This area already requires periodic dredging. The mitigation plan should include frequency of
dredging as well as funding methods.
• 2. Miscellaneous.
a. Page 4.5-31, lines 1-3: Who will be responsible for debris
removal? How much material must be handled at what frequency?
• b. Page 4.5-33, line 23: How much dredging will need to be done
and by whom? This was raised in the Comment and is not addressed in the REIR
C. Page 4.6-3, line 15: High flow velocities under Warner Avenue
Bridge under existing conditions are stated to reach 12.8 fps; however, the REIR listed the value
as 11.5 fps. Which is correct, and why the difference? What is the impact of the higher high
• flow velocity?
d. Page 4.6-3, line 33: Residence time analysis is too simplified a
method for water quality assessment. Relative differences in residence times do not necessarily
imply better conditions between the existing and proposed project conditions. A more
• sophisticated simulation of Do levels and non-point and point source pollution dispersion
throughout system would be a more appropriate tool to evaluate the design of the wetlands area
and sensitivities in its performance.
e. Page 4.6-13, line 41-42: Lower residence times do not of
• themselves imply improved water quality. More specific analysis of proposed project using
more sophisticated analysis is required to substantiate assumption made. For example, what if
newly created water area have high benthic demand and high BoD loading during warm water
conditions?
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septwnber 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 130
•
f. Page 4.6-14ff, line 35-50;1-38 What is the specific criteria for
linking project effects to bulkhead erosion? It is conceivable that much debate could take place
arguing over the cause of future erosion in an attempt to show that the project may not be the
culprit. Monitoring without clear criteria and responsibility links does not provide sufficient
mitigation assurances. •
g. Page 11-4,lines 34-37: What is the criteria for increased bed scour
and how is it to be determined that the project is at cause, and who makes the determination?
•
H. CHAPTER 4.7 - MARIIVE/AOUATIc BIOLOOY1'
1. Hazardous Materials Impacts. Page 4.7-31,Line 28 and following deals
with existing oil operations near the wetlands. Who will conduct the inspections of the existing
facilities and enforce this section? The plan should be reviewed and approved by the enforcing
agency. The Oil Field Enforcement Section of Orange County (OFESOC) would have the
responsibility for enforcing oil related issues. What will OFESOC's response time be to
complaints, problems, oil leaks, or other issues in this area. The REIR needs to identify the
level of service that will be provided.
2. Comments on the WRP. The following comments relate to the potential •
biological impacts and other aspects of the WRP:
a. WRP, Section 4.2.3, Page 4-14: In the next to last paragraph
regarding the water well for Edwards Thumb, no mention is made of the quantity of water that
will be pumped out. To assess anything regarding the groundwater table, this amount needs to
be mentioned.
b. WRP, Section 4.2.5, Page 4-17: The last sentence in the second
paragraph refers to irrigation. Where will this come from? Is water planned for this area?
•
911 Mary of the Cortunenu on Chapter 4.7 apply with equal force to G hVw 4.8 and should, therefore, be
responded to by the County with rasped to both Chapterr. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 131
•
C. WRP, Section 6.2.3,Page 6-28: Reference is made to a water well
in the first sentence on the page. Where are the details on this well? Impacts?
The same comment is made for "e" on page 7-19 of the WRP.
• d. Provisions for turbidity barriers are proposed to minimize impacts
on foraging birds during WRP implementation (WRP, Page 5-5); the WRP also specifies that
grading and construction activities shall avoid impacts on endangered and threatened species
during the nesting season. These statements in the WRP contradict the statement in the REIR
that "most" of the construction will be phased to avoid impacts on the least tern during the
breeding season, (Page 4.8-47, line 41).
e. Post-construction monitoring of the restoration project to document
success is limited to only once annually after the first year. This is not of a sufficient frequency
to document and rectify potential problems.
• f. WRP, Page C-A-11 and C-B-12: "Prior to the removal of occupied
habitat in RPA 3A [for the Belding's savannah sparrow], approximately 15 pairs of the
population impacted by construction activity will be successfully relocated to other appropriate
high quality habitat.' Relocation of passerines has not been demonstrated to be successful and
• has never been tried on the Belding's savannah sparrow (Abby Powell, National Biological
Survey, pers. comm.). In addition, how will areas of"high quality habitat" that are not already
occupied by other Belding's savannah sparrows be selected?
g. WRP, Pages C-A-76, C-A-86,C-B-26, and C-B-40: Each of these
pages references maintenance and monitoring of the Edwards Thumb well pump. A frequency
• of annually is too little, based on the City's experience. Monthly should be recommended.
Additionally, the pump will be subjected to some of the worst possible working conditions, i.e.,
infrequent use in a coastal environment. Repairs will be frequent unless original design and
proper maintenance are followed closely. The electric motor will short out frequently,
necessitating a complete rewinding of the motor at a cost of perhaps 1/3 that of a new motor.
• Three occurrences of this failure and the cost of a new motor has been spent. The motor must
be protected in a housing that will keep it warm and dry to reduce this problem. The well itself,
if left unused for long periods, will become encrusted with scale, corrosion and other materials
in the water. This will require the removal of the pump and motor to remove these items. The
cost to perform such work will be in the range of $1,0W - $10,000 per occurrence. Finally,
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 132
•
the pump will suffer deterioration from non-use. Pump replacement will typically cost$1,000-
$10,000 depending on the equipment used. Who will pay for these costs? Who will perform
or coordinate the maintenance?
It has been the City's experience with identical types of equipment that equipment will be subject •
to vandalism. Security should be provided. Will fencing be used? Housing of equipment?
Aesthetics?
In summary, the since the Edwards Thumb restoration may depend on this well, the costs
associated with it and the mechanism to maintain it are significant in the outcome of the •
restoration of this area.
h. WRP, Page C-A-30: There are no provisions in the maintenance
plans for weeding for cordgrass; however, without regular weeding, non-native species can
become established rapidly in revegetated areas. •
i. WRP, Page C-A-32: Weed eradication for other vegetation is
proposed monthly during the first year and quarterly thereafter. For the remaining four years,
quarterly will likely be insufficient. In addition, further detail on the weed eradication plan
should be included: how will it be supervised; will a manual with photographs be provided to •
the weeding crew so that they can easily identify weeds from native species, etc.
j. WRP, Page C-A-34 and C-B-35: Surveys to document the number
of breeding pairs and territories for the Belding's savannah sparrow will be conducted for two
days once each year in June. Was a biologist familiar with savannah sparrow breeding biology
consulted to design this monitoring measure? June is rather late in the breeding season for this •
species. In addition, the "2-one day surveys" are far too few surveys to adequately cover all
potential habitat area for this species, unless numerous biologists are used to survey different
areas of the marsh.
k. WRP, Section 1.7.3, Page C-A-99: The groundwater monitoring •
activities should be closely coordinated with OCWD.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
i
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 133
•
1. Appendix E, Pages E-2 and E-3, Sections LD.5 - 1.D.7:
The studies and data referenced in this section should all be reviewed by the OCWD in addition
to those agencies listed due to the potential for groundwater contamination.
• 3. Mitigation Banking. Chapter 6 of the WRP provides a description of the
mitigation bank proposed for Lowlands Option A. This description presents the following
unresolved issues:
a. Page 6-1, first paragraph: Who approves the private, non-profit
• entity or combination thereof as the potential bank manager?
b. Page 6-1, third paragraph: The mitigation bank concept will work
only if their are applicants (i.e. mitigators) with adequate financial resources to pay for
restoration. Have any applicants been identified?
•
C. Page 6-4, first paragraph: It is stated that funds are used to
establish, monitor and maintain replacement wetlands and habitats after the loss has occurred.
Shouldn't there be an incentive to establish funds prior to a wetland loss?
d. Page 6-5, third full paragraph: Who appoints the non-profit,
private entity?
e. Page 6-5, fourth frill paragraph: Is it a requirement for the uplands
to have all permits prior to the land being made available for acquisition? If the upland
developer were dedicating the property it would seem to make sense, but if the lands must be
acquired, why have this condition? Is there some other conditions (i.e. phasing of entitlements,
development rights, grading permits) associated with the land being made available? If the
developer has all permits and entitlements couldn't he initiate construction before the WRP was
implemented? Development on the Mesa and removal of upland foraging habitat for raptors
could mean that the raptors would predate endangered species (i.e. California least tern chicks)
• in the lowlands and wetlands.
f. Page 6-7, third paragraph: The Bank Manager has substantial
responsibilities for the success of the program. Who will oversee the performance of the Bank
Manager?
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 134
•
g. What portion of the overall program will be credited to the
currently designated project?
h. Feasibility issues: Many questions need to be addressed with respect
to the "mitigation bank" which is a program which is unique in its scope. The following •
questions are raised by the description of the "mitigation bank" within the REIR and Chapter 6
of the Wetlands Restoration Program:
(1) What is to be the basis for the appraisal of the wetlands
area when it comes to determining the amount of reimbursement to the landowner for wetlands •
acreage by those participating in the mitigation bank?
(2) What would be the range of the area for which Bolsa Chica
would act as a bank-- Unincorporated Orange County, Orange County, Southern California, or
an even wider area? •
(3) Would or could participation in the mitigation bank be
mandatory?
(4) Why would the public from far-off jurisdictions want to see •
the loss of local open spacelconservation area to the distant location of Bolsa Chica?
(5) Does not the use of a mitigation bank mean a net loss of
conservation areas in the region it covers, because it permits offsite mitigation at Bolsa Chica
for projects that would otherwise have to provide mitigation onsite?
•
(6) Would there be enough mitigation acreage in the region
covered by the bank to enable the restoration of a significant amount of Bolsa Chica wetlands
acreage within a reasonable time frame?
(7) If mitigation were restricted to acreages of like-kind, as •
stated in the REIR, then would not the concern of Question 5--over how much restoration could
occur within reasonable timeframes--be greatly exacerbated?
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 135
•
(8)What would be the cost of the various types of mitigation acres
within the bank and would these be sufficiently low so as to induce use of the bank?
All of the foregoing questions need to be addressed before it is possible to assess the feasibility
• of the mitigation bank concept as proposed in the REIR.
4. Previous Comments on 1993 WRP Not Addressed in 1994 WRP.
Generally, in contrast to most comments on the DEIR, the REIR reflects many of the comments
raised by the Comment on the WRP. The City thanks the County for its consideration of those
• comments; however, certain of the issues raised regarding the WRP by the Comment were not
addressed, including the following:
a. There is still lacking a sufficient discussion of the issue of oil
operations and remediation activities. Will Koll (if Option B is implemented)be responsible for
• remediation of soil contamination at the oil pads? This is not addressed, and it is not clear from
the cost estimates in Appendix F whether this cost is included.
b. How will oil production be converted to muted tidal? By
excavation of all contaminated soil or bacteria treatment? This can be very costly (millions of
dollars).
C. Page 4-24: The footnote states that the trees will require irrigation.
High salinities may inhibit the survival and stunt the growth of these tree species. Therefore,
soil testing should be conducted prior to planting and recommendations by a soil consultant
should be provided. In addition, it takes several years for riparian trees to become established;
oak trees may take decades.
d. Page 4-24: Planting more mature trees does not necessarily speed
up development of the canopy.
0 e. Will permanent levees be continuous so they completely separate
habitat types? A figure showing the design is required for the reader to understand the proposal.
f. No remediation plan for problems within the first two years
following implementation is presented.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 136
•
g. A detailed maintenance and monitoring plan should be developed
prior to implementation.
h. Page 4.7-25: A spring 1991 survey conducted by Michael
Brandman Associates at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for benthic invertebrates and fishes did not •
find any live specimens of the California brackish water snail (7yronia imitator). However,
numerous shells of California brackish water snail were found during the survey and it is
believed that a relic population may still occur in the area (Rick Ware, pers. comm. 1994).
i. Page 4.7-25: The USFWS issued a final rule (Endangered and •
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the Tidewater Goby.
February 4, 1994, Federal Register Vol. 59, No. 24: 5494-5498; Ware, R. 1994. Marine
biologists, Coastal Resources Management. Personal communication regarding Tryonia imitator
at Bolsa Chica.) in which the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) was determined to be
an endangered species. The document states that the tidewater goby was listed "as present in •
Outer Bolsa Bay prior to the opening of the tide gates," and that "extensive surveys have been
done in Bolsa Chica in the last 15 years and none have collected any tidewater gobies." Based
on these recent surveys and the change of habitat in Outer Bolsa Bay since the opening of the
tide gates, the document concludes that the tidewater goby listed as present previously is an error
and "most likely, another species was misidentified." He -ever, there may have been suitable
habitat for the tidewater goby in outer Bolsa Bay prior to ot-ening of the tide gates and there may
currently be suitable habitat for the tidewater goby elsewhere in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. In
addition, the methods for the aquatic studies cited in the document are not included or referenced
other than the word "sampled." It appears that there were no directed or focused surveys
performed for the tidewater goby. Without surveys specifically designed to detect the tidewater
goby, the conclusion(s) of the document with regards to this species is not supported and has to •
be doubted.
j. Page 4.7-32: The Warner Avenue Pond on the Bolsa Chica Mesa
will not be filled or lost to urban development, but will be "buffered by a park." There is no
indication of what type of park this will be or the level of use it will receive. What will buffer •
the Warner Avenue Pond from the park?
k. Page 4.7-33: The document states that the dredging of Outer Bolsa
Bay would temporarily disrupt shorebird feeding on the mudflat areas and result in a permanent
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 137
loss of mudflat habitat. However, this is not considered to be a significant impact because "new
mudflat habitat will be created in the full tidal area." Assuming new mudflat habitat is created
at some point that provides foraging opportunities equitable to what was lost, this temporary loss
would still be a significant impact on shorebirds. The Bolsa Chica Wetlands provide important
and critical foraging habitat for migratory shorebirds (refer to Point Reyes Bird Observatory
studies on shorebird movement in the Pacific Flyway). The loss and degradation of mudflat
habitat at the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, even for a few seasons, would be a significant adverse
impact on shorebirds in the Pacific Flyway.
• 1. Page 4.7-36: The mudflats in the fully tidal area that are proposed
for creation "will take some time to be colonized by benthic invertebrates." It is important to
be more specific so that the extent of impacts to shorebirds can be ascertained. It is an error
to state that "shorebirds will.have to feed elsewhere until channel dredging is completed in Outer
Bolsa Bay" and assume that there will be no impact on those shorebirds. The available suitable
• foraging habitat in the region is limited, with competition for those resources.
I. CHAPTER 4.8 - TERRESTRIAL BIouny
1. No Support Is Given for REIR ConchWons. As was apparent in the
DEIR, the conclusions regarding the significance of impacts are not adequately supported by the
information presented in the Existing Conditions sections. In some cases, the conclusory
statements regarding impacts on sensitive species and raptors are actually contradictory to the
foregoing information. See Specific Comment regarding page 9-55, line 48-49 below.
• 2. Insufficient Information and Contusing Format. The REIR does not
represent an improvement from the DEIR in terms of disclosing the short-term biological
impacts of the proposed development. Although section headings entitled "short-term impacts"
and "long-term impacts" have been added, the text presented differs little from that presented
in the DEIR. The text and tables still discuss only long term "net loss." There is still no
• disclosure of the impacts on plant communities and sensitive species that would occur in the
interim years between the initiation of construction proposed in 1996 and completion of the WRP
in the year 2020 (WRP, pages 6-21 and 7-8). These interim impacts may differ for each of the
alternatives; however, they should be presented at a minimum for Proposed Project's Lowland
Option A and Lowland Option B. The REIR should comply with some reasonable version of
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 138
•
the usual EIR format, i.e., that specific information be given for "Habitat Type", "Existing
Area", "Area to be Lost", "Area to be Gained", and "Net Loss or Gain." As currently written,
the reader cannot determine upon evaluation of the tables and other information in the REIR the
estimated interim habitat loss during project phases, and whether the interim loss would truly
be "short-term" or extend for a longer period, potentially as long as the entire 24 year period •
from project initiation in 1996 to projected completion of the WPR in 2020. Further, even the
interim impacts may be significant if they result in loss of habitat area before new habitats are
successfully established. For example, if there are 300 acres of existing habitat and 350 acres
of habitat "with project" (50 acres net gain), there could be as much as 300 acres lost and 350
acres revegetated; on the other hand, this could suggest that as much as 300 acres will remain •
undisturbed and 50 acres will be added during the WRP. These different scenarios present very
different impacts and, accordingly, the phasing and timing of loss of habitat and recreation of
habitat (as well as a description of where the old and new habitat areas are located) must be
presented in the recirculated REIR.
3. Impact Significance Is not Determined Using Consistent Criteria. The •
criteria used to determine the significance of an impact varies from impact to impact. For
example, project impacts on the red-tail hawk and black-shouldered kite are not considered
significant because the species are not listed as threatened or endangered. However, impacts
on the black-tail jackrabbit (another species not listed as endangered or threatened) are not
deemed significant because there are 40 square miles of habitat in the project area. Impacts on •
numerous additional sensitive species that are not listed as threatened or endangered (i.e.,
burrowing owl, salt marsh shrew, loggerhead shrike) are addressed, but conclusions are drawn
differently.
4. Lack of Survey Information. The REIR still presents no information •
regarding survey methods for general as well as sensitive species. For example, "target species"
are those for which the USFWS generally requests that directed (focused) surveys be
conducted.2y Table 4.8-4 summarizes information on sensitive species that occur or could
921 Of course a target survey is required for any specter Urseid at endangered or threatened. Ae Peregrine •
Falcon is listed and is often sighted at Bolsa Chica;however, its preaa ce then is not well-documented Often,the
references in survey literature notes the presence of the peregrine without noting more. 7be REIR must describe
and develop the available information regarding this listed species. The reader of the REIR is lefr with mo
information regarding the endangered nature of this species, its activities at Bolsa Chica or whether its activities
(continued...) •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 139
occur in the project area, and Figure 4.8-3 summarizes recorded sightings for these species, but
no information is regularly and consistently presented on the dates and intensity of surveys. For
example, for the burrowing owl and the southwestern pond turtle, it is stated that no recent
sightings have been recorded, but it is not clear whether focused surveys been conducted for
• these species. The pond turtle is difficult to locate without special survey techniques; the
burrowing owl is stated as "possibly nesting on the mesas", but there is no discussion of focused
surveys to verify the presence or absence of this species on the mesas. However, it is apparent
that the authors of this section are aware of the need for focused surveys for some species, as
"focused surveys" were conducted for the salt marsh bird's beak(p. 4.8-9, line 41), but no other
"focused surveys" are cited.-U'
S. REM Fails to Address Local Significance of Impacts. The REIR does
not assess whether impacts are significant within coastal Orange County or Orange County as
a region. Because Bolsa Chica is a pocket of open space supporting large areas of native as well
as disturbed habitats, as an ecosystem it supports a wide diversity of species that are not found,
or are found in limited areas, elsewhere in coastal Orange County. For example, the removal
of important habitat for wintering red-tail hawks would be locally significant for coastal Orange
County and regionally significant for Orange County, even if, as claimed, there is foraging
habitat available in Irvine Ranch and the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park. These areas are
several miles away from Bolsa Chica and may already support capacity populations of red-tail
• hawks in winter. However, the project definitions have been modified so that "region" is no
longer coastal southern California(as was true of the DEIR)but all of Los Angeles, Orange, and
San Diego counties that are within the range of the species. Thus, Irvine Ranch, which may not
be considered "coastal" is now included in the definition of "region", allowing the project
•
921(...continued)
are on the Mesa,the lowlands,or both. To be a complete and tialid document,the REIR must address each of there
issues with respect to all candidate, threatened and endangered species ibk wn or satpected to edst at the site.
931 For the information of the reader, auadhed to this kner ar Anna Nat. 32 and 33 are typical sw ,ve)w,
performed for the Western Snowy Plover and Belding's savannah Sparrow, respectively. Also, a surw"protocol
for the Burrowing Owl is anadied as Anna No. 31.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 140
•
applicant improperly to expand the potential range of the species and thus conclude that project
impacts on red-tail hawk are not regionally significant.2'
6. Project Design Features Make Determination of Project Impacts
Impossible. Project Design Features (PDF's) continue to be included as PDFs and are not •
presented as mitigation measures as was true in the DEIR. The problem with the use of PDFs
is detailed in Part I. of this letter. The incorporation of Project Design Features allows the
project applicant to avoid admission of potentially significant and unavoidable impacts that would
clearly occur without the PDFs and may occur with the PDFs. This reduces the number and/or
level of significance of project impacts based on items which are neither part of the project •
description nor required as mitigation in project approvals. Further, the use of PDFs obscures
the impact significance information and, accordingly, the potentially significant impacts of the
project prior to mitigation are not properly disclosed. Per CEQA, impacts must first be disclosed
as "significant" or "not significant"; 1bm mitigation is presented for significant impacts. A final
discussion of the CEQA level of significance after mitigation then concludes the discussion. The •
REIR avoids presentation of material in this customary format and although no particular format
is legally required, the format of a valid EIR must present this material in a manner which
permits the reader to rapidly understand the impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed
project. The REIR's format fails this most basic of CEQA requirements. The structure of the
REIR simply confuses the reader and prevents disclosure of impacts since the reader cannot
determine from the presented information whether or not impacts on sensitive species or habitats •
may be si nig ficant whether in the long term or in the interim between project initiation in 1996
and completion of a particular PDF or of the WRP in 2020.
•
941 This technique, taken so even a limited cowne world reader all local or regional i rWacts insignificant.
Nearly all impacts could potentially be reduced to less than significant of one looks at the impact on a sufficiently
broad scope. For eaample, the lots of open spade world not be sign f'scant if one evaluated impacts on the basis
of the entirety of the State of California at the region, since the State has a substantial amount of open space,
however, if the region were viewed as coastal Orange County, the lour of open space will be very significant.
Similarly, the evaluation of impacts solely in the context of efts lass of the resource fi m the region defined as •
Las Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, may fail to ac wwledge the significance of the effects. For
cu niple, the burrowing owl has been nearly extirpated from Orange County(Pert Bloom,pens. Comm.). Thar,the
removal of any habitat in Orange County for this species has been identified in recent environmental documentation
as a significant impact. However, by looking at the impact with respect to the distribution of the species in Las
Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties the REIR it able to disguise the effect as insignificant, although it is a
declining species in San Diego County also (Units, 1984). •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 141
•
7. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 7 Consultation Process.
Impacts and measures to avoid or minimize impacts on endangered and threatened species can
be addressed during the Section 7 consultation process that is required to obtain the 404 permit
from the Corps. Normally, a Section 7 consultation is required when a project "may affect" an
• endangered or threatened species. A Section 7 consultation would be required in this case, as
there will be impacts on snowy plover nesting habitat, and on least tern foraging habitat during
the WRP(as only "most" of the construction will be phased to avoid impacts during the breeding
season, Page 4.8-47, line 41). However, the revised REIR fails to address this fact, although
the WRP (Page C-A-74) indicates that there will be a Biological Opinion (the product of a
Section 7 consultation). The fact that potential impacts on federally endangered and threatened
species will be addressed during Section 7 consultation should be included in the short-term
impacts section of the REIR.
• 8. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 10 Taking Permit Process.
If the developer never obtains federal permits for development of wetlands, then the Section 7
consultation process will not apply; however the taking of habitat area for private development
would still require permits from USFWS under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species
Act. The REIR makes no mention of this requirement nor does it describe the potential
restrictions on implementation of the proposed development which may occur due to the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act.9'
9. N11scellaneous.
a. Page 4.8-28, line 33-35: "At present, the snowy plover is
considered a visitor to Bolsa Chica...only four pairs have regularly nested...". This statement
is contradictory. If four pairs nest at Bolsa Chica, the snowy plover is a wintering as well as
breeding species, regardless of the number of breeding pairs present.
b. Page 4.8-36,line 10-16: This section on the California gnatcatcher
fails to disclose whether Guthrie's 1993 surveys were "directed surveys per USFWS guidelines."
The 1993 surveys are discussed in the same sentence with surveys conducted in 1971 and 1982;
951 For the information of the reader, a dopy of a Section 10 permit for an incidental taking of habitat it
• attached to this knee as Annex No. 30.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 142
•
this was long before consideration of the gnatcatcher as a sensitive species. Given this fact and
the fact that "directed surveys" would have been important to disclose, it is reasonable to
-conclude that these were not directed surveys. However, a sighting oh April 25, 1993 of an
adult male gnatcatcher off Seapointe Drive by P&D's ornithologist Doug Willick suggests that
the gnatcatcher may in fact be an, albeit rare, breeding species at Bolsa Chica. •
C. Page 4.8-38, line 33: "Direct loss of individuals of a State or
Federal listed Threatened or Endangered Species" is considered a significant impact. In the
December 1993 DEIR, this condition (Page 4.7-39, line 16) includes "disturbance" to listed
species as well as "direct loss". Why was "disturbance" of endangered species removed from •
the revised EIR as a potentially significant impact? Section 9 of the federal Endangered Species
Act prohibits disturbance in the form of harassment (or in the form of loss or degradation of
foraging habitat) of federally listed endangered or threatened species.
d. Page 4.8-39, line 19: Annual monitoring following the first year •
for five years is not of sufficient frequency to document problems that may be occurring with
the restoration plan. In addition, a wildlife biologist should be present, in addition to a botanist,
to document successful occupation of the restored habitats by wildlife species.
e. Page 4.8-40, line 1: As stated under general comments, PDF's are •
not subject to the requirements for mitigation monitoring required under PRC § 21081.6. For
example, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5 presented in the DEIR has been eliminated and instead
presented as a PDF in the REIR. This measure states that two new nesting sites for the snowy
plover will be created prior to the removal of two historic nesting sites. However, because this
is now a PDF and not a mitigation measure, no performance criteria for the success of these
nesting sites will be required, and even though page 2-11, lines 43-44 states that the County will •
"ensure compliance" with the PDF through "its standard procedures for the approval of permits
and applications," no monitoring to document nesting within these compensatory sites by snowy
plovers be occur as is compulsory since, however labelled, this requirement must be treated as
a mitigation measure.
•
f. Page 4.8-43, Table 4.8-5: No explanation is provided for the
decrease from the DEIR in existing acreage for non-native grassland (from 313 to 254) and
increase in ruderal (from 368 to 406).
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
i
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 143
•
g. Page 4.8-46, line 18: The impact on the wandering skipper is not
considered significant as "a larger area of habitat will be preserved, such as Rabbit Island." Is
there documentation that the habitat on Rabbit Island is actually used by the skipper, or is does
it actually only appear suitable?
•
h. Page 4.8-48, line 26-37: The impact of the loss of Belding's
savannah sparrow habitat will be minimized by the retention of 200 acres of pickleweed.
However, not considered is the potential loss of foraging habitat. Surveys by USFWS and
others at Bolsa Chica indicate that this species nests in pickleweed, but forages in pickleweed
• as well as other habitats throughout the marsh.
i. Page 4.8-54, line 6-14: Impacts on red-tail hawks are deemed not
significant; however, this contradicts the information presented on Page 4.8-20 which states that
"there are no other documented areas within the region that support such large numbers of
• wintering red-tail hawks." The fact that Irvine Ranch and the Laguna Coast Wilderness Park
may provide foraging habitat for this species does not sufficiently nullify the foregoing
information. In addition, the conclusion regarding the impact on red-tail hawks states that the
impact is not significant as the red-tail hawk is not a sensitive species. Similarly, impacts on
the black-shouldered kite are not significant as it "is not listed as threatened or endangered"
(Page 4.8-55, line 11). Significance conclusions for biological resources must be drawn
considering biological criteria rather than legal characterizations. And,per the criteria presented
on Page 4.8-38, lines 33-42, this impact must be considered significant as it would represent,
as described on both page 4.8-54 and 4.8-20, a "substantial effect on a species or native plant
or animal community."
1 j. Page 4.8-55, line 33-35: An ESHA will be established with native
trees, roosting poles, and nest boxes on the Huntington Beach Mesa to reduce the impact on
raptors by the removal of eucalyptus to less than significant. The fact that raptors likely roost
in the eucalyptus because of the upland foraging opportunities nearby is not discussed. In
addition, (1) the presence of a regional park on Huntington Beach mesa may preclude the use
of this area by some raptor species because of human disturbance; (2) as the establishment of
the ESHA is a PDF, rather than a mitigation measure, inadequate monitoring is provided to
document whether raptors are actually using the provided structures (and no monitoring plan is
presented for this in the WRP); (3) because of the loss of raptor prey base (namely, loss of the
Bolsa Chica Mesa replaced by the regional park's smaller, linear piece of open space composed
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0 •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 144
•
of manicured lawns), there is skepticism that the ESHA would even be used by raptors, and, (4)
no provisions as requested in previous comments to discourage use of nest boxes by kestrels are
provided. Because the Huntington Beach Mesa is closer to tern nesting islands than the existing
raptor roosting/nesting habitat, this PDF, when implemented, may actually result in additional
predation over that which is already occurring at the tern islands. This PDF may thus result in •
a significant impact on sensitive bird species if it succeeds in creating kestrel nesting habitat.
For these reasons, the conclusion that the ESHA would offset the loss of eucalyptus on the mesa
is not supported.
k. Page 4.8-55, line 49: Although the text states that the burrowing •
owl may be a possible nesting species on Huntington Beach Mesa, (Page 4.8-20, line 30), and
that elimination of suitable grassland habitat on Bolsa Chica Mesa and ruderal habitats in the
lowland would be "a significant loss of habitat for this species" (Page 4.8-55. line 48-49), the
REIR concludes that the impact "is not considered significant" (Page 4.8-55, line 50) as the
habitat for the species is "barely suitable." Aside from the fact that the conclusion is directly •
contradicted by the foregoing information (a significant inconsistency which is to say the least
confusing to the reader), the "barely suitable" statement is not supported with a cited reference
or any description of what leads the County to that conclusion. Was a raptor biologist
consulted? If so, who and what information formed the basis for his or her conclusion? If not,
what other method was used to evaluate the quality of the habitat for burrowing owls to conclude
that the habitat is "barely suitable"? •
10. Comments on DEIR Are Not Addressed in the REIR. The following
list of comments reflect certain of the issues raised in the Comment regarding terrestrial biology
impacts which are not reflected or adequately addressed in the REIR:
•
a. Page 4.8-2 to 4.8-21: Descriptions of vegetation communities
should include a brief discussion of existing habitat quality.
b. Page 4.8-22, line SO: The letter from the USFWS listing the target
species that should be considered for the project should be included as an appendix. •
961 CEQA demands that this potentially signi)kant ink of the mit gadm mews w be analyzed in the REIR,
albeit in kss detail than is legally negLind for the project Way. •
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 145
•
C. Dates on Page 4.7-28 (now Page 4.8-29, lines 2 and 3) should be
corrected from "1977 and 1978" to "1987 and 1988" (this sentence discusses nesting by terns
during 1977 and 1978 on the South Island at Bolsa Chica, which did not exist in 1977/1978).
d. No criteria is presented for the identification of significant local
effects. Impacts should be evaluated with respect to the impact of a proposed development or
project on the existing status of a resource as evaluated on a local, regional or, in some cases,
national basis. For example, the significance of an impact may be assessed on a county-wide
basis, or on the basis of coastal Orange/Los Angeles counties. The choice of how to evaluate
• local or regional impacts will often determine whether the impact is significant. For example,
the question of what percentage of habitat of that remaining in Orange County would be removed
by the project may well differ from what percentage of state-wide habitat would be removed.
The analysis of impacts for the black-tailed jackrabbit (Page 4.8-53, lines 28-31) was conducted
based on the percentage of county-wide habitat affected; however, impacts are not consistently
• evaluated in this fashion.
e. Page 4-8-60, lines 12-16: The potential loss of vegetation due to
failure of the WRP (particularly given the fact that monitoring will only occur once annually
following the first year) is not addressed).
• f. Impacts section: There is no discussion or quantification of impacts
for grading limits nor of the impacts at various phases of construction. These impacts, though
temporary in duration, may nonetheless be significant effects and must be analyzed in a rewritten
and recirculated REIR.
• g. Page 4.8-50,line 40: The loss of a contiguous block of non-native
grassland, given the fact that it is the last substantive block of contiguous habitat in the vicinity
of the project is not acimowledged as significant. This comment would still hold, although the
grassland acreages presented in the DEER (318 acres) have been reduced to 254, while ruderal
acreages have increased by nearly the same amount.
•
h. Page 4.8-53, line 28: There is no explanation of how the "40
square miles" of habitat for the black-tailed jackrabbit was derived.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 146
•
i. Page 4.8-54, line 24-25: "If cats are present in relatively low
numbers, the impact on birds is not expected to be significant." The problems with this
statement were noted in the Comment on the DEIR and this statement has not been revised or
supplemented to include any supporting reference. Were any biologists consulted that specialize
in urban wildlife management? One cat removed six least tern adults within one week at •
Terminal Island in 1986. In addition, Belding's savannah sparrows, which nest on the ground,
may be particularly susceptible to predation by cats, as cats are known predators of passerines.
This could be considered a significant impact, even with the proposed and implemented plan to
control the presence of invasive species into wildlife areas.
j. Page 4.8-46, line 50: It is stated that impacts on foraging habitats
for surface-foraging birds would be short-term as conditions "should" return to normal following
construction; however, phasing of the WRP could result in turbidity impacts for as much as 24
years. A mitigation measure to limit construction and/or monitor turbidity during tern nesting
season should be analyzed for its ability to limit this potentially significant effect of the project. •
k. Page 4.8-47, line 1: Data or references supporting the conclusion
that abundant foraging habitat is available in Huntington Harbor are not presented. Anecdotal
information suggests that the Harbor generally provides marginal foraging habitat for surface
foraging birds. •
I. CHAPTER 4.9 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
1. Response to City Comment. In general, the County has responded to
several of the issues raised in the City's Comment on the DEIR, but has pointedly ignored many
other City comments. The Transportation and Circulation Section of the REIR still contains •
numerous technical and procedural flaws that require a complete reanalysis of traffic impacts to
provide decision-makers with accurate information regarding such impacts and the costs of
mitigating those impacts.
2. City Traffic Analysis Should Be Used. The REIR states that roadway •
link capacities and impacts are based on a Level of Service (LOS) "E" as an acceptable level.
City criteria dictate that links must operate at LOS "C" or better. Many of the links analyzed
in the REIR are within the City and the City criteria should be utilized for all of those links.
Therefore, the entire TIA must be redone using the City criteria for link analysis (City of
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 147
•
Huntington Beach, Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, July, 1993). The revised
TIA should then be recirculated with the REIR.
3. No Analysis of Construction Traffic. There is no analysis of
• Construction Traffic, and no quantification of anticipated daily construction traffic and impacts.
The previous DEIR anticipated 2,400 total weekly truck trips during construction for
filling/grading activities alone. CEQA requires that construction impacts be quantified and
analyzed (state EIR Guidelines, Section 15126).
• 4. Street Impacts from Freeway Ramp Metering Must Be Considered.
While there is a discussion of impacts to freeway ramps, there is no analysis of the impacts on
surface streets due to ramp metering and potential resultant queuing, nor is there an analysis of
impacts to freeway links. This is a required for a TIA and an EIR analyzing impacts within the
City as is true of the REIR (City of Huntington Beach, Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines,
• July, 1993).
S. Inadequate Mitigation Cost Analysis. The REIR and TIA do not contain
an adequate cost analysis for public review. Page 11 of the "CUP Traffic Impact Analysis
Guidelines" for Orange County states (in part) that "This element is at the heart of the CMP
• process; that is, to identify the costs of mitigating a land development decision on the CMP
system." Inadequate cost data is presented in the TIA for public review. Appendix "M" to the
TIA (Mitigation Costing Worksheets) does not detail any assumptions made in developing costs,
nor does it show any calculations used in developing costs. Additionally, costs are not broken
down into "Applicant" costs versus "Costs to be borne by local agencies". Since the TIA is
incomplete and therefore inadequate, it cannot be used as the basis of the REIR, and both must
• be redone.
6. Impact of Deleting Cross Gap Connector From MPAH Not Sufficiently
Analyzed. Page 4.9-13, Line 1, "Cross Gap Connector": The REIR states that the BCSE has
a "very limited effect" on area traffic operations. This statement is not correct. The roadway
• and circulation system proposed for the Bolsa Chica Project will be an integral part of the City's
Police and Fire response routes, and will cause adverse impacts if not constructed. The Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) recommends extension of Bolsa Chica road
(the Cross Gap Connector)connecting with Garfield Avenue including connections to Springdale,
Graham, and Talbert Avenue. These roadways are absolutely necessary in meeting the City's
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 148
•
Police and Fire Departments response goals as required in the City's Growth Management
Element. The specific Fire Department standards are as follows:
1. Arrival of first engine company for firetrescuelmedical aid incidents within five
(5) minutes, eighty (80) percent of the time and in all cases within ten (10) •
minutes.
2. Arrival of first paramedic unit within five (5) minutes eighty (80) percent of the
time.
•
3. Arrival of first ladder company within ten (10) minutes ninety eight (98) percent
of the time and in all cases within fifteen (15) minutes.
The Fire and Police Departments need the "Cross Gap Connector" to serve as a major
transportation link in providing public safety services to the Holly Seacliff Development and also •
the Huntington Beach "Lowlands." Safety services would be provided with one (1) fire/police
station located at Springdale Street and the Cross Gap Connector. This station would provide
fire, paramedic, police, and ambulance service to both areas, as well as the rest of the City using
the Cross Gap Connector. Without this key roadway, emergency vehicles will be required to
travel much greater distances to provide service. Without the Cross Gap Connector, the City •
will need two (2) fully staffed fire stations to meet the growth management response time
standards.
Page 4.1-21 [Line 32] The REIR states here that with ATIP the impacts of not having the BCSE
"will either be avoided or reduced to an insignificant level." This is inaccurate. Without the
BCSE, major increases to City public safety response times will occur. •
The fiscal impacts to the City without the Cross Gap Connector are as follows:
One time capital expense for two fire stations 5.6 million
•
Operation and staffing costs for two fin stations per year 4.1 million
Note: A ten (10) year period cost (without inflation) would be 41 million dollars. This cost
would be ongoing.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 149
•
In addition, without the Cross Gap Connector, emergency egress for citizens living in the area
will be compromised when evacuation is needed due to flood, earthquake, fire, hazardous
material release, tsunami, etc.
7. Transportation Impacts to Fire/Police/Public Safety Are Not Analyzed.
Roadways, links, and intersection volumes - are only reviewed from the perspective of traffic
volumes and not from the perspective of the impacts on emergency vehicles response time and
delays. The project will significantly impact existing City intersections and City public safety
service delivery. The REIR needs to discuss, evaluate, and mitigate traffic circulation impacts
on City public safety response as well as impacts on citizen egress. This should include a
review of the project impacts on the City Circulation Element, Growth Management Element,
and the Fire Master Plan. The REIR does not discuss the fact that Pacific Coast Highway
frequently floods and significantly impacts general circulation and public safety response. The
periodic closing of Pacific Coast Highway impacts public safety services and citizen egress and
access. If the project is built, the impacts on public safety and citizen access and egress must
be mitigated.
S. Unfunded ATIP Provides Illusory Mitigation Only. The REIR again
utilizes the establishment of an Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) as the Mitigation
Measure for solving all transportation and circulation impacts. However, no funding
commitments are made by the Applicant regarding ATIP. Additionally, the REIR states that
"the project developer will administer the ATIP," and "... construction improvements will be
undertaken by the project developer vAer+e feasibk." The entire ATIP mechanism is an
avoidance of the establishment of concrete mitigation measures for project impacts, and an
avoidance on the part of the developer to commit to funding such mitigation measures.
a. Assessment District as a Financing Mechanism for the ATIP
Is Not Adequately Analyzed. On page 4.9-45, line 32, an assessment district is suggested
as a possible financing mechanism for the Bolsa Chica share of ATIP costs. The feasibility
of an assessment district may only be evaluated in conjunction with an evaluation of all the
• potential costs to future Bolsa Chia homeowners. The use of an assessment district to
finance offsite traffic mitigations can only be evaluated in conjunction with information
•
Discussion Draft Dated Soptsmbsr 23, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 150
•
allowing for determination of all other potential cost burdens on future Boisa Chica property
owners. The REIR does not provide this information.0
b. Fair Share Funding Analysis Further Obscures ATIP
Funding Source. The bifurcation of required improvements into the "full construction •
component" and the "fair share contribution component" is another example of where the
REIR to obfuscate the question of funding of required improvements. Nowhere is there a
commitment on the part of Koll or the county to fund either of these components.
C. Skewed Traffic Analysis Understates the Project's Fair Share •
of Traffic Impacts. While the REIR readily admits that Pacific Coast Highway north of
Warner Avenue is heavily congested during the peak hours, the Mesa Project traffic
distribution still shows 30% of the project traffic egressing the project site via Warner
Avenue to PCH. Given existing (and worsening) conditions on PCH, this distribution
appears to be an attempt (on paper) to force project traffic into an area (PCH) where the
County/developer will bear no improvement costs, versus showing a greater percentage of •
project traffic utilizing City roadways and intersections, as appears to be more likely, thereby
increasing the project's percentage of required improvements and therefore increased
percentage of costs to fund these improvements.
d. ATIP Administration should be Provided By the City, the •
Agency Most Severely Affected By the Project. Because the vast majority of project traffic
impacts occur within the City and the vast majority of required transportation infrastructure
improvements are required at City facilities, if an ATIP Committee is established, it must be
administered by the City and not OCEMA or the Applicant. The City must determine
phasing and scheduling of required improvements, as it is the City residents who are •
adversely impacted by the proposed project impacts.
•
971 On page 1-30 of the Summary of Impacts, wader 4.9 7hmrportation and Circulation, it is recognized that
a major problem exists with the A77P in that other jurisdictions outside of the wninc orporatad County may not droose
to cooperate with the A77P, or if they do cooperate, may not be willing to assign the same priority and timing to
carious intersection improvements as the other participants. With this statement in the EIR by the Project proponent,
the uncertainty of implementing the A77P as a compreheadve mitigation program becomes evident. �
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 151
•
e. No Funding Is Contemplated from other Affected Agencies.
The REIR admits that "the proposed project may have a significant long-term adverse impact
on PCH and in other areas within the traffic study area to the extent that jurisdictions other
than the County of Orange do not cooperate in funding of construction roadway segments or
• intersection improvements identified for fair share contribution in the ATIP or to the extent
that funding sources for the share of improvements costs not funded by the proposed project
are unavailable when the improvements are required." This statement is as admission that
the entire ATIP scheme is highly speculative and does not fulfill the requirements of
"mitigation measures" as defined by Guidelines § 15126 (c)). For this reason alone, the
• REIR is inadequate and must be rejected as failing to fulfill the requirements of CEQA.
f. Funding for ATIP Is Not Likely to Be Available. Page 4-9-
80, lines 42 and 43, and page 4.9-81, lines 2 and 3 and lines 25 and 26: These pages
contain impacts that are affected by the extent that jurisdictions do not cooperate in funding
improvements identified for fair share contribution in the ATIP. The County appears to put
a significant burden on surrounding cities to perform a significant overhaul of their capital
improvement programs in order to help this major development mitigate its transportation
problems (e.g., the developer would contribute only 4% to the widening of PCH from
Golden West to the Los Angeles county line). How, for instance, could a city the size of
Seal Beach find the funds to construct 96% of the PCH Project? The County, however,
implies that cities would be "uncooperative" if they didn't fund these projects. The
combined total of the cities' share of "fair share" projects identified in the ATIP over a 20
year period will be astronomical. The "fair share" component of the ATIP is an illusion.
