Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - County of Orange Draft EIR for the Bolsa Ch HARRIETT M. WIEDER ��•• % SUPERVISOR. SECOND DISTRICT 'h ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 1, J 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA. P. O. BOX 687. SANTA ANA.CA LIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE (714) 834-3220 FAX (714) 634-6109 January 27, 1994 X The Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson " t«.d �rrt rm Mayor, City of Huntington Beach - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson: Thank you for your invitation to attend the City Council sponsored meeting on the Draft Bolsa Chica EIR. Unfortunately, I have a previously scheduled commitment that e o c ange on such short notice. Had I received notice or invitation earlier, I would certainly have attended, as I continue to encourage the residents of Huntington Beach to participate in the review process of this vitally important issue. i As I indicated in my letter of January 24, 1994, Tom Mathews, EMA Director of Planning, will be in attendance to explain the EIR schedule and review process to the City Council and the public. I am sure that Tom's presentation will be informative and helpful, as you receive public comments on the draft EIR. I look forward to the City's submittal of comments, as you are correct in your statement that I have worked for many years to see that an appropriate plan for restoration of the Bolsa Chica is approved and implemented. The future of this precious resource must be insured, and I will continue to work toward that goal throughout the coming months. Sincerely, V HARRIETT M. WIEDER Supervisor, Second District cc: Chairman Thomas Riley City Council Members Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Gwen Forsythe, Mayor of Seal Beach Phyllis Maywhort, President of Sunset Beach Homeowner's Association Tom Mathews, Director, Planning, Environmental Management Agency COSTA MESA•CYPRESS•GARDEN GROVE•HUNTINGTON BEACH•LOS ALAMITOS•ROSSMOOR•SANTA ANA-SEAL BEACH•STANTON SUNSET BEACH CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH > CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk n� FROM: Ralph Bauer, Councilmemberl� DATE: December 13, 1994 SUBJECT: H ITEM FOR DECEMBER 19, 1994 COUNCIL MEETING (Open Session) I should like to request appropriate staff to report on the following items, with regards to the County's plan for the Bolsa Chica EIR: 1. Impact of police service and financial implications. 2. Impact of fire prevention services and financial implications. 3. Impact and mitigation of traffic and financial implications. 4. Impact of supplying water. 5. General financial impact. 6. Nature of the developer agreement, its impact on the city, and its contrast with the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. 7. Financial nexus between Bluff development and Wetlands restoration. 8. Input on the consequences of contesting the EIR, versus not contesting the EIR presented by Irwin, Jessup, and Cohen. Request for Council to take legal action against the County of Orange due to the inadequacy of the Bolsa Chica EIR, the inadequacy of the County's responses to the Huntington Beach EIR comments, and ancillary legal matters. RB:paj xc: Mayor and City Council Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator A " mlgos P.O. Box 3748, Huntington Beach, CA 92605-3748 • (714) 897-7003 ... Bde sa h o _ r Chica ..r)T 7:O December 16, 1994 -�- Mayor Victor Leipzig Honorable City Councilmen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Dear Mayor Leipzig: The attached document is a joint effort of cooperation produced by representatives from the • Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully offering guidance from our perspective to the city council on the most equitable and impartial process to arrive at the selection of an individual to fill the council seat left open by Councilman Silva. We feel that using these guidelines will meet the needs and interests of the citizens of Huntington Beach in a spirit of cooperation and it will reflect different points of view within the city. Sincerely, Chuck Nelson President 'v( CDNam cc: Mike Uberuaga Ray Silver 1 �uir`%iil�iOAc f�eacl� Clla�r6er o/fCoirrixerce December 16, 1994 Mayor Victor Leipzig and Members of the City Council P. O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mayor Leipzig: A joint ad-hoc committee consisting of members of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors met recently to formulate a set of recommendations to the process of filling the seat that will be vacated on or about January 3, 1995 by Councilman Jim Silva. That committee respectfully submits the attached recommended procedure relevant to the posting, application and interview process for the council's consideration. If you have any questions on these or any other points in the attachment, do not hesitate to contact either of our organizations' staff. Finally, the Chamber and the Amigos agree the successful candidate for this open council position should possess certain characteristics and qualifications which are also attached. Sincerely, Robert L. Cunningham, D.D.S. Chairman R1C/js cc: Uberuaga Sliver 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714/536-8888 (FAX)7141960-7654 .«...... i+- CHARACTERISTICS/QUALIFICATIONS OF CITY COUNCIL APPOINTEE The successful candidate for the appointed position to fill the unexpired term of Councilman Jim Silva should possess: *Demonstrated abililty to work with and interact with seated council members, city staff and the general public. *Knowledge of the multiple functions of city government as it pertains to a Charter City. *A keen interest and a demonstrated involvement in community activities/city boards/ commissions. *A demonstrated understanding of the critical elements of local government economics and the relationship with private enterprise. *An ability to maintain a balanced viewpoint between community concerns and special interest groups. *Ability to commit the time requirement necessary to fulfill the varied responsibilities of a council member. *Ability to provide leadership in building an effective working relationship with various county, state and federal officials and agencies. FILLING OF VACANT CITY COUNCIL SEAT Current law provides for a ten day posting period declaring a position is vacant and indicates the method to be used to fill that vacancy. The City Charter provides that the city council has the authority to fill a vacancy by appointment within 60 days of the occurrence of that vacancy. In this case, the vacancy will occur on or about January 3, 1995. In the event that the council fails to fill the vacancy within the 60 days (on or about March 3, 1995) then the council shall call for a special election. A special election would cost the taxpayers of Huntington Beach between $125,000 - $130,000 dollars. In the event that the council should elect to hold the election for the vacancy at the next scheduled election that would not come about until June 1995. In an effort to save time and money, we hereby submit the following guidelines for consideration and incorporation into the city council's procedure for appointment to fill a vacancy. 1. The council passes a resolution declaring that a vacancy exists. 2. The announcement regarding the vacancy is posted for the prescribed period of time. 3. Procedures providing for an open application process are posted with the announcement and made available to those wishing to be considered for the vacancy: 3.1 Cover letter and application provided each applicant 3.2 City Clerk will receive any/all applications for a period of seven working days 3.3 Councilmembers will have the opportunity to review the applications (set time frame for review). 3.4 Each councilmember will then submit no more than two names from the application list to the city clerk or city administrator for the purpose of a public interview. 3.5 Each applicant will be contacted as to the date and time of their scheduled 30 minute interview. 3.6 Interview will be scheduled for a called/posted special council meeting. These interviews will be held on Saturday and will not be televised but will be open to the public who is not applying. (Applicants are prohibited from sitting in on the public interview process and are directed to appear in the designated waiting area). Failure to follow this directive may mean disqualification from the process. 3.7 Each candidate will be asked three key questions with additional follow-up questions from council members. 4.0 At the next regularly scheduled council meeting following the interviews, the following nomination process will be followed: 4,1 Any applicant receiving nomination by two or more councilmembers on any of the first three ballots will then be considered for a final ballot. 4.2 Should that final ballot end in a deadlock, two applicants as represented by the highest frequency of being named will face a run-off. 4.3 This procedure will be followed until a majority vote is obtained. If there are six council members voting, a majority shall consist of four If there are five voting, a majority shall consist of three APPLICATION PROCESS The joint committee's recommendations to the city council as to filling of the current council vacancy suggest that, in addition to the standard application, all'potential candidates complete a supplemental application in response to four(4) questions of the nature listed below. The response to each question should be limited to 100 words. Each applicant will attest that all questions were answered without assistance. SUGGESTED SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS: *What do you perceive as being the primary role of a council member in a Charter city such as Huntington Beach. * What do you see as an acceptable balance between city growth and the business/ environmental community? * What approaches would you propose to "streamline and rightsize" city government in order to maximize efficiency while maintaining fiscal integrity? * List your top priorities for city/council attention for the coming year and what might be your two year plan. KOLL BOLSA CHICA Fax:714-379-6484 Dec 18 '94 2:09 P. 02i05 S TANLEY R.HOFFMAN Planning and Development Services • s 3 0 C I A r E s 11661 San vicente Boulevard,Suite 505 Loa Angeles.California 90049 Phone(310)820.2660•FAX(310)820-8341 Hayward.CA(510)$37-4595 .Newport Beach,CA(714)7'S2-6741 MEMORANDUM r O s �• Z DATE: October 27, 1994 M TO: Ed Mountford . �. - .7,V)m Koll Real Estate Group " 11 m FROM: Stan Hoffman, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates T SUBJECT: Bolsa Chica: Review of Updated City Fiscal Impact Analysis This memorandum provides a review of the fiscal impacts of Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach under three scenarios. Analysis is made based on review of the report, Fiscal Impacts of Bolsa Chica Revised Environmental Impact Report on Huntington Beach, September 30, 1994 by Public Economics, Inc. The three scenarios analyzed include the following; • Scenario 1 - Assumes annexation of the Bolsa Chica property to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development. • Scenario 2 - Assumes annexation of the Bolsa Chica property after entitlement approvals by the County and during the mid-point of construction activities. • Scenario 3 - Assumes that no annexation to the City occurs and all development remains under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The focus of this review is on the fiscal impacts to the City of Huntington Beach under Scenario 3 which assumes no annexation into the City and development remaining under the County jurisdiction. In summary, the PEI analysis appears to be very one-sided and uses cost parameters that reflect inflated cost impacts. As shown in Table 1 using more reasonable cost reduction assumptions, the estimated costs incurred by the City could be covered by the estimated revenues made by PEI of $486.0 thousand. Also, the study provides no indication of any positive aspects of Bolsa Chica, e.g., the significant savings from not having to build two new fire stations. Finally, the report provides no insight on the cost impacts the current residents of the City will have on Bolsa Chica or the wetlands. i KOLL BOLSA CHICA Fax:714-379-6484 Dec 18 '94 2:09 P. 03/05 . Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Ed Mountford Review of Updated PEI Analysis October 27, 1994 page 2 Fire Protection. The PEI report identifies the need for two additional City fire stations in order to provide adequate fire protection services if no automatic aid agreement between the City and County can be reached. Assuming an automatic aid agreement were in place between the City and County for the County maintained fire station proposed for Bolsa Chica, not only is there no fiscal impact on the City of Huntington Beach, but, in fact, there is a sianificaal savings because the City could be adequately served by the County fire station. This is a savings of$4.4 million annually to the City as identified in the PEI report and should be indicated as a credit to the Bolsa Chica project. Police Protection. The County Sheriff has reviewed the development plan and has estimated the number of patrol officers needed to adequately serve the Bolsa Chica development without backup from the City of Huntington Beach. As such, the County sheriff would be available to serve as backup for the City of Huntington Beach, and vice versa, so that no additional police from Huntington Beach should be needed. Public Works. • For local parks there is no discussion of actual park utilization statistics. What about Huntington Beach use of Bolsa Chica parks? What about the use of the wetlands resources by Huntington Beach residents? There appears to be no nexus between roads maintenance and the residents of Bolsa Chica. Many Bolsa Chica residents are likely to use PCH, Beach Boulevard and other State Highways that are not maintained by the City. Also no discussion is included regarding the use of Bolsa Chica circulation improvements by City residents. • For their other two scenarios, that assume annexation into the City, there is no discussion of private maintenance of local roads and local parks, therefore no cost impacts to the City would be incurred. Qommunb Services, Per capita costs mentioned in the PEI report do not reflect the true cost per resident because of the large tourist/visitor population in Huntington Beach. Per capita multipliers are probably overstated. How does the City account for the costs incurred.by residents of other local surrounding cities and communities? There is no analysis of cross-utilization of Bolsa Chica resources and wetlands by the City residents. Library Service, As of October 1, 1994, the Huntington Beach Public Library levies an annual fee of$20 per non-resident who wishes to have a library card. Since this fee more than offsets the per capita library cost of $17.27, any reference to library revenues and costs presented in the PEI report should be deleted. No analysis is presented as to the library locations and utilization patterns of the residents. What percentage of the City residents use County libraries such as the Mary Wilson Branch located in Seal Beach. KOLL BOLSR CHICR Fax:714-379-6484 Dec. 18 '94 2:10 P.04i05 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates Ed Mountford Review of Updated PEI Analysis October 27, 1994 page 3 Fixed Asset Re laeea ent. No nexus analysis has been prepared and there is no cross- utilization of assets between the improvements provided by Bolsa Chica and the residents of the City of Huntington Beach. It appears that the methodology developed is applied only for Bolsa Chica and has not been applied to other projects in Huntington Beach before Bolsa Chica. There are no current city policies that address costs for fixed asset replacement. Also, PEI's estimate represents relatively high costs calculated as a percentage of direct expenditures, approximately 19.0 percent. There is no discussion of costs incurred by outside residents—what is the true cost of a visitor versus their benefit—for example in terms of retail sales, jobs, and the like. General Government andNon-Departmental Costs, It is very unlikely that a development outside the City of this caliber will generate significant general government overhead and non-departmental costs. For purposes of this analysis, we are assuming a 50.0 percent marginal rate applied to their average overhead factor of 9.0 percent. Additional Considerations. While we have not scrutinized the revenues in as much detail as the costs, one issue that is likely to be raised upon annexation proceedings is the property tax transfer to the City. This percentage is likely to be so small as to make annexation fiscally infeasible for the City. s r i i KOLL BOLSA CHICA Fax:714-379-6484 Dec 18 '94 2:10 P.05i05 TABLE 1 BOl_SA CHICA ESTIMATED ADJUSTMENTS TO PEI SCENARIO 3 ANALYSIS PEI Estimated Reduction Revised Cost Category Amount Rate Amount Police' $294,000 100.0% $0 Public works administration 52,000 60.0% 26,000 Local parks maintenance 47,000 50.0% 23,500 Offsite street maintenance 134,000 50.0% 67,000 Community services 187,000 50.0% 93,500 Fixed asset replacement 204,000 75.0% 51,000 Libra y2 105,000 100.0% Q Total $1,023,000 $261,000 . General Government Costs @ 4.5 percent' $11,745 Total Costs $272,745 PEI Es 'maled Revenues $486,000 Net Fiscal Benefit $213,255 Notes: 1. No police costs are assumed because of adequate protection { provided by the County Sheriff 2. Newly enacted non-resident library fee set to cover costs 3. General government estimated at a marginal rate of 4.5 percent Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Public Economics Inc. t ilk' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • j CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HlN"NGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Councilmember �� P DATE: December 22, 1994 SUBJECT: H ITEM I would like the following items agendized under my name for the January 3, 1994, Council meeting: 1. The three items from the last agenda concerning the Orange County bankruptcy A. Financial consultant B. A balanced budget C. Status report on money coming from County 2. Status report on negotiations with the Koll Company and the County with reference to: A. Mitigating financial impact of the project. B. Embodying the 17 principles outlined by the Council in a binding agreement. Particular emphasis should be placed on police, fire, traffic, and water services. C. Identifying those land use planning elements described in the legal settlement between the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and Signal Landmark(Koll). D. The developer agreement. 3. Since the EIR for the Bolsa Chica deals extensively with the financial impact on the City of Huntington Beach, it is critically important that the Council exercise whatever remedy is necessary to mitigate this impact. For this reason I hereby request that the City Council instruct the City Attorney to begin legal action against the County of Orange prior to the expiration of the 30 day EIR review period due to the insufficiency of the EIR in addressing financial impacts on the city. Utilizing the City Attorney will not add any unbudgeted expense. � C %4"ie C1l'Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH RECEIVED FROM ` u.,�s�izT2 AND MADE A PART O HE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING 0F_/-3 -�js OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BRO&WAY,CITY CLERK TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administra or 7 SUBJECT: COUNTY OF ORANGE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR BOLSA CHICA LCP AND CITY'S PRINCIPLES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF BOLSA CHICA DATE: January 3, 1995 Attached are the 76 final conditions of approval for the Bolsa Chica Project proposed by the Koll Company that were adopted by the Board of Supervisors when the El#- was certified and the LCP adopted. Please note condition #76 in which the County staff is directed to meet with the City of Huntington Beach to work out an agreement which would address fiscal impacts upon the City. Staff is now in the process of meeting with the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency staff to address condition #76. I have also attached the November, 1994 correspondence to the County of Orange Board of Supervisors which contains the 17 principles which were adopted by the City Council to address their concerns and issues relating to the development of Bolsa Chica. If you should have any questions or comments, please contact Ray Silver or myself. MTU:RS:sar Attachments g:silver:bolsch.doc /` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES December�1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94-1340 AND 94-1341 -- PUBLIC HEARING -- BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE 93005 COMMUNITY PROFILE AMENDMENT 1994-2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 94-1 . AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 551 (District 2): Environmental Management Agency (EMA) requests and the Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, General Plan Amendment including Land Use Element Amendment 1994-1, Transportation Element Amendment 1994-4, Resources Element Amendment 1994-1, Recreation Element Amendment 1994-3, Zone Change 93005, Community Profile Amendment 1994-2, and certification of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 551 . EMA requests that the Board consider the application for a Development Agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct the public hearing. 2. Adopt submitted Draft California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution certifying Revised Draft EIR 551. 3. Adopt submitted Draft Resolution approving Land Use Element Amendment 1994-1, Transportation Element Amendment 1994-4, Resources Element Amendment 1994-1, Recreation Element Amendment 1994-3, Zone Change 93005, and Community Profile Amendment 1994-2. 4. Direct EMA to distribute draft Bolsa Chica Development Agreement for public review and consideration by the Planning Commission prior to return of the document to the Board for a public hearing on February 7, 1995. ACTION: Resolution Nos. 94-1340 and 94-1341 MOTION: On motion by Supervisor Wieder, seconded by Supervisor Riley the Board approved the recommended actions and added the following: 1. Continue communications with the Huntington Beach City School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District. 2. Refer all future items related to the Bolsa Chica LCP to the Department of Interior, prior to any action being taken by the Board, for Department of Interior determination if any pending Board action would preclude the purchase of the property by the Department of Interior. 3. Prior to or concurrent with any Board action on a development agreement or final action on the LCP for the project, a comprehensive plan addressing Sheriff/Police, fire protection and other necessary services shall be provided to the Board. Said plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and provide specific recommendations and timetables to ensure the funding of services for the project. It is the policy of the Board that the costs of County and city services and facilities necessary to serve the development shall not be borne by existing residents. The comprehensive plan and recommended mitigation measures to be presented to the Board shall be consistent with this policy directive. 4. Direct County Administrative Office (CAO) to review current fiscal impact report process and methodology to determine if any modifications are necessary to more accurately assess the economic impact of new development on county funds and report back to the Board in six months. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. s. 1 BOLSA CHICA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STANDARD CONDITIONS BASIC 1. Failure to abide by and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this approving action shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said action by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. INDEMNIFICATION 2. Applicant shall defend at his/her sole expense any action brought against the County because of adoption of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program including General Plan Amendment GP93002, Community Profile Amendment CPA 94-2, Zone Change ZC93005, Final EIR 551 and all supporting documents by the Board of Supervisors. Applicant will reimburse the County for any court costs and attorney's fees which the County may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. County may, at ins sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve landowner of his/her obligations under this condition. LIGHT AND GLARE 3. Prior to issuance of any building permits within tracts abutting wetlands, environmental sensitive habitats or open space buffer areas, the applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designed and located so that all direct rays are confined to the property in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. NOISE 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Building Permits that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers (PDF-1) ; b. All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control) (SC-1) ; C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from residential dwellings. d. All construction shall comply with Title 24 Field and Sound Transmission Class (FSTC) and Field Impact Insulation Class (FIIC) standards. (SC-2) -1- SPECIAL CONDITIONS ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT S. An Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) shall be prepared and submitted each year by the landowner to the County Administrative Office, Policy Research and Planning, and the Environmental Management Agency/Advance Planning Division. The submittal of an AMR for the planned community is required for conformance with :the Growth Management Program of the Land Use Element of the Orange County General Plan and the County's annual Development Monitoring Program (DMP) . The Board of Supervisors, in the annual adoption of the Development Monitoring Program, may identify a significant imbalance between proposed development and planned infrastructure or in the proportionate development of residential, commercial, and employment land uses. The Board of Supervisors may then defer subdivision approval within the Planned Community until approaches capable of resolving imbalances are proposed and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The AMR will be the landowner' s opportunity to demonstrate mitigation measures and implementation strategies which shall ensure adequate infrastructure%for the Planned Community. 6. Prior to submission of a petition or a resolution of application for annexation of the subject property to a city, or prior to consent by the landowner to annexation by a city, the landowner shall obtain the approval from Director, EMA of a revised Fiscal Impact Report to assess the cost-revenue impact of such annexation on the County and the special districts serving the property to be annexed with adequate provision made to mitigate any negative impact to the General eland that has occurred during buildout of the project. 7. Prior to the recordation of any final tract map (except for financing purposes) , CCRs or other methods, including the establishment of a property owners association or other entity which will guarantee the provision at no cost to the County of any extended services and any private services required, shall be submitted to and approved by the Director, EMA and County Counsel, and shall then be recorded prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy. _8.. Prior to the issuance of each building permit. for Mesa construction, the ;> applicant shall pay a fee of $2,800 per dwelling unit. These fees will be .. + deposited into a "Mesa Conservation Fund established by the County. The funds will be used for construction, restoration, operations and maintenance of Wetland Restoration Area IC and/or other areas within the Recreation/Open Space or Wetlands Restoration Program. All funds collected'.'-',, . Mesa Conservation Fund may be credited toward a $7 million. applicant.: .`::,_�:: obligation referenced under Table D-I in. a proposed Development Agreement if said Agreement is executed by the Board of Supervisors. The fee of $2,800 per dwelling unit shall be subject to an annual inflationary factor -2- as described in the Southern California Real Estate Research Council Construction Cost Index. Adjustments to the fees should occur on January 1 of every year based on the previous four quarters, inflation. 9. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit (except for seismic testing) or building permit in the Bolsa Chica lowland the applicant will establish a financing mechanism, with the exception of a public financing district, for the purpose of funding the construction, restoration, operation and ' maintenance of all wetlands, ESHAs, buffers, a non-navigable tidal inlet and a kayak/canoe facility or other wetland restoration facilities identified in the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. Evidence shall be provided to the Director, EMA, that such a mechanism has been established. GRADING/GEOLOGY/SOILS 10. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the developer shall submit a soils engineering and geologic study to the Manager, EMA Development Services Division, for approval. The report shall include the information and be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual. At the discretion of the Manager, EMA Development Services Division the report may require review by the Grading Technical Advisory Boari� (appointed by the Board of Supervisors) . This report shall include assessment of potential soil-related constraints and hazards such as slope instability, settlement, seismic shaking, liquefaction, landslides, compressible materials, rippability related secondary seismic impacts or any other areas of inquiry determined to be appropriate by the Manager, EMA Development Services Division. The report also shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil, recommended construction procedures, and shall evaluate design criteria for a 9-million gallon reservoir, sewage and utility lines proximate to or crossing over identified fault lines. For Lowland residential grading permits only, the report shall also include design criteria for deep dynamic compaction and groundwater drainage cutoff wall associated with such lowland development. The report shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of the Alquist-Priolo Act and shall denote precise boundaries for Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone for the exclusion of habitable structures. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES _ 11.E Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or introduction of tidal ; influence, an applicable Remedial Action Plan (RAP) shall be provided by the;applicant subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA Environmental Re sources Division for cleanup of contamination that is found to exist on =µ -. "the' site. The need for redemption of any existing conditions shall be based on a Health Risk Assessment (for the areas proposed for wetlands restoration) . T2ie= Remedial Action Plan shall a. identify all those physical, chemical and/or electronic means of searching for contamination; -3- • 7 b. identify all those physical and chemical means of testing individual soil samples for hazardous waste or materials present in the soil arising from past land uses; C. identify the methodology by which soil samples representative of an area of potential contamination were selected; and d. provide that all soil contaminated by past oil field operations or by waste dumping that meet hazardous materials criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported and disposed of or treated in accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 22 and in a manner satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. Storage, transportation and disposal records shall be kept on-site and shall be open for inspection to any government agency upon request. 12. Prior to the recordation of any final parcel/tract map or issuance of any grading or building permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide, in accordance with criteria supplied by EMA, a Hazardous Materials Assessment and Disclosure Statement covering the property (both fee and easement) which will offered for dedication or dedicated to the County of Orange. This document shall be offered to the County of Orange for review and approval by the Manager, Development Services in consultation with the Manager, Environmental Resources. 13. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall provide to the Manager, EMA Environmental Resources Division, in coordination with oil field operators, any necessary amendment to the oil Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (OSPCCP) and Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) enacted between the oil field operators and appropriate state agencies to prevent the oil spill and ensure the compatibility between oilfield and proposed residential, wetlands and other developments. 14. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowland, the applicant shall provide a plan for the installation of berms and dikes around the tidally or flood influenced areas subject to the approval of Manager, EMA Flood program Planning Division to prevent potential Oil Spill to wetlands and lowland development. 15 All on-site generated waste that meets hazardous waste criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported and disposed of in accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 22 and in a manner to the satisfaction of>'the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program Division. Storage, transportation and disposal records shall be kept on site and open for "inspection to any government agency upon request. A 16 Prior to the issuance of any Coastal Development permit or recordation of ;_,:;any,- tract/parcel map for residential units, whichever occurs first, the Mom, ;Y applicant shall provide evidence to the Manager, EMA Development Services in"consultation with the Manager, EMA Environmental Resources Division that -4- all proposed residential units are set back at least fifty (50) feet from operating wells, ten (10) feet from abandoned oil wells and twenty (20) feet from any underground pressurized gas line. 17. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, a Grading Mitigation Plan shall be provided by the applicant to the Manager, EMA Development Services Division. The Grading Mitigation Plan shall include the locations of all active, inactive, and abandoned oil wells and pipelines within the area of proposed grading, along with measures to be taken to protect these facilities from disturbance during grading and site development activities. Active oil facilities shall be protected by fences and/or appropriate berm during grading and site development activities; inactive or abandoned pipelines shall be removed prior to grading and site development activities; and abandoned oil wells shall be relocated and tested for release of gases or re-abandoned in accordance with current California Department of Oil and Gas (CDOG) regulations. The grading mitigation plan shall include the location of any known soil contamination within the area. If contaminated soil is to be or likely to be disturbed during the grading or site development activities, the Grading Mitigation Plan shall include a plan for remediation of the contaminated soil. The Grading Mitigation Plan shall 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 soil contamination. 18. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any tract/parcel map whichever occurs first, the applicant shall provide evidence subject to the approval of Manager, EMA Development Services Division that the pressurized gas line shall be relocated so that: (1) it does not cross the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone in a residential planning area; and (2) automatic shut-off valves shall be installed which activate in the event of severe seismic movement. SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY 19. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowlands, the applicant shall consult with Manager, EMA Flood Program Division or his designee to ensure that no grading activities in the lowlands will take place before the completion of the appropriate Santa Ana River Mainstem project phases to remove the project area from the Santa Ana River floodplain without providing appropriate mitigation subject to the approval of the Manager, EMA. Development Services in consultation with the Manager, EMA Flood Program. (PDF-1) i20 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowlands, if the Santa . Ana River floodplain within the project limits is not removed as a .::consequence of the County/Federal Government funded Santa Ana River Project (SARP). at the time of grading for proposed buildings, structures, and t residential developments within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, appropriate mitigation measures, including the filing of FEMA Elevation Certificate, shall be provided by the applicant for each building site, -5- residence, or structure demonstrating that as-built lowest floor elevations are at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, L7A Development Services. (Mitigation 4.4-8) To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures shall be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under CEQA. AS appropriate, proposed buildings, structures, and residential development shall also be mitigated from flooding from any known residual floodplain (i.e. , other than the Santa Ana River) in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA-Development Services or the appropriate official from the applicable local jurisdiction, before any grading permits are issued for proposed buildings, structures, and residences within areas delineated as residual floodplains. If residual floodplains continue to remain on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) after the Santa Ana River Floodplain is removed, an Elevation Certificate demonstrating that as-built lowest floors are at least 1 foot above the 100-year elevation of the residual floodplain shall be submitted, or, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA revising the FIRM shall be obtained, as appropriate, prior to the issuance of any building permit, in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA-DevelcDment Services. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be received by the applicant/developer from FEMA, in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA-Development Services or of the aDoroDriate official from the applicable local jurisdiction, prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for any buildings, structures, and residences within floodplains. To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental focused environmental review. (Mitigation 4 .4-8) 21. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for residential units for lowland parcels in Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP Planning Areas 10 and 11, the applicant shall design and construct the EGGW Channel within the Project Area to Graham Avenue Bridge including the removal and reconstruction of tidegates in accordance with OCFCD's criteria and standards to be capable of conveying EMA approved 100-year discharges in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA-Development Services. 22. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for residential units for lowland areas in Bolsa Chica LCP/LUP Planning Area 9, the developer/ applicant shall obtain an Elevation Certificate demonstrating that building site pads are at least one foot above any residual floodplain from the EGGW Channel all in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, EMA Development Services. 23. Prior to issuance of any grading permit within any tidally or flood influenced area, the applicant shall provide an evaluation to the Manager, EMA Flood Program on the potential occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of shallow groundwater recharge to adjacent residential area caused by the -6- 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 drains, or French Drains with dewatering wells. (Mitigation 4.4-1) 24. Prior to issuance of any grading permit in full or muted Wetland Restoration Planning areas adjacent to Bolsa Chica Mesa or EGGW Flood Control Channel, the applicant shall provide to the approval of Manager, EMA Development Services a detailed geotechnical study that evaluates the impact of saltwater intrusion into the upper Pleistocene Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provides recommendations to prevent the degradation of groundwater due to tidal inundation if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the Bolsa Pocket. The report shall include, but not be limited to, impermeable soil caps and subsurface barriers. (Mitigation 4.4-2) 25. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowland adjacent to existing residences, the applicant shall provide a detailed geotechnical study to 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 and provide appropriate mitigation measures to assure that no significant adverse impacts will result from changes in groundwater level in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, ESA Development Services Division. Such an investigation shall include but not be limited to the installation of monitoring wells and the performance of pump test for data collection with the following potential mitigation measures: subsurface cutoff wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. (Mitigation 4.4-3) 26. Prior to issuance of grading permits for any lowland residential development that impact the Bolsa Chica pump station, the applicant shall provide a design and construction schedule by a licensed civil engineer to reroute the Bolsa Chica sumo station discharge water without diSruDtion in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA Development Services. (Mitigation 4.4-4) WATER QUALITY 27. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in lowlands, the applicant shall provide a program of maintenance dredging near the mouth of the EGGW Channel to remove sediment, .resulting fro,*-rban.runoff, that may contain unacceptable concentrations of pollutants in a manner meeting the approval of Manager, EMA Flood Program. (PDF-4) 28. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowlands the applicant shall prepare to the satisfaction of Manager, EMA Environmental Resources Division, appropriate measures including but not limited to the use of turbidity barriers, silt curtains or an equivalent measure to contain turbidity in localized areas to be incorporated by the applicant during dredging or wetland restoration activities. (PDF-5) -7- 29. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit the project applicant shall obtain a State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit from the State Water Resources Board and provide evidence to this effect to the Manager, EMA Development Services Division. As part of this permit, the applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) , which shall establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for: proper storage, handling, use, and disposal of fuels and other toxic materials; establishing fuel and maintenance areas away from drainage ways; and erosion, sediment and construction site chemical contracts, including those measures recommended by EMA document "Evidence Specifying Management Measures for Services of Non-paint Pollution in Coastal Waters" (1993) (SC-1) 30. Prior to the recordation of any final parcel/tract map or issuance of any grading or building permit (including permits for tract improvements) . whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Manager, EMA Development Services Division for approval in consultation with the Manager, EMA Environmental Resources. The WQMP may include the use of trash racks and grease and oil separators or measures equivalent in pollutant removal effectiveness to improve the quality of urban runoff, and other BMPs to improve the quality of runoff from the development. Since pollutant removal effectiveness is the basis for BMP incorporation, no storm drain from the project shall discharge into any portion of Bolsa Bay, the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel, or the restored wetlands without full BMP incorporation on that drain. Subsequent, site specific WQMPs may be required as further land use and/or development details become known. 31. Prior to issuance of any well permit from Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) , the project applicant shall prepare a workplan for well installation and operations which includes well construction details and pumping schedules in a manner meeting the approval of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQC3) , the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and OCHCA. (SC-4) 32. Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or 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-site areas that drain onto and/or through the subdivision, and justification of any diversions; and o When applicable, a drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns will not overload existing storm drains; and • Detailed drainage studies indicating how the tract map grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems, including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood -8- water retarding, will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms to up and including the theoretical 100-year flood. 33. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by Manager, EMA Development Services an erosion control plan which shall include, but not be limited to: • The name and 24-hour telephone number of the person responsible for performing emergency erosion control work. ° The signature of the civil engineer or other qualified individual who prepared the grading plan and who is responsible for inspection and monitoring of the erosion control work. ° All desiltina and erosion protection facilities necessary to protect adjacent property from sediment deposition. • The streets and drainage devices that will be completed and paved by October 15 of each year. Q. • 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 cravelbags are encouraged over sandbags. ° The plan shall indicate how access will be provided to maintain desilting facilities during wet weather. (SC-5) COASTAL RESOURCES 34. Prior to the recordation of any tract map for lowland residential units or this issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 10 and 11 of the Bolsa Chica LCP Land Use Plan, the applicant shall implement construction of or bond, consistent with financing mechanisms required under Condition No. 9, for full improvements of the Bolsa Chica LCP Wetland Restoration Program including construction, restoration, operation and maintenance of all wetlands, ESHAs, buffers, non-navigable tidal inlet and kayak/canoe facility identified in the Bolsa Chica LCP in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, EMA in consultation with the Directors EMA Planning, EMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks, EMA Regulations and EMA Public Works. 35. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowland, the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions regarding a non-navigable ocean inlet facility subject to the approval of Manager, EMA Development Services Division in consultation with Manager, ERA Flood Program Planning Division: a. Demonstrate that the tidal inlet will in addition to serving as a source of ocean water for the Wetland Restoration Program, be capable of conveying the EMA approved 100-year discharge from EGGW Channel to the ocean. -9- b. Prepare Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for sand management within the Wetland Restoration Plan area, at the inlet and adjacent beach area with appropriate cost analyses. C. Provide a secured annuity or other financial assurance that guarantees that increased costs will not accrue to Orange County Flood Control District or the County of Orange as a consequence of the ocean outlet. d. Revetments shall be provided by the applicant for an appropriate distance north and south of the tidal inlet to protect Pacific Coast Highway and existing Bolsa Chica State Beach parking areas. e. Provide any other study, design documentation, engineering analysis or calculation, hydrologic evaluation or project assurance deemed appropriate by the Manager, EMA Development Services regarding a tidal inlet or supporting or affected facilities. MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY 36. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in lowland, the applicant shall submit a Wetlands Restoration Plan (WRP) for the approval of Manager, EMA i Environmental Planning Division in consultation with Manager, EMA Project Planning Division and Manager, EMA Coastal Facilities. The WRP shall contain a Conservation Monitoring and Maintenance Plan consisting of three separate plans; Construction Monitoring and Maintenance, Post Five Year Monitoring and Maintenance; and a Long Term Monitoring Plan. The Conservation Monitoring and Maintenance Plans shall contain Water Quality Performance Standards and Safeguards, ensure protection of the habitats during construction, monitor each phase for S years post construction and correct any deficiencies in the habitat, and finally, monitor the restored habitats for the long term. The Conservation Monitoring and Maintenance Plan shall also incorporate a program of systematic debris removal maintenance for the restored wetlands. (PDF-6) TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY 37. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit in the lowland, the project applicant shall provide financial security for the approval of Manager, EMA Environmental Planning Division in consultation with Manager, EMA Project Planning and Manager, EMA Coastal Facilities to ensure that the approved Wetlands Restoration Plan be fully implemented to satisfy, but not limited to Construction Monitoring & Maintenance as described in the WRP, and Five-Year Post-Construction Monitoring and Maintenance, Long-Tenn Monitoring and Maintenance, 20 acres of native woodland habitat, in the Harriett Wieder Regional Park, a plan to control the presence of invasive and/or feral pets into wildlife areas, retention of a minimum of 200 acres of pickleweed onsite during all construction and restoration phases, and all other terrestrial provision of the Bolsa Chica LCP Wetland Restoration Program. -10- 38. Prior the the issuance of any grading permit in the lowland, the applicant shall prepare and implement as appropriate a program for approval of Manager, EMA Environmental Planning Division in consultation the Manager, EMA Project Planning and Manager, EMA Coastal Facilities as well as the California Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. (Mitigation Measure 4.8-1) 39. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall consult with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and prepare a relocation program for any raptors found to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species, to the approval of Manager Environmental Planning in consultation with Manager of Project Planning and Manager, HBP Program Planning Division. (Mitigation Measure 4.8-2) 40. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide a management plan consistent with the LCP to specify how public visitation of the natural areas will be controlled or managed to the approval of Manager, 'HBP program Planning. The plan shall include, at minimum: • methods for public education on sensitive habitatssiand plants, • identification of the group or agency which will enforce access restrictions and the restrictions to be employed in the various habitats, and • restriction of access from community trail users during the nesting season of Federal and State listed Endangered and Threatened bird species (i.e. , March 15 to August 15) . (Mitigation Measure 4.8-3) 41. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide to Manager, Environmental Planning in consultation with Manager, Coastal Resources Wildlife a management plan to specify how wildlife habitats shall be maintained and managed over the long term. This plan shall include, at a minimum: methods for ongoing weed eradication, methods for public education, including information regarding invasive and exotic plants that homeowners could avoid planting in their yards and provisions for rice straw or equivalent weed-free straw bales used during erosion control to prevent additional introduction of exotic species into native habitats. (Mitigation Measure 4 .8-4) TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 42. Prior to filing of the first tentative map for this development except for financing and conveyance purposes, the applicant shall prepare an Area Traffic Improvement Plan (ATIP) Action Plan for the entire development for approval by the Director, EMA Transportation. Said plan shall be approved by the Director, EMA Transportation prior to the recordation of first tentative map. -Said Action Plan shall include the following: -11- a) Roadway Capacity improvements including full construction component and fair share construction component as identified in the project traffic study of August 12, 1994 by RKJK & Associates unless otherwise specified in a Board of Supervisors adopted Development Agreement for this project. b) Right-of-way acquisition method to facilitate roadway improvements. c) Cost estimate and financial responsibility and obligation for said improvements. d) ATIP Action Plan project management, phasing and implementation strategy and obligation for both fair share and full construction improvements. e) Define circulation phasing and implementation associated with Mesa and Lowland development. f) Other data deemed necessary by the Director, EMA Transportation. 43. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each phase of project development as identified in Table D-3 Supplement to the Robert Khan, John Kain and Associates (R.-W-K) traffic study of August 12, 1994, unless otherwise specified in a Board of Supervisors adopted Development Agreement, the following provisions shall be met: a) Award of construction contract for all on-site circulation improvements identified in the subject R_s4TK & Associates traffic study phasing plan. 44. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for each phase of project development as identified in the RKJK traffic study of August 12, 1994, unless otherwise specified in a Board of Supervisors adopted Development Agreement, the following shall be performed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, EMA Transportation: a) Eighteen months prior to issuance of any building permit for each phase of development, the applicant shall submit to the county all rights-of- way documents necessary to facilitate rights-of-way acquisition and construction of improvements for which the project has a full construc- tion responsibility. These shall include rights-of-way maps, legal description, deeds and title reports. The County will undertake the acquisition of all rights-of-way. Within 60 days of a written request by the County EMA, the applicant shall deposit with the County cash to reimburse the County for the cost incurred for the right-of-way acquisition including the purchase of said right-of-way. b) Applicant shall prepare cost estimate and award construction contracts for said improvements identified above, unless the County agrees to undertake the design and/or construction of said improvements. Should the County take the. lead in the design and construction of these -12- improvements, the applicant shall deposit cash with the County for the cost it will incur to implement said improvement within 60 days of written notification by the County EMA. c) The County shall reserve the right, in consultation with the applicant, to require modification of the Development Phasing Plan to advance circulation improvements from one phase to another should the County determine that any improvement identified in said Development Phasing Plan cannot be feasibly implemented as required by the Plan. This provision shall apply to circulation improvements for which the applicant has full construction responsibility. d) The applicant's obligation to full construction improvement are located at: Bolsa Chica/warner; Bolsa Chica/Edinger; Golden West/Slater; Bolsa Chica/I-405 and SR-22 Interchange; Bolsa Chica/Westminster; Warner/I-405 Interchange; Warner/Huntington Harbour Connection to Los Patos; Warner/Graham; Edward/Talbert; Golden West/Edinger; PCH/Warner; PCH adjacent to project half section improvement; Bolsa Chica/ Garden Grove Boulevard through I-405 and SR-22 Intercha.^ges, including roadway widening to 200 feet south of eastbound I-405 off-ramp and are fully described in RKJK traffic study of August 12, 1994. 45. Prior to issuance of any building permit for any development for this project, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County of Orange to fund the improvements at the following intersection on a fair share basis in accordance with the findings, phasing and assumptions of the P-KJK traffic study of August 12, 1994 unless otherwise specified by a Board of Supervisors adopted Development Agreement: Intersections Jurisdiction PCH - Warner to L.A. County line Seal Beach Beach/Warner Huntington Beach Magnolia/warner Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley PCH - Golden West to Warner Huntington Beach Beach Blvd./Slater Huntington Beach Hover/Bolsa Ave. Westminster Gothard/McFadden Huntington Beach/Westminster Newland/Warner Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Magnolia/Slater Fountain Valley Springdale/Westminster Westminster Golden West/Slater Huntington Beach Golden West/Garfield Huntington Beach Golden West/Yorktown Huntington Beach Gothard/Warner Huntington Beach PCH/Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach Bushard/Slater Fountain Valley a) The County shall reserve the right, in consultation with the affected jurisdiction and the applicant, to propose and implement substitute circulation improvements for any intersection improvement listed in this fair share category, should the County determine that said -13- --a y improvements is not feasible or practical at the time, it is identified for implementation pursuant to the development phasing schedule as identified in the RKJK traffic study of August 12, 1994 unless otherwise specified in a Board of Supervisors adopted. The applicant's financial obligation to said improvement shall be the same as for the initial improvement. MASTER PLAN OF COUNTY BIKEWAYS 46. Prior to the recordation of the applicable final map, the applicant shall implement all bike routes on the site consistent with the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) . These include: Route No. 25 (a Class I trail along Pacific Coast Highway) and Route No. 30 (a Class I bike trail along EGGW Channel) and Route 105 (a Class I trail across Bolsa gap) linking Route Nos. 30 and 34 to the County or it's designee, in a form approved by the Director, EMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks and County Counsel. Improve- ments shall include design, grading, trail construction, fencing, signing, striping, erosion control, etc. , in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, EMA Harbors, Beaches and Parks. AIR QUALITY - SPECIAL 47. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall ensure compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 402, which requires that there be no dust impacts off-site sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD 403, which restrict visible emissions from construction to the Manager, Development Services Division, and shall list all such measures on each grading plan under the General Notes Section. The dust control measures shall include but not limited to the following: • spread soil binders on the site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; (PDF-1) • water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; (PDF-1) • re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering, except in wetlands restoration areas; (PDF-1) • phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time; (PDF-1) • schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exuosed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods; (PDF-1) • dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices; (PDF-1) • restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during construction in coordination with local public agencies; (PDF-1) -14- j • sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; (PDF-1) o suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; o wash off trucks leaving site; (PDF-1) • maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and (PDF-1) • cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. (PDF-1) • water trucks will be on-site at all times during grading operations and will regularly water the site to keep the soil moist and prevent fugitive dust. (Mitigation 4.10-1) The emission control measures shall include but not limited to the following: • 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 applicable, methanol- and propane-powered equipment for diesel-powered equipment where feasible; o where applicable, equipment will not be left idling 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) . (Mitigation 4.10-1) 48. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall ensure compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to the Manager, Development Services Division by demonstrating the evidence of satisfying measures including but not limited to: ° include pedestrian pathways, bus stops and bikeways into the project to encourage alternate forms of transportation; (PDF-3) • include measures to improve traffic flow, specifically the Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) and lane and intersection improvements; (PDF-3) -15- • use emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement to reduce quantities of VOC emissions. (Mitigation Measure 4.10-3a and b) • use high-volume, low-pressure or manual application of paints and coatings on structures. Where applicable, use pre-finished or pre-primed and sanded wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard. Additionally, where applicable, use non-polluting powder-coasted metal products. (Mitigation Measure 4.10-4a and b) • assist the County in implementing Transportation Demand Management measures related to the Proposed Project (ref: "A Reference Guide to Transportation Demand Management") published by SLAG. Such measures shall include coordinating transit stops, shuttle stops, bus shelters and turnouts, and bicycle/transit interface. (Mitigation Measure 4.10-5a and b) • mitigation for secondary source emissions (i.e. , emissions associated with stationary sources within the development) through the measures listed above and comply with Title 24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall incorporate to the maximum extent feasible, the design measures listed in Section 4.10.5. (Mitication Measure 4.10-6a and b) NOISE 49. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis subject to the approval of Manager, Building Permits to ensure that all new residential lots and dwelling units shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn in all habitable rooms. The analysis shall be prepared by a County-certified acoustical consultant and shall describe the acoustical design features of the structures proposed by the applicant. (PDF-3) 50. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for any commercial activity, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis subject to the approval of Manager, Building Permit to ensure that any commercial activity noise is not intrusive because of the time of day, noise character or overall exterior level into the adjacent or nearby residential community. The acoustical analysis shall describe the acoustical design features of the structures proposed by the applicant of the commercial uses. (PDF-4) 51. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for extending the segment of Bolsa Chica Street from its current terminus at Warner Avenue to the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis, subject to the approval of Manager, Building Permit, to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Bolsa Chica Street between Warner Avenue and the Mesa Connector. (Mitigation Measure 4.11-1) -16- 52. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential development in the Lowland, the applicant shall provide an acoustical analysis, subject to the approval of Manager, Building Permit, to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reduction measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Graham Street up to Slater, Springdale Street to Talbert and Talbert Avenue to Springdale. (Mitigation Measure 4.11-2) CULTURAL RESOURCES ' 53. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall complete, to the approval of Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities Division the research design for recovered material analysis for the Bolsa Chica Region currently in preparation. The research design shall contain a discussion of important research topics for recovered material analysis that can be addressed employing data from the Bolsa Chica sites. The research design shall be reviewed by at least three qualified archaeologists, as required by California Coastal Commission (CCC) guidelines. (PDF-1) 54. Prior to issuance of any grading permit data recovery program shall be completed by the applicant meeting the approval of then Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities Division for important or unique archaeological resources in areas proposed for urban development on Bolsa Chica Mesa and for proposed urban development and wetlands restoration. 55. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall, in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager HBP Coastal Facilities Division extend the existing reburial agreement executed between the project applicant and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians regarding the treatment and disposition of prehistoric Native American human remains discovered at ORA-83 if any additional remains are discovered on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. (PDF-8) 56. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulat ion/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 redirecting 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, HBP Coastal Facilities 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 Parks/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 -17- refusal basis. If Native American remains are discovered within the Bolsa Chica, the project applicant shall comply with the procedures set forth in Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code and shall consult with the most likely descendants designated by the Native American Heritage Commission to obtain recommendations on the treatment and disposition with appropriate dignity of the human remains and associated grave good. 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. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. (SC-1) (SC-2) 57. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit a County-certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to complete literature and records searches for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be conducted by a County-certified archaeologist unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of the Manager, HEP Coastal Facilities Division. A reoort of the literature and records seal-ch and the field survey shall be submittedto and approved by the Manager, Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Program Planning Division. Mitigation Measures may be recuired, depending on the recommendations of this report. (SC-3) 58. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit a County-certified archaeologist shall be retained by the applicant to per`crm 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 area 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. Final mitigation shall be carried out based upon the report recommendations and a determination as to the site's disposition by the Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities Division. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage or no mitigation necessary. (SC-4) 59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified archaeologist has been retained to conduct salvage 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 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 -18- - I - x - be donated to the County, or designee. A final report of the salvage operation shall be submitted to and approved by the Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities Division, prior to any grading in the archaeological site areas. (SC-5) 60. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit for the Harriett Wieder Regional Park, Manager, HBP Design shall retain a County-certified archaeologist to produce a comprehensive archaeological resource management program acceptable to the Director, Harbors, Beaches and Parks. The resource management program shall include such requirements as further analysis of archaeological sites, resource recovery, or in situ preservation. Measures to protect resources in areas proposed as open space will also be included. The program shall be implemented according to a schedule with conforms to the proposed phasing of park development. Additional recommendations may be made upon completion of test-level investigation or at the professional discretion of the consulting archaeologist conducting the test-level work. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 61. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/RegulationjGrading Section, the a County-certified paleontologist has been retained by the applicant to complete literature and records searches for recorded sites and previous surveys. In addition, a field survey shall be conducted by a County- certified paleontologist unless the entire proposed project site has been documented as previously surveyed in a manner which meets the approval of the Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities 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 mitigation shall depend upon the recommendations in the report. (SC-1) 62. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified paleontologist has been retained by the applicant to conduct pre-grading salvage and prepare a 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, HBP Coastal Facilities Division, for review and approval, which shall include methodology, an analysis of artifacts found, a catalogue of artifacts, and their present repository. (SC-2) 63. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the Chief, EMA/Regulation/Grading Section, that a County-certified paleontologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue fossils as necessary. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference, shall -19- establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project developer, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If major paleontological resources are discovered, which require long-term halting or redirecting of grading, the paleontologist shall report such findings to the project developer and to the Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities 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 assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum on Orange County indicates a desire to study and/or display them at a 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 by the Manager, HBP Coastal Facilities Division. Prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit, the paleontologist shall submit a follow-up report for approval by the Manager, ?iBP Coastal Facilities Division, which shall include the period of inspection, a catalogue and analysis of the fossils found, and present repository of the fossils. Monthly grading observation reports shall be submitted to the grading inspector on-'all projects which exceed 100,000 cubic yards, unless no earthwork has been done during the month. These reports shall include the period of inspection, the list of fossils collected, and their present repository. (SC-3) AES=TICS SPECIAL 64. Prior to the issuance of each grading permit or recordation of any applicable tract or parcel map, whichever happens first, the applicant shall provide the following plans subject to the approval of Manager, IMP Coastal Facilities Division in consultation with the Manager, Project Planning Division which indicates that graded areas will be compatible with the adjacent existing and proposed land uses: a. A landscaping plan: with setbacks along Los Patos Avenue including a landscaped parkway with a minimum width of 34-foot including a community theme wall. b. An urban edge treatment plan for development areas adjacent to wetlands, which includes but is not limited to: building height and setback limits; landscape and fuel modification treatments; provisions for walls, fences or berms; slope gradients and ratios, slope drainage structures, and architectural or landscape design themes. 65. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence to Manager, Development Services Division that: gyp! a. views of construction activities shall be shielded as feasible by measures that can include placement of temporary fencing, landscaped berms, and/or landscaping. -20- b. All graded slopes shall be completely hydroseeded and/or landscaped within 90 days following completion of grading. (PDF-2) PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 66. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or approval of any tentative subdivision map, whichever comes first, the project applicant shall provide evidence to Manager, Development Services Division that water and energy conservation features- shall be incorporated into new residential develop- ment as per Title 24 of the California Code Regulations. (SC-1) 67. Prior to recordation of any final tract/parcel map (except for financing purposes) , the project proponent shall enter into a secured agreement with the County of Orange, in a manner identified and approved by the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Department and the County Administrative Office, to provide capital funding for Sheriff patrol and investigator cars to serve residents of the proposed Bolsa Chica project. 68. Prior to recordation of any final tract map (except for financing purposes) , the project proponent shall enter into a secured (such security g. should be acceptable to the County of Orange) fire pr-cstection agreement with the County of Orange or its successor fire protection agency, including but not limited to a Fire Protection District, in a form approved by the Orange County Fire Department or successor agency and the County Administrative Office. This agreement shall contain: 1) Provision for the project proponent to dedicate an adequate one-acre site to the County of Orange, subject to approval by the Orange County Fire Department or successor agency, for a permanent fire station to serve the Bolsa Chica project; 2) Provision for the project proponent to construct and furnish a 10, 000 s ware foot fire station to serve the Bolsa Chica project; 3) Provision for the project proponent to fund the purchase of one paramedic engine to equip the fire station; 4) Provision for the timing of fire station construction and commencement of station operation as determined appropriate by the Orange County Fire Department, or successor agency; 5) Provision for a mitigation program to eliminate or minimize any negative fiscal impact the project may have on the Fire Fund if a project induced Fire Fund shortfall is projected to exist at the time a permanent fire station is operational; 6) Provision for an adequate all-weather fire vehicle access road over the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, meeting the approval of the Fire Department or successor agency, to ensure adequate fire protection access for both mesa and lowlands portions of the project. -21- 69. Prior to the recordation of any final tract/parcel map (except for financing purposes) , the project proponent shall enter into a secured agreement with the county of Orange to provide capital costs for library facilities, in a manner identified and approved by the Orange County Public Library and the County Administrative Office, to serve residents of the proposed Bolsa Chica project. 70. Prior to recordation of any final tract map (except for financing purposes) , the project applicant shall pay the statutory school fee required for the amount of development within the area of the final tract map, 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 new schools, the payment of additional fee for the use of temporary facilities in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, EMA Development services. (Mitigation Measure 4.16-3) RECREATION 71. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit or recordation of any subdivision map, whichever comes first, the applicant shall dedicate to the County of Orange in a manner meeting the approval of the Manager, HBP Program Planning Division, 49 acres of land within the Bolsa Chica Project Area required for completion of the 106-acre Harriett Wieder Regional Park as identified in the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program and (PDF-1) 72. Prior to the issuance of building permits within a recorded final tract map area, the Local Park Code requirements for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan shall be satisfied, for that portion of the project site, through park dedication to the satisfaction of the Manager HBP Program Planning Division. 73. Prior to the issuance of building permits or the recordation of an associated final tract map, whichever comes first, all projects shall be required to pay development fees for any facilities for which an applicable fee program has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors as provided in Sections 7-9-700 through 7-9-713 and 7-9-316 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange. This condition may be satisfied by entering into an implementation agreement with the County in a manner meeting the approval of the County Administrative Officer. 74. As an alternative method of satisfying conditions expressly related to Lowland development, including but not limited to, Conditions 9, 21 and 34, an application (by a landowner other than the Landowner/Master Developer) for a Coastal Development Permit for residential units in the Lowland portion of the Planning Area 9 or in Planning Area 10 may be considered for approval if the Landowner/Master Developer has had denied, fails to pursue, fails to timely receive or fails to implement a Section 404 Permit and/or CDP for Lowland development under the circumstances described in Subparagraph's a, b, c, or d below. As a condition of approval, such a Coastal Development Permit must provide a program to mitigate (on its own property or other available property) its wetlands, conservation, flood control, and other environmental impacts, to the extent feasible, in compliance with CEQA. This will require, at a minimum, a new Initial -22- Study. The mitigation program shall be subject to review and recommendation by Manager, Flood Program for Condition 21 and by Manager, Environmental Planning Division for Condition 34 and all other mitigation. The CDP application and all mitigation shall be considered for approval by the Planning Commission. The circumstances which may give rise to such a CDP application are: a) Denial of Permit. "Denial" of permit shall be deemed to occur upon the denial of Landowner/Master Developer's application for either (i) a Section 404 Permit for Lowland residential development and restoration or (ii) a Coastal Development Permit to implement that Section 404 Permit. b) Failure to Pursue Section 404 Permit and/or CDP. Landowner/Master Developer shall be deemed to have "failed to pursue" a Section 404 Permit and/or CDP if, two years after the COUNTY's initial approval of the LCP, Landowner/Master Developer (i) has not had a Section 404 Permit application either granted or denied and (ii) Landowner/Master Developer no longer has either a Section 404 Permit or CDP application pending for Lowland residential development (or has withdraum its consent to a pending application for which COUNTY is a co-applicant) . c) Failure to Receive Permits. Landowner/Master Developer shall be deemed to have "failed to receive" a Section 404 Permit and/or CDP if, two years after COUNTY's initial approval cf the LCP, Landowner/Master Developer has applications pending for either or both the Section 404 Permit and the CDP, but one or more of those applications has not been granted or denied. d) Failure to Implement. Landowner/Master Developer shall be deemed to "fail to implement" in the event that an issued Section 404 Permit and/or CDP has exT)ired, or if a revised application, application for modification, or application for extension for such 404 Permit and/or a CDP is filed by Landowner/Master Developer. 75. Prior to recordation of each tract map (except for financing purposes) the applicant and the County shall enter into an agreement to mitigate the fiscal impacts of proposed development on the County General Fund subject to the approval of the County Administrative Office. 76. Prior to or concurrent with any future Board action on a development agreement or final action on the LCP for the project, a comprehensive plan addressing Sheriff/Police, Fire protection and other necessary services shall be provided to this Board. Said plan shall be prepared in consultation with the City of Huntington Beach and provide specific recommendations and timetable for all necessary agreements to ensure the funding of services for the project. GF:tk/cvPLP01-123 (4354)4111410302830 -23- } BOLSA CHICA PRINCIPLES ADOPTED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 7, 1994 1. The Bolsa Chica project should be a financial benefit to the City of Huntington Beach. Any development plan for the Bolsa Chica must articulate how Fire, Police, Recreation and Library service delivery to Bolsa Chica over the next 20 years will be accomplished. Services should be delivered with the least cost to Bolsa Chica residents and the least impact to the citizens of Huntington Beach. 2. The Bolsa Chica project must be responsible for guaranteed restoration of the wetland, including a comprehensive maintenance and operation plan. 3. The Bolsa Chica project should be a balanced community with a mix of land uses that minimizes vehicle miles traveled and impacts to city services. 4. The Bolsa Chica project should not exceed the City's infrastructure and service capacity for: streets i water public safety libraries schools parks/recreation • setverage • cultural activities other city services S. The Bolsa Chica project should be consistent Nvith the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. 6. The Bolsa Chica project development standards should be the same as the City of Huntington Beach standards including: lot size height design standards open space park dedication city soil remediation standards 7. The Bolsa Chica project should reflect a compatible building density and type with neighboring City residences. 8. The mesa-lowland relationship should be maintained through careful site planning of open space, parks, trails, ecological reserves or other open space amenities. 9. The natural topography of the mesa should be maintained by limiting grading, terracing or other similar methods. The bluff face should be preserved and protected with a significant open space setback area. Existing mature trees on-site should be preserved rather than replaced. Mesa development should minimize impacts to wetlands. 10. The City desires the most environmentally sensitive restoration of the Nvetland. Restoration should be accomplished through an adaptive management approach. 11. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve and restore on-site historically significant structures and incorporate them into the site planning of the property. 12. The Bolsa Chica project should preserve cultural artifacts in designated open space areas that have been determined to be archaeologically and historically significant. 13. The Bolsa Chica project should be designed as if it would ultimately be annexed to the City of Huntington Beach. 14. Once the LCP and Development Agreement have been approved, the City should be responsible for building plan review, approval, inspection services and other "permit processing" aspects of implementing project entitlements. The City should also be responsible for the collection of fees to co-er the costs of such services. 1S. The Wintersburg Flood Control Channel should be improved in order to provide an enhanced drainage system and flood control. 16. A tidal inlet should have no impact to beach, public recreation or be detrimental to public safety, health or welfare. 17. The Bolsa Chica project should be designed to minimize all risks from seismic conditions. :/. ir , Good Evening. My name is Evan Henry. I am a hydrogeologist by education and profession and am a California Registered Geologist. I have practiced in the environmental field for 15 years, 10 i,n Southern California. will bring to your attention two significant deficiencies raised from my review of the Revised Draft EIR. The first is the inadequate degree of characterization of toxic and/or hazardous waste on the Mesa. The second is the inadequate characterization of the extent of petroleum contamination in the wetlands that will hinder Koll's plans for restoration. On top of these concerns is the apparent lack of commitment by Shell Onshore Ventures (or SOVI) to clean up all the contamination expeditiously, if at all. The first issue is vitally important to providing assurance that housing is not built in areas that present a health and safety threat. Over 75% of the SOVI wet gas line on the Mesa has contamination in the soil, yet no new information on cleaning up the contaminated soil and groundwater has been provided since 1989. No action by SOVI in 5 .years shows that SOVI can hardly__be_considered serious about cleaning up their leaks. And Koll, by accepting this situation on land they own would seem to have little interest in this deterioraton of the property. Or perhaps this illustrates that Koll does not have the ability to force . SOVI to act responsibility. In addition, the Mesa soils could be contaminated with lead from years of shooting at the gun club and pesticides such as DDT from the agricultural use during the heyday of these now- banned pesticides. The toxic impacts on future residents and the impacts of disturbing contaminated soils have not been addressed. A promise to fix contamination in the form of a Project Design Feature doesn't mean much when a significant contamination issue could jeopardize the entire project. These issues need to be resolved before any approval is given. .l The second issue is that the EIR revealed millions of dollars worth of contamination caused by the oil production in the wetlands. This all has to be cleaned up in some way to make the Koll Wetlands Restoration Plan viable. Yet Koll blithely places the responsibility for cleanup with SOVI - to be done at SOVI's discretion. Oil contamination has been measured in the soil in thicknesses of feet. What is Koll going to do with all this oil contamination the dredge u y g p as part of the Wetlands i Restoration Plan? Nowhere in the Wetlands Restoration Plan is the issue of dealing with SOVI and the oil contamination addressed. Does Koll have an enforceable agreement to get SOVI's cooperation? SOVI may find it more economical to never close the oil field just so they don't have to incur the cost of millions of dollars for well abandonment and contamination cleanup. Koll has not agreed to buy out SOVI's interests to effect a timely restoration. Until there is complete characterization of the entire realm of contamination on the Mesa and in the wetlands (including NORM of which the EIR exhibited a woeful understanding), there should be no development approval._ The Wetlands Restoration Plan cannot be taken seriously as it does not include commitment by SOVI nor does it characterize the true cost and timing of the restoration. When the true costs come to light, there may even be a better solution to building on the Mesa and restoring the Bolsa Chica wetlands. REPORT CONCERNING THE ARCHEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF THE BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AS COUNTY PROJECT NUMBER 551 Ralph Bauer- 2/22/94 INTRODUCTION The primary issue currently at hand is the integrity of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)concerning the Bolsa Chica,published by the County of Orange in late December, 1993, as County project number 551. The County of Orange as lead agency on this project, as well as the City of Huntington Beach as a responsible agency, both have an obligation to maintain the integrity of the EIR process. Both of these agencies have jurisdiction over this project as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act. It is as an official of the City of Huntington Beach that I am writing this report. Parenthetically, I should note that the focus of this report is local and state regulations not Federal regulations. Since the area under consideration, the Bolsa Chica, is in part defined as "waters of the United States," the Federal government,through its lead agency on this project, the Army Corps of Engineers, also has jurisdiction over parts of the Bolsa Chica. Further, since there are archeological and cultural dimensions to the Bolsa Chica which concern Native Americans, other Federal agencies may also have jurisdiction. Although this report will not focus on Federal aspects of the Bolsa Chica, it is hoped that the Army Corps of Engineers and other concerned Federal agencies will review this report to make certain that Federal laws, rules, regulations,procedures, and policies are being followed. One major aspect of the DEIR is concerned with the archeological and cultural environment of the Bolsa Chica. Although there are many dimensions to the DEIR,the writer has focused on this aspect of it for three primary reasons. 1. The archeological and cultural aspects of the Bolsa Chica, especially those having to do with human remains, are sacred to Native Americans and should be treated with care and dignity. 2. The archeological aspects of the Bolsa Chica having to do with the everyday living of Native Americans going back at least 8,000 years is of great scientific, as well as public interest, since it can establish a history of Native Americans relatively close to the time when these peoples migrated across the Bering Straits. All aspects of their life style should be examined by scientific investigators whose whose competence is well recognized. This of course must be done in a way which preserves the dignity of all native Americans and their ancestors. 3. For purposes of maintaining the integrity of the EIR, it is important that a base line is established. Thus, in so far as possible, it is important that the DEIR examine all artifacts which exist and all activities which have taken place in the Bolsa Chica from the time it was in its pristine state,until the publishing of the DEIR in late December of 1993. This base line will then permit us to objectively examine activities which are continuing on the site as well as to examine the impact of the proposed project in the site. One may ask why give the archeological and cultural aspect such special focus. The answer is simple. We are dealing with the lives of our fellow human beings. I am sure that all of us would like our forefathers' remains and their culture to be treated with dignity and care wherever they may exist. OTHER STATE AGENCIES In addition to the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Brach, there are other state agencies which either have jurisdiction here or are repositories of information about the Bolsa Chica: These include: The California State Coastal Commission The Native American Heritage Commission The State Historical Resources Commission The Office of Historic Preservation The Archeological Information Center at U.C.L.A. (a repository for archeological information about sites in Orange County) It is hoped that these organizations will be involved in an appropriate way to provide information and make sure laws, rules, regulations,procedures, and policies have been adhered to with regards to the Bolsa Chica. i -2- ARCHEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL INFORMATION RECEIVED Although there may be a number of sites involved which are significant in the archeological and cultural aspects of the Bolsa Chica,the primary focus of this report is a site known as ORA 83 (Enclosures 1 & 2). The reason for this is that substantial information has been received with regards to the presence of multiple human remains,while the DEIR refers to the site as having no reported human remains(Enclosure 3) (table 4, 11,2,pg. 4.11-9 of the DEIR). We are concerned that such a significant error makes the archeological and cultural analysis in the DEIR suspect in all respects. To repeat, the DEIR indicates no human remains have been reported at the ORA 83 site as of the publication date of the DEIR in late December 1993. The evidence which belies this, all of which was available prior to that date, is as follows: 1. A report from Judy Myers Suchey Ph.D, Forensic Archeologist who observed skeletal materials at ORA 83 on 10/12/93 (Enclosure 4). 2. A Coroner's report shows that human bones were reported to the Coroner from ORA 83 on 9/30/93 (Enclosure 5). Evidence for human remains were reported by observers on the site in mid-summer 1990 (Enclosure 6 Observer A),during the summer of 1992 (July, Observer B, Enclosure 7), in October 1992 (Observer B, Enclosure 8), in August and September 1993 (Observer B, Enclosure 9), in September 1993 (Observer B, Enclosure 10). 4. A map showing the presence of 25 burial sites dated 8/25/93 (Enclosure 11). 5. The developer reports finding bone fragments in early fall 1992 (Enclosure 12). These were apparently not reported to the Coroner as provided by law, since a screening of Coroner records back to January 1, 1990 shows the only report of bone fragments on ORA 83 was made on 9/30/93, over a year after the discovery (Enclosure 13). Interestingly,the developer says in a Los Angeles Times article dated 2/13/94, that bones on ORA 83 were reported to the Coroner in June of 1992,when according to Coroner records there was no such report(Enclosure 14). 6. A letter(Enclosure 15) from a former Signal Landmark employee(Signal Landmark was a predecessor to the present developer, Koll Real Estate Group)which indicates that the employee saw a company memo during August 1990 which allegedly said that human remains had been unearthed in the Bolsa Chica. The memo allegedly said that removal of all human remains should be completed in a week because if interested parties,particularly Native Americans, ever got wind of this find there might be an indefinite delay and perhaps no further development of the property. The writer understands that some employees from the time of the memo are currently employed by the Koll Real Estate Group. -3- PRIMARY ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The above information raises a number of issues which need resolution: I. Why was significant information concerning human remains on ORA 83 left out of the County DEIR? This is of special concern since much of the information quoted herein was available from the County Corner, a fellow agency to that issuing the DEIR. 2. Why were human remains, apparently found in June of 1992 or before, not reported until September of 1993 even though the law requires 24 hour notification to the Coroner after discovery? It should be noted that the Native American Heritage Commission was apparently also not notified in a timely manner. 3. Was there an attempt to circumvent the system and its definition of proper handling of human remains, thereby speeding up the development of the Bolsa Chica. SECONDARY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 1. Have proper procedures been followed in the examination of all archeological sites in the Bolsa Chica? This includes, but is not limited to,keeping of daily logs,proper preservation, and disposition of all artifacts and writing of timely reports(Enclosure 16). 2. Should ORA 83 be designated as a cemetery (more than six burial sites) and remain as a permanent installation. 3. Has the selection of all firms and individuals working and monitoring the Bolsa Chica been made against past performance, high scientific integrity, and a broad cultural sensitivity. Have their activities been monitored by appropriate State agencies on a regular basis? 4. Should the Archeological Information Center of U.C.L.A. be contacted to receive the extensive information about the Bolsa Chica for possible inclusion in the EIR? 5. Should the Bolsa Chica be placed on the National Register of Historic Places as was previously recommended? 6. Should there be better legislation which protects archeological sites like the Bolsa Chica and which prescribes an arms length relationship between firms as well as monitors and the developers wishing to build on a archeological sensitive site. For example, should the selection process be made by a disinterested third party against a set of criteria which are high in scientific integrity and broad cultural awareness and sensitivity. Should such firms and monitors report to the State, be paid by the State, and then have the developer reimburse the State for all costs? -4- 3! ( ,r t s��,��r?�� x;'��� ' •', `� mot,.,' �c '*f�: '� r A: R-" V .=. •?-. '" '`i `4 ..' �'w :aY ,u. :�- '`a'r k y n p.x , Vyy ii. l_ }' s _ ,� K° ' y .: s,;..,,,-s- •. ,Gt$� sF"-Y1,-.7; ., Fr .(.'�' x ...�� -- S-» �" "� s,• a s e �Z�� '+�'�` { �� x�,ai`�� t x�'f�� �6. rt�� E v*r 1s V&o, GCS. ��u _�E •r✓�E— Ms. Laura Phillips Mr. Frank PicolI Associate Planner U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000 Main Street Los Angeles District Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 300 North Los Angeles Street Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325� Subject: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT e� STATEMENUENVIROM ENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED BOLSA CIIICA PROJECT Dear Ms. Phillips/Mr. Picolla: The City of Seal Beach has extensively reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/EIR) and has several general comments and observations relative to the document, in addition to detailed response to specific issues which are attached as Attachment A and Attachment B, from the Department of Development Services and the Office of the City Attorney, respectively. The City is concerned that the overall focus of the document is strictly focused upon the City of Huntington Beach, particularly in the areas of Transportation and Traffic Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Significant Irreversible Changes Which Would Be Involved With The Action Should It Be Implemented. It is of extreme concern that the impacts of additional vehicular traffic on Pacific Coast Highway north ot Warner Avenue are not more full �scussed, evaluated, and mitigated in the above mentioned areas of concern. It is the opinion 6 our City Engineer and Director of Development Services that a substantial amount.of additional vehicular traffic above that identified in the Draft EIR will utilize Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner Avenue, which will have substantial adverse impacts on Pacific Coast Highway through the City, and resultant air quality, noise, and cumulative impacts upon adjoining residential and commercial areas. The Draft EIS/EIR identifies significant roadway and intersection capacity deficiencies . despite t e extensive mitigation measures proposed. These deficiencies could result in substantial "spillover" impacts to Sunset Beach, and the Surfside, "Old Town", and "Hill" areas of Seal Beach which are difficult and hard to quantify with the existing level of discussion within the 1 C:\W P51\I3OLSACHI\RESPLTR.CC\LW\I I-W-92 �rr►rn2dil��� �r�or�-ro 1+�,E�,��►� -�-ffl c�w�,8�k� Bolsa Chica Draft EIVEIR City Council Response Letter 1VovenSer 23, 1992 Draft EIS/EIR. Additionally, the proposed strategy of augmenting the capacity,of intersections would not alleviate the identified deficiencies without a clearly defined and established program in alleviating the mid-block volume-to-capacity"deficiencies. The environmental impacts of those mid-block volume-to-capacity improvements are not adequately discussed, evaluated and mitigated as part of this Draft EIS/EIR. It is the position of the Environmental Quality Control Board and the C t Council of the City o Sf` eal Beach that the above referenced portions of the DEIS/EIR.should be revised to address the concerns discussed above, evaluate the impacts, and propose implementable mitigation measures. y In addition, the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council of the City of Seal Beach consider the Bolsa Chica wetlands to be an invaluable, indeed essential; natural resource in our environment, and urge the City of Huntington Beach and the Army Corps of Engineers not to approve the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project unless and until the ecological integrity of the wetlands can be guaranteed. The Environmental Quality Control Board of the City of Seal Beach considered and reviewed the DEIS/EIR and an accompanying Staff Report on November 17, 1992 with the City Council considering and discussing these same documents and reports on November 23, 1992. Both the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council authorized the respective Chairman and the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach, including the "Formal Staff Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project" (Attachment A). Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740, telephone (310) 431-2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide eighteen (18) copies-of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Enviromnental Impact Report to Mr. Whittenberg for distribution. the appropriate Commissions and the City Council when it is available. Sincerely, —Gwen Forsythe '�� Mario Voce Mayor, City of Seal Beach Chairman Environmental Quality Control Board C:\WP51\BOL.SACHI\RESI'L'IR.CC\I,W\11-M-92 2 Bolsa Chica Draft EIVEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 ATTACHMENT A: "Formal Staff Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project" ATTACHMENT B: "Formal City Attorney Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project" Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Director of Development Services Surfside Colony Community Association Sunset Beach Community Association C:\WP51\BOLSACHr\RESPLTR.CC\L\V\I 1-04-92 3 I Bolsa Chica Draft EIS/EIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 ATTACHMENT A Formal City Comments Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project A. TRAFFIC STUDY AREA - Page 4-221 1) The EIR should discuss why Seal Beach Boulevard is not considered to have a potential for providing regional access to the project. Particularly in light of the discussion on page 4-238 which indicates that "Vehicular access to these alternatives on the Bolsa Chica Mesa occurs from Warner Avenue, Bolsa Chica Avenue, and additional local collector roads." If persons are going to be utilizing Warner Avenue for access to the Mesa residential developments, it seems reasonable that a fair amount of that traffic will utilize Seal Beach Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway to Warner Avenue. Particularly when the proposed project allows for approximately 4,000 housing units to be constructed in this area at densities ranging from 4.5 units/acre to 35 units/acre. 2) Table 4.10-1, "Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service" shows average daily traffic on Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner Avenue as 42,000 vehicles, while Figure 4.10-1, "Existing Daily Traffic Flow Map", shows 46,000 vehicles. These numbers need to be reconciled. B. PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS - Page 4-231 1) Impact Significance Criteria: Roadway Segment: These criteria establish that traffic impacts will be considered significant if any roadway segment affected by an alternative is projected to achieve a daily level of service LOS D. Intersection: "Where the project is shown to cause unacceptable intersection operation, or to have greater than a 1 percent impact on any intersection already operating under unacceptable conditions, mitigation measures will be identified." C:\WP51\BOLSACHI\RFSPLTR.CC\LW\l 1-04-92 4 i Bolsa Chica Draft EISIEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 General comment re: all identified LOS levels for intersections and roadway segments: Specify actual numerical level of LOS , e.g., LOS E (0.92), LOS F (1.15), etc. C. IMPACTS OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES - Alternate 1, Level of Service Impacts (with Cross Gap Connector - Page 4-238 1) Provide a Percent Trip Distribution Map indicating percentage of project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments. It is impossible to determine the rationale behind the indicated roadway segment impacts and intersection impacts without this information being provided. It is recommended that the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) regional travel demand model trip tables be utilized to develop the general patterns of trip distribution for the project. Provide an estimate of "Vehicle Miles of Travel Generated by the Project". This is a key component in determining impacts on air quality. Based on regional information developed by the SCAG, the average length of all trips is 8.64 miles. This statistic is obtained from the 1987 regional transportation model (1987 Base Year Travel Infonnation Digest of the Southern California Region, Southern California Association of Governments, December, 1990). A "Project Trip Generation Summary" should also be provided, which would summarize the following information: ■ Project Element (Single Family and Multiple Family Residences, Recreation, etc.) ■ Number of Units and Acreage of Recreation Facilities ■ Estimated number of Daily Trips per Analysis Unit ■ AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total ■ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total 2) Indicates that Bolsa Chica Street will have a "substantial increase to 31,000 vehicles per day ... adjacent to the project site". Reference to Figures H-13 and H-15 of Appendix H indicates an increase in Average Daily Traffic from 27,700 vehicles per day for future condition with no project to 31,000 vehicles per day for future conditions with the project. This results in a 10.6% increase in traffic, or 3,300 additional vehicle trips per day. Although this is significant, there is no further discussion as to what happens to those vehicles once they are north of Edinger Avenue, probably heading for either Westminster Avenue to travel to downtown Long Beach, or to the freeway system to access other employment C:\W P$1%BOLSA CHARES PLTR.CC\Lw\1144-92 5 S Bolsa Chica Draft EIS/EIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 centers in either Los Angeles or Orange County, or any discussion regarding the impact on those probable roadway segments. 3) The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that " Substantial increases in project traffic appear to be generally confined to the study area, with most of the daily traffic impact dissipating before reaching Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Some selected roadway segments throughout the study area even experience decreases in traffic, when compared to the No Project condition." (Page 4-238) Again, without the requested Percent Trip Distribution Map indicating percentage of project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments, it is impossible to determine the rationale behind the indicated roadway segment impacts and intersection impacts, and the justification for this surprising conclusionary statement. Analysis of the "Average Daily Traffic" volumes for future conditions with and without the project (Figures H-13 and H-15, Appendix H) do support that conclusion. However, it is our opinion that the conclusion is not able to withstand the scrutiny which should be applied to such a statement. Our analysis of the above referenced Figures indicates the following: A) Traffic on PCH north of Warner Avenue increase by 600 vehicles. B) Traffic on PCH south of Warner Avenue increases by 200 vehicles. C) Traffic on Warner Avenue between PCH and the Mesa Connector increases by 4,300 vehicles, and decreases by 2,100 vehicles between the Mesa Connector and Algonquin. D) Traffic on all segments of Edinger Avenue except one decreases with the proposed project. E) Traffic on all segments of Heil except two increases with the proposed project. F) Traffic on all segments of Warner except those between Bolsa Chica and the Mesa Connector increases with the proposed project. G) Traffic on all segments of Slater increases with the proposed project. H) Traffic on all segments of Talbert except between Golden West and Beach Blvd increases with the proposed project. I) Traffic on all segments of Ellis increases with the proposed project. J) Traffic on all segments of Garfield increases with the proposed project. K) Traffic on all segments of Yorktown increases with the proposed project. L) Traffic on all segments of Adams increases with the proposed project. C:\WP51\BOLSACHT\RESPLTR.CC\L\V\I 1-04-92 6 Bolsa Chica Draft EISIEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 M) Traffic on all segments of PCH south of Seapoint increases with the proposed project, except for between Seapoint and Goldenwest and from Delaware to the south. N) Traffic on all segments of Bolsa Chica increases with the proposed project. O) Traffic on all segments of Graham increases with the proposed project. P) Traffic on all segments of Springdale, except between Warner and Heil, increases with the proposed project. Q) Traffic on all segments of Edwards, except between Talbert and Slater and between Heil and Edinger, increases with the proposed project. R) Traffic on all segments of Goldenwest, except between Garfield and Ellis and between Warner and Heil, increases with the proposed project. S) Traffic on all segments of Gothard, except between Warner and Heil, decreases with the proposed project. T) Traffic on all segments of Beach Boulevard decreases with the proposed project. 4) Comparison of Figures H-13 and H-15 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC, NO PROJECT and ALTERNATIVE 1, 4884 DU, FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR. A) At exterior boundaries of traffic study grid the following increases (decreases) in average daily traffic are projected: 1) PCH, north of Warner Avenue 600 vehicles 2) Saybrook, north of Heil (100 vehicles) 3) Bolsa Chica, north of Heil 1,900 vehicles 4) Graham, north of Heil 1,300 vehicles 5) Springdale, north of Heil 800 vehicles 6) Edwards, north of Heil no change 7) Goldenwest, north of Heil 100 vehicles 8) Gothard, north of Heil (100 vehicles) 9) Beach Blvd., north of Heil (500 vehicles) 10) Edinger, west of Saybrook no change 11) Edinger, east of Gothard (500 vehicles) 12) Heil, east of Gothard (200 vehicles) 13) Warner, east of Gothard 500 vehicles 14) Slater, east of Gothard 500 vehicles 15) Talbert, east of Gothard (200 vehicles) 16) Ellis, east of Delaware 200 vehicles 17) Garfield, east of Delaware 400 vehicles C:\WP51\BOLSACHI\RESPLTR.CC\LW\11-03-92 7 Bolsa Chica Draft EIS/EN City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 18) Yorktown, east of Delaware 500 vehicles 19) Adams, east of Delaware 100 vehicles 20) Indianapolis, east of Delaware (100 vehicles) 21) Atlanta, east of Delaware (100 vehicles) 22) Walnut, east of Delaware no change 23) PCH, south of Beach Blvd. (400 vehicles) TOTAL NET AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INCREASE AT SCREEN LINES - 6900 daily vehicles added 2200 daily vehicles reduced 4700 net increase in daily vehicles 5) Total Daily Trips Generated by Proposed Residential Development - Alternative 1 (Derived from Figure 3.4-1 and Table 4.10-3) Land Use # Units # Daily Trips SFR 1,010 12,120 MFR 3,874 27,118 TOTAL DAIU1 TRI a - PPDPuSED RESIDENTIAL 39,23?3 Of the Total 39,238 daily trips generateu t. : .`I-- residential components of the propored project, the EIR identifies only 12 Percem. b: ,:'.--- trips actually leaving the traffic impact screen lines indicated on Figure 11-15 of the At p%X.:.; . The remaining 88 percent, or 34,538 daily trips are absorbed entirely within the confines of the City of Huntington Beach defined by the area west of Beach Blvd, south of Edinger Avenue, and the Pacific Ocean. The rationale behind this type of assertion is not clearly explained and on its face seems insupportable, given the travel characteristics of residents of the City of Huntington Beach as indicated in the most recent Origin/Destination study conducted by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. L= :Mition, the project provoses a 104.2 acre Linear Regional Park and a 110 1.0 acre r��.. -ed wetland/ environmentally sensitive habitat area, both of which wo uk. ,01'A i ,;sbstantial amount of vehicles from outside the traffic impact any,sis area,, using both regional and local roadways as access. In both these in.�stances, it k ,the opinion of the City of Seal Beach, that PCH would provide a major access to these facilities from the Long Beach area, and these impacts are C-',WJP511BOLSACHI\RESPLTR.CCALW111-04-92 Bolsa Chica Draft EIVEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 not reflected in the traffic analysis, or if they are accounted for, are not clearly discussed and delineated. In reviewing the "Trip Generation" report prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Third Edition, 1982, the following rates are utilized to estimate trip generation for the linear park and restored wetland areas: Average Trip Rate/Acre ITE Land Use Code Weekday Sunday # Trips 412 - County Park 5.1 5.8 1,060 413 - State Park 0.6 0.6 660 TOTAL RECREATION DAILY TRIP GENERATION 1,720 It is not possible to determine if these additional trips have been incorporated into the analysis, even on a partial basis. 6) Provide "Anticipated Daily Traffic Flow Map" for each alternative similar to Figure 4.10-1, page 4-223. 7) The Draft EIS/EIR indicates the following impacts upon the signalized intersection at Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway for the various Alternatives discussed: A) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 5% both at the AM & PM with the Cross Gap/Mesa Connector for Alternative 1, 4,884 d.u.'s (Page 4-239). B) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 3% at the AM & 4% at the PM with the Mesa Connector and without the Cross Gap Connector for Alternative 1, 4,884 d.u.'s (Page 4-241). C) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 6% at the AM & 5% at the PM with the Cross Gap/Mesa Connector for Alternative 15, 4,800 d.u.'s (Page 4- 243). C:\W P5]\BOLSACHT\RESPLTR.CC\LW\11-M-92 9 i I Bolsa Giica Draft EIVEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 D) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 7% at the AM & 7% at the PM with the Cross Gap/Mesa Connector for Alternative 3, 4,000 d.u.'s (Page 4- 245). E) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 3% at the AM & 5% at the PM with the Mesa Connector and without the Cross Gap Connector for Alternative 3, 4,000 d.u.'s (Page 4-247). F) Identifies PCH as being impacted the same as for Alternative 1 for Alternative 19, 4,884 d.u.'s (Page 4-249), both with and without the Cross Gap/Mesa Connector. G) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 3% at the AM & 5% at the PM with the Mesa Connector and without the Cross Gap Connector for Alternative 4, 3,500 d.u.'s (Page 4-251). H) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 3% at the AM & 3% at the PM with the Mesa Connector and without the Cross Gap Connector for Alternative 17, 1,500 d.u.'s (Page 4-253). 1) Identifies PCH as being impacted by 2% at the PM with the Mesa Connector and without the Cross Gap Connector for Alternative 10, 1,400 d.u.'s (Page 4-256). Again, without the requested Percent Trip Distribution Map indicating percentage of project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments, it is impossible to determine the rationale behind the indicated intersection impacts, and the justification for these conclusions. D. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS - Pacific Coast Highway (Page 4-258) 1) "Of the improvements specified, the most problematical are the Pacific Coast Highway improvements. Mitigation of Warner Avenue and Goldenwest with PCH intersection LOS will require addition of a fourth north bound lane on PCH, north of Warner Avenue. This may or may not require additional right-of-way and is subject to State approval and funding. Currently, the State plans to expand PCH only to three through lanes in each direction, north and south of the project." (Pages 4-258 and 4-261) C:\WP51\BOLSACHI\RFSPLTR.CC\LW\11-04-92 10 n Bolsa Chica Draft EIS/EIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 MAJOR CONCERNS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH: A) What are the limits north of Warner Avenue for the required fourth traffic lane? Between Warner Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard there are no other routes to head inland. The traffic analysis for this project has not adequately addressed the impact upon Pacific Coast Highway by the proposed project through the Sunset Beach community, and the Surfside, "Old Town" and "Hill" areas of Seal Beach. The traffic analysis should be expanded to determine intersection and roadway segment impacts to at least Seal Beach Boulevard, and propose appropriate mitigation measures. If the expanded impact analysis indicates a greater than 1% impact farther north of Seal Beach Boulevard at intersections along Pacific Coast Highway or level of service LOS E on roadway segments, the analysis should be expanded to adequately describe all significantly impacted intersections and roadway segments, including appropriate mitigation measures. B) Funding of all required mitigation measures required as a result of the proposed project should be borne in full by the project applicant. The State is not responsible to fund improvements necessitated by the proposed project, although they will have to approve the project design, etc. C) The Draft EIR is inadequate in that it leaves to the imagination the project environmental impacts of the proposed mitigation of expanding Pacific Coast Highway to four northbound lanes through the areas of Sunset Beach, Surfside, the National Wildlife Refuge, across the Huntington Harbour channel, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, and into "Old Town" Seal Beach. No analysis of the impacts upon existing businesses, residences, and the National Wildlife Refuge, and the operations of the Navy is set forth. The Proposed Mitigation Measure is not evaluated in any way to provide a level of understanding of the impacts of such a major mitigation measure for those areas to the north of the proposed project. D) A comparison of Figures H-13 and H-15 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC, NO PROJECT and ALTERNATIVE 1, 4884 DU, FULL CROSS GAP CONNECTOR, previously discussed above, indicated that the impact of the proposed 4,884 housing unit project will only result in 600 additional vehicles per day on Pacific Coast Highway, north of Warner Avenue. This translates to a less than one percent (1%) impact upon the future traffic anticipated upon Pacific Coast Highway. If that is the actual impact upon C:\WP51\BOLSACHI\RESPLTR.CC\LW\11-(►1-92 1 1 Bolsa Gdca Draft EIVEIR City Council Response Letter November 23, 1992 Pacific Coast Highway, a more detailed explanation should be provided as to why one additional traffic lane north of Warner Avenue is necessary to accommodate the increase in traffic from the proposed project. Again, it is the opinion of the City of Seal Beach that the traffic impacts on Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner Avenue are severely understated and needs to be restudied and re-evaluated. The City requests that the data inputs into the referenced traffic model be thoroughly and completely identified as part of Appendix H, and that a review of those data inputs and assumptions by our City Engineer and CALTRANS be permitted prior to release of the Final EIS/EIR on this regionally significant project. E. APPENDIX H - TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1) The Appendix indicates the "Average Daily Traffic, No Project, No Bolsa Chica Road Extension" for PCH north of Warner Avenue to be 66.1 ADT IN THOUSANDS, or 66,100 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (Page H-28), while the DEIR indicates 46,000 or 42,000 ADT, refer to Note A-2 above. The discrepancy between these numbers is significant, 44%, and should be explained. With the construction of the Cross Gap Connector for the No Project Alternative the ADT drops to 65.8 (Page H-31). C:\WP51\BOLSACHI\RFSPLTR.CC\1_w\I 1-N-92 12 c bu/A,f �Uikc ��r�►�, �ur►�n5T064 �iLcti - TRADITIONAL TONGVA POLICY REGARDING ABORIGINAL RESOURCES JANUARY 1989 WITH THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION TO THE- LAND AND RESOURCES BELONGING TO THE TRADITIONAL TONGVA, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS DOCUMENT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND- LOCAL AGENCIES . The Traditional Tongva are the remainder of the origional native population from the areas improperly designated as ; Los Angeles county , Orange. county , San Bernadino county , Riverside county and parts of the eastern edge of Ventura county. The Tongva are the Soverign Nation of non-christian indians whom still retain their Oral History , Language , and Religious Value System with their ties to their lands . This Nation and its relations have never received monies from the Bureau of Indian affairs or the California Land Claims Act which was payment for land and native heritage . We have never sold any of our land or resources. We have been referred to as "cabrieleno indians or "mission indians; Any person considering themselves as a gabrieleno or the latter is ; 1 . ) a catholic or christian with no concept of Traditional values , 2 . ) received monies from the California Land Claims Act in the late 1960 ' s to sell land that does not belong to them. 3. ) because of the payment received from the C . L. C.A. this would terminate these persons from their according to the B . I .A. The Tongva are not gabrielenos , the latter word being a spanish misnomer. The word Tongva in our native language means" From the Earth,' The Tongva are also part of a National Network of Native Americans whom are Traditional in the same respect. We as Traditional Tongva have distinguished that only what nature dictates will be absolute. Because of the overwhelming amount of abuses to all the resources on the mainland , the ocean and the channel islands , this policy has been written . Archaeology : With our tribal experience dealing with the United States goverment in general , and all other agencies .including ; State , County ,and city both public and private , I We have desided as the Tongva Nation , that all archaeological sites be left undesturbed , that includes all phases of excavation and in the near future , the remains of our ancestors including artifacts , be returned to the Tongva. We know for a fact that the local museums and universities in southern california have collections and remains as well as museums and universities across the United States contain relics that belong to the Tongva. ( ie lowie museum, smithsonian , etc . ) Environmental Destruction of Land Resources : The United States goverment does not have a legal vehicle to possess the lands in southern california belonging to the Tongva nation because congress never designed nor ratified a treaty or land transaction . Therefore , .-There will be no more projects on Tongva lands which include ; drilling for natural gas , oil or water, mining , controlled burns on the land , the spraying of any chemical ,herbicide , or introduction of biological bacterias , this includes the destruction of •canyons , hills , mountains and the flora and fauna in these areas . Road construction , real estate developement both commercial and residential , waterways , rivers , streams , ponds , springs and creeks . This destruction of our homelands has prompted our nation to write this policy , the amount of the present developement has impacted the way of life for our culture , which includes ; fishing in the ocean and on the mainland , hunting , gathering of materials to sustain our way of life such as plants , minerals we use on a daily basis and for ceremonies . 2 Environmental Destruction of the Ocean , Fresh/Saltwater inlets ,estuaries and the Channel Islands ; It is now public knowledge that the United States goverment in general , as well as State , and local agencies have allowed the dumping of dangerous sewage , which is composed of industrial and agricultural chemicals , pestisides , herbisides , into waterways which empty into inlets , estuaries and the pacific ocean . Dumping city sewage treated or not also has contributed *to the loss of water quality and the destruction of- many ecosystems that sustain life in the waterways still used by the Tongva nation . Oil wells and offshore platforms are equal * contributors to the destruction of many life forms in the ocean . The oil spill in Santa Barbara in the 60 ' s is a good example of habitat destruction , so is the oil spill in Washington State in December of 1988 , which wiped out the entire coast lines of both Washington State and Oregon . These coastal resources belong to the Tongva Nation including the oil reserves on the mainland , the islands , and the ocean , We do not want these resources further exploited by any corporation ' or goverment. Salt/Freshwater Estuaries ; These marsh areas are used as waterways for the gathering of ' traditional foods , and medicine plants , roots , and animals used by the Tongva Nation . These areas were also used by countless generations of ancestors long before us . The Tongva Nation reserves all rights to these resources , and will not be made to pay when at such an area , to site an example , the california fish and game has begun to charge a fee to enter the Newport Upper Back Bay , this is not acceptable and is in violation of Public Law 95-341 Native American Religious Freedom Law. 40 ,000 years of a culture inhabiting an area makes a big difference , but in less then 150 years , our resources have been almost completely destroyed. The Channel Islands ; Our resources on all these islands also have been overutilized to the point of extinction on both the land and the surrounding waters . The United States Navy has dumped dangerous chemical and nuclear wastes including old nuclear submarines of the island of San Clemente , not to mention using the island as a bombing and shelling range . Our ancestors gravesites have .been damaged or destroyed by these actions , and by allowing people like Andy Yatsco from one of the San Diego Naval Bases to dig up our Ancestors graves without informing our community , Mark Raab , from California State Northridge who has worked with Mr. Yatsco , and Clement Meighen from the Universitity of California , Los Angeles . On San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island , the Naval Department has allowed these morbid barbaric grave robbers to destroy our heritage , This is no lonaer acceptable , we deplore such actions ! The Traditional Tongva have created this policy as a warning to all the listed agencies . This is not an intent to file suit , but to inform these agencies that because of such actions , catastrophic events have begun to manifest , according to our Oral Prophesies . We will not be responsible for the loss of life , or the damages created by large earth quakes , drought , floods , high winds , or loss of food production on our homelands . These acts will be the spirits of this land warning all people of the amount abuse placed on the land and the ocean . The leaders of the Tongva Nation hope that the agencies listed reviews this policy , and makes a Bia change for all persons living on our homeland. Our Nation Has Spoken , Art Alvitre , Tomeyar Speaker NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF,A JNG TO RECEIVE VERBAYL COMMENTS ON TI-I. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ]DATE;TIME: Monday, January 31, 1994 at 6:00 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 public hearing on the date and at the time indicated above to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the 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. February 18, 1994 (the close of the public comment period). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group, proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4,286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the MWD Area, and the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The DEIR also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and MWD property; a wet land interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, EMA/ Planning 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 Draft EIR. If there are any further questions please call Julie Osugi, Act. Associate Planner at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: January 29, 1994 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 29 , 199 A at Costa Mesa, California. Signature NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM DATE/TIME: Monday, January 31, 1994 at 6:00 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 public hearing on the date and at the time indicated above to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the 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. February 18, 1994 (the close of the public comment period). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group,proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4,286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the MWD Area, and northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The DEIR also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and MWD property; a wetland interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the i Bolsa Chica Mesa; and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, EMA/Planning 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 Draft EIR. If there are any further questions please call Julie Osugi, Act. Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227) a . - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR-IN- TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM DATE/TIME: Monday, January 31, 1994 at 6:00 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 public hearing on the date and at the time indicated above to receive oral F comments on the adequacy of the 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. t February 18, 1994 (the close of the public comment period). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group, proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4,286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the MWD Area, and the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The DEIR also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and MWD property; a wet land interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, EMA/ Planning 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 Draft EIR. If there are any further questions please call Julie Osugi, Act. Associate Planner at (714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk i� 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the * below' entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: January 29, 1994 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 29 , 1994 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a - resident of the County aforesaid; I am PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICOF over the age of eighteen years, and not a. . PUBLIC RI PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE party to or interested in the below VERBAL COMMENTS entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of NV THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT newspaper of general circulation, printed LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM and published in the City of Huntington DATE/TIME: Monday, January 31, 1994 at 6:00 Beach, County of Orange, State of p.m. —_ LOCATION: City Council as a local collector street. Chambers at the Hunting- The DEIR also considers a California, and that attached Notice IS a ton Beach Civic Center, modified project alternative true and complete copy as was printed 2000 Main Street, Hunting- which proposes wetland ton Beach,CA. ,restoration;development of NOTICE IS HEREBY 'a maximum 3,070 residen- and published in the Huntington Beach GIVEN that the Huntington tial units on the Bolsa and Fountain Valley issues of said Beach City Council will Chica Mesa and MWD hold a public hearing on property; a wetland inter- the date and at the time in- pretive park on the north- newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: dicated above to receive eastern section of the low- oral comments on the ad- lands; a community park equacy of the Draft Envi- on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; ronmental Impact Report and an extension of Bolsa for the Bolsa Chica Project Chica Street as a Scenic Local Coastal Program.' Secondary Arterial to Garf- Oral comments will be re- ield Avenue. January 27, 29, 1994 corded, put into transcript, ALL WRITTEN COM- form and forwarded to OC MENTS should be sent to: EMA/Planning Division by Paul Lanning, EMA/Plan- 4:00 p.m. February 18, ning Division,County of Or- 1994 (the close of the pub- ange,P.O.Box 4048,Santa lic comment period). Ana, CA 92702-4048 by the PROJECT DESCRIPTION: close of the comment pe- The County of Orange has riod. decladeclare under penalty of perjury, that assumed Lead Agency sta- AL1_ INTERESTED PER- re, r tus with respect to a Draft SONS are invited to attend Environmental Impact Re- said hearing and express the foregoing is true and correct. port for an applicant's pro- comments on the ad- posed project at Bolsa equacy of the Draft EIR. If Chica. The applicant, Koll there are any further ques- Real Estate Group, pro- tions please call Julie poses full wetland restora- .Osugi, Act. Associate Plan- Executed on January 29 199 4 lion in the clop Chica low- ner at Connie 536-5271. Brockway, , lands; development of a Connie Brockway, Hun- at Costa Mesa California. maximum of 4,286 residen- tington Beach City Clerk, tial units on the Bolsa 2000 Main Steet, Hunting- Chica Mesa, a small por- ton Beach.CA 92648 (714) tion of the MWD Area, and 536-5227 northeastern section of the Published Huntington lowlands; a community Beach-Fountain Valley In- park on the Bolsa Chica dependent January 27, 29, Mesa, and extension of 1994 Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve 014sa627 Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am UBUC NOTICE over the age of eighteen years and not a NOTICE OF RI , PUBLIC HEARING party to or interested in the below TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of ON THE DRAFT the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA newspaper of general circulation, printed CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL and published in the City of Huntington PROGRAM DATE/TIME: Monday, Beach, County of Orange, State of January 31, 1994 at 6:00 m. and that attached Notice is a p.m. City Council as a local r Street. California, Chambers at the Hunting- true and complete copy as was printed ton Beach Civic Center, The OEIR also considers e 2000 Main Street, Hunting- modified project alternative and published in the Huntington Beach ton Beach,CI which proposes wetland NOTICE IS HEREBY restoration; development of and Fountain Valle issues of said GIVEN that the Huntington a maximum n the reside a Beach City Council will fiat units on the Balsa ying Chica Mesa and MWD newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: hold a public the time on the date and at the time in- property; a wetland inter- dicated above to receive pretive park on the north- oral comments on the ad- eastern section of the low- equacy of the Draft Envi- lands; a community park ronmental Impact Report on the Balsa Chica Mesa; for the Balsa Chica Project and an extension of Bolsa Local Coastal Program. Chica Street as a Scenic January 27, 29, 1994 Oral comments will be re- Secondary Arterial to Garf- corded, put into transcnpt ield Avenue. form and forwarded to OC ALL WRITTEN COM- EMAlPlanning Division by MENTS should be sent to: 4:00 p.m. February 18, Paul Lanning, EMA(Plan- 1994 (the close of the pub-1 ning Division,County of Or- lic comment period). ange,P.O.Box 4048,Santa PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ana,CA 92702-4048 by the declare under penalty of perjury, that The County of Orange has close of the comment pe- r i assumed Lead Agency sta- nod. ALL INTERESTED PER- the foregoing is true and correct. tus with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Re SONS are invited to attend port for an applicant's pro- said hearing and express posed project at Bolsa comments on the ad- Chica. The applicant, Koll equacy of the Draft EIR. If Real Estate Group, pro- there are any further ques- poses full wetland restora- tions please call Julie Executed on January 29 1994 Osugi, Act. Associate Plan- lion in the Bolsa Chica low- lands; development of a i ner at(714)536.5271. at Costa Mesa, California, maximum of opme resof a Connie Brockway, Hun- maximum units on the Balsa tington Beach City Clerk, ca Mesa, a small par- 2000 Main Steel, Hunting- Chition of the MWD Area, and ton Beach,CA 92648 (7t4) northeastern section of the 636-5227 lowlands; a community Published Huntington park on the Bolsa Chica Beach-Fountain Valley In- Mesa. and extension of dependent January 27, 29. Balsa Chica Street to 1994. ao Springdale Street to serve 014sa627 Signature .w: /Z r� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / ar7 l/a� FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM DATE/TIME: Monday, January 31, 1994 at 6:00 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 public hearing on the date and at the time indicated above to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the 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. February 18, 1994 (the close of the public comment period). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group,proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4,286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the MWD Area, and northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The DEIR also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and MWD property; a wetland interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa; and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, EMA/Planning 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 Draft EIR. If there are any further questions please call Julie Osugi, Act. Associate Planner at(714) 536-5271. Connie Brockway Huntington Beach City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227) MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Room B-8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 31, 1994 Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Wnchell, Sullivan, Leipzig (arrived 5:15 p.m.) ABSENT: None CALL CLOSED SESSION The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-Christopher Carothers v. City of Huntington Beach - OCSCC 692112 (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-State of California v. BP America, et al (American Trader Oil Spill)-OCSCC 646339 (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 4956.9(c)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-Metro Display Advertising. (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its designated representatives regarding-Labor Relations Matters-Meet and Confer. (120.80) RECESS -RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 5:55 p.m. A videotape recording and a verbatim transcript of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Moulton-Patterson lead the Pledge of Allegiance. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO FORWARD TO ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY-RE: ADEQUACY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - The Mayor announced that this a public hearing to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program, oral comments will be recorded, put into transcript form and forwarded to Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Planning Division by 4:00 p.m. February 18, 1994. The Mayor also urged anyone wishing to submit their own written comments by letter to do so to Paul Lanning, Orange County Environmental Planning Division. i Page 2 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 ' Project cription t The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group, proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4, 286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the Metropolitan Water District Area, and northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The Draft Environmental Impact Report also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Metropolitan Water District property; a wetland interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa: and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, Environmental Management Agency/Planning Division, County of Orange, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 927024048 by the close of the comment period. The City Clerk announced communication received from Patricia delValle dated January 31, 1994 in support of preservation, Don Slaven dated January 31, 1994 in support of preservation, Harriett Weder, Board of Supervisors, dated January 31, 1994 explaining the Environmental Impact Report process, Gwen Forsythe, Mayor of the City of Seal Beach and Mario Voce, Environmental Quality Control Board Chairman, dated November 23, 1992 regarding the Environmental Impact Report, The Mayor asked the City Clerk to read a portion of the letter from Gwen Forsythe, the Mayor of the City of Seal Beach. Orange County Representative Statement Tom Matthews, Orange County Environmental Management Agency Planning Director and County Board of Supervisor Harriett Wieder's representative, read from a copy of a letter from Supervisor Wieder dated January-31, 1994 explaining the Environmental Impact Report process was distributed to Council. Mr. Matthews reported that his office will respond to all comments received on the Environmental Impact Report and that public hearings will held before the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Speakers In Support of Preservation of the Bolsa Chica Donald Mueller, Dick Legrue, Juana Mueller, Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representatives, as well as Dave Hall. Tom Pontac. Marcia Hanscom, Andrew Einhorn spoke in support of the preservation regarding the biological and ecological benefits, cultural and Historical site, educational and recreational resource, ancestral Indian buria ground, no full archaeological report disclosed, Environmental Impact Report incomplete, destruction of endangered and threatened species, project is a violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Coastal Act, elimination of burrowing owl habitat, destruction of nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of birds, one of the largest open spaces in Orange County, problem for wildlife with domestic pets, increased toxic urban runoff, support for biodiversity park, possible liquefaction effects, wetlands benefit flood control, Vera Rocha, Chief Yana, Gabrielino/Shashoni Indian Nation, Manuel Rocha, Gabrielino Spiritual Leader, Terrie Restivo, American Indian Movement Sacred Sites Committee representative, spoke in support of preservation regarding the culture for future generations, respect for land, and destruction of ancestral cemeteries, Martin Alcala, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council Chairperson, stated that the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council is the only legitimate governing body of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. He gave a history of the tribe and stated that the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate and incomplete because the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council has never been notified. He distributed a communication to Council. Page 3 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Marcus Lopez Tumach, Tongya Nation representative, read part of a communication from Cindi M. Alvitre, Gabrielino/Tongva tribe representative, dated January 31, 1994 regarding concern over possible violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Native American Grace Protection Act, Public Resource Code and traditional values and morals of the Gabrielino/Tongva. He distributed a copy of Ms. Alvitre's letter to Council. Tamara Phibbs and Virginia Georoe, Sierra Club representatives spoke in support of preservation regarding destruction of nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of birds, one of the largest open spaces in Orange County, support hand-digging on the site, and oppose auger drilling. Dr. Robert Winchell, California State University, Department of Geological Sciences professor, spoke in opposition to the proposed development due to water saturated soil, close proximity of Newport-Inglewood earthquake fault, shaking effect damage during an earthquake, liquefaction potential, photographs of earthquake effects, and projected loss of lives and property by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1980. He presented slides of earthquake damage in different areas of the world. He distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the development to Council. Patricia Hammond Ware, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society past president and representative, spoke in support of requesting a formal investigation and stated that the site was nominated to National Register of Historic Places by Historical Resources Commission on November 4, 1993. She distributed a communication to Council. Speakers in Support of the Koll Company Plan Peter Denniston, Signal Landmark past president and Bolsa Chica Conservancy representative, Steve Anderson, and Pam Julien, Bolsa Chica Alliance representatives, Lynn Beach, Maurice Voce, Barry Garcia and Ron Mayhew spoke in support of the Koll Company Plan citing that the city does not have the funds to buy and restore the wetlands, opposition to the City Council fighting property owners, project complies with the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan, support private property rights, fair and equitable plan, major wetland restoration project, important focus and environmental attraction for the city, Cecil Birnbaum, spoke in support of the Koll Company Plan regarding the current lack of visual appeal, oil operation, dying eucalyptus grove, annual fire hazard on the mesa, and steady deterioration of wetlands without sea water flushing, . He distributed pictures to Council. Susan Hori, Koll Real Estate Group representative, read into the records excerpts of two letters which were distributed to Council from Phillip Ibanez, Professional Nation American Cultural Resource Monitor Director dated January 31, 1994 and Nancy Whitney-Desauels, Ph.D., President Scientific Resource Surveys, Incorporated dated January 31, 1994. Speakers in Opposition to the Environmental Impact Report Phyllis Maywhort, Sunset Beach Community Association representative, and Donna Tucker spoke in opposition to the traffic impact being inadequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report stating it will result in gridlock, opposition to six lanes of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway, will eliminate business district of Seal Beach, could cutoff entire area during disaster, increased freeway traffic, sensitive flood plain area, active earthquake fault area, and possible damage from liquefaction, Jack Radle, Los Patos Homeowners Association representative, addressed inaccuracies and misstatements contained in the Environmental Impact Report relating to the Los Patos area regarding form, scale and massing of structures not consistent with existing residential developments and increased density per acre. He distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the development to the City Council. Page 4-Council/Agency Minutes-01/31/94 ` Speakers in Support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan Tom Livengood, Amigos de Bolsa Chica representative, spoke in support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan. He stated that the Coalition plan should be reviewed by federal and state agencies for impact on the wetlands, and these evaluations should be a part of the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that the city should be the lead agency as it will have an impact on the city's finances and services. Council Comments Discussion by Council and staff regarding property owner rights, change in lead agency from the city to the county, property not for sale, property not located in the city, initial permit funds lost to county, annexation to the city, the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan, citizen opposition and Councilmembers in opposition to development of the Bolsa Chica. Speakers in Opposition to Koll Company Restoration of Wetlands Don Chisholm, University of California Los Angeles Political Science professor and Surfrider Foundation representative, presented information regarding Signal Landmark operations in the City of Coronado and stated that burn dump ash was dumped on private property and adjacent property including seven acres of canyon and fresh water wetlands without the owners' permission. He distributed an extensive communication regarding Signal Landmark and the dumping of hazardous waste on the Otay Mesa in San Diego to Council. Jericho Poplar Bartlow, Surfrider Foundation National Director and Charles Moore, Bill Gregonr, Mike Pincetich, and Gordon Labetz, Surfrider Foundation representatives, spoke regarding dumping of hazardous materials by Signal Landmark in 1987, erosion of hazardous materials into Spring Canyon in 1988, burn dump ash contains lead, and destruction of wetlands. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation representative, presented a video report of a dumping site at Otay Mesa in San Diego and the Coronado site where hazardous materials remain. REQUEST TO TAKE AGENDA ITEM OUT OF ORDER Councilmember Bauer requested that the item regarding the Archaeological Excavations in the Bolsa Chica be taken out of order. Following discussion by Council and staff, a motion was made by Councilmember Bauer, seconded by Leipzig, to take the issue pertaining to the archaeological excavations out of order. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None (City Council)ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN THE BOLSA CHICA-DECISION CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994 The City Clerk presented a communication from Councilmember Bauer to the City Clerk dated January 26, 1994 entitled Council Agenda Items for January 31, 1994 which included the subject of Archaeological Excavations in the Bolsa Chica. Page 5 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the impact 4,484 homes will have on the city parks, libraries, beaches, streets, sewers, water system and stated that taxpayers will be paying or underwriting the cost. He stated that Koll Company has indicated that if they do not get to build on the wetlands, they will not contribute the money to restore the wetlands. He spoke regarding the archaeological findings, inconsistencies relating to the human remains found, and that the human remains are not reported in the Environmental Impact Report. Lucy Dunn, Koll Company representative, listed the organizations involved in the archaeological investigations including Native American Monitors, Native American Heritage Commission, California Coastal Commission, County of Orange, Coroner's Office. University of California Los Angeles, University of Nevada, and University of Georgia, etc. She stated that the bone fragments reported to be 8,000 years old have not been dated due to an agreement with the Native American Heritage Commission. She stated that there has not been widespread publicity about the excavation results due to concern about amateur disturbance of historical sacred sites. She stated that the Koll Company categorically and absolutely denies that any law has been broken by anyone associated with them and demanded that due process be followed before the City of Huntington Beach makes any suggestion to the contrary. She distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 to Council in support of the proposed project. Kirk Kirkland stated that he did not believe that calling for an investigation was the appropriate action for Council to take at this time. He spoke in support of development of the area, restoration of the wetlands, and private property owner rights. Marcus Lopez Tumach, Tongva Nation representative, spoke regarding the confusion about appropriate Indian monitors. He stated that the Gabrielino/Tongva people, the most likely descendants, and the American Indian Heritage Commission has not been notified or informed. He expressed concern regarding the violation of California Environmental Quality Act, Repatriation Act, and Native American Commission. He distributed a communication to Council entitled Traditional Tongva Policy Regarding Aboriginal Resources, dated January, 1989. Flossie Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative, spoke in support of preservation of the Bolsa Chica. She stated that in 1983 the ORA 83 site was voted by the State Historic Preservation Commission as an eligible site for the National Register and was not forwarded to the Register. She stated that he had been told human remains of Native Americans have been taken out of the site. Mayor Moulton-Patterson spoke in support of deferring action regarding the archaeological excavations for a week until the Bolsa Chica Strategic Committee can review. She asked Lucy Dunn if the work had been stopped in the area. Lucy Dunn responded at that all excavations were completed in December of 1993. Discussion was held by Council and staff regarding opposition to the Bolsa Chica Strategic Planning Committee, deadline for comments, concerns relating to the cultural and archaeological resources, environmental impact process required to address all comments received, and possible legal actions contemplated. Roger Holt, Special Counsel, spoke regarding the transcript of the hearing being prepared, questions raised, allegations reported in the press, and the responsibility of the county to respond to all issues. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding his objective being to make sure that the Environmental Impact Report reviews everything and to protect the rights of the citizens and Native Americans. A motion was made by Councilmember Bauer, seconded by Winchell, to continue consideration of the recommended action as follows to February 14, 1994 to carefully craft a response to the Environmental Impact Report and to discuss and develop a process to deal with answering the questions that were raised regarding the archaeological investigation. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Room B-8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, January 31, 1994 Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Wnchell, Sullivan, Leipzig (arrived 5:15 p.m.) ABSENT: None CALL CLOSED SESSION The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-Christopher Carothers v. City of Huntington Beach- OCSCC 692112 (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-State of California v. BP America, et al (American Trader Oil Spill)-OCSCC 646339 (120.80) The 'Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 4956.9(c)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation-Metro Display Advertising. (120.80) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its designated representatives regarding-Labor Relations Matters- Meet and Confer. (120.80) RECESS -RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 5:55 p.m. A videotape recording and a verbatim transcript of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Moulton-Patterson lead the Pledge of Allegiance. LCi y Council) PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO FORWARD TO ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY-RE: ADEQUACY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM- The Mayor announced that this a public hearing to receive oral comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program, oral comments will be recorded, put into transcript form and forwarded to Orange County Environmental Management Agency, Planning Division by 4:00 p.m. February 18, 1994. The Mayor also urged anyone wishing to submit their own written comments by letter to do so to Paul Lanning, Orange County Environmental Planning Division. •Page 2 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Project Description The County of Orange has assumed Lead Agency status with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Report for an applicant's proposed project at Bolsa Chica. The applicant, Koll Real Estate Group, proposes full wetland restoration in the Bolsa Chica lowlands; development of a maximum of 4, 286 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, a small portion of the Metropolitan Water District Area, and northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, and extension of Bolsa Chica Street to Springdale Street to serve as a local collector street. The Draft Environmental Impact Report also considers a modified project alternative which proposes wetland restoration; development of a maximum 3,070 residential units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Metropolitan Water District property; a wetland interpretive park on the northeastern section of the lowlands; a community park on the Bolsa Chica Mesa: and an extension of Bolsa Chica Street as a Scenic Secondary Arterial to Garfield Avenue. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS should be sent to: Paul Lanning, Environmental Management Agency/Planning Division, County of Orange, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 by the close of the comment period. The City Clerk announced communication received from Patricia delValle dated January 31, 1994 in support of preservation, Don Slaven dated January 31, 1994 in support of preservation, Harriett Wieder, Board of Supervisors, dated January 31, 1994 explaining the Environmental Impact Report process, Gwen Forsythe, Mayor of the City of Seal Beach and Mario Voce, Environmental Quality Control Board Chairman, dated November 23, 1992 regarding the Environmental Impact Report, The Mayor asked the City Clerk to read a portion of the letter from Gwen Forsythe, the Mayor of the City of Seal Beach. Orange County Representative Statement Tom Matthews, Orange County Environmental Management Agency Planning Director and County Board of Supervisor Harriett Wieder's representative, read from a copy of a letter from Supervisor Wieder dated January 31, 1994 explaining the Environmental Impact Report process was distributed to Council. Mr. Matthews reported that his office will respond to all comments received on the Environmental Impact Report and that public hearings will held before the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Speakers In Support of Preservation of the Bolsa Chica Donald Mueller, Dick Legrue, Juana Mueller, Eileen Murphy, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representatives, as well as Dave Ha11, Tom Pontac. Marcia Hanscom, Andrew Einhorn spoke in support of the preservation regarding the biological and ecological benefits, cultural and Historical site, educational and recreational resource, ancestral Indian burial ground, no full archaeological report disclosed, Environmental Impact Report incomplete, destruction of endangered and threatened species, project is a violation of the Endangered Species Act and the Coastal Act, elimination of burrowing owl habitat, destruction of nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of birds, one of the largest open spaces in Orange County, problem for wildlife with domestic pets, increased toxic urban runoff, support for biodiversity park, possible liquefaction effects,wetlands benefit flood control, Vera Rocha, Chief Yana, Gabrielino/Shashoni Indian Nation, Manuel Rocha, Gabrielino Spiritual Leader, Terrie Restivo, American Indian Movement Sacred Sites Committee representative, spoke in support of preservation regarding the culture for future generations, respect for land, and destruction of ancestral cemeteries, Martin Alcala, Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council Chairperson, stated that the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council is the only legitimate governing body of the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation. He gave a history of the tribe and stated that the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate and incomplete because the Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council has never been notified. He distributed a communication to Council. - Page 3 -Council/Agency Minutes-01/31/94 Marcus Lopez Tumach, Tongva Nation representative, read part of a communication from Cindi M. Alvitre, Gabrielino/Tongva tribe representative, dated January 31, 1994 regarding concern over possible violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Native American Grace Protection Act, Public Resource Code and traditional values and morals of the Gabrielino/Tongva. He distributed a copy of Ms. Alvitre's letter to Council. Tamara Phibbs and Virginia Georae, Sierra Club representatives spoke in support of preservation regarding destruction of nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of birds, one of the largest open spaces in Orange County, support hand-digging on the site, and oppose auger drilling. Dr. Robert Winchell, California State University, Department of Geological Sciences professor, spoke in opposition to the proposed development due to water saturated soil, close proximity of Newport-Inglewood earthquake fault, shaking e:fect damage during an earthquake, liquefaction potential, photograp:is of earthquake effects, and projected loss of lives and property by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1980. He presented slides of earthquake damage in different areas of the world. He distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the development to Council. Patricia Hammond Ware, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society past president and representative, spoke in support of requesting a formal investigation and stated that the site was nominated to National Register of Historic Places by Historical Resources Commission on November 4, 1993. She distributed a communication to Council. Speakers in Support of the Koll Company y Plan Peter Denniston, Signal Landmark past president and Bolsa Chica Conservancy representative, Steve Anderson, and Pam Julien, Bolsa Chica Alliance representatives, Lynn Beach, Maurice Voce, Barry Garcia and Ron Mayhew spoke in support of the Koll Company Plan citing that,Ie city does not have the funds to buy and restore the wetlands, opposition to the City Council fighting property owners, project complies with the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan, support private property rights, fair and equitable plan, major wetland restoration project, important focus and environmental attraction for the city, Cecil Birnbaum, spoke in support of the Koll Company Plan regarding the current lack of visual appeal, oil operation, dying eucalyptus grove, annual fire hazard on the mesa, and steady deterioration of wetlands without sea water flushing, . He distributed pictures to Council. Susan Hori, Koll Real Estate Group representative, read into the records excerpts of two letters which were distributed to Council from Phillip Ibanez, Professional Nation American Cultural Resource Monitor Director dated January 31, 1994 and Nancy Whitney-Desauels, Ph.D., President Scientific Resource Surveys, Incorporated dated January 31, 1994. Sneakers in Opposition to the Environmental Impactport Phyllis Maywhort, Sunset Beach Community Association representative, and Donna Tucker spoke in opposition to the traffic impact being inadequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report stating it will result in gridlock, opposition to six lanes of traffic on Pacific Coast Highway, will eliminate business district of Seal Beach, could cutoff entire area during disaster, increased freeway traffic, sensitive flood plain area, active earthquake fault area, and possible damage from liquefaction, Jack Radle, Los Patos Homeowners Association representative, addressed inaccuracies and misstatements contained in the Environmental Impact Report relating to the Los Patos area regarding form, scale and massing of structures not consistent with existing residential developments and increased density per acre. He distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the development to the City Council. Page 4-Council/Agency Minutes-01/31/94 Speakers in Support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan Tom Livengood, Amigos de Bolsa Chica representative, spoke in support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan. He stated that the Coalition plan should be reviewed by federal and state agencies for impact on the wetlands, and these evaluations should be apart of the Environmental Impact Report. He stated that the city should be the lead agency as it will have an impact on the city's finances and services. Cguncil Comments Discussion by Council and staff regarding property owner rights, change in lead agency from the city to the county, property not for sale, property not located in the city, initial permit funds lost to county, annexation to the city, the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan, citizen opposition and Councilmembers in opposition to development of the Bolsa Chica. Speakers in Opposition to Koll Company Restoration of Wetlands Dan Chisholm, University of California Los Angeles Political Science professor and Surfrider Foundation representative, presented information regarding Signal Landmark operations in the City of Coronado and stated that burn dump ash was dumped on private property and adjacent property including seven acres of canyon and fresh water wetlands without the owners' permission. He distributed an extensive communication regarding Signal Landmark and the dumping of hazardous waste on the Otay Mesa in San Diego to Council. Jericho Poplar Bartlow, Surfrider Foundation National Director and Charles Moore, Bill Gregory, Mike Pincetich, and Gordon Labetz, Surfrider Foundation representatives, spoke regarding dumping of hazardous materials by Signal Landmark in 1987, erosion of hazardous materials into Spring Canyon in 1988, burn dump ash contains lead, and destruction of wetlands. Don Schulz, Surfrider Foundation representative, presented a video report of a dumping site at Otay Mesa in San Diego and the Coronado site where hazardous materials remain. REQUEST TO TAKE AGENDA ITEM OUT OF ORDER Councilmember Bauer requested that the item regarding the Archaeological Excavations in the Bolsa Chica be taken out of order. Following discussion by Council and staff, a motion was made by Councilmember Bauer, seconded by Leipzig, to take the issue pertaining to the archaeological excavations out of order. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None (City Council)ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS IN THE BOLSA CHICA -DECISION CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994 The City Clerk presented a communication from Councilmember Bauer to the City Clerk dated January 26, 1994 entitled Council Agenda Items for January 31, 1994 which included the subject of Archaeological Excavations in the Bolsa Chica. Page 5 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the impact 4,484 homes will have on the city parks, libraries, beaches, streets, sewers, water system.and stated that taxpayers will be paying or underwriting the cost. He stated that Koll Company has indicated that if they do not get to build on the wetlands, they will not contribute the money to restore the wetlands. He spoke regarding the archaeological findings, inconsistencies relating to the human remains found, and that the human remains are not reported in the Environmental Impact Report. Lucy Dunn, Koll Company representative, listed the organizations involved in the archaeological investigations including Native American Monitors, Native American Heritage Commission, California Coastal Commission, County of Orange, Coroner's Office. University of California Los Angeles, University of Nevada, and University of Georgia, etc. She stated that the bone fragments reported to be 8,000 years old have not been dated due to an agreement with the Native American Heritage Commission. She stated that there has not been widespread publicity about the excavation results due to concern about amateur disturbance of historical sacred sites. She stated that the Koll Company categorically and absolutely denies that any law has been broken by anyone associated with them and demanded that due process be followed before the City of Huntington Beach makes any suggestion to the contrary. She distributed a communication dated January 31, 1994 to Council in support of the proposed project. Kirk Kirkland stated that he did not believe that calling for an investigation was the appropriate action for Council to take at this time. He spoke in support of development of the area, restoration of the wetlands, and private property owner rights. Marcus Lopez Tumach, Tongva Nation representative, spoke regarding the confusion about appropriate Indian monitors. He stated that the Gabrielino/Tongva people, the most likely descendants, and the American Indian Heritage Commission has not been notified or informed. He expressed concern regarding the violation of California Environmental Quality Act, Repatriation Act, and Native American Commission. He distributed a communication to Council entitled Traditional Tongva Policy Regarding Aboriginal Resources, dated January, 19219. Flossie Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative, spoke in support of preservation of the Bolsa Chica. She stated that in 1983 the ORA 83 site was voted by the State Historic Preservation Commission as an eligible site for the National Register and was not forwarded to the Register. She stated that he had been told human remains of Native Americans have been taken out of the site. Mayor Moulton-Patterson spoke in support of deferring action regarding the archaeological excavations for a week until the Bolsa Chica Strategic Committee can review. She asked Lucy Dunn if the work had been stopped in the area. Lucy Dunn responded at that all excavations were completed in December of 1993. Discussion was held by Council and staff regarding opposition to the Bolsa Chica Strategic Planning Committee, deadline for comments, concerns relating to the cultural and archaeological resources, environmental impact process required to address all comments received, and possible legal actions contemplated. Roger Holt, Special Counsel, spoke regarding the transcript of the hearing being prepared, questions raised, allegations reported in the press, and the responsibility of the county to respond to all issues. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding his objective being to make sure that the Environmental Impact Report reviews everything and to protect the rights of the citizens and Native Americans. A motion was made by Councilmember Bauer, seconded by Winchell, to continue consideration of the recommended action as follows to February 14, 1994 to carefully craft a response to the Environmental Impact Report and to discuss and develop a process to deal with answering the questions that were raised regarding the archaeological investigation. Page 6 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Recommended Action -Deferred to February 14. 1994 a. Submit a letter to the Orange County Grand Jury to investigate the activities of all persons involved in the find to determine the truth of the matter. The Grand Jury would be encouraged to use their subpoena powers and the ability to take sworn testimony. b. Seek a temporary restraining order to stop any more degradation of the site by those currently in charge until it is determined if any laws have been broken. c. Contact the Coastal Commission to have them withdraw all permits for activities of any kind in the Bolsa Chica until the situation can be further evaluated. d. Contact the Orange County District Attorney to determine if any State laws have been broken. e. Contact the United States Department of Justice to see if any Federal laws have been broken. f. Contact a cross-section of universities and native American groups to determine who has the competence, desire, and ability to deal with this archeological find in a scientific and culturally sensitive manner. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: Winchell ABSENT: None RECESS -RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 10:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING RESUMED RE: ADEQUACY OF COUNTY OF ORANGE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM- PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO RECEIVE VERBAL COMMENTS TO FORWARD TO ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY Speakers In Support of Preservation of the Bolsa Chica Rudy Vietmeier, Sierra Club representative, Scott Runge and Paul Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representatives, Debbie Castillo, school teacher, Jimi Castillo, Spiritual Leader and Tongva Council representative, Larry Geisse and Donald Guillaume spoke in support of preservation of the Bolsa Chica regarding support for open space, oppose restructure of wetlands and seashore, oppose destruction of existing wildlife habitat, support preservation for children to play and run, support alternate locations for the project, oppose traffic impacts, oppose pet hazard to wildlife, oppose destruction of native sites, oppose density, opposition to development, liquefaction, earthquake faults, houses sinking, and current condition of the wetlands is a result of man's development. Speakers in Support of the Koll Company Plan Ernest Bartolo spoke in support of the proposed development. He stated that the city has been trying to block development for over fifteen years and that the City Council should stop trying to undermine the efforts of the landowner and the county and start working with them to develop an upscale community of which we can be proud. He presented a communication dated January 31, 1994 in support of the Bolsa Chica Plan to Council. Page 7 -Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 Pat DeMars, Bolsa Chica Alliance representative, Brad Hills, and Bob Traver, spoke in support of the proposed Koll Company plan regarding the improvement of the appearance of the area, current degradation of the wetlands, wetlands continued deterioration without daily tidal exchange, restoration at Koll Company expense, no cost to taxpayers, Linear Park, creation of new jobs, traffic improvement plan, and increased sales tax revenue for the city. Motion to Continue Meeting Past 11:00 P.M. The Mayor announced that it is eleven o'clock and to comply with Council policy, asked for a motion to continue the meeting. A motion was made by Sullivan, seconded by Leipzig, to continue the meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: Silva ABSENT: None Speakers in Opposition to the Environmental Impact Report Gerald Chapman, Gus Ayer, Green Valley Homeowners Association representative, Connie Boardman, Biologist and Bolsa Chica Land Trust Board Member, Bruce Monroe, Sierra Club representative, Cindy Cooley, Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative, Charlie Davis,Vincent Jo. Dean Albright, Huntington Beach Tomorrow representative, Jan Vandersloot, Bolsa Chica Land Trust Vice-President, spoke regarding the plan model used in the analysis for the Santa Ana River Bridge crossings, environmental impact resource documents have not been made available to the public, effect of new land use designations of the General Plan, effect of project on r� circulation plan, possible mitigation funding from Measure M or Gas Tax funds, traffic impacts not adequately addressed, pets as predators in the wetlands, procedure, enforcement and monitoring of mitigation factor, ability of developer to provide water to the area, errors and omissions in the Environmental Impact Report, public funds will be required for restoration and to maintain the wetlands, impact of pets on ground nesting birds, destruction of wildlife habitat, mitigation plans vague and incomplete, restoration of wetlands should be done prior to any housing or recreation construction, opposition to the development due to the potential of liquefaction and subsidence to the land for the proposed project, previous oil drilling, Newport-Inglewood earthquake fault, soils not solid, gradual subsidence, possible construction defect lawsuit, bad harbors constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the state, opposition to proposed jetties, support Native American concerns, reduction in air quality, impact on library parking lot, over built residential, diminished tax base, alternative land swap with closed military bases at Tustin Marine Corps Air Station and El Toro, and public health problem with Hanta Virus carried by the Deer Mouse. Nancy Donaven, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke regarding letters relating to archaeological material omitted from the appendix and stated that the city's application for the North American Wetlands Grant has not been withdrawn as stated in the Environmental Impact Report. She presented a communication dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the Environmental Impact Report to Council. Speakers in Support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan Chuck Nelson, Amigos de Bolsa Chica President, stated that the Amigos are reading and evaluating the Environmental Impact Report and are in the process of preparing a written analysis for submission to the County by February 18, 1994. He spoke in support of the city contracting outside expert assistance, in opposition to the lack of public hearings, and change in lead agencies from the city to the county. He stated that a copy of the Amigos review would be transmitted to the city. Page 8 -Council/Agency Minutes-01/31/94 J. David Winscott, Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors member, spoke in support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan as implemented,by the Koll Real Estate Group. He spoke regarding the economic generator, new jobs, economic input, and stated that the Chamber of Commerce would be transmitting written comments in support of the plan to the county. He distributed a communication from the Chamber of Commerce in support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan. Donald Hart, Bolsa Chica Alliance representative, spoke in opposition to the City Council obstructing progress. Communications Received During the Meeting The City Clerk announced communications that were given to her during the meeting from Ann Jean Spiegel dated January 31, 1994 entitled Preservation of the Bolsa Chica Wetland and Mesa, 1,700 Acres Intact, Rosemarie Bachman dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to development, Nancy Donaven dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the Environmental Impact Report, Steven Dorame dated January 31, 1993 in support of wetland preservation, Jack Radle dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to the development, Ernest Bartolo dated January 31, 1994 in support of the Bolsa Chica Plan and Vi Cowden dated January 31, 1994 in opposition to development and Acwot, Tomeyar Speaker for the Tongva Nation, dated March 30, 1989. Directed Transcript of the Meeting Be Transmitted to Orange County The Mayor directed that the public comment transcript of this meeting together with written comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report would be transmitted to the county and recommended that all speakers and other interested parties submit their comments in writing to the county. (City Council) RESOLUTION NO.6566-WAIVER OF WATER HOOK UP FEES FOR RECENT EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS-ADOPTED The City Attorney presented Resolution No.6566 for Council adoption -"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGON BEACH TO WAIVE WATER DEPOSITS FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE RELOCATED TO HUNTINGTON BEACH AS A RESULT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM THE NORTHRIDGE EARTHQUAKE." (Waiver of new resident water hook up fees for recent earthquake victims whose homes were severely damaged and who are moving into Huntington Beach.) Councilmember Bauer reported that in some Southern California areas the hook-up fee for utilities is being waived for earthquake victims who have to relocate and would not have a significant financial impact on the city finances. A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Robitaille, to adopt Resolution No.6566. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan, Leipzig NOES: None ABSENT: None REQUEST FOR REPORT-EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS Mayor Moulton-Patterson requested a report of what the city is doing on Earthquake Preparedness to be presented at a televised Council meeting. The City responded that he would have the Fire Chiefs staff prepare a report. Page 9-Council/Agency Minutes -01/31/94 ADJOURNMENT-COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, February 7, 1994, at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman STATEMENT TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 31 , 1994 DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORANGE COUNTY BOLSA CHICA EIR OF DECEMBER 20 , 1993 GOOD EVENING MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL . MY NAME IS DR . ROBERT WINCHELL I AN A PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES , CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH , A REGISTERED GEOLOGIST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND A RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . I APPEAR BEFORE YOU TONIGHT PRIMARILY AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST . I MIGHT ADD , HOWEVER , THAT MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ALSO MAKES ME AN EXCEPTIONALLY CONCERNED CITIZEN , RESIDENT AND TAXPAYER WITH REGARD DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR THE BOLSA CHICA . THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL DEFECT OF THIS EIR IS ITS FAILURE TO FULLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE TO A COMPLETELY INFORMED DECISION CONCERNING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA . BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS I WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO INDICATE A VERY FEW OF THE MANY AND IMPORTANT REASONS FOR THIS STATEMENT . I ASK WHY THESE AND THE MANY OTHERS LIKE THEM DO NOT APPEAR IN THE EIR . 1 . GEOLOGISTS AS WELL AS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS KNOW THE WATER SATURATED SOILS LIKE THOSE IN THE BOLSA CHICA , REFERRED TO AS BAD OR POOR GROUND , TO BE SOME OF THE WORST KIND OF SOILS THAT ONE COULD CONTEMPLATE FOR THE LOCATION OF STRUCTURES , ESPECIALLY HABITABLE STRUCTURES . 2 . THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT IS CONSIDERED BY GEOLOGISTS TO BE THE SINGLE MOST DANGEROUS FAULT IN CALIFORNIA PRECISELY BECAUSE MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS ACTIVE FAULT IS ON BAD GROUND EXACTLY DIKE THAT WHICH OCCURS IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA . 3 . ONLY 5-10% OF THE DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EARTHQUAKE INVOLVES FAULT RUPTURE . THE OTHER 90-95% RESULTS FROM SHAKING EFFECTS . SHAKING EFFECTS ARE THE WORST IN POOR GROUND LIKE THAT FOUND IN THE BOLSA CHICA AND BECOME MORE POWERFUL WHEN FILLS LIKE THOSE NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA ARE PLACED ON THESE MATERIALS . 4 . THERE IS NO KNOWN OR PROVEN WAY TO BE SURE THAT LIQUEFACTION , A SITUATION WHERE SOLID SOILS , LIKE THOSE PRESENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA , BECOME LIQUID , CAN BE AVOIDED . STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LIQUEFACTION ARE TYPICALLY SEVERELY DAMAGED , PERHAPS DESTROYED AND/OR NO LONGER USEFUL OR HABITABLE . 1 S . THE GEOLOGICAL LITERATURE IS FULL OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE SHAKING EFFECTS INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION ASSOCIATED WITH MATERIALS LIKE THOSE FOUND IN THE BOLSA CHICA . SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS COMMONLY USED TO ILLUSTRATE THESE EFFECTS WERE TAKEN IN THE BOLSA CHICA , HUNTINGTON BEACH AND NEARBY AREAS . THESE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDE GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA , WHICH CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY SOMEONE WITH NO BACKGROUND IN GEOLOGY . YET NOT ONE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEARS IN THE EIR . I HAVE SLIDES OF SOME OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH ME IF YOU WISH TO SEE THEM AT SOME POINT . 6 . ANOTHER EARTHQUAKE ALONG THE NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT , LIKE THE 1933 LONG BEACH EARTHQUAKE , WHOSE EPICENTER WAS ONLY 10 MILES FROM THE BOLSA CHICA , WAS PROJECTED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY IN 1980 AS RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF 29 ,000 LIVES AND 69 BILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS . THESE LOSSES WERE AND STILL CAN BE , EXPECTED TO BE CONCENTRATED LARGELY IN DEVELOPED AREAS LIKE THAT PROPOSED FOR THE BOLSA CHICA . IN CLOSING , I WISH TO SAY THAT IN MY BEST OPINION AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST THAT , SHORT OF BUILDING ON THE SIDE OF AN ACTIVE VOLCANO OR ON ACTIVE TIDAL FLATS , THE COMBINATION OF BAD GROUND AND PROXIMITY TO A KNOWN ACTIVE FAULT MAKE IT A TYPE EXAMPLE OF WORST KIND OF AREA THAT COULD BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT . I BELIEVE ANY GEOLOGIST UNFETTERED BY A VESTED INTEREST WILL TELL YOU THE SAME . SUCH AN AREA IS ONLY FIT FOR FOR USE AS OPEN SPACE IN PERPETUITY . TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO UNNECESSARILY AND INDEFENSIBLY RISK NOT ONLY THE LIFE , LIMB AND PROPERTY NOT ONLY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO WOULD LIVE THERE BUT THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF ALL TAXPAYERS . THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ME , THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND OTHER INTERESTED CITIZENS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS VITAL MATTER , AN OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE COUNTY AND SUPERVISOR WIEDER HAVE NOT PROVIDED . 2 (�1) Page 11 -Council/Agency Agenda- 12/19/94 t COUNCIUAGENDA ITEMS H-1. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIUAGENCY MEMBER JIM SILVA: H-2.' SUBMITTED BY COUNCIUAGENCY MEMBER RALPH BAUER: REQUEST STAFF REPORT ON FOLLOWING ITEMS RE: COUNTY'S PLAN FOR BOLSA CHICA EIR (440.60) 1. Impact of police service and financial implications. 2: Impact of fire prevention services and financial implications. 3. Impact and mitigation of traffic and financial implications. 4. Impact of supplying water. 5. General financial impact. 6. Nature of the developer agreement, its impact on the city, and its contrast with the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. 7. Financial nexus between Bluff development and Wetlands restoration. 8. Input on the consequences of contesting the EIR, versus not contesting the EIR presented by I in.,, J-essup, and Cohen. Yr �S� WlY�'l G<Jn �fBh re ' (City Council) ITEMS RE: IMPACT OF ORANGE COUNTY FINANCIAL CRISIS ON CITY 1. Prior to the end of 1994 the City should retain a financial consultant to advise the City on the current County financial crisis and to advise us on short term • and long term strategies for our investment portfolio. 2. Administration should make a presentation as soon as possible on the impact on the City from the County financial crisis and actions being taken to correct the problem. 3. Administration should make a presentation as to their proposal for balancing the City budget Council should be prepared to hold as many special meetings'as necessary to accomplish these tasks before the end of this year. 6011.� H-3. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIUAGENCY PRO TEM DAVE SULLIVAN: ! J H-4. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIUAGENCY MAYOR VIC LEIPZIG: (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) DEFERRED FROM 1215/94 - PROPOSAL TO REDESIGNATE REDEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TO BE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (120.10) Proposal that the City Council hereby redesignates the Redevelopment Committee of the City Council to be the Economic Development Committee to meet with staff on a bi-monthly basis to review all pending business development and redevelopment activities. The Economic Development Committee will consist of thred City Council members as appointed by the Mayor. . 7z.s United States Depaq'nient of. the Interior 0 OFFlU OF-1-1 E SECRETARY A � ' Washington',U.C.20240 /2- December 12, 1994 7"14 C061j 4,ft Mr. Thomas F. Riley, Chairman Orange County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 687 Santa Ana, CA 92702-0687 Dear Mr. Riley: i I am writing to you in an attempt to clarify the;numerous news articles and other rumors that have been circulating about the Department of the Imerior's interest in Bolsa Chica. While our understanding with The Koll Company hash been that we would conduct our discussions discreetly, it seems appropriate to write directly to you to clarify the situation. First, let me say that the Department does not intend, nor would it be appropriate, to interfere with the local entitlement process. However, it would only be accurate to say that there has been significant interest within the Federal government to protect the wetland area, locally referred to as the "lowland", for several decades.__ Thus, we have pursued meetings with Kull Real Estate Group concerning a possible purchase at IDolsa Chica of this area over die past several months. Second, as you might imagine, a purchase of this kind by the Federal government is characterized by a number of complicating factors, including the involvement of numerous agencies and entities. Other agencies working with us on this project include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as numerous California agencies. To accomplish the purchase of the wetlands and/or the "mesa" of Bolsa Chica, the Department is attempting to put in place a unique financial vehicle that is complex. � , Thercfore, we are probably six months away from being in a position to make an offer assuming all parties work diligently and Koll remains a willing seller of the_oroperty. Finally, although all parties involved in this utidettaking are working in good faith, there is no guarantee that the necessary funds will be obtalined, or a purchase agreement will be concluded with Koll, to purchase any part of Bolsa Chica by the Department. i i i I I I i I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the statu$ of the Department's interest in Bolsa Chica. I hope that this assists you in your deliberations i n December 14. i Sincerely, Allen D. cRcynolda SNcial Alsistwit to the Secretary cc: Richard M. Oitwein, President Koll Real Estate Group i i I I I I I I i i I i i i I i I G .y ! .. ef 14 • � I 15f U V November 21, 1994 RECEIVED FROM u'- To: Michael Potts AND MADE A PARf OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF (1-—15-cj y Shirley Commons-Long OFFICE OF THECITYCLERK Clarice Blamer CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK Chuck McBurney _PobllL Cbrnlrt`h�s Thomas Moody Paul Lanning Re: RDEIR Technical Appendices, Volume #551--Option B Wetlands Phasing Program. BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS There appears to be no reference in the RDEIR about a written agreement or contract between Koll Real Estate Group (KREG) and Shell Oil Company (SOVI) as to mutually accepted timing frames for the phasing program of the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) . Has KREG even discussed the phasing program with the lessee, SOVI? According to the speech by Bill Gibson.- at the County Hearing (copy included) on Wetland Restoration, one would surmise that there is no written agreement or contract concerning the phasing implementation of the WRP. Although SOVI says they will cooperate with the Restoration of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, there was no mention made as to what extent that cooper- ation will go. On page. 7-13 of the RDEIR Technical Appendices, Volume #551 through page 7-22 under 7.2.3 Detailed Option B Wetlands Phasing , the following Phasing Areas: 1A, Seasonal Ponds, 113, Full Tidal, 1C, Full Tidal, 1D, Muted Tidal, 3A, Full Tidal, 3B, Seasonal Ponds, 3D, Muted Tidal Zone, 4A Seasonal Ponds, 413, Seasonal Ponds, 4C Muted Tidal Area, 4D, Non-Tidal, 5A, Muted Tidal, 5B, Seasonal Ponds, 5C, Seasonal Ponds, 5D, Non-Tidal and 6A, Muted Tidal, it is clearly stated "the timing of the following phase will depend on natural oil depletion and removal of associated oil facilities by the oil operator." What if SOVI's depletion and removal program doesn't match KREG's program? Is this another magic escape for KREG similar to the traffic loophole? There is also no responsibility taken for oil cleanup from either party anywhere in the RDEIR. The responsible party should be determined before any permits are issued. (Please see enclosed RDEIR comments by Evan Henry.) KREG claims they will provide approximately $48 million dollars for restoration. Is that in today's dollars or year 2020 dollars when the project is scheduled to be completed? The cost of each phase of wetland restoration should be figured,before any permits are issued, for the year it is scheduled to be completed. According to the rule of 12, $48 million dollars will double to $96 million dollars at 4% inflation in eighteen years. Running out of money could be another escape route for KREG. Thankyou for your attention. ` NYncy �Iarris 18002 Hartfield Circle Huntington Beach, CA. 92649 : November 12, 1994 The following is transcript prepared, word for word, from the County Hearing recorded tape on October 12, 1994. Comments by: Mr. Bill Gibson, Regional Community Relations Manager of Shell Oil Co. and a resident of Htn. Bch. At the previous public meeting, there were some persons who are not Shell employees, who said to you, in effect, don't worry about a developer or anyone else restoring the wetlands, Shell Oil Co. will do that when the oil field runs dry. I'd like to clarify that. Shell only has the rights to existing oil field roads and existing facility sites in the wetlands area and these areas are not officially a part of the wetlands themselves. Shell is not responsible for other portions of the wetlands and I'd like to ellucidate a little more by reading a part of a letter that was sent to Mr. Paul Lanning, O. C. Environmental Management, Environmental Planning Division and you probably have this letter or could put it into you records. It is on the letterhead of Shell Onshore Ventures, Inc. , and referred to as SOVI the other night, an affiliate of Shell Oil Co. , and signed by one of their officials. I'd like to read three or four paragraphs . We purchased, I will refer to SOVI as Shell because it is an affiliate of Shell, we purchased our Htn. Bch. field interest in June, 1986, from Phillips Petroleum Co. Our interests consist primarily of five onshore state leases plus three leases in the Bolsa Chica area. Our operations within the lowlands are governed primarily by three Bolsa leases and a Bolsa surface use agreement. I'll refer to that as the agreement, the agreement is between SOVI or Shell and the surface owner, Signal Bolsa Corp. , which is managed by the Koll Real EState Group. The agreement gives us specific rights in the use of the surface of our Bolsa leases. Among other things, the agreement provides that if the surface owner requests us to plug and abandon producing wells, Shell is to be compensated for the abandonment costs as well as the fair market value of the lost production from such wells. If we are requested to relocate pipelines and other facilities, these costs, for the most part, will also be paid by Signal. We wish to emphasize that Shell, pursuant to its existing agreements, is not in any way responsible for wetlands restoration. Also if Shell is prematurely required to abandon its operations, Shell must be compensated for all lost production and all expenses associated with the accelerated abandonment. Within the B61sa area, we currently operate approximately 134 active producing oil wells, 22 active injectors, that's injecting water for secondary recovery, and associated pipelines, roads and other facilities. We expect that our wells will continue to produce for at least another 20 to 30 years and as was mentioned earlier, it will actually be phased, (refers to comments to Paul Lanning in first part of letter which was not recorded on tape.) seldom, if ever, does an oilfield just go and then stop, so there will be a phaseout. If the Bolsa Chica area is restored in phases where trails and public accesses are provided, we would require that the oil field operations, including pipelines, be fenced in, in order to protect the public. Once again, we wish to emphasize that we intend to cooperate fully within the framework of our existing agreements with all parties involved with the proposed project. Alan (sp. ) S. Kennedy Land Department, Bakersfield LEGEND EARLIEST START DATE* /\ EXISTING RESTORATION / \ 0 1998 2005 2010 _ 2015 2020 COUNTY LCP 6q' // taas0�lai AREA BOUNDARY s ; ;.Ponds.:7 ��� r Perennial -+ - i'• ', rs' .'; Ponds BASED UPON OIL ATTRITION, �y AND COMPLETION OF THE ST -' a ad `srisz .., ' fit' SANTA ANA MAINSTEM PROJECT -/ �' �'�~'� `• Residential :''' ,'.;'�� r;,r�. .YK.; t;t�•-�C =• ,u LN} .e8sof181 �•t•;� s'� ,.