Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal EIR - DWP Specific Plan Amendment - April 2012;4 PRIL 20 2 ca 4. } De`pdrti Water and Speci F -Tc�. '`` � fix•-; . �P ob r o 4 l Administrative Draft EIR Completed: September 29, 2011 Check Copy Draft EIR Completed: October 31, 2011 Public Review Draft EIR Completed: November 14,2011_ Final EIR Completed: April 2, 2012 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment SCH NO. 2011061018 Lead Agency: 4F UA1 q v P eauxr� gyp` CITY OF SEAL BEACH 211 811, Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Contact: Ms. Jill R. Ingram City Manager 562.431.2527 jingram @se albe achca.gov Prepared by: CONSULTING RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine, California 92618 -2027 Contacts: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP Mr. Edward Torres, INCE, REA 949.472.3505 April 2, 2012 JN 10- 107353 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section1.0: Introduction ......................................................................................... ............................... 1 -1 Section 2.0: Response to Comments ...................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 Section 3.0: Nlitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .............................. ............................... 3 -1 Section4.0: Errata ..................................................................................................... ............................... 4 -1 Final • April 2012 i Table of Contents Section 1.0 - Introduction City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). The Draft EIR for the proposed Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment (herein referenced as the project) was distributed to potential responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and organizations. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment for a period of 57 days. Note that CEQA only requires a public review period of 45 days; however, due to the holidays, the City extended the public review period for 57 days. The public review period for the Draft EIR established by the CEQA Guidelines commenced on November 14, 2011 and extended through January 9, 2012. The following public meetings for the EIR were held at the Seal Beach City Hall (located at 211 Eighth Street in Seal Beach) in order to gather information on concerns and issues that the general public may have regarding the project and the EIR: • Environmental Quality Control Board (December 13, 2011) • Archaeological Committee (December 14, 2011) • DWP Committee (December 15, 2011) The Final EIR consists of the following components: • Section 2 — Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR • Section 3 — Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Section 4 — Errata Due to its length, the text of the Draft EIR is not included with this document; however, it is included by reference in this Final EIR. None of the corrections or clarifications to the Draft EIR identified in this document constitutes "significant new information" pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. As a result, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Final • April 2012 1 -1 Introduction City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Final • April 2012 1 -2 Introduction Section 2.0 — Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS In accordance with the California Envivonmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15088, the City of Seal Beach, as the lead agency, evaluated the written comments received on the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2011061018) for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment (herein referenced as the pro)ect) and has prepared the following responses to the comments received. This Response to Comments document becomes part of the Final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. A list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft EIR is presented below. Each comment has been assigned a letter number. Individual comments within each communication have been numbered so comments can be crossed- referenced with responses. Following this list, the text of the communication is reprinted and followed by the corresponding response. Commenter Aaencies / Oraanizations Letter Number State Clearinghouse - Scott Morgan, Director (January 10, 2011) 1 Orange County Sanitation District - James L. Burror, Jr. (November 15, 2011) 2 Native American Heritage Commission - Dave Singleton (December 1, 2011) 3 California Department of Transportation - Christopher Herre (December 19, 2011) 4 Orange County Public Works - Michael Balsamo (January 5, 2012) 5 Department of Toxic Substances Control - Al Shami (January 5, 2012) 6 El Dorado Audubon - California Chapter of National Audubon Society - Mary Parsell (January 6, 2012) 7 California Coastal Commission - Fernie Sy (January 9, 2012) 8 11171[; Seth Eaker (November 30, 2011; December 5, 2011; December 6, 2011; and January 7, 2012) 9 Gary Johnson (December 10, 2011) 10 James Caviola (December 15, 2011) 11 Gary, Catalina Avenue (December 15, 2011) 12 Marc Loopesko (December 15, 2011) 13 Bruce Monroe (December 16, 2011) 14 Rita Strickroth (December 19, 2011) 15 Mr. and Mrs. Ken Appelgate (December 22, 2011) 16 Susan And Vincent Lordi (January 3, 2012) 17 Rick Roussell (January 6, 2012) 18 Gwen Gordon (January 6, 2012) 19 Virginia G. Bickford, M.A. (January 8, 2012) 20 Chatten -Brown and Carstens (January 9, 2012) 21 Bay City Partners (January 9, 2012) 22 Nancy Slusher (January 9, 2012) 23 Mike Buhbe (January 9, 2012) 24 Robert L. Goldberg (January 9, 2012) 25 Jane McCloud (No Date) 26 Public Hearina Comment Environmental Quality Control Board Hearing (December 13, 2011) 27 Archeological Committee Hearing (December 14, 2011) 28 DWP Committee Hearing (December 15, 2011) 29 Final • April 2012 2 -1 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA y �� GovERNUR'S OFFICE o PLANNING AND RESEam STATE CLE&PJNGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT KM n,.ex Dvxcroit January 10, 2012 Mark Persico City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90744 Subject: Department of Water and Power Speck Plan Amendment SCH.* 2011061018 Dear Mark Pcrsico: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above harried Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clem inghouse .has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on January 9, 2012, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (axe) enclosed. If this comanent package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency, Those comrnent.S shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments arc forwarded for use in preparing your Canal environmental document, Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recomwcnd chat you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complicd with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmenrdl Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process, Sincerely, Ott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc; Resources agency 1400 10th Street P.O, Box 31144 Sacramento, California 95812 -3444 (916) 4454613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ea,Sov 1 -1 State Clearinghouse Data Base SCHS 2011061018 Project Title Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency Seal Beach, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description Note: Review Per Lead The proposed project involves amendments to the 1996 DWP Specific Plan (proposed Specific Plan Amendment) that would allow for the development of a 48 -lot residential development (Tentative Tract Map No. 17425). The residential uses would be located on approximately 4.5 acres in the northern portion of the project site. Bay City Partners, LLC (BCP) would construct the project in one phase, which would include the finished pads and all infrastructures necessary to serve the new residential development Residenpal units would be developed individually by homeowners as custom hom=es, depending on market conditions and demand, Maintenance of streets, common landscaped areas, and major infrastructure would be funded through the Community Facilities District Act (i.e., Mello- Roos). The remaining approximately 6.4 acres of trio project site would be used for open space/ passive recreation uses. Lead Agency Contact Name Mark Persico Agency City of Seal Beach Phone 562 431 2527 email mpersico@sealboachea.gov Address 211 Eighth Street City Seal Beach Project Location County Orange CIfy Seal Beach Region Lat /Lang 33° 44'41-57" N / 118* 8'46.01 " W Cross Streets Marina Drive /1st Street Parcel No. 049 - 171 - 02,043- 172- 07, -08, 12, & 13 Township 5S Range 12W Fax 562 530 -$763 State CA Yip 90740 Section 14 Base SBB &M Proximity to: Highways SR -1, 22 Airports Railways Waterways San Gabriel River, Pacific Ocean, Alamitos Bay; Anaheim Bay Schools Multiple Land Use Specific Plan Area/Specific Plan Regulation and Service Commercial Project Issues Population /Housing Balance; Toxic/Hazardous; Wetland/Riparian Reviewing Resources Agency; California Coastal Commission. Department of Fish and Game, Region 5: Office of Agoncles Historic Preservatlon: Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, District 12; California Highway Patrol: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8: DepaNnent of Toxic Substances Control: Native American Heritage Commission Date Received f 1/14/2011 Start of Review 11/14/2011 End of Review 01/09/2012 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 1. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, JANUARY 10, 2011. 1 -1 This comment indicates that the State Clearinghouse submitted the Draft EIR to selected State agencies for review and that the comment period for the Draft EIR concluded on January 9, 2012. The comment indicates that the lead agency complied with the public review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. As such, the comment does not provide specific comments regarding information presented in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -4 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 2 GRANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT We ppotect public health and the environment by providing effective vtastewat:er coliection, treatment, and recycling. November 15, 2011 ci #y Of se',-}'Beach ^� y Mr. Mark Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 NOv w 1 2011 Dspa.itme, iit of rte. ! ..-... f Iii' oEi]p..ii'wfll Serving SUBJECT: Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment , n6heirn Draft Environmental Impact Report area Buena Park This letter is in response to the above referenced Draft Environmental Impact Cypress Report (DEIR) Preparation Letter for a project within the City of Seal Beach FouotainV311ey (City). The project site is located by Marina Drive and 1st Street along the Fullerton San Gabriel River within the City, and will allow for the development of a 48 -tot residential development. Gorden Grove Nuntrngton Saaah Thank you for responding to our original comment letter and identifying the Irma volumes and locations of the sewer flows for the project. Orange County LaHebra Sanitation District (OCSD) facilities will be able to provide service to the project site as identified in the DEIR. L PWms Los Alamitos Also, please note that any construction dewatering operations that involve Newport Beach discharges to the local or regional sanitary sewer system must be permitted orange by OCSD prior to discharge. OCSD staff will need to reviewlapprove the water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate Placentia materials like sands, silts, and other regulated compounds prior to discharge SantaArra to the sanitary sewer system. Seal Beach Stanton Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. If you have any questions regarding sewer connection fees, please contact Tustin Wendy Smith at (714) 593 -7880, For planning issues regarding this project, Villa Park please contact me at (714) 593 -7335. Ynr6a Linda / Costa Mesa Sanitary Qistrlct Midway City James L urror, Jr. P.E. Sanitary District Engine ring Supervisor Irvine Ranch Water District JB:sa County of Grange EDMS:00394923011. &p 05 101344 Ellis Avenea • Fountain Valley, CA 92708 -7018 . (714) 962.2411 • s vA%ncsd.cam rr�c'ed paper 2 -1 2 -2 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, DATED NOVEMBER 15, 2011. 2 -1 The commenter notes that the original Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) comment letter (provided during the Notice of Preparation [NOP]) has been responded to and the volumes and locations of the sewer flows for the project have been identified as part of the Draft EIR. It is noted that the OCSD facilities would be able to provide service to the project site, as identified in the Draft EIR. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary. 2 -2 OCSD notes that should any construction dewatermg operations be required that would discharge into the local or regional sanitary sewer system, a permit from OCSD would be required prior to discharge. Page 3 -13, sixth bullet, of the Draft EIR notes that project construction is subject to review and /or approval by the OCSD. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR, and no further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -6 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 3 s'r►iTE OF CALIFORNIA _ Edmund ii. Br.QWn Ir, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 4" ' 915 CAPITOL MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 l (916) 653 -6251 Fax (918) 657- -5390 Web Site y.jyw nahc.ca,gaY - da_nahc0paebell.net �T � � e✓ity of December 1, 2011 Mr. Mark Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services an City of goal Beach 211 — 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90744 Re: SCH #2011069098 CE QA Notice of Coml2letiono draft Environmental Impact Report WEIR) for the "Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Pro'ect to Allow for a 48-parcel Residential Devela ment ' located in the Ci of Seal Beach: Orange County, California Dear Mr. Persico: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the State of California `Trustee Agency' for the protection and preservation of Native American cultural resources pursuant to California Public Resources Code §21070 and affirmed by the Third Appellate Court in the case of EPIC v. Johnson (1985: 170 Cal App. 3rd 604). The court held that the NAHC has jurisdiction and special expertise, as a state agency, over affected Native American resources, impacted by proposed projects including archaeological, places of religious significance to Native Americans and burial sites. The NAHC wishes to comment on the proposed project. This project is also subject to required tribal consultation pursuant to California Government Code § §65352.3, 65352.4, et seq. This letter includes state and federal statutes relating to Native American historic properties of religious and cultural significance to American Indian tribes and interested Native American individuals as'consult'ing parties' under both state and federal law. State law also addresses the freedom of Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code §5097.9. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA -- CA Public Resources Code 21000- 21177, amendments effective 3/18/2010) requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a `significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as `a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ... objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the `area of potential effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect. 34 3 -2 The NAHC Sacred rands File (SLF) search resulted as follows: Native American cultural resources were not Identified within the project area identified (e.g. `area of potential effect' or APE). Also, the absence of archaeological resources does not preclude their 3 -3 existence.. California Public Resources Code § §5097.94 (a) and 5097.96 authorize the NAHC to establish a Sacred Land Inventory to record Native American sacred sites and burial sites. These records are exempt from the provisions of the California Public Records Act pursuant to. California Government Code §6254 (r). The purpose of this code is to protect such sites from vandalism, theft and destruction. The NAHC "Sacred Sites,' as defined by the Native American Heritage Commission and the California Legislature in California Public Resources Code § §5097.94(a) and 5097.96. Items in the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory are confidential and exempt from the Public Records Act pursuant to California Government Code §6254 (r ). Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or burial sites once a project is underway. Culturally affiliated tribes and individuals may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area (e.g. APE). We strongly urge that you make contact with the list of Native American Contacts on the list of Native American contacts, to see if your proposed project might impact Native American cultural resources and to obtain their recommendations concerning the proposed project. Special reference is made to the Tribal Consultation requirements of the California 2006 Senate Bill 1059: enabling legislation to the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109 -58), mandates consultation with Native American tribes (both federally recognized and non federally recognized) where electrically transmission lines are {proposed. This is codified in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.3 and §25330 to Division 15. Furthermore, pursuant to CA Public Resources Code § 5097.95, the NAHC requests that the Native American consulting parties be provided pertinent project information. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code §65040.12(e). Pursuant to CA Public Resources Code §5097.95, the NAHC requests that pertinent project information be provided consulting tribal parties. The NAHC recommends avoidance as defined by CEQA Guidelines §15370(a) to pursuing a project that would damage or destroy Native American cultural resources and Section 2183.2 that requires documentation, data recovery of cultural resources. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American consulting parties, on the NAHC list, should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq), 36 CFR Part 500.3 (f) (2) & .5, the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CSQ, 42 U.S.0 4371 et seq. and NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001- 3013) as appropriate. The 1992 Secretary of the Inferiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Also, federal Executive Orders Nos. 11593 (preservation of cultural environment), 13175 (coordination & consultation) and 13007 (Sacred Sites) are helpful, supportive guides for Section 106 consultation. The aforementioned Secretary of the Interior's Standards include recommendations for all `lead agencies' to consider the historic context of proposed projects and to "research" the cultural landscape that might include the `area of potential effect.' Confidentiality of "historic properties of religious and cultural significance" should also be considered as protected by California Government Code §6254( r) and may also be protected under Section 304 of he NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act (cf. 42 U.S.C., 1996) in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the AP Es and possibility threatened by proposed project activity. 3 -3 3 -4 M Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, California Government Code I 3 -g §27491 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a 'dedicated cemetery'. To be effective, consultation on specific projects must be the result of an ongoing relationship between Native American tribes and lead agencies, project proponents and their contractors, in the opinion of the NAHC. Regarding tribal consultation, a relationship built around regular meetings and informal involvement with local tribes will lead to more qualitative consultation tribal input on specific projects. u have any questions about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to at (9116) 658 -6251. Dave Singlof Program Ana Cc: State r,idaringhouse Attachment: Native American Contact List 3 -6 California Nature American Contacts Orange County December 1, 2011 TVAt Society/Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu Cindi M. Alvitre, Chairwoman- Manisar 3098 Mace Avenue, Aapt. D Gabrielino Costa Mesa, , CA 92626 calvitre 9 yahoo. com (714) 504 -2468 Cell Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachernen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno San Juan Capistranq CA 92675 chiefdavld belardes@yahoo. (949) 493 -4933 - home (949) 293 -8522 Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Private Address Gabrieilno Tongva tattritaw @gmail.com 310- 570 -6567 Gabrieieno/Tongv San Gabriel Band of Mission Anthony Morales, chairperson PO Box 693 San Gabriel , CA 91778 G TTri ba l co u n cl I@ aoi. co m (626) 286 -1632 (626) 286 -1758 - Home (626) 286 -1262 -FAX Gabrielino Tongva This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Gabrielino Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Chairperson P.D. Box 86908 Los Angeles , CA '900$6 samdunlap @earthlink.net (909) 262 -9351 - cell Gabrielino Tongva Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistranq CA 92675 -2674 arivera @juaneno.com (949) 488 -3484 (949) 488 -3294 - FAX (530) 354 -5876 - cell Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Robert F. Dorame, Tribal Chair /Cultural Resources P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva Bellflower CA 90707 gtongvagverizon.not 562 -761 -6417 - voice 552 -761 - 6417 -fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 alfredgcruz Qsbeglobal. net 714- 998 -0721 714- 998 -0721 - FAX 714 -321 -1944 - cell Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 13097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.96 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH #2010061411 8; CEQA Notice of Completion, draft Envlronmental Impact Report (AEIR) for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment; located in the City of Sea] Beach; Orange County, californla. Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph 'Bud' Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 bssepul@yahoo.net 714838 -3270 714- 914 -1812 - CELL bsepul@ yahoo -net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Sonia. Johnston, Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 sonia.johnston@sbcglobal. (714) 323.8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim 1 CA 92807 n eta777 @ sbcglobal .net (714) 779.8832 United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP) Rebecca Robles 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno San Clemente CA 92672 rebroblesl @gmali.com (949) 573 -3138 This list is current only as of the date of this document. California Native American Contacts Orange County December 1, 2011 Gabrielino- Tongva Tribe Bernie Acuna 1875 Century Pk East #1500 Gabrielino Los Angeles r CA 90067 (619) 2946660 -work (310) 428 -5690 - cell (310) 587 -0170 - FAX bacunal @gabrieinotribe,org Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aclachemen Nation Joyce Perry; Representing Tribal Chairperson 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Irvine r CA 92612 949- 293 -8522 Gabriel!no- Tongva Tribe Linda Candelaria, Chairwoman 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1509 Los Angeles , CA 90067 Gabrielino Icandeiaria7 ftabrielinoTribe.org 626 -676 -1184- cell (310) 587 -0170 - FAX 760 -904 -6533 -home Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Gabirellno Covina P CA 91723 (626) 926 -4131 gabrielenoindians@ ya hoo. com Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of the statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7080.5 of the Heath and Safety Code, Section 6097,94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Pubfte Resources Code. This list is applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources for the proposed 5CH #2010061018; CEQA Notice of Completion; draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment; toe ated In the City of Seal Beach; 0 range County, cal lfornIa. City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION, DATED DECEMBER 1, 2011. 3 -1 The project will undergo tribal consultation, as required by California Government Code Section 65352.3, Section 65352.4, et seq. It should be noted that this process is separate from the requirements of CEQA. 3 -2 As discussed on pages 5.4 -17 and 5.4 -18 of the Draft EIR, Impact Statements CUL -1 and CUL -2, the project site is vacant, with the exception of a residential structure located within the northwestern portion of the project site. The residential structure would be removed as part of the proposed project. The residential structure is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The property is not eligible as a contributor to a larger historic district, nor is it eligible for local designation. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a significant impact to a historic resource. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Three previous cultural resources studies have been conducted which included portions of the project area. Although there are no previously recorded cultural resources located within the project area, there are previously recorded cultural resources located within a 0.5 -mile radius of the project area. No archaeological resources were observed during the intensive- level survey of the project area. Although there are no known archaeological resources occurring at the project site, the proposed project does have the potential to impact previously unrecorded cultural resources during ground disturbances. An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Seal Beach would be required to be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for utilities (Mitigation Measure CUL -1). If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the contractor(s) would cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity and immediately notify the City- selected archaeologist and /or Native American Monitor, who would immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist would then evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Seal Beach Cultural Resources Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Monitor, the Native American Heritage Commission, and data /artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, would also be conducted. Further, potential impacts to human remains, including Native American remains, would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures CUL -3 and CUL -4. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL -3, and CUL -4, project implementation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any archaeological resources or human remains. 3 -3 The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) notes that the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search resulted in no identified Native American cultural resources within the identified area of potential effects (APE). No further response to this comment is required. Final • April 2012 2 -12 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 3 -4 The Native American tribes, as identified by the NAHC in the June 9, 2011 NOP comment letter, have been mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) regarding the Draft EIR for public review. Further, as discussed in Response to Comment 3 -1, the project will undergo tribal consultation, as required by California Government Code Section 65352.3, Section 65352.4, et seq. It should be noted that this process is separate from the requirements of CEQA. 3 -5 Refer to Responses to Comments 3 -1 and 3 -2. 3 -6 Refer to Response to Comment 3 -2. As stated on page 5.4 -20 of the Draft EIR, Impact Statement CUL -4, the Native American scoping indicated the project area is highly sensitive for cultural resources important to Native Americans. Although there are no known Native American burial sites occurring at the project site, the proposed project does have the potential to impact previously unrecorded human remains during ground disturbances. With implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures CUL -1, CUL -3, and CUL -4, potential impacts resulting from the alteration of archeological resources or human remains would be reduced to less than significant levels. Refer to Response to Comment 3 -1 regarding tribal consultation. Final • April 2012 2 -13 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 4 TATS OF CALIFORNIA gUSMS TRANSFDRTATION AND E10USfIN G AGENCY � {[{gin G. 6AO1VN ft„ QgVemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Diwict 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2241 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 December 19, 2012 Mark Persico City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, California 90740 City of $cal Boach Fax & Mail Npartment of File: IGRICEQA SCH #: 2011461018 Log #: 2726 -B PCH Subject: Department of Water and Power Specific PIait Amendment Dear Mr. Persico, r !!4^ Flay yourpower! He energy egieiewl Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Department of Water and Power Specific Platt Amendment draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposal is to build 48 new homes, and is generally bounded by Marina Drive to the north, 1" Street to the East, the Rivers End CaWbeach parking lot to the south, and the San Gabriel river to the West. The proposal would result in grading of the 10.7 acre site and installation of appropriate infrastructure in order to allow for future development of residential and open space/passive park uses, A General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, DWP Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Lot Line Adjustment, Tentative tract Map, and Lot Line Adjustment are required. 4 -1 The Department of Transportation (Department) is a responsible agency on this project and we have the following comments: 1. The additional information provided has not addressed our previous comment about "No surface runoff is allowed to cross Caltrans Right of Way lines, during the construction nor after completion of the project ". Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to contact Ed Khosravi at ed khosravi c dot.ca, ov or at 949- 724- 2338. Sincerely, P,J Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Local DevelopmentJlntergoverrunental Review "Calfrans improves Pnobilify across California" City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 4. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DATED DECEMBER 19, 2011. 4 -1 The project site is located approximately 0.35 -mile west of Pacific Coast Highway (the nearest California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] right -of -way). Project operations would result in increased impervious surfaces that would increase stormwater in the project area. However, project - related stormwater runoff would not cross Caltrans' right -of -way, but rather would enter the City's storm drain system at the Marina Drive storm drain and would be discharged at the San Gabriel River outlet structure during project operations. Further, due to the distance of Caltrans right -of -way from the project site, no stormwater runoff during construction is anticipated to cross Caltrans right -of -way. With implementation of recommended Mitigation Measure AQ -2, all trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on -site would be required to comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways), with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F) and (e) (4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Final • April 2012 2 -15 Response to Comments O R A H a E C o u H IF v __.. PublicWorks Our Communlfy. our Commilment. January 5, 2012 Mark Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services Development Services Department City of Seal Beach 2118th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 'All L11II►14►1i"4f14W Jess A, Carbajaf, Director 300 N. flower Street Santa Ana, CA P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, GA $2702.4048 Telephone., (714) 834 -2340 Fax: (714) 834 -5188 1010161119611% JAN -9212 of SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Dear Mr, Persico: The County of grange has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Resources In response to your request for input on the subject project, Environmental Resources has reviewed the document, and offers the following comments: 5 -1 1. Under the Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit to which the City is a party, permittees are expected to implement programs and policies consistent with the metals and selenium TMDLs for the San Gabriel River watershed. This includes constituent- specific source contra) programs or other equally effective programs to control the discharge of copper, lead and zinc into Coyote Creek and other tributaries in Orange County that discharge into the San Gabriel River. These programs would apply to the subject project. 2. page 12 of the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan suggests there have been no indications of past soil contamination, despite Page 3 -4 of the EIR noting the entire 5-2 'Formerly heavy industry site underwent environmental cleanup and remediation in the Mark Persico, City of Seal Beach July 11, 2011 Page 2 mid 1980s. The differences in contamination remediation standards to be expected in 2412 and later, when the site is regraded for the proposed residential use, as compared to those which were in effect nearly 30 years earlier, should be addressed in the body of the EIR. If you require any additional information, please contact Grant Sharp at (714) 955 -0674 Sincerely, Michael Balsamo Manager, OC Community Development ❑C Public Works /DC Planning 300 North Flower Street Santa Ana, California 92702 -4048 Michael. Bal!;amo@ocpw.ocgov.com M B/m roc cc: Chris Crompton, Environmental Resources 5 -2 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 5. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS, DATED JANUARY 5, 2012. 5 -1 Page 5.11 -7 of the Draft EIR states that the San Gabriel River is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which has listed the San Gabriel River and Estuary on the 2010 303(d) list of water quality limited segments (impaired water bodies). The site is tributary to and a contributor of pollutants to the impairments within the San Gabriel River and Estuary. Existing pollutants affecting the San Gabriel River and Estuary include copper, dioxin, nickel, oxygen (dissolved), coliform bacteria, and pH. The Los Angeles RWQCB has set Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Metals and Selenium within the San Gabriel River per Resolution No. R06 -0141 approved July 13, 2006. As defined in the resolution, a TMDL is the sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Page 5.11 -19 of the Draft EIR states that due to the fact that the San Gabriel River is listed on the 303(d) list for copper, dioxin, nickel, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and pH, and has a TMDL for metals and selenium, future residential development could have a significant adverse impact to storm water quality if not mitigated. However, it should be noted that residential uses produce very limited, if any, metals in runoff. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the discharge of metals and selenium (including copper, lead, and zinc), as the proposed project involves the development of residential uses. Further, implementation of the project's proposed Filters systems would reduce any metals /selenium generated by the project. The project site would experience increased pollutant generation of suspended solids /sediments, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, and trash and debris. As stated in the Draft EIR, the Water Quality Management Plan for the residential portion of the project is preliminary. As these programs for metals /selenium (implemented by the RWQCB) apply to sites in the San Gabriel River watershed, the final Water Quality Management Plan for the project would be updated (Section 3.3), as required by the RWQCB, to include metals and selenium as existing water quality impairments. However, as analyzed in the Draft EIR, although these existing impairments are present in the San Gabriel River watershed, implementation of the project's Filterra systems would ensure that the project does not contribute to any metals /selenium impairment impacts. Furthermore, per Mitigation Measure HWQ -8, the City would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan to address post - construction operations associated with future development of the passive park. Compliance with the Water Quality Management Plan would also reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the passive park to a less than significant level. 5 -2 Section 5.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR discusses the former generating station on -site, past hazardous materials investigations (a 1987 asbestos sampling and clean up report, a 2000 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, and a 2001 Supplement Soil Investigation Report), and current hazardous materials investigations (a 2011 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment) for the project site. As concluded in Impact Statement HAZ -1, based on the hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, no hazardous materials of concern (i.e., PAHs, asbestos in soil, heavy metals, etc.) have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential uses in soils at the project site. Final • April 2012 2 -18 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Further, as no hazardous materials of concerns have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential uses, remediation standards, whether prior or current, are not applicable to the project site. Final • April 2012 2 -19 Response to Comments w Department of Toxic Substances Control Deborah 0. Raphael, Director Matthew Rodriquez 5796 Corporate Avenue Secretary for Cypress, California 90830 Envlronmentai Protodlot) it January 5, 2012 Mr. Mario Persico, AICP City of Seal Beach Development Services 211 8"' Street Seal Beach, Califomia 90740 COMMENT LETTER 6 ;Qyn.srtn +i Edmund G. Brawn. Jr. Govemor RECEI ED JAN 6 9 2012 STATE CLEARING HOUSE DRAFT ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SGH## 201106101 S) Dear Mr. Persico: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Draft Environmental Impact Report for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document; "The proposed Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment (the ;project) is located within the City of Seal Beach (City), in the northwestern portion of Grange County. The project involves a 10.9 -acre site (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 043-171-02,-172-07 (portions), -172-08,-172-12, and - 172 -13), which currently consists of vacant land, portions of a residence and commercial facility, and portions of the San Gabriel River and associated bike trail (San Gabriel River Bike Trail), The project site was formerly utilized by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) for power plant facilities and operations. The project site is generally bounded by Marina Drive to the north, 1 st Street to the east, the Rivers End Caf &beach parking lot to the south, and the San Gabriel River to the west. Regional access to the site is provided via interstate 405 (1 -405), Interstate 605 (1 -605), and State Route 22 (SR -22), all approximately 2.5 miles to the northeast. ,Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) is located approximately 0.5 mile to the northeast. The primary local roadways providing access to the site are Marina Drive and 1 st Street, Generally, the project site is situated within a residential and public beach area within the City ". DISC sent you comments on Notice of Preparation Report for the alcove- mentioned project on 716/2011, which should be addressed. Based on the review of the submitted document ❑TSC has no further comments. 6 -1 Mr. Mark Perslco, A1CP January 5, 2912 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at I 6 -1 ashami@,dtsc.ca.pc?v, or by phone at (714) 484 -5472. SincilAl S Project Manager Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3944 Sacramento, California 95812 -3944 state.clearinahovseQoor.ca.gov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, Caiifomla 95812 nrifter@dtsc.ca.gov CEQA # 3410 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 6. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, DATED JANUARY 5, 2012. 6 -1 The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) noted its comments sent as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project. Those comments have been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. Based on DTSC's review of the Draft EIR, DTSC has no further comments. Accordingly, no further response is required. Final • April 2012 2 -22 Response to Comments Page I of 2 COMMENT LETTER 7 El Dorado Audubon California Chapter of National Audubon Society Long Beach, Seal Beach and surrounding communities January 6, 2012 Mr. Mario Perisco Development Services City of Seal Beach, CA RE: DWP Property, Specific Plan Amendment, Draft EIR Dear Mr. Perisco: We find the EIR to have inadequate analysis of the biological resources. There is not enough consideration given to the importance of the birds of the Pacific Flyway or the nearby wildlife habitat areas -- Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, Los Cerritos Wetlands (200 acres in public ownership with restoration planning 7.1 underway. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge and Los Cerritos Wetlands are part of an Audubon California "Important Bird Area" -- a program designed by National Audubon to protect the earth's biodiversity. The site is on the San Gabriel River where the river flows into the Pacific Ocean. Historical photos (Seal Beach I 7.2 Historical Society) show the site covered with water -- wetlands. Biological resources Sensitive Plant Species 7 -3 Report states that there are no sensitive plants due to disking and historical disturbance. One of the plant species listed is Southern Tarplant which is, indeed, found on the Los Cerritos Wetlands (documented by Audubon Society and Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority). Sensitive Bird Species Potential for Northern Harrier, White - tailed Kite and Horned Lark. Northern Harrier and White - tailed Kite are 7.4 regularly seen on the nearby Los Cerritos Wetlands and Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. The report does not indicated when wildlife surveys including avian species were conducted, Surveys need to be conducted over a year's time in order to take into account spring and fall migration and over - wintering song 7.5 birds, shorebirds and raptors. Bird species seen on the Los Cerritos Wetlands is over 115 species in the last few years (and historically up to 175 species). SB Wildlife Refuge species list similar. T -fi Wildlife Corridor Report states that since area is fenced that there is little chance for it to be a wildlife corridor. The San Gabriel River and areas adjacent is a known wildlife corridor; without a fence the site would be used by the wildlife. Native ground squirrels, rabbits and other mammals are known to be on Los Cerritos Wetlands and the refuge (see documentation of Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority and Seal Beach !National Wildlife Refuge). A wildlife corridor exists from El Dorado Nature Center to the confluence of Coyote Creek & the river, to the refuge and wetlands and to the ocean. UYA Effect of Light 1 7.8 Page 2 of 2 There is no analysis of the effect of fight upon the resident birds and the birds of the Pacific Flyway. See court's ruling on the proposed "Home Depot" site a short distance up the San Gabriel River -- where the court said "you must take into account the effect of noise and lights upon the adjacent wetlands ". See "Ecological 7`$ Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting ", edited by Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich. Sincerely, Mary Parsell President El Dorado Audubon City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 7. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ELDORADO AUDUBON — CALIFORNIA CHAPTER OF NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, DATED JANUARY 6, 2012. 7 -1 The project site is located approximately 0.43 -mile southwest of the Los Cerritos Wetlands and approximately 1.36 miles northwest of the National Wildlife Refuge. The project would not result in direct biological impacts to these resources. It is noted throughout Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR that bird species have the potential to occur on -site. As indicated in Table 5.3 -3, Sbecial Status !EiLld l i fe S4ecies With Potential to Occur on the Protect Site of the Draft EIR, the potential exists for California horned lark (Eremophila apestris actia) to occur on the project site. Additionally, the potential exists for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) to occur on the project site, but only for foraging. Due to the regular site disking, historic disturbance, and the absence of suitable habitat surrounding the project site, five of these species are considered unlikely to occur on the project site. As discussed in Impact Statement BIO -1, the potential exists for the California horned lark (Eremophila apestris actia) to occur on the project site. However, none were detected onsite during the biological surveys conducted as part of the Biological Constraints Analysis for the Seal Beach Pr iect Site, Harmsworth Associates, September 22, 2011. Additionally, although the potential exists for northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) and white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) to occur on the project site, these potential occurrences would only be for foraging, since no suitable nesting habitat occurs onsite. Overall, there are no site records for any of these wildlife species and none were detected onsite during the biological surveys conducted by Harmsworth Associates. Therefore, project implementation would have a less than significant impact involving special status wildlife species. In addition to those species discussed above, ten additional bird species were detected on the project site. Therefore, the project site has the potential to support migratory bird species, including both raptor and songbird species (for foraging on- site). Although on -site nesting is not anticipated to occur, Impact Statement BIO -4 discusses how existing State law prohibits the disturbance or destruction of active nests (a violation of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act). Nesting activity typically occurs from mid- February to mid- August. The removal of vegetation during the breeding season is considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the project would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure BIO -1, which would be accomplished in one of two ways. First, efforts would be made to schedule all vegetation removal activities outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. Secondly, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season, all suitable habitat would be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) would be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by the biological monitor, to minimize impacts. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, impacts to migratory birds would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Draft EIR has analyzed in detail the project's potential impacts to birds and other biological resources. Final • April 2012 2 -25 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 7 -2 As discussed on page 5.3 -11 and in Impact Statement BIO -3 of the Draft EIR, the on -site drainage (San Gabriel River) and associated streambed are considered a coastal wetland' due to hydrology. However, no jurisdictional wetlands (including coastal wetlands) are located within the proposed development area. 7 -3 The commenter notes that the Southern Tarplant is found on the Los Cerritos Wetlands (documented by Audubon Society and Los Cerritos Wetlands Authority). Page 5.3 -6 states that the Southern Tarplant is known to occur in coastal regions from San Diego to Santa Barbara, and occurs in marshes and swamps, in valley and foothill grasslands and in vernal pools (similar to those conditions at the Los Cerritos Wetlands. However, based on surveys conducted at the project site (Biological Constraints Analysis for the Seal Beach Project Site, Harmsworth Associates, September 22, 2011), the Southern Tarplant was not detected on- site. 7 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 7 -1. 7 -5 As discussed on page 5.3 -1 and 5.3 -2 of the Draft EIR, field surveys for wildlife (including avian species) and habitat assessment for special status wildlife species were conducted on May 3, 2011 and June 2, 2011 by Mr. Paul Galvin of Harmsworth Associates. All portions of the site were traversed on foot to survey each vegetation community, look for evidence of wildlife presence, and conduct an assessment of potential habitat for special status species. Wildlife species were detected during the field surveys by sight, vocalizations, burrows, tracks, scat, scrapings, and other signs. Per the methodology outlined in the Biological Constraints Analysis (Biological Constraints Analysis for the Seal Beach Pr iect Site, Harmsworth Associates, September 22, 2011), the potential for special status plant and wildlife species and critical habitat of concern at the project site was determined through both field surveys as well as reviewing existing available data. Databases such as the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, 2011) and California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were reviewed regarding the potential occurrence of any special status species or sensitive habitat within or in close proximity to the project site prior to conducting field surveys. Based on the findings of these database searches, the potential special status species of concern within the project area only require spring surveys, as conducted as part of the Biological Constraints Analysis. Thus, the project is not required to conduct surveys all year round, as the potential for habitat does not exist. The Draft EIR assumes that the project site has the potential to support migratory bird species (not listed as a special status species of concern), including both raptor and songbird species. Refer to Response to Comment 7 -1 pertaining to raptor and songbird impacts. 7 -6 The commenter notes that bird species seen on the Los Cerritos Wetlands includes over 115 species in the last few years (and historically up to 175 species). The Seal Beach Wildlife Refuge species list is similar. The Draft EIR assumes that the project site has the potential to support migratory bird species, including both raptor and songbird species. Of special status bird species, the potential exists for California horned lark (Eremophila apestris actia) to occur ' It should be noted that Federal wetlands are delineated using the Corps of Engineers' (ACOE) methodology, while the California Coastal Commission uses the US Fish and Wildlife's methodology (or Cowardin method). The ACOE looks at several parameters during the delineation process; however, the latter method (used by the California Coastal Commission) primarily focuses on one or two parameters and is far more inclusive. Final • April 2012 2 -26 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report on the project site. Additionally, the potential exists for northern harrier (Circus cganeus) and white - tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) to occur on the project site, but only for foraging. Refer to Response to Comment 7 -1. 