The bulk of these projects simply will not happen in a timely manner even if the surrounding
cities cooperate. There simply will not be sufficient Gas Tax, Measure M or grant funds
available to the surrounding cities in the next 20 years to fund these projects, not to mention
projects already on the master plans of the cities. There is only one way to be able to build
the "fair share" component of the ATIP when scheduled. The County, the Developer and
the surrounding cities should enter into a development agreement which requires the
Developer to fully fund said improvements.
•
The REIR contains the statement that the county has some ability to
influence other local agencies cooperation with regional traffic improvements through the
Arterial Highway Financing Program and the county's role in the administration of Measure
M Funds. The county has absolutely no role in administration of either fund. OCTA now is
•
Discussion Draft Datsd Ssptsmbsr 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 152
•
in charge of all administration. How could County staff possess any ability to influence
cooperation if the County is in control of no identified funds? In addition, as of May of
1993, the Orange County Transportation Authority Board decided that Arterial Highway
Financing Program (AHFP) funds were to be used only for highway or bridge rehabilitation
projects. If the County is unsuccessful in efforts to "influence", the "fair share" component •
of the ATIP results in total failure. If these projects do not get built, what stops the
developer from proceeding with the project? While the County does have its own Gas Tax
Funds which they could donate to a deserving project, the document does not contain any
indication that the County would volunteer these funds.
•
9. Miscellaneous Comments on Analysis of Traffic Impacts.
a. Page 4.9-1, line 49 and Page 4.9-2, lines 1-2, and Table 4.9-
1:While this Table serves as a general guideline for roadway capacities, it also implies that •
the capacity of all six-lane divided highways is the same. In actuality, adjustments must be
made for mitigating factors such as number of driveways, etc. The "theoretical" capacity of
Adams Avenue crossing the Santa Ana River is identical to the "theoretical" capacity of
Beach Boulevard between Warner Avenue and Edinger Avenue. However, because of the
number of vehicles utilizing driveways, etc., the "real world" capacity is substantially less •
for Beach Boulevard. Such real-world adjustments must be made throughout the analyses. If
this is not done, both traffic impacts and required mitigation measures are underestimated.
b. Page 4.9-2, lines 19-20: "The peak hour traffic forecasts for
turning movements were derived from the SARA model peak period forecasts." An
explanation of what was included in this derivation is required. •
C. Page 4.9-8, lines 31-34: The intersections Beach Blvd./Edinger
and Beach Blvd./Warner are also at LOS W. The County's recent traffic counts should
confirm this.
•
d. Page 4.9-13, lines 1-14: The discussion of the BCSE does not
take into account the overriding necessity for public safety access along this route. The
City's Fire Chief has stated that, without BCSE, additional fire stations must be built.
Further, the City's Police Chief also has strong concerns relating to response times.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 153
•
e. Page 4.9-24, lines 25-26: The TIA and REIR utilize LOS "E"
for links, while City policy utilizes LOS "C" for links. Therefore, the entire TIA and
Transportation and Circulation portion of the REIR must be redone using the appropriate
criteria. In this case, the City Growth Management Plan and City Traffic Impact Assessment
• Preparation Guidelines contain the appropriate criteria.
f. Page 4.9-34, lines 26-28. It is stated that "the ATIP has been
developed to provide the necessary mechanism for the financing, monitoring and
implementation of phased circulation improvements." This statement reiterates the point that
the ATIP is unfunded. What guarantees are presented to ensure funding of required
mitigation measures?
It should also be noted that the REIR describes required transportation system infrastructure
improvements as "Project Design Features." As such, the Applicant must commit to funding
these "PDFs" which, in actuality, are mitigation measures required to reduce project impacts
to acceptable levels.
g. Page 4.9-34, line 33 through Page 4.9-35, line 30. This
discussion centers on the "Full Construction Component" versus the "Fair Share Contribution
Component," and implies that Koll will be responsible for full construction of certain
required improvements and partially responsible for other required improvements. However,
nowhere does the report show any dollar value of improvements required by the project. To
allow informed decision-making, actual dollar value costs of all required improvements must
be calculated, along with a determination of Koll's funding commitment and the unfunded
dollar value of improvements required. The City requires a complete analysis of the City's
"share" of required improvements.
h. Page 4.9-35, line 2: The word "key" should be inserted
between the words "the" and "corridors
• i. Page 4.9-35, lines 11-17. The discussion of required freeway
interchange improvements should include any required freeway mainline improvements.
j. Page 4.9-45, lines 16-17. To allow "substitute improvements
providing comparable traffic capacity subject to the approval of the ATIP Advisory
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 154
•
Committee", when the Project Developer is proposed to administer the ATIP, is a prime case
of "the fox guarding the hen house". The City must have sole discretion over impact
mitigation for City streets and intersections.
k. Page 4.9-45, lines 23-29: The discussion contained in these •
lines suggest that these funds are readily accessible and that other agencies and projects are
not competing for the same programs. Nothing could be further from the truth and the
feasibility for funding must be disclosed and analyzed in the REIR.
1. Page 4.9-45, line 45: "Full construction improvements will be •
undertaken by the Project Developer Where Feasible." Who determines feasibility? Is it the
County, the Developer, or the City wherein the impacts occur? What factors determine
feasibility, e.g., physical factors, economic factors, etc.?
m. Page 4.9-46, lines 14-18: The discussion contained in these •
lines implies that, since there is a Cooperative Committee of all jurisdictions and the
developer, jurisdictional matching funds will be made available for all "fair share" projects in
the time period designated. If very little "new" (developer) money is put into the pot, this
implication appears highly.unlikely and funding sources must be identified for the
improvements required to mitigate project impacts.
n. Page 4.9-46, line 20: "The project developer will administer
the ATIP". This is totally unacceptable to the City. The City should administer the ATIP,
as the vast majority of required ATIP improvements which are, in fact, mitigation measures,
occur within the City. 40
o. Page 4.9-46, line 33-35: "Roles and responsibilities of the
ATIP Advisory Committee will be defined and established by the Applicant and approved by
the Director of EMA." Once again, this is another instance of "the fox guarding the hen
house". The City must determine roles and responsibilities of the ATIP Advisory •
Committee.
P. Page 4.9-49, lines 20,21: The REEK states that a jurisdiction
must undertake specific actions if it is to comply with the CUP. This implies that the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
i
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 155
•
proposed project could put a city out of compliance with the CUP and that the only way for
the city to comply would be to fund their share of a "fair share" project; however, if the
development puts a city in violation of the CMP, the developer should fully fund the
necessary highway improvement, not the impacted public agency.
•
q. Page 4.9-52, lines 8-9: "The percentages of project generated
trips allocated to various roadway segments are based upon the SARA Model travel demand
trip tables." Have these tables been post-processed to account for real-world conditions in
the project area? If so, the procedure must be documented.
•
r. Page 4.9-53, Figure 4.9-20 and Page 4.9-54, Figure 4.9-21.
Several trip distribution factors shown on this figure do not appear to make sense, including
the following:
• Why are there 12% internal trips for this scenario (Mesa Project), and
only 3% internal trips for the Lowland Scenario?
• It is unreasonable to expect 30% of all trips to utilize Warner Avenue
to PCH, considering the capacity problems and increasing congestion
on PCH north of Warner Avenue. Please explain this assumption.
• While SARA distributes traffic to centroids by the shortest path, it is
not realistic to assume that traffic utilizing neighborhood commercial
facilities would drive through existing housing tracts to access such
facilities. For example, Figure 4.9-21 shows 1% of project traffic
turning north off of Slater Avenue between Edwards Street and
Goldenwest Street. While "model-wise" this is the shortest distance to
the commercial facilities at the southwest corner of the Warner
Avenue/Goldenwest Street Intersection, there physically is no way to
get to these facilities from Slater Avenue without utilizing Warner
Avenue or Goldenwest Street. The net effect of this improbable
distribution pattern is to drastically understate actual intersection and
link impacts in the project area. This has a significant effect on the
degree of improvement required at certain intersections and along
•
Discussion Draft Dated Saptenr6w 22, 1994
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 156
•
certain links, and could significantly increase the cost of required
improvements.
S. Page 4.9-57, lines 28-29. The projected daily traffic volumes
must be compared to LOS "C" daily link capacities, not LOS "E" capacities. The City •
Growth Management Plan and City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines
mandate LOS "C" on links.
t. Page 4.9-72, lines 33-44. This is a totally inadequate discussion
of construction traffic impacts. To state that there will be no significant construction impacts •
because of the proximity of the project to designated truck routes is ludicrous. A complete
construction phase impact analysis must be conducted, including numbers of trucks, hours
and days of operations, impacts to link and intersection capacities, safety issues, etc. The
preparation of a Traffic Control Plan in and of itself does not guarantee that there will be no
impacts due to construction traffic. In fact, preparation of a Traffic Control Plan means that •
significant construction traffic impacts are expected.
U. Page 4.9-80, lines 11-17. The only short-term impacts found to
be significant are those occurring at 5 intersections on PCH. This can only be true if the
project applicant commits to funding all required improvements at all intersections and along •
all links where mitigations are required to achieve acceptable Levels of Service.
V. Page 4.9-80, line 20 thru page 49-81, line 5. Here again, the
only significant long-term impacts identified are those to 5 intersections along PCH. This
would be true only if the applicant commits to funding all required improvements at all •
intersections and along all links where mitigations are required to achieve acceptable Levels
of Service.
W. Page 4.9-81, lines 14-28. While widening of PCH may not be a
feasible alternative to mitigate project impacts, there is no analysis of the possibility of
constructing intersection improvements at the five identified PCH intersections to improve the
LOS at the intersections. There is also no discussion of increasing PCH capacity through
methods that do not require additional right-of-way.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 157
10. Comments on the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis
a. Pursuant to CMP requirements, there must be a discussion of
impacts (if any) to the freeways in the area (County of Orange CMP-TIA Requirements, and
City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines). This was not done in the TIA
report.
b. A map detailing "other large General Plan Developments"
assumed to be in place by the Years 2000, 2005 and 2010 is not provided. Such a map is
• required to determine if future year traffic scenarios are adequately determined.
C. Signal Warrant Analyses for future traffic signals must be
provided, particularly at new intersections in the study area. These analyses quantify the
need for any new proposed traffic signals.
•
d. The link threshold LOS criteria for Huntington Beach is LOS
"C" and not LOS "E" as assumed in the study.
e. Certain key elements of model forecasting methods are not
explained fully, e.g., refinement of peak period volumes at intersections and links. Identify
the intersections at which the refinements were required, and identify those refinements.
Such refinements can significantly affect model outputs and resultant impact analyses.
f. Provide roadway system conceptual plans of alternatives used in
the analysis to clarify the distribution of traffic from the project.
•
g. Identify project access, CMP links, intersections and links by
jurisdiction, and identify the location of major trip generators in the study area.
h. Truck construction traffic needs to be quantified by type of
• vehicles, tonnage per day, peak period distribution and hours of operation.
i. Appendix "A', the turning movement counts at study
intersections, needs to be rearranged in the order of ICU analysis for convenience of
reviewing the report. The traffic count data at some intersections was collected in 1988, and
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 158
•
is obsolete and must be redone. City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines
mandate that traffic counts must have been collected within the previous one year period.
Also, the hours assumed for the peak period varies at the various study intersections, and
should be consistent.
•
j. Fair share costs of the project for all recommended mitigations
are not estimated.
k. Some of the intersections analyzed are not fully mitigated. One
example of this is the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (NIS) at Seal Beach Boulevard •
(E/W) for the following situation:
Traffic Condition: LCP-Bolsa Chica Mesa Only Scenario (Option "A")
Lane Configuration: Initial Alternative
Year 2010: a.m. and p.m. analysis •
This intersection operates at LOS F. Why is this intersection not mitigated to
an acceptable LOS?
1. Separate the Traffic Scenarios in the appendices for easy
identification and reference.
11. Comments on the "Executive Summary" of the Traffic Impact
Analysis.
a. Page S-1 and S-2, Section: Introduction
"As a result of the requirements of the CMP and GNP, the study area
includes facilities of regional importance up to 4 miles from the project
itself."
•
This statement is partially true with regard to the study area selection.
Since the project is located in the unincorporated area of the County, the project needs to
follow the GNP criteria for dissipating the traffic on all streets that the project traffic uses,
irrespective of whether or not those streets belong to the CMP network. The GNP criteria
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 159
•
states that where project traffic represents more than 1% of existing roadway capacity, that
location should be analyzed. Satisfying the GNP criteria fulfills the CMP criteria
automatically.
• b. Page S-2 and S-3, Section: Introduction
Exhibit S-A does not identify the project location to allow a
clear understanding of the influential area selected in the study.
C. Page S-2, Section: Introduction
The paragraph on Level of Service (LOS) does not include the link
threshold LOS per CMP and GMP criteria for the study. The City LOS "C" criteria for link
analysis must be utilized (City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation
! Guidelines, July, 1993).
d. Page S-4, Section: Project Description
The project description in the current report is entirely different from
the previous DEIR submitted for review and revision. The project description and roadway
alternatives have been so altered that this current study is a DEIR for an entirely new
project. There is no comparison between the results of the "revised" study and the previous
study. Therefore, on the basis of the vast difference in project description and approach
(including modelling analysis), this study is a new project traffic impact analysis, not a
revised final draft report.
•
e. Page S-4, Section: Project Description
The project description does not indicate the project opening year and
phases of construction.
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
!
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 160
•
f. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
"This is an increase of about 300,000 trip-ends
per day compared to the estimated existing
conditions trip-ends total of about 1.8 million trip- •
ends per day."
What is the basis of this statement with regard to the increase in future
traffic in the City? Currently, the City is revising its General Plan. Please provide data
detailing the basis of these additional trip-ends per day. •
g. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
"This represents I% of the trip-ends generated
within the City of Huntington Beach each day •
under Year 2020 conditions."
This statement is misleading, considering the 300,000 trip-ends per day
to be generated in the City. The project generates close to 8% of the daily trip ends with
Option A each day under Year 2020 conditions. Also, if the P.M. peak period traffic in •
Huntington Beach is assumed to be 10% of the daily traffic in the Year 2020, using 300,000
trips per day gives 30,000 trips during the p.m. peak period. Therefore, the project
generates close to 9% of the p.m. peak period trip ends with Option A. Similar errors
in percentage contribution by the project are listed under Option B.
h. Page S-10, Section: Future Land Use and Trip Generation
Table S-1, Project Trip Generation Table, does not indicate the source
for the trip generation rates.
12. Specific Comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis •
a. Page 1-3, Section 1.1: Project Description. The three roadway
alternatives described should be shown on conceptual roadway plans to better understand the
access points to the project sites.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 161
•
b. Page 1-11, Section 1.2: Study Approach. In Exhibit 1-C,
identify the intersections which are either new or modified in the study area. Also, list the
study intersections by jurisdiction.
C. Page 1-17, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. "For this
reason, the peak hour assignment of project traffic has been performed using a manual
assignment procedure, which overlays the peak hour project traffic on the "no project" model
forecasts." Does this statement mean that all peak hour project traffic was manually
distributed using the trip distribution and traffic generation adopted in the study? Explain
• and clarify the manual assignment process used in the study.
d. Page 1-18, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. "The
minimum allowable growth percentage for the highest peak hour of each intersection,
therefore, has been set at 20%." Does the above statement apply to the project peak period
• traffic contribution at study intersections shown in Exhibit 1-C?
e. Page 1-24 and 1-26, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies.
"Peak hour traffic forecasts for turning movements have been derived directly from SARA
Model peak period forecasts." The above statement seems to apply only to the "no project
• forecasts". Clarify the statement's applicability.
f. Page 1-29, Section 1.3: Analysis Methodologies. Under
calculations (page 1-28), Item 8 states that "Variations in peak-hour volumes can affect LOS
calculations because they vary from day-to-day. To minimize these variations, no counts are
taken on Mondays, Fridays, holidays or weekends."
Traffic Counts are one of the most important elements in conducting a Traffic Impact
Analysis. Even though the peak period selected for the study is identified (on page 1-
28, Item 6, "peak periods") as 6:30 to 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:30 p.m., a careful
review of the traffic counts in Appendix "A" shows inconsistencies in the peak hour
used for traffic count measurements. The traffic counts are obtained from various
sources with different a.m. and p.m. peak periods. For a study of this dimension, it
is inadequate and does not follow any order. Counts must be redone on a consistent
basis to allow for proper analysis of existing conditions and future impacts.
•
Discussion Draft Doted September 23, 1994
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 162
•
g. Page 2-20, Section 2.3: Existing Peak Hour Traffic Conditions.
Exhibits 2-C to 2-F are not legible. Provide readable Exhibits 2C to 2F.
h. Page 2-25, Table 2-3. Provide tables indicating jurisdiction.
•
i. Page 3-2, Section 3.2: Project Roadway System Alternatives.
The three different roadway alternatives should be shown as conceptual plans for better
understanding of the descriptions provided in the report.
j. Page 3-9, Section 3.4: Project Trip Generation. In Table 3-1 •
indicate the TTE Code Number used in obtaining the trip generation rates. Trip generation
rates for the "specialty commercial" may be taken from the San Diego Association of
Governments Trip Generation Rate Tables.
Under "Multi-family residential" indicate the type and number •
of multi-family units to be built, e.g., high rise condominiums, apartments, low-rise
townhouses, etc. This type of classification will help to understand the interaction between
zones.
For single-family detached residential and multi-family •
residential, why are 1982 trip rates from EMA are being used? Are these the most current
rates available?
k. Page 3-12, Section 3.5: Project Trip Distribution. Exhibits 3-B
and 3-C, source for the internal trips (12% and 3%) indicated for Mesa and Lowland
developments. The 12% internal trips indicated in Exhibit 3-B for the Mesa project is very •
high when compared to the total trip generation estimated in Table 3-1, page 3-9. Are these
internal trips obtained from the model? If not, how were they obtained? This high internal
trip rate appears to be an attempt to understme project traffic impacting City facilities.
1. Page 3-12, Section 3.5: Project Trip Distribution. The 30% •
trip distribution on Warner Avenue to PCH seems to be high considering the available
capacity to the north of Warner on PCH. Is this high percentage distribution justified? This
appears to be another attempt to understate project traffic volumes on City streets.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 22, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 163
•
M. Page 3-12, Section 3.5: Project Trip Distribution. Exhibit 3-B,
the 16% WBR and 14% WBL are high percentage distribution considering PCH is already at
capacity. To understand the impact of the westbound traffic on the City roadway network if
PCH cannot be expanded in the future, it is essential to run the SARA model with turning
0 movement restraint at Warner Avenue and PCH. Also, the study must provide LOS, link
analysis, and cost analysis with traffic not going to PCH.
n. Page 3-15, Section 3.6 Project Average Daily Traffic. In
Exhibit 3-E, to the north of Seapointe Street on PCH the ADT's have reduced from those
• shown in Exhibit 3-D (For example, from 3.3 to 3.1). This needs to be verified, as the
distribution in Exhibit 3-B has not changed, nor have the trip generation rates changed.
K. CHAPTER 4.10 - AIR OuAL1TY
• 1. Need to Reference Traffic Assumptions. The text repeatedly refers to
the air quality handbook and the sources for its emission factors but should also reference
additional traffic assumptions. Mitigation measures are reasonably detailed and text is clear
in the unavoidable adverse impacts.
• 2. Need for Further Meteorological Data. Page 4.10-1: It would be
useful to summarize meteorological influences within the project area (i.e. prevailing winds,
inversion layers/characteristics, local topographical issues, maritime influence).
3. Monitoring Locations Are Not Identified. Page 4.10-1: The REIR
should include a map that identifies the locations of the monitoring stations versus the project
site.
4. Lack of Intersection Air Quality Data. Page 4.10-10, Lines 45-50,
Page 4.10-11, Lines 1-20: The REIR should provide at least a summary table of significant
• intersections depicting existing, projected future conditions, without the project, projected
future conditions with the project, and oftentimes comparison with the build alternatives. In
this manner, even if the project does not show a significant impact, it can be compared with
other relevant scenarios. Further, the potential for the project to cause CO or other emission
hot spots should be evaluated and disclosed by the REIR.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 164
•
5. Analysis Includes Conflicting Data.
a. Page 4.10-11, Lines 37-45: The text concludes that although
the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Westminster Avenue yields an 8-hour average
of 9.12 ppm which exceeds the CAAQS value of 9.1 ppm, that by the year 2010 the ambient •
concentration would be low enough such that there would not be a significant impact. If this
is true, why wasn't a lower ambient used in the model? Is this rationale consistent with the
Handbook?
b. Page 4.10-17, Lines 33-35: Need to clarify why 12 percent of •
the trips that are "internal to the project" are apparently excluded in the total trip generation.
Even though the trip length is shorter, this trip type still loads the atmosphere with
pollutants.
6. Consistency with AQMP Is Not Sufficiently Analyzed. Page 4.10-8:
The air quality section does not specifically mention which set of land use assumptions were •
used within the existing AQMP, yet it mentions on Page 4.10-8 that " New or amended
General Plan elements, Specific Plans, and Projects with potentially significant air quality
impacts need to undergo a consistency review. In this case, the Proposed Project will
require a General Plan Amendment, therefore, a consistency determination is necessary".
What is the current "reigning" General Plan Land Use Element? Based upon review of the •
General Plan section of the EIR, it appears the document is assuming that the County of
Orange Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (19W represents the currant planning
scenario to the site, even though this plan is not considered to be operant by the Coastal
Commission. Although it is apparent that the development of the applicant's proposed
project is somewhat downsized from this 1986 version, conditions previously set forth by the •
CCC are met in this plan. Since the previous land use plan was only conditionally certified,
the City does not believe this is an approved document. It is also unclear if the densities of
development the 1986 plan allows were included in the assumptions for the AQMP? This
document states that "if development in the County LCP area has been considered in the
AQMP, the project will generally be found to conform ..." Please clarify what is meant by •
"if". Was the plan included in the AQMP or not?
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 165
7. Consistency with GMT Is Not Properly Analyzed. There are flaws
in the analysis and further study is necessary to address consistency with SCAG's Growth
Management Plan.
• a. Page 4.10-8, Line 28+, Consistency with SCAG Growth
Management Plan (GMP): According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(AQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993, page 12-1), information should be
provided in the EIR to determine consistency of the project with the AQMP and other
applicable regional plans. The SCAG GMP is included as "other applicable regional plans".
b. The REIR assesses consistency with the GMP by evaluating the
project's effect on jobs/housing balance. This method is inconsistent with the approach
recommended by the AQMD, which states:
"[Consistency] can be accomplished by comparing the project's density,
location, and land use pattern with the adopted local General Plan and
associated zoning ordinance and maps that were in place in 1989 when the
GNP was adopted. If the project will result in a significant change in the
density, location, and land use pattern, then it is considered to be inconsistent
• with the GNP For General Plan Amendments and projects involving a
significant change to the General Plan, a comparison of the growth projections
in the appropriate regional statistical area (RSA) for the build-out year should
be performed to determine consistency." (CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
page 12-2.)
The consistency analysis in the REIR does not compare the project's density, location and
land use pattern with the adopted County General Plan, nor does it compare growth
projections in the appropriate RSA.
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septwnbw 23. 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 166
•
L. CHAPIrER 4.11 - NoisE
1. Confusing Organization Obscures Analysis. The Noise Section of
the EIR and the technical appendices appears to have all the constituent components that
address noise exposure. However , this section would be more understandable if some of the •
"hard data" provided in the technical appendices were pulled forward in summary fashion
into the EIR. This exercise would provide some explanation for the conclusions reached in
the main body of the text. Also, there are a number of statements that require clarification
and statements that appear wrong or are simply worded in a confusing manner.
•
2. Local Noise Monitoring to Establish Baseline. The County should
conduct noise monitoring in the local community to establish an existing ambient noise level
beyond the site, since construction noise and traffic noise from the land development can
then be compared to the exiting ambient noise level in the community.
3. Miscellaneous. •
a. Page 4.11-1, Line 35: Define SOVI as it is the first time it is
mentioned in this section.
b. Page 4.11-2: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-7 •
is the subject of the discussion pertaining to the Pacific Coast Highway. Please confirm.
C. Page 4.11-2: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-8
is the subject of the discussion pertaining to Warner Avenue. Please confirm.
•
d. Page 4.11-3, Lines 22,23: Caltrans standards are in Leq, not
Ldn. Doesn't the County of Orange have a typical day-evening-night split for arterials in
Orange County which would translate into modelling input parameters to calculate Ldn or
CNEL?
•
e. Page 4.11-3, Line 48: Add a period to 58 1, (58.1).
f. Page 4.11-4, Lines 1-3: What is the source for the Ldn
estimates? (nomograph, model?)
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 167
•
g. Page 4.11-4, Lines 13-18: Using hard site conditions is
conservative. Specifically how the hard site condition was arrived at, and if consistent with
County typical assumptions.
• h. Page 4.11-4, Lines 17-18: It would be helpful to know what
areas are already out of compliance with City's 60 Ldn criteria.
i. Page 4.11-4, Lines 23-41: The accepted California noise metric
is CNEL, not Ldn, albeit the differences between the metrics are minimal. It is assumed that
Lines 27-31 provides the rationale for using Ldn. Was the City, County and State consulted
prior to the decision to us Ldn? Please elaborate.
j. Table 4.11-1: This table is confusing. The purpose of this
table is unclear since it is not related to any of the local streets.
• k. Page 4.11-4, Lines 40,41: How was the 78 percent increase
arrived at?
1. Page 4.11-6, Lines 3-20: How will the PDF's be monitored and
reported? Will the PDF's be subject to Assembly Bill 3180 reporting requirements? If not,
how will the applicant or lead agency know if performance criteria were met?
In. Page 4.11-6, Lines 42-49: This discussion is confusing and
warrants some clarification. Specifically, "The peak-hour noise levels are approximately 2 to
3 dBa less than the modified Ldn values while the remainder of the days sessions would be
• an additional 2 to 3 dBa less."
n. Please explain how peak-hour noise levels can be less. It is
assumed that what is meant is that the peak-hour traffic-related noise is less (i.e. 6 to 9 AM
and 4 to 7 PM), not the peak-hour noise. The text should clarify if this is due to reduced
• vehicle speeds due to a poorer level of service. This needs clarification. Next, if the
remainder of the days session (school day) 9 AM to 3 PM is an additional 2 to 3 dBa less,
than noise levels are between S and 6 dBa less than predicted. How can this occur? If the
peak-hour traffic-related noise is 2 to 3 dBa less than predicted (i.e., between 6 to 9 AM
and 4 to 7 PM), then one would assume the intervening hours must be louder not quieter,
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 168
•
other wise what is the peak-hour traffic-related noise less than? The remaining hours are
between 7 PM and 5 AM when little traffic noise is generated. Please clarify.
o. Page 4.11-6, Line 50 to Page 4.11-7, Lines 1-5: This
discussion references the California State Department of Education as the appropriate •
jurisdiction in determining acceptable limits for noise around schools. The noise level of 70
dBa is mentioned, but does not relate it specifically to Ldn or Leq (i.e. peak hour noise).
Also, it does not identify which schools in the area are potentially impacted with or without
the project. Please clarify.
•
p. Page 4.11-7: Construction equipment associated with wetland
restoration (i.e. dredging) is very loud and could produce noise levels that exceed noise
standards. The text should be revised to include construction-related noise as it relates to
wetlands restoration.
q. Pages 4.11-8 and 4.11-9: It would be helpful if at least a
summary table was shown in the EIR text that addresses noise exposure for those major
roadway segments that have residential, schools, or other sensitive receptors adjacent to
them. Even if there are no significant impacts, the reader would be able to see the
assumptions for ADT and the respective Ldn values without referring to another technical •
volume. The lack of mention of traffic noise impact to specific locations in the community is
surprising considering the interest and controversy surrounding this project.
r. Page 4.11-9, Lines 35-41: This discussion is appropriate but
should be referenced to an acceptable noise criteria and included as a mitigation measure to
ensure it is implemented and reported consistent with mitigation monitoring/reporting
requirements. Without such a discussion there is no guidance for performance criteria (i.e.
60 Leq, 65 Leq).
S. Page 4.11-9, Lines 6-15: There is no back-up discussion or
tables to refer to that support the conclusion that local roads "will not have their traffic- •
generated noise increased significantly". Continual reference to the Appendix is not
particularly easy for the reader to follow.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 169
•
M. CHAPTER 4.12 - CmmmAL REsoyRcEs
1. Further Studies Required Prior to Approval of the Proposed
Project. The cultural resources section of the REIR is inadequate because each of the
• following concerns require the preparation of further studies and disclosure and analysis of
the results of those studies prior to project approval:'
• The mitigation measures are inadequate to prevent the significant
cultural resources impacts which the REIR states they avoid.
•
• Additional mitigation measures are necessary (and appear to be
feasible) to mitigate direct project impacts appropriately.
• The cultural resource analysis is flawed in many respects.
•
• Information in the REIR is incomplete and unclear.
• Facts stated in the REIR are often erroneous or unsupported, some of
the assumptions and conclusions are unreasonable, erroneous,
unsupported, and/or insupportable.
• Some of the tables, maps, etc. are in error and/or contradictory.
• Some significant impacts are determined to be non-significant.
• Some significant cultural resources are determined to be
• non-significant.
• Some resources were destroyed before they could be tested for
• significance (and must therefore be considered significant).
981 The rnmpleted studio should be summarized in the revised REW with the studio themselves appended as
• Exhibits.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 170
•
• The REIR has not demonstrated that all significant impacts have been
stated and mitigated to the extent feasible.
• The proposed mitigation measures are not adequate to mitigate project
impacts to cultural resources. •
• The REIR remains rife with obfuscation, etc.
2. Unanswered Issues Raised in the Comment. The following issues
which were raised in the Comment were either not addressed at all or were only partially •
answered in the REIR and are therefore reiterated below.
a. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements (pages 167-168 of the
Comment). The REIR states that the gun emplacements on the Mesa were constructed by
the Corps during the early years of WWII. See p. 4.12-7, Ins. 1-4. In contrast, the •
documentation supplied to the County in connection with Koll's 1990 applications for
demolition permits indicated that the emplacements were constructed in 1944 and were not
completed or fitted with weapons. This was the basis for permitting the demolition to
proceed and now is brought into questions by the REIR. What is the true history and
potential significance of these historical assets?
•
b. Deferred Study (page 168 of the Comment). The REIR states
that a research design for material analysis for the Bolsa Chica region is currently in
preparation (page 4.12-32, Ins. 43-44); therefore, impact to Bolsa Chica region sites cannot
be deemed insignificant until.completed. The mitigation section identifies area in which
data recovery excavations will occur but does not address the extent of the area to be
evaluated or what will be done with the excavations.
c. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer;
California Register Criteria (page 169 of the Comment). PRC I $ 21084, 21084.1 define
a project which would adversely affect a historic resource as including resources eligible for •
listing in CW= the National Register QI the newly-created California Register of Historic
Places. The REIR improperly relies on a determination made prior to the creation of the
California Register. Furthermore, there are other determinants of whether a resource is of
significance to a particular community or represents an example of a period of California
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 171
•
history. Mere adherence to the National Register standards for eligibility for listing is
clearly not the CEQA definition of an impact to a historic resource under PRC § 21084.1.
Consultation with the SHPO would be invaluable in determining the site's eligibility for
listing in the California Register. That determination must be made before the REIR can be
• considered complete under CEQA.�?-'
d. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites.
(1) ORA-78 (pages 169-170 of the Comment): Table 1.3
states that the historic components of site ORA-78 have not been formally evaluated. The
significance of these historic resources must be determined by a qualified historical
archaeologist and/or architectural historian and evaluated by the REIR.
(2) ORA-82 (page 170 of the Comment): On page 4.12-23,
• Ins. 46-47, the REIR's Cultural Resources section reported that "most of the site within the
County LCP area has not been subject to either test excavations or data recovery." It is
presented as an assumption that the County will test, assess, excavate if necessary and
mitigate all negative impacts to this site (Table 1.3, 1-37). Without more complete
information, the accuracy of this assumption cannot be evaluated. Unless a major amount of
• excavation and analysis is underway, covering the apparently unstudied portion of this very
important site within the LCP study area, it is very unlikely that the negative impacts of the
LCP study area development plan will have been adequately mitigated. No objective criteria
have been provided for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work (e.g., data
recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be or are adequate or are or will
• mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. This will be a county responsibility under the
conditions of the Applicant's preferred plan. Is their responsibility guaranteed in some way
(e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? The REIR should address the result of testing/data
recovery activities conducted within the LCP area rather than exclusively the results of work
conducted outside the LCP area.
•
991 Tlhe SHPO it concerned rega»ding this site. Attached to the Comment as ANNEX No. 56 are v+ariow flans of
correspondence ft»m SHPO to the Corer. CCC and so Koll's counsel, noting SHPO's concern regarding the overly
intrusive and potentially destrucrivie manner in which 'important ardhaeologwal properda'were being reported,
• urging that a more comprehensive and sewitive approach be taken.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 172
•
(3) ORA-290 (page 172 of the Comment): The REIR is
inconsistent in its treatment of ORA-290. Table 4.12-2, page 4.12-9, indicates that ORA-
290 is destroyed. In contrast, page 4.12-26, lns. 26-30, of the REIR's Cultural Resources
section states that a remnant of the site exists.
•
(4) ORA-291, -292, -1308, -1309 (page 172 of the Comment):
No carbon dating has been performed for these sites (Table 4.12-2).
(5) ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365H, -366, -1308, -1309 (page
172 of the Comment): If properly studied, these sites have the potential to yield significant •
scientific data. Most of these sites have been inadequately studied so that an accurate
assessment of their significance and the required mitigation measures is impossible. Such
work must be completed and evaluated by the REIR.
e. Miscellaneous.
(1) (pages 172-173 of the Comment) No regional study
comparing LCP study area resources to regional resources has been conducted or is proposed
in the REIR. A regional study plan should be developed and implemented. The regional
study plan would minimally seek to obtain the age of all known LCP study area sites and •
compare the significance of LCP sites to regional and cultural resources. The "significance"
of a site, as an isolated example of prehistoric activity, may be lower than if the site is
viewed as part of a group of sites in the region. For example, the findings that [five]
prehistoric sites are not important, [four] of which have not been dated, fails to consider
these sites as part of a regional system of sites and ignores the REIR contribution to the
cumulative impacts of the proposed project.] •
(2) (page 173 of the Comment:) Impact 4.12-4: This
impact states that park development activities may impact cultural resources on prehistoric
sites [and historic resources] located on the Huntington Beach Mesa. The proposed
mitigation measures for sites on the Huntington Beach Mesa appear to assume impacts will •
be mitigated by future completion of evaluation and work in progress or to be done. No
objective criteria have been provided for the assessment of whether the work (e.g., data
recovery, significance testing, excavation, etc.) will be adequate or mitigate project impacts
to known or yet to be discovered resources. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4a merely states that
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 172
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 173
•
"the impacts of Park development have been considered in a separate EIR which identified
mitigation measures. These measures will be implemented by the County." In contrast, for
archaeological sites located in the area of the Linear Regional Park, the REIR provides that
it situ preservation or the "capping" of sites will take place to prevent disturbance to the site.
•
(3) Impact 4.12-2 (pages 173-174 of the Comment): This
impact states that undocumented sites in the Lowland may be impacted by wetlands
restoration activities. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 (PDF) states that surveys will be conducted
to determine the presence of significant resources, and that mitigation measures shall be
• implemented for significant sites "at the expense of the Applicant." The Applicant's
financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who
will fund the work if the Applicant cannot? Surveys should be conducted to locate all
resources within the wetlands restoration area of the LCP study area, their significance
should be determined, appropriate mitigation measures must be developed and addressed in
• the REIR.
3. Discovery of Human Remains. More information has been provided
in the REIR than the DEIR regarding the human skeletal material discovered at ORA-83, and
the REIR indicates that the results of the analysis of the human bone fragments and their
• significance will be compiled in a report on the data recovery program. The REIR explains
that in June 1994, the most likely descendants reburied all of the human bone fragments and
associated grave goods that were discovered during the data recovery program at ORA-83,
and that such reburial was conducted in accordance with the reburial agreement with the
Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and the recommendations of the most likely descendants.
The REIR further states that.ORA-83, which was judged significant, has been excavated and
• that other than grading monitoring, no further work is proposed. See page 4.12-39, lns. 25-
47. The REIR should disclose additional information regarding the methodology of the
controlled grading program so that a determination may be made whether such a program is
adequate and will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Someone will eventually
become responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the County or the
• City?
4. Cultural Resources Research DedV. The REIR never clearly states
whether a research design has been developed for the proposed project. This frustrates
attempts to evaluate the thoroughness or accuracy of the cultural resources analysis in the
•
Discussion Draft Dated Spternim 23, 1994 173
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 174
•
REIR. The County must prepare and include in the new and recirculated REIR a clear,
consistent, scientifically sound, professional, adequate cultural resources research design
("CRRD") which must be implemented for all known and as yet undiscovered cultural
resource sites. The CRRD must address at least the following:
•
a. Adequately address all usual, professional research questions.
b. Completely describe all research methodologies.
C. Completely describe and document the area and volume of all
site excavations.
d. Completely describe and document the analysis intended, and !
e. Document the project proponent's ability to carry out the work.
S. Inadequate Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions.
•
a. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b: The capping of sites (page
4.12-43, In. 49), contrary to the REIR, does not entirely eliminate the need to conduct data
recovery on a site. Capping merely removes a site from scientific study, or minimally makes
such study much more difficult. Capping does greatly reduce the project's adverse impact to
a site, and consequently reduces the amount of data that should be recovered prior to the •
site's removal from scientific study. This mitigation measure should be modified to include
the minimal data collection from the effected sites to at least enable a preliminary assessment
of the nature and extent of each site, a list of the type of artifacts contained within the site,
and the significance of capped sites and associated artifacts.
b. Non-Significant Sites: Five sites have been determined to have !
not been tested for significance and are therefore not significant because they have been
destroyed. No site should be destroyed without testing for significance and destroyed sites
can not be determined to be non-significant because they were destroyed. On the contrary,
untested destroyed site must be determined to be significant.
C. All LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated,
tested for significance, sites determined to be significant must be excavated, and their
significance in relation to regional cultural resources should be determined and addressed in
the REIR (JMA, 19%).
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1904 174
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 175
•
d. Archival material exist for archival material collected from the
destroyed sites listed on Table 4.12-1. These materials must be properly analyzed.
Recommendation: An additional mitigation measure should be written to ensure that no site
will be destroyed without being tested for significance and that all archival materials
• properly analyzed. Otherwise, the statement in section 4.12.4.1, page 4.12-39, In. 29-33,
that the prehistoric components of Ora-83, and Ora-85 will be evaluated in their regional
context should be considered invalid.
6. The REIR Fails to Inform the Reader of the Scope of Research.
The REIR does not clearly described the scope of the research and physical investigation
which has been performed and, here again, the reader is forced to speculate as to the
completeness or accuracy of the scope and techniques employed in investigating the cultural
resources of the site. The County must rewrite the REIR to document the work that has
been completed and the work which remains to be done.
• 7. The REIR Does Not Provide for Adequate Site Management or
Testing. The project proposed in the REIR does not propose adequate mitigation of the
projects significant, or its potentially significant, impacts on cultural resources of the project
site. In order for the REIR's treatment of the potential and known cultural sources of the
site to mitigate impacts of the project, the County must, at a minimum, implement all of the
• following:
a. Develop a detailed plan for site management ensuring all sites
will be tested for significance and ensuing the results and findings of significance tests will
be thoroughly and professionally documented in accordance with professional SOPA, local,
state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines, requirements, etc.
b. The reports of findings should include at least the nature and
extent of each site, a list of the type of artifacts contained within the site, and the
significance of the site and associated artifacts.
•
C. The cultural resources research design for this project must
adequately analyze all previously collected archival material, from all on-site cultural
resources sites. Only then can potential project impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered
cultural resources of the project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 22, 1994 175
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 176
•
d. All cultural resources sites must receive documented, objective,
professional analysis adequate levels of attention.
e. The archaeologist's attention (i.e. time, research budgets, etc.)
must be appropriately apportioned to adequately test and mitigate all significant impacts to •
known and potential significant resources.
f. All LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated
and tested for significance. Sites determined to be significant must be excavated, and their
significance in relation to regional cultural resources should be determined and addressed in •
the REIR.
g. All untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate
the REIR potential impacts.
h. If the sites have not been tested, then that work must be •
performed and the REIR recirculated before the REIR is submitted for approval.
8. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites.
a. Ora-78: The current document is not internally consistent as to •
the continued existence of this site. Table 1.3, page 34 states that this site, as well as a
number of others, no longer exists. Yet, Section 4.12.1.3, page 4.12-7, ln. 40 to 43, reports
that as recently as 1992 an intact, and previously unrecorded portion of ORA-78 was located.
The earlier DEIR incorrectly indicated that the site was unimportant. If this site has been
destroyed, the REIR must determine and document how this occurred and specifically and 0
thoroughly explain how other sites will be managed to prevent the loss of sites and associated
data.
b. Ora-84, Ora-86 (mesa component), Ora-288, Ora-289, Ora-290,
Ora-85H: All of these sites are indicated in the current document as destroyed. The data •
presented in Table 4.12-1 indicates that all of these sites have received some degree of
archaeological attention in the past, and yet many have not received an adequate level of
analysis (e.g., carbon dating of all sites). The RE1R does not indicate that there has been
study of archival material collected from these sites. CEQA requires that the cumulative
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 176
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 177
impact of a project be evaluated, and not merely the immediate site specific impacts. JMA's
January 13, 1994 review comments recommended providing for the proper analysis of
archived excavation material from the majority of these sites are still warranted in the current
design. Additional scientific study/analysis is required to enable determination of potential
• impacts to cultural resources within the project area.
C. Ora-83: Considerably more detail is provided for this site than
in the REIR. The added information concerning human skeletal material seems adequate.