�`•' I� Development -� ,i t s �cY; Ponc(9 / A ' r;l s `°Seasonal ' yn '�%t 38 r• ., Pond 9., $ee8onal \\ / y . Residential Muted , r�tiL} 4S111 <�+ 'r ;( tal� ,Ity�� �y N , 1 ^+'+ / �o ' Development Tidal Muted, 'Tidal •i' Ponds 09 .�. 415 Muted Seasonal Muted Tidal 3�► 1A Ponds r Tidal Non Seasonal \ Full Tidal Tidal Ponds % -a.• Muted Tidal Seasonal Full Tidal f w, Ponds + Q Residential ' 'tf`t pl e Development No 'Tidal t r ,I "` DFG Cell Non—Ti01 dal �` r , .uz,r i f y rr,r n�. i .(Rabbit Island]) `' Muted Non 'Tidal / ',Inner „Bolsa 'Bay Tidal L`i I 1B ,Muted Tidal i FUII Tidal f PAClF1C I' :COAST " !/GHN//►Y �' , - ® t:.Non'>>Tidal t i•},, .-�...- - )301.Sq CHICA -----------�-------------------- ----------------- -- --- ---- ---STATE -------- --- BEACH ---- "------- ------------ PACIFIC OCEAN Figure 7.4 OPTION B BOLSA C HICA MASTER WETLANDS PHASING PLAN WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAM � ►� 0 400 800 1600 �3 Shell Western E&P Inc. An 0111A1e of Shall Oil Company P 0. Box 11164 B_xersheld.CA 93389 November 24, 1992 Via Federal Express Ms . Laura Phillips City of Huntington Beach'' Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Mr. Frank Piccola U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 300 N. Los Angeles Street Los Angeles , CA 90012-2325 Dear Ms . Phillips & Mr. Piccola: SUBJECT: DRAFT EIR/EIS FOR BOLSA CHICA PROJECT CA-70153, CA-70154, CA-70155 HUNTINGTON BEACH FIELD ORANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Pursuant to the release of the Draft EIR/EIS for the proposed Bo' a ` Chica Project dated August, 1992 , Shell Western E&P Inc. (SWEPI ) has prepared several comments. These responses address issues impac'ing our current and future operation of the field. We would like to pre'ice our comments by reaffirming that we are neither a proponent nor an o:0onent of the proposed project and that we intend to cooperate fully wi:- the City, the Corps of Engineers and those immediately responsible f:- implementing any wetlands restoration and other proposed project: . Our intention in providing the following comments is to identify :hose issues which could lead to misunderstandings. These include: General-Comments 1 . There is no reference to the required negotiations with the State for the, potential early phasing out of oil field operations :n the State "Fee" Lands. Our operations within the project area =_�e governed primarily by three mineral leases and a Bolsa Surfc=e Use Agreement (BSUA) . The BSUA is between SWEPI and the surface owner, Signal Bolsa Corporation, which is managed by the Koll Manac-i-iment Company. The BSUA gives us specific rights in the use of tF-2 surface which is associated with two of the leases , but does not cover the State of California fee lands which are subject tc the State Lease. If this acreage is to become a part of the ove,all BAQC9230401 - OOOZ,Q,Q wetlands restoration plan and require early phasing out of oil field operations , it will require separate negotiations with the State of California. The State Fee Lands contain the existing ecological reserve. ' 2. The approved restoration/mitigation plan should include provision for the abandonment, removal and/or remediation of wells, power- poles , facilities , roads ," pipelines and other oil related equipment and facilities to assure that such removal can be conducted in accordance with the'requirements of agencies which have jurisdiction to impose such requirements . Various agreements exist between SWEPI and the surface owner related to the removal of these oil field related facilities . However, the timing and scope of such removal could be impacted by requirements related to wetland restoration and protection of existing habitat for birds and animals. The approved restoration plan needs to take into account any agency requirements and impacts which would affect the scope and timing of SWEPI 's associated abandonment, removal and/or remedation activities. 3. A determination as to the responsible party for any required reaban- donment work must be established in accordance with the Public Resources Code on a well by well basis. Conceivably, a number of oil wells may have been abandoned by previous oil producers and the well sites quitclaimed back to the surface owner prior to SWEPI ' s acquisition of any interest in the Bolsa properties , or SWEPI may have abandoned wells to the then existing regulatory requirements and obtained DOG approval of the abandonment. Any required reaban- donment of these previously abandoned wells would be subject to the applicable provisions of the California Public Resources Code. 4. Since SWEPI does not have an interest in certain Bolsa Lease surface area which were quitclaimed back to the surface owner prior to SWEPI ' s acquisition of the oil field, certain sumps and oil field contamination may be on lands which are not or never were owned or operated by SWEPI . Remediation or mitigation of such lands may be the obligation of other persons and responsibility for such miti- gation may need to be established. 5. The installation of the tidal channel will require the abandonment of existing SWEPI wells as "subsea abandonments" . SWEPI may be willing to abandon key existing wells as "subsea abandonments" , in cooperation with the surface owner, provided the abandonment guidelines and agencies with jurisdiction are established. Any future reabandonment work required as a result of gas or oil leaks would be very difficult to complete .with the creation of the Tidal — - Channel . BABC9230401 - 0003.0.0 Comments on Selected Portions of Draft EIS/EIR Document Page ES-21: Table ES-1 , third level box under CERCLA: "Hazardous waste remediation: is `ongoing" Comment: This is incorrect for any area that SWEPI is involved. There are no ongoing CERCLA/SARA actions and no known hazardous or toxic wastes on our leases , as defined by regulations . There is also no Hazardous Waste remediation -- - - - ongoing in our areas . Our ongoing projects are Non-Hazardous site remediations. Page ES-34: Table ES-2, Item "N" : "Hazardous materials in the soil of the Bolsa Pocket . . . will cause significant impact to health and safety, and to wildlife habitat as a result of soil disturbance during grading." Comment: The term "hazardous material " may be misused here , however there is no reference to a code or definition, and there is no explanation for the type of material it is intended to describe. Thus , the phrase "will cause" should be changed to "could cause a" . If, as in some references in the document, this was intended to describe typical crude oil stained soils, it should be noted that these soils alone would not be classified as hazardous nor would they present significant impacts to health, safety or wildlife habitat. Under Mitigation Measures the word "significant" should also be' used before "impacts to water quality" . Page ES-55: Table ES-2 , Oil Well Operations Item B: "Existing hazardous wastes onsite will require proper handling and disposal " . Comments: SWEPI has no hazardous wastes stored on our acreage within the subject area. This gives the impression that there are, and that the production of and storage of these wastes are not monitored. Small amounts of hazardous wastes are periodically produced in our oilfield operations outside the subject area and these wastes are disposed of offsite in full compliance with applicable laws and regula- tions. Additionally, the term "hazardous waste" should not be applied to non-hazardous remediations or materials that are not "wastes" , and should not be interchangeable with the term hazardous materials. Page ES-72: Item "N" : See Comment for ES-34 Page ES-96: Item "B" : See Comment for ES-55 BABC9230401 - 0004.0.0 I ► I Page 3-13: Item 0, second bullet: Comment: Regarding the comment on the phase-out of existing oiloperations '. it should be pointed out that this may bind the applicant to a schedule, but the applicant and state must still negotiate with the oil operators for buy-out/phase-out. Page 3-48: Tabl.e 3.5-1 #5: See ES-34 comment. Page 4-29: Hazardous Materials Conditions Paragraph 1 : Comments: The regulatory definition of "Hazardous Materials" should be cited. Additionally, the comment that the poten- tial presence of Hazardous materials on the property is generally related to past and present oil production activi- ties creates a bias towards assumption of guilt. Typical crude oil stained soils, which are often referred to, would not be considered hazardous based on regulatory definitions . High lead levels may be found near the Pacific Coast Highway due to years of automobile exhausts. Obviously, this site is not attributable to oilfield operations. In addition, nothing is presently known of the conditions which may have -- - — •-- been caused by the mentioned military installation. Page 4-29: Hazardous Material Conditions , Paragraph 5: "Soil samples ► taken from the area of the two operating wells were reported to contain TPH concentrations from 120 ppm up to 7 ,500 ppm. . . TETC concluded that the high TPH level 7 feet below ground surface constitutes a hazardous condition. " Comments : Without further information these statements are misleading. TPH readings of 7,500 ppm (less than 0.8 of one percent) is not considered hazardous. In fact even much higher levels of TPH alone are not considered hazardous. If high levels of other constituents , such as benzene, were present, this statement might be correct, but as stated, it is not. Elevated levels- of TPH can also be found throughout the California coastal areas from naturally occurring ground seeps. Page 4-30: 4:2.2 #6: Comments : No hazardous or toxic wastes as defined by Regulations are known by SWEPI to exist on SWEPI 's acreage subject to the EIS/EIR study. BABC9230401 - 0005.0.0 Page 4-49: 4.3.1: the high levels of choloride beneath the Huntington Mesa have been identified as oil field brine origin- ating from an abandoned waste site on the mesa . . . Since there are no existing monitoring wells , the current status of lateral migration of oil field brines into the Bolsa aquifer cannot be determined. " Comments : It would seem uncertain whether oil field brines are thecausg. for elevated levels of choloride given seawater intrusion is readily admitted. SWEPI is not aware of an abandoned waste site on our mesa acreage and has not seen a report establishing the impact of oilfield brine. This comment should reference a report or be dropped. Page 4-54: See E3-34 comment. Page 4-90: Column 2 , second paragraph: "This area has been shown to be heavily contaminated by heavy metals and construction of the tidal inlet could potentially release these contaminents to nearshore coastal waters". Comment: SWEPI is not aware of any contamination or docu- me�on that supports this comment. This comment should reference a report or be dropped. -- - Page 4-308: Oil Well Operations Paragraph 4: "A drill mud and tank waste disposal is located on site but these wastes are then transported outside the County to a Class 1 landfill ." Comments : Drilling muds are not considered a hazardous material. The term is misused here as evidenced by the sentence "The US EPA requires that any hazardous material be properly labeled and disposed" . Only Hazardous Wastes, as defined by Federal and State codes , are required to be labeled (manifested) and disposed of. If this is referring to the SWEPI Solid Waste Handling Facility (SWHF) in the Lowlands , it is incorrect. Since the SWHF material is not a hazardous waste, it is not required to be disposed of in a Class 1 facility. SWEPI is currently testing recycle options for this material , which would involve treatment onsite with possible use offsite in Caltrans projects. This •proj*ect is being pursued under the gu'idance of both the Orange County Environmental Health Care Agency and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Page 4-310: Second Paragraph: See ES-55 comments. BABC9230401 - 0006.0.0 r Page 4-311 & Page 4-312: Oil Well Operations : Comment: Hazardous wastes are not stored or disposed of ons—a in- the course of any current oilfield operations . We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the document. If we can be of any assistance, or if you have any questions , please call the under ` signed at (805) 326-5343. Very truly yours , , dzd"_-1 A. S. Kennedy Land Department California Land Division, EWC:yh cc: Ms. Lucy Dunn Mr. Daniel Gorfain Sr. Vice President, -Development Senior Staff Manager The Koll, Company California State Lands Commission t 2213 Main Street, #32 1807 13th Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Sacramento, CA 95814 Ms. Harriett Wieder Ms. Adrianne Morrison Supervisor, Second District Executive Director Orange County Hall of Admin. Amigos de Bolsa Chica P. 0. Box 687 P. 0. Box 3748 Santa Ana, CA 92702-0687 Huntington Beach , CA 92605 BABC9230401 - 0007.0.0 CEIVEC Evan C. Henry ! 1186 Gleneagles Terrace Costa Mesa, CA 92627 0 C T 0 3 1994 _ 7141722-0970 ORANGE- 6t= C01INTY EMA September 30, 1994 DIVISION INNING County of Orange Environmental Management Agency Environmental Planning Division P.O. Box 4048 - Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Fax 714-834-4652 i Attention: Mr. Paul Lanning Subject: Comments on Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Project, County Project #SS1 Dear Mr. Lanning: I have reviewed the Revised Draft EI-1 for the. Bolsa Chica Project dated August 22, 1994.My comments consist of reiteration of many comments made to the previous Draft EIR which were completely unaddressed in the preparation of the revised Draft EIR and new comments specific to the revised Draft EIR. Section 1.1.4 Project Objectives The Koll Company as project applicant is disingenuous when it lists the project objectives, most of which make a case that they want to develop the property only as a way to accomplish wetlands restoration. The bottom line is that they make profit by building houses and profit is the sole objective with all other aspects merely costs of achieving this sole objective. The proof of this is the unabashed holding hostage of the lowland from restoration if they are not allowed to utilize Lowland Option B. If they were truly interested in restoration,the lowland would be available for restoration in Option A as well,especially under the concept that restoration would be accomplished under the guise of a Mitigation Bank where the costs to Koll would be non-existent. Furthermore, since Option A does not provide for assurance of restoration, it cannot be considered mitigation- it is just a plan and that is all. The way it appears to be proposed,Koll could even extort a premium from other parties for the privilege of contributing to a mitigation bank. Section 4.2.1.5 Geological IIazards, Pages 4.2-19, and Section 4.3.4.1 Potential Effects of Project found to be Insignificant, page 4.3-12 - Naturally occurring A radioactive materials. The discussion of NORMs is completely misleading as it is focused solely on the near-surface hazards that would potentially emanate for the Pleistocene and younger sediments. This totally misses the critical issue. The NORM threat is due to the extraction of radioactive materials as part of the oilfield activities. NORMS exisf in the oil itself,as well as in the produced brines and scale on oilfield equipment and piping. The oil is produced from sediments of pre-Pleistocene age that lie at great depths below the surface sediments. uestion: What are the radioactivity levels in the Bolsa Chica and are they safe for development? -- Actual measurements need to be taken to assess the safety of development as well as the costs of abating the impacts of the presence of NORMS. ► Cumments to Draft EIR ,� Section 4.3 Hazardous Substances, pages 4.3-1 to 4.3-16 J Comment A In the prior Draft EIR,the statement was made that"recreational bird-hunting activities prior to the 1950's are not considered to have contributed measurable level of lead bird shot to the site" is completely unfounded. The Revised Draft EIR only-mentions the possible presence of a lead issue while not even addressing the need for investigation or remediation. This issue can only be resolved by the actual testing of soils in the area for the presence of lead. The potential for the presence of lead in the area is further supported by the elevated levels of lead detected in the nearby Outer Bolsa Bay (Sample BC at 110 ppm,as well as others). uestion: How can the proposed residential development be considered safe given the lack of any data necessary to eliminate the possible lead contamination due to the former presence of the hunting club on the Mesa?" —Comment B—_ It is well known throughout the real Estate and environmental industries that properties used for agriculture during the time period of prevalent use of DDT(such as the Mesa) have the potential to contain residual pesticides in concentrations above acceptable hazardous waste concentrations. No Sampling for DDT or other persistent pesticides has been done on soils where homes are to be built. In addition,the proposed project calls for excavation and movement of vast amounts of soil from the Mesa to the Lowland, where runoff of residual pesticides would have a much higher negative impact on the wetlands. Koll should be required to sample for pesticides and incorporate a mitigation plan before any agricultural to residential land conversion occurs. Question: How can the hazardous waste issues such as residual pesticides be ignored in the EIR? Comment C The geotechnical drilling (WCC 1986) utilized an OVA to screen for the presence of volatile organic contamination on the Mesa and the Lowland Contrary to the cavalier assumption that the presence is "likely due to naturally occurring methane in soils at levels that are not dangerous (TETC, 1988), such levels have to be assumed to be problematic until illustrated as otherwise by actual soil testing and analysis for hydrocarbons. This would be consistent with regulatory enforcement practices throughout California. Several technical inaccuracies exist as well. First, there is no proven or consistent correlation between organic vapor readings in headspace analyses and the actual results of soil analyses that - - ----would-yield the true level of contamination. Furthermore,the state of the practice of environmental field screening with an OVA in 1986 was at best in its infancy and should be considered unreliable. In addition,an OVA can not discriminate between the presence of methane and the presence of' ` other hydrocarbon compounds so the assumption of methane presence is unfounded without specific testing. The SDA (1991) report actually corroborates this understanding as in the EIR it was concluded "that no direct correlation could be inferred between the field-measured headspace values and actual soil concentrations of volatile hydrocarbon compounds." It is also a concern that naturally occurring methane, if in fact the compound of concern, is not considered to be a problem. Two aspects contribute to this. First, methane is a degradation product of other carbon compounds (such as oil), so hydrocarbon contamination could be present even if not evidenced by volatile(gaseous) hydrocarbon measurements. Second, methane is an explosive gas that can create its own hazard (an example is the Fairfax district of Los Angeles which had a dramatic explosion several years ago). No measures have been presented for mitigating the risks that would be posed by housing and other structures. Comments to Draft EIR uestion: How can contamination be discounted when inappropriate data collection is used in, conjunction with misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data? It is clear that extensive testing needs to be performed to determine the potential impact of either methane or hydrocarbon ✓ contamination over much of the Bolsa Chica area,especially with the significant potential safety and cost considerations. Comment D There is known serious contamination of the soil and groundwater along the 8-inch wet gas pipeline that traverses the Mesa. Over 75% of the length of the SOVI wet gas pipeline is documented as contaminated. The most recent referenced report on this situation is dated 1989 (over 5 years old). It is not credible that cleanup is being done responsibly when the referenced information concerning the extent of contamination and cleanup is from 1989 (GTI). It must be interpreted that the supposed responsible party, SOVI,has taken no action on the necessary cleanup. In the absence of current information that includes the CWRQCB's requirements for further action, it must be assumed that SOVI is not acting expeditiously to clean the site,if at all, and that the EIR,by using dated information,is misrepresenting the current conditions at the site. Question: Without direct written confirmation from the CRWQCB that SOVI is acting appropriately to clean up the pipeline spills,written commitment to the protect proponents by SOVI to the project proponents to clean up the problems,and confirmation of the financial capability of SOVI to honor such commitments, what data can the County rely upon to make the EIR credible with respect to the problems associated with the wet gas pipeline? Comment E Extensive areas of hydrocarbon contamination were reported to be present throughout the Bolsa Chica including major areas such as the wet gas pipeline, Gas Plant and multiple oily sumps. The handling of these areas are dealt with in two ways: 1) by casually inferring that SOVI will be responsible("As the areas subject requiring additional study are in the areas subject to oil operations,these studies will be completed by the oil operator as part of the oil production phaseout ad facility decommissioning process") and 2) The development of a RAP and health risk assessment by the applicant for any contamination found to exist on the site. It is not indicated anywhere in the EIR that the oil operator has the financial capability or legal obligation to perform such remediation. It is also not expressly stated that the applicant will undertake any cleanup themselves. One can presume that it may be desirable and financially feasible for the applicant to clean up areas that they will build homes on,but they have no incentive themselves (and could wait forever for SOVI) to remediate areas subject to wetlands restoration. Furthermore, it is objectionable to use a promise of fixing something as a Project Design Feature (PDF). The EIR's definition on page 2-11 inddcates that a PDF"either(a) prevents a significant effect from ever occurring or ever occurring at a significant level or(b) "remedies" or"mitigates" the impact, either completely or to a level of insignificance..." How can a promise that is unclear as to who is responsible for keeping it, whether or not it can be kept, and when it will be -- - - —accomplished,be considered a Project Design Feature. Bear in mind that one of the definitions of design is "a deliberate undercover plot or scheme". The way they use PDF is more aptly termed "Project Concept Feature" or just plain "Project Hope it will Happen Feature." Question: How can the EIR be acceptable without written confirmation of SOVI's agreement and financial wherewithal to actually clean up the contaminated areas? And in SOVI's absence or inability,that the applicant will commit to undertaking such cleanup on a specified schedule? Question: Does the County know the conditions of SOVI's agreement with the project proponent to clean the property? Question: Does it cover only known problems or ones yet to be detected? 3 f Coyaments to Draft EIR Question• Is there a dollar or timing cap on SOVI's commitment? Question: Does the agreement to restore the property prior to development include the cleanup of crude oil (not classified as a hazardous waste in California but very problematic in the context of development nonetheless) or only materials and wastes strictly classified by law or regulation as hazardous or toxic? It would appear that they would only do what is strictly required, ignoring the health and safety and natural resources degradation issues. ues 'on• Will the project proponent commit to undertaldng the required cleanup if SOVI will not or can not cleanup the contamination caused by oil field activities? Without answers to the above,the County would be accepting a hollow promise that all would be well with no recourse if it is not well. _ Section 4.4 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology Pages 4.4.1 to 4.4.20 The EIR highlights three distinct significant impacts relative to potential changes in the near surface hydrology: 1) increase in groundwater levels in adjacent residential neighborhood,2) inundation of tidal area RPA 1C with salt water causing degradation of the water supply aquifers beneath the site,and 3) well and stormwater discharge impacts in the Edwards Thumb area Proposed mitigation in these three instances consists of varying degrees of studies before grading will occur and various possible engineering fixes (impermeable soil caps,cutoff walls,interceptor drains, etc.) The present state on information on groundwater depths,aquifers and other water bearing zones,transmissivity and water quality is woefully insufficient to assure that there is in fact a cost effective engineering fix. Question: If the engineering fixes require expenditures in excess of the$30 million Koll says it will commit,will the mitigation of impacts still be accomplished or will Koll simply not complete the job? Will the County allow Koll to delay restoration as long as they are"studying" the various issues? It appears that not being able to effect a reasonable mitigation could result in a lot of houses being built with subsequent restriction on wetlands restoration,ostensibly to protect residences. These existing residences should be protected now by having sufficient investigation before project approval, not another hollow promise for some action in the unspecified future. Summary Comment One of the over-riding issues throughout the EIR and the above specific comments is the attempt to mitigate significant effects through future study and fuzzy promises to perform. This is not within the intent of the legislated purpose of an EIR. An impact should be considered significant and unresolved if the timing and costs to mitigate are indefinite,especially when the overt quid pro quo is that the houses get built long before there is a requirement to perform on any restoration promises. There are many venerable corporations in the United States that have stood the test of time and could make long term commitments like those proposed in this Draft ELP, Unfortunately, the real estate development industry does not have any such history. I fully expect that the above questions will be addressed this in contrast to the ignoring of my comments to the original Notice of Preparation and the original Draft EIR. I appreciate the opportunity and right to have provided the above comments and questions. Thank-you in advance for your sincere consideration. Since el Evan C. Henry California Registered Geologist #4068 4 &011 ' Real Estate Group January 18, 1994 FECEIVE0AND MADE A 1-ART OF THE RECORD AT 4�Z Gail Hutton, City Attorney —, :l���� MEETING CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ITEl1 NO. C(OWI) TI Q 2000 Main Street OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK �• Huntington Beach, CA 92648 CONNIE BROCKWAY 1� ) RE: January 18, 1994, City Council Closed Session/Bolsa Chica )ZjSc4 CUCA) Dear Gail: In reviewing the agenda for tonight's City Council meeting, we noticed that there is a closed session to discuss the Bolsa Chica Draft EIR. I am writing to you to get clarification on this matter. It is our understanding that under the Brown Act the only basis for the council to hold a closed session is to discuss pending litigation or decide whether to initiate litigation. We are not aware of any pending litigation regarding Bolsa Chica and it seems premature from our perspective to be initiating litigation since the Draft EIR is still out for public comment. Historically, the city, county and the landowner have always endeavored to have an open dialogue on Bolsa Chica so decisions regarding the property were based on facts and in consideration of public input. A closed session of the council does not appear to be consistent with our past working relationship and frankly, is counter productive to fostering an atmosphere where Koll, the city and the county can cooperatively resolve any issues the city may have regarding Bolsa Chica. Our hope is that the scheduling of this closed session is an oversight with respect to compliance with the Brown Act and is not an indication of the council's position regarding future discussions on Bolsa Chica. We respectfully request that you advise the council to reconsider a closed session.. As always, we are ready to meet with you,the council or staff on any issues affecting Bolsa Chica. Very truly yours, KOLL REAL ESTATE GR UP G� Ed Mountford Vice President LD:jm b`W Vr L 2213 Main Street Suite 32 Huntington Beach,GA 92648 374 FAX FqX(714)374 374-2476 Y 1�v�j Subject: Bolsa Chica EIR � _ CONF IAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY BEFORE-THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney SUBJECT: CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9) The reasons and legal authority for holding a closed session on Januacy 18. 1994 for the purpose of conferring with and/or receiving advice from its legal counsel concerning pending litigation are as follows: 1. _ Litigation has been formally initiated to which the city is a party. The title of said litigation is Orange County Superior Court Case No. Said closed session is held under the authority of California Government Code Section 54956.9(a). -- 2. _ Existing facts and circumstances, set out below, involve a significant exposure to litigation against the city. Said closed session is held under the authority of Califomia Govemment Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). 3. _ Based on existing facts and circumstances, set out below, the city council is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to Califomia Govemment Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). Said closed session is held under authority of Califomia/G_overnment Code Section 54956.9(b)(2). I� T� 4. X Based on existing facts and circumstances, set out below, the city council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. Said closed session is held under the authority of Califomia Govemment Code Section 54956.9(c). STATEMENTS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTING THE HOLDING OF A CLOSED The Environmental Impact Report regarding the Bolsa Chica Project was released on December 20, 1993. It may be inadequate as a matter of state law and for that and other reasons it raises substantial environmental and legal issues which may adversely affect the citizens of the City of Huntington Beach. The foregoing facts and circumstances indicate the potential for litigation within the meaning of Govemment Code§ 54956.9. Dated: Janua�10. 19941994 Ll�= GAIL HUTTON, CITY ATTORNEY i NOTE: This document is protected by the attorney-client privilege and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Govemment Code Section 54956.9. The form itself must be submitted prior to the closed session, if feasible, or at least one week thereafter. c: Paul D 'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney Roger Holt, Ervin, Cohen & Jessup g r►yae.v Ca f irH t r"i & v ✓ f G Q/ K (g)The local agency may recover the costs of the hearing and notice required and circumstances,there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local by this section from the proceeds of the tax or assessment. agency. Added Stats 1992 ch 1234§2(SB 1977) �on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local Ad agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized §54955. Adjournment of meetings pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision Collateral Reference,; (c)Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the loc:-d Witlnn Summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law§582 agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body §54955.1. Continuance of hearing �� of the local agency shall state publicly to which subdivision it is pursuant If Collateral Rd es"wes: the session is closed pursuant to subdivision (a), the body shall state the title Witicin Summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law§582 of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate §54956. Special meetings; Notice service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or that to do so would Collateral References: jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its witlnn Summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law§582,583 advantage. The legal counsel of the legislative body of the local agency shall prepare and §54956.5.Emergency meetings; Notice submit to the body a memorandum stating the specific reasons and legal collateral References: authority for the closed session.If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision witkm summary(9th ed)constitutional Law 1592 (a), the memorandum shall include the title of the litigation If the closed session is pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c), the memorandum shall include §54956.7. Closed sessions regarding application from person,with criminal the existing facts and circumstances on which it is based The legal counsel record shall submit the memorandum to the body prior to the closed session if Collateral Reference:: feasible, and in any case no later than one week after the closed session The Witkm Summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law§581 memorandum shall be exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 6254 1 For purposes of this section, "litigation" includes any adjudicatory proceed- ing, including eminent domain, before a court, administrative body exercising Collateral References: its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator Wttkm Summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law§581 Amended Stats 1987 ch 1320§5 Adopbon by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District of resulution listing all parcels of real property larger than twenty acres within its planning area as potential subject of negotiation for purchase would not Am"Wimentu satisfy disclosure prerequisite for closed session regarding purchase of any one or more of such parcels 73 1987 Amendment:Amended the second paragraph by(1)adding the first and second sentences,and(2) Ops Any Gen I //s�u��bstti��tuutuis the period for",or"at the end of subd(bxl) f WYiR[Ll io R L 549569. Closed sessions regarding pending litigation; Lawyer-client privi- Witldn summary(9th ed)Constitutional Law 1591 When proposed or tentative cease and desist order has been served upon city by regional water quality 1 eg e control board,"adf udwato y prooeedmg"exception within Government Code§54956 9 authonzes closed Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body of a lead=of city conned with its cay attorney to revive his nor her advice,even when one city agency has local agency,based on advice of its legal counsel,from holding a closed session already discussed order in open session.69 Ops Any Gen 232 to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending A loot agency such as county board of supervisors may use"pending hbption"exception of Act to go litigation when discussion in open session concerning those matters would into closed session to deliberate and take&Won upon settlement of lawsuit 75 Ops Atty Gen 14 prejudice the position of the local agency ili the litigation. NOTES OF DE=ONS For purposes of this chapter, all expressions of the lawyer-client privilege The trW own erred by failing to grant a petition tween lawyer and client(Evil.code,§950 et seq), other than those provided in this section are hereby abrogated This section for a writ of mandate to compel the public discio- that it was privileged as work product(code av is the exclusive expression of the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of see of a memorandum,which domed an appeal 1►=, §2018), and that the memorandum con- conducting closed-session meetings pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of from a decision of the cWs planting commission cerned pending ht gat on so as to authonze a closed this section, litigation shall be considered pending when any of the following ind was p1gW by the city AUDMCY for tbC-CkY 1Ession f°der Gov Cam,§54956 9,the demon to council, since the council failed to publicly an- address the issue in a closed session must be made circumstancCs exist. ! nounoe its iutent to consider the memorandum in a and announced publicly pnor to the closed session ( )a An adjudicate proceeding before a court,administrative body exercising closed session,as by nor code,134956 9 Public i'y P 8 g (closed sessions a8��may not avoid the requirements of its ad judicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator, to which the local "eg"r'd1°g i �`uon) The 13ov Code, 154956 9,by receiving legal advice m agency is a party, has been initiated formally. faffure to procecomplyure wi a this ta of d O00t� writing rather than orally at a format closed session ro) 1 A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative boo litigation"privilege.Even assuming that the"�g Roberts v 1Sty of Palmdale 501 2nd Dist)7 Cal ( ) P � ' . y orandum was a confidential communication be- App 4th tIDO,9 Cal Rptr 2d 501 of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts - - — Berinninr in J"Z G ` � January 18, 1994 RECOMMENDED ACTION REGARDING THE BOLSA CHICA EIR Council should direct staff to aggressively pursue the review of the adequacy of the EIR to assist council in its consideration of whether to initiate litigation challenging the environmental and fiscal impacts of the county Bolsa Chica Project. TAN-26-1994 1-21:50 FROM GLADST014E II4TL TO 93741557 P.O- Contact: Lucy Dunn Koll Real Estate Group (714) 374-2477 FACT SHEET Archeological Excavations at Bolsa Chica Q: How long have archeological excavations been going on at Bolsa Chica Mesa? A: Several archeology sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have been subject to study and excavation since the 1970s. The most recent excavations, which are the subject of the newspaper articles, were initiated in the summer of 1992. The excavations were conducted on one of the sites (ORA-83) by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., under the direction of Dr. Nancy A. Whitney-Desautels. All of the work done by SRS, Inc. has been reviewed by an expert team of peer reviewers, comprised of three of the state's most distinguished archaeologists. Q: . Were human bone fragments discovered at this site? When were they discovered? A: Yes. Human bone fragments have been discovered at this site by the archeological consultants as early as fall, 1992. At the time of their discovery however, the fragments were isolated -- not discovered in the context of related human bone fragments. Moreover, the archeologist uncovered both human and animal bone fragments and at the time of discovery did not have sufficient information to determine what was what. The bone fragments were sent to UCLA for further examination to determine which fragments were human and which were animal. Results of the UCLA studies were not made available until 1993. Q: What action did Dr. Desautels take upon receiving results of the UCLA studies". A: * Once Dr. Desautels had confirmation that the bone fragments she discovered were human, she notified the coroner's office as required by state law. Judy Suchey was hired by the coroner's office to investigate the report, and her report to the coroner was the document discussed in the news articles. Neither Dr. Desautels nor Koll Real Estate Group were aware of Judy Suchey's report or were provided with a copy of the report until it was given to the company by newspaper reporters. 2213.Md:n Street Hunenstm HezdL 0%92648 114i;74 2477 1 .'toN1. -I'+OMAS P O.PLIN STE'VEN A " - ' =OBERT E CAILAHAN •ATKEENCAROTHERSPRONE IMCHIBOUCAS TIMPAONE s SUSAN K HOR1' ?ANIEL K WIN70N M(-1 10 1 J m RArMONO KING RENE E .IEBAATH ` tom: JOHN LEHR•• i 6` %��1 N TO N t. =LSO AOMIMED IN rnSra,r -- LAWYERS _JI_VMBIA =LSO AOMinED IN NFw•^or ^ °- - - K 1 July 27, 1992 Ms. Cindi M. Alvitre Gabrielino Tribal Council 2462 Avocado Riverside, California 92507 ` •S1 � Re: Bolsa Chica Archaeology - � Dear Cindi: , Following up on our recent telephone converS::,: 11s, I have compiled some information for you regarding the Bolsa Chica archaeological si;_-s. First, I am enclosing a copy of the most ...z recent draft of the Reburial Agreement for your review. I hope that some of the changes which have been made address your concerns. The revised agreement provides for reburial on the Huntington Mesa on the Bolsa Chica property. It also clarifies the hold harmless =' provision. As we discussed, we wish to avoid the situation where we have arranged to... rebury the artifacts and human bone fragments in accordance with your wishes, but then are faced with other Native Americans claiming to be the most likely descendants and who hold up resolution of these issues. Ir. the event that occurs, the agreement asks that You and David Belardes resolve the issue of most likely descendants and appropriate representation among the tribal members and that the landowner not get involved in having to choose between one representative or another. Se�Qnd. I have enclosed maps of the site showing the location of the various archaeological site�. The site that is currently being excavated is ORA-83. As you know, other sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa have already been fully excavated and mitigated(ORA-289, ORA-78, and ORA-85). Raymond Belardes served as the Native American monitor on all of those excavations. No human remains were found during the course of any of the excavations. All of the material which was recovered, i.e., shells, beads, etc. are in the possession of the landowner or the archaeological consultant. 072n. 2/5-X6 I _.100 KARP,IAN qni FL'.)CR ,nh;F LIF•DRNIA o7715 -'•; 455'Inp - _ "a='S 9009 POST C)[',: C E R(- . ':�„ ,[a. R1F ._ '•�IF(?�n� : .,..-•� :I;, Ms. Cindi Alvitre ►' July 27, 1992 Page 2 Third, you asked about the status of the environmental impact report for the project. City of Huntington Beach and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are jointly preparing an'..ZF environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIR) for the project as sir the project includes both the annexation of the property to the City and approval of a local.r coastal program as well as the issuance of a Section 404 permit by the Corps to conduct work in waters of the United States. The City and Corps have estimated that the Draft ., EIS/EIR will be published sometime in August 1992. I will see to it that you receive a copy ' . for your review. Fourth, you asked about the ownership of the property. The property is owned by the=== .; Signal Bolsa Corporation. Signal Bolsa Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a corporation known as the Bolsa Chica Corporation. The Chief Executive Officer of the`:., Bolsa Chica Corporation is Michael Dingman. Because the Bolsa Chica Corporation is a: headquartered on the East Coast, the Bolsa Chica Corporation has hired The Koll k Company, an Orange County-based development company to oversee the day-to-clay . : management of the project. The Chief Executive Officer of The Koll Company is Donald . Koll. The President of The Koll Company is Ray Wirta and the President for Southern L- California Operations, under whose direction the Bolsa Chica project falls is Richard ... Ortwein. The project manager for the Bolsa Chica project is Lucetta Dunn who is Senior .f. . Vice President of The Koll Company. (Ms. Dunn was formerly an officer and general counsel to the Signal Bolsa Corporation.) Assisting Ms. Dunn in managing the project is ::a Mr. Larry Brose, Vice President of The Koll Company. .; In terms of the archaeology issues, Ms. Dunn will be the signatory on the reburial agreement for The Koll Company and the Bolsa Chica Corporation. The agreement negotiations and any issues arising in connection with the archaeological work, such as the retention of a Native American Monitor, will be handled by Mr. Brose or myself.Therefore,' Y if you have any questions regarding the project or The Koll Company's involvement, please feel free to contact either Mr. Brose at 833-3030 or me. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please du riot hesitate to contact either of us. After you have completed your review of the enclosed materials, and have had an opportunity to discuss these issues with members of your tribal council and ' 2292 1 5006.1 Ms.•Cindi Alvitre July 27, 1992 Page 3 r l - David Belardes or Phil Ibanez, we would like to meet with you and Mr. Belardes to finalize the agreement and discuss any other issues that you or he may have with respect to the. -:` excavations. ' Very truly yours, €. Susan K. Hori ° f Enclosures ; cc: David Belardes (w/enclosures) Nancy A. Whitney-De saute Is, Ph.D. (w/reburial agreement) Lucy Dunn (w/reburial agreement) Darlene A. Shelley (w/reburial agreement) l; . II R: .. ee ^1 July _, 1992 Ms. Cindi M. Alvitre Gabrielino Tribal Council r 3462 Avocado `t Riverside, California 92507 Mr. David Belardes Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 31742 Via Belardes { San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Re: Agreement Regarding Reburial of Isolated Human Bone Fragments from ORA-83, Bolsa Chlca _ f Dear Ms. Alvitre and Mr. Belardes: When accepted by you, as the authorized representatives of the Gabrielino Tribal Council and the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Native Americans") as provided below. this letter shall constitute an agreement ("Agreement") between the Native Americans and Signal Bolsa Corporation as landowner, and The Koll Company as managing agent for Signal Bolsa Corporation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owners") regarding the treatment and reburial of the isolated fragments of human bone and any associated grave goods discovered during the course of archaeological investigations at Bolsa Chica Mesa (hereinafter "Bolsa Chica-') of the Bolsa Chica property owned by Owners and located in unincorporated Orange County. rThe isolated human bone fragments and associated grave goods were discovered ng archaeological investigations conducted by Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. ("SRS"), consultant to Owners. The archaeological investigations were monitored by Raymond Belardes of the Coastal Juaneno Band of Mission Indians from June. 1990, until June. 1992. when he was replaced by Phil Ibanez of the Luiseno Tribe. Both of i MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Room B-8, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 14, 1994 Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: Silva, Robitaille, Wnchell (absent at 5:00 portion) CLOSED SESSION The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54956(a)to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation - Dominic Alvarez v. the City of Huntington Beach - USDCC 91-2337MRP. (120.80) The Chairman called a Closed Session of the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) to confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation - Redevelopment Agency v. Goodman, et al -OCSCC 699946. (400.50) The Mayor called a Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to meet with its designated representatives regarding Labor Relations Matters-Meet and Confer. (120.80) RECESS -RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council at 5:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 5:55 p.m. A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was lead by Mayor Moulton-Patterson. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: Winchell PUBLIC COMMENTS RE: CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM George Arnold spoke in support of preservation of the wetlands and beaches for park and recreation uses. He stated it would take more than one contractor for a development of that size. v Page 2 -Council/Agency Minutes -2/14/94 Steven Anderson, Bolsa Chica Alliance representative and Community Forum Huntington Beach representative, spoke in support of the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan, homes that blend with the area, Linear Park, creation of new jobs, new customers for Huntington Beach businesses, upgrades to transportation system and increased tax revenue. He proposed that the groups in opposition to this development lay out their alternative plans including funding sources, plans for restoration and development if any, costs and schedules as he has not heard their plan. He requested that the issue be put on the ballot to determine what the people want. He also stated that too many city resources are being used on this project that would be better focused on crime, business retention and development, youth and senior recreation, control and reduction in the cost of government, completion and improvement downtown, and traffic circulation. Chuck Barbara, Bolsa Chica Alliance representative, spoke in support of development of the Bolsa Chica area. He stated that there has been too much furor and waste of money when the landowner wants to pay to restore the wetlands in order to build on his own property. Michael Guest, Bolsa Chica Alliance representative, spoke in support of the development of the Bolsa Chica area and stated that if the Koll Company does not get permits to build in the lowlands, there will be no restoration of the wetlands. He stated that Koll Company has the plan, land and money to restore the wetlands and is willing to give seven hundred and seventy-five acres of private property to the public. He offered to give tours of the wetlands to interested parties. Paul Guptill, geologist, spoke in response to misleading geological information he has heard at Council meetings. He stated that the potential for earthquake liquefaction and faulting is a condition that is present in most of Orange County. He stated that the liquefaction potential is in the lowland area only and that buildings can be engineered to mitigate the liquefaction problem. Ernest Bartolo spoke in opposition to the uproar about bone fragments in the area. He stated that bones in a flood plane probably originated in Riverside or Pomona. He spoke in support of working with the developer in order to get the wetlands restored. He spoke in opposition to the atmosphere in the downtown area as being too youth oriented. He distributed a communication to Council. Nicole Alkov, Vista View Middle School student, spoke regarding a report she prepared in support of the Koll Company Plan to restore the Bolsa Chica as there is no private money to restore the wetlands. Terrie Restivo, National American Indian Movement Sacred Sites Committee representative, spoke in support of the preservation of the Bolsa Chica as a cultural resource and listed inadequacies in the Environmental Impact Report regarding human burials and destruction of ancestral cemeteries. She urged the Council to request a grand jury investigation. Jim Velasques, Gabrielino Indians Local Coastal Chief, spoke in support of grand jury investigation in fairness to the Koll Company and to the Native Americans. He stated that he found out about the burials from the news media and was not officially notified. Paul Horgan spoke in opposition to the development on the Bolsa Chica. He stated that the area is not zoned residential, tidelands should be preserved, roads built by Koll Company causing problems, hazardous waste dumped on Otay Mesa not mitigated, and differences in what the Koll Company has said about the human burials. Alan Pyeatt, spoke in support of the preservation of the Bolsa Chica as a cultural resource for the Native American Indians and in support for a grand jury investigation. Scott Runge spoke in opposition to the Koll Company restoration of the Bolsa Chica. He stated that the Koll Company is only offering to restore the wetlands if they are allowed to build on the wetlands. He stated that he did not believe the Koll Company will get authorization to build on the wetlands and therefore will not restore the wetlands. Juana Mueller spoke in support of a grand jury investigation due to the cultural resources in the area and the fact that much of the archeological reports are not included in the Environmental Impact Report. Page 3 -Council/Agency Minutes -2/14/94 Ed Kerins, Huntington Beach Tomorrow President, spoke in support of how the Council is handling the Environmental Impact Report process. He stated that the EIR is inadequate as it does not address the fiscal impact on city resources. He stated that a response was prepared by the Huntington Beach Tomorrow members to the county requesting that they address the fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach if the proposed development is not annexed to the city, fiscal impacts if the area is annexed to the city in the future, where will funds come from to mitigate use of city resources, and will developer pay for Huntington Beach fiscal report or will taxpayers. He requested that the city respond to these issues if the county does not. Robert Winchell, California State University, Department of Geological Sciences professor, spoke in opposition to development on the Bolsa Chica wetlands regarding the liquefaction potential and stated that shaking effects cause 90%to 100% of damage in an earthquake. He commended the Council for their efforts in preparation of the response to the county's Draft Environmental Impact Report. David Glazer spoke in support of the Koll Company development on the Bolsa Chica. He stated that it would be the best thing for the state and the county and that the environmentalists do not represent the majority of the people. (City Council) -CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM -APPROVED -STAFF DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT TO ORANGE COUNTY (440.60) The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator regarding the review by city staff, in coordination with consulting firms, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Plan and transmitting for City Council review and approval the final draft of the City's Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Assistant City Administrator presented a staff report summarizing the nature of the documents to be submitted to the County of Orange by Friday, February 18, 1994. He stated that a copy of the transcript has been prepared and distributed to the Council and a copy to the City Clerk's Office today for public review if so desired. The Assistant City Administrator stated that after this meeting he would be provide five copies of the final draft document of the City's Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the City Clerk's Office for public review along with a cover memo regarding the Revised Comment Letter from Steven A. Roseman and Roger Holt, Attorneys, dated, February 14, 1994, which was provided to the City Attorney and will be given to the City Clerk. Steven Roseman, Ervin, Cohen and Jessup Law Office representative, presented a staff report regarding serious deficiencies of the Environmental Impact Report under state law. He stated that the purpose of the EIR is to inform the public and decision makers of environmental consequences of their actions before they reach ecological points of no return. He listed deficiencies relating to the document not being easy for the lay public to understand, overall poor organization, inconsistent descriptions of project, deprives the public of meaningful input, deprives Board of Supervisors of full knowledge of consequences, no alternative analysis prepared to reduce or mitigate the environmental impacts, inadequate alternative location analysis prepared for proposed project, use of 1986 Land Use Plan not current and fiscal impact to the city not addressed. Discussion was held by Council and staff regarding inadequate, inaccurate and misleading information contained in the county Draft Environmental Impact Report, opposition to proposed density for the area, the threat of household pets on wildlife, effect of proposed ocean inlet on erosion of beach, effect on water circulation, traffic impacts, and cultural and recreation impacts. Councilmember Robitaille requested a staff report on the amount of money that will be spent on legal fees relating to the Environmental Impact Report and the amount of staff time spent on this project. The City Administrator responded that a report would be prepared. Page 4-Council/Agency Minutes -2/14/94 Steven Roseman, Ervin, Cohen and Jessup Law Office representative, reported that a request was included in the city's response to the county Environmental Impact Report, to add a mitigation measure to require the developer of the project to pay to the city the cost of impacts on the city from the project which goes beyond city services to include infrastructure impacts on roads, capital costs, etc. prior to the issuance of building permits. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Bauer, to direct staff to submit the City's Comment Letter on the Bolsa Chica Draft Environmental Impact Report and direct staff to forward it to the County of Orange by Friday, February 18, 1994. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: Winchell (City Council) STATUS REPORT ON REVIEW OF ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON BOLSA CHICA MESA -CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 22, 1994 (440.60) The Assistant City Administrator reported that this agenda item was continued from the January 31, 1994 meeting and that staff is prepared to answer questions from Council. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the conflicting comments in the Environmental Impact Report, cultural and archeological resources not properly addressed and the proposed request for a grand jury investigation. A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Sullivan, to continue the proposal of the grand jury investigation as well as other possible investigations until the February 22, 1994 meeting. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva ABSTAIN: Robitaille ABSENT: Winchell ADJOURNMENT-COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Tuesday, February 22, 1994, at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, Huntington Beach, California. Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman REC EIVE LAND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT EETING v COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL: ITEM N0. OFFICE OF THE CITY GLERK February 14 , 1994 CONNIE AROCKWAY My name is Ernest Bartolo and I have lived at 6142 Jasonwood for 15 years . I want to speak to the Council tonight about several items. First , I can ' t believe the uproar about the bone "fragments" discovered at Bolsa Chica . I understand that the Koll Co . has handled and will continue to handle the issue with the respect and dignity it deserves . However , certain members of this Council have choosen to use the bone fragment as a "political roadblock" for the restoration of the wetlands . They continue to show their lack of understanding of the legal procedures to undermine the efforts of the landowner to protect the Native American. I believe that we can thank these members with their insensitve behavior towards the Native Americans for the continued uproar ! I agree with Mr . Bauer that we need a grand jury investigation , however it should be to investigate the actions and decisions of this City Council ! Second, I am offended by the "scare tactics" being used by Bob Winchell to stop new development at Bolsa Chica . If we are to believe him, everyone within a five mile radius of Bolsa Chica should evacuate now, since it ' s so dangerous ! Mr . Winchell , should be using his efforts to improve the building codes to minimize property damage , instead of continually crying the "sky is falling" ! Let ' s stop with all the scare tactics , innuendos and wasting taxpayers money ! Let ' s get the wetlands restored by working together with the landowner . One last comment — I 'm against the coney island honky tonk atmosphere that is being created in the downtown area , but would rather see a more upscale city that better serves the needs of this community . i A city with some class ! As STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Tuesday, February 22, 1994 A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: None *****x*x**#*xx**#*x*x*#xxx#*#*##***#*#**#******####*xxxx##*#*#*##xxx**x#xY************####*#*#fxxxxx**####*xx####*xxx*xxxxx#### ACTIONS ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS IN THE BOLSA CHICA Motion to forward a request to investigate to the Orange County Grand Jury -Approved A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Sullivan, to forward to the Orange County Grand Jury a request to investigate all archaeological and cultural activities at Bolsa Chica by public and private entities, make certain all laws, procedures, rules, regulations and policies have been followed, make recommendations to improve the system used to investigate and preserve archeological sites. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: None Motion to forward a request to investigate to the California Coastal Commission -Approved A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Sullivan, that the Huntington Beach City Council contact the Coastal Commission , send them the appropriate information and have them determine whether any permits they may have issued should remain in force or be rescinded. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille, Leipzig ABSENT: None i Page 2 -Statement of Action -02/22/94 Motion to forward a request to investigate to the Native American Indian Heritage Commission. State Historical Resources Commission and the Office of Historic Preservation -Approved A motion was made by Bauer, seconded by Sullivan, that the Huntington Beach City Council contact the Native American Heritage Commission, the State Historical Resources Commission, and the Office of Historic Preservation, send them the appropriate information and have them determine whether all procedures required by the State have been and will continue to be followed and further, that these agencies be requested to continue to monitor all activities in the Bolsa Chica having to do with archaeological and cultural aspects of the site. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Winchell, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: None Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. /s/ Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/ Connie Brockway /s/ Linda Moulton-Patterson City Clerk/Clerk Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on the 22nd day of February, 1994. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 1st day of March, 1994. Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex=officio Clerk of the City Councii•of the City of Huntington Beach, California By Deput ity Clerk y ! Patricia G.delValle 17111 Bolsa j Chica Rd.#107 Hurmngton Bch.CA 92649 31 ,off w - lillglel January 31, 1994 Huntington Beach City Council County Supervisors, County of Orange Ref: Bolsa Chica/Koll Co EIR Report first request, that the County Supervisors give the citizens of Huntington Beach, Orange County, and California, more time to adequately study, analyze and respond to the EIR regarding the possible development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Ojections to the Bolsa Chica Development Plan With 4,000 homes, with families of 3 people: there would be over 1.2 million gallons/per day of sewage to treat, and dump into our coastal waters off Huntington Beach. there would be a need for over 1.2 million gallons of fresh water per/day for these homes. Huntington Beach would face the demands of an estimated 12,000 new people into a city already having trouble meeting current citizen demands for services. Vehicles: in a best case scenario of 1 vehicle per house, this would add at least 4,000 vehicle trips per/day, within this wetland (twice daily), and add traffic to already strained roads, as well as additional air pollution of our local environment. THE TOTAL PRESERVATION ISSUE Huntington Beach and Orange County business and citizens, stand to gain far more in the long run if we preserve in total, the Bolsa Chica. Citizens need open space, as well as fish, birds and wildlife. If we do not protect places like the Bolsa Chica, and our fragile beaches and coastline, tourism dollars will flee elsewhere. Wetlands/Bolsa Chica and our beaches, provide recreation, tourism dollars, and jobs. Let's take a stand for the future citizens of Southern California, and preserve this small leftover piece of paradise. Sincerely, w-� Don Slaven 225 Alabama St Huntington Beach, 92648 � - HARRIETT M. WIEDER • +�� SUPERVISOR. SECOND DISTRICT i , ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 1, J ,, ? 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P_ O- BOX 687. SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE (714) 834-3220 FAX (714) 834-6109 January 31, 1994 The Honorable Linda Moulton-Patterson Mayor, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Moulton-Patterson: I regret that I am unable to attend your public meeting on the Bolsa Chica Environmental Impact Report (EIR). My schedule simply did not allow me to change a previous commitment on a short, four day notice. In my absence, I have asked Tom Mathews, the Director of Planning for the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, to attend tonights hearing and briefly explain the EIR schedule and process. I appreciate the fact that the City Council has provided this opportunity for public input, as public comment on this vital issue is extremely important. While the County's policy is to accept written comment, rather than oral comment during the public review period on an EIR, the County will accept a transcript from tonight's meeting as input to the public review process. I would like to emphasize that at the close of the public review and comment period on the EIR on February 18, the County will respond to all the comments received. At .Ahat time, the County will begin the public hearing process for the Bolsa Chica project, during which time public hearings will be conducted both before the Orange County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Because public comment is so important, I have requested that the Orange County Planning Commission hoid one of their public hearings in the City of Huntington Beach. I believe that will allow for maximum public participation. In closing, I would like to reaffirm my commitment to seeing that an appropriate plan for restoration of the Bolsa Chica is approved and implemented. The future of this precious natural resource must be insured and I will continue to work toward that goal. Sincerely, • • �- i� HARRIETT M. WIEDER Supervisor, Second District HMW:sc COSTA MESA•CYPRESS GARDEN GROVE•HUNTINGTON BEACH•LOS ALAMITOS ROSSMOOR•SANTA ANA•SEAL BEACH•STANTON SUNSET BEACH PROFESSIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN...' i CULT..'RAL RESOURCE MONITORS January 31 -'1994 City Councilman City of Huntington Beach As a professional Native American monitor for Orange, Riverside and San .Diego counties, member of the Tremecula Band of Mission Indians and a dascendant of the Juaneno Band- of Mission Indians, and as the only federally recognised cultural resource monitor in Washington D.C.', i am'writing.to address your council. As the site representative for the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians for the Bolsa Chica project, I oversee two additional professional Native American monitors of Juaneno and Gabrielino descent. We are appalled that an amateur archaeologist (Ms. Pat Ware) and a City COL:iicilman (Mr. Dauer) havo dooided to take it upnn themselves to use the remain-- of our ancestors as a political- football. It is against all regulations to disclose information regarding Native American remains. It would be greatly appreciated if unauthorised individuals would cease giving the general public information regarding the location and whereabouts of our ancestors remains. Human remains by law are handled exclusively by the Native Americans.The Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and a Gabriellno, acting in the best interest of his tribe, have have been handling the remains found all over the City of Huntington Beach fdr the past.several years. Reburial agreements have been in place for over ten years with Signal Landmark/ Koll Company. We, as professional monitors, have been working closely with the local groups and have complied ourselves, and insisted on compliance by others, with appropriate laws, which is why we're here. The decision on what should be done with the remains and the site is a Native American decision only: This is not City Council decision as City at+:)rney wil; 311 you. Please allow us to handle this matter with the respect and dignity that our ancestors deserve and the law requires. Sincerely, Phillip i anez Director, P.N.A.C.R:M 46747 PALA ROAD TEMECULA, CA 92592 ■" ir_EPER # (` 09) 694-7869 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. ARCHAEOLOGY—PALEONTOLOGY—HISTORY—G EOSCIENCES Jar uary 31, 1994 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Bolsa Chica Mesa Human Bone Fragments SRS has worked for over ten years with the local Native Americans regarding the sites, artifacts,and human remains in Huntington Beach, both in City and County jurisdictions. Every site is excavated with a respect for the original inhabitants and any human bone materials which are recovered are handled with dignity and according to the wishes of the Native Americans. This includes the complete burial unearthed as recently as 1991 as part of the Edwards Street Widening on City of Huntington Beach property. Although the burial was located on the shoulder of the road, in full view of the public, the burial was removed discretely and quietly at the request of the Native Americans. There was no press and certainly no City Council involvement or requests for Grand Jury investigations. Both City planners and engineers respected the spirituality of the situation and Native American request for discretion and silence. The bone fragments recovered in 1993 from excavations on Solsa Chica Mesa wer3 no different than the City of Huntington Beach's previous situation. Reburial agreements have been in affect for all Bolsa Chica archaeological sites for nearly 10 years. All methods to be used on each site, both in general and specifically if human remains are located, have been established with the landowners and the Native American monitors. These were followed religiously during the 1993 excavations. Concentrations of bone fragments initially began to be located during the summer of 1993 within one month Chambers Group archaeologists interviewed me regarding our work on all sites on Balsa Chica Mesa. I reported that each of the sites we naa worked on, on both Huntington Beach and Solsa Chica Mesas, contained human bone fragments and that excavations were in process on these sites. In October 1993, larger fragments were appearing and we called the coroner. Judy Suchey, consultant to the coroner, examined the remains, identified animal bones mixed in with the human bone fragments, including Bison, and suggested that an osteologist examine C PO Box a377. Hunk»gitu,l U.M.CA 92605.4377.Phcna: 7'4%898.7877•Fax: P.O Box 7:i-�!1. Foltlerwa.CA 9259 - 3a9•PhonciFax: 714/767.25£5 City Council / January 31 , 1994 / page 2 all the bone to ensure that they were properly speciated, i.e. animal bone separated from human bone, since both were mixed. In November 1993, 1 reported these finings during a lecture on local archaeology sponsored by the Amigos de Bolsa CNea, which was summarized in their December 1993 newsletter. Nothing has beef hicden on this site. Professional Native Americans have been monitoring our excavations daily and three senior archaeologists appointed by the California Coastc.- Commission have reviewed our results on a continual basis for the last several years_ It is highly unethical that Ms. Pat Hammond Ware released to the press specific information regarding Native American human remains via a confidential report from consultant to the coroner's office. The code of ethics of all professional archaeology-1 . and anthropological societies require that the concerns of the effectad group, in this case the local Native Americans, be considered before any actions are taken relative to their ancestral sites, artifacts and remains. And, in fact, coordination with these groups is mandated by law (CEQA: Appendix K). It is SRS's practice to respect both the mandates of law and Native American sensitivities . Our procedures reflect this. Sadly, this is not the standard of others in my profession. Sincerely, 0.". Nancy A. Whitney-D utels, Ph.D. Presi en ZEK #3 DOW), koll CoWncil January 31, 1994 City Council for the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: 1/31/94 Council Agenda Item H.2 Dear Councilmembers: Council Agenda Item H.2 proposes that the City Council proclaim that "the private and public organizations currently in charge of the archaeological excavations" --which is to say highly respected and disciplined scientists, native American monitors, the Native American Heritage Commission, the Coastal Commission, the County of Orange, the Coroner's office, and others --`show a cavalier disregard about the anthropological significance of the find" of ancient human bones on the Mesa. Here are the facts. The root of this proposed proclamation is the belief that an 8,000 year old human bone has recently been found on the Mesa, as if that is a scientific fact. It is not. The bone fragment has not been dated as yet. It might be 8,000 years old at the oldest. It more likely is younger. The University of Georgia is currently attempting to determine the age of the bone fragment, and when its age is in fact determined,.so too will its significance. The bone fragment was recovered through an excavation plan approved by the County of Orange and the California Coastal Commission, executed by a highly respected archaeologist, monitored by native American monitors approved by the Native American Heritage Commission, and subject to peer review by a panel of scientists, also approved by the Coastal Commission. The bone fragment in question was unearthed in that investigation, and turned over to the coroner's office as required by law. It's significance is being assessed by the archaeologist overseeing the excavation effort, and by the peer review panel. That is an on- going process that has already costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nothing about this effort is the least "cavalier." Maybe the source of the concern expressed by Councilman Bauer's proposal is the lack of widespread publicity about the excavation results to date. But, amateur disturbance of scared sites and historical finds has been and is a major concern. Native Americans are understandably concerned that the remains of their ancestors be handled with respect, and not become a public spectacle. The California Public Records Act expressly exempts records concerning archaeological sites from public disclosures to ensure that those sites are not -desecrated. Appendix K to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines expressly 2213 Main Street Suite 32 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714)374-2477 FAX(714)374-2476 City Council for the City of Huntington Beach Page Two January 31, 1994 warns that detailed information concerning archaeological resources be handled "only on a need to know basis." For that reason, the discussion of the archaeological/anthropological finds in the Bolsa Chica area in the Draft EIR in circulation is intentionally general, as required by law. It also, however, reveals the general information available when the draft was finalized, including the possibility of human remains existing in the area. (See, pp. 4.11-12 - 4.11-29.). Proposals such as Agenda Item H.2 can in fact compromise an investigation and turn the fact of human remains into a public spectacle and media circus. That cannot be your purpose. As for the individual actions proposed by Agenda Item H.2, it would have the City call for unspecified investigations by the Orange County Grand Jury, Orange County District Attorney, United States Department of Justice, and California Coastal Commission, in short everyone short of the FBI and Interpol. But, investigations of what? Where are the charges to support this mobilization of criminal investigators? Where are the names? Where are the accusations? What laws may have been broken? Koll Real Estate Group categorically and absolutely denies that any law has been broken by anyone associated with it and the archaeological investigation in Bolsa Chica, and demands that due process be followed before the City of Huntington Beach makes any suggestion to the contrary. If Councilman Bauer has any information to support any belief that any crime has been committed, or law broken, by any of the scientists, native American monitors, or anyone else concerned with the archaeological excavation plan for Bolsa Chica, we challenge him -- no, we demand that he discharge his duty as a responsible citizen -- to give facts as he knows them, make accusations as he believes them, and name names as he suspects them. In other words, if there is any beef in his hamburger, make him show it to us. We also challenge him to do so not as a local politician, hiding behind the immunity of his office, but outside of his public office and this hearing, as a citizen, so that his veracity, judgment, and motives can likewise be ascertained. There is nothing to be gained by political grandstanding-at the expense of legitimate science and the sensibilities of native Americans. Very truly yours, K AL ESTATE GROUP Lucy Dunn Senior Vice President rQSen+& Tv ('Ovnc�I �ur►n I�u���c Nea,�►n �-j I- q`/�'� � `e° �; � � -�olsca Ch<<a��Ti2 125 INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF TONGVA formerly, the gabrielino Indians 4126 POTRERO RD. NEWBURY PARK, CA. 91320 March 30, 1989 bfr.Michael J. Moratto, President; Infotec Research Incorporated 19524 Hillsdale Drive Sonora, CA. 95370 Dear Mr. Moratto, a Thank you for your corporation's inquiry about the Tongva aboriginal areas stillused by the Traditional Tongva today. The site you mention in your correspondence has been one of great controversy, that is to say, one Jim Velasq_uez has created an unfavorable atmosphere among the Ataham (juaneno/luiseno) and Tongva Communities. As a network of Traditional People, we do not acknowledge this person as a member of any of the mentioned nations, that would also include the Cahuilla and Chumash Nations as well. This network of Traditional Nations mentioned will discount anything this person tries to interpret as cultural or spiritual information. i As with all Native Americans, we have a protocol which we use. This is called counsel, and in this counsel a Traditional etiquette is used for all decisions and policies. We as a network of the above mentioned have summoned Mr. Velasquez to counsel to answer for his actions regarding the cultural and environmental destruction of Ataham and Tongva lands which he has received vast amounts of monitary reward frcm the Irvine Corporation and other land developers so that they can ccmply'with the state laws, and write off these sites, and continue their so called progress. You will find inclosed the most recent copy of the Traditional Tongva Policy regarding Aboriginnal Resources, I hope this policy will help your corporation with the project and feel free to share this information with other involved agencies dealing with this project. Being Traditionalist, we stand firmly on what has been addressed and hope you understand why our policy has been written. Again, thank you for your correspondence. Sincerely, c.c. Chief Raymond Belardes; Ataham Nation Bob Rivera; Chumash Nation Katherine Saubel; Cahuilla Nation Cindi Alvitre-Porter; Tongva Nation Kote / A' lukoy Lotah; Chumash Nation Acwot, Tcmeyar Speaker Vera Rocha; Tongva Nation for the Tongva ration Fred Morales; Tongva Nation Jim Velasquez; ????? ?????????? Native American Heritage Commission V, Cite oT Huntington beach I�rle /-.31-Sy Jan.Tl, 1994 At t n: Councilman Ralph Bauer Dear- Councilman Bauer: I am unable to deliver this statement in person, so I have asked my representatives to deliver this for me. This statement is to register my complaints about the activities surrounding the development of the Bolsa Chica site by the Kol 1 Company. I am extremely concerned that this project has been handled in a manner that possibly violates CEQA, The dative American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 CFR Part 10), Public Resources Code 5097.9 and the traditional values and morals of my people the Gabrieleno/Tongva. My name is Cindi M. Alvitre, I am registered as a "Most Likely Descendant- by the Native American Heritage Commission. which is our State level representation for California Indians. My people are the Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe who aboriginally occupied Los Angeles County, Orange County and the Southern Channel Islands. Not only am I a desce:^idant to the original people of the Bolsa Chir_.a, I am also grew Lip in the Huntington Beach area and my family is intimately connected to this coastal region. In 1992, 1 consulted with by the Koll Company and associates until I refused to � cooperate with the manner in which they were proceeding. It was at that point that I was excluded form being consulted further on matters concerning Bolsa Chica. At this point I would like to state that I do have additional evidence surrounding Bolsa Chica. I feel that many of the questions that have not have answered by those involved at Bolsa Chica can now only be answered through an properly monitored investigation. I am greatly concerned, as our my people, that not only have we been deceived, but so have the public servants and the local communities that have worked so bard to assure that the Bolsa Chica development would be handled responsibly according to the aforementioned legal guidelines. I respectfully request any additional information regarding Bolsa Chica. i also would like to express my willingness to cooperate in this process to assure honestly and dignity, not only to my ancestors and my elders, but also to the local community members and public servants who have worked so hard to protect valuable resources. Please feel free to contact me at home 4909) 276-1 1 b 1. Sincerely, Cindi M. Al vi t re ,"Most Likely Descendants 0'-'T4' M, �� City of Huntington Beach Jan.31, 1994 Attn: Councilman Ralph Bauer Dear Councilman Bauer: I am unable to deliver this statement in person, so I have asked my representatives to deliver this for me. This statement is to register my compiaints about the activities surrounding the development of the Bolsa Chica site by the Koll Company. I am extremely concerned that this project has been handled in a manner that possibly violates CEQA, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 CFR Part 10.), Public Resources Code 5097.9 and the traditional values and morals of my people the Gabrieleno/Tongva. My name is Cindi 11. Alvitre, I am registered as a "Most Likely Descendant" by the Native American Heritage Commission, which is our State level representation for California Indians. My people are the Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe who aboriginally occupied Los Angeles County, Orange County and the Southern Channel Islands. Not only am I a descendant to the original people of the Bolsa Chica, I am also grew up in the Huntington Beach area and my family is intimately connected to this coastal region. In 1992, 1 consulted with by the Koll Company and associates until I refused to cooperate with the manner in which they were proceeding. It was at that point that I was excluded form being consulted further on matters concerning Bolsa I Chica. At this point I would like_ to state that I do have additional evidence I surrounding Bolsa Chica. I feel that many of the questions that have not have answered by those involved at Bolsa Chica can now only be answered through an properly monitored investigation. I am greatly concerned, as our my people, that not only have we been deceived, but so have the public servants and the local communities Unat have worked so hard to assure that the Bolsa Chica development would be handled responsibly according to the aforementioned legal guidelines. I respectfully request any additional information regarding Balsa Chica. I also would like to express my willingness to cooperate in this process to assure honestly and dignity, not only to my ancestors and my elders, but also to the local community members and public servants who have worked so hard to protect valuable resources. Please feel free to contact me at home (909) 6-1 161. Sincerely, Cindi M. Alvitre "Most Likely Descendants THE EASTERN BoRDERI.ANL has been confirmed by archeological data, stood on J Temescal Creek in the present Corona. Luisenos and Gabrielinos lived there side by side, and the Santa Ana Mountains were laced with trails by which the coastal Indians reached the coveted warmth of the springs and the desert tribesmen the salt air of the sea. Paxauxa may be the rancheria which appears in the San Juan Capistrano Baptismal Register as Axaxa, since ' its meaning is to be found in the Gabrielino Axawkng- na, "in the net." Lake Elsinore, farther south, is in Luiseno territory but the Gabrielinos knew many' a place-name there. Guibanga, as listed in the San Gabriel The Register, was known to them as We-evungna, "like the II grasshoppers we are here," a name which was also Sofvtbera applied to a nearby mountain range and which seems related to that of a Desert Cahuilla clan, wiitem, Border/and "grasshoppers." Strong was told that the "old language" of Saboba Hot Springs had been "nearly like Serrano," but for A Study of the Religion long years the Indian settlement there has been Lu- iseno. Nearby was Kujungna, from the Gabrielino for the word "head," and listed in the San Gabriel Register as Coyubit. In the canyon above Sovovo la Korovan Geographically the boundary between the Gabriel- y g inos and their southern neighbors is clearly marked at rur, the Register's Coronababit. A similar name fora _village near Santa Monica meant "we are in the sun." Aliso Creek which empties into the ocean just south of High above Corona in the Santa Ana Mountains Laguna Beach, and the dialects show marked differ- lay a small, lush valley with a pool and a "cienega," or ences. Yet when we embark upon a study of the re marsh, and a view out to the Channel Islands. The vil- ligious beliefs and practices of the more dominant lage here gave its name to converts of the San Gabriel northern group we find our main source of information Mission, the Register reading Pamaibit, though the val- among the people we know as Juanenos; and from the ley was known as Pamajam, from the word pa'ajvar, survivors among the Luisenos of the San Luis Rey dis- "above." Recent archeological excavations make it os- trict, even farther south where an ever-dwindling sible to be sure of its location, hitherto known only number of initiates still retain a remnant of the vast through one verbal tradition. body of ceremonial songs and observances which once were the main concern of the influential men of the tribe. Father Geronimo Boscana wrote his famous "Histori- cal Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California" from observations made during his stay at that Mission from 1812 to 1826. He seems to have furnished the greater part of the information —36— —37- 1 %JC-1PA1- %.2 V V V I14 1 i N M address tele�hon� ?ribal affiliplio Art Alvitre Gabrieleno 4126 Potrero Road Newbury Park, CA 91320 (805) 498-0305 Cindi M. Alvitre Gabrieleno 1149 Jadestone Lane Corona, CA 91720 (714) 276-1370 (H) (714) 787-3755 (W) . Pavid Belardes Juaneno 31742 Via Belardes San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 (714) 493-4933 Vera Rocha Gabrieleno "f 3451 Remey Avenue --------------- .Maldwin Park, CA 91706 � (818) 962-8546 (Call for North Orange Co only) im Velasquez Gabrieleno �r -1226 West Third St. ------ anta Ana, CA 92703 ;'(714) 547-4237 - ti fA +,w V �t r i :•`� »��{tom'3����y� �•u�".• _ - i Names given to the Orange Coutny Indians differ with location. The Gabrielinos oc- cupied the territory north and west of Aliso Creek, while the Juanenos occupied the and from Santiago Peak extending along the coast from Aliso Creek southward to San O- nofre. 98 Both were of Shoshonean language stock and collectively numbered about 16,500. They were relatives of the buffalo hunting Commonches of the Great Plains and y the Hopis of the Arizona mesas. As the local Indian names for themselves, Kawengna and Acagchemen, were unmanageable to the Spanish, the bands were called by the closest mission to which they "belonged" -- Gabrielino for the San Gabriel Mission and Juanenos for Mission San Juan Capistrano. Fringing the Santa Ana Mountains, farther south and eastward, were the Luisenos, "assigned" to Mission San Luis Rey. 9b The natives on the Elsinore side of the hill were often called Serranos, meaning "mountain folk." While the Santa Anas separated these diverse people, the range itself { s was considered common ground. A primitive network of trails gave general access to the acorn groves in its center and allowed those on the coast to reach the hot springs of the interior and the islanders to reach the shellfish of the sea. Few native campsites existed in county mountains. Silverado, Modjeska and Trabuco Canyons all possessed the primary Indian necessities of oaks, rocks and water, yet few artifacts have been unearthed. Black Star and Bell Canyons also have major Indian grounds. Very few Indian place names survive on Orange County's maps and-none in the Santa Anas. 9c There were more families of languages spoken in California by the Indian tribes than in any other region of equal size. In habits and customs, these Indians differed greatly ' among themselves. ` f Governor Pedro Fages was one of the first Europeans to observe the Indians of California as a resident. He thought the Indians of the Olive-Anaheim area as well as some of those of the coast were "good looking." Some had light hair while others had r ruddy complexions with black hair. Other historians have described them as short with dark skin and flat noses. Many of the men went stark naked. They wore their hair tightly bound and gathered at the back. Since they possessed no metals, the Indians had ✓4 no tools to cut their hair. Some men cut their beard using clam or oyster shells as pinchers to pull-out whiskers, one by one. Those men who preferred their hair short,9 ` t burned it down to the scalp. s In Southern California, men usually wore sandals and went bareheaded, while the ` women wore a basketry cap. In general, the tallest and most handsome individuals were i found in the Northern part of the state with the height and appearance being changed as one progressed southward. Compared with the other Indians of the Americas, the California Indians were not advanced. They led a simple life based on a harmony with nature. For example, only Indlans along the Colorado River practiced agriculture or made pottery. I From the beginning of time, Indians had used the mortar and pestle or "metate" and handstone to grind their corn. Even after the Spanish introduced grinding stones to the Indian groups, they made no extensive use of this western "tool." Habits changed very slowly among these primitive people. ! So primitive were these people that they were called "Diggers" because of the mistaken belief that they lived only by grubbing for roots. California Indians were reported to be the most primitive Indians in North America. The Indians were well adapted, however, to their own environment, and they took care to protect it as well. They could tell if the animal population was diminishing and when it did, they stopped taking that particular species until there was a recovery. The economy of the Indian groups varied with the region of the state. Indians of Central California and Southern California utilized the acorn which was found in abundance. Each fall, acorns were gathered and stored in basket graineries. Most groups were fiercely protective of acorn groves and many "wars" were fought over their , 19 t � X : -Cl�rn'`.41�i �i. Y�"'r :L;'i.�i,aii.'ysi►[:.�:•�_� F.�. ,tn� �y��"iCtil�9 `�31y r+.syr �SA"S�OTaY�►iR+iici+MlF s G ��j:.t+,.�:�,/ ,+ ,�r�oi �� 't2�`j � 'tA YiHI��..:.'c2'' S''C�`i �tY,!':� .,5:*�,...i�:'�dt�tl:+:•yy�c,.� i 1 77-23.496 SHIPEK. Florence Connolly. 1910- A STRATEGY FOR CHANGE: THE LUISENO OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. University of Hawaii. Ph.D., 1977 1 Anthropology. cultural Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.6chigan 48106 4 c� 1977 FLORENCE CONNOLLY SIIIPEK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 - x x Los Angeles • • San Cabriel Mission .t r/111so Cresk--north boundary \ Lake Elsinore San Juan San Jwn :tiver ; San Jacinto5�boba Capistrano Mission t t • Pala Springs � Pechanga •';eracula �•nargarita Rive; f Su Luis Rey Mission 'c Pala "San LuiS Rey River )-qua Hedionda- ^RiPco Pauns -south boundary •--- .-: 1 valleys�Cnter La J011A Ebcondido • Warner's �r-=ng J _ . • Santa YsI'e: San Diego Mission • • fan Diego C i. tC yA t ' f{t i ltap 1. Luiseiio ?crritcry i 5 e f f. �1- ul \Lt«, J vc 1,, L11 U1_ ti VL1 y �Oa the west, the Gabrielino limits—here more exactly Fernandefxr— t the Chumash were at the minor watershed through which the Santa nna tunnel has been bored, at the coast, between Malibu and Topangu 3 creeks Eastward toward the Serrano and Luisetlo, the line probably passed k Mount San Antonio to the vicinity of Cucamonga Mount Arlington, and E1 t ti onument and Santiago Peaks in other words through %%extern San Ber oaNino and RI-verside Counties—although San Bernardino Valley has also 6 �« ascribed to the Gabrielino Southward, Alisos Creek is cited as the i e Wtoundary between Gabrielino and Juaneilo CHAPTER 44 bloat of the ascertained place names of the Gabrielino are shown in Plate whose limitations as regards the inclusion of true village sites have already E THE GABRIELINO � i� "' AI mentioned Other places are these Pimu or Pipimar, Santa Catalina d, Kinki or Kinkipar San Clemente Island, Aleupki nga, Santa Anita, THE FERNANDERO, 620 THE GABRIELINO Territor 620, `��'' .l�Wks nga, Rancho de los Ybarras, Nakau nga Carpenter's, Chokish nga f 3, general statuKW, Pear f alioneria Akura nga La Presa, Sona nga, White's, Sisitkano nga, } mythology, 622, ritual, 626, shamanism, 627, buildings, 628, busketry pottery, 628, steatite, 629, trade and money, 630, food, 631, various , Isantka nga, Mision Vieja Sua nga near Long Beach is mentioned ments, 632, social practices, 633 THE SAry NICOLENO, 633 fl¢De largest villagei $yuonyms or dialectic variants of the Gabrielino names shown in Plate 57 ,Tavasak for Siba, Iya for Wenot, Pashina for Pasino Ongovi Ungh i x THE FERNANDEko ngva, Chauvi and Unau for Chowi, Shua for Sua language of "Kokomear" and one of "Corbonamga" are mentioned as This group of people,more properly San Fernandefios are by the neophytes at San Gabriel besides the "Sibanga"—Siba the from San Fernando, one of the two Franciscan missions iiisr of San Gabriel—and ' Guiguitamear' or Kikitanum that is Kitunemuk Angeles County At San Gabriel, the other establishmen a Venturefio Chumash knew the Gabrielino, and perhaps all the Shosho- the San Gabrielinos, more often known merely as Gabrielinos, ,beyond, as Ataplill'ish (plural I'ataplili'ish) larly Gmvielinos In a larger sense, both people have been ' GENERAL STATUS nated as the Gabrielino Their idioms were distinguishablqAT AT- not notably so, and if fuller knowledge were extant it might ? e`'Gabrielino held the great bulk of the most fertile lowland on of southern California They occupied also a stretch of necessary to recognize half a dozen dialects instead of the two r the presence of the missions has given the appearance of, _ �� nt and sheltered coast and the most favored one of the Santa 1111 ara Islands They seem to have been the most advanced group standard The delimitation of Fernandefio and Gabrielino. map is mainly conjectural, and there is no known point in wh chi ` of Tehachapi, except perhaps the Chumash They certainly f two groups differed in customs It will be best, therefore, to he wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans vision. " theState, and dominated these civilizationally wherever contacts them as a unit under the caption of the more prominent di �z _ dried Their influence spread even to alien peoples They have THE GAaRiELnvo y ted away so completely that we know more of the fine facts of TERRITORY Y�culture of ruder tribes, but everything points to these very rescences having had their origin with the Gabrielino M '' The wider Gabrielino group occupied Los Angeles County a Jimsonweed or toloache ritual is a case in point The religious of the Sierra Madre, half of Orange County, and the i slapdg - ��f,this drug extends far eastward, and its ultimate source may rto be Pueblo, like that of the sand painting that is associated Santa Catalina and San Clemente The evidence is scant and what conflicting as regards the latter, a divergent dialect,orevci kthit in the region from the Gabrielino south The definite cult , Luiseno one, may have been spoken there The local culture on � wever, in which the plant is employed,the mythology with which i 1 Clemente, however, was clearly connected with that of Santa' lis�brought into relation, the ritual actions and songs that consti- lina, perhaps dependent upon it, and Catalina was pure Gab" its body, were worked out primarily if not wholly by the in speech �itbrielmo All southern accounts mention Santa Catalina and San 620 tr y t NlkA cl t0 ook BU.4U a,•Mf B.(:.N f........ BULLETIN T. IUTf!T I Le•.Y Lb .'reOk II ,/ FN O o crrn s.w o` E Atan-pa-t Ph�o-:.k b S.o�An Oplo .B_ ILn9 St FeLTi anti L..n. .•. A G^�na-w_r O o •a•r JJ I WaAinv-t Sd anamG- •t °IL° n � /I IL C�<a w.owg.PL YOn� B ernerd His& -pa "Akamo 'o R�vBr i .L.` Kukarno M4kwpia-blr ,yr • Aaok&a Mao oAzuea aner no Ba.�.lino S B nardi P•ak Puwiprt alT San Gabf,iel i/ O Nilen f,l;at ta��A as.n corgo�i°Mr rbat dr Toibi Colton ah E m Hikaran-0-* ha - - — r - LOS E Hoof % OPoona Ar ngk O d sa^ ORedlan6 ' ••` Hungo- DS„° / Santa Ica Apachia Awl 1. ok&-brkai-pa-t or nga a A R I E L I O 'i Paging H.rumpa %, - r/ ORiverside Sehat a"va-t Malki t tLl ^ (L R 1 � gp Banning o` t - ----�IN, EnEva 0 ibaha Hutuk CoronaO 0 _ Redondo ��` Ahow ,`t N f Ybu I �V 1 �' I S.,,J.c�nro Pk G/ 0 Shw / ' L ` Lon ach / Pahav` San Jacl Tito p _ / SeChi v v'L $ate i!' �\ o an a vo r.n°.r. Chowi % O S to An iL an a ro 1 Y S.—.go Pk j^ / f Lukup % / yP. ftre Moyo r L U I S E N O yyn. Cr Pal"ak.una To d C k J A ono A tl N E O .4 o -- -- ton. �. HYT I � GJ jPawi LoCk.0 Mr honn .Temecula, chmsuan ! / I Z.Pk a.r"i it 41c HYlawona Pan ; sa,4"0f.... irw r < (!� 4 Malamaia 1RG11ma1 bf �,, ' r Pala L ...w.,..M� .y •'.' Paumo r kwio-po-ghopila Q�b i Ef�6 ygdmkav TA hanaahp Ar5o.��lgk J LLit ]�pomat 1;.• wkp Anur. NBoriw Kvo III,6D&4 Ushm.`ec Kat.kro �ftivalam Q' Kuk.�.M`—k Lj'f!r ilgrivowttT„' P.ktV O so mai Woahha I na .I Or' .uw&i Kola / 7&wl S.n q.dro Of wip"ia Rey SaYm&r v& 1(kvo wia io KBi. Mot-h—i Cf' Alaoi MeaaOrande I&nYki �Gr Shakl hmai i%kvmak °�- P.nakar $&trnvnumin � Cr �' Mif ltokw �k 'ShiA&p& eksl-om•pwn•o&ovo P&oha e r 'co Ti'6COpQ�dO AfRva ay;♦.hwf. `-t. t� 4 FJF +� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • • • • HUN11NCTON Bf A(H TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Council Member DATE: January 26, 1994 SUBJECT: COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS FOR JANUARY 31, 1994 Please include, under my comment section, the following items on the City Council agenda of 1/31/94 for possible action by the Council: 1. Since the recent archaeological discovery of the 8,000 year old human remains in the Bolsa Chica may have significant bearing on the nature of man's evolution and the colonization of the American continent in prehistoric times, and since the private and public organizations currently in charge of the archaeological excavations show a singularly cavalier disregard about the anthropological significance of the find: it is proposed that the Huntington Beach City Council take the actions listed below to preserve this significant discovery for all times and all people. a. Submit a letter to the Orange County Grand Jury to investigate the activities of all persons involved in the find to determine the truth of the matter. The Grand Jury would be encouraged to use their subpoena powers and the ability to take sworn testimony. b. Seek a temporary restraining order to stop any more degradation of the site by those currently in charge until it is determined if any laws have been broken. c. Contact the Coastal Commission to have them withdraw all permits for activities of any kind in the Bolsa Chica until the situation can be further evaluated. d. Contact the Orange County District Attorney to determine if any State laws have been broken. e. Contact the United States Department of Justice to see if any Federal laws have been broken. y_ Agenda Items January 26, 1994 Page -2- f. Contact a cross-section of universities and native American groups to determine who has the competence, desire, and ability to deal with this archeological find in a scientific and culturally sensitive manner. 2. Bring forth an emergency action waiving new resident water hook up fees for recent earthquake victims whose homes were severely damaged and who are moving into Huntington Beach. RB:paj AGDITM xc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Lain` 2°7 � Comment Deadline: February 18, 1994 (4:00 p.m.) MAC )'N a7,, CAM s 3ll �ress 2 ,)j 0,4 F i /Statcllip 1-3 � " 9 /y / Date ! � ��t(y r L Paul R. Lanning Orange County EMA Environmental Planning Division 300 N. Flower Street P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 9�702-4048 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE BOLSA CHICA EIR Dear Mr. Lanning: a4n A /2e_Siaten�f Co�r'7� ��"sq� W 40 v_:PoISA (fZ-a A ­11� 4(en S'oenQ W,,W ccP )lv h )4e n! h 32 C -C, . w S r�� s� h e Cie. ve_1 o h► e by 0$,r o &el s /h lie, e"l Lr -r VS /eqr?j ro-,vj tVWO 4 S _Wc� �arbo� Blvd. I N eoSfq, � �/y�e CoS6N �„ s0. aItowecQ *e �LIJ�IG C 0 vrt- e t N er i- o�owh �, ll fie, beau , l dr-Q� e wo ve-S o-y. iTAR60l~ )-elf 4 6� Car ;S a a �r a,r r s e.oQ lv a�- �Aie BoR 'lv�. is Asroc i,a1ec'0 k e� 0 6/ ve 4a�O f /tlRPor ��tJ�1• d in/ h c��scs k�t•e P�eies , ac� eq roX ,es wou /A o M.e v�2A—e � l�01_eo e r ou r s oQ Dc��e� k h e w A�e ola r e P`' sQ A W o r Is �7� es l4 , W e tv woulo� - o74 a rv� 6`` Z` To �or 7& yi eTF e '4S We _ � � L /h lot� ev� e7 4,d" Ps e � ltis -s 10- '44, G -ve- ^ e . /' v4 re)�i- kL 'Ac—) s-o pz'o"o' /a hdl- 4q a e ;e w s o e e-n el hex- �x -wa m R v� n erg �a a l m h s me-slnL - Qe e-r e J oQ�s q r'A K-e a ve r �oQ10 e s s��e u �'zi.�, Gt/� s lllo rq - ►-+ l'�4Yt -7o J z c9 0jet , en hS of o cv Cart. , As ec o �s FaIA 'A ISO OC� _S_,p Q e,,_ e _CQ * 'j / LA 'Ra _r e F r V nn c r a 8 00o �ve nr 1 7) /� •4 C'u use lO �� a re.nseo� JV CA 0'4 I m Y4S /O P e to 0/GCdC� 6h C O , Ile_ a� i h "� ea r o u r C- h <L-e S �2.hs, 2 v'� 6 © h'r o w ems- C-4 n ea s fS'A 9AVe- � C � ht - �r'esen+ To C'Ounctl bwr►n Near i;ij 1-31- 11y -�olSa Ch<<a �.T�2 125 &1,--11, c�� C INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF TONGVA formerly, the gabrielino Indians 4126 POTRERO RD. NEWBURY PARK, CA. 91320 March 30, 1989 hh'.Michael J. Moratto, President; Infotec Research Incorporated 19524 Hillsdale Drive Sonora, CA. 95370 f Dear Mr. Moratto, Thank you for your corporation's inquiry about the Tongva aboriginal areas i stillused by the Traditional Tongva today. The site you mention in your correspondence has been one of great controversy, that is to say, one Jim Velasquez has created an unfavorable atmosphere among the Ataham (juaneno/luiseno) and Tongva Cbnrunities. As a network of Traditional People, we do not acknowledge this person as a member of any of the mentioned nations, that would also include the Cahuilla and Chumash Nations as well. This network of Traditional Nations mentioned will discount anything this person tries to interpret as cultural or spiritual information. As with all Native Americans, we have a protocol which we use. This is called counsel, and in this counsel a Traditional etiquette is used for all decisions and policies. We as a network of the above mentioned have sunned Mr. Velasquez to counsel to answer for his actions regarding the cultural and environmental destruction of Ataham and Tongva lands which he has received vast amounts of monitary reward frcm the Irvine Corporation and other land developers so that they can canply with the state laws, and write off these sites, and continue their so called progress. You will find inclosed the most recent copy of the Traditional Tongva Policy regarding Aboriginnal Resources, I hope this policy will help your corporation with the project and feel free to share this information with other involved agencies dealing with this project. Being Traditionalist, we stand firmly on what has been addressed and hope you understand why our policy has been written. Again, thank you for your correspondence. Sincerely, c.c. Chief Raymond Belardes; Ataham Nation Bob Rivera; Chumash Nation Katherine Saubel; Cahuilla Nation Cindi Alvitre-Porter; Tongva Nation Kote / A' lukoy Lotah; Chumash Nation for t, Toney Speaker Vera Rocha; Tongva Nation for the Tongva Nation Fred Morales; Tongva Nation Jim Velasquez; ????? ?????????? Native American Heritage Carmission Sin /w C�hci� bu'Al �bi1<< ge4ri i 'bwA,* "Po bc, CALCA FIRS TRADITIONAL TONGVA POLICY REGARDING ABORIGINAL RESOURCES JANUARY 1989 WITH THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION TO THE- LAND AND RESOURCES BELONGING TO THE TRADITIONAL TONGVA, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THIS DOCUMENT BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL FEDERAL , STATE AND' LOCAL AGENCIES . The Traditional Tongva are the remainder of the origional native population from the areas improperly designated as ; Los Angeles county , Orange. county , San Bernadino county , Riverside county and parts of the eastern edge of Ventura county. i The Tongva are the Soverign Nation of non-christian indians whom still retain their Oral History, Language , and Religious Value System with their ties to their lands . This Nation and its relations have never received monies from the Bureau of Indian affairs or the California Land Claims Act which was payment for land and native heritage. We have never sold any of our land or resources . We have been referred to as "aabrieleno indians or "mission indians,' Any person considering themselves as a gabrieleno or the latter is ; 1 . ) a catholic or christian with no concept of Traditional values , 2 . ) received monies from the California Land Claims Act in the late 1960 ' s to sell land that does not belong to them. 3. ) because of the payment received from the C . L. C.A. this would terminate these persons from their according to the B. I .A. The Tonqva are not gabrielenos , the latter word being a spanish misnomer. The word Tongva in our native language means" From the Earth,' The Tongva are also part of a National Network of Native Americans whom are Traditional in the same respect. We as Traditional Tongva have distinguished that only what nature dictates will be absolute. _ Because of the overwhelming amount of abuses to all the resources on the mainland , the ocean and the channel islands , this policy has been written . Archaeology : With our tribal experience dealing with the United States goverment in general , and all other agencies .including ; State , County ,and city both public and private , We have desided as the Tongva Nation , that all archaeological sites be left undesturbed , that includes all phases of excavation and in the near future , the remains of our ancestors including artifacts , be returned to the Tongva. We know for a fact that the local museums and universities in southern california have collections and remains as well as museums and universities across the United States contain relics that belong to the Tongva. ( ie lowie museum, Smithsonian , etc. ) Environmental Destruction of Land Resources : The United States goverment does not have a legal vehicle to possess the lands in southern california belonging to the Tongva nation because congress never designed nor ratified a treaty or land transaction . Therefore , .There will be no more projects on Tongva lands which include ; drilling for natural gas , oil or water, mining , controlled burns on the land , the spraying of any chemical ,herbicide , or introduction of biological bacterias , this includes the destruction .of .canyons , hills , mountains and the flora and fauna in these areas . Road construction , real estate developement both commercial and residential , waterways , rivers , streams , ponds , springs and creeks . This destruction of our homelands has prompted our nation to write this policy , the amount of the present developement has _ impacted the way of life for our culture , which includes ; fishing in the ocean and on the mainland , hunting , gathering of materials to sustain our way of life such as plants , minerals we use. on a daily basis and for ceremonies . 2 Environmental Destruction of the Ocean , Fresh/Saltwater inlets ,estuaries and the Channel Islands ; It is now public knowledge that the United States goverment in general , as well as State , and local agencies have allowed the dumping of dangerous sewage , which is composed of industrial and agricultural chemicals , pesticides , herbicides , into waterways which—empty into inlets , estuaries *and the pacific ocean . Dumping city sewage treated or not also has contributed 'to the loss of water quality and the destruction of. many ecosystems` that sustain life in the waterways still used by the Tongva nation . Oil wells and offshore platforms are equal *. contributors to the destruction of many life forms in the ocean . The oil spill in Santa Barbara in the 60 ' s is a good example of habitat destruction , so is the oil spill in Washington State in December of 1988 , which wiped out the entire coast lines of both Washington State and Oregon . These coastal resources belong to the Tongva Nation including ' the oil reserves on the mainland , the islands , and the ocean , ' We do not want these resources further exploited by any corporation ' or goverment. Salt/Freshwater Estuaries ; These marsh areas are used as waterways for the gathering of traditional foods , and medicine plants , roots , and animals I used by the Tongva Nation . These areas were also used by countless generations of ancestors long before us . The Tongva Nation reserves all rights to these resources , and will not be made to pay when at such an area , to site an example , the california fish and game has begun to charge a fee to enter the Newport Upper Back Bay , this is not acceptable and is in violation of Public Law 95-341 Native American Religious Freedom Law. 40 ,000 years of a culture inhabiting an area makes a big difference , but in less then 150 years , our resources have been almost completely destroyed. The Channel Islands ; Our resources on all these islands also have been overu�tilized to the point of extinction on both the land and the surrounding waters . The United States Navy has dumped dangerous chemical and nuclear wastes including old nuclear submarines of the island of San Clemente , not to mention using the island as a bombing and shelling range . Our ancestors gravesites have -been damaged or destroyed by these actions , and by allowing people like Andy Yatsco from one of the San Diego Naval Bases to dig up our Ancestors graves without informing our community , Mark Raab , from California State Northridge who has worked with Mr. Yatsco , a'nd Clement Meighen from the Universitity of California , Los Angeles . On San Nicolas Island and San Clemente Island , the Naval Department has allowed these morbid barbaric grave robbers to destroy our heritage , This is no lonaer acceptable , we deplore such actions ! The Traditional Tongva have created this policy as a warning to all the listed agencies . This is not an intent to file suit , but to inform these agencies that because of such actions , catastrophic events have begun to manifest , according to our Oral Prophesies . We will not be responsible for the loss of life , or the damages created by large earth quakes , drought , floods , high winds , or loss of food production on our homelands . These acts will be the spirits of this land warning all people of the amount abuse placed on the land and the ocean . The leaders of the Tongva Nation hope that the agencies listed reviews this policy , and makes a Big change for all persons living on our homeland. Our Nation Has Spoken , Art Alvitre , Tomeyar Speaker \`. 01'. ` 8t« Nesrin b�o(SA C City of Hurittngton Beam Jan.?1, 1994 Attn: Councilman Ralph Bauer Gear Councilman Bauer: I am unable to deliver this statement in person, so I have asked my representatives to deliver this: for me. This statement is to register my complaints about the activities surrounding the development of the Bolsa Chica site by the Koll Company. I am e:;tremely concerned that this project has been handled 1n a manner that possibly violates CEn_A, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act i4:_) CFR Part 10.), Public Resources Code 509?.g and the traditional values and morals of my people the GabrielenorTongva. thy name is Cindi M. Alvitre, I am registered as a "Most Likely De_,cendant" by the Nati ve Amer!can Heri t age Commi ssi on, ,• hi ch i s our State 1 evei represent at i on f or California Indians. Ply people are the GabrielenotTongva tribe ',lYho aboriginally occupied Los Angeles County, Orange County and the Southern Channel Islands. Not only am I a descendant to the original people of the Bolsa Chica, I am also grew tip in the Huntington Beach area and my family is intimately connected to this coastal region. In 1992, 1 consulted with by the Koll Company and associates until I refused to cooperate with the manner in which they were proceeding. It ,.vas at that point that I was excluded form being consulted further on matters concerning Bolsa ►hica. At this point I would like to state that I do have additional evidence surrounding Bolsa Chica. I feel that many of the questions that have not have answered by those involved at Bolsa Chica can no%.,r only be answered through an properly monitored investigation. I am greatly concerned, as our my people, that not only have '•,',•'e been deceived, but so have the public servants and the local communities that have worked so hard to assure that the Bolsa Chica development %,vouid be handled responsibly according to the aforementioned legal guidelines. I respectfully request any ,additional information regarding Bolsa Chica. I also would like to express my willingness to cooperate in this process to assure honestly and dignity, not only to my ancestors and my elders, but also to the local cormmunity members and public servant_, '.., ho have %,vorked so hard to protect '113luable resources. Please feel free_ to contact me at home i'�09) 2 r f - 1 1 n 1. Sincerely, Cirddi N. Alvitre "Nost Likely Descendants T City of Huntington Beach `ian.31, 1994 Attn: Councilman Ralph Bauer Dear Councilman Ba►_rer- i am unable to deliver this statement in person, so I have asked my representatives to deliver this for me. This statement is to register my complaints about the activities surrounding the development of the Bolsa Chica site by the Kall Company. ! am extremely concerned that this project has been dandled in a manner that possibly violates CEQA, The relative American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (43 CFR Part 10), Public Resources Code 5097.9 and the traditional values and morals of my people the Gabrieleno/Tongva. Ny name is Cindi M. Alvitre, I am registered as a "Most Likely Descendant" by the Native American Heritage Commission, which is our State level representation for California Indians. My people are the Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe who aboriginally occupied Los Angeles County, Orange County and the Southern Channel Islands. Not only am I a descendant to the original people of the Bolsa Chica, I am also grey up in the Huntington Beach area and my family is intimately connected to this coastal regi on. In 1992, 1 consulted with by the Kol l Company and associates until I refused to cooperate with the manner in which they were proceeding. it was at that point that I •,eras excluded form being consulted further on matters concerning Solsa Chi►_:a. At this point I •,rtiro►_rld like to state that I do have additional evidence ,3.urrounding Bolsa Chica. I feel that many of the questions that have not have answered ed bq those involved at Bolsa Chica can now only be answered through an properly monitored investigation. I am greatly concerned, as our my people, that not only liar•►e •tirtire been deceived, but so have the public servants and the local communities that have worked so hard to assure that the Bolsa Chica development `evo►_rid be dandled responsibly according to the aforementioned legal guidelines. I respectfully request any additional information regarding Bolsa Chica. I also rrould like to express r7iy willingness to cooperate in this process to assure honestly and dignitq, not oniy to my ancestor, and my elders, but also to the local corr►munitq members and p►_rblic servants •,•'rho have worked so Hard to protect val►.rable resr_jurces. Please f eel f ree to contact me at home '2�7h-1 1 F, 1. Sincerely, ely, Cindi M. Alvitre ,"f' o-:.t Likely Descendants 11­111: EASTERN BORDERLAND has been confirmed by archeological data, stood on Temescal Creek in the present Corona. Luisenos and Gabrielinos lived there side by side, and the Santa Ana Mountains were laced with trails by which the coastal Indians reached the coveted warmth of the springs and the desert tribesmen the salt air of the sea. Paxauxa may be the rancheria which appears in the San Juan Capistrano Baptismal Register as Axaxa, since " its meaning is to be found in the Gabrielino Axawkng- na, "in the net." Lake Elsinore, farther south, is in Luiseno territory but the Gabrielinos knew many a place-name there. Guibanga, as listed in the San Gabriel Register, was known to them as We-evungna, "like the , The grasshoppers we are here," a name which was also southern applied to a nearby mountain range and which seems related to that of a Desert Cahuilla clan, wiitem, $order/and "grasshoppers." Strong was told that the "old language" of Saboba Hot Springs had been "nearly like Serrano," but for A Study of the Religion long years the Indian settlement there has been Lu- iseno. Nearby was Kujungna, from the Gabrielino for the word "head," and listed in the San Gabriel Register Geographically �,�eo ra hicall the boundary between the Gabriel- as Coyubit. In the canyon above Sovovo lay Korovang- t 1 g p Y na, the Register's Coronababit. A similar name for a inos and their southern neighbors is clearly marked at village near Santa Monica meant "we are in the sun." _ Aliso Creek which empties into the ocean just south of High above Corona in the Santa Ana Mountains Laguna Beach, and the dialects show marked differ- lay a small, lush valley with a pool and a "ciene a " or ences. Yet when we embark upon a study of the re- marsh, and a view out to the Channel Islands. The vil- ligious beliefs and practices of the more dominant lage here gave its name to converts of the San Gabriel northern group we find our main source of information Mission, the Register reading Pamaibit, though the val- among the people we know as Juanenos; and from the le was known as Pama'am from the word a'a'var, survivors among the Luisenos of the San Luis Rey dis- Y ) , "above." Recent archeological excavations make it) os- trict, even farther south, where an ever-dwindling sible to be sure of its location hitherto known only number of initiates still retain a remnant of the vast through one verbal tradition. body of ceremonial songs and observances which once were the main concern of the influential men of the tribe. Father Geronimo Boscana wrote his famous "Histori- cal Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California" from observations made during his stay at that Mission from 1812 to 1826. He seems to have furnished the greater part of the information —36— —37— 06/18/92 09:41 N A H C'-+'714e9174tDUI s ••. Names address #e!e hone__ Tribal affiliatio Art Alvitre Gabrieleno 4126 Potrero Road Newbury Park, CA 91320 (805) 498-0305 Cindi M. Alvitre Gabrieleno 1149 Jadestone Lane Corona, CA 91720 (714) 276-1370 (H) (714) 787-3755 (W) ,Qa vid Belardes Juaneno 31742 Via Belardes .,San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 `t-:, (714) 493-4933 oi:lkN era Rocha Gabrieleno 1 ,. 3451 Remey Avenue aldwin Park, CA 91706 (818) 962-8546 (Call for North Orange Co only) Velasquez Gabrieleno :�. 6 West Third St. ' Santa Ana, CA 92703 -' '---(714) 547-4237 i. 40 t��y ktyY. 1 y. J Names given to the Orange Coutny Indians differ with location. The Gabrielinos oc- �-- cupied the territory north and west of Aliso Creek, while the Juanenos occupied the land from Santiago Peak extending along the coast from Aliso Creek southward to San 0- nofre. 98 Both were of Shoshonean language stock and collectively numbered about 16,500. They were relatives of the buffalo hunting Commanches of the Great Plains and t the Hopis of the Arizona mesas. As the local Indian names for themselves, Kawengna and Acagchemen, were unmanageable to the Spanish, the bands were called by the closest mission to which they "belonged" -- Gabrielino for the San Gabriel Mission and Juanenos for Mission San Juan Capistrano. Fringing the Santa Ana Mountains, farther south and eastward, were the Luisenos, "assigned" to Mission San Luis Rey. 913 ' The natives on the Elsinore side of the hill were often called Serranos, meaning "mountain folk." While the Santa Anas separated these diverse people, the range itself t was considered common ground. A primitive network of trails gave general access to the acorn groves in its center and allowed those on the coast to reach the hot springs of the Interior and the islanders to reach the shellfish of the sea. _ Few native campsites existed in county mountains. Silverado, Modjesko and Trabuco Canyons all possessed the primary Indian necessities of oaks, rocks and water, yet few artifacts have been unearthed. Black Star and Bell Canyons also have major Indian grounds. Very few Indian place names survive on Orange County's maps and-none in the Santa Anos. 9c There were more families of languages spoken in California by the Indian tribes than f. In habits and customs, these Indians differed greatly in any other region of equal size. among themselves. Governor Pedro Fages was one of the first Europeans to observe the Indians of E California as a resident. He thought the Indians of the Olive-Anaheim area as well as some of those of the coast were "good looking." Some had light hair while others had ruddy complexions with black hair. Other historians have described them as short with dark skin and flat noses. Many of the men went stark naked. They wore their hair tightly bound and gathered at the back. Since they possessed no metals, the Indians had no tools to cut their hair. Some men cut their beard using clam or oyster shells as pinchers to pull-out whiskers, one by one. Those men who preferred their hair short, burned it down to the scalp. 9d In Southern California, men usually wore sandals and went bareheaded, while the l a women wore a basketry cap. In general, the tallest and most handsome individuals were s found in the Northern part of the state with the height and appearance being changed as one progressed southward. Compared with the other Indians of the Americas, the California Indians were not advanced. They led a simple life based on a harmony with nature. For example, only j Indians along the Colorado River practiced agriculture or made pottery. From the beginning of time, Indians had used the mortar and pestle or "metate" and : _ handstone to grind their corn. Even after the Spanish introduced grinding stones to the Indian groups, they made no extensive use of this western "tool." Habits changed very 'l slowly among these primitive people. So primitive were these people that they were called "Diggers" because of the mistaken belief that they lived only by grubbing for roots. California Indians were reported to be the most primitive Indians in North America. The Indians were well . adopted, however, to their own environment, and they took care to protect it as well. They could tell if the animal population was diminishing and when it did, they stopped f taking that particular species until there was a recovery. The economy of the Indian groups varied with the region of the state. Indians of Central California and Southern California utilized the acorn which was found in I abundance. Each fall, acorns were gathered and stored in basket graineries. Most groups were fiercely protective of acorn groves and many "wars" were fought over their l ` 19 oil oil I ::af15 .,ti; S[•�4' IrK _ J'. - ...:k �t' ` gyp. ',""'�� � I' �}.11.�'"'¢p5'.e�,"`...wyS'.�+fi{ �ty'",�i:iZ+Sa'�i-�E�6�i`�':`'K'S.a.tn..'��:.is.1"` "�`.�'�'• ' , t I ' 77-23,496 SHIPEK, Florence Connolly. 1910- A STRATEGY FOR CHANGE: THE LUISCNO OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. University of Hawaii, Ph.D., 1977 Anthropology, cultural i Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.MIchlpen48106 4 . c� 1977 FLORENCE CONNOLLY SHIPEK ALL RICHTS RESERNE•D i1 J'3 /.w i 4 1 I '{••'''• _ 1'_ ✓ �• l 's � ynt�-.� 1 G 1. r ~�t.r-�.FY _1;r h�,- ..��,;\ -ti.; 1 `� ' �-1 .i T� t_ •\ ri�'k. ✓.i•2't 'L/r r�,r 1+� '-r •t a.SV .1�.. Y�Y 4'' ) 7 r -t .:r- 4 't 1R. - =,.e. 7.7 � -r'f,:4. ,,t:: ,. � ��,.?gip_ •4 -7 �?:a?. F wti: {' r y 7 51. :i x 4 �t,§ � r•i`� �^`•�„z )y?F�:•'i7�C5�r ��<`.'-Yi� � .�+x�t t - < _ .r1 'f . 7�.�S ts� i. 1.� �, .:�., •r 1 .:�d" �c<.. , :`+c.,y,T�..Xr. ,.tTr.,`�' �� .♦ ',tF�`!.,�.d •:�._�.�95 !i.' .�./.:. ..14/ .r .�:`1. t.'7. .�'. :yn•�r .y: t r'r '•i ^'':' �.'Y7.' •.S 1 ! 45. «4:`r '>'.rc �T..L- ..�rf 'r'.• ^};y- t!' lc, •,�'�.1:'�{� <..��.•�/� �. •,1 :.'F C + 'YQ- 'i+.�.:;L: ��i4r,i�..•,. ..,µ•._t r. ,� .� �r. ;ytt-r' X .;;•r;j,,.. ✓ t 4l'.. 14. :r� 5.�.4r 7..'i ?L .y- ✓ -,� `t 7 ��!1 �r 1 f ` f�0y,�'.7 .r � Y�- ;J o �a L .?1 •�7.'. h 7-C. t 'i .,:r<.1:.. 7 n.J--" ..,a 1;7 ..t,. f �,r y..tL _ � a:' `7: •f:^.,, t.: c �/, i�ti. .l.. ',i�" •\,. 'itf rs S" .t:b, �{?Y+'r=t f 'b' ,;'fir„ '•;W_ r-;r6• a:Y ct em IA ,�mayy _.X• ^-.r!: ,'}-.•:2. ,:�w, _8:�'�.. .•j�.�+. ¢ YS-_.. k �i. .c -.y,i .�>;L �r,"'` ..#.eye .fir..,���: ��;Ji .7. aa• v!. � '1 >��+J "�'. .?J. .+j:- :�r:l, F.';ti'/ II,,.iLi�' .p:�'. '�hiJ. '+"' `.•:!,:'r.'_c'..0.y7: s �'.:+.'• •''mil. 1. r. �, ,,i CI'. mr'sF .� S.F`# .X'N r.It.4l'��r.' ,r�.^.:..ru3,. a.•.<.: 1�.. -rj, •f�� 't`,` i' 2,. ,.(-t. a.,.. ,h• ,y .Y•. � wV ` /. ss 7. .w• 5' .•S ?: „Y� �•\.. fib^ ..e;+n .f ! .� Jl 1)!'1 'SU."✓t R r'i'i.,;..F, J+ `/ 'tA. ld''� .S.rr. ,h..• .�, .,.rr:i .i'{`.. v,r �7 r.' ..;�4:-:'` -S. J' .f. .Tkll�� .t' -rr.� ,,u,_ :'Sr .1� :ii.i v�� ifi �1 E T=,�.: +i�: \ti.•..4 :'t .,�: '.i ,f '•,� -rs.-..'.#. ;� ..[. ..rl. ,:.t ,JSr, ..t--7. :'� t:- ar 1. 't2., -'7! .�? .1�: r �� -I !'r• A•+�} _i.r+t+:.>f ...: .•:t� 'vim. - �'r •r... -: ,„' � 1;''�'r,;5:r�`;"•;�•;{'"-ra �;•;t. ''�,:,;=-c-ili`r.:, �r.0' � t },'�� •r r ;i' • � t�,el .. r. .7, ry It,S+iY- :r13-l.[$•.- .Y'�i ! 3 --- —_------- - ,, mil/\-\L...v J•a 111 -\L� 1...J ..a �...�ll'�)l..•!t1 U—.L Y. ;On the west, the Gabrielino limits—here more exactly Fernaudeiio►— ?: t the Chuu►ash were at the minor watershed through which the :;ants tunnel has been bored; at the coast, between Malibu and Topangu kB. Eastward, toward the Serrano and Luise6o, the line probably passed Mount San Antonio to the vicinity of Cucamonga, Mount Arlington, and ament and Santiago Peaks; In other words, through western San Ber j 11tMino and Riverside Counties—although San Bernardklo Valley has also I ascribed to the Gabrielino. Southward, Alisos Creek is cited as the s??• ry between Gabrielino and Juanet5o. CHAPTER 44. j'� }Yost of the ascertained place names of the Gabrielino are shown in Plate '. Wwhose limitations as regards the Inclusion of true village sites have already !' THE GABRIELINO. Wftmentioned. Other places are these: Pimu or Pipimar, Santa Catalina i j' d; Kinkl or Kinkipar, San Clemente Island; Aleupki-nga, Santa Anita; i THE F'EBNANDEFio, 620. THE GABBIELINO• Territory, 620; general stet ka nga, Rancho de los Ybarras; Nakau-nga, Carpenter's; Chokish nga, i'! mythology, 622; ritual, 626; shamanism, 627; buildings, 828; busker eria; Akum-nga, La Presa; Sona-nga, White's; Sisitkano-nga, Pear oe >; Isantka-nga, Mlsion Vieja. Sua-nga near Long Beach Is mentioned pottery, W; steatite, W9; trade and money, M; food, 631; vurio ments, 632; social practices, M. THE SAN NICOLEFiO, M. tb!largest village. i' ;anonyms or dialectic variants of the Gahrleltno names shown in Plate 57 THE FERNANDENO. Tuvasak for Siba; Iya for Wenot; Pashina for Pusino; Ongovi, Ungtivt f; $ngva; Chauvi and Unau for Chowi; Shua for Sun. ) ' « ; ; language of "Kokomcnr" and one of "Corbunamga" are mentioned as !; This group Of people, more properly San Fernandehos are + by the neophytes at San Gabriel besides the "Stbanga"—Stba. the t; from San Fernando, one of the two Franciscan missions�Gag in OL San Gabriel—and "Guiguitamcar" or Ktkitanum, that Is, Kltanemuk. Ventureilo Chumash knew the Gabrielino, and perhaps all the Shosho Angeles County. At San Gabriel, the Other establishment, the San Gabrielinos, more often known merely as Gabrielinos, beyond, as Ataptui'ish (plural rutapuu'ish). � 1 larly Gravielinos. In a larger sense, both people have been ,>` GENERAL sTATU8. j.-! nated as the Gabrielino. Their idioms were distinguishable, not notably so; and if fuller knowledge were extant it might, e Gabrielino held the great bulk of the most fertile lowland necessary to recognize half a dozen dialects instead of the two J,, on of southern California. They occupied also a stretch of j the presence of the missions has given the appearance of '" nt and sheltered coast and the most favored one of the Santa standard. The delimitation of Fernandefio and Gabrielino Oil. ra Islands. They seem to have been the most advanced group of Tehachapi, except perhaps the Chumash. They certainly map is mainly conjectural, and there is no known point in which"' with two groups differed in customs. It will be best, therefore, 6 the wealthiest and most thoughtful of all the Shoshoneans i them as a unit under the caption of the more prominent division: ` ,'.the State, and dominated these civil izationally wherever contacts f; Their influence spread even to alien peoples. They have THE GARRIELINO, rid away so completely that we know more of the fine facts of :culture of ruder tribes; but everything points to these very of TERR"ORT. "'" '` cences having had their origin with the Gabrielino. The wider Gabrielino group occupied Los Angeles Count s The Jimson weed or toloache ritual is a case in point. The religious of the Sierra Madre, half of Orange County, and the is1J .Of this drug extends far eastward, and its ultimate source may Santa Catalina and San Clemente. The evidence is scant and Tkvve to be Pueblo, like that of the sand painting that is associated what conflicting as regards the latter; a divergent dialect, or it in the region from the Gabrielino south. The definite cult. Luisefio one, may have been spoken there. The local culture ori' ever, in which the plant is employed,the mythology with which Clemente, however, was clearly connected with that of Santa' 'brought into relation, the ritual actions and songs that consti lina, perhaps dependent upon it; and Catalina was pure Gabe ,'.'its body, were worked out primarily if not wholly by the in speech. y tielMO. All southern accounts mention Santa Catalina and San l 620 rN - fl .u.UU O..M(.K.M(TMMOIOQY ..L1(TIM r( .I.T( 1 1 I� 14 1 Il0 �.re�R 1 I♦ , a N o e.l.•.a 0 o\� Atan-pa-/ SpnFevn +v 8 t�:.k 2 \ ...R A w f [A�11••va-r d/-f. A • Wahinu-t S° anaml- -t um 41.c.�non8.h o�� Q ♦\ "4rd� Nis& -pa , \, no ZVBr �� ;`.♦1`\♦ Hwhaa+o KYkamo Mu k.-pia-bIr ,ir R p� San O.•naraino Mar ; CAZllBa \\\ San Bernardino Nil n al�P•'k puwipri San,Gab iel i; ° /,t;:�wtwina: .s.ncprgen{eMl Sribat cf ToIbI Colton1. �� Hoist i oPomOna ArAahek o- sin oRedlands LOS E E Hlkavan6-4 HYngY DSrp Santa. Apachia Awl ^. V kai•pa f ar n8a �oka-b rtca r 1 a Pa•ne H.rumW ySohwt ORiveraide �lltva-1 Malki 'S ``♦� R 1 c Sir Banningo" \4 Hutuk O \ EJIva b Corona \ Redondo fir. Ahwu ubu '^ ♦4``B. I.i.. / 1 Gvri Pk - \ 111 o Shuw I �An. ; i \Lon achPwhavSan Jncintoo",_ Sachl Ghowt $S ♦` e lr0 i / $.nri.go Pk / f 1 Lukup % �o Pa btFi _ Moyo d L f.! 1 S E N O ,mow Palasakwna Tare Pk J A r N E O ' ,,f • A ona b KYT / % IAOMM Mr lw � C J an ",Temecula y CM./Imal Pk v Htwona♦ Pan �^A�oW Senpnof•,` ir''� F ud Malamil•. �Ibcnmal ply. �•. T.' `9i1 Q I Pala •hr.orr Paurno Takrifh-po-shapila tf�6/R6mkw Taghanav I p apela J tS �poraal 1';.• �kPe \\NgOrlvo 6ap.la OC `A Mwk K..- LL Kat.kto 1�.•lam a Vami KYk• Kuy.lk.m Zre^ / �Ilorlvo �•.1Tr FAN O .ranarmai Woshha I Ila a1 A u.wlal ga Kelo / �+ San Y.Idro Llr \rk PA�.uia Rey SaYmai Pa Rkwm • -� Wia to K.I. M.r-h.vai Alapi dq M. l Mea&Grande .lam.i pr +/J Shakl•hmai A%kvmak 4r Mi1iT.kw �k\ • I ShVka .Ml-em-pw+wwo pa^ha .--/—�� F.rrT rvAlAn Aru.a Comment Deadline: February 18, 1994 (4:00 p.m.) Name j �� j /- s � Address / r< 14 City/State/Zip Gi AT9 N Date �Lb !�—�� � ' hone 7/4 - F36 -670C Paul R. Lanning Orange County EMA Environmental Planning Division 300 N. Flower Street P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 9�702-4048 SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE BOLSA CHICA EIR Dear Mr. Lanning: M9 hce .6bj% d nd W0141C4 l � ke f-o b� Coctrt�e� 4•-ha4- c..1c oNPose any �� Ye Ivpce of o Y� � hr< Mesd o f a rice Pdr� our rOrG C=d 4- hc ►�s 1�dd -� Hc �orSi� hf �a sd ve ldr� 4- c ✓1d lid r Fc , lYOCc1 Cve hd ✓c 4-AG G �d NGG Oho Sd vc f-hc �vlsd o �, rca LUefldnc�s tCor �-he �alr or�-aOrdc4-s ci ncl Thcl leh lau rd l rounds . ,�o cv � hd ✓c f-hB ForS � �� fo Sd ✓C f' (1iS p1'GGitJc<<S enYlorn ►-» en � �or our rdndGh� Idrev, cv � d rc tic C `{ G�d �tcrs o f our � � 1 � ven�s T� hcr,4a v1Gc . �- 4 S D m c d d cu u 1^ y ra ,"j G lj I (d►-c•� c d r� 5�� �C r Sci Y ! hq 4-A C I Jv 1.6 G K � GG�. 4'Ad Cdh � YX,,,� G 14 he bcY- a � aL d n � me • � �-h M a•tf•�r ; v 15" G l� ,c 1c. --h c t Y home , h r ` � �l Rvuf k .o F f-h �-o 'Lh, W W I I d o n. �-o a r v n.al o � Y a-}-� Y B�+ o a �1 d •� � ( , Yj edse d VC I h �o•»rrwrf c F110AI TXC o r r 3 I i City of Huntington Beach Council Members Janu Y 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Members of City Council, First of all, I would like to thank you for allowing a public forum for comment on Koll's second version of the draft EIR. Secondly, I would like to commend you on your recent action setting aside the funds to allow a complete and thorough study of Koll's proposed Bolsa Chica development plan and its impact on the city of Huntington Beach. Your action on this issue is supported by many of the residents of our community - for those council members who supported this item I would like to offer my thanks for a job well done. My review of the draft EIR was limited to discussion centering on the impact to Los Patos and I wish to point out several inaccuracies and misstatements as they pertain to the Los Patos residential area adjacent to the proposed development. Page 5-106, lines 15-22 state that the "form, scale, and massing of the structures will be consistent with that of the existing residential developments". Page 5-109, lines 32 through 38 states "that the scale, character, and density proposed precisely duplicate the existing developed residences fronting on Los Patos". The existing residences along Los Patos range from 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The proposals outlined in the draft EIR show density levels from 6-36 units per acre directly across the street from Los Patos (planning areas 10 and 1 1) with no single family residential development. This can hardly be considered a replication of densities. Six units to the acre does not precisely duplicate 36 units to the acre even if you did attend Koll's developer school of math. Page 4.12-42, lines 5 through 10 references the loss of view shed from Los Patos and states that .some of these views are limited to only a few hundred feet while other views extend to the ocean". On a clear day, ground level views from every home on Los Patos extend to Santa Cataline island and beyond. Page 4.1-32, lines 37 through 50 and page 4.1-34 lines 1 through 10 discuss a parkway landscaping program as a buffer area between Los Patos and the proposed Bolsa Chica development. The final sentence states that "with the implementation of the PDFs, the impacts to residential areas adjacent to Los Patos are considered adverse but not significant". What does that mean? If it's not in your front yard it's not significant? It's in my front yard and it is very significant to me and the surrounding community. The Los Patos community formed a committee over a year ago at Koll's request and met several times with Larry Brose and a paid Koll consultant to discuss these very issues. It was made clear to Koll at that time that the neighborhood residents (see attached list) felt a buffer zone of single family homes South of Los Patos was necessary to maintain the character of the existing neighborhood and provide a gradual transition into higher density residential development. Koll has chosen to ignore our input and concerns. • l i 1 I am not an environmentalist. I am not a biologist or a geologist or a traffic engineer. I don't have the background, knowledge, or expertise to comment on 95% of the information contained in the draft EIR. The five or six pages I have chosen to comment on pertain exclusively to an area where I do have knowledge and expertise and the document contains major flaws and inaccuracies relating to its description of Los Patos. I sincerely hope the remaining portions of this document have not been assembled in a similar manner. In conclusion, it's clear to me that the major issue for Koll and its proposed development of Bolsa Chica is not the restoration of the wetlands; it's not the preservation of plant and animal wildlife; it's not the concerns of the neighborhood communities who will have to live with the degradation of their quality of life caused by this project for the rest of their lives. Koll only wants the Bolsa Chica developed for its tremendous profit potential and the revenues it will generate for Koll, not the neighboring communities and the city of Huntington Beach. They will say and do anything in their attempts to make this project appear viable. They will move lead agency status to the county level when the local citizens and city council refuse to buy into their warped vision of Bolsa Chica. We can and must stop them dead in their tracks by any and all means available to us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jack Radle 4901 Los Patos Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Los Patos Homeowner's Association Mailing List NAME ADDRESS Jacqueline Galanti 17238 Sandra Lee Chuck and Barb Steel 17202 Sandra Lee Tera Matzinger 18542 Pro Circle#C Nancy and Guy Van Patten 4842 Curtis Circle Al Palicte 4852 Curtis Circle Dolly Smith 17202 Sims St. Ben and Joyce Govin 4942 Seapine Circle Ed and Pat Ramackers 4882 Seapine Circle Paul and Peggy Bowman 4931 Los Patos Tom and Nancy Donovan 4831 Los Patos Sue and Bob Polentz 4792 Curtis Circle Gene and Loni Goto 4881 Los Patos Jack and Julie Radle 4901 Los Patos Dennis and Marilyn Oba 4911 Los Patos Dave and Jeri Johnson 4921 Los Patos Mr. and Mrs Bailey 4701 Los Patos Shirley Collino 4801 Los Patos Frances Wilson 4711 Los Patos Bob and Valerie Crain 17221 Lynn Michael Tebrick 17202 Marina View PI. Sam and Rose Moreno 4821 Los Patos Joe Calo 4751 Los Patos Gary Potter 17232 Marina View Pl. Donna Hess 4621 Los Patos Mr. and Mrs. Sperling 4661 Los Patos Bill and Toni Gregory 4961 Los Patos Robert Knox 17191 Sandra Lee David Benson 4912 Seapine Tom Huntle 4882 Seapine Ms. Susan Harris 17242 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John March 17211 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Brian Wilson 17181 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John Westermeyer 17142 Marina View PI. Mr. and Mrs Leon Galanti 17238 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Steve Matzinger 17238 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs Dave Tamo 17172 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Glennon 17141 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John Olsen 17152 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Peter Clark 17121 Sandra Lee Mr. John Knox 17191 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Joel Gunter 17211 Sims St. Mrs. Deana Hoffman 17181 Sims St. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stellrecht 4600 Stellrecht Cir. Mr. and Mrs. Stellrecht 17182 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. William Halpin 17182 Marina View PI. • All residences are located in Huntington Beach with a 92649 zip code. V/ From the desk of. . . . . . i�/: G� �jxCL ��^✓'.. aA#1 SPI e9 e / ANN E.JEAN SP I EGE ­ , c� �b L L H 2arI n -3 i-9 y 16LI42 !DUCHESS �IE f tUNT I NGTON BEACH, CA 92G47 714-846-5150 SUBJECT: PRESERVATION OF THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS & MESA, 1700 ACRES INTACT Welcome to the twilight zone, friends and neighbors. . .a place where it iscertainty that when we humans run out of OPEN SPACE, we will surely run out of sanity. The land and open space we know as THE BOLSA CHICA are the last vestiges of California's coastal wetland system. For the purposes of this statement, speaking philosophically, who really owns a BOLSA CHICA? I propose to you that no one really can own it, nor should they try. Recall that we humans are minor strands on the planet Earth. . . yes, minor but important because it is we who can and do make the decisions that our grandchildren will have to live with. History tells us that our Indian forebears viewed the BOLSA CHICA MESA as sacred ground. Eons ago, religious rites, burials, and festivals took place on this land. Tribal trade congresses met on these grounds. The secret life of the Bolsa Chica has been locked within its bosom, but in recent years, archeological digs are yielding its fascinating past. Rare cogstones, in various stages of manufacture, are witness to its specialness. These artifacts reveal to us that a Civilization, now gone with the seasons, held this ground with love and respect. Can we do any less; should we? Over these many years, a pattern of stoppages-to-development is becoming evident. Ironically, even this century's second world war provides a deterrence in the form of Bunkers--which have slowed ddwn the eager bulldozers. Personally I detect something more than a MIRACLE OF COINCIDENCE going on at the Bolsa Chica. Certainly the prolonged public argument has provided pauses on all sides. Could there be a Guardian Angel on the wetlands? One who may be growing impatient with all of us? Productive dialogues by all the parties concerned is long overdue. I suggest a definitive purpose to further dialoguel,.the purpose being to locate and contract with a neutral , knowledgable FACILITATOR who can take charge of the complicated land acquisition process with the end result that the entire 1700 acres remain intact into perpetuity. I continue to recommend THE NATURE CONSERVANCY -- yes, even if we have to PAY THEM to take on this task. They'are managing the Irvine Company's remainder lands, they Will do an equally fine job for the Bolsa Chica. The Orange County Board of Supervisors, this H.B. City Council and Koll Management Company officials have the responsibility to fashion the future of the Bolsa Chica. EHE QUESTION IS: WILL THEY ACT RESPONSIBLY, OR WILL WE ALL FIND OURSELVES IN THE YEAR 2000 POURING OVER THE UMPTEENTH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT? C64� cA,%t` w,ra Cco ua`fi� a f�eac�f -� J - 9 v f v 6/i ii f4-ea Ai � Oh joltq C4jtcC Cl�a�r6er ofConrinerce (� THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WISHES TO STATE ITS CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE BOLSA CHICA COALITION PLAN AS IMPLEMENTED BY KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP. THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC GENERATOR FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH COULD CONTRIBUTE 6, 700 NEW JOBS AND $1 . 1 BILLION IN ECONOMIC OUTPUT TO HUNTINGTON BEACH DURING ITS ESTIMATED 13 YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, THE CHAMBER BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL BE SUBMITTING ITS WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE E. I .R. TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. THANK YOU. 2100 Main Street, Suite 200 Huntington Beach.CA 92648 714/536-888888 (FAX)714/960-7654 cc .onm PLEASE GIVE FORM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS/PUBLIC HEARINGS TO THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS WHO IS LOCATED NEAR THE SPEAKER'S PODIUM Welcome to a Meeting of the HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY e ? The public may address the Council/Agency on any item on the agenda or items of interest during the section of the meeting devoted to PUBLIC COMMENTS. There is a time limit. of three minutes per speaker. No speaker may use the time of any other person. The public is invited to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on PUBLIC HEARING agen items when those items are called before the Council/Agency. DATE: C ( GROUP AFFILIATION (if any): ceoxtto. YOUR NAME, s� ��+r' ,1 ��e= TELEPHONE �T �S Please Print ADDRESS 4 + 1 D&E W5-rms--rZ- Street City Zip Code PLEASE _ PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM CHECK ONE BOX _ PUBLIC COMMENTS Fill in Agenda Item if speaking on specific item. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency is interested in your comments; however, policy does not permit taking immediate action on most items brought to the Council/Agency through Public Comments. Give this form to the Sergeant-at-Arms who is located near the speaker's podium. The City Clerk will call all speakers for both Public Comments and Public Hearings. All proceedings are recorded. WELCOME The Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency welcomes you to this meeting. The Council/Agency meet regularly at 5:00 P.M. (televised portion at 6:30 P.M.) the first and third Mondays of each month. Study sessions and special sessions may be called for other times in the month. All sessions of the Council/Agency, except Closed Sessions which deal with personnel or pending litigation, are open to the public, and the public is encouraged to attend. Agendas are available to the public at the Office of the City Clerk, Huntington Beach Central Library and the Library annexes the Friday prior to regular meetings. Members of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency receive their agendas complete with supporting information several days before the meetings, thus giving them an opportunity to study the information and to ask questions of the professional staff before the meeting. It may appear that some items before the Council/Agency are handled in a routine manner, however the members traditionally study all items carefully before meetings. Thank you for your interest in city government. Mayor and Councilmembers ` (City Council) Chairman and Members (Redevelopment Agency) (0598K) L, r a _ r; OF s -r7-t-r- W--im pot-qc-,4 67ves L) 4tJ D As boo I+ TI�� SD.-� �. . No C*i-;>o totol CO-) T7E—LA— cr-es A-L r- Lf 60 -?i-P ;�15 I LIL. rt-• L 51Ac Cif( AmewrE..- W TOWN HALL MEETING, 1/31/94 ,i'`� h7�°� 7V G Orr Madam Mayor and other Councilpersons: 1_31-9 y 6F.4kA Let me start by paraphrasing Alice in Wonderland, "This EIR is becoming curiouser and curiouser." The County Environmental Management Agency representative has said he knew we would all be very pleased with the document when it came out. He also said that it would answer the questions raised in response to the City's Draft EIR/EIS and that a separate document would not be necessary. fie, I believe the EMA representative was wrong in both regards. This document does not please me nor does it answer many of the questions which I raised in my letters and oral comments in response to the EIR/EIS. What happened to all of the questions and comments which were raised by the public about the last EIR? And in the light of recent events of the last week it is interesting to note that all of the letters addressed to the County during the Notice of Preparation comment time AND all of which raised questions regarding the archeological material were omitted from the Appendix in which the other letters were published. "Curiouser and curiouser." There are some glaring errors in this report. Bolsa Chica State Beach is said to extend all the way to the pier on one page and to the cliffs on another page. There are drawings in which the key to the size bears no resemblance to the numbers on the drawing and it is therefore impossible to interpret the drawing in any meaningful way. I am referring to the drawings of the view along Los Patos Avenue. In the Alternatives section, the County dismissed the City's application for the North American Wetlands grant as having been "withdrawn" and consequently not worth further attention. This application has NOT been withdrawn and this error should be corrected without further ado. In addition, the biodiversity park section is dismissed as being unattainable due to lack of funding. I think a call to the President of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust would have set the report writers straight on this. P„% Page 2 ' And on page 2-3 of the report the writers are still using the word "support" to describe the position of various government agencies. This has been shown to be a falsity and yet the County is still allowing this charade to go on. The County has allowed us sixty (60) days to review this report. However we can review and review but we will not have any more answers before the review period is up. We are being asked to accept this project with very incomplete information. This does not appear to be an honest effort to present information but rather an attempt to bamboozle the public. I do not believe the California Environmental Quality Act was meant to be used in this way. The public should be given answers to their questions and a further chance to respond after the sixty-day period is up! Thank you for this oppo tunity to voice my concerns. Zcy Donaven 4831 Los Patos Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92649 714 840 7496 Attachment: 6 Non-support letters t I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE PA ors+` Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, California 90802-4213 TEL(310)980-4000; FAX(310) 980-4018 June 3 , 1993 F/SW021:RSH Ms. Flossie Horgan President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: Thank you for your recent letter requesting information regarding the status of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) role as it relates to the Bolsa Chica Coalition. NMFS did serve as a support member to the Coalition. However, that involvement was limited to assisting in the development of restoration alternatives for the lowlands. Throughout the planning process NMFS, as well as other support members, consistently voiced objection to the plan developed by the five members of the Coalition. My position continues to be that the construction of homes in areas designated as wetlands at Bolsa Chica is an inappropriate land use. Hopefully, this information clarifies the current role of NMFS in the planning process for Bolsa Chica. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Hoffman at (310) 980-4043 . Sincerely, // q '� (1 Gary Matlock, Ph.D. Acting Regional Director cc: CDFG - Sacramento (R. Radovich) USFWS - Carlsbad (J. Fancher) EPA - San Francisco (H. Hill) J to%U,:: iff UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY o REGION IX i p 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 MAR 4 1993 Grace Winchell, Mayor City Council Members City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor WincheTl and Council Members: I understand that on February 22, 19931 the Huntington Beach City Council held a Study Session on the Bolsa Chica project. Further, I understand that project proponents distributed documents during this meeting that listed the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition and its development plan (see enclosure) . Such listing is incorrect. EPA is not, and has not been a member of this or any organization advocating development in wetlands at Bolsa Chica. It is true that Thomas Yocom of my staff was invited to several plenary meetings of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition in 1988 and early 1989 in order to explain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations applicable to the various development alternatives being considered by the Coalition. Mr. Yocom was careful to clearly state at each meeting he attended that EPA was not a member or supporter of the Coalition in any way. Mr. Yocom informs me that this same neutral position was taken by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers at the meetings he .attended; I mention this because I noted that the Corps (as well as other federal agencies) is also listed as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition (see enclosure) . Regarding regulatory requirements, EPA repeatedly has expressed concerns about anticipated difficulties that the proposed housing and transportation corridor would have complying with CWA regulations, given that such facilities are proposed in "waters of the United States, " including wetlands. These strong agency concerns have been consistent since 1988 and were most recently reiterated in EPA's December 17 , 1992 comments on the DEISJEIR for the Bolsa Chica project. Accordingly, it is incorrect to characterize EPA ' s position as one of support for the "Coalition Plan. " EPA will continue to work to assist the Corps, Los Angeles District in its review of l Printed on Recycled Paper the permit application for the proposed development at Bolsa Chica, and will continue to strive to assure that wetland functions at Bolsa Chica are preserved or enhanced consistent with EPA's goal to achieve no net loss of wetlands resources. I trust that this letter clears up any misunderstandings that the City of Huntington Beach may have had regarding EPA' s position and role in this matter. Sincerely, Harry Seraydarian Director Water Management Division Enclosure cc: District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Lucy Dunn, Koll Company U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. (A-104F) 2 PPt�EHT of TyF - -- .r TAKE 'p United States Department of the Interior AMEERJCA® _ IISIiCDLO � ISEE�� E •® v CARLSBAD FIELD OFFICE 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 April 19 , 1993 Honorable Harriett Wieder Orange County Board of Supervisors 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, California 92701 Re: Bolsa Chica Open Space Dear Supervisor Wieder: As you may recall, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has for a long time endeavored to be involved in the puhlic discussions about the existing and future conditions of the Bolsa Chica area. We were frustrated by the conduct and conclusions of the "Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition" for its failure to address applicable State and Federal regulatory issues and requirements . To our knowledge, no public agency has yet approved or is likely to -approve the "Koll Plan", which is often mistakenly referred to as the "Coalition Plan" . The Service opinion has been and continues to be that the Koll Company's proposed project at Bolsa Chica can not obtain necessary State and Federal permits. The draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement, circulated last year, was so significantly inadequate that it must be redone . Recently, it has appeared that the Koll Company, apparently perceiving you and the County of Orange to be more favorable to their own point of view than any other agency, instigated a move to establish the County of Orange as local lead agency. In any event, the State and Federal planning and permitting requirements must still be addressed. It is further our view that this litany of failed planning argues for a different approach than, the one so adve:sel.v manipulated by the Koll Company, a part owner of the Bolsa Chica open space . The Service may be ready to embark on a planning partnership with State and local governments and established organizations aimed at an environmental consensus plan for the whole of the Bolsa Chica open space. Just one possible vision for the this area could be a "biological diversity park" that expands the premise of a traditional Ecological Reserve or National Wildlife Refuge to include native habitat restoration, education and passive recreation aspects of unimproved public parks. Completion of such a consensus plan could lead to local , State, and Federal dollars for acquisition and implementation. We wish to inquire as to the likely role that you and the County of Orange would care to have in . such an alternative play. preparation.. The Service representative remains Mr. Jack Fancher who may be reached at (619) 431-9440. irlerel / i I 1' klei S1.per STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON.Govemor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Orange Coast District - North Satellite 18331 Enterprise Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 848-1566 May 10, 1993 Ms. Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: I have been requested by Mr. Richard Rayburn, Chief, Resource Management Division, to respond to your letter of March 31 , 1993. First let me apologize for the delay in responding. Although I have recently reported to Orange Coast District as the North Satellite Superintendent, the Bolsa Chica proposal was one of the first issues Superintendent Roggenbuck brought to my attention. It is my understanding that the Department has been in attendance at the coalition meetings to provide input during the planning process. This input identifies the impacts the proposals would have to the resources and recreational opportunities provided at Bolsa Chica State Beach. The State agency responsible for reviewing the proposed project is the Department of Fish and Game. I sense that your organization has concerns that our Department is listed as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition and hope this information addresses those concerns. Since I am new to the operation, I would like to take the opportunity to meet with you. Please give me a call at the North Satellite office, (714) 848-8700, so we can meet at your convenience. Sincerely, Donald H. Ito Superintendent STATE OF,CAtIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowmor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 1416 NINTH STREET d P.O. BOX 944209 ' SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2090 (916) 653-4875 March 19, 1993 Ms. Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21 Street Huntington Beach, ,California 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Bolsa Chica Plan and the status of the Department of Fish and Game as a "Support Member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. The Department has numerous concerns regarding both the adequacy of the most recent Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Bolsa Chica planning area and the desirability, permitability, and legality of the preferred alternative (and several other developmental alternatives) specified by the Draft EIR/EIS. As we indicated in the comments submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Huntington Beach, our concerns regarding the Plan have been repeatedly stressed over the course of the development of the Plan. That our concerns have not been addressed is not a result of a failure by the Department to make its concerns known. Rather, it would seem to be a result of the Coalition simply ignoring our concerns. Regarding your question concerning the status of the Department as a "Support Member", such status (whatever it means) can not be used to infer that the Department is supportive of the Plan. In point of fact, no fewer than seven of the "Support Members" commented adversely with regard to the recent Draft EIR/EIS and several of these agencies have repeatedly indicated concerns regarding the Plan throughout its evolution. Apparently, "Support Members" are merely those agencies and other entities which were repeatedly contacted during the development of the Plan. Use of the term "Support Member" may be intended to foster an impression of unanimous support for a plan which has never enjoyed such support from the "Support Members. " In conclusion, our letter of comment regarding the recent Draft EIR/EIS constitutes the position of the Department. That the Department is listed as a "Support Member" means that we were contacted during the development of the Plan, that we provided n� Ms. Flossie Horgan March 19, 1993 i Page Two extensive recommendations to the Coalition, that our recommendations were largely ignored, and that our concerns have not yet been addressed. We hope this letter adequately responds to the questions you have posed. We suspect that if you asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, California Coastal Commission, State Coastal Conservancy, and California Department of Parks and Recreation whether their status as "Support Members" means that they are supportive of the Plan, their responses would be similar to ours. We look forward to continuing our involvement in Bolsa Chica planning issues and are encouraged by the recent Bolsa Chica Wetland Restoration action of the Huntington Beach City Council. Should you have questions regarding this response, please contact me at the letterhead address and telephone number. Sincerely, Bob Radovich Environmental Specialist Mr. Peter Douglas California Coastal Commission Mr. Reed Holderman California Coastal Conservancy Mr. Jack Fancher U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laguna Niguel, California Mr. Bob Hoffman National Marine Fisheries Service Terminal Island, California s STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 o SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105.2219 ' VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 March 31, 1993 Flossie Horgan, President Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21st Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Horgan: This letter is in response to your letter of March 3, 1993, requesting information on the California Coastal Commission's involvement in the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. You stated in your letter that a document circulated at a recent study session of the Huntington Beach City Council, listed the Coastal Commission as a "support member" of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition. The Commission staff was invited to and attended a number of the coalition meetings, but the purpose of the staff's attendance was to provide the coalition with technical information on the Coastal Act policies. The Commission staff did not vote for or in any way "support" a particular design concept, including the currently proposed "coalition plan." The Commission staff has serious concerns regarding the proposed coalition plan. The proposed residential and road development in the lowland portion of the Bolsa Chica site are inconsistent with the Coastal Act. The specific concerns are described in two recent letters: the Coastal Commission staff's comments on the Draft EIS/EIR for the Bolsa Chica project, dated December 10, 1992; and the Coastal Commission staff's preliminary comments on a draft Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, submitted by the Koll Company, dated December 10, 1992. I hope this letter responds to your questions. I would be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Sincerely, Christiane Parry Deputy Manager Energy and Ocean Resources Unit e 0�nr�wrj i C44141 F/'0M TAC k fZ Adlt PU4P/ d City of Huntington Beach Council Members Janury 3 ,, 994 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Members of City Council, First of all, 1 would like to thank you for allowing a public forum for comment on Koll's second version of the draft EIR. Secondly, I would like to commend you on your recent action setting aside the funds to allow a complete and thorough study of Koll's proposed Bolsa Chica development plan and its impact on the city of Huntington Beach. Your action on this issue is supported by many of the residents of our community - for those council members who supported this item I would like to offer my thanks for a job well done. My review of the draft EIR was limited to discussion centering on the impact to Los Patos and I wish to point out several inaccuracies and misstatements as they pertain to the Los Patos residential area adjacent to the proposed development. Page 5-106, lines 15-22 state that the "form, scale, and massing of the structures will be consistent with that of the existing residential developments". Page 5-109, lines 32 through 38 states "that the scale, character, and density proposed precisely duplicate the existing developed residences fronting on Los Patos". The existing residences along Los Patos range from 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The proposals outlined in the draft EIR show density levels from 6-36 units per acre directly across the street from Los Patos (planning areas 10 and 1 1) with no single family residential development. This can hardly be considered a replication of densities. Six units to the acre does not precisely duplicate 36 units to the acre even if you did attend Koll's developer school of math. Page 4.12-42, lines 5 through 10 references the loss of view shed from Los Patos and states that some of these views are limited to only a few hundred feet while other views extend to the ocean". On a clear day, ground level views from every home on Los Patos extend to Santa Cataline island and beyond. Page 4.1-32, lines 37 through 50 and page 4.1-34 lines 1 through 10 discuss a parkway landscaping program as a buffer area between Los Patos and the proposed Bolsa Chica development. The final sentence states that "with the implementation of the PDFs, the impacts to residential areas adjacent to Los Patos are considered adverse but not significant". What does that mean? If it's not in your front yard it's not significant? It's in my front yard and it is very significant to me and the surrounding community. The Los Patos community formed a committee over a year ago at Koll's request and met several times with Larry Brose and a paid Koll consultant to discuss these very issues. It was made clear to Koll at that time that the neighborhood residents (see attached list) felt a buffer zone of single family homes South of Los Patos was necessary to maintain the character of the existing neighborhood and provide a gradual transition into higher density residential development. Koll has chosen to ignore our input and concerns. I am not an environmentalist. I am not a biologist or a geologist or a traffic engineer. I don't have the background, knowledge, or expertise to comment on 95% of the information contained in the draft EIR. The five or six pages I have chosen to comment on pertain exclusively to an area where I do have knowledge and expertise and the document contains major flaws and inaccuracies relating to its description of Los Patos. I sincerely hope the remaining portions of this document have not been assembled in a similar manner. In conclusion, it's clear to me that the major issue for Koll and its proposed development of Bolsa Chica is not the restoration of the wetlands; it's not the preservation of plant and animal wildlife; it's not the concerns of the neighborhood communities who will have to live with the degradation of their quality of life caused by this project for the rest of their lives. Koll only wants the Bolsa Chica developed for its tremendous profit potential and the revenues it will generate for Koll, not the neighboring communities and the city of Huntington Beach. They will say and do anything in their attempts to make this project appear viable. They will move lead agency status to the county level when the local citizens and city council refuse to buy into their warped vision of Bolsa Chica. We can and must stop them dead in their tracks by any and all means available to us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, "lack Radle 4901 Los Patos Huntington Beach, CA 92649 S Los Patos Homeowner's Association Mailing List NAME ADDRESS Jacqueline Galanti 17238 Sandra Lee Chuck and Barb Steel 17202 Sandra Lee Tera Matzinger 18542 Pro Circle#C Nancy and Guy Van Patten 4842 Curtis Circle Al Palicte 4852 Curtis Circle Dolly Smith 17202 Sims St. Ben and Joyce Govin 4942 Seapine Circle Ed and Pat Ramackers 4882 Seapine Circle Paul and Peggy Bowman 4931 Los Patos Tom and Nancy Donovan 4831 Los Patos Sue and Bob Polentz 4792 Curtis Circle Gene and Loni Goto 4881 Los Patos Jack and Julie Radle 4901 Los Patos Dennis and Marilyn Oba 4911 Los Patos Dave and Jeri Johnson 4921 Los Patos Mr. and Mrs Bailey 4701 Los Patos Shirley Collino 4801 Los Patos Frances Wilson 4711 Los Palos Bob and Valerie Crain 17221 Lynn Michael Tebrick 17202 Marina View PI. Sam and Rose Moreno 4821 Los Patos Joe Calo 4751 Los Patos Gary Potter 17232 Marina View PI. Donna Hess 4621 Los Patos Mr. and Mrs. Sperling 4661 Los Patos Bill and Toni Gregory 4961 Los Patos Robert Knox 17191 Sandra Lee David Benson 4912 Seapine Tom Huntle 4882 Seapine Ms. Susan Harris 17242 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John March 17211 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Brian Wilson 17181 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John Westermeyer 17142 Marina View PI. Mr. and Mrs Leon Galanti 17238 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Steve Matzinger 17238 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs Dave Tamo 17172 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Glennon 17141 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. John Olsen 17152 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Peter Clark 17121 Sandra Lee Mr. John Knox 17191 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. Joel Gunter 17211 Sims St. Mrs. Deana Hoffman 17181 Sims St. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stellrecht 4600 Stellrecht Cir. Mr. and Mrs. Stellrecht 17182 Sandra Lee Mr. and Mrs. William Halpin 17182 Marina View PI. All residences are located in Huntington Beach with a 92649 zip code. /-3 9 11 .7-rn -A 4j ar o-A ?c 0 F1Pa641no� cA-y coiner/ My name is Ernest Bartolo and I have lived at 6142 Jasonwo d Drive in Huntington Beach for 15 years . ��/ I have been following the actions of this City Council and am very disturbed by the tactics being used to undermine the 1989 Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan , which was endorsed by the previous City Council . This meeting tonight is just another example of the waste of taxpayers money and staff time in an effort to stop the development and restoration of the wetlands . I have taken a tour of the site and seen first hand the oil wells , pipelines , debris and degraded wetlands that this Council wants left alone . That is why , I support the Bolsa Chica Plan and believe that the development of 25% of the private property in return for over 1 , 100 acres of restored wetlands in addition to the 22 miles of hiking and biking trails will improve the "image" of our community . We have the opportunity to create a wetlands habitat and a beautiful "residential community" that would be the envy of the State and surpass anything west of the Mississippi . I believe in progress and feel that this City Council should stop trying to undermine the efforts of the landowner and the County and start working with them to develop an upscale community that we can be proud of . The actions of this Council is very transparent - it ' s against growth. The City of Huntington Beach is where it is today because of progress ! I believe that we should continue to move forward instead of stopping growth. You are trying to control "private property" to your own personal desires . This council is behaving irresponsibly to the disadvantage of the "silent" majority and I 'm personally tired of it . _s STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 14, 1994 A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: Winchell (City Council)-CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - APPROVED -STAFF DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT TO ORANGE COUNTY (440.60) The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator regarding the review by city staff, in coordination with consulting firms, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Plan and transmitting for City Council review and approval the final draft of the City's Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Bauer, to direct staff to submit the City's Comment Letter on the Bolsa Chica Draft Environmental Impact Report and direct staff to forward it to the County of Orange by February 18, 1994. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: Winchell Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/Linda Moulton-Patterson City Clerk/Clerk Mayor l � Page 2- Statement of Action-2/14/94 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 14th day of February, 1994. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 17th day of February, 1993. Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By _ Depu Clerk y, Clark a- 7-OAr"n C dur)P7 Hew,i rn Z�Woh;YAO/M 70 MATERIALS INCLUDED 1. Chronology of events surrounding dumping by Signal Landmark of hazardous materials on private property on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. 2. Summary of Lawsuit brought by individual private parties against Signal Landmark (Including the Henley Group and the Bolsa Chica Group). 3. Bolsa Chica Company (Now Koll Real Estate Group, Inc.) Corporate History and Background. 3A. Parcel Map and Site Aerial Photograph. San Diego County Assessor's Map, Book 646, pp. 10 and 19. 4. Exhibit II to the Construction Agreement dated June 25, 1987 between Coronado Landmark, Inc. and Pullaro Construction Co. for the site grading on Tract Coronado Cays 15 and 16 located in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego. 5. Letter of Transmittal and Executive Summary, dated November 21, 1991, from Environmental Analysis and Valuation, Inc. to Charles S. Limandri, Esq. (Attorney for Sesi). 6. Associated Laboratories Lab Report, dated July 14, 1987, for H.V. Lawmaster concerning chemical analysis of sample soil submitted from old town (Coronado) dump. 7. Jury verdict against Signal Landmark in California Superior Court (County of San Diego) Case No. 624643, dated 16 March 1992. 8. Agreement Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release in California Superior Court Case No. 624643, by and among Signal Landmark, Inc., the Bolsa Chica Company (formerly known as Henley Properties, Inc.) and the Henley Group (collectively referred to as "Signal") and Salim Sesi, et al., dated April 6, 1993. 9. (Proposed) Order re Reversal of Judgment in Superior Court Action, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D017331 (Superior Court Case No. 624243). 10. Stipulation for Reversal of Judgment of Superior Court Action, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, Case No. D017331 (Superior Court Case No. 624243). 11. Declaration of James J. Brosnahan, attorney for Signal, with attached narrative regarding settlement with Sesi, filed in federal court, dated 12 April 1993. 12. Letter From Charles S. Limandri, Esq. (Attorney for Sesi) to Jack Dantzler regarding "Sesi et al v. Signal Landmark et al (United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M)). 13. Declaration of Charles S. Limandri, pp. 12-13. [undated] 14. Deposition of Michael Paul Pullaro, April 1, 1991; portion of deposition of son of Michael Paul Pullaro, pp. 15-20 [no date]. 15. Declaration of Jack Dantzler, 18 January 1993. 16. State of California Superior Court Case No. 587093, David Benson v. Coronado landmark, Allied-Signal Company, the Signal Company, Signal Oil Company et al; 30 June 1987. 17. Memorandum of Points and Authorities, with Joinder in Arguments, City of Coronado. [no date] 18. Title Page, "Sampling Plan for Dantzler and Barnhart Properties, Otay Mesa, California," prepared by ENVIRON Corporation; prepared for: "Signal Landmark c/o The Koll Company; January 26, 1993. 19. Photograph of Signal Landmark Coronado Cays development, on former City of Coronado Rancho Carillo landfill. From Henley Properties Annual Report for 1989. i CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS SURROUNDING DUMPING BY SIGNAL LANDMARK 0 OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ON OTAY MESA, SAN DIEGO COUNTY 1968 Signal Landmark, a subsidiary of Signal Companies, purchases the Rancho Carillo Municipal Landfill (owned and operated as a "burn dump" by the City of Coronado) for development as residential property. Sep. 1985 Signal Landmark, along with 34 other companies, are spun off into the Henley Group in consequence of a merger between Signal Companies and Allied Chemical Corporation. Jun. 1987 David Benson, an employee of an independent contractor for Signal Landmark, sues Signal Landmark for injuries caused by toxic exposure when he dug trenches on the landfill site in preparation for construction. Jul. 1987 Signal Landmark's contractor, Pullaro Construction, begins hauling and dumping 2,450 truck loads (about 40,000 cubic yards) of "burn dump ash" from the Coronado site containing hazardous levels of water-soluble lead and copper onto several privately held plots on Otay Mesa in San Diego County. Associated Laboratories prepares a chemical analysis of soil from the Coronado site for H.V. Lawmaster (Lab. No. F35298-1; Job No. 8495- G1) Aug. 1988 Salim Sesi, et al, receive a letter from an attorney at Seltzer, Caplan et al, then representing Signal landmark, informing them of the 1987 dumping on their property. Dec. 1988 Sesi, et al receive a letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board demanding that testing be conducted on their property to determine the extent, if any, of hazardous material at the property. Attorney (Charles S. Limandri) for Sesi, et al attempts to settle the matter with Signal Landmark, but negotiations fail after numerous meetings. Dec. 1989 Sesi, et al attorney Charles S. Limandri files a civil complaint against Signal, alleging nuisance, trespass, negligence, and strict liability (California State Superior Court Case No. 624243). 1 Dec. 1989 Henley Group is split into two public companies, Henley Group and Henley Properties. Signal Landmark is maintained as a subsidiary of Henley Properties. Jun. 1990 Donald Koll is hired by Henley Properties to manage its real estate portfolio (then estimated at $500 million). Henley Properties also enters into construction management agreements with Koll Construction. Aug. 1991 Sesi, et al attorney Charles S. Limandri files a Federal District Court Action against Signal landmark under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, et seq. (Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M)). Federal court action is stayed pending the outcome of the state case. Nov. 1991 Environmental Analysis and Valuation, Inc. (EAV) transmits to Charles S. Limandri (attorney for Sesi, et al) a professional analysis of the fair market value of the Sesi property before and after the dumping, what it would be had there been no dumping, and the costs of clean-up. Testing had revealed 200,000 lbs. of lead in the "burn dump ash" dumped on the property by Signal Landmark. The clean-up liability is estimated at about $23 million. EAV notes that THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSTITUTE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT; THAT DESTRUCTION OF WETLANDS HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE PROCESS OF THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES SINCE jULY OF 1987; AND THAT ADDITIONAL UNCONTROLLED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES HAVE OCCURRED AND ARE CONTINUING TO OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE DISPOSAL OF SUCH SUBSTANCES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE JULY OF 1987. Feb. 1992 Sesi, et al v. Signal Landmark, et al state court trial begins, Judge Judith McConnell, presiding. Mar. 1992 State court Jury finds against Signal Landmark in Sesi case for $2.5 million, which Limandri to be significantly insufficient to cover the cost of cleaning up the Sesi property. Jul. 1992 Attorneys for Sesi and Signal Landmark attend a settlement conference ordered by Federal Magistrate McCue. Jul. 1992 Henley Group is merged into Henley Properties; the company is renamed the Bolsa Chica Company. Signal Landmark remains as a subsidiary of the Bolsa Chica Company. Aug. 1992 Signal Landmark files an appeal of the state court judgment, alleging reversible errors in the trail. Mar. 1993 Donald Koll becomes chairman of the board of the Bolsa Chica Company. Koll executive Ray Wirta also joins the board. Apr. 1993 Signal attorneys transmit to Charles S. Limandri a proposed settlement for both the federal court case and the state court case. In return for a release by Sesi, et al of Signal from liability for the dumping, 1. Signal will pay to Sesi, et al $1.25 million cash plus 6% per annum from April 1992 until payment 2. Signal will pay to a court-administered clean-up fund $1.25 million plus interest as above 3. Signal will retain access to the Sesi property, at Signal's election, to engage in clean-up related activities. Signal has no obligation to perform any clean-up, however. 4. Sesi and Signal will execute a stipulation for reversal of the judgment and a vacation of the verdict in the state court case by the state Court of Appeal. This is to include vacation and dismissal with prejudice. 5. Sesi will return to Signal all discovery materials produced in the state court action. 6. Sesi agrees to support a motion by Signal to seal the record in the State action. 7. Sesi joins a motion by Signal in the federal court case to protect Signal from any claims for contribution that any other parties have made. Apr. 1993 Sesi agrees to the settlement proposal. Apr. 1993 Signal and Sesi attorneys file motions described above in federal court. Jun. 1993 Trial in federal case is set for May 3, 1994, with pre-trial set for April 18, 1994. (?) 1993 City of Coronado (a defendant/cross-claimant in the state case) files an opposition to the motion of Signal Landmark, Inc, the Henley Group, Inc., and the Bolsa Chica Co. (collectively, "Signal") for an order barring all cross-claims by non-settling defendants on grounds that the settlement "was not made in good faith under the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure." Jul. 1993 Three of the seven members of the Bolsa Chica Company's board of directors resign. The Board appoints two new members, leaving the third position empty. Donald Koll now controls four of six board seats. Oct. 1993 Bolsa Chica Company board of directors, led by chairman of the board, Donald Koll, vote to purchase Koll Real Estate Group (privately held by Donald Koll) from Donald Koll, for $4.1 million. The Bolsa Chica Company is renamed Koll Real Estate Group. Dec. 1993 Bolsa Chica Company board of directors, led by chairman of the board, Donald Koll, vote to pay Koll's privately held Koll Construction $4.25 million in return for no further financial participation by Koll Construction in Koll Real Estate Group's proposed developments, including the Bolsa Chica. Dec. 1993 County of Orange issues an Environmental Impact Report for Koll real Estate Group's plans to develop the Bolsa Chica (owned by Koll subsidiary Signal Landmark) with 4,882 housing units and a plan to restore the wetlands. Feb. 1994 Federal District Court Judge Rudi Brewster is scheduled to rule on a motion for summary judgment in Sesi's case against Signal. Summary of Lawsuit brought by individual private parties against Signal Landmark (including the Henley Group and Bolsa Chica Group) . Note: Although the copies of court records used as the basis for this summary include few dates, the chronology is basically correct. Note: The copies of court records used as the basis for this summary include many court briefs and motions by both plaintiffs and defendants. These are only useful for finding out what the parties were requesting or asserting before the court. Unfortunately, there are only one or two court responses in the records I was given. Therefore, I cannot be sure what the court' s answer to these briefs and motions were. Note: Just a word or two on Cross-Claims and Counter-Claims. A cross-claim is a claim (or suit) brought by one co-defendant against another co-defendant, or by one co-plaintiff against another co-plaintiff. A counter-claim is a claim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff who is suing him. It is not merely a answer or denial by the defendant, but asserts an independent cause of action (which could be the basis for a separate lawsuit) . This is done to oppose or deduct from plaintiff ' s case against the defendant. PARTIES• Plaintiffs: 1. "Sesi Group" , co-owners of a 34 acre plot of undeveloped property on which hazardous waste was dumped. Co-owners include Sesi, Deddeh, Attisha, Ashmar, Roumayah, Sesi and Seiba. 2 . Barnhart, private party who owned a plot of property on which hazardous waste was dumped. 3 . Dantzler, private party who owned a plot of property on which hazardous waste was dumped. Dantzler was also a transporter of the waste from the Signal Landmark dumpsite to his own property. He also hired defendant Pullaro Contracting to transport to his property. He is also named as a defendant by the plaintiffs above who say he either (a) knew the waste was hazardous and so posed a danger to his neighbors ' (plaintiffs ' ) land through seepage, or (b) knew that other transporters were dumping on the plaintiffs ' land and did nothing, or perhaps even authorized such dumping. Defendants: * There are two groups of defendants, only one of which is of interest to us. Apparently there were two separate dumping instances on the plaintiffs ' land. 1. Tripp, Scrap, Williams, Shortwood, WSIC, Pacific Steel , Martinez (es) & Ruiz dumped auto shredder waste on plaintiffs ' property beginning in 1968 and ending in 1976/77 (Tripp owned part of the land dumped on at the time) . Automobile shredder materials were not considered hazardous at the time. It appears there was only minor damage caused by this dumping. This summary will not focus on these defendants. 2 . Signal Landmark Lagr,ley Group and Bolsa Chica Group) , Pullaro (hired tr_ haul waste from Signal ' s site) , Dantzler (see above) , individual trackers and the City of Coronado. Beginning in July 1987 and extending at least through August of 1987 Signal Landmark materials were transported from the Coronado Cays development to the plaintiffs' land. Pullaro and Dantzler could be considered agents of Signal and so would face only limited liability. FACTUAL HISTORY: Signal Landmark purchased for development the Rancho Carillio Municipal Landfill owned and operated by the City of Coronado in or about 1968 . Today, this land consists of three developments: Crown Isle, Rancho Carillo and Grand Cari.be Isle. In anticipation of development, Signal Landmark transported hazardous materials from the Coronado Cays development to plaintiffs ' property on Cactus Road in Otay Mesa in approximately 2 , 450 truckloads constituting approximately 38, 500 to 40, 500 cubic yards of material. This transport and dumping began in July 1987 and extended at least through August of 1987 . Analytical testing of these materials indicates that they contained more than 200, 000 pounds of lead plus considerable quantities of other heavy metals. According to a report prepared by Environmental Analysis and Valuation Inc. ; clean-up could cost between $6, 262 , 000 and $64 , 116, 000. The most likely clean-up scenario, the company says, will cost $ 23 , 190, 000. An important issue in this case is whether Signal Landmark knew that the materials they contracted to be hauled away were hazardous. At the latest, Signal knew the materials were hazardous by June 1987 , when David Benson, an employee of an independent contractor sued Signal Landmark for injuries caused by toxic exposure when he dug utility trenches on the landfill site to prepare the site for residential building. It' s unclear from the records I have whether Benson won, though I would imagine he did. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Or, who suing whom, and for what? I. Apparently, plaintiff Barnhart sued all the above defendants. However, my analysis of the Barnhart case is incomplete because the court records I have are incomplete. In fact, the only case copy I have is below (and it doesn't make much sense to me) ' Barnhart v. Bolsa Chica Company Barnhart appears to have cross-c) -�imed Bolsa Chica. The record copied here is very confusing. If Barnhart is a plaintiff (his land was dumped on) then how can he be cross- claiming Bolsa Chica, who is a defendant? That would simply be an original suit, or at best a counter-claim. Also, why is he suing Bolsa Chica separately? In other documents (like the settlement authored by Signal itself & like Signal 's motion to bar contribution) Bolsa Chica is admittedly part of Signal Landmark (either as parent, subsidiary or successor in interest) . So why sue separately? Could it have something to do with number 7 in the General Allegaticns section of the court record included in this study where Bolsa Chica "denies that The Henley Group and Henley Properties Inc. , recently renamed The Bolsa Chica Company, are individually or collectively the parent or successor corporations of Signal Landmark Inc. After all this, is Bolsa Chica now (so late) trying to claim it is not involved in the suit? This area definitely needs more research. II. Sesi Group sued all the above defendants (including Signal Landmark) together. A. May 1990: The Sesi Group first filed a case against the defendants in state court. Plaintiffs sued defendants under the following theories of liability: nuisance, trespass and negligence. Plaintiff's seek at least $20 million in damages. B. August 1991: They later filed a case against the same defendants in federal court. Plaintiffs sued defendants under the following theories of liability: CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980) , nu4.sance, trespass and negligence. C. The federal case was stayed (put on hold) until the state case was resolved. D. March 1992 : The jury in state court found Signal ' s actions caused injury to plaintiffs ' land. Signal was ordered to pay Sesi Group $ 2 . 5 million. Plaintiffs claimed damages of $ 20 million. It seems very odd that the jury would award such a small amount to the numerous Sesi plaintiffs. After paying attorney' s fees, plaintiffs will not retain much money. The jury did not find that Signal acted with "despicable conduct, fraud or malice" and so did not force Signal to pay any punitive--damages.- AI"thoirgh I 'Y."it.7e hot seen the recordl-bf evidence presented at the trial, it seems hard for me to believe that a jury would not find Signal ' s hiding the truth about the toxicity of the waste to be fraud or despicable conduct. E. Signal appealed the outcome, saying "reversible error" was committed during the state case (something went wrong that under the law is bad enough to get the case overturned) . This was probably merely a move to put pressure to settle on plaintiffs, who at the same time had the federal case starting up again (and it looks like it worked) . - c F. April 1993 : Parties submitted Settlement Agreement to the court for the court' s approval. Remember, this agreement only settles the Sesi plaintiff' s claim against Signal ; it does not affect plaintiffs Dantzler and Barnhart' s claims against Signal . The pertinent parts of the agreement are as follows: 1. Signal released of all liability. 2 . Signal must pay $ 1. 25 million cash to plaintiffs. 3 . Signal must pay $ 1. 25 million to a clean-up trust fund to be created and administered through the courts. 4 . Parties agree to reversal of judgment and vacation of verdict in the state action (which was on appeal) which means it is like Signal was never found liable for anything. 5. Plaintiffs agree to support Signal in its motion (request) to the court to seal the record in the state case. 6. Parties will file motion to dismiss federal court case against Signal. 