7 -7 The commenter notes that the San Gabriel River and adjacent areas is a known wildlife corridor; without the existing perimeter fence, the site would be used by the wildlife. The existing perimeter fence surrounds the majority of the project site and does not allow for the migratory movement of wildlife across the project site. Even if the existing perimeter fence were not present at the project site, no wildlife corridors or linkages are known at the project site. The project site is surrounded by paved parking lot uses and residential neighborhoods. No wildlife species would utilize the proposed development area for migratory purposes. Although the San Gabriel River may provide linkages (for birds and fish) to the El Dorado Nature Center, National Wildlife Refuge, and Los Cerritos Wetlands, the project does not propose any improvements within the San Gabriel River. 7 -8 The proposed project is located approximately 0.43 -mile from the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Project lighting would not result in impacts to plant or animal species located at the Los Cerritos Wetlands. Proposed residential use lighting would be similar to the existing residential use lighting along the San Gabriel River associated with the existing River Beach Townhomes by the Sea approximately 315 feet north of the project site along the San Gabriel River. Also, the existing surrounding Old Town neighborhood is developed and includes similar lighting compared to the proposed project. Thus, the project would not be creating a significant lighting impact along the San Gabriel River as compared to existing conditions. Final • April 2012 2 -27 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER S SSIAxF- OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOU ca;s AAr -K1cY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 C geongate, Sukta 1000 Long SghCh, CA 90802 -4302 ( 662) 590 -5071 January 9, 2012 Marls Persico, AICP, Director of Development Services Development Services Department City of Seal Beach 2118111 Street Sea[ Beach, CA 90740 Rs. Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Draft Environmental impact Report (SCH# 2011061018) Dear Mr. Persico, Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment. The subject site is a former power plant site located seaward of the First Street and Marina Drive Intersection In Seal Beach, The project involves amendments to the 1998 DWP (Department of Water and Power) Specific Plan (Proposed Specific Plan Amendment) that would allow for the development of a 48 -tot residentlal development (Tentative Tract Map No. 17426). That Is, the DWP Specific Plan currently designates that 30% of the site be for visitor serving uses and that 70% be for open space. As proposed, the residential ccrnponent would occupy 41% of the site and be located on approximately 4.5 acres In the northern portion (landward) of the project site. The project applicant would construct, In one phase, the finished pads and all necessary infrastructure necessary to serve the new residential development. The residential units would be developed individually by homeowners as custom homes. As proposed, the remaining 59% (approximately 6.4 acres of the project site) would be used for open spacelpassive.recreation uses. The proposal would require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, QWP Specific Plan Amendment, Redevelopment Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Lot I-Ine Adjustment. The General Plan Amendment, DWP Specific Plan Amendment, and Zone Change, If approved, would allow the property to be developed for residential uses, The Tentative Tract Map and Lot Line Adjustment, if approved, would allow the property to be subdivided into single - family parcels. The proposed amendments are intended to address aspects of each policy document that are not consistent with the proposed project. The proposed project Is located within the Coastal Zone in the City of Seal Beach. The proposed development will require a Coastal Development permit From the California Coastal Commission, The City does not have a certified coastal f and Use Plan or Implementation Plan (I.e. a Local Coastal Program), so, the land use Issues raised by the proposal would be addressed in the context of the Coastal Development Permit application. The following comments address the Issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3 policies of the California Coastal Act of 1975. The comments contained herein are preliminary and those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as 8 -1 Draft Envlronmerital Impact Report Department of Water and Power Speciflo Plan Amendment Page 2 of 4 representing the opinion of the Coastal Commission itself, As described below, the proposed project. raises isgues related to land use, visual Impacts, biological resources, and hazards. Below aro the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. LaIld use The proposed project would change the permitted use of an area of the project slte from visitor - serving to residential uses. Given its waterfront and riverfront location, the subject site is well suited for lower cast recreation and visitor - serving uses. Lower cost recreation and/or visitor - serving uses are a priority use In the Coastal Act as they offer an opportunity for the public to recreate along and have across the coast. However, residential uses are not a priority use and do not offer the same beneficial uses that lower cost recreation and visitor - serving uses do. Lower cost recreation and visitor - serving uses should be maximized on the subject site. The DWP Specific Plan currently designates that 30% of the site be for visitor serving uses and that 70% be for open space (to be discussed more below). This would change with the proposed project as the residential component use in the northern portion (landward) of the project site would be increased to 41% (4.5 acres) and the open spacelpassive recreation use component In the southern portion (oceanward) would be reduced to 59% (6.4 acres). The proposed project would reduce the amount of open space currently called for by City planning documents from 70% to 59% within the proposed Specific Plan area. The reduction in planned open space /park area, in exchange for an increase in the quantity of residential uses (a lower priority use), Is a significant concern raised by this proposal, Lower cost visitor- serving uses, as well as open space area, must be maximized and protected since they are priority uses as stated In the Coastal Act. Project alternatives have been provided that include no project/no build and adherence to the current 1096 DWP Specific Plan. However, we recommend that the FIR consider additional project alternatives that significantly reduce and/or eliminate the proposed residential uses on the subject site. On July 28, 1983, the California Coastal Commlaslon held a public hearing on the Land Use Plan for the City of Seal Beach as submitted by the Clty. The Commission denied the nand use Flan as submitted based on Inconsistencies with the Coastal Act. The Commission then adopted suggested modification, which If adopted by the City would have brought the plan into conformance with provisforrs of the Coastal Act. Suggested modification for the DWP site designated that 30% of the site be for hotel /commercial uses defined as a maximum 300 -room hotel with a maximum height of 35 -feet and necessary ancillary support uses to serve hotel guests. The remaining portion (70 %) of the site was designated as open space with uses defined as public parks, greenbelts, trails, recreational uses and theater with a maximum height of 26-feet. Furthermore, all uses in the Seal Beach Municipal Code for public land use were permitted in open space. However, these suggested modifications were never adopted by the City. Therefore, the I -and Use Plan was never effectively certlfled and subsequently lapsed, While these suggested modification regarding the DWP site were never adopted by the City, it does show the Commission's_ concern of preserving the site as a lower cost visitor - serving and open space area in 1983 and we note that such uses are still strongly encouraged. While the EIR has provided alternatives to the proposed project Including adherence to the current 1996 DWP Specific Plan, additional alternatives are needed that preserve the entire site as a lower cost 8.1 8 -2 Draft Environmental Impact Report Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Page-3 of 4 visitor serving and open space area. Thus, the EIR should consider the above described land I 8 -2 uses In an additional alternatives analysis (and/or variations on it). The proposed project would result in the significant lost of an area currently designated as open space In the City's Land Use 1= lement of the General Plan, which could be used for parkland. In the EIR, it states that In order to meet the City's parkland -to -ratio population goal, a total of 121 acres of parkland would be required. Currently the City maintains approximately 77.3 acres of parkland, The EIR states that while the City has not met this goal, the City benefits from additional recreation amenities within its boundaries (€.e„ beaches, Sunset Marina Park, etc), Nonetheless, what was the justification for the loss of this site to entirely serve as open space? I oss of the site to residential use, a non priority use, Is slgrtlficant, Therefore, an explanation and justification for the loss of the site as potentlai parkland should be included in the Ells. Yi_sual impacts The project site is located seaward of the first coastal roadway and public views across the site to and along the shoreline have been enjoyed by the public for a significant period of time. For example, vlews to the ocean are avallable from the San Gabrlel Rive Bike Trail, Marina Drive and 1s` Street. The Coastal Act requires the protection of public views to and along the coastline. Any adverse Impacts to these scenic.resources must be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. The EIR must analyze Impacts to publlc coastal views and consider alternatives that avoid significant adverse impacts to Coastal views. Please note, the visual impact analysis should consider impacts to views as they would legally exist relative to the subject site. Any existing unpermitted fencing and /or screening should not be considered the 'existing' condition. Blolocrical R sour es Part of the site analysis included a wetland boundary determination based on Coastal Act criteria and based on that analysis, no wetlands were Identified on the project site. However, the EIR states that nine (S) special status plant species were Identified as having potential to occur on alto, but due to dlsking, historic disturbance, and the absence of suitable habitat surrounding the project site, all nine (9) of those species are considered unlikely to occur on site_ Additionally, eight (8) special status wildlife species were identified, but only five (5) of these species are considered unlikely to occur based on the same reasons, Please provide further discussion regarding the disking and historic disturbance of the site and whether or not these activities were permitted by any Coastal Development Permit. Any previous removal of major vegetation would have required approval of a Coastal Development Permit, Any existing unpermltted removal of major vegetation should not be considered the `existing' condition for purposes of Identifying bloiogical resources impacts. Hazards An analysis for the potential of structural damage due to sea level rise, flooding and wave attack must be conducted for the project site. The study must be prepared by a licensed engineer with expertise in coastal processes, which analyzes whether the proposed project minlrnizes risks from hazards including, but not limited to, sea level rise, flooding and eroelon. The study must explain whether any protective devices or other mitigation measures will bo necessary to protect the proposed development from any existing or anticipated future hazards, 8 -3 8 -4 8 -5 8 -6 Draft.Envlronmental Impact Report Department of Water and Power specific Plan Amendment Page 4 of 4 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the graft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment, Commission staff request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note, the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments may be appropriate as the project develops into final form and when an application is �ubmltted for a Coastal development Permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562 - 590 -5071 with any questions, Sincprely, FsWe y Coas al Pro ram Analyst 11 CC; State Cieartnghouee 8 -T City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 8. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 8 -1 This comment summarizes the proposed project and reiterates that the City does not have a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). As stated in the Draft EIR, page 5.1 -4, the City is currently developing a Local Coastal Program, consistent with the California Coastal Act. This comment also notes that the project would change the permitted use of an area of the project site from Visitor - Serving to Residential uses. The project proposes approximately 4.5 acres for Residential uses and approximately 6.4 acres for open space. The comment states that the DWP Specific Plan "designates that 30% of the site be for visitor serving uses and that 70% be for open space." The DWP Specific Plan, adopted in 1996, states that "Visitor- Serving uses shall be limited to the northerly 30% of the DWP parcel" and "Open spaces shall be located on the southerly 70% of the DWP site" but also states that "visitor serving shall be limited to the area north of an imaginary westerly prolongation of Central Way." The project proposes residential uses south of the imaginary prolongation of Central Way for only 0.1 acre. The 1996 DWP Specific Plan is internally inconsistent because the legal description attached to the 1996 Specific Plan does not support these percentages. The area "north of the prolongation of Central Way" is not 30% of the site, and the area south of that prolongation is not 70% of the site. Thus, the Draft EIR uses acreage, not percentages, for the purposes of identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of a project with 4.1 acres proposed for residential development and 6.4 acres of open space. The Draft EIR Land Use analysis (page 5.1 -41) states that the project proposes the following Specific Plan Amendments: ■ 4.1 acres from Visitor - Serving to Residential; ■ 0.1 acre from Open Space to Residential; ■ 0.2 acre is added to the DWP Specific Plan (from No Category to Residential); and ■ 0.05 acre is excluded from the DWP Specific Plan. Therefore, the Draft EIR Land Use analysis acknowledges that the project would change the permitted use on a 4.1 -acre portion of the project site from Visitor - Serving to Residential uses. The basis for the Draft EIR conclusions of less than significant impacts is summarized below. It is noted that the comment also states that the "project would reduce the amount of open space currently called for by City planning documents from 70 percent to 59 percent within the proposed Specific Plan area" and indicates that "the reduction in planned open space /park area, in exchange for an increase in the quantity of residential uses (a lower priority use), is a significant concern raised by this proposal." Because the project proposes both to add and exclude areas from the Specific Plan boundaries, the Draft EIR (and the discussion provided below) focuses the impact analysis on changes in acreages rather than proportions. As stated above, this approach more accurately communicates the actual changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project than a proportional approach. Final • April 2012 2 -32 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Decrease in Open Space Uses. The decrease in the area designated for recreational opportunities (i.e., Open Space) is determined to be a less than significant impact based on the factors outlined below: ■ The project site currently is unimproved and comprised of ruderal vegetation. It does not currently provide public access or any recreational use opportunities. The proposed project, however, would create a large consolidated open space area. Specifically, the project designates 6.4 acres for open space, or approximately 5.6 acres in excess of the proposed subdivision's parkland demand (0.84 acres), pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Park Land Dedications and Fees. This dedication will provide future opportunities to improve the 6.4 acre area with additional public access and recreation amenities suitable for this area, such as a tot lot. This dedication also will allow for more usable area along the San Gabriel River, accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, and other coastal access users via the Rivers End Staging Area (RESA); ■ The project site is located within the boundaries of Planning Area 1 - Old Town /Surfside, which contains a total of 13.6 acres of parks and open space, as well as the beach frontage. Although the project would slightly increase Planning Area 1's population, thereby potentially slightly increasing the use of existing recreational facilities, the increased use would have only a negligible impact given the existing use of the area. The DWP Specific Plan Amendment designates 6.4 acres for Open Space uses, which would include approximately 5.2 acres (Areas 1, 2, and 3) of parkland immediately south of the proposed subdivision; ■ The project proposes that Area 2 (Driveway) continue to provide access to the public parking lot (RESA) and public beach located to the south; and ■ The project proposes that Area 4 (Bike Trail /River) continue to be used for regional recreational purposes. Decrease in Visitor - Serving Uses. The Comment correctly notes that under the Coastal Act, visitor - serving uses designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation are entitled to a priority over private residential uses. (Coastal Act Section 30222.) In addition, low -cost visitor facilities are to be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. (Coastal Act Section 30213.) Neither provision of the Coastal Act, however, requires that an entire site be devoted to visitor - serving uses, and lower -cost facilities are to be provided only when it is feasible to do so. The proposed project balances the provision of both low -cost visitor - serving uses and a private residential use. The Draft EIR states (page 5.1 -43) that "the predominant change to the DWP Specific Plan that would occur with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would involve changing the land use in the northern portion of the site from Visitor - Serving to Residential uses." As concluded in the Draft EIR (page 5.1 -43 and Table 5.1 -4 [page 5.1 -24] regarding Section 30213), development of a 150 room hotel on the site's northerly portion has been deemed to be physically and economically infeasible based on the Financial Final • April 2012 2 -33 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Feasibilities Studies2 and Peer Review of the Financial Feasibilities Studies' conducted for this scenario, among others'. Development of Visitor - Serving uses within the restricted northerly portion of the site is physically infeasible, as insufficient land area exists to construct the currently permitted 150 -room hotel, including adequate surface parking, within the 35 -foot height limitation. Development of Visitor - Serving uses, as well as six alternative scenarios analyzed in the studies, within the restricted northerly portion of the site has been deemed economically infeasible, as the projected net operating income would not be sufficient and the equity returns would be too low. As is demonstrated above and in the Studies, it is physically and economically infeasible to provide Visitor - Serving uses on the northerly portion of the project site. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment designates the northerly portion of the project site for Residential uses, in place of Visitor - Serving uses. As concluded in the Draft EIR, Table 5.1 -4 (on page 5.1 -24) regarding Section 30213, the project includes 6.4 acres of open space adjacent to the beach and related beach facilities (the RESA, including the beach parking lot). A portion of the proposed open space includes the final segment of the San Gabriel River bike trail, which provides recreational opportunities for visitors to ride their bicycles to the beach at no cost. Other portions of the open space would provide no -cost visitor and recreational facilities adjacent to the beach, and would enhance public (including visitor) access to the beach. Specifically, the open space area provides diverse no -cost public recreational opportunities that are beach - oriented while not taking up beach (sand) area or physically limiting access to the beach. This open space area is therefore part of an integrated approach to public access, and encourages visitors to take advantage of the coast at no cost. The open space would accommodate visitors of all ages and from a diversity of areas. The proposed project would provide public recreational opportunities to residents and visitors alike that would not be feasible if the site were developed with a hotel (Visitor- Serving) use, the current use designation for the northerly portion of the property. As noted above, development of a hotel on the northerly portion of the site is physically infeasible, as insufficient land area exists to construct the currently permitted 150 -room hotel within the allowable building footprint, and the area for the hotel would need to be expanded (thereby reducing open space). 8 -2 This comment summarizes the City's LCP history and status, and reiterates the California Coastal Commission's (Commission's) "concern of preserving the site as a lower cost - serving and open space area in 1983 and we [the Commission] note that such uses are still strongly encouraged." Response to Comment 8 -1 above addresses this issue. 2 PKF Consulting, Analysis of Potential Market Demand for a Pmposed Hotel to be Located in Seal Beach, California, November 11, 2003, and PKF Consulting, Potential Market Demand and Estimated Operating Results for a Proposed Hotel to be Located in Seal Beach, California, November 6, 2009. 3 Kosmont Companies, Peer Review and Site Specific Hotel Feasibility Evaluation, September 19, 2011. 4 It should be noted that the Financial Feasibilities Studies were submitted as part of the Applicant's Application and are available for public review at Seal Beach City Hall, Development Services Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. Further, the Peer Review and Site Specific Hotel Feasibility Evaluation was provided as A1212en 11. 12, Hotel Peer Revieav, of the Draft EIR and available for public review from November 14, 2011 to January 9, 2012 at Seal Beach City Hall, Development Services Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. Final • April 2012 2 -34 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report This comment also states that "additional alternatives are needed that preserve the entire site as a lower cost Visitor - Serving and Open Space area." It is assumed that the commenter intends that preservation of the entire site as a lower cost Visitor - Serving and Open Space area includes preservation of 6.6 acres for Open Space uses, as under the 1996 Specific Plan, with the remainder of the site (4.1 acres) for some other Visitor Serving use such as a commercial use. Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, "an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." As noted in Response to Comment 8 -1 above, the Draft EIR concluded that the approximate 0.1 -acre decrease in Open Space uses and approximate 4.1 -acre decrease in Visitor - Serving uses would be a less than significant impact. The Draft EIR further concluded that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable long -term aesthetics /light and glare impacts involving visual character and light /glare from vehicle headlights. As discussed in Section 7.0, the Alternatives that were selected were intended to avoid or lessen the project's aesthetics /light and glare impacts. An alternative that would "preserve the entire site as a lower cost Visitor - Serving and Open Space area," such as a commercial use, would not avoid or lessen the project's aesthetics /light and glare impacts. An alternative that proposes 4.1 acres of non - residential uses (i.e., commercial uses) on the northerly portion of the project site likely would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project regarding aesthetics /light and glare impacts, as such an alternative would likely result in new significant and unavoidable long -term impacts (i.e., increased building height and the creation of new commercial - related light sources). Similarly, an alternative that proposes Visitor - Serving (i.e., a hotel use) uses on the northerly portion of the project site would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project regarding aesthetics /light and glare impacts, as such an alternative would result in new significant and unavoidable long -term impacts (i.e., increased building height and the creation of new hotel - related light sources). As demonstrated in Response to Comment 8 -1 above, it is physically and economically infeasible to provide Visitor - Serving uses on the northerly portion of the project site. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment designates the northerly portion of the project site for Residential uses, in place of Visitor - Serving uses. An alternative that proposes Visitor - Serving (i.e., a hotel use) on the northerly portion of the project site would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project regarding land use, because the Draft EIR has concluded that the 4.1 -acre decrease in Visitor - Serving uses is a less than significant impact. 8 -3 As concluded in Response to Comment 8 -2 above, the 0.1 -acre decrease in the area designated for open space is concluded to be a less than significant impact based on various factors including that the project proposes to dedicate 6.4 acres of land, or approximately 5.6 acres in excess of the proposed subdivision's parkland demand (0.84 acres). Moreover, the 1996 DWP Specific Plan, which is the current entitlement for the property, calls for 6.6 acres to serve as Open Space and not the entirety of the site, as implied by this comment. Response to Comment 8 -1 above further addresses Open Space and Visitor Serving uses, as well as the project's parkland demands. Final • April 2012 2 -35 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 8 -4 This comment raises concerns that the environmental baseline is improper because it fails to take into account whether the fence surrounding the perimeter of the project site is permitted. Case law holds that environmental documents are not the proper place in which to analyze this issue; instead, the environmental baseline must be determined based on what is physically on the project site. See, e.g., Rivenvatcb P. County of San Diego, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1428, 1451 (1999) (proper baseline is existing conditions even if the condition was the result of illegal activity; EIRs are not "the appropriate forum for determining the nature and consequences of prior conduct of a project applicant"); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov't Z. City of Eureka, 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 371 (2007). This is consistent with CEQA, which requires that "[a]n EIR must include a description of the pbysical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project." CE QA Guidelines Section 15125(a) (emphasis added). Furthermore, the existing perimeter fence does not require permits from the City of Seal Beach and it is not clear whether such a fence requires a permit from the Coastal Commission. It is clear, however, that perimeter fencing around the private property would be permissible because inherent in one's ownership of real property is the right to exclude uninvited visitors. Thus, the existing perimeter fence should be considered a part of the baseline and is properly analyzed in the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the existing fencing does obstruct open views across the project site, as seen from Marina Drive and 1st Street. Those views today would consist of unimproved dirt and ruderal areas. But, even assuming the fence were not considered a part of the baseline, the views from Marina Drive and 1st Street are largely across the site, and do not provide substantial water views. Other public views toward the Pacific Ocean are not readily available in the project vicinity due to the existing topography, structures, and vegetation. The Draft EIR discusses the project's consistency with the California Coastal Act as it pertains to aesthetics /light and glare; see page 5.2 -14, last paragraph. As noted there, implementation of the proposed project would not impair the existing views to the Pacific Ocean and San Gabriel River from available public coastal areas along the San Gabriel River Greenbelt (refer to Exhibit 5.2 -6, Key View 1 - Existing and Proposed Conditions, of the Draft EIR). Implementation of the proposed project would maintain the existing recreational trail and provide open space in the vicinity of the San Gabriel River. The proposed structures along the San Gabriel River would result in a similar view obstruction to coastal areas as does the existing condition (as depicted in Exhibit 5.2 -6). With the proposed open space sited in the southern portion of the site, the proposed development along Marina Drive would appear subordinate to the character of its setting, as viewed from public coastal areas. Moreover, the proposed project would create 6.4 -acres of open space area and eliminate any fence in that area, would provide the potential for the City to enhance the site aesthetically, and would not only provide views across the open space area from Marina Drive and 1st Street, but would enable the public using the open space to have, for the first time, close -up, unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean and the San Gabriel River. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act and impacts in this regard are less than significant. Final • April 2012 2 -36 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 8 -5 The project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of the former on -site generating station. The on -site generating station was demolished in 1967 and the project site underwent environmental cleanup and remediation in the mid -1980s and then was re- graded. After the site was re- graded, periodic disking /maintenance activities have occurred since before the current property owner purchased the property in 2003. Thus, the project site has been disturbed for over 40 years, and site disking has occurred at the project site for years as well, as analyzed in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment 8 -4 regarding the proper baseline for the EIR. 8 -6 Draft EIR Section 5.9, Geology and Soils, and Section 5.11, Hydrology and WlaterQualito, address the potential for flooding, tsunamis, and erosion at the project site consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The analysis in these sections is based in part upon the following studies: • Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Development (Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation), prepared by GeoTek, Inc., dated September 12, 2005; • Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Report in Support of DiI' Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Seal Beach California (Geology Report), prepared by D. Scott Magorien, C.E.G. Consulting Engineering Geologist, dated June 27, 2011; and • Department of mater and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Hydrology and mater Quality Technical Appendix (Hydrology Study), prepared by RBF Consulting, dated November 2011. When evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Pr iect, requires a Lead Agency to consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. "A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project." It should be noted that an analysis of sea level rise is not required under CEQA. This was confirmed in a recent opinion in which the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of Los Angeles was not required to discuss the impact of sea level rise as a result of global climate change on a proposed project (Ballona iletlands Land Trust, et al. v. City of Los Angeles 201 Cal.App.4th 455 (2011). The court addressed the proper scope of an EIR's environmental impact analysis, finding that Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines mandates environmental review in a manner inconsistent with CEQA's legislative purpose and not required by CEQA. The court found Section 15126.2's requirement to identify the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is inconsistent with and unauthorized under CEQA. Therefore, an analysis of the potential for structural damage due to sea level rise, flooding, and wave attack are not necessary for the project site. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 5.11, the project site can be found on published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Number 06059CO226J, dated December 3, 2009 and is located in Zone X, which is defined as areas protected by levees from the one percent annual flood. Thus, the proposed project would not involve the placement of structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Further, Section 5.11 indicates that with the Final • April 2012 2 -37 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report proposed detention facilities and implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ -6, the increase in peak flow rates associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 5.9, long -term soil erosion can be caused by a number of factors, such as rising sea levels, reduced sediment supply to the coast, dredging of the nearby San Gabriel River, and increased incidence of intensity of storms. However, given the inherent uncertainties regarding long -term shoreline erosion, impacts on soil erosion within the project area cannot be fully assessed. According to the Geology Reports, the project as proposed is not anticipated to result in significant impacts associated with long- term shoreline erosion. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 5.11, a tsunami with a 90 percent probability of not being exceeded in 50 years has the potential run -up elevation at the project site of up to 15 feet above mean sea level (msl). Existing ground surface elevations within the residential portion of the proposed project are between 10 to 15 feet msl. Thus, the potential hazard from tsunamis run -up is considered significant, which is consistent with many coastal areas. FEMA's latest Coastal Construction Manual provides design and construction guidance for structures built in coastal areas, which address seismic loads for coastal structures and provides information on tsunami and associated loads for tsunami run -up. However, the authors of the Coastal Construction Manual concluded that tsunami loads are too great and that, in general, it is not feasible or practical to design "normal" structures to withstand these loads. The City's Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) establishes procedures to protect life and property in the event of an emergency, including potential tsunamis. The City's EOP was updated in September of 2005 and details the City's specific responsibilities before, during, and after any emergency. The EOP is in compliance with the State Emergency Services Plan. Although typical emergencies generally occur without advance warning, and therefore require prompt mobilization and commitment of the emergency organization after the onset of the emergency, warning systems and evacuation plans would minimize hazards associated with tsunamis. Timely warning and information broadcasts provide the ability for residents to prepare for evacuation. According to Figure S -15, Impaired Road Access Map, of the General Plan, the project site and vicinity are not located within an impaired road access area. During an evacuation, persons in proximity to the project site can utilize Marina Drive, 15` Street, and Ocean Avenue. Upon implementation of the City's EOP, potential impacts associated with the inundation by a tsunami would be reduced to less than significant levels. 8 -7 This comment provides concluding remarks and does not include any further comment on the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no further response is required. 5 D. Scott Magorien, C.E.G. Consulting Engineering Geologist, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Report in Support of DWT Specific Plan Amendment EIR, Seal Beach California, dated June 27, 2011 (refer to Appendix 11.8, Geology. Soils and Seismicity Data of the Draft EIR). Final • April 2012 2 -38 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER g Mark Persico From: Seth Eaker < seth @blackmarbleconsulting.com> Sent, Wednesday, November 30, 20115:39 PM To: Mark Persico Subject: DWP El Comments -11130 Mark, Thanks for taking the time to talk to me this morning, particularly in the areas we discussed and the following: • You confirmed that the proposed project does not interfere with the Redevelopment Agency, access to resources or the availability of funding for project work hi the open space. • AES -1 Scenic Views & Vistas - it seems as though the definition of "scenic view" is restricted to the ocean or West only. Is ibis true? • AES -3 Long -Terra Visual Character /Quality - the subtle language of "feasible" now seems clear to me. It does seem that the proposed project plan cannot be mitigated as a result of the basic design elements. The 7 -1 Exhibit (Modified Layout) does seem to create better visual corridors (particularly along Central Way) and improved alignment of the project to the rest of Old Town. • AES -4 Light & Glare - it would seem the project must included all standard street lamps. Is that the case? How will the structures of the street lights be designed to merge with non- existant structures? How will landscape lighting "respond to the type, intensity and location of use "? • BIO - 1 - don't we have Eel grass in the riverbed? Are there any planets in the area which are native? Can we mitigate the plan to include native plants in the open space? • BIO - 2 ] 3 - if I am not mistaken, the California Coastal Trail goes along the bike path., is anything being done to ensure the Coastal Trail is preserved or enhanced in the project? • TRA -1 - there does not seem to be sufficient parking mitigation. The use of the public lots at the River's End staging area may restrict public access to the beach, In addition, how will we effectively enforce the "construction related parking and staging of vehicles shall be kept out of the adjacent public roadways "? Can't we prohibit parking by vehicles used by all construction personnel? What about the loss of street parking for residents? How will that be mitigated? • TRA -6 - The project plan absolutely "decreases the performance or safety of ... bicycle, or other pedestrian facilities " it includes the bike path. Yet, there is no mitigation for this? Why? • In Exhibit 3 -3„ the Conceptual Site Layout, it is clear that lots 36 - 48 back directly onto the bike path. It is unclear if the development has a wall or structure which would provide security or delineation of the project. Could you clarify this with the applicant. A member of the community brought forward a concern about graffiti and security in that property area. It seems that there is easy access for vandalism, How might this be mitigated? Thanks for your response and consideration of these points. I will continue to review the document, ask questions and solicit feedback from the public. Would you also please confirm our next DWP Advisory committee meeting date and time? Best, Seth Eaker Black Marble Consulting, LLC "Helping innovators transform their 9 -1 9 -2 9 -3 9 -4 9 -5 9 -6 9 -T 9 -8 9 -9 Mark Persico From: Seth Eaker <seth @blackmarbleconsulting.corn> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 5:18 PM To: Mark Persico Subject: DWP Advisory Questions - 1215 Marls, Upon further review of the draft EIR, further questions have percolated to the fore: TRA - 2 Project Traffic Generation - it would seem that there will be more traffic to the site. Also, the 1 940 very streets being constructed do not seem to have been considered as part of additional traffic. TRA - 3 Long Range Buildout - there will undoubtedly be significant impact as a result of 40+ single family homes in that area. This would be in addition to the potential loss of 1 st Street if the Prop 84 941 grant was approved for the pool site. Even without the grant being approved, the EIR does not seem to discuss the potential impact of the aquatic center. • TRA -5 Hazardous Traffic Conditions - in the Mitigation section TRA -4, is 1 st Street wide enough to accomodate such substantial increase in both a merging lane and left turn lane? Will that impact street 942 parking? If so, why was it not considered? • TRA -6 Conflict with Policies, Plans or Programs - how will the project accomodate street bicycle lanes 1 943 on 1 st and Marina? AQ -1 Short Term (Construction) Air Emissions - under: the mitigation methods, SCAQMD Rule 403 is citied, which would seem to involve dust suppression via "wetting." I know several members of the public have been concerned about asbestos and any amount becoming airborne. Is this Rule and 9 -14 methodology sufficient to protect the public health? Also what is a "sensitive receptor" - is this a type of monitoring device? • HAZ - 1 Construction Related Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials - under mitigation measures, HAZ -1, it would seem that an additional asbestos survey will be done, yet in Section5.10 -2, no mention 9 -15 of this is made. What additional testing will be done, how extensive will it be and who will do it? • In the same HAZ -1 section, but Mitigation measure HAZ -2, there aren't any buildings on the site are there? It would seem that this is unnecessary as there are no existing structures in the project area which 1 will be demolished. Is this correct? 9 -16 As always, thank you for your consideration of my questions and concerns, Best, Seth Eaker Black Marble Consulting, LL C "Helping innovators transform their ideas into strategic documents" www.blackmarbleconsultin .coni (215)869 -4471 begin —of the skypev highlighting (215)869 -4471 end—of tlre_skype�_highlighting This information may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is only transmitted for the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, reproduction, circulation, publication, Mark Persico Frown: Seth Eaker c seth @blackmarbleconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7.04 AM Tog Mark Perslco Subject: DWP Comments 1216 AM conversation Mark, Hope you had a restful evening. I spoke with one of the principals from Bay City Partners specifically about the "alternative plan." His assertion was that the settlement agreement confirmed 48 residential lots, so that would to his mind, exclude any possible "alternative" which had a few number of lots. Could you or legal please confirm or clarify the relationship between the settlement agreement and the three options presented as alternatives? Further, I would like the response part of the public record for the committee and community to have clarity on this issue during the EIR process. Thanks, Seth Eaker Black Marble Consulting, LLC "Helping innovators transform their ideas into strategic documents" www.blackmarbleconsult ng.eom (215)869 -4471 begin—of the skypeL_highlighting (215)869 -4471 end—of the skype�_Wghlighting This information may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is only transmitted for the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, reproduction, circulation, publication, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action, or omission to take action, in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received #iris message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer, disk drive, diskette, or other storage device or media.. 9 -17 Mark Persico From: Seth Eaker <seth @blackmarbleconsulting.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 20114:47 PM To: Mark Persico Subject: DWP Advisory Committee Comments - 12106 PM Mark, Good afternoon. I had the opportunity to review yet more of the DWP Draft EIR this afternoon and had further questions for the public record: • Section 3 - page 10: In architectural design, landscaping - could there be a provision about native plants or "zerocaping" (no additional water required) being preferred alternatives as well as a restriction on removal? This would help encourage native species and would decrease water consumption. • Section 3 - page 10: Open Space - the proposed park should again encourage native plant species and if possible should help encourage native animal species habitat when not in conflict with safety or pets. o Should there also be some consideration to return part of this area into naturally occurring dunes as found in the rear section of Ocean with native grasses? Could this idea be developed further? • Section 3 - page 11: Infrastructure and Public Utilities. Is there currently above ground utilities along 1 st or Marina which could be under - grounded as part of the project? Could this be addressed in the final EIR? It is clearly stated that ALL utilities in the project area would be underground. • Section 3 - page 11: Storm Drainage Conveyance - As we know, there has been significant flooding in Bridgeport due to a "pinch point" in pipe size, in spite of significant improvement to the pumping station itself. This drains to the San Gabriel river. What additional pumping will be needed for this development? I do not see any reference to pumping improvements,which considering the size of the area and increasers impermeable surface, would seem to be merited. Also, I again ask, as I did in our initial DWI' advisory committee meeting to have a clear explanation of what "Filterra style systems or bio -cells along the street areas, in conjunction with catch basins" actually means. Does this improve the water quality prior to discharge? Does it discharge at a different rate? How is this an improvement to the environmental impact? It is important that this development does not create additional drainage problems in an area already known for water issues. • In the same section, there seems to be a complete lack of explanation of the open, space 1 park drainage, stonn conveyance and infrastructure. Is the developer responsible for all of that? Section 3, page 11 would seem to indicate so. Could staff or the consultant please clarify this? • During the course of the joint study session of the City Council and the Planning Commission regarding the draft housing element, I brought up in oral communications that it seemed odd that the housing element did not consider the DWP Specific Plan area for some affordable housing. Could this not in some way be incorporated into the alternatives? Why was this site not considered in the housing element of the Local 1 Coastal Plan? Could the density of some of the plots actually be increased into more of a "condo" structure to help alleviate the need for "affordable housing" since density is the only state measure of affordability? • Section 4, page 2: Basis of Cumulative Analysis Table 4-144 - this is a HUGE project which will have dramatic traffic impacts on Marina, PCH and even 1 st Street. The impact of that development will not only affect the DWP property, but effectively ALL of Old Town, the Hill and even College Park West as it will change the 2nd Street & PCH intersection substantially. In review of section 5.5 page 10 - 12 and pages 20 -23,1 would suggest that the impacts do not seem to reflect the Huge increase in traffic brought on by project #4 in addition to the DWP proposed project. Study intersections #1,4 & 6 seem to all be lower than one would expect with both projects. In addition, if project ##3 (Marina Park) from Table 4 -1 9 -18 9 -19 9 -20 9 -21 9 -22 9 -23 9 -24 is done, then the intersections #3 & 6 from Table 5.5 -14 woud be fiirther restricted due to the decrease from a four lane to a two lane road. How is this reflected in the EIR? I couldn't find it. Section 5.5 - page 15, Circulation Elements "Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation" the draft EIR does not include bike stands, cycling facilities or clearly delineated bike lanes on both sides of the pioject (Marina and 1 st), Did I miss this somewhere in the document? Thank you for your consideration. I will continue to diligently review the material. Best, Seth Eaker Black Marble Consulting, LLC " "Helping innovators transform their ideas into strategic documents" www. blacken arb eco ns u l t i n g com (215)869 -4471 begin—of the_skype_highlighting (215)869 -4471 end—of the_skype_highlighting This information may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is only transmitted for the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, reproduction, circulation, publication, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action, or omission to take action, in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited, If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer, disk drive, diskette, or other storage device or media. 9 -24 9.25 Page 1 of 2 From: Seth Eaker [ mailto: seth @blackmarbleconsulting.com] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 9:35 AM To: Mark Persico Subject: Additional Questions - Draft EIR Mark, Hope you had a nice New Year. Over the holidays, I thought of some additional questions or issues with the draft EIR. • It would seem that the 2nd & PCH development is not progressing„ At the same time, if this is the case, would that necessitate additional or redone studies? Would this be needed since the projected gross impacts would actually be LESS as a result of the project not moving forward? • What impacts if any will the redevelopment agency decision by the CA supreme court have on the property or the purchase of the open space by the city? I am aware that the EIR is an environmental study only, but was unsure if there might be impacts as a result which are beyond the financial planning process. Could you please clarify this? • In further review, the circulation element (5.13 -12) seems to indicate that there are three levels of bikeways. Could the project include some Class I bikeways as outlined through the open space or development area? I did not see any bikeways clearly illustrated. • In section 5.13 -13, the draft EIR refers to Municipal Code Section 10.50.010.C,2, Exception which would seem to indicate that the applicant is required to pay a parkland fee of $10,000 per lot of the subdivision. The parkland contributed seems to be in excess of the requirement. Is that correct? In the applicants plan, this would seem to indicate that there would be 48 Tats x $10,000 = $480,000 in contributions to the City. Is this correct? It does seem that 5.13 -24 shows no fees would be required due to the transition of the parkland. Yet the city is paying for the land - is this right? • In 5.13 -27, the site seems to generate a significant amount of wastewater. I am confused why the assumption is that there will be no restroom facilities in the open area. How was that determined? Further, since the open space facilities are to be determined by the Parks & Recreation commission, shouldn't the highest use (including restroom facilities) be assumed by the draft EIR? This would seem prudent since there are already significant impacts. • It appears that the proposed project will reduce the small remaining portion of zoned commercial property in the City. Is there a necessary or advisable mitigation measure for this? Could an area of Seal Beach be zoned at least for mixed use to keep a balance of uses in our town? It is not growth inducing, but will increase demand for City services. Where is the mitigation for increased demand? It would appear that the draft EIR presumes the impacts would not be significant. Was there a consideration of how police response times may be impacted? Thanks in advance for your response to these questions, Best, Seth Eaker Black Marble Consulting, LLC "Helping innovators transform their ideas into strategic documents" 9 -26 9 -27 9 -28 9 -29 9 -30 9 -31 wvww. blackma.rr leccnsu Iting. gam. (215)869 447.1. begin—of the_skype_hlghlghting Page 2 of 2 (215)869 -4471 end_of_the_skype_h3ghlighting This information may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is only transmitted for the intended recipient. Any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, reproduction, circulation, publication, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action, or omission to take action, in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer, disk drive, diskette, or other storage device or media. City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 9. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SETH EAKER, DATED NOVEMBER 30, 2011; DECEMBER 5,2011; DECEMBER 6,2011; AND JANUARY 7, 2012. 9 -1 The commenter notes that the City has confirmed that the proposed project does not interfere with the Redevelopment Agency, access to resources, or the availability of funding for project work in the open space area. As such, the comment does not provide specific comments regarding information presented in the Draft EIR. In addition, due to AB X1 26, the Redevelopment Agency has been dissolved and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that the project applicant was seeking is no longer required. 9 -2 Scenic views and vistas include those expansive public views that contain visual resources (e.g., coastal areas and the Pacific Ocean) which are generally described in the City of Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan), dated December 2003. In the case of the project site, this would include westward public views toward the coast. 9 -3 The commenter notes that the proposed project cannot be mitigated to the extent feasible as a result of the basic design elements. Exhibit 7 -1, Modred Layout 19lternadiv, improves the visual corridors (particularly along Central Way) and alignment of the project to the rest of Old Town. As such, the commenter does not provide specific comments regarding information presented in the Draft EIR. 9 -4 The project would install standard street lamps per existing City requirements (which would be similar to the existing high pressure sodium cobra heads street lighting located along 15` Street), but would also be required to comply with the recommended Mitigation Measure AES -3. Mitigation Measure AES -3 would ensure that all street lighting would utilize directional lighting techniques (without compromising site safety or security) that direct light downwards and minimize light spillover onto adjacent light sensitive receptors. The street lighting fixtures would appear similar to the standard fixtures found throughout the City. With regard to landscape lighting, should lighting be proposed in landscaping at entry ways, etc., this lighting would be required to use the wattage necessary to achieve its intended purpose, yet will be required to minimize light spillover off -site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -3 would require the project applicant to prepare and submit an Outdoor Lighting Plan to the Development Services Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit in order to ensure that this measure is met. 9 -5 The riverbed is located within the boundaries of the project site; however, the project would not result in improvements or modifications to the San Gabriel River or its banks. Thus, any biological resources located within the San Gabriel River would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to native plant species. Thus, no mitigation measures are required. 9 -6 The segment of the San Gabriel River Bike Trail within the boundaries of the project site is also considered a segment of the California Coastal Trail. However, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any improvements or modifications to the existing on- site trail. Thus, as no impacts would result in this regard, no mitigation measures are required. Final • April 2012 2 -46 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 9 -7 Parking required during development of the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17425 would occur on -site within the proposed open space area. However, construction- related parking may be required off -site during development of the on -site open space area. In the event that parking is required off -site, parking would be required at public parking lots only. Mitigation Measure TRA -1 would require that all constructed- related parking and staging of vehicles be kept out of the adjacent public roadways, which would be periodically monitored by the City Engineer. Additional spillover parking is not anticipated to be required and in the event that it is needed, it is not anticipated to be a significant number of vehicles. Spillover parking would be temporary in nature, is anticipated to only be required during certain phases of construction, and would cease upon completion of construction. Thus, public parking spillover onto adjacent residential streets would not be significant when compared to existing conditions. 9 -8 Construction of the proposed project would not result in impacts to the San Gabriel River Bike Trail. No construction staging areas would occur here. All site disturbance activities and construction would occur to the east of the San Gabriel River Bike Trail. Thus, construction activities would not result in a decrease of the performance or safety of the bike path. Further, project operations would not alter the existing bike path. The bike path would operate similar to existing conditions. No impacts pertaining to the performance or safety of the bike path would occur as a result of the project and no mitigation measures are required. 9 -9 As depicted on Exhibit 5.2 -6, Kw View 9 — Existing and Proposed Conditions, of the Draft EIR, there is an existing retaining wall and fence associated with the existing residential structure on -site. There are also similar retaining walls and fencing are located along the San Gabriel River (approximately 315 feet to the north of the project site) in association with the existing River Beach Townhomes by the Sea. Implementation of the proposed retaining wall would not result in any increased potential for vandalism, compared to the existing walls in the area nor would these walls impede public access along the existing bike path. 9 -10 The Traffic Impact Analysis (Annendix 11.511.5 of the Draft EIR) was prepared in compliance with the City of Seal Beach Trafc Fact Study Guidelines, dated March 2010. Generation equations and /or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 8th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (2008) and San Diego Traffic Generators, published by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (2002). As depicted in Table 5.5 -13, Lr ect Trip Generation, of the Draft EIR, trips for proposed single family detached homes (ITE Code 210) and neighborhood park uses are accounted for within the traffic analysis of the Draft EIR. Trips were developed for the open space /parkland portion of the proposed project to provide a conservative trip generation forecast using SANDAG Neighborhood Park (undeveloped) trip rates. As indicated in Table 5.5 -13, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 561 daily trips, with 47 trips (13 inbound, 34 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 57 trips (36 inbound, 21 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour. Thus, the total 561 daily 2- way trips calculated for the proposed project is a conservative trip generation assumption for the proposed project. Final • April 2012 2 -47 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report The proposed streets being constructed are not an existing condition. Currently, no public trips take place on the project site. Thus, the proposed streets are not part of the environmental baseline which forms the foundation for the required analysis under CEQA. CEQA requires the EIR to consider how the project's new trips would impact the existing roadway infrastructure. Impact Statement TRA -5 of the Draft EIR considers hazardous traffic conditions including those associated with the proposed roadway infrastructure on- site. As determined on page 5.5 -38 of the Draft EIR, with implementation of recommended mitigation (1RA -2, TRA -3, and TRA -4), the proposed project would not result in a hazardous condition either on -site or in the surrounding area. 9 -11 As discussed in Table 4 -1, Cumulative Projects List, and Exhibit 4 -1, Cumulative Project Locations, cumulative project No. 2 (Marina Park Development located at 151 Marina Drive) was considered throughout the environmental analysis (Section 5.01 of the Draft EIR, including Section 5.5, TraaZd Circulation. As discussed on page 5.5 -4, Future Traffic Growth, trips that would be generated from reasonably foreseeable and known planned development projects in the area (cumulative projects outlined in Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Analvsis, of this EIR) were also included in the analysis. Thus, the Traffic Impact Analysis conducted as part of the Draft EIR considered cumulative traffic impacts as a result of the proposed Marina Park Development project. As discussed on page 5.5 -29 and 5.5 -30 and Table 5.5 -22, Buildout Year 2030 ilith Proiect Peak Hour Intersection Analysis — Seal Beach and Long Beach, all study intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) based on the City of Seal Beach and City of Long Beach performance criteria under buildout year 2030 with project conditions with the exception of the following two intersections: • Pacific Coast Highway /Studebaker Road; and • Pacific Coast Highway /Marina Drive. The City of Long Beach intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/ Studebaker Road is forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS E) during the PM peak hour with the addition of project traffic. When compared to buildout year 2030 without project conditions, the proposed project would only add 0.009 to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) value at this intersection, which is less than threshold of significance (0.020). Further, although the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway /Marina Drive is forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E) during the PM peak hour with the addition of project traffic, the proposed project would not cause this unsignalized intersection to degrade a service level when compared to buildout year 2030 without project conditions. Thus, impacts to study intersections would be less than significant. As discussed on page 5.5 -30 and Table 5.5 -23, Buildout Year 2030 Wlith Pr ect Roadwayegment Analvsis, of the Draft EIR, all study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS under buildout year 2030 with project conditions based on City of Seal Beach performance criteria. Thus, impacts to study roadway segments would be less than significant. Final • April 2012 2 -48 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 9 -12 V Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive is primarily a two -lane roadway with on- street parking permitted. The majority of V Street maintains a cross section of 40 -feet until the roadway widens north of Central Way at the intersection with Marina Drive to measure 80 feet at its widest point. The project includes a portion ( "Portion ") of existing street right - of -way located at the northeast corner of the site, along 1 st Street in that wider area north of Central Way. The project proposes street vacation at that Portion in order to accommodate proposed residential uses at the project site. Such vacation would make the width of 15` Street more uniform, and would eliminate the narrowing of the roadway that currently occurs just south of the intersection, resulting in a consistent roadway cross section of 40- feet for the entire length of 1" Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.0, PrgLect Description, the Portion was part of the DWP site for over 35 years but was acquired by the City in 1977. The City Engineer has opined that it is not needed for public street purposes. Refer also to Exhibit 5.5 -4 Proposed Pr 'ect Conceptual Improvement Plan — 1 s` Street at Marina Drive, of the Draft EIR. 9 -13 As depicted on Exhibit 5.5 -3, S bt Distance Analysis — Pr�ect Access at 9st Street, implementation of the proposed project would maintain the existing bike lane along Marina Drive. Currently, there are no bike lanes along the southbound travel lane of 1" Street. 9 -14 As discussed in Section 5.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (page 5.10 -13, first paragraph), based on the hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, no hazardous materials of concern have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential use in soils at the project site. This includes consideration of potential on -site asbestos in soil. Additionally, as noted in Section 5.6, Air Qua li , the project site is not located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos is likely to be present (i.e., containing naturally occurring serpentine and ultramafic rocks). This is based on the Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California — Areas More Iikey to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000). Implementation of Rule 403 is a set of standard measures developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) that is required for the proposed project and is intended for dust control purposes to eliminate nuisance and health related impacts. As also described in Section 5.6, sensitive receptors are sensitive populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors include: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day -care facilities, elder -care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. The analysis in Section 5.6 found that construction impacts would result in less than significant air quality impacts with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, which included SCAQMD Rule 403. Thus, soil disturbance activities are not anticipated to result in health and safety impacts to construction workers or to the general public. 9 -15 Mitigation Measure 11AZ -1 pertains to asbestos in building materials associated with the existing on -site residential structure. This mitigation measure does not apply to asbestos in on -site soils as a result of the former on -site generating station. Based on the hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, no hazardous materials of concern have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential use in soils at the project site. Final • April 2012 2 -49 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Prior to demolition of the on -site structure, the Applicant would be required to confirm whether or not asbestos - containing materials are present within the on -site structure. If present, the Applicant would be required to properly remove these materials and dispose of them in an approved landfill facility, as required by existing State law. 9 -16 There is one on -site residential structure that would be required to be demolished as part of the proposed project. Potential lead -based paints and asbestos - containing materials may be present in the on -site structure. Thus, the project Applicant would be required to implement the recommended Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ -2. Impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels upon implementation of the mitigation measures. 9 -17 This comment does not raise new environmental information or question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Thus, no response is necessary. In any event, the commenter states that a principal of BCP confirmed that the Settlement "confirms 48 residential lots." There is no "confirmation" of 48 lots. The Settlement contemplates that BCP will submit an application for 48 residences, and that the City will process the application in good faith. Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. After the Settlement was executed, the Applicant submitted an application for 48 residential lots. In accordance with the Settlement and applicable law, the City is considering the Applicant's proposal for residential uses at the project site. The City has deemed the application complete and is currently in the process of considering the proposed 48 -lot residential development along with the 6.4 acre open space area. As part of the process, the City is required to comply with the requirements of CEQA, which is occurring with this environmental document. Section 15126.6 of CEQA Guidelines requires the EIR to consider alternatives to the project that would reduce the project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Thus, as part of the CEQA process, the Draft EIR considered alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project, including significant and unavoidable aesthetics impacts. 9 -18 Section 3.3, E=ect Characteristics, of the Draft EIR, presents the Applicant's proposal (the proposed project). Based on Section 5.3, Biological Resources, and Section 5.13, Public Services and Utilities, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to native plant species or water consumption. Per Section 15126.4(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. The project would not result in significant impacts that would require the use of native plant planting only or the use of "zeroscaping" for the proposed residential units. Further, the project proposes landscaping to be similar to other planting found in Old Town (combining ornamental plant material with native plantings) (page 3 -11 of the Draft EIR). The City does not have any goals or policies pertaining to native plant planting only or the use of "zeroscaping" for residential uses. 9 -19 Based on Section 5.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to native plant species or habitat areas. Per Impact Statement PSU -7 (page 5.13 -25 of the Draft EIR), project implementation would not significantly increase the demand for water such that new entitlements or resources are needed. Per Section 15126.4(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant. Thus, as these impacts are less than significant Final • April 2012 2 -50 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report and native dunes at the project site is not an existing condition, the project is not required to return part of the area into naturally occurring dunes with native grasses. 9 -20 There are currently no above ground utilities along Marina Drive or 15` Street (in the project area) that would require undergrounding. All utilities proposed to be constructed as part of the proposed project would be constructed underground. 9 -21 Although implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces and discharge leaving the project site, due to the project's proximity to the San Gabriel River, project implementation would not require pumping activities for stormwater conveyance. As discussed in Section 5.11, Lk roloa and VaterQua&T, the project proposes three detention facilities within the northern portion of the site; one would outlet directly to the San Gabriel River and two would outlet to the Marina Drive storm drain (Mitigation Measure HWQ -5). As indicated in Table 5.11 -3, Mitigated 2 -Year and 25 -Year Hydrology Com4anson (Nortbern Site, with implementation of the detention facilities, runoff during the 2- year and 25 -year storm events associated with the proposed project would be less than or equal to existing conditions. No additional mitigation of the 2 -year and 25 -year storm events would be required, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Verification that no adverse flooding impacts would occur at the intersection of Marina Drive and 1" Street during the 100 -year storm event would be required (Mitigation Measure HWQ -6). Compliance with Mitigation Measure HWQ -6 would ensure that any adverse impacts associated with the 100 -year storm event would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Proposed Filterra systems and bioretention cells would improve the water quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site prior to discharge (these systems are not intended to regulate discharge leaving the project site, but rather treat pollutants prior to discharge; refer to the paragraph above for detailed information regarding the proposed detention facilities). Filterra® units are produced by Americast and are structural media filtration devices that also utilize retention for storm water treatment. Filterra units feature a specially designed media filter mixture within a below -grade concrete box. One tree or large shrub is planted within the media to provide additional pollutant removal, and function similar to bioretention cells. Bioretention cells with underdrains are plant -based biotreatment systems that typically consist of a ponding area, mulch layer, planting soils and plants. As storm water passes down through the planting soil, pollutants are filtered, absorbed, biodegraded and sequestered by the soil and plants. Perforated underdrains may be provided for soils with low infiltration rates and in areas with high groundwater levels to discharge treated water back into the storm drain system. The filter media is designed to capture and filter pollutants during the first -flush storm event, while biological processes degrade, metabolize, detoxify, and volatilize the pollutants during and between storms. 9 -22 Page 5.11 -19 (third paragraph) of the Draft EIR states "...the southern portion of the project site would be maintained as open space for the future development of open space /passive park uses. Proposed park uses would include, but not be limited to, natural areas with trails, passive turf areas, and neighborhood - serving play areas (e.g., tot lots). As indicated in Table 5.11 -4, Comparison of TribuLa Areas (Southern Site), the southern portion of the project area would have minimal change to the tributary area, thus no hydrology and drainage impacts would occur and no mitigation would be required. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard." Final • April 2012 2 -51 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report As discussed on page 5.11 -20 (last paragraph), the southern portion of the project site would involve open space /passive park uses. The City would be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to address post - construction operations associated with any future development of the passive park (Mitigation Measure HWQ -8). Compliance with the WQMP would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the passive park to a less than significant level. It is important to emphasize, however, that no development of the park area is proposed at this time, and therefore no impacts related to development of the park will occur with this project and no mitigation is required. 9 -23 The proposed project does not include an affordable housing component, nor do any of the project Applicant's goals include providing affordable housing. Furthermore, the designation of proposed residential units as affordable housing would not change or lessen any environmental impact caused by the actual construction of residential units. 9 -24 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -11 pertaining to cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Marina Park Development and Response to Comment 10 -4 pertaining to impacts at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street. It should be noted that the City of Long Beach City Council denied the application for the proposed 2nd and PCH Development located at 6400 East Pacific Coast Highway on December 20, 2011. Thus, this project is no longer anticipated to be constructed. Consequently, the cumulative impacts analysis included in the Draft EIR is conservative in that it includes potential impacts from the 2nd and PCH Development project. Without this project, cumulative impacts are anticipated to be even less than described in the Draft EIR. 9 -25 As discussed in Impact Statement TRA -6 (page 5.5 -40) of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not impede existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities located within the area. Sidewalks would be constructed as part of Tentative Tract Map No. 17425, in accordance with City standards, which would provide pedestrian access to and within the residential development. The open space portion of the project site would allow for park uses, including, but not limited to, natural areas with trails, passive turf areas, and neighborhood - serving play areas (e.g., tot lots). The open space area would be accessible from existing sidewalks and the existing San Gabriel River Bike Trail. Additionally, the San Gabriel River Bike Trail (a Class I Bikeway) and Class II Bikeways located on Marina Drive would continue to serve the area. The proposed project would not conflict with any of the following policies of the Circulation Element pertaining to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities: Construct safe, convenient paths for bicycles and pedestrians so as to encourage these alternative forms of transportation. ■ Ensure accessibility of pedestrian facilities to the elderly and disabled. Require the installation of sidewalks with all new roadway construction and significant reconstruction of existing roadways. Final • April 2012 2 -52 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Implementation of the proposed project would construct sidewalks along the new `A' Street and V Street, as required by the policies discussed above. Other than the proposed open space areas that would connect to the existing bike trail, no other proposed bicycle paths or pedestrian facilities are proposed. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs that would result in a decrease of the performance or safety of public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Impacts in this regard are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 9 -26 As the Draft EIR presents a "worst- case" scenario of development considered (which includes the development of the cumulative project located at 6400 East Pacific Coast Highway [2nd and PCH Development]), all of the cumulative environmental impacts analyzed were a worst -case scenario. If this cumulative project does not get constructed, then all impacts considered would be reduced. Thus, no new significant environmental impacts would result and no new mitigation measures would be required. The Draft EIR and associated technical documentation would not need to be updated. 9 -27 Due to AB X1 26, the Redevelopment Agency has been dissolved, and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that the project applicant was seeking is no longer required. 9 -28 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -25. 9 -29 As discussed in Impact Statement PSU -4 (page 5.13 -23 and 5.13 -24 of the Draft EIR), pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50.010, Parkland Dedications and Fees, as a condition of Tentative Map approval, the subdivider is required to dedicate land and /or pay a fee for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision. Based on 762 square feet of parkland per single - family residence (Municipal Code Section 10.50.010.C.1, Standards), the future residential development would require 0.84 acres of land dedication. For residential subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots, the parkland fee in lieu of land dedication is $10,000 per lot created by the subdivision (Municipal Code Section 10.50.010.C.2, Exception - Residential Subdivisions of 50 or Fewer Lots). Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 10.50.010.D.2, Fees Only, subdivisions of 50 parcels or less require only the payment of fees. Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17425 would require only payment of a fee of $48,000 (at $10,000 per lot) in lieu of land dedication of 0.84 acres of parkland. However, as described in detail in Section 3.0, Pr ect Description, the project includes 6.4 acres of land of public open space use (Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4). Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement ( "Settlement ") between the City and Bay City Partners, in the event the project receives a coastal development permit, Bay City Partners will convey such land to the City, and such conveyance will satisfy all obligations regarding park fees (Quimby Fees) and park improvements. In the event the City receives 6.4 acres of parkland instead of $48,000, there will be no adverse impact on recreational resources because the City will obtain a substantially large piece of land for open space use that is not currently available for public use. 9 -30 As stated on page 5.13 -27 of the Draft EIR, no restroom facilities are planned by the City for the proposed open space area. However, existing public restrooms are provided at the public beach to the south of the project site. Even if the proposed open space area did include restroom facilities, the overall project would not contribute significant amounts of Final • April 2012 2 -53 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report wastewater generation (only 0.06 percent increase to the Seal Beach Pump Station, 0.03 percent to Treatment Plant No. 1, and 0.02 percent to Treatment Plant No. 2). With the increased sewer generation from the open space area, this increase to the project's contribution would be minimal and impacts in this regard would still be mitigated to less than significant levels after implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure PSU -2. 9 -31 Although the project's current zoning designation of Specific Plan allows for the development of hotel uses, these uses currently do not exist, as the site consists of vacant land. As concluded in the Draft EIR (page 6 -4) the City's jobs /housing ratio is approximately 0.79, which indicates that the City currently has insufficient employment opportunities for its residents. At buildout of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, the City's jobs /housing ratio would remain at 0.79 (based on approximately 11,559 jobs and 14,606 dwelling units [see Table 5.12 -4, Proposed Protect Compared to Existing Conditions on page 5.12 -6 of the Draft EIR]). Given that development of employment - generating land uses (i.e., Visitor - Serving) on the site has been deemed to be physically and economically infeasible, and the City's jobs /housing ratio would remain unchanged, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact regarding the jobs /housing balance. Refer to Impact Statement PSU -2 (page 5.13 -22) of the Draft EIR, regarding impacts to police protection services, which are concluded to be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Furthermore, the commenter's suggestion that additional portions of the City be zoned for commercial development uses is outside of the scope of this EIR, which only analyzes the potential impacts of the project proposed by the Applicant. Final • April 2012 2 -54 Response to Comments ,� +I ►1'1� ►�i��i��.�i'Eh City of Sea Be .Gh DEC 12 3 [)z paitmcl rk of December 10, 2011 Mr. Mark Persico, AICP Director of Development Services 2118tH Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Public Review Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Dear Mr. Persico, First of all, I would like to congratulate you, your staff and RBF in providing a very comprehensive environmental review of the proposed project. I have not had an opportunity to review the settlement agreement between the City and Bay City Partners, LLC and would leave legal issues to the city attorney regarding the weight of the settlement on modification to the proposed project. Notwithstanding any legal constraints, I am in support of a project that is 70°x5 open space and 30% developed land based upon "useable property". This was the intent of the community in the early 1980's and continues to be the understanding of those I come in contact with. Consequently, I do not support the current 61% open space and 39 % developed space configuration. However, if the land cannot be divided in this manner due to legal constraints, I would support the Alternative 2: Modified Layout Alternative as displayed on Exhibit 7 -1. Furthermore, I believe that the lots on the subdivided property shown on the exhibit should be 30 feet wide. The original city was subdivided in the early 1900's for beach cottages and lot dimensions were therefore very small. Most were 25 feet wide with some 30 feet wide. I have lived on property in old town with both a 25 foot and a 30 foot frontage and can tell you that the "livability" is so much better with the extra 5 feet that it should be very seriously considered. Instead of vacationers that visited the beach cottages during the 104 10 -2 summer months, these homes will house families on a full time basis and therefore should accommodate a larger house with more square footage. 10-2 As indicated in the project goals and objectives (Section 1,3) the project can best meet the community expectations if the design "extends the existing urban form of the Old Town Neighborhood by replicating street layout, lot patterns and building form ". That goal is achieved by Alternative 2 where �- lots front on First Street and there is no undesirable offset intersection of Central Way. In regard to traffic, even thought the number of trips from the proposed development is relatively small, € would like to see the intersection of PCH and 2 "d Street analyzed. This is currently a very impacted intersection and with the proposed development in Long Beach near that intersection, I am not sure that the impacts of the Long Beach development can be mitigated let alone the added trips from the Seal Beach project. Trips to and from the Seal Beach project will mostly access the freeway through this intersection. The intersection schematics shown for First Street and Marina Drive are not In enough detail to see how the bicycle lanes will be configured to provide safety for bicyclists. There Is adequate space to allow for a generous lane dimension as well as a standard bicycle lane. I would suggest that the final design take this into account. In addition, I would expect that an amendment to the City Circulation Element and perhaps amendment to the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways would need to be prepared. 10 -4 W& would suggest that some attention be given to screening of the boat facility for vehicles entering the 10 -s proposed project from Marina Drive. My last comment is not an environmental comment but I want to mention it early on as contained in the Draft E=IR is mention in Section 1.2 that "Maintenance of streets, common landscaped areas, and major infrastructure would be funded through the Community Facilities District Act (i.e. Mello-Roos)," Allowing a developer to utilize bong funding through this financing mechanism where the future owners of the homes pay for the public improvements Is a discretionary action by the city and cannot be unilaterally utilized by the developer. in theory, the homes are priced lower because the developer has avoided the cost to install the infrastructure in the development. In reality, the homes are priced at or very near market rates and the homeowner are the "victims" paying for the improvements over 20 or 30 years. The developer, on the other hand, is provided a "windfall'. I am sure you will hear arguments to the contrary from the developers. What you will not hear are the pleas from prospective home buyers that are not yet residents of our community. They will ask, but much too late after purchase of their home, why the city council allowed the developer to push the costs of the public infrastructure to the homeowners. If this were a distressed property where the developer was unable to secure financing for the infrastructure at market rates, then consideration of a CFD might be understandable. This property is not a distressed propertyl There Is no hardshlpl The city should not allow a CFD for this project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Seal Beach, CA UibJ City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 10. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GARY JOHNSON, DATED DECEMBER 10, 2011. 10 -1 This comment states the commenter's position and support for a project that is 70 percent open space and 30 percent developed land, but does not raise any environmental issues. As such, no response is required. Nonetheless, the commenter is directed to Response to Comment 8 -1 for further information on open space issues. Furthermore, it is noted that while the commenter refers to percentages of open space or developed land, the Draft EIR discloses the absolute, rather than the relative, sizes of the existing and proposed land uses for the project area. This approach more accurately communicates the actual environmental changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project than a proportional approach. 10 -2 The Commenter notes that if the land cannot be developed with 70 percent open space and 30 percent developed land, he is in support of Alternative 2, Modified Layout Alternative, as depicted on Exhibit 7 -1, Mo&W Layout Alternative, of the Draft EIR. The Commenter would support the modification of this Alternative to have 30 -foot lot widths rather than the analyzed 25 -foot lot widths. The Commenter states that the 25 -foot lot widths do not support a livable space for a year -round resident. This comment is acknowledged. The proposed Modified Layout Alternative would result in 27 -foot lot widths along Marina Drive and 32.5 -foot lot widths along Is' Street. These lot widths would be slightly wider than the existing RHD -20 lots in the surrounding area. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 10 -3 The Commenter notes that Alternative 2 with lots fronting onto First Street would better meet the project's goal of "extending the existing urban form of the Old Town Neighborhood by replicating street layout, lot patterns, and building form." Further, Alternative 2 would not include the offset intersection of Central Way and `B' Street. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 10 -4 The Traffic Impact Analysis (Al2pendix 11.511.5 of the Draft EIR) considered the intersection at Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street (refer to Exhibit 5 -2, AM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes, and Exhibit 5 -2, PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volumes, of the Traffic Impact Analysis). However, as only 7 southbound vehicles and 19 northbound vehicles in the AM Peak Hour and 20 southbound vehicles and 20 northbound vehicles in the PM Peak Hour would be traveling to from the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street, no further investigation is warranted at this intersection as these levels of peak hour volumes are not anticipated to degrade the level of service at the Pacific Coast Highway and 2nd Street intersection. It also should be noted that the City of Long Beach City Council denied the application for the proposed 2nd and PCH Development located at 6400 East Pacific Coast Highway on December 20, 2011. Thus, this project is no longer anticipated to be constructed. Consequently, the cumulative impacts analysis included in the Draft EIR is conservative in that it includes potential impacts from the 2nd and PCH Development Final • April 2012 2 -57 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report project. Without this project, cumulative impacts, including cumulative traffic impacts, are anticipated to be even less than described in the Draft EIR. 10 -5 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -13. The City's Circulation Element and Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways would not need to be amended for changes to bike lane configuration, as the proposed project would not change the bike lane configuration along Marina Drive. Also, V Street currently does not provide bike lanes, nor would the project create impacts that would require mitigation in the form of bike lanes on 15` Street. 10 -6 Implementation of the proposed Landscape Concept Plan would include screening vegetation along the proposed `A' Street, where feasible. 10 -7 This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -58 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 11 M E M O R A N D U M MEMO TO: City of Seal Beach FROM: James C. Caviola, Jr. RE: EIR for DWP Property DATE: December 15, 2011 I have attached Exhibits A -- J hereto. I am requesting these documents all be included in the EIR. I am further requesting an explanation to the following questions: Exhibit A: What is the contamination referred to in Exhibit A, page 2, under Remediation? 114 Exhibit B: Do you disagree with Exhibit B's conclusion that a ten foot depth level for excavation of the site is 11.2 appropriate? If not, why not? Exhibit C: Do you disagree with the conclusion on Exhibit C that residual asbestos is present at levels that could pose an adverse threat to human health? If not, why not? Do you agree with the statement on page 2 of the Exhibit C that a larger amount of clean fill would be required if the property is to be used for residential development? If not, why not? Exhibit D: Do you disagree with the conclusion on Exhibit C that residual asbestos is present at levels that could pose an adverse threat to human health? If not, why not? Do you agree with the statement on page 2 of the Exhibit C that a larger amount of clean fill would be required if the property is to be used for residential development? If not, why not? Memorandum - Page 1 11 -3 11 -4 Exhibit E: Do you disagree with the conclusion on Exhibit C that residual asbestos is present at levels that could pose an adverse threat to human health? If not, why not? Do you agree with the statement on page 2 of the Exhibit C that a larger amount of clean fill would be required if the property is to be used for residential development? If not, why not? Exhibit F: Do you agree that the oil tank sides were crushed in place, as stated in Exhibit F? Exhibit G: Where did you get the alleged 1987 letter from Orange County Health care Agency? Exhibit G shows no records for the DWP site. What is the name of the person who provided the letters to you? How do you explain that Orange County Healthcare Agency has no records for the DWP Site, yet you purport to have this 1987 letter? Exhibit H: Do you agree with the findings on page 3 of Exhibit H, which states that: "Future development of the site for residential uses has an estimated potential risk of 9.8 X 30. 6, where as future development of the site for commercial uses would result in an acceptable level of human risk 5.8 X 10.6 If you do not agree with these conclusions, please explain why you don't agree and what data supports your conclusion. Exhibit I: I would like you to respond to Exhibit I. Do you agree that there was a refusal of the drilling rig at 10.2 in Boring Log SBGS -25. How do you explain there being a concrete slab at 10.2 feet? Why was sampling only done at 3 feet? How do you explain that there was 4 feet of concrete debris on top of the slab that was found? What is the significance of these concrete slabs and debris? Memorandum - Page 2 11 -5 11 -6 11 -1 11 -8 11 -9 I *A'?� I I I j WAT�Vk At�V Lip 23, 2OW ma ZIP s GI If any Exception ' disapproved by BUYER, SELLER may. ,vithin its sole I discretion, within thirty (30) calendar days following BUYERS notice of disapproval of the same, use its best efforts to cause each disapproved Exception to be discharged, satisfied, released, or terminated, as the case may be, of record, and in a form that is reasonably satisfactory to the BUYER, all at SELLER's sole cost and expense. SELLER shall provide notice to BUYER within ten (10) days after its receipt of BUYER'S notice of disapproval as to whether or not SELLER will cure each disapproved exception. If SELLER notifies BUYER that SELLER n I is unwilling to obtain, or SELLER is unable to obtain within the period specified above, a discharge, satisfaction, release, or termination of. any disapproved exception to title, BUYER shall have the right to either: (1) Waive the disapproved Exception and approve of the condition of title notwithstanding BUYER!s prior objection, or (2) Terminate this Agreement, in which event SELLER and BUYER shall share equally in the cancellation charges of the Escrow Agent in connection with this transaction; both BUYER and SELLER shall be relieved of all further obligations and liability to each other under this Agreement and the Option Fee and all interest earned thereon, shall be promptly returned by the Escrow Agent to BUYER. {d) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this Agreement, SELLER shall be obligated to cure the claim i6ade by the Sullivan family as the heirs of P.A. Stanton that they own a portion of the Property (the "Title Defect"), and SELLER shall use diligent efforts to cause such Title Defect to be resolved at no expense to BUYER as soon as possible following the Effective Date. - - 1049 1 (a) The Property was previously improved and utilized as the'Seal. Beach Generating Station. The Seal Beach Generating Station was demolished in or about 1967. In 1987, further demolition, removal of underground storage tanks and remediation of asbestos containing soils from the Property was undertaken. The asbestos remediation was performed to a clean up threshold, which may or may not be adequate for residential or other use or development of the Property. certain asbestos and hydrocarbon soil contamination (the "Contamination") is known to remain upon the Property as more specifically disclosed in that certain Phase I I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Parson's Engineering Science, Inc. and dated February, 2000. (b) During the term of the option, BUYER shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remediate the Contamination, or at BUYER!s sole election any other contamination found to be located on or under the Property, in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Section 7. (c) Within eight (8) months after the later of the approval of this Agreement by the City Council and Sellers cure of the Title Defect, BUYER shall cause an 7 m 1I ,� For th s assessment petroleum hydrocarbon detections have been addressed by evaluating the individual constituents of greatest toxicoloo cal concern. For a gasoline mixture, this would include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) as well as P.'_Hs such as na -phthalene and benzo(a)pyrene. For diesel fuel mixtures, BTEX would be rninor constituents, and P AHs would be of primary concern. In addition metals may also be present if waste is were generated, stored or handled at a site. TPH, for which there are no health -based standards, have not been evaluated in this risk assessment. This type of indicator approach is generally accepted and used by regulatory agencies to characterize the carcinogenic risk posed by petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures. D.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure assessment characterizes how human receptors come into contact with COPCs and estimates the human intake rate for each COPC. Exposure is evaluated by establishing relevant exposure pathways and reasonable and health - protective exposure scenarios. An exposure pathway describes the course a chemical takes from the source to an exposed individual (USEPA, 1989). An exposure pathway generally consists of: (1) a source and mechanism of chemical release, (2) a retention or transport medium, (3) a point of potential human contact with the contaminated medium (referred to as an exposure point), and (4) an exposure route (e.g_, ingestion, dermal contact, or inhalation) at the exposure point. An exposure pathway is considered complete when all four of these elements are present. All potentially complete exposure pathways were considered in the exposure assessment. This evaluation is discussed below and is graphically portrayed in the site conceptual model (CM). The CSM, which is presented in Figure D -1, was prepared in accordance with guidance developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 1995). Risk estimates are typically based on reasonable maximum exposure (RME), which is defined as the highest exposure that can reasonably be expected to occur (USEPA, 1989). The RME represents an upper -bound conservative exposure within the range of possible exposures. However, because the long-term land use is unknown, it is conceivable that the site could someday be converted to residentra and use, which is the most conservative exposure scenario. Therefore, to evaluate the site for potential unrestricted land use, the residential exposure scenario was evaluated in this risk assessment. Exposure pathways that were deemed to be complete and relevant were quantitatively evaluated in this assessment, including soil, groundwater, and air pathways. For the soil pathway, exposure is assumed to occur through incidental soil ingestion, dermal absorption of contaminants from soil, inhalation of wind- blown, particulate -bound substances, and inhalation of organic vapors from soil. As discussed previously, this risk assessment utilizes PRGs developed by USEPA Region IX (1999)_ For soil contaminants, residential PRGs (r -PRGs) assume receptor exposure to site contaminants through the above - listed exposure routes. Soils in the upper 10 ee #_of the vadose zone have been ass ed t b i contact under the soils are availab'r- reasonable unne um o e ava ahiP fnr future residentiaa use scenario for contact under current land uses of maximum excavation de D -3 C `Dep's\Depc481LADWPUeaI Beach \EAReport\Final\.App -D.doc y 0 -foot depth represents a future construction. 02/04/00 r-9 i - This section presents conclusions from this Phase II ESA and makes recommendations regarding future environmental actions at the Former Seal Beach Generating Station site. 1=0 I �I 61 � 0 M e Lei R, Based on the site characterization data collected and the analyses documented in this report, the following conclusions can be made: The nature and extent of contamination in site soil and groundwater have been sufficiently defined by this Phase H investigation. Analytical data are of sufficient quality and quantity to support a screening-level human health risk evaluation. a Site soil is not impacted by VOCs or SVOCs. Arsenic is present in site soils at levels that to a potential threat to human health. The incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) would be well above the 1 x 1 e point of departure used in making risk management decisions. However, as discussed in Section 4.1.5, the detected arsenic is believed to be naturally occurring and not the result of site-related activities. Ll- Residual asbestosis present in localized areas of site soils at levels that could pose an adverse threat to human health under certain types of land use. Specifically, future activities that result in significant fugitive dust exposure to an on-site receptor could cause a potential inhalation health risk. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen via the inhalation route of exposure. Land uses with a low potential for fugitive dust generation (e.g., commercial with a �o­ncrete or asphalt cover, landscaping with 5-1 KADepts\Dept481LADWP\SeaI Beach\EAReportlFinal\catexLdoc CO2/0:4100 limited receptor access, etc.) would not likely result in any type of adverse health effect- In groundwater, heptachlor and manganese were the only compounds detected at levels above their tap water PRG values. Given the narrow conunercial/Industn'al use of heptachlor as an insecticide, it is nqj, believed to have originated from site-related activities. Due to the low volatility of heptachlor, it is not likely to pose a risk via vapor migration to inhabitants of any potential future on-site structures. Similarly, manganese is not believed to have originated from site-related activities due to its current spatial distribution and the long time period that has elapsed since any release could have occurred. Furthermore, the heptachlor and manganese detections are not considered significant since it is highly unlikely that shallow groundwater at the site would ever be used for domestic purposes- .; �,� Based on the above-stated conclusions, the following recommendations are made: Entering into a voluntary cleanup agreement (VCA) with the DTk should be considered to conclusively demonstrate that site conditions are protective of human health or to determine the scope of any mitigative measures. Determining the need for DTSC involvement should be based on the likely future use of the property and the corresponding potential for adverse human health-impacts- r- presence of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil may also necessitate the importation of clean fill. However, the need for this would not be healffi-based but would be dictated • aesthetic reasons. Because there is no evidence of site-related groundwater contamination, ftirther sampling or action does not appear warranted. 5-2 K:\Dcpts%Dcp148\LADWF,Sez1 Beach\EAReporffinal\e2text.doc 02JO4/00 Q A Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Former Seal Beach Generating Station in Seal Beach, California wai�, conducted on behalf of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The purpose of the ESA was to determine the nature of residual soil contamination and potential groundwater contamination that may be present at the site, and to assess the risk of site contaminants to potential human receptors. Although the site is currently vacant and undeveloped, this assessment considers possible future uses of the property. MI.. i I DAM, of It f • VOC's or SVOC's does not impact sit oils. • TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbon) were detected at elevated levels, but potential to cause health effects appears to be low. • Aroclor — 1254 was the only organochlorine pesticide/PCB detected in site soils. Concentrations up to 0.22 ug/kg were well below EPA recommended cleanup level for PCB's in residential soil (1 mg/kg). • Arsenic is very high (1.3mg/kg to 20mg/kg), but is believed to be naturally occurring and not the result of site-related activities. Seal Beach Naval Weapons range up to 26 mg/kg. • Asbestos was found in three samples out of 110 collected, at amounts less than 1% by area. Imported fill should take place depending on the future use of the site. • Heptaclor and manganese were the only compounds detected in the groundwater at levels above their tap water PRG (preliminary remediation goal) values. Due to the low volatility of heptachlor, it is not likely to pose a risk. Manganese is not believed to have originated from site-related activities. • Parsons recommends that DWP enter into a voluntary cleanup agreement to conclusively demonstrate that the site conditions are protective of human health. • The presence of petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil may also necessitate the importation of clean fill. However, the need for this would not be health-based but would be dictated by aesthetic reasons. In regards to asbestos: No fill would be required if the site were to be covered such that the soils 3 were unavailable for contact (e.g., parking areas; building foundations, concrete or asphalt covered areas, etc.). Only a small amount of clean cover (e-g., approximately one foot) would be needed if little or no soil disturbance was likely to occur (e.g., landscaping). A larger amount of clean fill would likely be needed if there were a significant <-- potential for subsurface disturbances (e.g., residential, playground, etc.). The exposure assessment section states that the 10-foot depth represents a reasonable upper-bound limit of maximum excavation depth fo.r future construction. The USEPA has not developed a soil PRG for asbestos. There is considerable uncertainty in this analysis due to a variety of factors, including the estimation of the air exposure point concentrations and the conversion of an asbestos fiber count to an equivalent mass basis. Val Ef 0 1: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT of 0.2 fibers per cubic centimeter (Fcc) of air. The current action level is 0.1 f/cc. Soil samples Indicated the presence of asbestos in three areas of the site at concerikations up to 50 percent. Seven impacted soil areas were identified, including the former boiler bay, turbine bay, and concrete batch plant. Remediation consisted of removal Of soil in areas with an asbestos content exceeding one percent. Over 3,500 cubic yards Of soil were excavated and disposed offsite. Clean brick and concrete were washed and reused onsite as fill. The Orange County Health Care Agency issued a July 15, 1987 letter indicating that the remedial action had been satisfactorily completed. EuU] Oil Tanks Fuel oil was found in the bottoms Of two 2,500-barrel concrete underground storage tanks and associated feeder pipeline. Fuel oil and k-1 water in the tanks were removed offsite and the tanks were excavated and removed under oversight from the Orange County Fire Department. Tank sides and - bottoms were crushed and used onsite as fill. piping was removed. Visu_a_1_o ��ppurtenant bservations—ai7d soil �samples collected at the 7 0ftOm O-rTEeFIRK excavations reportedly did not indicate contamination Of soil or groundwater. Historical drawings indicated the presence of a 64,000-barrel aboveground oil tank that was removed during demolition in 1967. Soil sampling has apparently not been conducted in this area. Ms. Karen Kinsella of Dames & Moore conducted a reconnaissance of the subject property March 3, 1999. The site visit consisted of a walking tour of the property, on George Faeustle accompanied by Mr. observations of the LADVVP. Site Photographs are Provided in Appendix A. Our Ions are noted below. The site consists of approximately ten acres of vacant, fenced land. The site except for a high area in the southwest 1 is nearly level foundation of the former generating portion of the site that apparently corresponds to the and weeds, at the time of our site plant. The site was covered with vegetation, mainly grass Ite visit. A number of areas throughout the site were found to be free of vegetation. In some, but not all, cases a thin white deposit was noted on , the soil surface in areas where vegetation I ion was not observed. Some non-vegetated areas may have been associated with gopher burrowing, based on observations made during the site visit. An area of obvious fill and apparent minor settling was observed in the central portion of the site, a gre clay/gravel mix was observed over an approximately 200 square-foot area. y SA128\LADwp\SEALBEACH.E)0C DAMES & MOORE m 10416, E` 7/6/2011 COUNW • ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY 1:4 UTJ I U0101 NUIZ 11.111 a SEAL BEACH CA 90740- ® EHD REQ #: 17483 DAVID K SOULELES, MPH DEPUTY AGENCY DIRECTOR RICHARD SANCHEZ, REHS, MPH DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAILING ADDRESS: 1241 E. DYER ROAD SUITE 120 SANTA ANA, CA 92706-5611 TELEPHONE: (714) 433-6000 FAX: (714) 754-1732 E-WIL: ehealth@ochca.com �t This office is in receipt of your request for copies of records. We were unable to locate any records on the above location.. -121 Kai law 41 V 4 Im ii I i 1111��i lip 11 1� 1 1 M I � i - 11 • t ' - t rx• • M-1 I I The Health Care Agency may not be the only source of records. Please check with the Fire Department, the Water Quality Control Board and/or the State Department of Health Services. If you have any question, please call this office at (714) 43 3 -6022. Environmental Health Records Unit Z1111 I I I 111 • • • NO RECORDS i z�s i �sz -ziz� i Z z` D m M Dmm M mn S. �y S. 05/29/2011 U 9: !D'Z li4 'ji:D1341311 JAMLb (-; UAViGLA PAGE 01/04 nx COUNTY OF ORANGE MAILING ADRS: 1241 E. DYrik ROAD D ST5E. '1S 20 SANTA ANA, CA 92.702 HEALTH CARE AGENCY TELEPHONE. (714) 433-6400 FAX: {714) 433.4424 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH www.ochealthinfo.com/re ulatorylenviron.1-itm REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RECORDS The undersigned hereby requests a copy of the records prepared and maintained by the Health Care Agency in the ordinary course of business, at or near the time of the act, condition, or event which they depict. The records requested are maintained under the Public Records Act Government Code § 6250 — 6276,48, Some information held in the documents may be exempt from release pursuant to the Public Records Act. The undersigned understands that the Health Care Agency will charge $0.15 per page copied in the case of a request for a large number of copies, the Health Care Agency may provide the requestor an estimate of copy costs prior to making said copies. If any request is to be canceled, this office must be notified at the above number within ten (10) days of receipt of request, otherwise cost incurred will be charged to the undersigned. M a 2��'M M, I'-- M, �V PRINT Name of Requester (and Company Name- 117 7C_eof,,1 19v-e- PRINT Streat Address C�4 7 VO Area Code and Phone Number PRINT City, State and Zip Code Date RECORDS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PICKED UP WITHIN 60 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION WILL BE DESTROYED F042-09-1347 (Rev. 11106) Page 2 of 3 11 miffli 31, List of Hazardous Waste Generatgr.Facilities (HWFACILITIES,5RW) List of Industrial Cleanup Sites (IC PROGRAM CASES eY CITY,$RW) List of Underground Storage Tank Cleangp_qiteS List of Under round Storage Tank Facilities (USTFAC(LITIES,SRW) A list of Solid Waste landfills (which includes closed landfills) can be obtWned through the California website: www,ciwm .ca.-qov/SWIS/ Other information: -77--- and le, Ale v v V eel- F042.09.1347 (Rev. 11106) Page 3 of 3 3 S \ Y{ qq� S' V. ! k �'}},, ryy �`ry���c�� {; ,'``per y k�g�'¢ }�,�g �>o,. a�z�'$z�', ,7✓���v �, s�� y���:�,t���ac., �r���,F .atU .�sr,`� yc ,�r,,s�; ) ,�y s � �i j�( �� S \4�` Cwk4'8 ?A:. '../ 3`4✓°i.i"$9'A. "x.431 .6_F'`3'Yry �:- '�,.C.J A� y \ } y.S.�.'S1S 9) }�l� j{, i.. . t c::a 3 &y� t y i i "�'�� ��'�ai r'�$ar,�`� �s��'',��"�'��:- �.�„� .:��,�- �¢aC�se.��:', ,C'� 5�+;_�'� �' ������ �vl..t• i;� i Y 2 #ark t �: fib i a - j, -m 3 ir.%ki Vu'.$ t. $y , c 12 f o= .o c- L P ;cm=4J y C', w 9— r� �- v- ' .�ci y.s � . '" ;. ��1- d.�.,i9c"i,�i�.tL622, p 1 ,0� �.s ��� Y.ss Sts �� � 1 s nil Gel`, al s Irl `-`�- ° _ fro°li '$Ell L. �:y rIP �'.�X 7 ell `y r' a � ; I i.,r. E3 1: 04 610 LADWP FOlMER SEAL BEACH W Ocean Avenue and First Street. Orange County, California TC-11541-01 JUNE 200:L David uu, Ph.D., Program Manager BC15 13421 ee Tetra Tech, 1,'?C. Site-Speciflc QuantitatIve Risk Evalu ation Supplemental Sol! !nve—=igatlon������� `LADWP Seal Beach Generating Station I Page 30 BCP 13453 rra Ta cly, jr , nc, Tetra Tech also applied the Particulate emission factor (PEF, USEPA, 1996) for evaluating Potential exposures through inhalation of asbestos in airborne Particulates. The PEF is considered more appropriate for a quantitative risk evaluation because it incorporates factors that may provide a more realistic estimate of the asbestos concentrations in ambient air. ft� L`-1.3 Risk Characterizatiow L_ L-AdWP Sea--I'Beach Generating f 4�, �,e- ral- 0 P jam, /. CAA f- j- IC "CJJ age 3r, QP 13454. ? J1 C'I A -0 -) 71 Tech, Inc. construction worker during redevelopment activities Is 2.3 x 10-7 conservative value of I X 10-6. 1 well below the most Under the assumed exposure conditions 10-7 Of a hotel or recreational land use scenario, tNe estimated risks is 1.6 x which is aj�O�l Most stringent level of I x 10-6, 11 below the SL Since potential on-site exposures will not likely cause �Uman­ dealt effe-EE, —1t k expected that the health effect or risk will be further reduced due to dilution for the surrounding off"Elte areas. Therefore, the site-specift, quantitative health risk assessment demonstrates that the Potential estimated risks associated with the different future redevelopment scenarios are acceptable, However, due to the historical presence of asbestos at the site may require asbestos monitoring. future construction activities in, 5.2 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND METALS RESULTS 19M 09 L ... A �­'.-fl 111c,'dugallon 8a Beach Generating Station Page 32 is it Acetone Benzine 169.4 Trace 11600,06-0 ifi 200,00 2-Butanone Effiylbe�zene 196.4 j, 650 00 7,3 11500 P-1sopropyltaluene Trace Trace 230,000 26,0oo 230,000 Isopropylbenzen6 Methyl Iodide Trace NA 160,000 NA 520,000 +Methyl_2� tanone Trace Trace NA Il NA Naphthalene Styrene 25.2 NA 56000 NA Toluene Trace 3.1 1, 7 00 000 ' 190,000 1,7006 ,000 1,1,4-TOmethyl • Trace 520,000 520,000 1,35-Urne 1� Trace 52,000 21,000 170,000 Trace 210 64t 70,000 1 4— L ... A �­'.-fl 111c,'dugallon 8a Beach Generating Station Page 32 Supplemental Sail Investigation Page 83 LADWP Seal Beach Genera#ing Station BCP 13456 M L73 October 2, 2011 IF M 77 4 jj o 10 9 033 i33 3o a 071 TT7 DIE R �3 REV KE 30 1 a i I 33 - 33 0 °3a''3 1 j 1 q sao 5 z a- I a 1 a I -. - a & Kni 5 5 Q i HIM 11--aho z -i i D C- gm a N 222 its S °} all HlM f i K gyp moo aoa g g I 000 g g rut put c c p c c TZ bbgbb ANON M INA, September 27, 2011 RE! Bay City's Proposed Development in Seal Beach Attached is the contact information for Dudek, the consultant pe forming the soils testing; and RBF, Robert Bein William Frost, who are preparing the EIR. They are both reputable large engineering consulting firms, which 1 feel are competent in the work they perform. However, I take exception to the applicant's proposal at the City council meeting, as reported by the Sun, that the asbestos sampling for testing will be done only to a depth of 6 inches below ground surface. This is abnormal in my experience of. environmental assessments going back to 1985. Usually, additional sampling performed at deeper intervals to cover at least the anticipated depth of trenching and possible grading that may occur on a site would be expected. l would propose sampling a 2.5 ft, 5 ft, 10 ft, and possibly 15 ft (if an underground parking structure is planned). Two recognized standard tests for asbestos analysis of bulk samples are Polarized tight Microscopy (PLM) and Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). PLM can measure asbestos fibers greater in size that 5 microns, while TEM can measure fibers 5 microns and less. TEM is a more costly test. in my experience, It is possible to have barely any detectable asbestos with a PLM test, but when otherwise tested with TEM the amount of asbestos found in the samples were as much as 201. The type of testing selected should be based on the anticipated size range of the particles. For example, if you are assessing a former automotive break repair shop TEM testing would be warranted, if you are checking the popcorn ceiling in a house or the attic insulation you would use PLM testing. Sometimes PLM testing is used as a first screen and followed up with TEM testing, as deemed necessary. I would like to further say, one would not normally buy a house without an inspection and termite assessment. Nor, would one acquire or accept industrial property without doing diligent sampling and testing. Therefore, for that portion of land that the City of Seal Beach will he either granted directly or the manner of some form of property line adjustments, that testing for a wider range of contaminants should he required of the applicant. I suggest additional sampling and testing for California Administrative Manual (CAM) 17 metals (Le. heavy metals), Method 8015 for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), EPA Method 8082 for poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and EPA Method 82608 for volatile organic compounds (VOCs). My primary concerning knowing that the facility had formerly been a power plant would be the potential that electrical transformer oil may have been spilled that was whole or in part comprised of PCBs. This is my perspective and advice given a very limited knowledge of the property use and what I have so far heard about the potential contaminants of concern being asbestos and arsenic (as hearsay). Best Regards, -� 11 -10 JAMES C. CAVIOLA, JR, ATTORNEY AT LAW 20422 BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE 415 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 TELEPHONE (714) 969 -9111 July 6, 2011 SENT VIA FACSIMILE & USPS City of Seal �3eaeh 211 811 Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 (552) 430 -8763 ATTN: Mr. Mark Persico, AICP RBF Consulting 19725 Alton Parkway Irvine CA 92618 ('94 9) 4.72 --3742 ATTN: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP Mr, Eddie Torres, INCE, REA FACSIMILE (714) 969 -4911 city of Smii Scan h t [)tO'arlmclt of . } RE: DWP Environmental Impact Report Checkliat Dear Messrs. Persico, Lajoie and Torres: Enclosed is a map of the asbestos and two 2,400 gallon tanks with oil sludge.in the - contaminated area of the DWP land, I have also enclosed the December 1, 1986, 3 page update, of the contamination, I would like the issue of the contamination to be- addressed in the EIR report - i.e.:. has it been cleaned up, what is the oast of the cleanup, -and haw does the contamination- affect any pro Jects for the DWP site? I am requesting all records which prove the actual cleanup process. actually occurred, including certificates, etc., be included -in the EIR. Thank you. JC /ps Enclosure 11 -14 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JAMES CAVIOLA, DATED DECEMBER 15, 2011. 11 -1 The contamination is in reference to the findings presented in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Parsons in 2000); refer to Appendix 11.9, Hazardous Materials Data, of the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 5.10 -13 of the Draft EIR, the 2000 Parsons Investigation concluded that residual asbestos is present in localized areas of site soils at levels that could pose an adverse threat to human health under certain types of land use. Specifically, future activities that result in significant fugitive dust exposure to an on -site receptor could cause a potential inhalation health risk. The following recommendations were included as part of this investigation: ■ Given the presence of residual asbestos in certain areas of the site, the need for importing clean fill should be considered as part of the land use planning process. The need for this should consider whether the future land use could result in significant fugitive dust exposure potential in areas with known near - surface asbestos. The amount of clean fill required to ensure protectiveness would depend upon the ultimate land use. For example, no fill would be required if the site were to be covered such that the soils were unavailable for contact (e.g., parking areas; building foundations, concrete- of asphalt- covered areas, etc.). Only a small amount of clean cover (e.g., approximately one foot) would be needed if little or no soil disturbance was likely to occur (e.g., landscaping). However, a larger amount of clean fill would likely be needed if there is a significant potential for subsurface disturbances (e.g., residential, playground, etc.). ■ Entering into a voluntary cleanup agreement (VCA) with the DTSC should be considered to conclusively demonstrate that site conditions are protective of human health or to determine the scope of any mitigation measures. Determining the need for DTSC involvement should be based on the likely future use of the property and the corresponding potential for adverse human health impacts. Based on follow up investigations conducted in 2011 by Dudek (see Appendix 11.9, Hazardous Materials Data, of the Draft EIR), asbestos at the project site would not exceed thresholds for residential uses. Based on the existing conditions at the project site and the proposed residential and passive /recreation uses at the site, DTSC involvement and the need for soil import is not anticipated. Further, an asbestos monitor during construction activities would not be required. Thus, asbestos in soils at the project site are anticipated to result in less than significant impacts due to the lack of asbestos sampled above regulatory thresholds. 11 -2 It is the opinion of Dudek that the maximum excavation depth of 10 feet, considered as part of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Parsons in 2000), is a conservative approach, as on -site excavation activities for the proposed project would not be greater than 10 feet. Any possible asbestos containing materials located greater than 10 feet below ground surface would not be disturbed by the proposed project and completion of the proposed project would not result in the potential dermal, inhalation, or ingestion of any materials located greater than 10 feet below ground surface. Previous investigations conducted at the project site have established that asbestos contamination at up to 10 -foot depths was associated with construction debris only. Final • April 2012 2 -94 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report As stated on page 5.10 -15 (Conclusion) of the Draft EIR, site disturbance /demolition activities could expose workers to a variety of potentially hazardous materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 through HAZ -4 would reduce potential impacts from site disturbance /demolition activities that could result in the case of accidental exposure at the project site. If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor, which he /she believes may involve hazardous wastes /materials, the contractor would be required to comply with the following (Mitigation Measure HAZ -5): • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach; • Secure the areas as directed by the City Engineer; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator. Compliance with these mitigation measures would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. 11 -3 Human Health Risk Assessments were prepared by Parsons Engineering Science and Tetra Tech. These risk assessments were based on the results of over 400 asbestos samples that were collected from the site and analyzed. Both risk assessments estimated risks for residential use below or within the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) "acceptable risk" range of 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6 (EPA National Contingency Plan [Section 40 of Code of Federal Regulations 300]). Although the findings are below the EPA's "acceptable risk" range, these studies included conservative recommendations, including excavation. However, based on these investigations, as well as those conducted in 2011 as part of the Draft EIR, all of the asbestos samples collected to date have been below the EPA's "acceptable risk" range for residential uses (which is 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6 ). Human health risk was estimated for various development scenarios using data collected by Parsons Engineering Sciences and Tetra Tech. Estimated risk ranged from 9.8x10 -6 for a residential exposure scenario to 1.6x10 -' hotel /recreation exposure scenario. Based on the data, the estimated risk is within or below EPA's "acceptable risk" range of 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6. Thus, the Draft EIR concludes that, based on the hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, no hazardous materials of concern, including asbestos, have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential use for soils at the project site. Consequently, because conditions on the project site are below regulatory thresholds relating to hazardous materials, there is no basis for concluding that the project presents any risk to human health or that any additional clean fill is required. Finally, it should be noted that in order to provide the most conservative analysis possible, the residential thresholds would apply to the entire project site, including areas proposed for passive recreational use (e.g., a tot lot). 11 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -3 pertaining to asbestos in soil. 11 -5 Refer to Responses to Comments 11 -3 pertaining to asbestos is soil and 21 -31 regarding arsenic in soil. Final • April 2012 2 -95 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 11 -6 It is believed, based on available information, that petroleum- related materials (e.g., an oil tank) were demolished on -site. Based on Exhibit F provided as part of Letter 11, fuel oil was found at the bottom of two 2,500 - barrel concrete underground storage tanks and the associated feeder pipeline. Fuel oil and water in the tanks were removed off -site and the tanks were excavated and removed under oversight from the Orange County Fire Department. Tank sides and bottoms were crushed and used onsite as fill. Appurtenant piping was removed. Visual observations and soil samples collected at the bottom of the tank excavations reportedly did not indicate contamination of soil or groundwater. Thus, based on the information presented in Exhibit F, provided as part of Letter 11, the previous concrete underground storage tanks did not result in contamination and were crushed in place on -site per the oversight of the Orange County Fire Department. Although the former underground storage tanks are not anticipated to have resulted in on- site contamination, because of the project site's past involvement with petroleum- related products (or polycychc aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs]), the 2011 hazardous materials investigations included sampling for PAHs within on -site soils. As stated on page 5.10 -3, last paragraph, and 5.10 -4, second paragraph, of the Draft EIR, detections of PAHs, including carcinogenic PAHs (CPAHs) were detected on -site by Dudek in 2011. CPAHs are typically present in soils in older industrial areas. Dudek reviewed the Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC's) guidance document Use of the Northern and Southern California Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Studies in the Manufactured Gas Plant Site Cleanup Process. This advisory document describes methodology useful in determining whether soil PAH concentrations are representative of ambient PAH levels and provides guidance on ambient PAH concentrations specific to southern California. PAHs are the byproduct of a number of anthropogenic and natural processes including fossil fuel combustion, oil spraying, various industrial processes, fires, and volcanic activity. PAH concentrations not attributed to a specified source are frequently observed in soils and represent ambient concentrations. The DTSC has compiled and analyzed 185 soil samples from 22 sites throughout Southern California and produced a data set representative of ambient background PAH soil characteristics. PAH concentrations in soil at the project site were within the ambient background PAH concentrations. Naphthalene, acenaphthene, and pyrene were detected in one groundwater sample at 0.56 micrograms per liter (ug /L), 0.30 ug /L and 0.23 ug /L respectively. These concentrations were compared to groundwater standards published by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and EPA. The detected concentrations were below both the RWQCB's and EPA's groundwater standards. The remaining four groundwater samples all reported concentrations of PAHs below the detection limit. Thus, the detected PAHs on -site appear to be similar to the background levels for regional levels in the County and are anticipated to be below regulatory thresholds for residential use. 11 -7 The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) letter dated August 3, 1987 (provided in At2nendix 11.911.9, Hazardous Materials Data, of the Draft EIR), is maintained by the Orange County Health Care Agency. The letter states that DWP has completed an extensive cleanup program at the Seal Beach Generating Station site. More than 3,500 cubic yards of potentially contaminated soil and debris were safely removed and properly disposed. Over 400 air samples were taken, none of which exceeded the permissible exposure limits (PELs). DWP, in accordance with the Cleanup Plan submitted and approved by OCHCA, has Final • April 2012 2 -96 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report sampled, tested, removed contaminated soil and debris, re- sampled and verified that the site has been cleaned of asbestos (see Attachment A following this response). It should be noted that Attachment A includes a series of Letters and Memorandums in descending order (from recent to past), between the DWP and their affiliates and the OCHCA. The most recent Memorandum, dated August 17, 1987, confirms that "...no further action is needed... ", per the Orange County Health Care Agency, at the DWP site, and that "...the cleanup has been completed." The Final Letter, dated August 3, 1987, states that "...remediation of all known soil contamination has been completed." It was also noted that the Orange County Health Care Agency "...would like to take this opportunity to commend the DWP for the cooperation, professional conduct, and concern for public health that was exhibited during the remediation of the site." The Final Report (dated March 1986) is an executive summary of a much larger report prepared by the DWP. The report summarizes the major activities associated with the asbestos cleanup efforts from July 1986 to the completion of cleanup in February 19987. Based on the conclusions and findings provided in the executive summary, "DWP has completed an extensive cleanup program at the Seal Beach Generating Station site. More than 3,500 cubic yards of potentially contaminated soil and debris were safely removed and properly disposed. Over 400 air samples were taken of which none exceeded the PEL. DWP, in accordance with the Cleanup Plan submitted and approved by OCHCA, has sampled, tested, removed contaminated soil and debris, resampled and verified that the site has been cleaned of asbestos." 11 -8 The human health risk assessment results presented in the Tetra Tech report (Tetra Tech, 2001) are below or within EPA's "acceptable risk" range of 1x10 -4 to 1x10 -6 (EPA National Contingency Plan [Section 40 Code of Federal Regulations 300]), as discussed in detail in Response to Comment 11 -3. The Tetra Tech report states: "Therefore, the site - specific, quantitative health risk assessment demonstrates that the potential estimated risks associated with the different future redevelopment scenarios are acceptable." Thus, the Draft EIR concludes that, based on the hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, no hazardous materials of concern have been detected above regulatory thresholds for residential use for soils at the project site. 11 -9 It should be noted that Tetra Tech, Inc's., June 2001 Supplement Soil Investigation Report is intended to be a supplemental investigation, in addition to the previous on -site documentation (including the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment conducted by Parsons Engineering Sciences in February 2000. Page 20 of the Report states that "In addition, to gather data from areas not previously investigated, the near surface soil samples (3 -foot samples from SBGS -25 to SBGS -28, and 1 -foot and 3 -foot samples from SBGS -29 through SBGS -32) from the exploratory soil borings were analyzed for Asbestos using both PLM and TEM Methods." Thus, the 3 -foot sample taken at SBGS -25 was intended to provided data that was not previously investigated. This sample depth was intentional by Tetra Tech, and was not a result of a limitation of concrete present at a greater depth. The report goes on to state that SBGS -25 was also sampled for organic compounds and metals. With regard to organic compounds, SBGS -25 was Non - Detect for CI (pesticides) and TPH (gasoline and diesel). Trace concentrations of VOCs were detected below the Final • April 2012 2 -97 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report PQL. Based on these results, organic compounds and metals were detected below the residential PRGs and there does not appear to be a need for soil cleanup in this regard. Although the need for soil cleanup is not apparent at this time, it is anticipated that some concrete foundations were left underground during demolition of the former on -site generating station. Unknown materials could be present underground and may be encountered during site disturbance activities. As stated on page 5.10 -15 (Conclusion) of the Draft EIR, if unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction by the contractor, which he /she believes may involve hazardous wastes /materials, the contractor would be required to comply with the following (Mitigation Measure HAZ -5): • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach; • Secure the areas as directed by the City Engineer; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -5, any unanticipated hazardous materials encountered during grading would be properly remediated, as required by the OCHCA. As discussed in the Draft EIR, impacts in this regard would be reduced to less than significant levels after implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures. 11 -10 It is noted that the Commenter provided Exhibit "J" within Letter 11. However, no specific comments on the Draft EIR are included in Exhibit "J," which states the commenter's position on asbestos sampling. Accordingly, no further response is required. Final • April 2012 2 -98 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report ATTACHMENT A Orange County Health Care Agency Letter, dated August 3, 1987 Final • April 2012 2 -99 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report August 17, 1997 MEMORANDUM YO: Bob Nelson, City Manager oM: Ed Knight, Director of Development Services SUBJECT. Final Report, OWP Asbestos Cleanup Attached with this memo is regarding the DWP site. The of a much larger report pr Power. As the letter from action is needed on the completed. L r AL �_ the final letter and cleanup report final report Is an executive summary epared by the Department of Water and the County indicates* no further OWP site, and the cleanup has been Final • April 2012 2 -100 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report UI�1TYtANt TOM utrta I DIRECTOR q%' HEALTH CARE AGENCY CAROL D. KISER W+�E {vOw e. nR,�i wi yrwarrQn ADMIHISTPATIVS SERVICES Sig 94. RYCAMORC BANTA ANA. CALII6RNIA 0*701 17, A) 884-4447 The ,undersigned declares: Re: Approved clean -up report and Final letter to DWP of Seal Beach, CA 1. 1 am the duly authorised Custodian of Records delivered herewith and have the authority to certify these records as to their authenticity. 2. Th copies of records accompanying this Declaration are true cupie5 pf all of the records desti1bed in your request in this action to the extent 1 havt them. 3. The records were prepnred in the ordinary course of th+e business concerned at or near the time of thR act. condition, or event which they depict. Ex ,ecuted at Santa Ana, California this 12th day of August, 1987. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. _an-Mari Le'acy ustodian ai Records Health Care Agency County of orange JMLlth 0019H Final • April 2012 2 -101 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report �4 [) LJ s�ITY C]� RAftitG E 1" 7 5 3 HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH AND MEDICXL SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH F. August 3, 1967 Rice Allison City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power P. 0.. gvx 111 Los Angeles, CA 90051 Dear Mr. Allison: Ttw URA& PIKICT A L. ftr;X FHONG,. M.D HE A kr"OrFI[4I i72i WEST T7TMgTACE- SANTA AfSA, rA 9270, TiL O -0-46s 7it /Ya4•740' /ANILlnG APOREIS F.D. Box SS: S.AINTA AN- CA 1270: This is in response to your request for a confirmation of the completion of this remediation project. With the provision that the results obtained during the site investigation and cleanup were accurate and representative of existing conditions, it is the position of this office that remediation of all known soil contamination has been completed. It sh"I d be pointed out that this letter does not relieve you of any re- sponsibilities mandated under the California Health and Safety Code if additiun,�l or previously unidentified contamination is discovered at the subject Site, 1 Oro old also like to take this opportunity to commend the €7epartinent of Water and Power for the cooperation, professional conduct, and concern for public health that was exhibited during the remediation of the site. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, Please contact Fred Gaggioli at (714) 83p -7763. Very truly yo rs, William Diekinann, R. S, M. S. Supervissnq Hazardous Waste Specialist Waste Management suction Env i rcnrnental Heal tFj WD:ljs Final • April 2012 2 -102 Response to Comments we City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Report to Orange County Health Care Agency Environmental Health waste Management SectioL Final Cleanup Report Seal Beach Generating Station Property March 1986 Prepared by: nos Angeles Department of Water and Power Final • April 2012 2 -103 Response to Comments M City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents Pa5e S 1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. Cleanup Plan and Procedures . . . . . . 1 Eli. Grid Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 IV. Air Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 V. Area Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -5 VI. Conclusions and Findings. . . . . . . . 5 Attachments 1. Soil Samples Taken at Seal Beach Generating Station 2. hazardous waste Manifests 3. Dates and Corresponding Activities at Seal Beach Generating Station During Which Fiber Counts Exceeded 14 Percent of the Permissible Exposure Level. 4. Nicsh Fiber Count Sheets S. Site map Final • April 2012 2 -104 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Final Report: Seal Beach Generating Station Asbestos Cleanu I _ taw The Seal Beach G+rner4ting Station (SBGS) property is located at First Street and Ocean Avenue in Seal Beach, California,. The SBGS was a 75— neegawatt fuel Gil — fired facility which Jopserated for 42 years until July of 1966. The superstructure was demolished and removed in 1967. Remaining substructures in the northern one third W" the site were removed in May of 1966. Demolition proceeded on the southern tiro thirds of the site whereupon in June of 1966 asbestos Was discovered. This report summarizes the major activities associated with the asbestos cleanup efforts from July 1986 to the completion of - cleaanup in February 1387. I1. Gle&nU Flan (plan) and Procecures The Flan, was submitted tv the County of orange Health Carp- Agency (OCHCA) in November of 1986 and stated as an objective, " ..tn safely remove all asbestos to contamination levels agreed to by OCiICA." Based on a review of existing regulations, the level agreed to was established at one percent by weight. �. Based an the agreed upon sampling plan, tests of 217 sail samples taken duriliq September and October of 1986 indicated 28 contaminated sa€npleS (see Attachment 1). These samples were ccrcentrated in the turbine /bailer bay areas. As investigation anti. removal proceeded, other samples mere found to !>e contaminated. Suspected Contaminated Area Sampling The Plan concentrated on areas associated with contaminated samples along with other areas suspected to be contaminated because of the presence of construction debris. The typical prncedure3 for each area was tO obtain and analyze samples, assess results, remove material as necessary to meet established standards, and resaample to verify cleanup. Contaminated soil and debris were collected and shipped under hazardous waste manifest (see Attachment 2} to an approved landfill site. Material not immediately placed in trucks for %hipping was dampened, piled upon visqueaen, and covered with same until loading. Large pieces of contaminated concrete were remcvtd, washed in the boiler bay area, and stockpiled in a segregated area immediately north of the turbine bap area. The larger concrete pieces Brill be broken and used as backfill during the demolition phase. Large pieces of steel were removed to an approved landfill. I Final • April 2012 2 -105 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Extensive wdtering procedures werc instituted throughout the cleanup phase to minimize any potential of airborne dust. "Water supply to the site was established and a water - spreading truck and 11-111 tank were Located at the site during cleanup to accomplish the necessary watering. III. Grid Sampling Grid samples were taken to establish the overall site contamination other than previously identified areas. Thirty specific points were originally selected to provide sampling locations. The paints were sited on 100 -foot Centers as approved by OCKCA. Twenty -seven of the locations were eventually sampled at 2 -inch and 18-inch depths. The samples were taken on September 11, 1986, Three locations were not sampled due to the presence of obstructionu. Three individual samples were not taken at each of the three locations due to partial obstructions. one additional sample was taken on September Ile 1906 from the asphalt pile yielding a total of 52 samples taken. The 52 samples taken provided an evaluation of the extent of asbestos contamination at the site. Only one of the grid samples taken (near the steam line) showed positive for asbestos above the permissible level. Accordingly, a cubic -� yard of sail was removed from the immediate area. A follow -up sample in this area tested negative .indicating no further asbestos contamination. IV. Air Sampling over 400 ambient air samples have been takers throughout the cleanup phase with the exception Qf October and November during which minimal activity occurred at the site (see Attachment 3). None of the air samples collected exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL} of p,2 fibers /cc (this is the new FEL,; the previous level was 2 fibers /cc ). Per the request of OCHCA, included with this report is a table listing those air samples measurin5 greater than 16 percent of the PEL and the activities at the site when those samples were taken (see Attachment 4). V. Area Histories Seven specific areas (plus the steam line) within the SHGS site were delineated for cleanup purposes. This section provides a brief overview of the cleanup activities in each area (see Attachment 5), Area 1 Area 1 contained large amounts of brick and other cunatruction debris to a depth of approximately 12 feet. 2 Final • April 2012 2 -106 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Seven initial samples were taken in the area September 12, 1986 under the supervision of OCHCA. Samples were taken at the surface at 2-foot and 4 -foot depths. Six of the seven samples exceeded the permissible level for asbestos. Material from this area (approximately 750 cubic yards) was rasxaved to an appr *ved landfill. Following this removal, 10 additional samples were taken February 9, 1987 (with OCACA present) around the perimeter of the area. 'iwo of these .F samples reined above permissible levels necassitating a further removal of approximately 30 cubic yards. Two final samples taken February 13, 1987 (with OCHCA present) and February 16, 1967 tested below permissible levels (one each day). Area 2 Area 2 consisted of two substructures remaining from a switching rack implacement. Four concrete slabs and 12 footings were removed from this area with heavy equipment and placed with other large collected concrete pieces at the site. Eighteen soil samples were then taken in this area on September 1.5, 1986 with GCHCA present. Samples were taken at.the surfaou at 2 -font and 4 -foot depths. All samples tested negative and the area was declares in compliance with the Play. Area 3 Area 3 was comprised of a large expanse of brick debris (approximately 250 square feet and 2 feet deep) remaining fron the plant superstructure. Nine samples were taken September 15; 1986 with OCHCA present. Samples were taken at the surface at 2 -foot and 4 -foot depths. All samples tested negative upon analysis and the area was declared in compliance with the Plan. Area 4 Area 4 consisted of soil remaining fron the berm of a fuel oil storage tank area. This area was located in the northeast corner of the site. Eighteen samples were taken in the area on September 15, 1986 with OCHCA present. Samples were taken at the surface at 2 -foot and 4 -foot depths. Asbestos was found in two sanples. Approximately 100 cubic yards of material were removed from the ,two areas where high readings had occurred and transported to an appropriate landfill. The two areas were resampled on November 24, 19$6 with one of the samples indicating a high reading. more material was removed from this area and a final sample way- taken can Decenber 31, 1986 which tested negative, - 3 - Final • April 2012 2 -107 Response to Comments y City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Aria 5 Area 5 consisted of brick and other construction debris. The debris ccvered an area of apprdxMnately 500 square feet at a depth of approximately 4 feet. 17ifte-en samples were taken on September 11, 1986 at the surface, at 2-foot and 4 -toot depths with OCHCA present. All samples tested negative and the area was declared in compliance L'with the Plan. Area 6 Area 6 was located next to, and partially overlapped, the ,south end of the turbine bay. This area ccntained a large pile of brick and construction debris. pifteen samples were taken in this area on September 11 and 12, 1985 with OCHCA present. Samples were taken at the surface at 2 -foot and 4 -foot depths, Four samples tested positive and, accordingly, approximately 30 cubic yards of material were removed. Two mere samples were taken on December Ifs, 1906 with one sample providing a positive result for asbestos. Ten more cubic yards of material were removed and another sample was taken on December 19, 1986. When this sample tested positive, more material was rw,anoved and another tuo samples were taken on January 16, 1987. One of these samples provided a positive result so all remaining material. was removed, leaving only the red -tiled bottom of the turbine bay visible. The tiles were thoroughly cleaned leaving no further material to sample. On February 19, 1987, OCKA verified Area 6 as being cleaned according to the Plan. Area 7 Area 7 consisted of six boiler bays. Two to ton feet of roil covered the area before cleenug operations began. Twenty-six samples were taken on September 12, 1985 in this area at the surface at 6 -inch and 2 -foot depths with OCHCA present, Because 11 of the 26 samples tested positive for asbestos, approximately 2,500 cubic yards of soil and debris were removed from this area and taken to an approved landfill. The rubble was chtirely removed leaving only the exposed Concrete slab which was thoroughly cleaned and vacuumed. On rabruary L8, 1987, 001CA verified the area as cleaned according to the Plan [see Attachment 51. Turbine Bay The turk�ine bay,was originally covered with several pockets of soil and debris. Fifty - eight samples were taken in the *J turbine bay area on October 28, 1986. Eight samples tested - 4 - Final • April 2012 2 -108 Response to Comments MA City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report positive for asbestos and the area surrDundinq these sample locations was cleaned to the level of the concrete slab. six new samples were taken on December 9, 1986 of which one tested positive for asbestos. This area was recleaned and vacuumed to remove all material. One additional area on the turbine bay was sampled December 19, 1956 and tested negative. On February 18, 19B7, DCHCA verified the turbine bay area as cleaned according to the Plan. kSteam Line A 2 -inch steam line at a depth of 3 -10 feet and partially wrapped with asbestos was discovered connecting Areas 4 and 7. The steam line was divided into five Sections A thru F. These are illustrated on Attachment SA. After uncovering the steam line in Section A, four samples were taken on November 7, 1996 and one tested positive for asbestos. The samples were taken at a depth of 3 -10 feet along the trench. After cleanup, one further sampling was undertaken cn February 24, 1967 at the location that had previously tested positive. The sample tested negative. 1p Section 8, the steam line and several larger diameter pipes had already been removed prior to asbestos discovery. As a result, no material remained in this area. After removal of the remaining pipe, three samples were taken along the steam line in section C. Section C runs northwesterly as indicated in Attachment 5A. These samples were taken on December 9, 1966 ar.6 all graved negative. After uncovering approximately half of the remaining pipe in Section D, two samples were taken on November 7, 1986 and bpth tested positive for asbestos. The samples were taken at a depth of 3 feet along the trench. After cleanup, two further samplings were undertaken at the contaminated location:, on November 25, 1986 and December 9, 1985 (one each day). The samples tested negative. Three other samples taken in Area D on November 25, 1986 also proved negativo. After removal of all remaining pipe in 5cctian D, five additional samples Were taken on December 9, 1996 and all tested negative. After removal of the remaining pipe in Section E, five samples were taken an February 11, 1987 and two tester] positive for ar�bestvs. The samples were taken at a depth of 3 feet along the trench. After cleanup, two further samplings were undertaken on February 19, 1986 at the locations of the previously discovered contaminated samples. These samples tested negative. - Final • April 2012 2 -109 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report VI. Conclusions and Findings - DNP has completed an extensive cleanup program at the Seal beach Generatknq Station site. tivre than 3,500 Cubic yards of potentially contaminated sail, and debris were safely removed and propezly disposed. Over 400 air samples were taken of which none exceeded the PIZL,. DUP, in accordance with the Cleanup Flan submitted and approved by OCHCA, has sampled, tested, removed contaminated soil and debris, resampled and tverified that the site has been cleaned of asbestos. Attachments M Final • April 2012 2 -110 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 12 I have he, ask how the traffic generated from this proposal would be different from a hotel. According to the 8'h edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual, the industry standard, a resort hotel generates 13.43 trips per day. A single family home generates 9.57 trips per day. This means the proposed project would generate 459 trips per day. A 150 room hotel would generate 2014 trips per day. The hotel would generate almost 4 % times or 450% more traffic than the proposed project. This means the proposed project will have a much less impact on traffic than a hotel as permitted under the existing specific plan. A six acre park with 48 homes will be a superior alternative than the current Specific Plan with a 150 room hotel. Icv, Cay of Seat Beach ()epartmeni of 12 -1 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 12. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GARY, CATALINA AVENUE, DATED DECEMBER 15, 2011. 