This site seems to hold the greatest interest for the applicant's archaeological consultant,
perhaps to the detriment of the other significant archaeological resources in the area. The
REIR states (Section 4.12, page 4.12-39, lines 25-47) that this site, as well as Ora-85, have
been excavated, and that other than grading monitoring, no further field work is proposed.
d. Ora-86 (lowland component), Ora-88H, Ora-292, Ora-293/294,
• Ora-365H, Ora-366, Ora-1308, Ora-1309: Based on Table 4.12-3, the significance of these
sites has yet to be determined. The REIR text is inconsistent with this, stating on page
4.12-37 lines 14 and 15 that all sites have been tested. If site testing yielded only ambiguous
results, this should be so stated and the nature of further work necessary to provide clear,
more conclusive results, must be detailed and recommended. The results and findings of
0 further work must be scientifically documented.
e. ORA-78: The question raised by the REIR regarding the
significance of ORA-78 based on the discovery of the marine invertebrate Donax sp. was
adequately addressed in the REIR. PDF-5 (page 4.12-34, Ins. 20-25) includes a
representation that the historic components of ORA-78 will be evaluated for significance at
the Applicant's expense. The Applicant's financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any
way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot?
f. ORA-83H: The historic resources at this site were determined
to be insignificant because better examples are preserved elsewhere. The REIR should
identify the sources which made this determination.
g. ORA-84: The REIR indicates that this site has been destroyed.
The data presented in Table 4.12-1, and on page 4.12-21, indicates that this site has received
some degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, it does not appear that there
•
Discussion Draft Datod Soptambar 23, 1994 177
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 178
•
has been any study of archival material collected from ORA-84. CEQA requires that the
cumulative impact of a project (as opposed to mere immediate site specific impacts) be
evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-84
is required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the
project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected unless •
all previously collected archival material from ORA-84 are adequately analyzed. Only then
can potential project impacts to existing and currently undiscovered cultural resources of the
project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
h. ORA-85: This site, which was judged significant, has been the •
subject of data recovery excavations. The REIR is inconsistent in its reporting of the status
of such excavations. Page 4.12-22, In. 35, of the REIR reports that data recovery
excavations have been completed by SRS and analysis and reporting is in process. In
contrast, Table 1.3 (page 1-35) states that the landowner has merely implemented an
extensive recovery program for ORA-85 and will incorporate PDFs to avoid or minimize •
impacts to the site. The REIR must clarify the status of the excavation program at ORA-85.
The REIR further reports that completion of a data recovery excavation program is generally
considered to be appropriate mitigation for an archaeological site. However, because the
entire site was not excavated, prior to any grading activities, a controlled grading program
shall be conducted by the project archaeologist in the field area to recover any cogged stones •
or other important artifacts which may remain in the disturbed portion of the site. Further,
the REIR states that the grading program shall be monitored by a qualified Native American.
The REIR should disclose additional information regarding the methodology of the controlled
grading program so that a determination may be made whether such a program is adequate
and will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources. Someone will eventually become •
responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the County or the City?
i. ORO-85H: The REIR indicates that this site has been
destroyed. Page 4.12-23, Ins. 15-25, indicates that this site has received some degree of
archaeological attention in the past. A photographic record of archival material collected
from ORA-85H was compiled; however, it does not appear that there has been any study of •
such material. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project (as opposed to the
mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of
archived excavation material from ORA-85H is required to enable the determination of
potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural resources
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 178
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 179
•
research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected archival
material from ORA-85H are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project impacts to
existing and currently undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed and
appropriately mitigated.
•
j. ORA-86 (Lowlands component): The Effects Found To be
Insignificant portion of Table 1.3, pg. 1-34, has been revised to eliminate the statement that
impacts to the site will be reduced to insignificant. No carbon dating has been performed for
this site (Table 4.12-2 of the Cultural Resources section of the REIR). Testing of this site
0 has not been completed. The REIR has been revised to state that the lowland portion shall
be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to determine whether they represent unique or
important cultural deposits. If they are determined to be unique or important cultural
deposits, the certified archaeologist will recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be
implemented which could include the implementation of a data recovery program or the
• "capping" of the site which shall be implemented at the expense of the lowland Applicant. Is
the Applicant's financial responsibility guaranteed in some way(e.g., by a bond, contract,
etc.)? Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot? The REIR further states that all data
recovery excavations shall be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the
lowland wetlands restoration activities or lowland urban development activities for these
• sites. The significance of untestedlexcavated sites must be determined and addressed in the
REIR.
k. ORA-86 (Mesa component): The REIR indicates that this site
has been destroyed. Page 4.12-21, Ins. 2-14, indicates that this site has received some
• degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, no carbon dating has been performed
on this site. Further, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival material
collected from ORA-86 (Mesa component). CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a
project (as opposed to the mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional
scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-86 (Mesa component) is
required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the
• project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected unless
all previously collected archival material from ORA-86 (Mesa component) are adequately
analyzed. Only then can potential project impacts to existing and currently undiscovered
cultural resource of the project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 179
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 180
•
1. ORA-88: JMA has determined that ORA-88 is a significant
prehistoric site with potentially significant historic features. Impact 4.12.5, Table 1.3, page
1-37, has been revised to state that a qualified historical archaeologist and/or architectural
historian will be engaged to conduct an evaluation of ORA-88. This evaluation will be
conducted at the County's expense and the County will implement the recommendations of
the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant historical
cultural resources. Is the County's responsibility to pay for the evaluation guaranteed in
some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? In order to provide for the assessment of
whether proposed or on-going work will be or are adequate or are or will mitigate project
impacts to cultural resources, the REIR has been revised to state that significance criteria to •
be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP and Appendix K to the CEQA
Guidelines. The historic features are noted in the REIR's Cultural Resources section 4.12
(page 4.12-26, ln. 19) but not evaluated.
M. ORA-288: The REIR indicates that ORA-288 is destroyed. •
Page 4.12-23, Ins. 38-40, indicates that this site has received some degree of archaeological
attention in the past; however, no carbon dating has been performed on this site (Table 4.12-
2). Further, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival material collected
from ORA-288. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project (as opposed to the
mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional scientific study/analysis of •
archived excavation material from ORA-288 is required to enable the determination of
potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural resources
research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected archival
material from ORA-288 are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project impacts to
existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed and
appropriately mitigated. •
n. ORA-289: The REIR indicates that ORA-289 is destroyed.
Page 4.12-22, Ins. 7-13, indicates that this site has received some degree of archaeological
attention in the past; however, it does not appear that there has been any study of archival
material collected from ORA-289. CEQA requires that the cumulative impact of a project •
(as opposed to the mere immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated. Additional scientific
study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-289 is required to enable the
determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the project area. The cultural
resources research design for the project must be rejected unless all previously collected
•
Discussion Draft Dated Soptwnbw 23. 1994 180
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 181
archival material from ORA-289 are adequately analyzed. Only then can potential project
impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource of the project area be assessed
and appropriately mitigated.
• o. ORA-290: Page 4.12-26, Ins. 24-31, indicates that this site has
received some degree of archaeological attention in the past; however, no carbon dating has
been performed on this site (Table 4.12-2). Moreover, it does not appear that there has been
any study of archival material collected from ORA-290. CEQA requires that the cumulative
impact of a project (and not merely the immediate site specific impacts) be evaluated.
• Additional scientific study/analysis of archived excavation material from ORA-290 is
required to enable the determination of potential impacts to cultural resources within the
project area. The cultural resources research design for the project must be rejected unless
all previously collected archival material from ORA-290 are adequately analyzed. Only then
can potential project impacts to existing and as yet undiscovered cultural resource of the
project area be assessed and appropriately mitigated.
P. ORA-365: The REIR has been revised to include the results of
data recovery excavations. However, a portion in the LCP area has not yet been tested
(Table 4.12-3). This portion has the potential to yield significant scientific data. Such work
• must be completed and evaluated by the REIR so that an accurate assessment of the
significance of the untested portion and the required mitigation measures can be made.
Impact 4.12.5, Table 1.3, page 1-37, has been revised to state that a qualified historical
archaeologist and/or architectural historian will be engaged to conduct an evaluation of ORA-
365. This evaluation will be conducted at the County's expense and the County will
implement the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian
• regarding significant historical cultural resources. Is the County's responsibility to pay for
the evaluation guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? In order to provide
for the assessment of whether proposed or on-going work will be or are adequate or are or-
will mitigate project impacts to cultural resources, the REIR has been revised to state that
significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP and
• Appendix K to the CEQA Guidelines.
q. ORA-86 (Lowland component), -88H: Table 4.12-3 indicates
the significance of these sites has yet to be determined. In contrast, Page 4.12-37 of the
Cultural Resources section states that all of the known prehistoric cultural sites on Bolsa
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 181
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 182
•
Chica Mesa have been tested and subjected to data recovery programs. The REIR must be
revised to eliminate this inconsistency. If properly studied, these sites have the potential to
yield significant scientific data. Most of these sites have been inadequately studied so that an
accurate assessment of their significance and the required mitigation measures is impossible.
Such work must be completed and evaluated by the REIR. •
r. ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365H, -366, -1308, -1309: Table
4.12-3 indicates the significance of these sites has yet to be determined. In contrast, Page
4.12-37 of the Cultural Resources section states that all of the known prehistoric cultural
sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have been tested and subjected to data recovery programs. The •
REIR must be revised to eliminate this inconsistency.
S. ORA-1308 and -1309: Table 1.3 (page 1-36) of the REIR states
that the lowland portion of these sites shall be tested by a County-certified archaeologist to
determine whether they represent unique or important cultural deposits. If they are •
determined to be unique or important cultural deposits, the certified archaeologist will
recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented which could include the
implementation of a data recovery program or the "capping" of the sites which shall be
implemented at the expense of the lowland Applicant. Is the Applicant's financial
responsibility guaranteed in some way(e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? Who will fund the •
work if the Applicant cannot? The REIR further states that all data recovery excavations
shall be completed prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the lowland wetlands
restoration activities or lowland urban development activities for these sites. The
significance of untested/excavated sites must be determined and addressed in the REIR.
9. Miscellaneous. •
a. The REIR is inconsistent in its treatment of the existence of a
cultural resources research design for known and as yet undiscovered cultural resource sites.
For example, on page 4.12-32 Project Design Feature-1 states that the research design is
currently in preparation (Ins. 43-44) while lines 29-31 states that a research design exists and •
is being implemented. The REIR must be revised to eliminate this inconsistency.
b. PDF-2 (page 4.12-34, Ins. 1-13) includes a representation that
the requisite data recovery investigations, testing, analysis, and reports shall be completed at
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septambar 23. 1994 182
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 183
•
the Applicant's expense. The Applicant's financial responsibility is not guaranteed in any
way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.). Who will fund the work if the Applicant cannot?
C. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b (page 4.12-43, ln. 49), as well as
• other portions of the Cultural Resources section, refer to site "capping." The capping of
sites does not entirely eliminate the need to conduct data recovery on a site. Capping merely
removes a site from scientific study, or minimally makes such study much more difficult.
Capping does greatly reduce the project's adverse impact to a site, and consequently, reduces
the amount of data that should be recovered prior to the site's removal from scientific study.
•
10. Specific Recommendations. The following recommendations are
based on information presented in the preceding sections of this letter regarding Chapter
4.12.
• -- Eliminate all discrepancies and inconsistencies in the REIR regarding
the existence or non-existence of a research design covering the
proposed project.
• -- Prepare a clear, consistent, scientifically sound cultural resources
research design to be implemented for all known and currently
undiscovered cultural resource sites. The research design must
adequately address all usual, professional research questions,
completely describe all research methodologies, completely describe
and document the area and volume of all site excavations, completely
• describe and document the analysis intended and document the project
proponent's ability to complete the work.
-- Revise the REIR to document the work that has been completed and the
work which has yet to be done.
•
— Develop a detailed plan for site management ensuring all sites will be
tested for significance and ensuring the results and findings of
significance tests will be thoroughly and professionally documented in
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 183
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 184
•
accordance with professional SOPA, local, state and federal laws,
regulations, guidelines, requirements, etc.
-- Reports of findings should include at least the nature and extent of each
site, a list of the type of artifacts contained within the site, and the •
significance of the site and associated artifacts.
-- All cultural resource sites should receive objective, adequate levels of
attention.
•
-- The archaeologists' attention (i.e., time, research budgets, etc.) should
be appropriately apportioned to adequately test and mitigate all
significant resources.
-- All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources sections and •
mitigation measures of the REIR should be made available to allow
reviewers to determine if they are complete and accurate.
-- All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources section of
the REIR should be included in a technical appendix to the REIR which •
is made available only to archaeologists.
-- A more in-depth review of the REIR Cultural Resources sections and
technical reports is warranted.
-- Additional scientific study/analysis is required to enable determination •
of potential impacts to cultural resources within the LCP study area.
Additional mitigation measures must be developed to address all
potentially significant cultural resources sites or sites for which the
significance has not been determined. •
-- Several cultural resources sites determined insignificant appear to be
significant and therefore should be reevaluated.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 184
•
• • •
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 185
•
-- AU LCP study area cultural resources/sites should be age dated, tested,
excavated and their significance in relation to regional cultural
resources should be determined and addressed in the REIR.
• -- The portion of ORA-82, within the LCP area, must be tested and
evaluated by the REIR.
-- Carbon dating and testing of the lowland portion of ORA-86 must be
conducted and mitigation measures developed as appropriate.
-- Carbon dating must be conducted for all undated sites.
-- The content, scope and methodology of any on-going research for
ORA-82 and ORA-85 must be provided and described by the REIR in
• order to enable an assessment of the adequacy of proposed mitigation
measures for these two sites.
-- Re-evaluate the significance of ORA-88H, -291, -292, 293/293, -365H,
-366, -1308, -1309: provide the research designs referred to and used
• to evaluate these sites; list the criteria used to evaluate the significance
of these sites; present an alternative to data recovery/excavation;
present and evaluate scope of work and criteria to measure success for
data recovery work to be conducted; etc.
• — Make information regarding ORA-290 consistent throughout the REIR.
— All untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate the
REIR potential impacts. Testing must be performed before the REIR is
submitted for review.
• -- Apply (include) all comments regarding cultural resources in Chapter 4
to Chapter 11.
— Re-evaluate the magnitude of project impacts to cultural resources in
Chapter 6 and make it consistent with all REIR text.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 185
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 186
•
-- Develop a plan to monitor for and deal with cultural resources during
dredging of the tidal inlet.
-- The REIR provides for the monitoring of all construction grading
activities. If cultural resources are encountered during the grading •
process, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity must stop
until a testing program is developed and conducted. Further, sites
determined to be significant must be excavated to mitigate impacts.
-- Mitigation Measure 4.12-4b should be modified to include the minimal •
data collection from the effected sites to at least enable a preliminary
assessment of the nature and extent of each site, a list of the type of
artifacts contained within the site, and the significance of capped sites
and associated artifacts.
•
-- Archival material collected from the destroyed sites listed in Table
4.12-1 must be properly analyzed.
-- An additional mitigation measure should be written to ensure that no
site will be destroyed without being tested for significance and that all •
archival materials from such sites will be properly analyzed.
-- Destroyed sites cannot be determined to be insignificant because they
were destroyed. Rather, any destroyed site must be tested to determine
its significance. •
N. CHAPTER 4.13 - PAI.EoNPOIAOICAL RESOUMEs
The City has no comments with respect to this Chapter other than to reiterate
the comments made with respect to cultural resources. •
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septembw 23, 1994 186
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 187
•
O. CHAPTER 4.14 - AESTHETICS
1. Miscellaneous. The comments of the City regarding the aesthetics
section of the REIR are set forth in the following table:
•
.
COMEW
4.14-17 6-8 The REIR states that the "...large specimen trees constitute an important source of
• aesthetic variety with in the larger LCP area, and they serve as a focal point to
draw attention to the Bolsa Chica Meas, particularly for those foreground and
middleground views within 1 mile or so of the Mesa." However, no measures are
proposed to mitigate the loss of the "aesthetic value" of this feature.
• 4.14-20 27-31 The REIR analyzes the view impacts on Warner Avenue based upon speeds of
automobiles travelling along the arterial. However, Warner Avenue is also used by
cyclists and pedestrians to access the beach area. Although higher volumes of
motorists travel this route, cyclists and pedestrians travel at slower speeds and are
better able to enjoy the views.
• 4.14-21- Artists The concept drawings are misleading; they include trees which are approximately 30
19 Concept feet tall and do not include a time reference on when this view is anticipated. It is
and unlikely that such a large number of large specimen trees will be planted at time of
Comput construction. These trees greatly soften the view of the residential development.
er
Simulat The simulated drawings are extremely cluttered, but do show that development of
• ad the site is anticipated to be a solid mass of structures with few visual breaks. They
Drawin also show several levees that will run the lath of the lowland development for
gs Option B; however, the visual impacts of this expanse of concrete, that at points is
nine feet tall, is not discussed.
Scales of drawings showing profiles between existing residences are so large, it is
• difficult to determine if grade differences will actually be as insignificant as they
appear.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 187
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 188
•
L Comment
4.14-45 9-11 The REIR states the proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Actb intent to •
restore and enhance visual quality in the visually degraded areas since it includes
wetland restoration that would not likely occur separate from the proposed
development actions. However, since the funding and implementation for the WRP
under Option A is uncertain, it is highly possible that the WRP will not occur under
this option either.
•
4.14-45 23 PDF-1 identifies implementation of local parks and roc. facilities through a
Development Agreement. However, to data, the County has not been willing to
commit as to whether a DA will be able to be negotiated.
PDF-3 states that views of construction activities will be "shielded" as feasible.
29 Shielded should be "screened from view"
4.14-47 28-34 The REIR describes the view impacts of implementation of the Bolsa Chico
Regional Park plan, which contrary to the REM still requires numerous CDP
approvals before construction can begin, as if it wens part of the project. This is
confusing, since the County has already separated out the park property and •
completed processing of an EIR for the Bolas,Chica Regional Park General
Development Plan. So although a portion of the regional park is located within the
Bolas Chica it is considered as a separate project. (Note: The City has approved of
the separating of the projects and has already conceptually approved the regional
park development plan and EIR, su well as a CDP for the 1st phase of the park.)
•
4.14-58 28-37 The REIR identifier that views of the Bola Chica are available from Graham
Street, but then goer oa further is tier test to state that the extension of Graham
Street will enable current residents to patske of odmwm unavailable views of the
restored weds&&. It is true that thssr residents will have "otherwise unavailable
views of the restored wetlands" if it is assumed that the wetlands would not be
restored without the project. But, assuming this is not what they are intending to •
convey, it is difficult to as haw the extension of Graham will provide any
additional view opportunities of anything other that dwelling units.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 188
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 189
•
P. CHAPTER 4.15 - SOCIOECONOMICS
1. Further Study of Socioeconomic Impacts Is Required. Further study is necessary
to address issues regarding projected population and housing units by type generated by the proposed project
(see Comments on REIR text below), affordable housing, impacts on regional housing needs, financial
• feasibility, phasing, and fiscal impact(see miscellaneous comments below).
2. Financial Feasibility of the Project and 11Sitigation Is Not Analyzed in the REIR.
The REIR fails to provide an assessment of, or information which enables the City to assess, the Project's
overall financial feasibility or the Project's ability to fund its impacts on public facilities while at the same time
funding its commitment to mitigations such as ATIP and wetlands restoration. Additionally,and very
• importantly for the City, the REIR has to provide any analysis or information relating to the fiscal impacts of
the project either on the County or the City.
a. The Proiect Will Have Significant Fiscal Impacts on the City which Will
Cause Adverse Physical Effects. The six to nine thousand potential residents from the Project will require the
full range of public facilities and services typically provided by local government—such as, fire and police
• protection; streets and street maintenance; parks and recreation; libraries; and infrastructure(sewer, water, and
storm drainage) construction and maintenance. In nearly all cases where the REIR addresses impacts on these
public services and facilities, the City is mentioned as a major provider of these services and facilities. The
project is surrounded by the City and any services and facilities not provided onsite are most likely to have to
be provided from the City. While the REIR tacitly recognizes the City as the logical source and most
economical provider of essential facilities and services, the REIR does not address the financialifiscal impact on
the City of the necessary arrangements for the provision and use of these facilities and services by project
residents.
b. Proiect Financial Feasibility. While under normal conditions assessment of
the financial feasibility of a development project is outside the scope of an EIR, Bolan Chic&includes unique
considerations which make this type of assessment important during the evaluation phase of the Project. On
page 4.1-37, the REIR refers to the 1986 CCC certification of the Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Program
for Bolsa Chic&which stated, 'Increased density of development as the Mena and the developable lowland were
to be allowed is order to make restoration of wetlands and ESHAs feasible.' Also on the same page of the
REIR, the point is again made that a primary justification for CCC approval of the 1986 LUP was the necessary
linkage between rentoratics and development. As stated in the EIR with regards to the reasons for certification
of the 1986 County LUP, 'the substantial funding necessary to restore the site can be best achieved through
• development.' Applying the same ressoning to the REIR, in order for the document and its promise of
wetlands restoration to have meaning it must provide an analysis of the financial feasibility of the project and of
the wetlands restoration as part of the REIR review and approval process. The level./intensity of development
necessary to carry out the environmental restoration features as well as the mitigation measures and PDFs of the
project under Lowland Component Optics A and B can ody be evaluated when the whole picture of project
financial feasibility is disclosed and analyzed. Without a picture of the feasibility of the project, it is not
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 189
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 190
•
possible to evaluate the ability of the project to fulfill the stated project objectives. Barring outside funding
sources, the sole funding for the proposed wetlands restoration would be the project sales and the income
capacity (in the case of Option B) or the receipt of offsite mitigation funds from as-yet unidentified sources
(under Option A). Except for cost estimates for the Wetlands Restoration Program('WRP'), for which broad
estimates, excluding land value, are presented in Appendix E of the WRP, no cost estimates or revenue •
projections are provided for the project. Residents will pay for any and all costs associated with the
environmental reconfiguration, as well as other mitigation measures such as the ATIP. Project sales revenues,
homeowner association dues, property taxes, plug other assessments, fees, and special taxes are the sources of
funding available to pay for Project development costa, to offset Project impacts on public facilities and
government services, to finance and maintain Bolsa Chica revitalization, and to pay for mitigation programs
such as the ATIP. The type and intensity of development and its associated impacts on the restoration areas, as •
well as the surrounding communities, should be justified based on evidence demonstrating that the level of
permitted development is necessary to finance restoration and allow an acceptable return to the developer. The
City, as well as the County, must rewrite the REIR to take into account the project's overall financial feasibility
and the ability of the project to fund mitigation and PDFs as is assumed in the current REIR. At a minimum,
the REIR must provide enough project financial information to enable the reviewing entities to estimate this
feasibility independently. •
C. REIR Does Not Identify Public Financing Needs or Mechanisms. The REIR
does not provide coherent, coordinated information on the frill range of public facilities required and/or
impacted by the project. The cost, individually and collectively,of these facilities should be addressed in the
REIR or in an accompanying public facilities financing plan. How these facilities will be paid for will impact
options of the local governments in offsetting the cost of other Project impacts. Will the cost of these public
facilities be subsumed under project costa and included in home prices, or is the County or the developer •
planning to use assessments, fees, or special taxes above the basic one percent property tax to fund facilities,
improvements, and even on-going fiscal deficits resulting from the costs of local government services to the
Project area? Has the developer and the County left the other affected jurisdictions to pay for the impacts of the
project? The REIR and/or an accompanying plan must provide adequate information to assess the Project's
capacity to finance the public facilities required to service the project. Absent this information, it is not possible
to determine the significance of potential impacts to the City infrastructure and City services. •
d. IAck of Proiect Information Precludes Adequate Review of Fiscal Feasibility
of Mitigation Measures. Crucial information is lacldn=for the City's assessment of the project. The City must
attempt to evaluate the project's impact without data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project. Due
to the County's refusal to circulate implenienting documeets and relevant fiscal information together with the
REIR, the City must attempt to assess the project's impact sad the ability of the developer to mitigate those •
impacts without marketing information on anticipated asks values and without at two broad descriptions of
anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning areas. Also notably lacking in the REIR or an
accompanying plan is information an the anticipated cost of the public facilities, public services, mitigation
measures, PDFs, or programs such as the ATIP proposed for the project. The REIR's deficiency in presenting
adequate information with respect to project timing,devdopmeet phasing, marketing, and the cost of public
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 190
•
• • •
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 191
•
facilities and infrastructure creates a significant problem for the City in assessing the project's impact on the
City. The REIR states on page 4.16-12,under "Standard Conditions" ("SC-3") that a Fiscal Impact Report will
be prepared for the Bolsa Chica Project and that it, "will be reviewed by County officials and specific
conditions of approval will recommended to the Board of Supervisors to address potential funding deficiencies
caused by the project." However the fiscal impact analysis which will presumably provided by this report is
too-little-too-late if it is not a part of a more comprehensive analysis of the financial feasibility of the project's
public infrastructure and mitigation requirements. By failing to circulate the fiscal analysis with the REIR, the
County has rendered it impossible to evaluate the potential impacts when reviewing the REIR.
e. Loss of Tax Revenues Will Make Fiscal 1�is Worse. According to the
County Auditor-Controller's office, in 1993-94, 1994-95, and probably continuing indefinitely into the future, as
a result of State-mandated property tax shrifts at the local level from government and special districts to schools,
the County has available only a little more than one-third(37 parcant)as much general fund property taxes as
compared to prior years. Property taxes are, by far, the largest revenue source available to the County to offset
costs of providing services to the project. Residential projects such as that proposed for Bolsa Ch ice have
typically in the past barely paid their way fiscally in Orange County. With the shifts in property taxes over the
last few years, it becomes an important question as to whether the Bola Chics Project could be a significant net
• drain on the County and/or other local government. The EIR and Projed documents providing a description of
the Project for purposes of the public review process must account for this potential problem from the very
outset of the project approval process.
3. Ineomplete Information Re: Housing Distributions at Buildout. Information is
incomplete regarding the source of the assumptions used to estimate the distribution of housing units by type at
• buildout and the resulting population forecasts (see comments on REIR text below).
4. Affordable Housing and Impad on Regional Housing Needs. The REIR states that
the project will meet the SCAG GMP jobe/hwiaing balance goal in the jobs-rich Northwest Orange Subregion by
providing additional housing(Page 4.15-5, Lines 1 to 4). However, there is so discussion regarding the
provision of affordable housing or the impact of the proved on regional busing seeds as determined in SCAG's
• Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)and incorporated in Orange Comay's Housing Element. On page
4.1-20, under Land Use and Related Planning, the discussion of consistency of the proposed Project with the
Orange County General Plan fails to mention or address the issue of the Project's consistency with affordable
housing needs. The Projed's ability to provide its share of County affordable housing does not appear to be
addressed anywhere is the REIR
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 191
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 192
•
5. Analytical Flaws in Jobs-Housing Balance Them are flaws in the analysis in the
areas of subregional population,housing and employment forecasts used in the REIR(see comments below).
Page 4.15-1, Table 4.15-1: The population,housing and employment forecasts for the Northwest Orange
Subregion presented in 4.15-1 appear to be incorrect. According to the Regional Growth Management Plan,
forecasts for this subregion are as follows: •
...........
..........
.....................--.. ...... .... ....... ............-........................ ................
................I......
.............. ........
.... ...............
..... -:: ::::::. . - .... ........... . ......... .......
............ .................. .............
............................
..... ..............
C . . ...
...........
................... 1WIT................... ...............
................. ........ .............
-.------ ... ......... . ............... ................. .........
Population 1,502,500 1,722,500 220,000 15% •
Housing 536,600 654,200 117,600 22%
Employment 727,800 941,500 213,700 29%
Jobs/Housing
0.08 Ratio 1.36 1.44 1 696 •
The forecasts presented in the REIR significantly overstate the projected growth for this
subregion. This section needs to be updated with the correct numbers and the analysis
revised where appropriate.
a. Page 4.15-1, Table 4.15-1: The definition of the Northwest •
Orange Subregion should also include the City of Santa Ana; it does not include the City of
Laguna Beach.
b. Page 4.15-3, Line 17: Should read 'employment to housing
ratio of 1.27:1 in 1984' (not 1987).
C. Page 4.15-3, Lines 21 to 26: Housing, employment and
jobs/housing balance ratios should be revised to reflect the correct SCAG forecast numbers
for the Northwest Orange Subregion.
•
d. On page 4.15-5, line 14-16, the statement is made with regard
to the proposed commercial development within the project that, "If implemented, the
employment opportunities, albeit minor, will help offset the current jobs-housing imbalance
at the local level.* This statement is confusing because, while taken alone, development of
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 192
0 Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 193
•
the commercial center would help ameliorate the jobs-housing imbalance in Huntington
Beach, however, when combined with the remainder of the proposed development, the
impact of 2,500 homes on the Project's jobs-housing balance would greatly outweigh the
contribution of jobs by this commercial development.
e. Page 4.15-6, Tables 4.15-3a and 3b: There is no source for the
assumption as to the distribution of housing units by type (i.e., single family detached, single
family attached, multi-family). Based on information presented in the REIR, this distribution
could vary significantly. For example, there could be all single-family detached units instead
of single family detached and attached, or there could be no multi-family units. Each of
these changes in assumptions would change the projected buildout population and distribution
of housing units by type, with resulting implications to a range of issues addressed in the
REIR, such as air quality, transportation, noise, public services and utilities, recreation, etc.
Given the potential variability in the number and type of housing units to be developed, the
REIR should explore a range of development options and assess the impacts of these options
on socioeconomics, consistency with SCAG plans and other affected issues.
6. Finai� cial Feasibility/Phasing/Fiscal Impact of Development. The
Comment on the DEIR noted that the document failed to provide any information of the
• phasing, financial feasibility or fiscal impact of the proposed development (Comment at
pages 178 to 181). The Comment noted that this information was important because:
(1) The financial feasibility of the proposed project directly affects the ability to fund the
wetlands restoration program, a central feature of the proposed project.
• (2) Phasing of residential development the project could significantly impact the ability to
implement some of the mitigation measures and project design features.
(3) The City of Huntington Beach is identified as a major provider of public services and
utilities. Therefore, the fiscal impact of the project could significantly impact the
• ability of the City to provide these services.
The REIR has failed to address any of these concerns.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 193
0
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 194
•
Q. CHAPTER 4.16 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
1. Water Service From Scaled-Down Project Will Still Significantly
Impact City Water System. The project considered in the REIR, though smaller than the
project considered in the DEIR, still has the potential to add significant capital and •
maintenance cost requirements to the existing City water system infrastructure should the
developer choose the option of having its water service from the City. As identified in the
1988 Water Master Plan of the City and its 1994 Update, these costs would be for two
significant facilities:
•
1. A water storage reservoir and associated pumping station and
transmission pipelines;
2. A new water supply well.
It should be stressed that the above facilities are separate and distinct from the facility •
discussed in the REIR. The reservoir discussed in the REIR is a facility that is planned to be
constructed to mitigate the impacts of another development called Holly-Seacliff, located
elsewhere in the City. This fact is documented in City of Huntington Beach Development
Agreement 90-1, approved by the City Council on November S, 1990. •
The capital costs for the above facilities is significant:
1. Nine million gallon reservoir,
pump station and pipelines $ 6,640,000
•
2. Water well 1,300,000
TOTAL $ 7,940,000
The above facilities would serve to mitigate the direct impacts of this project. However, •
these projects, if built separately and distinctly without connection to the existing City water
system, cannot serve this project adequately. They must be connected into the existing
system to realize their full benefit. As such, this mews that the existing system has a value
to the project. To be fair, this value must be paid for by the developer as part of the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 194
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 195
•
mitigation of the water supply impacts, should the project be serviced by the City system.
This is, in essence, a "buy-in," as the existing customers of the City system have been those
who have "advanced" the money previously to build in the capacity that this project would be
using. The cost of the "buy-in," or as detailed in the latest draft of the Water Master Plan
• Update, a "Capital Facilities Charge," is proposed to be $2,380 per equivalent dwelling unit.
An equivalent dwelling unit is a unit of demand equal to that demand drawn by a residential
3/4 inch metered service.
Additionally, if the proposed new Capital Facilities Charges discussed in the 1994 Water
• Master Plan Update are calculated for the proposed project and its alternative, the following
would be the financial obligations that would be incurred as a minimum. With a Capital
Facilities Charge of $2,380 as delineated in the Update, the developer's project would incur
an obligation of$5,950,000 for Option A, based on 2,500 units. Option B would incur an
obligation of$7,616,000 based on 3,200 units. An additional 200 units, if constructed in the
lowlands under Option B, would add $476,000. Since these fees would be used by the City
46 to mitigate the impacts of the development over time, the developer could choose to provide
those mitigation measures instead of paying cash to the City. This option would have a
quicker effect of mitigating the impacts of the development, in most cases, because the
development would be conditioned to have those facilities constructed prior to some
significant time point in the property's development. In either case, some sort of mitigation
• of the impacts of the new water connections and fire fighting requirements would need to be
met by the developer.
Ongoing costs for a water system typically include those for operation and both long and
short term maintenance. These costs are normally paid for by the water customers (as they
• consume water) through their payment of water utility bills (revenue). Assuming the utility
follows accepted accounting practices involving depreciation and reserve funding, these
revenues are adequate to fund these ongoing costs.
2. Water Supply Lupacts.
•
a. Assumptions Rcgardinfr Water S=Ly to Proiect Are Not
Correct. The entirety of the proposed water supply for the proposed project is based on the
completion of planned OCWD projects. If OCWD does not complete its master plan, the
assumptions in the REIR will not be valid. This would mean that the availability of a firm
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 195
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 196
•
water supply for the project would be ungrounded. No discussion is offered on the effects of
the project should OCWD not complete their master plan. In this regard, it must be noted:
(1) Page 4.16-16, Lines 13-15, 27-31, 33-40, and 45-50:
Lines 13-15 indicate that no significant adverse impacts are expected if water demand is •
reduced as indicated. This statement should be qualified by adding to the beginning of the
sentence, "If the projects identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan are constructed."
Otherwise the sentence is false.
(2) Page 4.16-6, lines 27-31, it is unknown when the Water •
Master Plan will be implemented, due to monetary constraints. Additionally, the project will
need a water storage reservoir to serve the development as the reservoir discussed throughout
the report is a mitigation measure for another development and has no capacity to serve this
project. Additionally, discussion on how water from MWDOC might be obtained should be
added as this could result in a substantial cost, thereby having a fiscal impact on the project's •
future residents. Why was this comment ignored when stated to the County of Orange in the
previous DEIR? It is a major point that is so basic to the availability of the water for the
project that it must be addressed without fail.
(3) Page 4.16-6, line 33, the statement that a service •
agreement would be needed to serve water outside the City is untrue, as stated above. The
City currently serves water outside its limits without such agreement. In line 39, the idea
that no impacts would occur to the City system should be revised to read that any impacts
would be mitigated by the construction of the additional facilities.
(4) Page 4.16-18, Lines 1-6: The two options for water •
supply, as presented, do not provide enough information to judge the adequacy of potential
water supplies. Nowhere is there any reference of authority that substantiates the claims
presented in the REIR. Not all options are presented, least of all one that most likely would
be the least fiscally impacting on the project's future residents, which most likely will be
service directly by the City without a middle agency or company. Option analysis should •
include description, construction cost, reliability, availability, operation and maintenance
costs, and an economic analysis that would show the fiscal impacts to the rate payer. It is
impossible to determine if any adverse impacts are expected with any degree of certainty
•
Discussion Draft Doted September 23. 1994 196
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 197
•
because not enough information is contained in the REIR to do so. This paragraph has
questionable statements in it.
(5) Pages 4.16-23 to 4.16-29: This section deals with the
• long term impacts of the proposed project. Water supply is not discussed anywhere in this
section. It appears that it should be in light of the importance of it and the significant
potential for inadequacy. The uncertainty of water supply to this region is very real as
evidenced by the significantly increased efforts of MWD and OCWD to increase available
supplies. The loss of available water by MWD from the Sacramento Delta area and the
• Colorado River have significantly impacted their ability to serve its customer agencies. The
future of water supply in the area depends on the expenditure of vast sums of money, which
is hard to get in these economic times. Any future water supplies will cost much more due
to the additional treatment costs required of their poorer raw water qualities. Groundwater
availability also depends on the expenditure of significant amounts of money, and no funding
• source has been identified. The long term outlook for water in Southern California is not
firm and very dependent on the availability of funding. These points need to be discussed
and considered as part of this REIR.
A full statement of the assumptions of the REIR must be identified in the report, along with
• other options for providing a firm water supply for the project.
b. Impacts to Regional Water Suunly. Significant impacts
regarding the water supply situation are large enough, based on the overall water supply to
Orange County, that an unqualified statement saying that "no significant adverse impacts are
expected...." is simply not correct. Currently, the Metropolitan Water District, Orange
• County's supplier of supplemental water from the Colorado River and Sacramento Delta, is
having problems meeting all of its contracted demands at the present time. A long term
solution is progressing, but it is not expected to produce results before 2010. Additionally,
the Orange County Water District's Groundwater Management Plan, a master plan for
groundwater in Orange County, is not expected to produce additional water for the retail
• purveyors before 2010. Currently, OCWD is having a difficult time maintaining the Basin
Production Percentage of 75%. Its Board of Directors has even discussed lowering this
percentage in order to preserve the amount of water stored in the groundwater basin for
drought periods.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1384 197
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 198
•
C. Project Does Not Have Rights to Water Supplies. Page 4.16-2,
Lines 5-50: Line 8 states that "the site has water supply rights with these two agencies." In
fact, the site has no real rights to water that are any guarantee to supply. Both agencies
control the access to the two most common sources of water in Orange County. MWDOC
controls the access to the imported water available from the Metropolitan Water District. •
OCWD manages and controls the access to the Santa Ana River groundwater basin. No
agency in Orange County has any real water supply rights as a result of a legislative act that
formed OCWD in 1933 and a legislative act that formed MWDOC in 1951. Every water
supply agency has equal access to the supplies that may be available. These two agencies are
responsible for the equitable distribution of the available supplies. Contrary to the statement •
in line 14, OCWD does not "sell" water. Its sole purpose is for the effective and efficient
management of the groundwater basin.
Line 18 states that "70 percent" of the domestic water in north Orange County is derived
from the groundwater basin. In fact, this number varies annually and can be as high as •
100% or as low as 0%. No guarantee exists on gqy quantity due to the variability of
available water supplies in the area. This point is significant because the project is relying on
the idea that a majority of the water supply for it will be derived on a source whose available
quantity can vary significantly. No discussion is made as to how water for the residents will
be supplied if an sufficient amount is not available. A retail agency is penalized if they
should exceed the established groundwater supply percentage. The cost is significant, •
amounting to at least $750 per million gallons, and must be passed on to the retail customer.
Should a retail agency consistently exceed the groundwater supply percentage, the agency
could be further penalized by the OCWD for such action, which is contrary to the ability of
OCWD to effectively manage the basin. In this case, where will the water be supplied from?
Will an attempt be made to purchase it from the City? If so, how much would be needed? •
How often might this occur? Lines 18-36 deal purely with the speculative plans of OCWD.
The intent of this section appears to be an attempt to say that because OCWD has a great
sounding master plan for expanding the availability of groundwater, the project has no
problem with water supply. To say that water supply for this development will be no
problem because of the OCWD master plan, considered speculation by some, is foolhardy. •
OCWD has never answered the problems of the groundwater basin's aquifer transmissivity.
The pumping depressions that currently exist along the north Orange County coast are very
real and no current acceptable solution exists to mitigate them. To add this project to the
groundwater basin will only increase the pumping depressions, thereby making water
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 198
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 199
•
availability to the City and its neighbors much less available, and at certainly a higher cost
due to deeper pumping levels. Furthermore, deepening the pumping depressions increases
the chances for seawater intrusion of the basin, which render the basin in this area unusable.
This translates into additional costs for the City, which could range from $100,000 in
• additional pumping costs for the increased use of energy to lift groundwater from increasing
lower depths due to the pumping by the development, to $7 million if the City's wells are
lost due to seawater intrusion caused by the development's pumping, rendering the City's
wells useless. If this were to happen, the development's wells would also most likely be
useless. With no supplemental domestic water available from MWD, to where would the
j development turn? To the City? If so, in what quantity? What other sources of water are
available to the development in such a case? The OCWD should perform a study, at the
developer's expense, to determine the effects of this proposal, exactly the same as it has done
to determine the impacts of the Irvine Ranch Water District's wellfield in Santa Ana and the
City of Newport Beach's wellfield to be located in Fountain Valley.
•
d. Construction of a Reservoir Is Not a Water Source. Page 4.16-
15, Lines 14-20, 25-35, and 40-48: The reference in lines 14-20 to a nine million gallon
reservoir is based on assumptions not supported by fact. The reservoir may not be built in
this area. In addition, reservoirs are not a water source but rather a facility used for storing
• water in times of low demand and pumping the water back into the water system at times of
high water demand. _The water supply for the project should not rely on the reservoir
without cooperating with the City. Additionally, the reservoir of reference would be built as
a mitigation measure for the development known as Holly-Seacliff. It in no way should be
considered as a mitigation for Bolsa Chica. The REIR should be written to consider that the
project must provide additional storage capacity to serve the development and provide
• equitable compensation for the City to provide the required water resources, which also
include an additional water well. The draft 1994 Water Master Plan Update/Financing Plan
currently under review provides for a form of equity in this regard, suggesting the payment
of$2,380 per equivalent dwelling unit as proper compensation. In lieu of the suggested
compensation for the City to mitigate the impacts of the development, should the water be
• supplied by the City, the developer could build the same improvements needed for the
project mitigation and dedicate them to the City when completed. This would also
effectively mitigate the development's water supply impacts.
•
Discussion Draft Doted September 23, 1994 199
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 200
•
In lines 25-35, not all options are presented for water supply. The most obvious one, which
has been excluded, is for the City to provide all water service directly. No independent
water company or water district is necessary. The City currently provides such service to
the unincorporated County area of Sunset Beach, as well as the area known as the Surfside
Colony, which is located in the City of Seal Beach. This section should include a fiscal •
impact analysis at the developer's expense that will explain the costs associated with each
option and what each will mean to the customers that will buy the water. It will most likely
be seen that the City serving the area directly will offer the least cost alternative.
Lines 40-48 again discuss the issue of the 70% figure in regards to groundwater. This figure •
can vary from 0-100% depending on conditions within the groundwater basin. Although
OCWD does have a master plan to help ensure the groundwater supply, it has not
demonstrated that the plan will live up to its estimates. The financing of that plan has not
been discussed with its constituents, who consist of the north County water agencies, like the
City. To base the entire outlook for a new development of this magnitude on the hopes of a •
groundwater master plan that is untried is difficult to fathom. In line 47, the statement that
OCWD will increase the percentage of groundwater usage to 90% is a hopeful one at best.