7 . Plaintiffs agree to support Signal in its motion to the court asking that the court bar any claims by other defendants for contribution or indemnification. IT IS THIS MOTION THAT SPINS OFF INTO THE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS CASE AS TO WHETHER SIGNAL (WHO PAID SO VERY LITTLE GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FOR LIABILITY AND WHO WAS SO CLEARLY THE MAJOR PLAYER OF ALL THE DEFENDANTS) SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY PART OF ANY POTENTIAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE NOT YET SETTLED. THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS ARE REFERRED TO AS THE "NON-SETTLING DEFENDANTS" . (see below) G. Signal Landmark's motion requesting court to bar claims by non-settling defendants for contribution/indemnification When one defendant settles in a case, other defendants often try to go after that defendant for contribution. This happens whE!n the amount the one defendant se'_tled for does not reflect their proportionate share of liability. As a result of this, the jury (who is not made aware of the settlement--for public policy reasons) will make the remaining defendants liable for all damage suffered by plaintiff. Because this is not fair, those defendants try to get more money from the settling defendant. The copies of court records we have reflect each step in this motion: 1) Signal and Sesi Group (because they agreed to join in on this motion in the settlement agreement) make joint motion to bar non-settling defendants from seeking contribution from Signal . 2) All of the non-settling defendants in the larger lawsuit 1 - 1 file briefs with the court arguing why the court should deny this motion (i.e. why it is fair for them to seek contribution) . These briefs are very interesting for our purposes. They make some interesting allegations of bad faith and foul play by Signal Landmark. While these allegation are merely presented and are not proved, they provide an interesting picture of what probably did happen. Because this is the last chance of these non-settling defendants to get Signal to pay their proportionate share of liability, before they get stuck holding the entire bill for plaintiff ' s damages, these briefs read like a no-holds barred fight. 3) Signal and Sesi Group file brief answering the arguments of these non-settling defendants. 4) July 1993 : Court decides to side with Signal Landmark and bar all non-settling defendants from seeking contribution against Signal . I am not sure if anything suspicious went on here, but something doesn't smell quit •-ight. The court, in fairness to the non-settl1ag defendants does two things. (a) Court follows the state statute on comparative fault. This means that the liability of the non- settling defendants will be reduced by the percentage of responsibility of Signal . However, it is up to the judge or jury to decide what Signal ' s percentage of responsibility is (and if the jury is anything like the state court jury, Signal is in luck) . (b) Court also bars Signal from going after the non-settling defendants for contribution. The non- settling defendants were asking for this, but Signal was arguing against it. III. Signal v. Sesi Group Signal cross-claimed and sued the Sesi Group back. I can't imagine what Signal 's cause of action could possibly be. This case was surely voluntarily withdrawn as part of the settlement reached by the two parties. IV. Dantzler v. Signal/Henley/Bolsa Chica Dantzler cross-claimed and sued Signal, probably for not telling him the waste was hazardous. Signal filed a motion to dismiss this case, and then rescinded that motion with the court. This was done on 2/93 , which leads me to wonder if this case is still pending. I think Dantzler would have an excellent case against Signal who clearly under the law had a duty to tell him the waste was hazardous (so long as Signal knew it, which it appears they did because of the Benson case in 1987) . CORPORATE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND n3l The writer begs the reader's indulgence, for what follows is a tangled web of mergers and spin-offs, remergers, stock offerings, other financial maneuvers, along with corporate name changes. The trail s difficult at times to make out, because only the parent companies are public held; the various subsidiaries are privately and wholly owned by the parents and are not therefore subject to the same public reporting requirements as publicly held companies. However, this trail must be followed, even if sketchy at times, if the present proposals to develop the Bolsa Chica wetlands area by the Bolsa Chica Company are to be put in proper context. The Bolsa Chica Company is the name given to the entity formed from a July 1992 merger of Hampton, New Hampshire-based Henley Properties and the Henley Group. In the merger, Henley Properties was the surviving public entity, and changed its name to the Bolsa Chica Company [Wall Street Journal, July 17, 1992, B, 5:51. Although the Henley offices were located in New Hampshire, and the renamed Bolsa Chica Company maintains its offices at 4343 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, California, the company is incorporated in the state of Delaware. In turn, the two Henley Companies resulted from the 1985 merger of Signal Companies and Allied Corporation. In September 1985, stockholders approved the $5 billion merger of the Signal Companies with Allied Chemical Corporation, an expanding automotive company. The merger culminated a three year restructuring effort by Signal (an aerospace firm, then based in La Jolla, California) to move in a high-technology direction. Signal had earned $285 million on revenues of $6 billion in 1984 while Allied had earned $488 million on $10.7 billion. As part of the restructuring, 35 subsidiary businesses were to be spun off into a firm to be called the Henley Group. The announced aim of the spin-off was to "position Allied- Signal to compete better in the high-technology area" [Iron Age, January 17, 1986, V. 229, No. 2, pp. 33-39]. However, in an article titled 'Business Kicks Out the Turkeys," Dunn's Business Month [September 1986, V. 1218, No. 3, pp. 30-34] noted the 'benefits of spinning off losing companies to shareholders." And Fortune credited the chairman of Allied-Signal, Edward Hennessy, Jr., with the "spinning off of 35 money-losing subsidiaries, packaged as the Henley Group" [December 7, 1987, V. 116, No. 13, pp. 139-146]. The spun-off companies included Signal Landmark, a real estate development concern, Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Wheelabrator Technology, Abex, ...... WHO ExACTLY WERE THESE COMPANIES? Corporate History and Background 2 Michael D. Dingman, who became chairman and chief executive of Henley Group, with Paul Montrone as vice chairman president, then brought the Company out with the largest public offering in U.S. history to that date, raising $1.2 billion [Institutional Investor, January 1987, V. 21, No. 1, pp. 73-106]. That money was to be used for making acquisitions, but was instead used mostly for stock buybacks, with acquisitions to be financed instead through debt. Dingman and his "crew of turnaround artists" managed to increase the operating revenues of many of those companies. Henley accomplishe[d] the swings in profitability by such tactics as turning segments into profit centers, making managers stockholders, cutting costs, slashing labor, and selling or closing weak units. However, some question[ed] Dingman's tactics. Wage cutting and layoffs have earned him labor's enmity. While cutting costs makes short-term profits look good, Dingman may [have] endanger[ed] future profits by cutting too thinly. Dingman acquired some notoriety for his efforts, with Fortune picking him as one of 1986's most fascinating business people for his efforts [January 5, 1987, V. 115, No. 1, pp. 62-66]. One year later, Henley had become well-known for popularizing the 'leveraged equity purchase plan --which provides management incentives and also is an effective form of financial communication." Cash Flow observed generally and approvingly of such maneuvers that Debt-financed restructuring can create incentives for shareholders to monitor their investment closely, since raising debt to retire equity concentrates the remaining shares in fewer hands. Moreover, with the cost of the value lost through mismanagement now made obvious, employees who have equity in the company and management have a greater incentive to perform [January 1988, V. 9, No. 1, pp. 36-43] In February of the same year, Industry Week picked the Henley Group as one of the 12 boldest business decisions of 1987. Thus, although some cautionary notes had been sounded, many financial observers looked optimistically at the Henley ploys. They would shortly be put straight. In early 1987 Dingman set his sights on taking over Sante Fe-Southern Pacific Corporation. He was primarily after its $4 billion worth of real estate holdings, and its oil and gas properties. Henley then owned 15.6% of Santa Fe stock. By October 1987 Business Week observed that much of Henley's future depended on the success of its ability to take over that company [October 5, 1987, N. 3019, pp. 90-94]. Sante Fe responded by allying itself with Olympia and York Developments, Limited, which owned 10.2% of its stock, and was also interested in Santa Fe's real estate holdings. It also sold $2.25 billion in assets, secured $3.8 billion in bank loans, and made a $4 billion outlay for a cash dividend of$25 and a $5 subordinated debenture for each of its 156.5 million shares. Debt to total capital rose from 26% to 87% [Business Week, February 15, 1988, No. 3038, pp. 28- Corporate History and Background 3 29]. It succeeded in staving off Henley's hostile takeover, but at considerable cost to the health of the corporation. [see Forbes May 16, 1988, V. 141, No. 11, pp. 63, 65] In summer of 1988, Henley sold its shares in Sante Fe to Itel Corporation for $1.2 billion in cash and company stock. Itel as then owned by Sam Zell and Robert Lurie [Business Week, June 26, 1989, No. 3112, pp. 88-89]. Zell would later comment that his biggest mistake was to buy Henley's 38.5% stake in Itel at prices ranging from $18 to $22 per share. Coupled with big interest and principal payments due, that deal sent the stock down to 7 5/8 in late 1990 [Business Week, April 6 1992, No. 3260, p. 60] By the end of 1988 both the financial community and Henley's shareholders had begun to tire of Dingman and Montrone. Henley had continued to buy back its stock, but its maneuvers... resulted in 9 lawsuits being filed against Montrone and Dingman and their companies. The main allegation of the suits [was] that key Henley executives enriched themselves at the expense of public shareholders. Particularly questionable [was] a stock repurchase plan that permit[ted] executives to purchase stock with only a 10% down payment and the remainder borrowed from the company. [Barron's, December 19, 1988, V. 68, No. 51. pp. 16-17, 57-581 The once lauded incentives had resulted in Henley executives lining their pockets at considerable cost to the company's shareholders. Henley engaged in other interesting tactics. It split off its waste-to-energy holdings as a public company, Wheelabrator Group, and then merged that entity with its 60%-owned affiliate, Wheelabrator Technologies. Stock control of the merged companies was given to Waste Management, the largest private garbage collector in the U.S., with management control retained by Henley. This maneuver enabled Wheelabrator to gain access to incinerating plants: Waste Management gave it the exclusive option to dump incinerator ash and construct waste-to-energy plants at 87 landfills in the U.S. and Canada [Forbes, November 14, 1988, V. 142, No. 11, pp. 98-104]. In late 1989, Dingman moved to separate Henley Group into two separate public corporations, retaining the Henley Group name for a new industrial company, and creating Henley Properties, Inc. as a real estate concern [New York Times, September 28, 1989, D, p. 4]. The two companies were then listed on the New York Stock Exchange [Wall Street Journal, January 8, 1990, C, p. 6, Col 21. On December 31, 1989 (the "Distribution Date"), The Henley Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Old Henley"), was divided into two public companies for the purpose of effecting the separation f its real estate business from its remaining businesses. Old Henley effected this separation by contributing to a newly formed Delaware Corporation substantially all of its assets and businesses, together with certain other liabilities, other than its real estate development operations, and then distributing (the "1989 Distribution) to its stockholders all of the Common Stock of the new corporation on Corporate History and Background 4 the Distribution Date. In connection with the 1989 Distribution, Old Henley changed its name to Henley Properties, Inc. and the new corporation changed its name to the Henley Group, Inc. The real estate properties were essentially those that had come to it through Signal Landmark Holdings, Inc. In September 1989, Henley Properties Holdings Inc. ("Holdings"), a subsidiary of Henley Properties, adopted the Equity Purchase Program of Henley Properties Holdings, Inc. (the 'Program") under the Operating Unit Component of the Equity Purchase Program of Old Henley (the "Old Henley Program"). Under the Programs, Holdings was authorized to offer units ("Units"), representing hypothetical equity interests in Holdings equivalent to approximately 10% of the equity of Holdings, for purchase by its officers and key employees. The Compensation Committee of Henley Properties terminated the Program on March 25, 1992 and participants forfeited all rights thereunder. Not surprisingly,as of December 31, 1991, Holdings had nonrecourse loans in an aggregate amount (including principal and accrued interest) of $3,024,100, $2,721,690, and $1,890,063 outstanding to Messrs. Dingman, Montrone, and Meister (a Managing Director of Henley Group or its predecessor companies from prior to 1987, and a Managing Director of Henley Properties from december 1989), respectively. These loans were made in connection with the purchase of Units and secured by the Units so purchased [!]. The loans bore simple interest at 10.3125% per annum, the applicable Company borrowing rate. As a result of the termination of the Program, these loans were extinguished and the officers forfeited $725,099 of personal funds which had been paid for the purchase of the Units. [1991 Annual Report, p. 12] Under the transition agreement, Henley Group agreed to make available to Henley Properties and its subsidiaries until December 31, 1994 certain management and other services as well as the use of space in Henley Group's corporate offices Hampton, New hampshire. Henley Properties paid Henley Group $2,250,000 of the $3,000,000 accrued with respect to such services and $300,000 of the $773,000 accrued for the use of such office space during 1991. [1991 Annual Report, p. 17] By April 1991, on the one hand, Dingman had managed to sell off a number of Henley's industrial companies at a profit. On the other hand, Henley's stock was moribund. However, a buyout offer (at $22/share) by Libra Invest and Trade, Limited, owned by Lebanese investor Touric Aboukhater, had begun to revive it, moving it from 16 to 24. Once again, the deal made some shareholders suspicious that it was a maneuver by Dingman to enrich himself at their expense. Although the bid was rejected, the dissidents still worried] that Aboukhater, a longtime friend of Dingman's, [would] get the company at a bargain price. [Business Week, April 15, 1991, No. 3209, pp. 34-35] The offer revived Wall Street interest in the company, with investors betting that it was worth more than the $22 offer. Corporate History and Background 5 The takeover speculation has been fanned by some well-publicized objections to the bid as an attempt to acquire the company's assets at a bargain basement price - and as an attempt possibly orchestrated by Dingman himself. Suspicions have been aroused by the friendship between Dingman and Aboukhater, and especially by the pivotal role Aboukhater played in Dingman's 1988 leveraged buyout of Henley manufacturing. Dingman, meanwhile, is cautioning shareholders not to expect any stream of special dividends from the proceeds of selected asset sales. [Barron's, April 15, 1991, V. 71, No. 15, pp. 18-19, 75] [get Fortune, April 20, 1992, V. 125, No. 8, pp. 212-316, 'The Fortune 500: It was the Worst of Years'] How HAVE THE MIGHTY FALLEN? By 1992, not much was left of the original 35 companies spun off from the merger of Allied and Signal in 1985. The maneuverings of Dingman had taken their toll. Henley properties was losing money at a prodigious rate and showed little sign of improvement. Thus it was that Henley Group and Henley Properties, both still based in Hampton, New Hampshire, signed a merger agreement in February 1992. In the merger, Henley Properties was the surviving public entity, changing its name to Bolsa Chica Company. Preceding and prompting the merger was a near constant stream of heavy financial losses. In its Proxy Statement to its stockholders, Henley Properties noted that 'If the merger is not consummated, and Henley Properties is not able to successfully restructure its debt, Henley Properties currently expects that it could exhaust the available cash balance as early as the beginning of the third quarter of 1992 unless it is able to complete the sales of additional assets prior to that time. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, pp. 121- 122] In the last quarter of 1991, Henley Properties posted a loss of $74.2 million, including a pre-tax charge of about $65 million from a write-down of assets. That made the total loss for 1991 some $106.7 million [Wall Street Journal, March 20, 1992, C, 16:3]. The first quarter of 1992 saw another loss of $13.6 million [Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1992, C, 15:3]. On paper this represented a reversal from 1990, a year in which Henley Properties posted net income of $64.65 million. However, it sustained losses of $2.23 million in the first quarter of 1991, $6.26 million in the third quarter and $6.89 million for the last quarter) [Wall Street Journal, May 3, 1990, C, 20:4; July 26, 1990, C, 13:6; November 16, 1990, A, 10:1]. Only by selling considerable assets during the second quarter of 1990 was Henley Properties able to show net income for that quarter of $80.04 million, and to make it into the black for the year overall [Wall Street Journal, April 1, 1991, C, 8:51. That was the sale of the Henley interest in the two Wheelabrator trash-to-energy facilities for Corporate History and Background 6 a total of $104 million [1992 Annual Report, p. F-21. Henley Properties had shown a net income of $6.37 million ($.30/share) for 1989 [Wall Street Journal, March 26, 1990, C, 18:3]. Interestingly, the independent auditor retained by Henley/Bolsa Chica, Kenneth Leventhal and Company, for 1991, found that although the financial statements of the Company "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bolsa Chica Company (formerly Henley Properties Inc) as of December 31, 1991, and the results of its operations and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 1991 in conformity with generally accepted accounting procedures," The financial statements referred to above have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company has suffered losses from operations and must obtain significant capital for financing its real estate development activities and scheduled repayments of debt obligations during 1992. The uncertainties associated with the Company's ability to obtain sufficient capita4 restructure its debt agreements and return to profitable operations raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. [1992 Annual Report, p. F-9] Obviously, Henley/Bolsa Chica was going to have to take some drastic measures in order to survive at all. Those measures involved further sales of assets, additional mortgaging of land holdings, and a merger. In the meantime, on October 13,1992 Henley dismissed Kenneth Leventhal and Company, and found itself a new independent auditor, Deloitte and Touche to make the audit for fiscal 1992 [Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held June 22, 1993, p. 15]. Following the 1989 Distribution (discussed above) Henley Properties was in a leveraged position. The consolidated indebtedness of Henley Properties and its subsidiaries at December 31, 1989 was approximately $264 million. Due to the significant investment of capital required for the development of its real estate assets, Henley Properties believed that it needed to maintain significant borrowing capacity and, in light of then current conditions in the credit markets, that it would be able to obtain such borrowing capacity. Accordingly, in the fourth quarter of 1989, Henley Properties commenced negotiations with its banks to obtain a bank line of credit in the amount of approximately $250 million to refinance a portion of its debt and to finance development of its real estate assets. The steady deterioration of the credit markets during 1990 impaired Henley Properties' ability to obtain that line of credit. In the first quarter of 1990, Henley Properties continued its negotiations with its banks but was unable to gain the $250 million line of credit. During this same period, the real estate market in Southern California continued to decline, hurting Henley Properties' efforts to sell "non-strategic"assets. In consequence, by June 1991, Henley Properties began trying to find (with Salomon Brothers) a third party to buy or make an investment in Henley Properties. Numerous Companies were contacted, including public and private real estate developers, home builders, land developers, and other real estate investors. Henley Properties held discussions with some parties, but were unable to "consummate a Corporate History and Background 7 transaction." [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, pp. 40-41] By November 1990, Libra (see discussion above) had acquired 4,914,800 shares of Henley Group (about 25% of the then outstanding common stock). Libra then proposed a merger "unsolicited" between Libra and Henley Group, as discussed above. Libra then backed away from its offer. The effect on Henley Group stock had been beneficial. Henley Group ultimately sold its interest in Cape Horn Methanol in July 1991, its Instrumentation Laboratory subsidiary in October 1991, and made a public offering of some of its common stock in Fisher Scientific International in December 1991. The remaining Fisher shares were sold in March 1992. In early 1992, Special Committees were appointed at Henley Group and Henley properties, each comprised of directors not affiliated with the other. The Henley Properties Special Committee included Donald Koll, Gerald Lewis, and Albert Rising. The Committees worked out the terms of a merger agreement between the Henley Group and Henley Properties. The Henley Properties Special Committee believed that the merger was probably the only way to avoid the insolvency of Henley Properties. The maneuver also involved a spinoff of its Pneumo Abex manufacturing unit and a distribution of $250 million to its shareholders [Wall Street Journal, January 22, 1992, A, 6:6], chief among those shareholders Dingman and his associates. The Bolsa Chica Company's annual report described the actions this way: On July 16, 1992, a subsidiary of the Company merged with and into The Henley Group, Inc. (the "Merger") and the Henley Group, Inc. ("Henley Group") became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, resulting in a significant improvement in the Company's financial condition. The Company, through its Henley Group subsidiary, received in the Merger net assets having a book value as of July 16, 1992 of approximately $45.3 million, consisting of approximately $103.6 million of assets, including $58.3 of cash, and $58.3 million of liabilities. In connection with the Merger, Henley Properties was renamed the Bolsa Chica Company [p. 1]. Immediately prior to the merger, Henley Group distributed to its stockholders among other considerations, in respect of each share of its outstanding common stock; $6.00 aggregate principal amount of the Company's 12% Senior Subordinated Pay-in-Kind Debentures due March 15, 2002, and $1.50 aggregate principal amount of the Company's 12% Subordinated Pay-in-Kind Debentures due March 15, 2002. About $159.4 million aggregate principal amount of the Debentures were distributed in the Distribution and approximately $43.8 million aggregate principal amount of the Debentures were retained by the Company's Henley Group subsidiary in the Merger. In the Merger, Henley Group stockholders also received, in respect of each outstanding share of Henley Group Common Stock, two shares of the Company's Series A Convertible redeemable Preferred Stock and one share of the Company's Class A Common Stock [1992 Annual Report, p. F-3]. Corporate History and Background 8 At the same time, Henley engaged in three other significant financial maneuvers. First, its wholly owned subsidiary, the Lake Superior Land Company, sold to certain pension funds of the State of Michigan $45 million of notes secured by all of the assets of that subsidiary (some 300,000 acres of timberlands and shorefront property on Lake Superior in upper peninsula Michigan and northeastern Wisconsin). Under the notes' terms, semi-annual interest payments at a fixed rate of 9% per annum are due May 1 and November 1. The notes come due on May 1, 2012. $21 million of the financing proceeds were used to make a principal repayment in accordance with a term loan agreement with Bank of America [1992 Annual Report, p. F-4]. Second, that term loan agreement with Bank of America (concluded on July 16, 1992) converted a $65 million debt into a $52.7 million loan due on July 31, 1995, through a $12.3 million principal repayment at closing. Moreover, the Company generally is required to make additional principal prepayments in the amount of 50% of net proceeds from asset sales or financing, subject to certain reductions. During the fourth quarter of 1992, the Company made prepayments from assets sales of $1.1 million. In January 1993, the Company made a $21 million prepayment from the $45 million in proceeds from the Michigan transaction referred to above, which reduced the debt to $30.6 million. Additionally, Bank of America requires that the Company make principal prepayments of $2.3 million in the second half of 1994 and $3.1 million in the first half of 1995. Amounts outstanding under the term loan agreement bear interest at prime plus 1%. The company may also be required to pay additional interest if the principal prepayments are not made on time. Moreover, the term loan agreement also restricts the payment of dividends, and limits incurrence of further debt, making investments, loans or advances, creation of liens on existing and future assets of the Company or its subsidiaries, stock repurchases, and project development in excess of certain planned levels. Finally, the loan is secured by stock pledge agreements of all significant subsidiaries except lake Superior Land Company, and mortgages on certain properties [Annual Report, pp. F-4-5]. Where did this debt come from? Henley Properties originally obtained a $75 million credit facility from Bank of America in 1989 (the "Credit Facility"), to be repaid in full on June 30, 1990, with interest at a rate equal to, at the election of Henley Properties, the Bank of America Reference Rate plus .375%, the Eurodollar Rate plus 1.5% or a certificate of deposit rate plus 1.625%. Henley properties expected in 1990 to extend the maturity of the Credit Facility through December 31, 1990 at substantially the same terms as existed for the June maturity date. The Credit Facility was made under essentially the same restrictive covenants outlined above. [1989 Annual Report, p. 21] Third, the Company on July 16, 1992 entered into a term note agreement with the Bank of Boston, concerning its Wentworth, New Hampshire property, converting all of an existing $16.4 million term note with Bank of Boston into a $13.8 term note due on July 31, 1995. As with the Bank of America loan, the company made a principal prepayment of $2.6 million at closing. The agreement also requires additional principal prepayments from the net proceeds of the sale of Wentworth assets, additional $0.5 million prepayment in the second half of 1994 and $0.7 million in the first half of 1995, with any remaining Corporate History and Background 9 balance due on July 31, 1995. As with bank of America, the loan was set at prime plus 1%. Where did this debt come from? A subsidiary of the old Henley Properties (the "Managing Partner') and a corporation owned by Messrs. Dingman and Montrone were partners in a joint venture, which was originally acquired by predecessors of the venture partners for the purpose of developing Wentworth By the Sea. Pursuant to the terms of the Wentworth joint venture, the Managing Partner's ownership interest in the venture increased from 50% to approximately 52% on July 31, 1990 as a result of capital contributions during the first seven months of 1990 totalling approximately $2.6 million. On July 31, 1990, as a condition to an extension of a $26 million term note (the "Wentworth Bank Note") issued by the joint venture, old Henley Properties guaranteed the Wentworth bank Note and was entitled to a payment from the joint venture of guarantee fees equal to 1% of the amount guaranteed. Such guarantee fees aggregated $183,333 in 1991. In the first half of 1991, the joint venture entered into an agreement with the bank to extend the Wentworth Bank Note until March 31, 1993. Because the joint venture was unable to make all required principal payments or the interest payments on the Wentworth Bank Note and fund its operations from its own funds, Henley Properties advanced approximately $8.0 million and $9.1 million in 1990 and 1991, respectively, including accrued interest thereon. In 1992 Henley Properties expected to continue to make advances to fund debt service requirements and operations of the joint venture for the foreseeable future. The joint venture agreed to repay Henley Properties all amounts aid by the latter under the guarantee or otherwise advanced to the joint venture (including the guarantee fees referred to above) on demand [!], but subordinated to the Wentworth Bank NOte, together with interest on the unpaid amounts at an interest rate of 14% per annum, subject to annual adjustment. The balance outstanding under the Wentworth Bank Note was $17.4 million on December 31, 1991. The balance owed Henley Properties by the joint venture in respect of amounts advanced under the guarantee or otherwise was $17.1 million on the same date. [1992 Annual Report, p. 191 On December 30, 1992, in connection with the settlement of the litigation brought by former Henley shareholders against the company in Delaware, Henley/Bolsa Chica received the 48% remaining interest (that held by Dingman and Montrone). In return, Dingman and Montrone were given a 10-year option to repurchase that 48% interest at an exercise price that would result in a 20% compounded annual return to the company on its total investment. [Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be held June 22, 1993, p.13] Bank of America and Bank of Boston entered into an agreement concerning their respective shares of the repayments made by Henley/Bolsa Chica under the terms of its credit agreements with each of them. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc. for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, p. 1211 Pretty tough terms. But for the near-term Henley/Bolsa Chica had bought itself some time. Corporate History and Background 10 The shareholders approved the merger, spin-offs, and distribution in July 1992. Henley had come full circle, but it also faced more lawsuits from its public shareholders. More on that momentarily. When all was said and done, the Company was forced to admit that it expected to report continued losses in the "foreseeable future," and during "1993 and 1994 the Company will be primarily dependent on cash in hand, which aggregated approximately $55 million as of March 1, 1993, including the net proceeds retained by the Company after a $21 million repayment of senior bank debt" [from the issuance of notes by the Lake Superior Land Company] to "fund project investments, interest expense, general and administrative costs, and to service its debt" [Annual Report, p. F-4]. The Company averred that it did not expect to have to sell off any additional assets to meet its obligations in 1993 and 1994. It also noted the following: Henley Properties is highly leveraged. The consolidated indebtedness of Henley Properties and its subsidiaries was approximately $298 million as of March 31, 1992.... The Merger will provide approximately $45 million book value of net assets from Henley Group and will reduce the outstanding book value of the Henley Properties Debentures by approximately $40 million. Nevertheless, Bolsa Chica Company will continue to be highly leveraged after the Merger. On a pro forma basis, at March 31, 1992, the consolidated indebtedness of Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries was approximately $258 million, or approximately $107 million excluding the Henley Properties Debentures. Bolsa Chica Company's leverage may limit its flexibility and financial position in a number of respects, including the following: (i) the ability of Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries to obtain additional financing in the future for project development, working capital or other purposes may be impaired; (ii) a substantial portion of the cash flow of the Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries from operations and asset sales will be dedicated to the payment of interest expense and principal repayment obligations on the Henley Properties Bank Debt; (iii) Bolsa Chica Company may be more highly leveraged than its competitors, which may place it at a competitive disadvantage; (iv) the Henley Properties Bank Debt will bear interest at variable rates, which will cause Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries to be vulnerable to increases in interest rates; and (v) Bolsa Chica Company's leverage may make Bolsa Chica Company and its subsidiaries more vulnerable to further downturns in the real estate business or the economy generally. [Joint Proxy Statement of The Henley Group, Inc. and Henley Properties, Inc.for Meetings of their Stockholders to Be Held on July 16, 1992, p. 25] Evidently, not all of the stockholders enthusiastically endorsed the merger and filed stockholder class action suits in Delaware Chancery Court, alleging wrongdoing by the Bolsa Chica Company, Henley Group, and certain of their directors, relating to the Merger and Distribution. One group filed on behalf of public stockholders of the Bolsa Chica Corporate History and Background 11 Company, the other on behalf of former Henley Group stockholders. The Henley Group case was settled and approved by the Delaware Chancery Court on December 30, 1992. In a related action brought in the New York State Supreme Court, the plaintiffs alleged mismanagement and breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the Wentworth property. At the time the 1992 Annual Report was prepared, agreement had not been reached in that case. Henley/Bolsa Chica asserted that it agreed to settle in these actions "solely to eliminate the expense of further litigation" [Annual Report, p. 8]. The Company's 1992 Annual Report describes the settlements as follows: Pursuant to the terms of the settlements, former Henley Group stockholders will receive payments from a $2.4 million settlement fund, reduced by court- awarded attorney's fees of $750,000. In addition, on December 31, 1992 Wentworth Holdings II ("WH II"), a corporation controlled by the Company's former Chairman and Vice Chairman [Dingman and Montrone], transferred its 48% interest in Wentworth to a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, which, through another wholly owned subsidiary [!], already owned a 52% interest in Wentworth. In exchange, WH II received a 10-year option to purchase a 48% interest in Wentworth at an exercise price that would result in a 20% compounded annual return to the Company on its total investment in Wentworth, if the option were exercised [Annual Report, p. 8]. Once again, Dingman had got his hand caught in the cookie jar. By early 1993, the world and Henley's board of directors had enough of Dingman. The Board elected to turn over management of the company to the Koll Company. Dingman and Paul Montrone resigned both as officers and directors of what had become the Bolsa Chica Company. The following individuals became officers of the renamed company, or remained in previously held positions [all information is from the 1992 Annual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. 6]: 1. Donald M. Koll became chairman of the board, bringing with him Ray Wirta, Vice Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Koll Management Services and President and Chief Operating Officer of Koll Company since prior to 1988, who became president, chief executive officer and director. 2. Raymond Pacini became executive vice president, chief financial officer, and treasurer, having been vice president, chief financial officer, and treasurer of Henley since 1992, managing director of Henley from 1990 to 1992, and director of financial reporting for Henley Group from prior to 1988 to 1989. At that time he also became Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Koll Managment Services. 3. Richard Ortwein, President of the Southern California Division of Koll Company, became executive vice president. Corporate History and Background 12 4. Lucetta Dunn, Senior Vice President of Koll since 1992, Vice President, August 1990-1991, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Signal-Landmark (a wholly owned subsidiary of then Henley Properties), in 1990, and Vice President and Assistant General Counsel of Signal-Landmark from 1988-1990, became Senior Vice President of the Company. 5. Sandra G. Sciutto, who had been Group controller of Koll Management Services since 1990, project controller for Signal- Landmark during 1990, became Vice President and Controller. 6. Mark A. Underberg, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Henley since June 1992, Managing director of Henley from December 1989 to June 1992, Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Abex and Fisher Scientific (subsidiaries of Henley) since July 1992 and December 1991, a Managing Director of Henley Group since prior to 1988. On 15 March 1993, the Board of Directors for the Bolsa Chica Company (nee Henley) comprised [all information derived from 1992 Annual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. 3.1: 1. Donald Koll, Chairman, term expiring 1996, new in March 1993. 2. Ray Wirta, term expiring in 1994 3. Paul C. Hegness, term expiring 1996; a partner in the law firm of Good, Wildman, Hegness, and Walley since 1979. Previously employed by the Construction Division of Del Webb Corporation, the Home Building Division of Broadmoor Homes, and the Union Bank. New in March 1993. 4. Gerald J. Lewis, term expiring 1996. Counsel to the law firm of Latham and Watkins since May 1987, a director of the company since 1989. Formerly an Associate Justice of the California Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District from 1984 to retirement in May 1987; a judge in the Superior Court of California, san Diego County, from prior to 1983 to 1984. He was also at the time a director of Wheelabrator Technologies Inc and Fisher Scientific International Inc. Latham and Watkins provided legal services to Henley Properties. 5. Bertram R. Firestone, term expiring in 1995. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Firestone Corporation (real estate development) since prior to 1985 and a director of the Company since 1989. Corporate History and Background 13 6. Albert E. Rising, term expiring in 1994. A director of the company since March 1990; a consulting metallurgist and engineer since 1949. 7. Marco F. Vitulli, term expiring in 1995. President of Vitulli Ventures, Ltd.(Real estate development,investment management,and consulting services) since 1981. Also Chairman of Elk River Enterprises (lumber) and a director of Pope Resources (land, timber, mineral and recreational properties). The membership of the Bolsa Chica Company's Board of Directors changed once again in summer 1993. Bertram Firestone, Gerald Lewis, and Albert Rising all resigned. One seat was left vacant, the remaining two were filled by Harold A. Ellis, Jr., a managing partner of Ellis Partners, Inc., a real estate management and consulting firm based in San Francisco, formerly chairman and chief executive of Grubb and Ellis Co., a diversified real estate services company; and J. Thomas Talbot, owner of Talbot Co., an investment and asset management company based in Newport Beach. Donald Koll noted that the "recent changes in the company's board of directors complete a transition that began in March[1993]." [Orange County Register, Business Section. The transition was to complete control of the former Henley Group by Donald Koll, who now effectively controls four of the six seats on the Board of Directors. The total number of individuals employed by the Bolsa Chica Company as of March 1, 1993 is 45 [1992 Annual Report, p. 5]. [See San Francisco Chronicle January 15, 1990, C, 2:3; Los Angeles Times, Febnkuy 4, 1990, D, 4:1; Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1990, D, 2:3] The Koll Company's Role How did the Koll Company come to be involved with Henley? Already one of the largest developers in Southern California, and based in Newport Beach, California, Koll was hired by Henley in June 1990 to manage its real estate portfolio (estimated at $500 million), including the development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Area [Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1990, D, 2:3]. Koll has had or currently has projects underway in San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Orange County, the Inland Empire, and Los Angeles. Koll worked out very favorable arrangements in return for his participation. Under the terms of the Management Agreement, Henley Properties was obligated to: 1. pay a quarterly management fee equal to .125% of the average book value of such assets 2. reimburse Koll for certain personnel costs and other expenses 3. pay to Koll a specified portion of the net sale proceeds (as defined) from the sale of properties managed by Koll Corporate History and Background 14 Additionally, Koll was entitled to a disposition fee of 1% of the net sale proceeds (as defined) upon the sale of any property, other than Bolsa Chica or Wentworth, managed by Koll. Moreover, in connection with this transaction, Donald Koll, Chief Executive Officer of Koll, became President and a Managing Director of Henley Properties. He received no salary in connection with these positions. However, Henley Properties paid or accrued fees of $2.5 million to Koll in consideration of management services rendered and $1.6 million for certain reimbursable personnel costs and other expenses incurred during 1991. Effective August 1990 and February 1991, Henley Properties also entered into construction management agreements (the "Construction Agreements") with Koll Construction, a subsidiary of Koll, with respect to the Eagle Crest [San Diego] and the Rancho Murrieta projects, respectively. Pursuant to the Construction Agreements, Koll Construction provides general construction supervisory and management services as well as direct supervision of all subcontractors. Koll Construction is reimbursed for its direct costs and compensated pursuant to a formula which provides a fee of 2.5% and 4.0%, respectively, of the total construction costs of the projects. Henley Properties paid or accrued fees aggregating approximately $540,000 to Koll Construction in consideration of such services and related cost reimbursements during 1991. Donald M. Koll also personally came to own by 1991 some 96,701 shares of Class A Common Stock of Henley Properties. [Henley Properties, 1991 Annual Report, pp. 16, 18-19] Effective April 19, 1993, the Compensation Committee of the Bolsa Chica Company's Board of Directors approved salary levels of $150,000 for Donald M. Koll in his capacity as Chairman of the Board, $100,000 for Ray Wirta in his capacities as President and Chief Executive Officer, and $100,000 for Raymond J. Pacini in his capacities as Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer. Pacini's salary represents a 50% reduction from his previous level for 1993, which is commensurate with the Bolsa Chica Company's agreement that 50% of Pacini's available time could be allocated to his duties as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Koll Management Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Koll Company. Koll, Wirta and Pacini also received hefty stock option grants. [Notice of Annual Meeting of Stockholders, To be held June 22, 1993, p. 141 Earlier, in 1989, Koll arranged with Union Pacific Co. to buy the bulk of the assets of its Union Pacific Realty subsidiary, for about $532 million. Consummated in early 1990, the deal gained Koll property in 19 states, including property in the Denver area [Los Angeles Times, January 3, 1990, D, 14:2; New York Times, January 3, 1990, D, 4:1; Wall Street Journal, January 3, 1990, A, 2:6; Denver Post, January 3, 1990, D, 2:3]. In Fall 1989, Koll sold 24 of its industrial buildings located throughout Southern California, to Fujita Corporation, U.S.A., a Japanese developer, for $138 million [Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1989, D, 3:1]. In Spring 1989, Koll purchased $135 million of the real estate assets of Wells Fargo Mortgage and Equity Trust. Wells Fargo then paid off its shareholders and liquidated the trust [San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 1989, C, 5:11. These maneuvers fit neatly with the larger corporate strategy of Koll Company, as outlined in the National Real Estate Investor: Corporate History and Background 15 Acquiring an underperforming property and bringing it up to speed with successful projects in a competitive commercial real estate market is often seen as a risky endeavor. However, with land availability diminishing and prices escalating in many areas, acquisition and subsequent renovation has become a cost-effective measure beneficial to cities, developers, and tenants. Through asset management and development expertise, nonperforming properties can be transformed into income producers with growing occupancy. When evaluating the acquisition of an underperforming property, one factor to consider is the extent of the potential renovation, minor revitalization, or full-scale renovation. Another important consideration concerns the project's ability to complement a developer's ongoing development and management activities [July 1989, V. 31, No. 8, p. 100] As the fortunes of Henley continued to plummet (its losses for 1992 totalled $38.4 million [1992 Annual Report of the Bolsa Chica Company, p. ii]), it became increasingly clear to the company's directors that Dingman and Montrone had become serious liabilities, and that as the company had little left in the way of operating enterprises, its assets now primarily reduced to real estate holdings, it might be a prudent move to bring Koll all the way on board to run the company, as it had been managing those real estate assets under contract for over two years. Especially given the fact that the Bolsa Chica wetlands property was Henley's principal asset and best hope for future profits, Koll offered a relatively strong local reputation, important contacts, and knowledge of local politics and administrative procedures. It is not improbable that Koll's access to financing played a key role here as well. Bolsa Chica Company stock common shares currently trades (20 August) on NASDAQ for 5/32 per share, having reached a high of only 11/32 in the preceding 52 weeks and hit a low of 1/16. Preferred shares traded for 3/32, having reached only 11/32 in the preceding 52 weeks and a low of 3/32. [Los Angeles Times, 22 August 1993, D-7] MENOMINEE ANSEL i OTAY MESA RD • • J It JIL �.I cl; EL• rA �AOdIA • .(;). F s- . ��„� "r"----L� Barnhart Property .arm. CSC .. � i ' I Dantzler Property Sesi Pro 2644.08 JA O � r =3J1 AC 0:Ar- 2.71 A4 0. .�i UNNAMED 4 AIRWAY RD. 1 SOURCE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSORS MAP, BOOK 646, P 10 L 19 E v I R a N PARCEL MAP r,g u r e ENviR N PROJErCT M04-2302A V • i- Former Pond Area rp tit Icb dO + ••►fit .. •� -I 1 1; 1 • I ,� _ ,fit � •+ . . •r •.r •J r f .J _ ter' •-J y = _ --__ ,�.• 14F .f �r•, v l- AOPA16PA14 PHOTOGRAPH91 SUE AERL&L 1ENVIRON PROJECT *04-2302 a�aN �, "r ,. ^t y � s Yayttr. ,sf �i`' +i� �: :;� ;�;�>{, -{l �. , ,lam•{ . p iy 1r��, y<tsi'+,o-' t' ; �i +�h'xdt. .71�'`a 4••d: 7 "`�, ,t a )' 't <{. 1 i•.,yt,r tr.' ��� fir.rf aY ,� �i{;a v', ,� ,�:,�,'�` '� �' �'!, �': �' s; v �,Qt^ �•` t.S SL.N�`Cts' } tua 3 �t+�y,'.': 7�3•a.U� � x II ' t:.o-5•+�,5; �\�,�\, r ,,y+' t r r � ti� 'r.3' ti—i � Y a.' t. I '� :� r ly Va� �f1�t"� �' p / � �. �• \a`t Ag @J84 { ,tus / St���. �� C • 0�'..1, , r 6 r a Q J\�• �\ �. \r�§ JJ s rC2CJ �s\\�\\:\ $�y ,���? \ �y4f o-xa n'• Y :Rt o b a AIM, \J\rJr �, i a F�g�$7 �e'r � •• �R��-, • . ��7� .-� 'c \•\ \ •i.;,A+ 5 J �• t; itR9� ^ii:'y .t9t+. .a i y • .�' i <w��\' W��A\\`�� ,�`y',• �a{��v5kj�:��,\\��, t,4¢�r�� p„��.,' ,�� tll;++. ����,.�r'i.-'r �t�:€ �� .r� 'E ►�.�t `►��t Wy \�` 'fi� ,�'g� `-1 �,�4: #J'-p pr{`\��i� - ,. M, t.s ,. 1sfe�,r;,�.+\ y: a-tiAd,� •�. iw ' '���( b 1.'• 'G�P�. -5\:` �\�:�':�\�{:: ��`.�`.1">„J`Y�2: ' .'I�y.i f��LSy�I#`�....t-, r�.i r. .:f ,�.# k �t,�. w r .�y •� `�� '-L—J �+�`- 0{+1, •,J J•\.\t���,.�`�;�1�\t�Q10 r;J'i.. �, ,, - ,..�,r• r i�t, 'a ` v:.. 3;� 4;..�at 1J• 4bt frf ,�iley4g�\�`\`ti�Vr���)� ',0.4+�' •� t,;;`y4.:N',i r� r.'L I�a�� � r� ,t v c r'�r t �.°'�y�,p} ,C` ��. id �\h')r�,S`5. ' 3.��`tt�•`�4,a 4 Y tO"rr ! L �t•�.*Tk •��`r\Y L�� �v.+,\t'�r>Y:',l1f�{�`�.r, t r}sc.�vlt�n'f�r J .� f � � t� S `�`a~ :' ,'1.t '`Fy+}E,kx r •l�;y � aal� ♦ J j. `�` I _ k' a':i t r'�y '? 3v..:y �.#_ '1 �,�'t w.++ ,, `tr tz<yjiT• s ..t s -�� �r.. '!` y ,', I ^..,� fi 8. Jt. �f. :) I� , r +• JJ. i �) ^'1 4 !. t .t. T_' v*` 7 i> t '?t`k if �a�`Y 1• Ir. f w1}3 +. 't r �y r t + I yt �: r: {r�t+ �4 r.a, tS r' {' ++ /�. r �•t .,;,.+.. .. :SZ rx�. i J >c! rr T• k tt ` X 5. li f'� .T� �I+,.�. t �' s•'F�� _ 4 , 9 `. 4% i3 S• kk ,3� ryJ ai :r r t t 7' s• s1 A . • `� y .£ \ t I t�. ./ .{ `+.• °,i'`.:�'i� {,, S,y,• rS�J�.\\\\J\• y, m3 CS,,z .v>✓d, \•�v JJJ., F" ist ,3{t�, rL2..t,�•5 v �.J!� a..' e.�' `�., t M M -:kC,r.,..t w.;•.. t )f_j v.'� t .p {rr. . {••.. lT. ::p, u \ �J\J�Jr w r fTA 7 a let :�. l, "') J '!; ���JQ� J\J• l!t• �'k. � R... ,F-�" uj" f. •1 'f .lP:+ ♦S!,' ",f) .% 4 J�"J J\ i;,J t ^� �F ) G}•.� �•p=i�:Y{.{ �J J\'�\����.` 1 •;) -.if r,>AI A 'x N C'a• �`.. !.; t. +xiR'••' :,r:. ,:1\.r,. ;4Fh. ;�JJtg ':i, �� y. ,tt,. ':w eotfr - ^�t�: {, .t}ry _ .,�`, .. •�' ;,1:;•�':;.��«�: o �+�'J.,�J��N v� t u r�l :i r I W; :� �' yyi y .,M , ,y"•d � `;t� •' ti ,x�:r :si \• I. •' �-. � tea. �• r.��. w:.s t: .; S} �''. ,+ ti•- t.* •:•. '�►i°=� ae. k}.•,{ � d..,�{!r ,Y, :}., i� �'t,�-�.s'� �.1t"A t. :>,a 1 .:��;. t-vh, I'f' t �•':ctt.� � L -fw � - ''� ,,rti v �.^7 < +S •17,'' + i_ Lj.i't� i :i f'4`y�t 44 a:( 'r~r� � wr�"w��, si.a1r 1 rt >'it '•t.. � j,.� �j x 3 ,t ;'ti �:'4'F s t` > e ,'I' ) , -S�: }{'' ry'�r,ata• {•.�L a �&� hi n•.:w'.. 5� :;;�r .,t '4F• '• O �'m;. +.. tis ��,�a';rf _."..' t_i�,.,!3 i� •�, �•�:� ty.i:i ��,+ 3' j.a •',C, •. h'a, t.; j.ra"s't ..t� r, -.r'`.II. 'atj,;-. c ..w:' �`� g 't:.."► t• +A�. c:'• .,.d,:�••�y;, •'� �y,,..'e t . ;�,�i.;5 �' xr. i ..[ d?: 7:u� .., �+��._1\ .fix/l-•;•I =� `ri j�.'. P �' ",',Y► '\�•t -�• .l r4 ^-4crf�"` s -:�• •y N�,y:. 4 .r.••s+`j tfi Y�`;�5:� { �� -t' ? a �;?�-. .z -.i" srct..rtfr iv-, �: � a+i-"S _ 1'" !{•. S(ix r.'•E3 /: ,.,. � 1 • t..re: f.. a ..w. ! ,z;:. r �.3'ri .., h.t:• c,� t. >n t a „,... „ 1 t a .:,-� �'Js, r~i• i `:�r \ rt, }i y� �. ,.of x- 1: .,,.. ii y }r. •�:C•.-�: ] :a• L.{. 1 �. .r '��•- t,r. t,?. ..,�. � + ��.,f}'°+1�8'� _ J''N � q { \b. ri.. _ 3'"va=,i •P {J_';T�yt•. u;• t.{ i :1 ..}• "•!, I. �. .r i f a. \} n. r .' Y� ,�s•° ,:1 "\ •?�fr :� { '� Jv. .I } .i, .• •>: �, mod;..}I .Y.' sf 1. _`ht • .,�/' � , '... •e!n.*n ,�'. ,"". _..,I, � ': ,:{''��t%+. `nR'T• 1.:'+.' i'±:'� •/ _ !.- ''•iv.� ;} E�I`';.-. ! .t ,i� .y! p:e f'; ♦-. '`� '`a ''� '� z GYett,,�1: .'ir�,: .xra�{F �' �i!, U'i' .e-..�r ry.�:rqo � .,fir• 'S C`�. ���� '�, ;_. . � .4 'i a tt. �pt,. \:-tar § rx;.t:y 's:- '� ,•/ -.,.`�". :w,� ^.a.� t 1� �' :^; R.. r:.' � t.�N•tk; r . .�;r3�,�J.4R+ ! ia{ t �3 .� �.,J•`7.�5,3'>.e �� /{ "�,C.i. t ,i t•�. :57.- ,r t <:fit\ ,'l��tX {� :, :L. ,t• t.� .<.�;.,f�r .�.a"':#'raJ :1:• � X.., .i t .t: { �'i,.,�.,rT;r,..�y+a ,r .C-�.!•w' Y 4rf,•:: :.:'t �fiv"� ,:y,• J )• „.. 'N.. C r q '.�; ;.\;,r', 'fAr> ;r^i i- s� , .i�r Fp yp.,; ' r M 4•.'i �: t ,,t4}I .4. t, :44' w� •.\. + {• .tr,. '�t �t5. �.';. /:.1` ti } '`.�6 •!}1' � t,.Ft ..t i r. .i3�1;:`<R r t i r r t'�..,:,'�yE .t.. '''':'t j'rl" qr !i-,•7 ..`.i 'F-"i� V'� x tv. r'S'. 3#t '�,n �t r�f•. ''�a q?.1 '�tr{:: jk / •t�• �'�/' �, ,�•.,, •��a:� ( �', `i`. r ry,1 r `♦ � l.a ,.1. ,1� ) 1t' 'r '}r.!} � ti„t+. .�: F' ;. i I' .F. �,h� .ram'j CXIIIBIT II to the Construction Agreement dated June 25, 1987 between CORONA00 LANDMARK, INC. and PULLARO CONTRACTING CO. \ 1 for the SITE GRADING on Tract CORONADO CAPS 15 8 16 located in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego. NOTE: Contractor agrees to the strict compliance with Article III, paragraph I and will purchase and have on hand the full stock of materials to assure the timely performance of his work and to avoid any possibility of delay caused by material shortage or increase in material prices to Owner. Normal service and pick-up work will be completed within five (5) working days unless Contractor is prevented from doing so by conditions beyond his control. Mork not done in five (5) days constitutes right of Owner to have work done by others at Contractor's expense. It will be Contractor's responsibility to see that his field personnel have the proper plans and plot plan prior to starting work. Contractor has been advised and understands and agrees that the timely performance of Contractor's work hereunder when required by Owner and in close coordination with other sub-trades is critical to the uncertain economic and marketing conditions prevailing during the term of this Agreement and because other work and obligations are dependent upon the timely performance of Contractor hereunder. Accordingly, Contractor agrees that time is of the essence in the performance of Contractor's work hereunder. ' Contractor expressly agrees to maintain a production schedule hereunder. Owner agrees to give Contractor at least five (5) days written notice prior to the first working day hereunder. Contractor agrees to hold Owner and the other sub-trades harmless from all damages caused to Owner and other sub-trades by any delay or failure of Contractor to timely perform work hereunder. Because actual damages to Owner are extremely difficult or impossible to ascertain. Owner and Contractor mutually agree that as liquidated damages to Owner for failure of Contractor to timely perform the work hereunder on the agreed production schedule, that Contractor shall pay to Owner the amount of s -0- for each full working day occurring after the day on which the work on the building should have been completed under the provisions hereof until the work on any such unit is completed, inspected and accepted. Contractor waive• all right to plead lack of materials or labor or delay of any type as an excuse for the failure of Contractor to perform Contractor's work hereunder. Wherever applicable, the Statute of Limitations will take precedence over Article I , paragraph 5. The premises are to be left in a clean, workmanlike manner, with all rubbish, debris, etc. , resulting from this work, completely removed as directed by the Owner. In the event this cleanup is nut done as directed, the Owner shall have the right to do the cleanup or cause it to be done, with all costs resulting therefrom to be charged to the Contractor. Cost of all safety requirements of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, and U.S. Labor Department Occu- pational Health and Safety Rules shall be included in this Agreement. All work to be done in accordance with applicable laws, building ordinances , statutes, rules and regulations and to complete satisfaction of Owner and/or his Agents. Page 1 of 2 If, as a result of flood, fire, earthquake , act of Cod, war, strikes, picketing, boycott, lockouts, love, government regulations of any other cause beyond Owner's control, Owner determines to postpone prosecution of Contractor's work, Contractor shell upon receipt of written notice from Owner, immediately discontinue further work until such time as Owner advises Contractor to resume work, which Contractor shall promptly do upon receipt of written notice from Owner. In the event Owner is unable to proceed with this project, it is agreed that this Agreement can be cancelled by Owner without recourse. Contractor hereby releases and discharge@ Owner from any liability for damages or expenses which may be caused or sustained by Contractor by reason of such cessation of work. Owner shall be under no obligation to protect Contractor's work, materials , tools, equipment and facilities. Contractor *hall beer all risk of lots and damages thereto, by whatever cause inflicted, until the Job is accepted by Owner. Failure to maintain schedule and/or quality shell be sufficient cause for cancellations of the unfinished portion of this Agreement and permit Owner to seek material and services elsewhere. Any cost in excess of the Original Agreement in so doing shall be charged back to this Contractor. In addition to any other remedies it might have, the Owner shall have the right to tsrminata this Agreement immediately upon being informed by the appropriate person of the default or delinquency by Contractor or his Subcontractors performing work hereunder (including any person who may have been a principal financially associated with the Contractor or his Subcontractors, who is delinquent In fringe benefit payments) in making payments to any health and welfare, pension, vacation or apprenticeship funds or upon being informed that Contractor or his Subcontractors performing work hereunder is a "listed delinquent Contractor" with regard to payments to such funds, and such delinquencies Contractor may be obliged to pay may be paid on behalf of the Contractor, or may be deducted from any balance due hereunder. Execution of this Agreement is evidence that the Contractor has made himself familiar with all conditions *affecting the work to be done, including all local governing applicable codes, ordinances, requirements, ate., as a basis for this work. Any work incidental end/or appurtenant to the itee(s) of payment, shall be absorbed and included an a part of the (unit) price(s) set forth and/or established for the particular item(s). Payment is to be made for actual work installed, completed, end accepted, based on the payment schedule. Agreed prices to remain in effect through covp)etlon Of Job or to the completion of any phase of construction started during in period. PLEASE INITIALS 1101 Conr.OelO-shell Per My dteeksge Ran..ewmrwhr 0w.e,a9eowsl jet Any and oil he"n,wd g- 9o1 N orory"Do.warwe.bon"n,Mtac.•0o0--own they V Oft'flags be i d Of erew..ed o9otatr the-so eaefA do who ownof.of saw satellite.IlnOrso-a the hnprOeeh.ewls Nmfole 19n41.eo-,as a CO.000weneo.O"tet she twdneet.of say Oct of oumwn,on Of Conrrac lot.Ms agohts.sonswls 8-0 lawefev-as Inc Any and all lose,cool PO.nlgs of afeMse owolar;eM kn Cheaw r•.ch,"toNonanle attorney/lees.on account of a thrpy9ft Ito use of good load uhorerefe•e.te.a shy Stet of.who.it-woof I.C-w cfor lie the sr..'Vast agree.r1.0uhsOlrw Ihween at ten In 190.0. teOreet n,shared,of Cowtrotmw or by eerw..gfww of Conharle•."foot our Ot of w.A.0011,or d+eegv dw 10 Of tesull..9 warm fggo M orw ---.;Mace of rho Coalesce by Contractive.Ih-Wee Rowse of the.*Of Donnelly or sow angles"th"Got M ooe or.ar el snr of the thslareronn e.Iwte /MNgOn er May Pon"Weel. let ywtra.. .aode tho end sere o-eew wafateeas I.Nh a•w eOttgo onal.hotabry a bees by.0 even of Iwo"sow ontwso by C-'recto,.h.1 e9areta. f on Mts.omake"es.owr"M1.hcemus or Deathless of Mee tool Roroeserlr or any flea thNgen of owner or IIle Ithishoom esage or nay thereof gteual.Shaman left Chft"-oo. 11 he.tnOmngohle Int May Ion aH leta.l-stain Saar broad.a-heel maroon,so a reaudt of/tatter or-I-tsNatwMgw.-a.-for nedra'Nra atcofewg to the erands'df M*ffew.600n by the IMonf sad eeeclftarbena woods a won horest On Me wan Of the ceetracroor of ftra transferees. MITIC tE 11•Ioe consideration of the Iwo.1a.lhluf and full poAthmante and/ear O4.M-nonce be COntreetp of each.werear end all of Ma cOVMo.ts Ma lonmggresne a lore Olrl re b1 Oltfe.tradeeanlr Iwo Contract.Ma role Ion letehfW eoAOnwMca awd/e ObfdnoKo of each.arery end all IhoraO#basil CO.Ateo-t ettedOem end MleeeOUNnt to Iho OM.9anon of Qthre-t and M the oMrew of owntf to the conthluence hereof.0-net agroes: 111 to oar wN0 Iho Cenheet0f who eMe of E$605,699.00- Deyoble aI Wbaft . W-W. "This is on approximate figure only. Mork hereunder to be accomplished on a time and material basis at hourly rates set forth in your rate sheet dated An 16, 1967, a copy of .which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Trucks utilized in hauling materials will be priced at f57.00/hr. for bottom dumps and $61.00/hr. for end dumps, 0. 6 M. Billings substantiated by daily work reports to be in Owner's hands on or before 26th of each month in which case payment will be made in full for approved invoices on or before loth of following month less ten (10:) percent retention. The retention will be paid in full thirty-five (35) days following completion of work snd acceptance by Owner. Pace..eludes to leg and debeey,cobs-ges. The hnog"how- OOV-0.1 ewe"be w.Mhold mod Ma bate-toon of Ira dins after 1i"neglect Of COn.MOIoOn. When Inn fur-are NI Perosle A 0wwtr Wto Contracfor.olwne'rho l-hpoolio.CMHKrN ekes to/aa aOOwcolagn MIIIfM Vw/0 Owner.and of&" dalnery MIC 0w.er a geese..sp.NOeret to.1 re9wrtd shee.ea9 ow aelMa good as efaalo-low soPeoerease.all work a0ae by COalneoer end"sor m9 that S,I Ob"OhOoot Slid bobthlos entered n,Pecwted by Contractor w the aerin,theMce a ode cp f#W*of unto food ditto hate been Stood.O.Ineor Inset faro roe ..Owl to Isch ore Cor,oaeta to beehrok w summit woo Scott,oPpfKaro-.line ong.nN a"-oft ber Isbe sad.0 oveetated codas.slid to wckMe as a-o.of seal *Roofecatron•cOrnslela ovate-et OI sit am"*"eP on.� Oene,Ate Iates--a wht on ltc of fat Matocontractsctracts Of Contractor owner swagger levitates Me none to Ot10ur-a sow oherhaa Ate Contractor on Ik0 lens at a eftetk a thacbs owedo to-tow Parable to C—Iraclaw seed Ono w more of Coalescing 1 Im bng .l O1Mr.al 1wORoheq. lee r.dfee cub-ton-mtoChillier1. O ,.er h H w evolow rafeos rho tight 10 avo wo Connector. as a Condition aaee on defel to Ion- aR Monre%due Room owner to COnlosetp w.to sch ele teo.11en.hosareled we"relegaas Mahe Cehttactoe a rherorral euooke".wooer.. $foNo WycO.lfmtos. III Shoved Contractor rwooloct 0,'nation to odr-whom hoe nevi ahN te falls Ale,awn ob1.glloon a wit-wry..ncwlOd M It,-homy-det.OwfW weer. but tRoe sholl-at create env ao.9erto-an the Dan of O hoer to IO do.offer 9ha ng Contractor twonry a -sour 12-1 hours wllen a Ka Ol Ol w s Mlonit an sole do. city such bd1. eblogeo.on or habit IV Monello,end close"Ike arfenuas Instead 890nsl flee efethe OMer;nse eatable wale Contractor hereunder_ 12f of Contractor she"low to lea".tfwoo end koltr Pegle.h say cnraeegnr.Or shM breech now condition of Iho Contract.word Cotmtac/or Iwo"be IO.MgeO a D"krelel N shall his w there ter died agoewfl Imwe awy-receMr.gf under behead Ion poe.waens Of the Act of Congress total"to coMsrwalcy. or.f C-freeIn,sheet(mead a geM.ol assignment for the blMln See creditors.or d raeoner by tpanM/od erN Contreetoo.Ord Contractor o.Ml tglug*. n09•oet es led to wlsobv e..wrlla p.oaeay Ikaled Sea men at Densest mmalstlrs_good rho Conftacto'she"lend 10 mobit co,"01 eoronenl In-masons'e 'Sber or Inset refuse.Mglect or fed to coneply attest"le onadnKlonell of O.t.er.rho.9-0 in*after of any Of seal'/rents.0wwor-&I without Orahrdeca to air Other right or.lewadr and as eig additional looks Mad reweaM to all other c-l0hod Weer.owner M low Of by this COnmacL*-d Steer On.tng Contractor twenry•foue(I41 howls womosen nolece.Ief imayle Ion 119h11 ol C-tractor hNou-dw sad Morn the-oft by whelerer omolhod 0w..*1 teen neat,.0.Oooa.1.to such Orgat.CaWwacto ekes M rem be oaled to.acon l May borene h.f oov lent,and the event that lira cost Vale OMho m I co pgehng Ina I Olt tfte"ogceed M*Mend he reunder..Milder.Compacts,the"- we-1,do and of OtWwn,-Day Ike do"eranct unto 0whe.OrOwhor lady 1,--*to ole n9hds of CO."PC i or tainting"..and thon"Pan she"he released Rw-ae Mr ebleget.Ot or wabeft v e,t,oemw-de.Vale conoseler. The re.we region.Opuewe and raweedN*of OeeneMe shot$be cdwa owso to-of Meow then be e■cblwe of say OIRwN.410 oocbrsw*of any et Me nights n►m modbas omewmd so Owaor A low- in TICIE III'I I)The ego-weem meogrmtot me pr4"08 shnnagas at Carl*..n.11emals am as M Induce-lees ter she owner to*wed Mn eOnitact. the eou.IlK for scales that he hen estvtesM am%M shotergess and labile so assure Cmnwleloon el lee wok on schodule and on COn,dmsl.On w"h ether swb'Irodat 121 The Contract/haws ColtoM1 o1 the Ag eawbemt.-TM Genoese Conestons"s of the Conusti.'the Coode.ngs sad Soacdecer.oloo of 0wno1.sod she eegulof.onf.oCeedKshw w0 one toomowowertts of the Cost,Moro County Tho word -Contract'as wood throughout this Agreement Merl be construed acco.eft" 121 AN tw.e kWan swtedfed IN the COMOOCS re of the anent- Time•s of the elastic*of ON Corenoron and COad.tes-s Ow the can of the Convm/ar #AI Throughout who Contract the Singular skad.attwd-the Ohhol.Iho plural shell include the"Wisc Ion.-see~@ sheet o ncludo the-sots..the no Wler Ion mostW-e- ISI The Congracl Imes not be fewedthod ale may*a,of who coMwawsnls or condom-f m the pan of CemmoclN hit ndd.hed a wowed of Ofhe tt'st g"ecl-d Whites.n"Postal.M at mow thin owewst she"wan*ony colorations.ce.rseloen.of Ofhe.-nee.of Ike contract-*tehor before or ereer ear Meech Mllepl.owMf shows wee rkwoahw be eofawd to hen ceraeht*a to on,hwfnef-fore,t-eedKoeO.N Nnoch +koMar n*w N cenmwww9 of one some of a"slow Cer*00M ar 9o1o1.00.o to ftM warNe sYONw s"hA god INM1W1 Performance andlN convenience of Ike some r sir Other corowohte M con"--s on"be Pore of Coneractot woo"to"Contract 161 The COatloCI Moe feet be Ml./oe-blt by Ceammlw-Mkw1 the-oaf-cenfewf of o..wee of ConfgetN A a co-oo"nafsh.p a cr.sn9e w who Mratmba.e Railroad S"Wor d cot, of Ste be a coPOesttes".a cftowge ow who aw-enh-O of Ienv 140%)Descent or Monte*f wt ua•cal Shock aharl be flagman OR oNngaiiagoM Prohibited by M*some l.eaof. (71 we Rowse"wen awn owf"e.ry-I.MIOe."to wake are'ei raeo.tnel..te-Nwragd--wotro.ry.Or 10 monde the Contract or scow PO"ghetto# bth"hone-oee"N Wmwlelo 1WCO hessiessiftlethaft.oveNmowef_-Womry tar,wneda caesel bees w-Tang_MO agreements.toohom*.le.rapos MlNteas of -rIMINI wlwafabarot am%seem gets Aft a knra btefe w.aM to CoMlnacto,. dal A Mot.a contractor MOfat,od as a lee/le fm"av tlfrdOfeto,each-"k a me a her.a""ell an,g"OHO. All TICIE fV'I I i The Comwen fe oa~od an. 2 come.Emk n hngfbr df ffi A N be on w.gMN.on.h0-wow.able cmN.00le M one Mad the some ArwemwK 121 Tha Cenlreet.waekrdlfel tide AlreNwon4 akfm be stoegwame be Ow.ler-"hewn owe Consents of Contractor121 The Contract.hecludhlg cures Agutewesn/,~..Mae to trwe beMeW' 'C even the Mess./tmMOrv.adMonototal,MKNeMre. and esfeg•we of Cenwecrot.fed MleeOeOOM Owed to ae al Owner. AIIT1CILE M II I Swb•eenwmsr wp%Monk fWdencs of cbn.eranenewe hatembiv end Welcome"9 Ceemoenest.on Insurance hoe 10 Mar e M.KN rtehent#ateen e/O"o. w .a. Coronado Landmark, Inc.. 501 Grand Caribe Cswy, Coronado, CA 2118 121 My o.gnowre besot,KknaeNodl//"war 1 ben raK seen nwd oradensond the detMls of the Addends.COntracl.Owlece,and E-foon- MI WIVMl Ss.wb4solor.Ion passing kove is have Ies.ewwde,lot thaw Rwanda and Mon M of the date gad ran,Rose horowna0are or""-a. CORONA00 L2�!ORK, INC. 1259580 n VIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & VALU INC. 1550 Old Henderson Road. Suite Columbus. Ohio 43220 . 800/964-4854 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY November 21. 1991 Mr. Charles UMandri, Esq. 2120 San Diego Avenue. Suite 100 San Diego, Ca►Tfomia 92110 Reference: SES/, ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LANDMARK ET AL PARCELS 646-100-49, -59, -70 AND SURROUNDINGS Dear Mr. LiMandri: This letter summarizes our opinions as more fully set out in the following supporting documents: VOLUME 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND OPINION VOLUME 11 -VALUE OPINION VOLUME III - SUPPORTING DATA BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK The attached volumes present the opinions of the professional members of the EAV Valuation Team regarding the property described above and the subject of litigation styled as Seri, et a/ versus Signal Landmark et a/, Case No.624243 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Diego. EAV has been asked to examine all of the available data and form opinions with respect to the following issues: 1) The fair market value of the property known as tax assessors parcel numbers 646-100-49, -59. and -70 in Otay Mesa. Chula Vista, San Diego County, California as of the following dates and conditions: a) As of the date of purchase by Seri, of a/on or about January 1, 19W as if the property had no environmental impairments other than those naturally occurring and a partially Bled canyon. The canyon fill materials are to be assumed to be made up of dean native soils b) As of the date of notification of dumping activity to Sesi, et a/by Signal Landmark's attor- neys about August 1. 1988 under two conditions as follows: i) As if the property had no environmental impairments other than those naturally occurring and a partially filled canyon as it existed in January of 1987.The canyon fill materials are assumed to be made up of dean native soils. u) As the property is now known to exist with environmental impairments. These value opinions are expressed in Volume II of this report and are subject to the information contained and the opinions expressed in Volume I and the data contained In Volume III of this report. EAV-COLUMSUS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ANALYZING ANO VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WSM. ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAND AL Mr. Charles UMandri Esq. 2 November 21. 1991 2) An analysis of the history of the property from approximately 19M to the present time, and the available analytical data with respect to the following issues: a) Identification of any reasonably suspect environmental impairments introduced onto the subject property by parties known or unknown. b) Review of analytical reports prepared by others to quantify the approximate extent of environmental iimpairments. c) If any suspect environmental impairments are identified. evaluate the likely kind, quantity, and economic consequences of such impaiments. d) Develop estimates as to the cast and methodology for responding to any environmental impairments under the governing lawm rules and regulations. 3) Based on the historical and documentary records available, attempt to identify potentially responsible parties who may have introduced environmental impairments onto the property between approximately 1960 and the present This letter and the attached volumes and subordinate reports and information supplied by others and included by reference is submitted in fulfillment of the foregoing Scope of Work SUMMARY VALUE OPINIONS In accordance with the Scope of Work, our value opinions for the property are summarized as. follows and are subject to the formal value opinion contained in Volume 11 of this report and all l'uniiing conditions and definitions contained in this report Reasonableness of Purchase Price on January 1. 1980: Discussions with area market experts indicate that the price paid at the time was reasonable given that approximately 7 acres of the total 32.57 acres of the subject property was undevelopable canyortand. The purchase price was $559,498.50. or $0.39 per square foot We find no indication of any unusual circumstances surrounding the purchase price. Note that this is not a formal value opinion, but an analysis of the reasonableness of the purchase price in the vicinity at the time. Value Opinion of the Subject Property as Unimpaired: August 1. 1988: It is our opinion that the fair market value of the property-unimpaired by environmental problems on August 1, 1988—would have been S1,850.000 or$1.30 per square foot.This fair market value opinion is for the property as it was believed to exist at the time. with a canyon constituting approximately 7 acres of the total 32.57 acres that was partially filled with what appeared to be native soils. Further, this value opinion assumes that a formally approved development plan-or map-did not exist for the property at the time. A development plan would be required prior to the subject property's achievement of its highest and best use as the site for commercial and industrial facilities. Value Opinion of the Subject Property as Impaired: August 1. 1988: It is our opinion that this property-impaired by the presence of hazardous substances as identified in Volume I of this report-is unmarketable for its highest and best use, or for any other use, and therefore has no fair market value.The purchase of this property in its present condition would impose a large liability on any purchaser far in excess of the unimpaired value of the property, a liability that may range from $6.262.000 to as high as $64.116.000 with a most likely estimated liability of 523,190.000. This estimate of liability does not include an estimate of several major liability increasing factors including, but not limited to: (a) The posting of a closure financial responsibility bond for the disposal cell: (b) The costs associated with defense against litigation from neighboring property owners if the subject property becomes the focal point EAV-WLM 18US ♦ 0CV%=CCIMI♦1 P10d-AA,If7ATW`^1 A\IAI Y71►IP "00%I.AI IMY" Caw w/V�w/r..►.. ...... .�w SM. ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAND AL • Mr. Charles UMandri. Esq. 3 November 21. i 991 of a hazardous waste disposal site 'border zone'declaration; and. (c) The costs already incurred or to be incurred in the analysis. investigation. and litigation associated with the discovery of environmental impairments on the subject property. We have further assumed that It would not be possible to develop the subject property as a commercial hazardous waste landfill. therefore precluding an alternative highest and best use. Further. based on the opinions of EAV's Valuation Team. it is unlikely that the property will ever be marketable as the most likely cleanup scenario would result in the permanent presence of a disposal cell containing hazardous wastes on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAIRMENTS AND HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY It is the opinion of the EAV Valuation Team members—as set forth specifically In Volume I of this report—that the subject property has been the site of the disposal of a number of hazardous substances since July of 1987. Further. it is our opinion that the hazardous substances constitute a threat to human hearth and the errraronment; that destruction of wetlands have occurred during the process of the disposal of hazardous substances since July of 1987; and that additional uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances have occurred and are continuing to occur as a result of the disposal of such substances on the subject property since July of 1987. In addition.our health risk assessment indicates that measures must be taken immediately to protect the public from the hazardous substances disposed of on the surface of the property.It is our understanding that such protective measures are currently being undertaken by the property owners In cooperation with the local health authorities. It is further our recommendation that action be immediately taken to control or prevent the release of additional hazardous substances from the site and to property deal with all of the contaminated materials on the site. _Historical Analysis of Hazardous Substance/Waste Oisnosal As more fully described and documented in Volumes I and III of this report. the disposal of non- native materials on the subject property took place during two time periods. Intermediate to these two non- native disposal activities a period of grading and covering with native sods occurred which, based on the available documentary information,obscured the first non-revive material disposal activities from observation by ordinary means. We have grouped the materials involved in the fast non-native disposal and the subsequent grading and covering activities under the We of Tnpp/Martinez Materials. and the materials involved in the second non-native disposal activity under the title of Signal Landmark Materials. Tripp/Mardnez Materials Prior to approximately 19ft there is no evidence of the disposal of non-native materials in Spring Canyon. Beginning in 1968, Mr. Tripp. operating as Tripp Salvage. began the disposal of automobile shredder materials on parcel 646-100-49 owned by Mr. Tripp. By 1973. aerial photographic evidence indicates that Mr.Tripp's disposal operations had extended beyond the boundaries of 646-100-49 to include adjoining properties owned by Mr. Martinez and others. Mr.Tripp's disposal operations ceased in late 1976 or early 1977 and 646.100-49 was sold to Mr. Martinez by Mr. Tripp. From 1977 to mid- or late-1979 Mr. Martinez and/or Mr. Tripp utilized local native soils from the sidewalls of Spring Canyon to provide additional cover for the shredder materials on at least two occasions. one in 1977 or 1978 and an additional major covering and grading activity in 1979. probably prior to September of that year. According to aerial photographs. the shredder materials were probably not visible to ordinary inspection methods after the first major covering activities of 1977/1978 and were further rendered invisible by the second covering activity in 1979. EAV-COWMSUS • •6441 V"W% •Yn W&I 1"kw. C\QAO %ft1%AC%,rA1 otecAf-we SESI, Er AL VERSUS SIGNAL. L4NDO AL Mr. Charles UMandk Esq. 4 November 21. 1991 Automobile shredder materials were not considered to be hazardous at the time of disposal by Mr. Tripp. Mr.Tripp was engaged in the business of scrap metal salvage and according to his deposition in this matter, was fully aware of the economic benefit to him of the recovery of as much lead, copper, and other metals from the shredder materials as possible. Further. according to Mr. Tripp's deposition the primary source of heavy metals that might be expected in the shredder materials—automobile batteries as a source of lead—were not induded in the shredder materials he received from his supplier because the supplier was in the habit of extracting the batteries for direct salvage prior to shredding. Evidence that the Tripp/Martinet Materials did not contain significant quantities of hazardous substances is further provided by two facts. Fuse the local agencies conducted a search for the source of hazardous substance contamination of the Tia Juana watershed specifically including an investigation of the Tripp/Martinez site as a possible source and concluded that the Tripp/Martinez Material was not a source. This fact is documented in a County of San Diego Inter-Departmental Correspondence to the District Attorney from the Department of Land Use&Environmental Regulation on November 13, 1975 (a copy may be found in Volume 111). Second. based on our analysis of topographic maps, by 1979 the flied portion of the canyon contained approximately 30,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of shredder materials,and approximately 90.000 to 80,000 cubic yards of native soils, a ratio of shredder materials to native sods greatly in excess of the normal disposal ratio utilized In standard solid waste landfills From the time of purchase by Ses4 et al in January of 1980 untrl the disposal of materials by Signal Landmark in the summer of 1987. there is no evidence of any organized or volume disposal activity on the site. There is evidence that Seri, et al took reasonable measures to secure their property against casual trespass and dumping during this time period through the erection and maintenance of a fence across the Cactus Road entrance to the property. the only direct entry point. Signal Landmark Materials Beginning in July of 1987 and extending at least through August of 1987,Signal Landmark Materials were transported from the Coronado Cays development to the subject property in approximately 2,4S0 truckloads constituting approximately 38,500 to 40,500 cubic yards of material.These materials came from the site of the former Rancho Carift Municipal Landfill owned and operated by the City of Coronado and purchased for development into Coronado Cays by Signal Landmark in the late 1960s or 1970s. The hazardous substance content of the residue from the burning of municipal trash was well documented in the scientific and environmental literature prior to 1915. In addition, Mr.Tripp in his deposition in this matter stated that he was personally involved in the transport of materials to the Rancho Canllio Municipal Landfil from such sources as the San Diego Naval Shipyard and the burning of materials at that site to specifically recover 'puddles of lead' and other metals after burning. Analytical testing of the materials on the subject property indicates that the Signal Landmark Materials contained more than 200.000 pounds of lead plus a considerable quantity of other heavy metals. The Signal Landmark materials were deposited in three areas on or immediately adjacent to the subject property. These were the filling of a pond immediately North of the subject property (the Norm Pond), a major deposit at the original downgradient end of the Tripp/Martinet Materials, and a spreading of the materials over the area from Cactus Road to the North Pond to the downgradient end of the filled area at depths ranging from a few inches to approximately 39 feet. Physical evidence of the deposition of the _ Signal Landmark materials over the general area as well as in the two major disposal locations is readily visible in the form of partially melted glass and ceramic shards characteristic of the Signal Landmark Material. During the Signal Landmark dumping operation the general fill area was subject to at least se.000 compression/relaxation cycles resulting from the tires of the transport vehicles as they transited the site with inbound compression loadings of approximately 4.600 pounds per square foot. and outbound (empty vehicle)compression loadings of approximately 1.600 pounds per square foot.This compression/relaxation EAV-CO UMBUS & 0�r SM. ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAIVO AL Mr. Charles LiMandri, Esq. S November 21, 1991 activity would have driven the Signal Landmark materials into the underlying Tnpp/Martinez Materials in the same manner as fine gravel will be driven into the underlying dirt In a road. This activity would also have further reduced the already fine bum dump materials into still smaller particles that would then be easily transported into the Tripp/Martinez Materials by one or more of three available mechanisms: (1) Particles driven in by mechanical action. (2)Particles transported along with water percolating Into the Tripp/Martinez materials through the Signal Landmark Materials from the surface: and, (3) The transport of colloidal heavy metals and particles by percolation and groundwater movement. Aerial photographic evidence exists that erosion of the Signal landmark Materials into Spring Canyon was already extensive by January of 1SM and aerial photographic and topographic evidence exists that this erosion is continuing unabated to this date. The visible extent of eroded materials into the Spring Canyon streambed on aerial photographs indicates that the Signal Landmark Materials extend at least 1,400 feet downstream and constitute an eroded volume of approximately 14,900 cubic yards (39 percent of the original 38,450 cubic yards deposited) as of August 6, 1991. Of this 14.900 cubic yards, orgy about 3,400 cubic yards remain within the cortfrrtes of the subject property. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing information and the analytical data contained in reports by others and referenced in Volume I of this report. It Is our opinion that the Signal Landmark Materials contain significant quantities of hazardous substances and may also constitute hazardous wastes. Further, we are of the opinion that the Signal Landmark Materials have become commingled with the underlying Tripp/Martinet Materials such that the Signal Landmark Tripp/Martinez, and considerable quantities of surrounding and downgradient native soils are now contaminated and should be treated as a whole for purposes of cleanup. In addition, we are of the opinion that the alluvial groundwater has been contaminated with heavy metals in the form of suspended particles and must also be cleaned up. We have examined a series of alternative cleanup methodologies involving the groundwater, the restoration of wetlands, and the cleanup of contaminated materials in the fill area proper. The cleanup of the fill area involved the examination of alternatives ranging in cost from$6.262,000 to$64.116.000. It is our considered opinion that the regulatory authorities are most likely to approve the following scenario as being the one which will provide maximum human health and environmental protection given the available technology and economic considerations. Specifically, the materials that have been eroded downstream in Spring Canyon will have to be removed at a rate of 1 cubic yard of Signal Landmark Materials eroded downgradient plus 4 cubic yards of adjacent native soils. After the removal of the downgradient materials, the wetlands will have to be restored.The removed materials,plus all of the Signal Landmark,Tripp/Martinez,and adjacent contaminated soils, will be placed in a disposal cell constructed on the subject property to the engineering specifications required by the applicable regulations. Prior to the placement of the materials into the cell, they will be solidified with an agent specifically designed for the purpose,turning the entire mass of materials into a solid block that will be minimally accessible to erosion or groundwater/surface water leaching mechanisms. In addition, a pump and treat operation on the groundwater would begin to remove any particles of heavy metals having entered the alluvial groundwater aquifer, an operation that may require 20 or more years to complete depending on the extent of the contamination. It is our opinion that this most likely cleanup scenario will cost approximately SM.190.000 including restoration of wetlands,groundwater treatment.site security measures currently being taken to prevent harm to the public.and additional testing,investigation,and environmental analysis costs likely to be required prior to the implementation of the scenario. This estimate does not include funds already expended to date by the property owners. the costs of any financial responsibility bonds required to complete site closure• the loss in value to the property, or any financial impacts resulting from the declaration of a hazardous waste disposal site 'border zone'. E►v-couuMeus ♦ OOIIGCCCIr11,l�1 r10lIwN7�7V1w, ww/A/vTwN: ww,n vw ,u�,I Caw wo�uuCe► • . n.M.. . ET AL VERSUS SIGNAL LAND AL • Mr. Charles LiMandri, Esq. 6 November 21, 1991 WO respect to the purchase of the property by Seri, of ai in 1980, we cannot find any contemporaneous evidence: (1) That the current owners acted in a less than prudent and responsible fashion for that era in investigating the condition of the property prior to purchase: (2) That the current owners would have been likely to see any evidence of the extensive disposal of waste materials on the property. and. (3) That the current owners paid a less than reasonable price for the property under the assumption that an area of undevelopable canyon existed on the subject property. With respect to the actioru of Ser4 eta/after purchase of the property,documentary evidence exists that they took reasonable precautions under the circumstances to prevent damage to or trespass on their property after purchase, and that in fact no significant trespass or damage occurred until the deposition of Signal Landmark Materials in the summer of 1987. Further. according to the records available to us. Sesi, st a/was not aware of the dumping of materials on their property by Signal Landmark until approximately August of ISM. LIMITING NOTE TO SIGNATURES OF THE EAV VALUATION TEAM Each of the following professionals is responsible only for the Infornzatlon and opinions provided in the section of this report to which his/her signature applies as Identified below. In formulating an opinion, the professional may have relied upon conclusions and opinions contained in other sections of the report By doing so, the professional is not stating that he/she Is responsible for or is competent to evaluate such other opinions and conclusions unless specifically stated otherwise. Each professional is therefore responsible for only his/her own opinion and EAV is responsible for the whole.All opinions are specifically limited by the conditions, tents, and defutttions set forth and identified In Volumes I and II of this report ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & VALUATION. INC. Albert R. VWson. President VOLUME I. SECTIONS A, B. C. 0, F. H, I (Economic), O, and VOLUME III LQ�.. wwzz,, Albert R. Wilson. BSSE, MBA, REPA VOLUME 1. SECTIO S E, G.�IQH�eWth Aisle Assessment). N. P William len DrP S Raterman, CIH VOLUME L SE F. K i (Economic). O Fred G. l(rikau. PE VOLUME if. VALUE OPINION =.. Beverley S. 1hillips, MAI EAV-COWMBUS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ANALYZING ANo VALUING ENVIRONMENTAL m4PAr'TC ZZA =k ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES 806 North Batcwa - Orango, Cali craia 92668 - 7141771-6900 .4. V. Lawmaster ( 1168) i. 2 NC F35298-1 7940 South Main Street Stanton, CA 90680 =.=?Cni=D 7/14/a7 Attn: Don Harrington Soil 7/01/87 Job 8495-G1, from old city dump CN c_ :r _ As Submitted Sample #1 LIMITS From Cut Lots 815 & 816 CAM INORGANICS TTLC STLC TTLC STLC (mg/kg) (n9/1) (ng/kg) (rc/1) nti-cny 500 15 22 . 3 0 . 36 ,=►rsenic 500 5 . 0 54 . 4 0 . 0z3 Barium 10 , 000 100 209 1 . 36 Bery11iun 75 0. 75 0 . 37 ---- Cadniun 100 1 . 0 11 . 3 0 . 38 Chrcnium, Hex. 500 5 NO< 0 . 01 ---- Chromium, Total 2 , 500 560 52 . 8 ---- Ccbalt 8 , 000 80 22 . 2 ---- Ccpper 2 , 500 25 716 18 . 0 'Fluoride 18 , 000 180 2 . 4 ---- Lead 1, 000 5 . 0 746 8 . 1 :•Iercury 20 0. 2 0 . 54 0 . 12 :•!alybdenun 3 , 500 350 19 . 8 ---- :Jickel 2 , 000 20 145 1 . 25 Selenium 100 1. 0 ND< 0 . 1 ---- Silver 500 5 10 . 2 ND<0 . 005 7ha11ium, 700 7 . 0 ND< 0 . 1 ---- vanadium 2 , 400 24 33 . 8 0 . 20 Zinc 5, 000 250 1, 400 24 . 6 Pesticides EPA Method 8080 All other compounds were None Detected. See attached list. I Can ' t . On Page 2 -=s-•.ceCCM-:"� Client: H. V. Lawmaster Lab No. : F35298-1 Date: July 14 , 1987 Sample #1 Purgeable Organics EPA 8240 : Frc-1 Cut Lots 815 & 816 Methylene chloride 65 ,Lq/kq Acetone 370 ,cog/kq 4-Methyl-2-pentanone 22 pq/kq Tetrachloroethylene 7 Nq/kq All other compounds were *lone Detected. See attached list. Base/Neutrals EPA 8270: All compounds were None Detected. See attached list. ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES 'Robert A. Webber IRAW/q1 NOTE: Unless notified in writing, all samples will be discarded by appropriate disposal protocol 30 days fron date reported. 1 •� f 2 3 WiNMI E. NA 41 the 4 s MAR 16 1992 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 10 11 MR. & MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) Case No. 624243 MR. & MRS. WADDIE DEDDEH, ) 12 MR. & MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) (ASSIGNED TO JUDGE JUDITH MR. & MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) McCONNELL)._ 13 MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) MR. & MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH, ) 14 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) SPECIAL VERDICT ) 15 Plaintiffs, ) 16 vs. ) Trial Date: 2/10/92 Time: 9:00 a.m. 17 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka ) Dept. 24 CORONADO LANDMARK, and DOES ) 18 1 through 50, ) Hon. Judith McConnell 19 Defendants. ) 20 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka CORONADO ) LANDMARK, ) 21 ) Cross-Complainant, ) 22 ) VS. ) 23 ) MR. & MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) 24 MR. & MRS. WADDIE DEDDEH, ) MR. & MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) 25 MR. & MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) 26 MR. & MRS. SAKI ROUMAYAH, ) MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 27 ) Cross-Defendants. ) 28 ) .-•w..wue.n e.ne.cr... •.co 1 We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the 2 following special verdict on the questions submitted to us: 3 Ouestion No. 1: Were the acts of defendant Signal 4 Landmark, in causing soils to be deposited onto plaintiffs' 5 property, a legal cause of injury to plaintiffs? 6 Answer "Yes" or "No. " 7 Yes No 8 If you answer Question No. 1 "No, " sign and return this 9 verdict. If you answer Question No. 1 "Yes, " then answer 10 Question No. 2. it Ouestion No. 2: What, if any, do you find to be the 12 total amount of plaintiffs' damages attributable to the injury 13 caused by defendant Signal Landmark's soils? 14 Answer: $ 2.Soot/ocb,en. 15 Answer the next question. 16 Question No. -3: Do you find, by clear and convincing 17 evidence, that the defendant Signal Landmark acted with 18 oppression, fraud, malice, or despicable conduct so as to warrant 19 the imposition of punitive damages? 20 Answer "Yes" or "No." 21 Yes No 22 23 Dated: 1992. 24 25 r FOREPERSON OF THE JURY 26 27 28 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Charles S. LiMandri , Esq. 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110-2997 Mail Tax Statements To: (Not applicable) (Space Above for Recorder' s Use) AGREEMENT GRANTING RIGHT OF ACCESS AND SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE This Agreement Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release ("Agreement" ) is by and among SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , THE BOLSA CHICA COMPANY ( formerly known as Henley Properties, Inc. ) and THE HENLEY GROUP (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Signal" ) and MR. & MRS. SALIM D. SESI, MR. & MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, MR. & MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. & MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, MR. & MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH, MR. & MRS. NAJIB SESI , and MRS . IBA SEIBA (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs" ) . Signal and Plaintiffs are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties. " RECITALS WHEREAS, Plaintiffs are the partners and co-owners in possession and control of that certain real property located at Cactus Road, in the City of San Diego, County of 1 San Diego, State of California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property" ) ; WHEREAS, on or about May 17, 1990, Plaintiffs commenced a civil action against Signal in San Diego County Superior Court entitled Mr. & Mrs. Salim D. Sesi, et al . v. Signal Landmark, Case No. 624243 (the "State Action" ) , alleging, inter alia, trespass, nuisance, and that Signal caused injury to the Property by causing the deposit there of certain materials (the "Materials") ; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs claimed in the State Action that Signal should be held liable for damages which included all of Plaintiffs' past, present, and future expenditures incurred as a result of the presence of the Materials , including without limitation costs for site assessment, waste removal, and soil and groundwater remediation at the Property ("Response Costs") ; WHEREAS, Signal contended that it was not liable for such Response Costs and opposed Plaintiffs' claims in the State Action; WHEREAS, based on the evidence, the arguments of counsel , and the instructions of the Court, the jury in the State Action returned a verdict against Signal on March 16 , 1992 , finding the total amount of damages attributable to Signal alone for its role in allegedly causing injury to the 2 Property to be $2,500,000; WHEREAS, Signal contends that reversible errors were committed in the trial of the State Action, and filed a notice of appeal of the judgment in the State Action on August 13 , 1992; WHEREAS, on or about August 5 , 1991 , Plaintiffs commenced a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, entitled Mr. & Mrs. Salim D. Sesi , et al. v. Signal Landmark, et al . , Case No. 91-1057-IEG(M) (the 'Federal Action") , against Signal and others, alleging, inter alia, that Signal caused injury to the Property, such injury arising from the same actions as those alleged in the State Action; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs contend that Signal is liable further for damages and/or Response Costs attributable to injury to the Property caused by Signal; WHEREAS, Signal has filed counterclaims in the Federal Action, alleging that Plaintiffs are liable for the same damages and/or Response Costs; WHEREAS, Signal has been served by various co- defendants with cross-claims in the Federal Action , alleging, inter alia , that Signal is liable to those co- defendants under both federal and state law for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity for Response Costs which they have incurred or may incur; 3 WHEREAS, Signal anticipates that other parties will file cross-claims against Signal in the Federal Action for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity under both federal and state law as well; WHEREAS, the Parties deny that they are liable to any party for damages and/or Response Costs attributable to injury to the Property; WHEREAS, the Parties desire to settle in good faith the State Action and the Federal Action (collectively "the Actions") without any admission of liability and without further litigation, thereby barring any present or anticipated claims against Signal for contribution or full or partial equitable indemnity under either state or federal law; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs desire to grant to Signal a right of access on and over the Property for the purpose and subject to the conditions set forth below; AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties , without admitting liability in any form or manner, hereby agree as follows : 1 . Release a . The Plaintiffs hereby release, discharge and forever acquit Signal and each of its past and present predecessors, successors, affiliates , assigns, agents , 4 attorneys, directors, officers, shareholders , employees and representatives ("Released Parties") from each and every claim, demand, debt, action, cause of action, liability, and obligation of any kind or nature whatsoever, in law or in equity, under federal or state law, which Plaintiffs now have, or hereafter may have, whether known or unknown, by reason of or in any fashion relating to the potential liability of the Released Parties alone for the alleged deposit of any wastes or other materials by Signal or its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors on the Property, or relating to any wastes or other materials , including the Materials, ever owned or possessed by Signal or its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors that may now or hereafter come to be located at the Property, including any actions for damages and/or Response Costs, including, without limitation, remediation of soil or groundwater at the Property, loss of use of the Property, loss of value to the Property, natural resource damages , personal injury, and any claims for costs, including attorneys' fees ("Released Matters" ) . Released Matters do not include any property in the vicinity of the Property to which the Materials may have migrated or to which they may migrate in the future. Released Matters do include any liability arising from waste or other materials , including the Materials, moved or transported from the Property to 5 other locations by means other than migration or other natural causes and not moved or transported by Signal . b. The Parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this is a full and final. release applying to all known, unknown, anticipated, and unanticipated claims , injuries , or damages arising from or in any way relating either directly or indirectly to Released Matters. It is further understood by the Parties that the facts with respect to which this Agreement is entered into may hereafter be discovered to be other than the facts now known or believed to be true. In entering into this Agreement the Parties hereby assume the risk of any mistake of fact and hereby expressly and intentionally waive all rights and benefits which they may have under the provisions of section 1542 of the California Civil Code or other similar law restricting the release of claims. Section 1542 of the Civil Code provides : A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR. C. The Parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement extends only to the Released Parties and relates only to their proportionate share of potential liability as a result of the deposit of the Materials . The potential liability of other parties, contractors or subcontractors, for their actions or omissions with regard to the deposit of 6 the Materials is neither discharged nor released as a result of this Agreement. 2. Payment in Cash In consideration of the release set forth in Paragraph 1, and all other provisions of this Agreement, Signal shall pay to Plaintiffs a total of One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ( $1, 250,000) , plus interest in the amount of 6% per annum on that amount from April 10, 1992 until the date of payment, within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to Signal . Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees, costs and expenses related to the Actions. 3 . Payment to Court-Administered Clean-Up Trust Fund a . In consideration of the release set forth in Paragraph 1 , and all other provisions of this Agreement, within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to Signal , Signal shall pay an additional One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1 , 250 ,000) , plus interest in the amount of 6% per annum on that amount from April 10 , 1992 until the date of payment, to a cleanup trust fund ( the "Trust") to be created and administered by the Court in the 7 Federal Action (the "Federal Court") expressly for the purpose of bringing the Property (and any property in the vicinity of the Property to which the Materials may have migrated or to which they may migrate in the future) (collectively, the "Trust Area" ) into full compliance with all applicable environmental laws. The creation of the Trust in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Agreement is a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal's obligations thereunder. b. The Parties agree that disbursements from the Trust may only be made with the approval of the Federal Court upon the Court's determination, with the assistance of an Environmental Expert, that the expenditures in question are necessary and cost-effective to bring the Trust Area into full compliance with all applicable environmental laws to the satisfaction of all responsible regulatory agencies. The Parties further agree that they will cooperate in i attempting to reach consensus on a nominee for the role of Environmental Expert and to nominate that person or firm to the Federal Court. In the event that the Parties cannot reach consensus, each shall make a nomination of its choice. The Parties understand and agree that the Federal Court may also receive nominations from other parties in the Federal Action and will select an Environmental Expert of its choice, and that the person or firm selected may not be one 8 of the Parties' nominees. C. After remediation of the Trust Area is complete, including any soil and groundwater remediation in the Trust Area , if necessary, and has been fully approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and any other local , state, or federal agency with jurisdiction and the Federal Court, any remaining funds in the Trust that have been contributed by Signal may be disbursed to the Plaintiffs. 4 . Access to the Property Upon the provision of reasonable notice by Signal , Plaintiffs agree to allow Signal access to the Property, at Signal 's election, in order to conduct sampling, to control soil erosion, to carry out pilot projects , to store soil that may be excavated from the Trust Area on the Property and to conduct any activities that Signal may elect in its sole discretion, to conduct pursuant to Paragraph 5; provided, however, that such activities ( i) must be completed within a reasonable period of time, consistent with regulatory review requirements , if any, and the time reasonably necessary to complete the relevant tasks, and ( ii ) must not interfere with response activities supervised by the Federal Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Signal shall have no obligation to perform any such activities at the Property. In the event that Signal chooses to exercise 9 its right under this paragraph, Signal agrees to indemnify plaintiffs fully for any liability that might be incurred by them due to Signal's exercise of that right. 5. Right to Remove the Materials Plaintiffs agree that Signal shall have the right, but not the obligation, to excavate and remove the Materials from the Property at any time at Signal 's sole expense; provided, however, that such activities must not interfere with response activities supervised by the Federal Court. In the event that Signal chooses to exercise its right under this Paragraph 5, ( i) Signal agrees to indemnify Plaintiffs fully for any liability that might be incurred by them due to the excavation, transportation, or disposal of the Materials at another location and ( ii) Plaintiffs agree to support Signal 's removal activities and to cooperate fully in their implementation, including, without limitation, supporting permit applications, variance applications and any other necessary regulatory approvals. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Signal shall have no obligation to perform any such activities at the Property. 6 . Resolution of the State Action a. Within ten ( 10) business days following the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall execute a stipulation for reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict in the State Action by the Court of Appeal in the 10 form attached as Exhibit B (the "Stipulation" ) . Within ten ( 10) business days following satisfaction of each and every Condition Precedent established by this Agreement and notification of such satisfaction by Plaintiffs to Signal , Signal shall file the Stipulation and move that the Court of Appeal enter an Order in the form attached as Exhibit C and dismiss Signal's appeal of the judgment in the State Action consistent with it. If the Court of Appeal requests, orders or permits the filing of a brief or briefs addressing the propriety of the Stipulation and Order, Plaintiffs shall join with Signal in the preparation and filing of such a brief or briefs in a form acceptable to Signal . Reversal of the judgment, vacation of the verdict and dismissal of the State Action by plaintiffs with prejudice, shall be Conditions Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal 's obligations thereunder, except that Signal at its sole discretion may waive the requirement for reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict. In that event, entry of a satisfaction of judgment shall be a Condition Precedent. b. Within ten ( 10) business days following the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall jointly submit a motion to the Court of Appeal advising it of the pendency of this settlement and requesting an extension of the schedule for briefing the merits of the appeal to 11 accommodate the schedule for concluding the settlement set forth herein. C. Plaintiffs shall return to Signal all discovery materials produced by Signal in the State Action, including, without limitation, all photocopies, images , representations and reproductions of discovery material produced by Signal, but excluding materials to be specified and agreed upon by the Parties as a Condition Precedent to this Agreement. d. Plaintiffs agree to support a motion by Signal to seal the record in the State Action, excluding the materials to be specified and agreed upon by the Parties as referenced in paragraph 6(c) . 7 . Motion to Bar Contribution and Indemnity By entering into this Agreement, the Parties intend to protect Signal from any and all past, present, and future claims for contribution and full or partial equitable indemnity under both federal and state law relating to Released Matters ("Contribution Claims" ) . Within fifteen (15) business days of the execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall file a motion in the Federal Action seeking an order barring all Contribution Claims that any other party has made or may make in any court against Signal for Released Matters (the "Motion" ) and dismissing the Federal Action with prejudice as to Signal . The Motion will request 12 an Order from the Court, which shall be conditioned upon a subsequent reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict in the State Action by the Court of Appeal in accordance with Paragraph 7 , (i) summarily dismissing all Contribution Claims pending against Signal, ( ii) barring all future Contribution Claims against Signal (the "Bar Order") and (iii) dismissing with prejudice all claims against Signal. Plaintiffs agree to join in full support of the Motion and to take any future actions , including joining in any future motions by Signal in pending or future actions , that may be necessary to dismiss Contribution Claims or to effectuate the terms of this Agreement, including the Bar Order. Entry of the Bar Order by the Court, in a form satisfactory to Signal , shall be a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal 's obligations thereunder. If the Bar Order is issued and the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment and vacates the verdict in the State Action, Signal shall dismiss without prejudice its cross-claims for contribution against other defendants in the Federal Action to the extent they relate to Released Matters and shall not thereafter seek contribution from others for Released Matters , unless a government agency or other party not bound by the Bar Order seeks relief from Signal for Released Matters beyond the payments required by Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement, I 13 except that in no event shall Signal seek any such contribution from Plaintiffs. 8. Consent to Settlement Plaintiffs agree to obtain consent to this Agreement, as well as a release of any subrogation claims against Signal , from their insurance carriers. Plaintiffs further agree to obtain consent to this Agreement, as well as a release of any claims against Signal, from certain creditors of Mr. and Mrs. Wadie Deddeh who served Signal with a Notice of Lien on the proceeds of the State Action Judgment on March 30, 1992. These consents and releases , and notification by Plaintiffs that they have been obtained, shall be Conditions Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal 's obligation thereunder. 9 . Property Interests and Future Conveyances a. The undersigned Plaintiffs represent and warrant that they hold the entire interest in the Property, unencumbered by any other interest, possessory or non- possessory, that no other persons or entities have or to the best of Plaintiffs' knowledge claim any interest in the Property and that no contract or other agreement exists for the conveyance, transfer or creation of any interest in the Property. b. Within five ( 5 ) business days following the execution of this Agreement, Plaintiffs will record this 14 Agreement in the official records of the Office of the County Recorder for San Diego County against the Property. Plaintiffs shall pay recordation fees. Recordation shall be a Condition Precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement and to Signal 's obligations thereunder, which shall be deemed satisfied when Plaintiffs submit to Signal a conformed copy of this Agreement as recorded; provided, however, that Signal at its sole discretion may waive the requirement for recordation of this Agreement. C. Plaintiffs agree that the covenants set forth herein run with the land and that they will require any purchaser of any interest in the property to agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement, and shall require that any buyer of any interest in the Property or secured creditor proposing to take a security interest in the Property expressly assume Plaintiffs' obligations under this Agreement and release Signal for the matters defined herein as Released Matters before acquiring any such interest. d. Plaintiffs agree to give Signal twenty ( 20 ) days prior notice before any conveyance or transfer of any interest in the Property. 10. Construction of Agreement This Agreement shall be construed as a whole in accordance with its fair meaning and in accordance with the laws of the State of California . This Agreement has been 15 negotiated at arm's length; accordingly, any rule of law ( including section 1654 of the California Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in the Agreement against the Party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The headings used herein are for reference only and shall not affect the construction of this Agreement. 11 . Sole Agreement This Agreement represents the sole and entire agreement between the Parties concerning the resolution of the Actions and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations and discussions between the Parties hereto or their counsel with respect to the subject matters covered hereby. 12. Amendment to Agreement Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing signed by duly authorized representatives of the Parties hereto and stating the intent of the Parties to amend the Agreement. 13 . Enforcement of Agreement Venue over any action concerning this Agreement shall be in the Federal Court, or if the Federal Court declines to exercise jurisdiction , then in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego. If any party to this Agreement brings an action 16 to enforce its rights hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and expenses , including court costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such action. 14 . Binding Effect a. Each undersigned representative of the Parties certifies that he or she is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Agreement on behalf of the party on whose behalf he or she is signing it, and that he or she is fully authorized to execute this document and legally bind that party to * the provisions of this Agreement. b. The Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by experienced and knowledgeable legal counsel and that they have freely consented to the terms and conditions of this Agreement without any coercion, undue influence, or economic pressure. The Parties specifically acknowledge that, in entering into this Agreement, they have not been influenced by any representations or statements made by another Party or by any person or persons, including attorneys , consultants , and experts, representing another Party. C. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and if so executed, shall have the same force and effect it would have if the Parties executed a single original of this Agreement. 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above. SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , a California Corporation Ray and J . Pacini VICE PRESIDENT Its: CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No State of� -Ik4�M i A 1�11 OPTIONAL SECTION CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of Q epyNI& Though statute does not require the Notary to lilt in the data below. doing to may prove invaluable to persons relying on the document. On 61 &46p 11E before me, C 6. &LA6&;1W ❑INDIVIDUAL DATE NAME.TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G..-JANE WE.NOTARY PUBLIC CORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared Raymond J. Pacini NAME(S)OF SIGNER(S) �elsonally known to me-OR-❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑ PARTNER(S) LIMITED to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are ❑ GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that he/shetthey executed ❑TRUSTEE(S) the same in his/her/their authorized ❑GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR C.G.IIlPIFM capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their ICpp OTHER: Ali *972e64 signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), ._� NottxyPcC�� or the entity upon behalf of which the ORANGE person(s)acted, executed the instrument. My Comm.E>�es�p 7.1996 SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: WITNE:S my hand and official seal. NAME O`PERSON(s)o ENTt tlEs) 0 SIGNATURE OF Na OPTIONAL SECTION 1 THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT c'2P�(jL1Ul tk j THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGES— DATE OF DOCUMENT �— Though the data requested hero is not required by taw. it could prevent traudulem reattachment of clue form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 01992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•SM Remmet Ave..P-O.Box 7184•Canoga PaAc.CA 91309-718 18 THE BOLSA CHICA COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation By: G - Ra and J. Pacini CHEF FI MM&OFFIM Its: i STATE OF ) ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of � zlf��G/�G 1- OPTIONAL SECTION �j CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of I; ,��6r" Though statute does not require the No"to -- till in the data below.doing so may prove irtvakiaDle to persons retying on the dowrwtt 0n0+LZ_'qq3 before me INDIVIDUAL DATE ' NAME.TRLE OF OFFICER.E.G.."JANE DOE.NOTARY PUBLIC' X- ORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared Raymond .). Parini � I ER(S) QVIEF ER T r, /gersonally known to me-OR- proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑ PARTNER(S) LI V to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that he/she/they executed ❑TRUSTEE(S) he same in his/her/their authorized GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR C G LUNSFORD apacity(ies), and that by his/her/their .• �OTHER: COMM.t 972864 isignature(s) on the instrument the person(s), _ .-o Notary Public—C0140"VO ;Dr the entity upon behalf of which the _ % ORANGE.COUNTY My Comm Exp-res sEP 7.1996 persons)acted, executed the instrument. Wk SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: WITNE S hand and official seal. NAME OF PERSON(s)OR ENTRY(IEs) t D1SA<MCA U SIGMA TARN OPTIONAL SECTIONS� THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: t NUMBER OF PAGES �— DATE OF DOCUMENT - Though the data requested hero is not required by law. it coukf prevent fraudulent reattachment of ttas form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE 0190 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•8236 Remmet Ave..P.O-Bo:7184•Canoga Park.CA 91309-71 19 THE HENLEY GROUP, a Delaware Corporation Raym d J. Pacini VICE PRESIDENT Its: CrALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No.51 State of i(ICIAIC-44plyl OPTIONAL SECTION� /�,e�Ak CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of Though statute does not require the Nod'y to fill in the data below, doing to may prove invaluable to persons relying on the d=xnerd. On (TZLIQ*J_cf�3before me, V- l.-) ' �.4L�rziYl-,>� ❑INDIVIDUAL DATE NAME,TT1LE OF OFFICER-E.G..-JANE DOE.NOTARY PUBUC• I personally appeared Raymond J. PlacidAMaciPlacidORPORATE OFFICER(S) NE(s)of sIc►e:Rts) V! (PRESIDENT ,�� ersonally known to me-OR-❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ❑PARTNER(S) LIMITED J to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are ❑ GENERAL subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ' 1 knowledged to me that he/she/they executed ❑TRUSTEE(S) the same in his/her/their authorized ❑GUARDIAWCONSERVATOR apacity(ies), and that by his/her/their ❑OTHER: C G.LUNSFORD ignature(s) on the instrument the person(S), Comm.s972864 Pr the entity upon behalf of which the i :-m Notary Public—Caifomla rson(s)acted, executed the instrument. Z y: ORANGE COUNTY My Comm Exp-res SEP 7.19� SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: ITNESS my hand and official seal. NAME OF PERSON(S)OR ENTtTY(ies) The Peh W.NA#M&OF NOTARY OPTIO AL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT_� Q THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment o1 this form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ) 01992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-71E 20 1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 3 DIVISION ONE 5 MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI, ) CASE NO. D017331 MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, ) 6 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) 7 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI , ) MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH„ ) 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 9 Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) 10 V. ) 11 SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , ) 12 Defendant and Appellant. ) 13 ) 14 15 ( PROPOSED) ORDER RE REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT IN SUPERIOR COURT ACTION 16 17 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego 18 Superior Court Case No. 624243 19 Honorable Judith McConnell 20 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, Cal . Bar No. 03455 BARRY S . SANDALS , Cal . Bar No. 79185 21 DONNA G. MATIAS , Cal . Bar No. 154268 MORRISON & FOERSTER 22 345 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 23 Telephone: ( 415 ) 677-7000 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant 24 25 CHARLES S. LIMANDRI , Cal . Bar No. 110841 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S . LIMANDRI 26 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110 27 Telephone: (619) 497-0091 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents 28 1 EXHIBIT C I IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties 2 hereto through their designated counsel that the judgment in 3 the action entitled Sesi , et al . v. Signal Landmark, Inc. , 4 San Diego Superior Court Case No. 624243 , shall be reversed 5 and the verdict vacated. Each side will bear its own costs . 6 This stipulation is entered into in order to 7 facilitate settlement between the parties. 8 Dated: SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 9 10 By 11 James J. Brosnahan MORRISON & FOERSTER 12 Attorneys for Defendant and Appellant SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 13 14 Dated: MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI , MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, 15 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, 16 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI , MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH, 17 MRS. IBA SEIBA 18 19 By Charles S . LiMandri 20 LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI Attorney for Plaintiffs and 21 Respondents SALIM D. SESI , et al . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 N83908 (22MO) I IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT _:.- 3 DIVISION ONE 4 5 MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI , ) CASE NO. D017331 MR. AND MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, ) 6 MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, ) MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, ) 7 MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI, ) MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH„ ) 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, ) 9 Plaintiffs and Respondents, ) 10 V. ) 11 SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , ) 12 Defendant and Appellant. ) 13 ) 14 15 STIPULATION FOR REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT OF SUPERIOR COURT ACTION 16 17 Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court 18 of California, County of San Diego 19 Superior Court Case No. 624243 Honorable Judith McConnell 20 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, Cal . Bar No. 03455 21 BARRY S. SANDALS , Cal . Bar No. 79185 DONNA G. MATIAS, Cal . Bar No. 154268 22 MORRISON 6 FOERSTER 345 California Street 23 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: ( 415) 677-7000 24 Counsel for Defendant/Appellant 25 CHARLES S. LIMANDRI , Cal . Bar No. 110841 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S. LIMANDRI 26 2120 San Diego Avenue, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92110 27 Telephone: (619 ) 497-0091 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Respondents 28 1 EXHIBIT B I The parties hereto having filed a stipulation for 2 reversal of the judgment and vacation of the verdict of the 3 Superior Court and having done so pursuant to and for the 4 purpose of facilitating a settlement between them, and 5 absent a finding of any extraordinary circumstances to 6 warrant an exception to the general presumption in favor of 7 a stipulated reversal , it is therefore ordered that the 8 judgment in the action entitled Sesi , et al . v. Signal 9 Landmark, Inc. , San Diego Superior Court Case No. 624243 , is 10 hereby reversed and the verdict vacated. (Neary v. Regents 11 of Univ. of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273 ) . Each side 12 will bear its own costs. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 DATED: 11 18 19 20 Justice of the California Court of Appeal 21 22 23 Justice of the California Court of Appeal 24 25 26 Justice of the California Court of Appeal 27 28 2 W83922 • I DECLARATION OF JAMES J. BROSNAHAN 2 I , JAMES J. BROSNAHAN, declare as follows: 3 1 . I am a member of the State Bar of California 4 and a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, 5 attorneys of record for Signal Landmark, Inc. , The Henley 6 Group, Inc. , and The Bolsa Chica Company (collectively, 7 "Signal" ) in the above-captioned case. Unless otherwise 8 stated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth 9 below and, if called as a witness , I could competently 10 testify thereto. 11 2. I was the attorney for Signal with primary 12 responsibility for negotiation of the settlement between 13 Signal and the Plaintiffs in this action. The settlement 14 negotiations were protracted and involved. Magistrate Judge 15 Harry R. McCue actively supervised the negotiation process. 16 The negotiations began in July of 1992 , finally culminating 17 in the execution of the Agreement Granting Right of Access 18 and Settlement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement" ) in 19 April of 1993 . During that period the parties engaged in 20 formal negotiating sessions on approximately 10 occasions , 21 about half of which were supervised by Magistrate McCue. 22 3 . A copy of the executed Settlement Agreement , 23 signed and approved by Magistrate McCue , is attached to this 24 declaration as Exhibit A. 25 4 . During the negotiating sessions , the parties 26 were aware of and considered, among other things , the 27 expressed desire on both sides to avoid the possibility of 28 further litigation, the extent of the Plaintiffs , claimed 2 1 losses , the Plaintiffs' ability to prove their claims 2 against Signal, the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims against 3 Signal and the merits of Signal 's defenses to those claims, 4 the costs and expenses incurred by both sides to date in . 5 preparing to litigate the Plaintiffs' claims against Signal 6 and the costs and expenses both sides would incur if the 7 claims were not settled. During the course of settlement 8 proceedings with Magistrate McCue, independent consultants 9 estimated total costs of onsite remediation at between $2 . 4 10 and $4 .8 million. 11 5 . All of the settlement negotiations were 12 conducted at arm's length and were adversarial in nature . 13 There was no collusion between the parties , and no 14 agreements or promises have been made other than those set 15 forth in the Agreement. 16 6 . Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 17 Signal has agreed to pay Plaintiffs a total of $2 . 5 million 18 plus interest at six percent per annum from April 10 , 1992 , 19 consisting of $1 . 25 million in cash and $1 . 25 million to a 20 clean-up trust fund to be created and administered by the 21 Court for the purpose of bringing Plaintiffs' property into 22 compliance with all applicable environmental laws . 23 7 . Attached as Exhibit B to this declaration is a 24 true and correct copy of the Special Verdict returned on 25 February 10 , 1992 in Sesi , et al . v. Signal Landmark, Inc. , 26 San Diego Superior Court No. 624243 , which verdict is now on 27 appeal . When asked to apportion the amount of Plaintiffs' 28 3 I injury attributable to Signal Landmark, Inc. , the jury 2 returned a special verdict of $2.5 million. 3 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 4 of the State of California that the foregoing is true and. 5 correct. 6 EXECUTED THIS day of April , 1993 , at San 7 Francisco, California. 8 9 10 11 JAMES J. OSNAHAN 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 U78266.AR1 1 I . INTRODUCTION 2 Plaintiffs are partners and co-owners of real 3 property at Cactus Road, San Diego, San Diego County, 4 California (the "Plaintiffs") . Settling Defendants are 5 Signal Landmark, Inc. ("Signal Landmark" ) and its affiliates 6 The Henley Group, Inc. and The Bolsa Chica Company, formerly 7 known as Henley Properties , Inc. (hereafter collectively 8 referred to as "the Signal defendants" ) . The Plaintiffs 9 have pursued their claims against the Signal defendants in 10 two separate lawsuits , both based on the same activity, the 11 alleged disposal of certain material onto their property. 12 In the first action (the "State Action" ) , Plaintiffs sought 13 compensatory damages, including costs incurred and future 14 costs of investigation, clean-up and remediation of the 15 property. After a trial , the jury returned a special 16 verdict finding Signal Landmark responsible for a portion of 17 those costs. Signal Landmark has appealed that verdict. 18 The Plaintiffs have also filed this action ( the 19 "Federal Action" ) , under the Comprehensive Environmental 20 Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ( "CERCLA" ) , 21 42 U.S.C. 5 9601 et seq. , and amendments thereto under the 22 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 23 ( "SARA" ) , as well as under California common law. As in the 24 State Action, Plaintiffs in the Federal Action seek costs 25 incurred and future costs of investigation, clean-up and 26 remediation of the property, as well as equitable indemnity 27 and declaratory relief. 28 -1- I Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants have now 2 agreed upon a settlement of Plaintiffs ' claims against the 3 Signal defendants. By this motion, the Signal defendants 4 and the Plaintiffs jointly seek an order barring any and all 5 claims against the Signal defendants for contribution and/or 6 indemnity, whether under federal or state law, and 7 dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Signal 8 defendants in the Federal Action. As set forth below, the 9 Signal defendants are entitled to a bar order under federal 10 common law governing CERCLA contribution claims. Because 11 the federal courts have adopted a comparative fault approach 12 to CERCLA contribution claims, a bar order will not 13 prejudice the rights of non-settling defendants . Because 14 the settlement was made in good faith according to the 15 requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP" ) 16 sections 877 and 877 .6 , a bar order is also appropriate 17 under California law. 18 II . SUMMARY OF THE LAWSUIT 19 A. Procedural History 20 On or about August 2, 1991 , Plaintiffs filed an 21 action in the Superior Court for the County of San Diego 22 against Signal Landmark and Does 1-50 (the "State Action" ) . 23 No other defendants were named. In the State Action , 24 Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for, among other 25 things, nuisance, trespass , and contribution and response 26 costs under the Hazardous Substances Account Act, California 27 Health & Safety Code section 25365(e) ("HSAA" ) , all based on 28 -2- I the alleged disposal of hazardous material onto the 2 Plaintiffs' property. The case was tried to a jury. The 3 evidence demonstrated the Signal defendants were not solely 4 responsible for the presence of alleged hazardous material 5 on the Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs sought compensatory 6 damages that included costs of investigating the extent of 7 the contamination and clean-up and remediation costs 8 necessary to bring the property into compliance with state 9 and federal environmental requirements. When asked to 10 apportion the amount of Plaintiffs' injury attributable to 11 Signal Landmark, the jury returned a special verdict in the 12 amount of $2 .5 million. 1 13 On August 13 , 1992, Signal Landmark filed a notice 14 of appeal of the verdict in the State Action. Due to 15 ongoing settlement negotiations , the parties have stipulated 16 to extend the time by which Signal Landmark must file its 17 opening brief on appeal. 18 On August 2 , 1991 , Plaintiffs filed this action in 19 the United States District Court for the Southern District 20 of California, naming as defendants Signal Landmark, the 21 Henley Group and the Bolsa Chica Company, as well as several 22 23 24 25 1 The Special Verdict question and response were as follows: "[Question] : What, if any, do you find to be the 26 total amount of plaintiffs ' damages attributable to the injury caused by defendant Signal Landmark's soils? 27 Answer: $2,500 ,000.00." A copy of the Special Verdict is attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of James J. 28 Brosnahan, which is filed herewith. -3- I other defendants not named in the State Action. 2 In this 2 Federal Action, Plaintiffs allege causes of action under 3 CERCLA, seeking as damages' the costs associated with 4 investigating the extent of contamination and all necessary 5 clean-up and remediation of their property. Plaintiffs also 6 raise pendent state claims , including claims for equitable 7 indemnity and declaratory relief . The Federal Action was 8 stayed while the State Action was pending; it was resumed 9 following the verdict in the State Action. 10 On September 1 , 1992, the Federal Action was 11 transferred to this Court from Judge Gordon Thompson, Jr. 12 All of the defendants in the Federal Action have filed 13 cross-claims against the Signal defendants for equitable 14 indemnity and/or contribution under both federal and state 15 law. The Signal defendants have answered all cross-claims 16 and have brought cross-claims for equitable indemnity and 17 contribution. On February 12 , 1993 , Plaintiffs moved the 18 Court for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which 19 raises additional state common law claims against non- 20 settling defendants. Plaintiffs have stipulated that, in 21 light of settlement negotiations, the Signal defendants , 22 responses to the Second Amended Complaint will be tolled. 23 24 2 On June 8 , 1992, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended 25 Complaint for Damages in the Federal Action. The only addition in the First Amended Complaint was of a party 26 inadvertently omitted in the original complaint. Consequently, the parties stipulated that it was unnecessary 27 for defendants to answer the First Amended Complaint and that their original answers would be deemed to be responsive 28 to the First Amended Complaint. -4- I B. Discovery as of Date of Settlement 2 Discovery in the Federal Action has been limited to 3 the propounding of special' interrogatories3 on defendant 4 Construction Carriers and to a deposition subpoena on the 5 custodian of records of the California Public Utilities 6 Commission for the production of records. On January 28 , 7 1993 , the Honorable Harry R. McCue, Magistrate Judge of the 8 District Court, presiding over settlement discussions , 9 issued an order: (1) staying all discovery between 10 Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants; ( 2 ) staying all 11 depositions; ( 3 ) permitting limited interrogatories and 12 requests for admissions except as to the Signal defendants , 13 and prohibiting all discovery by Plaintiffs that would be 14 duplicative of discovery previously conducted in the State 15 Action; and (4 ) permitting limited requests for production 16 on all parties except the Signal defendants and the 17 Plaintiffs. 18 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 19 The settlement in this case has resulted from a 20 series of intensive negotiations , with Magistrate McCue 21 actively supervising the negotiation process . As set forth 22 in the Declaration of James J. Brosnahan ( "Brosnahan 23 Decl . 11) , which is filed herewith, the parties began 24 settlement discussions in July of 1992 , finally culminating 25 in a settlement agreement in April of 1993 . During that 26 27 3 These special interrogatories were propounded by intervenor Prudential Insurance Co. , one of Plaintiffs' 28 insurance carriers. -5- I period of time, the parties engaged in formal negotiating 2 sessions on approximately 10 occasions. Approximately half 3 of those sessions were supervised by Magistrate McCue. 4 Brosnahan Decl. at 1 2. 5 With the guidance of Magistrate McCue, the parties 6 have considered at length, among other things , the merits of 7 Plaintiffs' claims and the Signal defendants ' defenses 8 thereto, costs incurred and future costs of litigation, and 9 the desire of both parties to reach a settlement. Id . at 10 1 4 . After vigorous negotiations, the Plaintiffs and the 11 Signal defendants finally reached agreement. The Agreement 12 Granting Right of Access and Settlement and Release ( "the 13 Settlement Agreement" ) has now been executed by the parties 14 and approved by Magistrate McCue. A copy of the Settlement 15 Agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the Brosnahan 16 Declaration. 17 Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the 18 Signal defendants have agreed to pay to Plaintiffs a total 19 of $2 . 5 million plus interest at six percent per annum from 20 April 10, 1992, consisting of $1. 25 million in cash and 21 $1 . 25 million to a clean-up trust fund to be created and 22 administered by the Court for the purpose of bringing 23 Plaintiffs' property into compliance with all applicable 24 environmental laws. Bros. Decl . at 1 6. 4 In exchange for 25 26 4 In the settlement proceedings before Magistrate McCue, 27 independent consultants estimated the total cost of onsite remediation at between $2. 4 and $4 . 8 million. Brosnahan 28 Decl . at 1 4 . -6- 1 these payments by the Signal defendants, Plaintiffs will 2 provide a general release of any claim they have or may have 3 against the Signal defendants for the alleged deposit of 4 materials onto their property. As set forth more fully in 5 the Settlement Agreement, ' completion of the settlement is 6 conditioned on this Court's entry of an order barring all 7 contribution and indemnity claims by any other party against 8 the Signal defendants and dismissing with prejudice all 9 claims against the Signal defendants in this Federal Action. 10 No agreements or promises have been made other than those 11 set forth in the Agreement. 12 IV. UNDER CERCLA LAW, A SETTLING DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO AN ORDER BARRING CONTRIBUTION 13 CLAIMS BY NON-SETTLING DEFENDANTS 14 Where a cause of action arises under federal law, 15 the "scope and limitations of the right of contribution are 16 invariably treated as questions of federal law. " Donovan v. 17 Robbins, 752 F. 2d 1170 , 1179 (7th Cir. 1985 ) . See also 18 Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Vulcan Materials Co. , No. 85-C- 19 1142 , 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11961 , at *4 n. 2 (N.D. Ill . 20 1987 ) , aff'd, 861 F. 2d 155 (7th Cir. 1988) . A number of 21 courts have recently added to the growing federal common law 22 governing contribution rights under CERCLA, particularly as 23 those rights apply to settlements between private parties. 24 See, e.g. , Allied Corp. v. Acme Solvent Reclaiming, Inc. , 25 771 F. Supp. 219 , 223 (N.D. Ill . 1990 ) ("[A) uniform federal 26 rule regarding contribution should be adopted so that 27 consistent principles of contribution and allocation of 28 -7- 1 damages develop in CERCLA actions.") . See also Comerica 2 Bank-Detroit v. Allen Industries, Inc. , 769 F. Supp. 1408 3 (E.D. Mich. 1991 ) ; Lyncott` Corp. v. Chem. Waste Mgmt. , Inc. , 4 690 F. Supp. 1409 (E.D. Pa. 1988 ) . 5 These courts have held that settlement agreements 6 between private parties in CERCLA actions are subject to the 7 principles of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act ( "UCFA" ) , 8 "'for the reason that the principles of that model act are 9 the most consistent with, and do the most to implement, the 10 Congressional intent which is the foundation for CERCLA. 11' 11 Comerica, 769 F. Supp. at 1414 , quoting United States v. 12 Conservation Chemical Co. , 628 F. Supp. 391 , 402 13 (W.D. Mo. 1985 ) . The UCFA encourages settlement by ensuring 14 settling defendants protection from contribution claims by 15 non-settling defendants. As the court in Allied Corp. 16 recognized: 17 ( I]t is hard to imagine that any 18 defendant in a CERCLA action would be willing to settle if, after the 19 settlement, it would remain open to contribution claims from other 20 defendants. The measure of finality which a cross-claim bar provides will 21 make settlements more desirable. 22 Id. at 222. At the same time, the comparative fault rule 23 protects the interests of non-settling defendants because 24 they never pay more than their proportionate share of 25 liability as determined at trial . 5 United States v. Western 26 27 5 The Ninth Circuit has also adopted the comparative fault rule as it applies to settlements under federal securities 28 laws. See Franklin v. Kaypro Corp. , 884 F. 2d 1222 (9th FOOTNOTE-5- CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE -8- I Processing Co. , 756 F. Supp. 1424 , 1430-31 (W.D. Wash. 2 1990) ; Hines Lumber, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *5 . 3 Here, because the- comparative fault rule governs 4 settlement of the CERCLA claims, non-settling defendants 5 face no greater liability or increased risk as a result of 6 the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Signal 7 defendants. Thus, based on the applicable law and the terms 8 of the settlement, the Signal defendants are entitled to an 9 order barring all contribution and indemnity claims against 10 them by the non-settling defendants. Allied Corp. , 771 11 F. Supp. at 223 . 12 V. THE SETTLEMENT IS IN GOOD FAITH UNDER CCP 55 877 AND 877 . 6 13 14 As noted above, Plaintiffs have also asserted 15 pendent state claims in this action. See In re Nucorp 16 Energy Securities Litigation, 661 F. Supp. 1403 (S.D. Cal . 17 1987 ) (applying CCP sections 877 and 877 . 6 to make good 18 faith determination with regard to pendent state claims) . 19 Under California statutory law as well as federal common 20 law, the settling parties are entitled to an order barring 21 all contribution and indemnity claims by non-settling 22 defendants. 23 24 25 FOOTNOTE 5 CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE Cir. 1989 ) , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 890 ( 1990 ) . In applying 26 the comparative fault rule to contribution rights in a CERCLA action, the district court for the Western District 27 of Washington considered Kaypro. See United States v. Western Processing Co. , 756 F. Supp. 1424 , 1428 (W.D. Wash. 28 1990) . -9- 1 Sections 877 and 877 .6 of the CCP authorize a bar 2 order if the settlement is in good faith. See Tech-Bilt, 3 Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assoc. , 38 Cal . 3d 488 , 213 Cal . 4 Rptr. 256 (1985) . The touchstone of a court' s good faith ., 5 inquiry under § 877. 6 is "whether the settlement is 6 reasonable vis-a-vis the nonsettling defendants . " Horton v. 7 Superior Court, 194 Cal . App. 3d 727 , 733 , 238 8 Cal . Rptr. 467 (1987 ) . A settlement is in good faith when 9 the settlement amount is not "grossly disproportionate" to 10 the settlor's actual liability. City of Grand Terrace v. 11 Superior Court, 192 Cal. App. 3d 12511 1262 , 238 12 Cal . Rptr. 119, 125 ( 1987 ) . 13 Here, the settlement is clearly reasonable vis-a- 14 vis the non-settling defendants. In the State Action, 15 Plaintiffs sought to prove Signal Landmark's responsibility 16 for all of the costs Plaintiffs incurred and expected to 17 incur in investigation, clean-up and remediation of their 18 property. After a full trial , the jury held Signal Landmark 19 liable for $2.5 million. That verdict is on appeal . Under 20 the settlement now reached, the Signal defendants will pay 21 Plaintiffs $2. 5 million, the full amount of its liability as 22 determined by the state court jury.6 There can be no 23 suggestion, therefore, that the settlement amount is 24 "grossly disproportionate" to the actual liability of the 25 Signal defendants. 26 27 6 As noted above, the total cost of onsite remediation is 28 now estimated at less than $5 million. -10- The Settlemen•C Agreement, which has been expressly 2 approved by Magistrate McCue, who presided over the 3 extensive settlement negotiations , is clearly in good faith 4 under CCP sections 877 and 877 .6 . The Signal defendants 5 are, therefore, entitled under California law as well as 6 federal law to an order barring all claims for contribution 7 or indemnity arising out of Plaintiffs , claims . 8 VI. CONCLUSION 9 Based upon the foregoing, the Signal defendants and 10 Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an 11 Order providing that all claims against the Signal 12 defendants for contribution or indemnity by non-settling 13 defendants are barred and dismissing all claims against the 14 Signal defendants with prejudice. 15 Dated: April '2, 1993 16 Respectfully submitted, 17 JAMES J. BROSNAHAN BARRY S . SANDALS 18 DONNA G. MATIAS MORRI & FOERSTER 19 20 By ames J. B nahan 21 torneys for Defendant SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. 22 HE HENLEY GROUP, INC. AND THE BOLSA CHICA CO. 23 24 CHARLES S . LIMANDRI LAW OFF.;CES .OF CH,ARL S S., 25 LIMAN I �/ 26 ' Y By ��, 27 Charles S . LiMandri Attorney for Plaintiffs 28 -11- W79223 Low officu of FZ E:. C F I `/ E D CHARDS S. LWANDW k J G 2 5 199 2120 SAN DIEGO AVENUE.SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO.CALIFORNIA 02110-208? GCAF/J 8 SOKOL CHARLES S.LiMANDRI• TELEPHONE (619)497-0091 R.TIMOTHY IRELAND TELEFAX (619)497-0386 -ALSO ADMITTED TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR August 21, 1992 Mr. Jack Dantzler 737 Holly Avenue ; Imperial Beach, California 91932-3420 Re: S*si et al v. Signal Landmark •t al. Dear Mr. Dantzler: I am writing in response to your letter of August 18, 1992. I hope you will allow me an opportunity to explain the circumstances which required me to serve the Federal CERCLA Complaint on the truckers in this case. This was done, pursuant to the Court Order of Magistrate Judge Harry R. McCue, who instructed us to do so on July 31, 1992. I was reluctant to serve you with the Complaint, even though you were one of the truckers involved in this matter. This was because, and as you indicated in your letter, I did tell you when I interviewed you before the State court trial, that my clients were seeking to recover all of their damages to clean up their property from Signal Landmark. I also told you, however, that you had been named along with multiple other parties in a separate federal action we had filed so as to protect any applicable statute of limitations. I further told you that if we were successful in recovering the full damages from Signal Landmark in the State court action, that we anticipated the federal action would be dismissed. Unfortunately, Signal Landmark succeeded in convincing the State court jury that it alone should not be responsible for all the contaminated waste placed on my client's property. For that reason, and because my clients' are only going to receive a partial recovery from Signal Landmark, they had no choice but to seek to recover their additional damages from other potentially responsible parties in the federal action. Notwithstanding the above, we still did not wish to serve you with the federal Complaint and did not do so until we were specifically instructed to serve the truckers by the Court. The Mr. Jack Dantzler Re: sesi v. eicnal Landmark, at al. August 21, 1992 Page 2 reason the Court ordered us to bring the truckers into the action was so that we could get access to the liability insurance coverage which they were required to carry. Unfortunately, my clients' own insurance carriers are denying coverage. Without additional available insurance coverage from other potentially responsible parties, such as the truckers, it will be very hard to clean-up the environmental problems at the site. As we discussed, we believe it is also in your interests, since you own the adjacent property, ro get any contaminated materials cleaned off the property. Otherwise, it is unlikely you will ever be able to sell your own property and, sooner or later, the regulatory agencies will undoubtedly look to you to help fund a very expensive clean-up. It is our hope that through the participation of the truckers in this litigation, that enough insurance coverage will be made available to clean-up all of the environmental problems at the site. In order to do the job properly, we believe that any contaminated materials on your property will also have to be cleaned up to prevent them from recontaminating the groundwater and soil on my client's property. The bottom line is that although being involved in litigation is rarely pleasant, it is something you need to do to solve the environmental problems you share in common with my clients. With regard to your statement of $1,920. 00, I am forwarding it on to my clients with a copy of your letter. It is true that I told you that if you lost time from work as a result of your coming to trial to testify, that I would ask my clients to compensate you for that time since that would only be fair. I anticipated receiving that information from you, however, several months ago. As things stand, we had to submit our bill of costs to Che court in April 1992. At this point, it is too late for my clients to seek to recover from Signal Landmark any additional costs they have to pay, such as for witness fees. Therefore, I am not sure how my clients will feel about having to pay any costs at this late date, since they cannot get reimbursed from the defendant. Moreover, Signal Landmark has appealed the Judgment, and my clients will remain in a very difficult financial situation until that Judgment is paid. Therefore, I do not anticipate that they will be able to do anything about this bill for some time. In closing, Mr. Dantzler, I would like to reiterate that my clients and I very much appreciated your truthful testimony at the trial of this case. From what I know of you, you are a decent and honest person and I regret it if you feel differently about me. Nonetheless, I very much hope that things will Mr. Jack Dantzler Re: Beni v. Bignal Landmark. st al. August 21, 1992 Page 3 eventually work out for the mutual benefit of both you and my clients. It really is in all the property owners ' interests to get the contamination cleaned-up with any available insurance. Sincerely, �'OFF ES O / S LiMANDRI harles S. LiMandri CSL:mjg 1 I, Charles S. Limandri, declare as follows: ; 2 1. I an an attorney licensed to practice law before all 3 courts in the State of California. I make this declaration from 4 my own personal knowledge. I was the attorney of record for 5 plaintiffs MR. AND MRS. SALIM D. SESI; MR. AND MRS. WADIE 6 DEDDEH; MR. AND MRS. KYRIAKOS ATTISHA; MR. AND MRS. ASMAR D. 7 ASMAR; MR. AND MRS. SAMI ROUMAYAH; MR. AND MRS. NAJIB SESI ; and 8 MRS. IBA SEIBA, in San Diego Superior Court case No. 624243, 9 entitled Sesi v. Signal Landmark. I am also co-counsel for 10 plaintiffs in the instant action. 11 2 . This action and the underlying state court action x i § i § 12 arose out of the unauthorized dumping of hazardous materials on sty $ � � 13 my client's property. I am informed and believe that in Z ; < cc 14 approximately July 1987, defendant Dantzler and others dumped z , 80 15 over 2, 000 truck loads of hazardous materials from the Coronado Z 16 Cays property on my clients' property. Z 17 3 . In or about August 1988, my clients received a letter 18 from an attorney at Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins & McMahon who, at 19 that time, represented defendant Signal Landmark, informing them 20 of the 1987 dumping of the Coronado Cays landfill on their 21 property. 22 4. On December 23, 1988, my clients received a letter 23 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board demanding that 24 testing be conducted on the property to determine the extent, if 25 any, of hazardous material at the property. 26 5. My clients attempted to settle this matter with Signal 27 without resorting to litigation. However, negotiations failed 28 after numerous meetings. In December 1989, I filed a civil I 12 1 complaint against Signal Landmark on behalf of my clients 2 alleging nuisance, trespass, negligence and strict liability. 3 (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 624243) Dantzler and the 4 other transporters were not named as defendants in the state 5 court action. Therefore, discovery conducted in the state court 6 action focused on Signal's liability, and not on the potential 7 liability of the transporter defendants. 8 6. In August 1991, I filed the instant federal court 9 action against Signal, Dantzler and others under CERCLA, 42 10 U.S.C. 9607, et seq. The federal court action was stayed z 11 pending the outcome of the state court action. 288Q 12 7. On March 17, 1992, the jury in the state court action � Ca 13 rendered a verdict in favor of my clients and against Signal in 14 the amount of $2.5 million. This amount, which has not yet been 15 paid, is believed to be significantly insufficient to cover the zH � n� i•1 y W W V ; < 16 costs of cleaning up the Sesi property. Signal has filed an z < 5� � z UJ 17 appeal of the state court judgment. 18 8. On or about July 31, 1992, I attended a settlement 19 conference with Magistrate McCue. At that settlement 20 conference, Magistrate McCue ordered my clients to serve the 21 federal complaint on all the transporters involved in dumping 22 the Coronado Cays landfill at the Cactus Road site. Also at 23 that settlement conference, Magistrate McCue requested that all 24 discovery in the federal court action be stayed pending an 25 attempt to settle the case. 26 9. My clients' first amended complaint at paragraph 27 27 alleges that in or about June or July 1987, defendants Dantzler, 28 Pullaro and Construction Carriers were acting as transporters of 13 - • 1 • I. -3 2 INTRODUCTION Y 3 The present action was filed with this court after the 4 plaintiffs failed to obtain satisfaction in the state court. In 5 their earlier state court action, the plaintiffs obtained a 6 judgment against defendants Signal Landmark for the damages 7 caused by the discharge of allegedly hazardous materials on the 8 plaintiffs' property. This action was stayed during the state 9 court trial. Upon completion of the state trial, the plaintiffs 10 proceeded with this federal action. 11 The plaintiffs were then ordered by Magistrate Judge 12 Harry R. McCue to join all the transporters of the allegedly 13 hazardous materials, including Mr. Dantzler, notwithstanding the 14 fact that the majority of transporters were not potentially 15 responsible parties as defined by CERCLA, in this action. 16 Dantzler now moves this court for summary judgment in his favor. 17 II. 18 STATEMENT OF FACTS 19 In July of 1987, Mr. Dantzler contracted with Pullaro 20 Contracting Company ("Pullaro") to haul dirt from the Coronado 21 Cays property, owned by Signal Landmark, to four landfill sites 22 in Otay Mesa. Declaration of Jack Dantzler p. 4, 12. 23 Mr. Dantzler performed under this agreement from July 9, 1987 to 24 July 24, 1987. Dantzler Declaration at p. 4 , 13 . As is the 25 industry practice, Michael Pullaro, the representative of 26 Pullaro, the general contractor over the job, selected the sites 27 where the dirt hauled by Mr. Dantzler would be dumped. Dantzler 28 Declaration at p. 4, 15. ; August 1, 1991 Deposition of Michael x.k,a wac..i lot W"Bm"W.y, 7..m Fka SM biVN CA 92101 SCS0342A.Y51 (619)2161441 r 1 Paul Pullais taken in connection with t e state court trial at 2 p. 15, 11. 18-23 . True and correct copies of the relevant pages 3 of the deposition are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 4 incorporated herein by this reference. Pullaro was the general 5 contractor as evidenced by the Construction Agreement dated 6 June 25, 1987 by and between Coronado Landmark, Inc. and Pullaro 7 which is attached hereto and incorporated as Exhibit "B". 8 Mr. Dantzler had no hand in selecting the Sesi property as a 9 dump site. W. 10 Mr. Dantzler gave Michael Pullaro permission to dump 11 on the Dantzler property. Mr. Dantzler further informed Michael 12 Pullaro that he could not dump on the Sesi property. Dantzler 13 Declaration at p. 5, 17. The Dantzler landfill filled quickly, i 14 and Michael Pullaro began to level dirt off onto the Sesi 15 property. Dantzler Declaration at p. 5, 18. Mr. Dantzler I 16 immediately informed Michael Pullaro that the dirt was being 17 leveled off onto his neighbors property and that they did not 18 have permission to dump there. Id. Michael Pullaro dismissed 19 the warning by telling Mr. Dantzler that the owners could use 20 the fill on their property anyway. Id. 21 Michael Pullaro then approached Mr. Dantzler in or 22 about March 1988, almost one year after the hauling was 23 completed, to sign an authorization to dump on the Sesi 24 property. Dantzler Declaration at p. 5, 110. Mr. Dantzler 25 signed an authorization for the dumping which occurred on his 26 own property located at 900 Cactus Road. However, Mr. Dantzler 27 refused to sign any authorization relating to any property other 28 than his own. . e.rc,A wec..;. 101 wr bA.6.". T..w Floor Sm OkSN CA 92101 SCBM2A.YS1 -2_ (6191?36•IMI 1 *or about June 30, 1987 th laintiffs filed an 2 action in the state court. This action was stayed pending the 3 outcome of the state action. Judgment in the state action was 4 entered against Signal Landmark. August 21, 1992 letter from 5 Charles S. LiMandrl, Plaintiffs' counsel, to Jack Dantzler is 6 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by this 7 reference. Because the award was not large enough to cover the 8 cost of the clean up, the plaintiffs now pursue the federal 9 action. 1,.d. 10 In or about August 1992, Mr. Dantzler was served with it the complaint in this action. The complaint was reluctantly 12 filed by the plaintiffs' attorneys pursuant to an order by 13 Magistrate Judge Harry R. McCue issued on July 31, 1992 . 14 LiMandri letter attached hereto as Exhibit "C" . 15 III. I 16 LEGAL DISCUSSION 17 A. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment. 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (b) provides that a 19 defendant "may, at any time, move with or without supporting 20 affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor as to all 21 or any part" of a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (b) . The judgment 22 sought by the moving party "shall be rendered forthwith if the 23 pleadings, depositions, and answers to interrogatories, and 24 admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 25 that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that 26 the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. " 27 Rule 56(c) . 28 Bawr A wdce: 101 Wom Omodwr, T.ti1N Fk= sm Dksc4 CA 92101 SC80342A•Y51 -3- (619)2361M1 1 dispoe or treatment. If the tr porter does not 2 select the delivery site, the transporter's connection 3 with the material is the most attenuated among 4 potentially responsible parties. If the transporter 5 does select the delivery site, the transporter' s role 6 becomes a less passive one. As one who actively 7 selected a disposal site, the transporter may more 8 equitably be subject to liability . . . . When the 9 transporter finally does become involved with 10 hazardous material, there will be two alternatives: it either the transporter is directed where to take the 12 material, or the choice is left to the transporter. 13 In the latter case, the more active role generates 14 potential liability. 15 Id. at 1420. (Accord Kaiser Aluminum v. Catellus Development, 16 976 F.2d 1338, 1343. ) (The Kaiser court denied a motion to 17 dismiss on the finding that the transporter chose to deposit 18 hazardous materials on the same property from which they were 19 excavated. ) See also United States v. Hardage, 761 F. Supp. 20 1501, 1511 (W.D. Okl. 1990) (Transporters are liable under 21 CERCLA only if they selected the particular site for disposal of 22 hazardous substances. ) 23 Dantzler did not select, authorize or condone the 24 disposal of any materials on the Sesi property. The site 25 selection was left entirely within the province of the general 26 contractor, Pullaro contracting company. Michael Pullaro 27 admitted this in his deposition testimony taken for the state 28 trial. 101 W=1 iMo6Wr, TWA"Flow Sm Dist%CA 92101 S00 42A.Y51 -8- (619)276144I 1 Q Oe you given any instructs s by anybody with 2 regard to how you should go about selecting 3 places to deposit material? 4 A No. 5 Q Was that left entirely up to you, do you know? 6 A Yes. 7 April 1, 1991 Deposition of Michael Paul Pullaro at p. 15, 8 11. 18-23. A true and correct copy of these pages is attached 9 hereto as Exhibit "A". Pullaro attempts to argue that 10 permission to dump on the Sesi property was given by Dantzler. 11 Q Okay. Did you need to get -- well, strike that. 12 Did you actually get written permission from 13 anybody at any of the sites you've mentioned? 14 A Permission? 15 Q To dump. 16 A From Dantzler . . . 17 Q This is a document that was previously produced, 18 Mr. Pullaro, and I' ll ask you if that looks like the 19 document that you got from Mr. Dantzler to -- 20 regarding permission to dump? 21 A Yes. 22 Q On the Cactus Road. 23 A This is it. 24 Q Was this something that you had typed up, because its 25 on Pullaro Contracting Company's stationery [sic. ] or 26 someone else typed up, do you know? 27 A It was typed up in the office, yes. 28 Q But not by you? Nab"a rid(e: 101 W.r o.a.eaq. TwM F —9— s..Dos*.CA 92101 SCY0 42A.M51 1619)3ILI441 . 1 A 2 Q Why was there written permission given for the Cactus 3 Road site, but not the other sites? What made this 4 particular site unique? I 5 A I have no idea. 6 Q Did you understand this particular permission slip to 7 apply to just property owned by Jack Dantzler that was 8 dumped on Cactus Road or all the property where i 9 material was placed on Cactus Road. 10 A I had no idea that the properties were split up. it Q I see. 12 A It was assumed he was dumping on his property. 13 Pullaro Deposition at pp. 28-29, 11. 10-22 attached hereto as I 14 Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. The 15 spurious nature of this argument is seen immediately upon 16 examination of the permission slip attached hereto as 17 Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this reference. The 18 typed "permission slip" is dated July 14 , 1987 on top, but 19 Mr. Dantzler's signature is dated March 16, 1988. The second 20 date is curiously close to the time Pullaro first became aware 21 of the presence of allegedly hazardous material on the property. 22 The truth of the matter is that Dantzler gave Pullaro 23 oral permission to dump only on Dantzler's property. Dantzler 24 Declaration at p. 4, 17. When Dantzler saw that Pullaro was 25 leveling the fill which was dumped on Dantzler's property on to 26 the Sesi property, Dantzler told Pullaro that that property did 27 not belong to Dantzler and the Coronado fill could not be 28 dumped. at p. 5, 18. &Ice!Md(�ir 101 WWI Yra.d..y. T.w M FWw 6.e MIN CA 92101 SCS0 42A.WSI —10— (619)2361441 1 4kchael Pullaro then returne to Dantzler some eight 2 months later and asked him to sign an authorization retro- 3 actively giving permission to dump on the Dantzler and Sesi 4 properties. Dantzler once again pointed out that he did not own 5 the Sesi property and could not give permission prospectively or 6 retroactively to dump on the property. Dantzler Declaration at 7 p. 5, 110. He only agreed to sign and did sign the 8 authorization regarding his own property at 900 Cactus Road. 9 Because Dantzler did not select the Sesi property as a 10 location to dispose of the allegedly hazardous material, he is 11 not a potentially responsible party as defined by CERCLA 12 42 U.S.C. 9607 (a) (4) . Dantzler is therefore entitled to 13 judgment in his favor as a matter of law. 14 C. The Second Cause Of Action For Equitable Indemnity Is Defective Because No valid Claim Has Been Pleaded. 15 16 The equitable indemnity claim seeks relief for the 17 clean up and investigation expenses which will allegedly be 18 incurred by the plaintiffs. The Sesis must allege a "wrong" to 19 entitle them to equitable indemnity from Dantzler. Operating 20 Engineers Pension Trust v. Cecil Backhoe, 795 F.2d 1501, 1507-08 21 (9th Cir. 1986) ; Nevada Power Company v. Monsanto, 955 F.2d 22 1304, 1309 (9th Cir. 1992) (Liability of both parties for a 23 joint wrong is essential to a claim for equitable indemnity) ; In 24 Re New England Fish Co. , 749 F.2d 1277 , 1282 (9th Cir. 1984) (A 25 party seeking equitable indemnity must show their right to 26 assert a cause of action against the defendant) . 27 The Sesis allege that they are liable for clean up costs 28 pursuant to CERCLA, however they have failed to show a claim 1.re.A udc®: 101 Ww BMM* q, ft Flow San Dicsck CA 92101 SC80342A.WSI -11- (619)2364441 1 against Daeler. Because the CERCLA c im is defective, no 2 actionable wrong is alleged. Dantzler must prevail on the cause 3 of action for equitable indemnity as a matter of law. 4 D. The Third Cause Of Action For Declaratory Relief Is Defective Because This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To 5 Hear It. 6 A party seeking declaratory relief must show an actual 7 controversy regarding a matter within the federal court subject 8 matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 2201. The plaintiffs allege 9 federal question jurisdiction based on the CERCLA issues in the 10 complaint. However, for the reasons discussed above, 11 Mr. Dantzler is not subject to liability pursuant to CERCLA. 12 Mr. Dantzler is entitled to judgment in his favor as a 13 matter of law because no independent ground for jurisdiction is 14 alleged to support this claim for declaratory relief. 15 VI. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary 18 judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication of 19 facts and claims, must be granted. 20 Dated: January 19, 1993 BAKER & McKENZIE 21 22 By onald Grath 23 Attorneys for Counter-Claimant and 24 Cross-Claimant JACK D. DANTZLER 25 26 27 28 11.1<.A ward: 101 w..S,..e&W. T..W Flom So Ds6o•CA 92101 SCS0342A.WSI -12- (619)1761441 • 15 1 to find places to take material, so I went out in my pickup, 2 looking for places to dump material. 3 Q Was there anyone in particular that asked you to do 4 that? 5 A Kelly Schroeder and my father, Paul Pullaro. 6 Q Okay. Kelly Schroeder worked for Signal Landmark, 7 I take it? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Do you know what his job title was out there on the 10 project site? 11 A Superintendent, I . 12 Q And your father, Paul Pullaro, he was, what, the 13 president of Pullaro Contracting Company? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Were those your two people that were superior to 16 you on the job site? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Were you given any instructions by anybody with 19 regard to how you should go about selecting places to deposit 20 the material? 21 A No. 22 Q Was that left entirely up to you, do you know? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did Mr. Schroeder, say anything to you about any 25 steps you should take with regard to making sure you had i 26 permission before the material was deposited? 27 A No, I don't believe so. No. 28 Q Do you know if he ever mentioned to you that Signal 16 1 Landmark wanted some type of written permission from anybody 2 whose property was to receive the material? 3 A No. 4 Q Do you recall what sites were selected to deposit 5 material from the Coronado Cays? 6 Can you list those sites for us, where the 7 material -- different places the material was taken? 8 A Well, it was just the -- the one I found was the 9 Nelson-Sloan landfill or fill and the Cactus Road landfill 10 and the Gun Club. 11 Q okay. Let's take these one at a time. I think 12 first you mentioned Nelson-Sloan. 13 A Yeah. 1.4 Q N-e-1-s-o-n-dash-S-1-o-a-n-e? 15 A Mm-hm. 16 Q That's a "yes"? 17 A Yes, I 'm sorry. i 18 Q That's fine, thank you. Where specifically is the 19 Nelson-Sloan landfill? i 20 A Well -- excuse me, it wasn 't a landfill . It was 21 just a part of their pit that we dumped some of the material 22 into. 23 Q Where is that located, sir? 24 A I really can't remember. I think it was -- to my 25 best recollection, it was off of Willow Road. 26 Q Is that in Otay Mesa? 7 A Yes. 28 Q Do you recall the other closest cross street? 17 1 A No. 2 Q Do you recall anybody associated with that 3 Nelson-Sloan site that you may have spoken to with regard to 4 depositing material there? 5 A No. 6 Q Do you know who owns that particular site? 7 A Nelson-Sloan themselves. 8 Q Is Nelson-Sloan an individual or is that a company? 9 A It's a company. 10 Q Do you recall having any conversations with anybody 11 from Nelson-Sloan about using that site? 12 A At this time, I can't remember his name. 13 Q But you did speak to someone, you think? 14 A (Witness nodding head. ) 15 Q That's a "yes" , sir? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Do you know if there was anybody else involved in 18 -- besides you in selecting sites to deposit material taken 19 from the Coronado Cays? 20 A No. 21 Q That was solely your job? 22 A Yes. At that time. 23 Q Do you know if material had been deposited at any 24 other site prior to your involvement in the project? 25 A No. 26 Q You just don't know one way or the other whether it 27 was? It may have been done or are you sure that no 28 material -- I don't know the answer. • 18 1 A I don't -- I don't know where they took the 2 material. 3 Q Okay. Do you know if -- as you sit here now, can 4 you tell me that no material was removed prior to your 5 involvement or you just don't know either way? 6 A I just don't know. I don't know what they did. 7 Q Okay. But as far as you know, when you arrived, 8 you were the only person involved at that time in selecting 9 sites? 10 A Yes, when I came to work for them, yeah. 11 Q And you don 't know if any of the stockpiled 12 material had been removed prior to your involvement? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay, that's fair. 15 And you 've never seen any written documentation 16 regarding the depositing -- regarding whether there was 17 written permission to deposit material at the Nelson-Sloan 18 site? 19 A No. 20 Q Do you have any idea how much material was 21 deposited at that Nelson-Sloan site? 22 A No, not right offhand. 23 Q Do you have any idea as to how much material total 24 was taken from the Coronado, Cays and taken to other sites 25 while you worked on the project? 26 A Just the Cactus Road and the Gun Club, the Border 27 Patrol Gun Club. I 28 Q Any way for you to give an estimate as to what the 19 1 total volume in cubic yards would be of the amount of 2 material that was taken from Coronado Cays to those other 3 places? 4 A To Cactus Road? 5 Q Well, we' ll start Cactus Road, if you can give an 6 estimate of the volume. 7 A It was about 15, 000 yards. 8 Q You think about 15, 000 cubic yards? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q On what are you basing the estimate, sir, that 11 about 15, 000 cubic yards went from Coronado Cays to Cactus 12 Road? 13 A Because the amount of time we were there, the 14 truckloads. 15 Q Talking about the Cactus Road site, can you -- and 16 I know this is hard because it' s been a couple of years now, 17 but can you estimate the number of truckloads that there 18 were? 19 A As of right now, how many truckloads? 20 MR. WHEELER: This is for Cactus Road? 21 MR. LiMANDRI: Cactus Road, just staying with that. 22 THE WITNESS: Around 400. 23 BY MR. LiMANDRI: 24 Q You think about 400 truckloads -- 25 A Yes. 26 Q -- were taken from the Coronado Cays to the Cactus 27 Road site? 28 A Mm-hm. • 20 1 Q That's a "yes", sir? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Do you know -- do you have any documentation 4 reflecting the volume? 5 A No. Everything is with Pullaro. 6 Q With Pullaro Contracting Company? 7 A (Witness nodding head. ) 8 Q All right. Seems to me there was testimony that 9 documents were given by Pullaro Contracting Company to Signal 10 Landmark. Do you know if you were involved in the transfer 11 of any of that material? 12 A No, I wasn't involved in that. 13 Q I take it any documentation you have associated 14 with the Signal Landmark project would have been left at 15 Pullaro Contracting? 16 A Yes. I 17 Q You don't have any documentation with you here ' 18 today in response to the subpoena we served? 19 A No. 20 Q Is that right? 21 A No. 22 Q Before I forget, because I forgot to ask Paul 23 Pullaro, but I recall there being mention made at one time of 24 a memo in November of 187 being sent from someone at Pullaro 25 Contracting to Signal Landmark. Do you have any knowledge of 26 what that memo was? 27 A No. 28 Q All right. I take it you don't recall generating 1 ROBERT E. AkIHART, an ) , individual; MAXINE BARNHART, ) 2 an individual; CHARLES HUBER, an individual, j Counter-Claimants and) 4 Cross-Claimants ) ) 5 V. ) ) 6 SIGNAL LANDMARK aka CORONADO j LANDMAK; THE CITY OF CORONADO; ) 7 PULLARO CONTRACTING COMPANY; j CONSTURCTION CARRIERS, INC. ; ) 8 JACK DANTZLER; HENLEY ) PROPERTIES, INC. ; THE HENLEY ) 9 GROUP, INC. ; SCRAPP DISPOSAL ) aka PACIFIC STEEL, INC. ; JOSE ) 10 MARTINEZ; MARIA GUADALUPE ) MARTINEZ; DAVID S. RUIZ, LUISA ) 11 RUIZ; and FRED TRIPP, ) 12 Counter-Defendants ) and Cross-Defendants.) 13 ) 14 15 I, JACK D. DANTZLER, declare as follows: 16 1. I am the owner of Dantzler Trucking and have personal 17 knowlege of each matter stated herein. 18 2. In July of 1987 I contracted with Pullaro Contracting 19 Company to haul dirt from the Coronado Cays property, owned by 20 Signal Landmark, to my property in Otay Mesa. Mike Pullaro was 21 my contact at Pullaro Contracting Company. I did not sign any 22 contract or authorization at that time. 23 3. I hauled dirt from July 9, 1987 to July 24, 1987. 24 4. During that period I would arrive at the Coronado Cays 25 property at approximately 7:00 a.m. to receive a load of 26 material. I would wait in line and then the truck would be 27 loaded and I would drive it oft to one of the identified sites. 28 arw a MWK=m. Tw.w n.Q SmDbek CA=01 fC5034".161 -4- (619)2lLIiN ' 1 S. C&rally it is the general tractor's job to .call 2 haulers like me to the job site and to find a place to dump. In 3 this case Pullaro Contracting was the general contractor. 4 6. Mike Pullaro initiated dumping on the Sesi Property 5 without my permission or authorization. 6 7. When Mike Pullaro first contacted me I told him that 7 he could dump on my property, but he could not dump on the Sesi 8 property. I also told him about the Martinez property and he 9 got permission from them. 10 8. I never authorized anyone or gave anyone permission to it dump on the Sesi property. 12 9. After several days of hauling, my property was just 13 about filled up and my daughter told me that Mike Pullaro was 14 leveling off the dirt onto the Sesi property. I immediately 15 went out and told Mike Pullaro that this property did not belong 16 to me, and we could not dump there. 17 10. Mike Pullaro told me to dump there because they could 18 use the dirt. 19 11. Some ten months after dumping occurred on the Sesi 20 property Mike Pullaro asked me to sign a release giving 21 permission to dump on the Sesi property. I refused to sign the 22 release for the Sesi property. I signed a release giving 23 permission to 'dump only on my property. A true and correct copy I 24 of the release is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and I 25 incorporated herein by this reference. 26 27 28 101 TAM a+..1 0 1r.ar r. (W)M6.IM1 1 12. bane told me that the mat is were hazardous when 2 I hauled them. I had no reason to believe that the materials 3 were hazardous at the time I hauled them. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is 5 true and correct. 6 Executed this _ day of January, 1993 in San Diego 7 California. 8 4�1' 4�X Cck D. Dantzler 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ■.rr s��. 101 W"La"q, Teem raw EM�cwUM 80034"AGt —6— tus�tx�w� ]. HARRINGTON. !<OXX. OURROW dC CANTER , A IARTIMMKIP IMCWMNS LAW CNIOWORATIOMI Rol CIVIC CENTER DRIVE wzwr. RUM qo 2 •ANTA AMA. CALI/OIIMIA 92701 3 '(714) 973-4008 na 4 c"7 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, DAVID R. BENSONrn r and NANCY L. BENSON 6 } z= ~ 7 r+= cc 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA f— 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 10 11 DAVID R. BENSON and NANCY L. ) CASE NO. 198 f 051 BENSON, ) 12 ) COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL Plaintiffs, ) INJURIES 13 ) V. ) 14 ) 2 1 587CC3 108.0C CORONADO LANDMARK, INC. , dba CORO- ) 705 1608 7101197 108.0 15 NADO CAY COMPANY; ALLIED-SIGNAL ) COMPANY; THE SIGNAL COMPANY; SIG- ) 16 NAL OIL COMPANY; PULLERO CONTRACT- ) ING CO. ; and DOES 1 through 100, ) 17 inclusive, ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 20 Plaintiffs, David R. Benson and Nancy L. Benson, for causes 21 of action against Defendants, and each of them, allege: 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 1. The true names or capacities of the Defendants, Does 24 1 through 100, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, 25 or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, and Plain- 26 tiffs, therefore, sue Defendants by such fictitious names and 27 will ask leave of court to amend this Complaint to show their 28 true names or capacities when the same have been ascertained. 1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that 2 each of the DOE Defendants is, in some manner, responsible for 3 the events and happenings herein set forth and proximately caused 4 injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as herein alleged. 5 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, 6 that Defendants, all Defendants by name, and inclusive, were, 7 and at all times herein mentioned, entities licensed and authorizes 8 to do business and are doing business in the City of Coronado, 9 County of San Diego, State of California. 10 3. Each Defendant is sued as an agent and/or employee CEO 11 of every other Defendant, acting within the course and scope W i a O z2 : 12 of such employment, unless otherwise specified. Reference made U u W, M 13 in this Complaint to "Defendants, and each of them, " shall be 14 deemed to mean the acts of Defendants, acting individually, joint- � o . 15 ly, and/or severally. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and O C J x • O V — 6z .9 <= 16 based thereon allege, that each Defendant has ratified and affirmec z .. zu " ` 17 the acts of each of the other Defendants . � Zuz � 18 _ : � 4 . The injuries upon which this action is based occurred 19 in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego, State of California . 20 5 . That at all times herein relevant, Plaintiff , David R. 21 Benson, and Plaintiff, Nancy L. Benson, were and are husband 22 and wife. Plaintiffs were and are residents of the County of 23 San Diego, State of California. 24 6 . Hereinafter, the term "Defendant" will refer to Defen- 25 dants, Coronado Landmark, Inc. , dba Coronado Cay Company; Allied- 26 Signal Company; The Signal Company; Signal Oil Company; Pullero 27 Contracting Co. ; and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, unless 28 otherwise indicated. 1 7 . On or about mid=July 1986, through September or October 2 1986 , Plaintiff, David R. Benson, was working as a Job Foreman 3 for a company hired by Defendants to install underground. utilities 4 electricity, gas, telephone - and television, in a joint trench 5 on property owned and developed or modified by Defendants located 6 in the City of Coronado, County of San Diego, State of California. 7 8 . Defendants , with the exclusion of Defendant, Pullero 8 Contracting Co. , was the owner and developer of a residential 9 real estate project called Coronado Cays. The property owned 10 and developed by Defendants was an old municipal and United States 11 Government waste and dump site. 12 9 . Defendant, Pullero Contracting Co. , was hired and con- « 13 tracted by the other Defendants to prepare, grade, and remove � a . J ` o 14 the existing waste and trash deposits to prepare the land for V 0 . 15 residential dwellings. Among the trash deposited on the land = ` Zw 16 owned and intended for development by Defendants , were certain • � z < � , sui 17 remnants, containers, wires, and liquid substances from electrical . ; u � 18 transformers and power lines. 19 10 . Defendants, and each of them, owed a duty to Plaintiffs • 20 to use reasonably prudent care in their ownership, development, 21 preparation, and management of this real property to prevent 22 the exposure and contact of the toxic substances contained in 23 this dump site with persons and individuals , including Plaintiff , 24 David R. Benson, who would be working at the site of this resi- 25 dential development. 26 11. At the time and place aforesaid, Defendants , and each 27 of them, breached that duty when they so negligently, carelessly, 28 wantonly, and unlawfully failed to provide adequate notice, con- - 3 - 1 tainment, burial and/or removal of these toxic remnants. During 2 the course of building joint utility trenches, which were built 3 to a variable depth of 54-60 inches, and a width of 30 inches, 4 the trenches were flooded on a daily basis by incoming tides . 5 As the job foreman charged with the duty of overseeing the instal- s lation of the underground utilities, Plaintiff, David R. Benson, 7 was exposed to sea water which had been contaminated by toxic 8 remnants from the electrical transformers and other materials 9 and substances. Furthermore, Defendants, and each of them, negli- 10 gently, carelessly, wantonly, and unlawfully failed to act upon 11 the knowledge that their residential development was being con- i & : 12 structed on a several generations old dump site, which included, i3L. - � ; : « 13 among other things, the toxic remnants of electrical transformers , ;eo 14 to such an extent that no notices were issued to advise Plaintiff , o ! JoQ `- : 15 David R. Benson, and others, of the potential of toxic exposure J • � U ) ZF =^ 16 to the transformers remnants . Defendants, and each of them, = oi 17 failed in the exercise of their knowledge that the development C ` u ' 18 was on a dump site which contained toxic remnants to properly C i o 19 contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants such that Plain- _ - 20 tiff , David R. Benson, and others , would not come into contact 21 with these toxic remnants . 22 12. Defendants, and each of them, allowed and failed to 23 prevent the toxic exposure with a conscious disregard of the 24 safety of Plaintiff, David R. Benson, in that Defendants, and 25 each of them, engaged in an ultrahazardous activity with the 26 knowledge that toxic remnants and substances existed on a location 27 intended for residential development. Defendants, and each of 28 them, were uncertain of the containment and burial of these toxic A — • I remnants such that they hired Defendant, Pullero Contracting 2 Co. , to contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and sub- 3 stances . The material removal and/or containment was improperly 4 done, such that serious injury could and would result from the 5 exposure of these toxic remnants and substances by means of Defen- 6 dants deficient operations and procedures. Despite Defendants ' 7 and each of them knowledge of a foreseeable exposure of the toxic 8 remnants and substances, they hired and intended persons, such 9 as Plaintiff, David R. Benson, to perform certain services to 10 prepare this property for residential development, and thus created 11 a substantial risk of serious injury and/or danger to each and all is 12 every person who would be working on the development of this ) y r l ; ; M 13 property, and knowingly exposing each person, including Plaintiff , 14 David R. Benson, to said risks in conscious disregard for their V tO G • ` o ¢ 15 n and his safety. 16 13 . As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, z � Z , iJo 17 carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness of Defen- ) ,! ; ' 18 dants, and each of them, the resulting release and exposure of i : s 19 the toxic transformer remnants and substances to Plaintiff, David R c 16 20 Benson, has caused severe and permanent injuries to Plaintiffs, 21 all to Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of 22 this court and to be shown according to proof . 23 14. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 24 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians , surgeons, nurses, 25 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compelled 26 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplies 27 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 28 allege, that further services of said nature will be required ` 1 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 2 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 3 shown according to proof. 4 15. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- 5 genre, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness, and unlawfulness 6 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 7 exposure of the- toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, 8 Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information 9 and belief, and thereon alleges, will continue in the future 10 to suffer a loss of earning capacity for an unpredictable period 0 11 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount r 46 12 to be shown according to proof. u N zs ,. 13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION t • M J • 14 16 . Plaintiffs refer to Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15 , inclu- ' _ . Ac e o ! c >' = � 15 sive, of the First Cause of Action herein, and by this reference . aU _ _^ 16 incorporate and reallege each and every allegation thereof, as Z < — �� < 17 though set forth in full herein. = U = IL u ' 18 17 . Defendants, and each of them, in their ownership, devel- 19 opment, and preparation of the dump site for residential purposes, 20 did, allowed, and failed in direct violation of generally accepted 21 industry practices, standards, safety statutes, and regulations 22 to implement and protect against the type of exposure, accident, • 23 and injuries allowed to occur herein. Defendants, and each of 24 them, did the things herein mentioned in disregard of the safety 25 of Plaintiff, David R. Benson, and consciously failed to implement 26 recognized and established practices and procedures of proper 27 waste management and disposal. 28 - 6 - 1 18. As a direct and proximate result of said conscious 2 failure to conform to established and recognized practices and 3 procedures of toxic material containment, burial, and/or removal 4 by Defendants, and each of them, well knowing the perils to Plain- s tiffs created thereby, as aforesaid; Plaintiff , David R. Benson, 6 sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, all to 7 Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court 8 and to be shown according to proof. 9 19 . By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 10 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 11 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compelled ^. 12 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplies � 13 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon a ` " `z ' 14 allege, that further services of said nature will be required0 . o e 15 by Plaintiffs for an unpredictable period in the future, all . � U _ Z to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be shown according F =^ 16 u = 17 to proof . zu � 18 20. As a further direct and proximately result of said � w 19 conscious failure to conform to the safety requirements of waste 20 management and disposal by Defendants, and each of them, well 21 knowing the peril to Plaintiff, David R. Benson, created thereby, 22 as aforesaid, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 23 allege, that Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered a loss 24 of earning capacity for an unpredictable time in the future, 25 all to the damage of Plaintiffs and in an amount to be shown 26 according to proof . 27 28 7 - 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION P. 21. The allegations of Paragraph Nos . 1 through 15 of the 3 First Cause of Action are incorporated herein by reference, as 4 though set forth in full. 5 22. Defendants, and each of them, knew that dangerous, 6 poisonous and toxic chemical materials and substances had been 7 deposited, buried, and covered on the property intended by Defen- 8 dants, and each of them, for residential development. 9 23 . The containment, burial, and/or removal of the toxic 10 transformer remnants and substances was ignored, or done in an 11 unsafe manner, such that adequate and effective safety measures, go a : 12 supervision, and control were not utilized by Defendants to prevent O y Y = - � ; M 13 the foreseeable contact of the toxic remnants and substances J ; In 14 with Plaintiff, David R. Benson. . te J ` � 15 24. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' failure < • ; ou _ ; F =w 16 to warn, contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and ; u4 17 substances, Plaintiff , David R. Benson, sustained severe and Rom ' 18 permanent injuries to his person, all to Plaintiffs ' damages 't $ _ 19 in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court and to be shown 20 according to proof . 21 25. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 22 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians , surgeons, nurses, 23 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compeller 24 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplie_ 25 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 26 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 27 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 28 i - 8 - 1 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 2 shown according to proof . 3 26. As a further direct and proximate result of the .negli- 4 gence, carelessness, recklessness , wantonness, and unlawfulness 5 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 6 exposure of the toxic remnants, as aforesaid, Plaintiff , David R. i 7 Benson, has suffered, and on information and belief, and thereon 8 alleges, will continue in the future to suffer a loss of earning 9 capacity for an unpredictable period in the future, all for the 10 damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be shown according to proof . 0 11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 12 27 . The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15, inclu- 11 ; < 3r. 13 sive, of the First Cause of Action, are incorporated herein by J � 14 reference, as though set forth in full. 07 : ; � 15 28 . The toxic waste dump site purchased, owned, developed, ` U — = � Z! 2-6 and prepared by Defendants , and each of them, for the purpose Z � Z 3-7 of constructing residential dwellings, constituted an abnormally = u ' 18 dangerous and/or ultrahazardous activity in a location where o 19 it was planned that: 20 (a ) There necessarily involved a risk of serious harm to 21 persons who would work and live directly in or on top 22 of the site of the toxic dumping ground, and said persons 23 could be exposed to and injured as a result of the 24 exposure to the toxic remnants and substances . Said 25 persons likely to be injured included Plaintiff , David R. 26 Benson, and said risk could not be eliminated by the 27 exercise of even the utmost care; and, 28 1 // 9 - 1 (b) Such activity, above described, is not and was not 2 owned, operated, supervised, controlled, and maintained 3 by individuals as a matter of common usage. 4 29. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in this ultra- 5 hazardous activity of attempting to contain, bury, and/or remove 6 the toxic remnants and substances from property intended for 7 residential purposes . 8 30 . At the time and place aforesaid, and as a direct and 9 proximate result of Defendants ' maintenance of the said abnormally 10 dangerous activity, the toxic remnants and substances were allowed x ; 11 to become exposed to and come in contact with Plaintiff , David R. W i < < : 12 Benson, causing injuries and damages as alleged. U W '. 3 4 ; ; « 13 31. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' super- ; _ $ 14 vision, control, preparation, and maintenance of the said ultra- 15 hazardous activity as aforesaid, Plaintiff , David R. Benson, x ' � U - o = .CZ^ 16 sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, all to � z < � ZU < 17 Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of this court 0 = ui Ksr 18 and to be shown according to proof . � Z - i � 19 32. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been requirec - a W. 20 to employ the services of hospitals , physicians, surgeons, nurses , 21 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been compellec 22 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplie! 23 and services. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 24 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 25 by Plaintiff, David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 26 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 27 shown according to proof . 28 10 - 1 33. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- 2 gence, carelessness, recklessness , wantonness, and unlawfulness 3 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and 4 exposure of the toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, 5 Plaintiff , David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information 6 and belief , and thereon alleges , will continue in the future 7 to suffer a loss of earning capacity .for an unpredictable period 8 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount 9 to be shown according to proof . 10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION g ; 11 34 . The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15 , inclu- o ' 0 : 12 sive, of the First Cause of Action, are incorporated herein by e1. 3y 13 reference, as though set forth in full. ; se 14 35 . Defendants, and each of them, purchased, owned, devel- Y ` 15 oped, and prepared the dump site located in the City of Coronado J 1 16 for the purpose ofconstructing residential dwellings thereon. j. ►- z � ) s � i 17 The municipal and United States Government dump site was a product ' u ' 18 designed, prepared, and manufactured for the intended purpose C 'zO - t c ; 19 of containing and burying waste and other substances which were 20 toxic or would become toxic, if not properly disposed of . when 21 Defendants, and each of them, purchased, owned, prepared, and 22 developed the property upon which Plaintiff was exposed to toxic 23 remnants and substances, they had reason to know that poor manage- 24 ment and inadequate containment, burial, and/or disposal of the 25 toxic remnants and substances were likely to be harmful and danger 26 ously injurious such that Defendants, and each of them, had a 27 duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect, post, notice, plan, 28 1 contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and substances, 2 and to test this product before exposing Plaintiff, David R. 3 Benson, and others , to the foreseeable hazards of these toxic 4 remnants and substances in the course of preparing this piece 5 of property for residential use. 6 36. Defendants, and each of them, had actual and constructive 7 notice of the dangerous condition and inherent defects of the 8 dump site which Defendants, and each of them, intended through 9 their ownership, development, and preparation, to be used as 10 a residential location. This dangerous condition and defect 11 was such of an obvious nature and condition that Defendants re 'a" ". 