12 -1 As indicated on page 5.5 -21 of the Draft EIR, generation equations and /or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 8th Edition of Trop Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (2008) and San Diego Traffic Generators, published by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (2002). The proposed 6.4 acres of open space /parkland located adjacent to Tentative Tract Map No. 17425, and is expected to include passive recreational uses such as, but not limited to, natural areas with trails, passive turf areas, and neighborhood - serving play areas (e.g., tot lots). Trips were developed for the open space /parkland portion of the proposed project to provide a conservative trip generation forecast using SANDAG Neighborhood Park (undeveloped) trip rates. As discussed on page 7 -17 of the Draft EIR, Table 5.5 -13, Pr'ect Trip Generation, presents the forecast daily and peak hour traffic volumes for the proposed project for a typical weekday, and indicates the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 561 ADT. Table 5.5 -14, Existing ilith Protect Peak Hour Intersection Analysis, summarizes the peak hour LOS results at the study intersections for existing with project conditions and indicates all study intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS based on City of Seal Beach and City of Long Beach performance criteria. Table 5.5 -16, Existing ilith Project Roadway SeQme_�tAnalvsis, summarizes the LOS results at the study roadway segments for existing with project conditions and indicates all study roadway segments are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS under existing with project conditions based on City of Seal Beach performance criteria. Under the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative, a 150 -room hotel would be developed in place of the project's proposed residential uses. Table 7 -2, Comparison of Proposed Project and No ProJectl 1996 DWIP Specic Plan Alternative ADT, presents the forecast daily and peak hour traffic volumes for the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative for a typical weekday, and indicates this Alternative is forecast to generate approximately 1,263 ADT. Therefore, this Alternative could cause a significant increase in traffic for existing and forecast year 2015 conditions when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system. A Traffic Impact Analysis that would evaluate the existing plus DWP Specific Plan peak hour intersection and roadway operating conditions would be required, in order to definitively conclude the potential impacts resulting from implementation of this Alternative. Table 7 -2 also compares the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative trip generation with the proposed project. As indicated in Table 7 -2, the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative is forecast to generate approximately 125 percent more ADT (or 702 more ADT), when compared to the proposed project. Comparatively, the traffic and circulation impacts under the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be greater than the proposed project, given this Alternative would significantly increase the ADT. Therefore, the traffic and circulation impacts that would occur with the proposed project would occur also with this Alternative, however, to a greater degree. The No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be environmentally inferior to the proposed project regarding traffic and circulation impacts due to increased traffic volumes. Final • April 2012 2 -112 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 13 Mario Persico From: Marc Loopesko <mfoopesko@roadrunner.com> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 9:49 AM To: Mark Persico Cc: Seth Eaker; Chi & Nancy Kredell FILE COPY Subject: FINAL EIR QUESTION Mark, mere is my question from last nights DWP Advisory Committee meeting: In the development of the "Alternative Housing Development Plan ", why were only 25' wide lots considered ? Old town, especially the immediate streets (Ocean Ave.) have 37`, 50` or more width lots? Thank you, Marc Loopesko 244 - 7th St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6153 (562) 493 -1015 mloopesko@roadrunner.com 13 -1 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MARC LOOPESKO, DATED DECEMBER 15, 2011. 13 -1 The minimum permitted lot width permitted by the City is 25 feet. The Applicant has chosen to propose lot widths of 25 feet in order to maximize development on the project site. Therefore, this decision was also carried out in the development of the Modified Layout Alternative, which proposes lots widths of 27 feet along Marina Drive and 32.5 feet along 1" Street (which would be wider that the project's proposed 25 -foot widths along both Marina Drive and 1" Street). Also, refer to Response to Comment 10 -2. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -114 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 14 From: Monroe <bandcmonroe a,earthIink,net> Date: Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 4:23 PM " ILE COPY Subject: Re: Lunch? To: Seth 1laker <seth @blackmarbleconsultin xoni> Outstanding review last night. Very professional. No one raised any issues about the open space parkland other than removing some lots to get back to 70130. How about a raised view point and tide pools in cooperation with the Aquarium showing sea level rise and holding marine debris and toxins upstream? 14 -1 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 14. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BRUCE MONROE, DATED DECEMBER 16, 2011. 14 -1 The Commenter is requesting a raised view point and expresses concern over tide pools and marine debris and toxins. Key viewpoints are only required to be selected and simulated from public viewpoints, as stated on Draft EIR page 5.2 -2 within Section 5.2, Aestbetics /Light and Glare. Therefore, as there are no publicly accessible locations at higher elevations in the vicinity of the project site, a raised viewpoint is not required to be analyzed within the Draft EIR. According to Section 5.3, Biological Resources, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation. As stated in Section 5.11, Hydrology and mater -Quaff, the project would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 14WQ -1 through HWQ -8 which would reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant levels. Final • April 2012 2 -116 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 15 Page I of I From: Rita Strickroth [mailto:rbsrambo@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 12 :01 PM To: Mark Persico Subject: Comments Re: DWP EIR Hello Mark, Here is a copy of my EIR remarks per your request. 15 -1 I would like to see the goals of the DWP parcel developed with the 70134 preserved and would still allow for a nice community of homes. Thank you Rita Strckroth DWP Advisory I would like to begin my remarks reviewing the Goals and Objectives for the property as set forth in the draft EIR on page 1 -2 1. To create a high - quality residential project that PRESERVES the PUBLIC Views of the water. 2. To design and build a residential neighborhood that extends the existing Urban form of the OLD TOWN Neighborhood by replicating street Layout, lot patterns, and building form, 3. To ENHANCE the OPEN SPACE and recreational opportunities for the Residents of Seal Beach. 4. To PRESERVE public access to the beach through continued use of the San Gabriel River Bike Trail and First Street Beach Parking Lot. To incorporate sustainable design and construction practices to the Greatest degree practical. The 70/30 Plan on what is known as the "DWP" property is a Commitment that was made to the People of Seal Beach Many years ago... PRESERVE 70% of this Oceanside parcel as open space and allow development on the northerly 30 %........ Remember our Commitment is 70130! The "DWP" Specific Plan ( 3112196 - Page 5) states and I quote "visitor serving uses SHALL be limited to the northerly 30% of the DWP Parcel, more specifically to the area adjacent to Marina Drive and First St In all cases vistors- serving SHALL be limited to the area NORTH of an Imaginary westerly prolongation of Central Way". This description encompasses 10.7 acres ( not the 9 acres that is commonly Stated. 70 %❑ of 10.7 acres = 7.5 acres. Please note that the middle of the last paragraph on page 1 -51 states that and I quote "This alternative ( ie, the 1996 Specific Plan) varies from the proposed project in that it has an additional 1.1 acres of open space "... This statement makes it clear that we are being asked to amend the Specific Plan to DECREASE the open space designation from 7.5 acres to 6.4 acres .....Remember our Commitment is 7.5 acres of Open Space ..... 70/34 15.2 15.3 15.4 The General Plan correctly states that Visitor- serving uses are limited to the northerly portion "... It does not place limits on the northerly portion as stated in the EIR (page 3 -5). On the same page, last paragraph there is another incorrect statement, quote, The DWP" Specific Plan designates the land south of Central Way as Open Space ".... Section 4 of the Specific Plan Regarding Open Space makes NO reference to Central Way.... In Fact the term "South of Central Way" is not found anywhere in the Specific Plan. 15 -5 On page 5.1.4L.. The middle paragraph states the 48 house proposal is Approximately 41% residential and 59% Open Space..... Remember our 15 -6 Commitment is 70130... 41159 falls way short. What is the residential to Open Space percentages on the Alternative Plan? Well, If you count the road as part of the residential ( which I believe the City is doing) the percent breakdown will be very similar to the 41159% (with the 41 House plan) Instead of 11 houses built ON TOP of the imaginary projection of Central Way we now have a real projection of Central Way. The only slight difference is the City's 10 foot right of way. Once the calculations are done The 41 House Alternative might provide something like 2,750 sq f1 more. Remember The Goals speak to PRESERVE the Public Views, and ENHANCING the Public OPEN SPACE .... So how do we do that ? How do achieve the 70% - 7.5 Acres of OPEN SPACE that stays true to the Commitment and still allow the developer to create His residential building lots to potential homebuilders? The 13 Riverfront Homes as noted in Exhibit 7 -1 sits on A little over 0.85 acres according to the Table of Lot Sizes provided to our committee. If an Alternative layout eliminated this row, the currently proposed 6.4 acres would increase to about 7.25 acres. This would allow for 28 -35 homes depending on the layout, but most importantly allows the PEOPLE of Seal Beach to Preserve the Public Views of our gorgeous Sunsets, the Long Beach Marina, and the Palos Verdes hills. It ENHANES the OPEN SPACE thereby Fulfilling the Commitment to the Seal Beach Residents of sticking to the 70/30 plan approved so many years ago. 15 -T 15 -8 15 -9 I do not believe 2015 build -out is realistic. Unless there is a major turn around in the economy with lending and governmental restrictions as they 15 -10 are, I can not see Ocean Place being fully built out in 3 years from City and Coastal Commission Approvals. I believe we neighbors will be hearing 1540 hammering and nailing far beyond 2015 as the individual lots are turned into single family homes. The narrowing of the Marina Bridge a few years ago and now the proposed narrowing of First Street will make traffic much more noticeable. The 1541 commuter & week -end traffic has already increased with many more cars using the bridge to get to and from the Long Beach side. City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 15. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RITA STRICKROTH, DATED DECEMBER 19, 2011. 15 -1 The Commenter notes that she is in support of a project that is 70 percent open space and 30 percent developed land; refer to Response to Comment 8 -1. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 15 -2 Refer to Response to Comment 15 -1. 15 -3 Refer to Response to Comment 15 -1. In addition, it is noted that the Draft EIR focuses the impact analysis on changes in acreages rather than proportions. The Draft EIR accurately discloses the absolute, rather than the relative, sizes of the existing and proposed land uses for the project area. This approach more accurately communicates the actual environmental changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project than a proportional approach. 15 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 15 -1 and 15 -3. 15 -5 The Commenter states that the term "south of Central Way" is not found in the 1996 DWP Specific Plan and that the Draft EIR is incorrect in utilizing this term. Draft EIR page 3 -5 refers to the southern portion of the project site as "south of Central Way" solely as a term to assist the reader in identifying the portion of the site being referenced. See Response to Comment 8 -1. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 15 -6 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -1. 15 -7 The Commenter asks about the size of the Open Space area in Alternative 2, Modified Layout Alternative, and suggests the location of the road in Alternative 2 would increase the amount of open space. Table 7 -3 indicates that the open space is 6.4. Such acreage would be increased if the road were considered open space. 15 -8 Implementation of the Alternative 2, Modified Layout Alternative, would result in similar open space acreage as that proposed by the project. Refer to Response to Comment 8 -1, regarding open space. Implementation of the proposed project would only result in a decrease of approximately 0.1 -acre of Open Space. 15 -9 The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No response is necessary. It is noted, however, that the alternatives section of the Draft EIR presents various alternatives and complies with CEQA in this regard. An alternatives analysis need not include every possible alternative; the "range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a `rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice." CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f . Furthermore, the focus of an alternatives analysis is on ameliorating significant, adverse impacts of the proposed project; see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (a) (EIR must describe alternatives that "would Final • April 2012 2 -121 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.... "). Here, the only significant, unmitigable impact caused by the proposed project relates to aesthetics, not to open space or recreation. Thus, the additional alternative suggested by the commenter (further reduction in the number of residential units to increase open space) would present no benefit beyond that in the existing Alternative 2, Modified Layout Alternative, in terms of reducing or eliminating significant impacts caused by the project. 15 -10 The Commenter states that a buildout year of 2015 is unrealistic. As stated on Draft EIR page 3 -12, for the purposes of conducting environmental review and analysis, the document assumes 24 homes per year in 2014 and 2015. This time frame is conservative in that it assumes all of the impacts from the construction of the homes would occur by year 2015, which is a conservative worst -case scenario in regards to environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. Further, construction activities would be restricted to the City's allowable hours. As stated on Draft EIR page 5.8 -16, Municipal Code Section 7.15.025, Exemptions, exempts construction activities from the Noise Ordinance provided that they take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays or holidays. The project is not anticipated to create any significant, unmitigatable noise impacts. 15 -11 15` Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive is primarily a two -lane roadway with on- street parking permitted. The majority of 15` Street maintains a cross section of 40 -feet until the roadway widens north of Central Way at the intersection with Marina Drive to measure 80 feet at its widest point. The project includes a portion ( "Portion ") of existing street right - of -way located at the northeast corner of the site, along 1st Street in that wider area north of Central Way. The project proposes street vacation at that Portion in order to accommodate proposed residential uses at the project site. Such vacation would make the width of 1" Street more uniform, and would eliminate the narrowing of the roadway that currently occurs just south of the intersection, resulting in a consistent roadway cross section of 40- feet for the entire length of 1" Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.0, PrgLect Descrcption, the Portion was part of the DWP site for over 35 years but was acquired by the City in 1977. The City Engineer has opined that it is not needed for public street purposes. Furthermore, a project- specific traffic study was prepared for the proposed project, which took into account the realignment of 1" Street. Table 5.5 -5, Existing Peak Hour Levels of Seivice —Seal Beach and Long Beach, of the Draft EIR indicates that the 1" Street /Marina Drive intersection currently operates at LOS A. Draft EIR Table 5.5 -8, Year 2015 Wlith Pr�Lect Peak Hour Intersection Analysis — Seal Beach and Long Beach, indicates that this intersection would also operate at LOS A and that no significant impact would occur. Final • April 2012 2 -122 Response to Comments To:Mark Persico Director of Development Services Seal Beach (From: Mr. and Mrs. Ken Appeigate Subject: Public Review Draft EIR Comment: City of nE,P,rtrn011 Of i COMMENT LETTER 16 We are happy to see that the consultants have read our comments and others for reducing the amount of homes and giving alternatives. If the Seal Beach Specific plan zone change goes into effect, the Bay City Planners Project Modified 'Layout Alternative 2 is the best for them but still lacks the qualities that a well planned residential area should have. Being reduced to 41 are still too many lots that is not well designed with alleys and main road. We will still be short on the original plan of 70% open space set aside for the public. 16 -1 The buyers will have a water table problem to deal with and the traffic situation. The foundations of the homes, we read, will be mitigated by membrane wraps, etc. to hopefully fix the problem but the traffic, as the Draft EIR states, is predicted to have two in a household. That 76 -2 will be 82 more residents with two cars and more likely will have more than two residents. Adding up to be at least 246 autos added to the traffic and problem parking from the poor design of the lots. Another problem is the way the buyers will be acquiring their property that will amount to at least two years of building or more. One lot at a time and in this financial climate might take a span 76 -3 of five or more years for all to be built out. That means the surrounding areas will have to put up with construction for years. The No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative needs no zone change. A 150 or 60 room hotel that should not have subterranean parking because of liquefaction /high water table. We envision a better footprint with a classy hotel or bed and breakfast that would not be open 2417 featuring waterwise landscaping that could be a showcase for Orange County gardeners. 16 -4 Twenty foot setbacks from Marina Dr. with trees to cushion the noise, light and glare that are expected. "The No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternate would be environmentally superior to the proposed project regarding land use and relevant planning." A shorter construction period with less noise. No drawn out delays until final build out. 1 76 -6 When the original Specific Flan was drawn in 1982 and revised in 1996 by a hard working committee that wanted the finest low rise public building, an architect made a drawing that was beautifully surrounded by native plants and trees. They still have that plan and the California 16 -6 Coastal Commission would most likely approve this one because of their interest in the visitor serving feature. Above all, we will keep our 70 % open space for a park/open space as the Alternative in the I 16 -7 Public Review Draft EIR has stated in their report. We have two alternatives, no zone change hotellbed and breakfast with 150 or less autos, 70 % open space and no added population as opposed to a zone change residential plan by BCP with 250 autos, added population and 59 % open space. For your information of what we know about this property since Libby has lived here for 58 years and Ken grew up across the river from the DWP that was built in 1926: After the DWP plant was torn d this property was once covered by wild sea lavender and whoever was in charge of plowing up non native grass to prevent wildfires a #ways went around each plant so as not to disturb them. It was a beautiful sight to see. Sea lavender thrives on the beach, where it adores the excellent drainage and poor, sandy, or rocky soil. It grew wild on the Seal Beach DWP property and provided food for wildlife. It is gone now and after the marina was built the Great Blue herons that nest in the palms in the spring would fly over the boat marina and head straight for the DWP property to gather nesting material. Thank you for reading this, Libby and Ken Appelgate 845 Mar Vista Ave., Seal Beach 16 -8 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 16. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MR. AND MRS. KEN APPELGATE, DATED DECEMBER 22, 2011. 16 -1 The comment notes the Commenter's opinion regarding the proposed project and the Modified Layout Alternative. The comment does not raise any environmental issues or challenge any portion of the Draft EIR, and therefore no further response is required. 16 -2 The water table experienced at the project site would be similar to current conditions for the adjoining residents to the east of the project site. A high water table underlying the proposed residential uses would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to liquefaction, lateral spreading, settlement, etc., as discussed in Impact Section GEO -2 (on page 5.9 -17 of the Draft EIR. The Commenter is also concerned with the traffic and parking at the project site. A pro) ect- specific traffic study (Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated October 27, 2011, contained within Draft EIR Appendix 11. Tw& Impact Anal) was prepared to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed project on local intersections and regional transportation facilities. As concluded within Section 5.5, Tralfic /Circulation, of the Draft EIR, impacts to traffic would be reduced to less than significant impacts with implementation of recommended mitigation measures. Although parking is not required to be addressed under CEQA, the project's traffic study states that project would be required to adhere to the City's parking requirements contained within the Municipal Code. 16 -3 The Commenter notes that the community would be exposed to construction activities for at least five years. This comment is acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment 15 -10. 16 -4 The Commenter supports the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative, mentioning that the Draft EIR states that this alternative would be environmentally superior. Although the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be environmentally superior with respect to land use, the selection of an environmentally superior alternative must take into consideration all of the impacts analyzed within the Draft EIR and most notably, those impacts concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, as the Modified Layout Alternative would eliminate the project's only significant and unavoidable impact, it has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative. 16 -5 The Commenter requests a shorter construction period in order to reduce noise impacts associated with construction. As stated on Draft EIR page 3 -12, for the purposes of conducting environmental review and analysis, the document assumes 24 homes per year in 2014 and 2015. This time frame is conservative in that it assumes all of the impacts from the construction of the homes would occur by year 2015, which is a conservative worst -case scenario in regards to environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. Further, construction activities would be restricted to the City's allowable hours. As stated on Draft EIR page 5.8- 16, Municipal Code Section 7.15.025, Exemptions, exempts construction activities from the Noise Ordinance provided that they take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Sundays or holidays. The project is not anticipated to create any significant, unmitigatable noise impacts. Final • April 2012 2 -125 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 16 -6 The Commenter states that the California Coastal Commission would likely approve the original plan for the project site under the 1996 DWP Specific Plan. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 16 -7 The Commenter expresses support for a project with 70 percent open space at the project site. This comment is acknowledged. Refer to Responses to Comments 8 -1 and 15 -1. 16 -8 The Commenter supports the No Project /1996 Specific Plan Alternative and notes the previous existence of sea lavender at the project site. It should be noted that Alternative 1.2, No Project /1996 Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Alternative, would result in increased traffic compared to the existing condition (the Alternative would result in 1,263 average daily trips [ADT], compared to the project's 561 AM). Further, this Alternative would only increase the proposed Open Space by approximately 0.1 acre. Refer to Response to Comment 8 -5 pertaining to the baseline conditions for biological impacts from the project. Final • April 2012 2 -126 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 17 Mark Perslco From: Susan Lord <sulordi[ roadrunner.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 2:31 PM To: Mark Persloo Subject: DWP Property Development Concerns There are a number of concerns that my husband and I as 26 year residents of RiverBeach have about the Ocean Place Flan. The three most serious are as follows: Traffic congestion and accident prevention 1. Do not narrow the street, we have enough problems with traffic and ingress and egress at present. 2. Enter Ocean Place off First Street which is less congested and is not impacted by traffic coming at speed over the bridge, Construction Debris Heavy equipment carrying construction debris will not only affect our safe entry and exit from the property, but will also carry trash that will be blown over our property for years to come. It would seem that this development plan is a overall loss to us who have lived here for so many years. We are not opposed to development, but seek a plan that benefits both residents and investors. Sincerely Susan and Vincent Lord! 303 Spinnaker Way 582 -430 -0087 `II.E COPY 17 -1 `V& City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 17. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM SUSAN AND VINCENT LORDI, DATED JANUARY 3, 2012. 17 -1 The Commenter expresses concern over conditions on 15` Street and the proposed entrance to the project site at Marina Drive. Refer to Response to Comment 15 -11 regarding the realignment of 15` Street. Regarding the proposed entrances, Section 10.0 of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project (prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated October 27, 2011), contained within Draft EIR Appendix 11.5, Tralfic Impact Anal, provides an analysis of site access and internal circulation. The project proposes access to the project site via one access location off of Marina Drive and one access location off of 1s` Street. As concluded on page 5.5 -38 of Impact Statement TRA -5, overall, with implementation of recommended mitigation, the proposed project would not result in a hazardous condition either on -site or in the surrounding area. Impacts would be less than significant. 17 -2 The Commenter is concerned that construction activities would result in trash and would affect the safety of residents entering/ exiting River Beach Townhomes. As stated on page 5.2 -16 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure AES -1 would require the preparation of a Construction Management Plan that specifies requirements for equipment and vehicle staging areas, stockpiling of materials, fencing (i.e., temporary fencing with opaque material), and haul routes. Further, Mitigation Measure TRA -1 also requires the Construction Management Plan to address traffic control and limits the allowable hours of hauling oversize loads to off -peak hours. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would require all trucks hauling excavated or graded materials to comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways) to prevent such materials from spilling onto public streets and roads. With the implementation of these Mitigation Measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Final • April 2012 2 -128 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 18 January 6, 2012 Mark Persico, Director of Development Services Linda Devine, City Clerk City of Seal Beach Re: DWP Site and its effect on First Street I would like to state my concern regarding the development of the DWP site. My desire is to keep with the original 70/30 plan. It is my strong preference that no building take place on the beach side of Central Way. 184 I ask that you please address these concerns in the final EIR. Sincerely, Rick Roussell 122 First St. Seal Beach, California City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 18. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM RICK ROUSSELL, DATED JANUARY 6, 2012. 18 -1 The Commenter expresses their support of 70 percent open space at the project site. This comment is acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment 15 -1. Final • April 2012 2 -130 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 19 January 6, 2012 Mark Persico, Director of Development Services Linda Devine, City Clerk City of Seal Beach RE: The Development of the DWP Site and its Impact on First Street The purpose of this letter is to state my concern regarding the development of the DWP site. Please consider the following in the final EIR. 19 -1 1.} How will density of new houses be handled by current infrastructure? My concern is that there will be too many people and too much traffic in a small space. 2.) Will there be a view corridor consideration in the plan; I have invested a great deal of time, money and resources in restoring my 'home to uphold the style of Old Town, historic Seal Beach. The value of 19 -2 our property is very important as well as the surrounding environment. 3.) Traffic & alleys. Will there be alleys pouring onto First Street? If so, will this affect traffic? Our I 19-3 desire is to keep with the original 70/30 plan and have Central be the cut -off for the project. 4.) Aesthetics. As we know there will be building in front of our houses. Our concern is that there will not be a great deal of appealing surroundings left to look at. What will our view look like? 19 -4 When I bought this property I knew that they would eventually build but the plan was to build on only 30% and have 70% of land for all to enjoy. My concern is that aesthetics are not being taken into consideration for the people that have been here over the years. I ask that you please address these concerns in the final EIR. Sincerely, Gwen Gordon 208 First Street Seal Beach, California (526)608 -5565 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 19. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM GWEN GORDON, DATED JANUARY 6, 2012. 19 -1 As concluded in Impact Statements PSU -1 through PSU -11 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to police services, schools, existing or proposed parks and recreation, water and wastewater services, solid waste, or other public facilities. Further, with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure PSU -1, impacts to fire protection services (particularly with regard to traffic signal, electric gates, and other standard conditions that would better allow the Fire Department to serve the project site) would be reduced to less than significant levels. As concluded in Impact Statements TRA -1 through TRA -5 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to Caltrans facilities due to project traffic generation or long -range (buildout year 2030 with project) conditions, and would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs pertaining to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Potential construction- related impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of a Construction Management Plan (Mitigation Measure TRA -1). Further, potential hazardous traffic conditions that could result from the changes at the Marina Drive /15` Street intersection would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures TRA -2 through TRA -4. As concluded in Impact Statements TRA -1 through TRA -4, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the circulation system as a result of the project's additional 561 average daily trips. 19 -2 This comment expresses concerns about potential impacts on view corridors. To the extent that the comment is focused on views from existing, private homes, it is worth noting that CEQA does not require that private views be considered in an EIR. With respect to public viewsheds, as concluded in Impact Statement AES -1 (page 5.2 -13 of the Draft EIR), project implementation would not have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic view or vista. Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4 pertaining to scenic view or vista impacts. Further, as discussed on page 5.2 -17 of the Draft EIR (Impact Statement AES -3), all proposed single - family dwellings would be required to comply with the proposed Ocean Place Property Oavners Architectural Guidelines, which would require that proposed architecture be similar to that found in Old Town. All residential construction would be subject to compliance with the RHD -20 (Residential High Density -20) standards; refer to Draft EIR Table 5.1 -11, Development Standards Consistency An Proposed structures would be a maximum of 25 feet in height. The architectural design of the single - family dwellings would be encouraged to be architecturally interesting, promote diversity, and be visually compatible with Old Town Seal Beach. Foundations and exterior walls would be constructed of brick, stone, stucco, or other commercially available siding materials. Roof element variations would be encouraged. Roof mounted solar panels would be acceptable if integrated into the roofing materials and design. All proposed color treatments would be compatible with the roof color. Retaining walls and fencing would consist of materials architecturally compatible with any adjacent structures and landscaping. Wall/fencing features would incorporate landscaping material that would blend with the surrounding areas. All exterior colors would be encouraged to blend with the structure's architecture and the natural surroundings. Final • April 2012 2 -132 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report The proposed Ocean Place Property Owners Architectural Guidelines would be enforced through the project's CC &Rs for the Tract Map. 19 -3 The Commenter is concerned with traffic from the proposed alley off of V Street. Refer to Response to Comment 16 -2. It is noted that the Commenter prefers a 70/30 plan, with the southern boundary of the proposed development area lined up with Central Way. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 19 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 19 -2. The remainder of the comment expresses the Commenter's opinion regarding expectations for the area and opinion on the proposed project's potential aesthetic impacts. As the comment does not raise any further environmental issue not already addressed, no further response is required. Final • April 2012 2 -133 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 20 Virginia G. Bickford, M.A. 11962 Cherry Street Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Phone: 562 493 -5169 January 8, 2012 Ms. Linda Devine, City Clerk Mr. David W. Sloan, City Councilman, District Two Mr. Mark Persico, Director of Development Services Mr. Jerry alivera, Senior Planner 211 - 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Review of Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report Sections 5.4 Cultural Resources and 11.4 Cultural Resources Assessment Report Dear Sirs and Madam, I have reviewed the subject documents and it appears that the proposed project is not likely to have significant adverse impact on archaeological remains. The planned mitigation and protection provisions 204 are consistent with previous recommendations and standard practice. They should be appropriate for routine measures as well as to protect cultural resources should there be unanticipated occurrences. Sincerely, Virginia Bickford, M.A. Archaeology Archaeology Advisory Committee Representative, District 2 Seal Beach, CA City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 20. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM VIRGINIA G. BICKFORD, M.A., DATED JANUARY 8, 2012. 20 -1 The Commenter concurs with the findings of the Draft EIR regarding archaeological impacts. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -135 Response to Comments CHATTEN -BROWN & CARSTENS TELEPHONE: (310) 314 -8040 2601 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD FACSIMILE: (310)314-8050 SUYrB205 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 46405 January 9, 2012 Via Overnight Express and E -mail EU)ersico rr,sealbeachca.goi, Mr. Mark Persico, AICP Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 COMMENT LETTER 21 Unud: ACN11gCBCEARTHLAW..0O3r City of $call Beach JAN - 9 2012 1 Department of i�n�c•�e�pr>itcrtt : ,e:���irr�s Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment, SCH No, 2011061018 Dear Mr. Persico: On behalf of Seal Beach for Open Space (SBOS), we submit these comments on the draft environmental impact report prepared for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment ( "Project "). The amendment to the Specific Plan would permit construction of 48 residences, associated roadways, and necessary infrastructure on 10.9 acres of mostly vacant riverfront and beachfront land that was formerly used by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ( "DWP ") for power generation. The remaining 6.4 acres would be developed for passive recreation, By contrast, the existing DWP Specific Plan approved for the area permits development of 30 percent of the site with an up to 154 -room hotel and the remaining 70 percent to remain as open space parkland. Of major concern to SBOS is the Project's massive revision of the existing DWP Specific Plan, requiring an amendment of the General Plan and rezoning of the Project site. The community worked with the City in preparing the existing DWP Specific Plan. The guidelines set forth in the Plan are a result of numerous community meetings and a consensus among community members regarding the type of uses that should be allowed at this important gateway to the City. The Project site is the last undeveloped site in the City along the San Gabriel River. The unique location of this site must be taken into account when determining what uses should be allowed at the site. The citizens of Seal Beach agreed that the City would be best served by including visitor serving uses at this important location. An up to 150 -room hotel was included as the desired visitor serving use at this location because it would be open to the public and foster access to coastal recreation. The densely packed residential component of the proposed Project would be the antithesis of these goals, resulting in a private area providing no public benefits and 21 -1 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 2 of 22 would not enhance coastal access and recreation. We vigorously object to the Project proponents attempt to completely disregard the zoning and land use designation in place on the site when they purchased it. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision - makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 CaUd 376, 392.) The environmental impact report (EIR) process is the "heart of CEQA" and is the chief mechanism to effectuate its statutory purposes. (In Re Bay Delta Programmatic EIR Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1162.) SBOS is concerned that the draft environmental impact report ( "DEIR') fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate many of the Project's significant adverse environmental impacts. The DEIR admits the Project would have significant adverse impacts with regard to aesthetic impacts. Additionally, the Project would likely have significant adverse impacts related to land use, recreation, traffic, biological, water quality, hazardous materials, and jobs /housing imbalance although these impacts are neither adequately disclosed, nor mitigated in the DEIR. Furthermore, the DEIR's impacts and alternatives analysis is infected by the City's precommitment to rezone this property for residential uses. The Project would also violate the Coastal Act and public trust doctrine by allowing private residential uses instead of visitor serving uses that promote coastal access and recreation. For these reasons, SBOS urges the City to consider alternatives that would reduce the impacts and would allow for visitor serving uses in this unique location. ANALYSIS L The City is Improperly Precommitted to the Residential Project. Precommitment to a project has been repeatedly condemned by the California Supreme Court as rendering the environmental review process under CEQA little more than a post hoc rationalization for a decision already made and defeating the fundamental purposes of CEQA. An EIR is an "environmental alarm bell" whose purpose is to -warn of environmental consequences "before the project has taken on overwhelming bureaucratic and financial momentum." (Vineyard 14rea Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2407) 44 Cal. 4th 412, 441, emphasis added.) Our law firm successfully litigated Save Tara v. City of W. Hollywood (2048) 45 Cal. 4th 116 before the California Supreme Court, where the Court gave its most detailed ruling on the issue 21.1 21.2 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 3 of 22 of proper timing of CEQA review in a unanimous decision. The California Supreme Court found that even if a public agency retains legal discretion to reject a proposed project, by executing a detailed agreement with a developer and lending its political and financial assistance to a project, the agency has as a practical matter committed itself to the project, necessitating the completion of CEQA review. Save Tara also held that "an agency has no discretion" in determining what constitutes commitment to a project, requiring the preparation of an EIR. (Id. at 355.) The City has improperly committed to changing the land use and zoning designations for the site from visitor serving commercial to residential prior to environmental review. Prior to conducting environmental review for the proposed Project, in March 2011 the City signed a settlement agreement with the Project proponents. (Attachment 1.) This settlement agreement requires the City to pay the Project proponents $900,000. Concurrently with the payment of $940,000, the Project proponent agreed to lease two small portions of the Project site referred to as the driveway parcel and the bike trail parcel and to provide an irrevocable easement for another portion of the Project site referred to as the sewer parcel. (These parcels are shown on DEIR Exhibit 3 -4 as parcels 1 (sewer parcel), 2 (driveway parcel) and 3 (bike trail parcel).) The settlement agreement also provides that if the City and the Coastal Commission approve the proposed Project, the Project proponent will convey the driveway and bike trail parcels to the City without any further payment. If, however, the Project is not approved by the City or the Coastal Commission, the lease of these two parcels will expire March 15, 2015, and no part of the $900,000 payment would be refunded to the City. Thus, the City has a financial interest in approving the proposed Project that serves to precommit the City to approve the Project. Additionally, the settlement agreement requires the City to assist the Project proponents in obtaining a coastal development permit (CDP) from the Coastal Commission, including a requirement to testify on behalf of the Project proponent in favor of a CDP before the Coastal Commission. The City's commitment to advocate in favor of the Project further precommits it to the Project. 21 -2 21 -3 21 -4 In order to properly examine the proposed project, the City should set aside it prior I 21 -5 agreement, which was approved without valid prior environmental review. The City has further precommitted to the development of a residential development at the Project site by including project objectives in the DEIR that would reject any alternative that does not include residential development. The DEIR states that the project objectives were developed by the Project Applicant in consultation with the City. The City has essentially approved the change in use of the site from visitor serving commercial to residential prior to environmental review by including project objectives 21 -6 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 4 of 22 that require residential development. This precommitment to a residential project should not be allowed. The DEIR should be revised to include objectives that allow other uses of the site, including those uses for which it is currently zoned. The City cannot rely on the project objectives to precommit itself to require a change in zoning and land use designations prior to environmental review. II. The Project Description is Misleading. Every EIR must set forth a project description that is sufficient to allow an adequate evaluation and review of the project's environmental impacts. (CEQpA Guidelines § 15124.) "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (County of.Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 1.85, 192 93; accord San Joaquin Raptor/Wildl fe Reserve Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730.) "[O)nly through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives." (City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.A.pp.3d 1438, 1454.) The DEIR's project description is inaccurate and misleading because it fails to inform the public and decision makers that the Project would result in a greater than 14 percent reduction of Park/Open Space at the site. Under the existing DWP Specific Plan the southern 70 percent of the site is required to be maintained as Park/Open Space. The proposed amendment to the DWP Specific Plan and General Plan provides for 6.4 acres of Park/Open Space out of a total of 10.9 acres, resulting in only 59 percent of the site being maintained as open space. However, even this is an overestimate of the percentage of Park/Open Space that would be provided by the Project because according to the DEIR, a section of the San Gabriel River is included in the 6.4 acres of claimed Park/Open Space. (DEIR p. 5.1 -21.) This is not usable open space and should not be used in the calculation of Park/Open Space acreage. By failing to acknowledge the proposed Project would reduce Park/Open Space by a significant amount, the DEIR provides a misleading analysis of the Project's impacts. III. The Impact Analysis is Inadequate. A. The DEIR Fails to Acknowledge Significant Land Use Impacts, The General Plan Land Use Element finds the Project site to be desirable for visitor serving uses: "Considering these positive factors in combination with a high land value (attributed to location and access), this site has potential for visitor - serving land uses and open space land uses." (General Plan LU -13.) The Project would require an 21.6 21.7 21.8 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 5 of 22 amendment to this General Plan policy, a policy which was intended to provide benefits to the entire City by attracting visitors to the area and providing development the public could use (as opposed to the private residential development included in the Project). Approving far reaching land use plan changes on a case -by -case basis as is being done for this Project conflicts with the purposes of regional planning. "Case -by -case reconsideration of regional land -use policies, in the context of a project - specific EIR, is the very antithesis of that goal." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 572 -573.) The General Plan agrees, stating: If conditions change to the extent that land use or other polices require a change, the General Plan should be restudied in a comprehensive manner to make sure that the changes proposed do not alter the balance between people and the facilities, utilities, and services that they require. Piecemeal change without in -depth study would reduce the value of the General Plan and defeat its purpose. (LU-1) By proposing to approve a significant change in allowable land uses in the last undeveloped area of the City adjacent to the San Gabriel River without a comprehensive review of the General Plan would result in the type of piecemeal amendment the Plan prohibits. The General Plan and DWP Specific Plan designated the Project site for visitor serving uses based on the input from many citizen workshops. The community as a whole desired uses that would attract visitors in this location and that would include facilities such as conference rooms and a restaurant that they could use. To eliminate visitor serving uses in favor of private residential development that would not attract visitors or provide facilities the community could use would result in a significant impact that has not been acknowledged by the DEIR. The DEIR says this change in use is required because a study found development of a hotel at the Project site to be infeasible. This is not true. The economic analysis included as Appendix 12 to the DEIR finds that a condominium hotel alternative could be financially feasible. Furthermore, even if visitor serving uses were infeasible, that does not eliminate the significance of the change in use. An EIR must disclose all impacts of the Project. Additional land use conflicts that should be analyzed in the EIR include: 21.8 • The DWP Specific PIan requires buildings to be setback 20 feet from I't Street. 