It has not been proven by anyone that the basin's aquifer system has the capacity to transmit
enough water to provide an equitable distribution of any newfound groundwater. Facts that
support the evidence of this problem are the occurrence of pumping depressions in the •
groundwater basin in the Huntington Beach wellfield, the Costa Mesa wellfield, and the
Fountain Valley wellfield. If water were being transmitted by the basin aquifer system in
sufficient quantity, these depressions would not be apparent. OCWD has yet to provide an
acceptable explanation other than the apparent lack of aquifer transmissivity.
e. No Suuuly of Reclaimed Water is Available. Lines 38-50 deal
with the proposed OCWD Green Acres project and its availability to this project. Currently,
the design of the pipeline that will bring Green Acres water into Huntington Beach does not
include the capacity to serve the Bolsa Chica area. The current design, presently underway,
stops the pipeline on Warner Avenue east of Bolsa Chica Street, in front of the development
project known as Meadowlark. This is approximately one mile from the project site. To •
imply that OCWD is including this project into its Green Acres plan is simply not true at the
present time. This means that since no Green Acres water will be available to the
development, the supplemental water needed to avoid exceeding the Basin Production
.rcentage will not be available. This would require the development to pump 100%
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 200
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 201
•
groundwater. As detailed above, this will lead to problems with cost and the ability of
OCWD to effectively manage the groundwater basin. This must be studied further in order
to develop effective solutions to the problem of lack of supplemental water. A reclaimed
water treatment plant could be constructed as part of the development, but significant
environment problems would be associated with that proposal, which would involve sewage
treatment. It is unknown how the development would propose to adequately address this
issue in such a way that a firm supplemental water source would be available.
3. Ground Water Wells Will Have Impact. Page 4.16-6 The
• groundwater wells that are identified will have a real impact on the local environment and
their effects should be identified and discussed in this REIR. What mitigating impacts will
be offered? Are they sufficient? This can't be answered with the available information in
the REIR. Since it will reduce the amount of available groundwater for all existing water
agencies and their customers and increase the amount of water that they will need to
purchase from MWD to compensate for this loss, further study is definitely needed. The
study, performed by a recognized consultant familiar with Orange County and its water
supply structure, should be funded by the developer and completed and accepted prior to the
adoption of this document. A consultant well qualified to perform this study would also be
familiar with the master plans of MWD, MWDOC, OCWD, and the City. Since the water
supply impacts resulting from this development are regional rather than local due to the
interdependence of each water supply agency upon each other, the effects discussed must be
done with this fact in mind.
4. Aquifer Impacts. Page 4.16-17, Lines 5-18, it is stated that there is
capacity in the existing aquifers with no impacts on the aquifers. This statement is hardly
credible, since the City already experiences lowered pumping levels due to the coastal
depressions in the groundwater basin. Water well pumping levels have dropped 20 - 100 feet
in various areas of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, and Costa Mesa over the last five
years, and the reason is not from the recent drought. This has resulted in increased pumping
costs for those agencies on the order of$100,000 - $250,000 per agency. This occurrence
• also reduces the quantity of water that can be pumped from a well because of reduced
equipment efficiencies. To compensate for this, the equipment can be changed for about
$100,000 per well, or the shortfall in groundwater can be made up by purchasing additional
water from MWD for approximately $200,000 per well per year. Additionally, the two
welWtes out of the project area are not identified as to location. It is difficult to assess the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 201
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 202
•
impacts to the City if the locations are not known. In general, however, it can be stated that
they will have an impact. How much cannot be determined without the locations. In line 16
the idea that mitigation measures will be implemented if needed is a joke. There has not
been an obviously successful mitigation of the installation of a new well anywhere in Orange
County in recent years. As there is only so much water to go around, another "straw" only •
means less for those already receiving their water from the basin. It is estimated that the
City could lose about 1% of its current groundwater supply if this project pumped its own
wells. This loss would be due to the redistribution of the available groundwater supply by
OCWD. The financial impacts of this amount to at least $70,000 per year at current water
costs. The mitigation measures need to be discussed now. Any time later will be too late. •
To base the water supply for this development on speculation and pretense is absurd. Why
all the secrecy? The information should be openly shared so that a true assessment can be
made.
In lines 20-28, the potential for seawater intrusion is real. What will the impact be on •
Huntington Beach? The REIR should openly deal with this issue. Without further study, it
is impossible to determine. The study, done in conjunction with OCWD, should determine
the potential for seawater intrusion and formulate a mitigation plan to compensate for any
intrusion or groundwater degradation. This study should be funded by the developer.
In lines 33-34, the separate connections mentioned are large cost items, in the millions of
dollars. This consists of 7 miles of large diameter pipeline through established arterial
roadways. The idea that negotiations would have to be made is too late in coming. The
arrangements must be made now in order for any governing body to judge whether there is
enough water available. The idea of "later" in the water supply issue is not going to work.
Any "negotiations" or other plans to obtain MWD or other supplemental water must be •
accomplished, documented and accepted prior to consideration of this REIR by the County of
Orange. The importance of a project water supply that is firm and will be dependable is of
prime importance in considering the viability of a project such as this one.
In lines 44-46, the statement is made that the Sunset Heights reservoir would not be built if •
the project is served by its own water company. This is truly not the case. The reservoir is
a mitigation measure for another development and must be built. It may not be built within
this project's boundaries, but it must be built.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 202
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
• October 4, 1994
Page 203
•
S. Miscellaneous Water Comments.
a. Page 4.16-3, Lines 1-7: In line 6, "Bolsa Chica Street and Los
Patos Avenue" should read "Warner Avenue approximately 1000 feet east of Bolsa Chica
Street." In line 7, "Edwards Street should be replaced with "Goldenwest Street."
b. Page 4.16-14, Lines 35-50: In lines 42-43, the sentence
beginning, "The water to be supplied..." has no apparent significance to this REIR. One can
only speculate what was supposed to be said here. In line 44, it should be noted that the
local road system of the project will not carry reclaimed water to the project. The OCWD
reclaimed water project called Green Acres does not have the current capacity to serve this
project and is not currently planned to service the project site.
C. Page 4.16-17, Lines 1-48: Lines 13 discuss the average
• demands of the project but not the peak demands. Water systems are designed based on
peak domestic demands and fire demands. The report is deficient in providing this analysis.
d. 4.16-26, Line 13: Removal of oil drilling and storage facilities
will have a major impact on County staff or Fire Department staff. Stringent regulations and
standards make oil site and facility cleanup difficult and time consuming. Recent Huntington
• Beach Fire Department history shows that significant time is expended by staff to thoroughly
analyze, review, and inspect sites for Federal, State, and Local government compliance. The
REIR must be more specific and identify the hours necessary to conduct oil well
abandonment and remediation activities. The report should describe what type of study,
analysis, and testing will be conducted on existing as well as previously used areas. These
• activities should then be quantified to give a more accurate accounting of time for each
function. Each phase of the project should be specifically analyzed for oil well history and
site contamination.
6. Wastewater and Related Impacts.
•
a. Page 4.16-18, lines 13-20: The REIR refers to Figure 3-9a and
states that two major lift stations will lift sewage from the Bolsa Chica project to the CSDOC
Los Patos trunk sewer located at the intersection of Los Paton and Bolsa Chica Street.
Neither the narrative nor the figure indicates how sewage from the proposed lift station "D"
•
Discussion Drat Deted September 23. 1994 203
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 204
•
will get from the City's existing 12" force main in Warner Avenue at Edgewater to this
intersection. Additionally, if construction is required within the City's boundaries, how will
construction impact local residents? Would it be feasible to use the City's existing 12" force
main?
•
b. Page 4.16-18, lines 22-24: The REIR indicates an estimated
total daily wastewater flow that will be generated by the Bolsa Chica development.
However, there is no reference to pealdng factors or peak flow from the project. There is no
statement as to how these numbers were derived. What generally accepted criteria was used
for projecting wastewater flow from the project? •
C. Page 4.16-19, lines 6-16: The REIR states that the CSDOC
Slater Pump Station and the.CSDOC upstream sewer system have been redesigned to include
the Bolsa Chica development. There is no documentation provided to support this statement.
The capacity of wastewater facilities to serve the project is crucial to the project. Thus, the •
appropriate documentation must be provided.
d. Page 4.16-19, lines 25-32: The REIR states that a new pump
station may be constructed to replace the City's lift Station "D" located along Warner at
Edgewater. There is no agreement between the City and the developer for joint use of this
lift station. The ability to enter an agreement with the City for the operation and
maintenance of Lift Station "D" is crucial to the proposed wastewater plan. Thus, a
reference to such an agreement must be included or an alternate means of accommodating
wastewater discharge from the project must be identified.
•
7. Significant Unmitigated Impact to Fire Protection & Paramedic
Services. Page 4.16-29, Line 15: The statement that "no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts will occur to public services" is not true. This REIR once again fails to mitigate
the fact that building one (1) County fire station on site does not provide the fire and medical
resources necessary to meet current County response standards for fire and medical •
emergencies. When fire/Paramedic resources respond to hospitals in Huntington Beach,
Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, or other County area emergencies, no fire/Paramedic
resources are left in the project area.. In fact, the closest County paramedic unit is fifteen
(15) to twenty (20) minutes away. This is almost 100 percent below the County response
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 204
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 205
•
standard. This project, as proposed, does not mitigate the fire impacts unless either the
Sunset Station is permanently staffed with paramedic and fire resources or the staffing at the
on site station is doubled for both fire and medical resources.
• A detailed Fire Protection Plan should be required for the project to assure acceptable and
consistent fire protection and emergency planning. The location of fire stations and
equipment defines the basic fire protection coverage of any area. Stations should be located
to provide an average response time of five (5) minutes or less, to all portions of the project.
Annex No. 22 attached to this letter, shows that "flashover" occurs anywhere between six (6)
and ten (10) minutes, and causes fires to double in intensity every one (1) minute.
Therefore, it is the goal of any fire protection system to apply extinguishing agents prior to
flashover, thereby minimizing life loss potential and fire loss. In addition, the document
attached to this letter as Annex No. 23 shows that the Emergency Medical Services(EMS)
• delivery system is to begin definitive care at an EMS call within four (4) to six (6) minutes
of cessation of heart action. When possible, Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) should
begin within four (4) minutes and definitive paramedic care within eight (8) minutes).
The ORCO Fire Department does not have an adopted fire and medical response standard.
Verbally, they have indicated to Huntington Beach Fire Department staff, that their fire and
medical response standard is to provide a Basic Life Support (BLS) unit at any emergency
call within five (5) minutes eighty (80) percent of the time and a Advanced Life Support
(ALS) unit within eight (8) minutes ninety (90) percent of the time. This verbal standard
will not be met with the current fire station configuration as shown in the REIR because the
back-up stations for the project are well beyond the distance and time requirements necessary
• to meet the objectives.
With a proposed project population of approximately 8,000 the number of fire department
emergency calls for this project could be as high as 800 per year. The average time spent
per emergency in the City is forty-five (45) minutes. Using this forty-five (45) minute
• criteria as a standard, the back-up ORCO Fire Department resources would have to respond
from areas that are eight (8) to fifteen (15) minutes away when simultaneous calls occur and
additional resources are needed. This delayed response causes major emergency response
impacts and leads to larger fires and poor EMS results.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 205
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 206
•
It should also be noted that when the City Fire Department analyzed past Bolsa Chica
proposals, all buildings were required to be fire sprinklered and all roofs were to be fire
resistive. These mitigating requirements were required to enhance the fire protection system
designed exclusively for the Bolsa Chica which also included one (1) additional fire station
and equipment. •
8. Miscellaneous f1m Safety Comments
a. Page 4.16-1 (Fire Protection/Emergency Medical), Line 25,
Hazardous Materials Response: The Orange County Fire Department provides a Hazardous •
Materials Response Team, but not as the initial response to the project area. Actually,
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach provide the service and will be affected by the
development of this project. No mitigation of this impact is discussed or identified in the
REIR.
b. Page 4.16-1, Line 29: The REIR states that the average
response time to emergencies for ORCO's Station #3 is five (5) minutes. Response time
must be defined. The proposed project is 1.5 miles from ORCO's Station #3 which
translates to an eight (8) minute response time to the perimeter of the proposed project.
Response time to remaining areas will be greater. See page 4.16-25. •
Because the Sunset Beach fire station is a paid call station you may or may not get the rank
distribution of one (1) captain, one (1) engineer and one (1) firefighter as identified. This
will result in less effective fire protection. The backup services provided by Station #44
located in Seal Beach are actually fourteen (14) minutes away. None of these stations
provides paramedic services within eight (8) minutes and, therefore, paramedic service •
demands are not mitigated as proposed in the REIR.
C. Page 4.16-1, Line 34: Assuming that no Automatic Aid
Agreement can be reached with the Huntington Beach Fire Department, the REIR needs to
address how ORCO will meet the service demands of the project. This analysis should •
include identifying what service demands will be placed on other cities such as Costa Mesa,
Fountain Valley, Westminster, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. The REEK needs to discuss
the use of other cities' fire resources and the impacts on these cities, as well as the impacts
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 206
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 207
•
on Huntington Beach if other cities' fire resources are diverted to the project area. The
potential for an agreement with other cities is not a mitigation for deficient fire protection.
d. Page 4.16-1, Line 39: The two (2) closest City fire stations are
• Station 7-Warner and Station 5-Lake. However, Station 7-Warner has a four (4) person
paramedic engine and not a three (3) person engine and a two (2) person paramedic van.
Also, Station 5-Lake staffing is not correctly identified. Station 5-Lake also has a three (3)
person engine and a two (2) person ambulance.
• Once again, this REIR fails to identify how ambulance service will be provided to the project
area. The paramedic service specified in this REIR cannot function without ambulance
service. Therefore, as written, the REIR does not completely analyze the impacts on life
safety.
e. Page 4.16-1, Line 49: Humana Hospital is now Huntington
Beach Medical Center.
f. Page 4.16-12, Line 30, Short Term Impacts: The REIR states
that no short term impacts for fire protection and emergency medical services have been
• identified. The project will be most vulnerable to fire during construction due to the lack of
built-in fire protection systems and exposure to combustible wood framing. Fire protection
facilities; i.e., fire stations, apparatus, manpower, and water systems must be in place prior
to combustible construction.
• g. .Page 4.16-17, Line 3: The identified water demand is for
domestic supply only. The fire flow requirements for the project area are not identified or
discussed. When the project was proposed for the City, fire flow requirements were
estimated at 4,000 gallons per minute. The question is, "What are the fire flow requirements
of the project and can the private water company meet them?"
• h. Page 4.16-24, Line 6: OCFD's fire and paramedic response
time standards will not be achieved even if an Orange County fire station is built in the
project area. Response time standards will not be met when second or third alarm calls
occur or when the paramedic unit or the fire unit leave the area for a hospital, a county-wide
response or move up. See REIR at page 4.16-29, Line 15.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 207
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 208
•
i. Page 4.16-24, Line: 19 Lowland Option B will also impact the
City by producing fire, rescue and medical calls on City streets which will reduce current
service levels or will require an increase in City fire services. This impact is not discussed
or mitigated in this REIR.
•
j. Page 4.16-24, Line 25: As stated above, ORCO's paramedic
response time standard will not be mitigated by one on site paramedic unit or one paramedic
engine.
k. Page 4.16-24, Line 33: The fact that the Cross Gap Connector •
is not included creates an unmitigated impact on the City's fire protection system. The Holly
Seacliff Development is currently under construction and will contain over 4,000 homes at
build out. The Holly Seacliff Development will be impacted by not having the Cross Gap
Connector.
•
1. Page 4.16-24, Line 36: Building a County fire station does not
eliminate service deficiencies in City areas nor would building a City fire station mitigate
County fire deficiencies in County areas. The fact of the matter is that the County fire
protection services cannot mitigate the impacts of the project by building one fire station in
the project area. A fire protection system includes and requires more units and back up •
resources to provide fire and medical protection to the project area.
This project has unmitigated fire and medical needs that will not meet current County
standards unless additional County fire services are provided or the City provides service to
the area. The inference that the County resources can mitigate current City deficiencies is a
smoke screen for the fact that the County Fire Protection system as proposed cannot provide
adequate fire and medical protection to this area unless off site County stations; i.e., Sunset
Beach and others are staffed with full time engines and paramedic units. In fact, current
medical and fire services to the Sunset Beach area are really provided by the City either as
first responder or back up. . See 4.19-13, Line 1, pg 8
•
In. Page 4.16-24, Line 45: Where are details and configuration
showing the access bridge over the EGGW Channel for the Bolsa Chica Mesa Station?
Again, without the Cross Gap Connector how are units going to respond? Which routes
will they be using? What will the response times be?
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 208
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 209
•
n. 4.16-24, Line 47: How will the new station at the terminus at
Springdale or Talbert respond to the 900 homes they serve? Is this the total population they
serve in this county district? How will they respond to Mesa without the Cross Gap
Connector? Will the fire unit go North to Warner Avenue to Bolsa Chica and then South to
• the Mesa?
o. Page 4.16-24, Line 48: Yes, Fire Station 7-Warner could
provide first response to the project area. The fact is that as a County project, it will not.
Therefore, mentioning City resources in this REIR and inferring benefits to the project are
• inappropriate and dishonest. The REIR needs to demonstrate how the County and the project
developer will mitigate the fire and medical deficiencies, not how the City will provide
required services to a County project. Reference to City resources is inappropriate unless the
project alternative is considered where the property is developed as a City project.
• P. 4.16-25 [Table 4.16-7]: The REIR does not discuss how the
County will provide paramedic back-up service or ambulance service to the project. If and
when a paramedic unit is provided within the County project area, paramedic back-up
services will be 6.5 miles away with a response time of more than fifteen (15) minutes. This
second County paramedic unit does not adequately provide back-up paramedic response to
• the project.
Ambulance response and ambulance service levels are not described in the REIR. The
complete basic and advanced life support system also includes a transportation component.
The ambulance transportation component should include the location of the ambulances,
• response times, and location of second and third ambulance units, and response times.
q. Page 4.16-25, [Table 4.16-6 and Table 4.16-7]: The REIR in
these two (2) tables shows the locations of Orange County Fire Department's resources
nearest the proposed project. Careful analysis of this information shows that even with the
proposed fire stations either for Option A or Option B, the Orange County Fire Department
• does not have adequate fire or emergency medical resources to cover the project area without
an automatic aid agreement with the City. Automatic aid agreements generally work on the
basis of providing reciprocal protection for both parties. In this case, geographically, the
Orange County Fire Department's resources are too distant to provide meaningful reciprocal
protection to the City of Huntington Beach. Therefore, an Automatic Aid Agreement
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 209
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 210
•
between the parties is unlikely and should not be used as a mitigation for County service
needs.
The REIR does not consider the service delivery alternative of the County contracting with
the City whereby the City will provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the •
project. Under this alternative the project could receive adequate fire protection.
r. Page 4.16-26, Line 1: The REIR states that the demand for fire
protection services will be "fully mitigated" with one (1) fire station either on the Bolsa
Chica Mesa or on the Lowlands. Not true! The demand for fire protection services cannot •
be fully mitigated through the construction of one (1) County fire station on the Bolsa Chica
Mesa or in the Lowland. A new fire station at the Bolsa Chica will increase fire protection
but will not fully mitigate the fire protection needs of the project. The REIR needs to show
how this impact will be "fully mitigated" considering current ORCO fire station locations
and staffing relative to the project area, including back up services. See 4.16-29, Line 15, •
pg 15.
S. Page 4.16-26, Line 9: The REIR states that both facilities and
personnel will be required to mitigate the "anticipated paramedic deficiencies". Further
explanation of facilities and.personnel is needed.
•
t. Page 4.16-26, Line 11: The fire protection mitigation described
above does not mitigate the paramedic impacts of the project.
No mention is made of the fact that the project impacts the City in that service demands will
increase because of vehicle fires, vehicle rescues and related medical calls. •
U. Page 4.16-26, Line 22: The REIR states that "the proposed
project will result in emergencies that are beyond the current response capabilities of the
ORCO FD". No statement is given as to how to mitigate these deficiencies.
•
V. Page 4.16-28, Line 50: All phases of the project, including
Phase I, will have inadequate fire and medical protection if the County provides services.
Under Phase I of the project, Sunset Beach fire station will be the closest County fire station.
17he Sunset Beach fire station will not meet Orange County's fire and medical response
•
Discussion Drat Dated September 23, 1994 210
•
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 211
•
standards. Therefore Phase I of the project will require the immediate construction of a fire
station. However, fire protection impacts in the entire project area will never be fully
mitigated as the REIR infers.
9. 20-Year Impacts on City Services During; Project Construction.
Page 4.16-12, lines 35-37, states that there are no short term impacts from the Project on
public services and utilities, except for waste collection and disposal. However, it is
typically the case that police, fire and even emergency medical services are impacted by
large scale construction such as that required for the project. Police will be required to
protect against vandalism and theft during construction; construction accidents are to be
expected over a 20-year build-out; and fire, at any point during construction is a major
concern for large scale residential development projects, especially where construction is
ongoing adjacent to oil production activities. Fire departments typically require expedited
access and adequate water pressure for residential construction projects from the point of
framing construction on.
10. Fiscal Impacts on Public Services. On page 4.16-12, under "Public
Services and Facilities, 4.16.3.2 Standard Conditions, SC-3,11 the EIR states that a Fiscal
Impact Report ("FIR") will be prepared on the Project. In recognizing the need for an FIR
this paragraph implicitly underscores two major deficiencies of the REIR. The first
deficiency is that adequate public and public agency review of the REIR cannot take place
without sufficient accompanying information to determine if the Project is financially and
fiscally feasible. If, after analysis, the Project is found to be financially and/or fiscally
unsound, the measures to correct this situation may cause a significant reconfiguration of the
• Project, which in turn would require changes to, and re-circulation of, the REIR. The
second short-coming evidenced by the REIR's discussion of the need for an FIR is that the
EIR states the need for an analysis with respect to the Project's impact on the County funds
(e.g., General Fund, Library District, Fire Fund), even though, because of relative
proximity, a significant portion of impacts from the Project will be on services and facilities
provided by the City. The REIR fails in some cases to address Project public facilities and
services impacts on the City and in all cases, the REIR fails to quantify and propose
mitigations to these impacts on the City, even when it is clear that the City will be more
greatly impacted than the County.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 211
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 212
•
11. Fiscal Impacts to City Infrastructure. The economic impacts on the
City's public facilities, caused by proposed development within the Bolsa Chica Project area
has not been fully addressed. Both increased use for construction activities, and increased
use by new residents will cause a substantial acceleration of normal wear and tear
deterioration on contiguous city streets. This will increase the cost of maintenance on these 0
streets, to a considerable degree, during the entire build-out period of 25 years. The only
proposed mitigation measures to be imposed on the landowner for increased utilization of city
streets appears to be a share of the costs related to improvements to increase the capacity of
the streets so that they can adequately handle the increase. The cost of substantial damage to
existing facilities, directly caused by all phases of the proposed development, and who will 0
pay for that damage, is not adequately addressed.
12. Analysis of Impacts on City Police Services.
a. Lowland Option A (no annexation). If the project were
constructed as contemplated by Koll, the Huntington Beach Police Department anticipates
that it would attend to the following incidents on an annual basis:
(i) 50 calls for backup assistance to the sheriffs;
(ii) 149 traffic accidents in Huntington Beach; and
(iii) 3,207 traffic infractions.
(iv) 86 various criminal victimization.
The above incidents would require approximately 2,449 additional officer hours requiring the
police department to increase its personnel by two officers, at a current cost of$160,000 per
year.
This Option, as well as the other alternatives that propose development but do not include a
fully accessible cross-gap connector for all traffic, is unacceptable for public safety
considerations. If the cross-gap does not connect with Graham, Springdale and Talbert
streets, mutual aid to and from this development could be impeded.
b. Lowland Opto A (gnnexsq�onl. If the development was
undert:, n within the City (Le, if an annexa.;-an were to proceed as part of the project), the
Huntington Beach Police Department anticipaes that its approximate staffing requirements
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septarnbar 23. 1994 212
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 213
•
for 2500 dwelling units would increase by an additional 8 employees. These employees, and
their respective annual salaries, in current dollars, are as follows:
2 Police Officers: $160,000
• Traffic Officer: 86,000
Dispatcher: 54,000
Detention Officer: 56,000
Criminalist: 66,000
Records Clerk: 38,000
• Crossing Guard: 6.500
8 Employees $466,500
This Option, as well as the other alternatives that propose development but do not include a
fully accessible cross-gap connector for all traffic, is unacceptable for public safety
• considerations. If the cross-gap does not connect with Graham, Springdale and Talbert
streets, mutual aid to and from this development could be impeded.
C. Lowland Option B (no annexation). If the project were
constructed as contemplated by Koll, as a result of the implementation of Lowland Option B,
• an estimated 2,491 additional staffing hours would be anticipated, or two police officers for a
current cost of$160,000.
This Option is unacceptable because it does not include the cross-gap connector.
d. Lowland Option B (annexation). If the development was
• undertaken within the City (i.e, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is
estimated that ten additional employees would be required to adequately service this area at a
total current cost of$626,500. The additional employees required would be:
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septernim 23, 1994 213
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 214
•
3 patrol officers
1 traffic officer
1 detective ($80,000)
1 dispatcher
1 detention officer •
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
1 records clerk
1 crossing guard
This Option is unacceptable because it does not include the cross-gap connector. •
e. Alternative A. This Alternative is acceptable. Since there is no
development proposed in this Alternative, no additional staffing will be needed whether the
area is annexed or not. The Cross-Gap Connector can be completed at a later date under this
proposal. Signalization at Warner and the Bolsa Chica Mesa road and landscaping of the •
mesa that does not attract or conceal criminal activity are our primary concerns.
f. Alternative B. This Alternative is acceptable. The Huntington
Beach Police Department does not anticipate any significant increases in police service with
this Alternative. Access for emergency vehicles in the park areas are critical. The Cross- •
Gap Connector can be completed at a later 'ate.
g. Alternative C (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 1,320 officer hours would be
required to handle the increased permanent and temporary populations. This would require
one additional Huntington Beach Police Officer at a cost of$80,000. •
Because the Cross-Gap Connector is not included in this Alternative, the police department
does not support this Alternative.
h. Alternative C (annexation). If the development was undertaken •
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as put of the project), the Huntington
Beach Police Department anticipates that an additional 2,470 officer hours would be required
to handle the increased permanent and temporary populations. This would require the
following four additional employees at a current cost of$222,500:
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 214
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 215
•
2 patrol officers
1 detention officer
1 crossing guard
• Because the Cross-Gap Connector is not included in this Alternative, the police department
does not support this Alternative.
i. Alternative D (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that the police department would need to add 4,420
• hours of additional public safety service time, requiring three more officers at a current cost
of$240,000.
Because this Alternative also includes the Cross-Gap Connector, the police department
supports this plan. However, it should be noted that provisions should be made to include a
location for an additional fr./police station.
j. Alternative D (annexation). If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), the Huntington
Beach Police Department anticipates that it would need to hire the following additional
eighteen employees, at a total current cost of$1,119,000:
•
7 patrol officers
2 traffic officers
2 detectives
1 dispatcher
• 1 detention officer
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
2 records clerks
2 crossing guards
• Because this Alternative also includes the Cross-Gap Connector, the police department
supports this plan. However, it should be noted that provisions should be made to include a
location for an additional fire/police station.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 215
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 216
•
k. Alternative E (no annexation). Because the number of dwelling
units is the same as that in the Applicant's proposed project, the impact on the police
department is the same. Staffing requirements and costs are the same as those mentioned
above.
•
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-
Gap Connector.
1. Alternative E (annexation). Because the number of dwelling
units is the same as that in the Applicant's proposed project, the impact on the police •
department is the same. Staffing requirements and costs are the same as those mentioned
above.
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-
Gap Connector. •
In. Alternative F (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 765 officer hours would be
required for this Alternative. Thus, one additional officer would need to be hired at a
current cost of$80,000.
•
The police department opposes this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-Gap
Connector.
n. Alternative F (annexation). If the development was undertaken
within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is estimated
that two additional patrol officers would be required to handle the increased number of calls
for service at a current cost of$160,000.
The police department opposes this Alternative since it does not include the Cross-Gap
Connector. •
o. Alternative G (no annexation). If the project were constructed
as contemplated by Koll, it is estimated that an additional 3,686 officer hours, or two
additional officers, would be required at a total current cost of$160,000.
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 216
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 217
•
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include a fully
accessible Cross-Gap Connector.
P. Alternative G (annexation). If the development was undertaken
• within the City (Le, if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project), it is estimated
that the following additional fifteen employees would be required at a current total cost of
$953,000:
7 patrol officers
1 traffic officer
1 detective
1 dispatcher
1 detention officer
1 criminalist/I.D. technician
• 1 records clerk
2 crossing guards
The police department does not support this Alternative since it does not include a fully
accessible Cross-Gap Connector.
• q. Alternative H. This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as it would not impact the department.
r. Alternative I. This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as.it would not impact the department.
S. Alternative L This Alternative is acceptable to the Huntington
Beach Police Department as it would not impact the department.
13. Miscellaneous Police Department Comments
•
a. Construction of the Cross-Gam Connector. The police
department favors the construction of a fully accessible extension of Bolsa Chica Street for
all traffic that connects Garfield, Springdale, Talbert and Graham as specified in the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 217
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 218
•
County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. There are numerous advantages to such a plan,
including the following:
1) Although regional traffic flow may not be significantly impacted as indicated in the
Applicant's options, local traffic flow will be greatly improved. •
2) The connector would aid in any emergency evacuation in this area should it become
necessary.
3) Emergency response times for police units responding to the north end of the City and •
harbor area from the vicinity of City Hall would be greatly improved. The County
proposed to assign a police unit in this development. The back-up unit will probably
be responding from Sunset Beach. No data is available from the sheriffs that analyzes
response times for their backup units, but it is likely that we will have closer units to
respond in an emergency. When seconds are critical, speedy access is most •
important. The fire department is completing a graphical analysis that depicts the
advantage of a new station at Springdale as well as the cross-gap connector. The
previous maps drawn with LandTrak are of poor quality and do not adequately display
the advantage of the connector for police.
4) In the Applicant's options, residents would be forced to exit the development by •
traveling northbound, away from most of Huntington Beach's retail establishments,
particularly the downtown area.
The need for the connector exists today. Development in this area will further contribute to
its necessity. Without the connector and ,additional staffing resources to handle the increase •
in population as proposed by the applicant or the county, our response times will continue to
erode. Over the past five years, from 1987 to 1992 our priority one response times have
increased by 35% from 5.21 to 7.03 minutes.
b. Coun 's Need for Additional Resources. Throughout the •
REIR, the County's need for additional public safety personnel is explicit. References are
made that impacts will be felt by Huntington Beach primarily in the form of emergency
backup support for the sheriffs. Since this project is completely enveloped by this city, all
ingress and egress will impact our traffic enforcement and collision calls. These impacts and
•
Discussion Oran Dated September 23, 1994 218
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 219
•
costs are discussed under each alternative. Some of the City's residents will be victimized
while in the City requiring the assistance of the City's police force. In short, development in
the magnitude proposed by the Applicant, in the modified project and some of the other
alternatives will require additional Huntington Beach public safety resources to handle this
• extra population growth. Exact personnel requirements are discussed under above under the
heading "Fiscal Analysis of City Police Services."
C. Additional Sub-Station. As the population in the Bolsa Chica
area grows, the police department will need a sub-station in Bolsa Chica to service the local
• residents. The absence of the Bolsa Chica extension in the Applicant's options would defeat
any potential benefits of a station in this development since Springdale, Talbert and Gothard
streets would not connect, giving further support for the Cross-Gap Connector. A County
fire or police station would enhance their mutual aid efforts if all streets were connected.
• d. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Concerns for
Parks. Parks within the proposed project should be designed as follows in order to minimize
potential for criminal activity:
(i) Parks and paths (for walking, biking, and running, etc.)
• should be seen from the street by passing motorists and patrol officers. Therefore care
should be taken to limit the height of berms and hedges along the street.
(n) Park should be designed for easy patrol access in cars.
• (iii) Lighting should be situated so as not to compete with the
landscaping. The placement of lights should not be directly above a tree where the tree will
grow to compete with the light, therefore the light is simply lighting up the tree and not the
ground (instead, a shadow is cast upon the ground).
(iv) This concept is often taken for granted, however is
• extremely important. The developers must determine the tvne of activity for which thisk
is intended. After this is determined, there are many more things that can be done with the
environment to influence behavior and direct activity. (For example, low hedges direct
people into desired areas, prickly bushes and vines (for example bougainvillea) discourage
loitering or climbing of walls/fences).
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 219
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 220
•
(v) Trees and hedges should be maintained in order to retain
visibility. (Hedges should be 3' and below, and trees should be maintained so the trunk has
height (leaving at least 7' from the ground up) to maximize visibility.
R. CHAPTER 4.17 - RECREATION •
1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient.
(a) In general, the points raised in the Comment have not been answered
and therefore still apply. There is a shortfall in park acreage per the City standard. Option •
A designates 78 acres of park land but that includes 49 acres for Bolsa Chica Regional Park
(BCRP), which leaves 29 acres for neighborhood/community parks. In reality, only 17 acres
are designated for Park 3A/3B. Based on 2.5 persons per unit for 2,500 units, the City park
standard of 5 acres equates to 32.5 acres.
(b) In Option B, 94 acres are designated for recreational park space minus •
49 acres for BCRP, leaving 45 acres designated for community/neighborhood parks. This
appears to meet the park standard of 40 acres based on 2.5 persons per unit for 3,200 units.
However, neighborhood and community parks, in fact, total only 32 acres for 3A, 3B and
3D. Area 3C is beach entry and not a park. Area 3E is the nature trail. Consideration
should be given to including the one acre under 3E if the appropriate types of facilities were
developed in 3A, 3B and 31). Of significant concern to the City is the fact that Park 3A/3B
is very linear and only section 3A is designated for any type of active recreation. It is
unlikely that the sports fields can be developed on this site. The only sports field designated
is on the 15 acre park site referred to is 31). Area 3D is not included in Option A and,
therefore, may never be developed.
(c) The REIR indicates that the City is currently developing its cultural and
historical plan. To date, these plans have not been finalized and impacts may be significant.
2. Lack of Urban Parks. The REIR indicates that trading urban parks •
for the BCRP will not meet the neighborhood/community park needs of the residents. This
is even more true today with the recent revision to the BCRP master plan that eliminates the
nodes of open turf play areas.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 220
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 221
•
3. Description of Park Facilities Must Be Provided. Although it
appears that minimum neighborhood park acreage is being proposed in both options as well
as types of facilities desired, the document should include a breakdown of acres per type of
facility or activity. Emphasis must be placed on providing adequate neighborhood park
• acreage and athletic fields to meet the population proposed under both options.
4. Funding for Park and Public Greenbelt Maintenance. The REIR
alludes to the creation of street lighting and landscape area assessment districts and other
means to fund maintenance. However, these are listed merely as considerations. A
• mechanism must be in place to pay for all maintenance or the City will face the possibility of
having to absorb this cost through the City's general fund.
S. Geology/Seismicity. The points raised in the Comment still apply.
The REIR continues to show that park land will be developed across active fault lines. This
• will limit the ability to construct facilities such as a recreation center, rest rooms and hard
surfaced court area which will result in an ability to provide necessary recreational facilities
for the future residents of this area.
6. Slope Stability. The REIR indicates that the impact of slope stability
• will be reduced to insignificant with the "implementation of standard grading and
construction code requirements." The presence of expansive or corrosive soils, however,
may have an impact on the integrity of the slopes. The REIR must provide further
information in connection with the possible effects of expansive or corrosive soils.
• 7. Contaminated Soil. Section 4.3 (Hazardous Substances) of the REIR
refers to contaminated soil but not to County standards. The REIR must be revised to
include soil standards.
S. Corrosive Soil. The REIR addresses the issue of the impact of
corrosive soils as'a health hazard. The impact of such soils on concrete, metal, etc. should
• be analyzed to determine the possible effect of such soils on park development (including the
proposed park irrigation system, the concrete foundation for proposed rest rooms, etc.).
9. Impact of Placement of Dredged Sediments on Beach. Dredging
will be an ongoing issue if the channel is widened under I= Paton Bridge. In fact, impacts
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 221
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 222
•
on boats, marine safety dock, Percy Dock, and adjacent residential areas should be
evaluated. All possible impacts caused by the widening of Harbour Channel should be
evaluated.
10. Elevate Parks Above Flood Plain. -he points raised in the Comment •
still apply. If parks are included within the Santa Ana Riv r flood plain, they should also be
raised to at least one foot above flood elevation. If park land is used within a residential
area to hold runoff and/or control flood levels, parks may be unusable by the proposed
residential development during the rainy season. If parks are developed as catch basins and
flood control areas, proper drainage and diversion should be developed in order to insure •
year round neighborhood use. These area could be short-term, temporary catch basins so as
not to deny the public use of its parks and, thereby, generate public complaints. Water
sitting on the turf for a significant amount of time would also have a detrimental impact on
the park.
11. Public Safety Impacts on Incased Site Visitations. Improved •
wetlands will mean increased visitation which will need to be addressed by park rangers
and/or Amigos de Bolsa Chica.
12. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing. The REIR
indicates that there will be a Class II bike trail along PCH. Public Works Traffic •
Engineering should address the need for a Class I trail.
13. Tidal Inlet Alternatives Must Be Considered. With regard to the
restoration of the wetlands area, it continues to be the Community Services opinion that an
open inlet for tidal exchange will have impacts on oceanfront recreation and public safety •
that either cannot be mitigated or cost too much to do so. However, an underground tidal
exchange system would accomplish the desired results with regard to restoration of the
wetlands as well as preserve the oceanfront.
S. CHAPTER S - CUMULATIVE IMPACM ANALYSIS •
1. Cumulative Impact From Laos of Wetland/Upland Habitat. As
described above in this letter, Bolsa Chica represents one of the few remaining instances
where upland and wetland habitats exist in juxtaposition to one another. This presents
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 222
•
• •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 223
•
significant opportunities for creating habitat restoration for a variety of native species. Other
open spaces have been developed to the point where less than 10% of the former wetlands
area in the State remains in any form. By developing the upland or the lowland, the habitat
value of the area as existing and the potential to create significant new habitat will be lost
• due to the development of one of the last coastal open spaces in the region. This must be
considered a significant cumulative impact.
2. Cumulative Oil Impacts: Page S-S, Line 11: This statement says that
oil production will continue until resources are depleted or not economically feasible. Some
• projections are that the oil could be produced for another twenty (20) years. If technology
advances, it is possible that oil production could increase. A site for future consolidation
projects should be addressed in the document. Early on in the document it talks about
phasing out oil production. What length of time has been set for the phasing out of oil
production? An oil operator may choose to close down its operation. If this occurs, oil
• wells must be abandoned to the Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Standards and the site must
be restored to its original condition prior to oil production. This procedure is currently
enforced in Huntington Beach. No time limit is placed on an oil operator as to when they
must abandon an oil well. State regulations prohibit the mandatory abandonment of non-
producing oil wells. However, safety regulations must be enforced by the controlling
• agency. The REIR does not cover the issue of oil abandonment.
Examples of areas where problems have occurred as a result of construction on or near oil
sites was requested. Below is a list of sites that fall into this category:
1. Oxnard Dunes (Oxnard Ca) - Residential track built over oil waste
• disposal site.
2. Manhattan Beach - Residential tract with leaking methane gas coming
from contaminated soil.
• 3. Santa Maria - The repurchase of an entire sub-division, caused by
contaminated soil.
4. Bakersfield - Resolution Trust Corporation, taking over an entire
apartment complex due to soil contamination, uninhabitable.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 223
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 224
•
5. Westminster - Homes built over an oil field dump site. EPA Superfund
site.
6. Santa Barbara - Leaking oil well located in a back yard with no access •
for re-abandonment.
7. Newport Beach - Oil well leaking under a home.
8. Los Angeles - Oil fields, numerous problems with soil contamination. •
9. Huntington Beach - Three (3) areas with leaking oil wells and methane
gas, along with some Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) present.
3. Miscellaneous Comments. •
a. Section 5.1.5, Page 5-3, line 7: The revised size of commercial
space under the "village" concept should read 500,000, not one million, square feet.
b. Page 5-3, line 14: Main Pier Phase II consists of two distinctly
different projects. One is completed and one is pending. •
C. Page 5-3, line 27: Surfcrest North is now called Surfcrest.
d. Page 5-3, line 33: Surfcrest South is now called Oceancrest.
•
e. Page 5-4, lines 22, 23: It is not clear which PCH improvements
are being referred to in these lines.
f. Page 5-4, lines 29-30: Two phases of the Golden West Project,
amounting to over $4 million have been completed to date. Phase 3 is under construction. •
The final phase should be completed within the next 3 years.
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 224
•
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 225
•
g. Section 5.2.6, Page 5-7, lines 24-26: The City of Huntington
Beach completed this widening project in 1991 and has no future plans for a physical
widening of the highway.
• h. Section 5.2.16.2, Page 5-11: This section discusses water and
sewer service fees and it mentions community facilities districts. Would these fees and
districts finance system improvements outside of the project boundaries if the project caused
said facilities to be undersized? Specifically, if the City of Huntington Beach were to furnish
the project water, additional reservoir capacity would be necessary.
i. Section 5.2.16.3, Page 5-11: This section must be expanded to
include more information regarding site-specific waste reduction plans.
T. CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES To THE PROPOSED PRo7ECr
•
1. General Comments.
a. The analysis of alternatives in the REIR is an almost verbatim
reprise of the alternatives analysis of the DEIR. Accordingly, the issues raised in the
• Comment continue to apply and must be responded to in the recirculated REIR.
b. As noted in Part II.E of the Comment and in Part I.L, above,
the discussion of alternative projects and alternate locations for the proposed project is
inadequate and must be expanded and the REIR recirculated. For example, a greater range
of Lowlands alternatives and the alternatives suggested in Part ME of the Comment as well
as the additional alternative referred to in Part I.L of this letter should be included in the
recirculated REIR.
C. A table indicating further information which is required for the
DEIR to more adequately present the alternatives which are considered in the DEIR was
presented in CommErrr ANNEx No. 8. A revised version of that table is attached to this
letter as Annex No. 5.
d. In discussing the feasibility of the various project alternatives
which are presented in the DEIR (m page 7-7 and the subsections for each alternative), the
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 225
•
• • •
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 226
•
DEIR presented no substantial evidence to support its conclusions. The REIR is no better in
this regard. Evidence regarding contacts which made to investigate the availability of
funding, such as correspondence with organizations which provide such funding, should be
included in the REIR. For some alternatives, it is not enough to say that the applicant is not
interested in proceeding with them (DEIR page 7-27, lines 33-36). There may be other •
potential developers who might wish to pursue any number of these alternatives, as long as
they represent a reasonable potential for earnings. The lack of such other developers is not
demonstrated, nor is the potential financial feasibility of the various alternatives properly
compared with the proposed project. If the alternatives are to be rejected based, in part, on
the fiscal feasibility of the alternative, that feasibility must be documented and compared to •
the feasibility of the proposed project.'' The REIR must present a pro-forma for each
alternative project which is rejected on the basis of economic feasibility and compare it to all
of the options presented, including a pro-forma for the proposed project itself. In the
absence of such data and analysis, it is not possible for the public or for the decision-makers
of the County to assess the accuracy of the REIR's conclusion that less environmentally •
alternatives are not feasible.
e. CEQA requires that an EIR consider all reasonable alternatives.