12 tained the services of Defendant, Pullero Contracting Co. , to Cor � r - s ; ; � 13 contain, bury, and/or remove the toxic remnants and substances J � 14 from the dump site before the property could be used as a resi- W Q f < < o � � 15 dential location. Nonetheless, the dump site condition was not 16 appreciably changed when Plaintiff, David R. Benson, arrived _ Z n ; Z < .- � _ u , 17 to perform his responsibilities of laying underground utility - � z = u ' 18 services for the residential development. 19 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants ' failure 20 or omission of supervision, control, ownership, preparation, 21 and maintenance of the dump site, such that it remained unchanged 22 from the status that it was received in, Plaintiff , David R. 23 Benson, sustained severe and permanent injuries to his person, 24 all to Plaintiffs ' damage in a sum within the jurisdiction of 25 this court, and to be shown according to proof . 26 27 28 12 - 1 38 . By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have been required 2 to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses, 3 and other professional services, and Plaintiffs have been. compelled 4 to incur expenses for medicines, x-rays, and other medical supplies 5 and services . Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon 6 allege, that further services of said nature will be required 7 by Plaintiff , David R. Benson, for an unpredictable period in 8 the future, all to the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount to be 9 shown according to proof . 10 39. As a further direct and proximate result of the negli- r ' 11 gence, carelessness, recklessness, wantonness , and unlawfulness < < < 12 of Defendants, and each of them, and the resulting release and � 3 . _ aSSy 13 exposure of the toxic remnants and substances, as aforesaid, • 14 Plaintiff, David R. Benson, has suffered, and on information W - • �. t O W 0 f > ` " 15 and belief, and thereon alleges, will continue in the future . O C J • <= 16 to suffer a loss of earning capacity for an unpredictable period z n o z < — zJu < 17 in the future, all for the damage of Plaintiffs in an amount � Zui � � • 18 to be shown according to proof . C Y - r « • _ � 19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 40 . The allegations of Paragraph Nos. 1 through 15 of the 21 First Cause of Action are incorporated herein by reference, as 22 though set forth in full herein. 23 41. Plaintiff, Nancy L. Benson, further alleges that as 24 a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct, 25 or lack of it, by Defendants, and each of them, she has in the 26 past and will in the future suffer a loss of services, including 27 consortium in all of its manifestations, all to her general damage 28 in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this 13 - 1 court. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek judgment against Defendants , 3 and each of them, as follows: 4 AS TO THE FIRST THROUGH FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION 5 1. General damages according to proof ; 6 2 . Medical, hospital, and related expenses according to 7 proof ; 8 3 . Loss of earnings and earning capacity incurred according 9 to proof; 10 4 . Costs of suit herein; � ; 11 5 . Prejudgment interest pursuant to California Code of W i co z ; " 12 Civil Procedure Sections 3287, 3288, and/or 3291; • � 09 r U %# a � Sy 13 6 . Such other and further relief as the court deems just J � O s + < � -- : ; = e 14 and proper. � • 15 AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION x ` ° U _ 3s : <'- 16 1. For general damages according to proof ; ZN 0Z " — Z � � � ` 17 2 . For loss of services, including loss of consortium, s 'Ui Z15 18 on behalf of Nancy L. Benson; z ": o < < 19 3 . For costs of suit incurred herein; and, AW 20 4 . For such other and further relief as the court may 21 deem just and proper. 22 DATED: :;-j,J ,;_ 1987 . HARRINGTON, FOXX, DUBROW & CANTER 23 EDWARD R. LEONARD, ESQUIRE 24 MICHAEL A. LANPHERE, ESQUIRE 25 BY 04, 26 Michael A. Lanphere 27 Attorneys for Plaintiffs , DAVID R. BENSON and NANCY L. BENSON 28 - 14 - 1 LANDMARK aka CORONADO LANDMARK, ) �` THE CITY OF CORONADO, PULLARO 2 CONTRACTING COMPANY, CONSTRUCTION ) CARRIERS, JACK DANTZLER, HENLEY ) 3 PROPERTIES, INC. , THE HENLEY ) GROUP, INC. , SCRAPP DISPOSAL, and ) 4 FRED TRIPP, ) ) 5 Counter/Cross-Defendants. ) 6 ) AND ALL RELATED COUNTER AND ) 7 CROSS-ACTIONS ) 8 ) CITY OF CORONADO, ) 9 ) Cross-Claimant, ) 10 ) VS. ) 11 ) ROBERT E. BARNHART, an individual, ) 12 ) Cross-Defendant. ) 13 ) 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Defendants/Cross-claimant CITY OF CORONADO ("CITY") hereby 16 oppose the motion of Defendants SIGNAL LANDMARK, INC. , THE HENLEY 17 GROUP, INC. , and THE BOLSA CHICA CO. (collectively "SIGNAL") for an 18 order barring all cross-claims by non-settling defendants against 19 SIGNAL, on grounds that the settlement between SIGNAL and Plaintiffs 20 MR. and MRS. SALIM D. SESI, MR. and MRS. WADIE DEDDEH, MR. and MRS. 21 KYRIAKOS ATTISHA, MR. and MRS. ASMAR D. ASMAR, MR. and MRS. SAMI I 22 ROUMAYAH, MRS. IBA SEIBA, (collectively "SESI") , was not made in good 23 faith under the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure 24 H 877 and 877.6. CITY further joins in the opposition of Defendants 25 JOSE MARTINEZ and MARIA GUADALUPE MARTINEZ ("MARTINEZ") . 26 A good faith settlement at this early stage of the litigation 27 is highly prejudicial to the interests of all non-settling 28 defendants. There is no assurance that damages will be apportioned t2,2\,,,,75., MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33.05030614=1 JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -2- I based on actual liability. SIGNAL is potentially liable for most if 2 not all of the damages herein as evidenced by the fact that SIGNAL 3 has already been in a state court proceeding to be liable for full 4 damages in the amount of $2.5 million. Thus, a contribution of only 5 $1.25 million to clean-up costs can hardly be deemed proportional to 6 SIGNAL's potential liability in the case at bar. 7 There has been no determination of potential damages herein, 8 and CITY, which participated in good faith in the settlement process, 9 has been denied the opportunity to do any discovery of SIGNAL. 10 Again, the only determination of potential damages has been the $2.5 11 million judgment of the State Court against SIGNAL. However, SESI 12 has, in the past, informed this Court that potential liability can 13 be enormous: . 14 The contamination of plaintiffs' property creates a potentially awesome situation. It has been 15 estimated that more than 125, 000 cubic yards of contaminated material was deposited on the 16 subject property by the respective responsible parties. Remediation estimates previously 17 submitted have ranged between 20 million dollars and 40 million dollars. 18 [Plaintiffs' Settlement Conference Statement filed on or about July 19 27, 1992, 5:15-20] 20 Although SIGNAL now chooses to rely on informal estimates of 21 $2.5 to $4.8 million in remediation costs, SIGNAL has previously 22 informed this court that SESI, in the State Court action, sought 23 damages in the amount of $34 million. That amount, according to 24 SIGNAL, represented potential liability for all of the contamination 25 of the Cactus Road site. [Defendant SIGNAL's Settlement Statement 26 filed on or about July 29, 1992, 5: 12-15] . CITY does not wish to 27 subvert the settlement process. However, there is simply no basis 28 in fairness or equity for SIGNAL to escape its proportionate share =,111175.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33.pso3o6% i JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -3- I of liability leaving the remaining defendants stuck for the 2 difference. CITY and the remaining defendants are not SIGNAL's 3 sureties; if SESI is willing release SIGNAL under the circumstances 4 of the settlement , than the liability of each remaining 'defendant 5 should be capped at that party's proportionate share of liability. 6 7 Finally, as addressed by in the opposition filed by MARTINEZ 8 and joined in by CITY, SIGNAL should not be entitled to cut-off the 9 rights of the other defendants without suffering the same fate vis 10 a vis its present and future claims against the other defendants. 11 II. THE SETTLEMENT IS NOT IN GOOD FAITH UNDER CCP 46 877 AND 877.6 12 13 SIGNAL's motion hinges on whether the settlement is in 14 "made in good faith" under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. "Good 15 faith" is defined by the California Supreme Court in Tech-Hilt. Inc. 16 v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 213 Cal.Rptr. 17 256: 18 A more appropriate definition of "good faith". . would enable the trial court to inquire, 19 among other things, whether the amount of the settlement is within the reasonable range of the 20 settling tortfeasor's proportional share of comparative liability for the plaintiff's 21 injuries. 22 Ia. at 499. 23 Although the Court in Tech-Silt makes clear that " 'ba. 24 faith' is [not] 'established by a showing that a settling defendan 25 paid less than his theoretical proportionate or fair share' " [Id. ] 26 the amount of the settlement is a factor that must be considered b 27 the court: 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33.pg03p %mi JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -4- I Rather, the intent and policies underlying section 877. 6 require that a number of factors 2 be taken into account including a rough approximation of plaintiffs' total recovery and 3 the settlor's proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement 4 proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he 5 would if he were found liable after a trial . . . Finally, practical considerations obviously 6 require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of 7 settlement. " [A] defendant's settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a 8 reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling defendant's liability 9 to be. " 10 Unfortunately the Court found that a settlement releasing a 11 party for a nominal amount was not in good faith because it 12 essentially served the goal of encouraging settlement to the 13 exclusion and frustration of the coequal goal of allocating costs 14 equitably among multiple tortfeasors. at 501-03. 15 It is evident that a rough approximation of SESI 's total 16 recovery and SIGNAL's proportionate liability is not available to 17 CITY and the other non-settling defendants who participated in the i8 settlement conferences conducted by Magistrate-Judge McCue and abided 19 by Magistrate-Judge McCue's order barring discovery. As a result, 20 non-settling defendants have not had the opportunity to determine 21 whether remediation will cost $2.5 million, $34 million, or some 22 other amount. Moreover, they have also been denied the ability and 23 opportunity to determine SIGNAL's proportionate liability. 24 It is equally evident that SIGNAL's contribution of only 25 $1.25 million for remediation is grossly disproportionate given the 26 potential remediation costs and SIGNAL's likely proportionate share 27 particularly in light of the State Court determination that SIGNAL 28 was entirely liable for all clean-up costs determined therein. In MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH �_pg03061�pp� JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -5- 1 fact, SIGNAL proposes that it should be released after paying only 2 one-half to one-quarter of its estimated clean-up costs. 3 III. LIABILITY UNDER CERCLA MAY BE EITHER JOINT AND SEVERAL OR APPORTIONED 4 5 SIGNAL argues that "because the comparative fault rule 6 governs settlement of the CERCLA claims, non-settling defendants face 7 no greater liability or increased risk as a result of the Settlement 8 Agreement between Plaintiffs and the Signal defendants. " [SIGNAL's 9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 9:3-7] SIGNAL's right to an 10 order barring all indemnity and contribution claims by non-settling 11 defendants depends in part upon the application of the Uniform 12 Comparative Fault Act ("UCFA") . Thus, CITY believes that the UCFA 13 should be mandated herein. 14 However, apportionment is not rule in CERCLA cases. United 15 States v. Stringfellow, 661 F.Supp. 1053, 1059-61 (1987) (holding 16 that joint and several liability is available in a cost recovery 17 action despite the removal of all references to "joint and several" 18 in CERCLA section 107 (a) ) . Should there be any question regarding 19 whether strict apportionment is or should be the rule of liability 20 herein, CITY respectfully maintains that there is no basis at this 21 stage of the litigation for the Court to find that the settlement 22 will not be disproportionate and prejudicial to non-settling 23 defendants. 24 IV. JOINDER IN OPPOSITION OF MARTINEZ 25 MARTINEZ filed points and authorities making similar 26 arguments. Without commenting on any position MARTINEZ may take 27 concerning CITY's potential liability herein, CITY joins in all parts 28 Wa2\t t t t7s.i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, WITH 33-0503WI4 p1 JOINDER IN ARGUMENTS. -6- •7. SAMPLING PLAN FOR DANTZLER AND BARNHART PROPERTIES OTAY MESA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Signal Landmark c/o The Koll Company 4343 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Prepared by: ENVIRON Corporation One Park Plaza, Suite 700 Irvine, California 92714 January 26, 1993 EXHIBIT A I PW REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date: February IV994 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Cl Prepared by: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator = Subject: APPROVAL OF CITY COMMENT LETTER ON THE BOLSA CHICA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R WMbVED BY C1W CCUR1 r1 Consistent with Council Policy? [XJ Yes [ J New Policy or Exception ti �.19 ��� �� Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Atta STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On January 3, 1994 and January 18, 1994 the Council hired several consulting firms to assist staff in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the Bolsa Chica Plan. In addition on January 31, 1994, the City Council held a public hearing to gather additional public input on this matter. City staff in coordination with these consultants conducted a thorough review of the Draft EIR and have prepared the final draft of the City's comments on the document. Transmitted for Council's review and approval is the final draft of the City's comment letter on the Draft EIR. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve the City's comment letter and direct staff to forward it to the County of Orange by February 18, 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 preliminary draft of the comment document was distributed to Council on January 31, 1994. The comments primarily focus on the following three issue areas: ❖ Content and procedural inadequacies with respect to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Substantive inadequacies of the Draft EIR under CEQA. Section-by-Section analysis of the impacts, alternative projects, alternative locations and mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. The final draft of the document before the Council for approval has undergone some refinements since the January 31, 1994 draft. Changes primarily consist of additional input received at the public hearing, and corrections recommended by staff and Council and expansion of the comment's consideration of the following: Inadequacy of the mitigation measures to mitigate impacts Inadequacy of the analysis of alternative projects and alternative locations Incompatibility of the project with current Coastal Commission Policies Improbability of the issuance of Federal permits for lowland development Although the draft has been expanded and additional background documents have been noted as annexes to the comments, the draft before the Council reaches the same conclusions as the former draft. FUNDING SOURCE: Not applicable. MTU:MF:JO:lp RCA 2/14/94 2 aAblsachca\eir\rcacmnts.doc STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 14, 1994 A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Moulton-Patterson called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Silva, Bauer, Robitaille, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan ABSENT: Winchell ***##****#*#*#llxxxxx**xxxxx!!!!*!**!*!#!!!!!!!!#*xxxxx*!x!x**xxxxxxxxxxlx4x!!!**!!***!!!!!!#!#********#!#*x*xxxxx (City Council)-CITY COUNCIL COMMENT LETTER ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM - APPROVED-STAFF DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT TO ORANGE COUNTY (440.60) The City Clerk presented a communication from the City Administrator regarding the review by city staff, in coordination with consulting firms, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Plan and transmitting for City Council review and approval the final draft of the City's Comment Letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. A motion was made by Leipzig, seconded by Bauer, to direct staff to submit the City's Comment Letter on the Bolsa Chica Draft Environmental Impact Report and direct staff to forward it to the County of Orange by February 18, 1994. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Bauer, Moulton-Patterson, Leipzig, Sullivan NOES: Silva, Robitaille ABSENT: Winchell x#*xxx*#xxxxaxxx****x!!!#xxxxxxxxxxx*******!x#!lxxxxxxxxxxxxx!!**#******x*!!!!!xx*!*#xxxxwwwxlx*#*****!********xxx Mayor Moulton-Patterson adjourned the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/Linda Moulton-Patterson City Clerk/Clerk Mayor • Page 2- Statement of Action-2/14/94 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 14th day of February, 1994. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 17th day of February, 1993. Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City. of Huntington Beach, California By Deput ity Clerk ORIGINAL PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • • II � II DESCRIPTION: TO HEAR PUBLIC COMENTS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE DRAFT EIR PREPARED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND DIRECT THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT TRANSCRIPT, TOGETHER WITH WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED, BE FORWARDED TO THE EMA/PLANNING DIVISION, COUNTY OF ORANGE . • DATE : MONDAY , JANUARY 31 . 1994 TIME COMMENCED: 6 : 15 P .M. LOCATION: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH , CALIFORNIA REPORTED BY: ROBIN DONATELLI C.S .R . NO. 7148 • 1 5405 Alton Parkway ■ Suite 5A-629 ■ Irvine, California 92714 FAX: (714) 559-4364 ® (714) 559-6408 • 1 APPEARANCES: • 2 3 MAYOR - LINDA MOULTON-PATTERSON 4 5 MAYOR PRO TEM - EARLE ROBITAILLE 6 COUNCILMEMBER - RALPH BAUER 7 COUNCILMEMBER - JIM SILVA • 8 COUNCILMEMBER - GRACE WINCHELL 9 COUNCILMEMBER - DAVE SULLIVAN • 10 COUNCILMEMBER - VICTOR LEIPZIG 11 12 CITY ATTORNEY - GAIL HUTTON • 13 14 CITY ADMINISTRATOR - MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA 15 • 16 CITY CLERK - CONNIE BROCKWAY 17 18 DEPUTY CITY CLERK - MAE JOHNSON • 19 20 f►` 21 22 23 • 24 25 2 • 1 MONDAY, JANUARY 31 , 1994 - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 2 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I WOULD LIKE TO CONVENE 4 THE MEETING. 5 MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? 6 CITY CLERK: SILVA. 7 COUNCILMEMBER SILVA: HERE . 8 CITY CLERK: BAUER. 9 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: HERE . • 10 CITY CLERK: ROBITAILLE . 11 COUNCILMEMBER ROBITAILLE : HERE . 12 CITY CLERK: MOULTON-PATTERSON . 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: HERE . 14 CITY CLERK: WINCHELL. 15 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: HERE . 16 CITY CLERK: LEIPZIG. 17 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: HERE . 18 CITY CLERK: ALL PRESENT. • 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 20 AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 21 BEACH HAS CHOSEN TO HAVE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT SO THE 22 PUBLIC CAN BE HEARD ON THE DRAFT EIR OF THE BOLSA CHICA 23 PLAN. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. I KNOW WE 24 HAVE A LOT OF SPEAKERS TONIGHT, AND I ASK FOR YOUR 25 COOPERATION. 3 • • 1 1 HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE ALONG QUICKLY . AND 40 2 APPLAUSE WILL SLOW THINGS DOWN, SO I REALLY ASK FOR YOUR 3 COOPERATION. WE ARE REALLY GLAD YOU ARE HERE , AND WE ARE 4 REALLY GLAD TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS . 5 ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED 6 SPECIFICALLY TO THE DRAFT EIR . SOME OF THE COMMENTS THIS 7 EVENING MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY'S FORMAL COMMENT • 8 LETTER TO THE COUNTY. 9 PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME , ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE 10 NUMBER , AND SPEAK CLEARLY AND AUDIBLY, BECAUSE A COURT 11 REPORTER WILL BE MAKING A FORMAL RECORD OF THE ORAL 12 COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED TONIGHT. SINCE THE COUNTY WILL • 13 ONLY ACCEPT WRITTEN COMMENTS , A TRANSCRIPT OF TONIGHT' S 14 COMMUNICATIONS WILL BE PREPARED FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE 15 COUNTY. s- 16 TO ENSURE COUNTY STAFF RESPONSE TO YOUR 17 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA EIR, WE URGE YOU TO 18 SUBMIT YOUR O►M WRITTEN COMMENTS BY LETTER TO PAUL LANNING, 19 O.C. E .M.A. , ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION, P .O. BOX 4048 , 20 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 . 21 1 WOULD LIKE TO REPEAT THAT, SINCE I DON' T SEE 22 ANYTHING ON THE SCREEN. FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME , IT' S 23 PAUL LANNING, L-A-N-N- 1 -N-G, O.C.E .M.A. , ENVIRONMENTAL 24 PLANNING DIVISION, P .O. BOX 4048 , SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 25 92702-4048 . . 4 1 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND CITY CLERK, WOULD i 2 YOU PLEASE BEGIN CALLING NAMES . 3 CITY CLERK: YES , WE HAVE 72 SPEAKERS , 4 APPROXIMATELY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE SOME LETTERS 5 THAT CAME INTO MY OFFICE TODAY. 6 ONE LETTER FROM PATRICIA DUVALLI , DATED 7 TODAY' S DATE . 8 ANOTHER LETTER FROM DON SLAVEN, JANUARY 31 . 9 A LETTER FROM HARRIETT WIEDER , BOARD OF i 10 SUPERVISORS, DATED JANUARY 31ST. 11 AND A COMMUNICATION FROM GWEN FORSYTHE , MAYOR 12 OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. S 13 AND MARIO VOCE , CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 14 QUALITY CONTROL BOARD. 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 16 THE MAYOR OF SEAL BEACH HAD BEEN PLANNING TO 17 BE HERE . IS IT POSSIBLE TO READ A PORTION? SHE ASKED IF 18 THAT WAS POSSIBLE , FOR THE RECORD. 19 CITY CLERK: YES , SHE HAS UNDERLINED A PORTION OF 20 HER COMMUNICATION, AND I WILL READ IT AS FOLLOWS : 21 " IT IS OF EXTREME CONCERN THAT THE IMPACTS 22 OF ADDITIONAL VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC COAST 23 HIGHWAY NORTH OF WARNER AVENUE ARE NOT MORE FULLY 24 DISCUSSED, EVALUATED AND MITIGATED IN THE ABOVE 25 MENTIONED AREAS OF CONCERN. 5 1 THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT 3 ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES , 4 DESPITE THE EXTENSIVE LITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED. " 5 AND THESE ARE PORTIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION I AM 6 READING. THE ORIGINAL IS ON FILE IN MY OFFICE . 7 " IT IS THE POSITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL • 8 QUALITY CONTROL BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF 9 THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCED 10 PORTIONS OF THE DRAFT EIS/EIR SHOULD BE REVISED 11 TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS DISCUSSED ABOVE , EVALUATE 12 THE IMPACT AND PROPOSE IMPLEMENTABLE MITIGATION • 13 MEASURES . " 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . ALL OF THE 15 LETTERS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN YOUR OFFICE? • 16 CITY CLERK: YES , THE LETTERS I MENTIONED TONIGHT. 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 18 1 BELIEVE SUPERVISOR WIEDER HAS A 19 REPRESENTATIVE HERE FOR HER COMMENTS? 20 CITY CLERK: YES . TOM MATTHEWS WILL BE THE FIRST 21 SPEAKER. FOLLOWED BY DONALD MUELLER. DICK LEGRUE . VERA 22 ROCHA. AND MANUEL ROCHA. 23 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 24 MR. MATTHEWS: MADAM MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, MY NAME IS 25 TOM MATTHEWS , DIRECTOR OF PLANNING FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 6 s 1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY, AND I AM HERE AT THE f 2 REQUEST OF SUPERVISOR WIEDER WHO COULD NOT ATTEND THIS 3 EVENING'S MEETING DUE TO A PRIOR COMMITMENT. 4 1 WOULD LIKE TO READ A COPY OF THE LETTER THAT 5 SUPERVISOR WIEDER HAS SUBMITTED TO YOUR COUNCIL TODAY . IT 6 IS ADDRESSED TO YOU , MADAM MAYOR . AND IT READS AS FOLLOWS: 7 " 1 REGRET THAT I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND YOUR • 8 PUBLIC MEETING ON THE BOLSA CHICA ENVIRONMENTAL 9 IMPACT REPORT EIR . MY SCHEDULE SIMPLY DID NOT • 10 ALLOW ME TO CHANGE A PREVIOUS COMMITMENT ON A 11 SHORT FOUR-DAY NOTICE . IN MY ABSENCE , I HAVE 12 ASKED TOM MATTHEWS , THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 13 FOR THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 14 TO ATTEND TONIGHT' S HEARING AND BRIEFLY EXPLAIN 15 THE EIR SCHEDULE AND PROCESS . 16 1 APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 17 HAS PROVIDED THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT, 18 AS PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS VITAL ISSUE IS 19 EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. WHILE THE COUNTY' S POLICY 20 IS TO ACCEPT WRITTEN COMMENT RATHER THAN ORAL 21 COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR 22 AN EIR, THE COUNTY WILL ACCEPT A TRANSCRIPT 23 FROM TONIGHT' S MEETING AS INPUT TO THE PUBLIC 24 REVIEW PROCESS . 25 1 WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT AT THE CLOSE 7 I • 1 OF THE PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD ON THE 2 EIR ON FEBRUARY 18 , THE COUNTY WILL RESPOND TO 3 ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED. AT THAT TIME THE COUNTY 4 WILL BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR 5 THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT, DURING WHICH TIME 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE CONDUCTED BEFORE 7 THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND • 8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . 9 BECAUSE PUBLIC COMMENT IS SO IMPORTANT, • 10 1 HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING 11 COMMISSION HOLD ONE OF THEIR PUBLIC HEARINGS IN 12 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH . I BELIEVE THAT 13 THAT WILL ALLOW FOR MAXIMUM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. 14 IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO AFFIRM MY 15 COMMITMENT TO SEEING THAT AN APPROPRIATE PLAN 16 FOR RESTORATION OF THE BOLSA CHICA IS APPROVED 17 AND IMPLEMENTED. THE FUTURE OF THIS PRECIOUS 18 NATURAL RESOURCE MUST BE ENSURED, AND I WILL • 19 CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARD THAT GOAL . 20 SINCERELY, SIGNED HARRIETT M. WIEDER , 21 SUPERVISOR SECOND DISTRICT. " 22 MADAM MAYOR , AND COUNCILMEN , I APPRECIATE THE 23 COURTESY YOU HAVE RESCINDED TO ME TO READ THIS INTO THE • 24 RECORD RIGHT OUT OF THE BLOCK, SO TO SPEAK, AT THIS 25 HISTORIC MEETING. 8 • • 1 AND I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT 1 2 INDICATED TO THE COUNCIL, AND AT THE PUBLIC MEETING TWO 3 WEEKS AGO, AND THAT IS THE PROCESS UNDER WHICH THE COUNTY 4 OF ORANGE MANAGES THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW. AND 5 THAT IS AS SET FORTH HERE , THAT WE ACCEPT ONLY WRITTEN 6 COMMENT. AND THAT COMMENT PERIOD DOES END, AS YOU HAVE 7 INDICATED, ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 1994 . AND THE COMMENTS CAN BE • 8 MAILED TO PAUL LANNING, AS YOU HAVE INDICATED, AT THE 9 ADDRESS THAT IS NOW BEHIND YOU, MADAM MAYOR. • 10 1 WOULD ALSO LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT AFTER 11 FEBRUARY 18TH, IT WILL BE OUR JOB TO RESPOND TO THE 12 COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT i 13 REPORT. THAT IS CALLED A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS . WE WILL BE 14 RESPONDING TO THE WRITTEN TRANSCRIPT THAT WE RECEIVE FROM 15 THIS EVENING' S PUBLIC HEARING AS FURTHER INPUT TO THAT 16 PROCESS . 17 SOME TIME AFTER THE RESPONSE TO COMMENT IS 18 COMPLETED, WE WILL HOLD - - BEGIN HOLDING OUR PUBLIC • 19 HEARINGS BEFORE THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION , AND 20 FINALLY ENDING UP BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . 21 WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS 22 BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL COMMENCE AROUND THE 23 MIDDLE OF MAY OF THIS YEAR . 24 NOW, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE HAVE AN 25 INFORMATIONAL MEETING, VERY SIMILAR TO THE CITY' S PROCESS 9 • 1 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS TO ORIENT THEM, AND THEN WE 4' 2 HAVE A SERIES OF FORMAL PUBLIC HEARINGS . 3 THE SUPERVISOR HAS INDICATED THAT WE WILL 4 CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION, BEFORE THE 5 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6 BEACH. THIS IS NOT UNPRECEDENTED. WE HAVE DONE IT BEFORE 7 IN THE CASE OF THE TOLLAGA VALLEY PROJECT IN SOUTH ORANGE 8 COUNTY, INLAND OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE , WE HAD A 9 PLANNING HEARING ON THAT OCCASION. • 10 SO MADAM MAYOR , BARRING ANY QUESTIONS THE 11 COUNCIL MAY HAVE , THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION . I WILL 12 BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS . • 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH , 14 MR. MATTHEWS . WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING. 15 NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . • 16 MR. MUELLER: GOOD EVENING MAYOR , MEMBERS OF THE 17 CITY COUNCIL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM DONALD E . 18 MUELLER. I LIVE AT 603 21ST STREET IN HUNTINGTON BEACH MY • 19 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 960-3354 . 20 1 AM ONE OF 1800 MEMBERS OF THE BOLSA CHICA 21 LAND TRUST. JUST 18 MONTHS AGO WE STARTED OUR ACTIVITIES 22 HERE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH TALKING ABOUT AWAKENING THE 23 POPULATION TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SAVING ALL 1700 ACRES OF 24 THE BOLSA CHICA IN PERPETUITY. THAT' S BECOME SUCH A 25 POPULAR IDEA THAT WE NOW HAVE 1800 MEMBERS , NOT JUST HERE . 10 I • 1 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, BUT ALSO THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY, 2 THROUGHOUT THE STATE , ALSO IN TEXAS , OHIO, COLORADO, 3 ILLINOIS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES , INCLUDING ALASKA. 4 1 WOULD LIKE ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE HERE ON 5 BEHALF OF THE TRUST TONIGHT, EITHER AS MEMBERS OR 6 SUPPORTERS , PLEASE TO STAND FOR JUST A MINUTE . 7 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS . • 8 IT WILL BE A LONG EVENING. 9 TONIGHT YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM A LOT OF 10 OUR MEMBERS , AND A LOT OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GROUPS , AND 11 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH THIS TOPIC. AND 12 YOU ARE GOING TO GET ALL KINDS OF PERSPECTIVES . I THINK 13 THAT THIS IS A HEALTHY THING, AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT OUT 14 OF THIS KIND OF EXPRESSION, WE WILL REINFORCE ONE OF THE 15 BASIC VALUES OF THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT IS THE VALUE OF • 16 PUBLIC DISCUSSION. 17 SO THE TRUST COMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 18 CALLING THIS MEETING TO HELP FILL IN A GAP WHICH HERETOFORE • 19 HAS NOT BEEN FILLED. AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THIS 20 OPPORTUNITY, AND I 'M SURE I SPEAK FOR OTHERS WHO MAY NOT • 21 AGREE WITH OUR POSITION , TOO. PUBLIC DISCUSSION IS A GREAT 22 THING. 23 ALTHOUGH OUR PASSIONS ARE VERY HIGH , WE ARE • 24 WORKING VERY HARD TO BRING ABOUT THE GOAL THAT WE ARE 25 SEARCHING FOR. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH THE VERY DEFINITE • 11 • 1 INTENTION TO LISTEN TO ALL SIDES WITH COURTESY AND RESPECT, 2 AND WE INTEND TO DO THAT. 3 AGAIN , THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL. I HOPE 4 THAT WE WILL LEAVE A LEGACY TO ALL OF OUR GRANDCHILDREN 5 FROM THE RESULTS OF THIS MEETING TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY 6 MUCH. 7 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: AS THE NEXT SPEAKER IS • 8 COMING UP , I THINK I FORGOT TO SAY I BELIEVE THE BUZZER 9 GOES OFF AT TWO MINUTES , AS A WARNING, AND THEN YOU HAVE A • 10 MINUTE TO SUMMARIZE . 11 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 12 MR . LEGRUE : GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DICK LEGRUE . • 13 1 LIVE AT 8401 SWEETWATER IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 14 AND I COME TO YOU TONIGHT AS ANOTHER MEMBER OF 15 THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. I AM VERY INTERESTED IN • 16 PROVIDING SOME INFORMATION ABOUT OUR VISION, AND HOW WE , IN 17 THE LAND TRUST, BELIEVE THAT THE DRAFT EIR HAS NOT 18 ADDRESSED MANY OF THESE ISSUES IN AN ACCEPTABLE FASHION . • 19 BEFORE I GET TO THOSE , I WOULD LIKE TO THANK 20 ALL OF YOU ON THE COUNCIL FOR HOLDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING 21 THIS EVENING. I THINK THAT IT' S FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR 22 DEMOCRATIC PROCESS , AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS 23 THAT YOU HAVE MADE TO HAVE THIS MEETING THIS EVENING. 24 LET' S TALK ABOUT THE BASIC VISION OR GOAL OF 25 THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. • 12 1 FIRST, WE BELIEVE IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE 2 ENTIRE 1700 ACRES OF THE BOLSA CHICA, INCLUDING THE 3 WETLANDS AND THE MESA AREAS. HOWEVER , WE ALSO VERY , VERY 4 STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE CURRENT LANDOWNERS MUST 5 RECEIVE FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LAND. WE BELIEVE THEY 6 MUST RECEIVE FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THEIR LAND. 7 WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE , AS A COMMUNITY, WORK • 8 TOGETHER, WE CAN FIND A WAY OF PRESERVING THIS IMPORTANT 9 PIECE OF UNIQUE LAND. • 10 1 WOULD LIKE TO DO SOMETHING HERE THAT JUST 11 GIVES YOU A VERY, VERY QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE BELIEVE 12 ARE THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF OUR VISION FOR THE BOLSA CHICA. • 13 WE HAVE , SO TO SPEAK, FOUR COMPONENTS , OR PILLARS . 14 FIRST, THERE IS THE BIOLOGICAL AND ECOLOGICAL 15 COMPONENT OF OUR BELIEFS . • 16 SECONDLY, WE HAVE A STRONG FOUNDATION IN 17 BELIEVING THAT THE BOLSA CHICA HAS AN IMPORTANT CULTURAL • 18 AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE AND 19 NOTICE . 20 THIRD, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SITE IS VERY • 21 IMPORTANT FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES . 22 AND FOURTH , AND FINALLY, ARE THE ECONOMIC 23 FOUNDATIONS OF OUR BELIEF. • 24 THE EIR BARELY TOUCHES UPON THE FIRST TWO OF 25 THESE ISSUES , AND OF COURSE DOESN'T ADDRESS THE LAST TWO OF • 13 • 1 THE ISSUES . • 2 WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE NECESSARY ECOLOGICAL 3 ISSUES THAT ARE STATEWIDE , INTERNATIONAL, AND AS FAR AS THE 4 PACIFIC FLYWAY IS CONCERNED. WE BELIEVE THAT IN VIEW OF 5 THE FACT THAT VERY UNIQUE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS, AND NOW 6 WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT HUMAN REMAINS THAT ARE SIX TO 8 , 000 7 YEARS OF AGE HAVE BEEN FOUND ON-SITE . WE BELIEVE THAT • 8 THESE ARE IMPORTANT, AND SHOULD GO A LONG WAY IN HELPING US 9 PRESERVE THIS SITE . • 10 FINALLY, WE SEE THE SITE BEING MADE AS A 11 BIODIVERSITY PARK THAT CAN SERVE AS AN EDUCATIONAL , 12 RECREATIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC CENTER. • 13 1 THINK THAT IN CLOSING WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO 14 SAY IS THAT THE EIR STATES VERY CLEARLY THAT THE 15 BIODIVERSITY PARK IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR • 16 ALTERNATIVE TO THE PROJECT. THE EIR STATES THAT . WE 17 INVITE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM THIS EVENING TO JOIN TOGETHER 18 TO EXPLORE HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THIS GOAL . • 19 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 21 MR. LEGRUE: BEFORE LEAVING, WE OF THE LAND TRUST 22 ARE BIG ON DREAMS , AND IN SYMBOLS , AND WE WOULD LIKE TO 23 PRESENT TO YOU A SYMBOL OF THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT • 24 ORANGE COUNTY HAS PRESENTED US WITH A LEMON OF AN EIR . 25 THANK YOU . 14 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER, 2 PLEASE . 3 MS . ROCHA: THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN , AND THE 4 COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE YOU - - 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . COULD YOU 6 STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? 7 MS . ROCHA: MY NAME IS CHIEF YANA OF THE • 8 GABRIELINO/SHASHONI NATION . MY NAME IS VERA ROCHA. MY 9 ADDRESS IS 3451 REMY AVENUE , BALDWIN PARK, CALIFORNIA. MY • 10 TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 962-8546 . AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK 11 YOU FOR BEING HERE AND HELPING US WITH A LITTLE BIT OF 12 KNOWLEDGE ON BOTH PARTS . 13 FOR ONE THING, THE AREA IS VERY PRECIOUS TO 14 THE NATIVE AMERICAN. MY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE BEFORE 15 THE 8 , 000 YEARS OF THE ANCESTORS OF OURS THAT WERE FOUND. 16 WE COULD GO BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEN , AND WE 17 KNOW OUR CULTURE , WE KNOW EVERYTHING THAT ISN' T WRITTEN IN 18 BOOKS . AND WE ARE HERE TO MAKE SURE THE PEOPLE RESPECT • 19 THIS LAND. IT WAS PART OF THE LAND, THE WORLD, THE EARTH 20 THAT MOTHER EARTH WAS HERE TO GIVE US OUR GIFTS , OUR LIFE , • 21 THE WATER , THE AIR , THE PLANTS , THE ANIMALS . SO WE ARE NOT 22 THE ONLY ONES ON THIS EARTH TO TAKE ADVANTAGE AND SCAVENGE 23 ALL THAT IS HERE . IT BELONGS TO THE OTHER ANIMALS , THE • 24 OTHER SPECIES , THE OTHER INHABITANTS . 25 WE , AS HUMAN BEINGS , ARE THE LOWEST CLASS , AND 15 • 1 WE HAVE NOT YET REACHED OUR PEAK TO KNOW ABOUT THIS LAND • 2 THAT WE LIVE ON. 3 AND IT HAS BEEN SAID, EVEN IN JOKES , " IF YOU 4 DON'T LOVE IT, LEAVE IT. " I DON 'T KNOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE 5 GOING TO GO, BUT THEY SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THIS LAND. LIKE 6 1 SAY, THIS IS OUR LAND. USE IT, DON ' T ABUSE IT. 7 WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF THINGS TO TAKE CARE OF • 8 THIS LAND, AND BEING - - THE IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE DO THINGS 9 AND NOT TELL THE OTHER PERSON, BUT IT COMES OUT IN THE LONG • 10 END, NO MATTER HOW YOU LIE , CHEAT, STEEL OR EVEN TAKE AWAY 11 BY FORCE , THIS LAND WILL ALWAYS BE HERE TO PROVIDE FOR 12 EVERYONE . AND LIKE 1 SAY, NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT , NO HUMAN • 13 BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO DESTROY ANYTHING, TO EVEN PICK A 14 LEAF WITHOUT REALIZING THAT' S PART OF SOMEBODY ELSE ' S FOOD , 15 SOMEBODY ELSE ' S WAY OF LIFE TO USE IT. WE DO NOT DESTROY • 16 WHAT BELONGS TO SOMEBODY ELSE . AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING 17 DONE NOW. YOU ARE DESTROYING A LAND THAT SHOULD BE LEFT 18 ALONE , NOT ONLY FOR THE NATIVE AMERICAN , BUT OUR PEOPLE • 19 WILL FIGHT UNTIL THE DEATH TO TRY TO PRESERVE THIS LAND. 20 MY ANCESTORS , WHICH ARE BEING DUG UP AND • 21 PICKED LIKE VULTURES AND LEAVING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT JUST 22 TO BE RUINED, WHAT HAVE THEY PUT BACK THAT THEY HAVE TAKEN? 23 THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE SATISFIED UNTIL THERE ISN ' T ANY 24 TREES FOR LIFE . THE EARTH IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED. THERE 25 IS GOING TO BE PLAGUES . THE EARTHQUAKES ARE NOTHING, THE 16 • 1 FLOODS ARE NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN . 2 YOU HAVE TO WAKE UP . YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO 3 WHAT MOTHER EARTH IS TELLING YOU. 4 SO WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS , PLEASE , I AM BEGGING • 5 YOU , THIS IS A LAND - - THIS IS THE LAST PART OF THE LAND 6 FOR EVERYBODY TO ENJOY. AND I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU 7 WOULD DIG DEEP IN YOUR CONSCIOUS. • 8 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 9 MS . ROCHA: THANK YOU . • 10 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE MANUEL ROCHA, 11 PATRICIA WARE , PHYLLIS MAYWHORT, DAVE HALL AND CECIL 12 BIRNBAUM. • 13 MR . ROCHA: MY NAME IS MANUEL ROCHA. I AM HERE WITH 14 MY WIFE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS PIECE OF LAND THAT SHOULD BE 15 LEFT ALONE . • 16 AS A SPIRITUAL LEADER OF OUR GROUP , OUR 17 ORGANIZATION OF THE GABRIELINO PEOPLE , WE HAVE SEEN THE 18 DESTRUCTION OF OUR CEMETARIES , CEMETARIES THAT YOU DON ' T • 19 SEE , BECAUSE WE NEVER PUT ANY SIGNS OF THE CROSS , BECAUSE 20 WE WEREN'T CHRISTIANS . WE ARE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE . AND YET 21 BECAUSE THERE IS NO SIGNS OF A CROSS , PEOPLE DECIDE TO TAKE 22 OVER THAT LAND THAT DOESN 'T BELONG TO THEM. 23 IT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS LAND. OUR 24 ANCESTORS . OUR GREAT, GREAT GRANDPARENTS HAVE BEEN BURIED 25 ON THIS LAND. WE VISIT THAT LAND OFTEN, AND WE SEE HOW IT 17 • 1 IS BEING DESTROYED BY THE POPULATION THAT HAVE BEEN COMING 2 IN FROM OTHER COUNTRIES , FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE UNITED 3 STATES , WITH NO REGARD, OR RESPECT FOR THE INDIGENOUS LAND. 4 1 THINK IT IS TIME THAT WE TRY TO PROTECT, 5 WITH THE HELP OF EVERY CITIZEN, THIS LAND. LET' S GET 6 TOGETHER AND STOP DESTROYING. AND THE DEVELOPMENT, IT IS 7 NO LONGER NEEDED ANYMORE . PRESERVE IT FOR THE CHILDREN, 8 FOR THE FUTURE , FOR ALL YOUR CHILDREN AND OUR CHILDREN. 9 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 11 PLEASE . AND PLEASE REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS 12 FOR THE RECORD. 13 MS . WARE : MY NAME IS PATRICIA HAMMOND WARE . 1 14 RESIDE AT 17612 STILLHARBOR LANE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . MY 15 HOME PHONE NUMBER IS 841 -9514 . 16 HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AGAIN , 17 MY NAME IS PAT HAMMOND WARE . I AM THE IMMEDIATE PAST 18 PRESIDENT OF THE PACIFIC COAST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. AND 19 1 AM ALSO THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE NATIONAL REGISTER 20 NOMINATION FOR THE COGSTONE SITE , ALSO KNOWN AS ORA-83 . r 21 THAT' S THE SITE DESIGNATION GIVEN TO IT. 22 1 AM HERE TONIGHT TO EXPRESS MY VERY SERIOUS 23 CONCERN OVER THE HANDLING OF THIS SITE . 24 TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THERE HAS 25 BEEN A LONG-STANDING DISPUTE WITH KOLL COMPANY' S , • 18 I 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT, SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS , 2 INCORPORATED, ABOUT, FIRST OF ALL , THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 3 SITE ITSELF . AND SECONDLY, THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH VALUE 4 OF THE TOTAL 7 .4 ACRES OF THE SITE THAT WAS RULED ELIGIBLE 5 TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES BY THE STATE 6 HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 4TH , 1993 . AND 7 1 HAVE ATTACHED COPIES OF THOSE MINUTES . 8 IT WAS VERY DISTURBING LAST FALL TO PERSONALLY 9 OBSERVE GRADING ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REMOVAL OF 10 THE GUN EMPLACEMENT, THAT I BELIEVE DESTROYED A PORTION OF 11 THE NATIONAL REGISTER AREA, WHICH I HAVE INDICATED RIGHT UP 12 HERE ON THIS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ( INDICATING) . THIS WAS DONE 13 WITHOUT COMPLETION OF FIELD WORK ON THE SITE . AS YOU CAN 14 SEE , THERE ARE STILL OPEN EXCAVATION UNITS . AND IT WAS 15 ALSO DONE WITHOUT AN APPROVED EIR , WHICH CONCERNED ME . 16 1 WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO 17 THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR BOTH THE • 18 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE AND THE HISTORIC GUN EMPLACEMENTS HAVE 19 BEEN IGNORED, AND SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZES THE DEVELOPER ' S 20 ABILITY TO OBTAIN A FEDERAL 404 PERMIT. I HAVE ALSO 21 ATTACHED LETTERS IN REFERENCE TO THIS FROM THE ADVISORY 22 COUNCIL. 23 AS YOU KNOW, NATIVE AMERICAN BURIALS HAVE BEEN 24 FOUND AT THE SITE . IN FACT, I HAVE INCLUDED A COPY OF THE 25 KOLL FACTS SHEET AT THE VERY END OF YOUR PACKET. • 19 • 1 AND I JUST WANT TO DRAW SOME NEW INFORMATION • 2 OUT TONIGHT: 3 IN A CONVERSATION WITH DR. JEAN HUDSON OF THE 4 U.C. L.A. BONE LAB , SHE INDICATED THAT A HUMAN BURIAL WAS • 5 SENT TO THEM FOR ANALYSIS THE LATE SUMMER OF 1992 . 6 HOW COME NONE OF THIS HAS APPEARED IN THE EIR? 7 1 JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE . • 8 NOW, WITH THIS EVIDENCE OF THIS 8 , 000 YEAR OLD 9 NATIVE AMERICAN BURIAL, THE SITE BECOMES EVEN MORE 10 TREASURED. 11 IT IS A NONRENEWABLE , VERY VALUABLE RESOURCE 12 THAT BELONGS TO ALL OF US. AND IN MY OPINION, IT HAS BEEN • 13 HANDLED WITH A VERY ARROGANT AND CAVALIER ATTITUDE UNDER A 14 VEIL OF SECRECY. 15 AND 1 URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CALL FOR A • 16 FORMAL INVESTIGATION SO THAT THIS PRECIOUS SITE HAS A 17 CHANCE TO GAIN ITS RIGHTFUL PLACE IN CALIFORNIA' S 18 PREHISTORY . • 19 AND IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE YOU WITH 20 THESE MOST APPROPRIATE WORDS . WE HAVE NOT INHERITED THE • 21 EARTH FROM OUR ANCESTORS . WE ARE BORROWING IT FROM OUR 22 CHILDREN . 23 THANK YOU. 24 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MS . WARE , WE HAVE A 25 QUESTION. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN HAS A QUESTION. l • 20 1 1 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: MS. WARE , DID 1 UNDERSTAND 2 YOU TO SAY THAT THE KOLL COMPANY SENT BONE FRAGMENTS TO 3 U .C. L.A. IN THE SUMMER OF 1992? 4 MS . WARE : YES , U.C. L.A. - - RIGHT BEFORE I CAME HERE 5 TONIGHT, I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO WRITE THIS UP , BUT THE 6 DIRECTOR OF THE BONE LAB AT U .C. L.A. INDICATED THEY WERE 7 CONTACTED THE SUMMER OF 1992 TO ANALYZE A HUMAN BURIAL, AND 8 IT WAS NOT MIXED IN WITH OTHER REMAINS . IT WAS INDICATED 9 BY THE KOLL COMPANY' S CONSULTANT TO BE A HUMAN BURIAL. 10 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: SO THE KOLL COMPANY, AT 11 THAT TIME , INDICATED THAT THE BONES WERE HUMAN IN 1992? 12 MS . WARE: THE KOLL COMPANY' S CONSULTANT INDICATED 13 TO U .C. L.A. THAT THIS WAS A HUMAN BURIAL. IT' S NOT 14 FRAGMENTS , BUT - - AND WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT 15 WHAT CONSTITUTES A BURIAL, TOO. 16 OFTEN IN THE GROUND, BONES DECOMPOSE , THEY ARE 17 NOT A FULLY ARTICULATED SKELETON, ESPECIALLY IF IT' S • 18 SOMETHING THAT IS 8 , 000 YEARS OLD. OFTEN WHAT IS LEFT IS 19 JUST THE LARGE LONG BONES AND THE CRANIUM. 20 SO, IN MY OPINION, WHEN YOU FIND THAT TYPE OF 21 ' BONE , IT' S STILL A BURIAL. AND IN FACT, THEIR CONSULTANT 22 STILL CALLS IT A BURIAL, EXCEPT WHEN THEY ARE TALKING IN 23 DOCUMENTS THAT ARE RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. 24 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: SO CAN WE ASSUME FROM THAT, 25 OR DO YOU KNOW THAT THE U .C. L.A. LAB TOLD THE KOLL COMPANY . 21 • 1 TO CONFIRM THE FACT THAT THEY WERE HUMAN BONES IN THE 2 SUMMER OF 1992? 3 MS . WARE : THEY INDICATED TO KOLL COMPANY' S 4 CONSULTANT, THAT, YES , INDEED THEY WERE HUMAN BONE . 5 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 7 NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . • 8 MR. BIRNBAUM: GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR , MEMBERS OF 9 THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CECIL BIRNBAUM, AND I LIVE AT • 10 17301 ELSINORE CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I HAVE LIVED 11 AND WORKED IN OUR CITY FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS NOW. 12 1 AM A GRAPHIC DESIGNER AND PHOTOGRAPHER , AND • 13 1 HAVE SPENT ABOUT 27 OF MY 30 YEARS WITH MC DONNELL 14 DOUGLAS CORPORATION, DESIGNING AND DIRECTING THEIR SALES 15 PROMOTIONS TOWARD MATERIALS . • 16 BECAUSE OF MY PROFESSION, I GUESS YOU COULD 17 SAY I AM REALLY A VISUAL KIND OF A PERSON, QUALIFIED, I 18 HOPE , TO JUDGE WHEN SOMETHING IS BEAUTIFUL, VISUALLY • 19 PLEASING, AND WHEN IT ISN'T. AND I HEAR A LOT OF TALK 20 THESE DAYS ABOUT PRESERVING BOLSA CHICA. • 21 WELL, I BROUGHT ALONG A PHOTO TO SHOW YOU 22 TONIGHT, WHICH GRAPHICALLY SHOWS THAT THE BOLSA CHICA THAT 23 1 HAVE SEEN IS HARDLY AN ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY AT THE • 24 MOMENT, VISUALLY, OR OTHERWISE . 25 IN FACT, THE BIRDS THAT 1 HAVE SEEN THERE MUST 22 • 1 HAVE STOPPED OFF BECAUSE OF TOTAL EXHAUSTION , CERTAINLY NOT 2 VISUAL APPEAL. 3 THIS IS BOLSA CHICA TODAY, AN OIL OPERATION 4 WITH A DYING EUCALYPTUS GROVE , A MESA THAT BECOMES A FIRE 5 HAZARD NINE MONTHS OF THE YEAR BECAUSE OF THE DRY BRUSH , 6 AND A TINY RESTORED WETLANDS AREA THAT IS A RESERVE . 7 LOOK FOR YOURSELF. I URGE THOSE OF YOU WHO • 8 HAVE NOT TAKEN THE TOUR YET, TO BE CERTAIN TO DO THAT, 9 BECAUSE IT IS A VERY REVEALING THING, IF YOU HAVEN 'T 10 ALREADY DONE SO. 11 IT' S EASY TO SEE THAT THE KOLL COMPANY IS 12 OFFERING US , I THINK, A REALLY GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE 13 THIS AREA RESTORED AT NO COST TO YOU AND ME , THE TAXPAYER. 14 AND I AM INTERESTED IN THAT. ACTUALLY, TO HAVE 75 PERCENT 15 OF OUR LAND RESTORED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 25 16 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY. AND WHAT HOUSING IS BUILT THERE 17 WILL BE IN A VARIETY OF PRICE RANGES , WHICH ENABLES FOLKS . 18 LIKE MOST OF US , POLICEMEN, FIREMEN, TEACHERS , EVEN GRAPHIC 19 DESIGNERS , TO BUY IN COASTAL ORANGE COUNTY. 20 IN THE DISCUSSIONS I HAVE HAD WITH MY FRIENDS 21 ON THE SUBJECT, IT HAS BEEN QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS A 22 SILENT MAJORITY WHO SUPPORT WHAT KOLL IS DOING. AND IT' S 23 FAIR AND IT' S EQUITABLE , AND THE CITY SHOULD RECOGNIZE s 24 THIS , IN SPITE OF A VOCAL MINORITY THAT KEEPS CLAMORING IN 25 THE BACKGROUND. • 23 • 1 BOLSA CHICA IS NOT AN ENDANGERED JEWEL . IT' S 2 AN OIL FIELD. WHAT I SEE HAPPENING IN HUNTINGTON BEACH 3 REMINDS ME OF THE STORY ABOUT THE EMPEROR 'S NEW CLOTHES . 4 DO YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE? THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE PROJECT 5 WOULD LIKE YOU TO BELIEVE THEY ARE CLOAKED IN ENVIRONMENTAL 6 GREEN , BUT WE CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH THEM. IF THESE 7 SO-CALLED ENVIRONMENTALISTS REALLY CARED ABOUT THE 8 WETLANDS , THEY WOULD SUPPORT THIS PLAN TO SAVE THEM, AND 9 NOT SPIN THESE BIG YARNS ABOUT NOTHING BUT TAXES . 10 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE PHYLISS MAYWHORT 11 DAVE HALL, TAMARA PHIBBS AND PETER DENNISTON . 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . • 13 MS . MAYWHORT: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PHYLISS 14 MAYWHORT. MY ADDRESS IS 16851 BAYVIEW DRIVE IN SUNSET 15 BEACH. • 16 1 REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE 17 TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT LIVE 18 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUNSET • 19 BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION , AND I AM HERE TO SPEAK FOR 20 THEM. �. 21 WE FEEL THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 22 VERY INADEQUATELY ADDRESSES THE IMPACT OF THE TRAFFIC ON 23 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY STARTING AT WATER AVENUE , AND GOING 24 ONTO SEAL BEACH . WITH, OR WITHOUT SIX LANES OF TRAFFIC, WE 25 WILL BE AT AN UNACCEPTABLE "F" LEVEL OF SERVICE , WHICH 24 • • 1 MEANS GRIDLOCK. 2 AND THE MITIGATION OF THE A-TIP AREA 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN DOES NOT MITIGATE . WE WILL 4 STILL BE AT GRIDLOCK. 5 IF SIX LANES ARE PUT THROUGH SUNSET BEACH , THE 6 ENTIRE BUSINESS DISTRICT WILL BE RUINED. ONE SIDE WILL 7 HAVE TO BE TAKEN IN ORDER TO GET THE NECESSARY LANES , BIKE 8 LANES , MEDIAN STRIPS AND SIDEWALKS IN. SUNSET BEACH HAS 9 BEEN IN EXISTENCE SINCE THE EARLY 1900 ' S , AND WE REALLY . 10 DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SACRIFICED FOR THIS PROJECT. 11 THERE ARE NO - - 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE • 13 AUDIENCE , IT REALLY IS SLOWING DOWN THE TIME WITH APPLAUSE . 14 PLEASE TRY. THANK YOU. 15 MS . MAYWHORT: THERE ARE NO DEFINITE FINANCING • 16 PROVISIONS , EVEN IF THEY DO TRY TO PUT SIX LANES THROUGH . 17 THEY TALK ABOUT MEASURE M, OR THE DEVELOPER 18 MAY PAY, OR THERE MAY BE AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT; HOWEVER , • 19 IT' S NOT DEFINITE . AND IT WILL BE VERY COSTLY , BECAUSE THE 20 HIGHWAY BRIDGE OVER ANAHEIM BAY WILL HAVE TO BE WIDENED TO 21 SIX LANES , AND THAT'S EXPENSIVE TO DO. 22 ALL OF THESE DECISIONS ARE GOING TO BE MADE 23 LATER . THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE MADE AT PUBLIC HEARINGS . 24 THEY ARE GOING TO BE MADE IN THE BUREAUCRACY SOMEWHERE , IN 25 ACCOUNTING. AND WE SHOULD - - WE BELIEVE THAT WE NEED THE • 25 1 FRESH AIR OF PUBLIC HEARINGS , AND NOT THE DEVELOPER AND THE 2 COUNTY SITTING DOWN TOGETHER IN SOME ROOM WHERE WE HAVE NO 3 INPUT WHATSOEVER . 4 AN ADDITIONAL POINT IS THAT SUNSET BEACH , 5 SURFSIDE , WEST HUNTINGTON BEACH COULD BE CUT-OFF IN CASE OF 6 A DISASTER. WE HAVE THE OCEAN ON ONE SIDE , WE HAVE BRIDGES 7 ON TWO SIDES , AND THAT ONLY LEAVES ONE MORE SIDE , WHICH 8 IS - - WHERE THERE WILL BE ANOTHER BRIDGE TO GO OVER THE NEW 9 INLET THAT IS PROPOSED. 10 WE COULD BE CUT-OFF FOR DAYS WITH NO FIRE 11 PROTECTION, POLICE , NOT ABLE TO GET TO THE HOSPITAL, NOT 12 ABLE TO GET TO DOCTORS . NOT ABLE TO GET FOOD. NOT ABLE TO • 13 GET WATER . THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS THING, AND WE ARE VERY 14 CONCERNED ABOUT IT. 15 THE IMPACT OF THE TRAFFIC ON THE FREEWAYS IS • 16 ALSO INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 17 REPORT. THEY JUST ARE GOING TO SEND IT TO THE FREEWAYS . 18 WHAT HAPPENS ONCE THEY HIT THE FREEWAYS? HOW MANY OF YOU • 19 HAVE BEEN ON THE FREEWAY AT THE 405 AND THE 605 AND 7TH 20 STREET CONJUNCTION? TRY TO GET ON THERE . 21 THE LAST THING IS THE KOLL COMPANY KEEPS 22 INSISTING THEY ARE ONLY CONTRIBUTING THREE PERCENT. IF 23 EACH DEVELOPER SAYS THEY ARE ONLY CONTRIBUTING THREE 24 PERCENT, OR TWO PERCENT, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE TRAFFIC 25 PROBLEMS WE HAVE NOW. 26 • 1 WE MUST LOOK TO THE FUTURE , AND NOT KEEP 2 SAYING, "WELL, MY PROJECT ONLY CONTRIBUTES THREE PERCENT, 3 SO LET' S GO BUILD HOUSES , AND TO HECK WITH THE TRAFFIC . " 4 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 6 MR . HALL: MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , 7 MY NAME IS DAVE HALL, AND I LIVE AT 16291 KIM LANE IN • 8 HUNTINGTON BEACH. 9 LET ME PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY SAYING THAT THE • 10 GENEROUS OFFER BY KOLL TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS , ACCORDING 11 TO THE EIR, WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE YEAR 2020 . THIS 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS A BLUEPRINT FOR THE 13 DESTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE BOLSA CHICA. 14 THE PROJECT WILL DESTROY ENDANGERED AND 15 THREATENED SPECIES , AND IS A VIOLATION OF THE ENDANGERED • 16 SPECIES ACT, AND THE COASTAL ACT. 17 THE EIR DOES NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE BIOLOGICAL 18 ASSESSMENT OF THE AREA. THE DOCUMENT REFUSES TO FACE THE 19 FACT THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UPON THE 20 ENVIRONMENT. IMPACTS ARE MINIMALIZED, PARTICULARLY • 21 REGARDING ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES . 22 FIRST, THE EIR DOES NOT MAKE A CORRECT 23 ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . THERE ARE BURROWING 24 OWLS ON BOLSA CHICA MESA. THE DOCUMENT SAYS THERE ARE 25 BURROWING OWLS ON HUNTINGTON MESA, BUT THAT NONE ARE TO BE 27 • 1 FOUND ON BOLSA CHICA MESA. LISTEN, THERE ARE BURROWING 2 OWLS ON BOLSA CHICA MESA WHERE THOUSANDS OF HOMES WILL BE 3 BUILT UNDER THIS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE . 4 1 HAVE SEEN PAIRS OF BURROWING OWLS ON THE 5 MESA. CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE ONLY 25 PAIRS REMAINING, 6 THE IMPACT THAT THE ELIMINATION OF BURROWING OWL HABITAT ON 7 BOLSA CHICA MESA AND HUNTINGTON MESA, WILL LIKELY LEAD TO • 8 THE TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF THIS CANDIDATE OF SPECIAL 9 CONCERN . 10 THE IMPACT OF THE BURROWING OWL WILL BE GREAT. 11 ITS HABITAT WILL BE LOST TO HOUSING. THE OPEN GRASSLANDS 12 ON THE BOLSA CHICA MESA WHERE THE OWL FORAGES FOR FOOD WILL 13 BE LOST TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES . CONSTRUCTION ON THE 14 HUNTINGTON MESA WILL ELIMINATE THE NESTING BURROWING OWLS 15 OF THAT UPLAND HABITAT. • 16 FURTHERMORE , THE INCREASED NUMBER OF PEOPLE , 17 CATS AND DOGS IN THE AREA, THE CROWS AND STARLINGS , AND 18 OTHER SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESENCE OF HUMANS , WILL 1 19 LITERALLY WIPE OUT THE BURROWING OWL , NOT JUST LOCALLY, BUT 20 PROBABLY TOTALLY. IMPACTS OF BURROWING OWLS ARE NEVER 21 MENTIONED. AND THE BIOLOGY OF THE SPECIES IS INCOMPLETE . 22 ALSO, THE PROJECT THREATENS THE CALIFORNIA 23 LEASE TERN, THE ELEGANT TERN , AND THE ( INAUDIBLE) SPARROW, 24 ALL ENDANGERED SPECIES . THE LEASE TERN WILL BE IMPACTED BY 25 THE PRESENCE OF PEOPLE , AND THIS IS DOCUMENTED UNDER IMPACT 28 • • 1 4 . 71 . HOWEVER, THE MITIGATION IS THAT PEOPLE WILL NOT BE 2 ALLOWED TO USE INTERNAL TRAILS FROM MARCH TO AUGUST, A 3 MITIGATION THAT IS QUITE UNENFORCEABLE AND RIDICULOUS , AT 4 BEST. 5 IT IS TRUE THAT THE LEASE TERN JUST LAYS EGGS 6 ON THE SAND, AS DOES THE OTHER TERN, AND WHAT IS HAPPENING 7 IS THAT THE INCREASE OF PEOPLE WILL BRING CATS AND DOGS • 8 INTO THE AREA, AND THAT CAN WREAK HAVOC ON THE LEASE TERN 9 POPULATION. • 10 FURTHERMORE , WE SEE THAT THE CALIFORNIA BROWN 11 PELICAN, ELEGANT TERN AND THE LEASE TERN , WHICH FISHES IN 12 THE UPPER AND LOWER BOLSA BAYS , WILL BE IMPACTED BY • 13 CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION INCREASES THE CLOUDING 14 OF WATERS . THESE SPEICES WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FISH BECAUSE 15 OF THE CLOUDING OF THE WATER , ALTHOUGH THE EIR DOES NOT • 16 MENTION THIS AS AN IMPACT. THE SPARROW WILL LOSE - - 23 17 PAIRS WILL BE DISPLACED BY CONSTRUCTION . 18 OVERALL, IT' S A BAD EIR . IT IS A BLUEPRINT • 19 FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE BOLSA CHICA. AND I URGE THE 20 COUNTY TO REJECT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH . • 21 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 22 PLEASE . 23 MS . PHIBBS: MAYOR AND HONORABLE CITY 24 COUNCILMEMBERS , MY NAME IS TAMARA PHIBBS . I LIVE AT 25 15642 SUNBURST LANE . MY PHONE NUMBER IS 892-0392 . 29 • I • 1 1 AM A MEMBER OF THE SIERRA CLUB ' S PRESERVE • 2 BOLSA CHICA TASK FORCE . I AM A GRADUATE OF MARINA HIGH 3 SCHOOL, U.C. BERKLEY, AND U .C. L.A. AND I WORK AS AN URBAN 4 PLANNING CONSULTANT. 5 1 HAVE A FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE ABOUT SOME OF 6 THE IMPACTS WHICH WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE DRAFT EIR . 7 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD DEVELOP HOUSING ON • 8 THE BOLSA CHICA MESA AND LOWLANDS . THIS WILL HAVE AN 9 ADVERSE EFFECT ON EXISTING ON-SITE LAND USES , PARTICULARLY 10 WILDLIFE , OPEN SPACE AND CULTURAL RESOURCES . THIS PROJECT 11 WILL PERMANENTLY DESTROY THE LOWLANDS , WETLANDS AND 12 PRECLUDE THEIR RESTORATION. • 13 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESA WOULD DESTROY 14 NESTING AND ROOSTING HABITAT FOR A VARIETY OF BIRDS , WHICH 15 IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE ENTIRE WETLANDS ECO-SYSTEM. • 16 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOLSA CHICA MESA WOULD 17 DESTROY THE SACRED LAND OF THE INDIGENOUS GABRIELINO TRIBE 18 WHO LIVED THERE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS . THIS PROJECT WOULD • 19 ELIMINATE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CONSERVE THIS LAND FOR FULL 20 EXCAVATION AND STUDY. THE SITE SHOULD BE CONSERVED FOR • 21 HISTORIC, CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES . 22 FURTHER, THE UPLAND MESA IS ONE OF THE LAST 23 UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BLUFFS IN NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY. THIS 24 BEAUTIFUL OPEN SPACE PROVIDES AN ENCHANTING GATEWAY INTO 25 HUNTINGTON BEACH. THIS MESA AND THE WETLANDS ARE ONE OF 30 • 1 THE LARGEST NATURAL OPEN SPACES IN NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY. • 2 THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON 3 ADJACENT WETLAND USES . I DO NOT BELIEVE A BUFFER ZONE OF 4 100 FEET BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE WETLANDS WILL • 5 MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT. 6 CONSIDER THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL 7 INCREASE THE POPULATION IN THE AREA BY 11 , 000 PERSONS , IF • 8 YOU FACTOR 4 ,286 DWELLING UNITS BY AN AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD 9 SIZE OF 2 . 5 , FOR INSTANCE . THIS INCREASE IN NEARBY 10 POPULATION WILL INCREASE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMAN • 11 INTRUSION. AND THE DOGS AND CATS OF THESE HOUSEHOLDS WILL 12 ALSO EFFECT THE WILDLIFE . • 13 THE PROJECT WILL ALSO INCREASE TOXIC URBAN 14 RUNOFF INTO THE WETLANDS AND OCEAN. WHAT MECHANISMS WILL 15 BE USED TO PREVENT URBAN RUNOFF INTO THE WETLANDS? • II 16 THE PROPOSED PROJECT TRANSPORTATION AND 17 CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE HUMAN 18 INTRUSION FROM NEARBY RESIDENTS AND VISITORS . ACCORDING TO • 19 THE EIR, THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE A 14-ACRE PEDESTRIAN 20 BICYCLE AND TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WILL TAKE VISITORS THROUGHOUT 21 THE AREA, THEREBY OPENING UP THE AREA FOR SIGNIFICANT 22 PUBLIC USE . HO1N MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THESE TRAILS , AND 23 WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF INCREASED VISITATION TO 24 SENSITIVE HABITATS? WILL THESE TRAILS MAKE IT EASIER FOR I 25 PETS AND PEOPLE TO WANDER THROUGH NESTING SITES OF BIRDS? • 31 • 1 ALSO, ADD TO THIS THE PROPOSED RECREATIONAL 2 USES , ACTIVE RECREATIONAL USES LIKE BASKETBALL AND 3 FOOTBALL. HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL USE THESE NEW RECREATIONAL 4 AREAS? • 5 ALSO, PICNIC SHELTERS AND BARBECUES WILL 6 INCREASE THE POPULATION AROUND THE WETLANDS . HOW MANY 7 PEOPLE ARE PROJECTED TO USE THESE PICNIC AREAS? AND ARE • 8 THESE USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE 9 HABITAT? • 10 1 DO BELIEVE IT' S TIME TO RECOGNIZE THAT 11 UNMANAGED GROWTH CAN DESTROY PRECIOUS NATURAL AND CULTURAL 12 RESOURCES . WE HAVE THE TALENT AND LEADERSHIP IN WEST 13 ORANGE COUNTY TO SET OURSELVES ON A NEW COURSE , A COURSE 14 THAT CAN EMBRACE THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE 15 WETLANDS AND THE MESA FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS BY • 16 ESTABLISHING A LAND TRUST. I URGE YOU TO REQUEST THE BOARD 17 OF SUPERVISORS - - • 18 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 19 MS . PHIBBS: THANK YOU. 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . • 21 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE PETER DENNISTON, 22 GAE TREECE , JACK RADLE , VIRGINIA GEORGE AND STEVE ANDERSON . 23 MR. DENNISTON: THANK YOU . IT LOOKS LIKE A FRUIT • 24 ROLL ( INDICATING) . 25 MY NAME IS PETER DENNISTON, AND I LIVE AT 10 • 32 • I SUNRIVER IN THE CITY OF IRVINE . MY PHONE NUMBER IS • 2 261 -6226 . 3 MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I AM 4 PLEASED TO ADDRESS YOU. AS MANY OF YOU MAY RECALL , I WAS 5 THE PAST PRESIDENT OF SIGNAL LANDMARK, AND AM CURRENTLY THE 6 TREASURER AND A BOARD MEMBER OF THE BOLSA CHICA 7 CONSERVANCY. • 8 IT' S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE ARE APPROACHING 9 THE FIVE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THAT HISTORIC DATE , MAY 22ND, • 10 1989 , WHEN THE BOLSA CHICA PLANNING COALITION BROUGHT FORTH 11 THEIR CONSENSUS PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOLSA CHICA, 12 INCLUDING THE CREATION OF ONE OF THE LARGEST WETLAND • 13 RESTORATION PROJECTS WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI . 14 WHEN ONE CONSIDERS THAT THE PLANNING OF THIS 15 PROPERTY WAS INITIATED OVER 30 YEARS AGO, THERE IS NO • 16 QUESTION THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS GONE THROUGH MORE ANALYSIS 17 AND PUBLIC SCRUTINY THAN ANY OTHER PROPERTY I HAVE BEEN 18 EXPOSED TO IN MY REAL ESTATE CAREER. 19 1 DON'T MEAN TO BELITTLE THE IMPORTANCE OF 20 THIS HEARING AND THE FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BOLSA CHICA, • 21 BUT WITHOUT QUESTION , IT IS TIME FOR ALL OF US TO MOVE 22 FORWARD, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH EFFECTIVELY INPUTTING ON THE 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH EFFECTIVELY 24 RESPONDING AND INCORPORATING TO THIS INPUT, AND TO MOVE 25 FORWARD LOCALLY AND AT STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS TO RATIFY 33 • • 1 AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN WHICH CAN BE IMPLEMENTED. FURTHER 2 DELAYS ARE IN NOBODY' S BEST INTEREST . 3 A STUDY COMPLETED IN 1990 DOCUMENTED THE 4 STEADY DETERIORATION OF THE WETLANDS WITHOUT SEA WATER • 5 FLUSHING. WE HAVE SEEN A CONSIDERABLE INVESTMENT OF 6 CITIZENS ' TIME AND PUBLIC RESOURCES REVIEWING AND INPUTTING 7 ON THE PLAN. 8 ON THAT HISTORIC DAY IN MAY OF 1989 , SIGNAL 9 LANDMARK, THE LANDOWNER AT THE TIME , THE AMIGOS DE BOLSA • 10 CHICA, THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND THE STATE ARRIVED AT A PLAN 11 THAT BALANCED THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE 12 ENVIRONMENT, WITH THE PRACTICAL REALITIES OF WHAT THE • 13 LANDOWNER COULD ECONOMICALLY UNDERTAKE . THAT PLAN INCLUDED 14 SIGNAL LANDMARK PROVIDING ADEQUATE LAND SO THAT ULTIMATELY 15 A THOUSAND ACRES OF RESTORED WETLANDS COULD BE CREATED. • 16 THIS PLAN WAS THEN APPROVED BY THE HUNTINGTON 17 BEACH CITY COUNCIL, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , 18 AND THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION . • 19 HERE WE ARE ALMOST FIVE YEARS LATER WITH NO 20 APPROVALS EVEN AT A LOCAL LEVEL . 21 ONE OF THE CHALLENGES OF THAT PLAN WAS TO 22 PROVIDE SOURCES , OTHER THAN THE LANDOWNER , TO RESTORE MUCH 23 OF THE WETLANDS . I NOW UNDERSTAND THAT TO RESPOND TO 24 COMMUNITY CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE WETLANDS WILL EVER BE 25 RESTORED, THE KOLL COMPANY HAS PROPOSED TO TAKE COMPLETE 34 • 1 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESTORING THE WETLANDS . 2 WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE EXTENSIVE BENEFITS TO 3 THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING A MAJOR WETLAND RESTORATION 4 PROJECT, WHICH WOULD BECOME ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT FOCUS 5 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRACTION FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 6 BEACH , DON'T YOU THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE ALL MAKE SOME 7 TOUGH DECISIONS AND POSITIVELY MOVE FORWARD ON A VERY 8 EXCITING ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY? 9 AS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE BOLSA CHICA • 10 PLANNING COALITION , AND THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED THE 11 LANDOWNER TO THE CONSENSUS PLAN, I CAN SINCERELY SAY THE 12 PLAN BEING PROPOSED BY THE KOLL COMPANY IS NOT ONLY 13 CONSISTENT WITH THAT ORIGINAL PLAN , BUT IT' S A STEP AHEAD 14 FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, GIVEN KOLL' S OFFER 15 TO TAKE COMPLETE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESTORING THE 16 WETLANDS . THANK YOU . 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . 18 CITY CLERK: GAE TREECE . 19 MS . TREECE: GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL . 20 MY NAME IS GAE TREECE . I LIVE AT 505 LAKE STREET IN 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH . I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR 30 YEARS . MY 22 FAMILY HAS BEEN IN THIS CITY SINCE THE LATE 1800 ' S . 23 AND I SUPPORT SAVING THE WETLANDS RESTORATION . 24 1 ALSO WANT A BIODIVERSITY PARK. AND I DON ' T MIND PAYING 25 HIGHER TAXES TO BUY IT, AND I ONLY MAKE $6 , 000 A YEAR. • 35 • 1 1 AM DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN BOLSA CHICA AS A • 2 WETLAND AND MESA ECOLOGY TEACHER , SO I AM NOT A NONINFORMED 3 ENVIRONMENTALIST. I CARE ABOUT THE ECONOMY OF H .B. AS A 4 HOMEOWNER. AND I HAVE DONE MY HOMEWORK. BUT THIS PROJECT 5 OF KOLL ' S IS WRONG. 6 NOT ONLY IS THIS PROJECT CULTURAL GENOCIDE FOR 7 THE GABRIELINOS , BUT DESTRUCTION OF H .B . HISTORY, MAJOR • 8 HABITAT AND WILD DESTRUCTION, AND ALSO ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IN 9 ORANGE COUNTY FROM THIS PROJECT. 10 ALL I HOPE IS THAT ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS 11 ISSUE WOULD EDUCATE THEMSELVES IN THE AREAS OF ARCHAEOLOGY, 12 BIOLOGY, ECOLOGY, MARINE SCIENCE , AND BOTANY, AS I HAVE , • 13 INSTEAD OF JUST RELYING ON HEARSAY OF ECONOMIC ADVICE FROM 14 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS LIKE KOLL. 15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME . GOOD • 16 NIGHT. 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 18 PLEASE . • 19 MR . RADLE : GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, 20 COUNCILMEMBERS . MY NAME IS JACK RADLE . I LIVE AT 4901 21 LOS PATOS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT 22 THERE FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS . 23 MY REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR WAS LIMITED TO 24 DISCUSSIONS CENTERING ON THE IMPACT TO LOS PATOS , AND 1 25 WISH TO POINT OUT SEVERAL INACCURACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS AS 36 • 1 THEY PERTAIN TO THE LOS PATOS RESIDENTIAL AREA. • 2 PAGE 5- 106 STATES THAT THE FORM, SCALE AND 3 MASSING OF THE STRUCTURES WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF 4 EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS . IT ALSO STATES ON PAGE • 5 5 - 109 THAT THE SCALE , CHARACTER AND DENSITY PROPOSED 6 PRECISELY DUPLICATES THE EXISTING DEVELOPED RESIDENCES 7 FRONTING ON LOS PATOS . THE EXISTING RESIDENCES ALONG • 8 LOS PATOS RANGE FROM THREE TO SIX DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE . 9 THE PROPOSALS OUTLINED IN THE DRAFT EIR SHOW DENSITY LEVELS 10 FROM SIX TO 36 UNITS PER ACRE , DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET • 11 FROM LOS PATOS. THIS CAN HARDLY BE CONSIDERED A 12 REPLICATION OF DENSITIES . SIX UNITS TO THE ACRE DOES NOT • 13 PRECISELY DUPLICATE 36 UNITS TO THE ACRE , EVEN IF YOU DID 14 ATTEND KOLL' S DEVELOPERS SCHOOL OF MATH. 15 PAGE 4- 12-42 REFERENCES THE LOSS OF VIEW SHED I • 16 FROM LOS PATOS , AND STATES: 17 "SOME OF THESE VIEWS ARE LIMITED TO ONLY 18 A FEW HUNDRED FEET, WHILE OTHER VIEWS EXTEND • 19 TO THE OCEAN . " 20 ON A CLEAR DAY, GROUND LEVELS FROM EVERY HOME • 21 ON LOS PATOS EXTEND TO SANTA CATALINA ISLAND AND BEYOND. 22 PAGE 4- 1 -32 AND PAGE 4- 1 -34 DISCUSS THE 23 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING PROGRAM AS A BUFFER AREA BETWEEN LOS • 24 PATOS AND THE PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT. THE FINAL 25 SENTENCE STATES THAT: 37 • • 1 "WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE P .D. F . ' S , • 2 THE IMPACT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS ADJACENT TO 3 LOS PATOS ARE CONSIDERED ADVERSE , BUT NOT 4 SIGNIFICANT. " • 5 WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IF IT' S NOT IN YOUR 6 FRONT YARD, IT' S NOT SIGNIFICANT? WELL, IT' S IN MY FRONT 7 YARD, AND IT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT TO ME AND THE SURROUNDING • 8 COMMUNITY. 9 THE LOS PATOS COMMUNITY FORMED A COMMITTEE • 10 OVER A YEAR AGO, AT KOLL' S REQUEST, AND MET SEVERAL TIMES 11 WITH LARRY GROOVES AND A PAID KOLL CONSULTANT TO DISCUSS 12 THESE VERY ISSUES . IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO KOLL AT THAT TIME • 13 THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS - - AND I HAVE AN ATTACHED 14 LIST OF OVER 50 RESIDENTS OF LOS PATOS - - FELT THE BUFFER 15 ZONE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SOUTH OF LOS PATOS WAS • 16 NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING 17 NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROVIDE A GRADUAL TRANSITION INTO HIGHER 18 DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. • 19 KOLL HAS CHOSEN TO IGNORE OUR INPUT AND 20 CONCERNS . I AM NOT AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. I AM NOT A • 21 BIOLOGIST. I AM NOT A GEOLOGIST OR A TRAFFIC ENGINEER . 1 22 DON'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND, KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERTISE TO 23 COMMENT ON 95 PERCENT OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE 24 DRAFT EIR. THE FIVE OR SIX PAGES I HAVE CHOSEN TO COMMENT 25 ON PERTAIN EXCLUSIVELY TO AN AREA WHERE I DO HAVE KNOWLEDGE • 38 1 AND EXPERTISE , AND THE DOCUMENT CONTAINS MAJOR FLAWS AND 2 INACCURACIES RELATING TO ITS DESCRIPTION OF LOS PATOS . 1 3 HOPE THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN 4 ASSEMBLED IN A SIMILAR MANNER. S 5 IN CONCLUSION, IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE MAJOR 6 ISSUE FOR KOLL AND ITS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOLSA 7 CHICA IS NOT THE RESTORATION OF THE WETLANDS , IT' S NOT THE • 8 PRESERVATION OF PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE , IT' S NOT THE 9 CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE TO LIVE • 10 WITH THE DEGREDATION OF THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE CAUSED BY 11 THIS PROJECT FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES . KOLL WANTS BOLSA 12 CHICA DEVELOPED FOR ITS TREMENDOUS PROFIT POTENTIAL AND THE • 13 REVENUES IT WILL GENERATE FOR KOLL , NOT THE NEIGHBORING 14 COMMUNITIES AND THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. THEY WILL 15 SAY AND DO ANYTHING IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THIS PROJECT f 16 APPEAR VIABLE . WE CAN AND MUST STOP THEM DEAD IN THEIR 17 TRACKS BY ANY AND ALL MEANS AVAILABLE TO US . I URGE YOU TO 18 REJECT THIS OUTRIGHT, AND I URGE THE COUNTY PLANNING 19 COMMISSION TO DO LIKEWISE . 20 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME . 21 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER , 22 PLEASE . 23 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE VIRGINIA GEORGE , ! 24 STEVE ANDERSON , JUANA MUELLER, MARTIN ALCALA AND EILEEN 25 MURPHY. i 39 • 1 MS . GEORGE : MAYOR, AND COUNCIL, AND LADIES AND 2 GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS VIRGINIA GEORGE AND I LIVE AT 16305 3 NIANTIC CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 4 840-2025 . 5 NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN ADMITTED, AND THE FACTS 6 DOCUMENTED THAT HUMAN REMAINS HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BOLSA 7 CHICA, IT IS PARAMOUNT AND IMPERATIVE TO HAVE HAND-DIGGING 8 DONE SO THAT SERIOUS STUDYING MAY TAKE PLACE . I 9 DOESN'T THE KOLL COMPANY WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN • 10 AND ADULTS WHO LIVE HERE KNOW THE ANCIENT PAST OF THE AREA? 11 THEY HAVE PROPOSED USING AN AUGER TO DRILL, WHICH WOULD 12 PROBABLY DESTROY SOME , OR ALL OF THE BONES AND COGSTONES . 13 BUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO THOROUGHLY HAND-DIG THE 14 AREA. 15 SOME TIME AGO THERE WAS A GROUP THAT WAS 16 SUPPOSED TO SEND THIS PERTINENT INFORMATION ABOUT THE 17 ANCIENT HUMAN BONES TO THE NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF 18 HISTORICAL PLACES , WHICH A LADY BEFORE ME BROUGHT OUT . 19 SOMEHOW THIS WAS NOT SENT, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE 20 NAME OF THE GROUP THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SENT IT, AND 21 WHY IT WASN'T SENT. 22 WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME OF THE PEOPLE THE 23 CITY HAS HIRED TO INVESTIGATE , FIND OUT THE REASON, AND WHO 24 IT WAS . THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE EIR, WHICH WAS A TRAVESTY, 25 AND THE KOLL COMPANY, ARE NOT BEING HONEST WITH WE WHO ARE 40 • 1 MOST CONCERNED. 2 AGAIN, HAND-DIGGING IS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN 3 AUTHENTICALLY PROVE THAT THE HUMAN REMAINS FOUND IN THIS 4 AREA ARE 8 , 000 YEARS OLD, OR OLDER , AND ONCE AND FOR ALL , 5 CLEAR UP THESE QUESTIONS . 6 WE THINK THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE HONESTLY 7 RESTORED, AND ALSO NO HOUSING OF ANY KIND BE BUILT THEREON . 8 WE SERIOUSLY QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF THE KOLL COMPANY. 9 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER . 11 MR . ANDERSON: MY NAME IS STEVE ANDERSON , AND I LIVE 12 AT 21162 BRETON LANE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 13 HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS , I MOVED TO 14 HUNTINGTON BEACH 26 YEARS AGO. MY FIRST JOB WAS TO WORK ON 15 THE BOLSA CHICA IN THE OIL FIELD. AT THE TIME , MY 1 16 IMPRESSION OF IT WAS A DUSTY OIL FIELD, NOT AN 17 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PRISTINE AREA. NOTHING I HAVE SEEN HAS 18 CHANGED, PARTICULARLY. IT STILL SEEMS , FOR THE MOST PART, • 19 TO BE A DUSTY OIL FIELD. AND IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED 20 PROPERTY. AND IT IS NOT EVEN IN THIS CITY. AND I AM A • 21 LITTLE SURPRISED AT ALL THE HARANGUE BY THESE GROUPS , MANY 22 GROUPS HAVING POSITIONS ON THIS . IT HAS BEEN DECIDED OVER 23 AND OVER AND OVER, IT SEEMS . 24 LET' S TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMICS . LET' S SAY 25 IT' S WORTH HALF A MILLION DOLLARS . THAT WOULD COST EVERY ` 41 • i 1 FAMILY IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, IF A FAMILY WERE THREE PEOPLE , • 2 $8 , 300 . IF IT COST ANOTHER 50 MILLION TO RESTORE , THAT 3 WOULD BE ANOTHER $830 . OVER $9 , 000 PER HOUSEHOLD. 4 1 DON'T HEAR ANYONE ELSE COMING UP WITH A t` 5 VIABLE ECONOMIC PLAN TO GET AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 6 DONE . I FAVOR THE RESTORATION WITHOUT TAXATION , AND AGAIN , 7 1 REPEAT, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY ELSE WITH AN • 8 ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WAY TO ACHIEVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL 9 RESTORATION. • 10 THERE ARE SOME EXISTING EXAMPLES IN ORANGE 11 COUNTY OF RESTORED WETLANDS , BOTH IN THE FORM OF THE BACK 12 BAY NEAR JAMBOREE , IN THE FORM OF TALBERT MARSH , AND IN THE 13 SMALL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON THE BOLSA CHICA PROPERTY, 14 WHICH THE STATE EFFECTED EARLY, I THINK, IN THE MID ' 70 ' S . 15 1 AM IN FAVOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION. I AM IN FAVOR • 16 OF AN IMPROVED TAX BASE FOR THE CITY, FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY 17 RIGHTS , FOR JOBS , FOR PROGRESS , AND FOR PEOPLE . I SUPPORT 18 THE PROJECT. IF IT IS AN ISSUE OF MORE DEVELOPER FEES • 19 BEING NEGOTIATED WITH THE COUNTY, THEN DO THAT NEGOTIATION . 20 1 PERSONALLY FIND IT RATHER ABHORANT THAT WE 21 ARE NOT BEING MORE RESPECTFUL OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS . 22 AND IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW COUNCILMAN. BAUER HAS BEEN THE ONE 23 TO MAYBE MAKE THE BIGGEST STINK OVER THIS . YOU ARE A 24 PROPERTY OMER , HOW WOULD YOU FEEL, SIR, WITH ALL RESPECT, 25 IF I WERE WORKING VERY, VERY HARD TO REMOVE YOUR ABILITY TO 42 • 1 EARN ANY INCOME , OR ACHIEVE ANYTHING WITH YOUR PROPERTY? s 2 THAT' S HOW I FEEL ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS . 3 THANK YOU . 4 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER, 5 PLEASE . 6 MS . MUELLER: MY NAME IS JUANA MUELLER . I LIVE AT 7 603 21ST STREET IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . GOOD EVENING, CITY • 8 COUNCIL, MADAM MAYOR . THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING THIS 9 HEARING POSSIBLE . • 10 1 HAVE WRITTEN A LENGTHY LETTER REGARDING THE 11 CULTURAL RESOURCE CHAPTER OF THE EIR, WHICH I AM SENDING ON 12 TO THE COUNTY. BUT I AM ONLY GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT a 13 ONE THING TONIGHT. AND THAT ONE THING IS VERY DISTURBING 14 TO ME . 15 ON JULY 11TH , 1993 , 1 WROTE A LETTER f 16 RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF THE EIR . 1 17 REQUESTED THAT THE ALLEGED INDIAN BURIAL SITE ON THE BOLSA 18 CHICA MESA BE ADDRESSED AS TO ITS EXISTENCE , OR NOT, AND 19 WHAT STUDIES AND REPORTS HAD BEEN DONE THAT WOULD 20 ILLUMINATE THE QUESTION. 21 PART OF THIS QUESTION WAS ADDRESSED IN THE EIR 22 UNDER ORA-78 AND ORA-85 , STATING NO HUMAN BURIALS WERE ON 23 THE SITE . ALTHOUGH SCATTERED HUMAN FINGER BONES AND TEETH 24 WERE FOUND AT ORA-85 . 25 HOWEVER , UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF ORA-83 , THE 43 i 1 i 1 MENTION OF HUMAN BURIALS WAS OMITTED. I HAVE HAD PERSONAL 2 EXPERIENCE IN TALKING WITH DAVID BELARDIS , NATIVE AMERICAN 3 MONITOR ON-SITE ORA-83 , THAT THERE ARE , INDEED, ANCESTRAL 4 BONES BEING FOUND WITHIN THIS SITE , AND THAT THEY ARE BEING 5 REBURIED NEARBY. THIS INFORMATION WAS GIVEN TO ME BY 6 MR . BELARDIS IN AUGUST 1993 , AND SUBSEQUENTLY AGAIN IN 7 SEPTEMBER 1993 . 8 THERE WAS QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THIS SITE 9 MIGHT EVEN QUALIFY AS A LEGAL CEMETARY , WHICH , ACCORDING TO 10 MR . BELARDIS , WAS CONSTITUTED BY FIVE BURIALS . THIS KIND 11 OF INFORMATION WOULD INDICATE THAT, YES , THERE WERE HUMAN 12 BURIALS ON THIS SITE . WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THIS IN 13 THE EIR? 14 1 REQUEST THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MAKE A THOROUGH 15 INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS. THIS SITE IS UNIQUE IN 1 16 CALIFORNIA FOR THE NUMBER OF COGSTONES ATTRIBUTED TO IT. 17 IT ALSO MAY BE AN ANCESTRAL INDIAN BURIAL GROUND. IF THIS 18 IS THE CASE , IT SHOULD BE PRESERVED AS AN HISTORICAL , 19 CULTURAL SITE FOR NOW AND FUTURE GENERATIONS . 20 FURTHER, I REQUEST A FULL ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1 21 REPORT FROM ARCHAEOLOGISTS NOT EMPLOYED BY THE DEVELOPER . 22 THE OMISSION OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORT FROM AN 23 INDEPENDENT SOURCE IS AN ERROR . AN ARCHAEOLOGIST HIRED AND 24 PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER IS NOT AN UNBIAS SOURCE . WHO IS 25 TO SAY THESE FINDS ARE INSIGNIFICANT? HUMAN BONES DATING 44 • • 1 BACK IN TIME 2 , 000 YEARS BEFORE THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS FOUND 2 RIGHT HERE ON THE BOLSA CHICA MESA, INSIGNIFICANT? NOT 3 REPORTABLE? I THINK NOT. 4 LASTLY, THE COUNTY ERI IS A LEMON. 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 6 MR. ALCALA: MADAM MAYOR, ESTEEMED COUNCILMEMBERS , 7 MY NAME IS MARTIN ALCALA. 1037 AND ONE-HALF PLEASANT VIEW 8 AVENUE , VENICE 90291 . AREA CODE 310 396- 1165 . 9 1 AM CURRENTLY CHAIRPERSON OF THE i 10 GABRIELINO/TONGVA TRIBAL COUNCIL. WE HAVE BEEN HEARING A 11 LOT OF TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT CAME BEFORE . I WOULD 12 LIKE TO FILL IN A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE , • 13 AND AT THE SAME TIME , CLARIFY THE GABRIELINO/TONGVA TRIBAL 14 COUNCIL AS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 15 GABRIELINO/TONGVA NATION . 16 OUR TERRITORY ONCE INCLUDED THE ENTIRE 17 LOS ANGELES BASIN , MOST OF NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY , SANTA 18 CATALINA, SAN CLEMENTE , WITH LAND STRETCHING FROM THE • �I 19 PACIFIC OCEAN TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS . 20 THE GABRIELINO/TONGVA AT ONE TIME WERE ONE OF 21 THE MOST PROSPEROUS AND NUMEROUS NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES IN 22 CALIFORNIA. LONG BEFORE SPANISH CONTACT , THE 23 GABRIELINO/TONGVA ALREADY HAD A MAJOR SOCIETY IN PLACE , 24 WITH A GOVERNMENT, LAWS , RELIGION , ART, CULTURAL EXCHANGE 25 AND A MONETARY SYSTEM. 45 • • 1 THE GABRIELINO/TONGVA TRIBAL COUNCIL IS , AND • 2 HAS BEEN THE SOLE GOVERNING BODY OF THE GABRIELINO NATION. 3 THE COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THAT THEIR ONLY RECOURSE IS TO 4 INFORM ALL TRIBAL, PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND GOVERNMENTAL 5 AGENCIES THROUGH THIS PROCLAMATION. NO OTHER PERSONS OR 6 ORGANIZATIONS CAN LEGALLY REPRESENT THE INTERESTS AND 7 CONCERNS OF THE GABRIELINO/TONGVA PEOPLE . • 8 NOW, MODERN DAY PEOPLE HAVE GOT THIS STRANGE 9 CONCEPT ABOUT OWNING LAND. NATIVE AMERICANS BELIEVE THE 10 EXACT OPPOSITE . YOU DON' T OWN THE LAND. THE LAND OWNS 11 YOU. IF YOU DON ' T BELIEVE THAT, THEN LET' S WAIT UNTIL THE 12 NEXT 6 . 3 HITS . 13 AS FAR AS WHAT IS GOING ON AT THE BOLSA CHICA 14 SITE , WE CONSIDER THE EIR TO BE INADEQUATE AND INCOMPLETE , 15 BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. IT HAS NO • 16 REBURIAL AGREEMENT ESTABLISHED WITH THE KOLL COMPANY . 17 ALSO, LARRY MEYERS , EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE 18 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, FOUND OUT ABOUT THE 19 SO-CALLED LATEST DISCOVERY FROM THE REPORTER WHO PUBLISHED 20 THE STORY ONE DAY BEFORE IT WENT TO PRESS . 21 AS FAR AS BOLSA CHICA NOT BEING WHAT IT ONCE 22 WAS , LET' S REMEMBER THAT NATIVE AMERICAN LAWS ARE FAIRLY 23 RECENT, THE LAWS THAT PROTECT NATIVE AMERICANS , AND BEFORE 24 THAT, ANYTHING WENT. SO OF COURSE THE LAND IS NOT GOING TO 25 BE AS GREAT AS IT ONCE WAS . . 46 I • I 1 1 ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I HEARD THE TERM TOTAL • 2 EXTERMINATION, WHICH MY PEOPLE KNOW WELL . WHAT I AM HERE 3 TO TELL YOU TONIGHT IS THAT THAT WAS TRIED AGAINST OUR 4 PEOPLE , IT DIDN' T WORK. WE ARE STILL HERE . WE WILL BE • 5 HERE LONG AFTER EVERYONE ELSE IS GONE . 6 THANK YOU. 7 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE EILEEN MURPHY, • 8 LYNN BEACH, MAURICE VOCE , PAM JULIEN, AND DR . ROBERT 9 WINCHELL. ! 10 MS . MURPHY: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PATTERSON AND CITY 11 COUNCILPEOPLE . MY NAME EILEEN MURPHY. I AM A SECRETARY OF 12 THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. AND I LIVE AT 201 21ST STREET. 13 MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 536-4835 . 14 1 WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR LETTING 15 US SPEAK TONIGHT . S 16 ACCORDING TO THE INDEPENDENT OF JANUARY 27TH, 17 A SPOKESPERSON FOR KOLL SAID: 18 "THE REASON FOR NOT REPORTING THE 1992 19 FINDINGS OF HUMAN REMAINS TO THE EIR WAS , HOW 20 CAN YOU REPORT SOMETHING IF YOU DON ' T KNOW WHAT 21 THEY ARE? " 22 IN THE REGISTER , JANUARY 25TH , THE SAME PERSON 23 SAID: 24 "THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THERE ISN' T ANYTHING 25 THERE THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. " 47 • • 1 THE DEVELOPER ' S ARCHAEOLOGIST SAID IN THE 2 JANUARY 26TH REGISTER: 3 "BONE FRAGMENTS WERE DISCOVERED NEAR 4 WARNER AVENUE LAST SUMMER . BUT I BELIEVED THEY 5 WERE ANIMAL BONES , UNTIL FINDING A PIECE OF 6 THE SKULL IN OCTOBER. " 7 MY QUESTION IS, IF THE HUMAN REMAINS WERE 8 FOUND IN 1992 , AS ADMITTED, WHY WEREN' T THEY REPORTED IN 9 THE EIR? • 10 SINCE 1992 , THERE HAVE BEEN TWO DRAFT EIR ' S , 11 AND BOTH SAY: 12 "NO HUMAN REMAINS WERE REPORTED. " 13 WHY DIDN'T THE DEVELOPER, OR THE ARCHAEOLOGIST 14 ASK WHAT THE BONES WERE DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS . THESE 15 ARE SERIOUS OMISSIONS , IN MY OPINION , AND MAKE THE EIR • 16 INCOMPLETE . I ALSO THINK THAT THE EIR IS A LEMON. 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER . 18 MS . BEACH: MADAM MAYOR , COUNCILMEN . MY NAME IS • 19 LYNN BEACH . MY ADDRESS IS 20927 OCEANSIDE LANE , HUNTINGTON 20 BEACH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 536-9842 . • 21 THE FIRST TIME I SAW THE BOLSA CHICA UP CLOSE 22 WAS IN EARLY 1992 . VIEWING AND EXPERIENCING THE BOLSA 23 CHICA REMINDED ME OF THE AREA I GREW UP IN, IN THE ROCKY 24 MOUNTAINS OF UTAH. THIS AREA IS LOCATED ACROSS THE VAST 25 SALT LAKE VALLEY FROM THE WASATCH RANGE OF MOUNTAINS WHERE • 48 • 1 ALL THE SKI RESORTS ARE , SO I AM SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH 2 THAT. 3 THE MOUNTAINS I GREW UP AT THE FOOT OF WERE 4 CALLED THE OAKER MOUNTAINS, AND IN THESE MOUNTAINS IS 5 LOCATED THE HUGE OPEN PIT COPPER MINING OPERATION KNOWN AS 6 KINECOTT COPPER CORPORATION. FROM THE KITCHEN WINDOW OF MY 7 PARENTS ' , YOU CAN SEE A PANORAMIC VIEW OF THE SOUTH PORTION • 8 OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE . AND FROM THE FRONT PORCH YOU CAN 9 SEE THE OAKER MOUNTAIN RANGE . DURING MY YOUTH THERE , THERE • 10 WAS NO GREEN FOLIAGE ON THESE MOUNTAINS , AND THE GREAT SALT 11 LAKE WAS VERY POLLUTED FROM THE BYPRODUCT OF THE MINING 12 OPERATION . IT LOOKED VERY SIMILAR IN APPEARANCE TO THE 13 BOLSA CHICA TODAY. 14 WHEN THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY BEGAN TO BE 15 ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS , AND THE NEW EPA LAWS WERE • 16 ENACTED, ALL OF THIS AREA BEGAN A SLOW CHANGE . WITH THE 17 HELP OF A VERY PROACTIVE COMMUNITY, AND FUNDS FROM KINECOTT 18 COPPER CORPORATION, THE LANDOWNER , ALL OF THIS AREA NOW HAS • 19 BEEN RESTORED TO ITS FORMER BEAUTY AND USE . THERE NOW 20 MAINTAINS IN THIS MOUNTAIN AN ELK HERD OF 500 PLUS ELK. • 21 IF KINECOTT COPPER CORPORATION HAD HAD TO DEAL 22 WITH ALL OF THE BOLOGNA THAT KOLL COMPANY HAS HAD TO DEAL 23 WITH, THOSE MOUNTAINS WOULD STILL BE NUDE TO THIS DAY . 24 KOLL COMPANY AND THE REST OF THE BOLSA CHICA 25 COALITION ARE ATTEMPTING TO IMPROVE AND RESTORE THE BOLSA • 49 • 1 CHICA WETLANDS . THIS IS TO BE DONE AT NO COST TO YOU AND • 2 1 , THE TAXPAYERS . THIS PROJECT WILL PROTECT AND PRESERVE 3 THE BOLSA CHICA FOR OUR YOUTH AND FOR THE YOUTH OF FUTURE 4 GENERATIONS OF OUR CHILDREN . IT WOULD BE CRIMINAL TO LOSE 5 THIS OPPORTUNITY . 6 TO ASSIST THIS PROJECT, AND TO ALLOW THE 7 FACTIONS WHO ARE FIGHTING AGAINST IT, TO KILL A VERY VIABLE 7 8 AND WORTHWHILE PROJECT , SIMPLY BY OUR NOT GETTING INVOLVED, 9 THIS PROJECT WILL NOT HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT BECOME A • 10 PROACTIVE COMMUNITY, AS WE SHOULD. NOT ONLY WILL WE LOSE 11 THE PRECIOUS WETLANDS WE CURRENTLY HAVE , FOR THIS IS NOT A 12 PRISTINE WETLANDS , IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MESSED WITH, BUT WE • 13 WILL ALSO LOSE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE IT, AND THE 14 POSITIVE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY THAT WILL COME INTO OUR 15 COMMUNITY OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS • 16 PROJECT. 17 1 BELIEVE IN THIS PROJECT. I INTEND TO BE AS 18 PHYSICALLY INVOLVED AS POSSIBLE . LET' S STOP ALL OF THIS • 19 FILIBUSTERING AND ALL OF THIS SMOKE SCREEN AND GET ON WITH 20 THIS PROJECT. 21 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 22 MR . VOCE : GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL . 23 GUEST PEOPLE . MY NAME IS MAURICE VOCE . I LIVE AT 18892 24 FLAGSTAFF IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . 25 1 AM SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE BOLSA CHICA 50 • • 1 ALLIANCE . RECENTLY A RELATIVE OF MINE WAS VISITING FROM 2 OHIO, AND WE WERE DRIVING ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BY THE 3 WETLANDS . HE LOOKED AT THAT, HE TURNED TO ME AND HE SAID, 4 " IS THIS THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY DUMP? " 5 SOME OF US HERE PRESENT HAVE BEEN IN THE DARK 6 AGES , INSTEAD OF THE 20TH CENTURY. THESE SO-CALLED 7 ENVIRONMENTALISTS HERE , IF THEY WERE AROUND WHEN COLUMBUS 8 DISCOVERED THE NEW WORLD, WOULD THAT PREVENT THEM FROM ANY 9 PROGRESS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE LAST 500 YEARS? • 10 THE CITY HALL COMPLEX WOULD NOT BE HERE . NONE 11 OF US WOULD BE HERE . AMERICA WOULD NOT BE LOOKING LIKE IT 12 IS NOW. IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS . • 13 THOSE WHO CARE FOR BIRDS , I WILL POINT OUT TO 14 THEM THAT BIRDS AND ANIMALS ARE MORE RESOURCEFUL THAN THEY 15 ARE , ANY OF US . THEY CAN ADJUST EASILY, WITHOUT OUR HELP . • 16 IN FACT, WE ARE THE ONES WHO CAGE THEM, HOLD THEM 17 PRISONERS , KILL THEM AND EAT THEM. THEY CALL THEMSELVES 18 ENVIRONMENTALISTS TO PROTECT THE ANIMALS AND THE BIRDS AND • 19 OTHER KINDS OF ANIMALS . 20 1 THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A DECISION AS SOON AS 21 POSSIBLE , AND NOT DRAG IT OUT ANOTHER 30 YEARS AS TO WHAT 22 WILL BE DONE . THE KOLL COMPANY IS WILLING TO RESTORE THE 23 PLACE IN EVERY WAY, AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYERS . NOBODY • 24 WILL SUFFER FOR IT. OF COURSE THEY WILL BUILD SOME HOUSES 25 IN THAT SECTION, NOT THE WETLANDS . BUT WE WILL HAVE A 51 • • 1 BETTER PLACE . • 2 RIGHT NOW IF YOU LOOK, THERE IS SILT, THERE IS 3 MUD, BARELY - - IT IS BARELY COVERED BY THE WATER AT HIGH 4 TIDE . IT WON'T BE LONG BEFORE IT WILL BE NOTHING BUT JUST 5 MUD WITH NO WATER GOING IN THERE . 6 YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK, TOO. SO LET 7 OTHER PEOPLE SPEAK. THANK YOU. • 8 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 9 MR . VOCE : I WILL TAKE ONE LEMON BACK, MAYBE TWO. • 10 MS . JULIEN: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PAM JULIEN . 11 1 LIVE AT 1927 PINE STREET. 12 1 WISH TO COMMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BOLSA CHICA • 13 ALLIANCE AND THE RESIDENTS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH THAT PAY 14 TAXES . 15 OUR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH INCLUDED WINCHELL AND • 16 SILVA, PASSED A RESOLUTION IN 1989 SUPPORTING THE BOLSA 17 CHICA COALITION PLAN , WHICH CALLED FOR UP TO 5 , 700 HOMES 18 AND THE RESTORATION OF THE WETLANDS . • 19 TODAY OUR COUNCIL IS SPENDING TAXPAYERS ' MONEY 20 TO FIGHT A PLAN THAT CALLS FOR FEWER HOMES , AND WILL GIVE • 21 OUR COMMUNITY 1 , 100 ACRES OF RESTORED WETLANDS AT NO COST 22 TO THE TAXPAYERS . WITH ALL THE TIME AND MONEY THE CITY HAS 23 WASTED ON THE BOLSA CHICA, IT' S NO WONDER THE LANDOWNER HAS • 24 MOVED TO THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY IS USING THE SAME 25 CONSULTANT THAT THE CITY HIRED TO PREPARE THE EIR . IT' S 52 • • 1 NOW CREATED A MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THE 2 ISSUES RAISED BY THE COMMUNITY TO THE CITY' S EIR . 3 UNFORTUNATELY, THE MODIFIED PLAN ALTERNATIVE 4 IS NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE BIODIVERSITY PARK ALTERNATIVE . 5 NEITHER PLAN HAS A SOURCE OF FUNDING TO PURCHASE THE 6 PRIVATE PROPERTY, OR THE FUNDING TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS . 7 WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? • 8 THE LAND TRUST WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY 9 ARE GOING TO BUY THE PROPERTY. JUST HOW MUCH MONEY DO THEY • 10 HAVE TOWARD THE PURCHASE? I HOPE THEY DIDN 'T SPEND IT ALL 11 ON THESE LEMONS , BY THE WAY. 12 JUST HOW MUCH MONEY DOES IT TAKE TO BUY THE • 13 WETLANDS AND RESTORE IT? WHAT MAKES US THINK, OR ACTUALLY 14 THE LAND TRUST THINK THAT THEY CAN RAISE MILLIONS OF 15 DOLLARS NEEDED, WHEN IN FACT MEASURE "A" IN NEWPORT BEACH • 16 WAS DEFEATED, AND THE STATE NOW EVEN WANTS TO RAISE TAXES 17 TO COVER THE EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE . 18 IT' S TIME THAT WE , THE COMMUNITY, GET • 19 REALISTIC. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THE LARGEST 20 RESTORED WETLANDS IN THE STATE , ALONG WITH A MASTER PLANNED 21 COMMUNITY THAT WILL IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY . ALL OF THIS 22 WITHOUT TAXING OURSELVES . IT' S TIME THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL 23 STOPPED WASTING OUR MONEY AND STAFF ' S TIME FIGHTING AGAINST • 24 THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE COUNTY. IT'S TIME FOR US TO BE 25 WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM TO GUARANTEE THAT THE CITY GETS 53 • I • 1 THE BEST POSSIBLE PROJECT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 2 THANK YOU. 3 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DR . ROBERT 4 WINCHELL, TOM PONTAC, KAREN RAGAN , MIKE PINCETICH, AND TOM 5 LIVENGOOD. 6 MR . WINCHELL: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON 7 AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS DR. ROBERT 8 WINCHELL. I AM A PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL 9 SCIENCES CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH , A • 10 REGISTERED GEOLOGIST IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND A 11 RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. 12 1 APPEAR BEFORE YOU TONIGHT PRIMARILY AS A • 13 PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST ACTING IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST . 1 14 MIGHT ADD, HOWEVER, THAT MY PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ALSO 15 MAKES ME AN EXCEPTIONALLY CONCERNED CITIZEN , RESIDENT AND • 16 TAXPAYER WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR THE 17 BOLSA CHICA. 18 THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL DEFECT OF THIS • 19 EIR IS ITS FAILURE TO FULLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION NECESSARY 20 FOR THE PUBLIC AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE A COMPLETELY 21 INFORMED DECISION CONCERNING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE 22 BOLSA CHICA. 23 BECAUSE OF TIME CONSTRAINTS , I WILL ONLY BE 24 ABLE TO INDICATE A VERY FEW OF THE MANY IMPORTANT REASONS 25 FOR THIS STATEMENT. 54 • • 1 1 ASK WHY THESE AND THE MANY OTHERS LIKE THEM 2 DO NOT APPEAR IN THE EIR. 3 ( 1 ) : GEOLOGISTS , AS WELL AS STRUCTURAL 4 ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS KNOW THAT WATER SATURATED SOILS 5 LIKE THOSE IN THE BOLSA CHICA, REFERRED TO AS BAD OR POOR 6 GROUND, CAN BE SOME OF THE WORST KIND OF SOILS THAT ONE 7 COULD CONTEMPLATE FOR A LOCATION OF STRUCTURES , ESPECIALLY • 8 HABITABLE STRUCTURES . 9 (2) : THE NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT IS • 10 CONSIDERED BY GEOLOGISTS TO BE THE SINGLE MOST DANGEROUS 11 FAULT 1N CALIFORNIA, PRECISELY BECAUSE MUCH OF THE 12 DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS ACTIVE FAULT IS ON BAD GROUND, • 13 EXACTLY LIKE THAT WHICH OCCURS IN THE BOLSA CHICA AREA. 14 (3) : ONLY FIVE TO TEN PERCENT OF THE DAMAGE 15 ASSOCIATED WITH AN EARTHQUAKE INVOLVES FAULT RUPTURE . THE • 16 OTHER 90 , TO 95 PERCENT RESULTS FROM SHAKING EFFECTS . 17 SHAKING EFFECTS ARE THE WORST IN POOR GROUND LIKE THAT 18 FOUND IN THE BOLSA CHICA, AND BECOME MORE POWERFUL WHEN • 19 FILLS LIKE THOSE NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA 20 CHICA ARE PLACED ON THESE MATERIALS . 21 (4) : THERE IS NO KNOWN WAY TO BE SURE THAT 22 LIQUEFACTION , A SITUATION WHERE SOLID SOILS , LIKE THOSE 23 PRESENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA, BECOME LIQUID, CAN BE AVOIDED. • 24 STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LIQUEFACTION ARE TYPICALLY SEVERELY 25 DAMAGED, PERHAPS DESTROYED, AND/OR NO LONGER USEFUL OR • 55 I 1 HABITABLE . 2 (5) : THE GEOLOGICAL LITERATURE IS FULL OF 3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE 4 SHAKING, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION ASSOCIATED WITH MATERIALS 5 LIKE THOSE FOUND IN THE BOLSA CHICA. SOME OF THE 6 PHOTOGRAPHS COMMONLY USED TO ILLUSTRATE THESE EFFECTS WERE 7 TAKEN IN THE BOLSA CHICA, HUNTINGTON BEACH AND NEARBY 8 AREAS . THESE PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDE GRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE 9 DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA • 10 AREA, WHICH CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY SOMEONE WITH NO BACKGROUND 11 IN GEOLOGY. YET NOT ONE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS APPEARS IN 12 THE EIR. I HAVE SLIDES OF SOME OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH a 13 ME , IF YOU WISH TO SEE THEM AT THIS POINT. AND THERE ARE 14 SOME OF THE SAME ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE FOYER , IF ANYBODY IS 15 INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THEM. 16 (6) : ANOTHER EARTHQUAKE ALONG THE 17 NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT, LIKE THE 1933 LONG BEACH 18 EARTHQUAKE , WHOSE EPICENTER WAS ONLY TEN MILES FROM BOLSA 19 CHICA, WAS PROJECTED BY THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 20 AGENCY IN 1980 AS RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF 29 , 000 LIVES AND 21 69 BILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS . THESE LOSSES WERE , AND STILL 22 CAN BE - - EXPECTED TO BE CONCENTRATED LARGELY IN DEVELOPED 23 AREAS LIKE THAT PROPOSED FOR THE BOLSA CHICA. 24 IN CLOSING, I WISH TO SAY THAT IN MY BEST 25 OPINION AS A PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGIST, SHORT OF BUILDING ON • 56 1 THE SIDE OF AN ACTIVE VOLCANO, OR AN ACTIVE TIDAL FLAT, THE 2 COMBINATION OF BAD GROUND AND PROXIMITY TO A KNOWN ACTIVE 3 FAULT MAKE IT A TYPE EXAMPLE OF THE WORST KIND OF AREA THAT 4 COULD BE CONTEMPLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT. 5 1 BELIEVE ANY GEOLOGIST UNFETTERED BY A VESTED 6 INTEREST WILL TELL YOU THE SAME . SUCH AN AREA IS ONLY FIT 7 FOR USE AS OPEN SPACE IN PERPETUITY. TO DO OTHERWISE IS TO 8 UNNECESSARILY AND INDEFENSIBLY RISK NOT ONLY THE LIFE , LIMB 9 AND PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENTS WHO WILL LIVE THERE , BUT THE 10 FINANCIAL RESOURCES OF ALL TAXPAYERS . 11 THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME THE OPPORTUNITY , 12 AND THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND OTHER INTERESTED 13 CITIZENS TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THIS VITAL 14 MATTER , AN OPPORTUNITY WHICH THE COUNTY AND SUPERVISOR 15 WIEDER HAVE NOT PROVIDED. 16 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MR. WINCHELL , COUNCILMAN 17 SULLIVAN HAS A QUESTION. 18 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD SOME 19 SLIDES ABOUT THE DAMAGE THAT YOU SAID WOULD OCCUR . 20 MR. WINCHELL: YES , I HAVE SOME SLIDES WHICH 21 ILLUSTRATE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH AREA AND 22 NEARBY AREAS IN THE 1933 EARTHQUAKE , WHICH SHOWS YOU WHAT 23 HAPPENS WHEN YOU HAVE SHAKING AND LIQUEFACTION . 24 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE? 25 MR . WINCHELL: WELL, I WOULD JUST GO THROUGH THE 57 • I 1 SLIDES VERY RAPIDLY, MENTIONING GENERALLY WHAT THEY ARE . • 2 PROBABLY INSIDE OF TWO OR THREE MINUTES . 3 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: I DON' T KNOW. I DON'T WANT 4 TO PUT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE OUT, BUT i WOULD LIKE TO SEE • 5 THE SLIDES . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILPEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT 7 TO SPEAK, TOO, AND REQUEST INFORMATION. HE WOULD LIKE TO • 8 SEE THE SLIDES , PLEASE . 9 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: PROBABLY WE COULD HAVE THE • 10 NEXT SPEAKER WHILE HE IS GETTING SETUP . 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. GOOD 12 SUGGESTION. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . • 13 MR . PONTAC: MADAM MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE 14 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS TOM PONTAC. I LIVE IN HUNTINGTON 15 HARBOR , 3782 HUMBOLDT DRIVE . 846-8355 . • 16 1 BELONG TO NO GROUP . I AM A BUSINESSMAN WHO 17 LIVES IN THE HARBOR , AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THE KOLL COMPANY 18 WANTS TO BUILD IN THE HARBOR . IT' S VERY SIMPLE . IT' S • 19 PROFITS . I MEAN, WHO IS KIDDING WHO? THAT' S WHAT 20 BUSINESSES ARE IN BUSINESS FOR; RIGHT? THERE IS NO OTHER • 21 REASON. 22 BUT IT' S NOT AS A BUSINESSMAN THAT I COME TO 23 YOU TONIGHT, BUT SOMEONE WHO HAS HAD THE JOY AND PLEASURE 24 OF RUNNING FOR MANY YEARS THROUGH THE BEAUTY OF THE BOLSA 25 CHICA. I HAVE SEEN THE BIRDS SOARING IN THE SKY. I HAVE 58 • 1 SEEN THE PELICANS FLYING. I HAVE SEEN THE BEAUTY OF THE • 2 BOLSA CHICA. 3 IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT VIRTUALLY THE 4 ONLY SPEAKERS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS LAND RAPE , REALLY, 5 ARE THOSE WITH A VESTED INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT. 6 THOSE AGAINST IT ARE HERE ONLY FOR ONE REASON , AND THAT IS 7 BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE LAND. THEY LOVE IT FOR THEMSELVES • 8 AND FOR THEIR GRANDCHILDREN . 9 YOU KNOW, THEY SAY A PICTURE IS WORTH A • 10 THOUSAND WORDS . I WOULD SAY JUST THE OPPOSITE . I WOULD 11 SAY THAT SOME OF THE PICTURES THAT WE HAVE SEEN OF THE 12 DESTRUCTION OF THE LAND REQUIRE A THOUSAND WORDS TO EXPLAIN • 13 IT. 14 1 HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE BOLSA CHICA FOR MANY , 15 MANY YEARS . I HAVE BEEN CHASED OFF THE LAND BY THE KOLL • 16 COMPANY MANY, MANY TIMES . AND I AM SURE THE KOLL COMPANY 17 HAS ME ON THEIR FILM. 1 HAVE ASKED FOR 8 BY 10 ' S , BUT THEY 18 HAVEN'T SUPPLIED THEM. • 19 1 WANT TO SAY THAT I DON' T BELIEVE THE CITY 20 COUNCIL HAS WASTED MONEY ON THIS FOR ALL OF THESE YEARS . • 21 THEY ARE HERE , YOU ARE HERE TO PROTECT OUR INTEREST . 22 THAT' S WHY YOU ARE HERE . RARELY, I BELIEVE , WILL YOU HAVE 23 AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAN THIS . • 24 1 REALLY ASK YOU WHY, WHAT IS SO VITAL ABOUT THIS PROJECT 25 THAT THIS LAND MUST BE TAKEN AWAY FROM OUR CHILDREN AND OUR 59 • • 1 GRANDCHILDREN FOREVER? AND I ASK YOU THIS QUESTION: • 2 WHOSE INTERESTS ARE MOST IMPORTANT; IS IT THE 3 KOLL COMPANY' S INTERESTS , OR IS IT THE PEOPLE 'S INTERESTS? 4 IS IT THE REST OF US , OR THE FEW OF THEM? • 5 THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: GO AHEAD, DR . WINCHELL . 7 DR. WINCHELL: THE LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS IN THE BOLSA • 8 CHICA TITLE GATE DAMN AREA. SIMILAR ALONG PACIFIC COAST 9 HIGHWAY, THE SAME SORTS OF MATERIALS AS THE BOLSA CHICA. • 10 SIMILIAR AGAIN ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN THE BEACH 11 BOULEVARD AREA, LIQUEFACTION AND SHAKING EFFECTS . 12 THIS IS THE NAPLES AREA, RETAINING WALLS , • 13 LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS , SLUMP EFFECTS AND SO FORTH . THE 1933 14 EARTHQUAKE , THESE ARE ASSOCIATED WITH. 15 THESE ARE RUPTURES ASSOCIATED WITH • 16 LIQUEFACTION AND LURCHING IN THE GARDEN GROVE AREA. SAND 17 BOILS , IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IN THE GARDEN GROVE AREA. 18 ALL OF THESE PICTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 1933 EARTHQUAKE , • 19 A 6 . 3 . 20 THESE ARE THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY EARTHQUAKE • 21 PHOTOGRAPHS . THIS IS THE BUILDING BEFORE , AND THE BUILDING 22 AFTER . THE MAGNITUDE OF THESE TWO EARTHQUAKES WERE THE 23 SAME , OR EFFECTIVELY THE SAME . • 24 ANOTHER COUPLE OF HOUSES IN THAT EARTHQUAKE , 25 THE EFFECTS OF SHAKING, PROBABLY LURCHING, SHAKING, PERHAPS 60 • • 1 EVEN LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS IN THAT AREA. 2 HARBORVIEW HOSPITAL BUILT TO CODE , BUILDING 3 CODES AND THE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT EARTHQUAKE . THE 4 SAME HOSPITAL AND THE EFFECTS . • 5 MODERN BUILDINGS , THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE , 1964 , 6 A 7 . 5 EARTHQUAKE , FOUR , FIVE-STORY BUILDINGS TITLED OVER AS 7 A RESULT OF LIQUEFACTION. SO THESE ARE A GRAPHIC • 8 ILLUSTRATION OF THE EFFECTS OF THE SHAKING THAT WE CAN 9 EXPECT IN THE BOLSA CHICA. THANK YOU. • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 11 NEXT SPEAKER . PLEASE . 12 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE KAREN RAGAN , MIKE S 13 PINCETICH, TOM LIVENGOOD, BILL GREGORY AND GORDON LABETZ . 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 15 WHO WAS THE NEXT ONE? • 16 CITY CLERK: KAREN RAGAN . KAREN R-A-G-A-N . 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT. 18 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKER THEN WOULD BE MIKE • 19 PINCETICH, P- 1 -N-C-E-T- 1 -C-H . 20 MR. PINCETICH: GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR , CITY • 21 COUNCILMEMBERS , MY NAME IS MIKE PINCETICH - - THAT' S OKAY , 22 YOU ARE NOT THE FIRST, OR THE LAST. 23 1 LIVE AT 24 LINDERO AVENUE , LONG BEACH , • 24 CALIFORNIA 90803 . 310 , 217-2742 . 25 1 COME TO YOU TONIGHT NOT AS A MEMBER OF THE 61 • • 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY, NOR AS A MEMBER OF ORANGE 2 COUNTY. I DO NOT HAVE A CIVIC VOTE WITHIN YOUR 3 JURISDICTION. I AM ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT WORKS IN 4 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, MAKES MY MONEY IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY , • 5 AND SPENDS IT IN ORANGE COUNTY. I AM AN ECONOMIC VOTER IN 6 YOUR AREA. 7 1 AM A MEMBER OF SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, LONG s 8 BEACH, NORTH ORANGE COUNTY CHAPTER , AND I AM A SURFER . 9 IT' S NICE TO KNOW THAT SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE YOU SEE DOWN AT 10 THE PIER MAY SOME DAY STAND BEFORE YOU LOOKING LIKE THIS . 11 1 HAVE A CONCERN ONLY IN THE FACT THAT I WAS 12 TAUGHT TO SURF IN THE ' 50 ' S . I TAUGHT MY CHILDREN TO SURF 13 IN THE ' 70 ' S . AND I WILL TEACH MY TWO YEAR OLD GRANDSON TO 14 SURF IN THE ' 90 ' S . AND I HOPE TO DO IT HERE IN ORANGE 15 COUNTY . AND I HOPE TO DO IT AT BOLSA CHICA. • 16 1 WILL NOT ADDRESS THE TECHNICALITIES THAT A 17 NUMBER OF OTHERS HAVE OVER THE EIR , OR OVER THEIR CONCERNS . 18 1 WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AND SHORT . • 19 MARK TWAIN, I BELIEVE , SAID, "BUY LAND , THEY 20 ARE NOT MAKING ANYMORE OF IT. " WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 21 LAST WEEK OR TWO AND THE GOOD LORD' S ATTEMPT TO MAKE A 22 LITTLE BIT MORE , I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THE OPEN 23 SPACE ISSUE THAT BOLSA CHICA PRESENTS TO ME , AND AS I SEE • 24 IT FROM THE WATER . PLEASE JUST LEAVE IT ALONE . THANK YOU . 25 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THE NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . • 62 • 1 CITY CLERK: YES , TOM LIVENGOOD. BILL GREGORY. • 2 MR. LIVENGOOD: YES , MY NAME IS TOM LIVENGOOD. I AM 3 VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA. I LIVE AT 4 5461 MEADOWLARK IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 5 MY REMARKS ARE CONCERNING THE FUTURE . WHAT 6 ARE THE STEPS IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR THE 7 PROPOSED KOLL PROJECT AND ALTERNATES FOR THE BOLSA CHICA? • 8 THE AMIGOS HAS BEEN, AND CONTINUES TO BE A 9 MEMBER OF THE BOLSA CHICA COALITION . THE COALITION 10 HAMMERED OUT PROTECTION FOR THE WETLANDS AND GENERAL 11 GUIDELINES FOR LAND USE . THE AMIGOS HAS STATED MANY TIMES 12 THE COALITION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE WOULD HAVE TO BE • 13 REVIEWED BY FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES FOR IMPACT ON THE 14 WETLANDS . THESE EVALUATIONS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF 15 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. • 16 AS MEMBERS OF THE COALITION , WE EXPECTED OPEN 17 PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE EIR, NOT A WRITTEN COMMENT PROCESS . 18 THE NEXT MAJOR STEP SHOULD BE A REVIEW OF A • 19 PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED BASED ON THE EIR. A CLEAR 20 UNDERSTANDING OF THE COALITION WAS THAT THE CITY OF 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH WOULD BE THE LEAD AGENCY. THE HUNTINGTON 22 BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS , 23 REVIEW AND EVALUATE REPORTS, AND SUBMIT RECOMMENDATIONS TO 24 THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS STANDARD PROCEDURE IN THE CITY. 25 THE COUNCIL WOULD CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARINGS , 63 • • 1 REVIEW REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . THE COUNCIL THEN WOULD 2 VOTE ON THE PROPOSAL. ANNEXATION OF THE PROJECT WAS TO BE 3 PART OF THE PROCESS . 4 THE COALITION DIDN' T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO 5 DETERMINE DENSITIES OF FINAL LAND USE . AFTER PUBLIC 6 HEARINGS, THAT DECISION WOULD BE MADE , AS WE UNDERSTOOD, AS 7 COALITION MEMBERS , BY THE COUNCIL. • 8 WITH KOLL TURNING THE PROJECT OVER TO THE 9 COUNTY, IT WAS NOT, AND IS NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE • 10 COALITION PROCESS . THIS ACTION OBVIOUSLY HAS LIMITED THE 11 CITY' S INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS . THE 12 COUNTY' S DENSITY DESIGNATIONS BUILDING CODES DO NOT MATCH • 13 HUNTINGTON BEACH STRICTIST CODES . 14 ONE OF THE CITY' S MOST SENSITIVE AND LARGEST 15 PROJECTS WITH TREMENDOUS IMPACTS ON THE CITY ' S FINANCES AND • 16 SERVICES , IMPACT ON HUNTINGTON BEACH RESIDENTS , NOT TO BE 17 DECIDED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL , DOES NOT MAKE 18 SENSE . • 19 IF THE PROCESS CONTINUES TO BE CONTROLLED BY 20 THE COUNTY, THEN THE AMIGOS STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT ALL 21 COUNTY, PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 22 MEETINGS ON THE BOLSA CHICA BE HELD IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH 23 COUNCIL CHAMBERS , AND BE HELD IN THE EVENING AND TELEVISED. 24 ALSO, A TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM BE 25 ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY STAFFS , COUNCIL AND 64 • • 1 BOARD. 2 THE AMIGOS WILL CONTINUE TO CLOSELY MONITOR 3 THE PROCESS . IF THE PROCESS DOES NOT ADEQUATELY GIVE AN 4 OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PEOPLE MOST IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT TO 5 BE INVOLVED, THEN THE AMIGOS WILL HAVE TO EVALUATE THEIR 6 CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE BOLSA CHICA COALITION. 7 THE AMIGOS WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY • 8 COUNCIL FOR CONDUCTING THIS TELEVISED, OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. 9 THANK YOU. • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER . 11 MR. GREGORY: COUNCIL, I AM BILL GREGORY WITH 12 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION . • 13 "GET YOUR DUCKS IN ORDER . " THAT WAS A 14 SUGGESTION THAT SUPERVISOR HARRIETT WIEDER MADE TO ME AT A 15 MEETING A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. THE MEETING WAS WITH THE 16 BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. SURFRIDER , AS WELL AS OTHER 17 CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY THOUGHT, "WELL , LISTEN , WHY CAN 'T 18 WE PRESERVE SPACE THROUGH ACQUISITION AT A FAIR MARKET • 19 VALUE?" 20 "GET YOUR DUCKS IN ORDER , " SHE SAID. "HOW 21 MANY PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT THIS KIND OF AN IDEA, " SHE SAID. 22 "WHAT KIND OF FUNDING WOULD BE AVAILABLE , " SHE SAID. 23 OUR MESSAGE TONIGHT TO SUPERVISOR WIEDER AND • 24 THE COUNTY IS THAT OUR DUCKS ARE IN ORDER. AND THAT THE 25 COUNTY MUST BE RESPONSIBLE IN ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC' S 65 • • I 1 CONCERN , AND TO SEEK THE BEST SOLUTION FOR BOLSA CHICA. 2 SURFRIDER IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION , A 3 FORMAT FOR SURFERS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE 4 BEACH COMMUNITY. A LOT OF PEOPLE SAY, "WELL , WHAT WOULD BE 5 THE EFFECT OF SURFING? " 6 1 HAVE HAD - - IT' S QUITE CLEAR THAT IF JETTIES 7 ARE BUILT INTRUDING INTO THE SURF ZONE , AND THAT IF AN OPEN • 8 INLET 250 FEET WIDE , PLUS THE WIDTH OF THE JETTIES WERE TO 9 REMOVE 200 LINEAR FEET, TO 2 , 000 , WHEN WE MIGHT HAVE A . 10 STRONG STORM THAT WOULD WASH THE SAND AWAY, THE SURF BEACH 11 ACCESS IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED AND REMOVED. 12 IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT ANY TIME YOU PUT A JETTY • 13 OUT INTO THE WATER, YOU ARE GOING TO BLOCK THE FLOW OF 14 SAND. AND THAT WOULD DESTROY THE EROSION OF THE CLIFFS 15 SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED OUTLET. 16 THE VISION OF THE BOLSA CHICA IS ENDORSED BY 17 MANY GROUPS. SURFRIDER, WITH 11 , 000 ORANGE COUNTY MEMBERS. 18 THE SIERRA CLUB , 50 , 000 . WESTERN REGION , CLOSE TO 60 , 000 . • 19 THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST, 1 , 800 . THE ENDANGERED HABITAT 20 LEAGUE , THE ORANGE COAST LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS , HUNTINGTON • 21 BEACH TOMORROW, AND OTHERS. 22 THE SURFRIDER NATIONAL OFFICE HAS DEVELOPED AN 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TEAM OF EXPERTS IN THE FIELD WHO ARE • 24 MAKING A DETAILED RESPONSE TO MAJOR ISSUES OF THE BOLSA 25 CHICA. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE EIR CONCLUSIONS AND 66 • • 1 MITIGATION FACTORS ARE TOTALLY INADEQUATE , AND INCONSISTENT • 2 WITH THE FACTUAL INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE EIR . AND 3 THAT INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE SURF , BUT THE RUNOFF AND THE 4 WATER QUALITY, AND MANY OTHER ISSUES . 5 1 HAVE SAID THAT WE HAVE OUR DUCKS IN ORDER , 6 AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME QUACKING. HOW MANY DUCKS DO 7 WE HAVE THAT SUPPORT NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA? • 8 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 9 DR . LABETZ: MADAM MAYOR , COUNCIL , THANK YOU. WE • 10 DON ' T HEAR GOOD GOVERNMENT USED IN - - 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . GIVE YOUR NAME 12 AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE . • 13 DR . LABETZ: MY NAME IS DR. GORDON LABETZ . I LIVE 14 AT 330 REGATTA WAY IN SEAL BEACH 90740 . 310 , 598-0230 . 15 WE DON 'T HEAR THE WORDS "GOOD" AND • 16 "GOVERNMENT" VERY OFTEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE ANYMORE . THIS 17 IS GOOD GOVERNMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US 18 TO SPEAK TONIGHT. • 19 1 AM HEADING UP A TEAM OF EXPERTS IN THE 20 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION THAT IS OVERVIEWING THE EIR , AND I 21 WOULD LIKE TO MAKE JUST A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT IT . HAD 22 1 KNOWN TOM MATTHEWS WAS GOING TO BE HERE , I WOULD HAVE 23 BROUGHT HIM A DICTIONARY, BECAUSE THE SINGLE BIGGEST • 24 PROBLEM WITH THIS EIR IS THAT THE FOLKS WHO OVERSAW IT, DID 25 NOT KNOW THE WORD MITIGATION . THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 67 • • 1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND INSIGNIFICANT • 2 IMPACT. AND THEY HAVE TROUBLE WITH CONCEPTS OF WHAT AN EIR 3 IS EXACTLY ABOUT. 4 THE WHOLE QUESTION BEFORE US HERE TONIGHT IS 5 CALIFORNIA HAS LOST 91 PERCENT OF ITS WETLANDS , MORE THAN 6 ALMOST ANY OTHER STATE . WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A REMAINING 7 NINE PERCENT NOW. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR • 8 CALIFORNIANS , AND AMERICANS , WHERE WE HAVE LOST 53 PERCENT 9 OF OUR WETLANDS IN THE UNITED STATES . THERE IS NO PLACE TO 10 COMPROMISE ANYMORE . WE ONLY HAVE NINE PERCENT LEFT. 11 THE EIR 'S WHOLE SCOPE , IN OUR VIEW, IS TO LOOK 12 AT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 5 , 000 , OR 3 , 000 , OR 100 HOUSES • 13 AS IT RELATES TO A WETLAND HABITAT. OUR VIEW IS THAT WE 14 CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO LOSE ANYMORE OF THIS HABITAT. 15 THERE IS NO MORE PLACE TO COMPROMISE OUR WETLANDS AWAY . • 16 THE KOLL COMPANY IS COMING AND SAYING , "WE 17 WILL COMPROMISE . " BUT THE TIME FOR COMPROMISE , FOLKS , TO 18 THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IS ENDING. IT' S TIME NOW TO LOOK • 19 AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO PRESERVE IT. AND THAT' S WHY THE 20 SURFRIDER FOUNDATION AND THE ENTIRE ENVIRONMENTAL 21 COMMUNITY, AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS TELLING THE COUNTY 22 THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO COMPROMISE ANYMORE OF OUR WETLANDS 23 AWAY. AND THAT THIS DRAFT EIR HAS TO GO BACK TO THE • 24 DRAWING BOARD AND BE REWRITTEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF 25 THE BIRDS AND THE MAMMALS AND THE FISH, AND THE BUGS, AND • 68 • I 1 THE ALGAE AND THE BACTERIA THAT LIVE ON THAT WETLAND. AND • 2 WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM IF YOU HAVE TEN, OR 15 , 000 PEOPLE 3 LIVING ADJACENT TO IT? WHAT WILL BE LEFT FOR THEM? WHERE 4 WILL THEY GO? WHERE WILL THEY HAVE THEIR BABIES? WHAT IS 5 GOING TO BE LEFT OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT , FOLKS , WITH 6 MR . KOLL AND HIS GANG OF CONCRETE PAVERS GOING THROUGHOUT 7 OUR COMMUNITY AND PAVING OVER EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PIECE • 8 OF NATURAL OPEN ENVIRONMENT THAT WE HAVE LEFT? 9 WE ARE IN FAVOR OF RESTORATION . WE ARE IN • 10 FAVOR OF RESTORING THESE WETLANDS . THAT' S EXACTLY WHY WE 11 ARE SUPPORTING THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. THE OCEAN INLET 12 IS A BAD IDEA. WE HOPE TO SEE THE WATER BE RESTORED • 13 THROUGH HUNTINGTON HARBOR . IF THAT DOES NOT WORK, WE WILL 14 CONSIDER AN OCEAN INLET. 15 BUT THE POINT IS , THIS IS A BUILDING PROJECT, 16 AND IT HAS TO BE ANALYZED IN AN EIR IN RELATION TO HOW THE 17 BUILDING AND ALL THE PEOPLE AND THE DOGS AND THE CATS AND 18 THE LEAF BLOWERS AND THE LAWNMOWERS WILL AFFECT THE NATURAL • 19 AREA AND THE NATURAL HABITAT. AND THAT'S OUR PROBLEM WITH 20 THIS EIR. THANK YOU . 21 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. EXCUSE ME FOR 22 JUST ONE MOMENT. 23 1 WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE IS A FORM • 24 ON THE FRONT TABLE FOR THOSE WISHING TO SUBMIT WRITTEN 25 COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY. AND, ALSO, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF • 69 1 YOU THAT ARE ADDRESSING THE BOLSA CHICA EIR . THAT IS OUR • 2 PURPOSE TONIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A TEN-MINUTE BREAK RIGHT 3 NOW. THANK YOU. 4 (WHEREUPON , A RECESS WAS TAKEN . ) 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: 1 WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE 6 MEETING BACK TO ORDER , PLEASE . WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE TAKE 7 YOUR SEATS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. • 8 MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU READ THE NEXT SPEAKERS , 9 PLEASE . THANK YOU VERY MUCH . • 10 CITY CLERK: YES , THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE SUSAN HORI , 11 H-O-R- I , ANDREW EINHORN , BARRY GARCIA, TERRI RESTIVO, AND 12 KAY KOPE . • 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 14 PLEASE . 15 MR . EINHORN: MY NAME IS ANDREW EINHORN. I LIVE AT 16 7311 COHO DRIVE , NUMBER 103 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . 17 MADAM MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS , I APPRECIATE YOUR 18 ALLOWING US TO RECOGNIZE OUR OPINIONS THIS EVENING. I HAVE • 19 SPOKEN BEFORE ON THIS TOPIC, SO I AM GOING TO MAKE MY 20 COMMENTS RATHER BRIEF . • 21 1 AM AGAINST THIS PLAN . THE DEVELOPER IS 22 WEIGHING A LOT OF TRADE-OFFS , PERMITS AND FEES FOR THE 23 CITY, INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES, JOBS , BUT THESE ARE NOT • 24 ACCEPTABLE , IN MY OPINION. 25 1 DON 'T THINK PUTTING IN THIS AMOUNT OF HOMES 70 • 1 WILL DO THIS PARTICULAR AREA ANY GOOD. THESE HOMES WILL • 2 BRING IN APPROXIMATELY 24 TO 28 , 000 MORE CARS . I DON 'T 3 THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REALLY JUSTIFIES WHAT 4 WILL HAPPEN ON PCH . THE KEY IS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO 5 RESTORE THESE WETLANDS? AND WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? 6 ARE WE WILLING TO PAY FOR THIS OURSELVES? 7 IF IT COMES TO BE THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS • 8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS THAT COULD BRING SIGNIFICANT INCOME 9 FOR THE CITY IN THE WAY OF MUSEUMS , OR VARIOUS GROUPS • 10 ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY, MAYBE WE 11 COULD RAISE THE MONEY FROM SOME OF THESE SIGNIFICANT 12 FINDINGS . BUT WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING • 13 TO FINANCE THIS . WE CAN'T JUST HAVE EMOTIONAL ISSUES 14 TALKING ABOUT, WE DON'T WANT THIS , BUT HOW ARE WE GOING TO 15 GET THE FUNDS TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS? THAT IS THE GOAL . 16 THAT IS THE GOAL OF KOLL. THAT IS OUR GOAL, AS WELL. I 17 DIFFER AS TO HOW THEY WANT TO DO IT THOUGH . 18 WE HAVE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE RUNNING • 19 FOR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , AND THE LAST TIME I SPOKE HERE , 20 HARRIETT WIEDER BROUGHT A CHECK FOR $90 , 000 TO HELP REBUILD 21 THE PIER. MAYBE OUR TWO PROSPECTIVE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WE 22 HOPE WILL BE ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COULD DO THE SAME , 23 AND CONTRIBUTE TO FUNDING THE PROJECT. • 24 THANK YOU VERY MUCH . AND I WISH YOU GOOD 25 LUCK. THANKS FOR LETTING US TALK. 71 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 2 NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . 3 MS . HORI : GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR. MY NAME IS 4 SUSAN HORI . 5 1 AM HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM H-2 , AND NOT 6 TO COMMENT ON THE EIR. DO YOU WISH TO TAKE MY COMMENTS AT 7 THIS TIME? 8 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: YES , GO AHEAD. 9 MS . HORI : I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD 10 EXCERPTS OF TWO LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY 11 COUNCIL. ONE FROM DR. NANCY DE SAUTELS WHO IS THE 12 ARCHAEOLOGIST THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE EXCAVATIONS THAT 13 HAVE BEEN REPORTED ON RECENTLY . AND THE OTHER IS FROM 14 PHILIP IBANEZ, WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN 15 MONITOR. 16 FIRST FROM DR. DE SAUTELS . 17 "SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE SURVEYS HAS WORKED 18 FOR OVER TEN YEARS WITH THE LOCAL NATIVE 19 AMERICANS REGARDING THE SITES , ARTIFACTS AND 20 HUMAN REMAINS IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, BOTH IN CITY 21 AND COUNTY JURISDICTIONS . EVERY SITE IS EXCAVATED 22 WITH A RESPECT FOR THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS , AND 23 ANY HUMAN BONE MATERIALS WHICH ARE RECOVERED, ARE 24 HANDLED WITH DIGNITY, AND ACCORDING TO THE WISHES 25 OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS . THIS INCLUDES THE 72 1 COMPLETE BURIAL UNEARTHED AS EARLY AS 1991 AS 2 PART OF THE EDWARDS STREET WIDENING ON CITY OF 3 HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPERTY. THE BURIAL WAS 4 REMOVED DISCRETELY AND QUIETLY AT THE REQUEST OF 5 THE NATIVE AMERICANS . THERE WAS NO PRESS , AND 6 CERTAINLY NO CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT OR REQUESTS 7 FOR GRAND JURY INVESTIGATIONS . 8 THE BONE FRAGMENTS RECOVERED IN 1993 9 FROM EXCAVATIONS ON BOLSA MESA WERE NO DIFFERENT 10 THAN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH' S PREVIOUS 11 SITUATION. REBURIAL AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN 12 EFFECT FOR ALL BOLSA CHICA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 13 FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS . ALL METHODS TO BE USED ON 14 EACH SITE , BOTH IN GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY IF 15 HUMAN REMAINS ARE LOCATED, HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED 16 WITH THE LANDOWNERS AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN 17 MONITORS . THESE WERE FOLLOWED RELIGIOUSLY 18 DURING THE 1993 EXCAVATIONS . 19 CONCENTRATIONS OF BONE FRAGMENTS 20 INITIALLY BEGAN TO BE LOCATED DURING THE 21 SUMMER OF 1993 . WITHIN ONE MONTH , CHAMBERS 22 GROUP ARCHAEOLOGISTS" - - AND I SHOULD REMIND 23 YOU, THIS IS BOTH THE COUNTY' S EIR CONSULTANTS , 24 AS WELL AS THE CONSULTING FIRM HIRED BY THE CITY 25 TO PREPARE THE JOINT EIR/EIS - - " INTERVIEWED ME 73 • 1 REGARDING OUR WORK ON ALL SITES ON BOLSA CHICA MESA. 2 1 REPORTED THAT EACH OF THE SITES WE HAD WORKED 3 ON CONTAINED HUMAN BONE FRAGMENTS , AND THAT 4 EXCAVATIONS WERE IN PROCESS ON THOSE SITES . • 5 IN OCTOBER 1993 , LARGER FRAGMENTS WERE APPEARING 6 AND WE CALLED THE CORONER . 7 IN NOVEMBER 1993 , 1 REPORTED THESE FINDINGS • 8 DURING A LECTURE ON LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGY SPONSORED 9 BY THE AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA, WHICH WAS SUMMARIZED • 10 IN THEIR DECEMBER 1993 NEWSLETTER . NOTHING HAS 11 BEEN HIDDEN ON THIS SITE . 12 PROFESSIONAL NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN • 13 MONITORING OUR EXCAVATIONS DAILY, AND THREE 14 SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS APPOINTED BY THE CALIFORNIA 15 COASTAL COMMISSION HAVE REVIEWED OUR RESULTS ON • 16 A CONTINUAL BASIS . 17 IT IS HIGHLY UNETHICAL THAT MS . PAT HAMMOND 18 WARE RELEASED TO THE PRESS SPECIFIC INFORMATION 19 REGARDING NATIVE AMERICAN HUMAN REMAINS VIA A 20 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT FROM A CONSULTANT TO THE • 21 CORONER' S OFFICE . THE CODE OF ETHICS OF ALL 22 PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL 23 SOCIETIES REQUIRE THAT THE CONCERNS OF THE 24 EFFECTED GROUP , IN THIS CASE THE LOCAL NATIVE 25 AMERICANS , BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY ACTIONS ARE 74 • 1 TAKEN RELATIVE TO THEIR ANCESTRAL SITES , • 2 ARTIFACTS AND REMAINS . COORDINATION WITH THESE 3 GROUPS IS MANDATED BY LAW. 4 IT IS SRS ' S PRACTICE TO RESPECT BOTH THE • 5 MANDATES OF LAW, AND NATIVE AMERICAN SENSITIVITIES . 6 OUR PROCEDURES REFLECT THIS . SADLY , THIS IS NOT 7 THE STANDARDS OF OTHERS IN MY PROFESSION . • 8 SINCERELY NANCY A. WHITNEY-DE SAUTELS . " 9 NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ EXCERPTS FROM A 10 LETTER FROM PHILLIP IBANEZ , PROFESSIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN • 11 CULTURAL RESOURCE MONITORS. 12 "WE ARE APPALLED THAT AN AMATEUR 13 ARCHAEOLOGIST, MS . PAT WARE , AND A CITY CITY 14 COUNCILMAN, MR. BAUER, HAVE DECIDED TO TAKE IT 15 UPON THEMSELVES TO USE THE REMAINS OF OUR 16 ANCESTORS AS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL . IT IS AGAINST 17 ALL REGULATIONS TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION REGARDING 18 NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS . IT WOULD BE GREATLY • 19 APPRECIATED IF UNAUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS WOULD 20 CEASE GIVING THE GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION • 21 REGARDING THE LOCATION AND WHEREABOUTS OF OUR 22 ANCESTORS ' REMAINS . 23 THE DECISION ON WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH • 24 THE REMAINS AND THE SITE IS A NATIVE AMERICAN 25 DECISION ONLY. PLEASE ALLOW US TO HANDLE THIS 75 • • 1 MATTER WITH THE RESPECT AND DIGNITY THAT OUR • 2 ANCESTORS DESERVE , AND THE LAW REQUIRES . 3 SINCERELY, PHILLIP IBANEZ. " 4 IN CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY RESPOND TO 5 COMMENTS MADE BY MS . WARE DURING HER PRESENTATION IN 6 RESPONSE TO A QUESTION FROM, I BELIEVE , COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN 7 REGARDING THE BONES SENT TO U .C. L.A. IN 1992 . • 8 AS DR. DE SAUTELS NOTES , SHE HAS BEEN 9 CONDUCTING ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON THE BOLSA CHICA • 10 AREA FOR OVER TEN YEARS , ON LAND BY THE KOLL COMPANY, THE 11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND OTHER LANDOWNERS . AND IT' S 12 VERY POSSIBLE THAT THE BONE WAS SENT TO U .C. L.A. , AND THAT • 13 IT WAS HUMAN BONE . 14 U.C . L.A. ' S ROLE IN THIS IS TO DETERMINE WHAT 15 IS ANIMAL BONE AND WHAT IS HUMAN BONE , AND AT THAT TIME • 16 SHE WAS COMPLETING WORK ON SEVERAL SITES , INCLUDING ORA-85 , 17 AS WELL AS THE CITY' S OWN EXCAVATIONS . AND IT' S VERY 18 POSSIBLE THAT THAT'S WHERE THOSE REMAINS WERE FOUND . • 19 THANK YOU. 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , • 21 PLEASE . 22 MS . RESTIVO: MADAM MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS , I AM 23 TERRIE RESTIVO. I LIVE AT 6072 NAVAJO ROAD, WESTMINSTER . 24 714 AREA, 890-0389 . 1 AM WITH THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT 25 SACRED SITES COMMITTEE . I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE 76 • 1 GABRIELINO PEOPLE WHO WERE THE FIRST PEOPLE ON THE LAND IN 2 MENTION. 3 1 THINK IT IS A SHAM THAT THIS WANTON 4 DESTRUCTION OF SACRED SITES STILL CONTINUES . WHERE DOES IT 5 END? HOPEFULLY HERE . 6 IF THIS WERE A WHITE CAUCASIAN CEMETARY, THE 7 DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED IMMEDIATELY , OR WOULD 8 NOT HAVE EVER BEGUN . 1 READ AN ARTICLE IN THE ORANGE 9 COUNTY REGISTER DATED JANUARY 25TH, REGARDING THE FINDINGS • 10 AND COVERUP OF THE ANCIENT REMAINS . IN THE ARTICLE LUCY 11 DUNN, THE KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP VICE PRESIDENT SAYS : 12 "THIS IS CRAZINESS . THERE IS NOT a 13 ANYTHING THERE THAT IS THAT UNUSUAL. SCATTERED 14 BONE FRAGMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE SITE BEFORE . " 15 MADAM MAYOR , THE BEAT STILL GOES ON . ARE WE 16 STILL TELLING THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW 17 TO TAKE CARE OF THE LAND? THAT WE KNOW BETTER? THAT A 18 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY KNOWS BETTER? 1 THINK NOT. 19 WE HAVE ALLOWED THE OVER-DEVELOPMENT OF 20 CALIFORNIA AND WE ARE PAYING THE PRICE , TEN FOLD . IT IS r 21 OUR RESPONSIBILITY , ALL OF US , TO TAKE CARE OF THE EARTH 22 AND HER RESOURCES , AND TO PRESERVE THE EARTH FOR OUR 23 CHILDREN AND THEIR CHILDREN FOR SEVEN GENERATIONS . LET' S ! 24 START HERE TONIGHT AND PRESERVE ALL OF THE BOLSA CHICA 25 WETLANDS FOR ALL OF OUR RELATIONS , THE FOUR-LEGGED, THE 77 • 1 WINGED ONES , THE WATER ONES , THE PLANT, THE STONES . NOT 40 2 JUST THE TWO-LEGGED. THANK YOU. 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER . 4 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE BARRY GARCIA, KAY 5 KOPE , LEON MC KINNEY, MARCUS LOPEZ , AND CINDY ALVATRI . 6 MR. GARCIA: GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS GARY GARCIA. 7 1 LIVE AT 1802 LAKE STREET HERE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I • 8 HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR 18 YEARS . 9 1 AM HERE TO COMMUNICATE MY SUPPORT FOR THE • 10 BOLSA CHICA PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE KOLL REAL 11 ESTATE . AND I DO NOT HAVE ANY VESTED INTEREST WHATSOEVER 12 IN THIS PROJECT. • 13 HERE ARE MY REASONS FOR SUPPORTING IT . 14 NUMBER 1 , THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH THE BOLSA 15 CHICA COALITION PLAN, WHICH WAS AGREED TO BY GROUPS ON ALL • 16 SIDES OF THE ISSUES , INCLUDING THE STATE , THE COUNTY, THE 17 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , THE AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA AND THE 18 PROPERTY OWNER . • 19 NUMBER 2 , 1 BELIEVE THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUE 20 INVOLVED IS THE PRESERVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE V 21 WETLANDS . AND I BELIEVE THAT THE KOLL PLAN FAR EXCEEDS ALL 22 EXPECTATIONS FOR THE WETLANDS , WHICH PARTIALLY INCLUDES 23 DEDICATION OF 767 ACRES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC 24 FOR PUBLIC USE . RESTORATION OF 1 , 004 ACRES OF EXISTING 25 WETLANDS AND CREATION OF NEW WETLANDS SO THAT WHEN THIS 78 • • 1 PROJECT IS COMPLETED, THERE WILL ACTUALLY BE MORE WETLANDS 2 THAN THERE ARE NOW. 3 INCORPORATED IN THE EIR, SOME OF THE THINGS 4 THAT WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED ARE , REMOVAL OF EXISTING OIL 5 WELLS . REMOVAL OF EXISTING ROADS AND DRILL PADS . REMOVAL 6 OF TANK FARMS AND ANCILLARY OIL FACILITIES . INSTALLATION 7 OF LEVIES , BERMS , TIE-GATES , CULVERTS AND OTHER DRAINAGE • 8 FACILITIES TO ALLOW CREATION OF NEW WETLANDS , AND CREATION 9 OF AN INLET TO ASSIST FLUSHING AND CIRCULATION IN SUPPORT 10 OF TITLE WETLANDS . 11 NOW, IF ANYONE - - I BELIEVE IF ANYONE LOOKS AT 12 THE PROJECT PLAN OBJECTIVELY , THEY CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT THE 13 WETLANDS WILL BE IN SIGNIFICANTLY SUPERIOR CONDITION AS A 14 RESULT OF THE PLAN. 15 NUMBER 3 , THE KOLL COMPANY IS GOING TO PAY FOR • 16 THE ENTIRE RESTORATION OF THE WETLANDS , WHICH MEANS , WE , AS 17 TAXPAYERS , AREN 'T GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT AT ALL. 18 NUMBER 4 , THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS ARE 19 TREMENDOUS , WHICH INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS AND 20 BILLIONS OF DOLLARS INFUSED INTO THE ECONOMY . 21 IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS 22 A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR EVERYONE . IT WILL CREATE A 23 BEAUTIFUL AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE WETLAND, AND WILL 24 PROVIDE A TREMENDOUS BOOST TO THE ECONOMY AT THE SAME TIME . 25 AND IT WILL ALL BE ACCOMPLISHED TOTALLY WITH PRIVATE SECTOR 79 • • 1 MONEY AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYERS . • 2 THANK YOU. 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 4 CITY CLERK: YES , KAY KOPE . LEON MC KINNEY. AND 5 MARCUS LOPEZ FOR CINDY ALVATRI . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 7 CITY CLERK: IF KAY KOPE ISN'T HERE , THEN LEON 8 MC KINNEY. 9 THE NEXT PERSON, MARCUS LOPEZ . • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 11 MR. LOPEZ: MADAM MAYOR , COUNCILMEMBERS. WELCOME TO 12 TONGVA LAND. MY NAME IS MARCUS LOPEZ TUMACH , 4234 AVOCADO, • 13 RIVERSIDE , CALIFORNIA 92507 . 14 1 WILL READ PART OF COMMUNICATIONS OF GOVERNOR 15 CINDY ALVATRI TO THE CITY COUNCIL. • 16 " 1 AM EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THIS 17 PROJECT HAS BEEN HANDLED IN A MANNER THAT 18 POSSIBLY VIOLATES CEQA, THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRACE • 19 PROTECTION ACT 43-CFR PART 10 , PUBLIC RESOURCE 20 CODE 5097 . 9 , AND TRADITIONAL VALUES AND MORALS OF 21 OUR PEOPLE , GABRIELINO/TONGVA. 22 1 AM GREATLY CONCERNED AS TO MY PEOPLE 23 THAT NOT ONLY HAVE WE BEEN DECEIVED, BUT SO 24 HAVE THE PUBLIC SERVANTS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES . 25 1 RESPECTIVELY REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL 80 • • 1 INFORMATION REGARDING BOLSA CHICA. I ALSO 2 WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS MY WILLINGNESS TO 3 COOPERATE WITHIN THIS PROCESS TO ENSURE HONESTY 4 AND DIGNITY, NOT ONLY FOR MY ANCESTORS , MY ELDERS 5 AND LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND PUBLIC SERVANTS 6 WHO HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO PROTECT THE VALUABLE 7 RESOURCES . • 8 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SOME SPECIAL THINGS . 9 ONE , I WOULD LIKE TO REFER SPECIFICALLY TO • 10 THE EIR . I WANT TO EXPRESS THE NEED FOR AN 11 INVESTIGATION . I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COUNCIL 12 IN ORDER TO BRING THAT NOTION UP . IT NEEDS TO BE • 13 LOOKED AT. ONE SPECIFICALLY IS ON PAGE 4 . 11 - 13 , 14 THE COGSTONES FOUND WITHIN THIS BURIAL 15 SITE , AND THAT IS BURIAL SITE ORA-83 . WHAT • 16 WERE THEY, OR WERE THEY IN THE BURIALS OR NOT, 17 WHICH IS UNCLEAR? 18 SECONDLY, ARE OTHER BEADS FOUND WITH • 19 THE PARTICULAR BURIALS? IN ADDITION TO THAT, 20 4 . 11 - 12 , ORA-78 , WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO 21 CONCLUDE THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE ORIGINAL 22 UNSIGNED STATE RECORD. THE CONCLUSION, WAS 23 THAT BASED ON THE INCORRECT NATURE OF NO MORE 24 BURIAL REMAINS , AND WHAT WAS THAT BASED ON? 25 SPECIFICALLY, ALSO IN THE EIR, • 81 • 1 THE NATIVE AMERICAN - - ( INAUDIBLE) WHY WERE 2 THE TONGVA PEOPLE IGNORED WITHIN THIS EIR? 3 WHAT HAPPENED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE NATIVE 4 AMERICAN CONCERNS THAT IMPACT THE PROPERLY 5 MITIGATED AREA? BECAUSE WHEN YOU READ THE AREA 6 EIR , YOU ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY 7 WHEN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT INSIGNIFICANT TO • 8 THE NATIVE PEOPLE , THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT. 9 IT IS NOT. • 10 BUT TO THIS REPORT, BECAUSE OF ONE 11 INDIVIDUAL, AND BECAUSE OF ONE PARTICULAR 12 INTERPRETATION , THAT THIS IS ERRONEOUS , WE WANT • 13 TO STRESS THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME . 14 IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT HUMAN REMAINS 15 STILL REMAIN IN WHAT PRIVATE HANDS , WHICH IS • 16 VERY UNCLEAR? AND THAT' S WHY AN INVESTIGATION IS 17 SO URGENTLY NEEDED AT THIS TIME . 18 AND JUST ENDING, ABOUT THE RESEARCH DESIGN , • 19 SHOULD IT BE REVIEWED, AND IT NEEDS TO BE 20 REVIEWED BY AT LEAST THREE QUALIFIED • 21 ARCHAEOLOGISTS , AND NOT ON THE PAYROLL OF SOME 22 CORPORATION, OR ON THE PAYROLL OF SOME 23 DEVELOPER ' S BACK POCKET. " 24 THESE ARE ONLY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I 25 WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU, WITH DOCUMENTS , NOT ONLY FROM . 82 • 1 THE GOVERNOR, CINDY ALVATRI , OF THE TONGVA NATION , BUT ALSO 2 OTHER CONCERNS DEALING WITH WHAT I THINK SEEMS TO BE THE 3 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND PRECONTACT 4 EVIDENCE WHERE THE EIR MISTAKINGLY LEADS YOU IN THE WRONG ! 5 DIRECTION. 6 1 WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU 7 HAVE ANY QUESTIONS , HERE IS THE ADDRESS AND THE PROPER • 8 INFORMATION. THANK YOU. 9 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 10 PLEASE . 11 CITY CLERK: YES , THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE RON MAYHEW, 12 DON CHISHOLM, CHARLES MOORE , DON SCHULZ , AND JERICHO 13 POPLAR . 14 MR. MAYHEW: MADAM MAYOR , MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , MY 15 NAME IS RON MAYHEW. MY ADDRESS IS 1265 BONNIE BRAE STREET, • 16 HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 310 , 17 915-4112 . 18 1 AM TOTALLY UNAFFILIATED WITH ANYONE HERE , 19 ONLY AS AN INTERESTED OBSERVER . AND AS A TRAINED URBAN 20 PLANNER AND A PROFESSIONAL URBAN PLANNER, I AM SOMEWHAT 21 ASTONISHED TO SEE THAT AN ENTITY THAT APPARENTLY IS NOT IN 22 THE DECISION-MAKING LOOP ON A PROJECT IS HOLDING A PUBLIC 23 HEARING REGARDING IT. • 24 1 THINK IT OUGHT TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR TO 25 EVERYONE PRESENT AND ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON . 83 • 1 BEACH , THAT THIS IS THE CASE , AND THAT THIS OUGHT NOT TO • 2 PREVENT THEM FROM MAKING THEIR FEELINGS HEARD BEFORE THE 3 COUNTY OF ORANGE . 4 ALSO, IT OUGHT TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT 5 THE COMMENTS MADE HERE TONIGHT, BOTH ON VIDEOTAPE AND IN 6 WRITTEN FORM, OUGHT TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE COUNTY. I 7 HOPE THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE . I PRESUME IT IS . 8 GETTING ON TO THE EIR ITSELF , AND TO THE 9 PROJECT, I HAVE FOLLOWED THIS PROJECT FOR A LONG TIME . I • 10 HAVE LIVED IN BEACH AREAS FOR A CONSIDERABLE PART OF MY 11 LIFE . I THINK A LOT OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD TONIGHT IS A LOT 12 OF MINVEE (PHONETIC) A TERM THAT YOU , NO DOUBT. HAVE HEARD • 13 BEFORE . A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT DON'T WANT ANY 14 DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR BACKYARD. A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE DON ' T 15 WANT ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEGRADED AREA OF THE DEGRADED • 16 WETLANDS , BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF WHAT MIGHT OCCUR , AND 17 WHAT CHANGES MIGHT OCCUR TO THE CITY. 18 AND I THINK 1 WOULD URGE ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE • 19 NOT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, BUT LET' S TAKE THAT AS A 20 PERIPHERAL ISSUE . LET' S CONCENTRATE ON THE EIR , AND • 21 CONCENTRATE ON ALL OF ITS POTENTIAL DEFICIENCIES . 22 HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN THE EIR PROCESS MYSELF 23 FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS , IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES TO • 24 DIVORCE ONE 'S SELF , THE PROJECT, FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL 25 DOCUMENT. 84 • • I 1 AS I SEE IT, THIS IS A VERY , VERY COMPLICATED • 2 AND COMPLEX DOCUMENT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE VERY, VERY 3 COMPLETE . THERE CERTAINLY ARE SOME DEFICIENCIES , THAT' S 4 WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CALLS FOR . THIS IS 5 WHY THESE HEARINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT. 6 1 THINK THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS ARE WELL 7 TAKEN, AND CERTAINLY THE EIR PREPARER SHOULD HAVE BEEN • 8 INVITED TO THIS MEETING TONIGHT. HE PROBABLY IS HERE . 1 9 DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED, BUT • 10 CLEARLY THERE IS A PROJECT ON THE DOCKET HERE THAT MUST BE 11 REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY, AND BY AN ENORMOUS NUMBER OF STATE 12 AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IN ORDER TO GET PROJECT APPROVALS . • 13 BUT JUST GET ON WITH IT, GET THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 14 BEHIND US AND START TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECT ITSELF . 15 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. • 16 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 17 COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN. 18 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN:. YES , MR . MAYHEW ASKED WHY • 19 ARE WE A NONAUTHORIZED BODY HOLDING A HEARING TONIGHT. 20 AND EVER SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING • 21 WHEN MR . MATTHEWS MADE HIS COMMENTS , I HAVE BEEN SITTING 22 HERE DOING KIND OF A SLOW BOIL ABOUT THAT VERY MATTER . SO 23 LET ME TELL THE PUBLIC WHY THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IS • 24 HOLDING THIS HEARING TONIGHT. 25 AS THE AMIGOS POINTED OUT TONIGHT, WHEN THE 85 • • 1 COALITION WORKED ON THIS PLAN, IT WAS THEIR - - I AM • 2 ADDRESSING THE REASON THE SPEAKER BROUGHT UP AS TO WHY AN 3 UNAUTHORIZED BODY IN DEALING WITH THIS PROJECT IS HOLDING 4 THIS HEARING. 5 AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WHEN THE BOLSA 6 CHICA COALITION WAS FORMED, AND FORMULATED THEIR PLAN , THE 7 INTENT WAS , FOR THE VERY LOGICAL REASON THAT THE CITY OF • $ HUNTINGTON BEACH TOTALLY SURROUNDS THE BOLSA CHICA, IS 9 TOTALLY IMPACTED BY EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE • 10 DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA, BE IT TRAFFIC, BE IT WATER 11 SUPPLY, BE IT OUR LIBRARIES , BE IT OUR ROADS , BE IT AIR 12 POLLUTION , BE IT THE POLICE SERVICES , THE FIRE SERVICES , BE • 13 IT THE SCHOOLS , THAT' S WHY IT WAS AGREED THAT HUNTINGTON 14 BEACH WOULD BE THE AUTHORIZED BODY DOING THIS TONIGHT. 15 BUT WHAT HAPPENED? THE COUNTY OF ORANGE • 16 RENEGED ON THAT, AND TOOK THE AUTHORITY AWAY FROM THE CITY 17 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. BUT THEY TOLD US AT THE TIME , "DON 'T 18 WORRY ABOUT A THING. WE WILL TREAT THIS JUST AS WELL AS • 19 YOU WOULD TREAT THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN THEIR 20 CONCERNS . AND WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS IN HUNTINGTON 21 BEACH . " 22 BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY RENEGED ON THAT, TOO. AND 23 1 REFER TO A LETTER FROM THE VERY MR . MATTHEWS WHO SPOKE TO • 24 US TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE COUNTY. AND I DON' T MEAN TO 25 NECESSARILY PERSONALLY ATTACK THAT GENTLEMAN; HOWEVER , HE 86 • 1 IS JUST DOING THE WILL OF HIS BOSSES , LET' S SAY. AND IN 2 THAT LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 14TH, 1993 , HE SAID. "WE INTEND 3 TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4 APPROXIMATELY TWO WEEKS AFTER THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DRAFT 5 EIR . " 6 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT' S WELL AFTER TWO 7 WEEKS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THAT DRAFT EIR, AND THE COUNTY • 8 RENEGED AGAIN. THERE WAS NO HEARING. 9 SO IN ANSWER TO THAT LAST SPEAKER , THE REASON • 10 WE ARE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE THE COUNTY WOULD NOT LISTEN TO 11 YOU. 12 THANK YOU. • 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU , COUNCILMAN 14 SULLIVAN. 15 AND COUNCILMAN SILVA WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW. • 16 COUNCILMEMBER SILVA: THE ISSUE BEFORE US TONIGHT , 1 17 THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET A LOT MORE ON THE EIR , AND 1 18 AM KIND OF DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ARE NOT GOING MORE IN THAT • 19 DIRECTION . 20 1 THINK THAT MOST OF US THAT LIVE AROUND BOLSA 21 CHICA WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REMAIN OPEN SPACE , AND NOT 22 DEVELOPED. BUT THE BIG PROBLEM THAT I HAVE HAD ALL ALONG 23 IS THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND I KNOW THAT IN 24 THE UNITED STATES , WE HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS . IF YOU OWN A 25 PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO 87 • • 1 WITH IT. AND I REALIZE THAT IT' S NOT A CARTE BLANCHE 2 INVITATION TO GO OUT AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT, THERE ARE 3 CERTAIN GUIDELINES THAT HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED. 4 AND I HAVE HEARD MANY PEOPLE SAY THIS , THAT IF 5 YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, AND YOU ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE 6 CITY, AND THERE HAVE BEEN THREE CITY COUNCILMEN THAT HAVE 7 PUBLICALLY STATED THAT THEY WOULD OPPOSE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN • 8 BOLSA CHICA, WHAT CHANCE WOULD THEY HAVE OF EVER GETTING 9 FAIR TREATMENT AT THE CITY? AND 1 HATED TO SEE THE KOLL 10 COMPANY TAKE THE PROJECT TO THE COUNTY. I THINK THAT IT 11 SHOULD REMAIN IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. BUT AS A PROPERTY 12 OWNER, IF YOU HAVE A COUNCILMAN THAT IS NOT WILLING TO WORK • 13 WITH YOU ON AN OPEN AND FAIR BASIS , I DON'T SEE WHERE THEY 14 REALLY HAD A CHOICE . 15 1 WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT COME BACK, BUT, AGAIN . • 16 AS A PROPERTY OWNER , IF I OWNED THE PROPERTY, I WOULD BE 17 VERY SKEPTICAL OF TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE CITY. 18 THANK YOU. • 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MAYOR PRO TEM ROBITAILLE . 20 COUNCILMEMBER ROBITAILLE: YES , THANK YOU, MADAM • 21 MAYOR . 22 1 WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE THREE POINTS BEFORE 23 1 MAKE ANY STATEMENT. • 24 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT 25 PUBLICALLY OWNED. • 88 • 1 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY THAT HAS NEVER • 2 BEEN OFFERED FOR SALE , THAT I AM AWARE OF . 3 AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY THAT IS NOT 4 LOCATED IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . • 5 AND ONCE YOU KIND OF GET THAT UNDER YOUR BELT, 6 YOU KIND OF GET A FEEL FOR WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. 7 AND IT IS MY OBSERVATION , AS OPPOSED TO THAT • 8 OF COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN, THAT IT WAS THE KOLL COMPANY THAT 9 REQUESTED THAT WE BE DROPPED AS LEAD AGENCY , AND MADE THEIR • 10 REQUEST TO THE COUNTY, AND THE COUNTY ACQUIESCED TO 11 PROBABLY WHAT WAS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT OPEN . 12 1 HAD ADVISED THE KOLL COMPANY WEEKS AND • 13 MONTHS BEFORE THAT, THAT THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE A CHANCE 14 HERE . AS JIM SAID, IT WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE BEGINNING THAT 15 THE DECK WAS STACKED AGAINST THEM. NO MATTER WHAT THEY • 16 BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COUNCIL, IT WOULD NEVER GET BY . AND 17 THEY DID THE ONLY THING THAT A BUSINESSMAN CAN DO. IT'S 18 PRIVATE PROPERTY. THEY ARE GOING TO DEVELOP IT AT SOME • 19 POINT IN TIME . THEY WILL DEVELOP IT AS A HOUSING TRACT, OR 20 THEY WILL DEVELOP IT AS AN OIL FIELD. • 21 AND I JUST THINK THAT WE CAN ' T BE BLAMING THE 22 COUNTY, AND WE CAN'T BE BLAMING KOLL. WE HAVE TO LOOK TO 23 OURSELVES IF WE WANT TO KNOW WHY THIS IN NOW OUT OF OUR • 24 HANDS , WHY HUNTINGTON BEACH IS NO LONGER IN THE LOOP . WHY 25 NOBODY LOOKS TO US FOR ADVICE ANYMORE . AND, UNFORTUNATELY, • 89 • 1 WHY IT MAY END UP AS A COUNTY PROJECT, WITH ALL OF THE • 2 FIRST TIME FEES , WHICH WILL BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR 3 LIBRARIES , SCHOOLS , FIRE AND POLICE GOING TO THE COUNTY, 4 AND NOT THE CITY . AND THEN AT SOME POINT IN TIME AT A 5 LATER DATE , WE WILL PROBABLY END UP ANNEXING IT AT A GREAT 6 COST TO THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. 7 1 JUST HAD TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT . I COULD • 8 NOT LET THAT ONE PASS . 9 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . • 10 COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN. 11 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: YES , I HAVE A QUESTION OF 12 COUNCILMAN SILVA. • 13 1 KNOW OF NO MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL THAT IS ON 14 RECORD AS BEING AGAINST ANY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I BELIEVE 15 ARE THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE ON THE BOLSA CHICA. 16 SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO ARE THE THREE , 17 BECAUSE I AM NOT ONE OF THEM? 18 COUNCILMEMBER SILVA: WELL, I WILL TELL YOU , DAVE , I 19 DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT IS GOING 20 TO CREATE PROBLEMS DOWN THE LINE . I DON'T WANT TO FOG IT 21 UP WITH , "YOU SAID THIS , AND I SAID THAT, " AND SO ON . 22 BUT THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY 23 WHO WOULD STEP FORWARD AND EXPLAIN THIS . I HAVE TO WORK 24 WITH YOU ON THE COUNCIL . AND THE COMMUNITY OUT THERE , THEY 25 KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON . THEY KNOW WHO THE THREE PEOPLE ARE . 90 • 1 THAT WILL OPPOSE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE BOLSA CHICA. • 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 3 COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL. 4 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: TONIGHT' S MEETING IS REALLY • 5 TO LISTEN TO YOU , AND TO HEAR WHAT YOU FEEL IS INADEQUATE 6 ABOUT THE EIR . HOWEVER , I WILL MAKE ABOUT THREE 7 STATEMENTS . • 8 THE COALITION PLAN, WHICH I VOTED FOR, WAS A 9 CONCEPTUAL PLAN . WITHIN THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS A CONCEPT • 10 THAT THAT LAND WOULD BE ANNEXED TO THIS CITY, AND THAT THE 11 DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THIS CITY . 12 WITHIN THAT COALITION PLAN , THERE WAS THE • 13 GUIDANCE THAT WE HAD TO BE PERMITTED BY FEDERAL 14 AUTHORITIES , WHICH , IN OUR EIR , IN THEIR RESPONSE TO OUR 15 EIR, IT BEGAN TO BE EVIDENT IT WAS GOING TO BE VERY + . 16 DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE . WE HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER , 17 IF THEY DID NOT GET PERMITTING IN THE LOWLANDS , THEY WOULD 18 DO NOTHING FOR US IN THE LOWLANDS . • 19 YOU PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THE TAXPAYER IS 20 GOING TO BE OFF THE HOOK BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU • 21 WETLANDS , ARE MISREADING THAT COALITION PLAN . THE ONLY WAY 22 THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU THOSE WETLANDS , AND THE 23 REDEVELOPMENT AND THE RESTORATION OF THOSE WETLANDS IS IF 0 24 THEY CAN MAKE A TREMENDOUS PROFIT ON THE MESA. 25 WE BEGAN TO HEAR FROM OUR CITIZENS THAT THAT 91 • 1 KIND OF INTENSITY ON THE MESA WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE . WE MUST 2 LISTEN TO OUR CITIZENS . 3 SO THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK THAT WE ON THIS 4 COUNCIL ARE GUILTY OF PUSHING IT TO THE COUNTY , PLEASE LOOK 5 TO THE DEVELOPERS . THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CHICKENED OUT 6 IN THE PROCESS AND DID NOT WANT TO FACE THE CITIZENS OF 7 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 8 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU , COUNCILWOMAN 9 WINCHELL. • 10 SHALL WE RESUME OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS . 11 CITY CLERK: YES . THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE DON 12 CHISHOLM, CHARLES MOORE , DON SCHULZ AND JERICO POPLAR . 13 MR . CHISHOLM: THANK YOU , MADAM MAYOR , AND 14 COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THIS RATHER SPLENDID OPPORTUNITY TO 15 COMMENT PUBICALLY ON THE COUNTY' S EIR . 16 MY NAME IS DONALD CHISHOLM. I AM A PROFESSOR 17 OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT U.C. L.A. AND I AM HERE TO 18 REPRESENT THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION. MY ADDRESS SI 4000 19 COLORADO STREET, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 310 , 439-2590 . 20 THE EIR ADDRESSES KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP ' S 21 PROPOSAL TO PUT NEARLY 5 ,000 UNITS ON THE BOLSA CHICA, AND 22 TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS . THIS PROPOSAL IS THE MOST 23 IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION OUR PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES 24 WILL MAKE THIS DECADE . IT IS A BET ABOUT THE FUTURE . BETS 25 ARE RISKY. THE RISK LIES NOT IN DEVELOPMENT. WE KNOW THE 92 I 1 UNITS CAN BE BUILT. THE RISK LIES IN THE WETLANDS . WE 2 DON'T KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL RESTORE THEM. WE ARE 3 ASKED TO TRUST THAT IT WILL. 4 WE CAN ONLY PREDICT THE DEVELOPER ' S FUTURE 5 ACTIONS BY EXAMINING ITS PAST BEHAVIOR . 6 IN 1968 , SIGNAL LANDMARK, OWNER OF THE BOLSA 7 CHICA, NOW A KOLL SUBSIDIARY, PURCHASED THE RANCHO CARILLO 8 LANDFILL FROM THE CITY OF CORONADO TO DEVELOP MORE HOUSES . 9 USED FOR MANY YEARS AS A BURN DUMP , IT WAS COVERED BY A • 10 THICK LAYER OF BURN DUMP ASH, CONTAINING INDUSTRIAL WASTE , 11 SUCH AS LEAD THAT NEEDED TO BE REMOVED BEFORE BUILDING. 12 SIGNAL HIRED A CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE THE BURN 13 DUMP ASH , AND BEGAN HAULING THE ASH IN JULY 1987 , AND 14 DUMPING IT ON A PRIVATE PROPERTY ON OTAY MESA, SAN DIEGO 15 COUNTY. ONE PERSON HAD GRANTED THE CONTRACTOR PERMISSION • 16 TO DUMP EXCESS SOIL, NOT BURN DUMP ASH , EXCESS SOIL ON HIS 17 ONE-ACRE PROPERTY. BUT SOON THERE WAS NO ROOM. THE 18 CONTRACTOR BEGAN DUMPING THE ASH ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY, 19 INCLUDING SEVEN ACRES OF CANYON AND FRESH WATER WETLANDS 20 WITHOUT GAINING THE OWNER ' S PERMISSION. IT DUMPED NEARLY 21 40 , 000 CUBIC YARDS AND 2 ,450 TRUCKLOADS . A STREAM OF 22 TRUCKS , IF PLACED END TO END, 11 MILES LONG. 23 ONE YEAR LATER SIGNAL NOTIFIED THE OWNERS OF 24 THE DUMPING. THEY TRIED TO SETTLE WITH SIGNAL THROUGH 25 NEGOTIATION. THEY FAILED. 93 • 1 IN DECEMBER 1989 , THEY FILED A CIVIL COMPLAINT • 2 IN STATE COURT AGAINST SIGNAL ALLEGING NUISANCE , TRESPASS , 3 NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY. AND IN AUGUST 1991 , FILED 4 A U.S . FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ACTION AGAINST SIGNAL UNDER 5 CERCLA. THE STATE TRIAL BEGAN IN FEBRUARY ' 92 . 6 ON MARCH 16TH, A CIVIL JURY FOUND SIGNAL 7 LANDMARK LIABLE FOR 2 . 5 MILLION DOLLARS . IN AUGUST, SIGNAL • 8 APPEALED. 9 THEY THEN OFFERED A SETTLEMENT , IN ESSENCE , • 10 WHICH WOULD PAY 1 .25 MILLION CASH TO THE PLAINTIFF , AND 11 1 . 25 MILLION TO A CLEANUP FUND. 12 IN RETURN, BOTH PARTIES WOULD SEEK REVERSAL OF • 13 THE JUDGMENT AND VACATION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN 14 THE VERDICT IN THE STATE CASE . THEY WOULD SEAL RECORDS , 15 ALL ITEMS ON DISCOVERY WOULD BE RETURNED TO SIGNAL, AND • 16 THEY WOULD JOIN THE OWNERS IN A MOTION BY SIGNAL IN A 17 FEDERAL CASE TO PROTECT SIGNAL FROM ANY OTHER CLAIMS . THE 18 OWNERS AGREED. • 19 THE OWNERS AND SIGNAL FILED A MOTION THAT 20 MONTH. THE FEDERAL TRIAL IS SET FOR MAY 1994 . ONE WEEK 21 FROM TODAY, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RUDY BREWSTER WILL 22 RULE ON SIGNAL' S MOTION FOR A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 23 MAY I COMPLETE? 24 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: YES , PLEASE CONCLUDE IT. 25 MR . CHISHOLM: I WILL BE QUITE BRIEF . • 94 1 THE DEVELOPER HAS GOTTEN RID OF ITS HAZARDOUS • 2 MATERIALS . IT HAS BUILT ITS HOUSES ON A FORMER DUMP . IT 3 HAS MADE ITS PROFITS . MORE THAN SIX YEARS LATER , THOSE 4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ON OTAY MESA CONTINUE TO DESTROY • 5 WETLANDS AND TO ERODE INTO THE GROUND WATER . 30 , 000 CUBIC 6 YARDS OF THAT BURN DUMP ASH REMAIN ON PART OF THE OLD DUMP , 7 INADEQUATELY COVERED AND FENCED, ERODING INTO SAN DIEGO BAY • 8 WHEN IT RAINS , NEXT TO THE HOUSES THE DEVELOPER BUILT, 9 PLAYED ON UNAWARE BY CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN THOSE HOUSES . • 10 SIGNAL LANDMARK AND ITS PARENT COMPANY, KOLL 11 REAL ESTATE GROUP , STILL HAVE NOT CLEANED UP THEIR MESS . 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: PLEASE CONCLUDE . • 13 MR . CHISHOLM: CAN THE PUBLIC TRUST THIS DEVELOPER 14 WHO HAVE ALLOWED THIS TO BUILD THOUSANDS OF UNITS ON THE 15 BOLSA CHICA? I THINK NOT. 16 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 17 MR . CHISHOLM: I HAVE FOR EACH MEMBER OF THE CITY 18 COUNCIL AND FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE COUNTY , A PACKET OF • 19 COURT DOCUMENTS WHICH WILL FULLY SUBSTANTIATE EVERY 20 STATEMENT I HAVE MADE THIS EVENING. I ALSO HAVE SOME • 21 PHOTOGRAPHS FOR YOU HERE . 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 23 PLEASE . • 24 MR. MOORE : I AM THE NEXT SPEAKER . THANK YOU , MADAM 25 MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS . MY NAME IS CHARLES MOORE . I 95 • • 1 HAVE LIVED FOR 44 YEARS AT 345 BAYSHORE AVENUE , LONG BEACH. • 2 MY TELEPHONE IS 310 , 439-6933 . 3 1 WISH TO COMMENT ON THE MATTER OF TRUSTING 4 THE DEVELOPER TO FUFILL ITS PROMISE TO RESTORE THE 5 WETLANDS . 6 IN AUGUST, 1991 , A PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 7 CONSULTING FIRM, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION , • 8 INCORPORATED, INVESTIGATED SIGNAL LANDMARK' S DUMPING ON THE 9 OTAY MESA. LET ME READ SOME KEY POINTS FROM ITS REPORT . • 10 "THE SIGNAL MATERIALS WERE DEPOSITED IN 11 AREAS ON , OR IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE SUBJECT 12 PROPERTY. THESE INCLUDED FILLING OF A POND E 13 IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY . AND 14 THE SPREADING OF THE MATERIALS OVER THE AREA 15 FROM CACTUS ROAD TO THE NORTH POND TO THE 16 DOWNGRADE END OF THE FILL AREA AT DEPTHS 17 RANGING FROM A FEW INCHES , TO APPROXIMATELY 18 39 FEET. • 19 PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF THE SIGNAL LANDMARK 20 MATERIALS IS READILY VISIBLE IN THE FORM OF 21 PARTIALLY MELTED GLASS AND CERAMIC CHAR . " 22 1 HAVE COLLECTED THESE ( INDICATING) . 23 SURFRIDER, YESTERDAY, WENT DOWN THERE AND PICKED THESE UP . 24 SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS , THAT' S IT 25 ( INDICATING) . 96 • • 1 "AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE EXISTS 2 THAT EROSION OF THE SIGNAL LANDMARK MATERIALS 3 INTO SPRING CANYON WAS ALREADY EXTENSIVE BY 4 JANUARY OF 1988 . AND EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT 5 THIS EROSION IS CONTINUING UNABATED TO THIS DATE . 6 THE VISIBLE EXTENT OF EROSION MATERIALS 7 INTO THE SPRING CANYON STREAM SHOWN ON AERIAL • 8 PHOTOGRAPHS INDICATES THAT THE SIGNAL LANDMARK 9 MATERIALS EXTEND AT LEAST 1 , 400 FEET DOWNSTREAM, • 10 AND CONSTITUTE AN EROSION VOLUME OF 14 , 900 CUBIC 11 YARDS . THIRTY-NINE PERCENT OF THE ORIGINAL 12 38 ,450 CUBIC YARDS WERE DEPOSITED AS OF AUGUST 13 6TH, 1991 . 14 THE ANALYTICAL TESTING INDICATES THAT 15 THE SIGNAL BURN DUMP ASH CONTAINS MORE THAN • 16 200 , 000 POUNDS OF LEAD, PLUS A CONSIDERABLE 17 QUANTITY OF OTHER HEAVY METALS . 18 IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE PROPERTY WILL EVER • 19 BE MARKETABLE , AS THE MOST LIKELY CLEANUP SCENARIO 20 WOULD RESULT IN THE PERMANENT PRESENCE OF A 21 DISPOSAL SITE CONTAINING HAZARDOUS WASTE ON 22 THE PROPERTY. 23 THE LIABILITY FOR CLEANUP OF THE BURN DUMP 24 ASH RANGES BETWEEN 6 .2 AND 63 . 1 MILLION , THE MOST 25 LIKELY FIGURE 23 .2 MILLION. " * 97 • 1 FINALLY, AND MOST TERRIBLY , THE CONSULTANT • 2 SAID, AND I QUOTE : 3 "THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES CONSTITUTE A 4 THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT , 5 THAT DESTRUCTION OF WETLANDS HAVE OCCURRED 6 DURING THE PROCESS OF THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS 7 SUBSTANCES SINCE JULY OF 1987 . AND THAT 8 ADDITIONAL UNCONTROLLED RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS 9 SUBSTANCES HAVE OCCURRED, AND ARE CONTINUING 10 TO OCCUR AS A RESULT OF DISPOSAL OF SUCH 11 SUBSTANCES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE ' 87 . 12 WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE • 13 ALLUVIAL GROUND WATER HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED 14 WITH HEAVY METALS IN A FORM OF SUSPENDED 15 PARTICLES , AND MUST ALSO BE CLEANED UP . S 16 SIGNAL LANDMARK' S DUMPING HAS CREATED AN 17 ENVIRONMENTAL TRAGEDY ON OTAY MESA. THAT 18 TRAGEDY CONTINUES TODAY UNABATED AND UNREMEDIED. " 19 AND THIS IS THE SAME COMPANY THAT SAYS , "TRUST 20 US , WE WILL RESTORE THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS . " t 21 THANK YOU. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER, 23 PLEASE . • 24 MR . SCHULZ: THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR , AND MEMBERS OF 25 THE COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS DON 98 • • 1 SCHULZ . I LIVE IN ROSSMOORE , 2722 MAIN WAY DRIVE . AND MY �. 2 PHONE NUMBER IS IN THE 310 AREA, 430-2260 . 1 AM A MEMBER 3 OF SURFRIDER , THE LONG BEACH CHAPTER . AND I WOULD LIKE TO 4 USE MY ALLOCATION OF TIME THIS EVENING TO SHOW A BRIEF 5 THREE-MINUTE VIDEO SHOT YESTERDAY. 6 FIRSTLY, IT SHOWS A DUMPING SITE AT OTAY MESA 7 REFERRED TO BY MR. CHISHOLM AND MR . MOORE . AND SECONDLY, 8 IT SHOWS THE CORONADO SITE WHERE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMAIN 9 TODAY. 10 THANK YOU. THIS IS CACTUS ROAD OFF OF OTAY 11 MESA ROAD IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE 12 ENTRANCE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND PANNING OVER TO THE • 13 DANTZLER PROPERTY AND PANNING OVER FURTHER TO THE BARNHARDT 14 PROPERTY. 15 NOW WE ARE PANNING BACK OVER TO THE SESI • 16 PROPERTY ON WHICH THE DUMPING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN JULY OF 17 1987 . 18 WE ARE NOW LOOKING BACK TOWARD CACTUS ROAD • 19 STANDING ON THE DANTZLER PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT TO THE SESI 20 PROPERTY, AND I AM PANNING ACROSS THE SESI PROPERTY , AND 21 YOU CAN SEE THE CONTOURS OF THE LAND. AND IF YOU LOOK DOWN 22 HERE , IF YOU LOOK SOUTH TOWARD MEXICO, YOU WILL SEE THE 23 CANYON WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 24 EVALUATION , INCORPORATED' S REPORT ON THE SESI PROPERTY 25 DAMAGE . 99 • • 1 NOW WE ARE PANNING ALL THE WAY AROUND , AND YOU 2 CAN SEE THE FENCING. AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE MATERIAL 3 AND THE BARRELS AND SO FORTH THAT ARE THERE . THIS 4 PARTICULAR PARCEL INCLUDES 23 ACRES , APPROXIMATELY. THAT WE 5 ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW. 6 ONCE AGAIN , WE ARE STANDING LOOKING BACK 7 TOWARD CACTUS ROAD, AND WE ARE SWEEPING ACROSS THE SESI f 8 PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE AREA THAT IS FILLED IN ENTIRELY 9 TO THE DEPTH OF 39 FEET IN THE CANYON. THIS IS THE ERODED 10 AREA. NOW, WE ARE SWEEPING DOWN LOOKING DOWN THE CANYON , 11 AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS THE AREA INTO WHICH ALL OF 12 THESE MATERIALS HAVE ERODED, AND CONTINUE TO ERODE EVEN 13 TODAY. 14 WE ARE ONCE AGAIN LOOKING AT THE ERODED AREA, 15 AND THEN ON DOWN THE CANYON. YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT OF A 16 BETTER IDEA EXACTLY HOW RUGGED THIS AREA IS . AND IN FACT, 17 WE HAVE A STREAM BED THAT HAS HAD HAZARDOUS MATERIAL WASHED 18 INTO IT OVER AN EXTENDED OF TIME , NAMELY THE LAST SEVEN • 19 YEARS . 20 STANDING LOOKING NORTH AT THE CORONADO CAVE 21 SITE , THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 30 , 000 CUBIC YARDS OF THE SAME 22 WASTE . SOUTH THEN OF THE CORONADO CAVES LANDFILL MATERIAL, 23 THE FORMER RANCHO CARILLO LANDFILL , WE ARE PANNING ACROSS 24 SAN DIEGO BAY AND NORTH SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE APPROXIMATE 25 30 , 000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL THAT STILL REMAIN , THE SAME 100 1 1 TYPE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THAT ARE LOCATED ON OTAY MESA. 2 AND WE ARE PANNING ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE 3 WEST, AND WE ARE GOING TO PAN ALL THE WAY BACK AGAIN . THIS 4 DOES NOT QUITE REACH TO THE WATER. 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 6 PLEASE . 7 MS . POPLAR: THANK YOU , MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF 8 THE COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JERICO POPLAR BARTLOW. I AM HERE 9 REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL - - I AM THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR FOR • 10 THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION . I AM A FORMER WORLD PRO SURFING 11 CHAMPION FROM HUNTINGTON BEACH, A MOTHER OF FOUR . AND 1 12 HAVE GROWN UP RIDING THE WAVES AT BOLSA CHICA. AND 1 PLAN 13 TO KEEP ON DOING SO FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE . 14 1 WISH TO COMMENT ON THE MATTER OF TRUSTING 15 THE DEVELOPER TO FULFILL ITS PROMISE TO RESTORE THE 1 16 WETLANDS . I REFER TO SIGNAL LANDMARK' S DUMPING ON OTAY 17 MESA. 18 SOME PEOPLE MAY SAY, HOW COULD SIGNAL HAVE 19 KNOWN THAT BURN DUMP ASH CONTAINED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS? 20 ASIDE FROM COMMON SENSE , IN JUNE ' 87 , BEFORE THE DUMPING 21 BEGAN , AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CONTRACTOR SUED SIGNAL LANDMARK 22 FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY TOXIC EXPOSURE WHEN HE DUG TRENCHES 23 ON THE LANDFILL. ! 24 SOME PEOPLE MAY ASK WHAT BEHAVIOR BY SIGNAL 25 LANDMARK IN SAN DIEGO IN 1987 HAS TO DO WITH THE 101 • 1 DEVELOPMENT OF BOLSA CHICA BY KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP , • 2 INCORPORATED. SIGNAL LANDMARK WAS A SIGNAL COMPANIES 3 SUBSIDIARY. SIGNAL COMPANIES MERGED WITH ALLIED CHEMICALS 4 IN 1985 . AND SIGNAL LANDMARK WAS SPUN OFF INTO THE HENLEY 5 GROUP , WHICH BECAME HENLEY PROPERTIES IN DECEMBER OF 1989 . 6 IN JULY 1992 , HENLEY PROPERTIES BECAME BOLSA 7 CHICA COMPANY. • 8 IN OCTOBER , 1993 , BOLSA CHICA COMPANY BECAME 9 KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP . . 10 SIGNAL LANDMARK REMAINED A PRIVATELY HELD 11 SUBSIDIARY OF EACH SUCCEEDING CORPORATE IDENTITY. 12 SOME PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT SIGNAL LANDMARK WAS • 13 JUST A SUBSIDIARY, AND THESE COMPANIES AREN'T RESPONSIBLE 14 FOR ITS ACTIONS . 15 SIGNAL LANDMARK' S PARENT COMPANIES , HENLEY 16 GROUP , HENLEY PROPERTIES AND BOLSA CHICA COMPANY WERE ALSO 17 DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY NAMED IN THE LEGAL ACTIONS 18 AGAINST SIGNAL LANDMARK JUST DESCRIBED. • 19 SOME PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT THESE ARE JUST 20 COMPANIES , THAT THE INDIVIDUALS NOW MAKING DECISIONS FOR 21 THE DEVELOPER ARE NOT THOSE INVOLVED IN THE LEGAL ACTIONS 22 JUST DESCRIBED. 23 AT LEAST SIX OF THE KEY EXECUTIVES ARE THE • 24 SAME : DONALD KOLL BECAME PRESIDENT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 25 OF SIGNAL LANDMARK' S PARENT COMPANY, HENLEY PROPERTIES , IN 102 • • 1 JUNE OF ' 90 , AND BECAME CHAIRMAN OF THE BOLSA CHICA COMPANY 2 IN JULY ' 92 . RAMON PACINI , DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL REPORTING 3 FOR HENLEY GROUP FROM ' 88 TO ' 89 , MANAGING DIRECTOR OF 4 HENLEY FROM ' 90 TO ' 92 , AND VICE-PRESIDENT CHIEF FINANCIAL 5 OFFICER AND TREASURER OF HENLEY SINCE 1992 . ( INAUDIBLE) - - 6 IN THE BOLSA CHICA- COMPANY AND BECAME CHIEF FINANCIAL 7 OFFICER OF KOLL MANAGEMENT. RICHARD ORTWINE , PRESIDENT OF • 8 THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF KOLL COMPANY BECAME 9 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE BOLSA CHICA COMPANY IN JULY 10 OF 1992 . SANDRA TILCO, WHO HAD BEEN GROUP CONTROLLER OF 11 KOLL MANAGEMENT SERVICES SINCE 1990 , BECAME PROJECT 12 CONTROLLER FOR SIGNAL LANDMARK DURING 1990 , BECAME • 13 CONTROLLER OF BOLSA CHICA COMPANY IN ' 92 . MARK UNDERBERG, 14 GENERAL COUNSEL . LUCY DUNN , BECAME SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT 15 OF BOLSA CHICA IN ' 92 . • 16 SO SOME PEOPLE MAY SAY THAT KOLL ' S PROMISES TO 17 RESTORE THE WETLANDS WILL BE GUARANTEED BY LAW, SO WE NEED 18 NOT WORRY. THIS CORPORATION HAS ALREADY PROVEN ITSELF • 19 CAPABLE OF DUMPING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS , BUT CAN THEY CLEAN 20 UP THEIR MESS? • 21 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR 22 ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? 23 MS . POPLAR: OH , SORRY . 116 RIVO ALTO CANAL , LONG • 24 BEACH 90803 . 310 , 434- 1800 . 25 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , • 103 • 1 PLEASE . • 2 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE LEE MC KINNEY, 3 MARCIA HANSCOM, DONNA TUCKER , ERNEST BARTOLO, AND GERALD 4 CHAPMAN. 5 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: WAS IT ARLEEN MC KINNEY? 6 CITY CLERK: LEE MC KINNEY. 7 THE NEXT SPEAKER , IF LEE MC KINNEY IS NOT • 8 HERE , MARCIA HANSCOM. 9 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 10 MS . HANSCOM: MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMEMBERS , MY 11 NAME IS MARCIA HANSCOM. I LIVE AT 19276 TORREY PINE CIRCLE 12 IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 13 AND TONIGHT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TRUTH . 14 NOT PARTIAL TRUTH . THERE IS PLENTY OF THAT IN THE EIR ON 15 JUST ABOUT EVERY PAGE , BUT THE REAL TRUTH. • 16 1 AM SURE IT' S OBVIOUS TO ALL OF YOU THAT THE 17 REASON THE BOLSA CHICA ISSUE HAS BECOME SO HIGHLY CHARGED, 18 AS IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PAPERS TODAY, IS BECAUSE PEOPLE • 19 ARE VERY ANGRY WHEN THEY FEEL BETRAYED, AND WHEN THEY ARE 20 NOT TOLD THE TRUTH . • 21 THE KOLL COMPANY HAS A HISTORY OF NOT TELLING 22 THE TRUTH. THEY PRETEND TO BE WETLAND PROTECTERS . THEY 23 ARE CURRENTLY A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL MULTI -MILLION DOLLAR 24 LOBBYING GROUP CALLING THEMSELVES THE NATIONAL WETLANDS 25 COALITION. ALONG WITH MANY OF THE NATION ' S BIG OIL AND 104 • • 1 DEVELOPER INTERESTS , KOLL IS CURRENTLY IN WASHINGTON D.C. 2 ATTEMPTING TO TAKE AWAY WHAT LITTLE PROTECTION WE HAVE FOR 3 WETLANDS , AS CONGRESS IS CONSIDERING REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 4 CLEAN WATER ACT. 5 THERE ARE MANY GROUPS REPRESENTED HERE IN THIS 6 ROOM TONIGHT WHO ARE FIGHTING WITH THE CAMPAIGN TO SAVE 7 CALIFORNIA WETLANDS AGAINST THIS COALITION; INCLUDING THE • 8 AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA, THE SIERRA CLUB , SURFRIDER 9 FOUNDATION, BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST, AND MANY OTHERS . • 10 HERE ARE SOME MORE TRUTHS: THIS MAY HIT HOME 11 IN LIGHT OF LAST MONTH ' S EARTHQUAKE . 12 ONE OF THE REASONS THERE WAS SO MUCH DAMAGE IN • 13 SAN FRANCISCO' S MARINA DISTRICT DURING THE ' 89 QUAKE IS 14 THAT THE HOMES THERE WERE BUILT ON FORMER WETLANDS . WHEN 15 YOU BUILD ON BAY MUD, NOT BEDROCK, A PROCESS CALLED • 16 LIQUEFACTION OCCURS , AS MANY DEVASTATED HOMEOWNERS IN 17 REDONDO BEACH AND SANTA MONICA FOUND OUT JUST A COUPLE OF 18 WEEKS AGO. EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE MANY MILES FROM THE • 19 QUAKE ' S EPICENTER, CARS WERE SWALLOWED UP , STRUCTURES HAVE 20 BEEN CONDEMNED, AND ROADS WERE BUCKLED. 21 WHEN I WENT ON THE KOLL COMPANY TOUR OF BOLSA 22 CHICA LAST YEAR, THE KOLL REPRESENTATIVE WAS VERY CAREFUL 23 TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WOULD BE NO HOMES BUILT DIRECTLY ON 24 THE NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT. 25 NOW, WHAT IS THE TRUTH? DOES ANYONE IN THIS 105 • • 1 ROOM REALLY BELIEVE THAT HOMES BUILT JUST A FEW FEET AWAY 2 WILL NOT BE AFFECTED WHEN A QUAKE OCCURS? 3 THE EIR SAYS BUILDING SO NEAR THE QUAKE FAULT 4 IS NOT A PROBLEM. IT SAYS THAT. 5 ANOTHER TRUTH: U.S . FISH AND WILDLIFE 6 SERVICES FOUND A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN LAST YEAR ' S 7 FLOODING IN THE MIDWEST AND LOSS OF WETLANDS . WETLANDS ACT • 8 LIKE SPONGES THAT SOAK UP EXCESS FLOOD WATERS . LOSS OF 9 WETLANDS MEANS LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT OF FLOOD • 10 CONTROL. HOMEOWNERS ADJACENT TO THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS 11 WILL BE IN INCREASED RISK OF FLOOD DAMAGE IF THIS PROJECT 12 PROCEEDS . • 13 THE MAJOR NON-TRUTH PUT FORTH IN THE EIR IS 14 THE DEVELOPER MAINTAINS THAT IT WILL BUILD ON THE MESAS AND 15 THE LOWLANDS , AND RESTORE THE WETLANDS . THE LOWLANDS THEY • 16 ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE WETLANDS , FEDERALLY DELINEATED 17 WETLANDS . THE RESTORATION THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT 18 POSSIBLE . WE CANNOT CREATE WETLANDS . IT' S SORT OF LIKE 19 SAYING WE WILL PLANT A FEW ROWS OF TREES AND CREATE AN OLD 20 GROWTH FOREST. 21 WETLANDS TAKE MANY HUNDREDS OF YEARS , IF NOT 22 THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO BECOME THE INCREDIBLE LIFE FORCE THAT 23 THEY ARE . 24 HERE IS THE REAL TRUTH. WE HAVE ALREADY LOST 25 91 PERCENT OF OUR WETLANDS IN CALIFORNIA. MORE THAN ANY 106 • • 1 OTHER STATE IN THE NATION . WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE ONE 2 MORE SQUARE INCH . THANK YOU. 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 4 MS . TUCKER : GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY 5 COUNCILMEMBERS . MY NAME IS DONNA TUCKER . I AM FROM 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH , 19276 TORREY PINE CIRCLE . PHONE NUMBER , 7 536-8998 . • 8 1 WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT A POTENTIAL HOME 9 BUYER AFTER KOLL DEVELOPED THEIR PROJECT. i WAS GOING TO 10 BECOME A POTENTIAL HOME BUYER . I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH , 11 1 READ A NEWSPAPER ARITCLE ABOUT THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF 12 THE ANCIENT BURIAL GROUNDS LOCATED IN THE BOLSA CHICA • 13 WETLANDS AND MESA. AND, ALSO, MORE RECENTLY, I LEARNED 14 ABOUT THE CORONER ' S REPORT OF AN 8 , 000 YEAR OLD HUMAN SKULL 15 FOUND LAST SUMMER BY ARCHAEOLOGISTS ON THE SITE . SO I • 16 COULDN' T HELP BUT THINK OF A MOVIE CALLED POLTERGEIST. 17 FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN 'T SEEN IT, THIS 18 MOVIE IS ABOUT A FAMILY WHO MOVED INTO A NEW HOME WHERE A • 19 DEVELOPER BUILT THOUSANDS OF HOMES ON AN ANCIENT BURIAL 20 GROUND, AND HOW IT AFFECTED THEIR LIVES . 21 NOW, THE POLTERGEIST PHENOMENON , TO SOME , MAY 22 SEEM A BIT FAR-FETCHED, BUT EVEN IF YOU DON ' T BELIEVE IN 23 THE SPIRIT WORLD, THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES OUR COMMUNITY 24 CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE . 25 IN THE MOVIE , THE DEVELOPER LIES TO THE CITY 107 • • 1 AND TO THE FUTURE HOMEOWNERS . THIS DEVELOPER WITH PRIOR • 2 KNOWLEDGE OF A QUESTIONABLE SENSITIVE SITE , PROCLAIMS IT 3 "NO BIG DEAL. " LATER IN THE MOVIE , AFTER SO MUCH CHAOS AND 4 DESTRUCTION IN THE LIVES AND HOMES OF THE FAMILIES WHO 5 BOUGHT HOMES , THE MOVIE POSES THE QUESTION, "WHO IS 6 RESPONSIBLE; THE OWNERS OF THE ORIGINAL LAND WHO SOLD THE 7 LAND TO THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER , WHO KNEW WHAT HARM IT 8 COULD DO, OR THE HOMEOWNERS WHO PURCHASED THE HOMES? " 9 NOT ONLY IS BOLSA CHICA THE SITE OF AN ANCIENT 10 AMERICAN INDIAN BURIAL GROUND, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY . TODAY 11 IT LIES ON AN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE FLOOD PLANE AREA. IF 12 HOMES WERE BUILT THERE , PROBLEMS COULD START AS SIMPLY AS • 13 CONSTANT MOISTURE PERMEATING THE HOMES , OR SOMETHING AS 14 SEVERE AS THREE INCHES OF WATER IN YOUR FIREPLACE . AND 15 EVEN FURTHER , A WELL PLANTED LANDSCAPE WASHES DOWN THE • 16 STREET OF THE NEW HOME I COULD POSSIBLY BUY. 17 WHEN WE HAD THE 6 . 6 EARTHQUAKE A COUPLE OF 18 WEEKS AGO, AN EVEN DEEPER CONCERN CAME INTO MY MIND. THE • 19 NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD ACTIVE FAULT RUNS RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE 20 OF THE BOLSA CHICA MESA. THIS DEFINITELY HEIGHTENS THE 21 PROBABILITY OF DAMAGE FROM LIQUEFACTION . 22 THE EIR SAYS THESE THINGS ARE NO BIG DEAL . DO 23 WE WANT ANOTHER POLTERGEIST THAT THE CITY AND ITS COMMUNITY • 24 WILL HAVE TO END UP PAYING FOR LONG AFTER THE DEVELOPER 25 LEAVES TOWN WITH ITS PROFITS? 108 • • 1 THANK YOU . • 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 3 COUNCILMAN BAUER HAS REQUESTED THAT H-2 BE 4 TAKEN OUT OF ORDER . I BELIEVE I WILL HAVE TO ASK THE CITY • 5 ATTORNEY IF WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT, COUNCILMAN BAUER . BUT 6 BEFORE I DO, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT? 7 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: YES , I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT • 8 OUT OF ORDER. IT' S UP TO THE CHAIRMAN, SUBJECT TO THE VOTE 9 OF COUNCIL, I GUESS , TO DO THAT. • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: CITY ATTORNEY HUTTON. 11 CITY ATTORNEY HUTTON: YES, THE EXISTENCE OF AN 12 AGENDA DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IT BE TAKEN IN THE EXACT ORDER • 13 THAT IT IS PUBLISHED. IT'S A MATTER OF THE MAYOR ' S 14 SUGGESTION TO THE COUNCIL, OR IF THE COUNCIL ARE SATISFIED 15 THAT IT' S ALL RIGHT WITH THEM, THEN YOU MAY PROCEED. • 16 HOWEVER , IF THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME 17 UNCERTAINTY, THEN I SUGGEST YOU TAKE A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL 18 AND PROCEED. • 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG HAS HIS 20 LIGHT ON. 21 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE 22 INTERESTING TO GET TO ITEM H-2 , BUT I WONDER HOW FAR ALONG 23 THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING WE ARE . IF WE ARE GETTING CLOSE 24 TO THE END OF THE PRESIGNED UP SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC 25 HEARING, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE ON AND FINISH 109 • • 1 WITH THAT PORTION OF BUSINESS . IF WE ARE STILL A LONG WAY • 2 FROM IT, THEN I GUESS IT DOES MAKE MORE SENSE TO JUST 3 INTERRUPT. 4 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: HOW MANY , CONNIE? 5 CITY CLERK: PROBABLY 40 . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: WELL, I THINK WE WILL VOTE 7 THEN TO TAKE THIS OUT OF ORDER . • 8 DO WE HAVE A MOTION? 9 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: I WILL MOVE THAT WE TAKE THIS 10 ISSUE OUT OF ORDER . 11 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: SECOND. 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. PLEASE VOTE . • 13 CITY CLERK: WINCHELL, NO. SIX AYES . MOTION 14 CARRIES . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN • 16 BAUER . 17 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: I WILL TRY TO BE VERY BRIEF . 18 LET ME FIRST OPEN BY COMMENTING THAT WE FIRST • 19 GOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, 4 ,484 HOMES , AND I WAS TOLD 20 IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS BY THE DEVELOPER , THAT THERE IS NO • 21 COMPROMISE , THAT 4 ,484 HOMES IT IS GOING TO BE , AND SO IT 22 WILL STAY . AND IT' S INTERESTING TO NOTE WHAT THE 23 CONSEQUENCES OF THAT REALLY ARE . 24 AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S GOING TO COST THE 25 TAXPAYER OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH A SUBSTANTIAL . 110 • 1 AMOUNT OF MONEY. AND THOSE WHO THINK IT IS NOT GOING TO, • 2 ARE SADLY MISTAKEN. 3 AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ROUGHLY 12 , 000 4 RESIDENTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE USING YOUR 5 PARKS , YOUR LIBRARIES , YOUR BEACHES , YOUR STREETS , YOUR 6 SEWERS AND YOUR WATER SYSTEM, FOR LITTLE , OR NO COST TO 7 THEM. YOU WILL BE PAYING OR UNDERWRITING THE COST OF THOSE • 8 FOLKS USING THAT. IT' S GOING TO COST YOU SOME MONEY . 9 OF COURSE , THAT DOESN' T EVEN MENTION THE FACT • 10 OF THE INITIAL DEVELOPER FEES . 11 WHAT IS EVEN MORE GALLING IS THAT BECAUSE OF 12 MUTUAL ASSISTANCE PACTS , WHICH VERY LIKELY WILL HAVE TO BE • 13 NEGOTIATED, THAT YOU WILL BE SUBSIDIZING THE COST OF POLICE 14 AND FIRE PROTECTION ALSO TO THOSE 12 , 000 PEOPLE . THAT' S A 15 CONSEQUENCE OF 4 ,484 HOMES . AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. • 16 AND FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T THINK 4 ,484 HOMES , A 17 NONNEGOTIABLE ITEM ON THE PART OF THE DEVELOPER , IS 18 APPROPRIATE . • 19 SECONDLY, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE WETLANDS . 20 IT' S INTERESTING TO NOTE THERE HAVE BEEN A SERIES OF 21 COMMENTS MADE HERE THIS EVENING THAT THE PROPOSAL , AS MADE 22 BY THE KOLL COMPANY , WHICH DEALS WITH THE MESA ( INAUDIBLE) 23 WETLANDS . AND IT HAS BEEN INDICATED BY THE DEVELOPER 24 NUMEROUS TIMES THAT IF THEY DO NOT GET TO BUILD ON THE 25 WETLANDS , THEY WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE THE MONEY TO RESTORE THE 111 I • • 1 WETLANDS . 2 SO THE PROJECT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED DOES NOT • 3 GUARANTEE ANYTHING FOR THE WETLANDS , AT LEAST NOT AT THIS 4 POINT IN TIME . 5 THE OTHER THING THAT IS RATHER INTERESTING IS 6 THAT IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED 48 MILLION DOLLARS , 7 AND YOU ASK THE QUESTION , WHERE IS THE 48 MILLION DOLLARS 8 COMING FROM, BECAUSE THE KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP DOESN 'T • 9 HAVE 48 MILLION DOLLARS , YOU DON'T GET A VERY GOOD ANSWER . 10 THE LAST TIME I DID A CALCULATION, YOU NOTE • 11 THAT THE VALUE OF ALL THE TRADED STOCKS OF THE BOLSA CHICA 12 COMPANY, AND I REVIEWED THEM, THE VALUE OF ALL TRADED 13 STOCKS IS SOMETHING LIKE 22 MILLION DOLLARS . THE COST OF • 14 SOME OF THE INDEBTEDNESS , AT LEAST THE LAST TIME I LOOKED 15 AT THE INDEBTEDNESS AGAINST THAT VALUE OF STOCK, IS ROUGHLY 16 THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY . AND THAT EXPLAINS THE REASON WHY • 17 THAT STOCK TRADES ON THE EXCHANGE FOR ABOUT 25 CENTS A 18 SHARE . IT' S NOT WORTH A HECK OF A LOT. 19 AND THE REASON IT' S NOT WORTH A HECK OF A LOT • 20 IS BECAUSE THEIR ASSETS AND THEIR LIABILITIES ARE KIND OF 21 UNBALANCED. SO THE 48 MILLION DOLLARS , WE DON ' T KNOW WHERE 22 IT' S COMING FROM, AND THAT' S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE . 23 MORE THAN THAT, THE DEVELOPER KNOWS FULL WELL 24 THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF GETTING 404 PERMITS FOR BUILDING ON 25 THE WETLANDS IS VERY LOW, SO THE PROMISE OF GETTING MONEY 119 • 1 IS AN EMPTY PROMISE . • 2 SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO 3 SEEM TO FEEL OTHERWISE . 4 BUT LET ME GET INTO THE REASON THAT I REALLY • 5 GOT CONCERNED, AND IT REALLY HAS TO DO WITH A DOCUMENT THAT 6 IS FROM A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, JUDY MEYERS SUCHEY. WE 7 RECEIVED SOMETHING LIKE ABOUT THE 16TH - - OR IT WAS DATED • 8 THE 16TH, AND I RECEIVED IT HERE NOT TOO LONG AGO. IT 9 BASICALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AN 8 , 000 10 YEAR OLD SKELETON, PARTS OF HUMAN REMAINS FOUND. AND THE 11 FIRST THING THAT BOTHERED ME WAS THAT THAT REVELATION NEVER 12 APPEARED IN THE EIR . 13 AND THE RESPONSE - - VARYING RESPONSE FROM THE 14 DEVELOPER INDICATED THAT THEY DIDN 'T KNOW ABOUT IT, EVEN 15 THOUGH THAT EVIDENCE WAS PROBABLY IN THE HANDS OF U .C. L .A, • 16 SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER' S EMPLOYEES OR CONSULTANTS AS 17 LONG AS A YEAR AHEAD OF TIME . KIND OF AN INTERESTING 18 EXCUSE . IF YOU EXAMINE THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND LISTEN • 19 TO THE DEVELOPER , THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENCIES . 20 BUT THAT' S THE MOST DRAMATIC. • 21 SINCE THAT TIME , I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO KIND 22 OF LOOK IN TO SEE , ARE THERE CONSISTENCIES OR 23 INCONSISTENCIES IN WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS DONE , OR NOT 24 DONE . AND LET ME JUST TELL YOU WHAT SOME OF THEM ARE . AND 25 THIS IS ALL IN THE LAST WEEK. AND I AM NOT A TRAINED • 113 I INVESTIGATOR. 2 1 MENTIONED THE LACK OF HUMAN REMAINS THAT 3 WERE NOT REPORTED TO THE EIR. WE GOT A REPORT FROM THE 4 CITY ADMINISTRATOR WHO TOURED THE EIR , AND AT THAT POINT IN 5 TIME THE NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS NOTED NO CULTURAL 6 MATERIALS FOUND DURING GRADING. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE 7 HAVE HAD SOME EVIDENCE HERE TONIGHT THAT THERE WERE 8 MATERIALS FOUND. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT. THEY DON ' T 9 APPEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH. • 10 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIRM CALLED S .R . S . 11 APPARENTLY IS CLOSELY TIED TO DEVELOPERS IN GENERAL , AND 12 THERE WAS AN ARTICLE HERE IN THE L.A. TIMES , AND I WILL 13 JUST QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE IN THE L.A. TIMES HERE A WHILE 14 BACK. THIS WAS DATED 9-27-93 . 1 WILL JUST MAKE A 15 QUOTATION. IT HAS TO DO WITH A FIND AT LONG BEACH . AND 16 S .R. S . WAS , AT THAT TIME , THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN 17 IT. IT MAKES A COMMENT FROM AN EXECUTIVE AT LONG BEACH 18 STATE . HE SAYS: 19 "S .R . S . WAS TOO CLOSELY TIED TO THE 20 DEVELOPERS TO HANDLE THE CAL STATE LONG BEACH 21 RESEARCH. THE COMPANY IS NOT ENTIRELY TRUSTED 22 BY THE NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITY. " 23 AND THAT' S THE INDIVIDUAL HIRED BY THE KOLL 24 COMPANY TO GIVE A REPORT OF WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT 25 CONCERNS ME . 114 1 THERE APPARENTLY HAD BEEN A SERIES OF 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL REPORTS WRITTEN OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS , 3 NONE OF WHICH APPEARS IN THE EIR . AND I AM NOT TALKING 4 ABOUT THE BURIAL, REBURIAL ASPECTS , BECAUSE I DON ' T KNOW 5 WHAT THE LAW IS . BUT CERTAINLY ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS OUGHT 6 TO BE REPORTED IN AN EIR , AND THEY ARE NOT . AND YOU BEGIN 7 TO WONDER WHY. 8 THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PUT THE SITE IN THE 9 NATIONAL REGISTER . THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE KOLL COMPANY, 10 FOR OBVIOUS REASONS . 11 THERE ARE , I UNDERSTAND, AND I DON 'T KNOW IF 12 THIS IS ACCURATE OR NOT, A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE a 13 ALLEGATIONS , AND I AM NOT TRYING TO BE AN INVESTIGATOR , NOR 14 DO I HAVE THE POWER TO GET PEOPLE TO TELL THE TRUTH, BUT 15 APPARENTLY THERE IS A REPORT THAT THE CORONER CURRENTLY HAS 16 23 BODIES , NOT NECESSARILY RELATED TO THIS SITE . AND THEY 17 HAVE TALKED TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION IN 18 SACRAMENTO TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHO THE LIKELY DESCENDANTS 19 ARE OF THOSE . AND THE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, FOR A 20 NUMBER OF YEARS , HAS BEEN UNABLE TO GIVE THEM AN ANSWER . 21 THAT'S THE SAME COMMISSION WHO APPARENTLY APPOINTS THESE 22 MONITORS . THE MONITORS , AGAIN , ARE IN THE PAY OF THE 23 DEVELOPER , AND IN MY OPINION, CAN 'T BE EXPECTED TO GIVE AN 24 HONEST APPRAISAL OF EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. THEY OUGHT 25 TO BE INDEPENDENTLY SELECTED. • 115 • i 1 ANOTHER POINT: KOLL APPARENTLY TOOK LEGAL • 2 ACTION TO REMOVE A GROUP REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WAS GETTING 3 TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH, APPARENTLY. AGAIN, ANOTHER 4 ALLEGATION FROM SOMEONE . • 5 THEN TODAY, IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING, I HAD 6 TWO PHONE CALLS TODAY, AND THESE ARE JUST PHONE CALLS FROM 7 INDIVIDUALS THAT JUST QUOTED SOMETHING TO ME . THEY SAID TO • 8 ME THAT IT WAS THEIR UNDERSTANDING THAT IN TALKING TO THE 9 MONITORS , THAT THERE HAD BEEN EIGHT BURIAL AREAS NORTH OF • 10 THE EUCALYPTUS GROVE , ONE SOUTH OF THE EUCALYPTUS GROVE . 11 S.R.S . IS REPORTING TWO BURIALS . 12 THAT SAME PERSON INDICATED THAT U .C . L .A. HAS • 13 THE REMAINS OF 11 DIFFERENT BODIES . ONE OF THE MONITORS 14 INDICATED THERE WERE 14 DIFFERENT BODIES . 15 THE POINT IS , THERE IS A WHOLE RAFT OF • 16 DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS AND COMMENTS . AND YOU CAN ' T SEEM TO 17 GET THE TRUTH OF IT . • 18 WE HAVE HAD SOME INDICATION THAT SOMEONE WHO I 19 WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREDECESSOR OF THE KOLL COMPANY WAS 20 MADE AWARE THAT THERE WERE SOME INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS • 21 WITHIN KOLL WHICH INDICATED THAT SHOULD BODIES BE FOUND 22 THERE , IT WOULD SLOW THE PROJECT DOWN , AND WE OUGHT NOT 23 TO - - WE OUGHT NOT TO LET THAT BE KNOWN, BECAUSE IT WOULD • 24 SLOW THE PROJECT DOWN . 25 NOW, REVIEWING ALL OF THIS MADE ME A LITTLE • 116 • 1 CONCERNED. SO I FELT THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE A 2 DISINTERESTED THIRD PARTY TO GET TO THE TRUTH OF THE WHOLE 3 THING. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , THE CITY COUNCIL IS 4 NOT AUTHORIZED TO SUBPOENA ANYBODY, AND WE CAN ' T SUE � • 5 ANYBODY TO TELL THE TRUTH. HOWEVER , THERE IS AN OPERATION 6 WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY CALLED THE COUNTY GRAND JURY , WHICH 7 HAS SUBPOENA POWERS , AND ALSO CAN SWEAR PEOPLE TO TELL THE • 8 TRUTH. AND IT WOULD BE MY NOTION THAT THIS BODY SO AGREE 9 THAT WE SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY AND • 10 ASK THEM TO INVESTIGATE , FRANKLY, NOT ONLY THIS SITE , BUT 11 ALL THE SITES IN THIS AREA TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THE RIGHT 12 AND THE WRONG OF THIS THING. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT 13 FOR TWO REASONS . 14 FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE OUGHT TO PRESERVE THE 15 CULTURAL DIGNITY OF ALL NATIVE AMERICANS . WE HONESTLY • 16 HAVEN'T DONE THAT. 17 SECONDLY, THE NONCULTURAL ASPECTS IN TERMS OF • 18 BURIALS AND REBURIALS CERTAINLY HAVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL 19 SIGNIFICANCE . THE SURROUNDING AREAS , WE OUGHT TO KNOW 20 SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. 8 , 000 YEARS IS NOTHING TO BE SNEEZED • 21 AT. THE GRAND JURY CAN DO THAT KIND OF THING. THAT WAS 22 POINT ONE . 23 POINT TWO, THERE - - THERE MAY BE , AND I DON' T • 24 KNOW IF THERE ARE OR NOT, SOME LEGAL MIND IS GOING TO HAVE 25 TO DETERMINE THIS , BUT THERE MAY BE SOME BREAKING OF LAWS ` 117 i • 1 HERE , BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS . THE WAY YOU STOP PEOPLE 2 FROM DOING THINGS , IS YOU GET A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 3 ORDER . A LAW MAY BE BROKEN, AND UNTIL YOU DETERMINE 4 WHETHER IT HAS BEEN BROKEN, OR NOT, EVERYTHING STOPS , AND • 5 YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF ANY LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN , 6 STATE OR FEDERAL. 7 THIRDLY, THE COASTAL COMMISSION CERTAINLY HAS • 8 PERMITS HERE . AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION SHOULD BE URGED 9 TO WITHDRAW PERMITS UNTIL WE FIND OUT WHAT THE TRUTH OF THE 10 MATTER IS HERE . 11 FINALLY , THE SECOND TO THE LAST TWO THINGS ; IF 12 THERE ARE LAWS BROKEN , WE OUGHT TO TALK TO THE COUNTY, THE 13 ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND THE U .S . JUSTICE 14 DEPARTMENT TO FIND OUT IF LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN . 15 AND LASTLY, I MADE AN OBSERVATION . IT WOULD BE 16 OF SOME VALUE , I THINK, TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THIS 17 PROCESS , IF INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES , EXPERTS , COULD BE 18 BROUGHT, NOT ONLY TO EXAMINE THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASPECT OF 19 THIS THING, AN INDEPENDENT ARCHAEOLOGIST FROM A UNIVERSITY , 20 OR SOMEWHERE LIKE THAT, AND/OR NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS WHO 21 ARE INDEPENDENT, WHO CAN DETERMINE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER . 22 ANYWAY, THOSE ARE THE SIX ITEMS THAT I SUGGEST 23 THAT THIS BODY EMBARK UPON, ON SOME BASIS . AND I MOVE THE 24 RECOMMENDED ACTION H-2 - 1 . 25 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN . • 118 s 1 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: THANK YOU . 1 WOULD BE 2 PLEASED TO SECOND COUNCILMAN BAUER' S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE 3 MANY REASONS THAT HE MENTIONED. AND I WANT TO MENTION A 4 FEW OF MY OWN . 5 IT' S VERY MUCH OF A CONCERN THAT HUMAN BONES 6 WERE FOUND AND NOT REPORTED IN THE EIR . IN ADDITION , THE 7 NEWSPAPER REPORTS OF THE LAST WEEK, IN MY MIND, BROUGHT UP 8 A NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES . 9 FOR EXAMPLE , KOLL VICE-PRESIDENT, LUCY DUNN, • 10 SAID THAT BONES WERE FIRST FOUND IN THE FALL OF 1992 . 11 THEIR ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT, DR . DE SAUTELS , SAID THAT 12 BONES WERE FOUND IN THE SUMMER OF 1993 . THAT' S A • 13 DISCREPANCY OF SIX TO NINE MONTHS . 14 THERE WAS A CHARGE TONIGHT BY ONE OF THE 15 SPEAKERS THAT AT THIS TIME THEY ARE SAYING THE KOLL CQMPANY • 16 IS CLAIMING THEY HAVE NO IDEA THESE ARE HUMAN BONES . ONE 17 OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT MADE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE BONES 18 WERE GIVEN TO U.C. L.A. , AND THAT U .C. L.A. KNEW, AND THAT 19 U.C. L .A. WAS TOLD BY KOLL THEY WERE HUMAN BONES BACK IN 20 1992 . WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THIS? 21 FURTHER , AGAIN, THE VICE-PRESIDENT, LUCY DUNN, 22 WITH KOLL SAID THAT ROGER MASON, KOLL ' S - - THE COUNTY' S 23 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT WAS TOLD BY KOLL ' S ARCHAEOLOGICAL 24 CONSULTANT IN THE SUMMER OF 1993 THAT THERE WERE HUMAN 25 BONES IN THE BOLSA CHICA. THIS IS THE FIRST ADMISSION BY 119 w • 1 KOLL THAT THERE ARE HUMAN BONES . 