21 -9 Does the Project comply with this requirement? • The DWP Specific Plan requires Spanish style architecture for all buildings on the northern 30 percent of the site. The Project would allow differing architecture 21 -10 types in violation of this requirement. Mr. Mark Persco January 9, 2012 Page 6 of 22 R. Recreation Impacts Are Inadequately AitaIyzed. The Project would add residents to Seal Beach while decreasing its available park space. This would likely have significant impacts on parks and recreation in Seal Beach, especially because the DEIR claims that the Project is exempt fiom paying the Quimby fees that other developers roust pay to enable the development of parkland in the City. The Seal Beach Park Dedication Ordinance established a goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. (Seal Beach Municipal Code § 10.50.100.) According to the DEIR, Seal Beach currently has 77 acres of parkland, but it needs approximately 44 additional acres to meet the Ordinance. (DEIR, p. 5.13 -11.) To that end, the Ordinance requires the developer of a residential project to either pay a Quimby fee or to dedicate parkland to the City, sufficient to serve the development's population. Here, however, the DEIR requires neither mitigation measure, yet claims that the Project's additional residents will not have significant impacts on recreation. (DEIR p. 5.13 -24.) While the DEIR may claim that fee payment is unnecessary because the March 2011 settlement waives Quimby Act compliance (DEIR p. 5.13 -24), the settlement agreement does not provide for dedication of the land, as required by the Ordinance. The City is required to purchase the +6.4 acres of potential parkland from the developer. Since the Project will not comply with the City's Park Dedication Ordinance, the DEIR was required to analyze and mitigate the Project's-impacts on the availability of parkland. This is especially true because no CEQA document was prepared when the City waived the developer's Quimby fees, and the impacts of that waiver must be analyzed and mitigated under CEQA. Further, the Project will not only add residents to the City without mitigating their impacts on parkland; it will also reduce the amount of available parkland in the City. The existing DWP Specific Plan requires that 70 percent of the Project site be developed as space for park and recreational use. The proposed Project, however, proposes to place hornes on 41 percent of the land, leaving only 59 percent available for park uses. Given the City's current failure to meet its parkland goal, the Project's reduction of available parkland presents a significant impact on recreation that must be mitigated. Moreover, the Project's proposed parkland reduction contradicts the Coastal Commission's recommendation that the entire parcel be devoted to recreation use. The Commission's letter submitted on the Notice of Preparation stated, "Given its waterfront and riverfront location, the subject site is well suited for lower cost recreation and visitor- serving uses." Not only is housing not a recreational use, but it reduces the area available for visitor - serving recreation. The Coastal Commission's letter considers this reduction in the site's open space from 70 percent to 60 percent a "significant concern." This reduction may impact the City's ability to serve existing residents, new residents, and visitors and may constitute a significant impact under CEQA. It should have been assessed in the DEIR. 21 -11 21 -12 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 7 of 22 The DEIR also failed to assess the impacts of vacating portions of Ist Street on recreation in the City. Narrow 1st Street provides the only vehicular access to the River's End Staging Area, the San Gabriel River Bike Path, and the beach adjacent to Ray Bay. The Project would add 48 residences to the area that would be accessed solely by I" Street and Marina Drive. Although this growth would increase pressure on Ist Street, the Project inexplicably proposes to vacate and narrow portions of I" Street. Narrowing this already narrow street, while increasing its vehicular traffic, could produce safety hazards and congestion that would impede access to the existing and proposed recreation sites, Ray Bay, and the San Gabriel River Greenbelt bike path. Additionally, 1" Street currently includes a Class II bike lane. The HEIR fails to disclose or analyze the impacts of vacating portions of 0 Street on this Class II bike lane. The impact of road vacation on recreation should have been addressed in the DEIR. The development may also reduce the recreational quality of the bike path. The placement of retaining walls along the greenbelt will extend the length of trail that is dominated by fencing and narrow the path's right -of -way. (See, DEIR Exhibit 5.2 -6.) The result will be a San Gabriel River "greenbelt" that is so hemined in by residential development that it can no longer provide an open, outdoor experience. The DEIR fails to acknowledge any impacts to the greenbelt. C. Traffic Impacts Are Underestimated. The DEIR's traffic analysis relies upon the vacation and realignment of portions of I" Street near Marina Drive. The realignment would reduce the width of northbound ISt Street by one lane, leaving one left -turn lane and a shared through/right -turn lane at the intersection with Marina Drive. Southbound 1st Street would retain one left turn lane, one through lane across Marina Drive, and one right -turn lane. (DEIR, Exhibit 5.5 -4.) While the DEIR includes a diagram, Exhibit 5.5 -4, it never actually explains or justifies the necessity of the First Street vacation. In fact, aside from noting that the vacation is 7,626 square feet in size (DEIR, p. 3 -12), the DEIR contains no information about the vacation. Its width, an important consideration in the analysis, is never revealed. More information is apparently contained in the TIA and appendices, but CEQA prohibits the burying of important information in an appendix. (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2405) 40 Cal.4th 412, 442.) The DEIR is insufficient in this regard. " `Vacation' means the ... partial abandonment :.. of the public right to use a street ... or public service easement." (Sts. & Hy. Code § 8304.) The DEIR assumes that the vacation would leave sufficient space to contain the road improvements necessary to serve the Project, but it never addresses the safety of doing so. In any case, an easement cannot be vacated to benefit a private corporation. (City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. City Council of Rolling Hills Estates (1976) 59 Cal.App. 3d 869, 885.) There is no showing of a public benefit from the vacation of a large portion of 1st Street. On the 21 -13 21 -14 21 -15 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 8 of 22 contrary, the DEIR indicates that the road vacation and narrowing of lanes "could result in a hazardous traffic condition." (DEIR, p. 5.5 -33.) Sight distances will be reduced, and that segment of Marina Drive may be made more hazardous by motorists entering and exiting the development from A Street and its alley. Therefore, the DEIR should be revised to consider retaining the existing right of way width in order to maintain adequate site distance at the intersection of 0 Street and Marina Drive. This could be done by removing lot 13 from the tract map, and should be considered as a feasible mitigation NWMIJIM 2145 While the Project may present a decrease in traffic over the DWP Specific Plan, the Project's design admittedly includes narrow streets that could result in traffic hazards 2146 and inadequate parking. The DEIR fails to analyze these potential impacts. Without explanation, the DEIR also fails entirely to assess impacts on the intersection of I st Street and Ocean Avenue, or on any Ocean Avenue street segments. 21 -17 The DEIR is further devoid of any discussion of the Project's parking needs and potential impacts. These deficiencies must be remedied in the final EIR, AIso, the General Plan Circulation element includes and the DEIR recognizes a Class II bikeway on 151 Street. (DEIR, p. 5.13 -3.) A Class II bikeway includes a separately striped bike lane and requires a wide street for implementation, not the narrow street proposed by the Project. The DEIR should have discussed whether the street vacation would impact implementation of this bikeway or of the General Plan Circulation Element. If the street vacation would prevent installation of a Class II bikeway, Project adoption would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Instead of disclosing, analyzing, or mitigating this impact, the DEIR concluded that the Project "would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs." The DEIR must be revised to include discussion of the General Plan Circulation Element as well as the necessary mitigation before it may be certified. D. Additional Analysis of Biological and Wetlands Impacts is Required. The Project is located on the Pacific Flyway, between the Pacific Ocean and the San Gabriel River and in proximity to the Los Cerritos and other wetlands to the north and to the Bolsa Chica wetlands to the south. Accordingly, the area is heavily- trafficked by birds, including brown pelicans and doubiecrested cormorants, which the project biologist saw flying overhead. (DEIR p. 5.3 -4.) Hundreds of species of birds populate local wetlands. Three bird species of special concern, the northern harrier, white - tailed kite, and the California horned lark, have potential to visit the Project site. (DEIR p. 5.3- 8.) And the DEIR notes, "the project site has the potential to support migratory bird species." (DEIR, p. 5.3 -8.) The Project may impact resident and migratory birds by 2148 2149 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 9 of 22 introducing lights to an area that is mostly dark at night. Project lighting would include the light escaping from the windows of the 48 homes, security lighting for homes and the park, streetlights, parking lot lighting, and landscaping. lighting. Nighttime lighting and glare can disorient birds that rely on the moon for navigation. Nighttime lights also spotlight prey species that might otherwise evade detection by predators and interfere with raptor vision. (Attachment 2, articles regarding nighttime lighting impacts). For this reason, the DEIR should have analyzed the impacts that nighttime lighting and glare would have on resident and migratory birds. It must be revised to do so in order to permit full mitigation of impacts to both local species of special concern and migratory birds that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Additionally, mitigation measure BI0-4 should be revised to remove the phrase, "if feasible" from prohibitions oil vegetation removal during the nesting season. CEQA requires enforceable mitigation measures. The DEIR is correct that site vegetation consists mostly of "a disturbed community." (DEIR, p. 5.3 -2.) However, the DEIR is also correct that this condition results primarily from off goad vehicle use and disking, a "disturbance regime" that "has prevented shrubs or trees from establishing on the site." (DEIR p. 5.3-2.) Without human intervention to remove vegetation, the project site would likely have acquired more native plant cover, and may have hosted one of the nine special status plant species that have the potential to occur onsite. (DEIR p. 5.3 -17.) Combined with its location near several other wetlands heavily used by birds, the site has value as a potential native habitat restoration site. Thus, the DEIR should have discussed the possibility of restoring part of the project site, whether as an alternative to the residential development, or as one of the potential passive park uses. E. Water Quality Impacts to the San Gabriel River and Pacific Ocean Must be Mitigated. The Project site includes part of the San Gabriel River, a water body contained on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The river contains excess copper, dioxin, nickel, and coliform bacteria, among other pollutants. (DEIR, p. 5.11 -7.) The Project's lots border the CDFG jurisdictional streambed and lands designated as Coastal Commission wetland. (DEIR, p. Exhibit 5.3- 2.) The site is situated such that sheetflow drains to the north, toward the river and to the west, toward the Pacific Ocean. No filtration of Project runoff occurs before it reaches the ocean, 2,400 feet away. (DEIR., p. 5.11 -1.) The DEIR recognizes that Project implementation will increase impervious surfaces in the area as well as peak flow rates during storm events. (DEIR, p. 5.11 -16.) This runoff could contain pathogens, pesticides, oil, grease, and debris. (DEIR, p. 5.11 -19.) Thus, it is imperative that the Project ensures that runoff and drainage from the Project's homes and landscaping does 21 -19 21 -20 21 -21 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 10 of 22 not further impair the river or ocean. Contaminated and nuisance runoff can be retained onsite through the implementation of low impact development (LID) strategies, The benefits of LID and information on specific LID mitigation measures are available at the U.S. EPA's website, http: / /www.epa.goy /owow/NPS /lid /. The final EIR should require the implementation of strategies including rainwater harvesting, minimization of impervious surfaces, and onsite retention. Water collected through retention strategies could be applied to the 6.4 acres of park space as well as to residential landscaping, assuaging the DEIR's concern that onsite irrigation demand would be insufficient to utilize onsite retention volumes. (DEIR, p. 5.11 -19.) The DEIR's mitigation measures relate only to flooding and construction. LID requirements, enforceable against individual residents, must be added as well. 21.21 Additionally, Seal Beach residents noted during the Notice of Preparation phase that Cold Town and the Project site are already prone to flooding, yet another reason why 21 -22 onsite retention strategies must be implemented. F. The Significance of Aesthetic Impacts is Underestimated. The Project site is located on the banks of the San Gabriel River, due east of the beach adjacent to Ray Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and south of Alamitos Bay. It provides a corridor for public views from Marina Drive, I" Street, Windsurf Park, and the beach. The Coastal. Commission noted in its comments on the Notice of Preparation that "The project site is located seaward of the first coastal roadway and public views across the site to and along the shoreline have been enjoyed by the public for a significant period of time." Accordingly, the project's placement of 48 homes on the eastern portion of the property has the potential to block treasured public views. While the DEIR acknowledges these public views — the preservation of public views of the water is a project objective (DEIR, p. 1 -2) — the DEIR provides no mitigation for this loss. In fact, the DEIR bases its aesthetic analysis on an improper baseline, and avoids consideration of these public views altogether. Here, the "existing conditions" assume the presence of an illegal, temporary, and opaque fence that blocks views across the project site to and from the San Gabriel River and the Pacific Ocean. (See, e.g., DEIR p.. 5.2 -4, 5.2 -9.) This fence has been installed recently, and is only temporary. It does not represent the long term condition of the project site, or the "typical" condition of the project site since demolition of the DWP infrastructure. Further, when used as a baseline, the fence skews the viewshed analysis such that the DEIR concludes that the Project will imps•ove access to views, even though it will be building 48 homes on what is currently vacant land, with views that would be unobstructed if not for the fence. Thus, the DEIR's use of the fence as the baseline for viewshed and aesthetic impact analysis is improper. Furthermore, the fence was erected without the proper permitting from the California 21 -23 21 -24 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page I 1 of-22 Coastal Commission. In its letter on the Notice of Preparation, the Commission requested that the visual impact analysis "consider impacts to views as they would legally exist relative to the subject site. Any existing unpermitted fencing and/or screening should not be considered the `existing' condition." The Project should not be able to take credit for removal of an illegal fence. The DEIR visual impact analysis should be repeated with the correct baseline, after removal of the illegal fence. 21 -24 Even with the improper baseline, it is clear that Project implementation will impact public views. For example, the DEIR's view simulations show that views of 21 -25 Surfside Beach from the San Gabriel River Greenbelt will be blocked by residential development. (Key View 1, Exhibit 5.2 -6.) Although the DEIR does recognize that the construction of 48 homes will degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings (DEIR, p. 5.2 -17), it fails to provide any mitigation for impacts caused by side yards and front- loading garages that are incompatible with the character of Old Town. (DEIR, p. 5.2 -19, 5.2 -22.) With regard to architecture, the DEIR relies upon architectural standards to prevent the 48 new residences from clashing with existing Old Town neighborhoods. However, these standards would only be enforceable by the homeowners' association, not the City. And they are not even listed as mitigation measures in the DEIR.. (DEIR, p. 5.2 -24.) CEQA requires mitigation measures to be concrete and enforceable. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(2).) Since this mitigation measure is not fully enforceable, it is inadequate under CEQA. G. The DEIR Fails to Provide Adequate Information Regarding Impacts from Hazardous Materials. The DEIR fails to adequately describe the Project site's existing asbestos soil contamination. It is particularly dangerous when its fibers are allowed to become airborne through soil disturbance. If inhaled, asbestos can cause serious health problems, including cancer. According to the DEIR, asbestos was detected on the Project site and removed in 1987. (DEIR p. 5.10 -2.) The DEIR then claims that the Grange County Health Cage Agency then issued a "no further action" letter deeming asbestos remediation complete, and that asbestos at the Project site would not exceed safety thresholds for residential use. (1hrd.) Unfortunately, neither the DEIR nor records obtained from the County of Orange support the DEIR's conclusions. First, the County does not have a copy of the "no further action" letter referenced in the DEIRi. Documents produced by the County show that while a remediation plan was contemplated, only $75,004 of the estimated $850,000 remediation cost was ever expended. (Attachment 4.) This cleanup I See, County of orange Health Care Agency response to Public Records Act Request submitted by James Caviola, July 6, 2011. (A(tachment 3.) 21 -26 21 -27 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 12 of 22 may never have been completed. More documentation about the cleanup and the I 21 -27 County's discharge of remediation obligations is required. Second, site remediation activities have not removed asbestos containing material from the site. Although the DEIR claims that remediation was complete in 1987, a 2000 investigation by Parsons concluded that residual asbestos remains present. (DEIR p. 5.10 -13.) Accordingly, Parsons recommended (1) that the site owner enter into a voluntary cleanup agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to demonstrate that site conditions are protective of human health (DEIR, p. 5.10 -13); and (2) that clean fill should be imported if the site would be used for "uses with a significant potential for subsurface disturbances (e.g., residential, playground, etc)." (DEIR, p. 5.10- 13.) The Project explicitly proposes residential uses, in the form of 48 homes, and playgrounds are proposed for open space. Instead of complying with either of these recommendations and conducting further cleanup to assure the safety of future residents or visitors, the Project proponents merely commissioned another study. Strangely, even though no further remediation has occurred since the 2000 Parsons investigation, and no clean fill will be imported, the DEIR concludes that residential occupation of the Project site is safe. What changed? If additional remediation has been completed since 1988, or if lower standards are being applied to the site, this must be disclosed to the public. The DEIR also fails to support its conclusion that residents and visitors of the Project site would be safe. Both the 2401 TetraTech and the 2011 Dudek investigation found asbestos containing materials onsite. Although the DEIR discloses neither the amount of asbestos detected in recent samplings, nor the amount of asbestos considered safe for residential development, it deems the Project site to be safe. The "residential thresholds" repeatedly mentioned in the DEIR are never disclosed. Accordingly, the DEIR fails to present the analytical link between the fact that the Project site contains asbestos and its conclusion that these materials do not pose a threat, in violation of CEQA. The DEIR's analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and arsenic is conclusory and fails to support its conclusions about safety, According to the DEIR, carcinogenic PAHs "were detected on -site by Dudek in 201 L," (DEIR, p. 5.10 -3.) However, the DEIR then concludes that because the PAH levels at the project site are similar to levels found in other areas of Southern California, they "are anticipated to be below regulatory thresholds for residential use." (DEIR, p. 5.10 -4.) Again, the DEIR fails to disclose the regulatory thresholds, or to compare the contaminant levels found onsite with those regulatory thresholds. Considering that PAHs are known to cause cancer, more analysis is required. Similarly, the DEIR concludes that elevated levels of arsenic found on the property are safe because they are similar to those found at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. (DEIR, p. 5.10 -4.) Yet the DEIR never analyzes or 21 -28 21 -29 21 -30 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 13 of 22 discloses whether the arsenic levels at the Naval Weapons Station are themselves safe. Additionally, the Naval Weapons Station may have much wider buffers from adjacent 21 -31 residential uses than would be available at this site. Clearer analysis that links existing contamination levels to established safety thresholds is required. H. The Project Would Worsen the Jobs and Housing Imbalance. The City already has more housing than employment opportunities, resulting in a jobs /housing imbalance. This type of imbalance leads to impacts from traffic and greenhouse gas emissions because residents are required to drive further to jobs. By replacing a job producing commercial use with housing, the project would further the existing imbalance. The existing jobs/housing ration is approximately .79, showing a lack of employment opportunities for existing residents. (DEIR p. 5.1 -7.) The Southern California Association of Governments has set a jobs/housing ratio of 1.5 as the objective for cities and counties. (SCAG 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan, Land Use & Housing Chapter.) The Project would add to the existing imbalance by not only adding . housing, but also rezoning the site to remove the employment opportunities associated with visitor serving commercial uses. The EIR fails to consider this potentially significant impact. IV.Tlie Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate. A. The EIR Fails to Analyze a Reasonable Range of Alternatives. The alternatives section has been described as the "core" of the EIR (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cai.3d 553, 564), and an adequate El must describe a reasonable range of alternatives. (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 47 Cal.3d 376.) Despite clear CEQA legal mandates, the DEIR does not evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Aside from the "No Project" alternative, the DEIR considers only two alternatives: 1) develop in compliance with the existing General Plan and Specific Plan policies (No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative); or 2) a slightly modified layout that includes a mere seven unit reduction. The range of alternatives analyzed was improperly restricted due to the EIR's failure to acknowledge all significant impacts associated with the Project (as discussed above) as well as the Project's failure to comply with the Coastal Act and the public trust doctrine (as discussed below). Pi M 21 -33 Overly narrow project objectives precommitting the City to rezone the Project site I 21 -34 for residential uses have also improperly restricted the range of alternatives analyzed in Mt. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 14 of 22 the DEIR. "[A] Iead agency may not give a project's purpose an artificially narrow definition" and thereby circumscribe the alternatives analysis (In re Bay Delta Prog, Environmental Impact Report Coord, Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166.) The willingness of the applicant to accept a feasible alternative is no more relevant than the financial ability of the applicant to complete the alternative. (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2047) 147 Cal.AppAth 587, 601.) Two of the Five project objectives require the construction of a residential neighborhood on the Project site. To allow residential development on the site, the General Plan and DWP Specific Plan must be amended and the site must be rezoned. By including project objectives that presuppose the site must include residential development, the DEIR improperly rejects any alternative that would not include residential development. These overly narrow project objectives feasible uses of the site that comply with existing zoning and land use designations. The DEIR should be revised to analyze additional alternatives, including: 1. Purchase of Land by State Coastal Conservancy The California State Coastal Conservancy has long been interested in Project site, having given a $50,000 grant for and participated in the preparation of the existing DWP Specific Plan. (Attachment 5, 1979 letter from Coastal Conservancy regarding the Specific Plan.) The Coastal Conservancy has expressed interest in purchasing the entire Project site. The EIR should consider as an alternative the purchase of the site by the Coastal Conservancy, which would allow the entire site to be preserved as open space with the restoration of native habitat, including wetlands. This alternative would eliminate all significant impacts, resulting in an environmentally superior project. 2. Condominium/Hotel Alternative The economic feasibility study prepared by Kosmont Companies (DEIR Appendix 12) found that a 60 unit high end boutique hotel alternative could be financially feasible. Under the alternative analyzed by Kosmont Companies, the hotel could be partially financed by individual owners purchasing title to individual condos, which they can use a certain number of days per year and then share in the profit from rentals the rest of the year. This alternative would include meeting/banquet space, a restaurant, and spa facilities, which along with the hotel would maintain visitor serving uses at the site. The alternative would also be small enough to include large amount of landscaping to reduce visual impacts and would be a public trust compatible use. As part of this alternative, SBOS requests the City consider the condo/hotels units as both a single hotel style building and as a collection of smaller buildings with condo /hotel units in differing sizes 21 -34 K &P P4511 Pi &1r1 Mr. Mark P'ersico January 9, 2012 Page 15 of 22 (studio and I and 2 bedrooms).. 3. Other Visitor Serving Uses The EIR should consider alternatives that include visitor serving and recreational uses other than a hotel for the northern 30 percent of the Project site. Such an alternative could include a restaurant, museum, and river and ocean oriented commercial uses, such as shops for the many windsurfers that frequent Ray Bay. Under the Coastal Act, such uses are given priority over private residential uses. Additionally, such uses would not be in violation of the public trust doctrine. An alternative that incorporates visitor serving uses such as a restaurant and spa along with a bed and breakfast should be considered. The Seal Beach Country inn, a 26 room bed and breakfast formerly located at 5 "' Street and Central Avenue, was incredibly popular. Unfortunately, the owner of the Inn moved out of state several years ago and it has been closed ever since. A similar style of bed and breakfast would likely flourish on the Project site. 4. Loin Density Residential The E1R should also consider a true reduced density alternative, one that includes no more than 20 homes. This alternative could include significant open space and landscaping included in the residential portion of the site, instead of cramped narrow lots with no zoom for landscaping. The open feel of such an alternative would reduce the Project's significant aesthetic impacts and impacts due to the Project's reduction in required open space. 5. Off- -Site Alternatives The DEIR improperly rejects consideration of off -site alternatives for the developer's proposed residential project. The residential portion of the Project is not tied to the riverfront location of the Project site. The DEIR rejects alternative locations based solely on the claim that the developer does not own alternative sites. This is not a valid reason for rejecting the alternative, particularly when the impacts of the Project are all associated with its currently proposed location. Off site alternatives should be considered when "significant effects of the project would be avoided or lessened by putting the project in another location." (Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(2)(A).) The Guidelines take a narrow view of what constraints would render an alternative site infeasible (for example, the lack of extractable resources on a site for a resource extraction project). (Guidelines § 15I26.5(#)(2)(B).) By contrast, there is no inherent need to locate such a residential development at the DWP site. California Courts 21 -3T 21 -38 21 -39 21.40 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 16 of 22 have endorsed the use of rigorous off site alternatives analyses. (See, for example, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553 [upholding EIR in part because of adequate analysis of an off-site alternative] and Save Round Valley ,Illionce v. County of lnyo (2007) 157 Cal. App.. 4" 1437 [EIR found inadequate for failure to assess an offsite alternative that would have reduced impacts]) In Save Round Valley, the court considered evaluation of an c-*�- site alternative essential, even though the project applicant had stated that he did not wish to develop at other locations, and wanted to develop the specific site chosen because of its proximity to water and views of the Sierras. (Id. at 1457, 1465.) This alternative could also be considered in conjunction with the purchase of the Project site by the Coastal Conservancy. B. The DEIR Improperly Rejects No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative. The DEIR's analysis of the No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative is infected by its failure to properly analyze the significance of the proposed Project's impacts. In particular, the DEIR fails to acknowledge the significance of converting visitor serving uses to private residential uses in the Coastal Zone on public trust land. The failure to acknowledge the Project's impacts leads to an inaccurate comparison of the Project to this alternative. 21 -4a 21 -41 The No Project/ 1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative would include a visitor serving uses, which would comply with the Coastal Act and public trust doctrine. This use would 21 -42 also be more compatible with the visitor serving uses located across the San Gabriel River in Long Beach. The DEIR claims that aesthetic impacts on visual character would be greater under the No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative. Aesthetic impacts are subjective and depend upon the eye of the beholder. The community as a whole held numerous meetings and reached an agreement that a 154 -room or less hotel would be a compatible use at this site. Because those beholding the project site prefer views of a hotel to views of private residences, the DEIR should not consider the aesthetic impacts of the No Project/l. 996 DWI' Specific Plan to be more significant than the proposed Project. The DEIR- improperly assumes that while the proposed Project's light sources would be less than significant with mitigation, the No Project'l 996 DWP Specific Plan alternative's lighting impacts could not be mitigated. There is no substantial evidence to support this claim. The DEIR also improperly assumes this alternative would have significant and unavoidable impacts front vehicle headlights similar to or greater than the proposed Project's. 21 -43 21 -44 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 17 of 22 However, under the No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative, ingress and egress to the hotel would be limited to Marina Drive per the requirements of the existing DWP Specific Plan; no access would be allowed via 1St Street. As stated by the DEIR, access on Marina Drive is across from "parking lot uses and associated ornamental landscaping within the Townhomes by the Sea [better known as Riverbeach]. The nearest residence would be approximately 140 feet away and would not be anticipated to be directly impacted by vehicle headlights exiting the project site." (DEIR p. 5.2 -23.) The DEIR. finds the only source of significant headlight impacts to be due to the proposed Project's access on I" Street. (DEIR p. 5.2 -24.) Thus, under the No Project/ 1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative this significant impact would be avoided. By reducing an impact that under the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable, this alternative would be environmental superior regarding aesthetic impacts. The No Project/ 1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative would not require the vacation of a portion of 1st Street. Also, the DEIR fails to analyze whether the traffic generated by this alternative would result in unacceptable LOS on area roadways. Environmental review was prepared when the DWP Specific Plan was approved, and thus it can be assumed that these impacts were already analyzed and found to be less than significant. Therefore, the additional traffic that could be generated under the No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative is not a valid reason for rejecting this alternative. 21 -44 42E.M The DEIR also claims the noise impacts associated with the No Project/1996 DWP Specific Plan alternative would be greater than with the proposed Project, but fails to 21 -46 consider whether the elimination of access to the site on 1 st Street under this alternative would reduce the noise impacts to the closest residents. The DEIR also includes economic analysis, showing that some hotel alternatives would generate less than a 20 percent rate of return, which the analysis finds to be necessary for a project to be financially feasible. This analysis does show that at least one alternative that would comply with the existing DWP Specific Plan could be financially feasible, the CondominiumlHotel Alternative. Thus, this alternative should not be rejected as financially infeasible. Also, SBOS questions an assumption included in the economic analysis. The economic analysis uses $4.5 million as the land cost in estimating the profitability of several hotel alternatives. However, $4.5 million is the amount the Project proponents paid for the entire site. The hotel would only be constructed on 30 percent of the site and the City has agreed to purchase the open space portion of the site for $2 million. Why is $4.5 million used as the land cost in the economic analysis instead of $2.5 million? If $2.5 million is used as the land cost, do estimates regarding the profitability of hotel alternatives change? ► EVA 21 -48 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 18 of 22 Further, in order to reject any alternative on the basis of economic infeasibility, the City needs a comparative economic analysis of the proposed Project. In Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside, the Court of Appeal rejected an agency's finding of economic infeasibility for less impactful alternatives as unsupported by substantial evidence because the feasibility of the alternatives were not "evaluated within the context of the proposed project." (Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cai.App.4th 587, 599.) "In the absence of such comparative data and analysis, no meaningful conclusions regarding the feasibility of the alternative could have been reached." (Citizens of Goleta valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180- 1181.) As the economic analysis of hotel alternatives takes into consideration existing market conditions and potential occupancy rates, the analysis of the proposed Project must also consider the depressed state of the real estate market and the actual potential for sale of residential lots. V. Approval of the Project Would Violate the California Coastal Act. A. The Project Violates Provisions of the California Coastal Act that Give Priority to Visitor - Serving Uses Above Residential Development. The Coastal Act specifies that residential development should not be prioritized above visitor- serving and recreational uses. Section 30222 of the Coastal Act states, "The use of private lands suitable for visitor - serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential ... development ..." Additiona I ly, Section 30213 of the Coastal Act adds, "Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred," Due to the Project's unique waterfront and riverfront location, the subject site is well suited for lower -cost recreation and visitor - serving uses. This would provide the public access to and the opportunity to recreate along the coast and a navigable waterway. The Coastal Commission requested an analysis of alternative visitor uses in their comment letter responding to the Notice of Preparation. The Coastal Commission explained: "Lower cost visitor - serving uses, as well as open space area, must be protected since they are priority uses as stated in the Coastal Act. We recommend that the E1R consider project alternatives that significantly reduce and/or eliminate residential uses on the subject site." (Appendix 11.1.2, pg. 2.) Despite the Coastal Commission's request for an analysis of alternative visitor uses, the DER failed to conduct this analysis. 21.49 21 -50 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 19 of 22 Whereas the existing DWP Specific Plan provides for a 150 -room hotel, which would be open to the public and foster access to coastal recreation, the Project removes the hotel and substitutes the construction of high - density private residences. Approval of this change would limit the use of this coastal resource in violation of Coastal Act policies that encourage and require broader public use of the Coastal Zone. Furthermore, by reducing the open space provided on site, the Project further reduces public access and recreational opportunities in violation of Coastal Act policies. The DWP Specific Plan currently provides that "[o]pen spaces shall be located on the southerly 70 percent of the DWP site." (DEIR, Section 3. 10.) However, the Project has designated only 59 percent of the site for open space. (DEIR, Section 5.1 -41.) Reducing open space by over 10 percent will decrease the land available to the public to participate in coastal recreational opportunities. B. The DEIR's Analysis of Coastal Act Consistency is Inadequate and Incomplete. The EIR must discuss any inconsistencies between the Project and the Coastal Act. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125.) While the DEIR analyzes other relevant Coastal Act sections in its Coastal Act Policies Consistency Analysis section (hereinafter "Coastal Act Analysis "), the DEIR faits to analyze the Project's change in use from visitor- serving to residential under Section 30222, as described above. Sec DEIR Section 5.1 -24. Reference to Section 30222 was entirely omitted from the EIR's Coastal Act Analysis. If the EIR had performed the required analysis, this Project would be deemed inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Additionally, throughout the Coastal Act analysis, the DEIR evaluated only the consistency of the Project's open space component with the Coastal Act and failed to evaluate the residential portion of the Project. The DEIR repeatedly references Areas I- 4, which are the open space areas that comprise approximately 59% of the project. (See DEIR Sections 5.1 -22 — 5.1 -34). The DEIR uses the open space areas to highlight the Project's consistency with the Coastal Act. -1d. Yet, there is not a single reference to Areas 5, 7, and 8, which comprise the remaining 41 % of the Project and are the areas where the residences would be built. Coastal Act consistency for these portions of the Project must be evaluated. C. The Project Utilizes an Incorrect Baseline to Analyze Visual Impacts Under the Coastal Act. An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. 21 -50 21 -51 21 -52 21 -53 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 20 of 22 (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125.) This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. (Id, emphasis added.) The visual analysis in the DEIR utilizes the chain -link fencing and screening as the existing condition to conclude the project will not have a significant visual impact. (DEIR, Section 5.2, pgs. 1, 4, 9, 14, 16, 19. ) The temporary existing chain -link fencing and screening, which currently minimizes views of open space, as well as ocean and riven views, should not be considered the "existing" condition. In their comment letter responding to the Notice of Preparation, the Coastal Commission stated: [T1he visual impact analysis should consider impacts to views as they would legally exist relative to the subject site. Any existing unpermitted fencing and/or screening should not be considered the `existing' condition. (Appendix 11.1.2, pg. 2.) Regardless of whether the fencing was unpermitted, it would be removed for any Project. This is temporary screening, and not part of the condition of land that was at issue in the Riverwatch case, or other cases holding that the baseline is the condition at the time of the Notice of Preparation. Thus, the Project must use the existing conditions without fencing and screening as the baseline for visual impacts analysis in the EIR. V. The Project Would Violate the Public Trust Doctrine. Because it Proposes Impermissible Private Residential Development of Public Trust Lands, The public trust doctrine prohibits the type of residential land use proposed in this Project, as historical photographs of the Project site suggest significant portions of the site were once on submerged lands and thus are public trust land, Any land that was wetlands or seaward of the mean high tide line when California's constitution was adopted in 1879 is subject to the public trust. (City of Long Beach v, Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 479.) The public trust doctrine restricts the use to which land may be put to those which promote ocean - related commerce, navigation, and fisheries. California's title to its tide and submerged lands is different from that to the lands it holds for sale. "It is a title held in trust for the people of the State that they may enjoy the navigation of the waters, carry on commerce over them, and have liberty of fishing" free from interference from private parties." (Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois (1892) 146 U.S. 387, 452.) In recent years, the California Supreme Court has confirmed that the public trust also extends to the use of submerged lands for bathing, swimming, boating, 21 -53 21 -54 Mr. Mark Persico January 9, 2012 Page 21 of 22 and general recreational purposes. (National Audohon Society v. ,Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 441.) The public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage of tide and submerged lands for their common use, (Id. at 441.) The public trust doctrine promotes trust uses that encourage public enjoyment of trust lands. The California State Lands Commission has explained: Hotels, restaurants, shops and parking areas are appropriate because they accommodate or enhance the public's ability to enjoy tide and submerged lands and navigable waterways ... [T]he essential trust purposes have always been, and remain, water related, and the essential obligation of the state is to manage the tidelands in order to implement and facilitate those trust purposes for all of the people of the state. [Footnote omitted] Therefore, uses that do not accommodate, promote, foster or enhance the statewide public's need for essential commercial services or their enjoyment of tidelands are not appropriate uses for public trust lands. These would include commercial installations that could as easily be sited on uplands and strictly local or `neighborhood - serving' uses that confer no significant benefit to Californians statewide. (http : / /w-%vw.slo.ca.govl policy_ statements /publictrust/public trust _doq ne.pdf, p. 7.) The fact that these lands were subsequently filled in does not change their status as public trust lands. Even though uses on these public trust lands may change and evolve as lands are filled and separated from the water, the lands remain subject to the public trust. (People v. California Fish (1913) 166 Cal. 576,600.) While the DWP Specific Plan's visitor- serving hotel is compatible with the public trust because it is related to coastal- dependent commerce, the Project's private residential development is inconsistent with the public trust restrictions on land use in the area, since it is neither public- serving nor coastal- dependent. 21 -54 Mr. Mark Persico Tanuaiy 9, 2012 Page 22 of 22 Conclusion Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to reviewing the revisions to this draft environmental impact report. Sincerely y Minteer Enclosures: Attachment 1, March 2011 Settlement Agreement Attachment 2: Articles regarding nighttime lighting impacts Attachment 3: Response to Public Records Act request submitted by Jim Caviola Attachment 4: Documents regarding Seal Beach Generating Station Update Attachment 5: 1979 Coastal Conservancy letter regarding the DWP Specific Plan ATTACHMENT 1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE This Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release ( "Agreement ") is entered by and between: (a) Bay City Partners LLC, a California limited liability company (Also known as Bay Cities Partners, LLC) ( "Bay City "), on behalf of itself and its successors ccessors -in- interest and assigns, on the one hand; and (b) The City of Seal Beach, a municipal corporation; taCity of Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission` =!l M ity ") on behalf of themselves and each of their agencies, divis' , " spa" ents, attor c taff members, agents and representatives, on the other. a The Agreement shall be effective as of March 15, 20 ffective D The Agreement is entered into with resp c� =`teolowi g t, A. Bay City r at it h ee title tlbrw' rt land of�fioximately 10.697 acres located betweene silt Street and the San r el =Rid betw een Marina Drive and the City beach in the City s shown on Exhibit ached hereto (the "Property "). B. Bay Cit :m, aswned the Py since approximately May 27, 2003. Bay City intends to pursue residential e n 'of the Property. C. Bay City seeks to develop a subdivision of 48 residential lots on the Property suitable for single- family detached homes with the balance remaining Open Space (the "Proposed Residential Project "). Such lots will be located on the Property generally and largely north of the westerly prolongation of the southern right- of-way boundary of Central Way as shown specifically on Exhibit B attached hereto (the "Proposed Residential Project Area "). Exhibit C -1 attached hereto is the legal description ("Legal Description ") of the Proposed 57284 - 1007\1339052 AOC Residential Project Area, The Proposed Residential Project is shown on plans submitted to the City and is attached hereto as Exhibit C-2 ( "Proposed Residential Project Plans "). D. Beginning before 2009, Bay City applied to the City for some of the land use and other entitlements and permits required by the City for the Proposed Residential Project. These land use and other entitlements and permits consist of (1) Certificate of Compliance 2009 -01, approved and record rch 10, 2009 as Instrument No. 2009000109534 in the Official Records, Orangeounty, (2) Certificate of Compliance 2010 -01, approved 2010 as Instrument No. 2010000419498 in the Official (3) Lot Line Adjustment, approved Di E. Bay City seeks to obtain all land use and City required by the City and other agencies fohe wishes to obtain a coastal development peM > `CDP ") ("Coastal Commission ") F. In fort 2011, or as soon they fl other entitlements an N Project. r t�ksed RJ �e of this effort, B as reasonably po -iits required by t 2010. 27, a Eject. Bay City also Coastal Commission submit, on or before March 31, the remaining applications for all land use and for development of the Proposed Residential G. The remaini Vii- %_ e Property, not included in the Proposed Residential Project Area, lies generally and largely south of the westerly prolongation of the southern right- of-way boundary of Central Way as shown more specifically on Exhibit D attached hereto (the "Open Space' ). . The City's River's End Proieet H. The City seeks to refurbish and improve its River's End Staging Area and San Gabriel River Bike Trail through its River's End Staging Area and San Gabriel River Bikeway Enhancement Plan (the "River's End Project "). Much of the River's End Project is located on property adjacent to the southwesterly boundary of the Property. -2- 57284.1007\13390520.dot I. A segment of the bike trail that is part of the River's End Project crosses onto the Property along the San Gabriel River at the Property's westerly property line, as shown on Exhibit E attached hereto (the "Bike Trail Parcel "). The City wishes to acquire the Bike Trail Parcel from Bay City for the River's End Project, The City has not fled a complaint in eminent domain to acquire the Bike Trail Parcel. J. In April 2005, the City successfully applied to the Rivets Mountain Conservancy for a grant to help fund the River's End Project (the "RMC rant "), K. In 2010, the City submitted an application to the Coastal �Cr rn of CDP for the River's End Project, L. On October 26, 2010, Bay City submitted opposing the Commission's issuance of a CDP to the City asserted that portions of the River's End Projec . 66_001 66 M. In November 2010, the Coas Commissit for a CDP for the Rivet's Bav Citv's, --ha oe �e to the Rrver s�lE N. On A yt i 19, 2010, Bay City t a declaratory and inju e relief against t it to the_astal Comm River's Erroject. City's application for writ of mandate and complaint for , pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA L v± . i " }.) The CE al awsuit is entitled Bay City Partners LLC v. City of Seal Beach, et al. (Oran d, °fl erior Court Case No. 30 -2010 00364553). In the CEQA Lawsuit, Bay City sought to challenge the City's certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the River's End Project. O. On February 1, 2011, the Court entered Judgment in the CEQA Lawsuit. The Judgment granted Bay City's petition in part and denied it in part. On February 1, 2011, the Court issued a Writ of Mandate directed to the City. On March 1, 2011, Bay City appealed the Judgment denying its petition in part. -3- 57284- 1067 \1339052v2.doc The Ci 's Condemnation Lawsuit P, On September 23, 2009, the City filed a complaint in eminent domain entitled C11y of Seal Beach i� Bay City Partners LLC, et al. (Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30- 2009 00305309) ( "Condemnation Lawsuit "). In the Condemnation Lawsuit, the City sought, among other things, to acquire two portions of the Property located at First Strut and Ocean Avenue. In particular, the City sought to acquire: (1) A portion of Orange County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 043 == -02 and M71-1hal 043 - 172 -13, as shown on Exhibit F attached hereto, in fee simple, reservigtfiefrgn non- exclusive casement for transportation of oil, gas and water, asIiioepat certain Easement Agreement dated February 17, 2009 s recorded Instrument No. 2009000593882 in the Official Recor s.rane Co "Driveway Parcel "). The City asserted that access road. set ffift-W I hat Per 2, 200 s Californ he v Parcel for an (2) A porti� ange +a ty Assessor -cc] arcel Nus 043 - 171 -02 and 043 - 172 -13, as shown. 