The REIR continues the DEIR's failure to consider the potential annexation of the project
into the City. As is noted above, the location of the project within the City would lessen the •
impacts on Police, Fire and other public services. Alternative "A" through Alternative "7"
should be also considered under a scenario in which the project is first annexed into the City
and the project thereafter proceeds as a City project. Further, as was noted in the Comment,
additional offsite alternatives must be considered. The consideration of offsite alternatives
for a major land use planning document such as the amendment to general plan and the LCP
considered in the REIR must not be a perfunctory review of one or two straw-man •
alternatives as is the case here.
2. Clean Water Act Consistency Must Be. Considered. The REIR does
not mention that the project will need to prepare a 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis pursuant
to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Guidelines, which are a part •
100/ For cuunpk,Akernatiwe C and Akernwiw E seem to have beat rejected, at hart in part, based upon the
financial feasibility of those akwwwsvws howew, no data regarding the jinatcW fe=ability of those projects is
presented in the DEIR or the REDL •
Discussion Draft Dated S*ptwnbw 23, 1994 226
0
• Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994
Page 227
•
of federal governments implementation of the CWA. This omission is significant because the
alternatives analysis required through the Guidelines provides critical public information
regarding potential impacts which are required pursuant to CEQA and NEPA regulations.
Even though the applicant proposes to prepare separate CEQA and NEPA documents, the
contents of the 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis needs to be included in the CEQA document
since compliance with the § 404 program is required for local projects as well as federal
projects.
a. Omission of 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Impairs CEQA
Compliance. The omission of the required 404(b)(1) analysis significantly impairs the
County's ability to comply with CEQA since the Corps is directed by the EPA, through the
404 program, to gather as much information as is reasonably possible when evaluating
projects, such as the project considered in the REIR which may have a significant impact on
wetlands. Consequently, an alternatives discussion prepared strictly for CEQA purposes will
• likely not meet the minimum 404(b)(1) requirements. In the case of the alternatives
discussion prepared for the REIR, the minimum 404(b)(1) requirements clearly have not been
met and the federal law will require a broader range of alternatives to be considered. Due to
the split review process insisted upon by the County, the public and the decision makers will
not have the opportunity to review the 404(b)(1) alternatives when considering the County's
local agency approvals. This approach is not consistent with CEQA's intent to cause a
• reasonable range of alternatives to be publicly considered.
b. Description of 404(b)(1) Analysis. The benchmarks for the
404(b)(1) assessment is found in three separate sections of the preamble to the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines.
(1) First, the 1980 preamble to the Guidelines revised the
1975 water dependency provision by creating two explicit but rebuttable presumptions. First,
the preamble points out that the Guidelines presume that "...there are practicable alternatives
to "non-water dependent" discharges proposed for special aquatic sites.' Secondly, the
• Guidelines' preamble presumes that "...alternatives to discharges in special aquatic sites are
less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem and are environmentally preferable." With these two
presumptions made, the preamble places the burden of proof on the applicant to "...persuade
the permitting authority that both of these presumptions have clearly been rebutted m order
to pass the alternatives portion of these Guidelines."
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 227
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency •
October 4, 1994
Page 228
•
In reviewing the proposed project alternatives for the revised
Bolsa Chica project, the REIR does not make clear that selection of the off site alternative
(MCAS Tustin and/or El Toro) is not a practicable alternative and that the proposed project
could only be developed in wetlands. Further, it has not been adequately rebutted that
developing either of the air stations would be more environmentally damaging than altering •
the wetlands. It would be reasonable to assume that the average citizen could deduce that a
housing project does not need to be placed in a wetland to achieve the basic purpose of
housing people. Whereas the actual judgement of whether or not a project is water
dependent lies with the EPA and/or the Corps, the above logic would lead one to conclude
that the project is not water dependent and that practicable upland alternatives are probably •
available.
(2) The second benchmark from the Guidelines' Preamble to
consider is what constitutes a practicable alternative. The preamble states that practicable
alternatives "...depend on cost, technical and logistic factors." Also, "...an alternative must •
be capable of achieving the basic purpose of the proposed activity." Lastly, "...In order for
an "external" (or off site) alternative to be practicable it must be reasonably available or
obtainable", parenthesis added. In short, and according to the preamble, "...the Guidelines
always prohibit discharges where there is a practicable, less damaging alternative...".
Where the REIR fails with respect to the second benchmark is •
that there is not enough comparative data, namely, cost, technical or logistic, to reasonably
support a conclusion that the off site alternative is impracticable. Further, given the current
land use status of the various military base reuse proposals, one should seriously question
whether or not Alternative J meets the reasonably available or obtainable criteria as stated in •
the Guidelines. If one concludes that use of the military bases should not be considered until
reuse plans have more fully matured, then it would stand to reason that the off site
alternative has not been fully explored and is, therefore, not consistent with the CWA.
(3) The third and final benchmark to consider is whether or
not all potentially affected federal agencies have been provided with an opportunity to review •
the project alternatives. Since CEQA procedures do not necessarily require submittal of the
REIR to the same federal agencies which could be asked to review the 404(b)(1) Alternative
Analysis, it is not clear if a review of project alternatives have been made available to all
necessary federal agencies. The preamble to the Guidelines recognizes that some
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 228
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
• October 4, 1994
Page 229
•
environmental documents, namely NEPA documents, could meet the 404(b)(1) requirements
if they are so constructed from the onset. However, the Revised EIR does not have a
404(b)(1) Alternative Analysis included in the technical appendices nor does the alternatives
discussion in the Revised EIR meet the minimum requirements of the Guidelines. Therefore,
• it is concluded, that for purposes of this particular project, the minimum necessary
alternatives study and review has not been completed pursuant to the CWA.
Page 6-1, Geology and Seismic Impact: For Alternatives A - Park and Lowland Restoration,
B - Bio diversity park, H - No Project, and 1 - No Development/No Restoration, there
should be no significant geologic or seismic impacts as long as no habitable structures are
• placed within the Alquist-Priolo Exclusionary Zone.
U. CHAPTERS 10 THROUGH 12 - SCs. PDFs. & MmGAnoN MEASURES.
As is noted in a number of prior references in this letter, and was noted
• throughout the Comment, many of the mitigation measures proposed for the project are not
proper under CEQA. The Comment set forth a detailed explanation of the problems with the
mitigation measures of the DEIR. Those problems, flaws and inadequacies are continued
without improvement in the REIR. The most crucial flaws of each of the mitigation
measures listed in the Comment were indicated in Commxr ANN= No. 7. Attached to
this letter as Annex No. 4 is a table which evaluates each of the PDFs, SCs and mitigation
• measures with respect to the flaws noted in the Comment and in Part I.G of this letter.
M. Conclusion.
• The City remains concerned about both the substantive, procedural and other failures
of the County to proceed in accordance with CEQA and the potential harm to the residents of
the City and the project, if the project proceeds without adequate environmental review and
mitigation. The development of this project proceeds without mitigation will cause
tremendous harm.
•
The restoration of the wetlands, which continues to form the sole justification for the
County's approval of the project, is unlikely to occur. It would occur, if at all, 20 to 30
years gftL construction of at least a 2,500 unit housing project atop the Mesa. The wetlands
restoration is an unfunded and speculative promise to implement an untested program at such
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septsmba►23. 1894 229
•
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
October 4, 1994 •
Page 230
•
time, if any, as oil producers voluntarily elect to stop operating. There is no time at which
the restoration would be reauir to commence. Further, the restoration plan would be
implemented only if Koll were permitted to develop residential units in the Lowlands, a
highly unlikely prospect. Further, as was noted in the Comment, the Lowlands residential
development appears to be a low margin project of questionable profitability once the cost of •
the WRP (and if funded, the ATIP) is taken into account.
The REIR continues most of the flaws of the DEIR and continues to be inadequate
under State law. The City, therefore, respectfully requests the County to recirculate a new
and wholly rewritten REIR which addresses the inadequacies noted in this letter. Without a •
new and legally adequate REIR, the proposed project cannot legally proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
Eevat, Corr & JEssup •
Roger J. Holt
Steven A. Roseman
By:
Steven A. Roseman of Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, •
Special Legal Counsel to the City of Huntington Beach
•
•
•
Discussion Draft Doted September 23. 1994 230
•
1
__-�
ANNEX NO. 1
Index to Comments
0 I. Introduction - Overview of CEQA Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. THE REIR STILL FAILS TO FULFILL THE CORE PURPOSE OF
INFORMING DECLSION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT
THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. The Poor Organization of the REIR Prevents it from Fulfilling
its Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Flawed CEQA Procedures and Documentation Prevent the
0 REIR from Sounding the Alarm Bell Required by CEQA . . . . . 5
3. The County's Environmental Analysis Does Not Fulfill the
Requirements of CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. THE REIR FAIIS TO EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PROJECT
0 IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . lO
1. The REIR Fails to Convey a Clear and Useful Environmental
Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2. The REIR Does Not Adequately Describe Which "Project . . . . . 14
•
a. The County Cannot Act as Lead Agency if the
"Project" Is Adoption of a New LCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. If the "Project" is the Development of the Mesa and the
Lowlands, the REIR Incorrectly Uses a Program EIR in
Lieu of a Staged and Supplemental EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. The Project Description of the REIR is Inaccurate and
Incomplete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
0 a. The REIR Omits Consideration of Important Elements
of the Revised Development Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b. Project Description Omits Description of Project
Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C. The Project Description Uses Varying Statistics of
Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
d. The Objectives of the Project Vary from Section to
Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
e. Inclusion of Alternate Project Descriptions Further
Obscures the Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 "1-
4. The County's REIR Misstates the Relationship between
Development Approvals and Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . 29
•
C. OMISSION OF IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS AND BASELINE STUDIES
FRUSTRATES ATTEMPTS AT WORTHWHILE PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE
PROGRAM AND THE DEIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Failure to Circulate Implementing Documents Frustrates •
Meaningful Public Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2. The REIR Further Frustrates Public Review by Exceeding the
Permitted Limits on Incorporation of Uncirculated Documents
by Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
D. THE COUNTY HAS FAILED To FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER •
CEQA TO CONSULT WITH AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE INPUT OF
OTHER AGENCIES AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . 33
E. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A
NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF •
CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development . . 37
3. Segmentation of Remediation Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 •
F. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . 39
1. Since Wetlands Restoration is a Primary Goal of the Project,
that Restoration Must Be a Condition to Development . . . . . . . 39 •
2. Federal and State Agencies which must Approve Wetlands
Restoration Have Objected to the WRP and Development of
Lowlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
G. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE •
STUDIES AND UNMONITORED PROTECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR
MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1. Reliance on the Development of Future Studies to Define
Mitigation and Impacts in the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
•
2. Reliance on 'SCs" and "PDFs' Precludes the REIR from
Providing the Public Disclosure and Accountable Decision-
Maldng Required by CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
•
Discussion Draft Doted Septanbef 23. 1994 -u-
•
3. REIR Erroneously Labels Legal Requirements of General
Application as Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4. Obscure Description of Mitigation Bank Clouds its Purpose
and Meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
H. THE DEIR OMrrS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBIIITY OF THE
MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT
UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED wrrHOUT
IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
I. THE REIR SCATTERS AND SELECTS THE COMMENTS TO WHICH THE
COUNTY WISHES To RESPOND AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE
RESPONSES TO ALL COMMENTS RAISED REGARDING THE DEIR . . . . . . 55
1. Scattering of Response to Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2. Arbitrary Selection of Comments for Response . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Incorporation of Comment and Comment Annexes by
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
J. THE DEIR DOES Nor CONSIDER KoLL's ENviRoNMENTAL RECORD
IN ASSESSING MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
0 1. The County Must Take Koll's Environmental Record into
Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2. Koll has Complained that the Very Actions Taken by the
County Violate CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
0 K. THE REIR INACCURATELY FAILS To DLSCLOSE SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND CONTINUES To USE INAPPROPRIATE
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
46 1. The REIR Fails to Label Adverse Significant Effects of the
Project if there Are also Beneficial Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2. The REIR Continues to Use Improper Standards of
Significancx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3. The 1992 EIR/EIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts
which both the DEIR and the REIR Identify as Insignificant . . . . 70
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1 SS4
0
0 •
L. THE REIR'S CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES CONTINUES TO BE
INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
1. REIR merely Repeats the Inadequate Alternatives Analysis of
the DER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2. REIR Ignores Agency Requests for Consideration of Other
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3. REIR Improperly Rejects Alternatives for Significant Project •
Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4. The Alternatives Analysis Improperly Alters Project Objectives
to Reject otherwise Feasible Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5. Requirement for Analysis of Alternative Locations . . . . . . . . . . 78
M. THE REIR OMITS ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE RISK OF UPSET •
AND RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE
PRoiFcT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
N. DISCUSSION OF LONG-TERM IMPACTS IN THE REIR CONTINUES TO BE
INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 •
O. THE DEIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
11. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the REIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 •
A. CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
B. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
1. The REIR Fails to Explain the Reasons the Project Differs
from the 1986 LCP on which it Improperly Relies in Assessing
Land Use Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2. Inconsistency with Coastal Act Policies and Provisions Make
Project Implementation Unlikely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
•
a. LCP/LUP Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
b. Public Access/Recreation Related Coastal Act Policies . . . 96
C. Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
d. Scenic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
e. Coastal Dependent Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 •
f. ESHAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
g. Natural Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 -iv-
•
3. The REIR Fails to Note Significant Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the County's General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 98
• 4. The REIR Omits Discussion of Inconsistencies between the
Proposed Project and the City's General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5. The REIR Fails to Mitigate Adequately the Incompatibility of
Oil Production and Residential Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6. The REIR Ignores the Impacts of High Density Residential
• Development on the Surrounding Community and Community
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
C. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SELshuCrrY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
• 1. Stratigraphy and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2. Faulting and Seismicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3. Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4. Liquefaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
5. Tsunamis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
• 6. Truck Routing for Contaminated Excavation Spoils Export . . . . 110
7. Subsidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8. Improper Impact Significance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
9. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Insignificant . . . . . . . 111
10. Potential Effects of Project Found to be Significant. . . . . . . . . 112
• 11. Impact of Corrosive Soils is Not Mitigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
12. Mitigation Measures Are Not Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
D. CHAPTER 4.3 - HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
• 1. Inadequate Response to Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
2. Cost of Remediation Must Be Further Detailed and Allocated. . 115
3. Further Study and Disclosure of Nature and Extent of
Contamination is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4. Further Study and Disclosure of Health Risks to Project
• Residents is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
5. Reabandoning of Oil Wells Must Be Accomplished under
Current Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6. City Standards for Soil Remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7. Phase H Assessment Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
• 8. Community Contingency Plan Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
9. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
E. CHAFrER 4.4 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . 119
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 -v-
•
1. Groundwater Well at Edwards Thumb Could Cause Significant
Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2. Potential Impacts Will Exist Even with Operation of Proposed
Pump Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3. Further Mitigation Is Required to Improve Water Quality
Flowing into the Wetlands from the EGGW Channel . . . . . . . 121
4. Insignificance of Ground Water Impacts Must be Supported by
Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5. Potential for Impacts of Quality of City Water Supply Must Be
Disclosed and Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
F. CHAPTER 4.5 - WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
1. NPDES Permit Is Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
2. Deletion of Tidal Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3. Adequacy of REIR Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4. Additional Information Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5. Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan 126
6. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
G. CHAPTER 4.6 CoAsTAL. HYDRAULICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
1. Sediment Increase in Huntington Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
H. CHAPTER 4.7 - MAR WAQUATIC BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
1. Hazardous Materials Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
2. Comments on the WRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3. Mitigation Banldng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4. Previous Comments on 1993 WRP Not Addressed in 1994
WRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
I. CHAPTER 4.8 - TERREmwAL BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
•
1. No Support Ls Given for REIR Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2. Insufficient Information and Confusing Format . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3. Impact Significance Is not Determined Using Consistent
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4. Lack of Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 •
5. REIR Fails to Address Local Significance of Impacts . . . . . . . 139
6. Project Design Features Make Determination of Project
Impacts Impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 -vi-
•
7. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 7 Consultation
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8. REIR Omits Description of ESA Section 10 Taking Permit
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
9. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
10. Comments on DEIR Are Not Addressed in the REIR . . . . . . . 144
1. CHAPTER 4.9 - TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . 146
0 1. Response to City Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
2. City Traffic Analysis Should Be Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
3. No Analysis of Construction Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4. Street Impacts from Freeway Ramp Metering Must Be
Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
• 5. Inadequate Mitigation Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
6. Impact of Deleting Cross Gap Connector From MPAH Not
Sufficiently Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7. Transportation Impacts to Fire/Police/Public Safety Are Not
Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
0 8. Unfunded ATIP Provides Illusory Mitigation Only . . . . . . . . . 149
a. Assessment District as a Financing Mechanism for the
ATIP Is Not Adequately Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
b. Fair Share Funding Analysis Further Obscures ATIP
Funding Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
C. Skewed Traffic Analysis Understates the Project's Fair
Share of Traffic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
d. ATIP Administration should be Provided By the City,
the Agency Most Severely Affected By the Project . . . . 150
e. No Funding Is Contemplated from other Affected
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
f. Funding for ATIP Is Not Likely to Be Available. . . . . 151
9. Miscellaneous Comments on Analysis of Traffic Impacts . . . . . 152
• 10. Comments on the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . 157
11. Comments on the "Executive Summary" of the Traffic Impact
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
12. Specific Comments on the Traffic Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . 160
K. CHAPTER 4.10 - AIR QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
•
1. Need to Reference Traffic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
2. Need for Further Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
3. Monitoring Locations Are Not Identified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4. Lack of Intersection Air Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23. 1994 -vii-
0 • •
S. Analysis Includes Conflicting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
6. Consistency with AQMP Is Not Sufficiently Analyzed . . . . . . 164
7. Consistency with GNP Is Not Properly Analyzed . . . . . . . . . 165 •
L. CHAPTER 4.11 - NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
1. Confusing Organization Obscures Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
2. Local Noise Monitoring to Establish Baseline . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 •
M. CHAPTER 4.12 - CULTURAL RESouRCEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
1. Further Studies Required Prior to Approval of the Proposed
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 •
2. Unanswered Issues Raised in the Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
a. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements (pages 167-168 of
the Comment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
b. Deferred Study (page 168 of the Comment) . . . . . . . . 170 •
C. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer;
California Register Criteria (page 169 of the Comment) . 170
d. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . 171
e. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
•
3. Discovery of Human Remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
4. Cultural Resources Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
5. Inadequate Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions . . . . 174
6. The REIR Fails to Inform the Reader of the Scope of Research . 175
7. The REIR Does Not Provide for Adequate Site Management or •
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
8. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
9. Miscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
10. Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
N. CHAPTER 4.13 - PmxoNroLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 •
O. CHAPTER 4.14 - AEsrHETIcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
P. CHAPTER 4.15 - SocioEcoxowm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
•
1. Further Study of Socioeconomic Impacts IS Required . . . . . . . 189
2. Financial Feasibility of the Project and Mitigation Is Not
Analyzed in the REIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
•
Discussion Draft Dated Septernba 23. 1994 -
•
•
a. The Project Will Have Significant Fiscal Impacts on the
City which Will Cause Adverse Physical Effects . . . . . 189
• b. Project Financial Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
C. REIR Does Not Identify Public Financing Needs or
Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
d. Lack of Project Information Precludes Adequate
Review of Fiscal Feasibility of Mitigation Measures . . . 190
e. Loss of Tax Revenues Will Make Fiscal Impacts Worse . 191
•
3. Incomplete Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
4. Affordable Housing and Impact on Regional Housing Needs . . . 191
5. Analytical Flaws in Jobs-Housing Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
6. Financial Feasibility/Phasing/Fiscal Impact of Development . . . 193
•
Q. CHAPTER 4.16 - PvBLic SERvIcEs AND UTnxriEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
1. Water Service From Scaled-Down Project Will Still
Significantly Impact City Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
• 2. Water Supply Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
a. Assumptions Regarding Water Supply to Project Are
Not Correct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
b. Impacts to Regional Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
• C. Project Does Not Have Rights to Water Supplies . . . . . 198
d. Construction of a Reservoir Is Not a Water Source . . . . 199
e. No Supply of Reclaimed Water is Available . . . . . . . . 200
3. Ground Water Wells Will Have Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
• 4. Aquifer Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
5. Miscellaneous Water Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
6. Wastewater and Related Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7. Significant Unmitigated Impact to Fire Protection & Paramedic
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
8. Miscellaneous Fire Safety Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
9. 20-Year Impacts on City Services During Project Construction . 211
10. Fiscal Impacts on Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
11. Fiscal Impacts to City Infrastn>fcture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
12. Analysis of Impacts on City Police Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
13. Miscellaneous Police Department Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
•
a. Construction of the Cross-Gap Connector . . . . . . . . . . 217
b. County's Need for Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . 218
C. Additional Sub-Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
•
Discussion Draft Dated September 23, 1994 -u-
•
d. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
Concerns for Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
R. CHAPTER 4.17 - RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 •
1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient . . . . . . . . . . . 220
2. Lack of Urban Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
3. Description of Park Facilities Must Be Provided . . . . . . . . . . 221 •
4. Funding for Park and Public Greenbelt Maintenance. . . . . . . . 221
5. Geology/Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
6. Slope Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
7. Contaminated Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
8. Corrosive Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
9. Impact of Placement of Dredged Sediments on Beach . . . . . . . 221
10. Elevate Parks Above Flood Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
11. Public Safety Impacts on Increased Site Visitations . . . . . . . . 222
12. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing . . . . . . 222
13. Tidal Inlet Alternatives Must Be Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
•
S. CHAPTER 5 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
1. Cumulative Impact From Loss of Wetland/Upland Habitat. . . . 222
2. Cumulative Oil Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
3. Miscellaneous Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 •
T. CHAPTER 6 - ALTERNATIVES To THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . 225
1. General Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
2. Clean Water Act Consistency Must Be Considered . . . . . . . . 226 •
U. CHAPTERs 10 THRouGH 12 - SCs, PDFs, & MITIGATION MEASURES. 229
III. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
•
•
•
Discussion Draft Dated Saptambar 23. 1994 -x-
•
2
Annex No. 2
• List of Annexes
Annex No. Description
1. . . . . . . . . . . . . Index to Comment
• 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Annexes
3. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Inconsistencies of Project with City General Plan
4. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Analysis of PDFs, SCs and Mitigation Measures
• 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Analysis of Alternatives
6. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Public Economics
7. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from USFWS-Ecological Services to County dated February 17, 1994
•
8. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from CDFG to County dated February 18, 1994
9. . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from CCC to County dated February _, 1994
10. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from NMFS to County dated February 18, 1994
•
11. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter to Paul R. Lanning from Irell & Manella dated February 16, 1994
commenting on DEIR on behalf of Fieldstone Company
12. . . . . . . . . . . . Petitioners' Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed
• September 27, 1993, in the case of Sierra Point Associates Two and The Koll
Company vs. City and County of San Francisco Airports Commission, et al.,
County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220
13. . . . . . . . . . . . Koll Petition for Writ of Mandate, filed December 4, 1992, Superior Court of
the County of San Mateo, Case No. 379595 (which petition was later
• consolidated with County of San Joaquin Superior Court, Case No. 254220)
14. . . . . . . . . . . . Koll Reply Memorandum, Superior Court, County of San Joaquin, Case No.
254220, filed September 13, 1993
• 15. . . . . . . . . . . . Uniform Fire Code Section 79.1101
16. . . . . . . . . . . . Chart Showing PDF Process As Evasion of CEQA
17. . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Community Contingency Plan
• 18. . . . . . . . . . . . GeoScience Analytical, Inc.'s Report in Connection with Hazardous Substance
Issues
•
0 • •
19. . . . . . . . . . . . City of Huntington Beach Soil Clean-Up Standard, City Specification 431-92
20. . . . . . . . . . . . Public Resources Code Section 3208.1 •
21. . . . . . . . . . . . 1976 Statement Regarding Subsidence
22. . . . . . . . . . . . Fire Growth Vs. Reflex Time Graph
23. Time CPR Started Vs. Probability of Recovery from Cardiac Arrest Graph •
24. . . . . . . . . . . . California Coastal Commission Procedural Guidance for the Review of Wetland
Projects in California's Coastal Zone, dated June 15, 1994
25. . . . . . . . . . . . Document Production Request from Ervin,Cohen&Jessup,on behalf of the City •
of Huntington Beach, to Paul Lanning, dated September 13, 1994
26. . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Document Production Request from Paul Lansing, dated September
19, 1994
27. Letter, dated March 24, 1994, from the California Regional Water Quality •
Control Board, Santa Ana Region to Paul Lansing
28. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated April 6, 1994, from the State of California Department of
Transportation to Paul Lanning
•
29. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated February 9, 1994, from the Orange County Water District to Paul
Lansing Containing Comments on the DEIR
30. . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit issued to Phillip Brylski on May 10, 1994
allowing the taking of the Pacific Little Pocket Mouse
•
31. . . . . . . . . . . . Draft Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol, dated October 30, 1992
32. . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of the Western Snowy Plover on Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California,
dated September 1992
33. A Survey of Belding's Savannah Sparrows in California •
34. . . . . . . . . . . . Second Request for Reference Documents Cited in the Bibliography of the REIR
from the City of Huntington Beach to Tom Mathews, dated September 7, 1994
35. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated September 12, 1994, from Albert, Grover & Associates to Paul •
Lansing Requesting Back Up Data and Studies Pertaining to the "Transportation
and Circulation" Section of the REIR
36. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter,dated February 16, 1994,from the Native American Heritage Commission
to Paul Lansing •
•
• • •
37. . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated February 7, 1994, from the California Governor's Office of
Planning and Research to Paul Lansing
• 38. . . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum, dated February 16, 1994, from the Chairman of the Orange
County Historical Commission to Paul Lanning
39. . . . . . . . . . . . Response to Document Production Request, dated September 1, 1994, from Paul
Lanning to the City of Huntington Beach
• 40. Receipt from State Clearing House for Circulation of DER
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Annex No. 3
X................ ...............
. .........
... ................ ............ ...... .....
..... ............................ ........
.............. .............. ................. . ................. ....................... .
.............. ........ :
. .................... .......
............. ............ . ..... ......... ....................... .... ... ...... . . .................. .. ..... . . .....11....I.... .............................. .......... .... ............ ............................... ...........
... ... .... ................ ..... .......... .. ..... ........... . ......................... ....
............. ... .. .............................. ......
................................
........... .................
...............
............... ... ........ ......... ..... .. ........ .. ...................... .......
............. .......
.. .............................. ...... . ......
.... .... ............ ................ ......
.... ... ....... .... ............... ................ ........... ...... ......................
flad
.. .......... ......... .................. ....
rtt
. ............ ... .. . ......
.............. .........
....................... ........................ ....... .. .... .
.... . ...........
.. ............ ...........
............. ...................... ...... ...
Nitit ..........
...................... . ................. ................. . ........................ ............ ..... ....
.......... ......I....... .............. .............. . .
11 open space/ To conserve land resources which Page 14 of the cityA general plan identifies the "northwest" Bolsa Chica
Conservation enhance the physical, social and area and the Bolsa Chica in general (including the bluffs and the •
Element- economic fife style of the area by marshlands) as first priority areas with the greatest potential preservation as
2.1.2.1(1) preserving and protecting open space resources and, on page 15, identifies preservation of the natural
outstanding geographical and integrity of the bluffs and outstanding physical features as a critical issue.
topographical features.
Page 17 of the cityi general plan identifies the "northwest" Bolsa Chica
areas as an open space/conservation area of the highest priority. It
identifies the following resources as valuable open space/conservation
resources: the bluffs, tree stands, potential historical sites, archaeological
sites, and scenic and mineral resources for the areas between the bluffs.
(Me policy only refers to the lowland,assuming that the "bluffs" are those
of the Huntington and the Bolsa Chica Mesas)
The proposed plans include the removal of trees and grading to(what
appears to be) the bluff edge.
12 Open Space/ To ensure the continued existence The proposed plans focuses on the relocation versus the preservation of
Conservation of distinctive biological resources existing vegetation and wildlife.
Element- contained within the boundaries of
2.1.23(1) the Huntington Beach sphere of
influence by preserving significant
vegetation and wildlife habitat now
existing in the Planning Area.
.............. .. . .... ..... ........... ..... . ......
. ............... .... ......I...................
- .... - - .:::..: :::::::: ................................ ......... ... . .....
............. .................. ...... ....
...... . .. ..... ............. .......... ..
..... ....... .................. ........ ...... .......
... .. .. ....
..........
.......... .......
.......................
.... ........ .......... .............. ....................
......... . ...........................I ...... .......
..............................................
.................... ........ ........................... ......... ..... ...................
......................
...... . . ...... ......... . ... .. ..............
... ......... .... ... .......... ....... ...... ...... .................... . .. ............ .
......................... ..........
..........
.. ...... ...
.......... ...........................
.................. . .. . ................. ......... .......I........ .......
.......... ... ................................... ..................... . ................ ....
.............. ...........
............
. ... . ..t
...................... lurume
................. ......
.. ................ ......
16 Open Space/ Scenic Corridor: Linear area The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a scenic corridor as
Conservation protected from disharmonious depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element-2.1.4(1) development or preserved in a a resource area of severely restricted or no development. Option B
natural state; includes scenic proposes development within this area.
roadways and open space
greenbelts.
16 Open Space/ Resource Preserve: Applies to The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a Resource Preserve as
Conservation land set aside primarily for the depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element-2.1.4(3) protection of natural and cultural a resource area of severely restricted or no development. The restoration
resources. activities proposed under both options for this area are consistent with this
designation.
16 Open Space/ Weer Area: applies to salt and The General Plan identifies the Bolsa Chica to have a Water Area as
Conservation fresh water areas considered for depicted on page 4.1-32 of the revised draft EIR. This area is identified as
Element-2.1.4(5) both conservation and recreation a resource area of severely restricted or no development. The restoration
Purposes. activities proposed under both options for this area are consistent with this
designation.
16 Open Space/ Planned Open Space Development: The remaining areas are identified as Planned Open Space Development •
Conservation Applies to special resource areas, which allows for residential development as indicated to the left. However,
Element-2.1.4(7) permitting open space uses and based upon the computer simulated drawings, it does not appear that the
other kinds of uses, including proposed development maximizes open space benefits on the mesa.
residential, which maximize open
space benefits by incorporating
natural resources into the
development plan.
-2-
..........................
.. . .......... .. ...... .... ......... ......... .......... . ......... ......
..............
........... ............... ......... ............................... ................... ... ................ ........
............I.............. ".......... ... ... .............
.............. ......... .. ..... . .. ........ ................................ . .......... ........................................
. ........... ....... ....................
............ ............ ............
........... ................. ........ ......::.: ::: "'. ' - .. . ............. .
........... ....................................................
. ................. ..... ........ .............
..... .......... .......... .............................................................. ..... ... ...........................
......... ........ . .. .............................................................................. ....... ..........
..... ......... .......... .......... ........
..............
............
..... . ...... . .. ........... . .. .....
................. ............ ......
.... .... ........ . ........ .... ..... ... .......
. ... ...... . ........ .......
. .. ... ... ....
...... ... ... . .......... .. ............. . .. ..... ... .... ...
... ........ ......... ..........
Number Number
.......... ........ .. .. ..........
23 Seismic-Safety To insure that structures for The property is located within the Alquist-Priolo special studies zone and
Element— human occupancy, critical proposes to construct residences in proximity to the 50 foot setback.
2.2.2.2(3) strictures, and other vital Development of these structures may not comply with the Cityb General
emergency facilities are designed Plan if they are not constructed to withstand adequate seismic hazards as •
to minimize damage from potential identified by DOG.
hazards so as to continue to
function.
31 Seismic-Safety Prohibit construction of future See above.
Element— critical facilities within 50 feet of
2.2.4.2(11) a known fault trace.
34 Seismic-Safety If the Bolsa Chic& is developed, an See Fire Department Comments
Element— imbalance of community fire
2.2.4.3(13) protection will occur. Increased
construction and population in that
area would require an Engine
Company to be established. An
additional ladder company would
also be needed within five to ten
years.
43 Recreation City park goal of five(5)acres Page 4.17-7 of the DEIR states that the CountyA standard is 2.5 acres per
Element-2.4.1 per 1.000 population. 1,000 residents. Provision of park land based upon this standard will result
in a park deficient area when the property is annexed to the City.
-3-
.. ......... . ... ... .. ............
i:j:j .......................
........................ ........................ .......... ... ........
........... .. :. : ::; - -
..................... ...
............ ...................................I.... ..
......... . ........... .....
........... . ........ . ......
...... ............................
................................... .... . ...... ......
............
.......... ............. .................. ......... ......
..........
...... ......... .... .................... ....I I : 1::: :::::: :
:X16hOW4 ::::::::........... .......................... ............... ........ ... ..... ...
. ................... .. ..... .....
..... ............................... .................. .... .................. ..
..... ......... ................... .............. . ...... ... ............ ........ .................. ..... .. ........... .................
...... .......
...............
..... ......XX: ktRd
... ............. . .........
----------- ............ ........''...M:::': . ....... ....................... .. ... ................... ... .......... ........ ...... . ....... .... ..
......................... ... .. ... .............................
.............. ......... .............................
. .... ........... .
...................... . .. ..... ....
............... ................... .... .... .....
...... . ....
................ ..............
..................
45 Recreation The existing and proposed The cityi standards for a neighborhood park are facilities that are generally
Element—Existing recreation facilities—shows four 2.5 to 5 acres in size and are designed to serve the area within a 1/4 mile
and Proposed neighborhood parks within the radius. Although the individual park sites proposed in the project generally
Recreation Bolsa Chica area. complies with the size requirements for "neighborhood parks" the
Facilities Figure distribution of parks in option b are not consistent with the cityi
conservation plan.
49 Circulation Develop a system of arterial The plan deletes the cross-gap connector which based upon
Element— streets and highways that insures traffic/police/fire comments will result in impacts that are not consistent
3.1.2.2(1) the safe and efficient movement of with this policy.
people and goods.
57 Circulation The cityi circulation plan shows a The plan deletes the cross-gap connector.
Element—Figure cross-gap connector.
3-6 Circulation
Plan of Arterial
Streets and
Highways
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The project includes the development of the school property on-site as
-3.3.4.I(&X2) identifying and evaluating potential recreational and residential uses and does not indicate what facilities in the •
sites for low and moderate cost area are open and will be able to accomodate project generated students.
housing. Sites should be located
with convenient access to schools,
parks and recreational facilities.
-4-
0 0 0 0 & 0
.......... .... r! ...... ..... ........
........... . ..... ma ..........
.... ...... ....... ............
....... .......... ......
................ ........
.... ...........................................
l.
.. ........... .....G�teral ...... ............... .... .......
.............. ....... ................................ .. ...... ...
lE ............ ..........
............ . . ..... .... .......... .. .. ........... ...
...................nent
Ex
..................... :F ........
......... .......
.......... ...............
............. ....... . .....
........................................ ..............
...... .......... ... ..... ..............
.. ..............
.. . ..........
Ntim W" .........
.............. ..........
........................ ... ........
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The project has bees designed to County standards and may not meet City
-3.3.4.1(b) identifying and evaluating potential standards which upon annexation to the City will automatically result in
sites for low and moderate cost service defficient areas. See department comments for city standards.
housing. Sites should be
adequately saved by public •
facilities, services and utilities.
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The higher densities, which are more conducive to providing affordable
.3.3.4.I(c) identifying and evaluating potential units,are located on the mesa which is traversed by an active fault.
sites for low and moderate cost
homing. Sites should be
minimally impacted by seismic and
flood hazards. Where such
hazards can not be avoided,
adequate mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into the design of
all proposed development.
77 Housing Element- Utilize the following criteria for The higher densities, which are more conducive to providing affordable
-3.3.4.1(o) identifying and evaluating potential units,are located adjacent to existing low density residences along Los
sites for low and moderate cost Patos. The transition between the two areas has not adequately been
housing. Sites should be evaluated to determine if the proposed development standards will allow for
compatible with surrounding compatible development of the two areas.
existing and planned land uses.
........... .. ........ .................................. . ..... ........... ...........
1. !::: ....I..........
............ .... .. ............ ..... ......... ... ...... ... .................
.........................
.......................
......................
..................... ......
.................... ................
................................. ......................................
............................. .........
........... .
Humber
.............................. ... .....
................ ........ . .. . ..... ......
.. ... . . ............... . ....
............................ ........
.............. .......... ........ ......
.. ........
....... ....... ...... ................I..........
Nuin ...........................
.... .......................
. .................... ........... .
... ............
95 Land Use To develop and maintain high The proposed plans include the removal of trees and grading to(what
Element— standards of visual beauty within appears to be) the bluff edge.
3.4.2.1(1) all areas of the city by preserving
areas of significant scenic beauty
such as waterways, bluffs, trees
and historical landmarks. •
86 LAnd Use To capitalize on the outdoor and The proposed plans include grading to(what appears to be) the bluff edge
Element— environmental potential of the City and fill and development of the lowland.
3.4.2.2(3) by maximizing the preservation of
historic, scenic, geological,
topographical,and archaeological
sites.
86 I.And Use To provide for the proper The project proposes to relocate Warner Avenue Pond and the project is not
Element— development, maintenance, compatible with this policy.
3.4.2.3(2) improvement, preservation, and
use of the CityA natural resources
by maintaining existing City Um.
86 Land Use To provide for the proper The proposed plans include grading to(what appears to be) the bluff edge •
Element— development, maintenance, and fill and development of the lowland.
3.4.2.3(3) improvement, preservation, and
use of the CityA natural resources
by maintaining natural topography.
-6-
. 1' . ; .
Srl
� lSJ •
Ir
..........
87 Land Use To ensure a full range of The proposed project does not include adequate facilities for water service
Element— community facilities that provide to the area, since the proposed water reservoir is actually one needed to
3.4.2.6(1) for the general public& health, meet demands of a different project in the city of Huntington Beach.
safety, and welfare by providing
utility systems to meet projected •
demands.
87 Land Use To ensure a full range of The proposed project does not include any meeting facilities such as
Element— community facilities that provide community centers to serve area residents.
3.4.2.6(2) for the general public& health,
safety, and welfare by providing
meeting centers for civic and Other
groups.
92 Land Use Low density residential land use The project has a low density residential range of a maximum 6.5 du/gross
Element-3.4.3.1 designation in the city& General acre.
(Residential)(2) Plan consists of single family
detached dwelling units
constructed at a density of a
maximum of 7 units per gross acre
and located with convenient access
to commercial sites, parks and
schools.
-7-
» JI!
( 1 n n.
.
Nmnl� IYIL� .... ....... Pohcv
92 Land Use Medium density residential land The project proposes medium low density residential (at a maximum density
Element-3.4.3.1 use designation in the city§ of 12.5 du/acre). The City does not have such a designation.
(Residentialx3) General Plan primarily consists of
multi-family attached dwelling
units, but allows for detached
patio homes and are constructed at
a density of a maximum of 15
units per gross acre and located
with convenient access to
commercial sites, business areas,
cultural facilities, transportation
routes, parks and schools. These
areas are to provide a transition
area between low and higher
density areas.
93 Lind Use Medium-High density residential The County& medium high designation allows for a maximum of 18
Element-3.4.3.1 land use designation in the city§ du/acre.
(Residential) General Plan consists of more
(4) intense multi-family residential
dwelling units constructed at a
density of a maximum of 25 units
per gross acre and located with
convenient access to commercial
sites, major transportation routes
and are serve as transition areas
between medium and high density
residential areas.
-8-
0 0 0
''
Pohcv
102 Land Use The CityA Public/Quasi- Except for the fire station site, none of these facilities are proposed to
Element— Public/Institutional designation serve the area,
3.4.3.1(1) includes schools, libraries and fire
facilities, etc.
118 Community Prior to issuance of a development The project has been designed to County standards and is deficient in many
Facilities Element- entitlement, the City shall make different areas.
-3.4.6.1(3) the finding that adequate services
can be provided to serve the
proposed development, consistent
with policies contained in the
General Plan at the time of
occupancy.
120 Community Design and route new sewers to The plan requires the construction of additional pump stations.
Facilities Element- eliminate the need for pump
-3.5.6.3(4) stations where possible.
120 Community Require that new developments in It is not possible to know whether such items have been incorporated into •
Facilities Element- areas of known subsidence the plans; please refer to Public Works comments.
-3.5.6.3(6) construct low flow storm drains
and minimize the use of cross
gutters.
120 Community Require that new development I dont know if this has bees incorporated into the plans; please refer to
Facilities Element- employ catch basins and storm Public Works comments.
-3.5.6.3(7) drains with baffled compartments
where uncontrolled drainage could
damage sensitive areas.
-9-
... ...........
.................. .... .......... ... ..........
......... ....... . .......... .............. ....... .......
............... .........
..........
..............
................ .. .. . .......... ... .........I............. ... ............ .... . ................ ..... ...... ............... ........ ......... .....
.. ......... ........ ...
........ ... ... ..... . ..
........... ..........
.... .... ....... ........................... . . ......... .. ......
....... .............
:jaw" ........ .....................
........... .........I .... . '' . .:...:.- :�:::::: ,. ":................... . .......... ........... ...................................... ...
........ ........... .......
................................ . ................... ........................ .......... ....... ........... .
............................ ......... ..................
...... ....... ...... . .......
.......... .. ... ......... ...........
......... . . ........... .....
olrcr
................................... ..........
...... ........... ......... .. .............................
.......... ......
........... ...............
............
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual The project includes significant development on top the Bolsa Chica mesa.
3.6.2.3(1Xc) resources within the coastal zone
by prohibiting development along
the bluffs rising up to the Bolsa
Chic& mesa within the cityA
jurisdiction)which will alter the •
natural landform or threaten the
stability of the bluffs.
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual Without review of the proposed development standards, it is not possible to
3.6.2.3(lXd) resources within the coastal zone determine if the proposed project conforms with this policy.
by encouraging cluster
development in areas designated
for residential use within the
coastal zone.
129 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance visual The plan focuses on the relocation of mature trees at best.
3.6.2.3(l)(g) resources within the coastal zone
by requiring the preservation of
existing mature; trees within the
coastal zone to the maximum
extent feasible.
. .............
............. ...... .... . .
....................... ... ... ...........
.. ............ ..............Sr�X ----------- -
........... .... ...............
.. ............... ....................
..............
.......... . ....... .. ..............
.................. ... ......... ... ............ ....... .... ............ ............
..... ...................
.................. ............ .............
.............. . ........ .. ......... . ........................................... . ...... .... ... ... ..............
....................... ...............
:::: ... ..................
............ .................................................... . ........... . ......
.. ........... .........
................... .... ......... ......
... ....... ..... ........................
Polacv .................. ....... ............... .... ............ ...