2 BUT THEN AGAIN WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCREPANCY . 3 BECAUSE THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANT, DE SAUTELS . SAID 4 THAT SHE HAD NO IDEA THERE WERE HUMAN BONES IN THE BOLSA 5 CH1CA UNTIL A PORTION OF THE SKULL WAS DISCOVERED IN 6 OCTOBER 1993 . SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF TWO TO FOUR 7 MONTHS . 8 NOW, THE PROBLEM IS , ONCE THE BONES ARE 9 DISCOVERED TO BE HUMAN , APPARENTLY THAT SETS INTO PROCESS , 10 AND THERE IS A LAW THAT YOU MUST REPORT , GIVE THE REMAINS 11 TO THE CORONER FOR INVESTIGATION. AND I ASSUME THAT LAW 12 SAYS THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE THE BONES TO THE CORONER , NOT 13 WHEN YOU FEEL LIKE IT, OR WHEN YOU GET AROUND TO IT, BUT 14 IMMEDIATELY . AND IF IN FACT THE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN BONES 15 WAS IN THE SUMMER OF 1993 , INSTEAD OF OCTOBER OF 1993 , THE 16 QUESTION ARISES , WAS THAT LAW FOLLOWED IN A TIMELY MANNER? 17 THEN WE FIND OUT THAT WHEN THE BONES WERE 18 GIVEN TO THE CORONER , HE DISCOVERED - - AND WE DIDN ' T FIND 19 THIS OUT FROM THE KOLL COMPANY, WE FOUND THIS OUT FROM A 20 CITIZEN WHO SOMEHOW GOT THIS INFORMATION AND MADE IT r 21 AVAILABLE - - THAT THESE REMAINS WERE 8 , 000 YEARS OLD . 22 NOW, IT SEEMS TO ME , IF i WERE AN 23 ARCHAEOLOGIST ON A SITE , AND I GAVE SOME BONES TO THE 24 CORONER , AND PARTICULARLY A PIECE OF A SKULL WITH 25 APPARENTLY A ROUND HOLE IN IT, I MIGHT CALL THE CORONER AND 120 1 SAY, HEY , WHAT IS THE STORY WITH THOSE BONES? BUT THEN . AID 2 AGAIN , PROBABLY I MIGHT WANT TO, BECAUSE I MIGHT FIND OUT 3 THAT THEY ARE 8 , 000 YEARS OLD. 4 AND THINK OF IT, 8 , 000 YEARS OLD. THINK OF w 5 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS DISCOVERY . THAT IS 3 , 000 YEARS 6 BEFORE THE PYRAMIDS OF ANCIENT ROME WERE BUILT - - 7 CORRECTION - - THAT WAS 3 , 000 YEARS BEFORE , OF COURSE , THE r 8 PYRAMIDS OF ANCIENT EGYPT WERE EVEN BUILT. SO THIS , BY ANY 9 ACCOUNT, THIS DISCOVERY IS OF TREMENDOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL , 10 ANTHROPOLOGICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC IMPORT. 11 1 WOULD LIKE TO READ ONE QUOTE FROM CONSTANCE 12 CAMERON , A CURATOR OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ♦ 13 FULLERTON MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY. THE QUOTE IS : 14 "AS FAR AS ORANGE COUNTY AND SOUTHERN 15 CALIFORNIA IS CONCERNED, THIS IS A VERY , VERY 16 IMPORTANT SITE , SCIENTIFICALLY. NOW YOU CAN 17 DISCOVER WHAT PEOPLE WERE EATING, YOU CAN LEARN 18 WHAT DISEASES THEY HAD, OR EVEN WHAT USE THEY 19 HAD FOR THE COGSTONES . " 20 SO APPARENTLY THIS PERSON EVEN THINKS THAT 21 THIS DISCOVERY MIGHT ALLOW US TO UNRAVEL THE 70 YEAR OLD 22 MYSTERY OF THE COGSTONES . 23 AND THAT IS WHAT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING 24 ABOUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THESE STORIES . WE NEED TO KNOW 25 HOW THE KOLL COMPANY REALLY HANDLED THIS IMPORTANT 121 • 1 DISCOVERY. THE ONLY THING WE SEEM TO KNOW NOW IS THAT THE Z 2 KOLL COMPANY KNEW THERE WERE HUMAN BONES , AND DID NOT 3 REPORT THAT INFORMATION TO THIS EIR . 4 SO WITH THAT, I WILL SECOND COUNCILMAN BAUER ' S 5 MOTION . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I HAVE A NUMBER OF 7 COUNCILPEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS . 8 THE NEXT PERSON WAS COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL . 9 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: YES , I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT 10 WE WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON ARCHAEOLOGICALLY 11 AND CULTURALLY ON THE MESA. THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MESA, AS 12 WELL AS THE BOLSA CHICA MESA. 13 IT HAS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PERMITS WERE 14 GRANTED TO THIS LANDOWNER IN THE - - I DON ' T KNOW IF IT 15 WAS - - I 'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE LATE ' 80 ' S OR THE EARLY 16 ' 90 ' S , TO DO ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS , AND IT WAS A 17 RESULT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COGSTONES IN THE EARLY 180 ' S . 18 1 GUESS WHAT IS BEING ASKED TONIGHT IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT 1 19 PERMITTING PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. BECAUSE I BELIEVE 20 THAT A PERMITTING PROCESS INVOLVING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 21 HAS STATE STANDARDS AND STATE REGULATIONS THAT GO ALONG 22 WITH THEM, WHICH INCLUDE CRITERIA FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL 23 CONSULTANTS , WHICH INCLUDES THE SELECTION OF INDIAN 24 MONITORS , WHICH INCLUDES A RELATIVELY RIGOROUS PROCESS , 25 WHICH I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED WENT ALONG WITH THESE PERMITS . 122 1 SO I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO ASK COUNCILMAN 2 BAUER , ARE YOU - - WHILE THESE PERMITS WERE GRANTED, I GUESS 3 WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THE PROCESS IS NOT BEING 4 FOLLOWED, OR YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE 5 PROCESS IS BEING FOLLOWED? 6 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: I THINK THE QUESTION IS , WE 7 DON 'T KNOW IF THE PROCESS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. AND SINCE WE 8 DON'T HAVE SUBPOENA POWERS , NOR DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO 9 CAUSE WITNESSES TO TELL THE TRUTH, WE HAVE TO GO ELSEWHERE 10 TO HAVE THAT TAKEN OFF OUR HANDS . 11 1 AM TOLD THAT THERE ARE ARCHAEOLOGICAL 12 REPORTS THAT ARE AS OLD AS TEN YEARS . THOSE HAVE NOT SEEN ! 13 THE LIGHT OF DAY . SO WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER 14 THEY ARE FOLLOWING IT. 15 1 HAD ANOTHER PHONE CALL TODAY FROM ANOTHER 16 PERSON THAT APPARENTLY HAD BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH SOMEONE WHO 17 WAS ON THE SITE , WHO WAS ACTUALLY - - THE QUOTE WAS : 18 "WE HAVE BEEN DIGGING BODIES UP ALL SUMMER . " 19 AND I CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH OF THAT, BUT I HAVE 20 THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL. AND I THINK THAT 21 SOMEBODY OUGHT TO CALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS , AND UNDER SWORN 22 TESTIMONY, SEE IF THEY TOLD THE TRUTH OR NOT. THE 23 DIFFICULTY IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. 24 THE MERE FACT THAT IT DID NOT APPEAR IN THE EIR , AND EVEN 25 IF THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SECRECY WITH REGARD TO BURIAL 123 i 1 AND REBURIAL, THERE ARE WAYS OF TRANSMITTING THAT 2 INFORMATION. BUT THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF IT, 3 FORGETTING ABOUT THE BURIAL, HAVE NEVER BEEN MENTIONED IN 4 THE EIR. NOW, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? AND THE 5 INCONSISTENCIES THAT DR . SULLIVAN POINTED OUT. YES , WE 6 FOUND THEM IN 992 , BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THEM, SO WE 7 DIDN 'T PUT THEM IN THIS UNTIL ' 93 . IT DOESN ' T MAKE SENSE . 8 THERE IS A LOT OF INCONSISTENCY . 9 AS A MATTER OF FACT, I SERVED ON THE GRAND 10 JURY . AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAD INVESTIGATIONS ON 11 ISSUES , CIVIL ISSUES WITH FAR LESS EVIDENCE . AND FAR LESS 12 INDICATION OF WHAT I HAVE FOUND HERE . THAT' S WHAT MAKES ME 13 VERY NERVOUS . I JUST DON ' T THINK PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN 14 FOLLOWED, OR IF THEY HAVE BEEN, THEY HAVEN ' T SEEN THE LIGHT 15 OF DAY . 16 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 17 COUNCILMAN SILVA. 18 COUNCILMEMBER SILVA: YES , I HAVE RECEIVED PHONE • 19 CALLS FROM BOTH SIDES FOR THE LAST PROBABLY FOUR DAYS , OR 20 FIVE DAYS . AND I KNOW THAT BOTH COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN AND 21 BAUER HAVE INDICATED THEIR CONCERNS . I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR 22 FROM MS . DUNN FOR THE KOLL COMPANY TO RESPOND TO SOME OF 23 THESE INCONSISTENCIES . 24 MS . DUNN: THANK YOU, HONORABLE MAYOR 25 MOULTON-PATTERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS . 124 • 1 1 HAVE A LETTER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ SOME 2 ITEMS FROM THAT I WILL SUBMIT TO THE COUNCIL . BUT THE 3 BOTTOM LINE ON ALL OF THIS IS , COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM H-2 4 PROPOSES THE CITY COUNCIL PROCLAIM THAT, QUOTE , THE PRIVATE 5 AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS CURRENTLY IN CHARGE OF THE 6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS - - WHICH IS TO SAY HIGHLY 7 RESPECTED AND DISCIPLINED SCIENTISTS HIRED BY THIS CITY TO 8 WORK ON THE CITY' S OWN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS , 9 NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS , THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE • 10 COMMISSION, WHICH IS THE STATE RECOGNIZED COMMISSION TO 11 DESIGNATE NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS FOR THE SITE , THE 12 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION , THE COUNTY OF ORANGE , 13 THE CORONER ' S OFFICE , U .C. L.A. , THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA. 14 THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, AND THE LIST GOES ON AND ON - - 15 THE NUMBER OF DISTINGUISHED ORGANIZATIONS . QUOTE , SHOW A • 16 CAVALIER DISREGARD ABOUT THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE 17 OF THE FIND OF ANCIENT HUMAN BONES ON THE MESA. 18 HERE ARE THE FACTS: • 19 THE ROOT OF THIS PROPOSED PROCLAMATION IS THE 20 BELIEF THAT AN 8 , 000 YEAR OLD HUMAN BONE HAS RECENTLY BEEN 21 FOUND ON THE MESA, AS IF THAT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. IT IS 22 NOT. THE BONE FRAGMENT HAS NOT BEEN DATED, AS YET. AND 23 THE REASON IS , BECAUSE THERE IS AN AGREEMENT WITH THE 24 INDIAN MONITORS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 25 NOT TO DATE BONE FRAGMENTS . 125 • 1 AND BY BONE FRAGMENTS , COUNCILMAN BAUER, WE 2 ARE TALKING ABOUT FRAGMENTS THE SIZE OF A QUARTER , ON THE 3 AVERAGE . THESE ARE NOT SKELETONS . 4 THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA IS CURRENTLY 5 ATTEMPTING TO DETERMINE THE AGE OF BONE FRAGMENTS . AND 6 WHEN ITS AGE IS IN FACT DETERMINED, SO, TOO WILL ITS 7 SIGNIFICANCE . s 8 THE BONE FRAGMENT WAS RECOVERED THROUGH AN 9 EXCAVATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE 10 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, EXECUTED BY A HIGHLY 11 RESPECTED ARCHAEOLOGIST, MONITORED BY NATIVE AMERICAN 12 MONITORS , APPROVED BY THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE ♦ 13 COMMISSION, AND SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW BY A PANEL OF 14 SCIENTISTS FROM CAL STATE LONG BEACH , THE UNIVERSITY OF 15 NEVADA, AND OTHER APPROPRIATE AGENCIES LOOKING AT THIS . • 16 THE BONE FRAGMENT IN QUESTION WAS UNEARTHED IN 17 THAT INVESTIGATION , AND TURNED OVER TO THE CORONER ' S 18 OFFICE , AS REQUIRED BY LAW. ITS SIGNIFICANCE IS BEING • 19 ASSESSED BY THE ARCHAEOLOGIST OVERSEEING THE EXCAVATION 20 EFFORT, AND BY THE PEER REVIEW PANEL, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 21 THAT IS AN ONGOING PROCESS THAT HAS ALREADY COST HUNDREDS 22 OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS . THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS 23 INVESTIGATION THAT IS CAVALIER . 24 MAYBE THE SOURCE OF THE CONCERN EXPRESSED BY 25 COUNCILMAN BAUER ' S PROPOSAL IS THE LACK OF WIDESPREAD 126 • 1 PUBLICITY ABOUT THE EXCAVATION RESULTS TO DATE . BUT 40 2 AMATEUR DISTURBANCE OF SACRED SITES AND HISTORICAL FINDS 3 HAS BEEN, AND IS A MAJOR CONCERN . EVIDENCE , PERHAPS EVEN 4 OF AMATEUR ARCHAEOLOGIST PAT WARE SHOWING YOU COGSTONES , 5 POSSIBLY FROM THE BOLSA CHICA SITE . THOSE DON ' T BELONG TO 6 HER . THOSE BELONG TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS . 7 NATIVE AMERICANS ARE UNDERSTANDABLY CONCERNED • 8 THAT THE REMAINS OF THEIR ANCESTORS BE HANDLED WITH 9 RESPECT, AND NOT BECOME A PUBLIC SPECTACLE . IN FACT, EVEN 10 THE CALIFORNIA RECORDS ACT EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS RECORDS 11 CONCERNING ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURES TO 12 ENSURE THAT THOSE SITES ARE NOT DESECRATED. WE ARE ALREADY • 13 SEEING ACTIVITY AT BOLSA CHICA INCREASE AS A RESULT OF THIS 14 PUBLIC SPECTACLE . 15 APPENDIX "K" TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL • 16 QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES EXPRESSLY WARNS THAT DETAILED 17 INFORMATION CONCERNING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES BE HANDLED. 18 QUOTE , ONLY ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS , END QUOTE . • 19 FOR THAT REASON , THE DISCUSSION OF THE 20 ARCHAEOLOGICAL/ANTHROPOLOGICAL FINDS IN THE BOLSA CHICA • 21 AREA, IN THE DRAFT EIR IN CIRCULATION, IS INTENTIONALLY 22 GENERAL, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. 23 IT ALSO, HOWEVER, REVEALS THE GENERAL 24 INFORMATION AVAILABLE WHEN THE DRAFT WAS FINALIZED, 25 INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN REMAINS EXISTING IN THE 127 • • 1 AREA. SEE PAGES 4 . 11 - 12 THROUGH 4 . 11 -29 . 2 PROPOSALS SUCH AS AGENDA ITEM H-2 CAN IN FACT 3 COMPROMISE AN INVESTIGATION AND TURN THE FACT OF HUMAN 4 REMAINS INTO A PUBLIC CIRCUS AND A MEDIA SPECTACLE . THAT 5 CANNOT BE YOUR PURPOSE , PLEASE , COUNCILMEMBERS . 6 AS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS PROPOSED BY 7 AGENDA ITEM H-2 , IT WOULD HAVE THE CITY CALL FOR 8 UNSPECIFIED INVESTIGATIONS BY THE ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY, 9 THE D.A. ' S OFFICE , THE COASTAL COMMISSION , EVERYTHING SHORT 10 OF THE FBI AND INTERPOL. BUT INVESTIGATIONS OF WHAT? • 11 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: WE CAN ADD THOSE , TOO, IF YOU 12 WOULD LIKE . 13 MS . DUNN: ADD THEM. WHERE ARE THE CHARGES? IT' S 14 RIDICULOUS . WHAT LAWS HAVE BEEN BROKEN? 15 KOLL REAL ESTATE GROUP CATEGORICALLY AND 16 ABSOLUTELY DENIES THAT ANY LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN BY ANYONE 17 ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 18 OF BOLSA CHICA, AND DEMANDS THAT DUE PROCESS BE FOLLOWED • 19 BEFORE THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKES ANY SUGGESTION TO 20 THE CONTRARY. 21 IF , COUNCILMAN BAUER , WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, 22 YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO SUPPORT ANY BELIEF THAT ANY 23 CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED , OR LAW BROKEN BY ANY OF THE 24 SCIENTISTS, OR UNIVERSITIES , OR INDIAN MONITORS , OR THE 25 COASTAL COMMISSION , OR ANYONE ELSE CONCERNED WITH THE 128 • 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION PLANNED FOR BOLSA CHICA, WE • 2 CHALLENGE YOU; NO, WE DEMAND THAT YOU BRING THOSE FACTS 3 FORWARD, AND DISCHARGE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITIZEN TO 4 GIVE THOSE ACCUSATIONS , GIVES THOSE FACTS , AS YOU KNOW IT, • 5 NOT GENERALIZED, I HEARD FROM THIS PERSON , I HEARD FROM 6 THAT PERSON. YOU NEED THE FACTS . 7 THE BOTTOM LINE , PLEASE , MR . BAUER . IS IF 8 THERE IS ANY BEEF IN YOUR HAMBURGER , SHOW IT TO US . 9 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: THAT WAS WELL DONE , LUCY . THE 10 TROUBLE IS , I DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO CAUSE PEOPLE TO TELL 11 THE TRUTH. 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN SILVA, HAD YOU 13 FINISHED? 14 COUNCILMEMBER SILVA: YES . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG WAS • 16 NEXT. 17 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR 18 MS . DUNN. 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: SORRY. WE WILL COME RIGHT 20 BACK TO YOU THEN . 21 MS . DUNN, COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN HAS A QUESTION . 22 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: MS . DUNN, DO YOU KNOW WHO 23 JUDY MEYERS SUCHEY IS? • 24 MS . DUNN: NO, I HAVE NEVER MET HER . I HAVE JUST 25 LEARNED ABOUT HER FROM THE REPORTS IN THE NEWSPAPER , AND 129 • 1 FROM A REPORT FAXED TO ME BY THE PRESS , WHICH WAS • 2 APPARENTLY A CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OBTAINED BY AMATEUR 3 ARCHAEOLOGIST, PAT WARE , FROM THE CORONER' S OFFICE . SO 1 4 DO NOT KNOW WHO SHE IS . 5 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: WELL , I DON'T KNOW EITHER , 6 BUT I HAVE READ SEVERAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLES , AND I REFER NOW 7 TO THE ONE IN THE JANUARY 25TH L.A. TIMES . AND IT SAYS • 8 THAT MS. SUCHEY, IF I AM PRONOUNCING IT RIGHT - - DOCTOR , 1 9 SUPPOSE - - IS A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST. AND THIS IS THE 10 QUOTE THAT SHE MAKES . A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, 11 INCIDENTALLY, HIRED BY THE CORONER TO IDENTIFY THESE BONES 12 THAT COME IN. 13 NOW, YOU CONTENDED THAT THIS - - WE DON ' T KNOW 14 THAT THESE ARE 8 , 000 YEAR OLD BONES . HER STATEMENT IS AS 15 FOLLOWS: • 16 "THE SKELETAL REMAINS COMING FROM THIS 17 SITE ARE VERY OLD , APPROXIMATELY 8 , 000 YEARS 18 OLD, AS INDICATED FROM SOME CURRENT DATING • 19 PROCEDURES. THE BONE COMES FROM A UNIFORM LAYER 20 OF THE UPPER PART" - - ( INAUDIBLE) . FOR THIS • 21 REASON , THE BONE IS CLEARLY PREHISTORIC, AND 22 CANNOT BE CONFUSED WITH MODERN SKELETAL MATERIAL 23 OF FORENSIC INTEREST TO THE CORONER . " • 24 SO I ASSUME YOU DISPUTE THIS? 25 MS . DUNN: IT IS DR . SUCHEY' S ROLE AS ANTHROPOLOGIST ' 130 • I 1 FOR THE CORONER, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, TO DETERMINE • 2 WHETHER A BONE FRAGMENT IS HUMAN, OR ANIMAL , TO 3 DETERMINE - - HELP THE CORONER WITH SPECIATION , AS DOES 4 U.C. L.A. 5 BUT BY AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIVE AMERICAN 6 MONITORS , WE ARE NOT TALKING WHALE BONES HERE , COUNCILMAN 7 SULLIVAN . WE ARE TALKING HUMAN REMAINS . THE NATIVE • 8 AMERICAN MONITORS , AND THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE 9 COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSLY REQUESTED OF KOLL THAT NO BONES BE 10 DATED. THEY DO NOT WANT CARBON 14 TESTING ON THEIR HUMAN 11 REMAINS . 12 WHAT HAS BEEN TESTED HAVE BEEN THE ARTIFACTS 13 FOUND FROM THE SITE . AND IN THE CONTEXT OF DR. SUCHEY' S 14 REVIEW, AND HER EXPERIENCE, SOME OF THE ARTIFACTS FOUND 15 INDICATE THAT THEY COULD BE VERY OLD, AND THEREFORE , THE • 16 BONE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED IN THAT CONTEXT. SHE DID NOT 17 DATE IT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE NEWSPAPER ' S QUOTE . 18 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: IT ISN'T THE NEWSPAPER ' S • 19 QUOTE . IT' S HER QUOTE . AND SHE SAYS SHE DID DATE IT BY 20 CURRENT DATING PROCEDURES . • 21 MS . DUNN: SHE DID NOT DATE THE BONE . 22 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: WELL , THESE ARE THE TYPES 23 OF THINGS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT. 24 THANK YOU . 25 MS . DUNN: THANK YOU . i 131 • • 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG. 2 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: THANK YOU , MAYOR 3 MOULTON-PATTERSON. 4 THERE CLEARLY ARE DISCREPANCIES HERE . BUT I 5 AM NOT SURPRISED AT THAT. THIS IS A COMPLEX AND LEGAL , AND 6 SCIENTIFIC ISSUE . IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED PRIMARILY BY THE 7 NEWSPAPERS , OVER A RELATIVELY BRIEF TIME , AND IT DOESN 'T • 8 SURPRISE ME AT ALL THAT A DISCUSSION AMONG THOSE OF US IN 9 THIS ROOM WHO ALMOST, WITHOUT EXCEPTION , ARE NOT • 10 SCIENTISTS , CERTAINLY NOT TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS IN THIS 11 AREA, SHOULD UNCOVER , AT LEAST, A FEW DISCREPANCIES . 12 THE MOST RECENT DISCUSSION IS FOCUSED ON THE 13 LINE OF THE SKELETAL REMAINS APPROXIMATELY 8 , 000 YEARS OLD 14 AS INDICATED FROM SOME CURRENT DATING PROCEDURES . WE DON ' T 15 HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE CURRENT DATING PROCEDURES ARE . • 16 MS . DUNN TELLS US THEY ARE NOT C- 14 DATING. 17 THEY COULD BE JADED BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE FOUND IN A 18 LAYER ALONG WITH BISON REMAINS THAT HAVEN ' T BEEN IN NORTH • 19 AMERICAN FOR 8 , 000 YEARS . THERE ARE A LOT OF THESE 20 TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT WE ARE NOT ABOUT TO WORK OUT IN THIS • 21 FORUM. 22 1 AM ALSO NOT CONVINCED THAT THE GRAND JURY IS 23 EXACTLY THE RIGHT FORUM IN WHICH TO WORK OUT THESE ISSUES • 24 EITHER . 25 MY STRONGEST FEELING IS THAT THE FIRST THING . 132 • 1 THE CITY MUST NOT DO IS TO MAKE ANY CLAIM THAT WRONGDOING 2 HAS OCCURRED BASED ON THE VARIOUS FACTS , AND REPORTS - - 3 THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM FACTS - - THAT WE HAVE HEARD; CLAIMS 4 AGAINST ANYONE . 5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE DISCREPANCIES DO NEED 6 TO BE ELIMINATED. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CALL FOR AN 7 INVESTIGATION, AS COUNCILMAN BAUER HAS LAID IT OUT, I AM i 8 AFRAID MAKES A PRETTY STRONG IMPLICATION OF CRIME ON SOME 9 PEOPLE ' S PART. AND I DON'T WANT US TO BE DOING THAT . 10 ALTHOUGH I DO WANT US TO GET TO THE HEART OF THIS . 11 THE CITY NEEDS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE ISSUES 12 AND TRY TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE DISCREPANCIES . MY FEELING 13 IS THAT EVEN THE CITY COUNCIL, AT LEAST THE BOLSA CHICA 14 STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE , COULD ELIMINATE A NUMBER , 15 PERHAPS A LARGE NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES THAT WE HAVE TALKED • 16 ABOUT TONIGHT, ALTHOUGH PERHAPS NOT ALL. 17 WE HAVE ANOTHER CITY COUNCIL MEETING COMING UP 18 IN ANOTHER WEEK, AND IT' S MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL 19 THAT INSTEAD OF TAKING THESE ACTIONS TONIGHT, WE PUT THEM 20 OFF FOR SEVEN DAYS , OR LONGER, IF NEED BE , AND HAVE THE 21 BOLSA CHICA STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE , WHICH INCLUDES 22 COUNCILMAN BAUER, TAKE AT LEAST A SUPERFICIAL LOOK AT THESE 23 DISCREPANCIES AND SEE HOW MANY CAN BE IRONED OUT IN A SHORT • 24 TIME . 25 IF THERE REMAIN MAJOR UNRESOLVED • 133 • 1 DISCREPANCIES , THEN IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO COME BACK • 2 AND CALL FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION BY MORE COMPETENT 3 BODIES . IT WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE , I THINK, FOR THE 4 COMMITTEE IN THAT TIME TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO FIND 5 APPROPRIATE BODIES THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET AT THE HEART 6 OF THE MATTER, WHICH I AM NOT CONVINCED WE HAVE TALKED 7 ABOUT YET. • 8 THE GRAND JURY, IN PARTICULAR , I THINK WOULD 9 BE ONE WHICH WOULD BE TOO SLOW TO DO US ANY GOOD , NOT 10 TECHNICALLY COMPETENT. AND I 'M SURE THAT THERE IS A BETTER 11 FORUM TO WORK THIS OUT. 12 MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO PUT OFF THESE 13 RECOMMENDATIONS OF COUNCILMAN BAUER FOR AT LEAST A WEEK AND 14 ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO LOOK THROUGH THE MATTER . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . COUNCILMAN - - • 16 MAYOR PRO TEM ROBITAILLE . 17 COUNCILMEMBER ROBITAILLE : THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. 18 1 WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT IF • 19 ANYBODY HAD ANY DOUBT WHY KOLL PULLED OUT OF HUNTINGTON 20 BEACH AND WENT TO THE COUNTY, THIS RESOLUTION BEFORE US 21 SHOULD BE A GOOD INDICATOR OF THAT. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, 23 COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG, YOUR SUGGESTION IS THAT THIS GO BACK TO 24 THE BOLSA CHICA STRATEGIC COMMITTEE FOR A WEEK AND ADDRESS 25 IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING? • 134 • 1 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: YES . 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: ANY COMMENT ON THAT? 3 COUNCILMAN BAUER . 4 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: IT' S AN INTERESTING IDEA. AND 5 IF COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG HAD AN ALTERNATIVE PLACE TO GO FOR 6 SOME KIND OF AN INVESTIGATION, THAT WOULD BE FINE . 7 FRANKLY, I 'M NOT QUALIFIED. I 'M NOT A QUALIFIED • 8 INVESTIGATOR, NOR DO I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE SCIENTIFIC 9 DETAIL. • 10 1 WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE 11 WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT' S WHY I MADE AN 12 ALTERNATIVE "F" . THERE SEEMED TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER 13 OF PEOPLE WHO ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS 14 WHO ARE DISSATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS . APPARENTLY THEY 15 WERE NOT CONSULTED. THEY MADE SOME PRETTY IMPASSIONED 16 PLEAS , AND I THINK THEY APPEAR TO HAVE SOME LEGITIMATE 17 RIGHTS HERE , REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE BUREAUCRACY IN • 18 SACRAMENTO SAYS . 19 SO IF WE COULD OUTLINE AN INVESTIGATIVE 20 PROCESS , TIMES A WASTING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE • 21 ARTIFACTS AND APPARENTLY HUMAN REMAINS BEING REMOVED, OR 22 MAYBE THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN REMOVED. I THINK WE OUGHT TO I 23 MOVE ON THE THING. IF YOU HAVE A BODY THAT YOU THINK IS i • 24 BETTER THAN THE GRAND JURY, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT. BUT I AM 25 NOT SURE GOING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE SERVES ANY REAL . 135 • 1 PURPOSE , QUITE FRANKLY. 2 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT 3 THING IS TO FIND THAT MORE APPROPRIATE BODY . 4 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON �. 5 IT, ALSO. BUT BEFORE WE TAKE ANY KIND OF A VOTE , WE DO 6 HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE DO HAVE THREE SPEAKERS THAT 7 HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS H-2 . AND • 8 1 THINK WE SHOULD HEAR THEM BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING FURTHER . 9 SO WOULD THE CLERK PLEASE CALL THEIR NAMES? • 10 CITY CLERK: YES , MAYOR , AND COUNCIL , I DO HAVE 11 THREE SPEAKERS THAT DID SPECIFICALLY PUT ON THEIR SIGN- IN 12 SLIPS ITEM H-2 . THEY ARE KIRK KIRKLAND, MICHAEL GUEST AND 13 GEORGE ARNOLD. 14 MR . KIRKLAND: GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF 15 THE COUNCIL. MAYOR AND COUNCILPEOPLE . MY NAME IS KIRK 16 KIRKLAND. I LIVE AT 2217 FLORIDA STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH. 17 MY TELEPHONE NUMBER IS 536-6600 . AND I AM INDEED HUMBLED 18 TO BE SHARING THE PODIUM WITH GEORGE ARNOLD. • 19 1 REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME DEALING WITH H-2 . 20 THERE IS SO MUCH INNUENDO. THERE IS SO MUCH HEARSAY. • 21 THERE IS SO MUCH SPECULATION . I DO NOT NECESSARILY 22 SUBSCRIBE TO THE THEORY THAT IF THERE IS SMOKE , THERE IS 23 FIRE . I DOUBT THAT THERE IS FIRE HERE . I THINK THINGS 24 HAVE BEEN PROBABLY HANDLED WELL . 25 1 DON'T THINK IT' S A PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL AT 136 • • 1 THIS POINT TO MAKE THIS KIND OF ACTION. I FEEL THAT THIS 2 IS MORE DEVISIVE THAN REPRESENTING ANY KIND OF EFFORT TO GO 3 AHEAD WITH THE BOLSA CHICA COALITION'S ANNOUNCED GOAL OF 4 GETTING THE WETLANDS RESTORED, TOGETHER WITH THE 5 DEVELOPMENT OF THE BOLSA CHICA. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE 6 DONE . 7 MY FIRST VIEW OF THE BOLSA CHICA WAS IN 1949 • 8 WHEN IT SHARED THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A VERY , VERY, VERY 9 DIRTY BEACH CALLED TIN CAN BEACH . THE STATE MOVED IN AND 10 CLEANED UP TIN CAN BEACH , BUT NOBODY HAS DONE ANYTHING FOR 11 BOLSA CHICA SINCE THEN. AND I THINK IT' S TIME THAT 12 SOMETHING BE DONE FOR IT TOWARD THE RESTORATION OF IT. AND 13 1 PERCEIVE H-2 MERELY AS PROLONGING THE PROCESS , AND NOT 14 DOING ANYTHING TO BENEFIT OUR AREA, TO BENEFIT THE BOLSA 15 CHICA, TO BENEFIT THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHTS OF A • 16 PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER ARE NOT TOTALLY SPURIOUS . 17 1 THANK YOU. 18 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU , MR . KIRKLAND. • 19 THE NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 20 CITY CLERK: YES , THE NEXT SPEAKER IS GEORGE ARNOLD. 21 MICHAEL GUEST WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC HEARING, 22 HOWEVER, MARCUS LOPEZ DESIRES TO SPEAK ON H-2 . 23 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. DID YOU CALL FOR 24 GEORGE ARNOLD? 25 CITY CLERK: YES , I DID. . 137 • 1 GEORGE ARNOLD. • 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. WHO WAS THE NEXT 3 SPEAKER? MICHAEL GUEST, IS HE HERE? 4 CITY CLERK: FLOSSIE HORGAN, AND BEFORE HER , MARCUS 5 LOPEZ ON H-2 . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MARCUS LOPEZ , PLEASE . 7 MR. LOPEZ : THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 8 FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THERE HAS 9 BEEN MASSIVE CONFUSION AS FAR AS THE REPRESENTATIVES FROM • 10 THE KOLL COMPANY , AS FAR AS ONE INDIAN MONITOR . 11 TWO, THE MOST LIKELY REPRESENTATIVES , BECAUSE 12 AT THIS POINT, THE MOST LIKELY DESCENDANTS HAVE NOT ANY • 13 INFORMATION REGARDING BOLSA CHICA. 14 AND THIRD, THE HERITAGE COMMISSION HAS NOT 15 RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION AS FAR AS THE INFORMATION AND THE • 16 SOURCES THAT ARE TOLD TO MYSELF . 17 WHEN THE EIR REPORT STATED THERE WERE NO 18 BURIAL REMAINS , OR NO HUMAN REMAINS , WHY DID I RECEIVE , • 19 THROUGH MY SOURCES IN 1982 , COPIES OF ( INAUDIBLE) PELVIS 20 AND COG SHELLS , WITHIN THIS SITE . ( INAUDIBLE) - - YOU ARE • 21 NOT ARCHAEOLOGICALLY INCLINED WITH THESE PARTICULAR 22 COGSTONES AS RELATED TO HUMAN REMAINS . ARE THEY SEPARATE , 23 OR ARE THEY NOT? SOMETHING THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS , AS FAR 24 AS THEIR PARTICULAR ABILITY TO INTERPRET IT, CANNOT. IT' S 25 A CULTURAL INTERPRETATION BY NATIVE PEOPLE . • 138 1 AND THIS IS THE DELINEATION BETWEEN WHAT YOU 2 COUNCILMEMBERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND, AS FAR AS NOT ONLY THE 3 SCIENTIFIC EXAMINATION , BUT THE CULTURAL INTERPRETATION , AS 4 NATIVE PEOPLE . 5 1 EXPRESS TO YOU ABOUT THE VIOLATION OF CEQA. 6 THE VIOLATION OF THE REPATRIATION ACT. THE VIOLATION OF 7 THE NATIVE AMERICAN COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 8 NOT BECAUSE I THROW THESE PARTICULAR TOPICS IN YOUR FACE , 9 BUT BECAUSE THESE ARE THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AND THE 10 PROCEDURE . 11 WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DUE PROCESS , IT IS MY 12 PARTICULAR OPINION, AND EVIDENCE OF MY COLLEAGUES AND MANY 13 OF THE TONGVA PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS - - UP TO THIS 14 VERY POINT ABOUT THE LACK OF INFORMATION GOING TO ANOTHER 15 SOURCE OTHER- - GOING BACK, NOT FORWARD INTO AN 16 INVESTIGATION, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT. 17 AN INVESTIGATION , AND A SENSE OF NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THE • 18 SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF IT, BUT ALSO THE CULTURAL ASPECTS OF 19 IT, BECAUSE THESE VIOLATIONS , IN MY OPINION , ARE APPARENT. 20 AND THE WAY IN WHICH NATIVE PEOPLE INTERPRET 21 THE PROCESS , AND AT THE SAME TIME , HOW IT IS BEING i 22 MANIPULATED, AND INFORMATION HAS BEEN CREATED IN ORDER TO 23 GIVE YOU A PICTURE ON ONE HAND, AND WHAT GOES ON IN ANOTHER i 24 HAND. 25 1 JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS THOSE , BECAUSE I • 139 • 1 THINK IT' S IMPORTANT THAT YOU COUNCILMEMBERS LOOK AT THE 2 DIFFERENT VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 3 1 WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH . I HAVE 4 SOME OTHER INFORMATION I WANTED TO SUBMIT ABOUT THE 5 TRADITIONAL TONGVA POLICY REGARDING ABORIGINAL RESOURCES 6 FROM THE INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF TONGVA. 7 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. • 8 MS . HORGAN: GOOD EVENING, COUNCILPEOPLE . WELL , WE 9 HAVE GOT OURSELVES A REAL DONNYBROOK HERE TONIGHT, DON ' T • 10 WE? 11 1 WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ACTION THAT 12 HAS BEEN ON THE COUNCIL FLOOR RIGHT NOW, H-2 . • 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . WOULD YOU 14 STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD FOR US? 15 MS . HORGAN: EXCUSE ME . MY NAME IS FLOSSIE HORGAN . • 16 AND I LIVE AT 207 21ST STREET IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 17 FIRST OF ALL, THIS SITE THAT WE ARE TALKING 18 ABOUT, THIS SIGNIFICANT SITE , ORA-83 , IN 1983 WAS VOTED BY 19 THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AS AN ELIGIBLE 20 SITE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER. FIVE TO ONE IT WAS VOTED 21 THAT THIS SITE , THE COGSTONE SITE WAS SIGNIFICANT AT THE 22 STATE LEVEL, AND IT WOULD BE SENT TO THE NATIONAL REGISTRY. 23 FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON , IT WAS NOT FORWARDED 24 TO THE KEEPER OF THE RECORDS . AND I WAS TOLD THAT THAT' S 25 LIKE TOTALLY UNUSUAL. LESS THAN SIX CASES OUT OF OVER 140 • • 1 2 , 000 ARE NOT FORWARDED TO THE REGISTER . THAT' S A QUESTION • 2 THAT WE SHOULD ASK, WHY THAT SITE WAS NOT FORWARDED TO THE 3 NATIONAL REGISTER. 4 SECONDLY, IN THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH DAVID 5 BELARDIS , WHO IS THE CHIEF SPOKESPERSON FOR THE JUANINO 6 BAND OUT OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, HE TOLD ME IN A GROUP OF 7 PEOPLE - - THERE WERE THREE OR FOUR OF US THERE - - THAT OVER • 8 FOUR HUMAN REMAINS OF NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT 9 OF THE BOLSA CHICA ORA-83 SITE . AND THIS CONVERSATION TOOK • 10 PLACE IN SEPTEMBER OF 1993 . HE SAID MORE WOULD BE COMING. 11 NOW, HIS SON, MINGO, IS THE MONITOR THAT THE 12 KOLL COMPANY HAS HIRED. AND HE GETS PAID A NICE SALARY , A • 13 DAY, TO BE A MONITOR ON THE SITE . 14 DAVID, I DON 'T KNOW - - IS DAVID HERE TONIGHT? 15 WELL , DAVE BELARDIS IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. THAT' S • 16 INTERESTING IN ITSELF . AND HE HAS SAID NOTHING AT ALL 17 ABOUT THIS. AND THAT' S INTERESTING. 18 AND THAT ALSO ADDS TO THE QUESTION: IF THEY • 19 HAD REMOVED THIS IN AUGUST, AND HIS SON IS THE MONITOR , 20 THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN THE EIR . TO MENTION 21 THAT THE BURIALS IS REPORTED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN 'T BE 22 DONE . 23 THE OTHER THING IS , IN JUDY SUCHEY' S REPORT 24 THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED LAST WEEK, I DISTRIBUTED THE REPORT, 25 IT IS A PUBLIC RECORD. IT IS A CORONER' S DOCUMENT . . 141 • 1 ANYBODY CAN GET IT, IF YOU HAVE SOME MONEY TO BUY IT. IF • 2 YOU SPEND $50 , YOU CAN GET THE REPORT, BECAUSE THEY ARE 3 PUBLIC RECORDS . AND THIS FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST WAS HIRED 4 BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO DO THIS ANALYSIS OF THESE BONES 5 FOUND IN THE BOLSA CHICA. THIS INFORMATION IS PUBLIC 6 INFORMATION. TO DISPARAGE PAT WARE AS AN AMATEUR 7 ARCHAEOLOGIST IS UNFAIR , TO SAY THE LEAST. • 8 AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE CONFUSION AND 9 THE PUZZLEMENT AND THE UNKNOWN INFORMATION AROUND THE BOLSA ` 10 CHICA MESA HAS TO BE DETERMINED, AND WE ARE UNDER A TIME 11 LIMIT OF FEBRUARY THE 18TH. I WOULD THINK, AND I WOULD 12 URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER CLOSELY IF YOU POSTPONE • 13 TAKING ACTIONS , IT WILL POSTPONE THE ABILITY OF US TO FIND 14 OUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN THE BOLSA CHICA MESA. IF 15 YOU WANT TO BUILD 4 , 884 HOMES IN THE BOLSA CHICA, THAT' S a 16 THE BOTTOM LINE HERE . 17 THANK YOU . 18 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . • 19 THE CLERK: THAT' S ALL THE SPEAKERS I HAVE FOR H-2 . 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . • 21 BEFORE I CALL ON COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN , AND I AM 22 AWARE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR , I JUST WANTED TO MAKE 23 A COMMENT OR TWO. • 24 YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE MY FELLOW 25 COUNCILMEMBERS , THAT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE SOME • 142 1 ANSWERS . AND FOR ANYONE TO TREAT THIS LIGHTLY , I THINK IS 2 A BIG MISTAKE . I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPER BODY IS . 1 3 DON'T KNOW IF THE GRAND JURY IS THE WAY TO GO. THAT DOES 4 TEND, AS COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG SAID, TO INDICATE 5 WRONGDOING. 6 1 KNOW THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION WOULD HAVE 7 VERY GREAT CONCERNS WITH THIS . AND WHEN MEMBERS OF NATIVE 8 AMERICAN GROUPS CAME UP TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION SIX 9 MONTHS AGO, OR SO, THE COMMISSIONERS WERE VERY, VERY 10 INTERESTED. AND I KNOW THEY WOULD WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS 11 AND LOOK INTO IT . 12 1 AM NOT A SCIENTIST, I DON ' T KNOW WHICH L 13 ARCHAEOLOGISTS ARE THE TRUE ARCHAEOLOGISTS , OR WHICH 14 AREN'T. I DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT WE NEED TO FIND OUT. AND 15 1 THINK WE NEED TO FIND OUT QUICKLY. • 16 1 WOULD BE WILLING TO WAIT A WEEK UNTIL OUR 17 FEBRUARY 7TH MEETING IF THE BOLSA CHICA STRATEGIC COMMITTEE 18 COULD LOOK INTO IT. I DON' T THINK THAT THE WEEK DELAY • 19 WOULD - - 1 WOULD JUST - - PERSONALLY, I WOULD FEEL MORE 20 COMFORTABLE IF I HAD A RECOMMENDATION. WE HAVE HAD NOTHING ♦ 21 IN WRITING FROM OUR STAFF . 22 WE HAVE GOT SOMETHING FROM THE KOLL COMPANY 23 RIGHT NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT . 24 1 CAN'T RUSH INTO THIS DECISION THIS FAST. I THINK IT' S 25 VERY SERIOUS , AND PERSONALLY, JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF , I 143 • 1 THINK I AM GOING TO NEED A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOLSA �. 2 CHICA STRATEGIC COMMITTEE WHICH INCLUDES COUNCILMAN BAUER , 3 COUNCILMAN LIEPZIG AND COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL . 4 1 JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WAY TO GO IS ON 5 THIS . BUT I THINK IT' S VERY SERIOUS . AND 1 THINK WE HAVE 6 TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY ON IT. 7 1 WOULD LIKE TO ASK - - I HATE TO ASK YOU TO • 8 COME DOWN AGAIN, MS . DUNN, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A 9 QUESTION, PLEASE . 10 MS . DUNN: YES . 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I JUST WANT TO GET IT ON 12 THE RECORD. � 13 HAVE YOU STOPPED WORK OUT THERE , BECAUSE I 14 CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING PROCEEDING. 15 MS . DUNN: ALL EXCAVATIONS WERE COMPLETED IN • 16 DECEMBER OF ' 93 . 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NOTHING IS GOING ON OUT 18 THERE AT ALL? • 19 MS. DUNN THAT' S CORRECT. 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I HAVE YOUR ANSWER NOW. • 21 MS . DUNN: YES , NOTHING IS GOING ON . 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 23 I 'M SORRY. COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN, YOU HAD A • 24 COMMENT, OR A QUESTION? 25 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: YES , THANK YOU . • 144 • 1 1 AM GLAD THAT COUNCILMAN BAUER DID NOT ACCEPT 2 COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG' S AMENDMENT TO HIS MOTION , BECAUSE HAD 3 HE , I WOULD HAVE WITHDRAWN MY SECOND. 4 1 FIND THE NOTION THAT THE OVERWORKED BOLSA 5 CHICA SUBCOMMITTEE CAN DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE NEXT WEEK TO BE 6 LAUGHABLE , IF IT WASN'T SO SAD. IF THAT IS THE COUNCIL ' S 7 POINT OF VIEW, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT VERY OVERWORKED 7 8 COMMITTEE WOULD AT LEAST DEVOTE AN ENTIRE MEETING NEXT WEEK 9 TO JUST THAT SUBJECT. 10 THANK YOU . 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL. 12 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: YES , I WOULD HAVE TO SAY 13 THAT TO EXPECT THE BOLSA CHICA STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE 14 TO DEAL WITH THIS BEFORE NEXT MONDAY IS UNREALISTIC. I 15 WILL GO THAT FAR. AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. • 16 1 WOULD ALSO LIKE TO - - THERE WAS A COMMENT 17 MADE ABOUT SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE FEBRUARY 18TH. 18 AND I SUSPECT THAT IN MAKING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE • 19 RESPONSES TO THE EIR HAVING TO BE IN BY THE 18TH . 20 MY UNDERSTANDING OF AN EIR DOCUMENT IS THAT • 21 ANY ISSUE , ANY QUESTION, ANYTHING THAT IS UNANSWERED THAT 22 HAS BEEN RAISED THIS EVENING IN OUR RECORDED DOCUMENT, THAT 23 WILL BE RAISED BY YOU IN YOUR WRITTEN DOCUMENTS , AND I HOPE 24 YOU ALL WRITE ALL OF THESE DOWN, MUST BE ANSWERED BY THE 25 COUNTY. AND THAT IF THOSE ISSUES AND THOSE QUESTIONS , AND ` 145 • 1 THOSE COMMENTS , AND THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE CULTURAL ` 2 RESOURCES AND HOW THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ARE BEING 3 HANDLED, ARE RAISED BEFORE THE 18TH IN WRITING TO THE 4 COUNTY, THEY MUST BE ANSWERED. 5 SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THE COUNTY WILL 6 ANSWER THEM ADEQUATELY, OR WHETHER OR NOT YOU FEEL THE 7 PROCESS IS ADEQUATE TO PROTECT WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT IS 8 ANOTHER QUESTION, AND ANOTHER ISSUE . BUT IF THIS IS 9 RAISED, IT WILL HAVE TO BE ANSWERED. SO THE 18TH IS NOT A • 10 DEADLINE OF ANY SORT. 11 NOW, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION OF HOW 12 YOU GET TO THE BOTTOM OF SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS . BUT THE S 13 EIR PROCESS WILL DEAL WITH QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED. 14 IS THAT NOT TRUE , MR . UBERUAGA? 15 CITY ADMINISTRATOR UBERUAGA: THAT'S TRUE , IN TERMS • 16 THAT THE COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO 17 RESPOND TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY RECEIVE BY THE 18 18TH. 19 BUT I THINK IT' S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO STATE 20 THAT ALL THE INFORMATION , AND ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THE 21 CITIZENS , THE CITY, AND/OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS ABOUT THE EIR 22 REALLY NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING BY THE 18TH . BECAUSE THEY 23 CAN, AFTER THE 18TH, IF SOMETHING IS NOT SUBMITTED , IF IT 24 IS SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE , BASICALLY NOT RESPOND 25 TO IT. 146 • 1 SO I WOULD WANT TO, WITH THAT CAUTION , THAT 2 EVERYTHING REALLY NEEDS TO BE IN BY THE 18TH TO REQUIRE THE 3 COUNTY TO RESPOND IN A LEGAL WAY. 4 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: WELL , I GUESS MY ONLY POINT 5 IS THAT THIS ISSUE IS QUITE SEPARATE FROM THE EIR; THIS IS 6 A WHOLE OTHER INVESTIGATION, IF YOU WILL . 7 CITY ADMINISTRATOR UBERUAGA: AND I WOULD RESPOND TO • 8 THAT, AS WELL. 9 PROBABLY THIS ISSUE , AND THERE MAY BE OTHER • 10 ISSUES , THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY BE 11 SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE EIR REGARDING THE OVERALL 12 PROCESSING OF THIS PROJECT. MY COMMENTS ARE REALLY 13 PERTAINING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND WHAT IS 14 APPROPRIATE FOR SUBMITTING COMMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL 15 IMPACT REPORT ITSELF . 16 THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY WANT TO RESPOND, AND/OR 17 ONE OF THE OTHER ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE 18 PROJECT AS TO THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF THIS . 19 GAIL, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND, AND/OR ROGER? 20 CITY ATTORNEY HUTTON: WELL , MY RESPONSE IS THAT 21 SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR HERE ARE TO GO 22 TO SUPERIOR COURT AND GET A T.R .O. , YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 23 SOME UNDERLYING DECLARATORY RELIEF ACTION THAT YOU WERE 24 SEEKING. 25 YOU SUGGEST GOING TO THE COASTAL COMMISSION . 147 • 1 IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT' S A POSSIBILITY . 2 THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WOULD BE LOOKING AT 3 STATE LAWS THAT APPLY TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS . AND 4 REMAINS . AND THE U.S . ATTORNEY' S OFFICE , THE DEPARTMENT OF 5 JUSTICE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE FEDERAL LAWS . ANY ONE , OR 6 ALL OF THESE COULD UNDERTAKE SOME KIND OF AN INVESTIGATION . 7 1 THINK WE NEED MORE - - TO PUT TOGETHER A • 8 STATEMENT OF FACTS IN ORDER TO EVALUATE WHICH IS THE MOST 9 APPROPRIATE ONE TO SEEK OUT, ONE OR MORE TO SEEK OUT. ' 10 YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY THAT THIS IS 11 ANOTHER APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE SEE IN THE BOLSA 12 CHICA. IT IS DEFINITELY INVOLVED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS 13 A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS , BUT NOT 14 SPECIFICALLY A PART OF IT. IT' S ALSO ANOTHER APPROACH TO 15 DEALING WITH IT. 16 1 THINK MAYBE ROGER HOLT, OUR SPECIAL COUNSEL , 17 MAY HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THIS . 18 MR. HOLT: YES , MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE • 19 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROCESS , PART OF THE RESPONSE 20 TO COMMENTS WILL BE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING TONIGHT. • 21 1 THINK THERE HAVE BEEN AMPLE QUESTIONS RAISED, AND 22 ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED IN THE PRESS THAT ARE 23 NOW PART OF THE RECORD. PERHAPS THOSE NEED TO BE AMPLIFIED • 24 BY WHATEVER WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN GATHERED IN THE 25 DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE . THAT IS A - - AND THAT WILL NEED . 148 1 TO BE RESPONDED TO IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2 RESPONSE AND COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY. 3 AS FAR AS THE SPECIFIC H-2 , UNFORTUNATELY, 1 4 AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE UNDERLYING FACTS . IF THERE WERE S 5 NATIVE AMERICAN REMAINS THAT WERE IMPROPERLY DISTURBED, 6 IT' S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE LAWS THAT ADDRESS 7 THAT. THAT IS COMPLETELY APART FROM THE EIR PROCESS . SO • 8 IT' S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE THAT ON A SEPARATE TRACK, FURTHER 9 IDENTIFICATION OF THE UNDERLYING FACTS , AS SUGGESTED BY THE ' 10 CITY ATTORNEY, COULD BE UNDERTAKEN . AND AFTER THOSE FACTS 11 ARE PERHAPS MORE CAREFULLY, OR CLEARLY IDENTIFIED, THEN 12 REFERENCE TO APPROPRIATE AGENCIES COULD ENSUE . THAT WOULD 13 BE ONE WAY TO PURSUE THIS MATTER . 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 15 WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LIGHTS MR . UBERUAGA. • 16 CITY ADMINISTRATOR UBERUAGA: ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST 17 GOING TO UNDERSCORE IN TERMS OF WHAT ROGER WAS REFERRING 18 TO. • 19 REALLY YOUR QUESTION IS , CAN YOU HAVE A 20 SEGMENTATION OF THIS OVERALL ISSUE AND THE COMMENTS THAT 21 ARE GOING TO BE SUBMITTED ON THE EIR BETWEEN NOW AND 22 FEBRUARY 18TH? I THINK WHAT ROGER JUST SAID IS THAT YOU 23 CAN'T DO THAT. THAT YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THE EIR AS IT i 24 PERTAINS TO THIS AREA. AND IF YOU WANT A PARALLEL TRACK ON 25 THIS OVERALL ISSUE , THEN YOU CAN ALSO DO THAT. 149 I 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 2 COUNCILMAN BAUER . 3 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: YES , I WAS NOT AWARE AT WHAT 4 STAGE THE EXCAVATIONS WERE , AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY MAY 5 BE COMPLETED AT THIS POINT IN TIME . AND MY OBJECTIVE HERE 6 WAS THAT IN CASE SOMETHING WAS GOING ON THAT WAS 7 INAPPROPRIATE , THAT WE EXAMINE THAT. THE BOTTOM LINE , TO • 8 ME , IS YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH TWO KINDS OF THINGS . 9 YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EIR REVIEWS 10 EVERYTHING, NUMBER ONE . 11 NUMBER TWO, YOU ARE ALSO TRYING TO PROTECT THE 12 RIGHTS OF NOT ONLY 185 ,000 CITIZENS OF THE CITY, THAT THE 13 TRUTH IS BEING TOLD, BUT NOW AS IT TURNS OUT, ALSO THE 14 RIGHTS OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS , WHETHER THEY LIVE IN THE 15 CITY, OR ELSEWHERE . BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ONGOING 16 PROBLEM SOMEPLACE . SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS HERE 17 THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH . • 18 I WOULD CONSIDER THIS , IF THE MAKER OF THE 19 SECOND WOULD CONSIDER THAT, SINCE THERE SEEM TO BE SOME 20 LEGAL OVERTONES HERE , WE HAVE NOT CONSULTED, AT LEAST I ! 21 HAVEN'T CONSULTED WITH OUR ATTORNEYS , IT MAY BE OF SOME 22 VALUE TO HAVE THE STAFF AND THE ATTORNEYS REVIEW THIS IN 23 TERMS OF THE OBJECTIVES WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH , AND 1 24 COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AT SOME SUBSEQUENT MEETING WITH AN 25 OVERALL RECOMMENDATION AS TO HOW TO GET TO THE OBJECTIVE . 150 • 1 TRUTH OF THE MATTER IN TERMS OF THE EIR , IN PROTECTING THE 2 RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IN TERMS OF ANY 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL THAT MAY EXIST , AND BOTTOM LINE , 4 AND PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANT IS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE 5 NATIVE AMERICANS , WHICH APPARENTLY , AT LEAST IN THE WORDS 6 OF THOSE THAT HAVE TESTIFIED HERE , HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO 7 ACCOUNT, IN SOME INSTANCES. I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THOSE 8 THINGS . 9 SO I WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER A POSTPONEMENT • 10 OF SOME KIND, AS LONG AS WE GET TO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER . 11 AND CERTAINLY THE CORRECTED EIR NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE 12 18TH, OBVIOUSLY. SO WE HAVE TO PHRASE IT IN TERMS THAT WE 13 DO GET THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IN TERMS OF THE EIR. 1 14 THINK THAT' S VERY APPROPRIATE . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: WELL, ARE YOU WILLING TO • 16 MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT, COUNCILMAN BAUER, OR ARE YOU 17 JUST - - 18 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO • 19 CONTINUE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN . I MEAN, IF ALREADY - - 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE 22ND? • 21 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: THE 22ND MIGHT BE A 22 POSSIBILITY. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE ADVICE FROM 23 THE ATTORNEY AS TO WHAT IS OUR BEST COURSE OF ACTION HERE . • 24 THE DIFFICULTY WITH THE 22ND IS IT' S AFTER THE DATE OF THE 25 EIR. . 151 • 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MR . UBERUAGA, OR ATTORNEY 2 HUTTON, WHICHEVER ONE WANTS TO - - 3 CITY ADMINISTRATOR UBERUAGA: I JUST WANTED TO 4 SUGGEST ON A PROCEDURAL MATTER , AND THE AUDIENCE MAY NOT • 5 KNOW THAT, AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CITY 6 COUNCIL MEETING TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT ON FEBRUARY 14TH. 7 THAT' S WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS . AT THAT POINT IN TIME , THE • 8 CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW THE WRITTEN MATERIAL THAT THE 9 STAFF HAS PREPARED TO PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH THEN • 10 YOU WILL EITHER AMEND, OR CHANGE TO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO 11 WITH THAT MATERIAL, AND THEN ENDORSE WHAT WILL BE THE 12 WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TO BE r 13 SUBMITTED TO ORANGE COUNTY LATER THAT WEEK. AT THAT 14 MEETING, THAT MIGHT BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME THEN THAT YOU 15 COULD ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SO THAT IF SOMETHING NEEDS TO GO 16 INTO DOCUMENT AS IT RELATES TO THIS ISSUE , THEN YOU PUT IT 17 IN AT THAT POINT IN TIME . 18 IF YOU FIND THAT IT DOESN 'T NEED TO GO INTO • 19 THE DOCUMENT AT THAT POINT IN TIME , THEN IT CAN BE 20 SEPARATED OUT AND DEALT WITH AT A LATER DATE , AND YOU CAN • 21 MAKE THAT DECISION ON THE 14TH. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . COUNCILWOMAN 23 WINCHELL. • 24 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: THERE IS A MOTION ON THE 25 FLOOR , I BELIEVE , AT THE MOMENT, A MOTION AND A SECOND TO . 152 I • 1 ADOPT H-2 . AND I DO KNOW THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT THAT IF 2 WE GO ANOTHER WAY. BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE 3 THIS TO OUR MEETING OF THE 22ND, GIVING TIME FOR STAFF , 4 AND/OR COUNCIL COMMITTEE , OR COUNCILMEMBERS TO BECOME 5 FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IS FOR 6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS , AND THEN DISCOVER , IF WE HAVE 7 IN FACT FOLLOWED THAT. AND THEN PROCEED FROM THERE TO SEE • 8 WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN DEVIATIONS OR PROBLEMS . 9 BECAUSE I SEE THAT AS A SEPARATE TRACK, AS HAS • 10 BEEN POINTED OUT, FROM THE EIR , AND I KNOW THAT WHEN WE 11 SEND OUR EIR RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY, WE WILL BE RAISING 12 QUESTIONS ON THIS AREA, AND THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT 13 PART. 14 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: FIRST AND FOREMOST IS THE 15 INTEGRITY OF THE EIR , WHICH, IN MY OPINION , DOES NOT HAVE • 16 INTEGRITY IN THIS REGARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME . IF YOU PUT 17 IT OFF UNTIL THE 22ND, YOU WON'T HAVE THAT. 18 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: WELL, I GUESS WHAT I AM • 19 PUTTING OFF UNTIL THE 22ND IS ANY ADDITIONAL ACTION LIKE 20 THIS , BECAUSE CERTAINLY EVEN IF VOTING ON THIS TONIGHT IS • 21 NOT GOING TO EFFECT THE RESPONSE TO THE EIR . 22 VOTING ON WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING TONIGHT, OR 23 NEXT WEEK, WHAT WOULD THAT DO WITH REGARD TO THE RESPONSE • 24 TO THE EIR? 1 SEE IT AS A COMPLETELY AND SEPARATE TRACK. 25 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: POSSIBLY. NOT NECESSARILY. . 153 • 1 POSSIBLY. 2 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: OKAY. BECAUSE YOU COULD 3 RAISE THE QUESTION - - 4 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: THERE IS INFORMATION THAT HAS 5 COME TO LIGHT, WHICH CAN CERTAINLY BEAR ON THE EIR. 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN LEIPZIG IS 7 NEXT. • 8 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME 9 SORT OF THING THAT COUNCILWOMAN WINCHELL HAS SAID. THE 10 ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RAISED ON FEBRUARY 14TH - - IT IS GOING TO 11 BE RAISED ON FEBRUARY 14TH BY SOME MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL. 12 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: AND INCLUDED IN THE 13 RESPONSE . 14 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: FOR INCLUSION IN OUR 15 RESPONSE . • 16 SO 1 DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE . 17 THE OTHER LINES OF INVESTIGATION ARE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT . 18 HUNG UP ON THAT DEADLINE . 19 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: 1 THINK, IN MY MIND, THERE IS 20 A SENSE OF URGENCY HERE . I DON'T THINK THESE THINGS ARE • 21 RELATED. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN . 23 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: WELL, I WONDER IF WE COULD • 24 ACHIEVE - - I CAN SEE THE TWO TRACKS IN THIS . ONE SIDE ARE 25 THE LEGAL QUESTIONS , AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE EIR . • 154 • 1 AND I WONDER IF BY ASKING THE QUESTIONS , THE VARIOUS 2 QUESTIONS , REVIEWING THE TAPE AND ASKING THE VARIOUS 3 QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED TONIGHT, AND YOU CAN 4 CERTAINLY ASK THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE FORM OF A QUESTION , 5 THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESSED IN THE EIR . 6 IN THE MEANTIME , WE COULD GO ALONG WITH THE 7 PROCESS TO DECIDE THE FORUM IN WHICH AN INVESTIGATION, OR • 8 HOW TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS MATTER . AND I AGREE WITH 9 YOU COUNCILMAN BAUER , THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET TO THE 10 BOTTOM OF IT BY EIR RESPONSES . 11 BUT I DO FEEL THAT BY RAISING THOSE QUESTIONS , 12 IT WILL PUT IT ON THE RECORD PRIOR TO THE 18TH , AND THEN WE 13 CAN DEAL WITH THE MOST APPROPRIATE MANNER AS TO HOW TO 14 INVESTIGATE THESE CHARGES . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. I GUESS I WOULD • 16 ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT THIS BE CONTINUED TO THE 14TH . 17 IS ANYONE WILLING TO MAKE THAT MOTION? • 18 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: IF THE MAKER OF THE SECOND 19 WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION , AND CONTINUE THIS TO THE 14TH, 20 WITH A PROVISO THAT WE ADDRESS THE ASPECTS THAT HAVE TO DO • 21 WITH THE EIR , IN WHATEVER DETAIL IS NECESSARY, REFERRING 22 BOTH TO THE STAFF , AS WELL AS TO THE ATTORNEYS TO MAKE SURE 23 THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EIR IS MAINTAINED INSOFAR AS WE • 24 ARE ABLE . THEREAFTER , WHAT WE DO FROM A LEGALISTIC POINT 25 OF VIEW ALSO CAN BE BROUGHT TO US BY THE STAFF AND OUR i . 155 • 1 ATTORNEYS . 2 BUT I AM MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EIR AT 3 THIS POINT IN TIME . THE OTHER ISSUES ARE ONGOING ISSUES . 4 AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WILL JUST COMMENT 5 THAT THESE SEEM TO BE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT ONLY COUNTY 6 WIDE , THEY APPEAR TO BE STATE WIDE . THERE SEEMS TO BE A 7 CONSTANT PROBLEM, SUCH AS THE LONG BEACH STATE ISSUE , AND • 8 THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER - - AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO - - 9 THIS BODY OUGHT TO SPEARHEAD THAT AND CALL THIS TO THE • 10 ATTENTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. MAYBE SOME NEW 11 LEGISLATION IS REQUIRED IN TERMS OF SELECTING MONITORS AND 12 SELECTING ARCHAEOLOGISTS . • 13 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: I WILL SECOND. 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. 15 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: I AGREE . • 16 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: RESTATING THE MOTION IS 17 THAT YOU WOULD MOVE TO CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE H-2 18 QUESTION UNTIL THE 14TH, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT ON THE 14TH, • 19 WE CAREFULLY CRAFT A RESPONSE TO THE EIR THAT DEALS WITH 20 THESE ISSUES AND ALL THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP TONIGHT, AND • 21 ON A SEPARATE TRACK, COME UP WITH A PROCESS . 22 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: WELL SAID. IS THAT MY MOTION? 23 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: YES , BUT 1 CUT OUT A FEW 24 WORDS . 25 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN . . 156 I 1 COUNCILMEMBER BAUER: I WILL CALL IT YOUR MOTION . 2 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: YES . YOU CAN SECOND IT. 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: AND I THINK MADAM CLERK 4 HAS A QUESTION . • 5 CITY CLERK: YES , COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL , I DIDN 'T 6 HEAR THE LAST PART OF YOUR SENTENCE . 7 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: DID YOU HEAR THE LAST PART • 8 OF HIS? 9 CITY CLERK: I GOT HIS BETTER . BUT WOULD YOU REPEAT 10 YOURS? • 11 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: ON THE SECOND TRACK, THAT 12 WE ALSO DEVELOP AN APPROACH TO DEAL WITH GETTING TO THE • 13 TRUTH, OR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE WHOLE - - NOW, SEE , I LOST IT 14 ALREADY . YOU DIDN'T GET IT THE FIRST TIME . 15 BUT THERE ARE TWO TRACKS THAT HAVE TO BE • 16 ACCOMPLISHED ON THE 14TH . 17 CITY CLERK: JUST SO WE HAVE IT FOR ALL PEOPLE 18 CALLING TOMORROW MORNING, AND SO WE HAVE IT IN APPROPRIATE • 19 ORDER , I WOULD LIKE IT AGAIN IN AN ORDER THAT CAN BE - - 20 COUNCILMEMBER WINCHELL: NOW I HAVE DROPPED THE 21 BALL. 22 THE FIRST ONE , YOU KNOW, WHICH IS TO DEVELOP A 23 CAREFUL RESPONSE TO ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED • 24 TONIGHT TO GET THOSE IN WRITTEN FORM IN OUR CAREFUL 25 RESPONSE TO THE COUNTY IN RESPONSE TO THE EIR . • 157 • 1 AND THAT SECONDLY, WE DISCUSS AND DEVELOP A • 2 PROCESS TO DEAL WITH ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE 3 RAISED REGARDING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS . 4 DOES THAT COVER IT, RALPH? 5 THAT THOSE TWO BE ADDRESSED IN THE STAFF 6 REPORT ON THE 14TH . 7 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: AND WE GOT A SECOND. • 8 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: IT ENDED UP WITH GRACE 9 MAKING THE MOTION , AND COUNCILMAN BAUER SECONDING. • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: OKAY. FINE . SEEING NO 11 OTHER LIGHTS , WOULD YOU PLEASE VOTE? 12 CITY CLERK: SILVA, ROBITAILLE , NO. 13 FIVE AYES . MOTION CARRIES . 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 15 WE WILL PROCEED WITH OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS . • 16 CITY CLERK: I WILL ANNOUNCE THE NEXT SPEAKER . 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME , MADAM CLERK, I 18 HAVE HAD A REQUEST FOR A VERY SHORT BREAK. 19 (WHEREUPON, A SHORT RECESS WAS TAKEN . ) 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE 21 MEETING BACK TO ORDER. AND WE WILL CONTINUE WITH OUR 22 PUBLIC COMMENTS , CLERK. 23 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS WE HAVE ARE ERNEST 24 BARTOLO, GERALD CHAPMAN, CHUCK BARBERA AND GUS AYER . 25 MR. BARTOLO: MADAM MAYOR , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF • 158 • 1 THE COUNCIL, MY NAME IS ERNEST BARTOLO. AND I HAVE LIVED • 2 AT 6142 JASONWOOD DRIVE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR 15 YEARS . 3 1 CAME HERE 15 YEARS AGO, AND AT THAT TIME , 4 ABOUT FIVE YEARS BEFORE THAT, THERE WAS A BIG MOVEMENT ON 5 THE DEVELOPMENT TO GET INTO THE BOLSA AND DEVELOP IT. IT' S 6 BEEN 20 YEARS , TO MY KNOWLEDGE , APPROXIMATELY, WHERE THIS 7 THING HAS BEEN KICKED AROUND AND KICKED AROUND, AND IT HAS 8 BEEN BEATEN TO DEATH. 9 1 CAME HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE BOLSA. AND 10 RIGHT NOW I AM TALKING ABOUT, EXCUSE THE EXPRESSION , BUT WE 11 ARE TALKING ABOUT BONES THAT ARE 8 , 000 YEARS OLD? I CAN 'T 12 BELIEVE IT. I CAN ' T BELIEVE IT. I CAN SAY THAT IF WE WENT • 13 WITH THE PARAMETERS OF SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE 14 GIVEN TONIGHT WE WOULDN 'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTHERN 15 CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE WHEREVER YOU DIG, YOU ARE GOING TO FIND • 16 SOMETHING. 17 NOW, IT' S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THERE ARE MEMBERS • 18 ON THIS COUNSEL THAT ARE AGAINST THIS . AND I HAVE HEARD 19 EVERY ARGUMENT IN 15 YEARS. AND THIS IS THE LAST ONE . I 20 DON 'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO COME UP NEXT. BUT WE ARE • 21 TALKING ABOUT BODIES , AND I HEAR ABOUT CHIPS OF BONES . 22 WHICH ONE IS CORRECT? 23 MR . BAUER , YOU SAID THERE WERE BODIES . 24 MS . DUNN SAID THERE ARE CHIPS OF BONES . SURE , YOU WILL 25 FIND CHIPS OF BONES , YOU WILL FIND SEA SHELLS . YOU WILL • 159 • 1 FIND SOMETHING ANYWHERE . 2 1 HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THE ACTIONS OF THIS 3 COUNCIL, AND I AM VERY DISTURBED BY THE TACTICS BEING USED 4 TO UNDERMINE THE ' 89 BOLSA CHICA COALITION PLAN , WHICH WAS 5 ENDORSED BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL . THIS MEETING TONIGHT IS 6 JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A WASTE OF TAXPAYER ' S MONEY, AND 7 THE STAFF TIME IN AN EFFORT TO STOP - - AND THAT ' S WHAT IT' S • 8 FOR , THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE DOING - - YOU ARE TRYING TO STOP 9 THE DEVELOPMENT AND RESTORATION OF THE WETLANDS . 10 1 HAVE TAKEN A TOUR OF THE SITE , AND 1 HAVE 11 SEEN FIRSTHAND THE OIL WELLS , PIPELINES , DEBRIS AND 12 DEGRADED WETLANDS THAT THIS COUNCIL WANTS LEFT ALONE . WE 13 ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PRISTINE AREAS . WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 14 TRASH, DIRT THAT I WOULDN'T BE SEEN NEAR . 15 THAT IS WHY I SUPPORT THE BOLSA CHICA PLAN , • 16 AND I BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 25 PERCENT OF THE 17 PRIVATE PROPERTY IN RETURN FOR OVER 1100 ACRES OF RESTORED • 18 WETLANDS , IN ADDITION TO THE 22 MILES OF HIKING AND BIKING -19 TRAILS, WILL IMPROVE THE IMAGE OF OUR COMMUNITY. 20 WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A WETLANDS • 21 HABITAT, AND A BEAUTIFUL RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THAT WOULD 22 BE THE ENVY OF THE STATE , AND SURPASS ANYTHING WEST OF THE 23 MISSISSIPPI . YOU DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. THAT' S THE WAY I • 24 SEE IT. 25 1 BELIEVE IN PROGRESS . I FEEL THAT THIS CITY . 160 • 1 COUNCIL SHOULD STOP TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE EFFORTS OF THE • 2 LANDOWNER , AND THE COUNTY, AND START WORKING WITH THEM TO 3 DEVELOP AN UPSCALE COMMUNITY THAT WE CAN BE PROUD OF . THE 4 ACTIONS OF THIS COUNCIL ARE VERY TRANSPARENT . IT' S AGAINST • 5 GROWTH. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IS WHERE IT IS TODAY 6 BECAUSE OF PROGRESS . 7 1 AM ALMOST THROUGH. • 8 1 BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE 9 FORWARD, INSTEAD OF STOPPING GROWTH . YOU ARE TRYING TO • 10 CONTROL PRIVATE PROPERTY TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES . THE 11 COUNCIL IS BEHAVING IRRESPONSIBLY TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF 12 THE SILENT MAJORITY, AND I AM PERSONALLY TIRED OF IT . • 13 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER , 14 PLEASE . 15 MR. CHAPMAN: MY NAME IS GERALD CHAPMAN . I LIVE AT • 16 6742 SHIRE CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 17 MY COMMENTS TONIGHT ARE LIMITED TO THE TRAFFIC 18 CHAPTER IN THE DRAFT EIR FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PROJECT. 19 NUMBER ONE , WHY WAS NOT THE PLAN MODEL USED IN 20 THE ANALYSIS, THE SANTA ANA RIVER BRIDGE CROSSING, USED FOR 21 THIS EIR? THE COUNTY'S CONSULTANTS FOR THE BRIDGE STUDY 22 STATED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT IT WAS THE MOST UP-TO-DATE 23 MODEL AVAILABLE . • 24 NUMBER TWO, WHY WERE THE SEVEN RESOURCE 25 DOCUMENTS LISTED IN THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE • 161 • 1 TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOLUME 11 NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE 2 PUBLIC? 3 THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF CHAPTER 4 . 8 STATES THAT 4 THE CHAPTER WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON THESE REPORTS . THE 5 PARAGRAPH ALSO STATES THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN APPENDIX 6 "H" , BUT THEY ARE ONLY LISTED IN APPENDIX "G" . 7 NUMBER THREE , WHAT EFFECT WILL THE NEW LAND • 8 USE DESIGNATIONS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN HAVE 9 ON THIS STUDY? 10 NUMBER FOUR , HOW WILL THE PROJECT BE AFFECTED 11 IF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH CONTAINS A 12 STATEMENT THAT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MAY BE LIMITED BECAUSE OF • 13 THE INADEQUACIES OF A CIRCULATION PLAN? 14 NUMBER FIVE , IF THIS CHAPTER IS , QUOTE , 15 ORIENTED TOWARD THE EVALUATION OF FUTURE WORST CASE • 16 CONDITIONS, UNQUOTE , WHY WAS NOT A MODEL RUN WITH TOTAL 17 PROJECT BUILD-OUT IN TODAY' S EXISTING CONDITIONS TO GET A 18 TRUE WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT CAN BE COMPARED WITH THE • 19 ACTUAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY. 20 1 CONSIDER THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL 21 HIGHWAYS A FIGMENT OF THE COUNTY' S IMAGINATION WHICH WILL 22 NEVER EXIST IN REALITY. 23 NUMBER SIX , WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF 24 "SIGNIFICANT" AS USED IN CHAPTER 4 . 8? 25 NUMBER SEVEN , THE MITIGATION OF INTERSECTIONS • 162 1 MAY IMPROVE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THOSE INTERSECTIONS , 2 BUT WHAT WILL BE DONE TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS ON THE LEVEL 3 OF SERVICE OF THE ROADWAY LINKS BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS . 4 THEY WILL MOST LIKELY ALSO REACH UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS . 5 NUMBER EIGHT, WHY ARE NOT THE INTERSECTIONS OF 6 EDINGER AND BEACH AND BROOKHURST AND ADAMS INCLUDED IN THE 7 LIST OF EXISTING SUBSTANDARD INTERSECTIONS? 8 NUMBER NINE , CAN MEASURE "M" AND GAS TAX FUNDS 9 BE USED TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPER' S PORTION OF MITIGATION 10 FUNDS? 11 TEN, WHY ARE COUNTY FUNDS BEING TURNED OVER TO 12 THE DEVELOPER AS SOON AS THEY ARE AVAILABLE , INSTEAD OF 13 WAITING UNTIL THE MITIGATION NEEDS ARE TO BE PAID FOR? IT 14 DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THERE ARE ANY GUARANTEES THAT THE 15 DEVELOPER WILL USE THOSE FUNDS FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE . 16 ELEVEN, WHY SHOULD THE DEVELOPER ONLY HAVE TO 17 PAY HIS FAIR SHARE OF THE COST OF MITIGATION BASED ON THE • 18 PERCENTAGE OF TRAFFIC HIS PROJECT CONTRIBUTES TO AN 19 INTERSECTION, WHEN IT IS HIS TRAFFIC WHICH CAUSES THE 20 INTERSECTION TO GO TO AN UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE? 21 THE DEVELOPER HAS CONTINUALLY STATED THE 22 PROJECT WILL NOT BE SUBSIDIZED BY THE CITIZENS OF 23 HUNTINGTON BEACH . 24 NUMBER TWELVE , HOW CAN THE COUNTY FORM 25 ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS , INCLUDING CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON • 163 I BEACH TO PROVIDE FUNDS TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS CAUSED BY A 2 PROJECT OUTSIDE HUNTINGTON BEACH? 3 AND LASTLY, WILL THE FISCAL ANALYSIS INCLUDE 4 THE MITIGATION COSTS TO THE CITIZENS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH? 5 THANK YOU . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 7 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE CHUCK BARBERA, 8 GUS AYER , KATHRYN SIDLER , RUDY VIETMEIER , AND MICHAEL 9 GUEST. 10 MR. AYER: HI , MY NAME IS GUS AYER . 11 EXCUSE ME . WERE YOU NEXT? 12 OKAY. I LIVE AT 17135 RHIMER STREET IN THE 13 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 963-3460 . 14 FOR THE PAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS I HAVE BEEN 15 PRESIDENT OF A THOUSAND MEMBER HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION ON 16 THE EASTERN SIDE OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY. WE HAVE BEEN VERY I 17 CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC ON STREETS LIKE 18 SLATER, TALBERT, ELLIS AND WARNER FROM DEVELOPMENT IN 19 HUNTINGTON BEACH. PEOPLE WILL TAKE DIRECT EASTERN ROUTES 20 TO AND FROM THE SOUTHBOUND 405 . AND THE EIR LOOKS AT THE 21 IMPACT OF 18 , 000 HOMES IN HUNTINGTON BEACH , TEN MILLION 22 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THE 4 , 884 HOMES 23 THAT KOLL WANTS TO BUILD ON BOLSA CHICA. BOLSA CHICA ALONE 24 WILL GENERATE IN THE RANGE OF 45 , 000 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS . 25 1 WAS VERY RELIEVED TO SEE THAT THE EIR SHOWS • 164 I • 1 ON PAGES 4 .8-4 AND 4 . 8-30 , THAT TRAFFIC ON THESE STREETS • 2 THAT WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, WILL ACTUALLY DECREASE FROM 3 THE CURRENT LEVELS . 4 BUT THEN I DISCOVERED THAT THESE WERE EXACTLY 5 THE SAME CONSULTANTS TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY THE SAME 6 STREETS , WHO FOR THE SANTA ANA RIVER CROSSING, PROJECTED 7 100 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF NEW EXPENDITURES THAT WE • 8 NEEDED AND DRAMATICALLY HIGHER LEVELS OF TRAFFIC THAT 9 JUSTIFIED BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE SANTA ANA RIVER , • 10 WIDENING ELLIS AVENUE , WIDENING SLATER AVENUE , TURNING 11 WARNER INTO A SUPER STREET. 12 THERE IS A WORD WE CAN USE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL • 13 DO ANYTHING FOR MONEY. WE FIND THEM ON HARBOR BOULEVARD , 14 AND WE ALSO CALL THEM CONSULTANTS . 15 ANOTHER LITTLE ISSUE HERE : WE GO ON AT LENGTH • 16 HERE ABOUT A PROJECT DESIGN FEATURE CONCERNING PETS AND 17 BIRDS . • 18 AS A PRESIDENT OF A HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION , 1 19 HAVE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH A 22 -ACRE 20 GREENBELT; DOGS , CATS . I HAVEN'T FOUND THAT THE COUNTY IS • 21 ABLE TO ENFORCE A LEASH LAW FOR CATS . CATS ARE NATURAL 22 PREDATORS . INTRODUCTION OF THIS MANY HOUSES THIS CLOSE TO 23 THE WETLANDS IS GOING TO COME TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF WHY 24 WE DON'T NEED DEVELOPMENT OF THIS INTENSITY THIS CLOSE . 25 1 THINK IT' S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD DEFINITELY • 165 I • 1 BE STUDIED IN THE EIR IN DEPTH SO THAT THEY CAN EXPLAIN HOW • 2 THEIR MITIGATION FACTOR IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK; WHAT 3 THEY ARE GOING TO DO, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT, HOW IT 4 IS GOING TO WORK, HOW THEY ARE GOING TO ENFORCE IT. NOT 5 JUST SAY THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEVISE A PLAN , AND THEN WE 6 ARE GOING TO MONITOR IT. 7 ANOTHER LITTLE ITEM: I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT • 8 RECYCLED WATER . WE HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS 9 TO HOOKUP TO THE GREEN ACRES PROJECT WHERE I LIVE . GREEN ` 10 ACRES HAS NO CONTRACTAL OBLIGATION WITH THE KOLL COMPANY TO 11 PROVIDE WATER . YET THE KOLL COMPANY IS RELYING ON THAT 12 WATER , BASED ON THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUPPLYING IT . • 13 PHASE II IS SOLD OUT. PHASE III , AS FAR AS I 14 CAN TELL IS SOLD OUT. THE KOLL COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE THE 15 ABILITY TO GET THIS WATER . THAT' S JUST ANOTHER PART OF • 16 THIS EIR THAT IS JUST A TISSUE OF LAWS AND FABRICATIONS , 17 WHERE THERE IS NO BASIS IN FACT. MITIGATION IS NOT SHOWN. 18 THERE IS NO ABILITY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO ACTUALLY DELIVER 19 ON ANY OF THESE THINGS THAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THEY 20 ARE GOING TO DEVISE PLANS AND THEN MONITOR THEM. 21 THANK YOU. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 23 PLEASE . • 24 MR . VIETMEIER: MADAM MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, AND LADIES 25 AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS RUDY VIETMEIER . I RESIDE AT . 166 • 1 6622 MICHELSON, LAKEWOOD. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 310 , • 2 866-8978 . AND I AM A MEMBER OF THE SIERRA CLUB. 3 1 WOULD LIKE TO CONFINE MY COMMENTS TO SECTION 4 7 . 5 OF THE EIR, ALTERNATE LOCATION. 5 THE ALTERNATIVES DISCUSSED ARE THE MARINE AIR 6 STATIONS AT EL TORO AND TUSTIN. WHILE I THINK THESE 7 LOCATIONS OFFER VIABLE ALTERNATIVES , I MUST EXPRESS • 8 PROFOUND DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE PREPARERS OF THE REPORT 9 COULD ONLY FIND THESE SITES AS ALTERNATIVES . WITH ALL THE 10 UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED LAND IN ORANGE COUNTY, IT 11 SEEMS UNCONSCIONABLE THAT A GOOD FAITH EFFORT WOULD YIELD 12 ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVES TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 13 PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE BOLSA CHICA 14 WETLAND IS THE LARGEST UNPROTECTED WETLAND SOUTH OF 15 SAN FRANCISCO. SURELY WE CAN FIND ANOTHER LOCATION FOR A 16 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, AND AT THE SAME TIME , ACCRUE ALL THE 17 BENEFITS OF THE PRESENT LOCATION. 18 1 READ IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES THE RESULTS OF • 19 AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY BY THE KENNETH LEVENTHAL COMPANY 20 RELATING TO THIS PROJECT. IN IT, THEY PROJECTED IMPRESSIVE a 21 ECONOMICS AND TAX BENEFITS , AS WELL AS CREATING A 22 SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF NEW JOBS BY GOING FORWARD WITH THIS 23 PROJECT. 24 1 AM FAMILIAR WITH THE KENNETH LEVENTHAL 25 COMPANY. THEY HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS IN SOUTHERN • 167 I • 1 CALIFORNIA FOR 30 YEARS , THAT I KNOW OF . THEY ARE EXPERTS f 2 IN THE FIELD OF REAL ESTATE . THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE 3 TALKING ABOUT, HOWEVER, ALL THE SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS 4 MENTIONED IN THEIR REPORT COULD BE ACHIEVED IN ANOTHER • 5 LOCATION. 6 IT MATTERS LITTLE TO THE CARPENTER , THE 7 PLUMBER OR THE ELECTRICIAN WHERE THEY BUILD A HOUSE IN 8 ORANGE COUNTY, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A JOB. IT MATTERS 9 LITTLE IN TERMS OF OUR ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND TAX REVENUES , 10 AS LONG AS THE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OCCURS . AND ALL OF THIS 11 WOULD OCCUR AT ANOTHER LOCATION. ALTERNATIVE SITES CAN BE 12 FOUND IF THERE IS A SUFFICIENT WILL TO DO SO. • 13 1 CITE AN EXAMPLE THAT THE EIR COMPLETED FOR 14 THE LOS ANGELES HARBOR EXPANSION . THEY NEEDED TO FIND 15 MITIGATION SITES BECAUSE OF THE DESTRUCTION OF SOFT WATER 16 HABITATS, OF SOFT BOTTOM HABITAT IN THE HARBOR . THEY WERE 17 NOT LIMITED TO TWO SITES . THEY WERE MORE DILIGENT. THEY 18 SEARCHED FROM POINT CONCEPTION ALL THE WAY TO THE MEXICAN 19 BORDER, AND FOUND SEVERAL SITES . THAT IS PROBABLY BECAUSE 20 THEY NEEDED THESE SITES TO COMPLETE THEIR PROJECT. 21 BUT IF THE DEVELOPERS OF THE BOLSA CHICA WERE 22 AS DILIGENT IN LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVE SITES AS THE HARBOR 23 WAS IN LOOKING FOR MITIGATION SITES , WE WOULD HAVE MANY 24 MORE ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER . 25 THANK YOU . 168 • • 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 2 NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . 3 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE PAT DE MARS , BRAD 4 HILLS , CHUCK NELSON, NANCY DONAVEN. 5 MS . DE MARS: MY NAME IS PAT DE MARS . I LIVE AT 6 8621 BOON CIRCLE IN WESTMINISTER. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 7 895-4488 . f 8 YOU MAY ASK WHY I AM HERE IF I LIVE IN 9 WESTMINSTER; WHAT IS MY CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT IN • 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH. I HAVE BUSINESS HERE . I GO TO CHURCH 11 HERE . MY KIDS WENT TO SCHOOL HERE . I JUST HAPPEN TO LIVE 12 A BLOCK THE OTHER SIDE . SO I FEEL THAT I AM A HUNTINGTON 13 BEACH PERSON, AND I AM VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT GOES ON . 14 YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, 15 BECAUSE I AM PROBABLY THE SHORTEST SPEAKER HERE TODAY . 16 WHAT I WANT TO DO IS SHOW YOU SOME VISUAL 17 AIDS . WE HAVE HEARD MANY IMPASSIONED SPEECHES TONIGHT BOTH • 18 PRO AND CON, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO USE MY TIME FOR A LITTLE 19 VISUAL EXPRESSION OF WHY I SUPPORT THE KOLL PLAN FOR THE 20 RESTORATION OF THE WETLANDS . 21 WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK TODAY ABOUT 22 THE BEAUTY OF THE WETLANDS, AND HOW THEY WANT TO LEAVE IT 23 ALONE . IF ANYBODY CAN SEE ANY BEAUTY IN WHAT I AM SHOWING • 24 YOU, I DON'T. I HAVE BEEN OVER THERE . I HAVE LOOKED AT 25 IT. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO IN AND DO SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS 169 • 1 ATTRACTIVE . WHAT SELF-RESPECTING BIRD WOULD RAISE A FAMILY 2 HERE? THIS IS TRASH . THIS IS NOT BEAUTY. THAT' S IT , 3 FOLKS . 4 1 MIGHT ALSO BRING YOUR ATTENTION, JUST AS A 5 LITTLE ASIDE , I GOT THIS IN THE MAIL TODAY. IT CAME ALONG 6 WITH THE LOCAL NEWS , OUR NEW LITTLE LOCAL NEWSPAPER . AND 7 IT IS FROM THE VISITOR ' S BUREAU , AND THERE WAS THIS • 8 TERRIFIC MAP . I REALLY LIKE IT. I HAVE SEEN LOTS OF MAPS 9 OF THE BOLSA CHICA, BUT IT' S ALWAYS JUST A MAP WITH THE 10 BOLSA CHICA. THIS MAP SHOWS THE WHOLE CITY OF HUNTINGTON 11 BEACH, AND THAT BOLSA CHICA IS A BIG PART OF THE CITY OF 12 HUNTINGTON BEACH . EVERYBODY COMPLAINS ABOUT 4 , 000 HOUSES , 13 THAT' S A BIG PART. AND HOW MANY OF US ARE THERE , 200 , 000 , 14 OVER HERE IN THE REST OF IT? THAT' S NOT SO MANY HOUSES FOR 15 A BIG PIECE OF LAND LIKE THAT, AND A NICE PLACE FOR THE 16 BIRDS TO LIVE . 17 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 18 MR . HILLS: MADAM MAYOR , CITY COUNCILMEMBERS , MY • 19 NAME IS BRAD HILLS . I LIVE AT 16152 BEACH BOULEVARD. 1 20 REPRESENT A GROUP OF BUSINESS OWNERS , AND RESIDENTS WHO • 21 SUPPORT THE BOLSA CHICA PLAN . 22 THREE BRIEF POINTS: 23 NUMBER ONE , AS WE SPEAK, THERE IS CONTINUED • 24 DEGREDATION OF THE WETLANDS . IT HAS BEEN CONTINUING FOR 25 YEARS. IF NOTHING IS DONE , IT WILL COMPLETELY DEGRADE . WE . 170 1 HAVE AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN. WE HAVE A COMPANY COMMITTED TO 2 THE PLAN, WILLING TO FUND IT. 3 NUMBER TWO, ECONOMIC BENEFITS . THE ECONOMIC 4 REVIEW PLAN HAS BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT BEFORE . THE CREATION OF i 5 JOBS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, 1995 TO 2007 . DURING 6 CONSTRUCTION, 6 , 750 JOBS CREATED IN HUNTINGTON BEACH ALONE . 7 POST CONSTRUCTION, 3 , 980 JOBS PER YEAR . ECONOMIC OUTPUT 8 WHICH IS THE VALUE OF ALL LABOR, GOODS AND SERVICES 9 PRODUCED. DURING CONSTRUCTION 1 . 1 BILLION DOLLARS TO THE 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ALONE . POST CONSTRUCTION 183 11 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 12 THIS ISN'T EVEN ADDRESSING HUNTINGTON BEACH ' S SHARE OF • 13 ADDITIONAL SALES TAX MONIES. 14 AND FINALLY, NO PUBLIC EXPENSE . THERE ARE 15 ABSOLUTELY NO TAX DOLLARS AVAILABLE NOW TO RESTORE THE • 16 WETLANDS . TAXPAYERS , MYSELF INCLUDED, ARE NOT GOING TO 17 AUTHORIZE INCREASED TAXES TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS . IT IS 18 JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 19 THANK YOU. 20 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER , • 21 PLEASE . 22 MR . NELSON: MADAM MAYOR , MEMBERS OF THE CITY 23 COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHUCK NELSON. I LIVE AT 16321 MAGELLAN 24 LANE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 847-2361 . 25 1 AM SPEAKING TO YOU TONIGHT IN MY CAPACITY AS • 171 • 1 PRESIDENT OF THE AMIGOS DE BOLSA CHICA. THE AMIGOS ARE IN 2 THE MIDST OF READING AND EVALUATING THE EIR AND THE BOLSA 3 CHICA PROJECT. OVER 20 MEMBERS OF OUR ORGANIZATION ARE 4 DILIGENTLY WORKING, APPLYING THEIR EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE 5 IN EVALUATING THE MANY ASPECTS OF THE EIR. 6 MUCH WORK HAS BEEN DONE SINCE THE EIR WAS 7 RELEASED IN DECEMBER, AND IS CONTINUING. THE AMIGOS ' PLAN • 8 IS TO COMPLETE OR REVIEW BY FEBRUARY 4TH, AND TO ORGANIZE , 9 COLLATE AND COMPILE OUR WRITTEN ANALYSIS FOR SUBMISSION TO 10 THE COUNTY BY FEBRUARY 18TH . ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT 11 PRESENTING OUR ANALYSIS TONIGHT. WE WOULD, HOWEVER , LIKE 12 TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS - - MAKE SOME COMMENTS 13 ABOUT THE PROCESS . 14 FIRST, THE AMIGOS WOULD LIKE TO VOICE THEIR 15 SUPPORT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL' S DECISION TO SEEK EXPERT • 16 OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE EIR . THE AMIGOS 17 BELIEVE IT IS A WISE INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY, CONSIDERING • 18 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE ON THE CITY 19 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. WE BELIEVE IT IS AN ASTUTE DECISION 20 THAT WILL PAY DIVIDENDS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS . • 21 SECONDLY, THE AMIGOS ARE GREATLY DISAPPOINTED I 22 THAT AS PART OF THE PROCESS TO SOLICIT COMMENTS ON THE EIR , 23 THE COUNTY HAS NOT PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS TO REVIEW 24 AND COMMENT ON THE EIR . A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND 25 POTENTIAL IMPACT DESERVES AS MUCH PUBLIC INPUT AS POSSIBLE . 172 • 1 BY FAILING TO PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS , THE 2 COUNTY HAS EFFECTIVELY LIMITED THE PUBLIC' S ABILITY TO 3 PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS . 4 THE AMIGOS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE BOLSA 5 CHICA WETLANDS FOR OVER 18 YEARS . THROUGHOUT THIS TIME , 6 AMIGOS HAVE WORKED HARD TO PROTECT THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS 7 AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS . FOR MANY OF THOSE 18 YEARS , THE • 8 AMIGOS WERE THE ONLY VOICE STANDING BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT 9 OF THE AREA AND THE PROTECTION OF THE WETLANDS . • 10 AFTER MANY YEARS OF ACTIVISM, THE AMIGOS , 11 THROUGH LITIGATION AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS , FORGED AN 12 AGREEMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE LANDOWNER , THE CITY , THE • 13 COUNTY AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO PROTECT A 14 SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND BOLSTER THE PUBLIC 15 OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT 16 OCCURS WITH THE REST OF THE BOLSA CHICA. 17 THAT AGREEMENT, KNOWN AS THE BOLSA CHICA 18 COALITION CONCEPT PLAN, DESCRIBES A PROCESS WHEREBY • 19 WETLANDS ACREAGE IS PROTECTED FROM DEVELOPMENT, AND 20 SPECIFIES THAT THE NORMAL PLANNING AND PERMIT PROCESSES BE 40 21 FOLLOWED FOR PUBLIC APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. 22 ONE OF THE UNDERSTANDINGS OF THAT AGREEMENT 23 PROVIDED THAT THE PLANNING PROCESS WOULD STAY WITHIN THE • 24 CITY SO THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE THE GREATEST 25 OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS . THE AMIGOS . 173 • 1 VOICED STRONG OBJECTIONS WHEN THE PROJECT WAS MOVED TO THE 2 COUNTY' S JURISDICTION, AND CONTINUES TO DISAGREE WITH THE 3 DECISION TO MOVE TO THE COUNTY. 4 HOWEVER, THE AMIGOS CONTINUE TO STAND BEHIND 5 THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IT IS NOT , AS SOME 6 HAVE SAID, AN AGREEMENT THAT TRADES WETLANDS RESTORATION 7 FOR DEVELOPMENT. RATHER , IT IS AN AGREEMENT THAT PROTECTS 8 WETLANDS , WHILE AT THE SAME TIME , STATING THAT FOR ANY 9 DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES TAKE PLACE , IT WILL ONLY OCCUR AFTER 10 THE COMMUNITY HAS HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO 11 DETERMINE THE SIZE , SCOPE AND IMPACT OF THE PROJECT. 12 NO DOUBT MANY ISSUES WILL BECOME EVIDENT AS 13 THE AMIGOS COMPLETE OUR REVIEW. AND THE AMIGOS WILL 14 INCLUDE THESE IN OUR ORGANIZATION' S COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY . 15 WE WILL BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE CITY WITH A COPY OF OUR 16 REVIEW WHEN IT IS COMPLETED. 17 THE RELEASE OF THE EIR IS THE BEGINNING OF A 18 PROCESS . THE AMIGOS WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE • 19 IN THIS PROCESS , ALONG WITH THE COMMUNITY OF HUNTINGTON 20 BEACH IN DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF BOLSA CHICA. 21 WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR 22 BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. 23 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . AT THIS TIME , • 24 1 SEE THAT IT IS 11 : 00 O'CLOCK. WE PROBABLY WILL CONTINUE , 25 BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT UNTIL I HAVE A MOTION AND AN ACTION 174 • • 1 THAT WE CONTINUE . 2 COUNCILMEMBER LEIPZIG: SO MOVED. 3 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: ALL IN FAVOR OF CONTINUING 4 THE MEETING, PLEASE VOTE - - OR VOTE EITHER WAY. EXCUSE ME . 5 CITY CLERK: SILVA, NO. SIX AYES . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 7 PLEASE . • 8 MS . DONAVEN: THANK YOU . I SHOULD BE DOUBLY 9 GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. • 10 1 AM NANCY DONAVEN, AND I LIVE AT 4831 11 LOS PATOS AVENUE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . MY PHONE NUMBER IS 12 840-7496 . i 13 MADAM MAYOR , AND OTHER COUNCILPEOPLE , LET ME 14 START BY PARAPHRASING ALICE IN WONDERLAND. THIS EIR IS 15 CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER . THE COUNTY ENVIRONMETALIST * 16 MANAGEMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE HAS SAID HE KNEW WE WOULD 17 ALL BE VERY PLEASED WITH THE DOCUMENT WHEN IT CAME OUT. HE 18 ALSO SAID THAT IT WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS RAISED IN • 19 RESPONSE TO THE CITY' S DRAFT EIS/EIS , AND THAT A SEPARATE 20 DOCUMENT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THAT. • 21 1 BELIEVE THE E .M.A. REPRESENTATIVE WAS WRONG 22 IN BOTH REGARDS . 23 THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT PLEASE ME , NOR DOES IT 24 ANSWER MANY OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED IN MY LETTERS 25 AND ORAL COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE EIR/EIS . . 175 • 1 WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND 2 COMMENTS WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE LAST 3 EIR? AND IN LIGHT OF RECENT EVENTS OF THE LAST WEEK, IT IS 4 INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ALL OF THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO 5 THE COUNTY DURING THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION , COMMENT ON, 6 AND ALL OF WHICH RAISED QUESTIONS REGARDING THE 7 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL, WERE OMITTED FROM THE APPENDIX IN • 8 WHICH ALL THE OTHER LETTERS WERE PUBLISHED. THIS IS 9 CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER . 10 THERE ARE SOME GLARING ERRORS IN THIS REPORT. 11 BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH IS SAID TO EXTEND ALL THE WAY TO 12 THE PIER ON ONE PAGE , AND TO THE CLIFFS ON ANOTHER PAGE . • 13 THERE ARE DRAWINGS IN WHICH THE KEY TO THE SIZE BEARS NO 14 RESEMBLANCE TO THE NUMBERS ON THE DRAWING, AND IS THEREFORE 15 IMPOSSIBLE TO INTERPRET THE DRAWING IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. • 16 1 AM REFERRING TO THE DRAWINGS OF THE VIEW ALONG LOS PATOS 17 AVENUE . 18 IN THE ALTERNATIVE SECTION, THE COUNTY • 19 DISMISSED THE CITY' S APPLICATION FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN 20 WETLANDS GRANT AS HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN, AND CONSEQUENTLY 21 NOT WORTH FURTHER ATTENTION. THIS APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN 22 WITHDRAWN, AND THIS ERROR SHOULD BE CORRECTED WITHOUT 23 FURTHER ADO. � . 24 IN ADDITION, THE BIODIVERSITY PARKS SECTION IS 25 DISMISSED AS BEING UNATTAINABLE DUE TO LACK OF FUNDING. I 176 • • 1 THINK A CALL TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST 2 WOULD HAVE SET THE REPORT WRITER STRAIGHT ON THIS . 3 AND ON PAGE 2 . 2 -3 OF THE REPORT, THE WRITERS 4 ARE STILL USING THE WORD "SUPPORT" TO DESCRIBE THE POSITION 5 OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES . THIS IS SHOWN TO BE A 6 FALSITY, AND YET THE COUNTY IS STILL ALLOWING THIS CHARADE 7 TO GO ON. THE COUNTY IS ALLOWING 60 DAYS TO REVIEW. • 8 HOWEVER, WE CAN REVIEW AND REVIEW, BUT WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY 9 MORE ANSWERS BEFORE THE REVIEW PERIOD IS UP . WE ARE BEING 10 ASKED TO ACCEPT THIS PROJECT WITH VERY INCOMPLETE 11 INFORMATION. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE AN HONEST EFFORT TO 12 PRESENT INFORMATION, BUT RATHER AN ATTEMPT TO BAMBOOZEL THE • 13 PUBLIC. 14 1 DO NOT BELIEVE THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 15 QUALITY ACT WAS MEANT TO BE USED IN THIS WAY. THE PUBLIC 16 SHOULD BE GIVEN ANSWERS TO THEIR QUESTIONS , AND A FURTHER 17 CHANCE TO RESPOND AFTER THE 60-DAY PERIOD IS UP . 18 THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. • 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKERS . 20 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE JACQUELINE 21 GEAR-LATTE , JIM ALVITRA, CONNIE BOARDMAN, BRUCE MONROE AND 22 LINDA KATZ . 23 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: I THINK YOU ARE NEXT. 24 MS . BOARDMAN: GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . 25 MY NAME IS CONNIE BOARDMAN. I LIVE AT 8401 SWEETWATER 177 • • 1 CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. I AM A BIOLOGIST AND A BOARD • 2 MEMBER OF THE BOLSA CHICA LAND TRUST. 3 THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS A LEMON 4 AT 6 : 00 O'CLOCK, AND IT STILL IS . IT' S A LEMON FOR A 5 VARIETY OF REASONS . 6 THE DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE . IT HAS ERRORS , 7 AND HAS OMISSIONS . AND IN JUST A MOMENT I WILL GIVE YOU AN • 8 EXAMPLE OF ONE ERROR . 9 THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK TONIGHT THAT THIS • 10 PROJECT IS GOING TO BE RESTORATION WITHOUT TAXATION . THIS 11 IS NOT A RESTORATION PROJECT. THIS IS A MASSIVE 12 DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF ABOUT 5 , 000 HOMES AT BOLSA CHICA. • 13 IN RETURN FOR BEING ALLOWED TO BUILD 876 HOMES ON EXISTING 14 WETLANDS , KOLL PROMISES IN 15 TO 20 YEARS TO RESTORE ABOUT 15 700 ACRES OF WETLANDS , ONLY IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD ON • 16 WETLANDS . NOW, THEY HAVE TO GET FEDERAL PERMITS TO DO 17 THIS , AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL GET THOSE 18 PERMITS . AND YET IF THIS APPROVAL PROCESS GOES AHEAD, THEY • 19 COULD END UP BUILDING THOUSANDS OF HOMES ON THE MESA AND 20 LEAVING THE WETLANDS THE WAY THEY ARE NOW. 21 IT' S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT PUBLIC FUNDS 22 WILL BE SPENT FOR THE RESTORATION SOONER OR LATER , WHETHER 23 KOLL INITIATES THE RESTORATION OR NOT, PUBLIC FUNDS WILL BE • 24 USED TO MAINTAIN IT. AND THAT' S SOMETHING THAT HAS REALLY 25 BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT. THE LONG-TERM • 178 • I 1 MONITORING PROGRAM MENTIONED IN THE WETLAND RESTORATION • 2 PROJECT LASTS TEN YEARS . TEN YEARS IS AN EYE BLINK IN AN 3 ECOSYSTEM TIME SCALE . 4 ANOTHER ISSUE THAT HAS COME UP TONIGHT IS THAT 5 THIS IS A "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" ISSUE . THIS IS NOT JUST A 6 LOCAL ISSUE . LAST WEEK I HAD A CALL FROM THE NATIONAL 7 AUDUBON OFFICE IN WASHINGTON D.C. FROM THEIR WETLANDS • 8 SPECIALIST REQUESTING A COPY OF THE EIR SO THAT THEY CAN 9 COMMENT ON IT. NOW, IF THE NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY IS • 10 INTERESTED IN THIS, THIS GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF BEING 11 JUST A LOCAL ISSUE . 12 IN THE EIR IT IS STATED THAT LOW NUMBERS OF • 13 CATS IN THE WETLANDS WILL PROBABLY NOT LEAD TO A 14 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE GROUND NESTING BIRDS . LET ME 15 GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT ONE CAT CAN DO IN TWO NIGHTS TO A 16 LEASE TERN COLONY THAT I MONITORED AT TERMINAL ISLAND. IN 17 TWO NIGHTS , ONE CAT KILLED SIX ADULT LEASE TERNS . NOW, 18 THIS IS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF BIRD, OF WHICH THERE ARE • 19 ABOUT 1200 NESTING PAIRS IN THE STATE , WITH A MAJOR 20 CONCENTRATION OF BIRDS AT BOLSA CHICA, ALONG WITH ALL THE 21 OTHER NESTING BIRDS . AND ON THE TERN ISLAND, THE SOUTH 22 TERN ISLAND IS ACCESSIBLE TO PREDATORS LIKE FOXES AND CATS . 23 IN SECTION 4-7 ON PAGE 39 , A SENSITIVE SPECIES 24 IS DEFINED AS ONE PROTECTED UNDER FEDERAL LAW, SUCH AS THE 25 MIGRATORY BIRD ACT . ALL BIRDS , EXCEPT PEST SPECIES , ARE 179 • I • 1 PROTECTED UNDER THIS ACT, THEREFORE , THE REDTAILED HAWKS 2 WOULD BE PROTECTED AND CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT. YET IN 3 SECTION 4-7 , PAGE 47 , THE IMPACT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE 4 WINTERING HABITAT OF 30 TO 40 REDTAIL HAWKS ON THE MESA IS 5 NOT CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE REDTAIL HAWKS ARE NOT 6 CONSIDERED SENSITIVE SPECIES , EVEN THOUGH ON PAGE 4-7 , 39 , 7 BY THEIR DEFINITION , THEY ARE . THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF • 8 THE ERRORS THAT EXIST IN THIS DOCUMENT. AND THERE ARE 9 OTHERS THAT I WILL SUBMIT IN WRITING. 10 THANK YOU . 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 12 MR. MONROE : THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS 13 BRUCE MONROE . I LIVE AT 640 SEABREEZE IN SEAL BEACH , 14 CALIFORNIA. MY NUMBER IS 430-8495 . AND I AM A SIERRA CLUB 15 ACTIVIST. I AM WORKING WITH A PANEL OF ABOUT 20 SCIENTISTS • 16 ON A RESTORATION AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE 17 BIODIVERSITY PARK. BUT I DO HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT THE EIR , • 18 AND ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE COMMENTS FROM A GROUP OF 19 SCIENTISTS WHO AGREE THAT THE DOCUMENT IS INCOMPLETE , AND 20 SHOULD EITHER BE WITHDRAWN FOR FURTHER STAFF WORK, OR • 21 SHOULD BE AUGMENTED WITH SOME SORT OF SUPPLEMENT . 22 THE PLANS TWO MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 23 AND THE TWO RESTORATION PLANS FOR WETLANDS ARE BOTH VAGUE • 24 AND INCOMPLETE . THEY ARE NOT PRECISELY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT 25 IS ACTUALLY PLANNED, RATHER THEY SUGGEST THAT AT SOME POINT 180 • 1 IN THE FUTURE , A PAID PROFESSIONAL MAY BE GIVEN THE 2 ASSIGNMENT OF COMING UP WITH POSSIBLE MITIGATIONS , IN THE 3 EVENT THAT SOME IMPACTS ARE NOTED OR ANTICIPATED . 4 SINCE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ARE 5 NOT PRECISELY DEFINED IN THE DOCUMENT, THERE CAN ' T BE ANY 6 COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF THE RISKS , COSTS , OR BENEFITS OF 7 VARIOUS POSSIBLE MITIGATIONS , AND NO REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS • 8 REACHED ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THOSE MITIGATIONS . 9 SECONDLY, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE TIMING AND • 10 THE PHASING OF THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES IN ALL EIGHT OF THE 11 ACTIONS , AND IN THE TWO RESTORATION PLANS . TYPICALLY THE 12 PLANS CALL FOR SOME HOUSING OR RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO 13 OCCUR , FOLLOWED BY SOME MITIGATION , OR RESTORATION TO TRY 14 TO UNDO ANY DAMAGE , OR TO RESTORE THE HABITAT. SUCH 15 EFFORTS HOPEFULLY TO BE EFFECTIVE . • 16 HOWEVER , SINCE SCIENTIFIC ENHANCE , RESTORE , 17 CLAIM, OR OTHERWISE ASSIST NATURAL PROCESSES ARE NEVER AS 18 SUCCESSFUL AS THE NATURAL PROCESSES THEMSELVES , THE • 19 RESTORATION ATTEMPTS WOULD LOGICALLY BE CARRIED OUT PRIOR 20 TO ANY HOUSING OR RECREATION CONSTRUCTION . 21 ANY CONSTRUCTION CAN ONLY DELAY , OR COMPLICATE 22 WHAT IS ALREADY ONGOING IN NATURE . THEREFORE , IF IT' S TO 23 BE DONE AT ALL, IT SHOULD PROCEED AFTER THE HABITATS AND 24 THEIR BIOPRODUCTIVITY AND BIODIVERSITY ARE AT THEIR PRIME 25 CONDITIONS . 181 • • 1 THE EXISTING PLANS CALL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT 2 FIRST, AND RESTORATION LAST OF PHASING, WHICH NEVER HAS 3 BEEN EFFECTIVE , AS RESTORATION ALONE , OR RESTORATION FIRST, 4 AND THEN LIMITED DEVELOPMENT. 5 MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU SUGGEST TO THE 6 COUNTY THAT THEY EITHER WITHDRAW AND REWORK THE DOCUMENT , 7 OR IF THEY CONTINUE WITH IT IN ITS PRESENT FORM, THAT THEY • 8 RESEQUENCE THE RESTORATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 9 THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER , 11 PLEASE . 12 CITY CLERK: LINDA KATZ . DEBORAH BENT. ROY LATTE . 13 WINDY MELLOW. DIANE KAISER. 14 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL SOME 15 MORE NAMES? I DON'T SEE ANY MOVEMENT. • 16 CITY CLERK: SCOTT RUNGE . V. COWDEN . DEBBIE 17 CASTILLO. 18 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. • 19 MR . RUNGE : CITY COUNCILMEMBERS , COUNTY 20 REPRESENTATIVES AND FELLOW CONCERNED CITIZENS , MY NAME IS • 21 SCOTT RUNGE , AND I AM A MEMBER OF THE BOLSA CHICA LAND 22 TRUST BOARD. 23 WHERE IS IT WRITTEN THAT WHERE THERE IS OPEN • 24 LAND, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT? WHY CAN'T 25 THE BEST USE OF LAND BE AS OPEN SPACE? WHERE IS IT WRITTEN • 182 1 THAT A PROPERTY OWNER' S RIGHTS INCLUDE HAVING THE 2 AGRICULTURAL ZONING CHANGED TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL 3 DEVELOPMENT SO THAT HE CAN MAKE SPECULATOR ' S PROFITS , OR 4 YOU HAVEN'T ALLOWED HIM TO GET A FAIR PRICE FOR IT? A FAIR 5 PRICE IS WHAT THE LAND WILL BRING BASED ON THE EXISTING 6 ZONING, PERIOD. 7 IN RETURN FOR PERMITS TO BUILD ON THE MESA AND • 8 PART OF THE WETLANDS , THE KOLL COMPANY IS GENEROUSLY 9 PROPOSING TO SPEND UP TO 48 MILLION DOLLARS TO RESTORE THE 10 WETLANDS . DON'T MAKE MY LAUGH. 48 MILLION DOLLARS IS A 11 SMALL PART OF A PROFIT THAT KOLL COMPANY WILL REALIZE IF 12 THEY GET ENTITLEMENTS TO BUILD ON THE BOLSA CHICA. 13 AND WHAT ABOUT THE LATEST KOLL COMPANY 14 RESTORATION PROPOSAL? DOES THE KOLL COMPANY REALLY CARE 15 ABOUT THE WETLANDS? AFTER ALL , THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THEM. 16 IS IT TRUE RESTORATION, OR IS IT AN OVER-ENGINEERED, HIGH 17 PRICED PLAN TO JUSTIFY THE NEARLY 5 , 000 HOUSING UNITS THAT • 18 KOLL COMPANY WANTS TO BUILD ON THE MESA AND THE WETLANDS? 19 TRUE RESTORATION WOULD BE RETURNING THE 20 WETLANDS TO ITS NATURAL CONDITION BEFORE THE OIL DRILLING • 21 ACTIVITY CHANGED IT. AND IT WOULD NOT COST 48 MILLION 22 DOLLARS . THE KOLL COMPANY'S PLAN, ON THE OTHER HAND, WOULD 23 COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURE THE WETLANDS AND THE SEASHORE INTO 24 SOMETHING THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN, DESTROYING MUCH OF THE 25 EXISTING HABITAT IN THE PROCESS . . 183 • 1 WETLANDS RESTORATION OF ANY KIND IS IFFY, AT • 2 BEST. AND RADICAL RESTORATION IS THE LEAST LIKELY TO BE 3 SUCCESSFUL. WE DON'T WANT THE KOLL COMPANY RESTORATION 4 PLAN, EVEN IF THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT . THE EIR 5 SHOULD INCLUDE A MINIMUM CHANGE RESTORATION PLAN. 6 KOLL COMPANY HAS SAID THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES 7 WITH A VISION FOR THE BOLSA CHICA. THEY HAVE A VISION , ALL • 8 RIGHT, A VISION OF HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF LITTLE GREEN 9 PIECES OF PAPER WITH PRESIDENT' S FACES ON THEM. THE LAND 10 TRUST AND THE PUBLIC HAVE A VISION FOR THE ENTIRE BOLSA 11 CHICA, AND THAT IS OF AN OASIS IN THE MIDST OF INCREASING 12 SUBURBAN SPRAWL . • 13 THE BOLSA CHICA IS A SPECIAL PLACE DUE TO ITS 14 LOCATION, AND TO ITS UNIQUE NATURAL, CULTURAL AND 15 HISTORICAL RESOURCES , AS YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT . ITS BEST • 16 USE IS AS OPEN SPACE , NOW AND IN THE FUTURE . WE DO NOT 17 HAVE TO BUILD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF SOIL . WE CANNOT 18 BUILD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH OF SOIL. WE HAVE TO HAVE A • 19 PLACE TO BREATHE , TO GET REFRESHED, TO SEE NATURE AND TO BE 20 NURTURED BY HER . THAT PLACE TODAY IS THE BOLSA CHICA. AND • 21 WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REMAINS SO FOREVER . WE ALL 22 HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES . 23 THE COUNTY EIR IS A LEMON. WE WILL BE • 24 PRESENTING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN WRITING BY FEBRUARY 18TH, 25 AND ORALLY AT THE HEARINGS WHICH THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO ' 184 1 HOLD ON THE PLAN ITSELF . THANK YOU . 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: COUNCILMAN SULLIVAN. 3 COUNCILMEMBER SULLIVAN: YES , I JUST HAD A COMMENT 4 FOR MR . RUNGE . 5 1 THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS , BUT IN THE 6 BEGINNING YOU ADDRESSED THE COUNTY. AND IF YOU WANTED TO 7 ADDRESS THEM IN PERSON , YOU ARE ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF HOURS 8 LATE , BECAUSE THEY STAYED AROUND HERE FOR ABOUT HALF AN 9 HOUR BEFORE LEAVING. 10 MR. RUNGE : I THOUGHT MAYBE MR. MATTHEWS WOULD STILL 11 BE HERE . 12 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE . 13 MS . CASTILLO: HI , MY NAME IS DEBBIE CASTILLO, AND 1 14 AM HERE AS A MOTHER AND A TEACHER . 15 KOLL COMPANY HAS A JOB TO DO, AND THAT' S TO • 16 MAKE LOTS OF MONEY. YOU, AS OUR CITY COUNCIL, HAVE A JOB 17 TO DO, AND THAT' S TO REPRESENT OUR PEOPLE . I , AS A TEACHER • 18 HAVE A JOB TO DO, AND THAT' S TO REPRESENT STUDENTS . IT IS 19 MY JOB TO KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THE STUDENTS , THE CHILDREN 20 OF THE FUTURE . AND I KNOW THAT BOLSA CHICA IS WHAT THESE 21 CHILDREN DESPERATELY NEED. IT IS MORE THAN NATURE . IT IS 22 THE VERY HEART AND SOUL OF OUR CHILDREN . I KNOW THIS , 23 BECAUSE I WORK WITH KIDS EIGHT HOURS A DAY , 186 DAYS A 24 YEAR. I HEAR THEM AND I LISTEN TO THEM. 25 1 HAVE 30 SOME ESSAYS HERE OF DREAMS AND 0 185 1 VISIONS OF MY CHILDREN. UNFORTUNATELY , THEY DON ' T HAVE THE 2 FINANCES TO BUY THEIR DREAMS . AND IN NOT ONE OF THESE 3 ESSAYS DO THEY ASK FOR A CONDOMINIUM, OR A MULTI -MILLION 4 DOLLAR HOME . THEY ASK FOR WILDERNESS . THEY ASK FOR PLACES 5 WHERE ENDANGERED ANIMALS AND PLANTS ARE PROTECTED . 6 BOLSA CHICA IS MORE THAN A NATURAL PRESERVE . 7 1T' S A WRITER' S WORKSHOP . IT' S A POET' S PALACE . IT' S AN 8 ARTIST'S STUDIO. 9 MS . DUNN ASKED EARLIER, WHAT CRIME HAS BEEN 10 COMMITTED? IT' S AN UNWRITTEN LAW. IT' S A CRIME OF 11 INTEGRITY. IT' S A CRIME OF WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE 12 WHOLE OF HUMANITY. AND IT' S NOT CONCRETE , FOLKS . MOST OF 13 MY CHILDREN COME FROM BARRIOS . THEY HAVE GOT PLENTY OF 14 CONCRETE . THEY HAVE GOT PLENTY OF CONDOMINIUMS , PLENTY OF 15 APARTMENT COMPLEXES . BUT WHAT THEY STILL HAVE , THESE 16 CHILDREN, IS THEY HAVE WISDOM. AND THEY HAVE A BELIEF THAT 17 THE WORLD IS GOING TO BE AN OKAY PLACE , AND THAT THEY • 18 HAVEN'T SOLD OUT TO GREED YET. 19 WHAT I HOPE TO INSTILL IN THEM MORE THAN THE 20 READING AND THE WRITING IS THAT WHEN THEY GROW UP TO HOLD 21 POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY , THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE 22 INDIVIDUALS , AND THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL PEOPLE , NOT 23 JUST THE DOLLAR. 24 THEY HAVE VISIONS , TOO, AND I THINK WE NEED TO 25 REPRESENT THE WHOLE VISION. AND BOLSA CHICA, WHAT THESE • 186 I 1 CHILDREN NEED IS A PLACE TO PLAY, A PLACE TO LAUGH , A PLACE 2 TO BREATHE FRESH AIR , A PLACE TO BE HAPPY, A PLACE TO RUN . 3 AND THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T SEE THE BEAUTY OUT THERE , I ASK 4 YOU TO GO DOWN ON A SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AND WATCH THE 5 LITTLE KIDS . WATCH MY FOUR YEAR OLD SON PICK UP A ROCK AND 6 STUDY IT. HE IS A FUTURE SCIENTIST. NOTHING WOULD MAKE ME 7 MORE PROUD. THAT' S OUR FUTURE . AND BOLSA CHICA IS OUR 8 FUTURE . IT' S ONE LITTLE PARCEL OF LAND, BUT IT REPRESENTS 9 SO MUCH MORE . AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS TO 10 REFLECT ALL ASPECTS OF WHAT THAT JEWEL IS , BECAUSE IT' S 11 VERY MAGIC. AND IF WE LOSE IT, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO 12 LOSE ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE TRULY VALUABLE . IT' S CALLED 13 INTEGRITY, REALLY KNOWING WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR US . 14 THANK YOU . 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . MAY WE HAVE 16 YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? 17 MS . CASTILLO: IT' S 16817 BUCKEYE CIRCLE , FOUNTAIN 18 VALLEY. 968-4750 . 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 20 NEXT SPEAKER , PLEASE . 21 CITY CLERK: THE NEXT SPEAKERS ARE ED LAIRD, STEVEN 22 DORMY, TERESA REYNOLDS , J . DAVID WINSCOTT, CHERYL GALLOWAY . 23 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: MAYBE YOU BETTER KEEP 24 CALLING. PLEASE COME DOWN IF YOU HEAR YOUR NAME CALLED. 25 CITY CLERK: TOM DUSHANE . JIMI CASTILLO. JAMES E . • 187 1 MASON. 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 3 MR. WINSCOTT: MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY 4 COUNCIL , THANK YOU FOR STAYING AWAKE . THANK YOU FOR YOUR 5 LONG-SUFFERING AND YOUR PATIENCE . THIS HAS BEEN A LONG 6 EVENING FOR ALL OF US . 7 1 AM DAVID WINSCOTT. I LIVE AT 7442 COHO 8 DRIVE , NUMBER 106 , RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. 9 1 AM HERE , I HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY ASKED AS A • 10 MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH 11 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO DELIVER TO YOU, AND PLACE IN THE 12 RECORD A VERY BRIEF STATEMENT. 13 THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 14 WISHES TO STATE ITS CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE BOLSA CHICA 15 COALITION PLAN , AS IMPLEMENTED BY THE KOLL REAL ESTATE 16 GROUP . THE PROPOSED PLAN WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC 17 GENERATOR FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH COULD CONTRIBUTE 6 , 700 18 NEW JOBS AND 1 . 1 BILLION DOLLARS IN ECONOMIC OUTPUT IN 19 HUNTINGTON BEACH DURING ITS ESTIMATED 13 YEAR CONSTRUCTION 20 PERIOD. WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS , THE CHAMBER BOARD OF 21 DIRECTORS WILL BE SUBMITTING ITS WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE 22 EIR TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE . 23 THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 24 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 25 THE WITNESS: MAY I PLACE THIS IN THE RECORD WITH • 188 • 1 THE CLERK, PLEASE? 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: YES . NEXT SPEAKER . 3 MR. CASTILLO: THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR , I WOULD LIKE 4 TO COMMEND YOU ON YOUR ENDURANCE , AND ESPECIALLY THIS LADY • 5 OVER HERE ( INDICATING) . 6 MY NAME IS JIMI CASTILLO. MY ADDRESS IS 7037 7 SOUTH COMSTOCK AVENUE , NUMBER 102 , WHITTIER 90602 . MY • 8 PHONE NUMBER IS 310 , 947-8990 . 9 1 AM THE SPIRITUAL LEADER OF THE TONGVA PEOPLE • 10 OF THE TEAC SOCIETY, OF OUR CHILDREN ' S COUNCIL . AND I AM 11 HERE TO REPRESENT THESE PEOPLE . 12 THE PICTURES WE SAW OF THE WETLANDS UP HERE • 13 ARE THE RESULT OF MAN' S DEVELOPMENTS . THEY ARE NOT THE WAY 14 THAT THE WETLANDS USED TO LOOK LIKE . 15 ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION IN MY 16 INTRODUCTION OF MYSELF WAS THAT I EARN MY MONEY AS A 17 CABINETMAKER , BUT I VOLUNTEER QUITE A FEW HOURS AS A 18 PROFESSIONAL COUNSELOR AT THE SOUTHEAST AREA COUNSELING • 19 CENTER, SANTA FE SPRINGS . I ALSO WORK AT NORCO WOMEN ' S 20 PENITENTIARY WHERE I WORK WITH THE NATIVE AMERICANS THERE • 21 AS A COUNSELOR AND A SPIRITUAL LEADER . AND I ALSO HAVE THE 22 ONLY WORKING SWEAT LODGE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT THE 23 HEMINGE (PHONETIC) TRAINING CENTER , CALIFORNIA' S YOUTH 24 AUTHORITY IN CHINO, CALIFORNIA. 25 AS A SPIRITUAL LEADER , I HAVE NO PLACE TO LEAD 189 • • 1 MY PEOPLE IN THEIR SPIRITUALITY. WE HAVE TO DO IT IN OUR 2 BACKYARDS . ON OCCASIONS , I TAKE SOME OF OUR PEOPLE INTO 3 THE PRISON SYSTEM. 4 THIS LAND IS THE LAND OF THE TONGVA PEOPLE . 5 WE STILL CONSIDER OURSELVES THE CARETAKERS OF THIS LAND. 6 THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THE LAND WAS TAKEN 7 FROM US FORCEFULLY. WE NEVER ONCE GAVE IT UP AT ANY TIME 8 IN OUR LIVES . 9 1 OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT. AND IT' S MY CONCLUSION • 10 THAT THESE DEVELOPERS HAVE COME HERE WITH CONCRETE AND 11 ASPHALT FOR BRAINS , AND GIN FOR BLOOD. AND IT' S TIME TO - - 12 WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SENSITIVITY OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS , AS 13 WELL AS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS . 14 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 15 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . • 16 CITY CLERK: BOB TRAVER , JAMES MASON , CINDY COOLEY, 17 CHARLIE DAVIS AND VINCENT JO. 18 MR . TRAVER: GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR , MEMBERS OF • 19 THE CITY COUNCIL , AND IF THERE ARE ANY PEOPLE LEFT LIVING 20 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AFTER ALL THE TALK ABOUT f 21 POLTERGIESTS TONIGHT. MY NAME IS BOB TRAVER , AND I DO 22 RESIDE IN THIS CITY AT 7402 COHO. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE 23 NEXT COUPLE OF MINUTES TO STATE SOME RATHER WELL-KNOWN, BUT • 24 FOR SOME REASON, UNDERPUBLISHED FACTS ABOUT THE BOLSA CHICA 25 PROJECT. 190 • • 1 NUMBER ONE , THE WETLANDS NEED HELP , A LOT OF 2 HELP . THE NEXT TIME YOU THINK IT' S A THING OF BEAUTY, TAKE 3 A WALK OUT THE GARFIELD EXTENSION AND LOOK AT THE EYE SORE 4 IT REALLY IS . A TITLE EXCHANGE , A DAILY ONE , IN THE C 5 WETLAND IS DESPERATELY NEEDED. OTHERWISE , THE WETLANDS 6 WILL CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE , AND THE BOLSA CHICA WILL , FOR 7 FUTURE GENERATIONS , NOT BE THE BOLSA CHICA, BUT JUST A S 8 WASTELAND. 9 THE KOLL COMPANY BOLSA CHICA PLAN OFFERS A 10 SOLUTION. AND HERE IS THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE , AT NO COST 11 TO THE TAXPAYER. 12 TWO, THE PLAN WILL RESTORE MORE THAN 900 ACRES 13 OF DEGRADED WETLANDS TO THE BOLSA CHICA, AND AGAIN, AT NO 14 COST TO THE TAXPAYER . 15 THREE , 75 PERCENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL BE • 16 DONATED TO THE PUBLIC, EFFECTIVELY DOUBLING THE AMOUNT OF 17 OPEN SPACE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER . 18 FOUR, THE PROPOSED LINEAR PARK AND TRAIL • 19 SYSTEM WILL INCLUDE NOT ONLY A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN 20 TRAILS , BUT EQUESTRIAN TRAILS FOR YOU HORSE LOVERS OUT • 21 THERE , AND BIKE TRAILS THAT WILL CONNECT CENTRAL PARK AND 22 THE BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH, AT NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER . 23 FIVE , THE PROJECT WILL CREATE MORE THAN 17 , 000 24 NEW JOBS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED 25 EARLIER, ABOUT 6 , 700 OF THEM HERE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, AT . 191 1 NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER. 2 AND SIX, AND LAST, BUT NOT LEAST, FOR THOSE OF 3 YOU WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC INCREASE , THE BOLSA 4 CHICA PLAN INCLUDES A 35 MILLION DOLLAR TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 5 PLAN TO UPGRADE EXISTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE , AND AGAIN, 6 AT NO COST TO YOU , THE TAXPAYER . 7 SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS RHETORIC MEAN TO YOU , 8 THE AVERAGE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITIZEN? THE BOLSA CHICA PLAN 9 IS NOT ONLY GOOD FOR THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS , IT' S GOOD 10 FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH, IT' S GOOD FOR ORANGE COUNTY , IT' S 11 GOOD FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BUT MOST OF ALL, IT' S GOOD 12 FOR YOU, THE TAXPAYER WHO WILL BE ASKED TO PAY FOR ALL OF 7� 13 THIS , IF THIS PLAN IS NOT APPROVED. 14 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN , I THOUGHT SOMEWHERE 1 15 READ NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT THE CITY' S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16 MOTTO WAS RED CARPET, NOT RED TAPE . PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE 17 THIS IS BEST SHOWN IN TONIGHT' S MEETING. 18 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. i 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . THE NEXT 20 SPEAKER , PLEASE . 21 MS. COOLEY: HELLO, MY NAME IS CINDY COOLEY. I LIVE 22 AT 14351 CHATEAU LANE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . 23 1 HAVE A DEGREE IN GEOLOGY, AND I HAVE WORKED 24 AS A PROPERTY INSURANCE ADJUSTER FOR EIGHT YEARS . 25 THE TWO CONCERNS THAT I WANT TO BRING UP ARE 192 1 THE POTENTIAL OF LIQUEFACTION AND SUBSIDENCE TO THE LAND ON 2 WHICH THE PROJECT IS BEING BUILT ON. THE TOP 30 TO 35 FEET 3 OF THE SURFACE BELOW PREDOMINANTLY CONSISTS OF SAND, SILT 4 AND CLAY THAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN DEPOSITED. GEOLOGICALLY. 5 THERE HAS NOT BEEN MUCH TIME FOR THIS SOIL TO LIQUIFY. 6 THIS IS NOT SOLID GROUND. THE AREA IS SURROUNDED BY 7 WETLANDS . THERE IS A HIGH WATER TABLE , THIRTEEN FEET AT 8 SOME PLACES IN THE BOLSA MESA BLUFF AREA. 9 ALSO, UNDER THE SOIL IS THE HUNTINGTON BEACH . 10 ( INAUDIBLE) - - IN WHICH OIL HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT FOR FORTY 11 YEARS . PLUS , THE AREA IS CROSSED BY THREE SECTIONS OF THE 12 NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD FAULT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED ACTIVE . 13 1 WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS A HIGH 14 POTENTIAL OF LIQUEFACTION IN THE EVENT OF AN EARTHQUAKE . 15 LIQUEFACTION IS THE AMOUNT OF SHAKING THE GROUND WOULD FEEL • 16 DURING AN EARTHQUAKE . THE SHOCKWAVES ARE AMPLIFIED WHEN 17 THEY HIT LOOSE SOIL THAT IS SATURATED WITH GROUND WATER . 18 AS YOU KNOW, THE MOST RECENT EARTHQUAKE OF • 19 JANUARY 17TH, WE SAW A LOT OF DAMAGE . THE EIPCENTER WAS IN 20 THE VALLEY, BUT THE DAMAGE WAS ALL OVER L.A. THE SANTA 21 MONICA FREEWAY WAS NOTED TO HAVE A HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION ' 22 OF 1 "G" AND A VERTICAL ACCELERATION OF 1 . 8 "G" . A "G" IS 23 THE AMOUNT OF MOVEMENT DISPLACEMENT FROM SHOCKWAVES . 24 FOR EXAMPLE , ANYTHING THAT IS IN EXCESS OF 1 "G" WOULD HOP 25 OFF THE GROUND. . 193 w 1 THE AREA OF THE SANTA MONICA FREEWAY SLIPPED 2 BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT ON A SWAMP LAND. THE CITY OF SANTA 3 MONICA AND REDONDO BEACH HAD SEVERE DAMAGE DUE TO 4 LIQUEFACTION, AND THEY ARE OVER 30 MILES AWAY FROM THE • 5 EPICENTER . 6 IN 1989 , THE SAN FRANCISCO EARTHQUAKE , THE 7 MARINA WAS DEVASTATED. IT WAS 70 MILES AWAY FROM THE 8 EPICENTER . 9 ACCORDING TO THE EIR REPORT, THE MAXIMUM 10 HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION IS .25 "G' S" . THIS IS BASED ON A 11 TEN-YEAR OLD STUDY. THE STUDY DID NOT PROVIDE THE MAKERS 12 OF THE EIR REPORT THE LOCATION OF THE BORE HOLES IN WHICH 13 THEY DID THEIR TESTING ON. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THIS 14 REPORT OF VERTICAL ACCELERATION. IN THE LAST EARTHQUAKE , 15 THE HIGHEST VERTICAL ACCELERATION WAS RECORDED IN THE L .A. • 16 AREA. IT STATES THAT THE EIR REPORT IS A BIT CONSERVATIVE 17 AND NOT UP-TO-DATE IN REGARD TO LIQUEFACTION. 18 AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE SOILS ARE NOT VERY • 19 SOLID. SUBSIDENCE COULD OCCUR DUE TO DECOMPOSING OF 20 ORGANIC MATERIAL, OIL AND WATER FROM UNDERGROUND, SEISMIC 21 ACTIVITY, OR FROM HEAVY BUILDING ON POORLY COMPACTED SOIL . 22 IN THE AREA OF SPRINGDALE AND WARNER , HOUSES 23 APPROXIMATELY 15 TO 20 YEARS OLD ARE SLOWLY SINKING, AND 24 HOMEOWNERS ARE SHELLING OUT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR FIXING I 25 THIER HOMES . t 194 1 IN THE EVENT OF ANY GRADUAL SUBSIDENCE , OR 2 SPONTANEOUS SUBSIDENCE FROM EARTH MOVEMENT, THE FUTURE 3 HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN MAKE A 4 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR . 5 BELIEVE ME , THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE NAMED IN THE 6 LAWSUIT, AND IT WOULD COST MILLIONS TO DEFEND. 7 FOR EXAMPLE , THE MESA ROCK DEVELOPMENT. IN 8 WHICH ( INAUDIBLE ) - - TO PAY $20 , 000 , 000 TO THE HOMEOWNERS ' 9 ASSOCIATION. ANAHEIM HILLS - - ( INAUDIBLE) . 10 THE PROBLEMS OF LIQUEFACTION AND SUBSIDENCE 11 CANNOT BE COMPLETELY MITIGATED. THEY CAN FILL UP THE LAND 12 IN A TEST TUBE , AND COMPACT THE SOIL TO CALIFORNIA 13 STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE PROBLEM; HOWEVER , THERE IS STILL A 14 POTENTIAL, AND THE FUTURE HOMEOWNERS , CITY AND COUNTY WILL 15 ULTIMATELY SUFFER. 16 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 17 MR . DAVIS : HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL , 18 1 HAVE A LOT OF EMPATHY FOR YOU. I WAS THE ORIGINAL • 19 CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF i 20 CARSON, AND WAS THERE FOR FIVE YEARS IN THAT POSITION. SO 21 1 HAVE SAT OVER A LOT OF THESE KINDS OF MEETINGS , THESE 22 1 : 00 O'CLOCK MEETINGS , SO YOU HAVE MY EMPATHY. 23 1 AM NOT HERE TO CHANGE ANYBODY' S MIND, 24 BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE . 25 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . COULD YOU GIVE ! 195 • 1 US YOUR - - 2 MR . DAVIS: I AM CHARLIE DAVIS . 16302 WILDFIRE 3 CIRCLE . 846-9429 . 4 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 5 MR. DAVIS: i AM NOT HERE TO CHANGE ANYBODY' S MIND, 6 BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE . THOSE OF YOU IN FRONT 7 OF ME , AND THOSE BEHIND, THEY HAVE ALL MADE UP THEIR MINDS , • 8 AND THEY ARE JUST HERE TO MAKE A LOT OF NOISE . SO ALL 1 9 WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT SOME THINGS THAT I BELIEVE YOU 10 SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EIR, PRIMARILY, • 11 SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED ALL NIGHT, AND I HAVE 12 BEEN HERE SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND THAT' S THE TWO JETTIES 13 450 FEET TO SEA AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE PACIFIC COAST 14 HIGHWAY. 15 TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF MY CREDENTIALS: 16 1 HAVE BEEN A LICENSED BOAT OPERATOR SINCE 1947 . MY 17 CURRENT LICENSE IS 100 TONS . I CAN RUN A 100 TON VESSEL 18 BETWEEN POINT CONCEPTION AND CABO SAN LUCAS A HUNDRED MILES i 19 OFFSHORE . AS A RESULT OF THAT LICENSE , I HAVE BEEN IN 20 EVERY HARBOR IN THE AREA THAT I JUST DISCUSSED. AND THERE 21 ARE A LOT OF BAD HARBORS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CORPS OF 22 ENGINEERS . I 23 WHEN I SAW THE CORPS OF ENGINEER ' S NAME ON THE 24 BRIDGES AND THE JETTIES AND SO FORTH IN THIS EIR , I BECAME 25 VERY NERVOUS . AND I THOUGHT OF ALL THE TIME THAT I HAVE 196 I 1 SPENT UP AND DOWN THE COAST, AND IN AND OUT OF THE HARBORS , 2 AND THE BAD HARBORS THAT EXIST. AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT 3 THIS IS A VERY THINLY DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO MAKE ANOTHER 4 HARBOR. 5 WHY DO WE HAVE TWO JETTIES 250 APART, 450 FEET 6 TO SEA, AND 90 FEET FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY? THAT' S BIG 7 ENOUGH TO PASS VERY LARGE VESSELS AT THE SAME TIME . I AM • 8 NERVOUS ABOUT THAT. 9 WE HAD A PROPOSAL EARLY ON TO MAKE ANOTHER = 10 HARBOR DOWN THERE , WHICH WAS EVIDENTLY KILLED. BUT NOW WE 11 ARE GETTING INTO A POSITION WHERE WE GOT THE JETTIES , WE 12 HAVE GOT THE ENTRANCE , LET'S MAKE THE BRIDGE A LITTLE 13 HIGHER AND LET THE BOATS UNDER IT. IT MAKES ME NERVOUS , 14 FOLKS , BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT WATERFRONT PROPERTY IS WORTH . 15 INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT MILLIONS, WE START TALKING ABOUT 46 16 BILLIONS . IT MAKES ME VERY NERVOUS . 17 THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAD TO SAY. 1 WOULD JUST 18 LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU . AND I WOULD LIKE TO • 19 ENCOURAGE MY NATIVE AMERICAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS TO 20 CONTINUE TO FIGHT. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REMEMBER, AND • 21 I 'M SURE THAT THEY REMEMBER VERY WELL, THAT THEY STOPPED 22 DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS THE LARGEST RETAIL FIRM IN THE WORLD 23 IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LAST YEAR WHEN THEY FORCED WALMART 24 TO MOVE . THAT, THEY DID. 25 GOOD LUCK. 197 • 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . S 2 MR. JO: MY NAME IS VINCENT JO. 9801 OCEANCREST 3 DRIVE , HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. 4 1 AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE REDUCED AIR QUALITY 5 THAT WILL RESULT IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS BUILT. THE 6 DRAFT EIR MENTIONS THAT THE OCCUPANCY OF THE PROPOSED 7 PROJECT WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF CARBON • 8 MONOXIDE , REACTIVE ORGANIC GASES AND NITROGEN DIOXIDE . 9 THIS WILL OCCUR IN A REGION THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT MEET S 10 THE STATE AIR STANDARDS . THIS PROJECT WILL MAKE AMBIENT 11 AIR WORSE . HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO REACH ATTAINMENT, IF THE 12 COUNTY AND CITY ALLOW PROJECTS TO BE BUILT THAT PROMOTE 13 SIGNIFICANT LEVELS OF POLLUTION? 14 THE CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 15 WERE ADOPTED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH THROUGH BETTER 16 AMBIENT AIR. THE PROJECT WON'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE 17 BETTERMENT OF AMBIENT AIR . 18 WHAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN OUR REGION FAILS TO MEET i 19 THE STATE AIR STANDARDS? WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF 20 THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THE AREA? WILL THERE BE STATE 21 LEVIES IMPOSED? AND WHAT WILL THE HEALTH COSTS BE? 22 THE DRAFT EIR ALSO MENTIONS THAT ADVERSE 23 FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS WILL BE PRESENT DURING PROJECT 24 CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED TO TAKE 25 LONGER THAN TEN YEARS . WHY ISN'T THE TEN YEARS OF ADVERSE 198 • 1 FUGITIVE EMMISIONS CONSIDERED A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT? HAVE • 2 THERE BEEN STUDIES TO DISPROVE THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF 3 THE FUGITIVE DUST? FUGITIVE DUST HAS THE POTENTIAL TO 4 TRAVEL AND COVER BLOCKS , AND THE IMPACTS TO HUMAN HEALTH 5 ARE STILL IN QUESTION. HO►N CAN THE RESIDENTS BE EXPECTED 6 TO DEAL WITH TEN YEARS OF ADVERSE DUST CONDITIONS WHEN THE 7 HEALTH AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF FUGITIVE DUST ARE UNKNOWN? • 8 1 AM JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE IMPACTS THAT CAN 9 AFFECT US ALL. THANK YOU. • 10 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 11 NEXT SPEAKER. 12 CITY CLERK: DEAN ALBRIGHT. JAN VANDERSLOOT. BOB 13 STEWART. DONALD HART. 14 MR. ALBRIGHT: GOOD EVENING, MAYOR , CITY COUNCIL . 15 MY NAME IS DEAN ALBRIGHT, AND I LIVE AT 17301 BREDA LANE IN • 16 HUNTINGTON BEACH. 17 1 SERVE ON THE HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW 18 BOARD. I ALSO SERVE ON THE H.B .T. BOLSA CHICA EIR REVIEW 19 COMMITTEE . 20 MY ASSIGNMENT WAS TO REVIEW THE IMPACT OF 21 TRAFFIC ON THE BOLSA CHICA WETLANDS AND CONNECTING STREETS . 22 THERE ARE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT DO NOT SEEM TO BE ANSWERED 23 IN THE EIR. DOES THE STUDY EVALUATE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON 24 GARFIELD AT WARD BASED ON A BRIDGE OVER THE SANTA ANA 25 RIVER? THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ANSWER IS NO. 199 1 YORKTOWN SHOWS THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC AS 40 2 BEING OVER 20 , 000 TRIPS. GARFIELD, BETWEEN BROOKHURST AND 3 WARD SHOWS OVER 42', 000 TRIPS . THESE ARE LOCATED ON PAGE 4 4 . 8- 18 , WITH FIGURES 4 . 8- 11 , AND PAGE 4 . 8-30 , AND FIGURES + 5 4 . 8- 13 . 6 TWO QUESTIONS: WHERE DO 42 , 000 PLUS CARS GO 7 WITH NO BRIDGE? DOES THE STUDY SHOW THE IMPACT OF THESE 8 CARS ON OTHER STREETS? 9 TWO, DOES THE STUDY EVALUATE THE IMPACT ON THE • 10 CITY'S LIBRARY PARKING LOT? THAT 1S THE TALBERT PARKING 11 LOT BETWEEN GOLDENWEST AND GOTHARD. THAT PART OF TALBERT 12 SHOWS 5 , 000 AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS . THAT' S HOW MUCH 13 MC DONNELL DOUGLAS HAD ON THEIR PARKING LOTS . 14 THE STUDY DOES NOT OUTLINE' THE FORMULA USED IN 15 THE MODEL FOR THE SURVEY, NUMBERS OF TRIPS GENERATED BY • 16 TYPE OF DWELLING, DWELLING UNITS , COMMERCIAL, ET CETERA. 17 DOES THE REPORT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE 18 AGING OF INFANTS INTO TEENS WITH CARS? THAT CAN MEAN AN 19 INCREASE OF CARS BY ONE-THIRD TO ONE-HALF IN FIVE TO TEN 20 YEARS . COULD WE HANDLE IT THEN , AND AT WHAT PRICE? 21 YOU ARE WORKING ON A TIGHT BUDGET NOW, DUE TO 22 THE OVERBUILDING OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS , AND A DIMINISHED 23 TAX BASE . WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO FIVE OR TEN YEARS FROM 24 NOW WITH AN ADDITIONAL FOUR OR FIVE THOUSAND HOMES? 25 THANK. YOU . 200 f i f 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . NEXT SPEAKER, 2 PLEASE . 3 MR . VANDERSLOOT: GOOD EVENING MAYOR , HUNTINGTON 4 BEACH CITY COUNCILMEMBERS . MY NAME IS JAN VANDERSLOOT. I A 5 LIVE AT 2221 16TH STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, WITH OFFICES IN 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH. I AM VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOLSA CHICA 7 LAND TRUST. 8 1 WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS A SECTION IN THE EIR 9 THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ADEQUATELY ANALYZED. AND I 10 WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ANALYZE IT MORE THOROUGHLY. THAT 11 HAS TO DO WITH THE CONCEPT OF A LAND SWAP INVOLVING THE 12 CLOSED MILITARY BASES AT TUSTIN MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 13 AND EL TORO. A LAND SWAP INVOLVING THE BOLSA CHICA FOR 14 LAND THAT IS PRESENTLY OWNED BY THE MILITARY SERVICE , AND 15 WILL BE DISPOSED OF IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS . • 16 THIS ALTERNATIVE WAS BROACHED BY THE U .S . FISH 17 AND WILDLIFE SERVICE A YEAR AGO. AND I THINK THAT 18 ALTERNATIVE IS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. i 19 THE EIR DOES TALK IN SECTION 7 . 5 OF AN 20 ALTERNATIVE LOCATION AT THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, BUT 21 IT MISREPRESENTS THAT THIS PROJECT OF 4 , 884 HOUSES WOULD BE 22 SUPERIMPOSED UPON THE MILITARY BASE , WITH ALL OF THE 23 ADVERSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND AIR QUALITY IMPACTS . WHEN , IN 24 FACT, THE LAND SWAP , AS ENVISIONED BY THE FISH AND WILDLIFE 25 SERVICE , WOULD BE THAT THE EQUIVALENT VALUE OF LAND AT THE . 201 • 1 MARINE CORPS AIR STATION WOULD BE TRADED TO THE KOLL 2 COMPANY FOR EQUIVALENT VALUE AT BOLSA CHICA. 3 THE ACTUAL ZONING OF THE PROPERTY AT THE AIR 4 STATION WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AND • 5 THE BASE CLOSURE TASK FORCE , WHICH IS ONGOING RIGHT NOW, SO 6 THAT THEY WOULD DECIDE WHAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THEIR AREA. 7 THE ENTITLEMENT OF THAT AREA WOULD THEN HAVE A 8 CERTAIN VALUE , AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT THIS POINT IS 9 RATED AS HALF A MILLION TO A MILLION DOLLARS AN ACRE . SO e 10 IT' S NOT HARD TO SEE THAT IF 200 ACRES , FOR EXAMPLE , AT THE 11 TUSTIN AIR BASE , WERE OFFERED TO THE KOLL COMPANY, THEN 12 KOLL COMPANY COULD HAVE A WIN-WIN SITUATION WHERE THEY • 13 WOULD REALIZE LAND VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY 100 MILLION 14 DOLLARS . THIS IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EIR , AND I THINK 15 THAT IT SHOULD BE . • 16 1 ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP A PUBLIC HEALTH 17 PROBLEM THAT IS ALSO NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EIR. AND THAT' S 18 A POSSIBILITY OF HUNTA VIRUS BEING PRESENT ON THE BOLSA • 19 CHICA. HUNTA VIRUS IS CARRIED BY THE DEER MOUSE . DEER 20 MICE WERE PLENTIFUL IN BOLSA CHICA IN THE EARLY 1980 ' S . A 21 1990 REPORT CONCERNING THE BIOLOGY OF THE DESTRUCTION , OR 22 DEMOLITION OF THE MILITARY BUNKERS STATED IN THAT REPORT 23 THAT DEER MICE WERE ALMOST CERTAIN TO BE FOUND IN THE BOLSA 24 CHICA. 25 SO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS FAR AS THE EIR IS 202 • • 1 CONCERNED, IS THAT SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO OUT THERE AND 2 ACTUALLY DO A STUDY FOR THE DEER MOUSE , AND THEN TO DO THE 3 STUDY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE HUNTA VIRUS IS PRESENT IN 4 THE DEER MOUSE , AND IN FACT NOTIFY THE PUBLIC HEALTH 5 DEPARTMENT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO GO OUT 6 AND DO THAT, BUT THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE EIR AS SOON 7 AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MESA DOES TAKE PLACE , BECAUSE • 8 THEN THERE WILL BE LOTS OF GRADING AND DUST BEING RAISED 9 FOR DEER MICE . . 10 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 11 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 12 CITY CLERK: DONALD GUILLAUME . LARRY GEISSE . PAUL • 13 HORGAN. ERNIE ADAMS. AND THAT' S ALL. 14 MR . HART: MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I HAVE 15 GOT A BOLSA CHICA ALLIANCE BUTTON ON HERE . I AM AN • 16 INDEPENDENT. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE KOLL COMPANY , 17 HOW MUCH, OR HOW LITTLE IT MAKES . 18 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: EXCUSE ME . PLEASE GIVE 19 YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 20 MR. HART: DONALD HART. 9582 SCOTSTOON DRIVE , • 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. 22 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH . I 23 MR. HART: I HAVE WATCHED THIS COUNCIL , AS NOW 24 CONSTITUTED, FOR QUITE A WHILE . I THINK ITS ATTITUDE HAS 25 BROUGHT THIS WHOLE MESS TO THE COUNTY. I DON 'T THINK THERE . 203 • 1 WAS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF COOPERATION FROM THE MEMBERS OF 2 THIS COUNCIL WHEN THE KOLL COMPANY DID WHAT IT FELT IT HAD 3 TO DO. 4 1 HAVE SAT HERE AS LONG AS ANYBODY ELSE AND 5 LISTENED ABOUT EARTHQUAKES , LISTENED ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU 6 CAN THINK OF THAT ARE REALLY SIDE ISSUES . 7 MY HOME ON SCOTSTOON IS RIGHT OVER A • 8 LIQUEFACTION AREA, AND THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DIDN'T 9 GIVE A DAMN WHETHER ANYBODY BUILT THERE OR NOT . AND IT IS 10 BUILT UP SOLIDLY, AND THE LAST TRACT WENT IN ABOUT A YEAR 11 AND A HALF AGO IN THE SAME AREA. AND IT WAS STILL 12 BUILDABLE . BUT NOW THEY WANT TO SAY, WELL, YOU ARE GOING • 13 TO HAVE AN EARTHQUAKE , YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE LIQUEFACTION , 14 YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS AND THAT, WE CAN'T LET YOU BUILD 15 THERE . BUT THEY LET THE OTHER TRACTS GO IN THERE A YEAR 16 AND A HALF AGO, A HALF A BLOCK FROM ME . AND WE ARE RIGHT 17 IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. 18 1 WAS HERE IN THE 1933 EARTHQUAKES , AND I KNOW • I 19 WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT IN ORANGE COUNTY. I WAS BORN IN ORANGE 20 COUNTY. I AM AS NATIVE AS ANY OF THE OTHER INDIANS , OR 21 ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS EVER BORN HERE . I HAVE A LITTLE BIT 22 OF PRIDE IN MY COUNTY. I HAVE WATCHED IT GROW. I HAVE 23 HELPED IT GROW, I FEEL . AND I FEEL DARNED IF I CAN SEE WHY • 24 ALL OF THIS OBSTRUCTIONISM IS GOING ON THROUGH THIS 25 COUNCIL. 204 • 1 THAT' S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU . 2 MR. GEISSE : I AM LARRY GEISSE . I LIVE AT 6811 3 CORRAL CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. 848-3891 . AND I , TOO, 4 APPRECIATE YOU STAYING LATE JUST SO THAT I CAN VOICE MY • 5 OPINION. 6 AT THE SAME TIME , I HAVE TO STOP FOR A MINUTE , 7 BECAUSE CERTAINLY IT UPSETS ME TO HEAR TWO COUNCILMEN SAY • 8 FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS THAT THEY BASICALLY SOLD OUT THE CITY 9 IN THE INTEREST OF ONE LANDOWNER THAT DOESN' T EVEN LIVE IN 10 THE CITY. AND I MEAN, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE • 11 ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WOULD TELL SOMEBODY TO TAKE THEIR 12 PROJECT SOMEPLACE ELSE, JUST BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT GET A 13 GOOD DEAL HERE . I JUST CAN' T BELIEVE THAT THAT HAPPENS . 14 TO ME , THAT' S A VERY MORAL ISSUE . 15 AND I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER COMMENT, TOO, WHICH 16 IS , I WISH I HAD A LOT OF MONEY FOR EVERY TIME SOMEBODY 17 TOLD ME THAT IT' S NOT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS ONE CENT. 18 BECAUSE IT ALWAYS COSTS US A LOT MORE . 19 1 AM JUST GOING TO SKIP THROUGH SOME OF THIS 20 AND JUST SAY THAT, FOR ME , WHEN I GO TO THE BEACH IN • 21 HUNTINGTON BEACH, OR I GO TO CENTRAL PARK, OR I GO TO ANY 22 OF OUR NATIONAL PARKS , THE FIRST THOUGHT THAT COMES TO ME 23 IS I WONDER WHO HAD THE FORESIGHT TO REALLY SET THIS LAND 24 ASIDE AT THE TIME THEY DID. BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THOSE 25 PEOPLE HAD A LOT TO OFFER . 205 1 • 1 1 THINK THE LANDOWNER HAS RIGHTS , BUT EVEN IN 2 A COUNTRY LIKE OURS , THE INDIVIDUAL OCCASIONALLY HAS TO 3 ANSWER TO A HIGHER ORDER . AND THE CONCERNS OF THE 4 MAJORITY SHOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE , WHETHER WE ARE TALKING r 5 ABOUT EMINENT DOMAIN, OR THE COASTAL COMMISSION , OR OTHERS . 6 THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ABOUT LAND 7 BEFORE IT IS DEVELOPED. 8 AND I CAN THINK JUST BY MY HOUSE , THAT THE 9 CITY HAD TO TAKE LAND FROM SOME POOR LANDOWNER WHO HAPPENED 10 TO BE ON ELLIS AVENUE BETWEEN GOLDENWEST AND EDWARDS WHEN • 11 THEY HAD TO COMPLETE THE STREET THERE . 12 IN MY MIND, THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT • 13 HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, IN THEIR LIFETIME , TO REALLY DO 14 SOMETHING GREAT, AND SOMETHING LASTING. AND I BELIEVE THAT 15 WE ARE STANDING ON THE THRESHOLD OF DOING SOMETHING GREAT. 16 AND I REALLY BELIEVE , GIVEN TIME AND DEVELOPMENT, THAT 17 PEOPLE WILL VISIT THE BOLSA CHICA AND WONDER WHO, IN THEIR 18 FORESIGHT, COULD HAVE PRESERVED THIS LAND. AND I DOUBT • 19 MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK THEMSELVES , AS THEY STAND IN 20 AWE , WHO BUILT 5 , 000 HOMES ON THIS LAND. 21 SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I WOULD ASK EACH OF 22 YOU TO STEP OVER THIS THRESHOLD TO GREATNESS AND DO 23 EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO CONVINCE THE KOLL COMPANY THAT • 24 PROFITS , JUST LIKE ONE ' S LIFE , IS VERY TEMPORARY. AND 25 LET' S WORK TO TRY TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THIS LAND AS 206 1 • 1 POSSIBLE . 2 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 3 MR. GUILLAUME: HELLO, MY NAME IS DON GUILLAUME . 1 4 LIVE AT 19243 MEADOWOOD CIRCLE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH. PHONE 5 NUMBER IS 969-0096 . 6 1 HAVE BEEN UP HERE SEVERAL TIMES PREVIOUS , 7 AND I AM COMING BACK AGAIN. TWO OF THE THINGS THAT ARE s 8 VERY PROMINENT RIGHT NOW ARE THE LIQUEFACTION AND THE 9 EARTHQUAKE FAULTS TO OUR RECENT EARTHQUAKE . AND PART OF • 10 THE EIR SHOULD BE , I THINK, INCLUDING THINGS - - ALL THE 11 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ON HERE SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO AN 12 8 . - - FOR AN 8 . 0 EARTHQUAKE . AND I DON 'T THINK THIS IS • 13 ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED, THE IDEA OF PUTTING SOMETHING 14 FIVE-FOOT OFF AN EARTHQUAKE FAULT THAT YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW 15 WHERE IT' S AT. THAT IS NOT A SOLUTION THAT THEY SEEM TO 16 COME UP WITH ON THESE EIR REPORTS . 17 THE FACT THAT THERE ARE HOUSES UP HERE - - 18 TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO THERE IS A HOUSE JUST SLIGHTLY NORTH • 19 OF HERE THAT IS GRADUALLY SINKING INTO THE GROUND. AND 20 FINALLY, THEY HAD TO PUT PILINGS , 15 PILINGS UNDER THIS 21 HOUSE TO RAISE IT BACK UP TO LEVEL. THE HOMEOWNER HAD BEEN 22 SLICING OFF THE DOORS AND WINDOWS AND EVERYTHING SO THAT HE 23 COULD GET THEM CLOSED. AND YET HE WENT RIGHT ACROSS THE 24 WAY TO WHERE THEY HAD BUILT A SCHOOL , ABOUT THE SAME TIME 25 THE TRACT WENT IN, AND THEY HAD BUILT IT ORIGINALLY ON 207 1 PILINGS . BUT THE DEVELOPER , HE DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. 2 NO ONE CAUGHT HIM. NO ONE STOOD OVER HIM WITH A CLUB TO 3 BEAT HIM, YOU HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY . WE ARE TRYING TO 4 TAKE CARE OF THIS THING WITH EIR ' S . 5 ANOTHER THING THAT COMES UP , IT SEEMS TO COME 6 DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THIS LITTLE TRACT HERE IS THE ONLY 7 THING THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE WETLAND 8 AREAS . I THINK IT WAS ALL THE OIL FIELDS IN THE AREA. AND 9 WHY AREN'T THEY BEING ( INAUDIBLE)? SOMEONE NEEDS TO KNOCK • 10 ON SOME DOORS AND PUT MONEY AWAY, EVEN IF WE CAN 'T GO BACK 11 TOO FAR, THERE STILL ARE A FEW OTHER OIL AREAS THAT ARE 12 BEING WORKED. WE SHOULD BE PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE POT TO ♦ 13 TAKE CARE OF THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY HAVE TO BE 14 CLEANED UP . 15 AND AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T DO • 16 THESE THINGS AND WE ARE TOO STRICT, THEY SAY , AND IT' S TOO 17 EXPENSIVE? WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO FIND OUT VERY SHORTLY. 18 THERE IS A 30 BILLION DOLLAR BILL FROM THE STATE THAT HAS • 19 TO BE PAID FOR BY US . AND YOU WILL SEE IT IN YOUR SALES 20 TAX INCREASE VERY SHORTLY. AND THAT IS THE WAY THEY ARE 21 GOING TO PAY FOR, WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE THEM DO WHEN THEY PUT 22 IN THIS TRACT, WHICH I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE THERE TO START 23 WITH. 24 THEY ARE PLENTY OF OTHER AREAS THAT CAN BE 25 DEVELOPED AND THIS IS - - THE WETLANDS WHERE THE WATER IS , 208 • 1 IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THE BIRDS LIVE . THEY ALSO LIVE • 2 OUT IN AN AREA AROUND THAT WETLAND AREA, BECAUSE THEY ARE 3 NOT JUST STRICTLY A FISH IN THE WATER. SO THEY NEED MORE 4 THAN JUST THE HIGHTIDE MARK. �. 5 THANK YOU VERY MUCH . 6 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER, 7 PLEASE . • 8 MR . HORGAN: MADAM MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS , MY 9 NAME IS PAUL HORGAN . I LIVE AT 207 21ST STREET IN • 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH. MY PHONE NUMBER IS 714 , 536-7262 . 11 THE EIR CAME BY MAIL LAST MONTH . THE COUNTY 12 ORDAINED ITS PERUSAL. THE BOLSA JEWEL IS A PASSION WITH • 13 ME . I HOPE FOR PROJECT REFUSAL. FROM MY READ OF THE 14 DRAFT, THE COUNTY HAS RULED THE PROJECT FROM KOLL JUST 15 MAGNIFICENT. THE IMPACTS , THOUGH, SAID ADVERSE , YOU SEE , • 16 REALLY CAN'T BE DESCRIBED AS SIGNIFICANT. I ASKED FOR A 17 HEARING TO STATE MY VIEWS , BUT THE COUNTY HADN'T THE TIME , 18 SO I TOOK PEN IN HAND AS A POOR SUBSTITUTE AND THOUGHT THAT • 19 1 ' D SEND IT THIS RHYME . I SEE IN THE PRESS THAT THE PLAN 20 HAS BEEN REDUCED. PLEASE LET MY GIVE YOU A HINT. IT' S 21 STILL 5 , 000 HOMES THAT THE COMPANY WANTS , YOU SEE , WE HAVE 22 ALL READ THE FINE PRINT. AND HAVE YOU ASKED IF WE NEED ALL 23 THOSE HOMES , ISN'T THAT SOMETHING CONSIDERED QUITE 24 CRITICAL? DO QUESTIONS LIKE THAT GET ANSWERED THESE DAYS , 25 OR ARE MATTERS LIKE THESE JUST POLITICAL? AND THE FOLKS ON • 209 • 1 LOS PATOS , DO YOU THINK THEY' D AGREE 36 HOMES TO THE ACRE 2 IS FINE? IT' S NOW 5 .4 HOMES TO THE ACRE UP THERE , AHH, BUT 3 REMEMBER WHAT IS KOLL' S BOTTOM LINE . AND WHAT OF THE 4 TRAFFIC AND 12 , 000 MORE CARS , WILL THEY HEAR US IF WE JUST 5 SEND A LETTER? CAN WE PROPERLY STATE OUR COMPLETE 6 DISBELIEF WHEN KOLL SAYS CARS WILL MOVE BETTER? 7 AND THE REPORT SAYS THE BIRDS WILL BE SAFE FROM THE CATS , • 8 WITH SPECIAL FENCES AND PROPER INSTRUCTION . MOM, NAUGHTY 9 KITTY GOT OUT ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER ( INAUDIBLE) WILL HAVE ITS • 10 FREE LUNCHEON. AND WHAT ABOUT NATIVE SITES DESTROYED? 11 KOLL SAYS, NOW, JUST DON'T YOU WORRY, THE PLACE HAD BEEN 12 PLOWED, NO BONES WERE AROUND, AND NO MORE BONES WILL BE • 13 FOUND IF WE HURRY. TO RESTORE THE WETLANDS IS A GREAT 14 IDEA. THAT IDEA IS A KEY IN KOLL' S KIT. BUT I ASK THE 15 COUNTY TO THINK AND REFLECT, MUST WE DESTROY BOLSA CHICA TO 16 SAVE IT? I HAVE PROBABLY SAID QUITE ENOUGH FOR NOW, SOME 17 MIGHT SAY I AM ( INAUDIBLE) . SO I ' LL GET TO THE POINT AND 18 REQUEST YOU CONCUR , THE DRAFT EIR IS A LEMON . • 19 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU. 20 CITY CLERK: THAT' S ALL THE SPEAKERS . 21 1 DO HAVE SEVERAL LETTERS THAT WERE HANDED IN 22 DURING THE HEARING. I HAVE A LETTER FROM ANN JEAN SPIEGEL . 23 ROSEMARIE BACHMAN. NANCY DONAVEN. STEVEN DORAME . JACK • 24 RADLE . ERNEST BARTOLO. AND VI COWDEN. 25 THANK YOU. 210 • 1 MAYOR MOULTON-PATTERSON: THANK YOU . 2 AND I WANT TO SINCERELY THANK EVERY ONE OF YOU 3 FOR COMING AND SHARING YOUR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS AND 4 COMMENTS WITH US TONIGHT. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND AS 5 WE SAID AT THE BEGINNING, THESE COMMENTS WILL BE 6 TRANSCRIBED AND TRANSMITTED TO THE COUNTY . BUT PUT THEM IN 7 WRITING YOURSELF, IN ADDITION. • 8 (WHEREUPON, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9 12 : 00 A.M. ) 10 • 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 211 • • 1 CERTIFICATE • 2 OF 3 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER 4 5 6 7 THE UNDERSIGNED CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER OF • 8 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY CERTIFY: 9 • 10 THAT THE FOREGOING VIDEOTAPED CITY COUNCIL HEARING 11 WAS TAKEN BEFORE ME ; 12 • 13 THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PARTIES AND ALL 14 PEOPLE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING WERE 15 RECORDED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME AND THEREAFTER • 16 TRANSCRIBED, SAID TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE COPY OF MY 17 SHORTHAND NOTES THEREOF. 18 WITNESS WHEREOF , I HAVE SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS 19 DATE l 5 q L/ 20 • 21 22 _ 23 ROBIN DONATELLI • 24 C.S .R . NO. 7148 25 . 212 • 7149371804 PUBLIC ECONOMICS INC 926 P02 FEB 14 '94 08:58 PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. Fabric F+nance Urban Eco►tmics Development Services MEMORANDUM February 14, 1994 To: Roger Holt Ervin, Cohen & Jessup From: Carl Goodwin, Senior Associate RE: Fiscal Analysis Conclusions The EIR fails to address the Projeces adverse fiscal impacts on the City of Huntington Beach. If the Project is developed in the County, the adverse impacts will be as follows: 1. A $1.15 million annual drain on the City's operating budget at buildout and every year thereafter. This annual deficit increases to $5.35 mullion when impacts on City Fire Department operations are included. 2. $14.4 million in unfunded City capital facilities impacts. Fire Department impacts increase these one-time capital impacts to $16.8 million. 3. $22.5 million in cumulative costs to the City at buildout, $58.5 million in cumulative costs at buildout if Fire Department impacts are included. ca:cb I:Vtbbckonclude.cam 2100 E.Katella Avenue,Suite 195 960 Ninth Street,Suite 7600 Anaheim,CA 91806 Sacramento,CA 93814 1714)937-0606 / FAX(714)937-1804 (916)449-9646 / FAX(916)446.7104 l includes, as Annex No. 8, a chart which details many of the infirmities of the DEIR's consideration of the alternative projects considered within the DEIR. o Analysis of Consistency with County General Plan. The revised draft analyzes the inconsistencies between the project and the land use and resource elements of the County's general plan. These inconsistencies are not properly documented or analyzed in the DEIR. o Analysis of Soil Import Impacts. The revised draft focuses on the DEIR's inadequate discussion of the impact from import of 1,906,233 cubic yards of earth to the project site. o Focused Analysis on Mesa ESHAs. Part III.J.2 of the revised draft details the ESHAs located on the Mesa and the insufficient analysis of project impacts on those ESHAs, as presented in the DEIR. o Analysis of Standards of Significance. Part II.B of the revised draft illustrates the DEIR's failure to use appropriate standards for determining the significance of impacts. o Cumulative Impacts. Part II.I of the revised draft notes that the DEIR's analysis of cumulative impacts is inadequate, especially with respect to the cumulative impact from the loss of additional wetlands in light of the current loss of over 90% of California's wetlands. o Federal Permit Process. Part II.D.1 of the revised draft includes a brief description of the federal permit process and notes the objections of the federal agencies to the project and the impact of those objections on the likelihood that the restoration could proceed as stated in the DEIR. o EMIEIS and Comments on EIR/EIS. The revised draft incorporates by reference and attaches as an annex the entire 1992 EIR/EIS and the comments received by the City and the Corps regarding that document. The draft notes instances where the current DEIR is not responsive to comments made by affected State and federal agencies regarding the EIR/EIS. Further, the draft includes as annexes a number of Chambers Group and subconsultant memoranda which evidence the difficulty that the preparers had in obtaining information from the developer when preparing the EIR/EIS. o Comments from State and Federal Agencies. The revised draft (at Parts I.D.1 and II.D.3) makes specific reference to and incorporates many of the comments delivered by the affected State and federal agencies with respect to the City/Corps' EIR/EIS and the Notice of Preparation prepared by the County. The draft notes the numerous instances in which the DEIR does not mention the opposition of these agencies to the project as currently proposed. o Enhanced Analysis of Air and Noise Impacts. Part III.M of the revised draft refines the analysis of air quality and noise impacts, including analysis of potential impacts of air emissions and noise and vibration on the sensitive receptors in the area, such as the wetlands. SAR0129A SR 214941 -2- { r , �A, ERVIN, COHEN & JESSUP MEMORANDUM rn s y n n TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney - City of Huntington Beach m co �rcRrn FROM: Steven A. Roseman, Esq. & Roger J. Holt, Esq. a �, DATE: February 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Revised Comment Letter to County of Orange Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR") Prepared by the County Regarding Koll's Development of Bolsa Chica) We have prepared a revised, proposed final draft of the City's comments on the DEIR, a copy of which is being delivered to you with this memorandum. Only the following annexes are attached to the draft: Annex No. 1 - Index to comment letter Annex No. 2 - List of annexes to be attached Annex No. 7 - Summary analysis of mitigation measures Annex No. 8 - Summary analysis of DEIR project alternatives I have also attached hereto a brief memorandum from Public Economics which summarizes the fiscal impact analysis which will be included in Annex No. 11 to the comment letter. The revised draft states the same conclusions as the draft dated January 31, 1994, delivered at the close of the Council's hearing of that date. A computer generated red-lined version showing all changes from the draft delivered two weeks ago is available for reference if desired. For your convenience, and the convenience of the Council, this memorandum summarizes the most significant revisions made to refine the comments of the City on the DEIR: o New Information. The revised draft includes reference to information presented to the Council at its January 31 hearing, including information regarding (i) Koll's environmental experience at Otay Mesa (=Part I.H) and (ii) the controversy regarding the discovery of human remains at archaeological sites on the Bolsa Mesa (= Part III.N). ®Expanded Analysis of Mitigation Measures. The revised draft includes, as Annex No. 7, a chart which considers the failures and infirmities of each mitigation measure noted in the DEIR. ®Expanded Alternatives Analysis. The revised draft augments the discussion of alternative projects by suggesting further alternatives (including an alternative denominated the lowest density feasible alternative) and augments the analysis of offsite alternatives (i.e., alternative locations) by suggesting the DEIR analyze the feasibility of constructing the project in Talega Ranch in San Clemente or in the East Orange planing area. Further, the revised draft now Cil • F ?I 22 i • (310) 281-6309 8652-001 0 UHAt7: 1 February 17, 1994 • VIA HAND DELIVERY Orange County Environmental Management Agency Environmental Planning Division 300 North Flower Street; P.O. Box 4048 • Santa Ana, California 92072-4048 ATTN: Mr. Paul Lanning, Environmental Planning Division Re: Comments of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR") prepared by the Orange County • (the "County") Environmental Management Agency (County Project No. 551; State Clearinghouse No. 93-071004) with respect to The Bolsa Chica 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 DEIR. After thorough analysis by the City's professional staff and the consultants noted in this letter, the City has concluded that the document fails to fulfill the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act • ("CEQA"). The implementation of the Bolsa Chica development as proposed by Koll Real Estate Group ("Koll"), therefore, cannot proceed until the County rectifies the many CEQA infirmities detailed in this letter, and the DEIR and all relevant technical data are thereafter recirculated for public review and comment. • Proposed Final Draft Dated Febnory 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 2 1 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 and water quality issues), John Minch & Associates (with respect to cultural resources issues), Public Economics (with respect to 1 fiscal feasibility of mitigation measures 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 four main sections. The first section is an introduction which provides a general overview of many of the areas in which the City finds the DEIR to be deficient. The second section examines particular violations of CEQA including the inadequacy of the project description and consideration of the 1 environmental setting and the limited scope and analysis of the alternatives considered by the DEIR. The third section contains a chapter-by-chapter analysis of the DEIR, and the fourth and final section sets forth the City's conclusion and formal request for revision and recirculation of the DEIR. 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 1 the County with this letter, each of which is incorporated into this letter and made a part hereof by this reference, is attached as AmEX No. 2. I. Introduction 1 The City is justifiably concerned regarding the impacts of the proposed project on the City and its citizens. The majority of the project area (referred to in the DEIR as the LCP Area) is an unincorporated island of County which is surrounded by the City. The remainder of the project area is within the City. Accordingly, the impacts of the 1 project will be felt most acutely by the residents and people of the City. As is noted in the DEIR, in 1992 the City cooperated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") in publishing and circulating a joint environmental impact report ("EIR")/environmental impact statement ("EIS") (the joint EIRIEIS circulated by the City and the Corps in 1992 is referred to as the "EMIEIS") which considered the construction and operational impacts of 1 a residential development project somewhat similar to the project described in the DEIR. The City received numerous responses to the EIR/EIS, including responses from members of the public, concerned environmental groups and various local, State and federal agencies. Those responses, and the concerns they raised, have heightened the City's 1 P/opowd Find Dnh Dared Fi&u y 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 3 • appreciation and understanding of the impacts which the project will cause in the sensitive environmental setting of the proposed site. • A. THE PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO INFORM DECISION-MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE. 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 Ass'n of San Francisco, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Ca1.3d 376, 392 (1988), opinion 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 reached • ecological points of no return." Id. The County's DEIR fails to sound the alarm required under CEQA. 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. The DEIR 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 DEIR'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. B. AN EIR MUST EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PROJECT IN LIGHT OF • THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. For an environmental impact report to fulfill its purpose, it must consider (i) the proposed governmental action, and (ii) its consequences, in light of (iii) the environmental setting in which the project (or program) will exist. S= CEQA Guidelines • Rvpord A-Ad Drat Dead F*&VWy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency / February 17, 1994 Page 4 1 (the "Guidelines") § 15125.11 The project description must be consistent throughout the document and the scope of the project should be readily understandable. As is detailed in Part H.A, below, the County's DEIR neither describes the setting in which the project will exist nor provides an understandable and accurate project description which is applied 1 consistently through the document. The DEIR does not analyze the difference between the current environmental setting and the environmental setting during and after the construction of the project, often comparing Koll's program to the program (the "1986 LCP") conditionally certified by the California Coastal Commission ("CCC") in 1986 (a copy of the 1986 LCP is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 3) without considering the baseline condition of the current, undeveloped status of the land. 1 Guidelines § 15125(c) expressly states, "Where a proposed 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.'T Thus, as in the case of Koll's development of Bolsa Chica, where a proposed project is an agency decision 1 changing planning or zoning policies or ordinances, the potential impacts must be compared with both (i) those which would ultimately occur under the existing plan and (ii) 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 of El Dorado, 131 1 Cal.App.3d 350 (1982); Cily of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. Bd of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 246-7 (1986); Christward Ministry v. Suyerior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 190-91 (1986). The analysis of the DEIR 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 / 1/ ?he 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 codified at 14 California Code of Regulations("CCR")§§ 15000`15387. 2/ See also Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado. 131 CaLApp.3d 350 (1982) (in EIR prepared by County in connection with the adoption of a new general plan which permitted less growth than the old plan, the EIR is required to use the existing level of actual physical development within the county as the baseline for comparison). 1 Phoposd A-W Draft Dabd A%Mmy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 5 • conditions as the baseline. Sgr,, c L, DEIR § 4.1.3.1 at p. 4.1-35Y and 4.1-41. The foregoing inadequacies must be corrected (and the corrected document recirculated), if the DEIR is to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. • C. THE COUNTY ACTS AS THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER CEQA AND. AS SUCH. MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMENTS OF THE CITY BOTH AS ADVISORY AGENCY AND AS RESPONSIBLE AGENCY. The County was designated as the lead agency responsible for preparing the • DEIR. This designation does not give the County free reign with respect to the document. CEQA requires the lead agency to consult with other local agencies, such as the City, which will have approval authority over or will suffer adverse impacts from the proposed project. On July 12, 1993, the City's then-acting director of Community Development commented on the County's notice of preparation (the "NOP"). A copy of that letter is • attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 4. A comparison of that letter with the varying descriptions of the program contained in the DEIR reveals that the County largely ignored the comments of the City in preparing the DEIR and developing the proposed land use and facilities for the siteY Despite the listing of certain City officials in Appendix A to the • 31 Comparison to the 1986 LCP is not relevant. First, the 1986 LCP is not a fully adopted or effective planning document since it was only conditionally certtfled by the Coastal Commission. See, e.g..DEIR at p. 4.1- 42, 14, noting that the CCC would require full review and approval of the wetlands restoration plan outlined in the LCP, and other issues,prior to certification of the 1986 LCP. Second, Page 7-30, In. 8-10 indicates that the staff of the CCC has expressly indicated that the 1986 LCP is no longer consistent with CCC goals and policies. • See Comments of CCC on EDUEIS included within ANNEX N0. 10 to this letter. that passage concludes that, "although the LUP is still part of the County general plan, it is considered to have low feasibility form the standpoint of implementation.' Yet, Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR bases its entire discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with Coastal Act policies and objectives and consistency of the proposed project with the County's general plan on a comparison of the project to the 1986 LCP. Given the DEIR's own analysis of the 1986 LCP as being inconsistent with the CCC's current interpretation of the Coastal Act, the comparison to the 1986 LCP is not • valid. 41 The DEIR omits any summary of the comments received on the NOP and there is no discussion of areas of controversy surrounding the project. Although these items are not expressly required in the Guidelines, they are particularly helpful to the public and to decision-makers in understanding the import of the action which the decision-makers are considering. Given the extensive public interest and voluminous comments which the County • (continued...) Proposed Final Draft Doted Febwry 14, 1994 I • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 6 1 DEIR, the County did not sufficiently consult with City officials while preparing the DEIR. The County has not adequately fulfilled its duties as lead agency to consult with and consider the needs of the City, the one jurisdiction wholly surrounding the project site and the jurisdiction most affected by the project. Guidelines § 15096 states the responsibility of the City as a "responsible agency" under CEQA. In general, the guideline requires the responsible agency to be responsive to the requests and requirements of the lead agency. In addition, PRC § 21080.3 r=ires the lead agency to consult with all responsible agencies. Further, the lead agency is required to respond to a responsible agency's request for a meeting to I consult "regarding the scope and content of the environmental information which the responsible agency may require." Sty, PRC §§ 21080.4(b), 21104(a) and 21153 (requiring a local lead agency to consult with both responsible agencies and any city which borders on the county within which the project is located); legs Guidelines § 15082(c). The County has not sufficiently consulted with the City in the manner and to the extent required I to fulfill the foregoing requirements. D. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF CEOA. 1 1. Segmentation of Federal Approvals and Wetlands Restoration. As is noted in various places within the DEIR, the proposed program will require a number of federal approvals under different federal statutes. The most significant, but = 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"). The WRP is the sole justifying consideration for the acknowledged impacts (and, presumably the unacknowledged impacts as well) of the proposed development of this environmentally 1 4/(...continued) received on the NOP, a table which lists the NOP respondents, the topics and alternatives they asked to be covered in the EIR, where those topics and alternatives are addressed in the document, and an explanation of why requests from those commenting on the NOP were not implemented is required to make this DEIR a complete informational document as required under CEQA. A similar table should also be included in the recirculated EIR so that the decision-makers and the public can assess how the County responded to the comments made to the DEIR. Hopomd F&W Dizh DAt d Fibnry 14,1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 7 • sensitive site. Ste, ,&, D. Haldane, Muddying the Waters Further; Lack of Hearing on Report Renews Bolsa Chica Debate, L.A. Times, January 22, 1994, Orange County Edition at Part B (Metro) p.1, col. 2, which expressly notes that Koll would receive permission to build 4,286 homes on 400 acres of the site in exchange for the $48 million restoration of • the wetlands. In that same article Lucy Dunn, senior vice president of Koll, is quoted as saying that the Koll plan for development, "is the only alternative for saving wetlands that are dying". Thus, the wetlands restoration is relied upon by Koll, and is generally perceived, as the quid prQ gg for the development of Koll's project. However, without the completion and obtaining by Koll of federal approvals and the issuance of fill, • restoration and other permits from the Corps, no restoration can occur.!' The DEIR expressly excludes consideration of the impact on Koll's proposed project of the federal permits required for its implementation. Both of the project scenarios seriously examined in the DEIR would permit the portions of the development not located • on the wetlands to proceed wit o the issuance of the federal permits required for implementation of the VWRPY Since the DEIR appears to rely on the restoration of the wetlands as the justification for the impacts of the development (and since that restoration is expressly stated as a primary objective of the development), the DEIR 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 S/ As is noted in subpart 11.C.2,below, correspondence from the affected State and federal agencies make the issuance of the federal permits required for implementation of the project a long shot, at best. 61 The first step in implementing Koll's WRP will be the phased dedication of 767 acres of the lowland to the County. Section 3.2.2.6 and the WRP briefly consider the dedication; however, the DEIR does not analyze the impacts of the dedication or its phasing. Although the DEIR acknowledges in passing that the dedication would occur in stages, its analysis assumes a single bulk dedication. Further,page 3-28, ln. 11-14 of the DEIR expressly conditions the conveyance of all but 82 of the 767 acres on the issuance of the Section 404 permits by the Corps. If no such permit is issued(as may be the ultimate outcome given the disputes among Koll, the County, the Corps, • U.S. EPA, CDFG, USFWS and other affected State and federal agencies), the dedication and wetlands restoration would not occur but development of the Bolsa Mesa would nonetheless go forward. Page 3-27 of the DEIR specifically states, 'the County has not reviewed, considered or agreed to any of the specific details of this proposed dedication program.' Thus, the DEIR segments the dedication program and the wetlands restoration from the development of at least 3,410 dwelling units on the Bolsa Chica Mesa (the 'Mesa )and the potential development of an additional 598 units on the MWD parcel, all of which may proceed, without restoration of any kind, under • the program described in the DEIR. Nopord AW Draft Dared iebwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 8 1 not permitted under CEQA and, as is more fully detailed in Part II.C, below, 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 not subject to federal jurisdiction to proceed without obtaining federal permits for the wetlands restoration, the DEIR segments the project into two projects; one consisting of the development of between 3,410 and 4,286 homes on areas of the site other than the Lowlands (representing 80% to 100% of the total project revenue) and the second, if ever constructed, consisting of the development of up to 1,100 single family homes (provided that the total number of all homes within the County could not exceed 4,286) in the Lowlands, conditioned on Koll's funding of some portion of the future restoration of the wetlands if, as and when oil operations were discontinued. The process employed by the County in preparing the DEIR 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."81 Even in those cases where a federal 71 In the case of a project which will require both an EIR and an EIS, if the EIR will be considered prior to the preparation of an EIS(or a finding by the Federal agency of no significant impact), Guidelines§ 15222 requires 1 either(i)that a lead agency 'should try to prepare a combined EIR-EIS. . .'or(H)in order to avoid the need for the preparation of a wholly separate EIS, 'the lead agency must involve the federal agency in the preparation of the joint document . . . because federal law generally prohibits a federal agency from using an Ell?prepared by a state agency unless the federal agency was involved in the preparation of the document.' PRC § 21083.5 indicates that an EIS can be substituted for an EIR (in whole or in part)if and to the extent that the EIS fuyllls the requirements of CEQA;however, DEIR §4.1.1.6 states that federal agency involvement in the DEIR process was 1 'relatively limited' The failure of the County to publish a joint EIMIS and the failure to actively involve the Corps in the preparation of the DER?makes the EIR inadequate under CEQA and the applicable Guidelines. See also 40 C F.R Pan 1506. 81 DEIR §4.1.1.6(page 4.1-28, In. 5) notes that the DEIR was prepared without significant input from the Corps or other federal agencies. Further, the September 13, 1993 letter to Koll from the Corps'District Engineer, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 5,documents that,despite some consultation between Koll and the Corps, the parties have not reached agreement regarding the overall purpose of the project for purposes of federal law. The affected federal agencies must agree on this most basic requirement, as mandated by NEPA and the Clean Water Act,prior to the commencement of the process of the issuance of the requisite federal permits. As is noted at page 4.1-28,In. 5-15,of the DEIR,federal law requires that wetlands development must be demonstrated (continued...J PrgvaMd And Dram D*W F*brwy 14,19" 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 9 • 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.9' In this case, however, the County appears to be the agency which refuses to participate in the joint • State/federal planning and environmental review process mandated by CEQA. When the City prepared the EIR/EIS, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 9, it recognized that cooperation with the Corps and other affected State and federal agencies was mandated both by law and by the inevitable need to consider the coordination required among the local, State and federal permits for the project. The DEIR dismissed the need for such coordination with the simplistic statement that "a separate EIS for federal approvals would be required before federal permits could be issued to implement the Proposed project's proposed residential development and wetlands restoration in the Lowland portion of the County LCP Area." DEIR at page 2-2, In. 1-4. The DEIR states no requirement that the first development of the site must be concurrent • with the commencement of restoration of the wetlands (or conditioned on the eventual restoration), even though the DEIR expressly states that reversal of the degradation of the wetlands and expansion of the size and quality of the wetlands is a primary objective of the project. DEIR p. 3-33, In. 27, 44-50. The DEIR only "anticipates" that modifications of the federal permit application would reflect the changes in the proposed project and Koll's • business reorganization to comply with the requirements of pertinent federal legislation. DEIR at page 4.1-28, In. 35-39. However, there is no indication whether the WRP can be • 8/(..continued) to be either for restoration purposes, water dependent or otherwise satisfy the Corp's Section 404 requirements. The letter attached as ANNEX No. S indicates that the Corp believes that the proposed development of the Lowlands does not fuyill those requirements. 9/ Because it can be expected that the federal process and federal mandates regarding wetlands and • endangered species would have the potential to effect great changes in Koll's project and its phasing, the preparation of separate state and federal environmental clearance documentation will substantially complicate the process. If major changes are made on the plan footprint and phasing, or in the number of units allowed, a subsequent CEQA circulation would also be required,further lengthening the clearance process. Like state agencies under CEQA,federal agencies also generally encourage joint documents, especially for projects of this level of significance. The preparation of a separate DEIR for this project, without consultation or cooperation with the • affected federal agencies is truly an anomaly. Proposed FkkW Dnh D&W Fbn 14,1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 10 1 fulfilled or whether the County would require Koll to take any action to obtain federal permits prior to commencing the development of the Bolsa Mesa in 1995. The County's refusal to engage in a joint process with the affected federal 1 agencies impairs the public's analysis of the DEIR. Given that the primary project objectives (as stated in Chapters 1 and 3 of the DEIR) include a series of actions (i.e., restoration/creation of wetlands and relocation of ESHAs) which W= undergo federal environmental review, the omission of federal agency input makes the County's planning efforts largely moot since the County's plans may be significantly altered by the need to conform to the federal requirements. Further, as detailed in Part II.D, below, the current 1 position of the federal agencies brings Koll's ability to obtain the federal permits into serious question. 2. Segmentation of County and City Portions of the Development. The DEIR also segments the project by defining the "project" under consideration as on 4 the development within the County. This definition excludes from the DEIR's consid- eration the development of some 598 units within areas which are within the study area (i.e., the project site) but are not within the County LCP. This divides a portion of Koll's intended development into yet another segment which is not considered as part of the project under review. The County's limited view of its responsibility for review is 4 bolstered by Thomas B. Matthews' letter of January 13, 1994 to Daryl D. Smith of the City, a copy of which is attached as Aiv1vu No. 6, in which Mr. Matthews, the County's Director of Planning, stated, "the County is responsible for ensuring that all issues ffrr which the County has jurisdiction, including those of local and State-wide importance, are adequately analyzed in the Draft EIR." Contrary to that assertion, the County is 4 responsible for assessing the local and State-wide impacts of "the whole ofan action which has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment," not jusl the portions within the County's jurisdiction.''—°' By excluding the areas of the project within 10/ Guidelines§ 15378(a)states that a "project'analyzed under CEQA includes the, "whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately and that is . . . an activity involving the issuance. . . of a . . . permit. . . or other entitlement for use. . .from one or more public agencies.' Further, Guidelines§ 15378(c)clarifies that the term 'project"does not mean each separate government approval and,accordingly,the County cannot legally certify an EIR which purports to analyze only those issues over (continued...) Aupomd Fnnf Dish Osrsd Asbury 14. 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 11 • the City, the County has considered only the impact of a portion of the project, in violation of CEQA. The County should have considered the potential impacts of development of 4,884 units on 1,973.1 acres of the entire site, rather than considering the impact of • construction of 4,286 dwelling units on 1,603.4 areas within the County jurisdiction.''—'1 Compare Table 3.2-2 with Table 3.2-1. By excluding the 598 units proposed for the City areas from consideration in the DEIR, the County has split the total project into two separate parts, one in the County and the other in the City. This is a clear violation of CEQA, separate and apart from the violation arising from the segmentation of the federal approvals. The DEIR should be rewritten and recirculated so that the public is informed of • the consequences of the entire 4,884 dwelling unit project. 3. Segmentation of Remediation Actions. It also appears that the implementation of the project has been segmented from the process of making the site "clean" for the development to occur. The whole issue of hazardous materials has been • 10/(..continued) which the County has jurisdiction. All of the approvals and actions which have the potential for effecting a change in the environment are included within the project and must be analyzed in the DELR if that document is to pass • muster under CEQA. Ironically,the County appears to have confused its responsibility as the lead agency with the more limited responsibilities of a responsible agency under PRC § 21002.1(d), which provides, in pertinent part: A public agency functioning as a lead agency shall have responsibility for considering the effects, both individual and collective, of all activities involved in the project. A public agency functioning as a responsible agency shall have responsibility for considering only • the effects of those activities involved in a project, which it is required by law to carry out or approve. Since the County has taken the role of lead agency with respect to this project, the County is required to take all of the effects of the project into consideration. • 11/ The DEIR's erclusion of the 598 units within the City is not clearly presented anywhere in the project description nor in the evaluation of the particular impacts of the project. This is only one of the many instances in which the DEIR fails to state critical information in a straightforward manner. Close examination of the impacts analysis does reveal that the impact of the total 4,884 units in the project is not considered. See, r.g., DEIR p. 4.8-25, lines 43-44 noting that the traffic impacts section analyzes only the impact of 4,286 units. Thus, the DEIR is inadequate under CEQA both because it segments the project and because it does not clearly indicate that it has • done so and, therefore,fails to inform the public of the true impacts of the overall project. PIW"d ROW Draft Datd fibwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 12 1 sidestepped and left to the discretion of the property owners. The DEIR does not effectively address the activities necessary to clean up the site. Its prior use for oil extraction and as a gun club means that there are significant amounts of contaminants deposited in, on or under the entire site, some of which are known, but much of which may be buried beneath the silts and sands deposited across large portions of the site. The DEIR must be amended to include an accurate and complete description of the required investigation into the presence of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes and must include the results of that investigation. The DEIR must specify the nature, extent, and severity of existing contamination and establish adequate soil clean-up standards and protection measures to ensure maintenance of public health and safety of the residents of the existing 1 neighborhoods surrounding the site, the future residents of Koll's development of the site, and the workers performing the remediation and constructing the development. The DEIR must also specify measures for the protection of the local flora and fauna from the impacts of remediation activity, including but not limited to measures protecting vegetation, wildlife and other sensitive receptors from impacts which may result from upset conditions. 1 Further, the DEIR must specify how site remediation will occur, where potential stockpiling and disposal of contaminated materials will occur, and provide a rough estimate of the volume of materials to be remediated. Estimates of the air quality implications of such clean up activities and their means of control must also be included.'' 1 121 The DEIR's discussion of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is one of the many instances in which the DEIR depends on mitigation measures to be developed and specified in the future, a ter the development of studies and standards not yet completed and the close of the public comment period on the DEIR. The use of unspecified mitigation measures based on future studies and development of future plans is not permitted under CEQA. Attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 7 is a table which analyzes each of the Mitigation Measures listed 1 in the DEIR and indicates that over 60% of the DEIR's Mitigation Measures are invalidated by this flaw which has been disapproved in a number of court decisions. 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 a#f 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 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 1 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(f 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 (continued...) 1 P►oposd Fmnl Dm t D&W Fibnwy 14, 1984 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 13 E. THE DEIR ABUSES THE CONCEPT OF TEERING BY USING A PROGRAM EIR To EVADE THE MORE DETAILED PROJECT EIR ANALYSIS REOUMED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES UPON THE BOLSA • MESA. The DEIR expressly states at page 1-1, 1n.12-14, that it is a "program EIR" within the meaning of Guidelines §§ 15165 and 15168. A program EIR is one type of "tiered" environmental review1" mandated under PRC § 21093. That section provides, in • 121(..continued) in an environmental document must be complete and relevant, (U)that mitigation measures must be Limely set forth and (W)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. In the case of Koll's proposed development, the DEIR defers investigation and analysis of the likely impacts from the required substantial remediation of hazardous materials/Waste until some time in the future;however, the DEIR also contemplates that development on the Mesa will commence in 1995. There will,therefore be foreseeable adverse impacts to the new residents of the Mesa from the 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 DEIR gives • no information on these items. 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 DEIR 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 known and foreseeable problems. It seems that Koll and the County intend 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 1995 commencement of the project would be doubtful at best. By relying on the development of future plans for mitigation and remediation, the DEIR attempts to evade the public disclosure and discussion which lies at the heart of CEQA. See Parts I.F and III.V, below. 131 Public Resources Code ("PRC") § 21068.5 defines 'tiering'or 'tier' to mean: the coverage of general matters and environmental effects in an environmental impact report prepared for a policy,plan, program, or ordinance followed by narrower or site- specific environmental impact reports which incorporate by reference the discussion in any prior environmental impact report and which concentrate on the environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated or (b) were not analyzed as significant effects • on the environment in the prior environmental impact report. Ropossd RnW Dish Dated f*&VWY 14. 1994 • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 14 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 4 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. See Guidelines §§ 15146, 4 15152, 15168(c). In this case, however, the program EIR issued by the County is, in reality, a project EIR for the construction of the first phase of the project, a significant development of between 3,400 homes and 4,286 homes and the construction of roads and infrastructure which will set in place the development patterns for the remaining undeveloped parcels.L' The use of a program EIR to evaluate such a construction project I may be permitted under CEQA o y if it adequately addressed, analyzed and, where possible, mitigated all of the potential impacts from the project in the same manner as if a project EIR were prepared in accordance with Guidelines § 15161; however, the DEIR circulated by the County does not do so. The DEIR cannot stand as the basic environmental review for the construction of a small city within the island of County area surrounded by the City. 141 This conclusion becomes clear when one examines Koll's conditional commitment to perform the wetlands restoration, the improbability of issuance offederal permits for the wetlands restoration (see Part II.D,below)and Koll's express refusal to commit to any restoration of the wetlands in connection with mesa development. Attached to this letter as ANNEX No.18, is a letter from Koll to the City's deputy administrator in which Koll expressly notes 1 that, 'a portion of the wetlands would be restored by the developer only if lowland development is permitted,'and that, accordingly, 'there can be no presumption of any wetland restoration by the developer within a mesa-only alternative (emphasis in original). Based on the federal agencies' negative reactions to the proposed project, as detailed in Part II.D of this letter, and the above-quoted candid self-assessment by Koll of the limits of its commitment, it is clear that Koll's true intention is to develop the mesa without ever restoring the wetlands. The DEIR does not adequately disclose this intention. Proposod Find Drdt D&W Fo&rw"14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 15 • F. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES AND UNMONITORED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION. • In many instances, detailed further in Section III of this letter, the DEIR relies on the preparation of future studies and analysis for its conclusion that a given potential impact will not be significantAY 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 DEIR for this project does not adopt objective criteria for performance and, therefore, the analysis of the DEIR violates CEQA's requirement that environmental documents develop feasible and effective mitigation measures at the earliest • stages of planning for land use approvals. This requirement is particularly important in the context of a program EIR such as the DEIR which sets an overall policy for the development of the entire project site. The treatment of mitigation measures is unusual at best. The reference in the DEIR on page 2-6, lines 42-44, that: Only those PDFs [project design features] that do not completely remedy or mitigate a potential significant effect identified in the analysis will be included in the list of mitigation measures and will be included in the • Mitigation Monitoring Program with other required mitigation measures. 151 For example,at page 1-35,in considering the residual impacts for Impact 4.11-2 the DEIR determines that residual impacts will be insignificant even though the applicable mitigation measure says only that the. "Area shall • be evaluated for significance by a quaked historical archaeologist and/or architectural historian." The same comment applies to Impacts 4.11-3 through 4.11-6. The DEIR assumes that the impact is not significant even though the study to assess the significance of the impact has not yet been performed nor its results analyzed. This is symptomatic of the effort the EIR makes to call potentially significant impacts "insignificant" throughout the document and symptomatic of the tendency of the DEIR to use future studies, not yet performed or completed, to support its contention that the impacts of the project are not significant. A table categorizing certain inadequacies • of the mitigation measures listed in the DEIR is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 7. Rop"ad AW Div/t D@W fWLwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 16 1 represents an approach that flies in the face of the intent of CEQA and its requirements for mitigation monitoring. As a result, the EIR either does not address or barely touches on potential impacts which might result from project implementation if the possible impact is supposedly addressed by a PDF. The public never gets to know what those impacts might 1 have been, nor can they evaluate whether the unspecified PDF will actually mitigate the impact.'-' This approach severely impairs the DEIR and makes it a legally inadequate document in light of the "full public disclosure" mandates of CEQA. It also means that the Mitigation Monitoring Program will be incomplete. For example, the WRP is supposed to be a PDF. It, by the above statement, would not be part of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. This exclusion is not in tune with current practice, and violates the express 1 requirements of PRC § 21081.6. G. TIME DEIR OMITS ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBII.TTY OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED wrrHOUT IDENTIFYING M 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 1 which is capable of being carried out taking into account, among other things, economic and techIlical considerations. As detailed below, the schemes relied upon in the DEIR to mitigate the significant and adverse impacts of the proposed project appear to be 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 DEIR's dependence on the area traffic improvement 1 161 For example, Chapter 9.4 of the DEIR relies on unspecified PDFs to mitigate water quality impacts, Chapter 9.5 relies on unspecified PDFs to mitigate coastal resources impacts, Chapter 9.7 relies on unspecified PDFs including the WRP)to mitigate terrestrial biology impacts and the DEIR relies on the A 77P to mitigate traffic circulation impacts. Nowhere is the nexus between the PDFs and the mitigation adequately explained to the point where the public or the decision-makers could evaluate the efficacy of the PDF to mitigate the impact. Further, the DEIR does not impose the PDFs as an express condition of project implementation. 1 Hopowd Fray Oiah Dot"Fib my 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 17 • 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 4,286 homes into the area (a conclusion which is not accepted by the City and which ignores the 598 additional homes which would be built within the City as part of the project), the DEIR 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 DEIR 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.'—" Thus, the DEIR 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 • 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 DEIR'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. 7. • Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 11 is a brief fiscal analysis prepared by Public Economics analyzing the costs of the various mitigation measures proposed by the DEIR and assessing the continued economic viability of the proposed project if those costs are borne by Koll and are reflected in the prices which homebuyers would pay for the • residential units or are financed through public financing, Mello-Roos or Assessment Districts and thereby become an ongoing cost of ownership of the units. As is noted in ANNEX NO. 11, 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 • 17/ As is noted in the discussion of consistency of the project with the County's general plan in Part III.D 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 fuY111 the general plan's policy of requiring adequate mitigation of circulation impacts prior to the commencement • of development. P►opoad FbW Draft Dud Fobmwy 14. 1994 0 I Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 18 I the project on the City by requiring the developer to pay to the City impact fees prior to the issuance of any permits for development.181 H. THE DEIR DoEs NoT CONSIDER KoLL's ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IN ASSESSING MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION, I 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 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. According to the DEIR, Koll will be relied upon to finance, fund and implement the WRP, the ATIP and the other mitigation measures and PDFs relied on by the DEIR for its determination that the project's impacts would not be significant adverse impacts on the environment. I At the January 31, 1993 City Council hearing regarding the DEIR, a transcript of which was transmitted to the County under separate cover and which forms a part of the public comment on the DEIR, many citizens testified that Koll's record on environmental matters in general, and on the preservation of wetlands in particular, was not unblemished. Attached to this letter as ANNEx NO. 27 are miscellaneous materials, I received at the January 31, 1993 City Council hearing, which detail the allegations raised at 181 In a wrinen response to the County's NOP, the County's own chief, HBP/Planning and Acquisition states as follows: I Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Local Park Code requirements for 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 al_fiscal impacts (including those on the City) related to the project. Napard f4W Draft Dsbd F"nmv 14, 1994 I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 19 • the hearing. The City does not know the truth or falsity of the attached materials but brings these materials to the County's attention so that it can investigate. Since the attached material does raise a question regarding whether Koll should be relied upon to proceed with the mitigation and PDFs as contemplated, the County must assess Koll's prior record in order to balance its "prior shortcomings and its promises for future action." Id. In doing so, 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 DEIR. • H. Particular CEQA Violations. A. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT AND • INACCURATE. The DEIR contains a project description which is incomplete as to the project's environmental setting, phasing (particularly with regard to the phasing of grading and stockpiling of large amounts of dredged material during grading activities), and scope. • Its inappropriate approach to the discussion and application of mitigation measures (noted in paragraph I.F above and in ANNEx No. 7) makes it impossible to understand the relationship between development and environmental mitigation as proposed by the DEIR. Individually, the deficiencies in the DEIR caused by these faults would warrant recirculation with new information added to the DEIR. Together they make recirculation of a thoroughly overhauled, complete and more clearly written document a clear and PhopoaW Find Didt Dared FoMmy 14, 1994 • ! Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 20 unavoidable requirement of well-established law. See Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n of San Francisco. Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 94 Daily Journal D.A.R. 70 (Cal. Sup. Ct. December 30, 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 information includes substantial changes to the project). 1. Varying Descriptions of the "Project" Are Used. The DEIR is never satisfied with a single description of the project and it uses varying descriptions throughout the document. The description of the project in Chapter 1 of the document varies somewhat with the description in Chapter 3. The list of governmental actions required for approval and implementation of the project differs in each of those sections and both lists differ from the list given in Chapter 2 of the DEIR. 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. 5= 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. Chapter 1 of the DEIR describes the project by noting that it ! "addresses the scope of a series of actions and approvals that are considered part of the over overa Bolsa Chica project". DEIR p. 1-1, In. 13-14 (emphasis added)AF Guidelines § 15124(d)(2) requires the project description to include, at a minimum, a list of the approvals for which the EIR will be used. The DEIR includes a number of different lists of approvals required for the project, each of which set forth somewhat different approvals. ! The description in Chapter 1 of the DEIR states that the County "will eventually prepare an LCP for this area," and notes that the related approvals required for the project include (i) a general plan amendment, (ii) an amendment to the County's Master Plan of Arterial ! 