'OF xhibit G attached h r , i c ple, reserving therefrom that non- , exclusive casement aransportation of oily_ and water, as more particularly set forth in that certain Easement A cement dated Februa 7, 2009 and recorded November 2, 2009, as Instrument No. 200900up9 882 in the Off l ecords, Orange County, California (the "Sewer Parcel "). The City asseVe4�-H: g / = o acquire the Sewer Parcel for a sewer maintenance area. Q. The City asserted that it sought to acquire the Driveway Parcel for a public access roadway from First Street and Ocean Avenue to the public parking lot that serves the River's End Project. The City further asserted that it needed the Driveway Parcel in order to maintain public access to the public beach, the Pacific Ocean, Windsurfer Park, the First Street parking lot, and the River's End Cafd. R. The City asserted that it sought to acquire the Sewer Parcel for a sewer maintenance area to maintain an existing City sewer line. -4- S7284- 1007\1339052v2.doc The Settlement S. The intentions of Bay City and the City in entering this Agreement include, without limitation: (1) Good faith consideration of land use and other entitlements and permits for Bay City's Proposed Residential Project, including issuance of a CDP fro the Coastal Commission; . (2) Compensation of Bay City for the transfer to theXity of fee°. � ale to the Driveway Parcel, the Sewer Parcel, the Bike Trail Parcel, and the Open 'Sp#ezgy tly as possible; (3) Resolution of all existing, current d spy tes and latagat'ibetween Ba ty and the City, finally and completely; (4) Approval and issuance f 01UN'rom the oas al Commission for the City's River's End Project; and (5) Trw sfctfe4title to #,Open Space, luding th riveway Parcel, the Sewer Parcel, and the/0" eke Trail Parcel, to thiy wuppn triggering event described in the Agreement. ' NOW, THE + -1 RE, BASED ON SE FACTS, AND IN CONSIDERATION FOR THE COVENANTS UT„ ORTH BE BAY CITY AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Concurrent with the Effective Date of the Agreement: The parties agree that, within fourteen (14) days of the Effective Date of the Agreement: A. Cili's Obligations Concurrent With the Effective Date: (1) $900,000 Payment. The City shall pay the amount of $900,000 to Bay City concurrent with the Effective Date of the Agreement. Such $900,000 payment to Bay City is non - refundable. Bay City shall have no obligations hereunder unless and until such timely payment occurs. The City shall not be entitled to a refund or reimbursement of any portion of such payment. In particular, there shall be no refund or reimbursement of such -5- 57284- 1007\133905 W.dot payment, regardless of whether or when the Proposed Residential Project is approved by the City or the Coastal Commission as discussed in paragraphs 2 and 4, below. The $900,000 payment shall be payable by check to Bay City Partners LLC. (2) Dismissal of the Condemnation Lawsuit. The City shall dismiss the Condemnation Lawsuit without prejudice. The Condemnation Lawsuit may b ixe- filed, if at all, only in accordance with paragraph 4, below. The City acknowledges that such" ts, issal may result in an obligation on the City's part to reimburse Bay City's ordi court co, but not attorneys' fees) under Code of Civil Procedure section 1032. The parties es rnd r e that such ordinary costs are less than $10,000. (3) Indemnity. As a material te- of the M and the L se, the City shall indemnify, save, hold harmless and defend' 3a) City, %inembers a ,its successors, successors -in- interest and assigns fr& any anal al cl ins c ; , causes of action, and liability for any damages, personal injq�or death from the use of the public. within fourteen (14; insurance coverage the Bike Trail Parce Parcel orle Sewer etly or indirectly, by the City or the terra of the Agreement and the Lease, City shall provide Bay City with evidence of imit of $2,500,000 for the Driveway Parcel, B. Bay Citv's Obligations Concurrent With the Effective Date; (1) Lease of the Driveway Parcel and the Bike Trail Parcel. Concurrent with the $900,000 payment described in paragraph LA(1), above, the City and Bay City will enter a lease for the Driveway Parcel and the Bike Trail Parcel (the "Lease "), based on the terns sheet attached hereto as Exhibit H. Under the Lease, Bay City will lease the Driveway Parcel and the Bike Trail Parcel to the City. The City and Bay City agree that the term of the Lease will commence on March 31, 2011. The City and Bay City agree that the term of the Lease will terminate on the earlier of: -6- 57284 - 1007 \133905W.doc (a) March 31, 2015; or (b) Conveyance of the Driveway Parcel and the Bike Trail Parcel to the City pursuant to the transaction described in paragraph 5.13, below; or (c) If the Coastal Commission denies or declines to process further the Proposed Residential Project, then thirty (30) days thereafter s ch denial or declination. (Bay City shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether a Coastammission denial or declination has occurred. Bay City shall promptly notify the, ty in wri ` g, of such determination.) (2) Irrevocable Easement for the receipt of the $900,000 payment described in paragraph the City an irrevocable casement for the Sewer Parcel Irrevocable Easement shall be for sewer The City shall be entitled to keep the IrreN required to reconvey to Bey City,voraband when the Proposed R d" tial Project is discussed in paragra hs 2 and 4, below. Dismissal of $900,000 payment des r(.! n Upori`BAYI Y's above, MA&V16ity will Mice purposes only. the City shall not be less of whether or or the Coastal Commission as Lawsuit. Upon Bay City's receipt of the ), above, Bay City shall also: (a) dismiss its appeal filed on March 1, 20`1 in the!Q► Lawsuit; and (b) authorize its attorneys to enter into and execute a stipulation regarding the City's return to the February 1, 2011 Writ of Mandate. (4) Cooperation on the River's End Project. Upon Bay City's receipt of the $900,000 payment described in paragraph l.A(1), above, Bay City shall also: (a) withdraw its opposition with the Coastal Commission to the City's application for a CDP for the River's End Project; and (b) take reasonable steps, upon written request from the City, to: (i) assist the City in obtaining a CDP from the Coastal Commission for the River's End Project; and (ii) assist the City in expediting the River's End Project to help the City avoid losing the -7- S7284- 1007\133S052v2.doc RMC Grant. For purposes of Bay City's obligation to take "reasonable steps" to assist the City, "reasonable steps" shall not require Bay City to spend any money or pay any money to the City. 2. Concurrent Upon Bay City's Proposed Residential Project Application: The parties further agree as follows: A. Bay Citv's Oblieations Concurrent With Bay Citv1s Proposed Residential Proiect Application: Bay City will submit to the City the necessary 4- and documents for all land use and other entitlements and permits that Proposed Residential Project within the time frame describedil Sara above. .; B. (1) Consideratio7 the Proposed Residential Prolect ors any o entitlements and permltrfor' the Proposed expect that such con id ration of the Propo` fact, mutually repres :i tg o one another that expected. The parties he; acknowledg shall be contingent on such tmofns :erat F of �S the ►]though th pity ca-t otguarantee approval of ay City's ap ations fo eland use and other 1 P�rpJt, Bay City and the City's staff residential Project will occur, and as a matter of :h consideration is foreseeable, reasonable, and all obligations of Bay City in this paragraph 2A (2) In furtherance of consideration of the Proposed Residential Project, the City specifically agrees as follows: (a) The City's staff shall use each of his or her best efforts to secure consideration of (i) the Proposed Residential Project as shown on the Proposed Residential Project Plans; and (ii) Bay City's applications for land use and other entitlements and permits for the Proposed Residential Project subject to CEQA analysis, findings, and mitigation measures; 8 S7284- 1007\133995M.doc (b) The City's staff shall each recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that the City's staff in good faith considered the Proposed Residential Project and Bay City's applications for land use and other entitlements and permits for the Proposed Residential Project; (e). The City's staff shall work diligently and in shod faith with Bay City to expeditiously accomplish consideration of the Proposed Residential P ° )t and Bay City's applications for land use and other entitlements and permits farAtRi, Propos e Ridential Project upon Bay City's submission of the applications, information an MMMUffients c ssary for processing approval; - a (d) The City shall process expeditiously' Nil in good fart �t he applications, information and documents for the Proposeddential Proi Q The Cifyltall expedite the processing of any current apph ti cinsior land a and olie entitlements and permits for the Proposed Residential Prol ct already oie wit 3de City and any fixture applications that Bay City .� ± # rn t to the C Y for the Prop d Re�alTroje ct, according to a schedule develope 1 the parties. eesp {) Terms of Ap val. I connection with such approval, the City specifically agrees a ;ity's conveyance o e Open Space to the City discussed in paragraph 5.13, below, satisfies all.. z ie: following po. g�^' a exactions for the Proposed Residential Project: a 3 ees ( "Quimby fees "); (b) Park improvement obligations; (c) Affordable housing requirements (either in lieu fees or on- site improvements); In no event shall the City require or impose additional park fees ("Quimby fees "); additional park improvement obligations; or additional affordable housing requirements (either as in lieu fees or on site improvements) for the Proposed Residential Project, The parties will amend the existing reimbursement agreement between the parties to -9- 57284- i007\i333052v2.doc f reduce planning staff overhead charges from 17.5% to 8% for the Proposed Residential Project. The City waives the Transportation Facilities Fee for the Proposed Residential Project. (4) Hearing on Project. On or about March 31, 2012, or as soon thereafter as the City concludes is reasonably and legally possible, and subject to Bay City's timely submittal of all necessary applications, studies, reports and plans, the Cit ,Council will hold a hearing for final action on approval of the Proposed Residential Project a ay City's applications for land use and other entitlements and permits for the Prop _ _ Residen wroject. (a) At the hearing, the City Council things: the terms of the Agreement; Bay City's desire to Proposed Residential Project; and the fact that the litigation between the parties through the Agreement. (b) After all deliberations, the City Council may issue and Bay City's applications for �W_Y use Residential Project. (c) Nothi City's legislative dis ( The City agr and other notices and Residential Project for the Proposed I be deemed to constrain or limit the the "sitting area" shown on the River's End Project plans, attached here`s V`_ b f-51 shall be moved to a location south of the westerly prolongation of the southerly right-of-way of Central Way to allow 3,500 square feet of the San Gabriel River bike path to be incorporated into the Proposed Residential Project at no cost to the City. 3. If And When the City Approves the Proposed Residential Project: if and when the City Council approves the Proposed Residential Project discussed in paragraph 2, above, the City agrees to: (a) take reasonable steps to assist Bay City in obtaining a CDP from the Coastal Commission for the Proposed Residential Project; (b) testify on behalf of Bay City in favor of a CDP for the Proposed Residential Project before the Coastal Commission at any -10- 57284- 1007\1334052n2.doc hearing; and (e) if legally permissible, be a co- applicant with Bay City for a CDP from the Coastal Commission for the Proposed Residential Project and removal by the City of the fence surrounding the Open Space to be conveyed to the City upon receipt of a CDP by Bay City and Construction by the City of a replacement fence along the new common property line. For the purposes of City's obligations in this paragraph 3 to assist Bay City, such obligations shall not require City to spend any money or pay any money to Bay City (other than the c ;;stassociated with the fence). 4. approve the Proposed Residential Project, then the parties have>ffoVobl ga i below, of the Agreement. Instead, the City shall rotly consid negotiation or eminent domain, if necessary, the Driveway R1 and the the event the City Council authorizes the; and the Bike Trail Parcel, Bay City and its adoption of a resolution ofnecessl, rights A1161 � �=�' claims or defenses pr ; y waived in the not related to valuat o of the subject inte - Driveway Parcel is a Apr viously stipulated ii Such acquisition shall sejsIq�acquire not well. wai not under pargra h 5, quiring tsgh Trail Pa c�e1In Driveway Parcel associated with the on acfiCyfies and any other identified in Recital P and The City agrees that the larger parcel for the eminent domain matter identified in Recital P. Driveway Parcel and the Bike Trail Parcel as 5. Concurrent With' the Coastal Commission's Issuance of a CDP for the Proposed Residential Project: Promptly upon the Coastal Commission's issuance of a CDP to Bay City for the Proposed Residential Project, the parties agree as follows: A. City's ObUrations Concurrent With Issuance of a CDP for the Proposed Residential Proiect: (1) $1,100,000 Payment. The City will pay the amount of $1,100,000 to Bay City or its successors, successors -in- interest and assigns immediately upon recording of the deed described in paragraph B, below. 57284- 1007\1339052VUDC (2) Donation Tax Credit. The City agrees that Bay City may take a donation credit for tax purposes for all of the land Bay City transfers to the City under the Agreement. The donation credit may be for the difference between Bay City's appraised value for the land transferred and the total cash compensation of $2,000,000 paid to Bay City for the land transferred. The City's agreement to the donation credit and to use of Bay Cjky's appraised value does not obligate the City to agree with Bay City's appraised value. (3) Transfer of City -Owned Property. The City will nvey by A N; N quitclaim deed to Bay City fee simple title to approximately 7,000 squa?'e an ; at the r� v City owns adjacent to the corner of Marina Drive and First St nd legal y dsribed in Exhibit K attached hereto ( "City -Owned Property "). B. Bav City's Oblieations - - rurciftase The City and Bay C will enter rchase W sale agreement that contains all of the standprouisions (t`Purchase arl Sale Agrent "), including a provision awarding att r,:ys' fees, costs andenses toh prevailing party in any action or :y proceeding institute f; interpret or enforce y of the terms or provisions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, P ° nt to the Purchase Sale Agreement, Bay City will convey to the City, by quitclaim dee a to all of : and described in Exhibit D attached hereto and identified as the Open Spa aee( pen Space that Bay City will convey to the City by quitclaim deed consists of; (1) All of the land south of the westerly prolongation of the southern right -of -way boundary of Central Way, except ±1,200 square feet of land within the Proposed Residential Project Area south of the westerly prolongation of the southern right -of -way boundary of Central Way as shown and identified on Exhibit J attached hereto. (2) The Driveway Parcel; (3) The Sewer Parcel; and (4) The Bike Trail Parcel. -12- 57284. 1007 \13390520.doc The City agrees that Bay City's conveyance of the Open Space to the City shall be for the purpose of future open space and park uses. The quitclaim deed from Bay City to the City conveying the Open Space to the City will include a deed restriction limiting the uses of the Open Space to open space and park uses. The City may allow Bay City or its successors, successors -in- interest and assigns limited grading on the "Open Space" parcetth, rt of the review and approval process as shown on Exhibit C -2. 6. If No Issuance of a CDP B the Coastal Commission for rODOSed Residential Project. If the Coastal Commission does not issue a CDP C1. or the Proposed Residential Project, the parties shall have no oblig tc� 1 de aragraph fl_ -: , of the Agreement. i ). A. Bay City and its assi ain l� htnd interests in the easement for transportation of oil, gas an titer, as mo e rticul het forth in that certain Easement Agreement date. bra° 17, and recorde r ovember 009, as Instrument No. 2009000593882 e Official Record genty, California, and as shown on Exhibit L attached e to ( "DCOR Easeme B. y City and its assi s shall retain all rights to and interests in the oil and gas license with 5 -- uadras Offs . Resources, LLC ( "DCOR ") or its successors as shown on Exhibit M attache., ocated within the DCOR Easement, C. The City agrees that it will not (a) interfere with or impede the normal course of business under either the license with DCOR or the DCOR Easement; or (b) interfere with any of the pipelines existing under either the license with DCOR or the DCOR Easement. 8. Standard Provisions, A. Entire Agreement. The Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding concerning the subject matter hereof between the parties, and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, proposed agreements, and agreements, whether written or oral, express or implied, -13- 572B4- 1007\1339052v2.doc of any type whatsoever. Each of the parties hereto acknowledges that neither any other party hereto, nor any agent or attorney of any other party has made any promise, representation or warranty whatsoever, expressed or implied, not contained herein concerning the subject matter hereof to induce it to execute the Agreement, and acknowledges and warrants that the Agreement is not being executed by such party in reliance on any promise, representation Varranty not contained herein. B. Mutual Release. (1) Bay City, for itself and each of its agents; Y ' t tip heirs, executors, administrators, co-owners, co- tenants, subtenants, +c s ox uccessors ins a est, assigns past and present, officers, directors, partners, trusts stees, me , contractor d subcontractors and each of them hereby releases and disc the City, ach of its is representatives, heirs, executors, administrator viers co n su % tenants, successors, successors -in- interest, assigns past and pr se t, officers, ctors, " ners, trusts, trustees, members, contractors and .� .¢,. a ors, a n ch of them, m any an l claims, demands, actions, causes of act o ,V obligations, liabili looms eS Is, contracts, covenants, duties, damages, expenses, d ts, costs on appea charges of whatever kind, whether known or unknown, suspected.. nsuspected, which t or may exist as of the Effective Date of the Agreement regarding a = arising from - ertaining to: (a) the Condemnation Lawsuit; and (b) the CEQA Lawsuit, (2) The City, on behalf of itself and each of its agents, representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, co- owners, co- tenants, subtenants, successors, successors -in- interest, assigns past and present, officers, directors, partners, trusts, trustees, members, contractors and subcontractors, and each of them, hereby releases and discharges Bay City, and each of its agents, representatives, heirs, executors, administrators, co- owners, co- tenants, subtenants, successors, successors -in- interest, assigns past and present, officers, directors, partners, trusts, trustees, members, contractors and subcontractors, and each of them, from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, obligations, liabilities, losses, debts, contracts, -14- 57284- 1007�1339052vldnt covenants, duties, damages, expenses, costs, costs on appeal and charges of whatever kind, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which exist or may exist as of the Effective Date of the Agreement regarding and /or arising from or pertaining to: (a) the Condemnation Lawsuit; and (b) the CEQA Lawsuit, C. Civil Code Section 1542, A The parties hereto acknowledge that they are familiar with shc% n 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides: q A general release does not extend to claims which the credi orW Q not know or suspect to exist in his or her faoatltme of executing the release, which if known bye, i ,;�or her mu ve materially affected his or her settlement with ebtor. The parties hereto, and e ,hi them, walv�edrhquish all rights and - _�.. w benefits to the full extent that they may law waive al nigh benefits as existed or currently exist, but such wait, of app such claims s ay arise the future. A. to neys' Fees, Costs F, x ens s ') Each party s bear its own attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. {s *fflffln y action roceeding instituted to interpret or enforce any of the terms or provisions _Y the prevailing party or parties shall be entitled to attorneys' fees, court costs and expenses incurred by the prevailing party in connection with such action or proceeding. E. Successors and Assigns. The Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon each party hereto, including each party's respective agents, representatives, heirs, administrators, executors, successors, successors -in- interest, and assigns. -15- S7284.1007\1339052v2.doc F. Counterparts. The Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, when taken together, shall constitute a completely executed original. The counterparts may be transmitted by facsimile, which shall be deemed original signatures. G. Authority. (1) Bay City warrants and represents that each sig a 8ry to the Agreement on behalf of Bay City has authority to sign the Agreement in his or her re r entative capacity. Similarly, the City warrants and represents that its signatory hasPWiffift t n the Agreement on behalf of the City. W t (2) Each of the undersigned rep e4 � s and wart at he, she o Us fully authorized to enter the Agreement on behalf of his r its princip I ;and to bi ch principal to the terms set forth herein without der ra it ion o pprov . H. Resolution of Disput Puts aGcde of iv, l Procedure stlon 6 &4 6, a parties agree that the Orange County Se for Court will retain rdtonor the parties and the Agreement, �Y The Court shall reso all disputes, contro a 'es and claims relating to the Agreement and the obligations of the p "'.' under it. The d -tes, controversies, and claims covered by this paragraph include, withb ]i nation, any rte ute sounding in contract or tort, any dispute as to the making, validity, interp - e rmation or enforceability of the Agreement, and any dispute seeking legal, equitable, provisional or permanent relief relating to the Agreement. I. Notice. (1) If to the City: City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: City Manager 57284.1007\13340520.doc With Copy To: Quinn Barrow, Esq. Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 -3101 Email: qbaffow@nyglaw.co nyglaw.com Fax No.: (213) 626 -0078 -16- (2) if to Bay City: Bay City Partners LLC 2999 Westminster Avenue, Suite 211 Seal Beach, California 90740 Attn: Rocky Gentner Email: Rockyg_r@gentnerandcompany.com With Copy To: John C. Murphy, Esq. Murphy & Evertz LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 550 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Email: imurphy a,murphyevertz.com Fax No.: (714) 277 -1777 J. Jurisdiction. The Agreement shall be deemed by the parties to p. ave been a ted and delivered within the State of California, and the rights and obligations oftaes, e o shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and gove e-9 'y they aws of t e _ - e of N NSA California. K. Venue. The parties hereto agree any type that may be prosecuted, initiated o be brought in the Superior, e Stat L. Agreement, or has h effect that any ambigu� any interpretation of the n. �cg9n, su t yt lam },other proceeding of a° `. � in ectio %tffh. the Agreement, shall of party has cor ted in the drafting and preparation of the opportunity to doa Hence, the normal rule of construction to the �e to be resole . against the drafting party will not be employed in M. Severability. In the event any part of the Agreement should be found invalid, unenforceable or nonbinding, the remaining portions will remain in force and fully binding. N. Waiver of Breach. The waiver by any party of any breach of any term in the Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. -17- 57284- 1007\1339052v2.doc O. voluntary Agreement. Each party hereto acknowledges and warrants that such party has been represented by counsel of its own choice throughout all negotiations which preceded the execution of the Agreement. Each party has read or has had read to such party the Agreement, and has had it satisfactorily explained to such party by counsel Accordingly, each party is satisfied with the settlement contained herein and Agreement voluntarily. A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Bay City cause the Dated: _ , 2011 CITY OF SI A municipal Dated: Dated: such party. the 57284- 1007\13390520.doc Chairman 2011 BAY CITY PARTNERS LLC, A California limited liability company By: Rocky Gentner Member -18- Dated: 3// , 2011 Dated: 3 I e , 2011 Dated: d i / , 2011 Dated; BAY CITY PARTNERS LLC, A California limited liability company By; Bob Griffith Member BAY CITY PARTNERS LLC, A California limited liabilitv�-ec APPROVED AS TO FORM: Dated: 3 " /6 , 2011 57284.1007\1339052v2,doc CITY OF SEAL BEACH, A municipal corporation B y• • Quinn M. Barrow City Attorney of City of Seal Beach -19- ATTACHMENT 2 ` :ECOLOGY The Dark Side of Night Lighting David Nils 1'`ll `� he aura of light that hangs over a city tumaI components of the 24 -hour cycle are now, 1 oil an otherwise dart: night brings into blurred across large parts of the globe (almost sharp focus the impact Honro sapiens is entirely in developed countries) because of our having on Earth. A satellite view of the planet "need" for light, The editors note that nearly 19% at night reveals swathes and pimples of of Earth's terrestrial surface "experiences night light, clearly identifying hot spots of human sky brightness that is polluted by astronomical activity--- Furopc, the United States, India, standards." What effect are these undark skies and Japan. The light having on the wildlife and the ecosystem func- is a sign of our species tions and services on which we depend7 extending its influence, Providing the best examination to date of this packing action into question, the book synthesizes current thinking every hour of the day on topic ofconsiderable, if often unrecognized and night, importance toconservation professionals. Nearly "Artificial night all environmental impact assessments should lighting" seems a rather include an analysis of the effects of lighting, both passive description for specific to the development of a par - something that, as we ticular site and cumulative, but very can easily perceive, few do. Our own diurnal perspective has such a pervasive on life blinds us, and so we forget the effect on our fellow vast number of species that rely on species. Based on darkness ---to hide, to catch prey, to expert reviews of the mate, to interact. responses of a wide range of organisms, The book provides the scientific .Xcological Consequences ofArrificial A'ighi foundation for understanding the =Lighting offers a unique insight into how these impacts of night lighting and then effects manifest themselves. The volume's six acting on research findings to reduce sections cover mammals, birds, reptiles and or, better still, avoid its damaging amphibians, fishes, invertebrates, arid plants. effects on wildlife. Although the Each begins with a vignette on ecology at first review of the mechanisms by night, either excerpted from earlier accounts which animals are attracted to lights (e.g,, writings by Alexander von Humboldt appeared in 1958 (2) and its author and Henry David Thoreau) or experiences coined the term "photopollution" in 1985 (3), described for the book (e.g., short essays by only within the last decade has there been much Bernd Heinrich and Carl Wina). The editors, research on the ecological consequences, Bearing Catherine Rich and Travis Longeore (who run in mind that (as noted in the book) humans have the Urban Wildlands Group, a nonprofit con- long influenced animal behavior with light (for nervation organization in Los Angeles), have a example, the Ilse of campfires to keep predators passion for the aesthetic dualities of night skies at bay), the dramatic increase in electrical lighting free from pho(opollution. For my part, I share in the past 40 years is a relatively rapid change for their enthusiast) for a world in which humans wildlife to accommodate. have a much smaller ecological footprint. But For such a new area of research, the work is i the reality is that our constant drive for devel- fairly thorough, and the book provides many a opmeril, wealth creation, and all the associated useful pointers for (management. For example, ancillary insanities of consumption results in road lighting may not deter vehicle collisions less wilderness, less wildlife, and less peace, with mammals, and may even exacerbate the tl Rich's love of "empty" space -- which, of problem, because many weturpal manunals use a course, from a wildlife. perspective is the antilbe- only the rod systern for sight and bright lighting 4f sis of empty —where species have adapted to saturates their retinas. In contrast, some species ttn nocturnal life strategies shines through in her of bats seem to benefit from street lighting, as to preface. In their introduction, she and I ongcore they preferentially feed on insects attracted to an cite calculations that 44% ofAmcticaris live in lights, although these favored bats may in turn locations where it does not become sufficiently displace other insectivorous species that do not 4ark for the human eye to complete the transition forage at lights through interspecif a competition. 1 .om cone to rod vision (1). The diurnal and noc- Jens Ryd0l concludes that the replacement of Sidncy Gauthreaux and Carrolll3elscr's con, sideration of the effects of lighting on nligrating birds makes particularly pertinent read'ntg, '1-}1ey find that the increasing use of artificial lighting is having an adverse effect on bird populations, especially on species that typically migrate at night. Mass mortalities of birds attracted to lights were noted at lighthouses and lightships in the nnid- 180t)s, but the relatively recent exparlsioln of cities, the escalating height of ht buildings, and the Ongoing spread Ofcon"Unications toners across the land are having an increasingly damaging impact on birds. Aircraft roaming lights placed on such towers lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of nocturnal migrants each year. Most mortality occurs on nights when the moon is new or only slightly illuminated, The authors describe practical measures —such as replacing red lights, which disorientate birds, with white --- --with the potential for substantially reducing such losses of migrating birds. Sea turtles are another taxon for which the R. N. Cohen's Wolf Moon (detail), The reviewer is at RPS plc, Crake Holme, rrtuker, Richmond, rdonhYort:shire 6(11 6QH, Ur. f -mall- hitld &psgrpvp,com I inercuty, vapor lamps with high- pressure sodium 3 valor lamps (which attract fewer insects) benefits both bats and insects. effects Ofartificial lighting are comparatively well Studied. Michael Salmons review of research in Florida suggests the benefits of using embedded I lights (rather than poled streetlights) and replacing traditional coastal lighting, which attracts and tragically disorients turtle haichlings, Tile }message is cicar- -keep the nesting beaches Lark at night. Through their examples and discussions, the ndividual chapters provide consistently intriguing nalyses that demonstrate the wide impact oflight pollution. So much of the boot, is of direct rele- ancato thecnvironmental advice tie try to give in 1e United Kingdom that I expect it will be helpful at the globe. Ecological Consegisences of rlifrcird A'fglir Lighting is an exccIIent reference at will undoubtedly raise awareness oftho need conserve energy, do proper impact assessments, d tum the lights down. kelerences P. (inaro, F. iakhi, C. 0. avidge, i1,on. not. R.Asrrorr 56c. 328,689 (1041). P I.Verheijen,Arch. Mid, loot. 13, 4 (1958). r. I. Wheifen, 6P. 81a1 44,1 (1985). 7 APRIL 2006 VOL 312 SCIENCE wvnv.sciencornag,org PubifrhedbyMAS 10.1126/sciena,1126605 i a s sr P r y s ri A < i� :j _ \ ] \ � / � §c 4 2§ a 0 0E-L ® R 2 §' tz:! \ \ c « 'TJC: \ \ ƒ m § 0 2 / ƒ g n w \ \ ® \ ? d = 7 n m \A /Q. \ o,10 \ /I)cx ƒ7 0 A) ° - n cr r: ,` i ƒ\ _/ f_ J O 2 E k - \ \ ] § ' j 0 } $ ID / 3 13 @ « / ) } J / A / 2 / \ \ 2 } / 0 \ / / / ' / / 7 \ Z \ \ C § / / / / / _ '. w L § � } o & a 2 / / A \ CL e m & { Cl' O n n C Q. �. p£ r� n ;n t3q- C y of G. �; "d '� n .u-. ° 'S 0` �• �' O (m a Ci Q. n� ° " nt �. su ,• TJ Ci n' ^ Ov Q r} ra w o m m _, C n n. rip � ' t3 'cs m �" 4 �ii p '� C C :� " n O °y' r G �' 0 o "' t1. O CL y "•1 $ O yC C .n.. � vi �' uq 'rt Q O t ro G,'U C y T ry Cm �co O wu4a•, O C Gn w a O s Q o p Q -.� . C� ' C O0 Q 0 w M A. "« O Cs n CY 0 . ni O n g to W n 0 :+ n ro ro ctq M G 7 H `� "' 0, 0 „ w _ " 0-1 r I + n ° x3° ,C ] G a ti @ yr _ on 0 C by CIO O M y n W e4 y >t -•, ... °� n Ci 0J m �+ O 0-. q n G L yr U4 e n q, O N O O 't7 O-. Ll. C 7 h �. p N C n R. 0 ., 0 p �' O ro w H w ¢' VQO' aq m❑ 0u C y C tl ro ti r7 C E n o G O �+ o >tqo e - 0 t- O• O y O 9 O ti � O pcj 7 w * O n 0 p rtrn . . 0 r O � . N O O n n • r �G , � � n -t � fD ,•*, �• L:- O n n � .. n m ^+, -+� . y, n n• n y g p wµ a, w c7 C ^. rt n -. 'c n a e7 0 qQ O CI QQ 7 ,-.� "• 0 y o O n a' n O 0" -s n n n n w 0 .1' Oq 0 n n O- '�' 0 rt N .ar O 7 0 y Cm a 0' n 0 G7 On ,'�„ n v"i N m d OC ti P� 0 n^ a 0 y 0-0 0 �:03 a0 O R j rp G m. __ 0 a ^' 0 0" Q N a Q ^� �' O O r1 0 C7 O n zv n O n 0 a 00 0 Al h3 OC n 0 �� o� OC, o o r G w R a .�-r • Wn LS. fii n Q' '" -�° i1, a, s f0]. {y UQ• ?� T' ., ^• ;. 21 � ro 't tj H ',��• O " a 0. O" � � " � 0 � � • � [�i � p "�', � � .wy � � C � -pi O O n :r' ,y'] `�' p- 9 a. O U, -. W p p?, n '< [/� R. "� n O OQ 7 y r1 y O w y O ar n n �, 0 y 0 a. � O O 0 " P+ O 0 Q rD or �' V 9 C -n .. ,, UQ ffo n eu O �j 6 On p ro C 0 a o C o O a 0 v 0 w A n so < 0 0 ti Cal ^ ,f "-c �. a O�'�. O `^ d? `-r d; n 0 Q .* 0 A• .'7. : ' n "� CL. (a O y „T {� 0 00, O r0-r � -t 0 A. " 0 (JQ , n 0 M °, D O rr O•' tiq n n + O n n, O O C A O C/1 n '�' 'Q-f' On G G n A. 0 O G^ Q .�',•• •< 5 R n h `� n 7 t7 to �-•, W ". m IG n H CL �-[ �' ,.,, y O a' O O rp :. n n y n n n f? Id ?' n O n T. T 7 Kn n e Q. Q Y r"o a+ y siv' w UR 41 N i M ou I ro d O n o Q 7c w m O 3 p" ro ro q SS O Q. n C� • v y M O a -0,,,Q' VR v, aq 4q a o w O ro Q. Q rr ,g •-ti �. N ., O O crg n co � y o 0 cra � � � a' �• � a �r ra ry� rr O ra r. o n C6 oq K O a 0 , Q 'Lf cn�c O CL �7,o m r n t4 aR `y tj� O - �. cu a- O :1 w ° :1 0 � � _� - � M Vi rT O (9 � � Q , 9 G4, 7f ct ra y❑ C ari v y m C � � coo � R. � � ro 4. ,� � • 4� r q Q�".. � {, qcr "s q • N O. ? O O f/S rq Q q � c j c o ro G s (00-:) n ni m a n n na -i _ m Z n m O � O � ".. n O ¢ _ o to c ro Q o a m o N ff O F 7 N N w w 2 Q s N tD wM. R O' N cQ Z' :Q O 7 Z O u ? r4 y C m y 3 O m co O iE (D cr i ATTACHMENT 3 12707/2011 12 :49 7149694911 JAMES C CAVIOLA PAGE 02/06 xCelle, zlre ife n 7/6/2011 JAMES CAVZOLA 1117 OCEAN AVE SEAL BEACH RE: EHD REQ #: COUNTY OF ORANGE HEALTH CARE AGENCY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CA 17483 90740- I PAV,tD.L. RILt=Y -- INTE01 IAECTOR DAVID M. SOULCLES, MPH DEPLITY AGENCY 01115CTOR RICHARD SANUU, REHS, MPH DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAILING ADDRESS: 1241 E. DYER ROAD SVFFE; 120 SANTA ANA, CA 92708.5811 TF- LEPHQNE: (714) 43MOCO FAX - (714)754 -1732 C•I'AAIL: unaeph@Klica.com NO .RECORDS 7'i 1s office is in receipt of your request for copies of records, We wore unable to locate any records on the above locadon-. It is understood that such records could exist under another spelling, name or classi•iication, but with the information furnished to our office And to tbo beat ofour knowledge, no such records, exist in our files. NOTE: The cities of Anaheim, Fullcrton, Orange and Santa Ana monitor their own Underground Storage Tbe,Health Care Agency may not be the only source of records. Please check with the Fire Department, the Water Quality Control Board and/or the State Department of Health Services, If you have any question, please call this office at (714) 433 -6022. Environmental Health Records Unit )range County TAX ID: 95- 6000 -928w N0PFCORb5 12/07/2011 12 :49 7149694911 JAMES C CAVIOLA PAGE 03/06 09;52 714964451 JF1Mk5 U CAVIOLA PAGE 01/04 1 0 f. "r COUNTY OF ORANGE 1241 E, 0Y LnaAD STM 120 HEALTH CARE AGENCY AMtAARA,OA DA10 TELRPHONE: (714)A33-OWD FAX! (714) 433.304 kx .n ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH www&r--h_ealthhfo.00m/reqWotory /enViroa.htm REQUEST rOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REdCdRDS the undersigned hereby requeats a copy of the records prepared and malntallned by the Health Care Agency In the ordinary course of buslness, at or near the Lima of the act, condition, or event which they depict. The records requested are maintained under the PUbiie Records Act Gowirnment Code § 62550 6276,48. Some information held in the documents may be exempt from release pursuant to the public Records Act, The undersigned understands that the Health Care Agency will charge $(:).15 per page copied. In tho case of a request for a large dumber of copies, the Health Care Agency may provido the requeseor an estimate of copy costs prior to making Bald copies. If any request is to be canceled, this office must be notified at the above number within tort ('I0) doys of receipt or request, otherwise cost incurred will be charged to the undersigned, In order to assist you, please describe the reason Please list addresses here a more than es per regprstj; Cr C If-- i' '1 07T r ck here if you would like A review only or to review ISI3fore coploe Oro made rJ o Fryi3ester PRINT Noma of Requager (and Ggmpeny �IamP •� +• ^�` " "'ab)e) I RINT'8tea /rjtAddre:%a PRINT City, 9t2to s+nd Zip Code Ares Code and P11 ne Number rate RECORDS THAT HAVE NOT BEeN PICKED UP WITHIN 60 DAYS OF NOTIFICATION WILL BE DESTROYED F'042- 09.9347 (Rev. 11106) rage 9 of 3 ra✓ 12/07//29 2011 12 :49 7149694911 JAPES C CAVIOLA PAGE 94/06 / 281J, 49:52 7119694911 JAMES C CAViLLA PAGE 02/04 MAILING ADORVM' J cOUNTY ©1� ORANGE 1p.41 E SANTAAN& CA 02102 w HEALTH CARE AGENCY TFLePlao 'Ja•!V14143"Doo FAXt(I141d31.0424 ' d f~NVIRONM)ENTAI, HEA)..TH ��Xb w_wuu,ocl�ealt, I�ineol�lro ulaka lenviron. tiAZARDOU5 WASTE 1 OTHPIR PROGRAM INFORMATION CHECKLIST please check only the records YOU need. This will enable It Ot ear imoy notinNantactual files that pertain to YOU( request, cukting clown fame spent On searching for records Slto SpLioifiC In'f6rfflatll00 d Above Ground petroleum storage Tank File r3 Callfomla Accidental Rele359 Prevenlion program lilt: F_j Gertlfleci Unified Program Agency (CUPA) rerOWA r] City of Srea i-lezardous Materials 13138111ess Plan File tj Complaints regarding Hazardous Waste or Underground Storage Tank F eaiflty 0 Hazardous VVMstp Generator FacilikY F11e Hazardouo Waste industrlfli Cles"UP Site rile M Hazardous Weste 9plIl Response Log (irmergency Incidents Lo(l) 4' Lcaking Underground Storage Tanit Cleantap Site File M Medical Waste Facility Record proposition r.,5 Notification I3 Recycling Prograrn 10 solid Waste Faclilly FW (large files -- need to be specific) M Splil Provention, Control anti COL111termeasurP (SpCG) Elie 0 TIP-fed PP- Faculty File © Underground Storage Wank Fife rl Water quality information 9011[Abll? off llltvll`0hi )L'ntAl H09Ith Wal),i'tF List afoU� Waste C�eneratar i<anilles (tiwt �ctu�lFa.stzuu} Li3l Of 1YhCiUStflat Cjr�nup SItt9 (IC PROGRAM CA6S BY Cl1Y.sRw? LIST fi�}AdL,r round Tank Store a � Cleatlu S' es list of Und- Qrgrounc 5fa et�7gnSc E=acihsr,ies (uSrVnc{LlTles agw) A llst of Solid Waste landfills (which includes c169ed landfills) can be obtfllned thrnugi1 he Califoi-nfa website, www clvvmb _ q."o §WIS1 Other Information: 1�►'1�� ,�. 1: Fph ?•r}5).1 ?�7 (R u. 11106) P q9e 3 of 1 ATTACHMENT 4 07/06/2011 08;46 .r 7149694911 z tir4�5'' %� �:.pl �i.�'' d ;It ✓.;. .' e• rti�s•i�r tVk�SCS iN`y ��! \�{ y:k 1..tk ' {tti�• /. .i t:.ti~ V.. 3.G SU�t iL. ?.k��4 ,P ?d s.f :.fT�• ''.�. 5' 3�i. i�' JAMES C CAVIOLA BEAT. t%nACIT GENgCA UQOASTATIOU 51TE oAcamber 1, 1586 PAGE 93/06 . ' '•' .'� �[iR1ll1a1� Work began in Mayo 1988 to clear the Site and to remove y'" fbinoz substzu.turas, one month latex, a0be0t0s wns d.isAvvexQd in the rubble and the loll that had been left: on tEtR Eli" from the denloli,tiCn tout had occurred twenty ye+lzs eazJiex� �'h► -' begartmont. stopped the work) nntifiad appropriate rec�Jlatoxy anti bVernmvft al ur�dnoi�QS� identified the Addd Agency foi, the Clean'* i0 9dxahgd county Health Care Agency) ; gnd ,tdpa7kdd arsd <list r� bubV -' j;�¢6.0aniona�l brochures to the n6arby xas�dent9 degos;Alsi�q thb Z Sjtishtjon an4 crux ntforts and plans for 01"110' A sampling p3 �,n was dgVelopad to identify the escter[ti c�€ ctia ` asbecttos aontAmination i.n the 0oil� 1n addition, air sempii�ng was cbnducbsd to obtain it►fozmation on the amount of as�iastos that was prstsent• to the air. To data, over 200 $oil samples and 130 air samplea ltays bedn taken and analyzed. All air namples have shown asbnatoe concentrations siynj��tanhl•y below all zsguXatoxy standards xhe ahxeesaroass�hthe boiAertbay tbot bay to tbs cpncrata the batch plant nxaa. wk� .alp dQka1 ] s+ the Depaztimexkt' s pines for A cleanup Plan excavation Attd bulk diap(ssal of thv, asbestos contaminated, 00il and rubble hen been aubIrt,t:tad to orange county and the cleanup in rubble h in �.n ax Cos. Completion of awbastos cleal!UP i.s antzoipated by June 30, x987. Completion of defnoJ .scion and site Antioxation work is estimated to be in September, 1'307. J)" to ro the high abet uP rljaposing of hazaydous tnatexia].e tt,jd t.n 2xtended schedule, then Call: O� tWA site wank is eatima$oveti�riFE Is fox appxoxima.t6xy $1,5 mi.11ign. The our =ettt1Y app $79 &r�00. 07/06/2011 08:46 I a tto)A Megan at site. 'f .• �. Wb9k at tho Witt W$_: E , is 7149694911 May, z, 2966 June I "o, 1906 4bnI6 20, 1.90'6 Jli.l:y 16, 1986 .Tg1Y 17, , 19 8 6 aul:y 23, 1996 A09Uft 22, 1996 8$ptembbr 8, 1906 peptetabar 11, 19&6 octobor 2, 1966 Ootobox 22, 1986 Novembor 24, 1996 JAMES C CAVIO A PAGE 04/OG Di t>;i.hutiOn of information "yaks ,. to the BUXr4Utnd-i:ng neig}jbarhb'o�, &Iubmittad sampl.;ln9 Plan to o7rungb A county Hoalth Car'& Agency (OGHCl�1 for identifying extent of akl6os£os $taktdd obtvini, g 159 soil aalnples from Reven rubble s,reas whare 4sbeston cattamYnat:ion was suspected„ A favorable artxol(l appeared in the 1,011g Beach Jouvnal, seal Soach mayor, Frank Clift was glinted as saying dThc3y (Dwp) got: on it right away, and they're do�nq a good JCb." Sgbmn tt.ed wri tan .results Of soil and air enmpl•'ng, to OCHCA. ltbsultr, Indi:oatad asbestw contamination 1- United to threa a3rome (ade abtaataed plan) . > inal Cloanup plan submitted. Vill ukii.I%Q contraot for bulk disposal of asbestos ccntamip4ted sail and xubble. hdditi.oral soil sampl'ng will be utilize4 to confirm rcmp)•ataness of claanup„ Conti.nuo"S peximotox air sarpling will be undgrtaken during the Oeanup and disposal opermtiou(j, tto)A Megan at site. to 1 l�efs+ast.as di.sa..t%..r.�d �� . .• �. Wb9k at tho Witt W$_: fat air sdMhliidq ai .j is v9.oulo a6b'Otfh e , i Parimeter sampling „oz` A-0d8VU& 4vnuCt7i. P,8Equl:ts of AIr sazcfolt'rig airborne asbesfabi; I'a d tliasz' 3 % '[l t tine cmx rent Cal-dSftt 8 d4ida;.d tik empl.oye•e protest &dn, 110t,ific4tion of tpjN'vl,atdry arid' governMental 07/06/2011 08 :46 7149694911 ��... L...^. ar • '¢.�...ti,.rr r. ray "..�'.;•.'�'... '� �•1 rr.�•.J: . i�' } °rl•'''I ;�.:r � �• e f r� P'Ar fii >•r r,'� ir• ,r r• •,�yr .r j: j: ty.�.•;, rtF; rya; y.yi ;4 •r'`;'t`rtil. �r�s��. +, /il f . {..r(.': ;`ir�� '•�. r�ij���;���f;l {f +' r��'�' f r 't I'��x'�L ��; ;•'i'+r ,'•r "ice.:' n i•i J[ ssr. n 1-4 ,•• a r �'t#e fe: OaJiedule end S:osC� . tne add sox the aompletton of asb+tstcjo 0,aan.Mo is J�iTia 36'� 191. Z #Gxma+ted date fox the r;alapletAan of O: U'10- 6L"' terlik oke- (6% it $drjuazy 16', 1087. A ted ddte for dbaioaaon of the heavy sufte.t otuteff. 0 R t6 b4olft is IM4, f0j, t+'t id.tsd data for camp]. #titan of rata''l 011 to • V-6A ie ���SkdY�ibex, 1�b7. , 2roE91 dst 'Reed Cost for site clearing, d�Fs4� ��3{�n' 3if3'ft ASl� @'stn's c.j,Qafi�Sip• ,is St.500,4�f "(�. • �d of depfambsx 30, x986, S75,000_,has bean expendb4 for R4b�St4's C1.Sa'fl11�. , gstiratad cost for r;emaval of remaining asbestos In 6b'3-d, 00. Bst.iMAtod cost for crude oil tonY, cleanup 4s $60,040. ATTACHMENT 5 01/06/2022 12:15 -71` oN911 JAMES C CAVIOLA PAGE 02/03 Ko .� sF'!Xa?ror�o cm N fi, 3 N A v arr• rorto o ran c • w tL r+ 'I r+ 7c U C! N f0 7C C r+ ra y G '0* ° rn ALA W' � cf v! ro ti ro rF a v ro v ., rt a tt n o N re rt w Sc m I< ti ra rt ar o 0 a a tt7 ira 010 �rf�Hrh r...w w.ur lob � n ;r ba'G� N �tl wro ea : so :� in 4 R tA M S c _..la N 7 5, n at O ; ci 0 m ro � p C re yf en Q N rF +"� N r, r+ rz� o.�ro�om a •Ce .��� a o n •+,rooms �b4, �m ✓we•�d ��•''r�r o�.vr► �rt rr4rDaOL., wmawa catlN 7 ro c, of t o on o iv rf w !C O Kow rnr Dr •'�j Q K •M n W f�1 G Q -4 r4 7 3 IA f n N N rD . COO �'0' i� N' 00, ern .� N n � � A r➢ W S O .'] N W f7 N' .n... !'7 N ct �ar4rnnrt �3•v`°i Nt�wCu 0 w c ro .+. N J r+_ ; A ' a w °, � a pj �. 6• ro it i .� N C14, !D k � 0 ro ro v m 0 -h ro ro w 9 v A w w w N_ w �l L •o � � Y! T T i 4 c l V. i n yD Fn V !n a � 204 V• 0 4, H� rn O 01/06/2012 12:15 7149694911 JAMES C CAVIOLA PAGE 03/03 A A ja A CJ O N sj F-L--a t7l N W City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM CHATTEN -BROWN AND CARSTENS, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 21 -1 This introductory comment does not raise any environmental issues, and therefore no further response to this statement is required. In any event, it is noted that the Commenter states that the proposed residential development, associated roadways, and necessary infrastructure is located on 10.9 acres, whereas the remaining 6.4 acres would be developed for passive recreation. However, the Commenter's assertion is not accurate. As discussed in Section 3.3.1, Pr_ L__ Description, on page 3 -5 of the Draft EIR, the proposed residential uses would be located on approximately 4.5 acres, while the remaining 6.4 acres would be used for open space /passive recreation uses. The Commenter also states that the Draft EIR admits that the project would have significant adverse impacts with regard to aesthetic impacts. This is a correct statement. By concluding that the project as proposed would have a significant, unmitigable impact on aesthetics, the Draft EIR is consistent with CEQA's mandate that an EIR provide a conservative, worst - case scenario of potential project impacts. The Commentor also feels that the project would likely have significant adverse impacts related to land use, recreation, traffic, biological, water quality, hazardous materials, and jobs /housing imbalance. This is the commenter's opinion and statement of disagreement with the analysis in the Draft EIR. As discussed in Section 5_1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, Section 5.13, Public Services and Utilities, Section 5.5, Traffic and Circulation, Section 5.3, Biological Resources, Section 5.11, Hydroloa and WlaterQualit Section 5. 10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 5.12, Population and Housing, impacts related to land use, recreation, traffic, biological, water quality, hazardous materials, and jobs /housing imbalance, respectively, would be reduced to less than significant levels upon implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures. The Commenter states that the Draft EIR's impacts and alternatives analysis are precommitted to rezone the property for residential uses. Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2, below. The Commenter states that the project would violate the Coastal Act and public trust doctrine by allowing private residential uses instead of visitor serving uses that promote coastal access and recreation. Refer to Responses to Comments 21 -50 through 21- 54, below. 21 -2 The Commenter asserts the legal argument that the City "precommitted" to approving the Project prior to performing environmental review by entering into a settlement agreement ( "Settlement ") with Bay City Partners (BCP) in 2011. The argument does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. Rather, it questions the timing of the CEQA review. The legal issue is whether the City's execution of the Settlement is a project for CEQA purposes. In that this comment does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. In any event, the Settlement is neither a "precommitment" to approve the Project nor a project for CEQA purposes, for many reasons, including the following. The Settlement settled two then- pending litigation matters: (a) an eminent domain action filed by the City to acquire property owned by BCP for street and sewer purposes; and (b) a writ of mandate proceeding filed by BCP challenging the City's River's End Project upon CEQA grounds. In Final • April 2012 2 -196 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report addition, the City agreed to process, in good faith, BCP's proposal for a 48 unit residential subdivision in the event BCP filed an application for its proposal. At the time of the execution of the Settlement, BCP had not submitted an application for its proposal. As shown on p. 2, Recitals D, E and F of the Settlement, BCP had submitted only applications for two certificates of compliance and a lot line adjustment, and not any applications for discretionary land use entitlements subject to CEQA review. The full analysis of the Project's impacts found in the DEIR could not have been done until BCP submitted an actual development application. Thus, any environmental review of the Project at the time of the Settlement would have been premature, incomplete, impractical and ineffective. Further, the Settlement states that the City expressly preserves its right to retain its legislative discretion (p. 10) in the event BCP submits an application, and details the parties' obligations in the event the City does not approve the proposal (p. 11). In sum, the City merely agreed to consider the proposal (p. 8) and to process, in good faith, applications for land use entitlements to be filed at a subsequent date (see p. 2, Recitals D, E and F, and p. 8, Section 2A). Thus, the Settlement does not commit the City to approve the Project. 21 -3 The comment does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. Rather, it argues that the City has improperly committed to changing the land use and zoning designations prior to environmental review. Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. In that this comment does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. In any event, as stated in the Response to Comment 21 -2, there is no City commitment to any change of land use and zoning of the site in the Settlement. Further, the City has no financial interest in approving the Project. It paid BCP $900,000 for the sewer parcel (p. 7) and will not get any portion of that amount back if it approves the Project (p. 5). Should the Applicant receive a Coastal Development Permit for the project, the City still would be required to pay the amount of $1,100,000 to BCP for the Open Space, the Driveway Parcel, the Sewer Parcel, and the Bike Trail Parcel (page 11 [5] [a] [1]). 21 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. The comment does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. Rather, it argues that the City has improperly committed to the Project because the City has agreed to assist the Applicant in obtaining a coastal permit in the event the City approves the Project. In that this comment does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. In any event, if the City does not approve the Project, the City will not be assisting the Applicant. This is the City's standard practice: supporting projects that it has approved after full CEQA review and duly noticed public hearings, and not supporting projects it has disapproved. Such a practice is not evidence of precommitment. 