. ...... . ..............
........Number .... ........ . ......... ........ .... .Comment
131 Coastal Element— Promote measures to mitigate the The plan does not comply with the provisions of the Coastal Act, as stated
3.6.2.4(lXf) adverse impacts of human in the comment letter from the Coastal Commission staff.
activities on marine organisms and
the marine environment by •
limiting diking,dredging and
filling of coastal waters, wetlands,
said estuaries to the specific
activities outlined in section 30233
and 30607.1 of the Coastal Act
and to time activities required for
the restoration, maintenance,
and/or repair of the Municipal
Pier; conduct diking, dredging and
filling activities in manner that is
consistent with section 30233 and
30607.1 of the Coastal Act.
132 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance This is a factor if we are able to determine that there is a connection
3.6.2.5(lXa) environmentally sensitive habitats between the lowland and mesa areas. The plan is also inconsistent if the
including the Bola Chica which is proposed "buffer" areas are not adequately designed to prevent •
within the sphere of influence of human/animal intrusion and do not address the issues identified in Coastal
the City of Huntington Beach by Element-3.6.2.5(l)(b)identified below.
approving only that development
adjacent to wetlands and
environmentally sensitive habitat
areas that do not significantly
degrade habitat values and winch
are compatible with the
continuance of the habitat.
-11-
..........
.................
............::-V'X. ................
...........
............
.............
Bo
..............
.. .................
............. ....... .................
.......... ........... b ..... .......... . .. ..... . .................... ...... .
....... .........
... ...... ................ ............. .... . . ..........
........ .......................
............. ........................ ..... ... ......
........... ..... ............
............. ............................... . ............. . ................
........... ... .... ....
.............
............... ... ......
......................
..............
............. ...... ........ ..........
...................
............... ................. ...
.......................... ........
.. .... ..........................
.............................
.............. ..
. ..........
. . . ...................
. ... ........ ... ..................
132 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance
3.6.2.5(1)(b) environmentally sensitive habitats
including the Holsa Chica which is
within the sphere of influence of
the City of Huntington Beach by
requiring now development •
contiguous to wetland
environmentally sensitive habitat
areas to include buffers which will
consist of a minimum of 100 foot
setback from the landward edge of
the wetland where possible. If
existing development of site
configuration precludes a 100 foot
wide buffer, the buffer"be
established according to the factors
listed in policy lc and shall be
reviewed by the Department of
Fish and Game.
-12-
.
PAY
132-133 Coastal Element— Preserve and enhance
3.6.2.5(lxc) environmentally sensitive habitats
including the Bolsa Chica which is
within the sphere of influence of
the City of Huntington Beach by •
ensuring that buffer specifications
take into consideration the
following factors:
• Biological significance of
adjacent lands—The buffer
should be sufficiently wide to
protect the functional
relationship between wetland
and adjacent upland..
• Sensitivity of species to
disturbance--The buffer should
be sufficiently wide to ensure
that the most sensitive species
will not be disturbed
significantly by permitted
development based on habitat
requirements of both resident
and migratory species and the
short-and long-term
adaptability of various species
to human disturbance.
-13-
.......................... .. ......... ................. . . ........
............... .. ......... . ........... ................................. .............. . ...........
.......... .. ... .................. ......... ...... .............
................... ............
............................
........ .. .... . ...........................
.............. .......... ........... ...............
.. ........... 11. ........................... ................ ........
.... ........
•
.. . ......... .............. ..
............................. ...... ... . ............ .. ............... ..
... ............. ... ...............
. .......... ..............
........... ..... ..........
..................... .........
.................. .. .. ......
.. .......... .
.... ..... .. .....
................
................
................................ .................................
... .. .. .... ...... ........................
..........................................
.............
... ....... .. .. . .... ... . ..................... ... .. .....
Susceptibility of parcel to
erosion—no buffer should be
sufficiently wide to allow for
interception any additional
material eroded as a result of
the proposed development
based on soil and vegetative
characteristics, slope and
runoff characteristics, and
impervious Muface coverage.
• Use of existing cultural
features to locate buffer canes-
-Where feasible, development
should be located on the side
of roads, dikes, irrigation
canals, flood control channels,
etc., away from the
environmentally sensitive area.
-14-
0
i ..A.AAAi.!ii
E anent
l
.. ..................�.p
:::
133 Coastal Element— The city General Plan recognizes The plan proposed by the REIR does not promote full tidal flushing and
3.6.2.5(2xa) that the wetlands in will require relies on the indirect connection to Huntington Harbor and the redirection of
improvements before their the urban runoff from the EGGW channel to provide water required for
potential is realized and includes wetlands restoration.
the following policy for enhancing •
the biological and aesthetic quality
of these areas.
Promote the improvement of the
biological productivity and
appearance of wetland habitats by
promoting the re-establishment of
tidal flushing in wetland areas.
•
-15-
• • • • • • • • • • •
Annex No. 4
.
........f Text Nbugauon Measuro Improper Reliance on; Measuro Not.Shown Not.Shown to.be Economically
Mlpption Msiwsurer NotoiA;iptampeo oDCuSdyDisguisdsFoS F
... . .. ... aasible
XXX
Wp10;115�/►f 1p RA►T�p►p1 ANNINIq
F The project does not incorporate an PDFs and there
P 1 rP Y
are no standard conditions which will be required for
U .
Lend as end Related Planning.
The Oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure X X X
Plan OSPCCP and Spill Contingency Plan OSCP This mitigation
1 1 P� g Y 1 1 g
enacted between the oil field operators and measure provides no
appropriate state agencies will remain in effect for information regarding
o e the duration of the oil activities at Boles Chico. how the plans wi
ll be
P
These plans will be amended as required for each Implemented or will
Residential Planning Area and will require the mitigate Impacts.
approval of state contracting agencies at that Far greater detail
al the
'' aPP ng 6
time. must be provided.
MltlSutfan Mpasuiv►,A.1ab.,,;`> All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be X
Po o no
of the potential hazardous conditions Merely notifying the
associated with onsits oil production activities. Such first buyers of
information shall be disclosed the Department of Real residential units of
Estate reports prior to unit Was. potential otential hazards
does not mitigate
their impact.
fiEOLAQY AND.8E18MIGAlY
Proloct Desian Feattara
Ground improvement for Lowland development
... . .
...................... ...........................................
consiati of dynamic des compaction DDC will be
rW Yn P P ( 1
D g
erformed on localized areas needin stabilization,
down to a depth of 25 feet below ground surface
The
technique induces au ce settlement due
1 1 surface
fIt111u�f1 Wf,INlM,ANaC}!,,,,,, to compression of loose sand layers and cratering
:.:.; . created by repeatedly dropping weights.
-1-
f OFfSC:. TAxt Mibgatlon M�asurs Improper Rebenco on Measure Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
gob Msedura fMb pisguisedss PDF or SC Future:Study' i'to Mitigate:Impact'' or Technically Feasible
POtt.,aor►Urtyad;....,;,..:...........: ► Stockpiling of the surficial layer, which generally X X
consists of soft fine-grained(clayey silt,silty Erosion control will It is not certain whether the
clay), wiU be accomplished to a depth of 1 foot be of critical generally applicable erosion
above the water table at the time of round importance but the control and grading
g mP 9
improvement to Increase the efficiency of DDC erosion control procedures of the County
work. After DDC,the stockpile material will be procedures are not Code would be sufficient to
reused on sits for engineered fills and will be specified or eliminate impacts to a
subjecrit to erosion control as specified to Section n y sensitive
4.3. to permit public 1e wetlands.
e Thisoissuehres
.. the
review or particular must be addresse
consideration. in detail.
► Placement of at least 1-foot-thick granular
blanket to provide a stable working platform for
round i rovement eq
uipment.
g mP qument.P
e Fo
r some areas depending o de endi n depth to
P
groundwater,additional fill may be required to be
placed prior to DDC improvements.
me This fill
thickness may vary from 1 to 3 feet.
§ ► monitoringo ed'acent X X X
Field testing and f
1
g or n effect from the abo
ve--- spec-
No standard is It is not certain whether
rtsi hborlwods f any compaction activities required
prescribed round improvement measures. ified as to what n r uir d
P (l �P
P q
Ctu es a u c- in the lowland could be under
-cons t n r►a
taken
cs table disruption ek n without creating si ni-
cap table 9 9
c e 's o adjacent resi- fi ant impacts to the existing t the
1 P 9
residential neighbors 0 dential areas not is i n al n h rs f the
9
ro os project or o he remedial actin proposed t t t an n
P P P 1 Y
residential su Bated if unac- n 1
suggested P
able effects o osed to be constructed etc ce t from
P P
cep
table
e -
the Mass prior to the com the compaction
P
c activitiee occur. men amen[of compaction.
► X X X
o toe columns in Alternative) installations f• n
Y
o ex s provided
No explanation's N explanation
in exc
ess i those areas where needed stabilization
P P P
e installation of the
as regarding installs
o warranted,and within 1fX)f cotprovided o what
f 25 feet b is w rr
9 9
fie
c din the
• r columns o regarding o r residential areas to pr
event levels of vibration are nor r ns near existing r z 9
ng P
9
manna the work.
possible from vibration.
acceptabler m which
d Y po damage
-2-
..................... ...
.............
..... . ......................
Measure Improper Rehence on Measure N Shown Not wn to be Economically o
...................... ...... .......
a -sad PDVo SC .. F t. r.6. y
A mitigate mpact
6r.Tachnica ly Feasible
.......... ......
........ .......
POF- Construction of a cutoff wall to reduce any potential X X X X
. ... ......
...........I........
.......... .......... effect from salt water,freshwater,and irrigation This item is required to No criteria are given There is significant The installation of the cutoff
.. .............. . ....... ............
........................... ............. .... .....
.....I... . .......... .............. ................... ............
water from the seasonal ponds into the existing mitigate a potentially to determine the doubt that the cutoff wall in an effective manner is
........ residential neighborhood to an insignificant level. The significant impact success or failure of wall will be effective open to doubt and further
Proposed Project provides for a monitoring program this measure nor of to achieve its stated information regarding the
.......................
...........
....... ........................ for those homes closer then 50 feet to the the level of vibration purpose. manner of installation and the
...... .............. .......
.................
or disruption to the intended affect of this wall
installation of the high density polyethylene (HOPE)
..............
...............
............. ........... cutoff wall. This program Includes notification of adjacent residences should be provided.
... ........
............
............
..........................
residents when construction activities will which will be •
commence. The program also includes vibration acceptable. No plan
........................
............
..........
......... . ........... . .........
measurements reviewed by the County at distances to alleviate impacts
.......................................
..............
................. ...............:.L..:..'........ .... ..... .................. .. of 25 and 50 feet from wall installation to assure that to the residents or
. . .
.............
existing improvements will not be damaged during their homes is
....................................
......................
co
.. ........
......... ... .... ....... nstruction of the HOPE cutoff wall. provided.
..............
In order to avoid any adverse impacts to buildings or X X X X
public works structures from"arnically induced This is expressly The Consultant shall Insufficient The reader has no way of
... ........... ...
................
............................
..........
slope or bluff failure,the Applicant'*geotechnical offered to avoid a identify and evaluate information is given knowing the degree of
............ .............................
............... .....................
............I.. ..... ......................
...............
............. no mitigation required to address .4
............
....... consultant shall identify and evaluate all areas prone potentially significant all areas prone to regarding the means
...............
. ....................... to such failures on the Boise Chica Mesa and shall impact. such failures on the and methods of the acknowledged of
..........
provide the information to the County. The County
........................ V Boise Chico Mesa reducing this impact. impact nor any way in which
.......... ..........................
.............
X
w the consultant study and may utilize the and shall provide the to assess the effectiveness of
shall review
means which the County may
information to the
information as part of its review of final maps for
............
................. covered by the consultant study. County later propose after studies are
those area
..............................
completed.
...........
.. ........ . .................. ......................
.............................. .........
..........
...........
................ ........
. ..............
.................... .......
....................................................... ..............
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for grading X X X
Elsewhere,the REIR Since the soils inves- Since the ac;
............................. on the Boise Chico Mesa or the Lowland,the
I X Applicant shall submit a gootechnicall report to the relies on this SC to tigation has not been ground data are not
...............
Manager, Development Services,for approval. The rnitigate potential performed or circule available it is not
................
................................ report shall include the information arW be in a form impacts from siltation, ted for review,the possible to know
...........
..........
as requ wired by the Orange County Grading Manual, erosion and soilielopa reader and the what mitigation
..............
..........................:
measures will be
Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and failure. County cannot
.......... -dnate
.................
Grading Code Section 7-1-819. understand the needed to slin
significance of significant impacts
grading impacts from grading
.............. .......... .......
. ............
-3-
............................. .......
.................
............. ton.:. Improper.......................
.. . ..
n.mowuro : lance
d I.
40suro No
t Shown Not Shown to be Economically
.
...... ......
MiuQaatiun Measure No'
sad as PDFor.SC R FW y: t
......
U _ o:.Mitigate.lmpact or Technically Feasible
...........
The Project applicant's grading plan shall provide X X X
stabilization of manufactured slopes to the Since the back-
............ ........
satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services ground data are not
X:
...... ... and may Include,but is not limited to,buttressing of available it is not
fills, rock bolting,grouting,slope gradient In
XXX........ .... ...................."..
...................
ybacks, possible to know
...........
..... .......
and construction of retaining walls;and for natural what mitigation
...... .. . ...
opes,use of drainage control and establishing measures will be
vegetation. needed to eliminate
significant impacts
...........X
..... .......
from grading
The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate X X X
'S
expansive*oil conditions,compressible/collapsible
......... *oil conditions, and impacts from trenching as
.. ........
. . ....... ....
...............
-specific Tentative Tract Map Review
......... oudined in a site
....... .....
................. ..... a
and Rough Grading Plan Review►reports prepared by
....................... .
the project geotechnical consultant.
Recommendations shall be based on surface and
... subsurface mapping,laboratory testing and analysis.
.......................
..........
The geotechnicall consultants site-specific reports
shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist
..........
.. ......... and
a registered civil engineer,and shall be
...........
completed to the satisfaction of the County.
$C_4 The Project applicant shall design and construct all
structures
t ctures in accordance with mandated current UBC
-X:
d
recluit
... ......... ............. .......
The Proposed Project shall avoid construction of X X X
-X:
...... .... ... habitable stmatursts within the AlIquist-Priolo Special Surface rupture and There remain unavoidable
...........................
................
•
................. ...
studies Zon". ground shaking will significant impacts due to
..............
cause damage attracting residents to homes
................ ...
................. ...
beyond the proposed and recreation facilities across
............
... exclusionary zone. an active fault zone.
-4-
POF/SC taxt M(tipstlo Measura Improper Rehsnoe on ,: Measure Not:Shown Not Sjiown to be Economically
IWtipation Massaro Nu; asguised as PDF;or SC Future Study to;fJlitigate Impact or.Tei;hnically Feasible
Mttipetion Measures
Mitip itlol/lY!•asun.4 1 The Project applicant shall comply with County X X
grading regulations which limit truck traffic for The REIR must show how this
„j._. ._. importing or exporting material to 15 trips per hour. restriction will elongate the
already gargantuan grading
operation of the proposed
project--Nowhere does the
document tie this restricti�
with the grading phasing
Mitlpa;Ign�Aee4tlte DDC for ground improvement shall be designed by a X X X
Registered Civil Engineer and Geotechnicd The DDC shall be
Consultant so that vibration levels do not damage designed after CEGA
....................
adjacent structure or provide unacceptable nuisance review
levels as detemnined and roved b the County.
approved Y
Mftlgtlotl MutR�4, b....::. Prior to implementation of the DDC for ground X X X
i mp rovement the Applicant's eotechnicd consultant
PP g
e o t County an
shell also pr
epare and present t he
P eP P tY
evaluation of an alternative method of compaction
e of a rolling surcharge and
the use li I involving ng
dewateri of near surfers soils with well points.
P
>i The in
formation on both the DDC measures and the
alte
rnative rolling surcharge me
asure shall be
0 C shall approve
provided to the
County,
end the County tY aPP
'the preferred technique prior to issuance of grading
permits for the Lowland.
#111M. to , 1. Prior to issuance of a grading pemnit for construction X X X
of the -million-gallon by the City of Huntington The REIR should What happens when the situ
g
< Beach or other ag
ency, • d 'c investi ation shall
hav
e determined the
is determined to be
pe Y. geologic g
o site.
suit
ability of the site
unsuitable?
i'' be perfomted to determine the suitability f the tY
so that the
determination could
be reviewed
-5-
dd: ...... 7
::: X ................................
...... ...... ........... ............I................................
:MItWtI6 :.�M ure:.Not.Shown: :: Not:Shown to bo'Econo(nically
................. Oas
. ......... par alianco:406
......... . . . ''. . :.. . ... . Shown'to
X7.X::::::... .1'...."....,.,.,.,.......".,.......... �: . :...... .. ... : . .: ...............
.............. ................. 7 .88 or
Mid ...... :PDF SC:..�� ttiia�St a
on ..........
I, a
...... ...............I................... ....... N 6d 461. igat mpact:::: or Technically Feasible
............... . . ............. ..... .........
. ............ . ....... .... .
........... ... .... ... ......
Sour*A C:X: To prevent discharge of sewage should the force
main from the now sewage lift station be sheared,
. ..........
the following design measures are recommended:
11)a backflow proventer could be installed
...... immediately east of the potential area of breakage,
12)the lift Motion(wet well)could be oversized to
accommodate extra capacity until the broken main
................ ... ...
can be repaired,and 43)on automatic breaker
. ............
installed in tho pump circuit to but off the system in
............
the even to severe selornic movement.
..........................
1: Sol": Utilities that are expected to cross the fault could X
X..
...... Include natural gas for residential use, water,
telephone,electrical power,and storm drains.
Whenever possible,utility lines should be routed to
....... ....
.............. prevent traversing the fault. If utility lines must
.................
traverse the fault, the following measures shall be
............
implemented: the natural gas line(s)should have
:X.
automatic shutoff valves Installed which would
...............
................
................. ...... .... ..
..................
actuate in the event of severe seismic movement;the
......... water main is)should have manual valves located on
................
. . ......................................
... ........ either side of the fault, telephone and cable services
.............I
..........
...........
should have junction boxes on opposing sides of the
fault which could provide for emergency
...........
r000nnection during repairs of underground lines.
a
...........
SanitarV"war lines crossing the fault zone should be
..........................
..................
................
constructed of ductile iron pipe.
.... .... ...... .............
........... ..........
................
.......... .............
.."PDFIS Improper
wn to be Economically
.......... o""on �:Maosqrq otShown:.:: Not She rni ally
............
........ .........
t :or Technically Feasible
.......... MM:: .0 St
"ti&d6n:Misi squis to:Mitigate Impact
.... . ......
V
............. ............... .................. ............... .... . ........ .....................
-x ::::::::;............
.................. ::::F:: .......
............... ....... ....... .............. .
. ......... .... ......................
.................... ....... ..................
.. .......... ... ..................................... .........
..MAZARDQUS'i .......... . .. . ............... .. ... ..
................ ................................ ........ ...................................................... ............. .................
....... . .............. . . ...... .............. ..........
.....................................................
P1 ki4 o,6.: ...........
:..... ....I.... .......
............ ..................... ...... ....
.......... ................................... ..............
................
W FeaNirbs
...................
..........
A Remedial Action Plan(RAP)will be developed by X X X X
.
...........................
.................
.............
the applicant for cloanup of contamination that is Even with the RAP the There is insufficient
............
............
........................ .........
..........I........ .....
...... ..... .......... found to @)dot on the sits. The RAP may be impacts on project baseline information
...........
.............. ............
.................. developed in phases related to the proposed.phases residents and existing disclosed in the REIR
........ .... .
..................................
................... of the project. The RAP will be based on the results residents in the area to deterryine the full
............
.... ...... ... .. ....
..........
.... ......
f existing environmental testing at the sits and from the ongoing extent of the impact. •
future environmental testing to be conducted as oil existence of oil
..........
....................................... operations are phased out. The need for romediation production and other
of any existing conditions will be determined based hazardous materials
............... . . ............
............... ...........
................ . .. ... ......
........... on a Health Risk Assessment(for the areas proposed should be considered
.......... .... .............
........ ...
. .. ... for residential development)or an Ecological Risk significant---Further,
..........
.......... ....... Assessment(for the areas proposed for wetlands the RAP will have
........................................ ...
...................I............X:............................. ration). Remedial action will be completed for impacts itself,none of
................ ......... restoration).
...................
.. .... .....................
................
i di h (in t each phasing area prior to bu I ng homes he which are considered or
..............
. ..........................................
................................................ case of those areas of proposed residential disclosed in the REIR
development)of introduction of tidal influence(in the
.............
.. ... .....................
......... ....
........... ............
.............. case of those areas of proposed full tidal or muted
.............. .....................I.... ...
...... ......
tidal influence).
...................
-7-
......................................................
................... ...
.................................. ................... ............. ..:...... . ......
............ ......
.......... ............... .................. ..............................
.............
Moes0ro Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
............:.
POF ::T ........ .....................
.................. . ............ ............ ..........
................
IN 6d PIDF SC. Fut'is S
t ::::6 Technically Feasible
......... ....... q: ItigateAmpac tjJjftjj)6:: to M ::.::::: :. :
Miazu .0 3 Is U
or:.. ..
.. . ...... .. ....... ........
X.
.::Pg)r— XXXXXX A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed by the X X X
............
............
applicant for each area prior to initiation of grading The REIR should No survey means or method is
.................. . .... . ... ......
..... .......
.................
activities. The Grading Mitigation Plan will include have been prepared identified in the REIR to locate
.......... ...........
..............
the locations of al active,inactive, and abandoned oil after the completion &//abandoned oil facilities,
wells and pipollinsts within the area,along with of a full survey some of which may be as
measures to be taken to protect these facilities from disclosing the much as 75 years old. It is
....................
...............................
disturbance during Wading and site development location of the not possible to say whether
tivities. Active oil facilities will be protected by abandoned wells and the grading plan to be
....... ...... so........... ......
fences and/or appropriate berms during grading and other oil producing developed in the future
a to development activities;inactive or abandoned facilities --Without be sufficient to address the
pipelines will be removed prior to grading and site that information, the potential impacts of a massive
...................
........ .. reader cannot assess earth moving operation in a
........... development activities;and abandoned oil wells will
be re-abandoned at greater depths if they are likely to the impacts or the former land still partially
.............................
. ............................
be encountered or disturbed during grading or site effectiveness of the active)oil field.
................11........
..............................
. .. .. ....................
..................
...... ...............................
development activities. The Grading Mtigation Plan proposed mitigation
..... ......... ..................... ........
.............. .........
....... .... will include the location of any known soil
-tinated soil
1:XXXXXX
...... contamination within the area. If contan
will be disturbed during,the grading or site
developrnent activities.the Grading PAtigation Plan
will include a plan for remodiation of the
contaminated"I. The Grading Ntigation Plan will
.... ...........
also provide details of the steps to be taken if
unexpected conditions are encountered during
grading or site development. such as additional
............................................
pipelines,abandoned wells,or sail contamination.
.............I. .........
.........................................
...........
The WRIP includes a plan for the installation of berms X
X
................
................... nd dikes around the tidally-influenced areas to
................
..................
.......... I.... .......
................1%::::,:
....................
X protect them from possible oil spills resulting from
ongoing oil production activities.
..........
X,
X
F-4 Homes will be set back at least 100 feat from X X
....... ...
............. orating oil wells and 10 feet from abandoned wells. What basis does the
..............
................ County have for................
:X::
................
.............. .................... choosing these
.. .... . ...
setbacks? The REIR
.. ......... ....
... .........
provides no answer. I
PN?Fl t: Yext Mitigetlot M9dautA Improper Re1lenGe on Measure No;Shown Nat ShoW. to be Economically
Mmpation Mseaura No Disguised as PDF;or SC:. `Futute$lady to.Mitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
a�tandard Cdntlons
SC-1.,:,:'i...... All oil wells will be abandoned in accordance with
state and local regulations.
Mingatton Measures
fYNtittat ............
4. 1 Prior to grading in residential areas,all abandoned oil X X X
ga a n la
wells shall be relocated and tested for release of As noted above, an The CDOG regu - No information is provided
gases. Wells shall be reabandoned as necessary i accurate survey is lions generally regarding how this proces
accordance with current CDOG regulations. required to ascertain concern safety would reduce impacts from
the potential scope noxious odors which gas leaks which are
of the problem and impact the adjacent discovered
th
e effectrvne e ss of residential use will
mitigation. Th
e REIR lik
ely also be
provides no such encountered and
information and may not be abated.
to
dale the survey
........ . .. . . .'.:'.s...............;:... delays
.........................................................
.......................................................
the future.
1�ltly+Itlon::M�p1W�►4:.g- 3;:;:;; Department of Real Estate disclosure shall be X
Provided to future landowner
s concern the DRE disclosures are
P rW
Y en on the
onl w
location of any abandoned wells or other Y g
„..'. appurtenances. first sale of the unit
renters and
purchasers fr
om
.....
persons other than
the developer will
not receive these
... ....:...,.: disclosures.
.....................I...:.... ....,...........
lMidpatlorl Maastre 4 3$ The pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that it X
is a minmum of 20 feet ewe from habitable The new routing for
7.........:: ............:: Y g
...........................................................
structures. the line does not
appear in the REIR
fldhi�atlon Itgaasure 4 34' The pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that it X
does not cross the New rt-Inglewood Fault zone in The new routing for
Po a residen
tial planning
area and automatic shut-off the
line does not
valves shall be installed which activate in the event appear in the REIR
of severe seismic movement.
-9-
.....................
.... ........................... ..
PDpI C; ?axt . ; .. Mippati00 Mvasura Improper Reliance.on : >Measure Not.Shown : Not Shown to be Economically
Mittge on Ma surd No Di guisod as RDF or SC FutureStudy to Mitigate Impact or Technically'Feasible
SURFACE AND::GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
�eseat' sinnsatures> ::::::::;:>
All grading activities in the lowlands(below elevation X X
5.0 MSL)for both residential development and for The phasing of the SARP is
xi wetland restoration will take place after completion not disclosed in the REIR
of the Mainstem Santa Ana River Project phases I Further, there is no
through 6.These improvements are designed to contingency stated regard
remove the project area from the Santa Ana River what happens if SARP is
floodplain. These improvements are currently discontinued or delayed?
scheduled to be completed in 1998. Compere Mitigation Measure
4.4-8
XXX
.:...
: :::..:::. ; s;;;,,:;,;:', All storm water pump stations will be constructed to X X X
.... . include redundancy in power sources(i.e.,they will
...................... . . . .........
have an alternative power source such as natural
gas,direct fuel,etc.)and pump capacity.
X.
X.:PQf-.S,:i .:::>:::;;.::::::z:::'. ::.:::.:::.::,:>' The Proposed Project includes a monitoring and X X X
maintenanceprogram f o e removal of sediments REIR gives no
r the
carried by the EGGW Channel into the full tidal area. information on the
fre uenc of
Q Y
dredging nor the
g� 9
method and location
.
of disposition of
contaminated spoils-
Dredging
and
dumping operation •
-::..:.::.....:..........,.......::.....,,.::.:...:. will have its own
.:.....`: secondary impact
which may be
significant.
The
................. .......................................
Proposed Project includes a monitoring program X
..
which includes berm top surveys.
elevation surve If greater
than
anticipated settlement occurs,fill will be placed
to return the berm to its planned elevation.
10-
.
PQRhs ;::.:>:<:;: > ;:: Tait Mitigation 1NseaUFO 1 ..ReNance oo Meesurti Not.Shown Not Shown to be Economic
Y
lWtt abon M4asurs NQ:
;i)tagulaw es PM or:SC Future Study to M.itigata lmpeat or Taohrncslly Feasible
With implementation of Lowland Option B. the X X
Proposed
sail Project
r t includes construction o fa What contamination oP
lsu
subs
urface cutoff wall and periodic monitoring of levels are
P g
wells in the area will be provided under both Options acceptable?
A and B of the Lowland Component to determine
impacts to near surface ground water,if any.
PL?i�d; ... z.....::i' The Proposed Project includes a wetland restoration
program r am which includes>
lid s the relocation and
i s t improveme
nt oft the tide gat as a the mouth of the
EGGW Rood Control Channel to prevent upstream
propagation of the lowland tidal influence in
accordance with OCFCD criteria and standards.
Standard Conditions
:::.. All grading and construction activities associated X
with project implementation will adhere o
i�
r t the
re! established by the Orange County
event conditions
Grading and Excavation Code.
AAipg#pOn Ma una
lAaMtas 4. 4.
M1daaHon Prior to issuance of a grading pemrt for RPAs ID, 4A, X X
5A C end 5 th
e Applicant's eo technical consultant
PPI g
shall develop, detailed
atlad studies t e o valuate the
i pot
ential
al occurrence o errfac corns f natural ne -su e'
groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to
determine the potential of shallow groundwater
recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands •
restoration. Studies shall include,but shall not be
limited to, subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finish
X.
grade,subsurface barriers such as cutoff walls or
X. interceptor drains,or French Drains with dewatering
wells The refer rail mitt atio oh o
Thep referred
ns Ibs r vedb
aPP Y
the Co
unty and'e implemented b e th Applicant.
-11-
. ... ....... .........
...........
.. .. .................
PDFISC.: ......................................... f-WasureNotSho
............. 11M R flona o. X wn.::.::: :..N.Ot.Shown to be Economically
1:. ..... ... ....... Vrop r: at. 11
..........
. .. ..... Ig a.0:Impact
0.
.... ...................... ............
W.Mon:: or.Technically Feasible
. ..... as:PDF:6i::SC..:.: :Future.S W
Mltip
. ... .. .............. .
. ..................................................
... ...... ...... . .
... . ............ . . .i....
To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal
.. ........ X X X
inundation, the Applicant's gootachnical consultant
....... ...... .....................
shall provide a detailed study that evaluates the
...........
................
impact of saltwater intrusion into the upper
.......... .
......................
.. ...........................
Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers,and provide
recommendations to prevent this if either a full tidal
..... ............................. of muted tidal area is constructed In the Boloa
....................... ................
......................... I......
.........I....................................... .......
.......... ..................................................................... ......
..........
....... Pocket. The report shall include, not be limited to,
.... ... .....
I •
mpormeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. The
.......................
................
report and design recommendations shall be reviewed
... ....... ........ ........
................................... by the County and this mitigation shall be
implemented through the WRP.
.. ...... ....
Mltlq�
.............
...
. ......... .... ...
......................... .........
To prevent adverse hydrological impacts in the X X
. Edwards Thumb area.the Applicant's geotechnical
....................................... ......
.................................... consultant,prior to wetlands restoration,shall
...................................... . .......
......................
evaluate transmissive tV and other hydrog Bolo gic
..........................
characteristics in the Edwards Thumb area and the
.......... .................... ........
............... Lowland now the existing residential neighborhood in
..............
..................I.....................
order to evaluate the impacts of irrigation and
................ .. ................................
......... .....''.. .......I.I. —........ .... .
..................... ......................
. .................... ........
..................... ........
.......... ......
impounded mp nded water on groundwater levels in the
.................. .............................
................. I.......................... ............................
.................. . ............................... ...........
..................... .............. ............... I......... existing residential neighborhood. Such an
........... ........... ....................
................ ... ...I............., ,
................. .. .......................
..........
......... ....... Investigation would,at a minimum,be expected to
........ ...... ................
I............................................I.................. ..................................
......................................
... require the installation of monitoring wells and the
...........I...............................
....................................
Pe of pump test for data collection. This
................ .........
.............. .......
detailed study shall include but not be limited to the
................
.....................
following mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff
......... wall,subsurface drains,and French Drains. Through
................
.................. ................
............
t
No process,it is important that a definitive
....... geotechnioal design be approved by the County
...... which would assure that no significant adverse
. . .... ....
..............
....... Impacts would result from changes in groundwater
.....................
................
level. The specific mi
tigation will be approved by the
.................. ..............
..................... ........
............... .............. ... ....
.............................................
.................
:::.... County implemented by the Applicant.
..........
..........
......... .
............. .........
.............
...
The Applicant's civil engineer shall provide a design X
......................................
...........
and construction schedule to reroute the Bolea Chico
..................... .................
pump station discharge water without disruption.
The County shall and approve this design prior to
...............
............... ......................................................
................................................................................................
................ ............................... ...........................
................. issuance of grading,permits for Planning Areas 10
................. ...... ..................
.................. .................
............
and 11.
............................. . ..... ... .................... -12-
• • • • • • • • • • •
PRF/SC Text Mitigallo Measure Improper Rellsnce on Measure Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
fWtretton,Meesure No asgwged es PDFtor SC:'' Future Study,:;: to:Mitigete Impact or Technically Feasible
Mttlpetlon Mleasum4 4-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs ID, 4A, X X
5A,and 5C,the Applicant's geotechnical consultant
shall develop detailed studies to evaluate the
potential occurrence of natural near-surface
groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to
detemuns the potential of shallow groundwater
":: :! recharge to the adjacent area caused by the wetlands
restoration. Studies shall include,but shall not be
limited to, subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finish
grade, subsurface barriers as cutoff walla or •
interceptor drains,or French Drains with dewatering
wells. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by
the County and implemented by the Applicant.
Midp4t4on�A�esure 4 4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the X X
Regional Park,the Park developer shall incorporate
W P rP
design measures,in a manner meeting the approval
of the County, that prevent additional runoff caused
by new Park development from further erosion to the
Huntington bluff and impacting the seasonal ponds in
the lowland.
Mitlpatlort M esWo 4 4.? Same as Mitigation Measure 4.4-4
-13-
PQFI C Text Mitigadgn Mess re Improper Ralisnce oe Measure Not;Showt Nat Shown to.be Economically
MtupaCon Measure No; Ds lead es RDF or SC I', Future Study to:Mitigate Impact or:Technic.slly.Feasible
...........
.... gu ..
.....................................
IlAitipstiOn Meeraurs 4{-8 Santa Ana River Floodolain X
If the Santa Ana River floodplain within the project Future environmental
limits is not removed by the joint Orange assessment of these
County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River issues will be
Project(SARP)at the time of grading for proposed required in a
buildings,structures,and residential developments subsequent REIR
within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, under any and all
appropriate additional mitigation measures,including circumstances •
the filing of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be
required for each building, residence,or structure
.............................. ...... ...............
within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, which
....................... ................................
s demonstrates that the es-built lowest floor is at least
1 foot above the lOQyear flood elevation. This shall
be accomplished prior to receiving Use and
Occupancy Certification, in s manner meeting the
approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction. To the
extent required by CEQA,these mitigation measures
<i will be developed through a supplemental and
.........:.::.....:...:;; focused environmental review under CEQA.
•
-14-
Pp�/SG Text MiUgatior Measure Improper Rellaroa on Messuro Not:Shown..' Not Shown to be Economically
IYfrtrpaeion Measure No D�sgursed as PDF or Sc Future Study' to Mitigate:.lmpaat or Technics ly Feasible
, as a Mrtlgetion.Meosurp Additionally
, appropriate, mitigation against X
frPrrtll! ed flooding of any proposed buildings, structures,and
residential development from any known residual
floodplain(i.e.,other than the Santa Ana River)shall
be provided in a manner meeting the approval of the
appropriate local jurisdiction before grading permits
are issued for the proposed buildings,structures,and
residences within the delineated residual floodplain.
Furthermore,if these residual fioodplains are shown •
on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps(FIRM) when
the Santa Ana River floodpWn map is revised as a
consequence of SARP,then a certified elevation
certificate which demonstrates that the as-built
lowest floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year
J!.......::(:' flood elevation of the FIRM in effect shall be
submitted or a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR)from
FEMA for revising the FIRM shall be obtained,then
the LOMR shall be processed through FEMA in a
manner meeting ngtheaPprevs)of theaPP appropriate loca
l
jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy
Certifications for these buildings,structures,and
these
residences. To the extent required b CEnA
q Y
mitigation measures will be developed through a
supplemental and focused environmental review.
Mlttp4t1 1t;AA* M 44W, i. i Before grading pemtits are issued for Lowland parcels X X X
................:................................
...........................................................
Which are adjacent to or are impacted b the existing
i`. !e mP Y
................................................:.
EGGW Channel,the Applicant shall design and
construct the EGGW Channel within the Project Area •
(upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge)in
accordance with OCFCD criteria and standards. The
°...;;;...... E Channel shall be capable of conveying the
.................................................
EGGW
ear. 50 percentdischar�resulting from a 100
confidence level storm over the EGGW Channel's
fully developed tributary buta ry
watersh
ed as stated in
Orange County EMA's COS/CO6 Project Report.
-15-
PDF/S(± . Text Mipgatipn Measure Improper Rellen�e on.;. Massaro No;.Shown Not;Shown.to:be Economically
NYnpsuon Measure No OnsouisorN sr 60 or SC Future Study;: to::M..itigate Impact or.Tachniaally Feasible
WATER 4tJAUTY
Pirbiedt Desian Fatituteb
hQh1:. A RAP will be developed for cleanup of X
contamination that is found to exist on the site. The Sea PDF-1 under
RAP may be developed in phases rotated to the Hazardous Substances.
............................................
proposed phases of the project. The RAP will be
......... ..............................................
based on the results of existing environmental testing •
at the site and future environmental testing to be
conducted as oil operations are phased out. The
need for remsdiation of any existing conditions will
be determined based on a Health Risk Assessment
(for the areas proposed for residential development)
or an Ecological Risk Assessment(for the areas
proposed for wetlands restoration). Remedial action
will be completed for each phasing area prior to
building homes(in the case of those areas of
proposed residential development) or introduction of
tidal influence(in the case of those areas of proposed
. .::..:i..:::::.: full tidal or muted tidal influence).
-16-
• • • • • • • • • • •
PDFMC Text INIUgation Measure Improper Reliance oa . Measure Not.Shown Not Shown to be Economically
Mitipatron Measure No Onaguisod as PDF.or SC Future Study :'; torMitigate Impact or.Technically Feasible
A Grad' e e>:PD......'> »'< < <>`<s ' m Miti ation Plan will b developed ed for each X
fl fl P
tannin area prior to initiation of grading activities.
...........................................I......,.,....
planning P fl fl See PDF-2 under
.......................................................
The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the locations Hazardous Substances.
of all active,inactive,and abandoned oil wells and
pipelines within the area,along with measures to be
taken to protect these facilities from disturbance
during grading and site development activities.
Active oil facilities should be protected by fences
and/or appropriate berms during grading and site
development activities;inactive or abandoned
pipelines should be removed prior to grading and site
development activities;and abandoned oil wells
;;i;.;.:;: ;,.: ;;,;.:; :.:....:.: ' should be re-abandoned at greater depths if they are
...............
.........................................:.
likelyto be encountered or disturbed during radio
flfl fl
or site development activities. The Grading
Mitigation Plan will include the location of any known
soil contamination within the area. If contaminated
soil will be disturbed during the grading or site
development activities, the Grading Mitigation Plan
will include a plan for remedistion of the
contaminated soil. The Grading Mitigation Plan will
" also steps provide details of the st s to be taken if
P
unexpected conditions are encountered during
grading or site development, such as additional
pipelines,abandoned wells, or soil contamination.
The WRP includes a plan for the installation of berms X X X
and dikes aroundtidal 'the 1 influenced areas to Sao PD - e
tidally-influenced 3 under
.I protect them from possible oil spills resulting from Hazardous Substances.
ongoing oil production activities.
PDF-!�I The WRP includes a program of maintenance X X X
dredging t near the mouth of the G
a
rg EG W Channel to
s r move sediment resultingfrom
urban runoff, that
,
may contain unacceptable concentrations of
pollutants.
PD 6<.;;;,;; ;. The WRP includes the use of turbidity barriers,silt X X X
cu
rtains or an e9u ivelent mea
sure turbidity
to contain to di
h
in oc 1 elized areas during dredging activities.
-17-
......................... .............. . ......... ......
........................
d: ....................
. ............
060 ................. ..........
.x ......... .......... ...................
......... Not Shown to be Economically
.............. ......
............... asure Not Shown
...........................
........................................ ........
.................. .... 'IN bd4s PDF::br or Technically Feasible
.......... .......
Standard CurMrtione
. I X ............
............
............... ..............
.... ............. :X. w.�-w:::. ....
......................... ........................ ..... ... .............................
..........
The Project Applicant shall obtain a State General x x x
................... Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from The standard
........ RWOCB before grading boons. As part of this procedures may not
....... permit,the Applicant will prepare a Stormwater be sufficient to
Pollution Prevention Plan 1SWPPP),which establishes prevent significant
. ....... .. ........
... Best Management Practices(BMPs)for proper impacts to the
storage,handling,use and disposal of fuels and sensitive receptors in
x other toido materials,as well as establishing fuel and the immediate
............... ....................
.. ............
......... maintenance areas away from drainage ways.
.. . . .. .................
vicinity
......... ......
..............
The Project applicant shall submit a Water Quality x x x x
...................
x ...................................
Management Plan(WQMP)to the County of Orange
..................................................
............ .................
for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
..............................
. ... .............. ..... The WQMP may include the use of trash racks and
................ ...
XXX
.............
. . ............ .......
..........
grease and oil separators or equivalent measures to
improve the quality of urban runoff, and other BMPs
...........
............
to improve the quality of runoff from the residential
.................. development.
... .........
The oil operator's Spill Prevention, Countermeasures, x x x
................
X.
.............
must be reviewed and
and Contingency Plan(SPCCP)n
X: revised whenever the operations undergo a
................ ......
significant change or as necessary to prevent oil spills
............... .............................
.......................................................
............................
.......... ........
..................
from occurring and impacting the newly-constructed
X..
..........
Wetlands areas prior to each phase of grading
....... ........
..................... ...
... ................ activities.
........ ....... ...................
..................
.................... ...
:1
......... The Project applicant shall prepare a workplan for x x
x::
x: ....................
..................
..............
XW:..................... ....................................... well installation and operation which includes wall
..................
..................................
tails and pumping schedules. The
..........:. .::::: ....I....
............I. .... ...................
................................... construction do
...................
..................
wofkplan will be submitted to the RWQCB and the
OCWD for approval prior to Installation of the wall.
In addition, a well parmit will be obtained from
................ OCHCA.
PDF/SC Yaxt Mitigation Msasua Improper Rellattca on : Measure Not.Shown:,. :Not Shown to be.Economically
fllfittpanon Measure No' ..sguiaed es PDF or SC Future:Study to.:Mitigate,Impact or Technioally'Feasible
:SC..
... . Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or X X
r prior to the issuance of any grading gPermits,
whichever comes first,the following drainage studies
shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager,
Development Services:
I. A drainage study of the subdivision,including
diversions,off-sits erase that drain onto end/or
through the subdivision,and justification of any
diversions,and
► When applicable,a drainage study evidencing
that proposed drainage patterns will not overload
existing storm drains;end
he tract
► indicatinghowt Detailed drainage studies
g
m grading.in conjunction with the drainage
.,:. map g 1
Ys
conveyance systems.including applicable
licable
Y
s wales channels street flows catch basins.