191 This assertion is in direct conflict with the assertion of the County Director of Planning in the correspondence attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 6 and discussed in Part LD.2 above. ! Pfwamd Find DtN1 Drtd rebmsry 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 21 • Highways (the "MPAH"), (iii) a zone change, (iv) a Community Profile Amendment201, (v) Coastal Development Permits ("CDP") from the County and (vi) CDPs from the City with respect to portions of the Bolsa Chica Street Extension ('GCSE") and tidal inlet. r Chapter 2.5 sets forth a list of approvals required to implement the proposed project which is similar to the list set forth in Chapter 1; however, numerous other approvals are scattered among the other provisions of Chapter 2. The list of approvals distributed through Chapter 2 of the DEIR include the following: 0 LIST OF REQUIRED APPROVALS Approval Agency Statutory Authority Local/State 0 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 5. Wetlands Restoration County Board of Supervisors Program and Implemen- Army Corps 33 USC § 1344 Q 404) tation Action Plan 33 USC §§ 403, 407 Coastal Commission Pub. Res. Code § 35000 6. Development Agreement County Board of Supervisors Gov't Code § 65864 7. Coastal Development City of Huntington Beach City LCP Permits 201 The Community Profile Amendment is listed in Section 1 but not thereafter discussed in the consideration of land use impacts or approvals in Section 4.1-1. Accordingly, it is not possible to know what the impact of this • approval or its consequences would be. Awaaed Final Draft Dated February 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 22 A g ngc Statutory Authority Coastal Commission 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 § 35000 et seq. Agreement 12. Approval of Permits Coastal Comm ion Pub. Res. Code § 35000 et seq. (prior to cert. of LCP) Fede 13. Permits under § 404 of Army Corps 33 USC § 1344(§ 404) Clean Water Act and § 10 33 USC §§ 403, 407 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. Compliance with § 7 of Army Corps 16 USC § 1531-1544 Endangered Species Act USFWS NMFS 18. Compliance with Fish and USFWS 16 USC §§ 661-666 . Wildlife Coordination Act EPA NMFS CDFG 19. Compliance with § 491 et US DOT 33 USC § 491 et seq. seq. of Bridge Act USCG ! Propomd Fred Draft Datod Feb mry 14, 1994 ! • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 23 • Sss om Au ori,,iY 20. Compliance with § 106 of 16 USC § 470 NHPA • 21. Compliance with § 208 of 33 USC § 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution (P.L. 92-500) Control Act of 1972 In addition to the foregoing approvals, Table 2.12-1 at page 2-8 sets forth yet a different list of State and local approvals required for project implementation and omits certain of the above-described local approvals and all of the required federal • approvals. Section 2.12.1 (p.2-7) states that the approvals listed in Table 2.12-1, the approval of the LCP and the development agreement will rely on the DEIR. As is noted below, the program DEIR prepared by the County is not adequate environmental documentation for those approvals (which, collectively, authorize the construction of the development on the Mesa), and a more thorough project EIR for those approvals is required • under CEQA. Further, given the length of the build-out and the protracted planning and approval process required for the project, the program DEIR prepared by the County is not the appropriate vehicle for tiering the environmental review of Koll's project. As noted in part III.A of this letter, a staged EIR, requiring further review of each construction project, is required. • The different project descriptions strewn through the first three sections of the DEIR do not even agree as to the number of dwelling units to be built within each portion of the site or within the project in total. Chapter 1.2.2 of the DEIR describes the project as including such "specific details" as the development of 3,410 • residential units on approximately 212 acres on the Mesa and the County portion of the Metropolitan Water District Area, including residential densities ranging form 3.5 dwelling units per acre to 36 dwelling units per acre plus an additional 876 units in the Lowlands. Chapter 2.4 (p.2-2 , 1n.13-15) and Chapter 3.2.1 (p. 3-9, In. 11) state that the "project" refers to the development of 4,248 residential units in the County LCP Area. Table 3.2-3 • (page 3-15) states that at least 3,256 and as many as 3,865 homes will be constructed within Propomd RnW&a t D~fi&uwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 24 1 planning areas 5 through 13 (which appear to be the planning areas upon the Mesa although the DEIR does not make this clear).?' Footnote (d) to that table notes that the total number of homes within the planning area will be limited to 4,286 homes. It is not possible to determine from the DEIR how many homes would be constructed within each 1 phase or planning area of the project. Table 3.2-3 states a minimum and maximum number of dwelling units within each planning area; however there is never an express limitation of the number of homes. Thus, instead of constructing 3,410 homes on the Mesa (as stated in Chapter I of the DEIR, Chapter 3 of the DEIR indicates that Koll would have the option of constructing 3,865 homes in that section if the maximum dwelling unit number given in Table 3.2-3 is viewed as an absolute limit in each planning area, or up to 4,286 homes on 1 211 Neither the minimum nor the maximum,figure for construction of homes within the planning areas atop the Mesa concur with the 3,410 home figure given at page 1-3, 1n.9 of the DEIR. In order to ascertain the true 1 numbers for the proposed phases of the project r.e., to learn how many homes would be constructed on the Mesa during phase I and how marry would be constructed in the wetlands during phase III), one must ignore the general explanatory phrases and examine Table 3.2-3 and then total the development for each phase by separating the phase I planning areas from the phase III planning areas. Since the DEIR does not consider the additional approximately 598 units which would be built by Koll adjacent to the County LCP area and within the Study Area (phase 11 of the project) it is impossible to say with certainty how many units would be constructed within that area and when they would be constructed The only manner to ascertain an approximate count of 598 units is to compare the 4,286 units proposed for the County LCP area with the 4,884 units proposed for the Study Area as a whole. In order for an environmental impact report to comply with CEQA, it must 'be written in plain language. . . so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents.' A legally adequate environmental impact report should not require the forensic examination essential to ferret out the most basic facts of Koll's proposed program from the scattered information strewn about the DEIR. Guidelines § 15151 states, in part, that an environmental 1 impact report must provide a decision-maker with 'information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.' The dtbWculry of culling out the true facts from the DEIR prepared by the County makes it unlikely that the decision-makers (much less the lay public to whom an EIR is intended to be addressed) reviewing Koll's construction project will know for certain the number of homes to be constructed at particular times in the various areas of the site or the other most basic information regarding the implementation of the project. Pfoposod FLW Didt DWad Febwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 25 • the Mesa, if it is not.P Nowhere are these possibilities described in the text of the DEIR and the impacts of increasing the density of the Mesa development are not considered. • The defects of the project description go to the very heart of the CEQA process and the opportunity for meaningful public review and comment. 2. Omission of Implementing Documents Frustrates Attempts at Worthwhile Public Review of the Program and the DEIR. The program which the • DEIR attempts to analyze involves a vast and complex series of governmental and administrative actions and approvals, each of which bears upon the severity and nature of the various environmental impacts which CEQA requires the DEIR to consider thoroughly and mitigate (or override) before it can be certified and the approvals proceed. This complicated series of actions will be implemented through various local, State and federal documents (including the proposed development agreement, general plan amendment, • wetlands permits and other documents, all of which are collectively referred to in this letter as the "implementing documents"), including the development and adoption by the County of a Local Costal Program (the "LCP") under the California Coastal Act, an amendment to the Land Use and Transportation elements of the County's general plan, a development agreement to be entered into between Koll and the County providing for Koll's conditional • commitment to dedicate wetlands to the County and to fund a portion of the cost of wetlands restoration,21' the State coastal permit and certification of the LCP, and various 221 The number of homes constructed on the Mesa becomes critical since the Mesa portion of the development 0 is the ftrsi phase (see DEIR at p. 1-4, In. 17-23) and is permitted to proceed without implementation or funding of the WRP or full implementation of the A77P. It seems that up to the full complement of 4,286 homes (or is it 4,248 homes as stated in the project description set forth in Section 3?) can proceed on the Mesa without implementation of mitigation measures, nearly the entire impact of the project will occur without mitigation. However, since the development agreement and the other implementing documents relating to the program under consideration were not circulated with the DEIR and since the DEIR has no discussion of the phasing of the • entitlements and the implementation of the A77P, WRP and other mitigation measures, it is not possible to be certain how the phasing will impact the community. This is but one of many examples where the vagueness of the DEIR project description and the failure to circulate proposed drafts of the implementing documentation make meaningful analysis by the public impossible. 231 The DEIR indicates that Koll's commitment to wetland restoration and the dedication of land to the County • are both conditioned on the issuance of the required federal permits. Proposed FoW DtsR Dated Fibwry 14, 1994 0 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 26 federal permits relating to the development and filling of the wetlands and the disruption of federally designated ESHAs. None of these documents have been developed or drafted and, therefore, none can be made available for public review during the public comment period. Because the implementing documents were not circulated with the DEIR, crucial information is lacking which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the project. As a result, the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project, and without marketing information on anticipated sales values or even broad descriptions of anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning areas. These documents are critical elements of the program under consideration, and it is not possible to dredge out sufficient information regarding the 1 project and the content of the implementing documents from the vague and inconsistent descriptions of the DEIR.21' In a study session at the City, Thomas Matthews, the County's Director of Planning, stated that the public comment period on the DEIR would close and 1 all comments would be collected bgfore the County embarked on the task of developing the first drafts of implementing documents. Mr. Matthews also indicated that the County would hold public hearings regarding the LCP as required under the Coastal Act but would not receive comments on the DEIR after the close of the public comment period. Thus, the County has hidden the true form of its approvals until after the opportunity for comment on the impact of those approvals has passed. The public cannot adequately review the proposed approvals during the public comment period because the project description in the DEIR is vague, incomplete and inconsistent, and the implementing documents specifying the scope and nature of the approvals to be considered as part of the program purportedly analyzed in the DEIR are not available. Once the implementing documents are made available for comment, the County will refuse further comments on the DEIR. This is a "Catch-22" which precludes adequate public participation in the CEQA process and violates CEQA's intent and requirement for informed public participation and decision-making. 241 Attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 31 is a draft of the development agreement which was proposed by Koll to the City as of March 24, 1992. The draft indicates that the form of Development Agreement was sufficiently evolved to permit a draft to be circulated with the DEIR, yet no draft was included. Piopa"d RhW Drdt Dud fsbwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 27 • 3. Project Description Omits Description of Project Phasing. The DEIR does not contain a description of project phasing, aside from a numbering of the wetlands restoration areas and the development areas and approximate dates for the oil • extraction shutdown and wetlands restoration activities shown on Figure 3.4-1 and Table 3.4-1 and the most general description stating that Mesa development would occur first commencing in 1995, followed by development of the MWD area and last development would occur in the Lowlands. The description of the phasing of the development does not indicate whether the 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 the dredged material from the tidal opening would be stockpiled or used on the site in a sequential fashion. 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. 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 represent the areas of the site which might undergo some form of disturbance during each phase of the project's implementation. As a timetable has already been sketched out in the DEIR, this should not be difficult to prepare, and would greatly assist those reviewing the project's physical impacts over time, particularly for biological issues. Furthermore, the DEIR's description of the phasing of the project should specify the relation between the entitlements to construct each portion of the residential development and the requirement for funding and implementing mitigation measures such as the ATIP and the WRP. Since the DEIR has no coherent discussion of these matters, it is not possible to determine whether, how or when each item of these measures will be implemented. 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 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 DEIR. • AW"ed Rnd Dealt Dud F"nwy 14, 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 28 4. Project Description Omits City Portions of the Project. The DEIR describes the "project" as the development which will occur within the LCP area. DEIR § 3.2.1, page 3-9 expressly states: i Proposed Project: The Proposed Project refers to the land plan and proposed implementing actions referred described in this chapter and that provide for (1) hie, development of 4.248 residential units in the County LCP Area. including the Lowland; (2) the expansion of wetlands acreage in the Lowland through the construction of a tidal inlet, the creation of new wetlands and the restoration of existing degraded wetlands; and (3) the construction of project related and regional infrastructure. (emphasis added). Thus, the description of the "Project" expressly excludes the 598 dwelling units which will be constructed on the portions of the Bolsa Mesa within the City's jurisdiction even though the DEIR assumes (but only for certain purposes) that such development will occur. Compare Proposed Bolsa Chica Study Area Land Use Plan (DEIR page 3-10) with paragraph 9 of DEIR § 4.1.3 (page 4.1-43) which compares the development of a maximum of 5,700 units within the entire 1986 LCP area (i.e. both the City and County portions of the Study Area contemplated by the DEIR) with the development of 4,286 units in the project solely on the County portion of the Study Area and ignoring the 598 units 1 which Koll intends to develop within the City -- thus comparing apples to oranges. B. THE DEIR INACCURATELY LABELS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AS INSIGNIFICANT AND USES INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. The DEIR Uses Improper Standards of Significance. Each Chapter of the DEIR which assesses the significance of impacts states the standard of significance used by the DEIR to determine whether the adverse impacts on the environment from the project are "significant". Often, the stated standards are very close to the standards Ph*a.rd Fier/Dmlt Dot"fi&Lwy 14, 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 29 • required under CEQA but are not quite adequate. For example, Chapter 4.2 does not consider excessive siltation or erosion to be significant unless detrimental to structures or slopes, but Guidelines Appendix G indicates that any project which could cause excessive erosion or siltation will normally be considered to be a significant effect on the environment regardless of whether structures or slopes are affected. Here again, the DEIR comes close to the appropriate standard but misses in a significant fashion. The project does have the potential to cause significant erosion of the Huntington Mesa and is acknowledged to cause excessive siltation which is purportedly mitigated by a vaguely described and unfunded program of continual dredging. Further, the DEIR goes to great lengths in a somewhat • tortured effort to conclude that the construction of a residential subdivision astride an active fault line does not cause a significant adverse impact. To the contrary, 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 DEIR 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. Finally, Chapter 4.11 of the DEIR looks solely to Exhibit K of the Guidelines as the authority for determining whether the project has a significant effect on cultural, historic and architectural resources. This ignores the provisions of PRC §§ 21083.2 and 21084.1, both of which impose strict requirements for a project, such as the development of Bolsa Chica, which has the potential to disrupt non-unique archaeological resources. Further, it ignores the provisions of Appendix G to the Guidelines which speaks of disruption of resources of value to a particular community. • The foregoing list is by no means exhaustive and is intended merely to illustrate the many instances in which the DEIR fails to state the appropriate standard for determining the significance of an 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 DEIR and the final EIR. • Pmp"ad Find Drift Dot"Fobwry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 30 2. The EIR/EIS Noted a Number of Significant Impacts which the DEIR Identifies as Insignificant. The project considered by the DEIR is substantially similar to the project considered under the EIR/EIS. The DEIR neither significantly reduces the scope of the project nor does it provide new information or mitigation measures 4 which 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 EIWEIS: 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. 8.' PCH lane requirements cannot be implemented 9.' Air quality - long term vehicle (mobile source) & energy (stationary source) emissions. 10.' Air quality secondary emissions. 11. Fugitive dust (PM10) during construction. 4 12.' 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. 4 16. Cumulative consumption of non-renewable resources. Of the 16 significant adverse impacts identified in the 1992/1993 EIR/EIS, only the 5 impacts noted above with an asterisk (*) are noted as unavoidable impacts in the 4 1993 DEIR.u/ The reasons why each of the foregoing impacts (other than those noted 251 The 1993 DEIR also notes one additional impact not identified in the 1992 EIRIUS regarding the potential for breaks in utility lines crossing the earthquake faults on the site. 1 PYgoosd AW Dnh Dated iebwry 14, 19W Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 31 • with asterisks) are identified as insignificant in the DEIR must be explained in detail in the recirculated DEIR. The documents prepared in connection with the EIR/EIS indicate the • problems which the preparer had in obtaining sufficient detail for appropriate analysis. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No.19, ANNEx NO. 20 and ANNEX No. 21 are miscellaneous memoranda regarding the preparation of the EIR/EIS which indicate the level of concern which the preparer (the same preparer as prepared the County's DEIR) had regarding the lack of detail in the WRP and the potential significant impacts of the project which were left unidentified in the EIR/EIS. ANNEx No. 22 is a letter, dated April 1, 1992 from the Chambers Group, the preparer of both the DEIR and the EIR/EIS, which notes certain inadequacies in the screen check draft of the EIR/EIS, inadequacies which are still not adequately addressed in the DEIR. Since the DEIR does not present the project in more detail and since the project considered in the DEIR is substantially similar to the • project considered in the EIR/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 DEIR. C. INCLUSION OF MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OBSCURES THE • DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANALYZED BY THE DEIR. The County's publication of a DEIR which purports to analyze two "co-equal alternatives" (as originally denominated_ in the NOP) severely undercuts the value of the DEIR as an informational document for the public. In 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 also 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 P►opos"FxW Draft D&W FMnry 14, 1994 • / Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 32 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 1 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 and 1 disclosure to the public of the environmental decisions made by its elected representatives. In the case of the DEIR, a program EIR which covers a vast amount of information, the inclusion of the so-called modified project alternative or co-equal alternative makes an already unmanageable document even more confusing. The project description becomes muddled by the inclusion of the second alternative, as does the consideration and analysis of 1 the feasibility of mitigation measures which might lessen significant environmental impacts. Further, it becomes difficult to assess whether feasible project alternatives exist which fulfill the objectives of the "project" because the definition of the project (much less its objectives) becomes unclear. It is not certain which alternative is the project being considered by the public decision-makers since two projects are labelled as "co-equal". 1 Thus, the DEIR's consideration of two "co-equal alternatives" confuses the document to the point where it fails to fulfill its mission of providing the citizenry with clear information thereby protecting informed self-government. For example, when the DEIR describes the Modified Project Alternative, it / very briefly mentions that this alternative requires that all of the wetlands acquisition and restoration must occur via public funding or private contributions. This is a substantial difference from the proposed project and deserves to be a key focus of the discussion. It is unclear why this alternative does not include land dedication as a component. It may be reasonable to assume that the applicant could not afford to pursue the wetlands restoration without sufficient units to sell, but no justification is presented as to why the applicant cannot provide the land. Most document reviewers will miss this aspect of the alternative, because it is so buried in the discussion. Furthermore, the analysis of the modified project or "co-equal" alternative is muddled and internally inconsistent. Since the co-equal alternative reduces the intensity of development, why is a more intensive road system Rgoomd RhW Drat D~F"ruwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 33 • included. Why require so much infrastructure and create additional wetlands impacts when development is limited to that edge of the site which fronts Warner and Los Patos Avenues. No justification for these impacts is offered in the DEIR. • Finally, the inclusion of the modified project alternative appears to be intended as a fallback position for Koll and the County which is intended to permit a Mesa- only development to go forward if the federal approvals are not forthcoming. The DEIR does not adequately describe or consider appropriate alternatives to the modified project alternative. The DEIR does not fulfill the requirements of CEQA for a project EIR • considering the approval of a Mesa-only development. D. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . The DEIR states that the Bolsa Chica Wetlands have been recognized as a • degraded wetland.-U' Although the DEIR 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 environmental 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. • 261 See DEIR § 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. A copy of that report is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 12. The DEIR neglects to mention that the 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 DEIR also fails to disclose that CDFG objected to the characterization of the wetlands as degraded in its comment (included within ANNEX No. 10)to the EIRMS. The DEIR's discussion of the CDFG report is one of a number of "half-truths' in the document which makes it inaccurate and misleading. Finally, the DEIR omits any consideration of the Governor's new wetlands policy, 'California Wetlands Conservation Policy,' Ezecutive 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 is attached to this • letter as ANNEX No. 35. Hid fled Draft Daiad febf ry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 34 1. Federal Permits and Process. The Corps is the federal agency with primary regulatory authority over the wetlands, drawing its authority from Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 33 U.S.C. §§ 402-403ZU and Sections 401 through 404 of the federal Clean Water Act 33 U.S.C. §§ 1341-1344 281 The U.S. Environmental , Protection Agency ("USEPA") also is involved in wetlands regulation and possesses a veto power over the issuance of wetlands permitsA' In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), National Marine Fisheries Service ("NNM") and CDFG will become integrated into the permitting processAW The permitting process for development, dredging and filling of the wetlands will also require certification from the Regional and State Water Quality Control Boards that the project is consistent with applicable State water quality standards under the applicable water quality control plan. For the convenience of the reader, a chart detailing the Corps' permitting process is attached to this letter as 271 Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the Corps is responsible for regulating all work which could interfere with navigation. A permit is needed to perform work in navigable waters, including excavation, dredging, and filling. Since 1968, this law has been interpreted and applied to include factors other than navigability of the waters, including protection offish and wildlife and avoiding pollution. 33 C.F.R. § 209.120. The Corp's definition of'navigable waters'subject to jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act includes waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. See U.S. v. Moretti, 478 F.2d 418(Sth Cir. 1973). Under the foregoing definition, the waters of Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay and other waters within the Study Area are within the jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 281 The Clean Water Act was originally passed in 1972 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. Section 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutants into waters of the United States (a term defined at 33 C.F.R. Part 328)except as permitted under Section 402 or 404 of the Act. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination("NPDES")program. Recently this program has focused on the discharge of urban w runoff and its effects on water quality. It is possible that the project might require an NPDES permit for the proposed discharge of urban run-offfrom the East Garden GrovelWintersburg ("EGGW") Channel into the tidal wetlands. Section 404 gives the Corps permission to regulate or prevent the discharge of dredged or fill material into the wetlands. Section 401 of the Act conditions that authority by requiring an applicant to receive State certification of consistency with clean water standards before a 404 permit can be issued. 33 U.S.C. § 1341. 291 This authority is granted to the USEPA under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act which permits that agency to prohibit disposal at any site if,after public hearing, the agency determines that the discharge of materials into the area would have an adverse affect on local water supplies, shellfish beds or fisheries. 301 See Section 2.2 of 1992 EIS/EIR attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 9, See also page ES-3 of EIRIEIS attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 9 AT§ S.1.2. 1 Pbpa+d Fill Draft D&1d fibruvy 14, 1994 • I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 35 • ANNEX No. 22 and a brief article describing the process as applicable in California is attached as ANNEX No. 23. • 2. Restoration Is Not Required until Long after Commencement of Mesa Development. The current DEIR defers consideration of the federal permits and the federal environmental review to a later time, yet to be determinedAY Accordingly, if the Corps or any other responsible federal agency refuses to issue the permits required for the restoration of the wetlands, a central feature of the program contemplated by the DEIR will • fail to occur and, for this reason alone, the DEIR is fatally flawed under State law.1y As noted above, the restoration of the wetlands is commonly perceived as the sole justification for any development at the project site. The DEIR notes three areas of environmental impacts (certain air quality impacts, seismic disruption of utilities and aesthetics) which are conceded to remain significant adverse effects on the environment • despite the mitigation measures considered in the DEIR. There are other impacts which are assumed to be insignificant which are, in fact, significant notwithstanding the mitigation measures suggested in the DEIR. Accordingly, the County Board of Supervisors must • 311 Page 4.1-28 of the DEIR notes that the federal permits required for discharge into and filling of jurisdictional wetlands are still pending with the Corps but, "[mjodifications of the federal permit application are • anticipated to reflect those recent changes[i.e.,the changes in Koll's business organization and the changes in the project since the publication of the EIRIEIS]. . .". 321 See Part I.D, above;see also Letter to Koll from the Los Angeles District Director of the Corps attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 5 in which the Corps 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 development in the Lowlands, (il)that the Corps believes that it is required to review the entirety of the project, including the uplands as part of its public interest and NEPA review process, (iii)the use of profits from the development of a residential community in the wetlands will 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 is considered by the Corps. proposed Final Draft Daft Fibary 14, 1994 • / Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 36 1 specifically find that the benefits of the project outweigh the potential adverse impacts in a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of Guidelines § 15093 A, Since the stated objectives of the project focus on the restoration and creation 1 of significant wetlands and ESHAs, the overriding consideration in this case will likely include the planned wetlands restoration.21' In order for this consideration to justify the development of the entire project, the obligation to restore the wetlands must arise with the firms development under the approvals considered in the DEIR. Although page 2-4 of the 331 Since the mitigation measures required by the DEIR 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 court in Citizens for Quality 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 ident fled means[mitigation and/or 1 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 ejects. 341 This conclusion is bolstered by DER?§ 3.3,Page 3-33 which states that the objectives of the Project include r) reversing 'the degradation of wetlands on the site and expand the size and quality of the wetlands through a program of reconflguration, consolidation, creation and restoration', (U) conveying a portion of the Huntington Mesa to the County, rii) conveying the portion of the Lowland not used for development to public agencies for wetlands restoration,flood control or other 'public uses' and (iv) coordinating the wetlands restoration with the phasing out of oil operations. Further, among the more speck 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. This objective is often used by the DEIR as the reason for rejecting alternative projects which do not 'fund'the restoration of the wetlands;however, as is demonstrated above, the Koll project proposal is not itself likely to restore the wetlands. Accordingly, it is not valid for the DEIR to reject alternative projects on the basis of the ability to fund restoration. Prop"W FEW Deft Drhd Fo&rw"14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 37 • DEIR states that "Koll has committed to include a provision in the development agreement which will require Koll to fund the entire cost of the WRP," the development agreement was not provided for public review. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the true level • of Koll's commitment to restore the wetlands once the first development of the Mesa has commenced and, therefore, the nature and extent of actual mitigation remains a mystery.& Further, there is no requirement for bonding of Koll's obligations nor any other device provided in the DEIR to ensure that Koll would have sufficient funds to implement the restoration plan. This is critically important given that the wetlands restoration would not commence until after oil operations have ceased. The omission of • funding security from Koll's commitment leaves open the very real possibility that Koll might not have the wherewithal to fund the implementation of the WRP if the cost of the WRP escalates during the 20 to 30 years over which it will be implemented or if Koll's fortunes decline over that extended period. • The DEIR relies on the proposed land use plan included in the 1986 LCP as its baseline for determining the sufficiency of the current Koll proposal for wetlands restoration. 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 acknowledges 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.& 351 The DEIR estimates the cost of wetlands restoration at $48 Million. Newspaper articles from mid-1993 estimate the figure at close to$100 Million. The WRP was substantially revised to a more 'cost-effective'plan once it became clear that funds would not be available from the expansion of the Long Beach harbor since that project had been scaled back and would not need to mitigate the elimination of wetlands in Long Beach by offsfte restoration of wetlands at Bolsa Chica. Press coverage indicates that part of the reduction in the cost of restoration was obtained by phasing out the existing oil operations only as the reserves are depleted. Page 4.1-49 of the DEIR indicates that those reserves are expected to be depleted only over the next 20 years. Further, 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. 361 The current LCP was only conditionally cent fled by the Coastal Commission. Five specific portions of the development proposed in the LCP would require further approvals before implementation. See, e.e..DEIR at page 4.1-23. The five issues requiring further study and review were: • (continued...) Propomd AhW Dta t Dsbd Fe&u 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 38 3. Federal Agency and Coastal Commission Appear to Be Opposed to the Koll Development in the Lowlands and The Issuance of Permits for Wetlands Development Is Highly Unlikely. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 10 are the comments received during the public comment period on the EIWEIS. Included within those comments are various pieces of correspondence from the federal agencies whose approval is required before any permits for the development of the Lowlands residential units or the restoration of the wetlands can proceed. As noted earlier, the projects considered in the DEIR and the EWEIS are similar and raise the same regulatory 361(...continued) (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 (S) 'detailed issues related to the MWD property. Thus, contrary to much of the land use discussion of the DEIR, 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 Bolsa Chica Street. Further, as noted above in this letter, Chapter 7.2.4 of the DEIR expressly notes that the 1986 LCP is not consistent with current CCC policies. Page 4.1-46 of the DEIR notes that the Coastal Commission made a number of findings in connection with the conditional certification of the County LCP in January 1986, including: Underlying the long HCP(Habitat Conservation Plan)and LCP planning efforts to date has been the expectation the increased value of upland/mesa lands authorized for intensfied development would be used in part to enable necessary wetland restoration . . . The LUP now before the Commission correctly identifies the necessary connection between development and restoration. Thus, 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 least a portion of the wetlands restoration and that such a nexus was a critical pan of the approval of the 1986 LCP. That nexus is conspicuously absent from the current proposal. P►opoid RiW Dien Drtd Fvbvwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 39 • concerns. Accordingly, the County must anticipate that the same comments will apply in the case of the project considered in the DEIR. To say the least, the letters received from federal agencies were not positive. For example, the Office of Environmental Affairs of the U.S. Department of the Interior wrote, in its letter to the Corps dated December 3, 1992, the department noted that Section 30233 of the Coastal Act would permit filling of wetlands only where there exists no feasible less damaging alternative. The letter concluded in this regard, "We find that the proposed project is clearly not the least damaging feasible alternative . . .". Further, this letter noted that the costs and type of restoration were not adequately documented in the 1992 EIR/EIS. The current DEIR addresses none of these concerns and its documentation of the WRP is no more specific than the EIR/EIS. The foregoing letter also expressly noted that the peregrine falcon is listed as • an endangered species and that this bird has been noted at Bolsa Chica at all seasons and is potentially a local breeder. This situation and the impact of the loss of this raptor's habitat is similarly left unaddressed in the DEIR. The USEPA also submitted a written comment to the 1992 EIWEIS, dated • December 17, 1992. USEPA reiterated its previous position that residential and infrastructure development in the waters of the United States must be avoided and that the wetlands losses associated with the proposed project are unacceptable where those losses could be practically avoided. USEPA stated that the 1992 EIR/EIS did not address these concerns nor the other concerns communicated by USEPA in response to the NEPA Notice of Intent to prepare the EIWEIS. The USEPA letter specifically noted that the WRP was insufficiently detailed and the commitment to fund the plan and the maintenance of the restored wetlands was too vague to permit meaningful analysis. Furthermore, USEPA noted that because of the presence of several federally listed endangered species, the project would have to clear the Section 7 consultation process required under the Clean Water Act • and the Federal Endangered Species Act.0 USEPA concluded that the EIWEIS was 371 The USEPA's detailed comments, attached to its letter, noted that the proposed project might adversely impact on the survivability of five federally-listed endangered bird species, one federally listed endangered plant species and numerous federal candidate and proposed species. Further the EIS/EIR indicates that the dredging • (continued...) Prop"Od Fine/Oish Dot"Fe&wry 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 40 4 legally inadequateAl' Finally, USEPA indicated that it might be forced to recommend denial of the permits for wetlands restoration. NMFS also responded negatively to the project as proposed in the EIR/EIS. 1 In its letter of December 10, 1992, NMFS stated that the proposed development in the Lowlands could well violate the policies of the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and, as such could not be approved. This letter stated, "the proposed project is inconsistent with the requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the mitigation proposed is inadequate as described and the document does not support the stated purpose of the project." 1 The US Coast Guard also responded by noting that an additional approval would be required under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act since the tidal inlet (substantially identical to the inlet proposed in the DEIR) would be "navigable" within the meaning of that section. The USCG requested (but the DEIR does not provide) information on the systems which would render the tidal inlet "non-navigable". 4 CDFG recommended a "redirection of the applicant's planning efforts, away from the preferred alternative [i.e., a project substantially similar to Koll's project proposal] toward certain of the other alternatives presented." In Section I of the appendix to the CDFG comment letter, the department stated that its 1981 Report (relied upon by the 4 DEIR for purposes of labelling the wetlands as degraded as necessary to permit fill and dredge operations under the Coastal Act), "determined that the existing wetlands at Bolsa Chica were not `so severely degraded nor were their natural processes so substantially impaired that they were not capable of recovering and maintaining a high level of biological 371(..continued) activities could have potentially significant impacts on one endangered species, the California least tern and one candidate species, the California elegant tern, both of which nest at Bolsa Chica (EIRIEIS at p. 4-182) and required the draft EIS to be recirculated after the completion of the § 7 consultation process. The current Koll project considered under the DEIR is subject to the same infirmities as the project considered under the EIRIEIS 4 and, therefore, it is likely that the USEPA would continue to be less than positive regarding project approval. 381 This rating means that the USEPA has determined that the draft EIS does not adequately assess potentially significant environmental impacts of the action or that there are new reasonably available alternatives not analyzed in the draft EIS which must be analyzed in order to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. This rating also means that USEPA takes the position that a new draft EIS must be recirculated for public comment. 4 Prop"d Find Drdt D&td Fdnwy 14, 1994 w Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 41 • productivity without major restoration efforts.' On the contrary, CDFG determined that the wetlands at Bolsa Chica were, and still are, demonstrably valuable to fish and wildlife resources (most especially to migratory and resident shorebirds, waterfowl and endangered birds)." Thus, CDFG expressly disputed the characterization of the wetlands as degraded. If the wetlands are not considered to be degraded by CDFG, as seems to be the case, the Coastal Act will preclude the filling of the wetlands. Further, CDFG indicated that in its opinion, the proposed project was W the least environmentally-damaging alternative, noting that the sole reason for dismissing many of the less damaging alternatives was the mere fact that "outside funding would be required" for the wetlands restoration.' Finally, CDFG opined that if the CCC were to approve the wetland residential development, then wetland restoration should be required at a 3:1 ratio. The California Coastal Commission also commented and found the EIR/EIS to be deficient in numerous respects, including the failure of the EIR/EIS, a failure which is • repeated in the DEIR, to adequately address the inconsistencies between the proposed project and other State laws and policies. Further, the CCC expressly stated the following in its December 10, 1992 letter to the City and the Corps: Mhe staff believes that the applicant's preferred alternative is not aoRnrovable under the Coastal Act policies Mhe proposed project does not achieve [the] objective of[restoring and preserving the wetlands]. In fact, the only activities that are assured in the lowlands are the placement of.fill in the wetland to build housing and a road and a minimal amount of mitigation for that fill placement. Mhe applicant's stated project purpose is not achieved by the actual project proposal (preferred alternative)or by any of the alternatives analyzed The DEISIR fails to conduct a serious analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with the policies of the Coastal Act. Granted this • determination will be made by the Coastal Commission in its review of the Local Coastal Program; however, the environmental review stage of a project is an opportunity to determine whether a project should undergo 391 As noted in the comments regarding the inadequacies of the alternative projects analysis of Chapter 7 of the DEM, the DEIR continues to suffer from this same flaw. Ar"sod Find Onit Dot"F ruwy 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 42 1 modification in order to conform to environmental laws. Section 15125(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [sic] requires an EIR to discuss inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. 1 None of the deficiencies noted in the CCC's comments on the EIR/EIS have been corrected or addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR must be rewritten in light of these comments (all of which were available to the preparer at the time the DEIR was published) and the rewritten DEIR recirculated. The Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") also commented on the DEIR by its letter to the City Planning Department of January 20, 1993, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 29. SCAG noted that the project was not consistent with State and federal policies and recommended further consistency with State, local and federal plans. SCAG further noted that the project was inconsistent with the transportation management requirements of the State Implementation Plan. Finally, the County itself commented on the EIR/EIS by its letter of December 9, 1992. Among the statements in that letter which are directly contrary to the DEIR are the following: "The BCPC was quite clear in adopting its concept plan that no development of any kind atop the Bolsa Chica mesa should exceed a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre.' -- In contrast, Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR notes that the 18 dwelling unit per acre limit stated in the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan was not interpreted as a maximum limit for purposes of the DEIR. 'Criteria to determine the 'project fair share" of intersection improvements to meet acceptable areawide LOS are not presented or discussed. Consideration of such a mitigation ' approach cannot be left to some future, unspecified basis for determination.' -- In contrast, the DEIR often relies on future determination of mitigation measures and the funding for implementation of mitigation measures. See ANNEx No. 7. 1 P►opomd FLW Draft Dead F*b wy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 43 • "Project traffic will impact a number of facilities on the CMP highway system including PCH, Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Road. The project's compliance with the LOS policies on the CMP highway system should be analyzed and included within the EIS/EIR." • -- This analysis does not sufficiently appear in the DEIR. In order to implement the Growth Management Element requirement for a development phasing plan, the EIS/EIR should also include a development phasing plan which will ensure that infrastructure improvements are completed prior to or concurrent with project development so as to maintain adequate levels of service (LOS), especially on the roadway system. A development phasing plan • would contribute to traffic congestion and air quality impact mitigations ensuring acceptable levels of service throughout development of the project. . . . The phasing plans usually function by authorizing a portion of building permits only after an identified infrastructure or public service improvement has been completed. • No development phasing plan appears in the DEIR. Reference is made to the letter of September 24, 1991 from Joan Golding (by Kari A. Rigoni, Senior Planner) of the County EMA addressed to the City Planning Department, a copy of which is attached as ANNEX No. 28, and the letter of December 9, 1992 from Ronald Tippets of the County EMA, included within ANNEX NO. 10, for further • particulars. As stated previously in this letter, the recirculated DEIR and the final EIR must respond to the comments included in ANNEX No. 10 since they represent comments currently submitted by the City with respect to the County's DEIR. The affected federal agencies have not brightened their outlook on the i proposed development of units within the wetlands in the year since the above-described comments were received. Attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 24 is a memorandum from the assistant City administrator to the City Council detailing the comments from federal agencies in a meeting regarding Bolsa Chica on March 11, 1993. The minutes of that meeting indicate the continuing resistance of the federal agencies to the issuance of permits • in connection with a development which conditions wetland restoration on the development of a portion of the wetlands. Even if the Corps were to approve the permits (an unlikely prospect), the USEPA could well veto the permits. Attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 25 are letters from NMFS, USEPA, USFWS and CDFG, each of which strenuously objects to the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Plan's characterization of the respective • agencies as "support members" for the plan. Each of the agencies denied supporting the Avpomd Fina Dte/t Dot"Fibwy 14, 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 44 plan and the NMFS expressly stated"to our knowledge, no public agency has yet approved or is likely to approve the `Koll Plan' which is often mistakenly referred to as the `Coalition Plan'." The clear indication from the federal agencies is that the proposed wetlands restoration will not proceed as currently proposed; yet, the DEIR makes no mention of the attitude of federal agencies toward the proposed project. Even though the DEIR does not purport to concern itself with the federal permitting process (an approach which is invalid under CEQA), since the issuance of those permits is so critical to the fulfillment of the project's objectives, the DEIR must inform the public and the decision-makers of the low 1 probability that the Lowlands development or the wetlands restoration could ever proceed in the manner contemplated by the DEIR. The improbability of wetlands restoration and the omission of this information from the DEIR makes that document misleading and supports the conclusion that the supposed "program EIR" is, in fact, nothing more than a flawed project EIR for the construction of a large and unmitigated project atop the Mesa. 1 E. THE DEIR's CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES IS INADEQUATE. 1. The Requirement for Alternatives Analysis. One of the stated objectives of CEQA is "to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in 1 which [the] significant effects [of the project] can be mitigated or avoided." 5= PRC § 21002.1(a). Further, CEQA requires that "each public agency shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of projects it approves . . . whenever it is feasible to do so." See PRC § 21002.1(b). Based on this statutory authority, Guidelines § 15126(d) requires that a valid EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." In Laurel Heights I, supra, the California Supreme Court recognized that the evaluation of alternatives serves the same purpose as mitigation; i.e., the reduction of 1 environmental impacts from the project to the extent feasible. CEQA does not require an evaluation of every conceivable alternative. It applies a "rule of reason" which limits the alternatives required to be analyzed to those alternatives which adequately represent the spectrum of reasonable alternatives. See Bowman v. Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065 (1986). In Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 406, the supreme court noted that, "numerous 1 PMP&Wd Rrr/Drift D&W Fe ru ry 14, 1994 • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 45 • CEQA provisions require that an EIR adequately describe feasible alternatives." The court also held that, although a valid EIR's consideration of alternatives need not consider every variation of each alternative, the EIR must inform the public of all alternative sites • considered by the project proponent and detail for the public w those alternatives were considered infeasible. Id. at 405. In sum, the alternatives analysis must produce "information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." Id. at 406. • 2. Alternative Projects. Attached to this letter as ANNEX NO. 8 is a table which (i) lists the on-site alternatives to the project which are identified in the DEIR, (ii) notes and comments on the reasons why those alternatives were dismissed by the DEIR and (iii) identifies flaws in the alternatives analysis and what further information, if any, is required to justify the • conclusion in the DEIR that the alternative is infeasible. A review of the table shows that the DEIR inappropriately manipulates the alternatives to bolster the argument that no feasible alternative to the Koll project exists.0 The alternatives section must, therefore, be rewritten to address the comments and include the information noted on the table attached to this letter as ANNEX N0.8 and must also consider the following additional onsite • alternatives (each of which is reasonable and feasible and may reduce or eliminate the impacts of the proposed project while substantially fulfilling the objectives of the project):41t 401 For example, no rationale is given for the rejection of the Alternative E, an alternative which would preserve the option for restoration of the wetlands in the future and would provide a better transition from the existing low density neighborhoods than is provided in the current proposal. Comvare Figure Z2-5 with Figure 3.2-3. Furthermore, environmentally preferable alternatives are made to appear less attractive than they should • by unilaterally excluding analysis of the potential for future restoration or the A77P from the alternative without justification. 411 The foregoing alternatives are suggested solely for purposes of enabling the DEIR tofu fill the requirements which CEQA imposes for a thorough discussion of alternatives which would mitigate the impacts of the project. The City does not endorse any or all of these alternatives but seeks to determine the environmental benefits and impacts • which may occur from adoption of any of the alternative projects suggested. Propard Find Drat D&W Fsburry 14, 1994 0 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 46 ■ Low Density Alternative (1,000 units) coupled with a requirement for implementation of the "Alternatives WRPn4_v concurrently with the issuance of the first permit for development of the Mesa. ■ Commercial Resort Housing Alternative coupled with the Alternatives WRP. ■ No Project Alternative coupled with the Alternatives WRP. ■ Moderate Density Mesa Development Alternative (2,000 units) conditioned on (i) no density greater than 15 dwelling units/acre, (ii) annexation to the City prior to issuance of the first grading permit (to reduce adverse impacts on City public services), (iii) advance funding of the projects fair share of the ATIP and (iv) advance funding and a commitment to implement either the WRP or the Alternatives WRP. ■ Lowest Density Feasible Alternative, fulfilling the CCC request for the EIR/EIS (and now the DEIR) to provide analysis of an option which is less environmentally damaging and is still a viable alternative to the proposed project. As noted in the 421 For the purposes of the new alternative projects which should be considered in a recirculated DEIR, the term "Alternatives WRP"refers to a new wetlands restoration plan which provides for sequential restoration of each portion of the Lowlands on a parcel-by-parcel basis upon the latest to occur of fl)completion and abandonment of oil production activities on that portion of the land, (ii)acquisition of surface rights to that portion of the land by any one of(a) dedication for restoration purposes by the owner of the land, (b) eminent domain proceedings or (c) acquisition of the land by a conservation entity through public orprivate funding,and rii)funding of restoration M activities for that parcel by public or private funds. The Alternatives WRP would contemplate the same ultimate level of restoration as Koll's WRP. Since this alternative would permit more than one entity to acquire the land and since the acquisition would be staged,this alternative would permit the required financial resources to be collected by a wide variety of parties from a wide variety of sources and would permit funds for restoration to be collected over the period of time required to phase out oil operations (a period conceded by Koll and the DEIR to be from 12-20 years, and which may in fact be longer). Given the long time period in which to collect funds and the flexibility in funding mechanism which may be available over that time period to acquire the requisite funds for acquisition and restoration on a parcel-by-parcel basis,the Alternatives WRP cannot be rejected out of hand by the Final EIR as infeasible. Further, since the timing of the implementation of this plan is potentially the same as that proposed for the WRP, the Final EIR cannot reject the Alternatives WRP as failing to fulfill the timing objectives of the Koll proposal for the restoration of the wetlands. P►cWomd A-W Dto t Debd P'"tnry 14, 19" Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 47 • CCC's letter to the Corps and City dated December 10, 1992, "if a certain level of housing is necessary to make the project viable economically, the alternatives analysis should determine this level, and assess the feasibility of alternative configurations of.housing densities and areas that would achieve this goal and avoid impacts to wetlands and ESHAs." The DEIR should identify the least dense housing alternative which would permit the project to be economically viable without wetlands or ESHAs development (including no development of ESHAs on the Mesa, such as the eucalyptus grove and Warner Pond). Further, the DEIR should detail the projected revenues from and costs of this development and detail the costs of • restoration and implementation to permit the public to evaluate whether the alternative stated is truly the lowest density feasible. In addition, the DEIR should compare the project to each of the alternatives considered in the EIWEIS attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 9 and in the comments which the City • and the Corps received regarding the EIR/EIS, attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 10 and must include a simple declarative statement as to why each of the alternative projects is rejected in favor of the proposed project. The rejection of any alternative based upon the potential delay in the restoration of the wetlands is not valid given that the proposed project does not require restoration to be undertaken at any particular time. • 3. Alternative Locations. The sole off-site alternatives examined by the DEIR are the potential relocation of the project to the current site of the Marine Corp Air Stations ("MCAS") in Tustin or El Toro. In many instances, the analysis of the potential impacts of development of the project at the MCAS improperly compares the impacts of the project to an undeveloped site rather than comparing the project impacts to the current use of the land as an active air facility housing jet aircraft (F-18s at El Toro) and helicopter operations (at Tustin). Further, the alternatives analysis assumes the historic significance of aircraft hangers constructed at the end of World War II, but assumes the insignificance of the gun bunkers constructed at Bolsa Chica at or about the same period. (S= discussion of Chapter 4.11 of the DEIR in Part II.N of this letter) Chapter 7.5.1.3 of the DEIR notes that the first phase of construction of the project is scheduled to take place over the next two years, but that the MCAS sites will not be available within that time and that there is no certainty regarding the availability of land use approvals for the sites nor regarding the ability of the applicant to acquire title to the Prvpaad find Ondt D*td Fibwy N, 19" Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 48 1 MCAS sites from the federal government. Based on that uncertainty and the uncertainty of future land use planning for the MCAS sites, the DEIR concludes that development would not be possible until after the year 2000, a potential 5-year delay in a plan which would not be completed for 20-years. That delay (which could be no delay at all depending on the .4 date on which oil operations are actually phased out) is characterized as being "well beyond the anticipated first development phase."4Y Based on this characterization, the DEIR dismisses as infeasible any alternative location for the project. This is not a valid reason for its rejection under these circumstances. Koll and the County must list all other sites which are suitable for the 4 proposed development and are either owned by Koll or could be acquired by Koll for the development of the project. This is appropriate since a significant portion of the land within the Study Area is not currently owned by Koll nor subject to a binding commitment of the property owner to sell to Koll. There are any number of alternate locations for the project not considered by the DEIR which Koll could acquire, perhaps as easily as it could 4 acquire the portions of the study area not currently owned by Koll. For example, in excess of 1,100 acres of property which is already planned for residential development under a specific plan may be available in the Talega Ranch area of San Clemente. If Koll could acquire this property from the current developer/owner, it could develop the same residential community as it proposes for Bolsa Chica but at a less environmentally sensitive 4 site.9' The Irvine Company owns many 1,000+ acre sites within the County which are suitable for residential development. For example, the East Orange Planning Area is comprised of approximately 7,000 acres or more of land which could support a development such as the one proposed by Koll for Bolsa Chica. 431 Further, given the position of the federal regulatory and State agencies regarding approval of the project (e.g.,the CCC has opined that the project is not approvable)the time delay for the project if located at Bolsa Chica could well exceed the time required for obtaining approvals at either MCAS location. 441 Obviously such a development would not effect a restoration of the wetlandr at Bolsa Chica;however, it is not appropriate under CEQA to limit the consideration of alternate sites by evaluating the alternate locations for the project by a rigid adherence to project objectives which, by definition,limit the project to one site in particular. Thus,the recirculated DEIR must consider alternate locations in terms of their ability to create a development which fu yllls Koll's objectives to develop a residential area with a mixture of densities and must not reject alternative locations because they would not permit that mix to be constructed in the Lowlands or the Mesa or because no ' restoration of the wetlands would occur. Phopaad FkW Dmft DOW&M"y 14. 1954 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 49 • The DEIR must examine these and other feasible alternative sitesL' and compare Koll's ability to acquire those sites with its ability to complete the acquisition of the portions of the Study Area (comprising 40% of the total area and approximately 11% of the portion of the Study Area to be developed) which it does not presently own. • The Supreme Court's last word on the requirement for analysis of alternative locations for a proposed project is Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supgujsors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990)("Goleta H"). Goleta H denied a petitioner's claim that an EIR for the development of a 400-room Hyatt hotel on the beach in an unincorporated area of Santa • Barbara County must include an alternatives analysis of seven different sites for the development which had been suggested by the petitioner after the close of the public comment period but during the public hearings regarding the approvals for the project. The Court based its decision, in part, on the prior environmental review which was embodied in the County's LCP and general plan. Further, the Court indicated that the inability of the • developer to acquire ownership of the alternative sites within a reasonable period of time is one factor to be considered when assessing the feasibility of an alternative location. The Court's holding in Goleta II generally limits the scope of alternatives location analysis required in the context of a program EIR considering approval of a project consistent with applicable overall planning documents. However, in a case such as the Project, where the proposed development will require the amendment of the general plan and the adoption of an entirely new local coastal program, the limitations of Goleta II do not apply. Rather than requiring a duplicative analysis of land use decisions already embodied in prior land use and planning documents previously subjected to environmental' review (as was the case in Goleta In, the DEIR considers the propriety and environmental impacts of an entirely new land use involving the most basic planning and land use decisions. Thus, the DEIR must, based upon the reasoning in Goleta II, include a range of • 451 As was noted by the California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights 1, CEQA does not require the public commenting on the document to bring alternative locations to the attention of the lead agency. Rather it is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine feasible alternative locations which could substantially fulfill the project objectives while mitigating or eliminating the adverse ejects of the project on the environment. 47 Cal.3d at 406. Here, Koll and the County are both far better informed as to the alternative sites which are available and • Koll's ability to acquire those sites. PYopomd RtW Diwh Dated Fibwy 14, 1994 I • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 50 feasible alternative locations for the project. It fails to do so. Furthermore, it fails to properly assess the feasibility of the alternative locations considered in the DEIR. F. THE DEIR Omrrs 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 mandate that the DEIR include a discussion of risk of upset. Surprisingly, the DEIR does not even include a "Risk of Upset" section. Such an upset analysis must address risks due to continued oil company operations (i.e. fires, explosions and spills noted on page 6-1, line 32), site cleanup, risks of damage during 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.W G. THE COUNTY'S PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING THE DEIR ARE DEFICIENT. 1. The DEIR and Technical Studies Related to the DEIR Were Not Filed in the Repository Noted in the DEIR Throughout the Public Review Period. The County only made three copies of the DEIR available to the City at the commencement of the public review period. The DEIR was not generally available for review and copying at the City as stated in the document. The City requested additional copies and an extension of the review period to reflect the County's delay in providing a 1 sufficient number of copies for the City staff to analyze the document. A copy of the City's letter to the County, dated December 29, 1993, is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 13. By Thomas Matthew's letter to Howard Zelefsky dated January 11, 1994, a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 14, the City's request for an extension of time to review the document was formally denied. The County's denial was stated in that letter to be justified, in part, by the City's decision to hire outside expertise to review the 461 The severity of this sort of impact was amply demonstrated by the experience in the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake in which many homes were lost due to eruption of natural gas lines. Piopord Rhal Dfalf D&fd fib r 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 51 document and the City's former status as lead agency with respect to a previous project proposal which differs from Koll's current proposal in significant respects. • Public review after the County's circulation of the DEIR was further impaired by the County's failure to include the address where copies may be obtained in the notice of completion prepared for the DEIR. Furthermore, Chapter 2.12.13 of the DEIR inaccurately states: The EIR and all related technical studies are also available for • review and copying at the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach. These documents and materials are also available for inspection at the Huntington Beach Central Library. • Although two copies were available at the Central Library of the City, "all related technical studies" were not available. As is detailed at length in Section III of this letter, one of the prime flaws of the DEIR is its failure to include relevant technical data in the appendices to the DEIR. • PRC § 21161 requires that a lead agency publish a notice of completion. Guidelines § 15087 requires that public notice of the availability of the DEIR must be given to the public at the same time the notice of completion is delivered as required by statute. The inclusion of inaccurate data regarding the locations where the DEIR is available for review improperly limited the opportunity for public review. • The sum of the foregoing circumstances, when coupled with the County's failure to file a notice of completion which fulfilled all of the requirements of the Guidelines, indicates that the County's procedures had the effect of preventing full public analysis and informed participation in the planning and environmental review process as • required by CEQA. • PrgooaW Fbr/Drift Dat"F*Gury 14. 19" • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 52 2. Defective Notice of Completion. On January 24, 1994, the County transmitted a copy of the notice of completion filed with the State. A copy of that notice of completion is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 15. The Notice of Completion does not contain the address where a copy of the DEIR is available as required by Guidelines 1 § 15085(b)(3). 3. No Public Hearing. The County has refused to conduct public hearings during the public comment period on the DEIR. This impairs the ability of the public to hear the comments of others and synthesize the information from other members 1 of the public in formulating their own comments on the DEIR. Further, given the infirmities noted in subparagraphs 1 and 2 above, a public hearing is required in this particular case, even though CEQA does not generally require public hearings. On January 31, 1994, a public hearing was held by the City regarding the DEIR. A copy of a letter which transmitted the transcript of that hearing to the County is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 16. By letter from Supervisor Harriet Wieder, dated January 31, 1994, the County agreed to accept the annexed transcript as formal public comment on the DEIR. A copy of that letter is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 17. Attached to this letter as WHAWN&46 are copies of certain of the written comments received by the City Council at that hearing (excluding only those comments which are 1 otherwise noted in separate appendices herein). The recirculated DEIR and the final EIR must respond to each of the comments raised in the transcript of the January 31, 1994 hearing. H. DISCUSSION OF LONG TERM IMPACTS IN THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE. 1 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 1 implemented. PRC § 21100.1 makes it clear that a project such as Koll's development of Bolsa Chica and 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 DEIR is relatively silent on both points. The two pages of consideration devoted to these impacts in Chapter 6 of the DEIR is far from sufficient. Chapter 6 does not even mention long term Proposed RNl Dian Dated FiMrry 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 53 • productivity and improperly relies on the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan as a justification for the current project which, as discussed at length in Part III.B of this letter varies significantly from Koll's current proposal. Further, the DEIR omits any analysis of • the substantial potential hazards associated with the risk of upset in a situation where ongoing oil operations will continue directly adjacent to medium to high density residential development. &p Part III.T, below. I. 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 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 3 of the DEIR does list a number of different projects which have taken place and will likely take place in the future and Chapter 4 of the document purports to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project when aggregated with Koll's proposed project, the DEIR nonetheless fails to provide the cumulative analysis required under CEQA. This failure extends not only to the permanent impacts but also to the interim impacts from the project and other projects in the region. To be valid, the DEIR must assess the impact of the project on the cumulative loss of wetlands when aggregated with other projects having an impact on wetlands. In this regard, the CCC commented in its response to the EIR/EIS: ('I']he areas 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 DEIR 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 • Propo"d fbrl Oraft DaW fi&Lwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 54 1 infrastructure.0 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. In addition, the DEIR does not adequately analyze the cumulative traffic, air quality, terrestrial biology or cultural impacts. For example, as detailed in this letter's discussion of Chapter 4.7, the loss of raptor roosting and foraging habitat is not considered in connection with other projects which may have the same effect. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to appropriately address the cumulative 1 impacts of the proposed project. M. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the DEM. A. CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. � 1. Improper Use of Program EIR. a. A Program EIR Is Not a Substitute for a Project EIR. Guidelines § 15165 sets forth regulatory authority for the use of a tiered environmental 1 review and states, among other things: Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprises a project with significant environmental effect, the lead agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger project, or commits the lead agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect, an EIR must address itself to the K= of the larger prgiect. . . . 1 471 See California Wetlands Conservation Policy, Executive Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 1993) 1 Proposd Fort Diet Dad ieDnry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 55 • Further, Guidelines § 15168(c) states, among other things: 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. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration. • (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162 no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental • document would be required. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent activities in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. • (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the • scope of the project described in the program EIR and no further environmental documents would be required. Thus, a program EIR will generally address only the broad environmental implications of the program without the full specific data and analysis required for a project EIR under • Pmpo"d A-W Dielt Dated Fobwy 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 56 Guidelines § 15161.41' The use of a program EIR must contemplate further environmental review in the future. Se & Guidelines § 15168(c)(1). However, it seems likely in this case that no further environmental review will be required. Guidelines § 15168(c)(5) states that a program EIR will be most helpful if it specifically addresses the effects of the program. Although there is no requirement for an ordinary program EIR to contain the specific environmental information required of a project EIR, as is noted above, the DEIR in this case appears to serve as the project EIR for the construction of between 3,400 and 4,286 homes on the Mesa, with construction scheduled to start next year.49t Thus, impacts which would be fully analyzed in a project EIR will likely "slip through the cracks" under the program EIR prepared by the County. b. Propriety of a Program EIR. In order for a program EIR to be appropriate, the project must be viewed as an integrated undertaking comprising a single project which will commence construction within two years of the date of the first required approval, otherwise a program EIR is not appropriate under the CEQA Guidelines and a 481 Cam' Guidelines § 15146(b) which acknowledges that an EIR contemplating the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan 'need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow'but such an EIR must focus on the secondary effects which can be expected to follow the adoption of the plan. Thus, in the case of the DEIR, to the extent that the document is not speck, the DEIR is simply not adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the prospective construction projects upon the Mesa and all future construction must require further environmental review. However, the need for further review is not clearly contemplated by the DEIR and this ambiguity renders the document ambiguous and invalid under CEQA 491 As noted in Part LD,above, the improbability of obtaining federal permits makes it extremely unlikely that Koll would ever be permitted to develop the Lowlands. Based on Koll's assertions (as noted in Part LD,above)and 1 the program described in the DEIR, it is likely (f not inevitable), that the only action which will occur is the development of the Mesa, a development which will be implemented without the restoration of the wetlands or the mitigation of significant impacts. This development appears likely to be approved by the County on the basis of the program EIR, without further environmental review. The DEIR is simply not an adequate environmental document for the assessment of the impacts of the build-out of 4,286 homes (much less the 4,884 homes which are actually contemplated) on the Mesa. PMposd RtW Dlih Dared Febtuvy 14, 1994 i • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 57 • staged EIR (described below) is requiredA Even if the program EIR were the appropriate environmental document for the project, the omission from the project description (and hence the omission from the DEIR's analysis) of the dedication of 767 privately held acres to a conservation entity, the omission of any analysis of the additions to the "linear park" on the southeastern boundary of the project site and the omission from the project description of the proposed development within the portion of the study area located in the City, render the program EIR incomplete. Further, the omission of the construction and phasing information required to inform the public of the impacts of the first phase of construction makes the DEIR wholly insufficient as a project EIR for the first phase of the • development. Phasing information is critical for understanding the interim impacts on the wetlands and the surrounding communities as well as the impacts on new residents of the project. Without that crucial information, both the public and the decision-makers are not informed of the true construction period impacts of the development on the Mesa. • Guidelines § 15168(b) expressly states that a program EIR is intended to provide the opportunity for "a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action." Further the program EIR is supposed to "ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case- by-case analysis," and to "allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." In the case of this project, however, the use of the program EIR in lieu of a staged EIR under Guidelines § 15167 will minimize the lead agency's review of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives and, therefore, the use of a program EIR is impermissible. • 501 For the purpose of this inquiry, it is possible that the flrst permit required for the implementation of the • project was the demolition permit issued by the County in June or July 1991 for the demolition of the World War II era bunkers. Although demolition permits are often viewed as ministerial,numerous cases hold that a demolition permit which is part of a larger discretionary project is not ministerial for purposes of CEQA. See, e-z, Orinda Association v. Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Ca1.App.3d 1145(1986). Demolition of the bunkers did not commence until 1993 and the "construction' will not commence until at least 1995. Thus, the construction of the Project contemplated in the program EIR will commence at least two years after the first approval required for the • implementation of the project. Proposed FDW DisR Dihd F"bw y 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 58 C. Comparison of Program EIRs Versus Staged EIRs. If (i) the project is best understood as a series of projects and the impacts are understated by viewing the project as a single integrated project (as is true in the DEIR), or, (ii) the project is viewed as a large capital project which will require numerous discretionary 4 approvals, will be developed over a long period of time and will commence construction more than two years after the issuance of the first approval required for the project, the use of a program EIR is a violation under CEQA, since either a staged EIR or a project EIR is required. A staged EIR contemplates that further environmental review will be required for future project approvals, as opposed to the more permissive case-by-case analysis required once a program EIR is prepared. Guidelines §§ 15167(a) and (b) regarding "staged EIRs" provide: (a) Where a large capital project will require a number of discretionary approvals from government agencies and one of the approvals will occur more than two years before construction will begin, a staged EIR may be prepared covering the entire project in a general form. The staged EIR shall evaluate the proposal in light of current and contemplated plans and produce an informed estimate of the environmental consequences of the entire project. The aspect of the project before the public agency for approval shall be discussed with a greater degree of specificity. (b) When a staged EIR has been prepared, a sup- plement to the EIR shall be prepared when a later approval is required for the project and the information available at the time of the later approval would permit consideration of additional environmental impacts, mitigation measures, or reasonable alternatives to the project. As noted above, the first approval for the program contemplated by the DEIR was granted by the County in mid-1991. Accordingly, the approval is at least two years prior to the commencement of construction and a staged EIR would be Piopowd F#W Dn1fi D&W Abwy 14, 1994 • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 59 • appropriate for the project. If the DEIR were characterized as a staged EIR, further environmental review of each approval for the project would be required. This would eliminate the potential for an inadequately analyzed project impact to slip through the cracks inherent in the procedures for further environmental documentation once a program • EIR is certified. 2. Misleading Project Description. A significant flaw of Chapter 1 of the DEIR is its misleading description of the project. Review of this Chapter would reasonably lead the reader to conclude that only 3,410 units would be constructed on the • Mesa; however, as noted in Part II. of this letter, a more detailed analysis shows that as many as 3,800 to 4286 homes may in fact be developed on this part of the sites" 3. Professional Endorsements. Guidelines § 15149 provides an EIR is not intended to be a technical document which can only be prepared by a registered • professional such as a registered engineer or geologist. However, where, as in the case of this DEIR, required technical and complex analysis of many technical issues which are within the practice of, among other professions, Civil Engineering as defined in Government Code § 6731 (including the consideration of such items as drainage, water supply, flood control, municipal improvements, highways and sewerage), it becomes • necessary to review the original reports of the registered professionals on which the preparer of the DEIR relied in preparing the discussion of those items.L' As noted above, the document does not include the reports on which it relies and, accordingly, it does not show the signatures of the responsible individual, or individuals or of the responsible, registered civil engineers. Without review of the underlying reports bearing the appropriate endorsements there is no assurance that the document accurately represents the professional opinion of the individuals (assuming they are qualified) who provided the technical input. The DEIR should include in appendices the reports bearing the appropriate endorsements of the registered civil engineers responsible for the technical content of the • 511 Further, the units to be constructed on the City portion of the Mesa are excluded from the number of units in the DEIR and, accordingly, the number of units on the Mesa is actually likely to be larger. 521 Under the provisions of Government Code § 6730, 'any person ---who practices civil engineering -- - shall be registered as a civil engineer--- And, under Government Code§ 6735, a report prepared by, or under the direction of, a registered civil engineer must be signed by the responsible individual, or individuals. Ro""d FYW Dist Detd F"""Y 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 60 4 report and should be recirculated for review. Further, the list of persons preparing the DEIR in Exhibit A to the document should include the professional credentials of those persons preparing and assisting in the preparation of the document. 4. Miscellaneous. a. Lowland Development Description. Page 1-3, lines 16-19: This brief description of the proposed development of the inland edge of the Lowlands should include the acreage of each parcel, not just the Fieldstone property, and should also , discuss the way it will be developed, i.e., how much fill and to what elevation. There is no discussion on how it will be separated from the wetlands. b. Geological Effects Found to Be Insignificant. The summary of Section 4.2 at Table 1.5 indicates that project impacts on MWD and Lowlands residential are insignificant. This two line summary includes fault surface rupture and tsunami hazards 4 as insignificant impacts. These statements are not justified in the DEIR, i.e., the proposed development on the MWD property is not defined, especially where it crosses the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone and the lowland development is not defined as to final elevations or to its exposure to tsunami runup. Further, under "Effects Found to be Significant" in Table 1.5, there is no mention of the potential for surface fault rupture on the Mesa areas. This 4 is a significant impact. According to the DEIR, this impact can and will be mitigated by establishing an exclusionary setback zone, but this concern should be listed as a significant impact along with specific mitigation measures specifying the precise location of the exclusionary zone. 5= discussion of Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR in Part III.E of this letter.L" C. Water and Wastewater Impacts Are Not Insi nig ficant. Delivering a reasonably reliable water supply to the project, using either the City, an independent water agency or another supplier will have significant adverse impacts. The existing City system is already considerably overtaxed. Necessary mitigation measures, such as an additional 9-million gallon reservoir, at least one more well, a booster pump 531 Reference should also be made to the Report entitled Geotechnical Inputs,dated February 1974,prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department, a copy of which is included as ANNEX NO. 32. 4 P►000r.s RW Onh psnd fibwy 14. 19$4 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 61 station and transmission mains could prove quite costly. Infrastructure aside, no one can guaranty an adequate supply. Replacement, combining and upsizing of sewer lift stations in Warner Avenue will require detailed studies. The discussion should include nominal sizes of pumps, length and size of connection to the system and associated costs. No significant impacts should be expected only if the mitigation measures require the developer to construct and fund all necessary improvements, and the developer will have the capacity to do so. B. CHAPTER 2 - INTRODUCTION. 1. The Stated Reliance on the BCPC Concept Plan is Inaccurate and Misleading. Chapter 2.8 of the DEIR states that the objective of the current project proposal is to implement the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan ("BCPC Plan"), a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 26. This statement is misleading • since the proposed project appears to differ in significant respects from the BCPC Plan. The BCPC Plan does provide for a restoration of a minimum of 1,000 acres of wetlands and Koll's proposed project would provide 1,004 acres of ESHAs and restored wetlands (including the existing State ecological reserve). The BCPC Plan is nonetheless significantly different from the Koll proposal in at least the following respects: • a. Mesa development would not proceed under the BCPC Plan until the Wetlands Restoration Plan and Implementation Plan had been approved by the County, the CCC, CDFG and the State Lands Commission (in consultation with the Amigos de Bolsa Chica)SY and a sufficient financing mechanism for implementation was in place. No such restriction on Mesa development is included in the current proposal. b. The BCPC Plan recognized that local, State and federal laws apply to the plan and the approval process and, accordingly, it contemplated concurrent CEQA and NEPA review and a pre-application review under Section 404 of the Clean • 541 The BCPC Plan noted that issuance of the federal permits for the Lowlands was not a condition to the development of the Mesa but noted that all requirements of the components of the BCPC Plan did govern the development. The necessity for satisfying federal requirements is noted throughout the various components of the BCPC Plan, and, unlike the current Koll proposal, the BCPC Plan intended that development would proceed in accordance with federal permitting policies. See BCPC Plan, Component D,p. 5,par.9.h. Rvp"od Fier/Dta t D.erd Febmwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 4 February 17, 1994 Page 62 4 Water Act concurrently with the LCP land use planning process. The current proposal ignores federal requirements and would permit development to take place before it was certain that the required federal approvals for Lowland development and wetlands restoration could be obtained. C. The BCPC Plan contemplated that the area would be annexed to the City prior to development, thus eliminating many of the impacts in areas of public safety and police and fire services. d. The BCPC Plan required that ESHAs equivalent in size, 1 character and quality would be created and functioning prior to commencement of development with any adverse impact on any existing ESHA. The Koll proposal would relocate Warner Pond and disturb other ESHAs as part of the Mesa development without conditioning the development on the creation of such new and functioning ESHAs. 1 e. The BCPC Plan limits the intensity of development in the three basic residential areas to a maximum of up to 6.5 units per acre in the Lowlands, up to 12.5 on the MWD property and up to 18 maximum, reflecting a mix of densities on the Mesa. The Koll proposal appears to permit up to 36 units per acre on the Mesa, using open space to reduce the average density to below the 18 unit per acre limitation. 1 f. The BCPC Plan requires the wetlands restoration plan to provide for funding sources and for the formation of a Bolsa Chica Conservancy to monitor the restoration of the wetlands. The plan specifically requires phasing of the urban development and the restoration and requires the identification of funding sources for 4 restoration, operation, maintenance and the monitoring program. These elements are omitted from the Koll proposal. Furthermore, under the BCPC Plan, the developer is required to establish a mechanism which identifies financial resources sufficient to assure the restoration of all Bolsa Chica Wetlands, ESHAs and open space in the Lowlands and requires that the legal mechanism for their receipt must be in place prior to the 4 commencement of grading or construction on the Mesa. The intent of the BCPC plan was to allow the developer flexibility while insuring "that the financial and legal mechanisms [are in place] prior to the development of the Mesa so that restoration of all of the wetland and ESHA acres is assured to happen in the future." BCPC Plan, Component E, p.1. Although the intent of the BCPC Plan is expressly stated not to make the developer the sole 4 Proposed Find Drsh Dafsd P4buny-14, 1954 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 63 • funding source of the restoration plan (sgg Id. at p.2), the DEIR nonetheless differs from the BCPC Plan in that no funding sources or mechanisms whatsoever are required prior to the commencement of the Mesa development. The BCPC Plan contemplated the potential • for instituting Mello-Roos bonding or other public financing and funding to insure that sufficient funds were in place for the restoration and creation of the wetlands and ESHAs prior to the commencement of the development. No such assurance appears in the DEIR or the Koll proposal. g. The BCPC Plan required the oil operations to cease as • expeditiously as possible and the wetlands restoration to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The DEIR sets out no mandatory schedule of phasing out the existing oil operations or for implementing the proposed WRP. h. The BCPC Plan required interim offsite replacement of • wetlands under specified circumstances and required the off-site replacement at a rate of two acres of offsite wetlands/ESHA for every onsite acre of wetland/ESHA lost, with the offsite property to be maintained and protected permanently, even after the onsite restoration had been completed. The DEIR indicates (at p. 4.1-43) that no such replacement or restoration is contemplated under the current proposal. • i. The BCPC Plan required that title to the wetlands and ESHA areas owned by the developer must be conveyed to a public agency or similar organization capable of protection and/or enhancement of fish, wildlife and other environment values prior to the commencement of grading or construction on the Mesa. No such condition on Mesa development is set forth in the Koll proposal. Furthermore, the BCPC Plan required that restoration of an area equal to the size of any proposed Lowlands development (including the MWD portion of the Lowlands) prior to the commencement of construction on the Lowlands. • The foregoing is not by any means an exhaustive list of the differences between the BCPC Plan and the current Koll proposal. The foregoing list merely illustrates the many degrees of separation between the intent of the BCPC Plan and the Koll proposal analyzed by the DEIR. To state that the proposal considered in the DEIR in any manner "meets the requirements of" the BCPC Plan (DEIR p. 2-4, In. 7-8) or is somehow intended to • "implement" that plan (Id.) is inaccurate and highly misleading. Proposed Find Dmft DOW Ar&%a 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 64 1 2. Comments on NOP. As noted above, Chapter 2.12.1 (page 2-7, In. 38-44) should include a table showing the identity of each person commenting on the NOP, where their comments were accommodated by the DEIR and the reasons why the County did not accommodate any comments which were not accommodated in the DEIR. 1 3. Availability of DEIR. As noted above, DEIR Chapter 2.12.3 is in error when it states that all technical studies related to the DEIR were available at the City library. C. CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1. Project Description is Misleading, Inaccurate and Inadequate. As is discussed at length in Part H.A of this letter, the project description in the DEIR is not adequate under CEQA and the relevant case law authority. 1 2. Environmental Setting. The DEIR never provides a single coherent statement of the project. Although Chapter 3.1.2 provides a "overview of physical environment", that section of the DEIR does not fulfill the requirements for a brief but thorough description of the environmental setting of the proposed project.55t The DEIR concedes that Chapter 3.1.2 does not fulfill this requirement, as is evident from Table 2.12- 1 2 which notes that the description of the environmental setting required under Guidelines § 15125 is dispersed among the hundreds of pages of analysis in Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR. Guidelines § 15125 states, in relevant part: An EIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity 1 of the project, as is exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective. The description shall be no longer than is necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed project and its alternatives. [I (a)] Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental 1 SS/ Not only does the description of the County LCP area fail to fu1fi11 the requirements of CEQA, but it also omits any meaningful description of the City neighborhoods surrounding the project area or the portions of the project area which fall within the City. These omissions alone make the description in the DEIR legally inadequate. The description fails in other respects as well. 1 Pmpord Rnd Drat Drtod Fibwy 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 65 • impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. • The discussion following the foregoing Guideline further explains, "Because the concept of a significant effect on the environment focuses on changes in the environment, this section requires an EIR to describe the environmental setting of the project so that the changes can be seen in context. . . The description of the pre-existing environment also helps reviewers to check the Lead Agency's identification of significant effects." The major components of • the proposed project are purported to include the development of residential units coupled with wetlands restoration, re-routing of surface water flood channel and construction of a new tidal inlet to divert exchange of ocean water from Huntington Harbor to the southern limit of the project site. Consequently, the EIR should provide a complete baseline description of the oceanographical, surface water, and water quality aspects of the existing • conditions in addition to the description of the topography and general location of the site, yet the DEIR fails to do so. Since the DEIR does not provide a single, simple and short narrative of the environmental setting of the project describing the unique features (such as the many • different ESHAs and endangered or candidate species) within the study or LCP area, it is not always possible to determine from the DEIR whether the County's identification of significant impacts is accurate or complete. This is a direct violation of the above-quoted Guideline and CEQA. 3. Grading Plan is Illegible. The "Proposed Wetlands Grading Plan", Figure 3.2-9, has apparently been photographically reduced ten times from its original size and is, consequently, not legible. It is, therefore, not possible to review and evaluate proposed grading. This figure should be replaced with a full-size legible exhibit and recirculated with a revised DEIR for review. • 4. Inadequate Information to Assess Certain Impacts. A review of the project description indicates that there is information missing from the DEIR that would assist the reader in determining the magnitude of certain impacts and provide for a better understanding of the project. The WRP provides limited insight into some of these issues • Pr p Find DnR iUW F"nwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 66 but the information must be summarized (or at the very least referred to) within the project description. ■ How much dredge material will be excavated to create and restore wetlands? ' ■ Where will the material be disposed - onsite/offsite? ■ What dredging material disposal options were considered? ■ Is construction staging considered in impact analysis? ■ Are there any dredge dewatering techniques? ■ Is there beach nourishment? ■ Upland disposal? ■ Offshore dumping? ■ Is there channel armoring? ■ What about maintenance dredging? The DEIR is inadequate in its description and analysis of the foregoing impacts, both in the DEIR's project description and in the particular chapters which purport to analyze the impacts. 5. Miscellaneous. The following list sets forth specific issues raised in Chapter 3 of the DEIR which must be more thoroughly addressed by the document: a. Page 3-12, line 11: Who will construct the lift stations? Who will pay for their construction? b. Page 3-12, line 18: This paragraph attempts to describe development of the inland edge of the Lowlands. It should include acreage of all parcels to be developed, elevation of the fill to bring it above the adjacent Lowlands and a description of the interface with the Lowlands. Naposed FkW Dish Dead Febuay 14, 1994 • I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 67 • C. Page 3-13, lines 25-42: 1. OCWD is not a "wholesale domestic water supplier" as • quoted in the DEIR but rather is a groundwater management agency. This makes a difference because OCWD does not sell water, but simply manages the underground water basin. As such, it does not directly control how much water a retail agency takes, but does cause financial impacts to the agency to occur if the agency decides not to cooperate with the policies of OCWD. 2. The City will not be the retail domestic water supplier as proposed, but rather a wholesale agency, based on the suggested structure in Section 4.14. This is because the City will not be serving the customers directly but rather through the service agreement mentioned in Section 4.14. The explanation in this section is inconsistent with other explanations of similar subject in the DEIR. • 3. The 9 million gallon reservoir will not be built by the City. The reservoir will be built by the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property as part of a development agreement to mitigate the impacts of that development and only that development. The reservoir is not designed to mitigate the impacts of the Bolsa Chica • project. The developer of the Bolsa Chica project will need to mitigate the storage deficiencies caused by the project as outlined in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan. These deficiencies amount to nine million gallons of water storage. It is anticipated that this additional water storage would be built in another part of the City, perhaps far removed from the immediate local of the project. The Southeast Complex, as discussed in the 1988 • Water Master Plan (a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx NO. 36) and its 1993 Update (a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 37), appears to be the obvious facility that could be constructed to mitigate the impacts of the project. The DEIR does not discuss this necessary mitigation. • 4. Since the design review of the 9 million gallon reservoir has not commenced, it is unknown if the reservoir will be below the surface. Early conceptual planning discussed three options: above ground, below ground, or a combination. No definite conclusions were ever stated in the DEIR. The impacts of each would need to be addressed. Additionally, the instability of the site due to potential seismic • Pn M*md Final Dealt Dated Fsbwry 14, 1994 0 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 68 activity, may render it undesirable for a critical facility such as a water storage reservoir to be located there. 5. Twelve and 16 inch water transmission facilities 4 identified in the DEIR to serve the project are undersized to meet the City's criteria for water transmission planning for that section of the City. The reservoir serves only to shave peak water demands of the City system; it does not provide a source of water. The water supply plan as shown in Figure 3.2-4 has not been approved by the City. Should the project be serviced by the City, this plan would need to be approved by the Water Division. In order to effectively integrate this project into the existing City water system would require larger sized transmission mains in the Bolsa Chica Street extension to connect with the 42 inch transmission main at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street and with the 24 inch pipe located at the existing terminus of Springdale Street. This work would be done to provide a more reliable system by effectively "looping" the transmission system to provide redundancy in the event of a maintenance outage or an earthquake. 4 6. The explanation provided in this section is less than clear. The layman will have difficulty in understanding the total presentation. The explanation should be expanded with more detail. The map (Figure 3.2-4) should be located adjacent to the explanation so that one can easily track the author's points. The issue of water supply in this locale is a complex subject. The explanation provided does not delineate connections to the existing City system, where the water sources are located, or just how water travels from its sources to the customers. Again, the reservoir shown in Figure 3.2-4 is not a water source; it is a facility used strictly to handle the peak flows typically encountered during the operation of a water supply system. All of these details must be explained in order for the layman to receive a clear and comprehensive understanding of the water supply situation in this project. d. Page 3-13, lines 44-50: The availability of reclaimed water from the Green Acres Project (GAP) is an unknown at this time. The DEIR does not state 4 the purpose, amount or necessity for reclaimed water in this project. Project funding and economic viability have not been solidified. The project may not be built. If it is not built, the DEIR does not state what will happen. It appears that reclaimed water is to be used for supplemental water to avoid penalties that would be imposed by the Orange County Water District. If no reclaimed water becomes available, what will happen? The DEIR should 4 Avyowd fled Draft D*W AP&LWY 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 69 • discuss this. If it is not built, it would have impacts related to overpumping of the Santa Ana River groundwater basin and the inability of OCWD to manage the basin to maximum effectiveness. The DEIR needs to discuss the options and impacts on water supply should • the GAP not be constructed. As the DEIR is written, this section is inadequate because of this important issue. Additionally, the pipe sizing has not been verified by any agency other than the developer. OCWD will need to approve the pipe sizing, as will the City should it become the water supplier for the project. e. Page 3-16, Figure 3.2-4: The pipelines labeled "to be • constructed by the City of Huntington Beach" are in error. A portion of this pipeline will be constructed by the developer of the Holly-Seacliff property as part of the mitigation measures for that development. The "Sunset Heights Reservoir" is not a "source" of water but merely a holding facility for satisfying peak demands. Reclaimed water lines shown to be built by the Orange County Water District may not be constructed. All of this means • that the foundation that these lines provide as a basis of supplying water in the DEIR are very inadequate because they are based on assumption of the author and not fact. None of the pipelines in question are definitely to be constructed. All are strictly conceptual in nature at this time. • f. The conservation category of Table 3.2-3 (page 3-15) includes 306+ acres already owned by State, and which are totaled in the open space resulting in an approximate 30% "inflation" of the project's open space. g. Page 3-17, lines 7-15: The narrative states that proposed local sewer lines will be 6" to 10" in diameter. However, Figure 3.2-5 indicates proposed 6" to 12" lines. What are the correct pipe sizes? Have these facilities been correctly analyzed and sized? h. Page 3-17, line 20: Utilities will be located underground, • "when possible." What is meant by the phrase - "when possible"? How will Koll determine when and how to construct utilities below ground so as to minimize aesthetic and other impacts. i. Page 3-17, line 44: Pedestrian access on top of the jetty seems • ill advised as it may create a public safety hazard. Proposed Furl Draft Dated fabr a 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency d February 17, 1994 Page 70 j. Page 3-24, line 32: Clarify that the proposed plan will isolate Outer Bolsa Bay from the remainder of the restoration area. k. Page 3-29, Fig. 3.2-10: Shoreline access indicated atop both jetties. This is a potential safety hazard which requires further study and, depending on the results of the study, mitigation of the hazard. 1. Page 3-24, lines 28-29: Where will the sand go? Can this be shown on a phasing exhibit? How will this material be transported? What impacts will result from its transport and deposition? What if some of the material dredged from RPA 1A is incompatible with its proposed use? M. Page 3-27, line 22: Is cost for long term maintenance and monitoring provided for in perpetuity? ' n. Page 3-27, lines 24-27: Why aren't these costs at least represented as a contingency? Isn't it expected that some offsite mitigation will be required to adhere to federal "No Net Loss" requirements for wetlands and endangered species during project phasing? o. Page 3-33, line 27: The use of the word "reverse" implies that degradation is proceeding today and that current property owners are not properly conducting their current business to avoid further damage to biological resources. The project actually implements a wetlands restoration plan which is only intended to improve the biological productivity of the site. There is no actual guarantee of its success. p. Section 3.5: Is any loss of wetlands associated with these cumulative projects? Please note in the project description of each and identify relevant phasing considerations. q- Section 3.5.9: Please include associated natural resource and habitat displacement. Ropomd F1ha Dnh Dai*d fe&%ry 14, 1394 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 71 • D. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING IMPACTS 1. Environmental Impact Significance Criteria. The DEIR at page • 4.1-29, lines 38-39, indicates that a change in an interim or holding zone to a more intensive land use is not a significant impact on the environment. There is no support cited for this conclusion. This conclusion is crucial to the DEIR's determination that the County's change in zoning from an Al(0) base zone to a more intense planned community development district is not a significant land use impact. This conclusion undercuts one of the basic tenets of CEQA since it permits the commencement of more intense development • without appropriate environmental review. 2. Compatibility with Adjacent Neighborhoods. The City's comment to the NOP noted its concern regarding the compatibility of the project with the neighboring single family residential neighborhood. The proposed LUP would place high density • residential uses directly adjacent to existing low density residential development. The DEIR assumes this to be an insignificant impact based on the buffer provided by the 40 foot wide roadway,5' a 34 foot wide landscaped parkway and a minimum 15 foot setback from a "theme wall" coupled with a height restriction of 35 feet (no guidance is given for determining the point of grade from which this height limit is to be measured) for buildings • within 150 feet of the theme wall. See pages 4.1-32 through 4.1-34 of the DEIR.S—" 561 The DEIR states that Los Patos is 40 feet wide,however, although the right-of-way may be that wide, the actual road is currently far narrower. The DEIR never considers the impact of building out Los Patos as a wider • road which hills the existing right-of-way. No analysis appears to be made of the intersection of Los Patos and Warner Avenue after the build out of the Project and widening of Los Patos (See DEIR § 4.8- Table-3). 571 The DEIR relies heavily on the theme wall, yet no description of the height or design of this wall is included. Section 4.12 of the DEIR, regarding aesthetics, completely omits any mention of the wall or its impact. Further, DEIR § 4.12.1 (page 4.12-41,42) characterizes the view from Los Patos (a view which is conceded to • extend to the waterfront from some vantage points)to be a 'private' viewshed, even though Los Patos is a public street and DEIR page 4.12-62 acknowledges that the Bolsa Mesa development would completely dominate the viewshed from Warner/Los Patos. These impacts should be listed and analyzed as unavoidable significant impacts. Also,page 4.1-50 of the DEIR acknowledges that the preservation of scenic views is an important policy objective of the Coastal Act and for that reason all residential development is to be 'screened'from PCH with landscaping; however, no assessment of the impact of that screening on views of the coastline from the existing neighborhoods • is included Proposed AW Oren Dwell febwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 72 Furthermore, the design of the buffers, etc. is a PDF which is presumed to mitigate any impact due to conflicting residential densities to below a level of significance. However, since the DEIR does not include such PDFs as mitigation measures, there is.no requirement that the PDF be formally monitored for proper enforcementAY 3. Remediation of Oil and Related Operations. The DEIR notes, at page 4.1-8, that there are 217 active oil wells, 114 inactive wells and 32 water injector wells in the County LCP area. Further, this passage notes that the primary oil operator (SWEPT) is in the process of remediating drill mud, tank waste disposal site and is removing unused tanks. The DEIR notes that SWEPI is in the process of developing plans for the economic remediation of the soils. There appears to be no analysis of the impacts of these operations. 4. Consistency with County's General Plan. DEIR § 4.1.1.4 appears to assume that the current agricultural/oil production zoning is consistent with the adopted 1986 LUP which expressly provides for residential and marina developmentAl The DEIR ignores the numerous inconsistencies between the program considered in the DEIR and the requirements of the County's General Plan,ff including the following:6` 581 In contrast to the treatment of this issue in Chapter 4.1, Chapter 7 of the DEIR consistently treats the incompatibility of the proposed project with adjacent land uses as a significaru impact of the project which is reduced by certain of the alternative projects. 591 As noted in numerous places in this letter, the DEIR's reliance on the 1986 LCP and the LUP contained therein (see. e.Q..page 4.1-46) is in error. The 1986 LCP was never fully certified and the CCC has expressly stated on the record (in its December 10, 1992 comment to the EIR/EIS) that the 1986 LCP is not an approvable plan as it conflicts with the policies and objectives of the Coastal Act. The DEIR never analyzes the impact on the project of the CCCposition,nor does it concede that the conflict of the currently proposed project with the Coastal , Act(the CCC appears to take the position that the currently proposed project is likewise in conflict with the Coastal Act) is a significant land use impact under the standards stated in Chapter 4.1.2, which states that a conflict with applicable state policies or goals applicable to the site should be considered a significant adverse effect of the project. 601 Copies of the Land Use Element and Resources Element of Component II of the County's general plan are , annexed to this letter as ANNEx No. 33 AND 34, respectively. AoPowd Flirt Dian Dated AsM ary 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 73 • a. Page LU-2-16 of the County General Plan Land Use Element notes that the major capital cost of constructing sufficient road facilities for existing and future development will create a cumulative funding deficit. Accordingly, and in order to • "ensure that transportation planning is assimilated into the land use planning process," Major Land Use Policy 4 of the plan (at page LU-5-2 of the plan) requires that when circulation links would not be in balance (locally Qr regionally) with a proposed land use, "development should be deferred until appropriate improvements to the circulation can be provided or mitigation measures can be developed. . .". In the case of the proposed project, the ATIP is conceptually presented but is not a mitigation measure which is fully • funded or developed and, accordingly, will not ensure that appropriate improvements will be made to the circulation system of the County as required by its general plan. b. Page LU-5-2 states Major Land Use Policy 3 which requires phasing of development consistent with the adequacy of public services. As is • demonstrated in the discussion of Chapter 4.14 of the DEIR at Section III.Q of this letter, the County has not fulfilled this requirement of its general plan. The DEIR provides no description of the phasing of the project. Further, the project at build out would not be adequately serviced and would overload the County facilities even with the improvements contemplated by the DEIR. • C. Page LU-5-3 states Major Land Use Policy 6 which requires "sensitive treatment" where "one urban use transitions to another and where an urban use is introduced into an essentially undeveloped area." As noted below in this letter, the buffers and theme wall proposed for the sudden transition from single family residential low density uses to high density residential on the Mesa along Los Patos does not fulfill this requirement of the general plan. 611(...continued) 611 This is yet another instance in which the DEIR is misleading to the public and the decision-makers. The • discussion and figures in the DEIR make it appear as if the proposed project is wholly consistent with the County's general plan. The DEIR concludes, based on that purported consistency, that there is no significant land use conflict or impact created by implementing the Kollproject. The reader cannot divine the conflicts with the County's general plan until he or she reviews the plan and compares it to the discussion in the DEIR. If one undertakes that exercise, as is demonstrated in the text following this footnote,the conflicts become readily apparent. Under CEQA, the County is required to bring those conflicts to the attention of the lay person reading the document. The DEIR • not only fails to raise the conflicts, it affirmatively finds that no such conflict (and consequently no sign ficant impact) exists. This is both misleading to the reader and clear error on the part of the County. Aopo"d Find DrnR Datd Fo&vwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 74 d. Appendix G to the Land Use Element of General Plan Component II is a map (current through Amendment 93-1) which depicts Bolsa Chica as falling within two land use categories; (i) the area proposed in the 1986 LCP for residential development is within category 1B (Suburban Residential Communities) -- an area which 1 permits .5 - 18 dwelling units per acre on and (ii) the remainder of the area (including portions of the Lowlands slated for development under Koll's proposed project) is designated as open space. The DEIR ignores the conflict between the current general plan land use limitation of 18 dwelling units per acre by averaging the total units to arrive at a figure of no more than 18 units per acre on average over the Mesa without noting the 1 general plan's restriction of any land use exceeding the 18 unit per acre density on the Mesa. e. Open space conservation is an important part of the County's general plan policies. The goals and policies which are required to guide governmental , actions with respect to open space state at page RES-8-4 that the County is "to retain the character and natural beauty of the environment through the preservation of open space." In furtherance of that policy, the general plan states the specific objective to "designate open space areas that preserve, conserve, maintain and enhance the significant natural resources and physical features of unincorporated Orange County." Id. The open space portion of the Resources Element of Component II of the County's General Plan states at 1 page RES-8-3: Not all undeveloped land is to be considered for open space protection. In accordance with the State Government Code definition of open space it is obvious that the objective is,for 1 local agencies to take the necessary measures that preserve and protect resource areas from incompatible development or use and to protect the public-from Rotential development or use hazard• 1 As noted above, the County land use element designates a portion of the Lowlands which Koff proposes to develop as open space. The proposed project, therefore, conflicts with both the land use element of the general plan and the resources element as well. The proposed project exposes its inhabitants to seismic and hazardous materials/wastes ft"wW RW Dra*D~Februry 14,1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 75 • I conditions as detailed in this letter. Further, the development of the Lowlands has been determined by the Corps, CDFG, NMFS, CCC and other government agencies to be incompatible with the proposed development. Even if one were to take Koll's disagreement • with those agencies into account, the conflict with the agencies and the open space objectives of the County's General Plan as well as the proposed resolution thereof must be detailed and discussed in the recirculated DEIR if that document is to fulfill the mandates of CEQA. f. The proposed plan is also in conflict with the historic and • cultural resources component at Chapter 9 of the Resources Element. The historic component requires identification of archaeological, paleontological and historical resources, "at the earliest stage of project planning and requires [that the County] review such as general plan amendment or zone change." As noted in Section III.N of this letter and in ANNEX No. 7 to this letter, the studies which will identify the archaeological and • other related resources on the project site have not been completed. Nonetheless, the County has steamed ahead with its planning process. This is a violation of the County's General Plan which must be noted and explained in the recirculated DEIR. 5. Consistency with City's General Plan. Chapter 4.1 should address • the compatibility of the project with the City's General Plan and issues associated with its sphere of influence. The County has done this on other EIRs they have prepared in the past and, given the nexus of the City to the project, such an analysis is required in this instance. The cursory treatment given this issue at page 4.1-13 is wholly inadequate and does not permit the reader to judge whether the proposed land use is consistent with the • City's general plan LUP and compatible with the surrounding land use. Further, as is noted below in this letter, if annexed, the design of the project would not meet the City's requirements. See p. 4.1-48, line 4: regarding use of the County standard for parks; Lee also Part HLR of this letter considering Chapter 4.15 of the DEIR. • 6. Substantial Induced Urban Growth. DEIR § 4.1.2 states that induced urban growth in excess of SCAG projections and County growth projections is presumed significant. The DEIR does not state these projections nor compare the proposed project to the projections and therefore, there is no way to assess the analysis of the DEIR. The only further reference to growth management appears in DEIR § 4.1.3.1 which states • (without support) that the development of the project in an urban area adjacent to existing Rop"Od FbW&olt DatW FOMMy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 76 residential uses is consistent with the Coastal Act policies and furthers the policies of the 1991 AQMD/SCAG Growth Management Plan ("GMT"). There is an implicit assumption made in this analysis that because the project is less intense than the 1986 LCP (which, per the DEIR, provided for the addition of a maximum of 5,700 dwelling units and is reflected , in the LUE of the County General Plan), there are no impacts due to induced urban growth despite the addition of 4,286 new dwelling units.0 7. Human Intrusion Due to New Trails. When considering the compatibility of the proposed residential development adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, the DEIR assumes that buffers, fences and open space areas will be sufficient to prevent any impact due to the intrusion of regular hiking, equestrian and other recreational activities within the wetlands; however, the precise nature and locations of the trails, buffer systems and fences are not described in any detail nor is there any description of how these measures will work nor how they will be maintained or patrolled. Further, since this is assumed to mitigate any impact, the fences and buffers are improperly excluded as a mitigation measure and the maintenance of the fences and buffers will not be monitored under the required mitigation monitoring and reporting program required under PRC § 21081.6. 8. Traffic Impacts from Elimination of Exit Drive. The installation of the tidal inlet will force the removal of a southbound only egress from the State beach parking lot to PCH. This is assumed to have no significant traffic impact due to the presence of other egress. (page 4.1-31). The DEIR wholly lacks substantial evidence in support of its conclusion of insignificant impact and omits the data necessary to evaluate the this conclusion. 621 The DEIR is misleading in its analysis of growth impacts from the Project since the Project description excludes the 598 units which are proposed to be constructed on the portion of the MWD property within the City. Further, although the Table of Impacts (Table 1.5-I) indicates that detailed analysis shows that no significant impacts will occur from amending the L UE, the analysis focuses on a comparison of the 1986 LCP with the current proposal rather than focusing on a comparison of the current condition versus the proposed development, in direct violation of CEQA and the applicable Guidelines cited above in this letter. 1 P"w d And Draft Datd fpbury 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 77 • 9. Beneficial Impact of Improved Hydraulic Circulation. DEIR at page 4.1-31 assumes, without support or rationale, that there will be no negative impact from increased circulation due to implementation of the proposed project. 10. Impact on Visual Resources. The DEIR states at page 4.1-31, In. 43-45 that visual resources will be maintained with "only limited exceptions."L" These exceptions are not adequately detailed. Moreover, there will be significant loss of views of the ocean and of the wetlands from homes located at Warner and Los Patos. This impact is not properly considered or analyzed. • 11. Construction of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir. Page 4.1-32 notes that a 9 million gallon below surface reservoir will be constructed in planning area 4B, adjacent to the existing single family residential neighborhood along Los Patos Boulevard and in the middle of the medium density development proposed in planning area 11. If this structure • is installed below ground (as is contemplated by the DEIR) construction will require the excavation and removal of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of earth directly across from the residences. There appears to be no analysis of the direct and/or indirect impacts of this activity.§' It can be anticipated that the movement of the required amount of earth would likely cause air quality, noise, erosion, and other potentially significant impacts, all of • which should be studied and considered in the DEIR. 12. Characterization of Wetlands as Degraded. Page 4.1-6, In. 13-15 of the DEIR bases its characterization of the wetlands as degraded on the 1981 report of the CDFG; however, as noted above in this letter, the DEIR omits to mention the objections of • the CDFG to that characterization of its findings. • 631 This must be contrasted with the DEIR's conclusion that the aesthetic impact of the project is one of the few which will constitute a significant impact. The DEIR is inconsistent on this point and never attempts to harmonize its findings in Chapter 9.12 (Impact 4.12-1) with the statement that visual resources are generally maintained. The analysis of visual/aesthetic resources must be clarified in the recirculated DEIR. 641 Where will the excavated material be deposited? What route would the excavation haul trucks use? These • questions must be answered in the DEIR. Prgeoeed Find DtiR Dated Febvery 14. 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 78 i 13. Consistency of Wetlands Maintenance with 1986 LUP. Page 4.1- 43 of the DEIR notes that the 1986 LUP required that a minimum of 852 acres of wetlands be maintained at all times during the implementation of the LUP. Further, the DEIR acknowledges that the phasing of the project would permit a "temporary condition where the 852 acre minimum would not be met." The length of this "temporary" condition is not I discussed; however, a comparison of the project phasing with the wetlands restoration phasing (and an examination of the conditions to the commencement of the restoration such as the depletion of existing oil reserves -- anticipated to occur over a 20 year period -- and the issuance of federal permits) reveals that this temporary condition will be at least 5 to 10 years in duration and may extend indefinitely if the federal permitting agencies, CCC and I CDFG continue to hold to their current views of the project. The DEIR concludes, at p. 4.1-43, that "the Applicant would be forced to provide offsite replacement at a 2:1 ratio or negotiate directly with the CDFG to resolve any concerns regarding interim wetlands maintenance," however, the DEIR never analyzes where the offsite replacement could be obtained nor what other arrangement might be made with the CDFG. In short, it is not I demonstrated that the project can resolve the concerns, noted at page 4.1-43, of CDFG or, for that matter, USFWSAY 14. Impact of Failure to Build Cross-Gap Connector. The DEIR notes at page 4.1-44 that the proposed project is "consistent with " the BCPC Plan;99' however i there is no analysis of the planning impact which may arise due to the failure to connect the proposed BCSE to Garfield. 15. Effect of Relocation of Tidal Inlet from BCPC Plan Location. There appears to be no analysis of the relocation of the tidal inlet from the northwest quadrant of the shoreline (as in the BCPC plan) to the southern end of the property. The DEIR merely notes that since the BCPC plan was only conceptual (i.e., did not rely on 651 Further, Chapter 7.2.4.2 of the DEIR expressly notes that the 1986 L UP is no longer consistent with CCC 1 goals or policies;yet,pages 4.1-46 through 47 of the DEIR relies on the CCC's findings. The DEIR is not consistent in its analysis. 661 As is noted in Pan III.B, above, the BCPC Plan differs significantly from the Proposed Project. These discrepancies are not noted in the DEIR and, therefore, the claim of 'consistency' with the BCPC Plan is misleading at best. I Rop"Od PW Dish Ds1d Fsbrwy 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 79 • technical studies) the relocation of the inlet is viewed as a "refinement" to the plan. Similarly, other elements of the plan were modified due to technical and cost concerns, including the wetlands restoration "element"; however, as is noted above, the DEIR • assumes that these alterations are not a "substantial variance from the BCPC [P]lan." The changes in the phasing of the restoration is a critical difference between the BCPC Plan and the project which is not discussed in the DEIR.§—'' 16. Increases in Residential Density. Although the DEIR claims that residential densities are consistent with County and other planning documents which require 0 a maximum density on the Mesa of 18 d.u./acre, page 4.1-44 of the DEIR notes that this maximum density is achieved only by averaging the high density areas over the entirety of the Mesa and that in certain areas (not delineated) the density will exceed 18 d.u./acre. The DEIR notes that the 18 d.u./acre limit of the BCPC plan was not interpreted as a maximum density limit.68' This position appears to be without support and there is no • reason or rationale given for this determination.69' Since the Mesa includes recreational open space and lower density uses including a 2 acre site for the reservoir and a much larger site (the size of which is not delineated in the DEIR) for recreation (planning areas 3A and 313) and low density (planning area 6) and medium low density development, it seems likely that the highest densities could reach as high as the 36 d.u./acre noted on the proposed planned community development map (Figure 3.2-3) Aa 671 As was noted in Part III.B of this letter, in instances such as this the DEIR relies on the BCPC Plan when it supports the proposed project,yet ignores or dismisses as inapplicable significant portions of the BCPC Plan when it would impose undesirable restrictions on Koll's development proposal. See Part III.B, above. 681 This statement is inconsistent with the statement at p. 2-3, In. 49-50 of the DEIR which states that the objective of the project is to implement the BCPC Plan. 691 Presumably, the purpose of such a limit was to ensure that there would not be an inappropriate mix of urban density housing interposed in the midst of the existing single family residential neighborhood within the City. 701 This information also calls into question the accuracy and completeness of the analysis at DEIR page 4.1-32, 34 regarding the buffer between the existing single family residential neighborhood adjacent to Los Patos and the new high density development. Although figure 4.1-12 presents a pretty picture of a three story apartment building across the street from an existing home, the picture maybe misleading. The Figure does not state where the depicted cross-section is located. Thus, the new development shown may represent only the boundary between (continued...) P?p FkW Draft D*W Fsbuny 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 80 1 17. Consistency with Existing Zoning. Page 4.1-44 of the DEIR notes that the current County base zone for the project area (A1(0)) is intended to also be used as an interim zone for future "more intensive urban uses." Accordingly, the DEIR concludes that the proposed zoning change to a planned community district would be consistent with 4 the prior zoning. However, the DEIR omits any discussion of the difference in the flood plain district designations. The new proposed zoning would remove a significant portion of the Lowlands (i.e., the portion which is to be developed under the Proposed project) from the current flood zone district. There is no mention and no analysis of this revision nor any consideration of whether this change represents a change in the County's policy which would constitute a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of CEQA. 18. Consistency with Coastal Act. Page 4.1-46 of the DEIR assumes consistency of the project with the Coastal Act because "the essence of the LUP remains the same: restoration of the wetlands made possible, in part, through the financial return from the development components."'—'' This analysis ignores the Coastal Commission's 4 refusal to certify the wetlands restoration plan or the failure of the DEIR to specify the precise nexus between development and the restoration of the wetlands. Further, this analysis ignores the stated position of the CCC in its December 10, 1992 letter (commenting on the EIR/EIS and included in ANNEx No. 10) that the proposed project is 70/(...continued) 4 the existing homes and the new medium-low density development proposed in planning area 11. It is possible,given the density conceded by the DEIR, that the interface between the existing homes and the high density urban residential of planning area 10 would appear quite different. Page 4.2-26(lines 33-4)of the DEIR indicates that some buildings in the Project will exceed four stories in height. The problem is that the DEIR does not speck what the picture represents and, therefore, is too vague for any meaningful analysis. The maximum density of 36 d.u./acre suggested in the various plans proposed by the Applicant indicates that much taller and more inappropriate buildings maybe constructed just past the 150 foot wide 35 foot maximum height limit. No information is given regarding the heights of those structures. 711 Since the DEIR deems the 1986 LCP to be the operative land use designation for the site, the DEIR should state why the County didn't change its zoning designations to make them compatible with the land use planning designations, as required by law. Reposed FsW Dro t Doted February 14.1994 1 • r Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 81 • not in accord with CCC policies or the requirements of the Coastal Act.W The DEIR states that the proposed development is consistent with County standards for the amount of parks/recreation areas (2 acres per 1,000 population), but this is inconsistent with the City's • standards and requirements (5 acres per 1,000 population). 19. Requirement for Affordable Housing. Government Code § 65590(d) requires that new housing developments, such as the project considered by the DEIR, constructed within the Coastal Zone must include low or moderate income housing units. The DEIR omits any discussion of this requirement and fails to consider whether the • required units would be provided as part of the 4,286 units to be provided onsite or would be built offsite. The DEIR must be revised to address this issue and recirculated for public review and comment. 20. Loss of State Beach. The insertion of the proposed tidal inlet will • cause a loss, at high tide, of approximately 2 acres of the State beach. 21. Filling of Wetlands under the Coastal Act. The DEIR takes the position that filling of 6 acres in EGGW Channel and 108 acres of "degraded wetland" meets the requirements of PRC §§ 30233(a)(3) and 30411 because "the wetland restoration • is dependent on the residential development in the Lowland." (emphasis added). This indicates Koll's intention is to tie the wetlands restoration to the development of the Lowland alone (in contravention of the findings of the Coastal Commission in conditionally certifying the LCP in 1986).Ml • 22. Sand Bypassing Operation. The tidal inlet will trap sand which will have to be placed, "on a downcoast beach." The impact of this operation appears not to be discussed. • 72/ Here again,the DEIR misleads the reader into thinking that the project is consistent with existing policies and requires the reader to undertake an independent investigation of the available material in order to ascertain the truth. This is a basic flaw in the DEIR which is continual throughout the document. 73/ As noted above, Koll's characterization of the wetlands as degraded and its linkage of the restoration and • development in the wetlands has been challenged and rejected by the Corps and the CDFG. Proposed FDW Draft Dated Fi n ry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 82 i 23. Relocation of Warner Avenue Pond. Warner Avenue Pond is identified as an ESHA (DEIR at page 4.1-50); however, this ESHA will be "relocated" from the Mesa to the opposite side of the property, i.e., the base of the Huntington Mesa. There is no specific plan provided for the relocation of the ESHA nor does there appear to i be any requirement that the "replacement" pond at the Huntington Mesa must be functioning adequately as a replacement similar in kind and quality to the ESHA which is being removed. This is in violation of the BCPC Plan and, assuming that the development on the Mesa will proceed without requirement for creation of a functionijig replacement of the ESHA at Warner Pond, represents a significant environmental impact which is not identified by the DEIR. 24. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. The following items are examples of the studies and mitigation plans/measures to be developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of significant adverse land use impacts from the project: a. Design of Theme Wall and Landscape Buffer. The DEIR relies on the theme wall and landscape buffer as a PDF which mitigates the potential conflict in residential densities at the project boundary to a level of insignificance, yet no design for this buffer is presented nor are any objective criteria provided. b. Remediation of Oil and Related Qpmtions. The DEIR notes, at page 4.1-8, that SWEPI is in the process of developing plans for the economic remediation of the soils and notes at page 4.8-31 that plans will need to be developed for remediation of present and former areas of hazardous materials use and for the identification and removal of abandoned hydrocarbon transmission lines and related facilities. Since this area has been used for oil and gas exploration and extraction for over 70 years, there are a number of facilities in the ground which have been abandoned and forgotten. There appears to be no comprehensive analysis of the current conditions in the ground despite the statement at DEIR § 4.2.1.3 that over 90% of the site was studied in i four different investigations from 1987-1991. The discussion of these investigations reveal that there were only minimal samples taken and that accessibility was often hampered by inundation and other circumstances which prevented the more thorough investigation (including sampling sufficient in number and scope to provide results representative of site conditions) which is required by CEQA. The grading and other restoration operations, i Nopoa+d Find Dmlt D&W fibury 14, 19" Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 83 • therefore, pose a substantial risk of significant harm to ecologically sensitive areas if these facilities are disturbed carelessly and without a thorough study of their location and potential hazardous material or hydrocarbon content. C. Screening of Ongoing Oil Production. Plans will be developed to screen and buffer oil operations from wetlands and ESHAs. d. Contingency Plan to Protect Residents and Habitants. A plan will be developed to protect wildlife and residents from adverse impacts from oil spills, etc.W The City's experience indicates that the oil spill prevention and control countermeasures are not effective and that the proposed boom catch system would likely cause beach contamination. e. Sand Bypassing ration. The tidal inlet will trap sand • which will have to be placed, "on a downcoast beach." The development of precise plans for this operation is not discussed. 25. Mitigation Measures which Are Erroneously Assumed to Mitigate Significant Impacts. The following lists those land use related impacts which the DEIR assumes to be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures which do not appear to do so or the effect of which is not supported or documented: 74/ Note that the WRP purports to cover certain of the oil operation related impacts on the Wetlands;however, much of that information is absent from the DEIR and was not made available for public review and comment. For example, WRP §5.6 2 states: The WRP incorporates requirements for an Oil Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plan (OSCCP and an Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) which have been developed by the current oil operator, SWEPT, and have been approved by the California State Land Commission,the Department of Oil Spill Prevention and response, and the California Department of Fish and Game. These plans are not appended to the WRP or the DEIR. Further, the DEIR does not state whether these contingency plans were adopted based upon the current environmental setting of a purportedly degraded wetland with no adjacent human habitation or based on the phased restoration/creation of the wetlands as contemplated by the DEIR. P►o"Md AW Draft Dated Fobwiy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 84 1 a. Buffer between Conflicting Residential Densities. The buffer between the existing single family neighborhood along the northern boundary of the project site (along Los Patos) and the proposed high density urban residential development is assumed to mitigate any conflict between the land uses; however, no criteria or rationale 1 for this determination is stated. b. Risks to Potential Homeowners. The risks to new residents of the project from ongoing oil operations and from hazardous materials is presumed to be mitigated by mitigation measures 4.1-1a (requiring the continuation of oil spill contingency ' plans as otherwise required by state law), 4.1-1b (requiring that legally mandated DRE disclosures include a disclosure regarding the risks of the ongoing oil operation, as is already required under the California Subdivided Lands Act), 4.2-9 and 4.2-10 (requiring hazardous waste to be handled in accordance with State and federal law). Thus, the DEIR assumes that the disclosure of the risks to buyers and the handling of omnipresent hazardous materials within and immediately adjacent to the newly developed residential neighborhoods will result in no adverse impact. This conclusion is reached without any meaningful discussion of the risk of upset, whether from seismic events or disruption of unknown underground facilities or otherwise. Further, the DEIR permits plans for investigation and manifesting of the materials existing onsite to be performed in the future without specifying the objective performance criteria or parameters for the onsite investigation of the nature and amount of hazardous material on the project site. 26. Miscellaneous. The following list sets forth specific issues raised in Chapter 4.1 of the DEIR which must be more thoroughly addressed by the document: 1 a. Page 4.1-13, line 6: The DEIR should indicate why the landowner didn't pursue the previously approved plan. b. Page 4.1-28, line 5: Federal involvement in a project of this type and magnitude cannot be "relatively limited" due to the essential resources involved. Wetlands and endangered species on the site mean that strict federal mandates must be followed before any project can be approved. These mandates will have major implications for the project's plans and phasing. 1 Propamd flirt Dian Dead fi&%wy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 85 • C. Page 4.1-31, line 14: Use of the word "adopted" implies that the WRP was approved and adopted by the wildlife agencies; however the DEIR never states that this is the case. In some instances, the DEIR strongly implies that the restoration was never approved by any local, State or federal agency. The DEIR should • specify the precise status of the plan. d. Page 4.1-32, line 3: The referenced oil spill scenario needs to be described and addressed more fully in a newly prepared Risk of Upset section. • e. Page 4.1-32, last paragraph: The project description does not include draft planned community regulations and, therefore, no substantive analysis of their land use impacts. The DEIR should be recirculated with these regulations attached as an appendix. Typically plans produced at this level of analysis include some general regulations which govern the quality and character of the community being proposed. If • this is not done at this stage of analysis, then a further much more detailed environmental review will be required under CEQA prior to the approval of maps and initiation of construction. The DEIR should so state. f. Page 4.1-39, lines 21-23: The conclusion that there will be no • adverse impacts from the alteration of the County's general plan and MPAH is not supported by the discussion. Since the ATIP is not well described in the body of the report, the reader cannot draw a reasonable conclusion as to the adequacy of the analysis, even if he or she refers to Chapter 4.8.3.4. g. Page 4.1-43: The DEIR omits the required discussion of Housing Element consistency. No consideration is included regarding whether any affordable housing will be provided or how the project will meet the affordable housing requirements of the County's general plan (or, as noted above, Government Code § 65590). h. Page 4.1-49: Conclusions drawn about consistency with Coastal Act provisions on this page will only be valid if supported by the wildlife agencies. • flopamd FkW&aft Odnd Fi&%Wy 14, 199I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 86 1 E. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 1. Definition of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. The definition of "hazardous waste" and "hazardous materials in the DEIR's discussion at page 4.2-2 must include as "hazardous materials" methane, hydrogen sulfide gas, petroleum, and its constituents and by-products. The DEIR is not clear regarding issue. Individual constituents of petroleum such as benzene and xylene are well-known to adversely affect human health and the environment under certain circumstances.LY Further, page 4.2-20 of the DEIR states that insufficient information exists to determine the extent of corrosive soils. Thus, further sampling and investigation is required to assess whether and how much of the soils on the site might fall within the proffered definition of hazardous material or hazardous waste.N 2. General Comments Re: Hazardous Materials/Wastes. Among the greatest problems with the DEIR analysis with respect to hazardous materials are that: 1 ■ It presents no history of the location, extent and duration of oil and gas related activities in the area. ■ No plan is provided to address accidental discoveries and releases of oil or 1 other contaminants. 751 The DEIR at page 4.2-2 indicates that the terms 'hazardous materials'and 'hazardous wastes'are used 1 as defined in Title 22 of the CCR. Title 22 of the CCR uses of variety of testing methods and protocols to determine whether a 'waste'(as defined in and subject to the exclusions of 22 CFR§ 22621.2)is a 'hazardous waste" (within the meaning of 22 CCR§ 22621.3). Furthermore, there is a broad list of regulatory exceptions and exclusions to the term 'hazardous waste', including the exclusions set forth in 22 CCR § 2261.4 (which exempts point source discharges under Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act and all materials which are exempted or excluded from such classification under 40 CFR § 261.4). The lay reader cannot determine whether the definition of hazardous 1 wastes and hazardous materials used in the DEIR is appropriate. 761 Would buyers of homes in the Project be required to receive a warning similar to the now familiar Proposition 6.5 warning regarding the presence of hazardous materials and/or materials identified by the State of California as carcinogenic or causing reproductive toxicity. If such a warning is required, the feasibility of the Project (and therefore of the WRP, ATTP and other mitigation plans) would clearly be called into question. 1 Noposd Find Draft Dud F"nwy 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 87 • ■ No testing has been done for the presence of heavy metals in onsite soils nor adequate testing for methane or hydrogen sulfide gas.ZZ' The following items consider more specific instances of the foregoing inadequacies in the DEIR's discussion of the potential impacts from the presence on site and the likely disruption of hazardous materials on the site: a. On page 4.2-2, lines 26 and 27, the DEIR states that its use of the terms "hazardous materials" and "hazardous waste" are as per 22 CCR. This may • exclude crude oil. Although California DTSC is more aggressive than USEPA in defining the crude oil exemption, much of the "waste" will be exempt from direct regulatory control. Because of the current and prior use of this site, and the contamination problems which exist for residential uses developed on property previously used for oil extraction, a broader definition which includes the discussion of oil and related oil extraction • contamination is necessary in the DEIR. Certainly the responses to the NOP saw this type of contamination as a concern for the Bolsa Chica site. b. The City also has specific standards regarding cleanup (or residual) levels for soil on sites being converted from crude oil production, while the • County does not. According to the OCHCA, the County's procedure regarding such matters is to look at depth to groundwater, background quality of groundwater, mass and distribution of contaminants and the practicality of cleanup technology. The County looks at initial levels of contamination, compares that to current levels (and whether the rate of any decrease in levels is leveling off). If the rate of change is flattening, the County assumes that the toxins have been removed to a safe level. C. Pages 4.2-2 to 4.2-10: The DEIR states that approximately 90% (page 4.2-2, line 43) of the study area has been covered by various studies and that Areas of Concern total only 19 acres and Areas of Potential Concern another 13 acres • (pages 4.2-5, 4.2-6). The method of defining these was based on two factors: visible oil 771 The DEIR completely ignores comments in response the NOP which appear at pages 53, 158,163 and 164 of the Technical Appendices to the DEIR, Volume L The comments raise significant concerns regarding the presence of methane and hydrogen su fide gas based on recent, documented experience in the West Newport Oil • Field, only 7 miles from Bolsa Chica. Propowd Find Draft Dated Fobwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 88 1 and organic vapor analyzer (OVA) readings. However, lack of accessibility was a problem for many areas (page 4.2-6). Also, there is no direct correlation between OVA readings and residual levels of organic compounds in soil (two different things are being measured). d. Page 4.2-2 lines 42-44: It is not clear from the DEIR how thorough the historical studies were. Do we know where all of the no longer present oil wells, dry holes, mud pits, sumps, tank batteries and pipelines were? If yes, how was this information developed and why was it omitted from the DEIR? e. Page 4.2-5: One pipeline is discussed and 650 feet out of 840 feet total length is contaminated. Most (if not all) of the pipelines in the field are old, going back to the 1930s and 1940s. A brackish, tidal environment is extremely corrosive. These pipelines predate concrete jacketing. It is probable that most or all of the pipelines in the field resemble the one discussed. The oil field operators are the responsible parties for these contamination problems. A potentially substantial risk to the project is accidentally uncovering a problem area (or object, e.g., pipeline) and causing a release. This is not adequately addressed in the DEIR. There is no Risk of Upset analysis. f. Page 4.2-23: According to the DEIR, Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMS) (including radon) are not a background problem in most of the region. However, NORMs are often associated with oil fields. The report's basis for assuming no NORMS problem is based on general survey of lithography/geology of area, not site specific study. A site specific analysis must be conducted and included in the EIR. g. Section 4.2.3.1:(page 4.2-24) Abandonment of oil wells is the responsibility of the operators and on the mesas are scheduled to be done prior to project construction. Items may have to be removed to facilitate construction that might be better abandoned in place, i.e., removal may cause more environmental damage than leaving in place. (This is a possibility on the mesas, but not considered likely. It is a greater possibility in the Lowlands and wetlands.) Unknown sumps, mud pipelines, pits, etc., may be uncovered, with resultant release of contaminants. This potential and its possible consequences are not addressed in the EIR and must be. h. Page 4.2-24, last paragraph: ". . . .no hydrocarbon-containing soils are expected. . . and thus no adverse levels of BTXE or VOCs are expected." If sites liopo"d FbW Dnr/t Dot"Fi&wy II, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 89 • are cleaned up to County "standard" (even if cleaned up to City's), there will be some level of hydrocarbon contamination. • i. Impact 4.2-9 (page 4.2-30) and Mitigation Measure (page 4.2-35): With the mention of removal of contaminated materials to licensed landfills or treatment facilities there is no discussion of hauler impacts on roads/neighborhoods, e.g., the McColl dumpsite. j. Section 4.2.3.4: Many of the required mitigation measures are erroneously labelled as PDFs. They should, however, be addressed as mitigation measures and not as project components, and should be included in a legally adequate plan requiring ongoing monitoring and reporting. k. Page 4.4-10, Sediments: There is discussion of metals and DDD/DDT in sediments, but no discussion in the DEIR text of how these are to be dealt with during dredging, construction, etc. 1. The presence of heavy metals due to oil extraction activities is not addressed anywhere in the DEIR. Heavy metals and solvents are additives in drilling • muds and other chemical mixtures used in oil field activities. There has apparently not been any prior sampling of mud pits, sumps, etc., nor is any planned for the future. CEQA mandates that a thorough baseline be created through site sampling in order for the potential environmental impacts of the project to be understood, let alone addressed by purported mitigation measures. • 3. Hazardous Materials/Wastes Regulation and Related Issues. a. Page 1-9, Table 1.5-1, IMPACT 4.1-1, OILFIELD FACELITIES. The oil spill prevention and contingency plan is not sufficient to mitigate the • impact of developed residential property in an oil field. The threat to health and safety as well as public concern is increased as residential development encroaches on oil fields. Recent development of abandoned oil islands within the City indicate that citizens are very concerned about development on these sites. Citizens are particularly concerned with dust contamination, noise impacts, and possible health impacts resulting from contaminated soil and on site soil remediation. In addition, a number of residential areas within the City have Prvpoad FkW Dfalt D&e*d fabuvy 14, 199" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 90 1 been plagued with methane gas leaking up through cracks in streets, sidewalks, lawns, and in and around old abandoned oil wells. There are two (2) ways the gas reaches the surface: 1 1) The gas migrates up through an abandoned oil well, to the surface. This would occur in an oil well that may not meet the current Division of Oil and Gas ("DOG") standards or has not been abandoned properly; or 2) Gas may migrate horizontally until it finds a conduit to reach the surface 1 or where the production of large quantities of gas migrate naturally to the surface. Two (2) areas in the City where oil well related gas problems have occurred are at the intersection of Kite and Sparkman and at 9162 Bermuda. These were improperly 1 abandoned oil wells that were leaking gas. Re-abandonment was done at both sites and methane gas mitigation systems were installed, all remediation work was done under the supervision of the DOG. Another area where large quantities of gas are being produced is at 9062 Christine, this gas 1 is biogenic in nature and is currently being mitigated through a passive venting system. This area not only produced large quantities of methane gas, but also Hydrogen Sulfide gas. The City also has a location were measures were taken to mitigate potential gas problems in an entire residential tract. This area, located south of Atlanta between Magnolia and Bushard (JM Peters Development), was a producing oil field. Prior to construction of the property, oil well reviews were required, and on those lots where homes were to be built over abandoned oil wells, venting systems and methane barriers were required. Any of these situations could occur in an abandoned oil field. This is why it is necessary to have a good baseline study of conditions as they currently exist (at the minimum, a Phase I 1 Environmental Site Assessment) prior to any type action taking place on the site. Unless the plan calls for the abandonment, removal and cleanup of all oil operations prior to any development, the residential impacts will be significant and not insignificant as 1 Pm"md Find Dish D*W Fe&rw" 14, 19" 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 91 • concluded in the DEIR. With oil facilities being left in production in certain areas of the project, there is the potential for fire or other associated hazards related to this operation. • Noise, dust, odor and visual impacts of oil support facilities may have an even greater impact on surrounding areas. Appropriate mitigation measures must be taken to assure this compatibility. The DEIR does not address what the oil operator's needs may be with respect to adequate access for oil service vehicles, setbacks, or other required items necessary for continued oil production. • b. Page 1-12, Table 1.5-1, IMPACT 4.2-9, REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS: The DEIR does not provide or address the need for a removal plan for contaminated soils, nor the Phase I and Phase H environmental site assessments which are necessary to quantify • the clean up area. As development occurs and cleanup continues public health and safety risks increase. As noted above, oil cleanup standards are not specified within the DEIRAY If the project is developed in the County, future annexation to the City would be • strenuously objected to by the City unless soils are cleaned up to City Soil Standard #431-92 (a copy of which is attached as Aix No. 38) and methane barriers and venting system are installed in all buildings and structures within 100 feet of an active or abandoned oil well or as required. Oil well reviews by a registered petroleum geologist would be required to allow any type of construction over an abandoned oil well. Investigation for the presence of methane gas anomalies are not included in the DEIR. A site specific plan should be developed to locate sources of fugitive methane gas. Areas contaminated with heavy metals are not adequately identified nor are clean up impacts discussed. It is a known that soil remediation and farming has occurred near the heliport site. This fact was not identified or discussed in the DEIR. • 781 See subparagraph 2.b above. Nopowrd A-W Draft Debd FeMary 14, 1994 • • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 92 C. Page 1-12, Table 1.5-1, IMPACT 4.2-10, UNKNOWN WELL HEADS, SUMPS, AND PIPING: Providing a hazardous material assessment and disclosure statement does not mitigate the • impact of uncovering or releasing hazardous chemicals. The residual impact is significant, especially to the removal and restoration of the wetlands. A particularly vulnerable period occurs during excavation where physical/mechanical accidents generate great potential for the release and exposure to hazardous materials such as liquids and gases. The DEER needs to detail the mitigation measures necessary to ensure worker safety and the health and • safety of the surrounding community. 4. Presence of Organic Vapor. Pages 4.2-2 through 5 of the DEIR indicate that some of the prior investigation noted the presence of organic vapors in the airspace immediately above the taking of a soil sample in concentrations as high as 500 ppm. The DEIR does not state a threshold of significance for such an occurrence nor are • the technical studies referenced in the DEIR appended to the DEIR or circulated for public review. The DEIR dismisses the presence of the organic vapor as originating in "naturally occurring methane at levels that are not dangerous, as opposed to representing a source of hydrocarbon contamination." This conclusion appears to be quoted from the 1988 The Earth Technology Corporation investigation which Figure 4.2-2 depicts as investigating a relatively small portion of the Lowlands. The DEIR does not specify the scope of investigation or the methods used to investigate the presence of dangerous constituents such as methane or other organic vapors in or around the project site. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the scope of investigation or analysis was adequate to support the County's conclusion that the presence of these vapors is not significant. • 5. Methane and Oil Field Gases. Page 4.2-26 of the DEIR states that the potential for leakage of methane or other oil field gases from "properly abandoned wells" exists but is remote. This statement is flawed in that it assumes all oil wells were properly abandoned (and given the long-term oil production at the site it is not possible to • say whether older wells were properly abandoned or abandoned in a manner consistent with modern and presumably safer standards unless the situation is physically investigated). Moreover, the remoteness of a potential impact is only one of many factors affecting the significance of that impact. Since methane and oil field gases are potentially explosive, and since long term exposure to those gasses can cause human health hazards, the degree of Proposed AW Drsh Doted fi&twy 14, 1994 • • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 93 • harm and potential danger to human life is very significant. Since this potential impact could cause a great degree of harm and since the assumption on which it is based (i.e., that all oil wells were properly abandoned in accordance with current requirements regardless of • how long ago the well was abandoned) is made without support of any substantial evidence, the DEIR improperly determined that the impact is insignificant. 6. Mitigating Impact of Corrosive Soils. With respect to Page 1-13, Impact 4.2-12 and Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a, the mitigation measure is not complete. The mitigation measure should be revised by adding, "in accordance with the utility or • agency having jurisdiction." This is necessary since each utility owner may accept different mitigation measures to deal with corrosion of their facilities. Further, the DEIR states that information on corrosive soils is limited and that in the tests that were performed, the soils tested are highly corrosive to buried metal utilities. Could oil have been released into the groundwater or estuaries as a result? Additionally, since no water system can be constructed • underground without buried metal equipment, further study is needed in this area. The DEIR is inadequate in addressing the needs of any water supply purveyor for the area. Corrosion can cost the residents of the project substantial sums of 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 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 DEIR should discuss options for dealing with corrosion, the impacts of the options on the environment and what process should be utilized to monitor the expected corrosion within the project. • 7. Testing for VOCs and other Contamination in Soils. The DEIR indicates the limited nature of soils testing for VOCs. No testing was performed on the Mesa and no testing was performed in the vicinity of oil wells, valves or pipelines unless a • Proposed Fmd Ots11 Oead Feb A"14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 94 "significant" leak was observed.2' Even with these exclusions, 19 acres were listed as areas of concern exhibiting visibly oily soils and "headspace" VOCs in excess of 50 ppm, plus an additional 13 acres of "potential concern." The presence of such widespread contamination, coupled with the history of the site, demands a more thorough investigation prior to approval of a land use plan which could place a significant number of new residences on potentially contaminated land. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b (requiring all potential buyers of residences to be informed of the risks from onsite oil production activities) indicates that the County is aware of the potential hazards from the contamination of the project site but no effective mitigation measure is proposed. The impact remaining from the placement of new residential development on contaminated soil is a potential public health hazard and Appendix G, paragraph (v) of the Guidelines states that such a hazard and any activity involving the production or disposal of materials posing a hazard to human populations is "normally a significant effect on the environment. However, the DEIR assumes, without adequate support or explanation, that the impact of planning for • residential development on contaminated soils is not a significant impact, presumably based on the statement (at page 4.2-10) that the oil operator will remediate all oil impacted soil and bring any spills into compliance with applicable regulations prior to "the release of the property for any subsequent land use."80' No plan, schedule, cleanup standards or analysis of the remediation is provided. Further, the DEIR does not require any coordination with the City. Page 4.2-10, In, 9-11 does not indicate that the property will be brought up to City standards. This requirement is appropriate and necessary since the property lies within the City's sphere of influence, is surrounded by the City, could be annexed in the future and will, in part, rely on City emergency response services in the event of upset conditions. • 8. TPH Contamination. The DEIR concedes that investigation (the scope of which was not delineated) revealed TPH concentrations in the soil seven feet below the surface were in excess of levels which would constitute contamination. Given • 79/ No standard is indicated in the DEIR for determining which petroleum leaks were "insignificant"such that there was no further investigation of potential contamination. This failure makes the discussion in the DEIR too vague for worthwhile analysis. 80/ See also Mitigation Measures 4.2-9, 4.2-10a and 4.2-10b which attempt to imply mitigation of the • hazardous conditions merely by requiring compliance with mandatory State regulations. Rnpa"d Find Dmft Dpt d F*&%wv 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 95 • the broad scope of petroleum activities and the discovery of contamination, the DEIR must provide more specific information regarding the testing performed onsite (including boring locations and results) to determine the scope of the TPH (and any other) contamination and • the plan for remediation of this contamination prior to any approvals for the construction of dwelling units or the restoration of the wetlands. Further, if soils lying seven feet below the surface are to be remediated, significant additional excavation and earth movement impacts (together with excavation related noise and air quality impacts) should be anticipated, and the DEIR should analyze and consider those impacts. 9. Soil/Groundwater Contamination from SWEPI Pipeline. Page 4.2- 5 of the DEIR notes that the soil/groundwater interface along the SWEPI pipeline was severely contaminated, including TPH, benzene and toluene contamination. The DEIR notes that the operator is in the process of cleaning the spill but no further information regarding the process or progress of the remediation is provided. Page 4.2-5, lines 17-26 • notes the presence of a particular spill discovered in 1989 but provides no information regarding the size or extent of the spill, its cause or whether it still being remediated. All records of the cause, extent and nature of the soil clean up status should be circulated with the DEIR so that the public and decision makers can obtain further information regarding the risks of the ongoing oil operations adjacent to the proposed residential neighborhood. • 10. VOCs in Mesa Soils. The DEIR concedes that no testing was performed to ascertain the presence of VOCs in soils on the Mesa (unless a "significant" leak was detected). The DEIR assumes at page 4.2-24 that there will be no VOCs on the Mesa because the existing oil and gas facilities will be removed prior to grading. Here • again the DEIR ignores the possibility that further grading and construction will be required to remediate a hazardous condition prior to the commencement of the mass excavation and grading required to prepare the ground for the proposed development. The DEIR's assumption that no hazardous materials will occur in soils on the Mesa is unwarranted in light of the lack of adequate investigation, the presence of hazardous materials from • petroleum and gas operations in the immediate vicinity and the acknowledged potential for unknown and improperly abandoned facilities to exist in the area.81t The DEIR should 811 The DED? notes that only three wells are anticipated to be encountered on the Mesa, only one of which produced any oil. This information appears to be at odds with other records as noted in Part III.D of this letter. • (continued...) Pfopmed find Dolt DaNd FoMmy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 96 • explain in clear language why no toluene, benzene, xylene, ethylbenzene or other VOCs are anticipated to be encountered during all of the construction (including the activity related to the removal of oil and gas facilities) on the Mesa.W • 11. Flammable Soils. The last paragraph of page 4.2-24 states, "Flammable soils are also not expected to occur onsite." No explanation or support is given for this statement. 12. Lead Concentrations from Bird Hunting. The DEIR states at page • 4.2-2 that recreational bird hunting activities prior to the 1950s "are not considered to have contributed measurable level of lead bird shot to the site." This statement is not supported by any data whatsoever and there appears to have been no investigation into this issue. The informational sign at the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve indicates that the area was used extensively for gun club and related purposes and, therefore, further investigation into the presence and extent of lead deposits in the Bolsa Chica area from decades of gun club activities is required by CEQA. 13. Effect of Military Activities. DEIR page 4.2-2, In. 34 also assumes, without support, that the military construction and other activities in the project area have not in any manner brought contamination onto the site. This requires further investigation • by the County and more specific discussion in the DEIR. At a minimum, the DEIR should present evidence of consultation with the military in the form of correspondence or reports from the military. The mere statement that military activities (including the construction of two large gun emplacements, a water cistern and related grading and other improvements) have not brought contamination onto the site is not sufficient under CEQA. • 811(...continued) Furthermore, oil exploration has occurred on the site from the 1920s forward. Records regarding operations in the early period of oil production are slim (and none is presented for consideration with the DEIR). The DEIR notes ' that the Mesa was the subject of a general investigation in 1987 but no borings or other samples from the Mesa appear to have been taken or tested. Under these circumstances, there is simply no way to brow what the potential for encountering hazardous materials or wastes in the Mesa soils might be. 821 See also Line 16 and 17 of page 4.2-26 which states that the potential for leaking of oifield gasses is remote and therefore insignificant;however, this is not adequate analysis under CEQA Even a remote possibility • which imposes a significant peril to humans or habitat may be a significant impact. Ropwad FmW Draft Datad F"nry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 97 • 14. Phase I and Phase H Investigation of the Site is Required to Assess the Scope of the Potential Harm from Hazardous Materials/Wastes. The DEIR does not include any Phase I or Phase H site assessment for the project area. Data generated • from a current Phase I assessment (and if indicated by the results of the Phase I assessment a Phase H assessment) covering the entire site must be included in the DEIR. a. _Phase I Assessment. A Phase I site assessment should include all of the following: • 1. Conduct library research to determine past uses. Also, search for leak spill reports or previous site investigations. Review existing records, aerial photographs, maps facilities drawings, and public agency records such as; a. Title reports/tax assessor records which might show past uses. • b. Any oil and gas records (including those of the State Division of Oil and Gas) if previous use involved oil and gas production. C. State and local water agency documents for existing on-site and near • off-site hydrological and water quality data. d. State or local health department records to determine proximity of known or suspected public health risk sites, including locations of CERCLA (Superfund) and CERCLIS sites. • e. Current or previous environmental permits or site listings. f. USGS open files for geological and soil conditions. • g. Local water supply agency records to determine groundwater use in the area. 2. Walk the site and map observed areas of previous use and potential contamination, including sumps, catch basins, pipelines, storage areas, electrical • Rgooa.d fled Draft Dsbd F"nory 14, 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 98 1 transformers, tanks, odors, vapors, drum storage areas, discolored/oily dirt, and vegetated land which contains obvious base areas which need further investigation. 3. Produce report incorporating above information and recommendations as to 1 the necessity to complete Phase II work. 4. If required by the findings in the Phase I site assessment, a Phase II site investigation would be conducted with limited testing of soils, soil gas vapors, and water (surface and groundwater) to determine the level of contaminants (but not the quantity). 1 b. Phase II Assessment. Listed below are the procedures for formulating the Phase II: 1. Establish a sampling plan using the statistical model recommended by USEPA and endorsed by California DOHS, Appendix B to USEPA's "Permit Writer's Guidance for Land Treatment Demonstrations EPA/530-SW-86-032." The number of samples to be collected in Phase II will be determined by this statistical model. The number of samples to be collected and tested in Phase III, if any, will be determined using the statistical model and the deviation in test results of the Phase II test program. Locations should be selected based on historical land uses. 1 2. Samples should be gathered in accordance with an approved QA/QC program utilizing guidance in USEPA's "Methods for Evaluation Solid Wastes: Physical and Chemical Methods, SW-846 3rd Nov. 1986, Chapter 1, Table 1-1," as appropriate. Site sampling plan and health and safety plan should be developed prior to fieldwork. 4 3. Phase II soil sampling should utilize hand augers, shovels, and/or back hoes. Drilling equipment should be used in Phase III sampling only after Phase II sampling has demonstrated the contamination has vertical penetrations deeper than the reach of conventional back hoe trenches with shoring. 4 4. Groundwater sampling should be completed utilizing wells existing on or near the site. Drilling new groundwater wells for most site investigations, if required, should occur in Phase III. Surface water samples should be taken from on site drainage areas. 1 Prgoosrd And Drat D&W fihr ry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 99 • 5. Soil gas vapor samples should be taken from shallow probes (5-10 feet deep). Locations should be selected based on known or suspected sources of soil vapors described in historical land use documentation or previous soil sampling. In addition, gas samples should be taken from existing enclosed vaults, manholes, valve boxes, if any exist, to • determine actual near surface conditions. 6. Samples should be tested utilizing the following appropriate analytical methods: Visually observed characteristics of all samples should be recorded. Those soil samples exhibiting oily characteristics through sight, feel, and/or smell should be tested for • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon concentrations (TPH). Also, an indication of volatility of the petroleum hydrocarbon concentration should be recorded using and Organic Vapor Analyzer (OVA) and sampling the head space in sample containers which appears "oily." OVA readings can also be used to select soil samples for laboratory analysis. The remaining analytical methods should be performed on a percentage of the samples as determined by • the Phase I results and the statistical model. 7. Produce report summarizing the Phase H sampling plan and the results. 8. If the Phase H results satisfy the statistical model for obtaining a satisfactory confidence level and groundwater concerns have been addressed, then further testing may not be required. 9. Develop a remedial action plan for site clean-up utilizing all Phases I, II, and III information. All areas of investigation need to be discussed; i.e., soil, soil gas vapors,' • surface water, and subsurface water. Depending on the size of the area to be remediated and test results, clean-up alternatives should be discussed. • • Proposed AhW&8*Dated FaMmy 14,1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 100 1 SUGGESTED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL SAMPLES Parameter Method 1. Visual Observation , 2. pH EPA 9045 3. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon EPA 418.1/EPA 8015(1) 4. Metals:Barium,Chromium,Lead,Molybdenum,Nickel,Zinc,Mercury,Arsenic, EPA 6010 Selenium 5. Total Lead EPA 7420 OR 7421 6. Soluble Lead W.E.T./239.1 7. Flammability 8. Halogenated Volatile Organics(EDB,EDQ EPA 8010 9. Aromatic Volatile Organics(BTX&E) EPA 8020 1 10. Volatile Organics EPA 8240 11. Semivolatile Organics EPA 8270 12. Cyanide Reactivity EPA 9010 13. Sulfide Reactivity EPA 376.1 1 14. Acute Aquatic Toxicity std.Method 810 15. Polychlorinated Biphenyl's(PCB's) EPA 8080 16. Organophosphorus+Organochlorine Pesticides 17. Chlorephenoxy and Phenolic Herbicides EPA 615 1 SUGGESTED ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR SOIL VAPOR SAMPLES Parameter Method 1 1. OVA 2. THC,TNMHC,Methane,BTX GC (Speciate for 02 determination) Avpord FuW Dnh Datod F@anry 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 101 • ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES Parameter Method 1. pH EPA 150.1 • 2. Conductance EPA 00120.1 3. Halogenated Volatile Organics(EDB,EDC) EPA 8010 4. Aromatic Volatile Organics(BTX&E) EPA 8020 5. Halogenated and Aromatic Volatile Organics • 6. Semi-Volatile Organics EPA 8270 When contaminated areas are found under the Phase I and Phase H assessments, a Phase III assessment should be prepared as follows: • 1. Collect and analyze additional samples using the analytical methods in Phase II investigation to satisfy the statistical model sample requirements as calculated using Phase H results. • 2. Conduct a groundwater survey and water quality test program to determine groundwater levels, deep and shallow aquifers, gradients, recharge rates, soil porosity, and water quality. A hydrogeologist experienced in groundwater surveys should be used in conducting this program. • 3. Develop a remedial action plan as described in Phase H, Item 7 above. 15. Construction and Use of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir. Page 4.2-32, • lines 18-31 of the DEIR state that water service to the project will involve distribution from a proposed 9 million gallon reservoir. That is not an accurate statement since the reservoir proposed for the site is intended as mitigation for the Holly-Seacliff project, not the Bolsa Chica project. The reservoir, if constructed, may not be constructed underground because no design details have been completed or reviewed by any agency having jurisdiction. • Statements referencing this reservoir as a solid project are premature. Line 21 states that PMpoaad F,W&oft Da»d F.butry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 101 ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR GROUNDWATER SA Parameter 1. pH 1 2. Conductance 3. Halogenated Volatile Organics(EDB,EDC) 4. Aromatic Volatile Organics(BTX&E) S. Halogenated and Aromatic Volatile Organics 6. Semi-Volatile Organics When contaminated areas are found under the Phase I and Pha, assessment should be prepared as follows: / 1. Collect and analyze additional samples u& Phase H investigation to satisfy the statistical model sample req Phase II results. 2. Conduct a groundwater survey and water determine groundwater levels, deep and shallow aquifers, gradient porosity, and water quality. A hydrogeologist experienced in grog be used in conducting this program. 3. Develop a remedial action plan as described 1 above. 15. Construction and Use of 9 Million Gall( lines 18-31 of the DEIR state that water service to the project v 1 a proposed 9 million gallon reservoir. That is not an accurate proposed for the site is intended as mitigation for the Holly-Sea Chica project. The reservoir, if constructed, may not be constr no design details have been completed or reviewed by any age Statements referencing this reservoir as a solid project are prerr P►oposd Fhd Didf DoW Fvbwy 14, 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 103 • 16. Rupture of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir in Residential Neighborhood. Impact 4.2-13 notes the potential for a seismic event to cause a surface rupture at the site of the proposed 9 million gallon reservoir on the Mesa. The mitigation measure proposed suggests that the performance of a geologic investigation will prevent the • rupture of the 9 million gallon water reservoir. The loss of the reservoir in the event of an earthquake would create a significant adverse impact on fire protection and would represent a significant impact and the potential for this to happen must be analyzed as a significant risk of upset. A geologic investigation will not in itself mitigate the potential rupture of the reservoir structure. The data uncovered in the investigation may provide direction to the designers and planners of the reservoir. It appears, however, that the DEIR suggests strong evidence that construction of a water reservoir on this site may not be recommended. Since the DEIR is not specific in this regard, however, the mitigation measure proposed will in essence not do anything to change the existing condition or make the existing condition satisfactory for construction of an acceptable water reservoir. Thus, the "Residual Impact After Mitigation" is not "insignificant" as shown. More research and discussion is needed in the report to determine if this site should contain a water reservoir of this size from a geologic standpoint. In addition, the DEIR states that the City would be the authority to issue a grading permit; however, since the proposed reservoir site is located within County jurisdiction, the City would not issue a grading permit. • 17. Fault Locations. Figure 4.2-5 shows numerous fault lines traversing the Mesa from northwest to southeast.83t Although no scale is provided on this Figure nor on Figure 4.2-6, it appears that only certain of the faults have been taken into account in defining the zones where habitable structures are prohibited. Further, if one overlays the planned community development plan of Figure 3.2-3 over figure 4.2-6, it appears that • some development (planning areas 8 and 9) may in fact intrude into the exclusionary zone. Also, Figure 4.2-5 ignores offshore faults and incompletely describes other faults which also could contribute significantly to seismic dangers in the area. Page 4.2-10, In. 37-40 briefly describes the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, however, it does not mention that it is an active fault, having caused the destructive 1933 Long Beach 831 Usually,an EIR will include a table showing the acti ve faults which may affect the site, their distance from the site, the maximum credible earthquake value they could produce, and the potential g forces which might be experienced on the site. This type of table is critical to an understanding by the public of the complicated geology of the area. Its omission obfuscates the analysis of the DEIR in violation of CEQA. P►opo"d Find OnR Wtod Feb wy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 103 16. Rupture of 9 Million Gallon Reservoir in Residential Neighborhood. Impact 4.2-13 notes the potential for a seismic event to cause a surface rupture at the site of the proposed 9 million gallon reservoir on the Mesa. The mitigation measure proposed suggests that the performance of a geologic investigation will prevent the 1 rupture of the 9 million gallon water reservoir. The loss of the reservoir in the event of an earthquake would create a significant adverse impact on fire protection and would represent a significant impact and the potential for this to happen must be analyzed as a significant risk of upset. A geologic investigation will not in itself mitigate the potential rupture of the reservoir structure. The data uncovered in the investigation may provide direction to the designers and planners of the reservoir. It appears, however, that the DEIR suggests strong evidence that construction of a water reservoir on this site may not be recommended. Since the DEIR is not specific in this regard, however, the mitigation measure proposed will in essence not do anything to change the existing condition or make the existing condition satisfactory for construction of an acceptable water reservoir. Thus, the "Residual Impact ' After Mitigation" is not "insignificant" as shown. More research and discussion is needed in the report to determine if this site should contain a water reservoir of this size from a geologic standpoint. In addition, the DEIR states that the City would be the authority to issue a grading permit; however, since the proposed reservoir site is located within County jurisdiction, the City would not issue a grading permit. 1 17. Fault Locations. Figure 4.2-5 shows numerous fault lines traversing the Mesa from northwest to southeast.L" Although no scale is provided on this Figure nor on Figure 4.2-6, it appears that only certain of the faults have been taken into account in defining the zones where habitable structures are prohibited. Further, if one overlays the planned community development plan of Figure 3.2-3 over figure 4.2-6, it appears that 1 some development (planning areas 8 and 9) may in fact intrude into the exclusionary zone. Also, Figure 4.2-5 ignores offshore faults and incompletely describes other faults which also could contribute significantly to seismic dangers in the area. Page 4.2-10, In. 37-40 briefly describes the North Branch of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, however, it does not mention that it is an active fault, having caused the destructive 1933 Long Beach 1 831 Usually,an EIR will include a table showing the active faults which may affect the site,their distance from the site, the maximum credible earthquake value they could produce, and the potential g forces which might be experienced on the site. This type of table is critical to an understanding by the public of the complicated geology ' of the area. Its omission obfuscates the analysis of the DEIR in violation of CEQA. Proposed Find Dealt Dated FeOrwry 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 105 • consultants must be produced for this discussion to be meaningful and to permit informed public review of the DEIR. Impact 4.2-13 indicates a concern that the existence of splay faults around the location of the 9 million gallon reservoir (planning area 4B) could cause surface rupture during a seismic event. This is inconsistent with the analysis in Figures 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 and the accompanying text which indicate that no potentially active faults with the potential to cause surface rupture exist in the area of the proposed reservoir. The concern noted (and assumed to be mitigated by the performance of further geological study in the future) by Impact 4.2-13 indicates that there is reason to be concerned regarding the placement of medium and high density residential areas (Planning Areas 11 and 12) • immediately adjacent to the reservoir, both due to the potential for water damage/injury in the event of rupture of the reservoir during a seismic event and also due to the potential for splay fault ruptures under the residences themselves. 18. Fault Movement. Page 4.2-14 and the following section provides a • discussion of the surface rupture potential of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone through the proposed project site but the Active Fault Zone Map, Figure 4.2-6 and Figure 4.2-7 should be referenced on lines 21, 32, 37 and 43 on page 4.2-15. The potential for surface rupture along this fault represents a major environmental impact which cannot be completely mitigated, although higher design standards would substantially reduce potential • impacts. Page 4.2-26, lines 44-47 discusses the potential for fault rupture. It apparently is listed as "found not to be significant" because it is being mitigated by use of an exclusionary zone for habitable structures. Why is it not listed in Section 4.2.3.2, Significant Impacts of Project Prior to Mitigation, with the "Mitigating" exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation in Section 4.2.3.4 Mitigation Measures? Also, as is noted above, the planned exclusionary zone may not be a sufficient mitigation in light of recent earthquake experience. Page 4.2-31, In. 43-47 also mentions the potential for fault rupture but dismisses it because of an exclusionary zone. Again, it should be listed as a significant impact and then the exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation measure in Section 4.2.3.4. Finally, the letter from Chambers Group submitted with this letter as ANNEX No. 30 • 861(...continued) analysis is 10 years old and there have been new discoveries made in other areas regarding previously undiscovered potential for seismic danger. What investigation has been made regarding the potential for similar discoveries with • respect to the Project site? Proposed Find Dish Died F*bAWY 14, 1994 - • i Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 105 consultants must be produced for this discussion to be meaningful and to permit informed public review of the DEIR. Impact 4.2-13 indicates a concern that the existence of splay faults around the location of the 9 million gallon reservoir (planning area 4B) could cause surface rupture during a seismic event. This is inconsistent with the analysis in Figures 4.2-6 and 4.2-7 and the accompanying text which indicate that no potentially active faults with the potential to cause surface rupture exist in the area of the proposed reservoir. The concern noted (and assumed to be mitigated by the performance of further geological study in the future) by Impact 4.2-13 indicates that there is reason to be concerned regarding the placement of medium and high density residential areas (Planning Areas 11 and 12) immediately adjacent to the reservoir, both due to the potential for water damage/injury in the event of rupture of the reservoir during a seismic event and also due to the potential for splay fault ruptures under the residences themselves. 