..........................................................
storm drains,and flood water retarding, will
allow buildingads to be safe from inundation
P
from ra
infall einfall runoff which�Y P
be expected from
all stores t u o and including the theor
etical
100-year flood.
r ol
Inf
ormation contained on the requisiteerosion cont
r
plan shall include but not be limited to:
► The name and 24hour telephone number of the
person responsible for performing emergency a�
erosion control work.
P. e o other
c" engineer r r The signature of the civil n
a g
qualified indiv
idual who prepared
red the gradingplan
and who is re
sponsible for in
spection ection and
monitoring of the erosion control work.
► protection facilities
I esilti and erosion rot n
Ald
P
necessary o t ad
jacent� property protect ad' ent from
a....:: ..:>: sediment deposition.
-19-
P�?F/SC TaM MiGpation Measure Improper Rehenoe on :: Measure Not Shown 'Not Shown to be Economically
Nhbpation Maasure No:; Qispuised sa PDFor S¢ Future'Study to.Mitigate`lmpect . or Technically Feasible
The streets and drainage devices that will be
.......:. completed and paved by October 1 S.
. .............. ....... . ..................
► The placement of sandbags or gravelbags,slope
planting or other measures to control erosion
from all slopes above and adjacent to roads open
to the public. Use of gravelbags are encouraged
over sandbags.
<I ► The plan shall indicate how access will be
provided to maintain desisting facilities during
wet weather.
Mitfpgtlon Maaurq
No mltipation measures. are stated far this urtpgct
COASTAL HYDRAULICS
�rofeo Deaian�eaturee
PGi:1,.:........ Outer Bolea Bay will be widened under the Warner X
Avenue Bridgeand immediately to the east to reduce This PDF will
Y
flow velocities. produce its own
.... ..: .,.:,.>.,.,..:,,,;.'...:>:::::::i potentially adverse
impacts
PDF. .'!:.:..:.:...:':........ The Warner Avenue Bridge will be lengthened to X
................ ........................................
..........................................................
reduce flow velocities. This PDF will
produce its own •
......', potentially adverse
............................... .......................
impacts
PpF3..,`.... .......... The channel under Anaheim Bay Bridge will be X
rip-rap as ns o even scouring.
reinforced withneeded t prevent nn This 'I
P g
ie PDF will
produce its own
potentially adverse
impacts
-20-
.
PIl1=ISC Text M...gallon Measure ; Improper Reliance on Measure Not Shown `. : Nat Shown to.be Economically
Mittpaeion Meaaurs No Q�agu'sejf.as PDF>or SC Future:Study to'Mitigateimpect or Teghmaally::Feasible
PDF-+ Shore protection li.e., rip-rap) will be installed along X
both banks at Outer Boise Bay to prevent scouring This PDF will
from increased tidal flows. produce its own
potentially adverse
impacts
�pF$. A current trairing structure will be constructed in
Huntington Harbor immediately west of Warner
Avenue Bridge to direct flows away from adjacent
docks.
Standard Condtticro
No SCs era required addraas:Coastal Hydraulics
COASTAL HYD.RAULtC$
MiNgaticn M+NiMunt+4 Q-1 The applicant shall implement a monitoring program X X X
to assess the existing baseline bathymetric condition
throughout Huntington Harbor and to record any
changes to that condition as the result of project
implementation. If the program reveals increased
channel bed scouring caused by the Proposed Project
which worsens the existing scour at the footings of
bulkheads in Huntington Harbor,the applicant shall
Go funds on a pro rate basis for remedial
action required to mitigate the incremental scouring.
The monitoring program shall include the following
items:
-21-
PDFIS Taxi MipgagorrMsasura Improper Reliance on Measure Not Shown '. Not.Shown to.be Economically
. b bgatiott Measure No ;; w Q sguised;:es PDF;or$C Future:Study to:Mitigate tmPect or
Tachnically Feasible
Pre Construction Monitoring
.
Migpatiom Meaeura 4 1. Establish baseline bathymetry, sediment X X X
Connnuad properties,tidal elevations, and current velocities
throughout Huntington Harbor through two
.... .......:.......I' complete surveys. The first survey shall occur a
minimum of 3 to 4 years prior to tidal inundation
of RPA IC of the WRP and the second survey
shall occur 1 week prior to construction of tidal- •
inundated areas. The surveys shall include
measurements of bathymetry along all bulkhead
footings a sediment sampling and eating for
fo end sedims t
areas with observed scour. Tidal gages and
current meters shall record tidal elevations and
current 'ea o four
r velocities at s maximum f
representative locations in the Harbor during the
P g
bathymetry survey.
2. Annual monitoring of bathymetry immediately X X X
after high flow events such as spring tides and/or
storm flows(determination of survey dates to be
at the discretion of a registered engineer
specializing in hydraulic processes)at scour areas
:.::::::::::.:::..:..:....::...::....:::I identified in the first complete survey. Annual
z:.: ... ..;:. surveys shall begin a minimum of 3 to 4 years
prior to tidal inundation of RPA 1 B of the WRP
and continue until RPA IS is complete.
3: One tide gage and one current meter shall X X X
continuously monitor tidal elevations and current
........................ :,:;:.... velocities at one location from a minimum of 3 to
4 years prior to tidal inundation of RPA 1 B of the
WRP until construction of RPA 1 B is complete.
-22-
PIJF axt Mitigation Measu� Improper Ralia+ice.on Measure Not Shown.:::. Not Shown to.be Econo"cally
Ai6bpation Msaeurs No: Qisgu�sed as PDF,or SC;? : Future.'Study to Mitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
Post-Construction o Mnitorin s
Post-construction monitoring shall apply to X X X
implementation of Phases 1 and 3 which are full and
muted areas. Phasing areas 2, 4, 5, and 6 are either
non-tidal or possess relatively small tidal prisms and
will not significantly affect scouring in Huntington
Harbor.
1. One bathymetric and tidal survey shall be X X X
completed within one week following
construction and flooding, of new tidal areas.
,...... The survey shall include measurements of
.
bathymetry, tidal elevations and current
.,. velocities in scour areas identified from earlier
complete surveys.
2. Monthly bathymetric and tidal monitoring during X X X
the first quarter after completion of tidal
............... .........
restoration areas RPAs 113-1D, 3A and 3D.
3. Annual bathymetric and tidal monitoring for five X X X t
Bare after
ft r completion of Phases 1 end 3.
Y
Each
i.:::.:::
survey she ately aft r a spring
II occur immedi e
tide,or a storm with a recurrence interval of
greater than or equal to 1 Monitoring g may
be reduced to a biannual basis 1 year after
.......... 3 f
..................:..........
completion of RPAs 1 B 1 D 3A, end D i
........................ ..............................
increased scouring is not recorded.
4. If the results of post-constructionmonitoring X X X
indicate exacerbation of the existing scouring
conditionhe in t Harbor,a complete survey of
P Y
Huntington
n Harbor shall be completed 5 year
s
e
Y
afterconstruction
nstru von of Phase complete.
3 is A
mp
c 1 surve
y shall not be required if records
P Y 9
i ndwets that increased scouring n has not
occurred.
-23-
al i 41160 0 Memo Not S two n to be Economically
M ti iii PIDIFIS U to I to N o t S h o w 0
"WOW
or Tech i6a ly Feasible
aM PDF Future;
Mid on Measure N 6 Ime sa I N a W' as.: o im SC Fist r Study to:Mitigate Mitigate m act h I
p
5 One tide gage and one current motor shall X X X
.......................
continuously monitor tidal elevations and current
.................
...................
velocities at one location o n f r o m the beginning of
............................. construction of the WRP until 5 years after
q
construction of Phase 3 D is complete.
..... ..... ...... .................. :j..x .................. .................. .......... ...................................
.................................. ............... .......
...............
MARINVA4MATIC:V MOY.0.
........ ......
........................ ........... ........
................................................. ... ... ..... ......... .... ....
............. ... ..... ............. .
.... ......... .
..............
Proloct Deslan Fe athu"me ......................
.......... ................. ...... ...................
.................. ......... ........
XI...........
TQF-I
A RAP will be developed for cleanup of X
contamination that is found to exist on the site. The Sao PDF-1 under
RAP may be developed in phases related to the Hazardous Materials.
......... ... ...... ...................
........ proposed phases of the project. The RAP will be
..........I........1 11
.......... ...... .. ...........................
.................. ....... ...... ... .............
.............. ...........
............. ............ based on the results of existing environmental testing
... .........
...... .......
.......... ....I. .... - ... I.........
...... ....
.............. ......
at the site and future environmental testing to be
.......... ................ ..... .....
.. ..... ....
........... conducted as oil operations are phased out. 'no need
...............
for remediation of any existing conditions will be
......... . ...............
..................... . ..............
.......... .... .......... ...........
. .... ............ .............
..........................
determined based on a Health Risk Assessment Ifor
the areas proposed for residential development)or an
.. .............. ........
................... ..................
............
.......... ....... Ecological Risk Assessment(for the areas proposed
I....... for wetlands restoration). Remedial actions will be
..........
................
...........
completed for each phasing,area prior to building
..............................
............................. ...
homes fin the case of those areas of proposed
............... residential development)or introduction of tidal
................... .....................
................ .............................
................ .................. .::......... influence fin the case of those areas of proposed full
................ .......................................... ....
..............................................................
IWW or muted tidal influence).
........................... .......
.. ...... ....
-24-
.
PDF(S Text ;Mippetion M�asuro ImproporRahonao on' A. ssuro Not Shown Not Shown to be EconomlcallY
M{Upabon Meaaurs No asgu�s ed se PDF:or SC; Future:Study to Mitigateampect or:Technically Feasible
IDOF-:2 ::;:;;;:::;:::;;:<::;;:;:; A Grading Mitigation Plan will be developed for each X
..............................................:............
..........................................................
tannin area prior to initiation of radio activities. See PDF 2 under
planning. grading,
The Grading Mitigation Plan will include the locations Hazardous Substances.
of all active,ineative, and abandoned oil wells and
pipelines within the area,along with measures to be
taken to protect these facilities from disturbance
during grading and site development activities.
and/orappropriate berms during grading and e i
be by tee
it 1�development activities;inactive or abandoned I
pipalirms should be removed prior to grading and site
development activities;and abandoned oil wells
................... .... ...........................
e nt
should bs re-abandoned at greater depths if they are
.;.
likely to be encountered or disturbed during grading
or @its development activities. The Grading
Mitigation Plan will include the location of any known
*oil contamination within the area. If contaminated
i soil will be disturbed during the grading of*its
development activities,the Grading Mitigation Plan
will include a plan for remediation of the
contaminated @oil. The grading Mitigation Plan will
Woo provide details of the @tape to be taken if
unexpected conditions are en
countered during
gnW
radi or site develop
alP merit such ch a additional
abandone
d wells,or soil cot nations.
pipelines,
n aria
The WRP includes splan for the installation of berms X
and dikes around the tidally in
fluenced areas to See PDF 3 under
protect them from possible oil spills resulting from Hazardous Substances.
ongoing oil production activities. •
The WRP includes a program of maintenance X
dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to See PDF-4 under Water
removesediment,
edim nt resulting from urban runoff,that Quality.
tY.
a ' epconcentrations mY co t n atn unecc table of
pol
lutants.
The WRP proposes to use turbidity barriers.silt X
curtains or an equivalentS measure to contain turbidity se PDF 5 aide Water
tY
r r
nlo
calized areas during nw dredging activities. Quality.
-25-
.
POI:/SC Tait MlGpatlon.Measure f, Improper Rellanoe on Measure Not:S.hown Not shown to be Economically
IWttpgtion . Paqura No' D sguised:as PDF or'SC :. Futurn`Study. to.Mitigate impact or.Technically:Feasible
The WRP contains a Conservation Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan consisting n of three se separate
oplans;
Construction Monitoring and Maintenance, Post Five
Year Monitoring and Maintenance;and a Long Term
Monitoring Plan. The Conservation Monitoring and
Maintenance Plans will ensure protection of the
habitats during construction,monitor each phase for
5 years post construction and correct any
deficiencies in the habitat, and finally, monitor the •
restored habitats for the long term.
Standard Conditlarn.
........- The project Applicant shall obtain a State General X
Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from See SCA under Water
California RWQCB before grading begins. As part of Quality.
this pemut,the Applicant will prepare a SWPPP
which establishes BMPs for proper storage,handling,
use, and disposal of fuels and other toxic materials,
as well an establishing fuel and maintenance areas
away from drainage ways.
$. . :. The Project applicant shall submit a WQMP to the X
See SC under Water
to issuance of 2 nd
County
of Ora for approval prior i
Orange ePP
building permits. The
e WOMP may incl
ude the use of Quality.
.
trash racks and grease and oil separators or
equivalent measures to improve the quality of urban
runoff, and other BMPe to improve the quality of
runoff from the residential op development.
y.� The oil operator's SPCCP must be reviewed and X
revised whenever the operations undergo a See SC-3 under Water
to event oils ills Quality.
significant chap or as necessaryr
g change
P P tY
........::.', from occurring and impacting the newly constructed
.........................................................
wetlands areas prior to each phase of grading
P P g 9
activities.
N�rggtian Mggsur4s
Mldp!i1.09P..AAta��.4-7�l...:;il The dredging of Outer Bolas Bay shall be
accomplished during
ng thespring and summer mont
hs
orgy.
-26-
.
PpFI�C Tait MiUpatlonlMvaeure Improper Reliance on Measure Not Shown Nat Shown,to be Economically
Midpetion'Meaeure No PDFoi� : orTecinially Feasible; o tatImct
..,
TERRESTRIAL.;,BIOLCIGY:
grg� Mslan' atutws.
PQF1 Construction Monitoring&Maintenance(M&M), as X X X
described in the WRP, requires a botanist to monitor
all grading activities,conduct pre-construction
meetings with construction contractors,provide
0
nails assistance to constructor personnel,and .
stake out perimaters of existing habitats. Fueling,
regular
mai
ntenance,andspillage requirements end r
p
equipment inspection are also required. Measures for
construction noise are established.
PDF.�. ...... Five-Year Poet-Construction M&M, as described in X X X
.......................................................
.......................................
the WRP requires a botanist to conduct a walk over
... . survey of each habitat type each month for the first
year, and annually for the following 4 years at the
end of the growing season. Any decline in
::..........:.:.;;.............
: vegetation or failure to most pre-established
.:...............:..........................................
standards will be remediated after consultation with
the proper resource and regulatory agencies.
Remediation includes,but is not limited to, replacing
.. ..... .:::..:::::::::::.::..::.:.:::.::::.:.:::::::' plants and adjusting soil conditions.
.. .. .....
..... . ......................................... ..
. ..... ...........................................
PDF 3> ». ....... Lon Term M&M, as described in the WRP,provides X X X
................................. ......... p
for monitori surveys using the same methods
np Ys p
outlined in the Five Year Poet Construction M&M.
The lore term M&M begins when the 5-year poet •
construction is complete and continues for 10 years
or until the managing has detemtined that the
� p agency Y
goals are achieved.
R requires the existing OSPCCP and an
X
The WRP r
........................................................... qu p
...........................................................
OSCP be amended to include each RPA as it is
completed.
PQFt S:;:;<;: ;;;:;;;i::;: ..... : The WRP requires 20 acres of native woodland X X X
The relocation of this The REIR provides no
includes roosting e e nesting
P
habitat which i s and
. np ng
Pd
of
information on the tim in
ESHA may o r may g
e aced in the Regional a on Y boxes.to be R ntel Park Y
a
establishing the
now ha
bitat itatHunti Huntington Beach Mesa to replace the not be successful.
versus de
stroying'n
e
the
old.
S A displaced n the Boise C ' Mesa.
r
E H ed o face
-27-
PD /SC. Text MiUgatior'Measure Improper Ralierice on ':i. Measure Not Shown Not Shown to'be.Economlcalty
s
Mttmgation Measure Mo Dspuised::as PDF;or SQ Futurri Study ;o,Mitigete impact or Technically Feasible
PDE-B .
X
The WRP requires the revepetetion of southern X
torpIant within nths
project area to repl
ace the
population lost on the Bolea Chico Mesa.
PDF7 The WRP requires the Applicant, in conjunction with X X X X
the County Animal Control and the CDFG, to devise Human intrusion(especially by
and implement a plan to control the presence of children) and intrusion by pate
invasive and/or feral pate into wildlife areas. are likely to have devastating
Information on the detrimental offsets of domestic impacts on nesting bird
cats on common and sensitive species of birds shall populations and the REIR •
be supplied to each original homeowner who presents no comprehensive
purchases property in the residential units. The plan plan to mitigate or control this
is to be approved by OCEMA prior to issuance of impact sufficiently. The
occupancy permits. impact should be stated to be
significant and unavoidable
PDF-ft The WRP requires minimization of impacts to the X X
spiny rush located on Rabbit Island.
PpF$ , The WRP requires a pickleweed salvage program. X X
The retention of a minimum of 200 acres of
'ckl eweed onset duri
ng ell construc
tion and
restoration phases shall be achieved as required by
s CDFG 11985)and the 1986 Certified LCP.
PDF-1A The WRP requires that,prior to the removal of two of X
the historic western snowy plover nesting sites
during wetland restoration,two new nesting sites be
established.
PO<*rta:::::::..:.::::::.::.,::;;,.:::.i::::::::... The LCP provides that Hood lamp shielding and X
sodium bulbs be used in developed areas to reduce
the amount of stray lighting into the wildlife areas.
StAttdefd f;o�ditiont! ::
affect the Terrestrial
that also ff Stench rd Conditions
Biology section can be found in Sections 4.4(Surface
::.........:.:.: ......:::.:::..... !; and Groundwater Hydrology), 4.5(Water Quality),
and 4.7 Marine A atic Biology).
1 / 1 qu p
Y
-28-
......... . ..................
... .......... ........
Oy aasurC An" :11010imurO Not I Not Shown to be EcEconomically............................
. ...........
Mmgeoon
"
Measure.... .. . . ......... ... ...
. ..................
IN sed PDPOKtC;�� S ate lmpacu�:::�:�
Wdy::'::�::: to.. Itig 6i7echnically Feasible
.. . ....... .................
. . ............. .
.............. .......
........... . .........
...... ......... ...... :..::: '... ... .
... . ..........
.. ... .............
... .......
:44flootloh:Mesauree
..... ............... .......
....... ................ ......... .....................
........ ...................... .........
........ ..................
.. ............ .......... .................. .. .. .......
7�M. Napittlow:Mao.i.i.r.*:4 6 8-1 A program*hall be implemented by the Applicant in X X X
....... ... ....
consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the
........ ... .. ........ .........
................
.. . ........ ..............................I... ............... .......... effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the
.........................................
...........
...................... ....................
............... ...... red fox at Was Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness
.................... ......................
...............................
................ .... ..................
................ .................... . .................
.................
is found to be significant,a plan shall be developed
.................... ......... .... ........
................. ... ........................
...............
.......................... . .........
.....is and implemented which will encourage the continued
................
............. X:i:::: X..........
.....................
............
presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red •
................. ................................
................ ...... ............
................ ......... ........... fox at Was Chica. The plan shall include specific
.................................... ..........................
.............................. ....................
::::-:-.:". ...I I.......... ...........
.......................... ................I......
.............. .. .................. measures designed to create and/or maintain
............. .....
...................................
adequate habitat for the coyote in the undeveloped
........................ ................ ...........................
.............................................
portions of the project site so that the coyote may
.........
.............
maintain its ongoing role as a control agent for the
red fox. OCEMA*hall approve this program before
............
...... restoration of the Lowland.
................
.... ... ... ..........
. ..... If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target X X X
... .....
.. ..... ....................
species or other sensitive species,the Applicant shall
..................I......
... .......................
:...........
...........
....................
.............
.................
....... ..................
consult with CDFG and US
FWS and prepare a
relocation program for these reptors.
...........
...................
A management plan shall be developed and X X
incorporated into the LCP that specifies how public
tation of the natural areas will be controlled or
.............. . W1 81
.......................... ................. managed. The plan shall include,at minimum:
............
..............
. .....................
methods for public education on sensitive
........... habitats and plants,
. ......... ..............
. ...........................
...... ................ ► identification of the group or agency which will
.............
f rce access restrictions and the restrictions to
an o
....... . ..
...............
...... be employed in the various habitats, and
.............. ......
...............
01 restriction of people from internal trails during the
..............
nesting season Ji.e., March IS to August IS)of
Federal and State listed Endangered and
Threatened bird species.
-29-
PDF/SCI Tait Mitipallon'Moasura Improper Rolisnoo on Measure Not Shown'.::: Not Shown to.be Economically
.
Mitigation Measure No Disguls6d:ss PDF or SC Futurs.Study `; to:Mitigate.ampact .. or:.Technicslly Feasible
jMitipadar►Mru►sure 4 A management plan shall be developed that specifies X X
how habitats sh
all be maintained and managed over
the long term. This plan shall be included in the WRP
Long-Temp M&M Plan. The plan shall include, at a
minimum:
D. Methods for ongoing weed eradication. It is
unlikely that the landscaping practices of private
homeowners can be controlled, and therefore an
ongoing program of monitoring and weed
eradication shall be essential for long-term
preservation of native habitats.
► Methods for public education,including
information regarding invasive exotica that
homeowners could avoid planting in their yards.
► An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be
prepared prior to construction(see Section
4.5.3). If straw bales are used for erosion
control, rice straw or equivalent wood-free straw
shall be used to prevent additional introduction of
exotic species into native habitat.
�o s TRANSPORTATION ANP: Cu4At14N
The proposed project will only partially impact the X X
deficiencies identified within the study area. The Funding for the ATIP is not
Area Traffic Improvement Program(ATIP)has been identified and is not likely to
developed to provide the necessary mechanism for be forthcoming from the •
the financing,monitoring and implementation of affected agencies.
phased circulation improvements.
PpF•3', i.,.,........ The proposed project also includes.a Transportation
Demand Management(TDM)Program in compliance
with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District(SCAQMD) Regulation XV and in accordance
with the Orange County and the City of Huntington
...................
gsBeach Trip Reduction and Travel Demand
.........................................................
Management TDM)Ordinances in order to increase
average occupancy
anc and decrease peak hour
trip generation and congestion.
-30-
...........
oper.RoliOnop. Measure Not. ,Not Shown to be Economically
...........
................... . .....
MitigationmeasureWo......." a ::.to:M1t1gatG Impact:: or Technically Feasible
Qu..... .... .... ... .....
... ..... ............
.... .......... ....... .. ....... ..... .. ...................................... .. .......
.......... ................. .......
................. ................
....................... .........
............
......... .... .......... . .....
.............................
staridew C .......... . ........
.................
............................ . ...... .........................
.......... ...... .....
........................ :X:;:7
.................
.................
Prior to the start of construction for each phase of x x
.............
development, the project developer shall submits
Since the REIR does not
Construction Traffic Control Plan,to be prepared by a describe those standards,it is
ff
registered traffic engineer and submitted to the not possible for the reader to
..................
..............
........................:....:::::::: . .......... County of Orange for approval. Approval shall be assess the mitigation
...............
............. ..................... ............. ......
............................................
..............................I.............
..................... ..................
emits. All
............................ .................................... proposed by this PDF.
required prior to issuance of grading pern
....................................I.......................
......................... traffic control work for construction shall conform to
................................
.....................................
...........
the latest editions of the State of California
................... .............
.... .....................I.....................
......................... ....
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................I................................
.......................I........I..................I.................................................................I...............
.....
.......................I............
...........
Dpartmnt oTrano aton Manua of Traffic
.
.. .... Controls, Standard Plans,Standard Specification
s,
and Special Provisions.
.........
................. ..............
...........
i...........
.... ..........
...........
.... ... ...
Notes indicating the need to obtain County approval x x
............................. ...
............................................
.............. .......................
....................... ..................
No criteria is
of a construction traffic routing plan/construction............. ........ .......... .. ...
.......... ......... ............... .. ".............. .............................
............I........ . .. .............I ........................ .. ... .... ..... ..
access PI
.............. an will be placed on the grading plan and provided to tell the
....................
included in the construction bid package. If reader when such a
..............
ined necessary by the Manager. Development plan will be required
de tern
..............
...........................................................................................
Services, OCEMA. that a construction/grading haul and when it will not.
...............
.............. .....................................................................................
........ .........................
.....................
........................ ...
road must be established,the project developer shall
.. . ........
indicate this on all grading plans. Further, the
...... . .....
co netruction bid package shall also include the need
.............
... ....................... %.............
.............. ................................................... ..........................
............ ...................
for a construction/grading haul road.
. ....................................
........ ................................. . . .................................
11...................I.............
........ ...................................
............ .......
Without the upsizing of PCH beyond its MPAH x x x
designation,It will be necessary to develop a No funding for the
..............
implementation of the plan is
........... ....... Deficiency Plan per the requirements of the
..........
...........................................................
....... ......................................... ..
.............. ......................... .. ...
Congestion Management Program JCMP). The CMP
.......................................
identified.
... .....................................
I. ... .................... ..........
..... ............................. ..........................................
.......... . ........ .. . ........................ ...................... ................
............
.... recognizes that not all projected roadway system
........... ...........I.....................
............I........
....... ... ........ ............
................ . .... .
deficiencies are avoidable through local actions and
. . .......................
.......... ............I..........
....................... ...................
......... ... .... .
..................... 1:
decisions. When a deficiency is identified, however,
jurisdiction must undertake specific actions if It is
.... .............
to Comply with the CMP. In the case of state
....... . .........................
..... ... ..............................
.... ........
...................................................
... ... highways,the California Department of
.....................
.. ..........
Transportation(Caltrans)has primary responsibility
for preparing deficiency plans. The plan must
...............: ::................
............. ... ......
identify the need for isolated location or an areawide
............
.............
deficiency plan, with ar"wide deficiency plans being
..........
.......... the preferred approach. The applicant shall pay its
...........
-rate fair share of preparing the deficiency pl
proan.
-31-
PD�/SC Tazt Mitfpation Moaaura Improper Rebsnce an ;: Measure Not,Shown:::: fvoc.Shown.to be Economically
Mitipetron Measure No p,sguis. as PDF:or SC : Future Study' to Mitigate,Impact or Technically Feasible
N6tipatfan Measures
Ths REIR•tetes Abet"ha faaeit le rrutigetian rr�eaeuree ere evellatile m addition to the Project Design Foatursa end`Standard Conditions
AIRCUAf.!?Y
ProNct Deslcri f+aturos
P.D.
All required actions necessary to comply with X
SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be no
.. ..............................................
dust impacts off
....... ...
sits sufficient to cause a nuisance,
....................... ................................
and SCAQMD Rule 403, which restricts visible
;;'.... ::.....;;........ ',i: emissions from construction, shall be implemented as
a part of the Proposed Project. Prior to the approval
of a grading permit,the applicant shall demonstrate
to the Manager, EMA Development Services,that
such compliance will be achieved and that all such
actions shall be listed on each grading plan under the
.......... General Notes Section.
................. .................................
................
PQF- ! The following supplemental measures are X
.`. incorporated into the Proposed Project in order to
reduce fugitive duet emissions to the extent feasible
.........................................................
during construction operations. The County shall
verify that these measures have been implemented in
. ,::.:...<'...,.....:..::::;;..:.:...... conjunction with normal site inspections.
... ......................................
► read sa I binders on the site unpaved aved roads spread ,
and in parking areas;
► he morning and
e t sits and equipment in t m r water the oqu p
fl
everrng;
► reestablish ground cover on the construction site
through seeding and watering,except in
.........
wetlands restoration areas;
its roads;
pave on-s haul
► s susceptibility of
base grading to prevent the su
P fl fl P P tY
large areas to erosion over extended periods of
time;
-32-
•
• • • • • • • • • • •
.
PpE/SC ;Taxt Mippation Meaeu.rn Improper Reliance on Messure Not Shown Not .Shown to be Economically
Mitigation Measure No:> L)sguised,as PDF:or SC Futu►e;Study to:Mitigateampect or Technically Feasible
► schedule activities to minimize the amounts of
exposed excavated soil during and after the and
of work periods;
► dispose of surplus excavated material in
c local ordinances and use o accordance with I d o s s surd
en ineeri practices;
g rW
► construction in coordination with •
restore landscaping and irrigation that are
....................
removed during
.....
local public agencies;
s streets o daily basis' silt i carried sweep str t n e if s a Heal
P Y
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs
as a result of hauling;
suspend grading operations during high winds in
accordance with Rule 403 requirements,
► wash off trucks leaving site;
► maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks;and
► cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or
other suitable means.
PpF-3.>;:,,:.::;::,:»::. The Proposed Project shall include pedestrian X X
ethw bus stopsand bikewaysin order to
No fund) is provided for the
pathways.
funding
encourage alternate forms oftransportation. e ATIP nor is there an
The Y
�
Proposed Project shall also incorporate measures to quantification of the bone
f�
improve traffic flow, specifically the ATIP and lane of providing bike paths.
. and intersection improvements.
► Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its X X
associated air emissions consistent with the
designo P f the AQM will be incorporated into the
se These measures include t o
project.
me bode f
rovi traffic flow i.s. ATI and a
a...:: in^P n0 ( P s lane and
Intersection improvements)and methods of
stimulating te alternative fors of transportation
li.e.,bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes).
-33-
f'RF/SC ?axt MI.... . on Measure Improper Rellenae on ;! Measuro Not Shown <;. Not.Shown to be Economically
Mitryeton Mr►asure No,;: Oitcguised;as PDF:or SC Future';Study to fiAitigate Impact:: or Technically Feasible
Ths REIR elates that no SCe are rogwrpd to eddrsrre Att,Ruality
Mleig+rtlen:
MitlWtloe AAeaure g 1If-1 Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle X X
travel is limited. However,to the extent feasible by How does one
the Applicant's contractor,exhaust emissions from determine the extent
construction equipment shall be controlled in a to which the
manner that is consistent with standard mitigation contractor can
measures dictated the SCAQMD. The meaeurss to comply with
be implemented are as follows: AQMD's mitigation
measures?
► use low emission on-site mobile construction
equipment;
► maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's
specifications;
► use catalytic converters on gasoline powered
equipment;
► retard diesel engine injection timing by 4
degrees;
► use reformulated,low emission diesel fuel;
► substitute electric and gasoline-powered,and,
where applicab
le.s methanol- pro
pane
and r ane-
Powered equi
pment ant for di sel-
Powered
equipment where feasible;
► e eft idling equipment
for prolonged periods(i.e..more than 2 minutes);
and
► curtail(cease or reduce)construction during
periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations
(i.e.,Stage 2 smog alerts).
-34-
................
...........
...................... .......
...PR�/SC, Tait .......
..... .......
Midgatlon>MaaaurA Improper Ralienae on Moasuro.Not Shown::'. Not Shown to be Economically
...............
MibOato
as .:ov :1:il: Ingots impact: or schnically,feasible
KMeaiu4.. ..Oisgulsi�4 P6F: Sc ::Future TOA T
... ......... .. . .... .
The County shall verify use of the above measures
during normal construction site inspections.
sou ..44 In addition to POF-I and POF-2, water trucks will be x
. .......rs..
on-site at all times during grading operations and will
.... ..........
..................... .........
.. ..........
........ ................ ............ ....
................... regularly water the site to keep the soil moist and
.. .........
.................
gi
prevent fugitive dust. These impacts are,therefore.
... .....................
....... ....
reduced to a level of insignificance.
.... . ........ . . . ...............
................
. .........................X
on..11111401, 11,1VO.:
The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic cement,neither of which produce
...................
.....andb ..........
................. .........................
... .................... ............
...........................................
significant quantities of VOC emissions thereby
..... ........
reducing this Impact to a level that is less than
significant.
........ .......
Mitipetian
The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume, X.
........... .... .............
44 low-pressure manual application of paints and
coatings on structures. Where applicable,pro-
...........
..............
......... .........
finished or pro-primed and sanded wood molding and
trim products end re rimed wallboard shall be used.
.......... ........
Additionally, applicable, the Applicant shall specify
the use of non-polluting powder coated metal products.
..............
..........
The AppUcant shall assist the County in implementing
Transportation Demand Management measures
related to the Proposed Project(ref: "A Reference
...........
Guide to Transportation Demand Management')
...........
blished by SCAG. Such measures shall include
coordinating transit service to the development
..... .....
..................... through provision of bus stops.transit stops,shuttle
............
.............
.............
........... .;.!�:.
stops,bus shelters turnouts, and bicyclettransit
.. ...... ............
............ .....
interface.
...................
......................... I
-35-
PO�fSC:' Ysxt MiUgetion Meaeute ;Improper Reliance or, Measure Not Shown Not Shown:to be Economically
Mrdgabon Measure Nd :i Diagulsedgs PDF or SC :':Future'Study to Mitigate Impact or Techncally.F�asible
MitlgatiAn.ftMesure The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary X
4:1P .b,..1.............:.'..L source emissions lie., emissions associated with How is the County
stationary sources within the development)through going to determine
..................... ......
the measures listed below. During design review and the"maximum
prior to issuance of building permits,the County will extent feasible"T
assure confirmation that the measures have been
:: incorporated to the maximum extent feasible. As
stated previously, the project will comply with Tide
24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall
incorporate to the maximum extent feasible,the
following design measures:
P. include energy costs in the capital expenditure
analyses;
► incorporate appropriate passive solar design;
► minimize electricity distribution losses;
► limit installed lighting loads;
► install lamps that give the highest light output
per watt of electricity consumed;
► control mechanical systems or equipment with
time clocks or computer system;
► recycle lighting system-or process-heat for
space heating during cool weather, and exhaust
this heat via ceiling plenums during warm
weather;
► cascade ventilation air from high-priority
oco ied aces)areas to low-priority(corridors up spaces) P Y ,
equipment, sP 1 and mechanical aces areas before
brn e' exhaust
ed;
9
► facilitate the use of electric and maintenance
. Y
......... ................
equipment throw h the placement of exterior
g
outlto e both front and rear for all single-family
dwellings;
-36-
• • • • • • • • • • •
PDF[ axt MiUgetion AAvasuro : Improper Reliance an. Mee ure Not Shown Not.Shown to be Economlcelly
IWti.#o*Measure No Qisguised os PDF',or SC Future Study fo.'.111gate Impact or Technically Feasible
► provide share trees to reduce building
heating/cooling needs;and
► reduce the production of particulate matter by
installing fireplaces designed to burn natural gas
to the exclusion of wood where applicable.
Nf71SE
prokct fDesign''Featuir�o
PRF 1','........... All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or X X
mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling unit EPA construction
shall be equipped with properly operating and estimates already
... .........::: :..' maintained mufflers. take into account the
use of mufflers.
PDF 27 Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be
located as far as practicable from dwellingunits.
-37-
y
Text ;Mitigation MiA Improper Reltanoe on tlAeesure Not Not Shown to be Economically
.:
b6trgabon Measure No; asguised as PDF::or SC: Future`Study to Mitigate:Impact or.Technically Feasible
P0�8 All new residential lots and dwelling units shall be X X X
sound attenuated against present and projected noise There is no analysis No analysis of the
so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 80 dBA of existing baseline event generated
Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of conditions presented noise le.g.one-hour
45 dBA Ldn in all habitable rooms. Evidence not any reason to L") has been or will
prepared by a County-certified acoustical consultant, defer the gathering be provided.
that these standards will be satisfied in a manner of such information.
consistent with applicable zoning regulations,shall be No analysis of or
submitted to the County. An acoustical analysis will Although objective mitigation for noise
be prepared and submitted, which will be followed by standards are impacts on wildlife,
a report describing the acoustical design features of provided, no wetlands or ESHA's
the structures proposed by the applicant. information is given has been or will be
as to how these provided.
s
standards will be
mat.
The noise report
should be made
available for public
review and comment
prior to EIR
certification and
...... must consider noise
........................................................
impacts at all phases
of construction.
PDF-!�.............,f An acoustical study shall be prepared once site plans X X
ed to sure that an commercial activity No objective
are finale n y 1
Y
noise is not intrusive because of the time of day, standards are
...........................................................
noise character or overall exterior level into the provided. •
.. __. adjacent or nearby residential community. An
acoustical analysis will be prepared and submitted
prior to issuance of building permits, which will be
.........................................................
..........................................................
followed b a report describing the acoustical design
Y P rW 9
t proposed b applicant
features of the structures
r
P oP Y the
>s:,.....:......'.. of the commercial uses.
-38-
PpF/SC Tait Mitigation Msaaura Improper Relienpe on Measure Not,Shown : Not.Shown to.Ae Economically
Mnbgabon Msesure;No Disguised as PDF on$C : Future Study ao M.ingats Impact or.Teohnically Feasible
$ a
SC-1: All operations @hall comply with Orange County X X
......................... .. ............
Codified Ordinance,Division 6(Noise Control). Since the ordinance
was neither included
...... ........... .......... in nor circulated with
................................................
... ........... ......................................
................. . ........................
,;:...;.•• the REIR, this
measure is
impossible to
....... .. ... ...... .. evaluate.
..............
r4C. ;,,,,,,,; ,,,;;,,,,,;; All construction shall comply with Tide 24 Field X X
.......................................................
............
Sound Transmission Gass(FSTC)and Field Impact Since these
..........................................................
Insulation Class(FIIC) standards. standards were
neither included in
nor circulated with
the REIR this
measure is
<.....,...,,:! impossible to
evaluate.
Mltlpatlon f111isuns
Mpgbon Measuta 4 11.,1.;;i Prior to extending the segment of Bolsa Chioa Street X X
r is objective The reader has no wa
y of
from i current terminus at Werner Avenue to the Although
Y
g
Bolsa Chico Mesa the Applicant shell conduct an standards are
knowing whether
er 45 dBA
acoustical analysis to confirm noise impacts and provided, no interior noise levels can be
determine the extent of e.:;>:::....::;;::;::::;;:.::.::. specific noise reduction information is given achieved.
measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior as to how these
noise level in residences adjacent to Bolsa Chico standards will be
Street between Warner and the Mesa Connector. met.
AAib .p1111.0 ordure 4:19 Prior to the issuance of building permits for X X
The reader has no way of
. residential development in the I Although objective h Lowland under Option Altho
Y
� 9 1 P
B theM Applicant @hall conduct acoustical cal analysis standards are
knowing whethe
r 45dBA
to c impacts noise' acts an
d
determine the extent of provided, no interior n or noise le
vels can be
�
specific noise reduction necessary 'v achieved.
n measures ne ass to information is en►Y W
achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences as to how these
ad' nt to Graham Street Springdale ale Street and standards will
I be
Talbert Avenue. met.
-39-
. ...........
PE?FISC. text. Mitigatlan:;Meaeura Improper Ralkn on Measure Not Shown.. Not Shown to.be Economically
.';NLbpetion Measure No Lligguiseri:as P�F::or SC Future;Study to.hAitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
1A 12' CULTURAL RESOURCES
jc!'Mslcn' states
PQF•1 The research design for recovered material analysis X X X
for the Bdu Chios Region currently in preparation How can this report Whet is the result of
shall be completed. The research design shall be evaluated by the the archaeologists'
contain a discussion of important research topics for public if it is not yet review7
recovered material analysis that can be addressed
e prepared?
employing data from the Bolas Chios sites The ,
research design shall be reviewed by at least three
qualified archaeologists,as required by CCC
guidelines.
PQFA ; A data recovery program shall be implemented and X X X
completed for important or unique archaeological No objective There remains much
resources in areas proposed for urban development standards are controversy
on Boise Chios Mesa and for proposed urban provided. regarding Koll's
development and wetlands restoration under Lowland compliance with the
Option B.The scope of work for the data recovery The issue of who is a requirements of law
excavations shall be determined by the project "qualified" Native with respect to the
archaeologist and reviewed and approved by the American is highly archaeological
three qualified peer reviewer archaeologists controversial. resources at the site.
established pursuant to CCC permit conditions. The This measure leaves
..,. , d ovary ex completed prior mitigatio holly in
ata recovery excavations shall be c r to n w
issuance of a grading permit and shall be monitored Koll's hands without
by a qualified Native American. The data recovery Government review
program shall be considered complete when the peer or control.
review group concludes that the data recovery
excavations have been completed in accordance with
its approved scope of work. Once data recovery
excavations have been completed,a report of the
data recovery program shall be prepared by the
e the ear
project archaeologist and reviewed b
Y P P 1 W
review team and sub
mittedappropriate to
governmental and academic institutions. Data
recovery investigations,testing,analysis,and reports
•hall be completed at the Applicant's expense.
-40-
...... ....... ..... ........ ........ .......
.......... ......
...............
........... X...... . ...........
.......... U to be Economically
......... ... Mae�uroNot$hown::�. Not$hown
, . :MliwiWm me"to repo!Roli"PaiOW:......... ...... .
............. .... ...... .......... .. ......
Mitigate Impact i.::::: :or Technically Feasible
............ :::to
n: assure . ........
.............
O"D M Di......... wisW aw PDF oi.SC.�]:
.... ..... ... ..... ..............................
For ORA-83/144,prior to any grading activity at this X X
.. ........
site,a controlled grading program shall be conducted The issue of who is a
...........
by the project archaeologist in the field area to
qualified" Native
........................
............
.......... recover any cogged stones or other important American is highly
..........
artifacts which may remain in this disturbed portion controversial.
of the site. The controlled grading program shall be
monitored by a qualified Native American.
... .................
...........
............
............
..........I............
In addition to compliance with the standard condition X X •
X.............
............................. ea
........................
t forth below which requires that a County-certified The issue of who is a
archaeologist be retained to establish procedures for qualified" Native
........................
...............
.............
.......... ....... ...
............. archaeological resource surveillance prior to grading American is highly
...................
and to monitor grading within 500 fast of all controversial.
...............
recorded archaeological sites,the Project Applicant
shall also retain a qualified Native American to
monitor all grading activities monitored by the
...........
-certified archaeologist on Boles Chica Mesa............
.....
County........
and for implementation of Lowland Option B.
...........
............ .....
PO.r. .........
.............
The historic componente of ORA-78 as well as all X X X
............
other facilities,structures and features more than 45 CEQA specifically Many of the historic and
.. .........
states that NRHP archaeological resources have
......... years old within the County LCP Area shall be
........ .....................................
..........
..............
.......... ........
evaluated for significance by a qualified historical criteria are not the already been disturbed
............................ only yardstick for pursuant to demolition permits.................... archaeologist and/or architectural historian. This
.... ............... ..........................
....................... .....
evaluation shall be conducted at the Applicant's
measuring historic granted by the County in
.................
.......... impacts. The 1991. These permits were
expense and the Applicant shall implement the
..... .......... .......
........... recommendations of the historical archaeologist separate analogous first approvals for the project
.....................
....... am requirements of the construction.
coal/ arc historian regarding significant
............
........ historical cultural resources. Significance criteria to California Register •
..............