18. Fault Movement. Page 4.2-14 and the following section provides a discussion of the surface rupture potential of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone through the proposed project site but the Active Fault Zone Map, Figure 4.2-6 and Figure 4.2-7 should be referenced on lines 21, 32, 37 and 43 on page 4.2-15. The potential for surface rupture along this fault represents a major environmental impact which cannot be completely mitigated, although higher design standards would substantially reduce potential impacts. Page 4.2-26, lines 44-47 discusses the potential for fault rupture. It apparently is listed as "found not to be significant" because it is being mitigated by use of an exclusionary zone for habitable structures. Why is it not listed in Section 4.2.3.2, Significant Impacts of Project Prior to Mitigation, with the "Mitigating" exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation in Section 4.2.3.4 Mitigation Measures? Also, as is noted above, the planned exclusionary zone may not be a sufficient mitigation in light of recent earthquake experience. Page 4.2-31, In. 43-47 also mentions the potential for fault rupture but dismisses it because of an exclusionary zone. Again, it should be listed as a significant impact and then the exclusionary zone listed as a mitigation measure in Section 4.2.3.4. Finally, the letter from Chambers Group submitted with this letter as ANNEX No. 30 861(..continued) analysis is 10years old and there have been new discoveries made in other areas regarding previously undiscovered potentialfor seismic danger. What investigation has been made regarding the potential for similar discoveries with respect to the Project site? Proposed Find DisR Dated fiArwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 107 • exceeded? What is the probability of such an event? What would the potential consequences be to human life, wildlife and property if such an event were to occur and how would those consequences compare to an event which caused ground acceleration at a • maximum of .25g? The ground acceleration of 0.25g apparently was determined using a probabilistic model for a number of faults in Southern California for a design life of 200 years, however, the discussion in the DEIR does not state the probability of exceeding the 0.25g figure. These probabilities should be spelled out very clearly so that the County, City and public know what risk they are taking assuming that ground shaking will not exceed the 0.25g figure used in the DEIR. The UBC uses a much higher value of 0.4g as • spelled out on line 29-31, page 4.2-26. Also a deterministic evaluation should be included for the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, should it produce a major 6.5-7.0 magnitude event sometime during the next 200 years. Such an earthquake could produce higher ground accelerations than the 0.25g assumed by the DEIR. • 20. Seismic Impacts During Construction. Page 4.2-24 of the DEIR states that seismic activity and associated hazards can not be averted but concludes that with the application of standard safety precautions no significant impact will occur. This implicitly assumes that standard safety precautions will eliminate the potential for major impacts if seismic activity occurs during sensitive operations such as the removal of the • existing oil and gas pipelines across the MesaA' The DEIR also assumes that no impact will occur from grading or other construction operations on the Mesa since the oil operations will be removed prior to grading and, therefore, are not anticipated to create significant impacts during construction. . This ignores that part of the project construction includes the removal of the oil and gas facilities, many of which are very old and are likely • to have experience significant corrosion rendering them more susceptible to releasing materials into the environment when disrupted by construction or seismic event. Thus, even though the facilities will have been removed once construction progresses to the point where grading can commence, the DEIR should consider the construction period impacts of removing the oil and gas equipment (including but not limited to any soils removal required • 881 The January 17,1994 earthquake in Northridge provides an example of the potential harm which can result from seismic shaking of oil facilities. As a consequence of the earthquake, an oil pipeline operated by the Atlantic Richfield Company ruptured, spoiling ESHAs connected with the Santa Clara River with over 200,000 gallons of crude oil. This is the type of harm which can occur in the project area, yet the DEIR does not detail any manner • for mitigating this potentially disastrous situation. The DEIR is legally deficient in this regard. Proposed fled Draft D~Febwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 107 1 exceeded? What is the probability of such an event? What would the potential consequences be to human life, wildlife and property if such an event were to occur and how would those consequences compare to an event which caused ground acceleration at a maximum of .25g? The ground acceleration of 0.25g apparently was determined using a 4 probabilistic model for a number of faults in Southern California for a design life of 200 years, however, the discussion in the DEIR does not state the probability of exceeding the 0.25g figure. These probabilities should be spelled out very clearly so that the County, City and public know what risk they are taking assuming that ground shaking will not exceed the 0.25g figure used in the DEIR. The UBC uses a much higher value of 0.4g as 1 spelled out on line 29-31, page 4.2-26. Also a deterministic evaluation should be included for the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, should it produce a major 6.5-7.0 magnitude event sometime during the next 200 years. Such an earthquake could produce higher ground accelerations than the 0.25g assumed by the DEIR. 20. Seismic Impacts During Construction. Page 4.2-24 of the DEIR 1 states that seismic activity and associated hazards can not be averted but concludes that with the application of standard safety precautions no significant impact will occur. This implicitly assumes that standard safety precautions will eliminate the potential for major impacts if seismic activity occurs during sensitive operations such as the removal of the existing oil and gas pipelines across the Mesa.ff The DEIR also assumes that no impact 1 will occur from grading or other construction operations on the Mesa since the oil operations will be removed prior to grading and, therefore, are not anticipated to create significant impacts during construction. This ignores that part of the project construction includes the removal of the oil and gas facilities, many of which are very old and are likely to have experience significant corrosion rendering them more susceptible to releasing 1 materials into the environment when disrupted by construction or seismic event. Thus, even though the facilities will have been removed once construction progresses to the point where grading can commence, the DEIR should consider the construction period impacts of removing the oil and gas equipment (including but not limited to any soils removal required 1 881 The January 17,1994 earthquake in Northridge provides an example of the potential harm which can result from seismic shaking of oilfacilities. As a consequence of the earthquake, an oilpipeline operated by the Atlantic Richfield Company ruptured, spoiling ESHAs connected with the Santa Clara River with over 200,000 gallons of crude oil. This is the type of harm which can occur in the project area, yet the DEIR does not detail any manner 1 for mitigating this potentially disastrous situation. The DEIR is legally deficient in this regard. Plgmord PkW&wft Dsnd F*bfLwy M 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 109 • energy of the tsunami or seiche.91 The Corps (Houston and Garcia, 1974 and a revised study by Houston) predicts tsunami runup elevations of 5-6.5 feet for a 100-year recurrence interval and 7-10 feet of a 500-year recurrence interval along the West Coast.-' What does this mean for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and proposed Lowlands development? The • discussion in the DEIR does not say. Also, some offshore faults are discussed but not all. How about the San Clemente Escarpment Fault? What would happen to the Lowlands should a 13.1-19.7 foot tsunami occur as they say is possible in the Santa Barbara Channel? Several faults and studies are referenced but none are related or addressed to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. Analysis of the effect of tsunami generated by offshore faults should be • included in the EIR. Page 4.2-27, lines 8-12 of the DEIR discusses the potential for tsunami as "found not to be significant." This discussion in the DEIR has the same problems as discussed under construction impacts and the same comments apply. Tsunami potential is simply not adequately handled. The maximum design tsunami needs to be identified and maximum runup maps prepared. This needs to be done before it can be • determined what the impact on the Lowlands development will be, or what mitigation might be required. Page 4.2-32 considers seismic impacts on the development of the Lowlands but tsunami hazard is not mentioned here. It is not covered well in the prior sections, and it has not been determined whether or not it is a "Significant Impact," but it cannot be ignored as currently is true under the DEIR. • 23. Operational Impacts from Wetlands Restoration. The DEIR states at page 4.2-27, In. 31 that seismic shaking is "not expected" to adversely impact dikes, beams or the inlet structure. This statement must be supported by more detailed data regarding the construction and design of these facilities. The DEIR notes the potential for • liquefaction in the sheet piling behind the tidal inlet but assumes, without support, that the temporary nature of the problem would prevent permanent impact. Yet, the DEIR recognizes that permanent post-liquefaction settlement of up to 2 inches is possible in other • 911 It is possible that the 30 foot vertical (or nearly vertical) surface might act to focus the energy of the tsunami toward the project or increase the potential energy of the wave. This should be studied further. 921 In the letter from the Chambers Group annexed to this letter as ANNEX No.30, indicates that certain faults capable of generating tsunami hazards may not have been considered in the Houston and Garcia report. Chambers Group expressly stated that the potential for tsunami should be reevaluated in detail and an analysis of the potential • for tsunami runup must be included. P►goosM RnW DfsR Dabid Fibiwry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 / Page 109 1 energy of the tsunami or seiche.91 The Corps (Houston and Garcia, 1974 and a revised study by Houston) predicts tsunami runup elevations of 5-6.5 feet for a 100-year recurrence interval and 7-10 feet of a 500-year recurrence interval along the West Coast.-' What does this mean for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands and proposed Lowlands development? The discussion in the DEIR does not say. Also, some offshore faults are discussed but not all. / How about the San Clemente Escarpment Fault? What would happen to the Lowlands should a 13.1-19.7 foot tsunami occur as they say is possible in the Santa Barbara Channel? Several faults and studies are referenced but none are related or addressed to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. Analysis of the effect of tsunami generated by offshore faults should be included in the EIR. Page 4.2-27, lines 8-12 of the DEIR discusses the potential for tsunami as "found not to be significant." This discussion in the DEIR has the same problems as discussed under construction impacts and the same comments apply. Tsunami potential is simply not adequately handled. The maximum design tsunami needs to be identified and maximum runup maps prepared. This needs to be done before it can be determined what the impact on the Lowlands development will be, or what mitigation might 1 be required. Page 4.2-32 considers seismic impacts on the development of the Lowlands but tsunami hazard is not mentioned here. It is not covered well in the prior sections, and it has not been determined whether or not it is a "Significant Impact," but it cannot be ignored as currently is true under the DEIR. 23. Operational Impacts from Wetlands Restoration. The DEIR states 1 at page 4.2-27, In. 31 that seismic shaking is "not expected" to adversely impact dikes, beams or the inlet structure. This statement must be supported by more detailed data regarding the construction and design of these facilities. The DEIR notes the potential for. liquefaction in the sheet piling behind the tidal inlet but assumes, without support, that the temporary nature of the problem would prevent permanent impact. Yet, the DEIR 1 recognizes that permanent post-liquefaction settlement of up to 2 inches is possible in other 911 It is possible that the 30 foot vertical (or nearly vertical) surface might act to focus the energy of the 1 tsunami toward the project or increase the potential energy of the wave. This should be studied further. 921 In the lenerfrom the Chambers Group annexed to this letter as ANNEX No.30, indicates that certain faults capable of generating tsunami hazards may not have been considered in the Houston and Garcia report. Chambers Group expressly stated that the potential for tsunami should be reevaluated in detail and an analysis of the potential for tsunami runup must be included. 1 Prgvord FhW Dish Dabd F*&Lwy 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 111 • the impacts. The discussion of the rolling surcharge method is particularly deficient. Where will the surcharge material come from? How will it be emplaced? The recirculated DEIR must more fully describe both methods and must analyze the impacts of using them. • 26. Inadequate Discussion of Soil Import Activities. Chapter 4.2 does not consider the significant amounts of earth which will be imported into the site in connection with the proposed development and restoration. Based solely on a reading of the chapter devoted to soils and geological (i.e., earth) impacts, the reader cannot understand the mountainous amount of the earth to be imported to the site. Only in the • recesses of the aesthetics chapter lies a diagram and table (Figure 4.12-26) which indicates that 1,906.233 cubic yards of earth will be required to complete the grading needed for the proposed development of the Mesa and for the filling and development of the wetlands. For purposes of understanding the scope of that earthmoving operation, the largest double bottom-dump earth hauling truck can hold approximately 17 cubic yards of uncompacted • earth. Thus, in excess of 112,000 round truck trips will be required to haul the required import of earth from offsite. If a jobsite operates 8-hours per day, 5 days per week, 51 weeks per year and a truck can be off-loaded in two minutes, the earth import operation, if conducted continuously (i.e., 240 trucks over an 8-hour day over 9133 consecutive weeks of import) would require nearly 22 months to complete before taking the required onsite • earthwork into account.94' The obvious alteration to natural landforms within the coastal 941 Of course, it may be possible to empty more than one truck at a time depending on the area being disrupted by import,grading and compaction operations and the phasing of the work The problem with the DEIR is that no information is given regarding these matters. Accordingly, the lay reader must examine the issue based upon the conservative assumptions set forth in this letter. These assumptions and the calculation of the time required for import of soil are as follows: 1,906,233 cu. yds offsite import amount 8 hours/day = 480 minutes/day • — 17 cu. vds per truck 1 truck emptied every 2 minutes 112,131 Total g of Trucks 240 Trucks emptied per work day ®5 work days per week = 1,200 trucks per week 112,000 Total Trucks 1.200 Trucks per work week • (continued...) Propomd Flirt Drat Dared FWw" 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency ! February 17, 1994 Page I l l the impacts. The discussion of the rolling surcharge method is particularly deficient. Where will the surcharge material come from? How will it be emplaced? The recirculated DEIR must more fully describe both methods and must analyze the impacts of using them. 26. Inadequate Discussion of Soil Import Activities. Chapter 4.2 does not consider the significant amounts of earth which will be imported into the site in connection with the proposed development and restoration. Based solely on a reading of the chapter devoted to soils and geological (i.e., earth) impacts, the reader cannot understand the mountainous amount of the earth to be imported to the site. Only in the , recesses of the aesthetics chapter lies a diagram and table (Figure 4.12-26) which indicates that 1.906,233 cubic yards of earth will be required to complete the grading needed for the proposed development of the Mesa and for the filling and development of the wetlands. For purposes of understanding the scope of that earthmoving operation, the largest double bottom-dump earth hauling truck can hold approximately 17 cubic yards of uncompacted earth. Thus, in excess of 112,000 round truck trips will be required to haul the required import of earth from offsite. If a jobsite operates 8-hours per day, 5 days per week, 51 weeks per year and a truck can be off-loaded in two minutes, the earth import operation, if conducted continuously (i.e., 240 trucks over an 8-hour day over 93.33 consecutive weeks of import) would require nearly 22 months to complete before taking the required onsite earthwork into account.44' The obvious alteration to natural landforms within the coastal ! 941 Of course, it may be possible to empty more than one truck at a time depending on the area being disrupted by import,grading and compaction operations and the phasing of the work The problem with the DEIR is that no information is given regarding these matters. Accordingly, the lay reader must examine the issue based upon the conservative assumptions set forth in this letter. These assumptions and the calculation of the time required for import of soil are as follows: 1,906,233 cu. yds offsite import amount 8 hours/day = 480 minutes/day — 17 cu. vds per truck I truck emptied every 2 minutes 112,131 Total 11 of Trucks 240 Trucks emptied per work day ®5 work days per week = 1,200 trucks per week 112,000 Total Trucks 1.200 Trucks per work week (continued...) ! Ap"add FkW Dish D~fibury K 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 113 • to bluff or slope failures. The methods and standards for making such a determination are not stated in the DEIR. • C. Instability of f Slopes. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 all presume that the investigation and report of a registered geologist will eliminate the potential slope instability which the extensive earth moving, grading and filling operations on the site will require. Since there is no geotechnical report appended to the DEIR and since there are no minimum grading requirements included in the mitigation measure, it is • not possible to evaluate the DEIR's assumption that these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts of slope instability to an insignificant level. d. Collapsible Soils. Mitigation Measure No. 4.2-6 relies on the future report of a geotechnical consultant to avoid the disruption which will occur if infrastructure or improvements are constructed on or about over-saturated or collapsible • soils. There are no parameters in the DEIR for the scope of this report nor for the criteria which will determine when soils are acceptable. Further, this mitigation measure ignores the issues noted at Page 4.3-15 of the DEIR regarding the potential for continued elevation of groundwater levels despite the proposed cut off wall. Are these impacts related? The DEIR should address these problems in a more straightforward and coherent manner. • 28. Mitigation Measures which Are Erroneously Assumed to Mitigate Significant Impacts. The following lists those geology/seismicity related impacts which the DEIR assumes to be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures which do not appear to do so or the effect of which is not supported or documented: • a. Compliance with UBC Standards Is Not Sufficient. UBC Building Standards and Alquist-Priolo Compliance as presumed to mitigate the impacts of the known faults in the vicinity to a level of insignificance See p.4.2-26. Given recent experience with fatalities in residential structures in the Northridge Earthquake, this • assumption should be re-evaluated. b. Additional Protection of Water Lines Crossing Fault Areas. Page 4.2-37, In. 1-9 set forth the mitigation measures intended to protect utilities in the immediate vicinity of fault areas. Due to the severity of disruption caused when the Newport-Inglewood Fault should cause surface rupture, more than manual valving is needed Plowmd Find Dtvft Dated Febmwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 113 1 to bluff or slope failures. The methods and standards for making such a determination are not stated in the DEIR. C. Instability of Slows. Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 1 all presume that the investigation and report of a registered geologist will eliminate the potential slope instability which the extensive earth moving, grading and filling operations on the site will require. Since there is no geotechnical report appended to the DEIR and since there are no minimum grading requirements included in the mitigation measure, it is not possible to evaluate the DEIR's assumption that these mitigation measures would reduce 1 the impacts of slope instability to an insignificant level. d. Collapsible Soils. Mitigation Measure No. 4.2-6 relies on the future report of a geotechnical consultant to avoid the disruption which will occur if infrastructure or improvements are constructed on or about over-saturated or collapsible soils. There are no parameters in the DEIR for the scope of this report nor for the criteria 1 which will determine when soils are acceptable. Further, this mitigation measure ignores the issues noted at Page 4.3-15 of the DEIR regarding the potential for continued elevation of groundwater levels despite the proposed cut off wall. Are these impacts related? The DEIR should address these problems in a more straightforward and coherent manner. 1 28. Mitigation Measures which Are Erroneously Assumed to Mitigate Significant Impacts. The following lists those geology/seismicity related impacts which the DEIR assumes to be mitigated to below a level of significance by mitigation measures which do not appear to do so or the effect of which is not supported or documented: 1 a. Compliance with UBC Standards Is Not Sufficient. UBC Building Standards and Alquist-Priolo Compliance as presumed to mitigate the impacts of the known faults in the vicinity to a level of insignificance See p.4.2-26. Given recent experience with fatalities in residential structures in the Northridge Earthquake, this assumption should be re-evaluated. b. Additional Protection of Water Lines Crossing Fault Areas. Page 4.2-37, In. 1-9 set forth the mitigation measures intended to protect utilities in the immediate vicinity of fault areas. Due to the severity of disruption caused when the Newport-Inglewood Fault should cause surface rupture, more than manual valving is needed 4 Proposed Fwmd Dish Dated fob nary 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 115 • d. Subsidence. Page 4.2-19, 4.2-15: Current subsidence data is approximately 25 years old. The EIR needs to review the current subsidence rate and identify if mitigation, i.e. water pressurization, is adequate. • e. Page 4.2-23: #2 Ground movement due to earthquakes and subsidence will occur and cannot be mitigated. • #6 The EIR does not adequately address the volume of contaminated soil that needs to be removed and the impacts on landfills. #7 During remediation and excavation the general public will be exposed to hazardous materials. The EIR does not discuss this impact or mitigation. • #8 Currently, heavy metal contamination exceeds State standards. According to the DEIR the only areas tested for heavy metals were within the water bodies. Water contamination is likely the result of run off from the surrounding soils and, accordingly, the DEIR should have assessed the heavy metal content within both the soils and the water bodies. Table • 4.4-8 shows the analytical data for tests conducted in water areas, but no test results are shown with respect to the surrounding land. State standards for metals are included as ANNEX NO. 40. This attachment also includes documentation discussing hazardous constituents of crude oil. • f. Page 4.2-24, Line 35-37: A personal communication is not an adequate site assessment. Complete Phase I and, very likely, Phase H environmental site assessments must be completed and included in the EIR. g. Page 4.2-24, Line 44: Removing oil operations and equipment • before grading and construction does not in itself eliminate the adverse impacts of contaminated soils. Abandoned areas or oil areas that are not in current use must be evaluated through a site assessment. A total of fourteen (14) drill sites exist on the Mesa which are shown in Figure 3, attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 50. Four (4) of the drill sites are active oil wells. However, as of December 1993 permits were pulled in order to • abandon two (2) of the four (4) wells. Five (5) of the drill sites are plugged and abandoned Pro"Md F1rW Draft D&t.d Fsbury 14. 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency / February 17, 1994 Page 115 1 d. Subsidence. Page 4.2-19, 4.2-15: Current subsidence data is approximately 25 years old. The EIR needs to review the current subsidence rate and identify if mitigation, i.e. water pressurization, is adequate. e. Page 4.2-23: #2 Ground movement due to earthquakes and subsidence will occur and cannot be mitigated. #6 The EIR does not adequately address the volume of contaminated soil that needs to be removed and the impacts on landfills. #7 During remediation and excavation the general public will be exposed to hazardous materials. The EIR does not discuss this impact or mitigation. 1 #8 Currently, heavy metal contamination exceeds State standards. According to the DEIR the only areas tested for heavy metals were within the water bodies. Water contamination is likely the result of run off from the surrounding soils and, accordingly, the DEIR should have assessed the heavy metal content within both the soils and the water bodies. Table 4.4-8 shows the analytical data for tests conducted in water areas, but no test results are / shown with respect to the surrounding land. State standards for metals are included as ANNEX No. 40. This attachment also includes documentation discussing hazardous constituents of crude oil. f. Page 4.2-24, Line 35-37: A personal communication is not an 1 adequate site assessment. Complete Phase I and, very likely, Phase H environmental site assessments must be completed and included in the EIR. g. Page 4.2-24. Line 44: Removing oil operations and equipment before grading and construction does not in itself eliminate the adverse impacts of 4 contaminated soils. Abandoned areas or oil areas that are not in current use must be evaluated through a site assessment. A total of fourteen (14) drill sites exist on the Mesa which are shown in Figure 3, attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 50. Four (4) of the drill sites are active oil wells. However, as of December 1993 permits were pulled in order to abandon two (2) of the four (4) wells. Five (5) of the drill sites are plugged and abandoned / Pr000md Final Draft Dot"F+Mm" 14, 19" • A Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 117 • 2. Use of 100-year Flood Event Understates the Impacts. Page 4.3- 11, In. 30-32 states that construction within the MWD property will eliminate flood storage capacity, and as shown in Table 4.3-2, this could result in flood depths of 8.3 feet at the • intersection of Graham and Kenilworth in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River. The indicated mitigation measure is to delay construction in this area until after construction of the Santa Ana River Project which will increase the flood protection capacity of the Santa Ana River to a 100 year level of protection. The 100 year level of flood protection is an arbitrary threshold established by FEMA for purposes of insuring property. However, an 8.3 foot depth of flooding should also raise concerns about the threat to human life. It • may not be acceptable to allow such a threat to occur at the arbitrary limit of the "100 year event"? When the Corps evaluates improvements that could threaten human life the higher standard of "Standard Project Flood" is used. The "Standard Project Flood" is the maximum'credible event, and this is the appropriate flood event to consider in this case. Furthermore it is not acceptable to subject surrounding properties to an increased flood • threat in any event, including an event greater than the arbitrary 100 year event. The project must be designed to prevent obstructing drainage of upstream properties in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River during the maximum credible event, which is usually considered to be the "Standard Project Flood". • 3. Flooding of Pacific Coast Highway. There is a section of Pacific Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed tidal inlet which is low-lying and often floods during storms. As a result, the highway is shut down to traffic - sometimes for days at a time. This has a direct detrimental effect upon the capacity of the arterial highway system in the study area. Until this problem is mitigated, the traffic capacity of • Pacific Coast Highway may be considered unreliable. We would, therefore, consider this mitigation measure to be the responsibility of the developer, since even more traffic will be generated on Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the proposed development. 4. Inundation and Flooding During Construction Period. Page 4.3-15 • of the document considers that a major storm might occur during the portion of the construction period when the levees of the EGGW channels have been removed but prior to the construction of the tidal inlet. The DEIR concludes that the runoff could overflow the wetlands, flood Pacific Coast Highway, damage berms and flood the residential development in the Lowlands. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 purports to address this impact by • phasing the proposed construction so that this potentially dangerous period will be limited to PYio "d Find Dish Dated Fobwry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 117 2. Use of 100-year Flood Event Understates the Impacts. Page 4.3- 11, In. 30-32 states that construction within the MWD property will eliminate flood storage capacity, and as shown in Table 4.3-2, this could result in flood depths of 8.3 feet at the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River. 4 The indicated mitigation measure is to delay construction in this area until after construction of the Santa Ana River Project which will increase the flood protection capacity of the Santa Ana River to a 100 year level of protection. The 100 year level of flood protection is an arbitrary threshold established by FEMA for purposes of insuring property. However, an 8.3 foot depth of flooding should also raise concerns about the threat to human life. It 4 may not be acceptable to allow such a threat to occur at the arbitrary limit of the "100 year event"? When the Corps evaluates improvements that could threaten human life the higher standard of "Standard Project Flood" is used. The "Standard Project Flood" is the maximum credible event, and this is the appropriate flood event to consider in this case. Furthermore it is not acceptable to subject surrounding properties to an increased flood threat in any event, including an event greater than the arbitrary 100 year event. The 4 project must be designed to prevent obstructing drainage of upstream properties in the event of a breach of the Santa Ana River during the maximum credible event, which is usually considered to be the "Standard Project Flood". 3. Flooding of Pacific Coast Highway. There is a section of Pacific 4 Coast Highway in the vicinity of the proposed tidal inlet which is low-lying and often floods during storms. As a result, the highway is shut down to traffic - sometimes for days at a time. This has a direct detrimental effect upon the capacity of the arterial highway system in the study area. Until this problem is mitigated, the traffic capacity of Pacific Coast Highway may be considered unreliable. We would, therefore, consider this 4 mitigation measure to be the responsibility of the developer, since even more traffic will be generated on Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the proposed development. 4. Inundation and Flooding During Construction Period. Page 4.3-15 of the document considers that a major storm might occur during the portion of the 4 construction period when the levees of the EGGW channels have been removed but prior to the construction of the tidal inlet. The DEIR concludes that the runoff could overflow the wetlands, flood Pacific Coast Highway, damage berms and flood the residential development in the Lowlands. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 purports to address this impact by phasing the proposed construction so that this potentially dangerous period will be limited to 4 Piward FMW Dealt Dated Ffbrwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 119 loads or they cannot be expected to perform adequately under the conditions for which it will be called upon. What special conditions/training/precautions will be included in this project to ensure their reliable operation? 6. Flooding of Residential Neighborhoods Due to Rerouting of Bolsa Chica Pump Station. Page 4.3-15, lines 1-11 (Impact 4.3-1) notes that the re-routing of the existing pump station could result in an ineffective, discontinuous path for water discharge. This re-routing is part of the proposed grading and drainage plan described at page 4.3-14 through 15. That plan indicates that, in addition to the existing pump station, a two new stations, at "opposing ends" of the residential development area, would operate in conjunction with the re-routed existing station. Who would construct, operate and maintain the northwesterly and southeasterly pump stations? The impacts on the Bolsa Chica pump station as a result of rerouting the discharge are not discussed. This is important because the existing pump performance may be affected, causing its tributary properties to flood • during a storm. The mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.3-1) which is supposed to make the impact of potential flooding insignificant does nothing more than require a grading plan providing for a route of discharge without disruption. In order for that to be acceptable as a mitigation measure, further information regarding the parameters and criteria for such a design must be presented in the DEIR. Otherwise, the public will not know the flooding dangers associated with the development or how this future mitigation would propose to eliminate those dangers. 7. New Well for Edwards Thumb Area. Page 4.3-16, lines 4-11 , indicate that seasonal pumping of groundwater will be required to maintain the seasonal pond water at Edwards Thumb. The DEIR concludes that there would be no significant impact from the well pumping but no support is offered for this statement. Subsidence is not expected but can't be confirmed until designs are completed. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 would require further study of this matter in the future, including the installation of monitoring wells, drains, etc. It may be too late to alter the plans which Koll has for the • property if construction commences on the Mesa while this investigation is ongoing. More study is needed now, before the project proceeds any further. The results of that study should be explained in the DEIR. 8. Incomplete Analysis of Heavy Metal Contamination. Contrary to the implication in the DEIR, heavy metal contaminants are not confined to water areas P►op"ed RtW Ofalt Oabd FOMMY 14, 1994 • i Orange County Environmental Management Agency i February 17, 1994 Page 119 loads or they cannot be expected to perform adequately under the conditions for which it will be called upon. What special conditions/training/precautions will be included in this project to ensure their reliable operation? 6. Flooding of Residential Neighborhoods Due to Rerouting of Bolsa Chica Pump Station. Page 4.3-15, lines 1-I I (Impact 4.3-1) notes that the re-routing of the existing pump station could result in an ineffective, discontinuous path for water discharge. This re-routing is part of the proposed grading and drainage plan described at page 4.3-14 through 15. That plan indicates that, in addition to the existing pump station, two new stations, at "opposing ends" of the residential development area, would operate in conjunction with the re-routed existing station. Who would construct, operate and maintain the northwesterly and southeasterly pump stations? The impacts on the Bolsa Chica pump station as a result of rerouting the discharge are not discussed. This is important because the existing pump performance may be affected, causing its tributary properties to flood during a storm. The mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 4.3-1) which is supposed to make the impact of potential flooding insignificant does nothing more than require a grading plan providing for a route of discharge without disruption. In order for that to be acceptable as a mitigation measure, further information regarding the parameters and criteria for such a design must be presented in the DEIR. Otherwise, the public will not know the flooding dangers associated with the development or how this future mitigation would propose to eliminate those dangers. 7. New Well for Edwards Thumb Area. Page 4.3-16, lines 4-11 indicate that seasonal pumping of groundwater will be required to maintain the seasonal pond water at Edwards Thumb. The DEIR concludes that there would be no significant impact from the well pumping but no support is offered for this statement. Subsidence is not expected but can't be confirmed until designs are completed. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5 would require further study of this matter in the future, including the installation of monitoring wells, drains, etc. It may be too late to alter the plans which Koll has for the property if construction commences on the Mesa while this investigation is ongoing. More study is needed now, before the project proceeds any further. The results of that study should be explained in the DEIR. 8. Incomplete Analysis of Heavy Metal Contamination. Contrary to the implication in the DEIR, heavy metal contaminants are not confined to water areas Proposed Rnd DrsR Dated February 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 121 • specifically identifies which part of the of the eastern corner of the project site is Edwards Thumb and where the border of this area is located? C. Page 4.3-11. line 30: Where will the 800,000 cubic yards of • fill come from? According to page 4.3-16, line 18, the project will only provide 600,000 cubic yards of fill. From what location will the additional fill be imported? What will be the impacts at the source? What are the impacts of fill transport, such as air quality, traffic, etc.? • d. Page 4.3-11, line 32: When are the mainstem projects scheduled for completion? How might delays to those projects affect phasing at Bolsa Chica, including implementation of the WRP? How would any such delays affect the project's financial feasibility? e. Page 4.3-15, line 34: Where will monitoring wells be placed? What impacts will well emplacement have? Are there alternative locations for the emplacement of the wells which would have a greater or lesser impact? f. Page 4.3-18, line 36: Please provide supporting data to justify • the conclusion that the impacts to runoff and from the anticipated increased volume and velocity of the runoff, reduced groundwater recharge and sea water intrusion are insignificant in light of their potentially significant adverse impact on the biologically sensitive project site. • g. Page 4.3-8. line 3: Discussion indicates that shoaling will increase or decrease. What is estimate at this time? What is existing shoal pattern and composition of material? h. Paee 4.3-10. line 47: What is the volume of estimated sediment load increase? • i. Page 4.3-12, line 47: Justify the statement that 3 feet of dike freeboard is sufficient for stated 100-year scenario. Are flood flows computed for high tide backwater effects? The DEIR should present this information so that the adequacy of the design to withstand both the 100 year flood event and the standard project flood is • PMPaaed Rhd Draft Dated Febmwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 121 specifically identifies which part of the of the eastern corner of the project site is Edwards Thumb and where the border of this area is located? C. Page 4.3-11. line 30: Where will the 800,000 cubic yards of fill come from? According to page 4.3-16, line 18, the project will only provide 600,000 cubic yards of fill. From what location will the additional fill be imported? What will be the impacts at the source? What are the impacts of fill transport, such as air quality, traffic, etc.? d. Page 4.3-11, line 32: When are the mainstem projects scheduled for completion? How might delays to those projects affect phasing at Bolsa Chica, including implementation of the WRP? How would any such delays affect the project's financial feasibility? e. Page 4.3-15, line 34: Where will monitoring wells be placed? What impacts will well emplacement have? Are there alternative locations for the emplacement of the wells which would have a greater or lesser impact? f. Page 4.3-18, line 36: Please provide supporting data to justify the conclusion that the impacts to runoff and from the anticipated increased volume and velocity of the runoff, reduced groundwater recharge and sea water intrusion are insignificant in light of their potentially significant adverse impact on the biologically sensitive project site. g. Page 4.3-8. line 3: Discussion indicates that shoaling will increase or decrease. What is estimate at this time? What is existing shoal pattern and composition of material? h. Page 4.3-10. line 47: What is the volume of estimated sediment load increase? i. Page 4.3-12, line 47: Justify the statement that 3 feet of dike freeboard is sufficient for stated 100-year scenario. Are flood flows computed for high tide backwater effects? The DEIR should present this information so that the adequacy of the design to withstand both the 100 year flood event and the standard project flood is PmPowd F/nd Drat and F+bwry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 123 • Although further elaboration and/or presentation of previous studies might fully justify the conclusions, experience in coastal projects indicates that this is not anything approaching a certainty. More discussion on risks, uncertainties, and safety factors is warranted. For example, what happens if the system or adjacent areas are impacted different from that expected? Is the system design too sensitive and limited to a narrow range of operating criteria or is it relatively forgiving and accommodating over a wider range of sediment loadings, tidal flows, wave climate variation, etc.? None of this information is provided in the DEIR and all of it is required for an understanding of the potential impacts from the project. • 3. Potential for Invasion of Perched Saline Water Beyond Impermeable Zone of Sediments. Page 4.4-4 notes that the Bolsa aquifer, an important regional aquifer, underlies the project site. Line 9 notes that the fresh water aquifer is generally protected from infiltration of the perched saline water table at Bolsa Chica by an impermeable zone of sediments. At what depth is the "impermeable zone of sediments?" This may be important from a groundwater protection standpoint. The evaluation cannot be made from the information presented. Past studies by the California Department of Water Resources, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and the OCWD should be used to study this "concept" and prove that it is true. The report does not reference any authority by which its statements can be documented. What if there does not exist an "impermeable zone of sediments?" The report does not answer this question and a full understanding of the potential for impact (and the substantive requirements of CEQA) requires that it must. In the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan (February, 1989, p. 23), it is stated: "Although the Orange County ground-water basin is hydraulic continuity with the ocean along the coastline, the Newport-Inglewood fault is located adjacent to the • coastline and effectively seals the deeper aquifers from seawater intrusion. Nevertheless, the basin is vulnerable in four coastal geologic gaps (Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset and Alamitos) created by the ancestral Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. These gaps contain a recent alluvial aquifer of 100 to 300 feet in depth which is [in] hydraulic continuity with the ocean. • Prvp FPW Draft Dated F*&ry 14,1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 123 Although further elaboration and/or presentation of previous studies might fully justify the conclusions, experience in coastal projects indicates that this is not anything approaching a certainty. More discussion on risks, uncertainties, and safety factors is warranted. For example, what happens if the system or adjacent areas are impacted different from that expected? Is the system design too sensitive and limited to a narrow range of operating criteria or is it relatively forgiving and accommodating over a wider range of sediment loadings, tidal flows, wave climate variation, etc.? None of this information is provided in the DEIR and all of it is required for an understanding of the potential impacts from the project. 1 3. Potential for Invasion of Perched Saline Water Beyond Impermeable Zone of Sediments. Page 4.4-4 notes that the Bolsa aquifer, an important regional aquifer, underlies the project site. Line 9 notes that the fresh water aquifer is generally protected from infiltration of the perched saline water table at Bolsa Chica by an impermeable zone of sediments. At what depth is the "impermeable zone of sediments?" This may be important from a groundwater protection standpoint. The evaluation cannot be made from the information presented. Past studies by the California Department of Water Resources, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and the OCWD should be used to study this "concept" and prove that it is true. The report does not reference any authority by which its statements can be documented. What if there does not exist an 1 "impermeable zone of sediments?" The report does not answer this question and a full understanding of the potential for impact (and the substantive requirements of CEQA) requires that it must. In the Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan (February, 1989, p. 23), it is stated: "Although the Orange County ground-water basin is hydraulic continuity with the ocean along the coastline, the Newport-Inglewood fault is located adjacent to the coastline and effectively seals the deeper aquifers from seawater intrusion. 1 Nevertheless, the basin is vulnerable in four coastal geologic gaps (Talbert, Bolsa, Sunset and Alamitos) created by the ancestral Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. These gaps contain a recent alluvial aquifer of 100 to 300 feet in depth which is [in] hydraulic continuity with the ocean. 1 Hopoald FmW Diet Dated FaMmy 14, 1934 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 125 • concedes that pollutant loads would be a significant impact on the wetlands and Huntington Harbor but concludes that the EPA's program to reduce non-point discharges would result in a reduction of pollutant load. How was this conclusion (and the consequential and unsupported conclusion that the project as mitigated would not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment) reached? Were the increased volumes of pollutants compared with the anticipated reduction in the concentration of pollutants which the DEIR seems to assume? The DEIR also relies on the availability of other methodologies to reduce pollutant loads in storm channels. What methodologies are available for decreasing contamination from urban runoff? The DEIR must include specific technical or scientific support for this conclusion. What has been the experience in implementing such mitigation measures in practice? Have they proven successful or feasible? To what document is the parenthetical "(EPA 1993)" referring? Fuller explanation and description of this entire issue is required for the DEIR to be legally adequate. • 6. Insecticide Contamination. Page 4.4-14, lines 6-16 of the DEIR discuss the numerical figures presented in Table 4.4-10 regarding the concentration (ppb) of pesticides and PCBs in sediments of the Lowlands. What significance are the numerical values presented? Although detection limits are given in the table, the significance of exceeding those levels is not explained. What is an unacceptable concentration of these hazardous materials in this environmental setting? The DEIR should discuss this at length, giving particular attention to the potential harm to plant, animal and human populations as well as the impact on the restoration of the wetlands in general. Is the data sufficiently representative of areas to be impacted by development or the WRP? No information is given regarding the sampling method used nor other evidence of the relation of the samples to the proposed WRP and its likelihood of successful implementation. The DEIR offers no explanation for its conclusion that no mitigation measures are necessary even though many of the contaminants listed in the Table exceed the stated detection limit. The DEIR must provide the rationale for this determination. Does the County intend to state that the levels of all the compounds listed are at a level acceptable to all authorities having jurisdiction? • 7. Decrease in Circulation/Water Quality in Huntington Harbor. The document indicates at 4.4-29, In. 37-40, that diversion of the EGGW Channel from Outer Bolsa Bay to the new tidal bay would cause a slight decrease in the circulation of some portions of Huntington Harbor. That is a very broad statement. What portions of Huntington Harbor will experience reduced circulation? Huntington Harbor already has Awowd Find Dm t Dated Febvwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 125 concedes that pollutant loads would be a significant impact on the wetlands and Huntington Harbor but concludes that the EPA's program to reduce non-point discharges would result in a reduction of pollutant load. How was this conclusion (and the consequential and unsupported conclusion that the project as mitigated would not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment) reached? Were the increased volumes of pollutants compared with the anticipated reduction in the concentration of pollutants which the DEIR seems to assume? The DEIR also relies on the availability of other methodologies to reduce pollutant loads in storm channels. What methodologies are available for decreasing contamination from urban runoff? The DEIR must include specific technical or scientific support for this conclusion. What has been the experience in implementing such mitigation measures in practice? Have they proven successful or feasible? To what document is the parenthetical "(EPA 1993)" referring? Fuller explanation and description of this entire issue is required for the DEIR to be legally adequate. 6. Insecticide Contamination. Page 4.4-14, lines 6-16 of the DEIR discuss the numerical figures presented in Table 4.4-10 regarding the concentration (ppb) of pesticides and PCBs in sediments of the Lowlands. What significance are the numerical values presented? Although detection limits are given in the table, the significance of exceeding those levels is not explained. What is an unacceptable concentration of these hazardous materials in this environmental setting? The DEIR should discuss this at length, , giving particular attention to the potential harm to plant, animal and human populations as well as the impact on the restoration of the wetlands in general. Is the data sufficiently representative of areas to be impacted by development or the WRP? No information is given regarding the sampling method used nor other evidence of the relation of the samples to the proposed WRP and its likelihood of successful implementation. The DEIR offers no explanation for its conclusion that no mitigation measures are necessary even though many of the contaminants listed in the Table exceed the stated detection limit. The DEIR must provide the rationale for this determination. Does the County intend to state that the levels of all the compounds listed are at a level acceptable to all authorities having jurisdiction? 7. Decrease in Circulation/Water Quality in Huntington Harbor. The document indicates at 4.4-29, In. 37-40, that diversion of the EGGW Channel from Outer Bolsa Bay to the new tidal bay would cause a slight decrease in the circulation of some portions of Huntington Harbor. That is a very broad statement. What portions of Huntington Harbor will experience reduced circulation? Huntington Harbor already has PYvpord Find Draft D*W fi uvy 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 127 b. Page_4.4-4: A series of cross-sections diagramming the groundwater conditions beneath various locations of the site (especially at the proposed location of the tidal inlet and the full tidal areas) should be provided. Without the cross- section, it is not possible to assess the potential impact of the proposed project at the key areas of the site. C. Page 4.4-7. line 18: What is the significance of the statement, "Nutrient levels were high compared to typical open ocean values?" What are typical ocean values? What values are present in the project? • d. Page 4.4-8. lines 6-7: Why were oxygen levels lower in the tests performed in Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay in 1987? A conclusion should be noted as a result of this information. What is the anticipated effect of the project on those levels? e. Page 4,4-8. lines 10-11: References to pH levels should be more specific. What is the significance of the exceedances of the pH objective range? By how much were the metal concentrations exceeded at the South Bolsa Slough? f. Pa eg 4.4-8: The DEIR does not discuss the watershed contamination that is contributing to excessive water contamination. Especially the runoff near the heliport which is known to be a soil farming remediation area. g. Page 4.4-8. line 4-8: The DEIR must amplify the discussion and analysis of the frequency and probable cause(s) of low dissolved oxygen levels that have been measured to date. h. Page 4.4-30. lines 18-40: What experience demonstrates that the proposed oiVwater separators work effectively? The DEIR does not examine whether any data or documentation regarding past experience with this equipment/methodology is available. By providing that data, the DEIR would enable the public and decision-makers to analyze the probability that the proposed mitigation would resolve the impact. L Page 4.4-30. lines 46-47: The DEIR must define "as needed basis" for the dredging requirements. The current information is too vague for meaningful • assessment. Proposed Find Draft Dated Fsbrwry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 127 b. Page 4.4-4: A series of cross-sections diagramming the groundwater conditions beneath various locations of the site (especially at the proposed location of the tidal inlet and the full tidal areas) should be provided. Without the cross- section, it is not possible to assess the potential impact of the proposed project at the key ' areas of the site. C. Page 4.4-7. line 18: What is the significance of the statement, "Nutrient levels were high compared to typical open ocean values?" What are typical ocean values? What values are present in the project? d. Page 4.4-8. lines 6-7: Why were oxygen levels lower in the tests performed in Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay in 1987? A conclusion should be noted as a result of this information. What is the anticipated effect of the project on those levels? e. Page 4.4-8. lines 10-11: References to pH levels should be more specific. What is the significance of the exceedances of the pH objective range? By how much were the metal concentrations exceeded at the South Bolsa Slough? f. - Page 4 4- : The DEIR does not discuss the watershed contamination that is contributing to excessive water contamination. Especially the runoff near the heliport which is known to be a soil farming remediation area. g. Page 4.4-8. line 4-8: The DEIR must amplify the discussion and analysis of the frequency and probable cause(s) of low dissolved oxygen levels that have been measured to date. h. Page 4.4-30. lines 18-40: What experience demonstrates that the proposed oil/water separators work effectively? The DEIR does not examine whether any data or documentation regarding past experience with this equipment/methodology is available. By providing that data, the DEIR would enable the public and decision-makers to analyze the probability that the proposed mitigation would resolve the impact. i. Page 4.4-30, lines 46-47: The DEIR must define "as needed basis" for the dredging requirements. The current information is too vague for meaningful assessment. A"xwm d Find Dmft Ds d FiDnwry!I, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 129 • quantify the existing baseline within the wetlands and open coast segment. In general, Chapter 4.5 is weak in its summation of sediment transport, long-term and short-term shoreline changes and associated processes that are germane to the creation of a new tidal • inlet. For example, review of the project in light of the recently completed Corps' "Existing State of Orange County Coast" report is appropriate. 2. Potential Erosion of Huntington Cliffs. The DEIR does not provide sufficient support for its conclusion that the proposed project will not significantly increase • the ongoing erosion at the toe of Huntington Cliffs. The document does not adequately describe it or provide alternative methods for alleviating the erosion problems which will be caused by the tidal inletX" Further study is required. It appears that little or no studies have been done since they are not furnished. This appears to be pure conjecture. Actual littoral drift records from the Corps in addition to model studies should be appended to the document. • 3. Sediment Increase at Huntington Harbor. 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 additional dredging. This area already • requires periodic dredging. The mitigation plan should include frequency of dredging as well as funding methods. 4. Shoreline Impacts. Mitigation method proposes compensation for increased maintenance costs associated with the sand replenishment program, but no • funding method is identified. This should be resolved prior to certification of the DEIR. 951 This impact was expressly noted as significant by the CCC in its response to the EIR/EIS. Furthermore, • the CCC noted that if a revetment were used to protect bluffs from tidal erosion caused by the new tidal inlet, the inlet and revetment would be in conflict with PRC§ 30253 which prohibits activities which alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs(Impact 4-12.3 notes an inconsistency with Coastal Act§ 30251 regarding blockage of coastal viewsheds but no notice is taken of the violation of PRC§ 30253). The CCC concluded that further information and evaluation of the need for a downcoast revetment, an analysis of alternatives, and an analysis of the conflict with the Coastal Act must be included in the revised EIR/EIS and the same analysis should be included in the revised DEIR. Plppord Fled DtaR Dated F'sbnoaty 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 129 1 quantify the existing baseline within the wetlands and open coast segment. In general, Chapter 4.5 is weak in its summation of sediment transport, long-term and short-term shoreline changes and associated processes that are germane to the creation of a new tidal inlet. For example, review of the project in light of the recently completed Corps' "Existing State of Orange County Coast" report is appropriate. 2. Potential Erosion of Huntington Cliffs. The DEIR does not provide sufficient support for its conclusion that the proposed project will not significantly increase the ongoing erosion at the toe of Huntington Cliffs. The document does not adequately , describe it or provide alternative methods for alleviating the erosion problems which will be caused by the tidal inlet 9s1 Further study is required. It appears that little or no studies have been done since they are not furnished. This appears to be pure conjecture. Actual littoral drift records from the Corps in addition to model studies should be appended to the document. 3. Sediment Increase at Huntington Harbor. 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 additional dredging. This area already requires periodic dredging. The mitigation plan should include frequency of dredging as well as funding methods. 4. Shoreline Impacts. Mitigation method proposes compensation for increased maintenance costs associated with the sand replenishment program, but no funding method is identified. This should be resolved prior to certification of the DEIR. 951 This impact was expressly noted as significant by the CCC in its response to the EMUS. Furthermore, the CCC noted that if a revetment were used to protect bluffs from tidal erosion caused by the new tidal inlet, the inlet and revetment would be in conflict with PRC§ 30253 which prohibits activities which alter natural landforms along bluffs and clift(Impact 4-12.3 notes an inconsistency with Coastal Act§ 30251 regarding blockage of coastal viewsheds but no notice is taken of the violation of PRC§ 30253). The CCC concluded that further information and evaluation of the need for a downcoast revetment, an analysis of alternatives, and an analysis of the conflict with the Coastal Act must be included in the revised EIR/EIS and the same analysis should be included in the revised DEM. 1 Proposed FmN DrsR Doted F*&,umv 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 131 • g. Page 4.5-8, lines 41-44: Describe the model studies that were performed. An added appendix setting forth the model studies is required for the DEIR to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. • h. Page 4.5-8, line 48: Describe the extent of adverse impacts associated with 1-week inlet closure. i. Page 4.5-9, line 10: Summarize study in appendix. Did it consider cross-shore transport? • j. Page 4.5-9, Table 4.5-6: Explain 5 to 25 year closure criteria. k. Page 4.5-9, line 13: Is this configuration the same as No. (1) listed in Line 2? • 1. Page 4.5-13, Figure 4.5-4: Discuss significance of April 1982 profile in relation to proposed inlet. M. Page 4.5-14, lines 1-3: Explain how computed. n. Page 4.5-14, lines 4-18: What assumptions were used in GENESIS model? How do results compare to measured data? Define "modicum of sensitivity". What are confidence limits of analysis? o. Page 4.5-14, lines 28-31: How were erosion limits to PCH determined? What is chance that longer revetments may be needed? P. Page 4.5-14, lines 33-42: Discuss confidence limits of estimates. • q. Page 4.5-14, lines 44-46: What is velocity increase and channel deepening effect? r. Page 4.5-16, Figure 4.5-6: Data more meaningful if shown in plan view. Show plan enlargement at site. • Proposed Firm Draft Dated Fab Aary 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 131 1 g. Page 4.5-8, lines 41-44: Describe the model studies that were performed. An added appendix setting forth the model studies is required for the DEIR to fulfill the requirements of CEQA. h. Page 4.5-8, line 48: Describe the extent of adverse impacts associated with 1-week inlet closure. i. Page 4.5-9, line 10: Summarize study in appendix. Did it consider cross-shore transport? 1 j. Page 4.5-9, Table 4.5-6: Explain 5 to 25 year closure criteria. k. Page 4.5-9, line 13: Is this configuration the same as No. (1) listed in Line 2? 1. Page 4.5-13, Figure 4.5-4: Discuss significance of April 1982 profile in relation to proposed inlet. M. Page 4.5-14, lines 1-3: Explain how computed. n. Page 4.5-14, lines 4-18: What assumptions were used in GENESIS model? How do results compare to measured data? Define "modicum of sensitivity". What are confidence limits of analysis? o. Page 4.5-14, lines 28-31: How were erosion limits to PCH determined? What is chance that longer revetments may be needed? 1 P. Page 4.5-14, lines 33-42: Discuss confidence limits of estimates. q. Page 4.5-14, lines 44-46: What is velocity increase and channel deepening effect? r. Page 4.5-16, Figure 4.5-6: Data more meaningful if shown in plan view. Show plan enlargement at site. PAVO d A-W Draft D&W F*Mmy 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 133 • ac. Page 4.5-24, lines 39-42: Is this statement true? Will potential safety hazards pose significant impacts? ad. Page 4.15-9, line 31: Launch ramp is four lanes wide. ae. Page 4.15-30, line 22: Review public safety hazards associated with jetty access and inlet channel. Will lifeguards be on duty year-round? af. Page 9-1, lines 49-50: Does this statement apply if the tidal • inlet closes repeatedly or actually operates in a reduced flow mode due to unforeseen shoaling problems? Accordingly, would it be appropriate to include a fail-safe backup channel into Outer Bay which could be activated if the inlet does not perform as intended? ag. Page 8-6, line 8: It appears that the proposed revetment that is • intended to protect PCH is a mitigation requirement to offset local beach erosion caused by the inlet's construction. Are there other measures that may have been overlooked? ah. Page C-4, lines 41-42: What equipment would be required? Can it be mobilized on an immediate basis? This implies someone will be on 24-hour watch to monitor conditions. Is this the actual intent? How rapid a response is anticipated? ai. Page C-4, lines 44-48: Describe how the shallow depth inlet will be dredged. Will special equipment be required that is not available in Southern California? Define "minor hydraulic dredge operation". aj. See comments regarding Chapter 4.15 - Recreation. I. CHAPTER 4.6 - MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY. 1. Difficult to Evaluate Information. It is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of different areas throughout the wetlands (existing and proposed) for threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. Figure 4.7-3 only shows locations of unspecified observations for these species, and it is unclear whether these represent nesting individuals. • Proposed AW Dish Detd F*bnmry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 133 1 ac. Page 4.5-24, lines 39-42: Is this statement true? Will potential safety hazards pose significant impacts? ad. Page 4.15-9, line 31: Launch ramp is four lanes wide. 4 ae. Page 4.15-30, line 22: Review public safety hazards associated with jetty access and inlet channel. Will lifeguards be on duty year-round? af. Page 9-1, lines 49-50: Does this statement apply if the tidal inlet closes repeatedly or actually operates in a reduced flow mode due to unforeseen shoaling problems? Accordingly, would it be appropriate to include a fail-safe backup channel into Outer Bay which could be activated if the inlet does not perform as intended? ag. Page 8-6, line 8: It appears that the proposed revetment that is intended to protect PCH is a mitigation requirement to offset local beach erosion caused by the inlet's construction. Are there other measures that may have been overlooked? ah. Page C-4, lines 41-42: What equipment would be required? Can it be mobilized on an immediate basis? This implies someone will be on 24-hour watch to monitor conditions. Is this the actual intent? How rapid a response is anticipated? 1 ai. Page C-4, lines 44-48: Describe how the shallow depth inlet will be dredged. Will special equipment be required that is not available in Southern California? Define "minor hydraulic dredge operation". 1 aj. _$ee comments regarding Chapter 4.15 - Recreation. I. CHAPTER 4.6 - MARINE/AOUATIc BIOLOGY. 1. Difficult to Evaluate Information. It is difficult to evaluate the relative importance of different areas throughout the wetlands (existing and proposed) for threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species. Figure 4.7-3 only shows locations of unspecified observations for these species, and it is unclear whether these represent nesting individuals. P►cpamd fled Dt*t tbtW Fobr 14, 19" Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 135 r the harbor, review of the construction monitoring program should be performed before the impact is deemed insignificant. 4. Inlet Boom. The applicant's commitment to placing an inflatable boom in the tidal inlet to contain oil spills needs to be further studied for its viability. Given tidal velocities indicated, a boom would not work in any situation during a ten year flood flow. Consequently, an oil spill with a major storm would render a boom catch operation ineffective. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, we know that booms can be ineffective and clean up can be costly. Also, as noted above, if the boom were successful, there would be a negative impact on the beach area. Therefore, alternatives for containing oil spills during flood episodes must be developed. 5. Omission and Improper Analysis of Significant Impacts. A number of significant adverse impacts are not fully addressed or are not adequately • mitigated to a level of less than significant. Examples are discussed further below. These should have been identified, as required by CEQA, as unavoidable adverse impacts of the project; however, the DEIR identifies no such unavoidable adverse impacts. The impact analysis also includes conclusions regarding significance unsupported by sufficient data. 6. Oil Spills Remain a Significant Impact. The DEIR proposed project construction monitoring program is the only mitigation discussed for reducing spill impacts to an insignificant level. Because of the historical site uses and the general lack of documentation and design safety features, the risk of a spill is high. The corrosive soils make existing production lines more vulnerable to leakage. Unknown lines, sumps and well heads add significant risks to any type of operation conducted in this area. Monitoring is not an adequate mitigation measure and the risk remains significant. The DEIR needs to provide more detail. J. CHAPTER 4.7 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY. 1. Impact of Phasing of Construction on Habitats. Section 4.7 of the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the phasing of construction and the impacts which the developer's choice of phasing will have on habitats and endangered species. This is a critical shortcoming in a document which purports to examine the ecological and environmental effects of a program which will set the stage for all land use and Proposed Fine/Drslt Dated F"ruwy 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 135 1 the harbor, review of the construction monitoring program should be performed before the impact is deemed insignificant. 4. Inlet Boom. The applicant's commitment to placing an inflatable boom in the tidal inlet to contain oil spills needs to be further studied for its viability. Given tidal velocities indicated, a boom would not work in any situation during a ten year flood flow. Consequently, an oil spill with a major storm would render a boom catch operation ineffective. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, we know that booms can be ineffective and clean up can be costly. Also, as noted above, if the boom were successful, there would be a negative impact on the beach area. 1 Therefore, alternatives for containing oil spills during flood episodes must be developed. 5. Omission and Improper Analysis of Significant Impacts. A number of significant adverse impacts are not fully addressed or are not adequately mitigated to a level of less than significant. Examples are discussed further below. These 1 should have been identified, as required by CEQA, as unavoidable adverse impacts of the project; however, the DEIR identifies no such unavoidable adverse impacts. The impact analysis also includes conclusions regarding significance unsupported by sufficient data. 6. Oil Spills Remain a Significant Impact. The DEIR proposed project 1 construction monitoring program is the only mitigation discussed for reducing spill impacts to an insignificant level. Because of the historical site uses and the general lack of documentation and design safety features, the risk of a spill is high. The corrosive soils make existing production lines more vulnerable to leakage. Unknown lines, sumps and well heads add significant risks to any type of operation conducted in this area. Monitoring is not an adequate mitigation measure and the risk remains significant. The DEIR needs to provide more detail. J. CHAPTER 4.7 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY. 1. Impact of Phasing of Construction on Habitats. Section 4.7 of the DEIR fails to include any discussion of the phasing of construction and the impacts which the developer's choice of phasing will have on habitats and endangered species. This is a critical shortcoming in a document which purports to examine the ecological and environmental effects of a program which will set the stage for all land use and Rop"W Rnd Dn,It Drtod fib 14. 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 137 • The eucalyptus grove provides an important area for those species using the wetlands. Several raptors hunt in the wetlands such as osprey, peregrine falcon, barn owl, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk and white tailed kite but return to the • eucalyptus grove to rest and consume their prey. Notwithstanding these findings of CDFG, the DEIR finds that the loss of the eucalyptus grove would not constitute a significant impact on the environment, focusing on the non- native status of the trees and their declining value as vegetation (page 4.7-8 lines 41-49). • The DEIR notes the decline in acreage and foliage (page 4.7-20) and notes the loss of habitat (page 4.7-271n. 8-22) but concludes that the loss of habitat is not significant because the red-tailed hawk is not endangered, the sharp-shinned hawk and the Cooper's hawk are-"uncommon visitors" and "are not resident on the site" (page 4.7-53, In.9-12). The discussion of the impact of the loss of the eucalyptus grove in the DEIR is not • sufficient to address the conflict with the 1982 CDFG report. Further, the declining nature of the eucalyptus grove does not justify its total eradication; rather, its conservation and enhancement is required to preserve the ecosystem at Bolsa Chica. b. Warner Avenue Pond. The other Mesa habitat area which was • singled out for "special recognition" in the 1982 CDFG report is the Warner Avenue Pond, which was expressly noted as not degraded for purposes of the Coastal Act. The 1982 report noted that both the endangered brown pelican and the least tern occasionally use this particular area of the wetlands. The DEIR proposes to fill these wetlands and replace them with a new pond located across the site; yet, no significant impact is identified for this • disruption to a sensitive habitat area. The DEIR never sets forth in one place the location of the ESHAs which will be removed by the project, the species which will be affected and the mitigation offered for that effect. Such information would best be presented in a table which would be far more understandable to the public than the discussion presently in the DEIR. • 3. Short Term and Permanent Impacts of Grading and Dredging Activities. There is no discussion or quantification of impacts disclosed for the grading limits. The restoration program is represented in the numbers reflected in Table 4.7-5 and • PrnlDord FbW Drat Demd FMrwry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 138 1 provides a net loss or net gain in specific habitat types. However, there is no analysis provided that identifies the short-term or temporary losses associated with the grading and dredging activities to assist in creating the restoration program. This is an important consideration for a project of this extended duration and should be addressed in the DEIR, 1 otherwise a reasonable assessment of impacts is not possible. Also, if there is excess dredge spoil, where is it disposed of and what are the biological impacts? 4. Impact from Loss of Grassland as Foraging Habitat. Does the loss of 318 acres of non-native grassland translate into the extirpation of locally important habitat? The document cites upland preservation in the Irvine Coast (12 miles away) as a 1 contingency to this type of habitat remaining. If the Irvine Coast is the nearest substantial block of contiguous habitat, then the 318-acre loss at Bolsa must be the last substantive block of upland habitat in the vicinity. This finding may affect the determination of significance. 1 5. Mandatory Finding of Significant Impact is Required. The conclusion of a mandatory finding of significance per CEQA would also arise in this case, as the project would "threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community". Impacts on the wintering red-tail hawk population could also be construed as "substantially reducing habitat of a fish and wildlife species" on a local basis, another "mandatory finding of significance" 1 per CEQA; however, the definition of impacts provided in the DEIR only considers regional and statewide populations and does not consider impacts on local populations. This is a violation of CEQA. 6. Increased Predation on Birds. It is acknowledged at Page 4.7-49, 1 line 4-6 that the development may result in increased predation on ground-nesting birds by ravens. Residential development typically also encourages the expansion of existing populations of crows, as these developments provide additional nesting and roosting habitat. Crows have been a major problem during the past few years at least tern nesting sites in suburban areas, frequently resulting in significant losses in productivity. This potential 4 impact should be addressed, and measures to minimize this impact should be included in the mitigation measure that provides for coordination with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for predator management. In addition, if palm trees are allowed in the development, nesting populations of kestrels will increase in the area, resulting in potential Rgooard Find Dn,R Dated F"nry 14, 1994 II • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 139 • increases in predation on least terns and snowy plovers. This impact should also be addressed. • 7. Comments on Faunal Species List. The list provided in the DEIR is inaccurate. Bird families are frequently not in the taxonomic order that is currently used. Also, individuals within genera are also frequently split up. A few scientific names are either in error or are ones that are currently not accepted by the general scientific community. Several of the birds included on the avifaunal list are species that would be extremely rare or accidental at Bolsa Chica. A footnote, however, states that all sightings of single individuals, those regarded as "vagrants/accidentals", are excluded from the list. Only the two rare subspecies of savannah sparrow are included; not the common one. 8. Salvage of Disrupted Pickleweed. Page 3-24 assumes that disrupted areas of Pickleweed can be salvaged for restoration at other locations if wetland restoration • grading and other activities disturb Pickleweed habitat. The BCPC Plan requires (in accordance with PRC § 30232) that at least 200 acres of undisrupted high pickleweed saltmarsh must be maintained at all times, but this requirement is not described in this section of the DEIR. • 9. Detailed Analysis of Terrestrial Biology Impacts. a. Review of Section 4.7 reveals that the County ignored the comment of CDFG to the County's NOP (DEIR Technical Appendices Vol. I, pp. 146, 147, 150-151). In summary, CDFG called for a complete assessment of flora and fauna • within and adjacent to the project area, consistent with CDFG guidelines, to be included in the DEIR. b. Page 4.7-2 to 4.7-8: Descriptions of vegetation communities should include a brief discussion of the existing quality of the habitat (i.e., how much is • currently degraded and how much is high quality). C. Page 4.7-9: Was a species list requested from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their specific "sensitive species" issues were addressed? USFWS is not listed as a contact in Appendix A. • Roposrd Find Draft Dated F"b 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 140 1 d. Page 4.7-2: The title was confusing - Status of Sensitive Plant S=ies might be better title. e. Page 4.7-12, line 47: Two candidate species are noted. One 1 is the saltmarsh skipper, what is the other one? f. Figure 4.7-3: Does this figure show all recorded sightings, sightings from one study, several studies, several years, or a specific year? g. Page 4.7-21: The DEIR must define "Target Species." 1 Furthermore, the definition of endangered used by the DEIR is not consistent and must be clarified. m e page 4.7-21, In. 24-28 with page 4.7-39, 1n.9. h. Page 4.7-28, lines 34-35: dates should be 1987 and 1988, not 1977 and 1978. i. Page 4.7-30: What are "Other Sensitive Species?" j. Pages 4.7-38 and 4.7-39: No provision for the identification of significant local effects is presented. Why not? The EIR should be amended to address 1 this concern. k. Page 4.7-39, lines 5-7: "Substantial Affect/[SIC]." Why aren't local considerations part of the definition? The EIR should be amended to address these considerations. 1. Page 4.7-39: Why isn't habitat fragmentation and loss of locally important habitat a part of the definition of adverse and significant? M. Page 4.7-43: Why isn't the potential loss of vegetation due to 1 failure of the WRP considered a significant impact? This conclusion seems unusual since the Bolsa Chica wetlands is such a significant regional resource. The explanation provided at the bottom of page 4.7-43 and at the top of page 4-7.44 anticipates some failure and mentions contingencies. It should be made clear that the magnitude of plant losses is not anticipated to be significant due to the contingencies, remedial actions and alternative Pmpo"d Fine/Draft Defect Fe&ua y 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 141 • strategies, and then list some examples. Some limited temporary loss is clearly not significant but falling substantially short of performance criteria might become significant. Clarification on this point is warranted. n. Page 4.7-44, line 7: Construction monitoring provides for a botanist to monitor grading activities. An ornithologist should also be present during grading activities when they are with 500 feet of nesting sites. o. Page 4.7-44: Why is mitigation discussed on lines 3-33 in the • impact analysis? Wouldn't this be better shown in the mitigation section or is it viewed as part of the project description? p. Page 4.7-44 and 45: The DEIR should discuss at least candidate locations for the southern tarplant mitigation to demonstrate areas that are indeed suitable. Without this map or location discussion, support is lacking for a non-significant finding in light of the magnitude of impacts. q. Page 4.7-46: It appears there is substantial focus on the legal status if the saltmarsh shrew when considering the significance of impacts. Impact • significance should also consider the magnitude of impacts from a biological perspective. This comment also applies to conclusions regarding significance of impacts on the red-tailed hawk and black-shouldered kite. r. Page 4.7-46, lines 11-15: This paragraph states "the black- tailed jackrabbit will potentially suffer a significant loss of upland habitat from the proposed • development and wetlands restoration." The paragraph also cites Rabbit Island being retained and there would remain 40 square miles of habitat. The conclusion is that due to remaining open space the impact is adverse, not significant. The report also mentioned that there is another black-tailed jackrabbit population in Laguna Laurel. To clarify the significance of the impact, the analysis should state and support conclusions about whether • this black-tailed jackrabbit population is the last within the vicinity, disclose whether this is a locally important population, and state whether Rabbit Island will support enough rabbits to reduce their chances of being extirpated from the site. • Proposed Farl Draft Doted Fibwry 14, 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 142 S. Why is "Sensitive Mammal Species" listed at the top of page 4.7-47? t. Page 4.7-47: The Mesa is identified as an important raptor 1 foraging area, and the nearest location for a similar resource is 12 miles distant in the area of Crystal Cove State Park. Most biologists would conclude, given this information, that the loss of raptor foraging habitat at Bolsa Chica Mesa constitutes a locally significant impact. The loss of raptor foraging habitat would thus be an unavoidable adverse impact of the project, as may be the short-term loss of foraging habitat for the California least tern 1 (not possible, as described above, to evaluate this), and as would be the short-term loss of occupied habitat for the Belding's savannah sparrow. However, as stated above, no short- term impacts are addressed, and all identified impacts are stated to be mitigated to a level below significance. U. Page 4.7-47, line 32: "If cats are present in relatively low 1 numbers, the impacts on birds is expected to be adverse, but not significant". No data supporting this statement is provided, and the DEIR ignores existing evidence to the contrary. V. Page 4.7-48, line 8: It is stated that impacts on foraging 1 habitat for birds would be short-term because conditions should return to normal following completion of construction. The WRP is phased to occur over 20 years; thus, is this impact due to turbidity expected to potentially occur throughout the 20-year construction period? CEQA requires that short-term impacts must also be considered and analyzed to determine whether they are significant. An impact cannot be assumed to be insignificant merely because it is temporary. W. Page 4.7-48, line 9: Data supporting the conclusion that abundant foraging habitat is available in Huntington Harbor is not presented. Anecdotal information suggests that the Harbor generally provides marginal foraging opportunities for these species. X. Page 4.7-48, line 46: Per CEQA, the verb "encourage" as part of a mitigation measure may deem that measure inadequate in assisting with the other measures presented here to reduce impacts to insignificance. Prwo"d FmW Drdt D~fsbwry K 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 143 • y. Page 4.7-49, line 17: The loss of foraging habitat may be offset by increases in open bay habitat. This needs clarification, and a determination of significance for this impact is not provided. Z. Page 4.7-49, lines 27-29: Is it reasonable to conclude from this statement that if habitat enhancement is not conducted prior to removal of nest sites, and/or if construction activities do not avoid the nesting season, that the loss of seasonal pond habitat would be significant? • aa. Page 4.7-49, line 36: Are long-term losses to beach habitat east of the proposed jetty due to a reduction in expected sand replenishment? ab. Page 4.7-49, line 47: Entries to nest boxes should discourage use by kestrels in order to avoid an additional potential additional project impact on least • terns and snowy plovers. ac. Page 4.7-51: No figure or data is presented or referenced that shows or evaluates the importance of the least tern foraging areas that will be adversely affected during construction of the WRP. Thus, a reviewing biologist (much less a member • of the public) cannot evaluate whether or not this temporary loss would be a significant impact. Also, how will monitoring be used to reduce impacts to less than significant? ad. Page 4.7-53, line 1: Regarding the Belding's savannah sparrow, the DEIR discusses the preservation of 200 acres of pickleweed will be maintained • throughout completion of the WRP and that this "potentially [emphasis added] reduces this significant impact to an adverse level rather than significant". This should be clarified. Also, how much of this 200 acres of pickleweed is suitable habitat? Comparison of Figures 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 indicates that there are areas of pickleweed just east of the northern portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa where no Belding's savannah sparrows are reported. Where • are the 200-acre areas that will remain available and are they or will they be in a condition to support sparrows? Also, inclusion of impact maps showing the RPA locations discussed in this section would allow the reader to independently evaluate the impacts. Without that information, the DEIR fails to inform the public adequately as required by CEQA. • Poopomd FbW Dwh Dore F* wy 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 144 ae. Page 4.7-52, lines 20-22: The significance of the loss of known roosting sites for the peregrine falcon is not addressed. af. Page 4.7-53, line 24: Loss of foraging habitat for the loggerhead shrike may increase the potential for shrike predation on least terns and snowy plovers. ag. Page 4.7-54, line 9: The loss of occupied habitat for the burrowing owl should be considered on a regional basis to be significant, due to the status of its existing population in Orange County and coastal Southern California. i ah. Page 4.7-54, lines 41-44: The discussion acknowledges saltmarsh contributions to the ecosystem but the discussion is very brief considering this is such a major restoration program. It would seem that a project such as this would add measurably to the benefit of a wide variety of wildlife. For example, projects such as this, i coupled with the plans for Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito wetlands and Tijuana Estuary should help to continue to provide some form of a "safety net" for waterfowl and shorebirds. However, the text discusses the cumulative loss of upland habitat only. ai. Page 4.7-58: The Wetland Restoration Plan should be summarized in the mitigation section - particularly the construction monitoring and maintenance, the 5-year post-construction monitoring and long-term surveys. These items were discussed on page 4.744. Also, if the WRP is truly a part of the project why not discuss it in summary fashion within the project description? This comment is applicable to all PDFs. aj. Page 4.7-58 and 4.7-59: "Significant Effects and Related Mitigation". It is unclear why this is presented in a separate section, as impacts previously presented are reiterated here, with proposed mitigation for each. The mitigation measures should have been presented following each impact where initially addressed on pages 54-56. ak. Page 4.7-59, line 16: We recommend the impact be worded as follows: "The loss of raptor foraging habitat in the uplands, in addition to potential increases in nesting kestrels due to the planting of palm trees in residential areas, may cause an increase in raptor predation on nesting birds in the wetlands." I Ropoad Find Dieft Dated fobuuy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 145 • al. Page 4.7-59, line 20: The phrase "shall consult with" makes the mitigation measure inadequate per CEQA. In addition, as relocation programs for raptors are not always successful, this measure may not adequately mitigate the impact to less than significant, even if a plan acceptable to all of the affected public agencies were formulated. am. Page 4.7-59, line 27: We recommend that this measure include a provision to ensure that use of the new sites by the snowy plovers be documented prior to destruction of existing nesting sites. • 10. Wetlands Restoration Plan Is Not Sufficiently Detailed. The WRP requires significantly more detail before its implementation and feasibility can be assured. For example, additional detail is needed to create construction documents and specifications for implementation. Some of the major issues that need resolution include a thorough • staging plan for removal of pipelines, tanks and other associated infrastructure area associated with the petroleum activities. Also, there is no substantive discussion on the native/quality of the substrate which may contain oils and other chemical residue. There is no formal planting plan nor is there a maintenance and monitoring plan to help ensure performance criteria are satisfied. This plan is not sufficiently detailed to be able to obtain • needed permits to implement. It is also not sufficiently detailed to be able to identify project impacts, particularly those impacts which are associated with project phasing. 11. Detailed Comments on Wetlands Restoration Plan. The following are specific comments on the Wetlands Restoration Plan included as Appendix E to the • DEIR: a. Paragraph 1, page 1: What does "consolidate" mean? Will these areas be restored, revegetated with native vegetation or preserved? • b. Paragraph 4, page 2: What are the buffers to be established? Will existing native vegetation be used? C. Page 1-1, paragraph 1: What project is the mitigation for? Is this for the whole project or for a part of it? • Prc"md Find Dish D*W F*Arwry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 146 4 d. Page 1-7, paragraph 1: Explain what is meant by "extensive planning efforts". Does this refer to development planning or planning for wetland preservation? e. Figure 1.5: The symbol used for "Severely Degraded Wetland 4 (Restorable -below +5' MSL)" and "Environmentally Sensitive Area (Above +5' MSL)" are too similar•, therefore, it is difficult to determine which is which. Please provide a revised figure. f. Page 1-8, paragraph 3: The statement "...not severely 4 degraded, [the acre] wetlands system..." seems to be missing a number or "acre" should be omitted. g. Page 4-4, paragraph 1: What are habitats that could be enhanced/expanded? 1 h. Page 4-4, paragraph 3: What are the sources for knowing that these endangered birds are present at Bolsa Chica? Also, by whom and when was the least tern sighted at Bolsa Chica? 1 i. Page 4-5, paragraph 1: How many acres are required to develop for the site to be considered "sufficient" to support an active clapper rail nest program? j. Page 4-7, paragraph 1: Efforts should also include ecological and physical characteristics required to support each species. k. Figure 15.1: Add location of "Edward's Thumb." Add location of tide dam, and new tidal inlet. Add location of EGGW Channel outfall. Add location of Outer Bolsa Bay. Add indicating arrow and text describing where it will be 1 plugged. 1. Page 5-5, paragraph 5: How will creation of three additional acres of full tidal wetlands be accomplished? 1 PYopo"d RPAW Dnit D&W Fibwry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 147 • M. Page 5-5, paragraph 6: How are tidal flows into Outer Bolsa Bay constricted currently? n. Page 5-6, paragraph 3: Define "target species." • o. Page 5-6, paragraph 3: Reference needed for cordgrass increase. p. Page 5-10, paragraph 1: Muted tidal areas are not isolated in • Figure 5-1. q. Page 5-10, paragraph 2: How will the oil production area be converted-to muted tidal? By excavation of all contaminated soil or bacteria treatment? This can be very costly (millions). • r. Page 5-10, paragraph 4: What will the IOU Guide buffer consist of? What plant species will be used? Will fences be used? S. Page 5-14, paragraph 5: The word "significant" can be • omitted since the sentence above states no loss at all. t. Page 5-18, paragraph 3: The footnote states that trees will require irrigation. Also, high salinities.may inhibit the survival and stunt the growth of many of these tree species. Therefore, soil testing should be conducted prior to planting • and recommendations by a soil consultant should be provided. U. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Typically it may take several years for riparian trees to become established and developed; however, oak trees can take decades. • V. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Planting more mature trees (assuming 5 or 15 gallon compared to 1 gallon) doesn't necessarily speed up the development of the canopy, thus often smaller containers stock, sycamore for example, catch up to the 15 gallon due to the more even root/ vegetative material ratio. • P►opomd Furl Daft DoDW Fo&-Lwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 148 1 W. Page 5-19, paragraph 3: Are they planning on transplanting the eucalyptus trees in another location? Why? Eucalyptus trees are non-native. They also grow rapidly from nursery stock. The cost to transplant large trees is costly and often results in a low survival rate. 1 X. Page 5-19, paragraph 6: In reference to the 100-foot wide buffer, Figure 5.5 denotes a bicycle trail approximately 40 feet into the buffer area. Is this still considered buffer if human activity is allowed? There should be a definition of buffer types and what sort of activities are allowed, purpose, etc. 1 Y. Page 5-22, paragraph 1: Referencing the 800 foot long slope of Outer Bolsa Bay, (buffer will be landscaped fill slope), landscaping should be specified and referenced in a document stating what species can and can't be used, based on their invasive nature. 1 Z. Page 5-22, paragraph 4: The first sentence references an 18.0 acre buffer, then the second sentence says "this 100 acre buffer." What is correct? aa. Page 5-25, paragraph 4: Will permanent levees be continuous so they completely separate habitat types? This is not natural in that most habitats 1 gradually transition without "hard" breaks. A figure would be helpful. ab. Who is responsible for implementing the Plan? ac. How feasible is planting in previous oil use areas? 1 ad. Page 5-45, paragraph 9: What is a fillet and how much dredged material can it hold? What if they are filled up, where will the excess material be taken? 1 ae. Page 5-51, paragraph 4: Ecological requirements, including germination and growth requirements, of the southern tar plant should be investigated prior to seed collection and transplantation. 1 Proposed RAW Draft 00bd Fi6rwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 149 • af. Page 6-2, paragraph 3 and page 6-6, paragraph 5 (2b): The plan should also discuss the need for a hazardous materials assessment for soils surrounding oil facilities to be removed. ag. Page 7-4, paragraph 3 (7.3,2): Why are performance criteria only provided for creation and restoration of cordgrass but not the other habitats being revegetated/created/restored? ah. When will a planting plan be developed for the project? • ai. Remedial actions should be discussed if performance criteria are not met. If problems are foreseen in the first two years of monitoring, remediation may be recommended by the biological monitor. • aj. A detailed monitoring plan must be developed prior to implementation and prior to certification of the DEIR. In order for the public to be able to assess the thoroughness and compliance of the overall mitigation monitoring and reporting plan with the requirements of CEQA, the monitoring plan should be appended to the revised DEIR and the entire DEIR, including the monitoring plan, must be recirculated for • public comment. ak. A detailed maintenance plan should be developed prior to implementation. The same comments as in 1 aj. apply here with equal force. • al. WRP. Page 5-11. second paragraph: Where is the Springdale pump station? Who will own, operate and maintain it? A water well is mentioned here and nowhere else. The impacts of this well must be discussed as it could be significant in impacts on seawater intrusion and/or water quality of the groundwater basin. • am. WRP. Page 5-11. third paragraph: Last sentence - What are "Some water control and drainage structures?" What are their impacts? Who adds them, and what is their cost? • Pmpo«d FmW Dm1P D&W F*&%wy 14, 19" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 150 1 an. WRP. Page 5-28. first paragraph. second sentence: "Sufficient freeboard" needs to be defined. Flooding can occur without adequate freeboard. Sufficient freeboard depends on the design flow and structure shape. ao. WRP. Page 5-43, Section 5.6.1. No. 5: A more detailed description is needed to describe the standby pump and alternative power source. Who will own, operate and maintain this facility? How much will it cost and who will pay to construct and operate it? 1 K. CHAPTER 4.8- TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. 1. Proposition 111 and Congestion Management Plans. In June 1990, Proposition 111 was approved by the voters of California. One requirement of Proposition 111 was the development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) by the designated 1 Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for each county. In the case of Orange County, the designated CMA is the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). OCTA has established a CMP for Orange County. The goals of Orange County's CMP are "to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and transportation improvement decisions" (Congestion Management Program Preparation 1 Manual, OCTA, 1994). Included in the CMP Preparation Manual are requirements relative to what information needs to be included in any Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that is prepared. The City also has established Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines (City of Huntington Beach, July 1993). One of the stated objectives in these Guidelines is "to provide a means to identify specific short term circulation, operational and access 1 needs" (Ibid, p.4). Pursuant to those requirements, the TIA and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) must discuss anticipated traffic impacts not only for the Year 2010, but also for Opening Day and at each phase of development. The DEIR states that project construction will begin in 1995, yet no analyses were conducted for any year other than 2010. One cannot assume that no impacts will occur until 2010. Therefore, short term phase-related analyses must be conducted. 2. Construction Period Truck Traffic. It is not clear whether the 1,200 round truck trips per week (i.e., 2,400 total weekly truck trips) which will be required over nearly two years of the construction period in order to import the fill required 1 ftPosed Find Dia/t Dated fibm" 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 151 • per Figure 4.12-26 of the DEIR has been taken into account in assessing the construction traffic. ' 3. Requirement for Cost Analysis as Part of Traffic Impact Analysis. Also pursuant to CMP requirements, a TIA must contain a cost analysis. 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 use decision on the CMP System". No cost data is presented in the TIA. Since the TIA is inadequate (i.e., incomplete), it cannot be used as the basis of the DEIR. • 4. Freeway Impacts. Pursuant to CMP requirements, there must be a discussion of impacts (if any) to the freeways in the area. This was not done in the TIA or DEIR. 5. Traffic Improvements as PDFs. The DEIR refers to required intersection and link improvements, shown by analysis to be necessary, as Project Design Features (PDFs) and not as Mitigation Measures. Although not clear from the discussion in the DEIR (and this ambiguity makes the DEIR inadequate under CEQA) a PDF, therefore, seems to be part of the Project Description, and therefore part of what is proposed by Koll as a part of its project. If so, Koll should be responsible for implementing and funding all PDFs, including all link and intersection improvements and that funding should be in place prior to the commencement of construction. 6. ATIP Implementation. The DEIR refers to the future r implementation of the ATIP as a PDF. The DEIR must discuss the prospects or likelihood of funding the ATIP; the timing of funding the ATIP; and a commitment as to who will fund the ATIP. The future implementation of a currently unfunded plan is not an adequate mitigation measure. • 7. Omission of TSM/TDM Measures. Specific Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures for the proposed project have not been identified. Pursuant to City Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines (p. 21), specific measures must be identified to be proposed as mitigation measures. • Proposed Rnd Dfa/1 Dabd FeMmy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 152 d 8. Map of other Developments. A map detailing "Other Developments" assumed to be in place in 2010 should be provided. 9. Omission of Signal Warrant Analysis. The DEIR indicates that additional City intersections will need to be signalized in the future. The Signal Warrant Analyses that serve as the basis for this conclusion have not been provided in the DEIR or the TIA. 10. Widening of PCH and Construction of Cross-Gap Connector. The developer does not assume appropriate responsibility for the widening of Pacific Coast Highway and/or the development of the Cross-Gap Connector, since the development contributes greatly to associated traffic generation. The developer must either widen sections of Pacific Coast Highway and develop a full cross-gap connector or fully fund alternative mitigation measures. There are sections of Pacific Coast Highway that cannot feasibly be widened. The portion of PCH in the Sunset Beach Area already operates at a �1 level of service of "F". Koll must fund and develop the solution to this deficiency if it uses this section of PCH in the traffic circulation plan. Further, the City will be unable to complete the widening of PCH between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard to the required six lanes, until 485 parking spaces are developed to replace on-street parking. The solution to that problem is unclear at this point. If the applicant expects to make use • of Pacific Coast Highway for increased traffic volumes, he should provide this parking in a manner acceptable to the City and the Coastal Commission. 11. Financial Responsibility for Widening of PCH. Page 4.8-34 of the DEIR assumes that the developer has no responsibility to widen Pacific Coast Highway as a • result of the project. The comments on page 4.8-36, lines 45 through 48 and page 4.8-37, lines 1 and 2, tend to compound this disparity. 12. Flooding of PCH. Page 4.2-1, In. 29-30 discusses "Bolsa Chica State Beach . . . where it narrows to a small strip which is often inundated by higher tides." This is adjacent to a section of Pacific Coast Highway which is also often inundated. This problem should be mitigated by the developer if Pacific Coast Highway is expected to be a reliable traffic conduit for the proposed project. • ftoosd Find Dtvtt D@W F"n ary 14, 1994 • • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 153 • 13. Emergency Services Impacts from Traffic a. Page 4.8-1, Line 11: 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 DEIR 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 Plan Element, and • the Fire Master Plan Element. b. Page 4.8-38, IMPACT 4.8.2 TRAFFIC ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY: The DEIR 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 currently 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. 14. Miscellaneous. • a. Page 4.8-20, bottom: Why is a better scenario used as the "Base Case?" b. Page 4.8-38, line 4: Where will this haul road be located? • What impacts will it have? Will it affect any habitat? How long will it be in place?-' C. Page 4.8-39, Impact 4.8-4: What if CMP objectives cannot be achieved and development must be stopped? How will implementation and long term maintenance of the WRP be affected? • 961 As noted in Part IILD the import of earth will likely take 22 months to complete even if one ignores the grading and compaction which would be undertaken after imported soils are brought onsite. A further discussion of the phasing of import, compaction and grading would enable the reader to understand the time required for hauling and compaction operations and the use of the haul road. Proposed Find Draft Dated FAY 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 154 1 15. Detailed Analysis of DEIR. (1) Page 1-27, Table 1.5-1, Section 4.8: "Because of the implementation of the ATIP, the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact in the long term." This statement assumes that the ATIP is fully funded and that all required intersection improvements are fully funded. This is not the case. The ATIP is very speculative in nature. If the ATIP is not fully funded, what actual mitigation measures will need to be in place to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance? (2) Page 4.8-1, Lines 21-22: The DEIR states that scheduling of project phasing and construction is not currently available. When will such a schedule be available? The City requires specific scheduling of construction, including the opening year, for this project. Even though the project is primarily located within the unincorporated area in the County of Orange, it is surrounded by the City, and the vast majority of the project generated traffic will be utilizing the existing Huntington Beach road network. Therefore, Huntington Beach requires the study to be revised with opening day analysis and subsequent phasing of the project. For a project of this magnitude and importance to Huntington Beach, it is not acceptable to state that the project is phased over an approximate 12 to 22 year period (page 4.8-34, Lines 20 and 21). (3) Page 4.8-1, Lines 31-32: The entire DEIR traffic impact analysis focuses on the Post 2010 conditions with numerous assumptions with regard to the roadway network. Huntington Beach requires an opening day traffic analysis per County CMP and City TIA guidelines. 1 (4) Page 4.8-1, Lines 31-34: The HOCTAM Model was utilized for all traffic analyses conducted for the TIA/DEIR. While this was the appropriate model several years ago, recent developments have resulted in the development of the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) Model, which more accurately presents traffic and infrastructure conditions anticipated to be present in the Huntington Beach Area for future analyses. Therefore, all traffic modelling should be redone utilizing SARA. The current City General Plan Update Circulation Element is utilizing SARA (please see attached letter dated November 1, 1993). It should be emphasized that SARA is an Orange County Model! M Proposed Fmd Dish Dated F*&uery 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 155 • (5) Page 4.8-2, Lines 35-36: Clarify "assumed capacities" used in volume to capacity calculations. Additionally, the segment of Pacific Coast Highway from Bolsa Avenue to the Orange County Line has not been included in the listing • of links where volumes currently exceed capacity. The section of Beach Boulevard from McFadden Street north has been improved to eight lanes, and does not experience volume in excess of capacity. 0 (6) Page 4.8-3, Figure 4.8-1: Several errors are present in this Figure. For example, the Ellis/Edwards intersection is an all-way stop, not a one-way • stop as shown. Seapoint/Garfield is an all-way stop, not a traffic signal as shown. Seapoint/Palm is an all-way stop, not an uncontrolled intersection as shown. Warner Avenue is six lanes from Graham Street to Bolsa Chica street, and from Bolsa Chica Street to Algonquin Street, not four lanes as shown. The signalized intersections of Seal Beach Boulevard with Forrestal Lane, Road A, Road C, St. Andrews Drive and Golden Rain are • not even included on the figure. These revisions should be made prior to remodelling for the revised DEIR. Additionally, the entire figure is unnecessarily complicated and misleading and could be substantially simplified, resulting in a more comprehensible exhibit for the lay reader. On the roadway segments shown in the figure, there are no intersections that are not all-way stops or signalized. The legend should be clarified and • the figure redone in the revised DEIR. (7) Page 4.8-5, Line 2: Magnolia Street from Adams Avenue to Indianapolis Avenue currently operates at LOS "A" during the a.m. and midday peak periods, and at LOS "B" during the a.m. peak hour. Volumes do not exceed capacity • on this link. (8) Page 4.8-5, Lines 16-19: The DEIR states that the ICU analysis is consistent with the requirements of GMP. The GMP analysis omits the 5- percent loss of intersection capacity during peak hour. The Huntington Beach Traffic a Impact Study Guidelines and the Orange County CMP require the use of 5-percent loss of intersection capacity for ICU Calculations. Since over 30 intersections are impacted by the project in Huntington Beach, the DEIR should revise the ICU calculations using the 5- percent loss of intersection capacity. • Plopord Finn Drslt Dared Fo&uwy f1, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 156 1 (9) The DEIR uses the CMP criteria for selection of study area (page 4.8-1, lines 38 and 39), whereas the ICU analysis is conducted per GMP requirements. The CMP analysis procedure for ICU calculations requires the use of 5- percent loss of intersection capacity during peak hour operations. Also, the DEIR states that the CMP designated roadways must be examined in light of traffic flow, capacity and planning objectives contained within the CMP (page 4.8-10, lines 30 and 31). The study ignores the above statement by conducting level of service analysis of CMP intersections e per GMP guidelines. Therefore, the entire analysis must be redone, as the existing analysis was conducted pursuant to a mixture of requirements chosen as most convenient by County staff to utilize, but not totally consistent with any requirements. 1 (10) Page 4.8-5, Line 29: Revise the results of the peak hour intersection analysis contained in Table 4.8-1 per Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines/CMP ICU Analysis Methodology requirements for reasons stated in (8) above. 1 (11) Page 4.8-10, Lines 30-31: "Designated roadways must be examined in light of traffic flow, capacity and planning objectives contained within the CMP." This statement reiterates the point (discussed above) that because CMP requirements were not adhered to, the entire TIA needs to be redone. 1 (12) Page 4.8-12, Lines 45-48: The DEIR states that the future transportation conditions without the project have been evaluated using the HOCTAM model. When a better modelling tool, the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) model, was available during the preparation of the traffic study, why wasn't the new model 1 used? The City has gone on record stating that they feel that the "SARA" model is much more detailed and accurate in forecasting the future traffic in the study area than the "HOCTAM" model used (See letter dated November 1, 1993 attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 41). Also, the validity of using the current general plans and the assumption of the roadway system links to full MPAH standards in the model are not acceptable, as the / full MPAH network is not fully funded. Currently, Huntington Beach is amending the general plan land use in the City, and expects the revised General Plan to be completed by April 1994. Such an assumption will lead to erroneous conclusions with respect to available future capacities on the roadway system. 1 Phopoaad Find Dinft Dual F.awy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 157 (13) Page 4.8-19, Line 2: The DEIR states that "traffic demands will require six lanes on Pacific Coast Highway". Does this refer to PCH north of Warner, or PCH throughout the study area? • (14) Page 4.8-19, Lines 4-35: The links listed are identified as projected to carry daily traffic volumes in excess of their LOS "E" capacities. Pursuant to City policy, roadway segments must achieve LOS "C". A listing should be prepared showing all segments projected to carry volumes in excess of LOS "C" capacities, as the vast majority of the roadway links listed are within the City. • (15) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: The twenty intersections listed are projected to experience "operations deficiencies." What LOS was utilized as the basis of this analysis? City guidelines utilize LOS "D" as the threshold for determining operational deficiencies at intersections. • (16) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: Based on our review of the model Post 2010 analyses (for all alternatives used), we feel that turning movement counts at some key intersections need to be verified or post processed. Post processing is the engineering adjustment of computer modelling data. For example, at the intersection of • Beach Boulevard (NIS) and Warner Avenue (E/W), for alternative 21, Year 2010 - with PCH upsizing, the model forecasts 7 and 21 as the North Bound Left (NBL) turning movements during a.m. and p.m. peak periods respectively, whereas the existing turning movement counts taken on 2-25-92 indicate that the existing volumes are 277 and 269 during a.m. and p.m. peak periods respectively. Similarly, at the intersection of Beach • Boulevard and Garfield Avenue for alternative 22 for the same scenario as above, the model forecasts large turning movement volumes during p.m. peak period, except the South Bound Right (SBR) turning movement is just 3 vehicles. The existing turning movement count indicates that the SBR is 146 vehicles during p.m. peak period. The question to be asked is, does this make sense? Why would the traffic volumes be reduced in the Year • 2010, knowing very well that Beach Boulevard is going to be a Smart Street and carry substantially more traffic in 2010 than it does now? Has the model been properly calibrated? Some inconsistencies in turning movement counts are expected during modelling, but it is necessary to take a careful look at the model results and compare to the existing field conditions. Irrespective of the changes in future land use and road network, • the above modelling deficiency is not acceptable. In light of these errors occurring Prw.sod FmW Draft Dated lvbuW 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 158 1 throughout the report with various alternatives used for analysis, the City suggests that the latest available modelling tool, SARA, be used for the required analysis, and that all analysis be done pursuant to Oty guidelines.K' (17) Page 4.8-19, Lines 38-40: As existing turning 1 movement counts and average daily traffic (ADT) data have not been provided for all intersections and links, it is not possible to compare or verify the model results. Please provide the above data with the revised DEIR. (18) Page 4.8-20, Line 6: There is no intersection of 1 Garfield Avenue at Garfield Avenue. It appears that the intersection in question is Magnolia Street and Garfield Avenue. Please verify. (19) Page 4.8-20, Lines 47-51: Due to inherent modelling errors with respect to turning movement counts at several intersections, the model results cannot be accepted as "Base Case" conditions. (20) Page 4.8-22, Lines 11-18: As previously discussed, no analysis of impacts to freeways was conducted. Pursuant to CMP requirements, all freeways are CMP roadways and must be analyzed for impacts (Orange County CMP 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, 1994). (21) Page 4.8-22, Lines 11-18: The DEIR "mixes and matches" criteria to be utilized in determining significance of impacts, sometimes utilizing CMP criteria and sometimes utilizing GMP criteria. This is only acceptable if the most 1 stringent criteria are utilized. The County has selected criteria which are not the most stringent. For example, the CMP assumes a 5% loss of intersection capacity during peak hours. This assumption was not utilized in the analysis. Similarly, City TIA Guidelines are not satisfied. The project study area has been established using the CMP criteria. Yet, the study does not follow the guidelines provided for preparation of the CMP traffic impact 1 analysis methodology. For a project of this magnitude and impact, the report provides only the capacity analysis of intersections and links. It does not provide the "impact costs and 971 As noted above in this letter, the use of the City guidelines is appropriate in this case since most of the traffic and circulation impacts from the project would occur within the City. 1 Propomd Fins/Drat D&W&Mmy 14, /994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 159 • mitigation" required due to the project, as the CMP requires. As mentioned earlier, even though the project primarily is within unincorporated County area, the majority of the traffic generated by the project uses the Huntington Beach roadway network. In light of • this, the Huntington Beach requires the roadway improvement costs for each phase of the project, including opening day. These costs could be substantial. For example, upgrades of existing signalized intersections can approach $75,000 while new signalization of existing intersections with only minor roadwork can approach $250,000. Street widening costs (12' wide, pavement only) can approach $180,000 per mile without additional right-of-way, • while adding one additional lane, including earthwork, drainage modifications and shoulders can cost as much as $1,000,000 per mile, exclusive of additional right-of-way. Right-of- way costs in Huntington Beach for commercial frontage average $35.00 per square foot for land only, and can approach $100 per square foot if severance and utility relocations are included. Without details of specific improvements required at each intersection and along each link, it is impossible to estimate costs of all required improvements. However, a • preliminary estimate by the City indicates that total required improvement costs in the City could well approach tens of millions of dollars.98' The study simply states that funding will be provided for all mitigation under ATIP. This assumption is not acceptable to Huntington Beach as the roadway system in the City will be heavily impacted by the project generated traffic. For example, the construction of the Gap Connector Road with different • alternatives is estimated to cost millions of dollars. It is essential that Huntington Beach know where and when the funds will be available for such major improvements in the study area. (22) Page 4.8-22, Lines 31-36: Please explain the • difference between "Applicant funding" and "ATIP Fees". If the Applicant will not commit to funding 100% of all required improvements, exactly how will the remainder of the required funds be obtained? (23) Page 4.8-22, Lines 44-45: "All improvements shall be • fully funded by the Applicant to which the project contributes significant traffic..." What is the definition of "significant"? 981 These costs do not include the additional costs of obtaining environmental clearance, costs of design and other costs which may be incurred in implementation. Further, the DEIR does not consider the outcome ifpublic • opposition in the areas affected impedes or precludes the proposed street and intersection improvements. Fwpoasd Find Dealt Detad FiNuary 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 160 1 (24) Page 4.8-22, Lines 48-50: "The commitments outlined in Table 4.8-2 together with their monitoring have been incorporated into the Proposed Project as a PDF by the Applicant." If the Applicant is stating that these improvements, i.e., alterations to public roadways and intersections in Huntington Beach and other cities, 1 are a part of the project, than the Applicant must commit to fully fund these improvements. Additionally, any Development Agreement between the Applicant and the County should be subject to prior approval of the City. (25) Page 4.8-25, Lines 4-5: Table 4.8-3 will require 1 revisions considering the need for verifying the model results. (26) Page 4.8-25, Lines 43-45: The DEIR states that the proposed project consists of 4,286 units, at ultimate build out. The Proposed Project should include 4,884 units and the appropriate number of generated trips. Please clarify whether modelling and analyses were conducted utilizing 4,286 units or 4,884 units. 1 (27) Page 4.8-28, Lines 1-5: As recommended earlier, the SARA model should be used to evaluate the future conditions in the study area. (28) ' Page 4.8-29, Lines 7-14: The project traffic 1 distribution forecasts that nearly 85% of the project traffic will be distributed within a four mile radius of the project site, with a very small percentage reaching the freeways surrounding the project. This estimate.seems to be very low, in light of the statement made in the report that work-related trips represent approximately 26% of the project average daily traffic (page 4.8-29, Lines 1 to 4). As the majority of the traffic will be using the 1 Huntington Beach roadway network, from the projected project distribution it is implied that nearly all work-related trips will end within Huntington Beach. Please identify the facilities in Huntington Beach that will provide this large number of future jobs. (29) Page 4.8-29, Lines 35-37: The DEIR states that the / improvements were then modeled to quantify that LOS was improved to acceptable levels. The CMP traffic impact methodology requires that impact costs be estimated. Please provide overall project impact costs and costs for City improvements for all recommended mitigations. Proposed Furl Dish Dshd Fibi wy 14, 19" • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 161 • (30) Page 4.8-29, Lines 37-39: "The traffic report in Appendix G provides additional detail on financing and implementation of the ATIP which will represent a formal agreement between the Applicant and the County of Orange." In fact, Appendix G provides very little detail on funding and implementation and contains no • cost estimates. Pursuant to CMP requirements, cost data must be provided. Additionally, any agreement regarding facilities in Huntington Beach must be an agreement between the AUlicant and the City, and must be a separate instrument apart from the DEIR. (31) Page 4.8-29, Lines 41-42: "Because the Proposed • Project will include ATIP as a PDF, the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse effect on those existing and potential deficient conditions in the long term." This statement assumes that full funding for all required improvements is available. This is not the case - no specific funding has been identified for any required capital improvements or for any ensuing operational and maintenance costs. With overall traffic improvements • potentially costing tens of millions of dollars, not including long term operational and maintenance costs, specific funding commitments must be identified. (32) Page 4.8-29, Lines 41-42: The statement that the proposed project, due to the implementation of ATIP as a PDF, will not have a significant • adverse impact on existing and future conditions is erroneous and misleading. Roadway and intersection PDF's are nothing but mitigation measures required by the project to achieve acceptable levels of service in the study area, and should be identified as such and included in the CEQA-required Mitigation Monitoring Program. • (33) Page 4.8-29, Lines 42-45: "In the short term...compliance with the County GMP has not yet been demonstrated. Such compliance must be ensured in order to ensure consistency with the County General Plan and, therefore, such compliance forms the basis for mitigation of these impacts." The DEIR cannot be considered adequate if it does not even discuss short term impacts and required • mitigation measures, including costs. Additionally, as most traffic impacts occur in Huntington Beach, there should be consistency, both long and short term, with City policies, procedures, and plans. This has not been discussed in the DEIR. (34) Page 4.8-34, Lines 17-19: "The transportation analysis • for this project...utilizes the existing MPAH network for a basis of analysis and evaluation Pmpomd Find Ordt Damd Fi mwy 14, 199t • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 162 1 of proposed project transportation impacts." This statement is misleading. The ultimate MPAH network, as it is currently planned, is utilized as the basis of all analyses. To assume the ultimate MPAH network is in place ignores the question of who provides the substantial funding required to complete the MPAH network as it is currently designed. 1 (35) Page 4.8-34, Lines 21-23: "Should such changes (e.g., Santa Ana River bridge crossings, and so forth) occur, a revised traffic analysis and appropriate mitigation measures would be required..." Because of this very point, it is necessary that a revised traffic impact analysis utilizing SARA be conducted to present decision makers with the currently available information. (36) Page 4.8-35, Lines 27-28: "...There remains a need to analyze impacts on the short term at each distinct phase of development." We completely agree that short term impacts need to be analyzed for the proposed project. They must be analyzed prior to making any decisions on the proposed project, to give decision makers the best currently available information. Therefore, they must be analyzed now in the DEIR. Without this analysis, there are too many unknowns for decision makers to make informed decisions. (37) Page 4.8-35, Lines 38-43: The traffic study states that 1 the project generates over 25,000 trip ends per day. The proposed Gross Cap Connector is one of the major access roads (if built) to the project area. The study forecasts only 3,000 to 4,000 of the project trips to use this road. This estimate seems to be low, as the Cross Gap Connector acts as the only access to many north-south streets intersecting this roadway. Please clarify. 1 (38) Page 4.8-36, Lines 17-19: There appears to be a line (or lines) of text missing here. The statement does not make sense. (39) Page 4.8-36, Lines 19-20: "...the effects are not so significant that mitigation cannot be properly developed under an effective ATIP program." Are the effects significant or not? What is the significance criteria utilized? To assume that a currently unfunded AT1P Program can mitigate these "not so significant" impacts, when no cost estimates of required improvements have been presented, is not logical. 1 Proposed Find Dolt Dated Fobrwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 163 • (40) Page 4.8-37, Lines 7-9: "Short term GMP and CMP objectives may not be achieved as a result of roadway improvements proposed by the ATIP, which have not been analyzed at various increments of proposed development." In fact, nothing was analyzed at any phase of development except 2010. Short term impacts must be identified and mitigation measures developed for all phases of development. If GMP and CMP objectives are not being met until project build-out, if at all, decision makers must have this information prior to acting on this project. It must be known whether or not intersections and links will operate at acceptable levels of service at all times during all phases of project construction, not just at Year 2010. (41) Page 4.8-37, Lines 25-26: "All PDFs described in this chapter shall be implemented as part of project development." If the Applicant is proposing to implement roadway and intersection improvements, estimated to cost as much as tens of millions of dollars, and to fund them, please indicate so. If the Applicant will not commit • to total funding, then the PDFs are not actually Project Design Features. All PDFs must be treated as mitigation measures and, as such, must be subject to a legally adequate mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA. (42) Page 4.8-37, Lines 30-32: "The OCEMA shall ensure • compliance...through the mitigation monitoring process." Nowhere are specifics of the mitigation monitoring process identified, as is required. CEQA specifically delineates what is required relative to mitigation monitoring programs. (43) Page 4.8-37, Lines 49-50: "...obtain County approval of a construction traffic routing plan/construction access plan." As all construction traffic will utilize City roadways, the City approve the plan. (44) Page 4.8-39, Lines 1-5: This discussion of easements and right-of-way only applies to property owned by the Applicant. What are the plans for • obtaining easements and right-of-way for the large number of intersections where additional land not owned by the Applicant is required? The PDFs identified require that significant additional right-of-way be obtained to enable construction of the improvements. At a cost of up to $35.00 per square foot (land value only, not including any severance costs) for right-of-way at key developed intersections, acquisition of all required additional • right-of-way will be a multi-million dollar cost. Estimated costs for right-of-way and Pr'O"aad Final Dmlt Dated Febnwy 14, 19W I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 164 construction should be prepared for all impacted intersections and roadway segments, as part of the DEIR review process, and should be subject to further review by the City. (45) Page 4.8-39, Lines 29-30: The standards for evaluation for intersections and roadway links in the City should be City criteria. (46) Page 4.8-39, Lines 42-43: What is the actual project impact on Pacific Coast Highway? Please include this in the revised DEIR, including a calculation of the "fair share" cost of improvements. I Specific Comments on TIA (Appendix G) (47) Page S-1: "The study area for the traffic impact analysis has been determined based on CMP criteria.." If the study area is based on CMP criteria, all CMP criteria should be utilized, including reducing intersection capacities by ' 5% during peak hours. This was not done. (48) Page S-20: "The project's fair share contribution to improvements, however, is proportional only to the future new traffic , which has previously been shown to be only 20% of total future traffic." While this may be true for 2010 conditions,' it may very well not be true for short term conditions. Per CMP requirements, short term conditions also must be analyzed, and short term costs must be estimated. The City requests that costs and funding sources be identified for each phase of development. (49) Page S-27: "The ATIP includes a variety of improvements throughout a broad geographical study area. Implementation is dependent on a number of factors, including the cooperation of public agencies within a broad area of benefit. It may not be possible, therefore, to implement all the roadway improvements identified in the ATIP. Where necessary for reasons other than the landowner's failure to provide funding, substitute improvements may be provided if they (1) are satisfactory to the 991 Even the projection for 2010 may be inadequate to the extent it does not consider the impact of the Mesa development of up to 4,286 homes or the potential for MPAH improvements (including the cross-gap connector to remain unconstructed). Proposed Find Dmft Dated febwy 14, 1994 I • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 165 • Director of EMA, (2) cost no more than the original improvements, and (3) do not unreasonably delay the landowner's proposed occupancy date. Substitute improvements may include alternative physical improvements or travel demand management (TDM)/transportation system management (TSM) measures." What is the "broad area of • benefit" referred to in this section? How can it be referred to as an "area of benefit" if adverse traffic impacts from the project are imposed upon current residents of Huntington Beach? What is the City's incentive to cooperate if there is no assurance that all project impacts will be fully mitigated at no cost to the City? This section implies that if the landowner provides his "fair share" of required funding for a specific intersection • improvement, but the local agency cannot provide their share of funding, that the Director of EMA could allow substitute improvements, e.g., allow residential development to occur without the implementation of appropriate PDFs (intersection improvements) and instead require the landowner to urge future residents to carpool during peak hours. This treatment renders an already legally inadequate traffic impact mitigation scheme even • less effective and less appropriate. (50) Page 143: "The program shall fully fund all improvements by the Applicant to which the project contributes significant traffic." What is the definition of significant traffic? • "The project shall provide traffic impact analysis and comply with all applicable CMP and GMP requirements prior to the time of Local Coastal Program and/or development agreement approval, unless the County.and the affected landowner mutually agree to operate according to later developed GMP, CMP or similar requirements." The project • should provide a complete and thorough traffic impact analysis now, prior to any action by the County on the project. This includes an analysis of short term traffic impacts and mitigation, including costs and funding sources for all improvements identified as needed in the short and long term. • (51) Page 148: "The County of Orange will be the Lead Agency with respect to running the Technical Advisory Committee..." Because project traffic impacts primarily affect the City, the City should be the Lead Agency for the Technical Advisory Committee. • Proposed ProW Daft Dated FeWwry fd, f994 • • I Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 166 • (52) Page 149: "...City of Huntington Beach...will be responsible for construction of roadway improvements included in their jurisdiction." Will the County/Applicant provide all required funding, including funding for City staff time, required for roadway improvements in the City? The DEIR must provide a cost estimate for each and every improvement required. L. CHAPTER 4.9 - AIR QUALITY. 1. Mitigation of Construction Period Air Quality Impacts. Page 4.9- 18, lines 11-40 states that all the elements of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 (requiring that "to the extent feasible" the contractor must control exhaust emissions in a manner consistent with the requirements of the SCAQMD) will be verified by the County during normal construction site inspections. In practice, this is rarely done because the typical inspector is neither educated nor qualified to make these inspections. Additionally, the inspector is rarely empowered nor inclined to cause these measures to be put into place should the 0 inspector find otherwise. These measures should be checked and inspected by a qualified entity acceptable to the SCAQMD and certified as being in place on a weekly basis by that entity. Unless this is practiced, the Mitigation Measure holds no merit and renders the DEIR inadequate in this regard. • 2. Presence of Sensitive Receptors. CEQA requires that the significance of an impact must be evaluated in light of its environmental setting. The air quality analysis does not evaluate the impacts in light of the sensitive environmental setting of the project or its proximity to environmentally sensitive habitat and residential populations. The DEIR's analysis is limited to basin wide impacts and a consideration of • consistency with regional planning documents only. Further analysis of the impacts in light of the particularly sensitive setting of the project is required. 3. Non-Attainment Area. The DEIR does note at page 4.9-17, lines 36-40 that the project would have a cumulative impact on air quality and the air basin's • ability to achieve attainment with applicable standards; however, the DEIR does not find this impact to be significant.100r The DEIR does not describe why the cumulative impact 100/ The fact that the South Coast Air Basin is designated as a non-attainment area is buried within the text of the DEIR and the consequences of that designation are nor discussed in the DEIR. • Proposed Fin/Drat Dated Febwry N, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 167 • on the South Coast Air Basin as a non-attainment area is insignificant nor does it adequately assess the cumulative impact of the project and other projects on the ability of the air basin to attain federal and State air quality standards. 0 4. Omitted Information on CO Concentrations. The air quality analysis omits CO levels at key intersections. A table which lists 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations for all intersections substantially affected by the project should be included in the recirculated DEIR. Further, although the text repeatedly refers to the air quality handbook and the sources for its emission factors, it must also reference its surface • transportation assumptions. 5. Construction Emissions. Construction emissions are not adequately documented, especially in light of the Air Quality analysis' treatment of the 1,200 round truck trips per week (i.e., 2,400 total weekly truck trips) which will be required over • nearly two years of the construction period in order to import the fill required per Figure 4.12-26 of the DEIR. Page 4.9-10, lines 37-38 states that "very few offsite hauls are anticipated during infrastructure development." How does this square with the 1,906,233 cubic yards of earth which will be imported to the site according to Figure 4.12-26? The recirculated DEIR must clarify the air impacts of the earth import operation. It will also • need to include more detail regarding the phasing of construction, the types of construction activity to be undertaken, the types of equipment to be used, etc. in order for the DEIR to give the reader adequate information regarding the potentially significant air quality impacts during construction. Further, in order to give the reader comfort regarding whether PM10 emissions are significant, the DEIR (and the project approval) should limit the total surface • area of earth which may be disturbed in a single day. Without such limitations, the proposed mitigation measures will not be sufficient to assure that no significant impact will occur due to increased levels of particulates and fugitive dust. 6. Significance of Site Remediation. The remediation of the site will • also have significant air quality impacts which are not adequately examined in the DEIR. The DEIR notes that ROG and NOZ impacts would be significant during construction and ROG, CO and NO2 impacts would be significant impacts of operation but does not consider • Proposd Find Dmft Doted Fobnwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 168 / other air emissions to be significant.MY This is not supported by the facts of the DEIR, especially in light of the scope of earth import and compaction activities which will be required. Further, the DEIR does not consider the potential hazard to human health from the remediation of the contaminated soils onsite. The site is adjacent to sensitive human, 1 plant and animal receptors and the site is significantly contaminated. There will be a massive earth movement operation which will launch a significant mass of particulate matter into the atmosphere. What assurance can be obtained regarding the potential for that particulate matter to contain hazardous materials or substances. The DEIR does not adequately analyze this potential hazard. , 7. Omission of Summary Table of Significant Intersections. It is typical for EIRs to provide at least a summary table of the 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 1 scenarios. The omission of such a table makes it very difficult for the reader to assess the conclusion that air quality (and traffic circulation) impacts are not significant. 8. Consistency with AQMP/General Plan Elements. The air quality section does not specifically mention which set of land use assumptions were used within 1 the existing AQMP, yet it mentions on Page 4.9-5 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" The question is, what is the current "reigning" General Plan land use element? Based upon review of the 1 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. Although it is apparent that the development of the applicant's proposed project is somewhat downsized from the 1986 land use plan - a consistency review should also consider whether the 1986 conditions previously set forth by the CCC are met in this plan. Also, since the previous land use plan was only conditionally 101/ 7here is no adequate explanation of why the DEIR omits consideration of NO and SO contamination. For example, usually all oxides of nitrogen and salter are analyzed(e.g.,both NO and NO)in the aggregate. why does 1 this DEIR take a different approach? PYOPO d FuW Drwft Dated FeMary 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 169 • certified, is it in fact an approved document and were the densities of development it allows included in the assumptions for the AQMP? The arterial circulation system of the Proposed Project is not consistent with the adopted County Transportation Element and MPAH • because Bolsa Chica Street will not connect with Garfield (page 4.1-39, line 13). The Proposed Project proposes additional bike routes through Bolsa Chica which are not currently reflected in the MPAH or County Wide Bikeways (page 4.1-39, line 17). The Proposed Project, therefore, requires an amendment to the County General Plan (Transportation Element) the traffic impact of which is anticipated to be mitigated through implementation of an ATIP and subsequent traffic analysis (page 4.1-39, line 20). It is • unclear from the analysis whether these changes in the traffic network will adversely affect air quality. 9. Miscellaneous. • a. Page 4.9-7. top: Site remediation would impact local air quality. An estimate of this impact should be prepared and included in the EIR. b. Page 4.9-9. Line 22-24: Only four selected model runs are presented. Further, they are presented without explanation and the format is such that no • person other than the preparer can decipher the data. The DEIR must include a table detailing the model result at all affected intersections, otherwise the public and the decision- makers cannot evaluate the significance of the impact. C. Page 4.9-13, line 33: Won't parking areas use asphalt too? How about asphalt roofing materials? d. Page 4.9-7. line 28: "Based on the simultaneous use of 41 pieces of heavy equipment" -- Please clarify on how 41 pieces of heavy equipment was arrived at. • e. Pa eg, 4.9-7, line 32: Clarify what the 70 trucks and 40 mile roundtrip was based on. f. Page 4.9-7. line 40: Clarify how the 400 workers traveling • 21.8 miles per day was derived. Propoad Find Draft Derod fsbuay 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 170 g. Page 4.9-9. line 5: Similar to previous comment, how was the 10.9 mile average one-way trip derived, versus the 3.59 miles for buses and trucks. h. Page 4.9-9. lines 36-46: The assumptions used for the 8-hour standard are discussed as well as the results. However, it is not specifically mentioned which intersection the results are for, presumably - Golden West Street and Edinger Avenue. It is the only intersection where the 8-hour standard was exceeded? i. Page 4.9-9. lines 44-50: The text suggests the air quality impact at Golden West Street and Edinger Avenue is not significant because the No Project Alternative actually generates an additional 47 vehicles during the PM peak period. Therefore, the text concludes that this CO hot spot is actually reduced by 0.1 ppm and would not be significant. On line 49 there is assumed a "minor redistribution of traffic," -- but it is unclear what this means. Also, the text does not explain why there are 47 more vehicles entering the intersection without the proposed project. It would be useful to clarify 1 in the air quality section why there are more vehicles entering this intersection under the No Project Condition. Page 7-51 indicates in lines 10 and 11 that Alternative H: No Project, proposes no housing. M. CHnrrER 4.10 - NOISE. 1 1. General Comment. This section would be more readable and understandable if some of the data provided in the technical appendices were pulled forward in summary fashion into the EIR. This would provide some explanation for the conclusions reached in the text. Also, there are a number of statements that require clarification and 1 statements that appear wrong or are simply worded in a confusing manner. The community infield noise measurements are inappropriate. 2. Lack of Construction Phasing Information Hampers Analysis. The construction phasing will determine the significance of the impacts on existing residents , of the area and on project residents occupying the earlier phases of development. However, the DEIR provides nothing more than a general outline of phasing which states that the development would commence in the Mesa, proceed to the MWD property and Proposed Find Dish Ds»d Fe&%wv 14. 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 171 • conclude in the Lowlands. This is not sufficient information to perform any meaningful analysis of construction noise (or air, traffic or other) impacts.1—' 3. No Data on Event-Level Noise Is Presented. The noise analysis ignores the peak noise levels which will be experienced by residents as measured by one- hour equalized noise measurements (L�), a better descriptor of the nuisance and discomfort which would be experienced due to construction activities during the day. Instead, the DEIR's acoustical analysis relies on the use of averaging measurements such as CNEL and Ld., both of which measure average noise experienced at a location, giving particular • weight to evening and night hours when construction activities do not occur. This understates the noise impact on residents. An example of the different results obtained from Lq versus Ld. analysis is provided by comparing the location of the 60dBA Leq contour for noise from compaction activities (estimated to occur at 1,410 feet from the source of the noise) with the 60 dBA L& contour (estimated to occur at 792 feet from the source). SeQ page 4.10-6, lines 35-44. Thus, by using the Ld. descriptor, the DEIR omits the daytime impact of noise levels in excess of 60 dBA on those noise receptors (e.g. the residents of the nearby homes and the wildlife and birds in the wetlands) which are located at a distance between 792 feet and 1,410 feet from the noise source. Depending on the phasing of the project and the location of the activity, L� measurements may reveal a • significant noise impact which is not analyzed in the DEIR. The DEIR simply does not provide sufficient analysis, data or other information to inform the reader of what the actual construction period noise impacts would be. When dealing with construction noise, which is conceded by the DEIR to be particularly intense and annoying to the human listener, it is vital for the analysis to include both the average noise levels (as in CNEL and L. analysis) and the more temporally-focused analysis provided by one-hour L,, measurements. 1021 This is but one of the many examples noted in this letter of the reasons why the purported program DEIR would not be a sufficient project EIR for the construction of the Mesa. Because construction impacts are not adequately analyzed in the DEIR, any development project in the LCP Area will require a further environmental impact report regarding the impacts of construction; however, the DEIR appears to contemplate that no further • environmental review would be required by the County. Propomd Find Dish Dstsd Fbnry 1<, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 172 • 4. Vibration Impacts Are Ignored. The acoustical analysis ignores the impact of vibration on the surrounding area. DDC activities in particular may generate a significant vibration impact.103t 5. Failure to Obtain Information on Current Ambient Condition. • Noise monitoring in the local community should have been conducted to establish an existing ambient beyond the site, since construction noise and traffic noise from the land development can then be compared to the existing ambient in the communityAd' The DEER at Figure 4.10-1, notes 8 sampling locations used to assess "vehicle generated noise"AV The DEIR does not describe the method used for obtaining the information • nor does it present the raw data from which the stated range of 51.3 dBA to 56.1 dBA was derived. Further, it does not state whether those figures represent CNEL, Ld„ or Lw measurements. In order for the noise analysis to have meaning, a better presentation of the currently existing conditions must be provided, including a table which states measured hourly one-hour Lq values for the six receptor locations noted at Figure 4.10-1 and a • description of the manner in which those values were obtained in the field. In addition, the sampling should be expanded by adding more sampling locations so that more than vehicle- generated noise is measured. The recirculated DEIR should focus on describing the existing noise conditions as measured throughout the proposed LCP Area and compare those conditions against the projected noise conditions which would exist during each phase • of construction (and for this purpose, among others, the construction phasing would have to be more thoroughly described than at present) and at project completion. • 1031 See Page 4.10-6 which ignores the noise and vibration generated be Dynamic Deep Compaction equipment. 1041 Here again,as in the case of hazardous materials,planning impacts and many other impacts noted above in this letter, the County has failed to obtain and circulate appropriate baseline data to show the current environmental condition. Without that data, it is dicult for a person reviewing the DEIR to understand whether the DEIR analysis of the significance of impacts is accurate, complete or adequate. 1051 Throughout its analysis, the DEIR assumes that construction equipment and traffic are the only significant noise impacts of creating 4,286 homes on undeveloped land. That assertion is not supported • Aopowd Find Dish Dated Fibwry 14, 1994 • • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 173 • 6. Incomplete Modelling of Projected Noise Conditions. The noise analysis ignores the effect of the contours of the existing terrain on noise attenu- ation/transmission. It also ignores the impact of the modified terrain on noise/attenuation during each phase of project construction and at project build out. For example, the • western portion of the Mesa will be raised by fill and will generate far more noise than at present. How much noise will be generated (both by vehicles and residential activities such as lawnmowers, etc.) into the wetlands and the surrounding communities by the new residences overlooking the area? The DEIR never adequately considers this issue. SSm page 4.10-5 and 4.10-6. • 7. Construction Noise Will Be Significant. Page 4.10-10, lines 37-38: It is doubtful that the impacts of compaction equipment could be fully mitigated to a level which was not deemed significant be surrounding land uses. • 8. Noise Impact on Wetlands and ESHAs. The DEIR never considers the potential impacts on wildlife and birds within the wetlands. Will the DDC and other high noise producing activities impact the ability of the endangered, threatened and candidate species in the area to breed and thrive? The reader cannot know because the DEIR does not compare the existing conditions in the wetlands with the projected • conditions during each phase of construction and after project build-outAW Further, the DEIR only considers the impact on human listeners. Although the use of the A-weighted decibel scale (i.e., dBA) may be appropriate for measuring the impact on humans, it may be that other descriptors, weighing different frequencies of sound more heavily than the A- weighted scale would be more appropriate. A more thorough analysis of all of the • environmental impacts of the noise generated by the construction and occupancy of the project is required in the DEIR. • 1061 The failure of the DEIR to include noise measurements at the noise sampling locations noted in Figure 4.10-1 further hampers the analysis. What is the current noise condition at each location noted on the figure, and at location NS-6 (the one location within the wetlands) in particular? What is the noise projected to be at each phase of construction? What mitigation measures are available to reduce the impact of construction/project noise in the wetlands,both at location NS-6 and at the additional locations which must be included in the sample? Should DDC or other heavy construction be prohibited during the nesting season of threatened species or species of special • concern? The recirculated DEIR must answer these questions. Proposed Rhol Dish Doted re&uwy 14. 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 174 • 9. Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels. 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 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), than one would assume the intervening hours must be louder not quieter, otherwise 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. 10. Future Mitigation Plans Intended to Address Current Impacts. The following items are examples of the future studies and mitigation plans/measures to be developed in the future but which are currently relied upon by the DEIR for mitigation of • significant adverse hydrology impacts from the project: a. Noise from DDC Compacting of Lowlands. Mitigation Measure 4.2-8 notes that DDC compaction will be designed so that the construction does • not produce unacceptable noise levels;107 however, this mitigation measure does not describe the acceptable levels of noise for the existing single family homeowners nor does it consider the vibration impacts of this activities. The impact on nesting bird populations is likewise ignored and should be considered in detail. What is the effect of 96 dBA of pile driving on the breeding ability of the endangered and candidate species known to exist and • breed in the area? 11. Miscellaneous. a. Page 4.10-1, line 48: It is assumed that the noise monitor • location N-7 is the subject of the discussion pertaining to the Pacific Coast Highway. Please confirm. 1071 Compare Chart at page 4-285 of EIR/EIS. • Aupomd RW Draft DOW Fi&rw"14, 1994 0 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 175 • b. Page 4.10-3, lines 1-6: It is assumed that the noise monitor location N-8 is the subject of the discussion pertaining to Warner Avenue. Please confirm. C. Page 4.10-4, lines 1-10: It is assumed that for this discussion • the referenced Ldn values are at a distance of 50 feet. Please confirm. d. Page 4.10-4, lines 12-17: The accepted California noise metric is CNEL, not Ldn, albeit the differences between the metrics are minimal. It is assumed that Lines 26-30 provides the rationale for using Ldn. Were the City, County and • State consulted prior to the decision to use Ldn? Why are no one-hour Lq measurements also provided. Please elaborate. e. Table 4.10-1: The purpose of this table is unclear since it is not related to any of the local streets. • f. Page 4.10-6, lines 1-2: 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 reflect construction-related noise. • g. Page 4.10-6, lines 4-17: This discussion is confusing and warrants some clarification. Specifically, Line 8 states that "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." • h. Why is there no discussion about residential uses and noise exposure. Are the impacts significant? Please explain. i. Pages 4.10-4 and 4.10-6: 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 in Section 4.10.3.1 is surprising since only one roadway segment (Bolsa Chica Street at Warren Avenue to Bolsa Chica Street Extension) was determined to have a significant adverse impact. • Rcposd Find Drift Dated Febwry 14. 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 176 j. Page 4.10-6: To provide a clearer understanding of construction related noise impacts, the document should identify where in the local community construction noise is likely to exceed the 60 Ldn identified on Page 4.10-7, Line 18. Only then can the true impact be understood. For example, assuming the method 4 employed on Page 4.10-6 -- which sensitive receivers on select streets around the site fall within those distances cited and how much does traffic noise mask that impact? k. Page 4.10-7 and 4.10-8: It would be helpful to discuss why not "upsizing" the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) provides a greater contrast for noise. Theoretically, if PCH is not widened then traffic level of service would be reduced and so 4 would vehicle speeds. If vehicle speeds are lower overall, then noise levels would likely be also. If the analysis assumes the same vehicle speed for all scenarios, then the applicant's project would contribute more substantially to the total noise energy along PCH since it would probably contribute a greater percentage of the traffic. Was there any consideration for reducing vehicle speeds along PCH or on the network without PCH improvements? 4 Please clarify. 1. Page 4.10-9, lines 46-49: This measure helps to quantify the real noise impact for this roadway segment and provides for a noise reduction recommendation. However, to ensure the recommendation is followed up on and 4 implemented, the text should be amended to include provisions for implementation. N. CHAmR 4.11 - CuLTURAL REsouRCEs. 1. Misidentification of Gun Emplacements. The DEIR states that the 4 gun emplacements on the Mesa were constructed by the Corps during the early years of WWII. Sm p. 4.11-5;ln.47. 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 4 question by this DEIR. What is the true history and potential significance of these historical assets? Aopossd Furl Dolt Dated Fibtrry 14, 19M • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 177 • 2. Deferred Study. The DEIR states that a research study of the Bolsa Chica region is currently in preparation; consequently, impact cannot be deemed insignificant until completed. Mitigation also indicates that there will be data recovery excavations but does not address extent of area to be evaluated or what will be done with • the excavations. 3. Discovery of Human Remains. The Los Angeles Times reported on January 25, 1994 that allegations have been raised regarding the presence of 8,000 year-old human remains in the archaeologically significant sites within the project site at • CA-ORA-83. A copy of that article is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 42. The article cites a letter from Judy Myers Suchey identifying the remains. A copy of that letter is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 43. There appears to be significant disagreement as to the facts in this matter. The letter, dated January 31, 1994, from Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (the consultant performing the excavations) to the City Council (a copy of • which is attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 44) states that concentrations of bone fragments were found at the site in summer of 1993; however, testimony at the January 31, 1994 City Council hearing (the transcript of which has been transmitted to you directly from the City) indicated that significant bone fragments were discovered and transmitted to UCLA for analysis as much as 12 months earlier. Attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 45 • is a package of documents received from Pat Ware at the January 31, 1994 hearing, including attachments which indicate that a number of qualified professionals in the area are concerned over the treatment of the site and that the site known to contain human remains has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Further, the oral testimony memorialized by the transcript of the hearing indicated that • many of the most likely descendants are both concerned and upset regarding the treatment of their ancestral burial site on the Mesa. Since a portion of the property has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register, the removal of the resource must be considered a significant impact on the environment and the recirculated DEIR must so state. In the meantime, no approvals should be granted and no further grading or • excavation should be permitted on the site until the truth of the matter of human remains on the site can be ascertained by the County. • Proposed Find Dmft Dated Fe&w"11, f994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 178 1 4. Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer; California Register Criteria. PRC §§ 21084, 21084.1 define a project which would adversely affect a historic resource as including resources eligible for listing in either the National Register or the newly-created California Register of Historic Places. The DEIR improperly relies on i 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 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. Further analysis and study of the remaining gun bunker and related improvements (radio bunkers and other facilities were purportedly located on the site as well) should be undertaken prior to certification of the DEIR. Why was a formal opinion not sought from the SHPO? See Page 4.11-24, line 20. 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 DEIR can be considered complete under CEQA. 1 5. Evaluation of Specific Archaeological Sites. a. ORA-78: The applicant's consultant states that the pre-historic component of this site was determined to be "insignificant" by prior studies (page 4.11-12, 1 lines 10-11 of the DEIR Cultural Resources section). However, they note that the marine invertebrate Donax sp. is the predominant faunal species present. Indeed, they state that the marine invertebrate remains are "...almost entirely of Donax..." Donax is a small clam found on open coast with shallow sandy surf zones. This species is rarely encountered as a predominant species at archaeological sites, indicating that it was not a preferred food source. An explanation for the predominance of an undesirable food was not provided. Further, no acceptable dating scheme has been offered for this site (See Table 4.11-2 of the DEIR Cultural Resources section). Unless these questions are addressed, the determinations that ORA-78 is not scientifically significant cannot be made. It and subsequent determinations of no negative impact by the proponent's preferred alternative on M this site may be unwarranted. Mitigation Measure 4.11-2, Table 1.5-1, page 1-35 only addresses the historic resources represented at this site and is therefore inadequate. The mitigation measures should be amended to address pre-historic resources, too. The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Propomd Find Dish Dstsd Fobnm" 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 179 i Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site must be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. b. ORA-82: On page 4.11-16, line 27 to 4.11-17, line 47 of the • DEIR's Cultural Resources section reported that none of portion of the site within the LCP study area has been tested, excavated or subjected to data recovery and analysis (DEIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary). "Most of the site within the LCP area has not been subject to either test excavations or data recovery."(page 4.11-6). It is presented as an assumption that the County will test, assess, excavate if necessary and mitigate all negative • impacts to this site (Table 1.5-1, 1-35). 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, 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 DEIR 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. ORA-83: The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site • should be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. C. ORA-84: This site was judged not significant based on Schroth et al 1989 (page 4.11-15, lines 22-24 of the DEIR Cultural Resources section). What was the assessment by McKenna 1986b:47 (page 4.11-15, lines 19-21) and if different from Schroth et al, Why? Will McKenna's data affect the determination of significance? d. ORA-85: This site was judged significant. Adverse impacts will supposedly be mitigated by completion of an on-going research program. Without any information about the content, scope or methodology of this on-going work (data recovery • excavations), the assertion that negative impacts will be mitigated cannot be evaluated. No PRopowd Find Dolt Dattd f"buwy 14, 199I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 180 r 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. Someone will eventually become responsible for any non-mitigated negative impacts. Will this be the County or the City? The significance of historic resources at this site have not been documented (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, Impact 4.11-2). The significance of historic resources at this site should be determined and evaluated by the DEIR. e. ORA-86: The Effects Found To Be Significant portion of Table 1.5-1, pg. 1-34, reports that this site was "found not to be important" and that "impacts to this site will not be significant." (Table 1.5-1, 1-34). However Impact 4.11-5 (Table 1.5-1, 1-35) states that "wetlands restoration activities and lowland urban development activities may impact three potential lowland sites" one of which is the pre- historic component of ORA-86. This apparent contradiction must be addressed. No carbon dating has been performed for this site (Table 4.11-2 of the Cultural Resources section of the DEIR). Testing of the lowland portion of this site has not been completed and mitigation measures shall be implemented for sites determined significant. Inadequate data are presented in the DEIR documents reviewed to determine whether mitigation measures for this site are required. Other supporting reports were not readily available from the County, although several days were spent trying to obtain them. 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. Prior to approval of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 4.11-5, Table 1.5-1, pg. 1-35, of the DEIR Executive Summary should be rewritten by a qualified archaeologist, to eliminate apparent contradictions. The significance of untested/ excavated sites must be determined and addressed by the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.11-5, Table 1.5-1, pages 1-35 states that future work will be conducted "at the expense of the 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 can not? f. ORA-88: As a result of the review, JMA has determined that ORA-88 is a significant prehistoric site with potentially significant historic features. The accuracy of the assertion that the current excavations will mitigate the negative impacts to this site (Table 1.5-1, 1-35, DEIR Chapter 1, Executive Summary) cannot be adequately , Proposed Furl Draft Dated February 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 181 • evaluated due to inadequate information. The historic features are noted, in the DEIR's Cultural Resources section 4.11 ( page 18, lines 13-18) but not evaluated. It is indicated that this additional work is to be completed by the county. Is the DEIR responsibility • guaranteed in some way (e.g., by a bond, contract, etc.)? 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. g. ORA-288, 291, 292, 1308, 1309: No carbon dating has been • performed for these sites (Table 4.11-2). h. ORA-290: The information presented for ORA-290 is inconsistent within the various sections of the DEIR. For example, The site is said "to be totally destroyed" (Table 4.11-2, page 4.11-9 and page 4.11-27, line 47 of the DEIR's • Cultural Resources section) and elsewhere that "a remnant of the site exists" (page 4.11-18, lines 25 to 27 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section). No dating study has been conducted for this site. i. ORA-291, -292, -293/294, -365, -366, 1308, 1309: 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 DEIR document. • j. The research designs referred to and used to evaluate site significance (Mason, 1987, SRS in preparation) 4.11.2, page 4.11-22, lines 38-40 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section, are not presented. Consequently the criteria used for Table 4.11-3, page 4.11-23 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section are unknown. For example, the "finding" that ORA-78 is not significant calls into question the DEIR use of • significance criteria. 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. • Avpomd RtW Dien Dud FiMry 14. 1994 • i 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 182 6. Miscellaneous. a. Table 1.5-1: It is concluded in Table 1.5-1 that "cumulative impacts to the regional resource base may occur from cumulative projects if not properly mitigated." However, no regional study comparing LCP study area resources to regional resources has been conducted or is proposed in the DEIR. The DEIR does assert that "[t]he Proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts will be reduced to insignificant with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures." This assumption needs to be supported by data. 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 1 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 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 DEIR contribution to the cumulative impacts of the proposed project (page 4.11-24 paragraph 1 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section). b. Section 4.11.3.1, page 4.11-26, paragraph 1: The mitigation measures fail to present any alternative to data recovery/excavation. The scope of work for 1 data recovery is yet to be determined and consequently can not be adequately evaluated, 4.11-27, lines 2-4, 4.11-27, lines 29-32, 4.11-26 lines 46-49 of the DEIR's Cultural Resources section. C. Table 1.5-1, pages 1-34, 4.11 Cultural Resources: Several 1 cultural resources sites "may be directly impacted by grading for the proposed project." d. Page 4.11-28, line 38: The mitigation proposed for Impact 4.11-6 fails to include monitoring of grading activities (page 4.11-28, lines 40-45). The monitoring of construction grading by a qualified archaeologist is omitted in all mitigation 1 measures in Section 4.11.3.4 and could result in the loss of buried sites. e. Impact 4.11-3: This impact states that "park development activities may impact cultural resources on prehistoric sites ("and historic resources") located on the Huntington Mesa." The proposed mitigation measures appear to assume 1 Propord Find Drift Dated F"ruvy 14, 1994 1 A • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 183 • 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. L Impact 4.11-6: This impact states that undocumented site may be impacted by wetlands restoration activities. Mitigation Measure 4.11-6 (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." 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 can not? 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 DEIR. A re-burial agreement has been developed, • negotiated and addressed in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure 4.11-7 states that re-burial agreement shall be implemented "at the Applicant's expense." 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 chooses not to do so? • 7. Specific Recommendations. The following recommendations are based on information presented in the preceding sections of this letter regarding Chapter 4.11. ■ All technical reports used to prepare the cultural resources sections and mitigation • measures of the DEIR 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 DEIR should be included in a technical appendix to the DEIR which is made available only • to archaeologists. ■ A more in-depth review of the DEIR Cultural Resources sections and technical reports is warranted. • Proposed Find Dish Dated Febusry 14, 19" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 184 1 ■ Further cultural resources studies are required and should be evaluated by the EIR (e.g., carbon dating of all sites, determinations of significance for all sites, surveys of restoration areas to determine the presence or absence of resources, testing and as appropriate excavations of significant un-excavated sites, etc.). 1 ■ 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 and to address all potentially significant cultural resources sites or sites for which the significance has not been 1 determined. ■ Several cultural resources sites determined insignificant appear to be significant and therefore should be reevaluated. 1 ■ All 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 DEIR. ■ The significance of pre-historic components of ORA-78 must be re-evaluated and 1 mitigation measures developed as appropriate. ■ The portion of ORA-82, within the LCP area, must be tested and evaluated by the DEIR. 1 ■ 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 significance of ORA-84 may need to be re-evaluated based on a review of 1 McKenna, 1986. 1 Proposed find Drs11 Dated F*&uvy 14, 199< • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 185 • ■ The content, scope and methodology of on-going research program for ORA-85 and ORA-82 must be provided and described by the DEIR in order to enable an assessment of the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures for these two sites. • ■ Re-evaluate the significance of ORA-88 and evaluate the significance of associated historical features. ■ Re-evaluate the significance of ORA 291, 292, 293/294, 365, 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. ■ A majority of the cultural resources sites to be mitigated are left to the responsibility • of the County Department of Harbors, Beaches and Parks. These sites must be professionally tested at a level adequate to evaluate the DEIR potential importance. ■ Make information regarding ORA-290 consistent throughout the DEIR. • ■ All untested sites must be tested at a level adequate to evaluate the DEIR potential impacts. ■ The vicinity of all known sites must be monitored during grading by a qualified archaeologist. • ■ Apply (include) all comments regarding cultural resources in Chapter 4 to Chapters 5 and 8. ■ Re-evaluate the magnitude of project impacts to cultural resources in Chapter 7 and • make it consistent with all DEIR text. ■ Develop a plan to monitor for and deal with cultural resources during dredging of the tidal inlet. • Pro"Md RhW Daft Dat"febnmY 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 186 1 ■ The DEIR states that "several prehistoric archaeological sites may be directly impacted by grading", therefore, 1. All construction grading/dredging activities associated with the LCP 1 must be monitored on a full-time basis. 2. If cultural resources are encountered, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity must stop until a testing program is developed and conducted. 1 3. Sites determined significant will be excavated to mitigate impacts. O. CHAPTER 4.12 - AESTHETICS. 1. Viewshed Impacts. The impact on the view corridor from Huntington 1 Harbor toward Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve has not been analyzed. Current harbor residents have views looking south and west from Huntington Harbor. View corridors have been analyzed from other areas; however, no analysis has been done from the Huntington Harbor area toward the ocean and the proposed Bolsa Chica development. The DEIR does not consider the viewshed impacts on residents of the area inland of the proposed Lowlands 1 development. S,e Figure 4.12-1 showing analytical views does not include views from existing neighborhoods at Talbert and Springdale. 2. Miscellaneous. 1 a. Figure 4,12-26: This figure should have been the subject of discussion and analysis in the Chapter 4.2 (geology and soils) and Chapters 4.6 and 4.7 (biology) as well. It should also show depths of cut and fills and depths of onsite dredging. What does "Development Earthwork" refer to? Is this for residential, parks, and infrastructure only? Is it for the entire site including the wetlands? Include a table which 1 shows all earthmoving for the entire site, including dredge material and use of it as fill, otherwise it is impossible to determine what is going on during construction. 1 Phoposd Find Dion Dated fibtuvy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 187 • b. Figures Depicting Artist Conceptions of Views: The various artist's conceptions showing the view impact of the proposed development appear designed to understate the impacts.10' For example, in Figure 4.12-20 the homes are all light blue • and white against a light blue and white background. This causes the houses to fade against the sky. Also, the mature vegetation will not look as presented for ten to twenty years. What would the impacts be in the meantime? If the view were recreated with the houses shown in a tone which contrasts with the background sky shown in the drawing, and the vegetation were more accurately presented, the impacts on aesthetics would become far clearer to the reader and the decision-makers. • C. See Comments re: aesthetic impact of theme wall on adjacent single-family homes in discussion of Chapter 4.1 above. P. CHAPTER 4.13 - SOCIOECONOMICS. • 1. Lack of Information on Financial Feasibility of Development. While under normal conditions assessment of the financial feasibility of development is outside the scope of an EIR, the proposed project includes unique considerations which make this type of assessment crucial for the evaluation of the project and its potential • environmental impacts. On page 4.1-24, the DEIR refers to the 1986 Coastal Commission 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 ESHA's feasible." Also on the same page of the EIR the point is again made that a primary justification for Coastal Commission • approval of the 1986 LUP was the necessary linkage between wetlands restoration and developmentAY As stated in the EIR with regard to the reasons for certification of the 1986 County LCP, "the substantial funding necessary to restore the site can be best achieved through development." • 1081 The photographs included in the discussion of aesthetic impacts make it clear that theproposed development would be far more intrusive than is indicated in the artist's renderings. 1091 This point is made without reference to the express condition on the approval that the Coastal Commission • review and approve the wetlands restoration plan and other matters prior to the commencement of development. Proposed Find Drat Demd F*b wy II, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 188 1 Applying the same reasoning to the public review process currently under way, meaningful public review requires an analysis of the financial feasibility of the development project must be part of the CEQA review. The level/intensity of development necessary to economically support the environmental restoration features of the project can only be / justified when the financial feasibility of project development is addressed. Barring outside sources of funding for wetlands restoration, Koll and future project residents, will presumably pay for the costs associated with the environmental reconfiguration of Bolsa Chica. Project sales revenues, homeowner association dues, property taxes, plus other assessments, fees, and special taxes are sources of funding available to pay for project / development costs, to offset project impacts on public facilities and government services, and to finance and maintain the proposed environmental benefits of the project. The type and intensity of development must be justified based on evidence that demonstrates that the permitted development will enable Koll to finance restoration. The County must review both the project and DEIR in light of the trade-offs between / development (and the concomitant fundable wetlands restoration) and financial feasibility of development. Entitling an unnecessarily high level of development as a means of allegedly funding maximum wetlands restoration on the one hand, versus failure of the project due to the weight of public financing and mitigation burdens on the other hand, are both extreme and undesirable alternatives with very significant environmental impacts on the project and 1 on local governments. The DEIR does not consider the impact of a partly completed project which cannot proceed with further development or with wetlands restoration due to the economic failure of the project. The DEIR must include analysis of the financial feasibility of development taking the financial burdens of restoration and mitigation into full account. At a minimum, the DEIR should provide enough project financial information to / enable the reviewing public and decision-makers to estimate independently the feasibility of development and the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. 2. Lack of Project Information Re: Phasing and Feasibility. Because information is not available in the DEIR and because the implementing documents were not / circulated with the DEIR, crucial information is lacking which is otherwise required to adequately assess the impacts of the project. As a result, the public must attempt to evaluate project impacts without data on the anticipated timing and phasing of the project, and without marketing information on anticipated sales values or even broad descriptions of anticipated residential dwelling unit types within defined planning areas. As noted above, 1 Proposed Find Draft Dated F"nWY 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 189 • this information is required to support the contention, implied in the DEIR, that implementation of the various mitigation measures and project design features (which should be included as mitigation measures) is economically feasible. • No information is presented in the DEIR on anticipated rates and timing of construction, sales/absorption rates, and expected occupancy of the residential development areas of the project. Project timing and phasing information included on page 1-4 of the Executive Summary and repeated on page 3-34 in the project Description consists only of general statements that the overall project is anticipated to be built out over 12 to 22 years; that • initial construction is anticipated to occur in 1995; and that the Bolsa Mesa will be developed first, with the MWD area second, and the Lowlands area third and last. This amount of phasing and project timing information is inadequate to assess impacts for a project of the magnitude of Bolsa Chica. At a minimum, the DEIR or an implementing • document should present information on the phasing and schedule of project development and the relationship between timing of residential development and provision of mitigation, public facilities and infrastructure to support such development. Also notably lacking in the DEIR is information on the one-time and recurring costs of public facilities, services, and appropriate mitigation measures, project design features, and programs such as the Area • Traffic Improvement Program proposed for the project. (The only cost data provided is the statement in numerous places in the EIR that the Wetlands Restoration Program is currently estimated to cost $48 million,"a without consideration for additional conditions imposed by State and Federal reviewing agencies.) The EIR's deficiency in presenting adequate information with respect to project timing, development phasing, marketing, and the cost of • public facilities and services creates a significant problem for the City in assessing project' impacts 3. Lack of Information on Public Financing Capacity. The EIR is deficient in providing 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 DEIR or in an accompanying public facilities financing 110/ The $48 Million figure is presented without support or justification of any kind. Since no financial information is provided, it is not possible to judge from the DEIR whether that figure represents all, one-half or some other fraction of the true cost of the plan. P►opo"d Fines/Drult Dated Fobnriy 14, 1994 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 190 1 plan. How these facilities will be paid for will dictate what options are available to local governments to offset the cost of project impacts. Will the cost of these public facilities be subsumed under project costs 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 1 property tax to fund facilities and improvements? The DEIR must provide adequate information to assess the project's capacity to finance the restoration of the wetlands and required public facilities as well as mitigate other project impacts. 4. Lack of Information on Fiscal Impacts. The DEIR fails to provide any analysis or information regarding the recurring or one-time fiscal impacts of the project, either on the County or the City. .According to the Orange County Auditor- Controller's office, the County will receive only one-half to one-third as much general fund property tax revenue in 1993-94 as in prior years, and this shortfall is expected to continue in the future. 1 Property taxes are by far the largest revenue source available to the County to offset the costs of providing public facilities and services. In past years, residential projects such as Bolsa Chica have often proven to be "fiscally imbalanced," i.e., to generate public costs in excess of public revenues. With recent shifts in local property taxes, the potential fiscal imbalance of the Bolsa Chica project, which could create a significant fiscal drain on the County and/or other local governments, becomes an even more important question. Both the DEIR and other project documents should account for this potential problem from the very outset of the review process. The project is an island of unincorporated County territory surrounded by the City. As a / result, the City is greatly concerned about the potential direct and indirect fiscal impacts of the project on the City. The 10,000 to 12,000 potential new project residents will require the full range of public facilities and services typically provided by local government, including public facilities and infrastructure, as well as fire and police protection services- street maintenance and lighting; landscape and park maintenance- recreation program / services; library services; and sewer, water, and storm drain maintenance. In nearly all cases where the DEIR addresses impacts on public facilities and services, the City is mentioned as a major provider of such facilities and services. 1 Phopoaed Fur/Drift D*W feb A"14, 1994 • • Orange CountyEnvironmental Management Agency Y February 17, 1994 Page 191 • Since the project is surrounded by the City, any facilities and services not provided from onsite locations will, as a practical matter, be located in or provided, in part, from the City. While the DEIR tacitly recognizes the City as the logical source and most efficient provider of such facilities and services, the DEIR does not address the fiscal impacts of, or the necessary arrangements for, provision and use of these facilities and services by project residents. Further, as is examined in ANNEX No. 11, if the project were annexed to the City after the development at the request of project residents, significant fiscal impacts and, consequently, environmental impacts, are likely. On page 4.14-18, under "Public Services and Facilities, Analysis of Impacts, Libraries," the DEIR clearly states the need for a Fiscal Impact Report ("FIR") on the project, In describing the need for an FIR, this paragraph implicitly underscores two major deficiencies of the DEIR: • ■ First, the level of required review by general public and public agencies alike cannot take place without sufficient accompanying information to determine if the project is fiscally feasible. ■ Second, the DEIR states the need for an analysis with respect to project impacts on the County library system, even though, because of relative proximity, the majority of project impacts will involve City libraries. See discussion of library impacts at Section III.Q of this letter. The DEIR either fails to address any fiscal impacts on the City, fails to quantify and propose mitigation for City impacts, even when it is clear that the City will be more greatly impacted than the County. • 5. Failure to Consider Impacts of High Density Development. Both alternatives seriously evaluated in the EIR show residential development density at over 16 dwelling units per gross residential acre, with some development approaching 36 dwelling units per acre. This is a density of development that dictates multi-story, multi-family • construction. No projects in Orange County have this intensity of residential development over a comparably large area. The implications of the project's proposed development density are not pointed out anywhere in the EIR. A multitude of additional impacts relating to this atypically high level of development are also not considered in the EIR. The impact on public safety services such as police and fire protection is an example of deficiencies in • Pro"d A-W Dyslt D&W Fo&vwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 192 1 the analysis resulting from failure to consider the specific impacts of high density development. 6. Affordable Housing. Page 4.13-5: Why is there no discussion of 1 affordable housing at all in this document? SLz, also Comments regarding affordable housing requirements at Part III.D above in this letter. 7. School Impacts. Page 4.14-18. lines 8-10: Since the adequacy of school systems is an extremely important factor to homebuyers, this is a dubious conclusion at best. Land use will no doubt be influenced and quite possibly the success of the project 1 could be influenced if buyers are dissuaded from purchasing homes due to overcrowded and underfunded schools. EIRs have traditionally addressed the specific impacts that projects are likely to create for school districts. Normally the documents disclose the response of school districts to letters which ask them to provide information. Any letters or information available from the school districts regarding their ability and strategies to meet 1 the needs of project residents after receiving development fees should be disclosed. If no correspondence or consultation exists or has occurred, then it should be immediately initiated and documented. 1 Q. CHAPTER 4.14 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES. 1. Burden and Impacts on City Water System. a. Cost and Facilities Impacts. Page 4.14-13 of the DEIR notes 1 that the City is one of two likely water sources for the project. Accordingly, the project has the potential to add significant capital 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 of Huntington Beach and its 1993 Update, these capital costs would be for the construction of two 1 significant facilities: (1) a nine million gallon reservoir and associated pumping station and transmission pipelines, and; (2) a new water supply well. It must be stressed that the reservoir identified in (1) above is separate and distinct from the facility discussed in the DEIR. The reservoir discussed in the DEIR is a facility that is planned to be constructed to mitigate the impacts of another development of the same approximate size called the Holly- Proposed Find Drsn Dated F+br A 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 193 • Seacliff Project. This fact is documented in City of Huntington Beach Development Agreement 901, approved by the City Council on November 5, 1990. • The capital costs for the above two facilities is significant: (1) Nine million gallon reservoir, pump station & pipelines $ 6,640,000 (2) New water well 1,300,000 • TOTAL $ 7,940,000 The above facilities would serve to mitigate the direct impacts of the project. However, these projects, if built separately and distinctly without connection to the existing water • system, cannot operate to service the project. 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. 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. If the proposed new Capital Facilities Charges discussed in the 1993 Water Master Plan Update are calculated for the proposed project and its alternative, the following financial obligations would be due and owing. With a Capital Facilities Charge of$2,380 as delineated in the Update, the developer's project would incur an obligation of$10,200,000, based on 4,286 units. For the project alternative, the fee would be $7,306,600, based on 3,070 units. 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) by the payment of water utility bills (revenue). b. Significant Impacts on Water Services Remain. Since the discussion of water supply for the project is, in the opinion of the City's water department, inadequate, the last sentence (which says that no significant adverse impacts are expected) is Pro,00"d Final Dnfi DOW Arbb 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 194 1 inappropriate. The report does not adequately cover the impacts to the City water system should the project be connected to it. The report should delineate these impacts, and with respect to the 1988 Water Master Plan and its 1993 Update, state how these impacts will be mitigated. Since the existing City water system is currently deficient in meeting demands as outlined in the Water Master Plan, the addition of this project without any further efforts by the developer will not be acceptable to the City. If this were to occur, the existing level of service currently experienced would drop, and existing customers would, in effect, be paying the same for lesser service. This is most easily described by the fact that the domestic demands generated by the project would have to be met by the current reserve capacity normally used for fire protection purposes. Additionally, in the 1988 Water Master Plan (Table 7-7, p. 7-11), the peak hour deficiency of the existing water system is shown to be increased from 27,500 gallons per minute to 31,600 gallons per minute, an increase of 15%. C. Standards for Determining Water Supply. In terms of water 1 supply being furnished by an independent water company or water district, no standards are set forth in the DEIR to judge whether the proposed options are acceptable to those having jurisdiction. It appears that the standards being used are discretionary and not necessarily those of recognized authorities. Until the standards of practice are identified in the DEIR, the DEIR is inadequate because it is not known what values were used in the author's 1 analysis. d. See also Discussion of water related impacts noted in Chapter 3 of the DEIR, discussed above in Part III.0 of this letter.MY 1 e. The water supply options shown at page 4.14-13, lines 7-8 of the DEIR are not sufficiently comprehensive and do not consider all of the feasible alternatives. Another obvious option is seawater desalination. 121' A second is for the 1 III/ the Resources Element of the County s General Plan notes that the County is largely dependent on imported water and that only 44% of local municipal/industrial demand is met by local resources. 1121 An independent water company, contracting for desalinated seawater or well water from the City of Fountain Valley, using an inexpensive steel-tank for a small reservoir and contracting with a specialty contractor (continued...) 1 PYopo"d Fuw/Dta/t Dated Fabury 14, 1994 1 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 195 • City to serve the area without any middlemen, just like it currently serves the County area of Sunset Beach. A County Service Area is not necessary for the City to serve outside its boundaries. The developer has also explored other options not considered in the DEIR, such as obtaining service from the City of Fountain Valley. Finally, because an independent water company has different rules of formation and operation from a water district, these two options should be considered separate and distinct and be discussed and analyzed independently.i l-I f. The statement at page 4.14-13, lines 29-30, is only partially • true. The City has the basic infrastructure in place to serve the development. The capacity of the infrastructure is inadequate to serve the development without impacting the level of service of the City's existing customers. A further cost to the City would be incurred if the project connects to the City system without "buying in." The proposed mitigation measures will not work without the existing City system attached to them. Additional infrastructure • would be necessary to utilize the mitigating facilities without the existing system. The developer would have to provide that additional infrastructure at additional cost. This is the basic premise that makes it "fair" to buy in to the existing system. • 1121(...continued) for maintenance could provide a basic water supply for the development. The result, however, would be that the reliability and life of the system, i.e., level of service to its customers, would not be nearly the same as the City's system. Additionally, the company may have to call on the City to assist them in times of source outage or other facility outage. This would result in an undeterminable cost to the City. • 1131 The paragraph at Page 4.14-14,lines 34-45 is confusing. The City can supply the project if the developer mitigates the impacts of the project. This is detailed in previous comments and in the 1988 WMP, Section 7. As noted in the text, the concepts of an independent company and a water district are totally different in terms of formation and operation. Modern government thinking is to consolidate governmental agencies wherever possible to lessen cost to citizens. Why are two water wells needed? Wouldn't the second well have additional groundwater • and earth impacts? The DEIR does not say why two wells are required and no member of the public would ever know from reviewing the document. Where are the locations alluded to? The environmental impact of these may be significant because the wells may cause lowered water levels in adjacent agency wells, thereby increasing the cost ofpumping and lowering the available water yield from the affected wells. Adequate environmental reviews should be performed at this time to make this determination. No one can tell if the locations are not known. How will the water be transported from the wells to the project? What are the related impacts? The DEIR does not answer these • basic questions. Proposed A-W Draft Dated fibwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 196 1 g. The last statement on page 4.14-13 (which continues onto page 4.14-14) is not supported. It has not been shown in the DEIR or anywhere else that the improvements proposed in the DEIR will provide an adequate water service infrastructure. "Adequate" may be the key word here. It certainly won't be equal to the rest of the City's water system. Further, the DEIR's assumption that the OCWD water supply is "reliable" overstates any agency's ability to guaranty a supply of water. All water supplies are uncertain in this day and ageAll Page C-10, lines 35-47 of the Technical Appendices notes certain PDFs addressing water supply needs. The PDF's shown are inadequate to address the water supply needs of the project in accordance with the 1988 water Master ' Plan for all of the reasons stated in the previous comments contained herein. 2. Water Sources and Supply. The DEIR relies heavily on two concepts in its discussion of water supply: The Orange County Water District's Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP), a copy of which is attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 47, and the same agency's Green Acres Project (GAP) that will produce and 1 supply reclaimed wastewater to customers. Unfortunately, the DEIR ens strongly in doing 1141 Note,for example, the provisions of the County's Resources Element of its general plan (current through the May 7, 1991 revision), which notes, at page RES-2-53: 1 MWD does not intend to rely on 'luck'of whether conditions or the 'possibility' that excess waters presently available will continue to be there, especially since other areas of water origin are developing rapidly. Historically,MWD has been successful in anticipating and providing for the future water needs of its member agencies and their constituents. Today, however,due to entitlement cutbacks on 1 the Colorado River, an uncompleted State Water Project, Federal and State water policies in disarray, groundwater contamination and loss of Los Angeles' entitlements from Owens-Mono Basin, MWD is presently 700,000 acre feet behind its ability to provide reliable water service to its customers. With above- normal demand. Orange County will be exDeriencine a shortfall exceeding 100,000 acre feet. (Emphasis Added). Thus,the County's own general plan now that watersupplies in the region are overloaded and may not be reliable. PYopord Find Dta t Dstd Febuory 14, 1994 1 • r Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 197 • so. The GWMP does not mention growth in any of its goals or methodologies to carry out those goals. At the present time, the GAP may not be constructed into Huntington Beach (per a telephone conversation on January 24, 1994, between Mr. Charles Steinberg of • OCWD and Mr. Jeffrey Renna of the City). The GWMP has five major goals (OCWD GWMP, February, 1987, p. 5): 1. Increase Basin Water Supplies 2. Protect and Enhance Water Quality • 3. Improve Basin Management 4. Improve OCWD Relations with Constituents 5. Improve OCWD Management/Operations If one reads the GWMP, no direct reference can be found discussing growth. The GWMP only makes reference to increasing supplies to rely less on imported water. The only possible reference to growth, albeit inconclusive, are charts that depict water demands in the OCWD member areas increasing over time. No explanation as to the basis of the demand curves is noted. Additionally, the GWMP is expensive. As of 1989 (GWMP, p. 31), the price was $96M for baseline projects and $371M for all projects. This is more • than the local agencies can bear to spend. The following comments address specific inadequacies in the DEIR's analysis of water supply issues as set forth on page 4.14-2 and following: a. Lin - The DEIR states that the project is in the "service area of the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)." These agencies in fact do not have "service areas" because they do not serve water. They are in fact administrative and/or managerial agencies in which retail water agencies are members. Their boundaries are determined by their member agencies' locations. b. Line 4 - The DEIR states that "the site has supply rights with these two agencies." The fact is that this site has no rights at all, in a typical sense. Groundwater rights are not adjudicated in the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. All • agencies have equal access to this basin but no real "rights." With MWDOC, rights do not PYvpoasd Find Dish Dited FoAnry 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 198 • exist, either, because MWDOC is strictly an administrative agency that retail agencies belong to in order to obtain water from MWD. MWD sells capacity rights in its pipelines, but doing so does not guarantee that water will be available. Having a capacity right in a pipeline is more akin to an allowance if water is available in sufficient quantity. C. Lin - The quantity, "Seventy percent," is a figure called the Basin Production Percentage (BPP). It is set annually by the OCWD and can vary widely depending on the estimated safe yield of the Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin. The BPP is not a quantity that can be counted upon to remain constant as it is designed to fluctuate based on groundwater levels and estimated total demand within the Basin's • boundaries. It must be understood that basing a new development's major source of supply on the groundwater basin is risky at best. d. Lines 18-20 - The fact is that the last sentence in this paragraph is the objective of OCWD's Groundwater Management Plan and may not become a reality. Its success is based purely on the local retail agencies (such as the City) to pay for their capital improvements and whether OCWD's assumptions are indeed correct. Reliance cannot be placed on this plan being implemented as is done in the DEIR. The price of the GWMP, as stated above, may be too high. Local agencies of OCWD are paying the price, but $371M in these difficult times may be too much. • e. Lines 26-28 - This sentence reflects OCWD's belief but the fact is that all of the projects alluded to may not be completed. It is not a fact and to approve any project based on this is unjustifiable. The 90% figure represents a goal only. Again, the success depends on the ability of the members of OCWD to pay for the • necessary projects. The DEIR should explore other sources of water, such as seawater desalination. No comments or discussion is given on this source in the DEIR. The cities of Santa Barbara and Morro Bay have constructed seawater desalination plants for domestic water sources, as has the SCE Company on Santa Catalina Island. This project should explore that option in depth. • f. Lines 30-31 - This sentence reflects one of the criteria used by OCWD in their Groundwater Management Plan but in no way can be used as fact. It is simply one of the assumptions contained in their Plan but whose success cannot be totally counted upon. • Pmpoad Find Draft D&W fM&wry 14, 1991 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 199 • g. Line 36 - The treated sewage effluent referred to in this sentence does not meet all potable water quality standards as stated. This statement is in error. • h. Lines 37-39 - The "same technology" is not a true statement. "Similar technology" would be correct. The foregoing comments illustrate the confused approach of the water supply section and demonstrate why this Section of the DEIR needs to be corrected and the DEIR recirculated • before it can be certified. 3. Green Acres Project and Water Availability. The non-construction of the Green Acres Project will most certainly impact this project's ability to obtain water should an independent water company or water district be selected for that task. Since • OCWD's groundwater management policies revolve around what they consider to be a safe yield, any agency which exceeds their pro-rata share of the safe yield will not be viewed favorably. A disservice to all other agencies can also be implied. To successfully manage the groundwater basin, OCWD must have the cooperation of all groundwater producers in its area of responsibility. Without the Green Acres Project, the independent water company • or water district will not be able to do this. 100% of all its supply will be taken from the groundwater basin. The City, as well as the other municipalities that produce groundwater and observe the safe yield, will object to this practice. In the worst case, it could lead to adjudication of the groundwater basin. This would severely impact the City, forcing it to rely more heavily on the expensive imported water purchased from MWDOC. An impact in the amount of$6.5M (1994 dollars) in additional water costs to the City could result. The Green Acres project would not, as currently envisioned, service the project site. Page 4.14-12 through 13, commencing on line 46 assumes that reclaimed water will be available to serve the development. This may not be the case. The current planning for the Green • Acres Pipeline does not extend to Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos Avenue, but stops on Warner Avenue easterly of Bolsa Chica Street (Meadowlark Airport Property). This, of course, assumes that the pipeline will even be built. Even if reclaimed water should be available to the project, an additional 16 inch line would need to be constructed in the Bolsa Chica Street extension/emergency access road to connect to the proposed GAP pipeline in • Garfield Avenue to enhance the reliability of that system. Pov""d Find Dts[t Dead FOMMY 14, 1994 0 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 200 • OCWD has discussed construction of the GAP but has not released plans for design as of this date. Funding and economic viability of the project are still uncertain. The cost, originally to be paid for by OCWD, is now considered to be too high compared to the revenue projections. • No reference is given as to the source of demand factors used for the reclaimed water usage estimates shown in Table 4.14-4. Without further information, it can only be said that the numbers shown may be on the high side. This would impact the economic viability of OCWD's Green Acres Project because GAP would not experience the expected revenues if actual consumption was lower than estimated. If the bonds obtained to build GAP cannot • be repaid because of insufficient revenue, the financial problems resulting could fiscally impact not only the City but the Orange County Water District as well. 4. Determination of Safe Yield. Page 4.14-11, lines 8-13 of the DEIR note that the impacts of the project on water service will be considered significant if the • project-related demand meets or exceeds the "safe yield" of existing water supplies. Safe yield must be defined in the report. It is generally a complicated series of measurements and calculations that are used to determine the Basin Production Percentage. The safe yield is arguable because the available water supplies cannot be shown to actually exist at the present time and appear to be an unfounded assumption in the DEIR. No hard evidence is • available to solidly support the idea that additional groundwater supplies will be available if OCWD completes its Groundwater Management Plan. The Plan is based on assumptions and estimates. The reclaimed water supply system is still in suspense. Without concrete evidence that water is truly available, even with new improvements, any new development is at risk of water shortages. If a water shortage occurs because of this deficiency, and the • City is impacted because of the nature of the unadjudicated groundwater basin, then an unavoidable adverse impact will have occurred ($6.5M additional cost for water as detailed above). This -possibility is not mitigated in the DEIR and thus the document is inadequate in this regard. 5. DEIR Omits Peak Demand Analysis. Page 4.14-12, lines 30-49 • estimates the project-related water demand. This section of the DEIR fails to discuss the demands of peak water use. During a typical day, water demands ebb and flow based on the makeup of the water service area. Predominantly residential areas have a very different water use pattern than those that are predominantly industrial or commercial. Water use in Pro"md Furl Draft Dated FeMmy 14, 19" • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 201 • residential areas tends to fluctuate more than in industrial areas (which tend to be more constant), depending on the number of workshifts in process. Consequently, regardless of type, each water service area will experience a peak flow. There will typically be a peak month (usually in the summer), a peak week (usually in the peak month), a peak day and a 0 peak hour. The average annual water demand, which are the numbers stated in the DEIR, are calculated numbers obtained by dividing the total water consumption for a year's time by the number of days in the year. It is generally used as a guide for sizing a water source, • and to compare total consumption on an annual basis. That number, however, does not play a major role in the total analysis of a given water system. The two conditions that generally stress a given water system the most are the peak hour condition or the peak day condition occurring at the same time a major fire has erupted. • This can be documented in most water supply engineering manuals dealing with design. Neither of these conditions is discussed at all in the DEIR. In dealing with peak conditions, reservoir storage is a major consideration because the two peak conditions above can easily overstress most water supply sources. No mention is made in the DEIR 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 gallons per minute over and above the domestic water flow requirements. Further fire flow study is required, including back up water storage. Storage must be provided for dealing with the peak hour condition, the peak day plus fire flow condition, and for other emergency conditions, such as water source outages (no water available from sources). No such analysis is provided nor discussed in the • DEIR. The DEIR assumes that the City's nine million gallon reservoir will deal with these peak usages, yet no peak water use figures are quoted in the DEIR. The DEIR shows no analysis to support the proposed pipe sizing, so no surety can be realized that would allow one to conclude that adequate fire protection was available. • A much more complete engineering analysis needs to be provided in the DEIR to assure environmental decision-makers that a thorough water availability analysis has been carried out under all normal design conditions as typically detailed in water supply engineering literature. An analysis of this type for the prior proposed Bolsa Chica project is contained in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan (WMP), Chapter 7, page 7-1. • Proposod-,,W Dish Dated Fobusry 14, 19" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 201 1 residential areas tends to fluctuate more than in industrial area: constant), depending on the number of workshifts in process. type, each water service area will experience a peak flow. Th month (usually in the summer), a peak week (usually in the pe ' peak hour. The average annual water demand, which are the numbers stat calculated numbers obtained by dividing the total water consur the number of days in the year. It is generally used as a guide and to compare total consumption on an annual basis. That nt 1 play a major role in the total analysis of a given water system. The two conditions that generally stress a given water system condition or the peak day condition occurring at the same time This can be documented in most water supply engineering mar Neither of these conditions is discussed at all in the DEIR. In conditions, reservoir storage is a major consideration because above can easily overstress most water supply sources. No mt to the required fire flow demands for the project area. It is es would require a fire flow of up to 4,000 gallons per minute o- water flow requirements. Further fire flow study is required, r,i. storage. Storage must be provided for dealing with the peak hour plus fire flow condition, and for other emergency conditions, suc (no water available from sources). No such analysis is provided DEIR. The DEIR assumes that the City's nine million gallon re! 1 peak usages, yet no peak water use figures are quoted in the L analysis to support the proposed pipe sizing, so no surety can one to conclude that adequate fire protection was available. A much more complete engineering analysis needs to be provi. environmental decision-makers that a thorough water availabil out under all normal design conditions as typically detailed in literature. An analysis of this type for the prior proposed Boh in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan (WMP), Chapter 7, pag 1 Aopomd Find Dish DaM Febn 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 203 • should operate most effectively. Section 7-4 of the 1988 Water Master Plan (p. 7-6) discusses these matters in detail. An additional water well is also identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan as being needed to serve a major residential project on the proposed site. (1988 WMP, p.76). No mention is made of this fact. The concept that water conservation measures are expected to reduce water demand by at least 10 percent is questionable because the standard of comparison is not stated and no references are included. 7. Power and Natural Gas. Page 4.14-3, In. 45-50, states only that • electricity is provided to the areas adjacent to the project site by Southern California Edison and that natural gas is provided to these areas by Southern California Gas Co. The adequacy of these utilities to service the project is not discussed. The fact that one of these two energy sources must be used to pump water is not mentioned. The source of funds to pay to bring these utilities to the project is also not considered. All of these and the other • relevant facts must be detailed in the DEIR so that the public can understand the impact of the project on these public utilities. Page 4.14-12, lines 1-28 of the DEIR state that generation factors to estimate electric power demand was estimated based on 1993 SCAQMD factors. The DEIR does not state, however, whether the energy consumption quantities for water pumping been taken into account. ` Pumping energy for water • supply will be a significant amount compared to the overall usage by the project. Based on City water system experience, it is estimated that a minimum of over 1,000,000 kilowatt- hours per year will be utilized for water supply pumping for the project. This represents a minimum of 4% additional electricity consumption for the project. The DEIR does not indicate whether this additional energy consumption has been taken into account when assessing the energy, air quality and other impacts of the project. The ratepayers of the water utility will pay these costs. 8. Wastewater Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding wastewater: • a. page 4.14-3 - The narrative states that the areas surrounding the subject project are served by the CSDOC, District No. 11, and that, based on the 1990 1151 The DEIR also fails to state whether energy consumption for desalinization of water (f utilized), energy for other water treatment requirements, and for waste water treatments/pumping,etc. have been taken into account. P,opord Find Dish Din"FiAn.vy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 203 1 should operate most effectively. Section 7-4 of the 1988 Water Master Plan (p. 7-6) discusses these matters in detail. An additional water well is also identified in the City's 1988 Water Master Plan as being needed to serve a major residential project on the proposed site. (1988 WMP, p.76). No mention is made of this fact. The concept that water 1 conservation measures are expected to reduce water demand by at least 10 percent is questionable because the standard of comparison is not stated and no references are included. 7. Power and Natural Gas. Page 4.14-3, In. 45-50, states only that electricity is provided to the areas adjacent to the project site by Southern California Edison and that natural gas is provided to these areas by Southern California Gas Co. The adequacy of these utilities to service the project is not discussed. The fact that one of these two energy sources must be used to pump water is not mentioned. The source of funds to pay to bring these utilities to the project is also not considered. All of these and the other relevant facts must be detailed in the DEIR so that the public can understand the impact of the project on these public utilities. Page 4.14-12, lines 1-28 of the DEIR state that generation factors to estimate electric power demand was estimated based on 1993 SCAQMD factors. The DEIR does not state, however, whether the energy consumption quantities for water pumping been taken into account.!—` Pumping energy for water supply will be a significant amount compared to the overall usage by the project. Based on 1 City water system experience, it is estimated that a minimum of over 1,000,000 kilowatt- hours per year will be utilized for water supply pumping for the project. This represents a minimum of 4% additional electricity consumption for the project. The DEIR does not indicate whether this additional energy consumption has been taken into account when assessing the energy, air quality and other impacts of the project. The ratepayers of the 4 water utility will pay these costs. S. Wastewater Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding wastewater: a. page 4.14-3 - The narrative states that the areas surrounding 1 the subject project are served by the CSDOC, District No. 11, and that, based on the 1990 1151 ?he DEIR also fails to state whether energy consumption for desalinization of water (if utilized), energy for other water treatment requirements,and for waste water rrertrments/pumping,etc. have been taken into account. 1 PYopo"d Find Dtw t Odod Fibwy 11. 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 205 • f. Paragraph 4 indicates 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 operation and maintenance of Lift Station "D" is crucial to the proposed wastewater plan. A revised DEIR should include reference to such an agreement, or it should include an alternate means of accommodating wastewater discharge from the project. g. Paragraph 4 also states that the proposed replacement Lift • Station "D" will be constructed within the Bolsa Chica development. However, Figure 3.2-5 shows the proposed Lift Station "D" outside of the Bolsa Chica study area boundary. Where will this facility be constructed? If the new lift station is proposed outside the Bolsa Chica Study Area, what would be the impacts to the City? A revised DEIR should address such impacts. • h. Page 4.14-20 makes reference to a comprehensive water reuse program for new projects and a system of reclaimed water pipelines established. There is no figure or plan provided to assess the construction requirements and associated impacts within the City to interconnect to the CSDOC regional system. • 9. Solid Waste Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding solid waste: • a. Page 4.14-3 - There is no County Transfer Station. It closed ten years ago. Rainbow Disposal Company has operated their own transfer station since 1983. b. There is no Bee Canyon Landfill. The facility is the Frank R. • Bowerman Landfill located in Bee Canyon. All references to a "Bee Canyon" landfill in the document should be changed to "Bowerman". C. Rainbow Disposal has a permitted capacity of 2,800 tons per day. • Proposed Find Divft Dated feb wy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 205 • f. Paragraph 4 indicates 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 operation and maintenance of Lift Station "D" is crucial to the proposed wastewater plan. A revised DEIR should include reference to such an agreement, or it should include an alternate means of accommodating wastewater discharge from the project. g. Paragraph 4 also states that the proposed replacement Lift Station "D" will be constructed within the Bolsa Chica development. However, Figure 3.2-5 shows the proposed Lift Station "D" outside of the Bolsa Chica study area boundary. Where will this facility be constructed? If the new lift station is proposed outside the Bolsa Chica Study Area, what would be the impacts to the City? A revised DEIR should address such impacts. • h. Page 4.14-20 makes reference to a comprehensive water reuse program for new projects and a system of reclaimed water pipelines established. There is no figure or plan provided to assess the construction requirements and associated impacts within the City to interconnect to the CSDOC regional system. • 9. Solid Waste Impacts. The DEIR does not adequately address the following issues regarding solid waste: a. Page 4.14-3 - There is no County Transfer Station. It closed • ten years ago. Rainbow Disposal Company has operated their own transfer station since 1983. b. There is no Bee Canyon Landfill. The facility is the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill located in Bee Canyon. All references to a "Bee Canyon" landfill in • the document should be changed to "Bowerman". C. Rainbow Disposal has a permitted capacity of 2,800 tons per day. • Pmpo"d Find Diatt Dot"FeMary 14. f994 • • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 207 • e. Based upon an estimated 4800 dwelling units, or approximately 15,000 new residents at build-out, the projected workload for Huntington Beach police officers would increase by the • following: Calls for Assistance: 95 calls, 160 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 285 accidents, 855 officer hours • Traffic Enforcement: 6,150 citations, 3,600 officer hours Total: 4,615 officer hours. This would require an additional three officers to handle the increased activity at a current cost of$441,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and administrative expenses). 11. Fiscal Analysis of City Police Services. If the development was undertaken within the City (i.e., if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project) the adverse impacts on the provision of Police services would be greatly diminished. For comparison, only the following resources would be required: • TODAY'S DOLLARS 7 Patrol Officers $504,000 2 Traffic Officers 155,520 2 Detectives 144,000 1 Dispatcher 50,000 • 1 Detention Officer 53,000 1 Criminalist/I.D. Technician 61,000 2 Records Clerks 78,000 2 Crossing Guards 12,500 18 Employees $1,058,020 The Police Department has received a rough draft of the Sheriffs estimation of additional personnel that will be included in the County's EIR. Due to service increases, they suggest an additional 13.5 employees at build-out by the year 2006. They are: Propesed Fine/Dolt Dated Fe&UwY 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 207 • e. Based upon an estimated 4800 dwelling units, or approximately 15,000 new residents at build-out, the projected workload for Huntington Beach police officers would increase by the following: • Calls for Assistance: 95 calls, 160 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 285 accidents, 855 officer hours Traffic Enforcement: 6,150 citations, 3,600 officer hours • Total: 4,615 officer hours. This would require an additional three officers to handle the increased activity at a current cost of$441,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and administrative expenses). 11. Fiscal Analysis of City Police Services. If the development was undertaken within the City (i.e., if an annexation were to proceed as part of the project) the adverse impacts on the provision of Police services would be greatly diminished. For comparison, only the following resources would be required: TODAY'S DOLLARS • 7 Patrol Officers $504,000 2 Traffic Officers 155,520 2 Detectives 144,000 1 Dispatcher 50,000 1 Detention Officer 53,000 • 1 Criminalist/I.D. Technician 61,000 2 Records Clerks 78,000 2 Crossing Guards 12.500 18 Employees $1,058,020 The Police Department has received a rough draft of the Sheriff's estimation of additional personnel that will be included in the County's EIR. Due to service increases, they suggest an additional 13.5 employees at build-out by the year 2006. They are: Rvpmed fbW Dnh Dot"Fbhb 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 209 • Calls for Assistance: 75 calls, 127 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 224 accidents, 671 officer hours Traffic Enforcement: 4,827 citations, 2,826 officer hours Various Criminal Victimization: 117 incidents, 62 officer hours Total: 3,686 officer hours. This would require an additional two officers to handle the increased activity at a • current cost of$294,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and administrative expenses). 12. Other Police Service Issues. a. Construction of the Cross-Ga2 Connector. The 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. 1) Although regional traffic flow may not be significantly impacted as indicated in the • applicant's proposed project, local traffic flow will be greatly improved. 2) It would not require additional traffic enforcement or other control devices for the emergency road segment of the Bolsa Chica extension proposed by the applicant. Also, if control devices such as locked gates were necessary, emergency response • times would be adversely impacted. 3) The connector would aid in any emergency evacuation in this area should it become necessary. • 4) 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 proposes 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 sheriff's that analyzes response times for their backup units. But it is likely that we will have • Propowd RAW Draft Dated Feb eery 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency I February 17, 1994 Page 209 Calls for Assistance: 75 calls, 127 officer hours Traffic Accidents: 224 accidents, 671 officer hours I Traffic Enforcement: 4,827 citations, 2,826 officer hours Various Criminal Victimizations: 117 incidents, 62 officer hours Total: 3,686 officer hours. This would require an additional two officers to handle the increased activity at a current cost of$294,000 per year (including the cost of related additional support personnel and overhead and administrative expenses). 12. Other Police Service Issues. a. Construction of the Cross-Gap Connector. The 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. 1) Although regional traffic flow may not be significantly impacted as indicated in the applicant's proposed project, local traffic flow will be greatly improved. 2) It would not require additional traffic enforcement or other control devices for the emergency road segment of the Bolsa Chica extension proposed by the applicant. Also, if control devices such as locked gates were necessary, emergency response times would be adversely impacted. 3) The connector would aid in any emergency evacuation in this area should it become necessary. 4) 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 proposes 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 Proposod A-W Draft Del"fi&wy 14, 19" • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 211 • possibility. Through a development agreement with the developer, land and building was to be provided for a fire station and shared space for a police sub-station. The developer was to contribute $2 million for land and building and another $1 million for operating costs to augment the general fund. This funding requirement is not addressed in the DEIR but the need still exists. The Bolsa Chica extension in the applicant's proposal 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. • 13. )Hire Protection and Emergency Medical Comments. a. Page 4.14-1, Line 28: The report states that Orange County Fire Department (OCFD) Station 3 (Sunset Beach) has a one (1) engine station staffed by twenty-five (25) paid call firefighters. The DEIR needs to explain how a paid call system • functions and a detailed explanation of how response time is measured. Response time should include reaction time (time to get assembled which includes: responding to the station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus) plus driving time (the time it takes to drive from the station to the actual emergency). It is understood that the Orange County Fire Department has established a response time goal of five (5) minutes for eighty (80) r percent of their calls for a AUy paid crew at the station available for response. At Station 3, paid caU firefighters are not on duty and, when available, usually respond to the station from some distance. The distance from Station 3 to the project site is approximately 1.5 miles. At 30 mph, the average driving speed, it would take three (3) minutes to drive to the project (Warner & Algonquin). The actual reaction time for assembling that is • responding to station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus ranges from one and one half (1.5) minutes for a fully staffed station to five (5) minutes for a paid call station. Therefore, the total response time (reaction + driving time) is eight (8) minutes for Station 3 operating as a paid call,station. The County's response time standard of five (5) minutes will not be met. The report further states that staffing will consist of a captain, engineer, and firefighter. However, within a paid call system there is always the potential that no paid call firefighters will arrive or that none of the required ranks will arrive. The seven ( ) closest Orange County fire stations to the project area are shown in Figure 1 attached to this letter as AmEx No. 48. The distances, staffing, and response times from the seven (7) closest county fire stations are listed in Table I. As the table indicates, none of the stations under current staffing levels will meet the county response time of five (5) minutes Proposed Fine/Draft Dared Fib wy 14. 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 211 1 possibility. Through a development agreement with the developer, land and building was to be provided for a fire station and shared space for a police sub-station. The developer was to contribute $2 million for land and building and another $1 million for operating costs to augment the general fund. This funding requirement is not addressed in the DEIR but the 4 need still exists. The Bolsa Chica extension in the applicant's proposal 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. 13. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Comments. a. Page 4.14-1, Line 28: The report states that Orange County Fire Department (OCFD) Station 3 (Sunset Beach) has a one (1) engine station staffed by twenty-five (25) paid call firefighters. The DEIR needs to explain how a paid call system functions and a detailed explanation of how response time is measured. Response time 1 should include reaction time (time to get assembled which includes: responding to the station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus) plus driving time (the time it takes to drive from the station to the actual emergency). It is understood that the Orange County Fire Department has established a response time goal of five (5) minutes for eighty (80) percent of their calls for a fully paid crew at the station available for response. At Station 4 3, paid call firefighters are not on duty and, when available, usually respond to the station from some distance. The distance from Station 3 to the project site is approximately 1.5 miles. At 30 mph, the average driving speed, it would take three (3) minutes to drive to the project (Warner & Algonquin). The actual reaction time for assembling that is responding to station, putting on equipment, and starting the apparatus ranges from one and 4 one half (1.5) minutes for a fully staffed station to five (5) minutes for a paid call station. Therefore, the total response time (reaction + driving time) is eight (8) minutes for Station 3 operating as a paid call station. The County's response time standard of five (5) minutes will not be met. The report further states that staffing will consist of a captain, engineer, and firefighter. However, within a paid call system there is always the potential that no 1 paid call firefighters will arrive or that none of the required ranks will arrive. The seven (7) closest Orange County fire stations to the project area are shown in Figure 1 attached to this letter as ANNEx No. 48. The distances, staffing, and response times from the seven (7) closest county fire stations are listed in Table I. As the table indicates, none of the stations under current staffing levels will meet the county response time of five (5) minutes 4 Proposed Find Dish D&W fsbwy 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 213 • TABLE I ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME TO PROJECT AREA Distance Reaction & From Project Location Type Vehicle Staffing Status Driving Time On site Within project Engine Full Paid <5 minutes Truck Full Paid • Paramedic Unit Full Paid 1.5 miles Station 3 Engine Paid Call 8 minutes (Sunset Beach) 4.5 miles Station 44 Engine Full Paid 11-14 minutes . (Seal Beach/ I Engine Paid Call downtown) 1 Truck Paid Call 5.5 miles Station 25 2 Engines Paid Call 16 minutes (Midway City) • 6.5 miles Station 48 1 Engine Full Paid 15 minutes (Seal Beach/405) 1 Paramedic Van Full Paid 1 Battalion Chief Full Paid 8.5 miles Station 2 1 Engine Full Paid 19-22 minutes (Los Alamitos) I Engine Paid Call • 10.0 miles Station 46 1 Paramedic Engine Full Paid 20 minutes (Stanton) I Paramedic Truck Full Paid 10.6 miles Station 17 1 Engine Full Paid 23 minutes (Cypress) 1 Truck Full Paid 1 Paramedic Van Full Paid b. Page 4.14-1, Line 30: Although the project is phased, all phases will have insufficient fire protection based on County standards even when a station is built within the project area. The DEIR does not describe how fire protection, based on the county • response standards, will be met. F/vpawd Frof Dtolt DOW F"-wy 14, 19" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 213 TABLE I ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TYKE TO PROJECT AREA Distance Reaction & From Project Location Type Vehicle Staffing Status Driving Time On site Within project Engine Full Paid <5 minutes Truck Full Paid Paramedic Unit Full Paid ' 1.5 miles Station 3 Engine Paid Call 8 minutes (Sunset Beach) 4.5 miles Station 44 Engine Full Paid 11-14 minutes (Seal Beach/ 1 Engine Paid Call ' downtown) 1 Truck Paid Call 5.5 miles Station 25 2 Engines Paid Call 16 minutes (Midway City) 6.5 miles Station 48 1 Engine Full Paid 15 minutes ' (Seal Beach/405) 1 Paramedic Van Full Paid 1 Battalion Chief Full Paid 8.5 miles Station 2 1 Engine Full Paid 19-22 minutes (Los Alamitos) 1 Engine Paid Call 10.0 miles Station 46 1 Paramedic Engine Full Paid 20 minutes (Stanton) 1 Paramedic Truck Full Paid 10.6 miles Station 17 1 Engine Full Paid 23 minutes (Cypress) 1 Truck Full Paid 1 Paramedic Van Full Paid ' b. Page 4.14-1, Line 30: Although the project is phased, all phases will have insufficient fire protection based on County standards even when a station is built within the project area. The DEIR does not describe how fire protection, based on the county response standards, will be met. ' PfVPQ2W FaW Dfw t Dattd Fibury 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 215 OCFD policy currently requires three (3) engine companies, one (1) ladder truck company, one paramedic unit, and one (1) battalion chief to respond on "first alarm" assignments. These units should all be at the incident within six and one half (6-1/2) minutes with the first unit arriving within five (5) minutes. They should also be staffed using thirty (30), 24-hour personnel assigned to three (3) shifts with each working 56 hour weeks. Nine (9) personnel are assigned to the engine, twelve (12) to the truck, six (6) to the paramedic unit, and three (3) to the battalion chief unit. The station should also house adequate reserve apparatus for emergencies. Details should be provided to describe where additional units will be responding from to comply with County established response standards for first alarm and 0 greater alarm fires. The proposed County fire station needs more detail. For instance, to house the fire protection resources described above, the project should provide a four-bay station fully equipped with engine, truck, paramedic and battalion chief units to provide the minimum • apparatus required for the project. d. Page 1-41, Table 1.5-1, Impact 4.14-2: The DEIR only addresses OCFD as the service provider. Assuming no fire or medical response is provided by Huntington Beach, OCFD will place service demands on other cities such as Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Westminster. The DEIR needs to discuss the use of other cities' fire resources and the impacts on these cities, as well as the impacts on Huntington Beach. e. Page 4.14-19, Line 6: The proposed project only focuses on OCFD's fire protection service impacts. The DEIR should evaluate and describe the impacts on surrounding fire protection services. The DEIR does not discuss the impacts and mitigation for the MWD property located within the City. f. As the project extends into the City (1.2.1), areas in the City will also be impacted and will require that a fire protection system be provided to mitigate response time deficiencies. This means that in addition to the County required station, a fully equipped fire station which includes an engine and a paramedic unit with a total staffing of fifteen (15) personnel will be required to mitigate City impacts. Additionally, all structures within the City boundaries must have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed pursuant to National Fire Protection Association Standards. Roadways and access must also Proposed Final Dish Dated Fabiary 14. 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 215 1 OCFD policy currently requires three (3) engine companies, one (1) ladder truck company, one paramedic unit, and one (1) battalion chief to respond on "first alarm" assignments. These units should all be at the incident within six and one half (6-1/2) minutes with the first unit arriving within five (5) minutes. They should also be staffed using thirty (30), 24-hour personnel assigned to three (3) shifts with each working 56 hour weeks. Nine (9) personnel 1 are assigned to the engine, twelve (12) to the truck, six (6) to the paramedic unit, and three (3) to the battalion chief unit. The station should also house adequate reserve apparatus for emergencies. Details should be provided to describe where additional units will be responding from to comply with County established response standards for first alarm and greater alarm fires. 1 The proposed County fire station needs more detail. For instance, to house the fire protection resources described above, the project should provide a four-bay station fully equipped with engine, truck, paramedic and battalion chief units to provide the minimum apparatus required for the project. 1 d. Page 1-41, Table 1.5-1, Impact 4.14-2: The DEIR only addresses OCFD as the service provider. Assuming no fire or medical response is provided by Huntington Beach, OCFD will place service demands on other cities such as Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, and Westminster. The DEIR needs to discuss the use of other cities' fire resources and the impacts on these cities, as well as the impacts on Huntington Beach. e. Page 4.14-19, Line 6: The proposed project only focuses on OCFD's fire protection service impacts. The DEIR should evaluate and describe the impacts 1 on surrounding fire protection services. The DEIR does not discuss the impacts and mitigation for the MWD property located within the City. L As the project extends into the City (1.2.1), areas in the City will also be impacted and will require that a fire protection system be provided to mitigate response time deficiencies. This means that in addition to the County required station, a fully equipped fire station which includes an engine and a paramedic unit with a total staffing of fifteen (15) personnel will be required to mitigate City impacts. Additionally, all structures within the City boundaries must have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed pursuant to National Fire Protection Association Standards. Roadways and access must also / Proposed Final Dish Dated febuay 14, 1994 1 w w Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 217 w improvements is recommended as the project area standard. If the MPAH is amended, response times to emergency incidents will be compromised in the proposed development area, as well as surrounding City areas. 0 i. Page 4.14-19, Line 26: 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. More tests need to be done to assure adequate safety and clean operations during site remediation activities. w Recent City Fire Department history shows that significant time is expended by staff to thoroughly analyze, review, and inspect sites for federal, State, and local regulatory compliance. The DEIR 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. w 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. j. Page 4.14-19, Line 34: The DEIR needs to discuss how the County will provide hazardous materials response services to the project area. This discussion should include how the project area will pay for these services. If the County proposes to include the project area under the OCFD's provider umbrella of the Orange County Hazardous Materials 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 DEIR. 14. Fire Department Comments Re: Cross-Gap Connector. a. Page 1-8, Table 1.5-1: This portion of the DEIR states that "detailed analysis has shown that no physical significant impacts occur from amending the LUE. The main inconsistency of the project relative to the MPAH is that Bolsa Chica Street is not connected to Garfield Avenue as a secondary arterial. (Analysis shows that no PMPO"d Fins/D10tt Dated Fobnwy 14, 19" Orange County Environmental Management Agency • February 17, 1994 Page 217 • improvements is recommended as the project area standard. If the MiPAH is amended, response times to emergency incidents will be compromised in the proposed development area, as well as surrounding City areas. i. Page 4.14-19, Line 26: Removal of oil drilling and storage • facilities will have a mgjor impact on County staff or fire department staff. Stringent regulations and standards make oil site and facility cleanup difficult. More tests need to be done to assure adequate safety and clean operations during site remediation activities. Recent City Fire Department history shows that significant time is expended by staff to • thoroughly analyze, review, and inspect sites for federal, State, and local regulatory compliance. The DEIR 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. j. Page 4.14-19, Line 34: The DEIR needs to discuss how the County will provide hazardous materials response services to the project area. This • discussion should include how the project area will pay for these services. If the County proposes to include the project area under the OCFD's provider umbrella of the Orange County Hazardous Materials 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 DEIR. 14. FIre Department Comments Re: Cross-Gap Connector. • a. Page 1-8, Table 1.5-1: This portion of the DEIR states that "detailed analysis has shown that no physical significant impacts occur from amending the LUE. The main inconsistency of the project relative to the MPAH is that Bolsa Chica Street is not connected to Garfield Avenue as a secondary arterial. (Analysis shows that no • Proposed FuW Dreg Dafed F*Mmvy 14, 1994 • • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 219 • 2. Kenilworth and Graham a. Engine company - 9 personnel b. Truck company - 12 personnel • C. Medic van - 6 personnel d. Ambulance - 6 personnel; or, e. Paramedic engine company - 12 personnel f. Truck company - 12 personnel g. Ambulance - 6 personnel • The Fire Department strongly supports the current Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways - which includes a complete Cross-Gap Connector connecting with Springdale, Graham, and Talbert Avenues. The use of "Opticom" controls at all signalized intersections within and adjacent to the project area is also recommended. • If the proposed project is built as planned, including development on the City portion of the MWD property, the Fire Department will require an agreement with the developer to provide the property, staffing, and equipment for one (1) fire station on the Kenilworth property noted above. • 15. Library Services. The City central library will experience a significant increase in use due to increased residential population form the project. The DEIR notes that the project would burden existing resources and includes only the increased revenue to the Couie library fund as mitigation. The DEIR notes that if the burden on the County's resources exceed the revenue that an additional funding agreement would be • required. The terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the DEIR and so it is not possible to assess whether the impact on the County library is mitigated. Furthermore, no mention of the impact to the Qa library system is even considered. The City central library is the closest library to the project and it provides a far higher level of service than the closest County branch libraries (which have only 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of space as opposed • to 118,000 square feet available in the City's central library. Since residents will usually make use of the library closest to their homes and since the City's facilities offer a higher level of service than the County's facilities in the area, it is expected that most of the additional burdens would be placed on the City's system, not the County's. The DEIR does not even attempt to assess or mitigate the impact on the City library. • Propowd Find Draft Dared Fe rwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 219 2. Kenilworth and Graham a. Engine company - 9 personnel b. Truck company - 12 personnel C. Medic van - 6 personnel d. Ambulance - 6 personnel; or, e. Paramedic engine company - 12 personnel f. Truck company - 12 personnel g. Ambulance - 6 personnel The Fire Department strongly supports the current Orange County Master Plan of Arterial 1 Highways - which includes a complete Cross-Gap Connector connecting with Springdale, Graham, and Talbert Avenues. The use of "Opticom" controls at all signalized intersections within and adjacent to the project area is also recommended. If the proposed project is built as planned, including development on the City portion of the MWD property, the Fire Department will require an agreement with the developer to provide the property, staffing, and equipment for one (1) fire station on the Kenilworth property noted above. 15. Library Services. The City central library will experience a significant increase in use due to increased residential population form the project. The DEIR notes that the project would burden existing resources and includes only the increased revenue to the County library fund as mitigation. The DEIR notes that if the burden on the County's resources exceed the revenue that an additional funding agreement would be required. The terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the DEIR and so it is not possible to assess whether the impact on the County library is mitigated. Furthermore, no mention of the impact to the -QU library system is even considered. The City central library is the closest library to the project and it provides a far higher level of service than the closest County branch libraries (which have only 10,000 to 20,000 square feet of space as opposed to 118,000 square feet available in the City's central library. Since residents will usually 1 make use of the library closest to their homes and since the City's facilities offer a higher level of service than the County's facilities in the area, it is expected that most of the additional burdens would be placed on the City's system, not the County's. The DEIR does not even attempt to assess or mitigate the impact on the City library. Propoad FmW Drat D&W fibury 14, 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 221 • d. Page 4.14-14. lines 46-50: Connections to the Green Acres Project may not be available. As stated above, the project may not be built. Connections to MWDOC cannot be done because MWDOC has no facilities. These must be made to MAID facilities through the MWDOC agency. The construction of these facilities must be the subject of an additional environmental review document because the nearest MWD facilities are seven miles away in the City of Garden Grove. e. Page 4,14-15. lines 1-15: What is meant by "small" in line 1 ? In line 5, mention is made of a 4-5 million gallon reservoir. Why is this different than the • nine million gallons discussed previously? The nine million gallon reservoir erroneously stated in the DEIR to be intended for mitigation of the Bolsa Chica project will still need to be built somewhere. Significant adverse impacts will occur if the 1988 Water Master Plan is not followed because it has not been clearly and comprehensively shown in this document that all impacts will be mitigated. The report discusses only two alternatives for water • supply. Additional alternatives need to be discussed. Seawater desalination is one. Because of these inadequacies, the DEIR is flawed. f. Page 4.14-20, lines 5-23: The 9.4 million gallon figure in the first paragraph is not reproducible by anyone other than the author. The issue of fees is discussed without reference to AB1600 and how the money will be used in an equitable fashion. AB1600 requires that fees must be based on the capital costs of facilities required to serve new development. R. CHAPTER 4.15 - RECREATION. • 1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient. The plan proposed by Koll is not consistent with the City General Plan in areas of ratio of acres of park land to population, development open space requirements, and cultural/historic elements, (e.g., two acres of park development per thousand population versus the city's five acres per thousand population standard). The City is currently developing its historic and cultural plan which will include a landmark ordinance which may be inconsistent with the proposed project. If the City ratio of acres of park land to population is not implemented, existing City parks will sustain increased usage which would result in higher maintenance, less field time available for youth and adult sports leagues, increased vandalism, increased citizen complaints • regarding overcrowding, and increased City costs to program and maintain City facilities. If Propoaod Find Drift Doted Fibuary 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 221 1 d. Page 4.14-14, lines 46-50: Connections to the Green Acres Project may not be available. As stated above, the project may not be built. Connections to MWDOC cannot be done because MWDOC has no facilities. These must be made to MWD facilities through the MWDOC agency. The construction of these facilities must be the 1 subject of an additional environmental review document because the nearest MWD facilities are seven miles away in the City of Garden Grove. e. Page 4.14-15. lines 1-15: What is meant by "small" in line 1 ? In line 5, mention is made of a 4-5 million gallon reservoir. Why is this different than the nine million gallons discussed previously? The nine million gallon reservoir erroneously stated in the DEIR to be intended for mitigation of the Bolsa Chica project will still need to be built somewhere. Significant adverse impacts will occur if the 1988 Water Master Plan is not followed because it has not been clearly and comprehensively shown in this document that all impacts will be mitigated. The report discusses only two alternatives for water supply. Additional alternatives need to be discussed. Seawater desalination is one. Because 1 of these inadequacies, the DEER is flawed. f. Page 4.14-20. lines 5-23: The 9.4 million gallon figure in the first paragraph is not reproducible by anyone other than the author. The issue of fees is discussed without reference to AB1600 and how the money will be used in an equitable 1 fashion. AB1600 requires that fees must be based on the capital costs of facilities required to serve new development. R. CHAPTER 4.15 - RECREATION. 1 1. Park Component of Proposed Plan is Deficient. The plan proposed by Koll is not consistent with the City General Plan in areas of ratio of acres of park land to population, development open space requirements, and cultural/historic elements, (e.g., two acres of park development per thousand population versus the city's five acres per thousand population standard). The City is currently developing its historic and cultural plan which 1 will include a landmark ordinance which may be inconsistent with the proposed project. If the City ratio of acres of park land to population is not implemented, existing City parks will sustain increased usage which would result in higher maintenance, less field time available for youth and adult sports leagues, increased vandalism, increased citizen complaints regarding overcrowding, and increased City costs to program and maintain City facilities. If Propomd Fled Drat Datrd Febury 14, 19" • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 223 • 3. All parks, greenbelts, ponds, tide pools and the like to be dedicated for public use and maintained by the homeowners association and/or developer. • 4. Wetlands maintained by the State of California and/or the federal government. Liability and claims that arise out of the wetlands must remain with the party or parties responsible for maintenance. 4. Oil Boom Will Cause Beach Contamination. The oil spill prevention control counter measures noted in Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR are not shown in the DEIR to be satisfactory to contain oil spills from reaching the wetlands through the proposed tidal inlet. A boom catch system in the tidal inlet will probably cause increased beach contamination. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, further methods of mitigating oil spills need to be researched for further review and analysis by the public • before the DEIR is certified. 5. Geology and Seismicity. The DEIR shows 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 areas which will result in an inability to • provide necessary recreational facilities for the future residents of this area. 6. Slope Stability. Greenbelt areas which contain natural slopes may become unstable and present a liability problem. A slope stabilization plan should be developed for review and comment by the public prior to the certification of the DEIR. • 7. Contaminated Soil. The County has a different standard than the City for park lands to be developed on contaminated soil. The DEIR does not address this discrepancy nor does it state the standard for remediation which will be required before contaminated land is accepted for public park. If annexation were to take place, the soils • would have to meet City standards for acceptance of park land. Further review and study by the City would be required. 8. Corrosive Soil. The DEIR indicates that it is possible that some of the land to be dedicated for passive and active parks may now contain corrosive soils. Soils • containing corrosive elements (such as salt) have proven to progressively degrade irrigation PMPOSGW FbW Dz/t Doted f+Mwy 14. 1994 • ' 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 223 1 3. All parks, greenbelts, ponds, tide pools and the like to be dedicated for public use and maintained by the homeowners association and/or developer. 4. Wetlands maintained by the State of California and/or the federal government. 1 Liability and claims that arise out of the wetlands must remain with the party or parties responsible for maintenance. 4. Oil Boom Will Cause Beach Contamination. The oil spill prevention control counter measures noted in Chapter 4.2 of the DEIR are not shown in the DEIR to be satisfactory to contain oil spills from reaching the wetlands through the proposed tidal inlet. A boom catch system in the tidal inlet will probably cause increased beach contamination. Based on the City's experience with the American Trader oil spill, further methods of mitigating oil spills need to be researched for further review and analysis by the public before the DEIR is certified. 1 5. Geology and Seismicity. The DEIR shows 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 areas which will result in an inability to provide necessary recreational facilities for the future residents of this area. 1 6. Slope Stability. Greenbelt areas which contain natural slopes may become unstable and present a liability problem. A slope stabilization plan should be developed for review and comment by the public prior to the certification of the DEIR. 1 7. Contaminated Soil. The County has a different standard than the City for park lands to be developed on contaminated soil. The DEIR does not address this discrepancy nor does it state the standard for remediation which will be required before contaminated land is accepted for public park. If annexation were to take place, the soils would have to meet City standards for acceptance of park land. Further review and study by 1 the City would be required. 8. Corrosive Soil. The DEIR indicates that it is possible that some of the land to be dedicated for passive and active parks may now contain corrosive soils. Soils containing corrosive elements (such as salt) have proven to progressively degrade irrigation Prgooad RrW Draft DSW Fe&wy 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 225 • 11. Public Safety Impacts of Increased Site Visitation. The tidal inlet will provide habitat for marine life currently not associated with the site. This will increase potential for visitation to the area to explore the habitat which will increase the need for public safety measures, i.e., lifeguards and/or rangers. The jetties associated with the inlet • will also increase fishing activity which will also increase the need for public safety personnel in this area. A plan must be devised to address this issue, including funding of such a program. 12. Loss of Oceanfront. Construction of the tidal inlet will result in loss • of oceanfront for surfing and other beach recreation and may affect up to a quarter mile of surfing beach south of the proposed inlet. This area is one of the most popular surfing beaches. The City has spent considerable funds in improving parking and access immediately adjacent to this area for surfers and beachgoers. P The impact should not be deemed insignificant as reported in the EIR. One natural resource (beachfront) is being • traded for another (wetlands). An analysis should be performed to determine if the tradeoff for wetlands is worth the sacrifice of surf and beachfront areas. 13. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing. Proposed project is estimated to increase overall traffic flow between 4 to 5 percent. No consideration • is given to the impact on bicycle traffic on PCH with this proposed increase. Upsizing plan should include provisions for Class I bike lanes and bicycle access points to entryways at the State beach and the wetlands view point areas. 14. Surfing and Swimming Restrictions. Restricting surfing in front of the tidal inlet during high tide for safety considerations will require prohibiting surfing activity by lifeguard staff and will have a significant financial impact on operational costs. In order to prohibit surfing during tidal changes, a blackballing operation will have to be implemented. Blackballing is the process of lifeguards dropping two black buoys between areas designated as "no surfing" and patrolling the area to keep surfers out. The inlet area • would have to be blackballed from a boat operation which would require additional costs. From a practical standpoint, enforcing the surfing restriction in this area during tide changes will be extremely difficult, thereby resulting in increased liability to public safety. 1161 In the opinion of such organizations as the Surf Rider Foundation, this area is important to the surfing • experience and, as such, represents both an important recreational and coastal resource. Awpo"d RnN Dia/t Datod Fob mry 14, 1994 • i Orange County Environmental Management Agency i February 17, 1994 Page 225 11. Public Safety Impacts of Increased Site Visitation. The tidal inlet will provide habitat for marine life currently not associated with the site. This will increase potential for visitation to the area to explore the habitat which will increase the need for public safety measures, i.e., lifeguards and/or rangers. The jetties associated with the inlet will also increase fishing activity which will also increase the need for public safety personnel in this area. A plan must be devised to address this issue, including funding of such a program. 12. Loss of Oceanfront. Construction of the tidal inlet will result in loss of oceanfront for surfing and other beach recreation and may affect up to a quarter mile of surfing beach south of the proposed inlet. This area is one of the most popular surfing beaches. The City has spent considerable funds in improving parking and access immediately adjacent to this area for surfers and beachgoers.""Y The impact should not be deemed insignificant as reported in the EIR. One natural resource (beachfront) is being traded for another (wetlands). An analysis should be performed to determine if the tradeoff for wetlands is worth the sacrifice of surf and beachfront areas. 13. Transportation and Traffic Circulation; PCH Upsizing. Proposed project is estimated to increase overall traffic flow between 4 to 5 percent. No consideration is given to the impact on bicycle traffic on PCH with this proposed increase. Upsizing plan i should include provisions for Class I bike lanes and bicycle access points to entryways at the State beach and the wetlands view point areas. 14. Surfing and Swimming Restrictions. Restricting surfing in front of the tidal inlet during high tide for safety considerations will require prohibiting surfing activity by lifeguard staff and will have a significant financial impact on operational costs. In order to prohibit surfing during tidal changes, a blackballing operation will have to be implemented. Blackballing is the process of lifeguards dropping two black buoys between areas designated as "no surfing" and patrolling the area to keep surfers out. The inlet area would have to be blackballed from a boat operation which would require additional costs. i From a practical standpoint, enforcing the surfing restriction in this area during tide changes will be extremely difficult, thereby resulting in increased liability to public safety. 1161 In the opinion of such organizations as the Surf Rider Foundation, this area is important to the surfing experience and, as such, represents both an important recreational and coastal resource. Propo"d Find Draft Datod Fs6rwy 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 227 • 3. Water Impacts. a. Page 5-34. line 24: "The potential for fault rupture is remote and not considered significant" is quoted from the report. It is "not considered significant" • by whom? Paragraph 4, page 98, of Special Report 114, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (attached to this letter as Aix No. 51) states otherwise. b. Page 5-40. lines 1-30: This is Modified Project Alternative. The same comments apply as in Koll's proposed project, p. 4.2-32, lines 18-31. • C. Page 5-43. lines 44-48: Add to last sentence: "per utility or agency having jurisdiction." d. Page 5-44, lines 4-10: The same comments as stated with respect to Koll's proposed project apply equally to this Modified Project Alternative, p. 4.2- 36, lines 35-37. e. Page 5-44, lines 31-32: The Newport-Inglewood Fault is a major feature that will greatly impact water service in its movement and thus should be • examined in great detail. More discussion and evaluation of alternatives should be included to lessen major water losses should a seismic event occur. Although cutoff valves are one alternative, other and potentially better technology exists which must be considered in the DEIR. See comments for page 4.2-37, lines 1-10. • f. Page 5-46, lines 6-43: A new drainage pump station is discussed. Who will operate and maintain this facility? What are its energy and emissions impacts and the impacts of failure of the station? Who will be responsible for cleaning and checldng the stations for siltation? What will be the cost and who will pay it? g. Page 5-50. lines 4-11: Seawater intrusion into the groundwater basin is unacceptable. Further explanation and more details are needed in regard to the "appropriate geotechnical solutions." h. Page 5-112. Table 5.4.13-1: The Standard Population Figures quoted are low for water supply estimates. Figures obtained during research for the 1988 PrOM"d Find Dish Dated Fsbwry 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 227 1 3. Water Impacts. a. Page 5-34. line 24: "The potential for fault rupture is remote and not considered significant" is quoted from the report. It is "not considered significant" 1 by whom? Paragraph 4, page 98, of Special Report 114, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (attached to this letter as ANNEX No. 51) states otherwise. b. Page 5-40. lines 1-30: This is Modified Project Alternative. The same comments apply as in Koll's proposed project, p. 4.2-32, lines 18-31. 1 C. Page 5-43. lines 44-48: Add to last sentence: "per utility or agency having jurisdiction." d. Page 5-44, lines 4-10: The same comments as stated with respect to Koll's proposed project apply equally to this Modified Project Alternative, p. 4.2- 36, lines 35-37. e. Page 5-44. lines 31-32: The Newport-Inglewood Fault is a major feature that will greatly impact water service in its movement and thus should be examined in great detail. More discussion and evaluation of alternatives should be included 1 to lessen major water losses should a seismic event occur. Although cutoff valves are one alternative, other and potentially better technology exists which must be considered in the DEIR. 5= comments for page 4.2-37, lines 1-10. f. Page 5-46, lines 6-43: A new drainage pump station is discussed. Who will operate and maintain this facility? What are its energy and emissions impacts and the impacts of failure of the station? Who will be responsible for cleaning and checking the stations for siltation? What will be the cost and who will pay it? g. Page 5-50. lines 4-11: Seawater intrusion into the groundwater 1 basin is unacceptable. Further explanation and more details are needed in regard to the "appropriate geotechnical solutions." h. Page 5-112, Table 5.4.13-1: The Standard Population Figures quoted are low for water supply estimates. Figures obtained during research for the 1988 Proposed RAW Dish Dated Fsbnsry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 229 • improvements into the design of the project, and, therefore, should be responsible for funding these improvements. d. Page 5-86, Lines 18-19: The DEIR does not address the potential hazards to existing traffic due to construction traffic. An analysis of this potential impact should be included in the DEIR. Additionally, no analysis was conducted to assess the cost of monitoring any mitigation measures required during construction, nor is there discussion of who is responsible for the monitoring. This must be included in the revised DEIR. • e. Page 5-87. Lines 16-21: Taking into consideration the enormous impact of the project traffic on the Huntington Beach roadway network, the assumption made with respect to the availability of funds without even attempting to quantify monetary requirements in the study is unacceptable. • 5. Miscellaneous. a. Page 5-17. lines 5-14: This raises question that only partial • funding may be available which means that a reduced size restoration might be implemented. Was this alternative considered? Is there a critical restoration area necessary to support water quality requirements? b. Page 5-52. lines 16-20: The water quality analysis appears to • be based solely on residence time of tidal waters. What are the expected dissolved oxygen levels throughout restored area as a result of the modified project? What are probable concentrations of other contaminant loadings? How does modified project water quality compare to that of existing conditions and proposed project? Be specific. C. Page 5-53. line 13: Define "as needed" dredging. d. Page 5-56. line 28: How much larger would current velocity be if cross-section not increased at Warner Avenue Bridge? • Nopo"d Find Disft Dernd H6wry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 229 improvements into the design of the project, and, therefore, should be responsible for funding these improvements. d. Page 5-86, Lines 18-19: The DEIR does not address the potential hazards to existing traffic due to construction traffic. An analysis of this potential impact should be included in the DEIR. Additionally, no analysis was conducted to assess the cost of monitoring any mitigation measures required during construction, nor is there discussion of who is responsible for the monitoring. This must be included in the revised DEIR. e. Page 5-87. Lines 16-21: Taking into consideration the enormous impact of the project traffic on the Huntington Beach roadway network, the assumption made with respect to the availability of funds without even attempting to quantify monetary requirements in the study is unacceptable. 5. Miscellaneous. a. Page 5-17, lines 5-14: This raises question that only partial funding may be available which means that a reduced size restoration might be implemented. i Was this alternative considered? Is there a critical restoration area necessary to support water quality requirements? b. Page 5-52. lines 16-20: The water quality analysis appears to be based solely on residence time of tidal waters. What are the expected dissolved oxygen levels throughout restored area as a result of the modified project? What are probable concentrations of other contaminant loadings? How does modified project water quality compare to that of existing conditions and proposed project? Be specific. C. Page 5-53. line 13: Define "as needed" dredging. � d. Page 5-56. line 28: How much larger would current velocity be if cross-section not increased at Warner Avenue Bridge? 1 Proposed Find Oidt DOW FaGuny 14, 1994 i • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 231 • creating the restoration program. This should be provided for the EIR. Also, if there is excess dredge spoil, where is it disposed of and what are the biological impacts? k. Page 5-71, lines 1-7: This paragraph states that "the black- tailed jackrabbit will potentially suffer a significant loss of upland habitat from the proposed development and wetlands restoration." The paragraph also cites Rabbit Island being retained and there would remain 40 square miles of habitat. The conclusion is that due to remaining open space the impact is adverse, not significant. The report also mentioned that there is another black-tailed jackrabbit population in Laguna Laurel. The analysis should draw made some conclusions about whether this black-tailed jackrabbit population is the last within the vicinity as a basis for determining whether this is a locally important population and whether Rabbit Island will support enough rabbits to reduce their chances of being extirpated from the site. • 1, Pages 5-71 and 5-72: The text associated with birds is a little difficult to follow. In some instances the discussion compares impacts with the applicant's proposed project and in other instances it does not clarify what it is comparing to. It would be useful to present this information in tabular form showing existing habitat, the applicant WRP and the modified WRP, contrasting each habitat in acres along with bird utilization by • habitat type. This would provide a better understanding of how well each scenario accommodates the bird species involved. This must be done for each project phase. M. Page 5-73, lines 12-17: No figure or data is presented or referenced that shows or evaluates the importance of the least tern foraging areas that are • proposed to be adversely affected during construction of the WRP. Thus, it is difficult for other biologists to comment as to whether or not this temporary loss would be a significant impact. n. Page 5-73. lines 36-40: The preservation of 200 acres of • pickleweed will be maintained throughout completion of the WRP and that this "potentially reduces this significant impact to an adverse level rather than significant." It should be clarified how much of this 200 acres of pickleweed is occupied habitat. Comparison of Figures 4.7-2 and 5.4.7-1 indicates that there are areas of pickleweed just east of the northern portion of Bolsa Chica Mesa where no Belding's savannah sparrows are reported. • Proposed Find Draft Doted Fibwy 14,19M Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 232 Where are the 200-acre areas that will remain available and are they or will they be in a condition to support sparrows? o. Page 5-76. lines 20-22: The discussion acknowledges saltmarsh contributions to the ecosystem, but the discussion is very brief considering this is such a major restoration program. It would seem that a project such as this would add measurably to the benefit of a wide variety of wildlife. For example, projects such as this, coupled with plans for Batiquitos Lagoon, San Dieguito wetlands and Tijuana Estuary should help to continue to provide some form of a "safety net" for waterfowl and shorebirds. However, the text discusses the cumulative loss of upland habitat only. P. Page 5-77: The WRP should be summarized in the mitigation section - particularly the construction monitoring and maintenance, the 5-year post- construction monitoring and long-term surveys. These items were discussed on page 4.7-44 for Koll's proposed project. Also, if the WRP is a part of the project, why not discuss the i WRP, at least in summary fashion, within the project description? q- Page 5-118: Cumulative Impacts/Modified Alternative/Water and Wastewater: This section implies that the developer intends to employ Mello-Roos districts to fund said improvements. Since the developer has not described the scope of said i improvements in sufficient detail, there is no way to ascertain the significance or the reason for employing such districts and associated fees. The costs of developer-funded improvements would appear to be considerable. This would tend to heavily impact associated fees. T. CHAPTER 6 - LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 1. Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance/Enhancement of Productivity. As is noted in Part II.H of this letter, CEQA requires that an EIR considering basic planning and policy decisions must assess the i relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity. PRC §§ 21100, 21100.1. Guidelines § 15126(e) and 15127 require this analysis to focus on impacts which narrow the range of beneficial use or pose long term risks to health and safety. As noted numerous places in this letter, the proposed project poses a health risk due to the 20-year remediation of the current hazardous i Propoard RnW Draft Dated fp&n 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 233 • conditions, coupled with an indeterminate period during which oil operations will continue on the site. The extended time during which oil operations will continue may also have an adverse impact on the continued viability of biological resources of the wetlands. What happens when oil prices increase and it becomes economic to continue oil operations on inactive but not yet abandoned wells? The DEIR never explores this issue, concluding only that "eventual phasing out of oil production operations and the cleanup of oil production sites will have positive impacts over the long term." This conclusory statement does not fulfill the requirement for analysis stated in PRC § 21100 and the recirculated DEIR must analyze the potential schedule of phasing out oil operations, the implications of the project in terms of its • potential to expose wildlife, birds and other biological resources as well as human populations to ongoing risks from the close proximity of oil operations, and alternative approaches which should be explored to reduce these impacts. The discussion of long-term impacts must assess the "cumulative and long-term effects of the • proposed project which adversely affect the state of the environment." Guidelines § 15126(e). Long-term productivity and long-term effects on the state of the environment include the adverse effects on productivity of the natural habitat. Chapter 6 of the DEIR must assess the impact of the project on the long-term productivity of the wildlife, fish and plant habitat in the region. This is not considered in the DEIR, and it is likely that the • destruction of the uplands habitat would have a significant adverse impact on the ecological productivity not only of the uplands but of the remainder of the site as well. For example, the DEIR must consider the permanent impacts on biological productivity caused by the loss of raptor roosting and foraging habitat and the impact on brooding habitat for other threatened and endangered species, such as the burrowing owl. The DEIR must also • evaluate (i) the potential permanent injury to environmentally sensitive habitat which may be occasioned by upset during the remediation or construction process and (ii) the impact of the indefinite and potentially permanent delay in implementing the WRP on the biological productivity of the site. In order to fulfill CEQA's dictates for analysis of the effect of the project on the long-term productivity of the environment, the DEIR must be rewritten to • consider and analyze the impact of the layering man's environment (in the form of the 4,884 new homes in the area) over the natural environment as existing at the site. The current draft of the DEIR is deficient due to its failure to do so. Further, CEQA requires that "[s]pecial attention should be given to impacts which narrow • the range of beneficial uses of the environment. . . [and] . . . the reasons why the proposed PYoposod For!Orsh Demd Fib+wry 14, 1994 0 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 234 1 project is believed by the sponsor to be justified now, rather than reserving an option for further alternatives, should be explained." See Guidelines § 15126(e). Thus, the discussion must anlain the reasons which justify going forward with the project rather than reserving options for future alternatives. In this regard, the DEIR makes only a veiled reference to 1 "regulatory reasons" (DEIR p. 6-1, In. 44) and proceeds to discuss the LCP approval process without golaining how that process iustifi implementation of the project at this time. The only explanation which is offered attempts (and fails) to justify the current development of the Mesa and the potential eventual development of the Lowlands on the basis of the implementation period for the project coupled with the statement that delay would only extend the time required for restoration. As demonstrated in this letter, the current plan does not specify any time period for the implementation of the restoration, there is no reasonable probability of obtaining the Lowlands development permits which are a condition to the wetlands restoration and, therefore, potential delays are as likely with or without project approval from the County. Accordingly, the potential delay neither explains nor justifies the foreclosing of environmental options which will occur by reason of the approval of the 1 project at this time. 2. Irreversible Environmental Changes. Chapter 6.2 of the DEIR omits significant, irreversible changes which will occur from implementation of the project, including increases in traffic congestion (at PCH in all events and in other areas of the region 1 depending on the timing and success of the ATIP), the permanent loss of local species foraging habitat and the loss of potentially significant archaeological and historic resources. Further, the project would permit increased human intrusion into relatively inaccessible wetlands and ESHAs. These are among the significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the implementation of the action considered in the DEIR. The proposed project, if approved, is clearly an "ecological point of no return" for the future land use and environment of Bolsa Chica and must be evaluated in light of the long-term and irreversible changes in biological resource values, traffic, air quality, land use and other impacts which the project will create, particularly if the project never proceeds beyond the development of the Mesa. 1 1 PPOPOmd RnW Dish Daft Fsbury 14, 19" 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 235 U. CHAPTER 7 - ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT. 1. General Comments. 0 a. As noted in Part II.E, above, the discussion of alternative projects and alternate locations for the proposed project is inadequate and must be expanded and the DEIR recirculated. For example, a greater range of Lowlands alternatives and the alternatives suggested in Part ILE should be included in the recirculated DEIR. 0 b. A table indicating further information which is required for the DEIR to more adequately present the alternatives which are considered in the DEER is presented in ANNEx No. 8 to this letter. C. In discussing the feasibility of the various project alternatives which are presented in the DEIR see page 7-7 and the subsections for each alternative), the DEIR presents no substantial evidence to support its conclusions. It is not clear that various public and private funding mechanisms have been fully investigated. Evidence regarding the contacts which were made on funding issues, such as correspondence with organizations which provide such funding, should be included in the EIR. For some alternatives, it is not enough to say that the applicant is not interested in proceeding with them (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 DEIR 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 DEIR's conclusion that less environmentally alternatives are not feasible. 1181 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 flnancial feasibility of those projects is presented in the DEIR. PM"Wd RiW Draft Dated Febwy 14, 19" • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 236 1 d. CEQA requires that an EIR consider all reasonable alternatives. This DEIR fails 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 "J" 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. 2. Air Quality The No Development Alternative, page 7-51, line 31, also proposes no housing. 1 Consequently, the text needs to substantiate the additional vehicles entering the intersection. Try to make this section a more "stand-alone section such that the reader doesn't need to jump back and forth between chapters. 3. Biology Impacts. 1 Alternative A - Park/Lowland Restoration: Page 7-12: "Modification of Upland Habitat" There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Table 7.1-2: "The Table provides information for the Proposed Project" Page 7-5 (lines 30 and 31) - Table 7.1-2 provides no information for the proposed project but rather compares the impacts for the alternatives against the proposed project. 1 How can Alternative A result in no significant difference from the proposed project. Contrary to the title of the Alternative, no wetland restoration appears to be planned under this alternative (page 7-14, Lines 46 and 47); consequently, the benefit of restoration is lost. However, there are no short-term impacts on biological resources since there is no grading in the Lowlands. Also, the description provided for the recreation uses under this alternative commits to a buffer and will likely result in less impacts than the residential development. - 1 A cpca d Find Omit Oared F*hn V 14, 1994 1 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 237 • Alternative B - Biodiversity Park: Similar to Alternative A, there is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Also, it is still unclear if this alternative (similar to Alternative A) assumes eventual wetland restoration (page 7-20, Lines 44 and 45). Based on the text on page 7-16, it appears only upland habitat restoration is being considered, since, like Alternative A, "it is assumed that oil operations would continue until the oil operator chooses to terminate alternatives." The text also states, "Eventual restoration of wetland would depend on the availability of funding and the termination of oil activities." This wording is unclear as to the commitment or assumption for wetland restoration. Page 7-18, line 41: "Restoration of the lowland will have positive biological impacts." The paragraph is non-committal that Lowlands restoration is a basic assumption for this alternative. • Alternative C - Commercial/Resort/Housing Development: The underlying assumption for this alternative is that there would be no restoration as part of this scenario (see Page 7-22, Line 46). There is no quantification of impacted habitat by • acreage for this alternative. Page 7-25, line 11: "There will be a significant loss of upland habitat." Why is this loss considered significant for commercial recreation uses, but not for the proposal project? See Page 4.7-43, Lines 12-16. • Page 7-25, lines 23-25: How can the beneficial impacts on aquatic resources be the same since this project alternative does not include restoration - see Page 7-22, Lines 45 and 46. Alternative D - Marina/Housing Development: • There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. It is unclear how much restoration occurs under this alternative - see Page 7-32, Lines 44 and 45. • Roped FkW DnR Der"F"nwy 74, 19" • I I Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 238 Alternative E - Lowland Restoration Development in Pocket Area and Edwards Thumb: There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. It appears the footprint for the development area is greater than that for the proposed project and the Modified Project Alternative, yet Table 7.1-2 indicates there is no significant difference in biological impacts. Alternative F - Low Density Alternative: There is no quantification of impacted habitat by acreage for this alternative. Page 7-42, Lines 26 and 27 indicate loss of upland habitat is significant. Why is this different than for the proposed project? Alternative G - Medium Low Density Alternative: The comments made for Alternative F also apply for this alternative. 4. Traffic and Circulation Impacts. a. Page 7-13, Alternative A, Transportation and Traffic i Circulation: Staff understands that Alternative A includes no housing, however, the; phrase - "contribute" funds toward an ATIP is inaccurate. It is staff s position that any alternative which means that the developer builds housing or other traffic generators would require the developer to, not only "contribute to", but also fully fund the ATIP. Governmental funds will not be spent to further the income derived from the project. b. Page 7-25, Alternative C, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Lines 42 and 43 states . . . "The commitment to fund such a program (the required ATIP for this alternative) is not envisioned". It must be reemphasized that local government does not intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. C. Page 7-31, Alternative D, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Line 17 states . . ."The commitment to fund such a program (the required ATIP for this alternative) is not envisioned". It must, again, be reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. Awpomrd Find Dn.Jt Dad rvb 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 239 • d. Page 7-38, Alternative E, The document does not discuss utility impacts of this alternative. This discussion should be similar to that of the proposed alternative. 0 e. Page 7-42, Alternative F, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Line 49 states . . . "The commitment to fund such a program (the required ATIP for this alternative) is not envisioned". It must, again, be reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profit. • f. Page 7-43, Alternative F: In line 36, please delete the word, "either". g. Page 7-48, Alternative G, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Lines 1 and 2 state . . . "The commitment to fund such a program (the required • ATIP for this alternative) is not envisioned". It must, again, be reemphasized that local government doesn't intend to fund improvements which further developer profits. h. Page 7-64, Compare Alternatives, Transportation and Traffic Circulation: Lines 47 through 50 are confusing. It doesn't say which traffic improvements • the developer is willing to fund. 5. Beach Impacts. a. Page 7-60, line 33: If material is unsuitable, where will it be disposed? Will disposal require sizable truck fleet to haul material off site? What will be the impacts of this activity? b. Page 7-66, lines 26-28: Will lifeguard services be required on year-round basis? If so, is this consistent with present County operation? Will additional • costs be incurred by the County? 6. Cultural Resources. Table 7.1-2 on page 7-6 overestimates the impacts on cultural resources in the cases of Alternatives A, B and C. The table is inconsistent with the text of the report which reflects the lower level of impact on cultural • resources for these alternatives. Dredging for the marina under Alternative D (DEIR Ropo"d R&W D10h Dattd FOMAVy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 4 February 17, 1994 Page 240 1 Section 7.2.4) increases the likelihood for damage to submerged and/or buried archaeological sites not previously identified. 7. Police Services. The City Police Department finds Alternative A to be 1 acceptable since there is no development proposed in this alternative and, accordingly, no additional staffing will be needed. Alternative B is also acceptable since the Police Department does not anticipate significant increases in police service. Access for emergency vehicles in the park areas are critical. Alternatives D, H, I and J are also acceptable to the Police Department since Alternative D would include the cross-gap connector and tie other alternatives do not appear to adversely affect police services. The Police Department is opposed to Alternatives C, E, F and G since additional burdens would be placed on police services without adequate funding and without any opportunity for the construction of a cross-gap connector in the future. 1 8. Water Impacts a. Page 7-12. lines 20-22: The fact that "a groundwater barrier or groundwater pumping to remedy this situation" may be needed is cause for concern. Further in-depth discussion is needed here to evaluate the impacts to the City and the groundwater 1 basin. What effects would this cause? What would be the impacts of these effects? An obvious concern is increased seawater intrusion. Would this occur? If so, what are mitigation measures? Has the Orange County Water District been consulted? b. Page 7-43. lines 33-43: A water supply analysis is needed with 1 this alternative. Since the project analysis is weak, this option needs further study. C. Page 7-48. lines 33-43: Ditto. d. Page 7-61. line 46: How will turbidity be controlled and 1 contained. This is not explained. e. Page 7-66, lines 7-16: Line 12 is unclear in meaning. The section is very brief and doesn't say anything that can be supported. Water impacts will 1 Aopoa+d Find Dnh D&W Frbnm" 14, 1994 1 • I • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 241 certainly not be mitigated as proposed in the portions of the DEIR which consider Koll's proposed project. V. CHAPTER 8 - MITIGATION MEASURES. • As is noted in a number of prior references in this letter, many of the mitigation measures proposed for the project are not proper under CEQA. The list of mitigation measures in this section of the letter is not intended to be exhaustive. It merely illustrates the inadequacy of the DEIR's approach to mitigation of the significant impacts of • the project. There are mitigation measures, not detailed at length in this letter, which share the same flaws as noted in this section. The most crucial flaws of each of the mitigation measures are indicated in ANNEx NO. 7 to this letter. 1. Mitigation Measures Relying on Future Studies/Development of i Mitigation Plans. There are any number of examples of this particular flaw in the mitigation measures listed in Chapter 8 of the DEIR. For example, Mitigation Measure 4.12-13 states: Mitigation Measure 4.12-13: Prior to construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the County • of Orange, a geologic investigation shall be performed to determine the suitability of the site. The DEIR relies (erroneously) on the placement of the reservoir on the Mesa as mitigation for the project without knowing whether the site would even support such a use. There is serious question regarding whether this site is appropriate since it lies so close to a major • fault zone. A further example is Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, which states: Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other sensitive species, the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and USFWS and prepare a • relocation program for these raptors. The DEIR does not consider how such a plan would work nor what the alternatives to achieve this end might be. The development of a plan in the future is simply not adequate consideration of the impact to conclude that the impact is not significant. • Proposed FmW Draft Dated Febwy 14, 1994 • 1 Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 242 1 Similar lack of information was provided in the DEIR's consideration of the potential adverse impact of predation by the red fox. Mitigation Measure 4.7-3b states: Mitigation Measure 4.7-3b: A mitigation and monitoring program will be implemented by the Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the effectiveness of the coyote 1 as a control agent for the red fox at Bolsa Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to 1w 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 Bolsa Chica. The plan shall include specific 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 shall approve this program before restoration of the 1 Lowlands. This mitigation measure relies on the coyote as a control agent without considering its effectiveness as such. Only future consultation with the State and federal wildlife agencies would determine the effectiveness of the DEIR's proposal; yet, the DEIR relies in the proposal for a determination that the potential impact would be insignificant. This defies both the substantive requirements of CEQA and logic. The foregoing flaws are made all the worse by the DEIR's implication that no further environmental review of these future plans would be undertaken. Where a future mitigation plan is considered as the subject of a future environmental review to assess its adequacy the DEIR notes that possibility. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 states explicitly that, "To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review under CEQA." Although that statement is not sufficient to make Mitigation Measure 4.3-9 valid under CEQA, it is at least 1 indicative of some intention to subject the future mitigation plan to further CEQA review. The other future-based mitigation measures contain no such indication. This type of mitigation is illusory and contrary to the public information purpose underlying CEQA and reliance on mitigation measures which merely state that further investigation will be undertaken in the future renders the DEIR invalid under State law. 1 1 Proposed Find Drat Dusd Febnwry 14, 1994 Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 243 r 2. Mitigation Measures which Do Not Mitigate Impacts to A Level of Insignificance. In many instances, the DEIR relies on measures which are ineffective to reduce the level of impact to any reasonable notion of insignificance. The first example of this type of inadequacy comes in one of the first mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b states: Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. The DEIR implies that mere notification of the hazard is sufficient to mitigate the impact of placing a residential use next to an oilfield which has been in operation for 70 years to a level of insignificance. Mere knowledge of the hazard does not alleviate the impact. Further, related mitigation measures regarding the treatment of hazardous materials/wastes (Mitigation Measures 4.2-9 and 4.2-10a rely on mere compliance with applicable law (the very minimum standard which can be applied) for the conclusion that the known presence of potentially substantial amounts of hazardous materials would be removed from the Lowlands at a time when the Mesa had already undergone significant development. This is not proper under CEQA, which mandates that the lead agency must view each impact in light of the environmental setting which will exist as and when that impact is experienced. 3. Mitigation Measures which Are Listed As PDFs and Are Not Treated As Mitigation Measures. As noted above, the DEIR relies in many instances on PDFs to mitigate potentially or known significant impacts. However, once the DEIR assumes that the PDF would be effective, it is no longer considered as a mitigation measure. This is a violation of CEQA. 4. Mitigation Measures which Are Not Shown to Be Economically or Technically Feasible. As noted above, the implementation of the ATIP, WRP and other mitigation plans for the project will require a huge outlay of funds. The DEIR never provides the reader with information regarding the source of that money. Accordingly, there is serious doubt as to whether these most basic elements of mitigation are economically feasible (much less technically effective). r Pm"md FbW Otdt Dan.d F.Mry 14, 1994 • Orange County Environmental Management Agency 1 February 17, 1994 Page 244 1 The DEIR also does not consider the inter-relationship of various mitigation measures which are intended to address different aspects of associated problems. For example, one must consider the following mitigation measures: Mitigation Measure 4.2-12a(PDF): Measures to mitigate corrosive soil conditions shall be implemented by the Applicant. These measures include, but are not limited to, s ecial formulated cement for concrete placed in contact with corrosive soils, and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to prevent corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsifedphaltor ' asphaltic cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC emissions. To provide the public with complete information, the DEIR should specify whether emulsified asphalt/cement meeting the requirements of 1both of the foregoing requirements is readily available. The public simply has no way to know. 1 IV. Conclusion. The City is concerned about more than the substantive, procedural and other failures of the County to proceed in accordance with CEQA. Although the violation of Sta-:e law is significant and of great importance, the most important concern is potential harm to the 1 residents of the City, and the residents of the area to be developed by Koll, if the project proceeds without adequate environmental review and mitigation. If the development of this project proceeds without mitigation tremendous harm will result. The project as proposed by Koll would expose its residents to known hazards from existing and former oil production activities. Fire and police protection for the area will be compromised and deficient. The 1 project will also cause huge increases in traffic volumes in the area, an impact which the DEIR proposes to alleviate solely by an as-yet-unfunded program of traffic improvement which is conceded to be ineffective to mitigate all traffic impacts. No measures arc: included to cause the project traffic load to be reduced. The restoration of the wetlands, which seems 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 after Koll has constructed its approximately 4,000 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 1 a opo"d Finn/Dish atW Fib 14, 1994 • • Orange County Environmental Management Agency February 17, 1994 Page 245 • no time at which the restoration would be required to commence. Further, the restoration plan would be implemented only if Koll desired to develop the Lowlands. That 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 true project here appears to be the development of the Mesa with approximately 4,300 homes being constructed in an island of County jurisdiction without mitigation of the biological, traffic, cultural resource or other significant impacts noted in this letter and ignored in the DEIR. The project as proposed would burden and harm the citizens of the • City. The DEIR is not adequate under State law. The City, therefore, respectfully requests the County to recirculate a new and wholly rewritten DEIR which addresses the inadequacies noted in this letter. Without a new and legally adequate DEIR, the proposed project cannot legally proceed. Respectfully submitted, ERvnv, CoHEv & JEssirn • Roger J. Holt Steven A. Roseman By: Steve A Jleman of Ervin, Cohen & Jessup, Speci gal Counsel to the City of Huntington Beach • • • PioPo»d Find Dish Osfd Fob+wry 14, 1994 -�. 1 • • - 1 1 1 • ANNEX NO. 1 INDEX • Page I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. THE PURPOSE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO INFORM DECISION- MAKERS AND THE PUBLIC OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE STAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. AN EIR MUST EVALUATE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM OR PROJECT IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR ENvutoNMENTAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. THE COUNTY ACTS AS THE LEAD AGENCY UNDER CEQA AND, AS SUCH, MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMMENTS OF THE CITY BOTH AS ADVISORY AGENCY AND As RESPONSIBLE AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. THE COUNTY HAS SEGMENTED THE WHOLE OF THE PROJECT INTO A NUMBER OF SMALLER INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN VIOLATION OF CEQA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 E. THE DEIR ABUSES THE CONCEPT OF TIERING BY USING A PROGRAM EIR TO EVADE THE MORE DETAILED PROJECT EIR ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES UPON THE BOLSA MESA . . . . . . . . . . . 13 F. THE DEIR IMPROPERLY RELIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES AND UNMONrrORED PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR MITIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 G. THE DEIR OMrrs ANALYSIS OF THE FISCAL FEASIBILITY OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES ON WHICH IT RELIES AND ASSUMES THAT UNFUNDED MITIGATION PLANS WILL BE FUNDED WITHOUT IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE OF THOSE FUNDS . . . . . 16 H. THE DEIR DOES NOT CONSIDER KOLL's ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD IN AsSEsswo MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 H. Particular CEQA Violations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT AND INACCURATE . . . . . . . 19 B. THE DEIR INACCURATELY LABELS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As INSIGNIFICANT AND USES INAPPROPRIATE STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . . . . 28 C. INCLUSION OF MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OBSCURES THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ANALYZED BY THE DEIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 D. WETLANDS RESTORATION NOT TIED TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 E. THE DEIR's CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES IS INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 F. THE DEIR OMITS CONSIDERATION OF THE RISK OF UPSET AND RELATED DANGERS TO THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 G. THE COUNTY'S PROCEDURES IN PROCESSING THE DEIR ARE DEFICIENT . . . . . . . . . . 50 H. DISCUSSION OF LONG TERM IMPACTS IN THE DEIR IS INADEQUATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 III. Chapter-By-Chapter Analysis of the DEIR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 A. CHAvm 1 -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 B. CHAPTER 2 -INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 C. CHAPTER 3 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 D. CHAPTER 4.1 - LAND USE AND RELATED PLANNING IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 E. CHAPTER 4.2 - GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 F. CHAPTER 4.3 - SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 G. CHAPTER 4.4-WATER QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 H. CHAPTER 4.5 - COASTAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 I. CHAPTER 4.6 -MARINE/AQUATIC BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 J. CHAPTER 4.7 - TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 K. CHAPTER 4.8-TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 L. CHAPTER 4.9 - Ant QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 S Proposed Final Disk Dahl F*Mwy 14, 1994 M. CHAPTER 4.10- NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 N. CHAPTER 4.11 - CULTURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 O. CHAPTER 4.12- AEmETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 1 P. CHAPTER 4.13 - SOCIOECONOMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Q. CHAPTER 4.14-PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 R. CHAPTER 4.15 -RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 S. CHAPTER S -MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 T. CHAPTER 6 - LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . 232 U. CHAPTER 7 - ALTERNATIVES TO PROPOSED PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 I V. CHAPTER 8 - MMGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 IV. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 I 1 1 I i i I • ANNEX No. 2 List of Annexes Submitted to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency • in Connection with the Comments of the City of Huntington Beach Regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Development ANNEX No. DESCRIPTION 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index to comment letter • 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of annexes to comment letter 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1986 LCP conditionally certified by the CCC in 1986 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated July 12, 1993 regarding the NOP from the City Department of Community Development to the County 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated September 13, 1993 from the Corp's District Engineer to Koll 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 13, 1994 from Thomas B. Matthews, County Director of • Community Development to Daryl. D. Smith of the City 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of analysis of mitigation measures 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of analysis of alternative projects 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1992 EIR/EIS 10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public comments received by the City and the Corps with respect to the EIR/EIS 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiscal analysis of impacts of the project on the City prepared by Public ♦ Economics 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . California Department of Fish and Game Report on Identification of Degraded Wetlands in Bolsa Chica, dated December 11, 1981 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated dated December 29, 1993 from Howard Zelefsky of the City's Department of Planning to the County requesting an extension of the public comment period on the DEIR • 14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 11, 1994 from Thomas B. Matthews to Howard Zelefsky denying the City's request for an extension of the public comment period 15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notice of Completion 16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transcript of January 31, 1994 hearing at City of Huntington Beach 17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter of January 31, 1994 from Supervisor Wieder to the City 18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated July 15, 1992 from Koll to Robert J. Franz, Assistant City • Administrator 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chambers Group, Inc. Study Plan and Outline prepared for the City dated February 1991; Revised June 1991 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chambers Group, Inc. Memorandum dated April 18, 1991 to Laura Phillips from Noel Davis 21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three (3) memoranda from Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. regarding • (i) Wetland plant distribution ranges, dated October 9, 1991, (ii) Review of draft Wetlands Restoration/Conservation Plan, dated March 23, 1992, and (iii) Continued review of the WRP/CP, dated March 29, 1992. 22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chart of Corps permitting process 23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wetlands Regulation in California, 17 CEB Real Prop.L.Rptr 1 (1993) 24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memorandum from the Assistant City Administrator to the City Council detailing • the comments from federal agencies regarding proposed development 25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letters from NMFS, USEPA, USFWS and CDFG, objecting to characterization as "support members' 26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition Concept Plan 27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Materials received at January 31, 1994 City Council hearing regarding Koll environmental record • SM0125C.WPO 208041 8RM8 • 1 ANNEx No. Descmmm 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated September 24, 1991 from Joan Golding (by Kari A. Fligoni, Senior Planner) of the County EMA addressed to the City Planning Department 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter dated January 20, 1993, from SCAG to City Planning Department 30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated April 1, 1992 from The Chambers Group, Inc. to the Corps 31. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Draft of Development Agreement delivered to the City by Koll 3124/92 32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report entitled Geotechnical Inputs, dated February 1974, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates and the Huntington Beach Planning Department 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Use Element of Component 11 of County General Plan 34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resources Element of Component 11 of County General Plan 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . California Wetlands Conservation Policy, Executive Order W59-93 (Aug. 23, 1993) 36. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1988 City Water Master Plan 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1993 Update to 1988 City Water Master Plan 1 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . City Soil Standard #431-92 39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Report, dated June 3, 1982, prepared by CDFG, entitled "Environmentally Sensitive Areas at Bolsa Chica' 40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . State Standards for Metals 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated November 1, 1993, regarding SARA and HOCTAM models 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles Times, January 25, 1994 Article re: Discovery of human 1 remains at Bolsa Chica excavation 43. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter from Judy Myers Suchey regarding same 44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Letter, dated January 31, 1994, from Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. to the City Council 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Documents received from Pat Ware at the January 31, 1994 City Council hearing 46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miscellaneous written comments received by the City Council at January 31, 1994 City Council hearing 47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Orange County Water District Groundwater Management Plan 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure depicting locations of County Fire Stations closest to Bolsa Chica 49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2 depicting fire response deficiencies within the City 50. . . . . . . . . ... . . . Figure 3 depicting 14 known drill sites on the Mesa 51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Report 114, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology f 1 / 2 7 ANNEX NO. 7 The following table summarizes certain problems with the mitigation measures stated in Chapter 8 of the DEIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica development. This table is not intended to summarize the infirmities of the DEIR or of the mitigation measures under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter, dated February 17, 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. Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure Rohance on. Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.1-1a The OSPCCP and OSCP enacted between the oil field operators and X X appropriate state agencies will remain in effect for the duration of the oil activities at Bolsa Chica. These plans will be amended as required for each Residential Planning Area and require the approval of the state • contracting agencies at that time. 4.1-1b All potential buyers of onsite residences shall be notified of the X potential hazardous conditions associated with onsite oil production activities. Such information shall be disclosed in the Department of Real Estate reports prior to unit sales. 4.2-la Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a X X through geotechnical report to the Manager,Development Services,for 5a approval. The report shall include the information and be in a form as required by the Orange County Grading Manual, Section 5.4 and the Orange County Excavation and Grading Code Section 7-1-819. • 4,2-lb The Applicant's grading plan shall provide stabilization of X through manufactured slopes to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development 5b Services and may include, but is not limited to, buttressing of fills, rock bolting, grouting, slope gradient Iaybacks, and construction of retaining walls;and for natural slopes,use of drainage control and establishing vegetation. 4.2-6 Measures to satisfactorily mitigate compressible/collapsible soil X X (PDF) conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Omission of removal and recompaction of identified compressible/collapsible zones, geotechnical (2)fill surcharging and settlement monitoring, and (3) compaction reports from the grouting or foundation design which utilizes deep piles. Specific DEIR makes it measures she//be based upon surface and subsurface mapping, impossible to laboratory testing and analysis by the project geotechnical consultant. determine the The Applicant shall incorporate such measures in the site-specific feasibility of this Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan Review reports mitigation prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical measure. consultant's 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. 1 Nat Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Utlgation Measure Improper Messute Not Ec000mioally at Measure RoUnca an Shown to Tachnically ' No. Future Mtgoto foosible Study Impact 4.2 7a Specfc measures shall be implemented to ehrrenate any significant X X X adverse effects of trenching for utilities. These measures shall be Omission of geo- designed to alleviate the effects which groundwater may have on technical reports existing or future bluffs, slopes,and structures. These measures may from the DEIR include techniques to prevent"sloughing-in" or the accumulation of makes it water or to remedy the effects of such incidents so that there is no impossible to risk of loss of integrity of bluffs, slopes,or structures Examples of datemune the such measures include shoring of trench face, laying back of trench feasibility of this side slope if recommended by the certified engineering geologist, and mitigation pumping of standing water. Before grading permits are issued for the measure. Boise Chico Mesa, the County shall determine the specific measures to be implemented on the basis of a report prepared by the Apphcant's gootechnical consultant which shall address all salient geotechnical issues,including groundwater This report shall include site-specific reviews of the tentative tract maps and grading plans and address the potential for ground subsidence on the sites and properties adjacent to the sites if dewatenng is recommended On the basis of the review of the tentative tract maps and grading plans,this report shall make specific recommendations of the appropriate measures to be , implemented These recommendations shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist and registered civil engineer and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the County. 4 2-7b All project construction elements shall maintain the standards set forth by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration Section 1926 652 4 2-8a DDC for ground improvement shall be designed by a Registered Civil X X X (POF) Engineer and Geotechnical Consultant so that vibration levels do not Omission of damage adjacent structure or provide unacceptable nuisance levels as standard for determined and approved by the County determining acceptable nuisance level renders analysis of this measure impossible 4 2-8b As an alternative to the DDC method of compaction, and provided that X X X vibrations] meet the same standards as applied in the Mitigation Option of rolling Measure 4 2-8a,the Applicant's consultant shall evaluate using a surcharge method . rolling surcharge method and dewatenng of near surface sods with well not analyzed in points The final technique shall be approved by the County for DEIR-Where will compliance with this mitigation measure before grading permits are surcharge issued. materials come from -2- . Not Shown to Ba Mitigation Text of M1600tion Measurs Improper Measure not Economically or • Measure RaGance on Shown to Technically No, Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4.2-9 All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria shall X X be stored, manifested,transported and disposed of in accordance with This mitigation the California Code of Regulations Title 22 and in a manner measure merely • satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials Program. requires Storage,transportation, and disposal records shall be kept onsite and compliance with open for inspection by any government agency upon request. generally applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koll's proposed residential development 4.2-10e Prior to the recordation of a final parcel/tract map or the issuance of X X X (PDF) any grading or building permits, whichever occurs first,the Applicant This mitigation shall provide, in accordance with criteria supplied by OCEMA, a measure merely "Hazardous Materials Assessment"and a "Disclosure Statement" requires • covering the property which will be offered to the County of Orange, compliance with for review and approval by the Manager, Development Services,in generally consultation with the Manager, Environmental Resources. applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koll's proposed residential development � -3- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of M)tigiation Mebeuiv Impropor Meastro Not EconomicaQy or Measure Rance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mltigsts Feasible Study Impact 4.2-10b All onsite generated waste that meets hazardous materials criteria X X X (PDF) shall be stored, manifested,transported and disposed of in This mitigation accordance with the California Code of Regulations Title 22 and in a measure merely manner satisfactory to the Manager, HCA/Hazardous Materials requires Program. Storage, transportation and disposal records shall be kept compliance with on-site and open for inspection by any government agency upon generally request. applicable law and is not shown to reduce the risk from remediation of active oil operations and wastes immediately adjacent to a sensitive receptor such as Koll's proposed residential development 4.2-11a Measures to mitigate expansive soils conditions shall be implemented X X X by the Applicant. These measures include, but are not limited to, specialized foundation design (such as post-tensioned slabs), removal and replacement of expansive soils,presaturation of footing and slab subgrade soils prior to foundation construction, or other appropriate . methods as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. The County shall approve all such measures before they are implemented. 4.2-11b The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive and X X X (PDF) corrosive sod potential as outlined in Measures 4.2-13a and 4.2-13b in Omission of the site-specific Tentative Tract Map Review and Rough Grading Plan geotechnical Review reports prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. reports from the Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, DEIR makes it laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's site- impossible to specific reports shall be approved by a certified engineering geologist determine the and a registered civil engineer, and shall be completed to the feasibility of this satisfaction of the County. mitigation measure. 4.2-12a Measures to mitigate corrosive soil conditions shall be X (PDF) implemented by the Applicant. These measures include, but are not As noted in the limited to, specially formulated cement for concrete placed in contact comment text, with corrosive soils, and cathodic protection or specialized coatings to this mitigation prevent corrosion of metals in contact with corrosive soils. measure does not assess the impact of Measure 4.9-3 on the feasibility of implementation 4.2-12b The Applicant shall incorporate measures to mitigate expansive and X X X (PDF) corrosive soil potential as outlined in a site-specific report to be prepared by the project geotechnical consultant. Recommendations shall be based on surface and subsurface mapping, laboratory testing and analysis. The geotechnical consultant's 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. -4- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Utigation Measure improper mamre Not Economically or Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No. Future Mitigate Feasible Study Impact 4,12-13 Prior to construction of the 9-million-gallon tank by the County of X X The DEIR Orange,a geologic investigation shall be performed to determine the implicitly suitability of the site. assumes that a • suitable site for the reservoir is available 4.2-14a A new sewage lift station is proposed on Warner Avenue to pump X X sewage collected from gravity lines from the Boise Chios Mesa Seismic dangers residential neighborhood. The force main from the pump station will and impacts run eastward along Warner Avenue and cross the active fault zone. To remain from prevent discharge of sewage should the force main be sheared the potential rupture following design measures are recommended: (1)a backflow preventer even after the could be installed immediately east of the potential area of breakage, proposed (2)the lift station (wet well) could be oversized to accommodate extra mitigation; capacity until the broken main can be repaired, and (3)an automatic however,the breaker installed in the pump circuit to shut off the system in the even DEIR improperly to severe seismic movement. labels the • impacts insignificant 4.2-14b Other utilities that are expected to cross the fault would be natural gas X for residential use, water,telephone, electrical power, and storm Sejsrnuc dangers drains. When possible these should be routed to prevent traversing the and impacts fault. Otherwise, the natural gas line(s) could have automatic shutoff remain from valves installed which would actuate in the event of severe seismic potential rupture movement; the watermain(s) should have manual valves located either even after the side of the fault; phone and cable services could have junctions boxes proposed on opposing sides of the fault which could provide for emergency mitigation reconnection during repairs of underground lines; while similar installations could be made for electrical power, sanitary sewer line crossing the fault zone should be constructed of ductile von pipe. Little can be done to prevent damage to storm drains because of their size and locations. 4.3.1 The Applicant's Civil Engineer shall provide a design and construction X X (PDF) schedule to reroute the Boise Chica pump station discharge water without disruption. The County shall review and approve this design prior to issuance of grading permits for Development Areas V and VI. 4.3-2 A construction phasing plan for RPA 1 A will be prepared to show the X Even after the (PDF) EGGW Channel levees to be removed after April 15 and the tidal inlet implementation of to be opened prior to the following October 15. This phasing plan will this measure,a be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of mass significant impact grading permits for RPA 1 A. is possible if construction is • delayed or rains occur earlier than expected got Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Utloadon riilaeawre improper Maaseure Not Economioslly or Measure ReEance on Shown to Technically No, Future "tigate Feasible Study Impact 4.3 3 To prevent degradation of groundwater due to tidal inundation, the X X X Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall provide a detailed study that The potential evaluates the impact of saltwaterintrusion into the upper Pleistocene impact on local Alpha and Beta Aquifers, and provide recommendations to groundwater ' prevent this if either a full tidal or muted tidal area is constructed in the supplies is very Bolsa Pocket. significant if sea water intrusion occurs;however, since the report required in this measure has not been prepared, the DEIR does not provide information to evaluate the impact 4.3.4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for RPAs 3A,4A,5A, and 5C,the X X X Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall develop detailed studies to The DEIR only evaluate the potential occurrence of natural near-surface groundwater requires future and artificially induced groundwater to determine the potential of study of the shallow groundwater recharge to the adjacent area caused by the various devices wetlands restoration. Studies shall include, but shall not be limited to, which are subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finish grade, subsurface barriers intended to such as cutoff wails or interceptor drains, or French drains with mitigate this dewatering wells. The preferred mitigation shall be approved by the problem—no County and implemented by the Applicant. standard for performance is set forth—no study or data regarding the probable efficacy , of these measures is presented 4.3-5 To prevent adverse hydrological impacts in the Edwards Thumb area, X X X the Applicant's Geotechnical Consultant, prior to wetlands restoration, The DEIR only shall evaluate transmissivity and other hydrogeologic characteristics in requires future the Edwards Thumb area and the lowlands near the existing residential study of the neighborhood in order to evaluate the impacts of irrigation and various devices impounded water on groundwater levels in the existing residential which are neighborhood. Such an investigation would, at a minimum,be intended to expected to require the installation of monitoring wells and the mitigate this performance of pump test for data collection. This detailed study shall problem—no include but not be limited to the following mitigation measures: standard for subsurface cutoff wall, subsurface drains, and French Drains. Through performance is . this process,it is important that a definitive geotechnical design be set forth--no approved by the County which would assure that no significant study or data adverse impacts would result from changes in groundwater level. The regarding the specific mitigation will be approved by the County and implemented by probable efficacy the Applicant. of these measures is presented , -6- . • Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mitigation Measure improper Measure Not Et or+om)oally or • Measure Reliance on Shown to Technically No, Future Wgsto Feasible Study Impact 4.3-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Regional Park,the Park X X developer shall incorporate design measures,in a manner meeting the There is no approval of the County, that prevent additional runoff caused by new indication of the Park development from further erosion to the Huntington bluffand extent to which impacting the seasonal ponds in the Lowland. erosion control will be required or the extent of erosion which will be permitted to remain after implementation • 4.3-7 The project shall incorporate specific design measures such as X X subdrains,impermeable soil caps on finished grade, subsurface barriers The specific such as cutoff walls or interceptor drains, and French Drains to prevent design features any substantial seepage of surface groundwater into subterranean cannot be structures. To achieve this, before grading permits are issued for the evaluated as the MWD parcel,the project Geotechnical Consultant sha//provide to the report on which • County a report recommending specific design features which will they will be identify the specific measures to be employed. The recommendations based has not of the Geotechnical Consultant are subject to review and approval by been prepared or the County. made available for public review 4.3-8 Same as Mitigation Measure 4.3-5. X X X (PDF) w • • -7- got Shown to Be Mitigation Tina of Wlpstlon Messurs Improper Msaauti Not Eoonarttiioally or Measure Reliance an Shown to Tachnically No. Future Imago* Feawwa, study Impact 4.3-9 Santa Ana Rover Floodplain X (POF). The measures If the Santa Ana Rover floodplain within the project limits is may not not removed by the joint Orange County/Federal Government mitigate all , funded Santa Ana Rover Project(SARP)at the time of grading impacts to for proposed buildings, structures,and residential insignificance developments within the existing Santa Ana River floodplain, — Future appropriate additional mitigation measures,including the filing CEQA review of FEMA Elevation Certificate shall be required for each in the form of building, residence,or structure within the existing Santa Ana an EIR will be River floodplain, which demonstrates that the as-built lowest required , floor is at least 1 foot above the 100-year flood elevation This shall 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 Residual Floodplains-EGGW Channel and Others Additionally, as appropriate,mitigation against 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 A before grading permits are issued for the proposed buildings, structures,and residences within the delineated residual floodplain Furthermore, if these residual floodplains are shown on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) when the Santa Ana Rover floodplain 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 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 the approval of the appropriate local jurisdiction prior to receiving Use and Occupancy Certifications for these buildings, structures,and residences. To the extent required by CEQA, these mitigation measures will be developed through a supplemental and focused environmental review 4 3-10 Before grading pemuts are issued for parcels which are adjacent to or X X X are impacted by the existing EGGW Channel,the Developer/Applicant Not Clear The use of No standards are shall design and construct the EGGW Channel within the County LCP whether the 100-year given for Area(upstream limit is the Graham Avenue Bridge) and to and tidal inlet flood event determining when including, the proposed tidal inlet shall be constructed in accordance must be rather than OCEMA would with OCFCO criteria and standards The EGGW Channel shall be constructed standard approve the plan capable of conveying the discharge resulting from a 100-year storm prior to project flood and,accordingly, over the EGGW Channel's fully developed tributary watershed in a grading understates it is not possible manner meeting the approval of OCEMA these the true to evaluate this parcels impact mitigation measure Non-County portions will not be improved w Not Shown to Ha Mitigation Text of Mi0000613 Measurs Improper Msstwrs Not Economically or w Measure RaUance on Shown to- Technically No. Future Mit Ws Feasible study Impact 4.4-la The Applicant shall implement the Construction Monitoring Program X X (PDF): described above as a PDF. The DEIR The DEIR supplies contains no insufficient requirements information for implemen- regarding tation of the scope particular of mitigations monitoring during construction 4.4-lb To reduce impacts to the water quality of tidal waters from existing X X X contaminants in sediments in the Lowlands,the Applicant shall The DEIR conduct a program of sediment toxicity testing. Representative areas in does not the Lowlands proposed for grading and/or inundation with tidal specify the waters,as well as similar areas whose location and characteristics sampling indicate susceptibility to contamination, shall be sampled and the methods,the sediments tested for toxicity to aquatic organisms.Any sediments acceptable • found to have a substantial and adverse effect upon aquatic organisms level of shall be remediated or removed from the site. contamination or the proposed location for dumping con- taminated w sediments 4.4-2 During construction of the tidal inlet, measures shall be implemented to X reduce introduction of sediments and creation of turbidity in nearshore coastal waters.These measures would include insuring that no excavated material would be stockpiled on the beach where it could be introduced to the ocean during high tides,using barriers to confine the majority of excavated sediments within the landward side of the tidal inlet and pumping all waters from the dewatenng process into a sediment basin and not into the ocean. All such measures must be approved by County Environmental Management Agency before construction of the tidal inlet begins. 4.4-3 To reduce to insignificant the impacts of resuspended sediments during X X maintenance dredging silt curtains or other forms of barriers shall be used to confine turbid water to the immediate area of the dredging activity. 4.7-1a The WRP provides for establishment of a program to place fences and X X (PDF) posted signs in selected areas to minimize visitor disturbance. Human Fences and signs intrusion also are not always portends effective to intrusion by eliminate human cats,dogs instrusion once a and other path into the pets--This vicinity is impact is provided as is neither proposed considered nor mitigated r -s- Not Shown to So Mitigation Text of Mi 190on Measure Improper mossufe Not Economically of Measure Re&ance an Shown to Technically No, Future Wgate Foasible Study Invaot 4.7-lb A management plan shall be developed and incorporated into the LCP X that specifies how public visitation of the natural areas will be It is not controlled or managed.The plan shall include, at minimum: possible to evaluate . Methods for public education on sensitive habitats and the plan plants. since it was Identification of the group or agency which will enforce not access restrictions and the restrictions to be employed in the provided various habitats. for public Restriction of people from internal trails during the nesting comment or season(March 15 to August 15)of federal and state listed review . endangered and threatened bird species. 4.7-2a The WRP provides for weed eradication and habitat restoration and X X (POF) creation. Mitigation of loss of upland grassland not considered or , provided 4.7-2b A management plan shall be developed that specifies how habitats X X X shall be maintained and managed over the long term.This plan shall be No erosion There is no included in the WRP Long-Term M&M Plan.The plan shall include, at a control plan indication that minimum: is provided the plan would and the have any effect . Methods for ongoing weed eradication. It is unlikely that the potential on private landscaping practices of private homeowners can be for landowners controlled, and therefore an ongoing program of monitoring significant wishing to plant and weed eradication shall be essential for long-term vegetation exotics in their preservation of native habitats. impacts private Methods for public education, including information regarding and landscaping invasive exotics that homeowners could avoid planting in impacts their yards. from r An erosion control and storm runoff plan shall be prepared increased No funding for prior to construction (see Chapter 4.4.3.4). If straw bales are turbidity the long term used for erosion control, rice straw or equivalent weed-free remain management is straw shall be used to prevent additional introduction of even provided exotic species into native habitat. though the DEIR mis- character- izes the impacts as insignificant 4.7-3a The WRP establishes a mitigation and monitoring program involving X X X (PDF) coordination with the CDFG on trapping and other efforts to minimize the continuing impact of the red fox. -10- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mdgaticn M66surs improper Measure Not Et ortomicaily or • Measure Reliance an Shown to Technically No, Future h4ttgsts Feasible Study Impact 4.7-3b A mitigation and monitoring program will be implemented by the X X X Applicant in consultation with CDFG and USFWS to determine the The use of What mitigation effectiveness of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at Boise the coyote as methods would Chica. If the coyote's effectiveness is found to be significant,a plan a control be used to 0 shall be developed and implemented which will encourage the agent is protect bird continued presence of the coyote as a control agent for the red fox at based on nesting areas if Boise Chica.The plan shall include specific measures designed to "personal the coyote is not create and/or maintain adequate habitat for the coyote in the communi- effective at undeveloped portions of the project site so that the coyote may cation" only-- controlling red maintain its ongoing role as a control agent for the red fox. OCEMA no technical fox predation? shall approve this program before restoration of the lowlands. or scientific support is given 4.7-4 If raptors begin to prey upon nesting sensitive target species or other X X X sensitive species,the Applicant shall consult with CDFG and USFWS The DEIR gives and prepare a relocation program for these raptors. no information regarding how this mitigation measure would be implemented - further information is required before the significance of r could be pact measured 4.7-5 Before the destruction of the two western snowy plover nesting sites X X X (POF) in RPA 1 A,two new nesting sites shall be established in the area known as RPA 2A.These sites shall be constructed prior to the nesting season(March 15 to August 15). • 4 8-1 a Prior to the start of construction for each phase of development, the X Applicant shall fund a Construction Traffic Control Plan,to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer and submitted to the County of Orange for approval.Approval shall be required prior to issuance of grading permits. All traffic control work for construction shall conform to the latest editions of the State of California Department of Transportation ` Manual of Traffic Controls, Standard Plans,Standard Specifications, and Special Provisions. 4.8-1 b Notes indicating the need to obtain County approval of a construction X traffic routing plan/construction access plan will be placed on the No No Standard grading plan and included in the construction bid package./f standard is is provided for determined necessary by the Manager, Development Services, given for the placement OCEMA, that a construction/grading haul road must be established,the determining or Applicant/subdivider shall indicate this on all grading plans. Further,the when a construction construction bid package shall also include the need for a haul road of the road or construction/grading haul road. will be limits on its required use -11- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of UdQation Measurs Improper Measure Not Economically or Measure Reliance an Shown to Toohnicalty No, Future Mlfigats Foaslbl* Study Impact 4-8.2 If the appropriate agencies do not elect to upsize Pacific Coast X X X Highway, it will be necessary to develop a Deficiency Plan in No showing is accordance with the requirements of the CMP.CMP legislation made that the recognizes that not all projected roadway system deficiencies are deficiencies avoidable through local actions and decisions.When a deficiency is created by the identified, however, a jurisdiction must undertake specific actions if it Project(on PCH is to comply with the CMP. One of the mechanisms for identifying and elsewhere) potential deficiencies is through a specific development traffic impact would be analysis. In the case of state highways,the California Department of corrected or Transportation(Caltrans) has primary responsibility for preparing addressed by the deficiency plans.The plan must identify the need for isolated location Deficiency Plan or an areswide deficiency plan, with areawide deficiency plans being notwithstanding the preferred approach.There are several other requirements, the likelihood for including: continuing construction - decide on lead agency in multi-jurisdictional area, period and post- - identify facilities to be included which are off the CMP Highway build-out impacts, System and establish a means of balancing additional the DEIR capacity/benefits provided against the on-system deficiencies, concludes that - identify deficiency causes, with the - identify improvements and costs needed for both direct correction exception of of deficiencies and overall improvements(including air quality PCH,traffic benefits)if direct correction is not possible, and impacts are not - formulate action plan to address deficiency. significant The plan must then be adopted at a noticed public hearing by the CMP Agency. -12- . • Not Shown to Be Mitigation Tent of ANdoatioft M"sufff Improper Meagufe Not £conoftoally or Measure Re"nca on Shown to Technically No. Future- Waste Feasible Study Impact. 4.8-3 Implementation of ATIP:The proposed ATIP program prevents the X X X (PDF) occurrence of numerous significant traffic impacts which otherwise No funding would result from the Proposed Project. Nonetheless, it is appropriate mechanism . to supplement the "Standard Mitigation for All PDFS"to provide requiring Koll to assurances regarding ATIP implementation.The following conditions fund the ATIP in will be included as part of project approvals: advance is required ATIP shall be implemented on the terms and conditions set forth in the Proposed Project.Any modification of ATIP shall be subject to further environmental review. • - Before the approval of the first final subdivision for a phase of development or the issuance of the first building permit for a phase of development, whichever happens first,the Applicant shall irrevocably offer for dedication the necessary construction easements and ultimate rights-of-way which are located on property that is (1) owned by the Applicant, (2) within the proposed phase of development, and (3) required for ATIP • improvements. Prior to the issuance of the first budding permit for each phase of development, the Applicant shall submit a traffic analysis and plans for the implementation of all PDFS and phases of ATIP which are applicable to that phase of development.The traffic analysis and implementation plans shall be approved by the County and shall include construction phasing and traffic management plans. Before approval of permits for the implementation of any phase of ATIP, a preliminary review of the proposed action shall be conducted in the manner set forth in Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines.That preliminary review shall determine the necessity for further environmental review of the implementation of ATIP. If • additional environmental review is required,the County shall determine whether perrrut issuance requires a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, subsequent EIR,supplemental EIR, addendum, or other documentation. 4.8-4 Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map at each phase of X X development proposed under the Master Phasing Plan(Figure 3.4-1), a The funding of traffic analysis shall be prepared in compliance with ATIP conditions the required r analyzing the implementation of PDFS and all ATIP improvements traffic proposed for the Master Planned phase of development. Should the improvements traffic analysis indicate that the proposed ATIP improvements do not may not be adequately achieve current GMP and CMP requirements,additional econornucally ATIP improvements may be provided satisfactory to mitigate project feasible--The impacts or the phased level of development (i.e., number of dwelling DEIR provides no units) will be reduced until suitable mitigation is achieved.The criteria information on • for evaluation shall be the achievement of current County adopted this issue GMP and CMP standards. 4.8-5 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-3 and 4.8-4 above will X mitigate vehicle miles and hours of travel impacts to a level of This is not No justifi- insignificance, a mitigation cation or —it is a analysis conclusion supporting not this statement supported appears in the by evidence DEIR � -13- Mot Shown to Be Mitigation Text of M 1110460 Measure Improper Measuro not Econornlowly or Measure Reliance an Shown tax Teahnically No. Future Mitigates Feasible Study Impact 4.9-1 Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. X However, to the extent feasible by the Applicant's contractor, exhaust Site emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled in a manner inspectors that is consistent with standard mitigation measures dictated by the generally do ' SCAQMD.The measures to be implemented are as follows: not have the capacity to use low emission onsite mobile construction equipment; check diesel maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications; timing or use catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment; whether low retard diesel engine injection timing by 4 degrees; emissions fuel use reformulated, low-emission diesel fuel; is being used . substitute electric and gasoline-powered,and, where applicable, methanol-and propane-powered equipment for diesel-powered A further and equipment where feasible; explicit where applicable, equipment will not be left idling for prolonged system of periods(i.e.,more than 2 minutes);and mitigation curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts), must be provided in The County shall verify use of the above measures during normal the DEIR to construction site inspections. assess this measure Table, Table 4.9-7 presents the construction emissions for the combined X 4.9-7 infrastructure/building erection phase,the anticipated efficiency of This is not these control measures,and the residual impact for those impacts that mitigation--it . are to be mitigated. Note that the impacts for both NO2, and ROG are is merely a reduced, but remain significant. conclusion not adequately supported by evidene 4.9-2a Prior to approval of a grading permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate X DEIR does not to the Manager, Development Services,that the actions that will be Even if consider the taken to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which requires that there be project were proxirruty of no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD consistent sensitive Rule 403, which restricts visible emissions from construction shall with AQMP, receptors appear on each grading plan under the General Notes Section.Specific PM„emission (ESHAs, measures will include premoistening of soil prior to grading, daily will remain at residences)or the watering, washing truck tires, covering loads of dirt, early paving of 3 times the potential for PM, Ir roads, cessation of grading during periods of high winds, and level of emssions to revegetation of graded areas after soil disturbance. significance include hazardous even after materials or mitigation wastes -14- Not$hown to Be Mitigation Text of Asti ("On Meaetlro Improper 146"Um Not Ed000mically or ! Measure Rehance an Shown to Technically No, Future "Oust's Peaeible Study Impact 4.R-2b In addition to the standard measures,the Applicant shall implement X X (POF) supplemental measures to reduce fugitive dust emssions to the extent The DEIR The DEIR The DEIR uses feasible during construction operations.To assure compliance,the presents no does not lirnut general standards County shall verify compliance that these measures have been information the surface for basin-wide ! implemented during normal construction site inspections. regarding area of soil impacts without phasing of which may be noting the status - spread soil binders on the site, unpaved roads, and in parking develop- disturbed in of the South areas; ment and any single day Coast Air Basin - water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; therefore and, as a federal - reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding the DEIR accordingly, non-attainment and watering, except in wetlands restoration areas; relies on there is no area and without ! - pave onsite haul roads; the future assurance taking into - phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion creation of that the account the over extended periods of time; phasing amount of presence of - schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated plans to PM" sensitive sod during and after the and of work periods; mitigate the emissions will receptors - dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local potential remain below including the ordinances and use sound engineering practices; for significance ESHAs and . - restore landscaping and irrigation that are removed during significant thresholds residential construction in coordination with local public agencies; impacts on even though communities - sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent the nearby the developer directly adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; residents would adhere to the proposed - suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with to SCAOMD grading areas. Rule 403 requirements; rules of - wash off trucks leaving site; general ! - maintain a minimum 12-inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and application - cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Note that in accordance with Table 4.9-7,these measures are expected to reduce the impact to a level of adverse,but not significant. 4.9-3 The Applicant shall specify the use of emulsified asphalt or asphaltic X X cement, neither of which produce significant quantities of VOC No consideration emissions. of whether such material will also resist the sod corrosion cond- itions noted in Section 4.2 of the DEIR 4.9-4 The Applicant shall specify the use of high-volume, low-pressure or X X manual application of paints and coatings on structures.Where applicable,prefinished or pre-primed and sanded wood molding and trim products and pre-primed wallboard shall be used.Additionally, where applicable,the Applicant shall specify the use of nonpolluting powder-coated metal products. r 4 9-5a The Applicant shall assist the County in implementing Transportation X X X Demand Management measures related to the Proposed Project(ref: "A Reference Guide to Transportation Demand Management") published by SCAG.Such measures shall include coordinating transit service to the development through provision of bus stops,transit stops, shuttle stops, bus shelters and turnouts, and bicycle/transit interface. -15- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of 111011tf0don Messure Improper Measure Not economically or Measure Reliance on Shown to Tachnically No. Future Katilpte possible Study Impsct 4.9-5b The Applicant shall incorporate, as part of the PDFs,pedestrian X X (POF) pathways,bus stops, and bikeways to encourage use of alternate What is the forms of transportation. Verification of such programs shall be made by standard for the County prior to issuance of occupancy permits. approval? - Measures to reduce traffic congestion and its associated air emissions consistent with the design of the AQMP will be incorporated into the project.These measures include methods of improving traffic flow (i a., ATIP and lane and intersection improvements)and methods of stimulating alternative forms of transportation U e ,bicycle routes and bus turnout lanes) , 4 9-6 The Applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source emissions X X X 6 a., emissions associated with stationary sources within the The extent The reference development) through the measures listed below During design to which to Table 4 9-8 review and prior to issuance of budding permits,the County will assure each of is not a confirmation that the measures have been incorporated to the these mitigation maximum extent feasible.As stated previously, the project will comply measures measure. , with Title 24 energy-efficient design regulations and shall incorporate are feasible to the maximum extent feasible, the following design measures, in a The residential conclusion - include energy costs in the capital expenditure analyses, develop- that only - incorporate appropriate passive solar design; ment certain - minimize electricity distribution losses; including emissions - limit installed lighting loads; low and would be . - install lamps that give the highest light output per watt of moderated significant is electricity consumed; density not - control mechanical systems or equipment with time clocks or units is not adequately computer system, considered supported - recycle lighting system-or process-heat for space heating during by the DEIR cool weather, and exhaust this heat via ceding plenums during warm weather; - cascade ventilation air from high-priority(occupied spaces)areas to low-pnonty(corridors,equipment,and mechanical spaces)areas before being exhausted; - facilitate the use of electric yard maintenance equipment through the placement of exterior outlets both front and rear for all single- family dwellings, - provide shade 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 Table 4.9-8 presents the anticipated efficiency of the mitigation measures where proposed and the residual impact. Note that the impact would remain significant for CO, NO2, and ROG. r -16- � Hot Shown to 8a Mitigation Text of MMtfptiort Mex,lttire . improper Mealaare not Economically or S Measure RoUance an Shown to Technically No. Future wti W4. 1`easible Study Impact 4..10-1a The Applicant shall implement measures to protect existing residential X areas from high noise levels during construction. Assurance of the How does In addition to implementation of these measures shall be provided to the County as one determine requiring the . follows: what is"as notations on the for as grading plans,the - Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the project Applicant practicable"? measure must shall produce evidence acceptable to the Manager, Development identify the Services, What effect location and does the nature of - All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated maintenance sensitive noise • within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly of mufflers receptors in the operating and maintained mufflers. have on area and engine and periodically - All operations shall comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance non-engine monitor both the Division 6(Noise Control). construction contractor's noise activities and the - Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as sources? resulting noise practicable from dwellings• levels actually No mitigation experienced in - Notations in the above format, appropriately numbered and is provided for the filed included with other notations on the front shoat of grading plans, noise will be considered as adequate evidence of compliance with this transmitted to condition. wetlands and ESHAs 4.10-Ib In accordance with the Orange County Code, onsite construction X activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 8:00 Not effective p.m.except in emergency situations, and not permitted at all on to mitigate Sundays and federal holidays. impact on wetlands and ESHAs 4.10-2 Rrior to opening the BCSE to through traffic,the Applicant will conduct X X an acoustical analysis to confirm noise impacts and determine the extent of specific noise reductions measures necessary to achieve the 45 dBA interior noise level in residences adjacent to Bolas Chica Street between Warner Avenue and the BCSE. � -17- Not Shown to Be Mitigation Tent of UtIaNtiont Mataautt► Improper ?assure Wt. Economically of Measure Rance an Shown to Technically No, Future Mitigate Feasible study Impact 4.10-3a All new residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against X X (POF) present and projected noise which shall be the sum of all noise There is no No analysis of impacting the project so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 60 analysis of the event dBA Ldn in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dBA Ldn the existing generated , in all habitable rooms. Evidence prepared by a County-certified baseline noise(e.g., acoustical consultant,that these standards will be satisfied in a conditions one-hour L.� manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations, shall be presented has been or submitted as follows: nor any will be reason to provided - Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the defer the issuance of grading permits, as determined by the Manager, gathering Development Services,an acoustical analysis report shall be of such No analysis of submitted to the Manager, Building Permits,for approval. The information or mitigation resort shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment and for noise preliminary mitigation measures.Acoustical design features to The noise impacts on achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in report wildlife, which case it may also satisfy the next measure below, should be wetlands or made ESHAs - Prior to the issuance of any building permits for residential available i construction,an acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical for public design features of the structures required to satisfy the Manager, review and Building Permits,for approval along with satisfactory evidence comment which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in prior to EIR the approved acoustical report have been incorporated into the certification design of the project. and must consider - Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestanding noise acoustical barriers must be shown on the project's plot plan impacts at illustrating height, location, and construction in a manner meeting all phases the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. of constru- ction 4.10-3b Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy for X multifamily dwelling units,field testing in accordance with Title 24 Regulations may be required by the Manager, Building Inspection, to verify compliance with FSTC and FIIC standards.In the event such a test was previously performed, satisfactory evidence and a copy of the report shall be submitted to the Manager, Building Permits,as a supplement to the previously required acoustical analysis report. 4.11-la The research design for the Bolas Chico region currently in preparation X X (PDF) shall be completed.The research design shall contain a discussion of How can important research topics that can be addressed employing data from this report the Boise Chica sites.The research design shall be reviewed by at least be eval- three qualified archaeologists,as required by CCC guidelines. uated by the public if it is not yet prepared? -18- � not Shown to Be Mitigation 'text of wort AN"Nurat improper Mosauro Not E006omlowly or • Measure Resonae on Shown to Technically No, Future Mitigate possible Study Impact 4.114b Mitigation of impacts to important prehistoric archaeological sites in X X (PDF) areas proposed for urban development shall consist of data recovery There is much excavations.The scope or work for the data recovery excavations shall controversy be determined by the project archaeologist and reviewed and approved regarding by the three qualified peer reviewer archaeologists established Koll's pursuant to CCC permit conditions.The data recovery excavations compliance shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. In addition to with the hand excavation in the grove area of ORA-83/144,data recovery at requirements this site shall include controlled grading by the project archaeologist of of law with the field area to recover any cogged stones or other important artifacts respect to the which may remain in this disturbed portion of the site. Mitigation of the archaeological impacts to these two sites shall be considered complete when the peer resources at review group that reviewed the regional research design concludes that the site— the data recovery excavations have been completed in accordance This measure with its approved scope of work. Once data recovery excavations have leaves been completed, a report of the data recovery program shall be mitigation prepared by the project archaeologist and reviewed by the peer review wholly in team,and submitted to appropriate governmental and academic Koll's hands . institutions. Data recovery investigations,testing,analysis,and reports without shall be completed at the Applicant's expense. Government review or control 4,11-2 The historic components of ORA-78,-831144,and-85,as well as all X X X EPDFJ other facilities,structures and features more than 45 years old within CEQA Many of the • the LCP Area shall be evaluated for significance by a qualified historical specifically historic and archaeologist and/or architectural historian.This evaluation shall be states that archaeological conducted at the Applicant's expense and the Applicant shall NRHP criteria resources have implement the recommendations of the historical archaeologist and/or are not the already been architectural historian regarding significant historical cultural resources. only yardstick disturbed Significance criteria to be employed should be the eligibility criteria for for measuring pursuant to the NRHP. historic demolition . impacts—the permits granted separate by the County in analogous 1991 —these requirements permits are the of the first approvals for California the project Register construction (focusing on items of significance in California history) must also be used 4.11.3a The research design for the Soles Chica region currently in preparation X X . (POF) shall be completed.The research design shall contain a discussion of important research topics that can be addressed employing data from the Bolsa Chico sites.The research design shall be reviewed by at least three qualified archaeologists,as required by CCC guidelines. . -19- 1 Not Shown to as Mitigation Tent of Ntigatlon Measure improper Momwe Not Economically or Measure Reliance an Shown to Tachniaally ' No. Future Mftigs«te feasible Study Imp"t. 4.11-3b Sites on Huntington Beach Mesa that will be affected by construction X X of the Was Chios Regional Park shall be tested under a coordinated program that evaluates each site as a whole using the regional This Mitigation research design to assess significance. Because the development of Measure indicates Bolas Chios Regional Park will be the County of Orange's that the County responsibility, the County shall be responsible for funding and testing will fund all of those portions of each site within the LCP. For those sites testing and determined to be significant, preservation shall be considered the mitigating as preferred mitigation measure,or if preservation is not feasible, impacts needed within the will be mitigated in accordance with the State guidelines and LCP Area but no provisions under the GDP/Resource Management Plan for Bolsa Chica source of the Regional Park.The County shall be responsible for funding any funds required to mitigation of impacts for portions of sites within the LCP Area.The do so are County shall also adhere,to the cultural resources mitigation measures identified. set forth in the EIR that was prepared and certified for the Linear Regional Park.These measures are as follows: Prior to approval of the grading plan, a test-level investigation of all noted sites, with the exception of CA-ORA-290, which has totally , been destroyed, shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of archaeological consultants.The investigation shall include subsurface testing of deposits through auger holes and test pits to determine vertical depth, horizontal distribution, and internal complexity of the cultural deposit.Subsurface investigations shall comply with appropriate local,state and federal guidelines for i Native American involvement and be acceptable to the Manager, Harbors, Beaches, Parks/Program Planning Division. Based on the results of the test-level investigation, a comprehensive archaeological resource management program acceptable to the Director, Harbors, Beaches,Parks shall be submitted by archaeologist who meets the qualifications of the County of Orange approved list of archaeological subconsultants which shall include such requirements as further analysis of sites, resource recovery, or in situ preservation. Measures to protect resources in areas proposed as open space will also be included. The program shall be implemented according to a schedule which conforms to the proposed phasing of development. Additional recommendations may be made upon completion of test-level investigation or at the professional discretion of the consulting archaeologist conducting the test-level work. -20- • $fWwn to 0e Mitigation Tea of AMP&M MANNUft 1"Wow Mom"Nut roo nonaioaiiy or • Measure A666#06 an S hitwi to UdOwdev No. f~* ~4 1 >:04" Study Impact 4.11-4 The County shall evaluate all historic components of ORA-88,and- X X X 365,as well as all other facilities,structures and features more than CEQA Many of the 45 years old within the LCP Area.A qualified historical archaeologist specifically historic and and/or architectural historian shaft be engaged to conduct this states that archaeological evaluation.This evaluation shall be conducted at the County's expense NRHP criteria resources have and the County shall implement the recommendations of the historical are not the already been orchasologist and/or architectural historian regarding significant only yardstick disturbed historical cultural resources.Significance criteria to be employed for measuring pursuant to should be the eligibility criteria for the NRHP. historic demolition impacts—the permits granted separate by the County in analogous 1991 —these requirements perrrmts are the of the first approvals for California the project Register construction (focusing on items of significance in California history)must also be used �F.1t�5 The two potential archaeological sites in the lowlands, ORA-1308 and- X X (PDF} 1309, and the lowland component of ORA-86,shall be tested to Will the NRHP determine whether they represent cultural deposits.If they are found criteria be • to be cultural deposits,they will be evaluated to determine their used to judge significance using research questions in the regional research design. the If found to be significant,mitigation measures consisting of significance preservation in open space or data recovery using a data recovery plan of these shall be implemented at the expense of the Applicant.All data recovery sites? excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for lowland wetlands restorations activities or lowland urban development activities for these sites. 4.11-6 A systematic cultural resources survey of the lowlands shall be carried X 1POP) out by a qualified archaeologist to determine if they are cultural and,if 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 r Applicant.All data recovery excavations shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit for lowland wetlands restoration activities that may impact any sites discovered. -21- Not Shown to @e Mitigations Text of Mitigation Meseafs Improper Measufe Not Economically of Measure Rance on Shown to Technically No. Future "tigow Feasible Study Impaot 4,1 I-7 A rebunal agreement for prehistoric Native American human remains,if X X (PDF) any, that may be encountered on the Boise Chica property under the There has This appears to Applicant's control shall be negotiated with the Most Likely already been be in conflict Descendant designated by the Native American Heritage Commission a significant with Mitigation to address Native American concerns in the event human remains are controversy Measure 4.11-3b discovered.The provisions of the rebunal agreement shall be raised which indicates implemented at the Applicant's expense.The provisions of the reburial regarding the that the County agreement currently in force for Huntington Beach Mesa shall be handling of would be implemented at the Applicant's expense for any human remains found this issue— responsible for within the LCP area. Further, Koll such costs has acknowledged that human rearruns were located at the site as early as 1991 -- there is no mention of this discovery in the DEIR 4.12-In Landscaping, including use of native vegetation, and setbacks from X Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue shall be used to break up long linear views of houses from off site. 4.12-lb Prior to issuance of any building permit,the Applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designated and located No approval Lighting will so that all direct rays are confined to the property in a manner meeting criteria still affect the approval of the Manager, Building Permits. given wildlife especially along the BCSE 4.12-la Pnor to issuance of any grading perrrut or recordation of any applicable X X tract/parcel map,the Applicant shall subrnut subject to approval of the No approval County Manager HBP Program Planning Division, an urban edge criteria treatment plan which includes but is not limited to: building height and given setback limits;landscape and fuel modification treatments;provisions for walls, fences or berms;slope gradients and ratios (i.e., 2:1 -4: 1) proposed:slope drainage structures,and architectural or landscape design themes. 4.12-1d As part of the Development Agreement for the Proposed Project,the X X (PDF) Applicant shall implement the Local Parks and Recreation Facilities No information described in this EIR in Chapter 3.2.2.7.The OCEMA shall ensure re:financial implementation of this PDF through its Development Agreement impact on the monitoring program. development is ' provided -22- • Shown�� Mitigation Twa of"Aamtlea Merarrre Itnprow Magri"lot Iroonotrt omy or • Measure Reicanoa an shown try Tabtcriitr1r v f+to; fuAfrs Mutts Feasibia Stwiy Invacf 4.14-1 The Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the County to X X provide Sheriff law enforcement services such as facilities, equipment, The police No information or other infrastructure necessary for adequate law enforcement services re:financial services to the Proposed Project. which can be impact on the provided by development is the County provided are not sufficient to most County standards for response time • 4.14-2 The Applicant shall be required to enter into a secured fire protection X X agreement with the County or its successor fire protection agency.The Even with the No information agreement shall include the following: construction re:financial of a new impact on the Provision for dedication of an adequate site within the project area station,the development is for construction of a fully equipped and furnished fire station, fire protection provided subject to the approval of the Orange County Fire Department or services successor agency; which can be provided by Provision for funding of land acquisition,construction,equipping the County and furnishing the new fire station and adequate fire access, water an not distribution,and other supporting infrastructure by the Applicant; sufficient to and meet County • - standards for Provision for commencement of fire station operation in accordance response time with development phasing. 4.15r2 Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of the tidal inlet, X the Applicant shall provide for an additional lifeguard and lifeguard No information tower for Boise Chica State Beach nearthe tidal inlet in a manner regarding the meeting the approval of the California Department of Parks and funding for the Recreation. required bfegaurd is provided 4.15-3 A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be X X X developed by the County of Orange Harbors,Beaches and Parks Fencing Department in consultation with the CDFG, which restricts public would not be . access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands adequate to areas to the period from October 1 through March 31.Fencing and/or control human other meant to control access shall be used to reduce disruption to and pet sensitive species. intrusions 4.1 S-4 A visitor access and interpretive program for the wetlands will be X X X . developed by the County of Orange Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department in consultation with the CDFG, which restricts public access to interpretive trails in the wetlands and to other wetlands areas to the period from October 1 through March 31.Fencing and/or other means to control access should be used to reduce disruption to sensitive species. • -23- 1 Not Shown to Be Mitigation Text of Mid0tion Message Improper Measure Not Foonomloaily or Measure ReUance an Shown ttt Technically 1 No. Future tyl 0sta Feasible Study Irnpaot 4.15-5 An interpretive program will be developed by the County Harbors, X X X Beaches and Parks Department which avoids public kayak/canoe Controlling outings during hours of potentially dangerous tidal fluctuations. access during dangerous , conditions will be difficult 4.16-1 Any grading operations on the Balsa Ch1ca or Huntington Beach Mesas X (POF) shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological field observer under Control of the direction of an Orange County certified paleontologist and at the mass Applicant's expense.The paleontological field inspector shall be able to excavation 1 divert equipment to avoid destruction of significant fossils that may be and grading discovered during grading. Assistance may be required for the salvage by a single and removal of large specimens or concentrations. It is recommended professional that any fossils collected during the development phase be donated to will be the Natural History Foundation of Orange County for appropriate impracticable disposition. SAR0127A 213"1 r 1. -24- 8 -� • ANNEX NO. 8 • The following table sets forth a summary analysis of the alternatives considered in Chapter 7 of the DEIR prepared by the County of Orange for the Bolsa Chica • Development and notes certain of the problems and infirmities under CEQA of the DEIR's alternative project analysis. This table is not intended to summarize the infirmities of the DEIR under CEQA and reference is made to the comment letter, dated February 17, 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 macriotlon Commants on Alternative and Additional)nfotmatiotl requited DEIR`s Reasons far Dismissal • Alternative A — Discussion notes potentially The DEIR omits: Park/ — Mixed open space and recreational significant impact from increased Lowland uses with EGGW channel retained as a human intrusion and loss of upland 1. A statement of the purchase price Restoration public facility; no new housing habitat; however,these impacts which would be paid to acquire the DEIR provided were discounted in the analysis of Mesa or the Lowlands under time CH.7.2.1 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 DEIR available without considering the degree the oil operators of funding required. Acknowledges significant traffic — Road constructed on Bolas Mesa to impacts from 4,000 weekend trips 2. Consideration of the potential for access recreational use but cross gap combined with beach traffic—no only a portion of the Study Area to be connector/BCSE would not be built funds contribute toward ATIP purchased for recreational or conservation purposes in order to — Contemplates a reyuirement 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 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 impact in the DEIR 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: -- fads to fulfill the objective of providing a mix of housing on the Lowlands and the Mesa; — does not provide a 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. Alternative Description Comments on Alternative and Additional Information Required DEIR`*Reasons for Dismissal Alternative 8 — Virtually the entire site would be Reasons for Dismissal— This The DEIR omits: (1) A statement of ' Siodiversity dedicated to conservation purposes alternative was dismissed because the purchase price to acquire the site. Park it: Accordingly, it merely assumes that CH. 7 2.2 -- Generally is compatible with funding would not be available without surrounding land uses although the --- provides no housing considering the degree of funding *Environ- 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 only a portion of the Study ! Superior residential uses restoration;and Area to be purchased for biodiversity Alternative — provides no definitive plan to park purposes in order to decrease the -- Would pernut 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 ESHA9 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 biodrversity park alternative. The DEIR (page 7-21,In. 19-24)merely states that the timing for such implementation exceeds the time frame desired by the Applicant. This does not make Owe alternative infeasible within the meaning of CEQA. -2- Alternative Ram. Comments on Altematlw ark �idt34rtef brharrttal#orR lt4gtait#fl Delft's Reasons for 0104dasai rn Reasons for Dismissal— This The DEIR's analysis of this alternative is Commercial —600 room luxury hotel with support alternative was dismissed because particularly suspect in that it assumes Resort and conference facilities it: (for no apparent reason)that this Housing — provides housing on the Mesa project would not Include any traffic Altamat[va —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 CH 7.2.3 (depicted in Figure 7.2-3 as being housing on the Mesa and the the environment would be greater than constructed on the Lowlands-DEIR Lowlands under the proposed project. Page 7-28. notes at page 7-24, In.11-15 golf --- provides no means of wetlands In.29 is misleading since the Koll project course is unlikely to receive approval) expansion and restoration;and restoration timing may not be — provides no definitive plan to significantly different from the tirrung —200,000 sq.ft. of commercial shop, bring the wetlands into public here. restaurants ownership The DEIR omits: — 1,500 residential units in a high Conclusion:Page 7-27 states that density configuration although this alternative would 1. Consideration of this alternative if fulfill many of the objectives of the the development were conditioned on —hiking trails and interpretive center project, Koll is not interested in establishment and at least partial pursuing this alternative,in part funding of an ATIP as contemplated —construction of roadways and due to concerns regarding the under Kill's project. utilities;but no cross-gap connector competing resorts within the would be constructed market. The DEIR also notes that 2. Consideration of this alternative with wetlands restoration could proceed a low-rise development(such as the —Lowland restoration aught occur but under this alternative in the same Red Lion Hotel on Santa Barbara would be separately funded and manner as under the project, with beachfront) which does not have the separately considered funding coming from the aesthetic or view impacts of the development. DEIR erroneously proposed project and with buffers and states, without support,that the thorns wall (as relied for mitigation of • impacts of this project are greater land use Impacts in the proposed Koll than Kol's proposed project with project). the exception of air quality and traffic. The DEIR assumes no ATIP 3. A comparison of the likely phasing would be included in the and timing of the restoration under ties alternative. alternative versus the timing and phasing under the Koll proposal. 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 Marina! — 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 Development per 1986 LCP Reasons for Dismissal— This of the DEIR when assessing consistency alternative was dismissed because with Coastal Act policies and —Marina with navigable channel it: consistency with the County General CH 7.2.4 access — would have greater adverse Plan. This is a blatant internal impacts than the proposed plan in inconsistency in the DEIR. —Cross Gap Connector will be terns of noise,traffic, air quality constructed together with realignment and loss of a further ESHA at —The DEIR is also inconsistent in that it of PCH inland Rabbit Island rejects this alternative based on the difficulty of obtaining federal permits —would require the Corps to issue while it Ignores the Sams Issue in its Section 10 and 404 pernuts which analysis of Koll's proposed project. would be difficult to obtain -3- Alternative Description Comments an Alternative and Additianat Information.Required DEIR`s Reasons for Dismissal Alternative E -4,286 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 Residential on a portion of Edwards Thumb similar in scope to the impacts from severity. Development the project. In Pocket --non-navigable tidal inlet would be The timing of wetlands restoration Area and constructed as in the case of the This alternative fulfills the might be longer under this alternative , Edwards project objectives of the project and is than under the Koll plan; however, there Thumb similar in scope and nature to the is no way to judge the relative timing --Would require higher densities (over project; however,the DEIR implies because no projections of timing are 36 d.u./acre)in order to yield 4,286 that Koll might not willingly fund given either for the project WRP or for units without development on the WRP under this alternative. the alternative. Lowlands areas other than the pocket and Edwards Thumb as indicated on This alternative will require OCFCD Figure 7.2-5 to reconvey the EGGW channel easement. --Cross Gap Connector would not be constructed but a more intense road Development of the pocket is system would be constructed on the dependant upon the purchase of Mesa, into the pocket and access portions of that property from would be provided into Edwards MWD Thumb Reasons for Dismissal-None given --Would include limited neighborhood commercial uses -4- • Aftomativo 011114914WOR l omr moots on Altem tivs and AddW91W is► wnwwoon,i3a *411w{ DEIR'*Ramona for Dismissal • Alternative — 1,000 low density units on the Mesa p.7-42 In.32-33-the DEIR omits DEIR notes that this alternative is not consideration of future restoration consistent with Coastal Act policies Low Density —No Cross Gap Connector of the wetlands from this favoring restoration of the wetlands but Altemativa alternative without justification for onuts to note: (1,000 Unitsj —No Lowlands development doing so. —Koll's proposed plan is similarly CH 7.3.1 —No restoration or tidal inlet but Even though the traffic generated inconsistent with Coastal Act policies Lowlands are retained as open space by this alternative is 25%of the which discourage filling of wetlands for projected traffic generated by Koll's residential development proposed project,the DEIR assumes(without support)that —This alternative would retain the regional traffic impacts of thus option for future restoration by project would nonetheless be the preserving the Lowlands as open space • same as for the project. The DEIR until a funding source for the restoration assumes no ATIP for this could be located alternative without explanation or justification for doing so. The DEIR onwts: —An explanation of the project-related Reasons for Dismissal— This impacts which would be mitigated in alternative was dismissed because the wetlands under this alternative. it: • — provides housing on the Mesa in only partial satisfaction of the objective of providing a rnix of housing on the Mesa and the Lowlands — provides no means of wetlands expansion and restoration;and • — provides no definitive plan to bring the wetlands into public ownership Conclusion:Page 7-44,In. 23-30 indicates that this alternative assumes that only project related impacts would be mitigated and no requirement or plan for wetlands restoration would be implemented. • Alternative GG -2,500 units averaging 8 d.u./acre SAME AS ALTERNATIVE F SAME AS ALTERNATIVE F Medium»Loam -max density of 38 d.u./acre Density Residentlar - no Lowlands development Development -no cross-gsp connector CH 7.3.2 • Alternative H —Assumes that some development The use of the term"No Project —The DEIR should explain exactly what would proceed,but only in accordance Alternative"for this alternative is development could occur under the No Project with existing zoning designations nusleading and is not in accord existing zoning and the potential Alternative with customary CEQA practice. locations of that development. —Scope and location of the CH 7.4.1 development permitted under this Reasons for Dismissal: This —The DEIR 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 • -5- 1 Alternative Description Comments on Altemativs and Additional Information Required DEIR'a Reasons for Dismissal Alternative I --No development would occur on the Reasons for Dismissal: This 1 site alternative would fulfill none of the No project objectives Developt»ant --This alternative is commonly referred Alternative to as the "no project alternative" under CEQA CH,7.4.2 r A a A -s-