................................. ...............
-::-X-:-: ......................................................
be employed should be the eligibility criteria for the (focusing on items of
...............................................
.... ...... ...................I ........
.....................I. ......I...............
...............................................—............. .....................I...............
........................................
..........................................I...........
. ...... .............. ......
... NRHP and Appendix K to the CEGA Guidelines. significance in
... .......
...........................I.......... ... ........
.. ........... ........ ............. .....
....................... ...........
California history)
................................... .... ........
. . ..............................
..............................................
.......... ................................
.............. .........
........................................ ... .......
must also be used.
...................... .. " , 1 .1............
-41-
PDF/SC: YAxt MitipadonMaaaurA Improper Rebance on. Measure Not Shown Not.Shown to be Economically
Ma is Measur�Np .. D sguised:ea f'DF;or SC ;; Future:Study to Mitigate`lmpact or Technically Feasible
PDF-B::;':;: :;::;;.:';:''::;::;'.s,:.,:..... .; :;:: The Project Applicant for Lowland Option B will have X X X
the two potential archaeological sites in the Lowland, The issue of who is a Will the NRHP
ORA-1308 and-1308,and the Lowland component 'qualified" Native criteria be used to
of ORA-88,tested by a County-certified archaeologist American is highly judge the
to determine whether they represent unique or controversial. significance of these
important cultural deposits. If they are determined to sites?
be unique or important deposits,the County-certified
archaeologist will recommend appropriate measures
to be implemented by the Project Applicant which
shall be implemented at the expense of the Project
Applicant. If a date recovery program is required,it
.:
shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading
.
permit for Lowland wetlands restorations activities or
Lowland urban development activities for these sites.
The test program recovery program ram and the data recove ro ram shall
be mon r Y qualified to ed a Na
tive American.
b
Reports on both the test program and the data
recovery if one is req
uired, will be prepared
program, qu P P
b a County-certified certified archaeologist documenting
:::::.::.:::.:.:...d...... > ;: Y hr fli p the
testingand excavations that were performed,the
cultural materials,if any, discovered,and analyzing
the significance of the site. The report will be
submit
ted to the UCLA Archaeological Information
Center
er where they will be kept on le for reference
by fl
other archaeologists.
•
-42-
• • • • • • • • • • •
............P TAxt Mitlgatiot fdsasua Improper Reliance on . ; Measure Nat Shown`; Not Shown to.be Economically
Mitrpapon Measure No ... Chsguiaed;es PDF or SC Future.::Study tq Mitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
pf)F-T,......;; The Project Applicant for Lowland Option B shall X X X
........ .........
.........................................................
have a systematic cultural resources survey of the No objective
Ys Y 1
Lowland carried out by a qualified.County-certified standards are
archaeologist t any prow
....... .................................
rc o determine if there are dad for what
unrecorded prehistoric or historic cultural resources will be"significant".
present and,if so,to evaluate their significance. The
Lowland survey shall also include testing of areas
determined by the County-certified archaeologist to
have a high likelihood of containing buried prehistoric •
or historic deposits. If found to be significant,
..
.: appropriate archaeological measures consisting of
preservation in open space or data recovery using a
data recovery plan shall be implemented at the
expense of the Option 8 Lowland Project Applicant.
All data recovery excavations shall be completed
............................. rY Pl
prior to issuance of a radio arn*for Lowland
P grading
wetlands restoration or urban development activities
....................................
;
that may impact any sites discovered.
» ..... A reburial agreement has been executed between the X X X
:: .:: :: . : :: : :.:.:: g
...:.........................................................
Project Applicant and the Juaneno Band of Mission There continues to
Indians regarding the treatment and disposition of be a significant
prehistoric Native American human remains controversy
discovered at ORA-83,and recommendations on the regarding the
i treatment and disposition of the human remains have handling of this
P g
been obtained from the other most likely issue.
descendants. If any additional remains are
discovered on the Bolsa Chios Mesa,this agreement
................... .... .i.............. treatment end
shell be extended to cover the
disposition of those remains
-43-
r
.............
.............
Ar
........... Mitigation... Improper....... ..... ... ...
a�ia Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
. ........... ........Mit
. . .......... .... ......
............................ to Mitigate Impact............
Measure.. . ...................... ate t: ]�:��:�A orlechnically Feasible
. .. ..t.....V: F:
i an Future.:S 6d
............. ..... ............... .............. ............. ... ........
gation:
. . ...........
......... . ...
.................................. . .....: .. .. ..........................
.. .........
..................... ........ .
............
standard C
............ ...
Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit, the Project X
Applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief,
.......... :
..........
............
............
EMAIRegulation/Grading Section,that a County
..........
certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be
present the pre-grading conference,shall establish
procedures for archaeological resource surveillance,
and shall establish,in cooperation with the project
developer,procedures for temporarily halting or
...........
JW
r irecting work to permit the sampling,
identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as
appropriate. If additional or unexpected
... ..........
........... ...
..........
. ...... ............ archaeological features are discovered,the
archaeologist shall report such findings to the project
developer and to the Manager.Harbors. Beaches and
..............
Parks/Program Planning Division. If the
. . .......................
archaeological resources are found to be significant,
..... ........
..............
...............
....... the archaeological observer shall determine
....... ... .. .....
appropriate actions,in cooperation with the project
....... ....
developer,for exploration and/or salvage. Prior to
....................
the issuance of a precise grading permit.the
... .........
... .... archaeologist shall submit a follow-up report to the
Manager, Harbors,Beaches and Parke/Program
Planning Division, which shall include the period of
.................. inspection,an analysis of any artifacts found and the
... present repository of the artifacts. Excavated finds
shall be offered to the County of Orange, or
..........
...................
.. ............ ......
designee,on a first refusal basis. The Applicant may
... . . ......I........
..........
..........7..........
retain said finds if written assurance is provided that •
.......... they will be properly preserved in Orange Count),
..... ..................
............ ............
..... ..................
..... .......
...........
....... ...... ...I... I. ....
.................. ...................... I................ unless said finds are of special significance,or a
.. ........... .......
museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study
........................ ........
and/or display them at the time,in which case items
shall be donated to the County, or designee. These
.............
.................. .... .........
............. ..........
actions,as well as final mitigation and disposition of
the resources,shall be subject to the approval of the
sql
........:X..
Manager.Harbors,Beaches and Parke/Program
............ ................
Planning Division.
-44-
.. ................... ............... .
. ...........
PDF/Sw; Text ....................
....... .... ...... .......................
. ................................ ............. ....................... on moo ie:Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
.................. .......
Fu Study::; to Mitigate lm. pact:::::I::.. 'or Technically Feasible
.Ak ationVeasuro:4o ated' .. ..:
...... !.igu as ture
P.D.... ....
Measure
:SC x x x
If Native American remains are discovered within the
............... -I
Bolsa Chios lowlands area,the Project Applicant for No standards for
..................
Lowland Options A or 8 shall comply with the accepting or
..........
procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the rejecting the
.... ........................
.......... .................. California Public Resources Code and shall consult recommendations of
............... .. .......
. .................. ...... ........
................ ...........
the Native American
...........
with the most likely descendants designated by the
...................................I.....
................... ...................
......... .......
q... a. American Heritage Commission to obtain Heritage Commission
Native A
.............
............ are provided.
recommendations on the treatment and disposition
............
............
............ •
with appropriate dignity of the human remains and
..........
........... associated grave goods.
-certified archaeologist shall be retained by x x x SC ....... A County
............
........ .................................................. :.:.
.................................. :::::: .
the applicant to complete literature and records These searches
searches for recorded sites and previous surveys. In should be conducted
addition,a field survey shall be conducted by a prior to certification
..... ......
..... ............ . . . County-certified archaeologist unless the entire of the REIR.
.................. ..................
.................''I....
.......................... ...
proposed project site has been documented as
.................
................
......... previously surveyed in a manner which moats the
............
proyal of the Manager, Harbors,Beaches and
.............
Parks/ProgramPlanning Division. A report of the
............................
...... literature and records search and the field survey
shall be submitted to end approved by the Manager.
................
........................... ........ Harbors,Beaches and Parks/Prograrn Planning
. ......... ......... Division. Mitigation measures may be required,
....... ...............
..... ..........
depending on the recommendations of this report.
-45-
..
ppF � Mitigation Measure IrnVtoper Raliencn on.: Measure'Not.Shown; Not Shown to be Econorpically
M..gation Meaeura N.o Disguised as PDF or SC::: Future Study; to:Mitigate,lmpact or Technically Feasible
shell be retained b
SG.4 ACounty-certified archaeologista y X
the applicant to perform a subsurface test level
investigation and surface collection as appropriate.
. . .. The test level report evaluating the site shall include
discussion of significance(depth, nature, condition
and extent of the resources),final mitigation
recommendations and cost estimates. Excavated
finds shall be offered to the County of Orange, or
designee,on a first refusal basis. Applicant may
retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance,or a
museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study
or dis
play andIe he time in which case items
them at t
Final o County, r designee. Fn I
shell be donated t the o
tY, g
mitigation shall be carried out based upon the report
recommendations and a deterrrination as to the site's
disposition
li Y on b the Manager,er Harbors Beaches and
Parks/Program Planning Division. Possible
determinations include,but are not limited to,
o do do salves partial sal va or n miU a n
preservation.n
g 9e g
necessary.
G~;5; Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the project X
o Chief,provide written evidence t the ht applicant shall room
aPPI P
lation redi Section that a County-
... IG IR . tY-
certified archaeologist has been retained to conduct
selvage excavation of the archaeological resources in
the permit area. Excavated finds shall be offered to •
the County of Orange,or designee,on a first refusal
basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written
l assurance is provided that they will be properly
preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of
special significance, or a museum in Orange county
indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the
time,in which case items shall be donated to the
County, or designee. A final report of the salvage
operation shall be submitted to and approved by the
Manager,Harbors,Beaches and Parks/Program
Planning,Division,prior to any grading in the
archaeological site areas.
-46-
.. ...... ......
d
imp t shown to be Economically
.... .........
. .........
!p
.. ........
par :1�� Measure Not.Shown:.
..................... .... ... ............. S
as� . :or. C.: 6: 1 0
Diswis 06 ::..1:. Mitigate Irnpilct Feasible
0: ........ ur Wy.: I
Affitigadow M. eaisur .. .... S.t
................
.......... ...... ......................... .. . ...
..........
... . .... ....
CULTURAVRFAWIPICIEG... .. ..........
. .... ................... .... .. . ... ............
&JItIgadori.Meamim-A 4.12,1.::::' The two potential archaeological sites in the X
Lowland, ORA-1308 and-1309,and the Lowland Sea PDF-8 above.
. ..... component of ORA-86, shall be tested by a County-
....... ...
certified archaeologist to determine whether they
represent unique or important cultural deposits. If
...........
they are determined to be unique or important
deposits,the County-certified archaeologist will •
recommend appropriate mitigation measures to be
implemented by the Lowland applicant which could
.........................
include the implementation of a data recovery
program or the'capping'of the site which shall be
. .............
implemented at the expense of the Lowland
... ........
applicant. AD data recovery excavations shall be
0 omplated prior t issuance of a grading,pernit for
...............
.............
Lowland wetlands restorations activities or Lowland
...........
urban development activities for these sites.
..........
A systematic cultural resources survey of the X
......
Lowland shall be carried out by a qualified,County- Sao PDF-7 above.
.............
certified archaeologist to determine if cultural
resources are present and,if so,to evaluate their
.......... ......
...........
significance. If found to be significant,mitigation
X
. ....... sisting of preservation in open space or
. ... . .. ...........:.
measures con
XX data recovery using a data recovery plan shall be
.................
.............................
..............................
implemented
at the expense of the Lowland
.................. ......
...........
.......................
applicant. All date recovery excavations shall be
................
...............
........ .....
completed prior to issuance a grading permit for
.. ....... .... ........
... Lowland wetlands restoration activities that may
...............
................
impact any sites discovered.
.............
Mfgg#sl
.. . ...... Areas of the Lowland that have the potential to
X
...........
............ ..........
...........
....... ..
...
.....
contain buried archaeological sites shall be monitored
........ by a County-certified archaeologist and should
include areas within Lowland ad acent to the Bolea
a .... ...............
............... ......
.................
............................
.................. .............
.................. ........ ...
...... Chica Mesa and Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs.
...................... ... .
.... ..... .......
-47-
PDF1;;1 , Taxt Migpation fiAvasuie Improper Rehencs on Measuro Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
Nhugation Measure No Di sguised;es PDF or SC Future>Study to Miti9ete Impact or Technically Feasible
'Mitlpetlor►1ilea.ure4 2-3 A Native American monitor shall be present during all X
grading activity monitored by a County-certified The issue of who is a
erchesdogist. qualified Native
American is highly
controversial.
(olitlgatl 11011WWJ +R Sites on the Huntington Beach Mesa that will be X
affected by construction the Bolsa Chios Regional This Mitigation Measure
Perk shell be Dated under•coordinated program that indicates that the County
evaluates each site as whole using the regional be responsible for the
research design to assess significance. The development of Boise Chica
development of Bolse Chios Regional Park will be the Regional Park;however, no
County of Orange's responsibility. The impacts of source of funds is identified.
Park development P
nt have been considered in a separate
al
EIR which identified
ified mitigation measur
es. These
measures will be Implemented b the Cou
nty.
.
rn� Y
r1Aitlgotlon me,".t. ......::....: For archaeological sites located in the area of the X
at.1 AAS,:,;;;::.::..::.:::::::.;:::::;::;:::.:: Linear Regional Park,the County shall consider in gL{
.................
reservation or the"capping"of these
sites to
P DPP fl
o soil over
prevent
disturbance b placing s layer f the
Y PI fl Ye
site that
e i et protect*the site once the art boundaries a
have been detemtined through a test excavation.
Capping avoids the need to conduct data recovery
excavations on a site unnecessarily. If'capping'is
;..!.......:.:.... ... determined by a County-certified archaeologist to be
.........................................................
etemti ified archae
infeasible other mitigation measures shall be
recommended to mitigate the impacts of park
development on the site.
-48-
• • • • • • • • • • •
PDF,/Sl: Yext Mitigation fulsasuro Improper Reliance on Measure Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
fWtipetnon'Meeaure No Disgunaed es PDF or$C` Future Study' to:.Mitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
itAftlpeticn.Mosatlra.4A24 The County shall evaluate all historic components of X
ORA-88 and-365,as well as all other facilities, See PDF-5 above.
structures and features more than 45 years old with
the County LCP Area. A qualified historical
archaeologist and/or architectural historian shell be
angagad to conduct this evaluation. This evaluation
shall be conducted at the County's expense and the
County shall implement recommendations of the
historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian •
regarding significant historical cultural resources.
Significance criteria to be employed should be the
..................................
eligibility criteria for the NRHP and Appendix K to the
CEQA Guidelines.
PgfifiONTOLOQJCA [9ESOURC�....
Project Desian Features
No fWa ere proposed'to address Palrsontolo�ae(Resources
Standard Condltjons
A Coin certified paleontologist shall be retained b X X job
...................................... County-certified P a Y
... the applicant to complete literature and records The searches and
searches for recorded sites and previous surveys. In surveys referred to in
addition, a field survey shall be conducted by a this SC should be
Coin certified paleontologist unless the entire conducted prior to
County-certified P a
o the
r osed project site has been documented as certification f
P oP P le
e 'ou s in a manna which meets the REIR.
..
r rt sl surveyed r
P Y Y�
approval of the Manager,Harbors,Beaches and
Parks/Program Planning Division. A report of the
literature and records searches and field survey shall
be submitted to a approved by the Manager, Harbors,
Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. Future
mitt ation shall depend P
end upon the recommendations in
6
the report.
-49-
POF/S Taxi Mippation Msasura Imptoper Rebanae on ; Measure Not,Shown'. . Not Shown to be Economically
IWUgetion Measure No< IN guised as POP or SC Future Study to Mitigate Impact or Technically Feasible
:.::::::::::::,:;.: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the project X X
0 0
applicant evidence to the Chief Control f mesa
nt shall provide written I
aPP ,P
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section,that a County- excavation by a
certified paleontologist has been retained by the single professional
applicant to conduct pre-grading salvage and prepare will be impracticable.
s catalogue of the exposed resources. Excavated
finds shall be offered to the County of Orange,or
designee,on a first refusal basis. The applicant may
retain said finds if written assurance is provided that
they will be properly preserved in Orange County,
unless said finds are of special significance,or a
museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study
and/or display them at the time,in which case items
.... shall be donated to the County, or designee. The
paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for
approval by the Manager, Harbors,Beaches and
Parks/Program Planning Division, for review and
o a rov which halt include methodology, n
ePP
al M •
gY�
u 'facts of facts found a catalogue of artifacts,analysis artifacts p
sir present
coal th ese t
P
•
-50-
. .... . .....
............ .......... ... .. ...... ...
.................. ..............
PDFLSC
.... ........
................... Masaure'Not Shown:, Not Shown to be Economically
..... ....... ...
i Improper alienceoni..
-1 . . ....... Xjiu
x�
.. .................
�: 7: UF
.111"r ''.- . , iiid mitigate.Impact.1. or Technically Feasible
..............I . . .. ........
on: saitirel ad as:PDFor SC.-
. .......... .........
...................
.................. Prior to the issuance of a grading parrnit. the project X
... ........
aDDlicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief,
. ........ .. ..........
EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-
. .......... ........
certified paleontologist has been retained to observe
............
grading activities and selvage and catalogue fossils
...........
as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at
.... .. .................
the pro-grading conference,shall establish procedures
..... ....... for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall
.............
establish, in cooperation with the project developer, •
............
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work
i X t
............ ...... .
o permit sampling,identification, and evaluation of
................... ... .. .................................... ...............
the fossils. If major paleontological resources are
.. ..........
.. ..........
-term halting or
discovered, which require long
............. .........
......... ....... redirecting of grading,the paleontologist shall report
.............
such findings to the project developer and to the
.............
................................
........ .............. Manager. Harbors.Beaches and Parke/Program
..................
Planning Division. The paleontologist shall determine
..............
appropriate actions, in cooperation with the project
......................
......... .................... . ....
........... ................................ .......
.......... developer, which ensure proper exploration and/or
.............
salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the
.. ..............
...........
........ ...................... County of Orange,or its designee,on a first-refusal
......................................... .........
...... ....
............ basis. The applicant may retain said finds if written
XXXXXXXX
...........
........................
assurance is provided that they will be properly
........... ....
. .... .......... ...........
preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of
............... ......
.................
.......................... ...................................................................
.......... :::: special significance,or a museum in Orange County
..........
............................. ........................
XXXX
............ ...........
indicates a desire to study and/or display them at the
..... ......
. . ............. .. ...........
time,in which case items shall be donated to the
X XXXX:
........ county, or designee. Times actions,as well as final
............. . .... ...........
mitigation and disposition of the resources,shall be
....................
.... ......................
...iXs....... .............. subject to the approval by the Manager,Harbors,
Beaches and Parks/Program Planning, Division. Prior
XX:......
.............
..........
to the issuance of a precise grading permit,the
..............................
..................................
............ paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for
:-XXX approval by the Manager, Harbors,Beaches and
...........................
...... ....................... ..................
. . ............ Parke/Program Planning Division, which shall include
..........
.................................
............................ ...... ......................................
the period of inspection,
........ a catalogue and analysis of
......... ..... . . ........I.. ............
............................... ...
............. ..............
........ .............. ...........I I
.... ................................................. ........
............ . ......
.................................I..........
............. .....................:X:X ": the fossils found, and present repository of the
.................................. ........
....................... ......... .........
...............................I..........
...................................
fossils. Monthly grading observation reports shall be
.............
... ...............................................
submi
tted to the grading inspector on all projects
......... which exceed 100,000 cubic yards,unless no
ppE/S Taxi Mitigatio6 Measuia Improper Rabance on Measure Not:Shown Not Shown to be Economically
M+upet<on Measure No; Oisgutsed as PDF:or SC > Future:Study to'Mitgete Impact or:Technically Feasible
PALEONTOLtNi1G1L tiE80URCEB
The REIR states that7no mftlggtion measures taro rskpdred
AEI3THETICB
ProMc Dosldn Net uwt
As part o the Development Agreement for the X X X
f nt
Proposed Project,the Applicant will implement the No method for such No information is given
Local Parks and Recreation Facilities described in this implementation is regarding the financial impact
development.
rovided. on the
EIR in Section 3.3.8. P
ppF All graded slopes will be completely hydroseeded X
X.
within 80 days following completion of grading.
PF Views of construction activities will be shielded as X
feasible by measures that can include placement of
temporary fencing,landscaped berms,and/or
landscaping.
Standard Conditiorn
Ths$EIft states that 00&Ca am required to address A00:"11100 l
ATH�TI .
Mldgrjt(ort ilAaeur� Landscaping,including use of native vegetation, and X
XXX
1M1a. setbacks from Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue
shall be used to break up long linear views of houses
from offeits.
M►tiggticyr Megsura Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant X X
:.:.14 1 :.:;:;:;;:::::::::.....::::::::';:;:;;:; shall demonstrate all exterior lighting has been No approval criteria Lighting will still
X. designated and located so that all direct rays are are given. affect wildlife,
confined to the property in a manner meeting the especially along the
approval of the Manager, Building Permits. BCSE.
-52-
Pt?FISC Text : Mipgatio Massaro Improper Reliance on Measure Not Shown Not Shown to be Economically
Mitigation Measure No ;Disguised as PDF or. ::' Future:Study to Mitigate.tmpecf or Technically Feasible
................ ........ :.:........................
..........................................................
.................. ............................ ......
............... .... ..............................
MidpstlAn Me�iur+► . Prior to issuance of any grading p ermit or recordation X X
4:1+h1a of any applicable tract/parcel map,the Applicant shall No approval criteria
submit, subject to the approval of the County are given.
.................................
Manager HBP Planning Division,an urban edge
treatment plan which includes but is not limited to:
............. .......
building height and setback limits;landscape and fuel
modification traatments;provisions for walla, fences
or slope gradient*and ratios(i.e., 2:1 -4: 11
proposed;slope drainage structures,and architectural •
or landscape design themes.
SOCIOECONQMIC$ . '
The:RE1R states that tto PDFs!lave been rnco `rated'infc the s of the ro project and no SCe,lere raquwred to address'id4iideoorwrWa cgnditions :: g
rPo. !...... . ...P... PPsed. ...
MiagaUon Measuraa
The R IA state;that rfo Mitiget an maoeurea ere'rep�irer!
PUOUO 8ERVICEA ANp UTIU11EA . .
":>;;.;
Prolec DaslttnFeature =
!he:REIR etatas than:iry PPFs h#vq been Inoorpoiratad:..no the0. of the ProP Arelsat
;.;
seeAa..d cor;<aitwn.
.. ..... : Water and energy conservation features will be X x
.rn
Wh t is the basis for
nc al a i o rated into new roaldential ment dev
oP as Per
oRegulations. T se this determination?
X.
Title 24 f the California Cods of he
features are expected to reduce project water s
demand by at least 10 percent.
. G- :;.;;::.::.`;::. The Applicant will pay the applicable school X
development fees as mandated b State Law.
oP Y
-53-
..
PDFI$� YaM fNittgatlo t NI•aaUto Improper Ral$once on fiAa$sure Not Shown f?1o;Shown to be Economically
fWbgebon faAeaaure No: Qisguised as PDF or SC Future Study W Mitigate Impact `:or Technically Feasible
par for the X X
o will be re ed A Fiscal Impact Report FIR
Bolsa Chica ►o' ct which analyzes the fiscal impacts The FIR should be
P M YZ mP
of the project on County funds(e.g., General Fund, prepared prior to
Library District,Fire Fund,etc.).The FIR will be certification of the
reviewed by County officials and specific conditions REIR.
of approval will be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors to address potential funding deficiencies
caused by the project. If the FIR indicates that the
cost of providing library services to the project
exceed the Library Fund revenues generated by the
development,the Applicant will be required, as part
of the project approval,to enter into an agreement
with the County to provide additional funding for the
expansion of library services.
M 0 K Mea•uros
Itlas i011;Mr1,ll u[e:A, The Applicant shall be required to enter into a X X
e services o information
e The police s ra s N �nf rmation is given
secured agreement with the County to road Sheriff• P 9 tY P
law enforcement services such as facilities, which can be regarding the financial impact
aquipment,or other infrastructure necessary for provided by the on the development.
adequate law enforcement services to the Proposed County are not
Project. sufficient to meet
County standards for
response time.
�Ahigetjaq Masson 4 7 The Applicant shall be required to enter into a X X
secured fire protection agreement with the County or Even with the No information is given
successor protection agency. Ths reement construction of a regarding the financial im
>' its wg 9 P
P �
e fire o e new elation th n the d velo ment.
shell ind uds the foNowin , P
g
protection services
which can be
rovided b the
P Y
County are not
sufficient to meet
County standa
rds for
response time.
-54-
0
'W-1,666: .. . .............. .. . p
....................
...................................
..........
.............. ......
..........
. .
text
..... ......... R
'Massm a Not Shown: Not Shown to be Economically
........................
6d'
. ............ ..
Mitigation measure. .... ..... .. .... Mitigate I,mpacr::::,:. or Technically Feasible
Disguised as F.0i::SC:::: :.Tutura:Study
W Provision for dedication of an adequate site
........ ........
within the project area for construction of a fully
..........
equipped and furnished fire station,subject to
. . ..........
the approval of the OCFD or successor agency;
. ...... .. ..
►
...... ....... .............. ......
...... ...................
Provision for funding of land acquisition,
..............
.......................................
construction, equipping and furnishing the now
........ .............
...............
. ............................ ..
... ........
fire station and adequate fire access. water
..........
........ .... distribution, and other supporting infrastructure
... .............. ............:.:......
...........
b y the Applicant;and
.............
................... ... . .....
..................
......... w Provision for conitnencement of fire station
operation in accordance with development
..............
.............
............ phasing.
................ ..........
............ ................................. .......
............ . . ................ ... ..........
...... ....... ......I.. .............
.. ...........
.1G-34::::. The Project Applicant will pay the statutory school
..........
fee,as applicable to the project,or enter into an
.............
....................... agreement with the affected school district to provide
............ ..........
...................... ..................
..........
those measures deemed necessary to address the
......... ......
impact of the project, which may include the
construction of now schools,the payment of
.......... ...... .. ....
.............
.............
.............
additional fee for the use of temporary facilities. But
............. ...... in no event shall the applicant be required to provide
..............
more than that required by CEGA and the then
li able statutory provisions relating to school
............... Ic
...................................
...................................... facilities.
..............
.......................... ...........
................. .......
......... ... ...
..................X: q pq ........... ........... ::X :i
............................ . .....
........:; ................ ...... ............... .... ..... ........... .... ............ .................I...I �x:xx�x::::�:�.... ....... ...
.... ..... ....
..............
............RATIOWI ..............
................... ..............
.. .............
.... ....... ...
P....Moo Pain ............... . .. ............
..................q..........
The Applicant will dedicate to the County of Orange x
............................
....... .............
49 acres of land within the Bolsa Chios Project Area
required for completion of the 106-acre Bolsa Chica
-approved
....... Regional Park as identified in the County
...................... 1992 GDP.
.... ..........................
............
-55-
PpFISG text Mitigatiot,Measure Improper Rahenoe on Measure NoYShown Not Shown to be Economically
IYULgaton Measure No j!: Qisgweed;as POFor SC ! Future;Study to.Mitigate Impact or.:Teohnically Feasible
POF-Z j With the implementation of Option B of the Lowland X
Component, the Applicant will dedicate to the County
of Orange,or such entity approved by the Board of
Supervisors,767 acres of land with the Project Area
required for the creation of a 1,008 acre Was Chice
Wetlands Area as identified in the 1989 Bdse Chica
Planning Coalition Concept Plan.
PDF3 With the implementation of Option A of the Lowland X
Component, the Applicant will dedicate
approximately 2 acres of parkland beyond the
dedication requirements of the County's Local Park
Code.
OV64 With the implementation of Option B of the Lowland X
Component,the Applicant will dedicate
XX approximately 11 acres of parkland beyond the
dedication requirements of the County's Local Park
XX
Code.
PD.F-$: All recreational facilities described in tNe section will X X
No information is given
a of the Pr o sad Project.
n
I nted as R 8 bs' ems
P 1
�P
regarding the financial impact
on the development.e ent
P
$ta�dard Canditforts
If Option A of the Lowland Component is X
shell dedicat
e to the
i e anted the Applicant- m
-
- County of Ora
nge e s combi
nation of 14.42 acres of
un
•
................. ........................................
land and local park improvements to satisfy the
"` County's Local Park Code requirements.
S¢2 If Option B of the Lowland Component is X
X. implemented.the Applicant shall dedicate to the
� P P
is County g
of Orange s co
mbination of 20.02 acres o f
land and local park improvements to satisfy the
County's Local Park Code requirements.
f*ttgation Measure;,
Th4'RIR•t�1e that n4 mldg4don rr+vesures#rq',regWtpd
-56-
5
ANNEX NO. 5
The following table sets forth a summary analysis of the alternatives considered in
• Chapter 6 of the REIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica
Development and notes certain of the problems and infirmities under CEQA of the
REIR's alternative project analysis. This table is not intended to summarize the
infirmities of the REIR under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter,
dated October 4, 1994, delivered to the County of Orange by Ervin, Cohen &Jessup,
in its capacity as special counsel to the City of Huntington Beach, for full particulars.
Alternative Descnptto� Comr snts on Altarnat►vs ark AddiBanek Informsttost Re►tAred
REFR sil;easoneaor Di ad:
Alternative A:: — Discussion notes potentially The REIR omits:
Mixed open space and recreational significant impact from increased
Lowland;; uses with EGGW channel retained as a human intrusion and lose of upland 1. A statement of the purchase price
Resterst ott public facility; no new housing habitat; however,these impacts which would be paid to acquire the
REIR provided were discounted in the analysis of Mesa or the Lowlands under this
CH 8 2 1: the proposed project(which alternative. Accordingly,it merely
Oil operations in Lowland would includes park uses)in Ch. 4 of the assumes that funding would not be
continue until voluntarily abandoned by REIR available without considering the degree
the oil operators of funding required.
Acknowledges significant traffic
Road constructed on Boise Mesa to impacts from 4,000 weekend trips 2. Consideration of the potential for
P
access recreational use but cross gap combined with beach traffic—no only a portion of the Stud Area to be
Y
connector/BCSE would not be built funds contribute toward ATIP purchased for
p ed o recreational or
conservation purposes in order to
— Contemplates a requirement that — Alternative acknowledges that decrease the impacts by(a)reducing
the entire site must be purchased by a the incompatibility of the proposed residential density and the overall
private organization or governmental project with existing development numberg
of units while making the
entity and surrounding uses but this was project more compatible with the
not identified as a significant existing neighborhood surrounding the
impact in the REIR and should have project and (b)preserving ESHAs such
been as the Warner Pond and(c)avoiding the
disruption of significant archaeological
Reasons for Dismissal— This sites on the Mesa.
alternative was dismissed because
it:
— fails to fulfill the objective of
providing a mix of housing on the
Lowlands and the Mesa;
doss not provide s definitive
means of wetlands expansion and
restoration;and
— does not provide a definitive
plan to bring the wetlands into
public ownership
Conclusion:Since no funding of the
recreational uses is provided, this.
alternative will not fulfill its
objectives of providing additional
recreational space.
►Fp Comments on Alternative and Additional Information Required,
Alternative;. Desc bon
REIR's Reasons.for Diemiseaf
Alternative B - Virtually the entire site would be Reasons for Dismissal— This The REIR omits: (1) A statement of the
Biodiw►sitY dedicated to conservation purposes alternative was dismissed because purchase price to acquire the site.
Park it: Accordingly, it merely assumes that
..CH:.8;2:T >: >: — Generally is compatible with funding would not be available without
surrounding land uses although the — provides no housing considering the degree of funding
•Erivirorr; enhanced wildlife habitat might cause — provides no definitive means of required; (2)Consideration of the
mentally some conflict with the surrounding wetlands expansion and potential for orgy s portion of the Study
Superior residential uses restoration; and Area to be purchased for biodiversity
Alternativs;< -- provides no definitive plan to park purposes in order to decrease the
- Would permit creation of significant bring the wetlands into public impacts by(a) reducing residential
passive recreation opportunities ownership density and the overall number of units
while making the project more
— Some funding may be available for Conclusion:Since this plan would compatible with the existing
acquisition of the site from USFWS require either the cooperation of neighborhood surrounding the project
the landowners or the completion and (b)preserving ESHAs such as the •
of eminent domain proceedings Warner Pond and (c)avoiding the
followed by the development of a disruption of significant archaeological
restoration plan,the time frame for sites on the Mesa and (3) A
implementing this plan would comparison of the timing for the
extend beyond the time frame implementation of the WRP versus the
identified by Koll to achieve timing for the acquisition and
restoration goals. implementation of the biodiversity park
alternative.
grnative C Reasons for Dismissal— This The REIR's analysis of this alternative is .
Co menciiil —500 room luxury hotel with support alternative was dismissed because particularly suspect in that it assumes
RstscrE ':» and conference facilities it: (for no apparent reason)that this
..-...
Is Housino — provides housing on the Mesa project would not include any traffic
.............................
Aftsmatlw —tennis courts/recreation facilities in only partial satisfaction of tM improvement or mitigation and
including an 18-hole golf course objective of providing a mix of erroneously states that the impacts on
..... housing on the Mesa and the the environment would be greater than
— 200,000 sq.ft. of commercial shop, Lowlands under the proposed project. Project
restaurants — provides no means of wetlands restoration timing may not be
expansion and restoration;and significantly different from the timing
— 1,500 residential units in a high — provides no definitive plan to here.
density configuration bring the wetlands into public
ownership The REIR omits:
— hiking trails and interpretive center
Conclusion: Page 8-30 states that 1. Consideration of this alternative if
—construction of roadways and although this alternative would the development were conditioned on
utilities;but no cross-gap connector fulfill many of the objectives of the establishment and at least partial
would be constructed project, Koll is not interested in funding of an ATIP as contemplated
pursuing this alternative. The REIR under Koll's project.
--Lowland restoration might occur but also notes that wetlands •
would be separately funded and restoration could proceed under 2. Consideration of this alternative with
separately comidered this alternative in the earns manner slow-rise development(suches the
es under the project, with funding Red Lion Hotel on Sella Barbara
coming from the development. beachfront) which does not have the
The REIR assumes no ATIP would aesthetic or view impacts of the
_;:.::...:........:,...,:; be included in the alternative. proposed project and with buffers and
theme wall(as relied for mitigation of
land use impacts in the proposed Koll
project).
3. A comparison of the likely phasing
and timing of the restoration under this
alternative versus the timing and
phasing under the Koll proposal.
.2-
Alternative Desanptiort Commerite on Alternative and Additional:Information Required::
REIR's Reasons foe 0ismieeaf
Alternative D>: This alternative substantially meets —CCC staff has noted that the 1986
all of the objectives of the project LCP land use plan would no longer be
Marinat. — 5,700 mixed residential housing and implements the 1986 LCP. compatible with CCC goals and policies,
Housing:;:.;;;:;::; units in the Lowlands and on the Mesa yet this plan is relied on in Section 4.1
Devslognant:: per 1986 LCP Reasons for Dismissal— This of the REIR when assessing consistency
alternative was dismissed because with Coastal Act policies and
— Manna with navigable channel it: consistency with the County General
• CH 84.4. access — would have greater adverse Plan. This is a blatant internal
impacts than the proposed plan in inconsistency in the REIR.
—Cross Gap Connector will be terms of noise, traffic, air quality
constructed together with realignment and lose of a further ESHA at -The REIR is rejects this alternative
of PCH inland Rabbit Island based on the difficulty of obtaining
federal permits while it ignores the
— would require the Corps to issue same issue in its analysis of Alternative
Section 10 and 404 permits which G and the proposed projects of the
would be difficult to obtain REIR.
Alternative E —3.200 dwelling units on the Mesa This alternative assumes The analysis of this alternative correctly
and in limited pocket area(38 acres) implementation of the ATIP to states that many of the impacts from
Lowland::::::;:::::::: immediately adjacent to the Mesa and mitigate traffic impacts which are the project would occur here with equal
R�sidritlaE`i on a portion of Edwards Thumb similar in scope to the impacts from seventy.
Dowlopnt the project.
fa :Pockst> —non-navigable tidal inlet would be There is no way to judge the timing of
Area at►d<': constructed as in the case of the This alternative fulfills the wetlands restoration because no
fdwardio project objectives of the project and is projections of timing are given either for
TFwen4<<;"< similar in scope and nature to the project WRP or for the alternative.
—Would require higher densities in Lowland Option 8;however,the
CH828`>> order to yield 3,200 units without REIR implies that Koll might not
development on Lowlands areas other willingly fund the WRP under this
than the pocket and Edwards Thumb alternative.
as indicated on Figure 6-5
This alternative will require OCFCD
—Cross Gap Connector would not be to reconvey the EGGW channel
constructed but a more intense road easement.
system would be constructed on the
Mesa,into the pocket and access Development of the pocket is
would be provided into Edwards dependant upon the purchase of
Thumb portions of that property from
MWD
—Would include limited neighborhood
commercial uses Ressons for Dismissal.None given
-3-
Alternative Deacnpbon Comments on Alternative and Additional Information:Required
REIR s Reaeone or OiemiseaE
Alterrietive V! — 1,000 low density units on the Mesa The REIR states this alternative REIR notes that this alternative is not
does not provide a triable means of consistent with Coastal Act policies
Cow Dsraity . — No Cross Gap Connector wetlands expansion and favoring restoration of the wetlands but
..... tiv '><;:. restoration; however,this omits to note:
(t000 lJnitfal -- No Lowlands development alternative is not distinguishable in
that regard from Lowland Option A —Alternative G is similarly inconsistent
CH B 3 1 —No restoration or tidal inlet but with Coastal Act policies which
Lowlands are retained as open space The REIR assumes no ATIP for this discourage filling of wetlands for
alternative without explanation or residential development
justification for doing so.
—This alternative would retain the
Reasons for Dismissal— This option for future restoration by
alternative was dismissed because preserving the Lowlands as open apace
it: until a funding source for the restoration
— provides housing on the Mesa could be located
in only partial satisfaction of the •
objective of providing a mix of The REIR omits:
housing on the Mesa and the —An explanation of the project-related
Lowlands impacts which would be mitigated in
— provides no means of wetlands the wetlands under this alternative.
expansion and restoration;and
— provides no definitive plan to
bring the wetlands into public
ownership
Conclusion: Page 6-49 indicates
that this alternative assumes that
only project related impacts would
be mitigated and no requirement or
plan for wetlands restoration would
be implemented.
>`AlterniifiveG -4,288 dwelling units The environmental consequences §91 City Comment dated
are anticipated to be significantly February 17. 1994 •
HlylK?>> tidal inlet greater than for the project(s)
Dimity; ,: proposed in the REIR
fle w�idsntial___. -max density of 38 d.u./sore
..Dilrip
- wetlands restoration plan
-no cross gap connector
Kola Prsfe ed..:
PfanProposed DEIR project
>Alfemati4 W —Assumes that some development The use of the term"No Project —The REIR should explain exactly what
would proceed,but only in accordance Alternative"for this alternative is development could occur under the
Na Projtaat with existing zoning designation misleading and is not in accord existing zoning and the potential
'.Altemttt with customary CEGA practice. location of that development.
—Scope and location of the
GH'>835'::1> development permitted under this Ressone for Dismissal: This —The REIR omits conslderation of the
project is not specified alternative would fulfill none of the inconsistency of the current zoning with
project objectives the General Plan
Alternet(vs''I —No development would occur on the Reasons for Dismissal: This
site alternative would fulfill none of the
project objectives
..D v lop n nt —This alternative is commonly referred
Attamat : :::;; to as the"no project alternative" under
CEQA
-4-
Alternative:...' Deacription Comments on,Alternative and Additional Information Required
REIR'e Reasons for Dismissal• Alternative F: - 1,000 low density units on the Mesa The REIR states this alternative REIR notes that this alternative is not
does not provide a viable means of consistent with Coastal Act policies
Low Density:: —No Cross Gap Connector wetlands expansion and favoring restoration of the wetlands but
Altematiw :.: restoration; however,this omits to note:
11,00o unitl: — No Lowlands development alternative is not distinguishable in
that regard from Lowland Option A ---Alternative G is similarly inconsistent
CH 6 3;t>>:: -No restoration or tidal inlet but with Coastal Act policies which
• Lowlands are retained as open space The REIR assumes no ATIP for this discourage filling of wetlands for
alternative without explanation or residential development
justification for doing so.
--This alternative would retain the
Reasons for Dismissal— This option for future restoration by
alternative was dismissed because preserving the Lowlands as open space
it: until a funding source for the restoration
— provides housing on the Mesa could be located
_..,.: .-; in only partial satisfaction of the
... ......:: %i objective of providing a mix of The REIR omits:
housing on the Mesa and the —An explanation of the project-related
Lowlands impacts which would be mitigated in
provides no means of wetlands the wetlands under this alternative.
expansion and restoration;and
` ' ''" "``' — provides no definitive plan to
. bring the wetlands into public
ownership
Conclusion:Page 6 48 indicates
that this alternative assumes that
only project related impacts would
be mitigated and no requirement or
plan for wetlands restoration would
be implemented.
RftglfiveG< -4,288 dwelling units The environmental consequences Set City Comment dated
are anticipated to be significantly February 17, 1994
tidal inlet greater than for the project(s)
Dnsit�r proposed in the REIR
R"ld ntW -max density of 38 d.u./acre
.$V*opriar t;'
wetlands restoration plan
no cross-gap connector
lCotE Pnferrsd.
w. Plan<;; «<% Proposed DEIR project
`glteirietiVe H —Assumes that some development The use of the term"No Project —The REIR should explain exactly what
would proceed,but only in accordance Alternative"for this alternative is development could occur under the
Na:Projcf'> with existing zoning designations misleading and is not in accord existing zoning and the potential
Alf.. ... a with customary CEQA practice. locations of that development.
• —Scope and location of the
development permitted under this Reasons for Dismissal: This —The REIR omits consideration of the
................................
Project is not specified alternative would fulfill none of the inconsistency of the current zoning with
project objectives the General Plan
gjternetivel —No development would occur on the Reasons for Dismissal: This
sits alternative would fulfill none of the
Na project objectives
Developrnwnt* —This alternative is commonly referred
Ahpmt►s: to as the"no project alternative" under
CEQA
GHs 8 5 2 ?<`«'.
162-017K 023M W
-4-
16
• SIGNIFICANCE
NO
IMPACT ANALYSIS REMAINING
PROJECT � NO EFFECT MITIGATION EFFECT
DESCRIPTION � � EFFECT
EFFECT BUT NOT
SIGNIFICANT
SIGNIFICANT
REMAIlYING
• EFFECT
C.r�r C