21 -5 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. The comment does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. In that this comment does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -197 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21 -6 As to the Commenter's "precommitment" legal argument, refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. With respect to the Commenter's statement that the Draft EIR should be revised to include objectives that allow other uses of the site, the City notes that the objectives in the Draft EIR are based on the Applicant's Application and are not a statement of any independent City objectives. The Draft EIR complies with CEQA's requirement (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b)) to include in the project description a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The purpose of project objectives is to help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and to aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. Based on the Application submitted by BCP to the City, the main purpose of the project is to develop residential uses within the northern portion of the project site. This statement of objectives helped to formulate potential project alternatives for inclusion and analysis in the Draft EIR. In addition, the City notes that CEQA's requirement that a lead agency consider a reasonable range of alternatives is focused on those alternatives that would reduce significant unmitigable impacts occurring with the project. See CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). Here, the alternatives analysis was thus focused on projects that could achieve most of the Applicant's goals and objectives while not creating significant unmitigable aesthetics impacts. Nonetheless, although the main objective of the project is to develop residential uses, the City did examine development of the existing allowable Visitor - Serving uses at the project site (Alternative 1.2 - "No Project /1996 Department of Water and Power Specific Plan" Alternative [page 7 -12 of the Draft EIR]). Thus, although the project's goal includes development of residential uses, the City analyzed development of the existing allowable Visitor - Serving uses at the project site in order to determine if this scenario would reduce significant and unavoidable impacts that would result from the proposed project. As concluded in Table 7 -4, Coz4arison of Alternatim on page 7 -33 of the Draft EIR, the No Project /1996 Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Alternative would actually result in more increased environmental impacts than reductions, and would not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable aesthetics /light and glare impacts. 21 -7 The Commenter states that the project description is misleading because it fails to note that the proposed project would reduce the Open Space "by greater than 10 percent." As discussed in Response to Comment 8 -1, the Draft EIR uses acreage, not percentages, for the purposes of identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of a project with 4.1 acres proposed for residential development and 6.4 acres of open space. The Draft EIR accurately discloses the absolute, rather than the relative, sizes of the existing and proposed land uses for the project area. This approach more accurately communicates the actual environmental changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project than a proportional approach. The decrease in Open Space, regardless of whether it is 0.1 acre or 1.0 acres, is concluded as a less than significant impact as discussed in Impact Statements LU -5 and LU -6 in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning of the Draft EIR. Further, the existing on -site portions of the San Gabriel River were included in the original open space calculation as part Final • April 2012 2 -198 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report of the DWP Specific Plan, thus it is also included as part of the proposed DWP Specific Plan Amendment. 21 -8 The Commenter suggests that the EIR does not adequately consider possible conflicts between the proposed project and the City's General Plan due to the proposed change in use of the northerly portion of the site visitor - serving uses. The Draft EIR adequately analyzes whether the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. As demonstrated in Table 5.1 -5, the proposed project is consistent with most of the relevant General Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies. To the extent that the proposed project is inconsistent with current General Plan policies (including those pertaining to hotel - related visitor - serving uses as discussed in Table 5.1 -5), the project proposes to amend those policies to eliminate any inconsistency. Therefore, impacts have been determined to be less than significant in this regard. Regarding the decrease in visitor - serving uses, please refer to Response to Comment 8 -1, Decrease in Visitor - Serving Uses. The Commenter also suggests that Appendix 11.12, Hotel Peer Revieav, of the Draft EIR concludes that a hotel development alternative is feasible at the project site. However, based on Section 9.0, Summary and Conclusions, of the Hotel Feasibility Study (page 32), none of the analyzed alternatives were considered feasible. Of all of the alternatives considered, the 60- room condominium hotel initially appears to be financially feasible. But, as the Study explains, "a potential lack of financing available for prospective buyers, uncertainty of and sensitivity to market interest and attainable sales values, and a risky project profile based on whether the hotel would deliver precisely the right and somewhat unique product type to engender consistent demand, all contribute to make the project feasibility for this alternative marginal. As such, financial feasibility of even this alternative is far from certain and this uncertainty likely represents a legitimate and fatal hurdle to developer interest in such a project." Thus, a condominium hotel is not a feasible alternative. 21 -9 The DWP Specific Plan's required setbacks are intended for a hotel use. Implementation of the proposed DWP Specific Plan Amendment would require the residential portion of the project to be built according to the RHD -20 (Residential High Density -20) District, as outlined in Table 5.1 -11, Development Standards Consistency An (page 5.1 -45 of the Draft EIR), although the zoning would remain SPR. Thus, on -site setback requirements would be similar to the existing residential uses to the east of the project site (which are also subject to the RHD -20 District standards). As concluded on page 5.1 -44 of the Draft EIR, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 21 -10 The comment expresses concern that the DWP Specific Plan currently requires Spanish architecture for all buildings but the project would allow differing architecture styles. The project proposes to amend the DWP Specific Plan and, with this amendment, any potential inconsistency between the DWP Specific Plan in its current form and the proposed residential development will be eliminated. In addition, as discussed on page 3 -10 of the Draft EIR, while the project does not involve construction of single - family dwellings within the new subdivision, future builders and owners would be bound by a set of architectural standards to be adopted as part of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) for the Tract Map. All construction would be required to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code RHD -20 (Residential High Density -20) standards and designs that are architecturally interesting, promote diversity, and are compatible with Old Town Seal Beach would be Final • April 2012 2 -199 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report strongly encouraged. Thus, although the project would not be required to include Spanish style architecture in particular, the on -site residential structures would appear similar in construction and design to the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposed changes to architecture are considered in Section 5.21 AestheticslL & and Glare, as part of Impact Statement AES -3 on page 5.2 -17. 21 -11 The comment is that the Draft EIR inadequately discusses potential impacts on recreational uses and park land and that the project does not comply with the Municipal Code requirements regarding park land dedications and in -lieu fees. As discussed in Response to Comment 8 -2, the decrease in the area designated for recreational opportunities (i.e., Open Space) is a less than significant impact, based on various factors including that the project proposes to designate 6.4 acres of land as open space. In addition, Impact Statements PSU -4 and PSU -5 in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR, Public Service and Utilities, discuss the project's impacts on parkland and recreational facilities within the City. Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts regarding parkland demand and recreational facilities. The comment also mischaracterizes the requirements of Section 10.50.010 of the Municipal Code. That section does not establish a city -wide goal of procuring 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. Rather, it states a general requirement that subdividers dedicate 5 acres per 1,000 new residents based on an assumption of 3.5 persons per single - family residence, or a pay fee in lieu. Under this standard, the proposed project -- which would result in 48 residences for a total of 168 residents — would be required to dedicate less than an acre. Residential subdivisions of 50 or fewer lots are exempt from the dedication requirement, however, and instead pay a fee equal to $10,000 per lot created by the subdivision. The proposed project would create 48 lots, and therefore would be exempt from any dedication requirement. Notwithstanding this exemption, the project would include 6.4 acres of land for open space uses. 21 -12 Regarding the park land impacts, refer to Response to Comment 21 -11. Regarding the Coastal Commission's comments, refer to Response to Comment 8 -2. 21 -13 The Comment states that the Draft EIR failed to assess the impacts of vacating portions of 1st Street. 1st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive is primarily a two -lane roadway with on -street parking permitted. The majority of 1st Street maintains a cross section of 40 -feet until the roadway widens north of Central Way at the intersection with Marina Drive to measure 80 feet at its widest point. The project includes a portion ( "Portion ") of existing street right -of -way located at the northeast corner of the site, along 1 st Street in that wider area north of Central Way. Vacation will make the width of 1 st Street more uniform, and would eliminate the narrowing of the roadway that currently occurs just south of the intersection, resulting in a consistent roadway cross section of 40 -feet for the entire length of 1 st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Lr. ect DesaiNion, the Portion was part of the DWP site for over 35 years but was acquired by the City in 1977. The City Engineer has stated that it is not needed for public street purposes. Refer also to Response to Comment 21 -15. Final • April 2012 2 -200 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21 -14 Per page OS -7 of the General Plan, Open Space Element, the San Gabriel River rights -of- way offer a unique opportunity for joint use of facilities. Because of the channel configuration, the corridor provides an excellent opportunity to incorporate the bike path. There are currently retaining walls along the San Gabriel Bike Path both on -site and to the north, along the existing River Beach Townhomes by the Sea. Implementation of the proposed retaining walls along the bike path would appear similar to the existing conditions. The bike path will not be narrowed as part of the proposed project. Residential development on -site along the bike path would appear similar to the existing residential development (associated with the existing River Beach Townhomes by the Sea approximately 315 feet north of the project site along the San Gabriel River). Further, as analyzed in Impact Statement PSU -5 of the Draft EIR (page 5.13 -25), project implementation would enable continued use of the San Gabriel River Bike Trail. Regional recreational activities would continue through the Bike Trail and would not be modified as a result of the proposed project. With implementation of the additional public park uses proposed within the southern portion of the project site, additional recreational opportunities along the existing San Gabriel River Bike Trail would be available to the public. Therefore, as discussed in the Draft EIR, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. 21 -15 1 st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive is primarily a two -lane roadway with on- street parking permitted. The majority of 1 st Street maintains a cross section of 40 -feet until the roadway widens north of Central Way at the intersection with Marina Drive to measure 80 feet at its widest point. The project includes a portion ( "Portion ") of existing street right - of -way located at the northeast corner of the site, along 1st Street in that wider area north of Central Way. The City will commence street vacation proceedings to vacate that Portion if the project receives all necessary approvals. Such vacation will make the width of 1 st Street more uniform, and would eliminate the narrowing of the roadway that currently occurs just south of the intersection, resulting in a consistent roadway cross section of 40 -feet for the entire length of 1st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Pr2Lect DLLar tion, the Portion was part of the DWP site for over 35 years but was acquired by the City in 1977. The City Engineer has stated that it is not needed for public street purposes. It should be noted that CEQA Guidelines Section 15147 states that placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Draft EIR Section 5.5, Trac /Circulation, includes a sight distance evaluation at the proposed Project driveways /alleys to determine if adequate sight distance would be provided with the proposed project, including the vacation of the Portion of the right -of -way. The analysis indicates that a motorist's sight distance may be obstructed by future project landscapes and /or hardscapes along the project frontage. The Draft EIR includes mitigation requiring any landscaping and /or hardscapes to be designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety, as determined by the City Engineer (Mitigation Measure TRA -2). With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2, potential sight distance impacts associated with the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level. Thus, additional mitigation measures are not required. Final • April 2012 2 -201 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report This comment also makes a legal argument that an "easement cannot be vacated to benefit a provide corporation." Such argument does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. In that this argument does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. 21 -16 Refer to Responses to Comments 21 -13 and 21 -15. In addition, Draft EIR Section 5.5, Tra -c /Circulation includes an analysis of the proposed project's on -site circulation. On -site circulation is considered adequate as curb return radii and the roadway alignment for proposed `A' Street and `B' Street have been confirmed and are generally adequate for small service /delivery (FedEx, UPS) trucks and trash trucks, as well as large delivery trucks and fire trucks. Thus, internal traffic hazards are not anticipated. Also, mitigation measures TRA -3 and TRA -4 would reduce potential access and egress impacts to a less than significant level. It should be noted that this analysis included consideration of the configuration proposed at Marina Drive and 1" Street; impacts in this regard were found to be less than significant after mitigation. Environmental impact thresholds, as indicated in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Initial Study Checklist Form), are used as significance thresholds in this analysis. Refer to Response to Comment 16 -1 pertaining to parking impacts. 21 -17 The traffic analysis study area is generally comprised of those locations which have the potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project, as defined by the lead agency. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) states that "[a]n EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project" and this condition is what is studied to define the impacts of a project. The six intersections and nine roadway segments selected for analysis (Draft EIR Exhibit 5.5 -1) are consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) and were reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. It should be noted that the Traffic Impact Analysis (Appendix 11.511.5 of the Draft EIR) considered the intersection at 1" Street and Ocean Avenue (refer to Exhibit 5 -1, Pr iect Traffic Distribution Pattern, of the Traffic Impact Analysis). However, as no project trips are forecast to make a right turn out towards Ocean Avenue, and no trips would access the project site from Ocean Avenue, no further investigation is warranted at this intersection. Although not every intersection has been selected for analysis along every roadway (as this number could be extremely large and yield little additional helpful information), analysis locations were selected so as to identify potential project impacts on a corridor level basis. The traffic study area included intersections adjacent to the site and key intersections in the project vicinity that may have future operational issues and a relatively higher percentage of project - related turning movements (i.e. Is' Street /Pacific Coast Highway, Marina Drive /Pacific Coast Highway). Therefore, the traffic study area is sufficiently comprehensive to identify and represent the potential significant traffic impacts related to the proposed project. 21 -18 As discussed in Response to Comment 21 -15, 1st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive is primarily a two -lane roadway with on -street parking permitted. The majority of 1st Street maintains a cross section of 40 -feet until the roadway widens north of Central Way at the intersection with Marina Drive to measure 80 feet at its widest point. The project includes a portion ( "Portion ") of existing street right -of -way located at the northeast corner of the site, along 1st Street in that wider area north of Central Way. If the project receives all Final • April 2012 2 -202 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report necessary approvals, the City will commence street vacation proceedings to vacate that Portion. Such vacation will make the width of 1st Street more uniform, and would eliminate the narrowing of the roadway that currently occurs just south of the intersection, resulting in a consistent roadway cross section of 40 -feet for the entire length of 1st Street between Ocean Avenue and Marina Drive. As indicated in Draft EIR Section 3.0, Pr�ect Description, the Portion was part of the DWP site for over 35 years but was acquired by the City in 1977. The City Engineer has stated that it is not needed for public street purposes. Future vacation of the Portion would not prevent installation of a Class II bikeway, consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element, as the 1" Street cross section would remain relatively consistent with existing conditions. 21 -19 Refer to Response to Comment 7 -1. Furthermore, it is noted that the potential exists for special status species (i.e., the California horned lark [Errmophila apestrzs actia], northern harrier [Circus cganeus], and white - tailed kite [Elanus leucurus] to occur on the project site. In addition to these special status species, ten additional bird species were detected on the project site. Therefore, the project site has the potential to support migratory bird species, including both raptor and songbird species (for foraging on- site). Although on -site nesting activities are not anticipated to occur, on -site foraging would continue to take place. Implementation of the proposed project would result in new lighting at the project site; however, proposed lighting would appear similar to the existing lighting associated with the residential uses to the east. As the project's lighting conditions would be similar to the lighting currently experienced at the project site by residents to the east, project - related lighting is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to migratory bird species. Mitigation Measure BIO -1 states that "To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside of the nesting season (typically February 15 to August 15) to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. However, if initial vegetation removal occurs during the nesting season, all suitable habitat shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by the City." It is not reasonable to assume that no vegetation removal would occur from February 15 to August 15. Thus, the second part of the mitigation measure requires additional actions to take place in the event that vegetation removal is required during this time. With implementation of the performance criteria outlined in the second part of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant levels. 21 -20 As stated in Response to Comment 8 -4, case law holds that environmental documents are not the proper place in which to analyze the issue of whether activity (such as site disking) that occurred was pernutted; instead, the environmental baseline must be determined based on what is physically on the project site. See, e.g., Rivenvatch P. County of San Diego, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1428, 1451 (1999) (proper baseline is existing conditions even if the condition was the result of illegal activity; EIRs are not "the appropriate forum for determining the nature and consequences of prior conduct of a project applicant "); Eureka Citi .Zens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Eureka, 147 Cal. App. 4th 357, 371 (2007). This is consistent with CEQA, which states that "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, Final • April 2012 2 -203 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a). Thus, the existing disturbed on- site conditions as a result of past disking activities is the baseline condition and must be considered in order to determine whether or not a significant impact exists. The Draft EIR properly considered the existing disking activities as part of the baseline condition and properly analyzed the project's biological impacts to the existing baseline condition. The Draft EIR is not required, per CEQA Guidelines, to mitigate the project site to pre - disking conditions. 21 -21 As discussed in Impact Statement 14WQ -2 (page 5.11 -19, Storm Water Quality) of the Draft EIR, due to the fact that the San Gabriel River is listed on the 303d list, for copper, dioxin, nickel, dissolved oxygen, coliform bacteria, and pH, and has a TMDL for metals and selenium, the future residential development could have a significant adverse impact to storm water quality if not mitigated. It should be noted that the Commenter's reference to no filtration of project runoff occurring prior to discharge into the ocean (approximately 2,400 feet away (Draft EIR page 5.11 -1) is in reference to existing conditions, not proposed conditions. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan ( PWQMP) has been prepared for the on -site residential uses proposed for development, as provided in Appendix 11.10, Hvdroloav and mater -Quality Technical Stud, of the Draft EIR. The PWQMP describes the development and its operations, identifies potential sources of storm water pollution, and recommends appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) or pollution control measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. Recommended BMPs include site design, source control, and low impact development (refer to Section 4.0 of the PWQMP for a complete list of BMPs). The Final WQMP, approved by the City, would provide the final BMPs applicable to the proposed project (Mitigation Measure 14WQ -7). Implementation of the Final WQMP would ensure that post - construction water quality impacts, including impacts to beneficial uses of receiving waters, associated with Tentative Tract Map 17425 and future residential development would be reduced to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Post - construction water quality impacts within the northern portion of the project site would be reduced to a less than significant level. The southern portion of the project site would involve open space /passive park and existing private driveway. It is assumed the private driveway would continue to generate general pollutants, such as suspended solids /sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, pathogens, pesticides, oil and grease, toxic organic compounds, and trash and debris. The City would be required to prepare a WQMP to address post - construction operations associated with future development of the passive park (Mitigation Measure HWQ -8). Compliance with the WQMP would reduce potential water quality impacts associated with the passive park to a less than significant level. 21 -22 Page 5.11 -1 of the Draft EIR states that some on -site flow is currently directed to the streets to an existing catch basin on the westerly corner of 1" Street and Marina Drive where there has been a history of flooding. Implementation of the proposed project would include construction of on -site detention basins. As discussed on page 5.11 -9 (first paragraph), with implementation of the detention facilities, runoff during the 2 -year and 25 -year storm events Final • April 2012 2 -204 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report associated with the proposed project would be less than or equal to existing conditions. No additional mitigation of the 2 -year and 25 -year storm events would be required, and impacts would be less than significant in this regard. However, verification that no adverse flooding impacts would occur at the intersection of Marina Drive and 15` Street during the 100 -year storm event would be required (Mitigation Measure HWQ -6). Compliance with Mitigation Measure HWQ -6 would ensure that any adverse impacts associated with the 100 -year storm event would be mitigated to a less than significant level. 21 -23 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4. 21 -24 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4. 21 -25 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4. 21 -26 The Commenter suggests that the Draft EIR should include mitigation measures related to architectural and design review standards to ensure that the residential units proposed in the project do not clash with existing homes. The Draft EIR already concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact because the project would degrade the visual character /quality of the site and its surroundings due to the orientation of the buildings, and not because of the architectural style. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in a change in character because the proposed structures would impact the pedestrian scale along 15` Street and Marina Drive. Impacts in this regard would be significant, despite compliance with the City's Zoning Code (i.e., RHD -20 development standards and Ocean Place Property Onmers Architectural Guidelines). This conclusion is based on the change in the pedestrian scale due to the orientation of the buildings. Thus, the architecture - related mitigation measures that the Commenter suggests would not change the significance determination because the adverse changes to the pedestrian scale would remain. In addition, it is noted that there is no uniform design standard present in the already - existing residential units in Old Town Seal Beach. Existing homes represent a diversity of styles and are architecturally interesting. The proposed residential units likewise could reflect different architectural styles, although all single - family dwellings would be required to comply with the proposed Ocean Place Property 0 ners Architectural Guidelines, which would require that proposed architecture be similar to that found in Old Town; see pages 5.2 -17 through 5.2 -19 of the Draft EIR. Significantly, the proposed lot sizes would be similar to those found in Old Town Seal Beach, and it is the dimensions of the lots that largely will control the architecture and design of the residences. It is also noted that CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(A) states that the discussion of mitigation measures must distinguish between the measures that are proposed by project proponents to be included in the project and other measures proposed by the lead agency. As the project proposes to require that future builders and owners be bound by a set of architectural standards to be adopted as part of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) for the Tract Map, all construction would be required to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code RHD -20 (Residential High Density -20) standards, and designs that are architecturally interesting, promote diversity, and are compatible with Old Town Seal Beach would be strongly encouraged. Thus, additional mitigation measures are not necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -205 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Finally, although no feasible Mitigation Measures exist, the Draft EIR considered Alternative 2 (the Modified Layout Alternative) in order to reduce these significant and unavoidable impacts. As discussed on page 7 -27 (third paragraph) of the Draft EIR, the Modified Layout Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project regarding aesthetics /light and glare, given that it would avoid the project's long -term significant and unavoidable impacts involving visual character and light /glare from vehicle headlights. 21 -27 Refer to Response to Comments 5 -2 and 11 -7, including Attachment A, Orange County Health Care Agency Letter, dated August 3, 1987, following Responses to Comment 11. 21 -28 Refer to Response to Comments 5 -2 and 11 -7, including Attachment A, Orange County Health Care Agency Letter, dated August 3, 1987, following Responses to Comment 11. Page 5.10 -13 (Existing Soil Contamination) of the Draft EIR discloses all of the previous recommendations considered by earlier investigations, including the 2000 Parsons Investigation and 2001 TetraTech Investigation. Although both of these investigations included findings that asbestos concentrations in on -site soils were below regulatory levels for residential use, overly conservative recommendations were still provided. But, as stated in the Draft EIR on page 5.10 -13 (last paragraph), based on follow up investigations conducted in 2011 by Dudek, asbestos at the project site would not exceed thresholds for residential use. Thus, based on the existing conditions at the project site and the proposed residential and passive /recreation uses at the site, DTSC involvement and the need for soil import is not anticipated. Further, an asbestos monitor during construction activities would not be required. Thus, impacts related to any asbestos in soils at the project site are anticipated to be less than significant due to the lack of asbestos sampled above regulatory thresholds (which includes both past and current investigations). The regulatory thresholds have not become lower from the 2000 and 2001 investigations to the current 2011 investigations. 21 -29 As discussed on page 5.10 -2 (third and fourth paragraphs) of the Draft EIR, asbestos was detected in the soil in several areas of the site in 1987. More than 3,500 cubic yards of asbestos - contaminated soil was removed from the site in 1987. The Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) issued a no further action letter for the asbestos contamination in 1987. Additional asbestos sampling was conducted in 2000. Refer to Response to Comments 5 -2 and 11 -7, including Attachment A, Orange County Health Care Agency Letter, dated August 3, 1987, following Responses to Letter 11. Asbestos was detected in three samples, but none of the samples contained asbestos at greater than 1 percent. Tetra Tech collected 62 soil samples in 2001. All samples were below the detection limit of 0.1 percent asbestos, except for one sample, which contained less than 1 percent asbestos. Tetra Tech calculated human health impacts and determined the asbestos cancer risk demonstrated that development would not likely increase the risk level to unacceptable. Based on Dudek's 2011 sampling, none of the samples reported detections of asbestos over the detection limit. Dudek collected fifteen soil samples, all of which contained less than 1 percent asbestos. Based on the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal /OHSA) definition, none of the samples are classified as ACM. In all, more than 415 samples were collected and analyzed for asbestos at the project site. Since asbestos remediation at the project site occurred in 1987, none of the on -site asbestos soil samples Final • April 2012 2 -206 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report detected asbestos greater than 1 percent. Thus, based on the available hazardous materials investigations conducted for the project site, asbestos at the project site is not anticipated to exceed thresholds for residential use. It should be noted that the residential thresholds would apply to the entire project site, including areas proposed for passive recreational use (e.g., a tot lot). At2nendix11.9, Hazardous Materials Data, of the Draft EIR includes all of the hazardous materials investigations reviewed as part of this analysis: an asbestos sampling and clean up report (prepared by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [DWP] in 1987), a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Parsons in 2000), a Supplement Soil Investigation Report (prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in 2001), and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Dudek in 2011). Refer also to Response to Comment 11 -3 21 -30 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -6 regarding PAHs. As discussed on page 5.10 -4 (fourth and fifth paragraphs) of the Draft EIR, the detected arsenic on -site appears to be similar to the background levels for the regional levels in the County. Therefore, potential arsenic within on -site soils is anticipated to be similar to other soils located throughout the City. The 2001 supplemental soil investigation analyzed 23 soil samples in accordance with the Title 22 metals analysis. All sample concentrations were below the typical screening criteria (10 times the soluble threshold limit for soluble metals and the total threshold limit concentrations for non - soluble metals). Based on the hazardous materials investigations reviewed as part of the Draft EIR, on -site PAHs and arsenic in soils are similar to those experienced in urban areas, are similar to those currently experienced in residential areas in the City, and are not anticipated to be subject to enforcement action by appropriate governmental agencies (i.e., the Department of Toxic Substances Control); refer to Response to Comment 6 -1. Further, Annendix 11.9, Hazardous Materials Data, of the Draft EIR includes all of the hazardous materials investigations reviewed as part of this analysis: an asbestos sampling and clean up report (prepared by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [DWP] in 1987), a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Parsons in 2000), a Supplement Soil Investigation Report (prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. in 2001), and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Dudek in 2011). 21 -31 In order to compare other detected arsenic concentrations in the City to the project site, the previously recorded arsenic levels at the Naval Weapons Station was considered for the project area. The project site was noted to be lower than these concentrations recorded. As discussed on page 5.10 -4 of the Draft EIR, based on the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (prepared by Parsons in 2000), arsenic was detected at concentrations up to 20 mg /kg. The arsenic was determined to likely be background, based on background data from the nearby Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station where concentrations of arsenic have been reported up to approximately 26 mg /kg. Thus, the detected arsenic on -site appears to be similar to the background levels for the regional levels in the County. Therefore, potential arsenic within on -site soils is anticipated to be similar to other soils located throughout the City. The analysis then goes on to state that the 2001 supplemental soil investigation analyzed 23 soil samples in accordance with the Title 22 metals analysis. All Final • April 2012 2 -207 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report sample concentrations were below the typical screening criteria (10 times the soluble threshold limit for soluble metals and the total threshold limit concentrations for non - soluble metals). Thus, on -site arsenic concentrations are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to on -site residential uses. 21 -32 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -31. 21 -33 As discussed in Response to Comment 21 -36 below, the Draft EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the project based on the findings of the Draft EIR. As discussed in the Responses to Comments 8 -4, 9 -31, and 21 -1 through 21 -31, the Draft EIR has considered all of the project's environmental impacts, recommended mitigation measures (where warranted and feasible), and concluded the significance of each topic area. The Draft EIR also has analyzed the project's compliance with the Coastal Act (as discussed in Response to Comments 21 -50 through 21 -52) and the project's compliance with the public trust doctrine (as discussed in Response to Comment 21 -54). CEQA requires that an EIR consider a "range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). Based on the Application submitted by BCP to the City, the main purpose of the project is to develop residential uses within the northern portion of the project site. Furthermore, the Draft EIR concluded that the project, as proposed, would have significant unmitigable impacts to aesthetics. Thus, the alternatives analysis in the Draft EIR focused on projects that could achieve most of the Applicant's goals and objectives for residential development while avoiding significant unmitigable aesthetics impacts. This combination resulted in the development of the Modified Layout Alternative, which reduces the number of residential units proposed by approximately 15 %. In addition, the Draft EIR analyzed a No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative that would retain the existing land use specifications. The Draft EIR thus considered a reasonable range of alternatives as required under CEQA. 21 -34 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -6. 21 -35 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -6. 21 -36 The comment asks that the Draft EIR consider the sale of the property to the Coastal Conservancy as an alternative to the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR shall evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. This alternative would not meet the applicant's basic project objectives. Moreover, the applicant has never expressed any interest in selling the property to the Coastal Conservancy or any other party. Because the City cannot force the applicant to sell the property, the proposed alternative is infeasible. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f (3) states that an EIR need not consider an alternative whose implementation is remote and speculative. Final • April 2012 2 -208 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21 -37 Refer to Responses to Comments 21 -6, 21 -8, 21 -48, and 21 -49. 21 -38 The comment asks that the Draft EIR consider additional visitor serving uses, including a restaurant, museum, commercial shops, spa, and a bed and breakfast as alternatives to the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR shall evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant effects related to the decrease of visitor - serving land uses on -site (refer to Response to Comment 8 -1). Implementation of the proposed project would include recreational, low cost visitor serving uses for the purposes of river and ocean oriented uses. Refer to Response to Comment 21 -54 regarding the public trust doctrine. Moreover, none of the alternatives suggested in the comment would achieve the applicant's basic project objectives. 21 -39 The Draft EIR considers a reduced density alternative (Alternative 2 — Modified Layout Alternative) which reduces the number of proposed residential units by 15% and eliminates all significant adverse impacts associated with the proposed project.. Under this alternative, the northern portion of the property would be subdivided into 41 single - family lots, as opposed to the 48 single - family lots proposed by the project. Because the Modified Layout Alternative reduces all impacts to a level of less than significant, no further- reduced alternative is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f states that the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Further, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to open space uses, thus an alternative to increase open space at the project site is not necessary. 21 -40 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (f) (2) (B) states that if the lead agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should include the reasons in the EIR. As discussed on page 7 -3 (first bullet) of the Draft EIR, the project site is available for development because the project proponents own the land on which the project is proposed. The project applicant has thus proposed the project because the land is already in its ownership and development of the site would enhance its value and achieve the project's goals and objectives. With this understanding, it is apparent that the applicant would not attempt to acquire another property on which to develop a project of similar size and scale to that proposed on the project site. Developing a project on any available property is not an objective of the applicant, while developing the proposed project on the project site is, as it would enhance the value of an existing asset. Therefore, alternative locations not already owned by the project applicant are not evaluated in this EIR due to the current ownership of the property, and associated costs and constraints involved with acquisition that would impede timely and successful completion of the proposed project. Furthermore, it is an objective of the proposed project, and a key aspect of its design, to reflect and provide amenities that compliment and capitalize on the site's adjacency to the San Gabriel River Bike Trail, 1" Street Beach Parking Lot (RESA), and the Pacific Ocean. There are no known sites of sufficient size with such adjacency available to accommodate such development. Finally, as noted above in Response to Comment 21 -36, sale of the property to the Coastal Conservancy is not a feasible alternative to the project. In addition to not meeting the Applicant's basic project objectives, such an alternative would Final • April 2012 2 -209 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report not be feasible because the applicant has never expressed any interest in selling the property to the Coastal Conservancy or any other party. Because the City cannot force the applicant to sell the property, the proposed alternative is infeasible. 21 -41 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -54 pertaining to the project's compliance with the public trust doctrine. As stated on page 7 -14 of the Draft EIR, the project proposes a Land Use Element (Figure 6) Amendment, changing the site's land use designations, as outlined in Table 5.1 -8, Com4arison of Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations. No changes to the site's land use designations would occur under the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative. As concluded in Table 7 -4, Coz4arison of Alternatim in the Draft EIR, the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be environmentally superior with respect to land use impacts. 21 -42 This Comment sets forth the Commenter's summary of the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative. The Comment does not raise any environmental issue nor does it challenge any portion of the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. 21 -43 The Draft EIR states, on page 7 -15, that the long -term visual character of the project site and its surroundings would be altered with the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative to a greater degree than with the proposed project, because the northern portion of the property would be developed with Visitor Serving uses (i.e., a hotel), as opposed to Residential uses with the proposed project. Visitor Serving uses would be dissimilar in form, size, and scale, to the adjacent residential uses (unlike the proposed project). This Alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts involving the neighborhoods' character /quality, as would the proposed project. Although the project's significant and unavoidable impacts would no longer occur, the new hotel use would present new significant and unavoidable impacts to the character and quality of the surrounding area. Therefore, the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed project with regard to impacts to the visual character and quality of the surrounding area. 21 -44 Currently, there is very little light emanating directly from the project site; the only light emanates from the one existing on -site residence. Implementation of the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would result in increased lighting emanating from the interior of a tall building with a significant number of windows (as the hotel structure would include windows for 150 hotel rooms with a maximum building height of 35 feet, compared to the project's 25 feet), as well as increased vehicle headlights at the project site (because this use would result in 702 more average daily trips than the proposed project). Headlights would not only be seen from ingress and egress areas, but also surface parking lots required as part of this build alternative. Thus, it is reasonably inferred that this use would result in increased new lighting to the project area compared to the proposed project. 21 -45 Refer to Responses to Comment 21 -13 and 21 -15 regarding any future street vacation. Furthermore, the Draft EIR concluded that traffic/ circulation impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), the EIR is required to include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would Final • April 2012 2 -210 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. As stated on page 7 -17 of the Draft EIR, Table 7 -2, Comparison o- aposed Pr iect and No Proiect/ 1996 QWT S4ecic Plan Alternative ADT, the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative trip generation is forecast to generate approximately 125 percent more ADT (or 702 more ADT), when compared to the proposed project. Comparatively, the traffic and circulation impacts under the No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative would be greater than the proposed project, given that this Alternative would significantly increase the ADT. Therefore, the traffic and circulation impacts that would occur with the proposed project also would occur with this Alternative, but to an even greater degree. CEQA does not require that a lead agency determine to what degree the LOS would increase as a result of an alternative, but rather requires only that the EIR reasonably conclude whether or not an increase is anticipated and whether or not a significant and unavoidable impact is alleviated, would remain, or would increase. As the project would not result in significant and unavoidable traffic /circulation impacts, this Alternative would not be alleviating a significant and unavoidable impact (but on the contrary would be generally increasing LOS impacts at the study intersections). 21 -46 Although site access would not be pernutted along 1" Street, surface parking lots may be sited along 1" Street in order to accommodate on -site parking for the proposed 150 -room hotel. Noise impacts as a result of on -site surface parking would be increased compared to those impacts considered as part of the proposed project pertaining to access to 1" Street. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, car radios, an engine starting -up, or cars passing by may be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Parking lot noise also can be considered a "stationary" noise source and may occur during nighttime hours as a result of the hotel use. Typical noise levels generated by parking areas are an estimated 70 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the source during peak events (this is an "instantaneous" or peak noise level). Parking lot noise would also be partially masked by background noise from adjacent roads and typical community noise sources. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 48 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increased dispersion of vehicles throughout the site, with only some parked on the street as the houses would have a garage. In comparison, the Alternative would result in increased traffic and more clustering of vehicles in one location close to sensitive receptors. Thus, noise impacts as a result of on- site surface parking would be increased under this Alternative as compared to those impacts considered as part of the proposed project, because the project would not construct any parking lots as the hotel Alternative would do. 21 -47 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -8. Final • April 2012 2 -211 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21 -48 The comment questions the basis of the economic analysis of a hotel project alternative. As an initial matter, it is noted that the Draft EIR (page 7 -12) states that insufficient land area exists to construct the currently permitted 150 -room hotel, including adequate surface parking, within the 35 -foot height limitation. Moreover, $4.5 million is the correct land cost for an economic analysis of a hotel project alternative. The comment contains two mistaken assumptions. First, the amount the City would pay to purchase the open space would be $1.1 million, not $2 million as assumed in the comment. Second, if the hotel alternative were completed, the City would not purchase the open space. Thus, there is no basis for deducting the potential purchase price from the land cost. 21 -49 The Draft EIR not only considers economic infeasibility, but also physical feasibility of the site. To that end, the Draft EIR states (on page 7 -12) that insufficient land area exists to construct a 150 -room hotel, including adequate surface parking, within the 35 -foot height limitation. Thus, the proposed project is not required to conduct a comparative economic analysis of the proposed project and the project alternatives because economic infeasibility is not the only basis for concluding that the hotel alternative is inferior to the proposed project. Moreover, as discussed in Responses to Comments 21 -45 and 21 -46, and as shown in Table 7 -4 of the Draft EIR, the hotel alternative would have greater impacts than the project in the areas of traffic/ circulation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Thus, there are several reasons beyond economic infeasibility to conclude that the hotel alternative is inferior to the proposed project. 21 -50 This comment reiterates Coastal Act Sections 30222 and 30213, and the Coastal Commission's comments presented in its January 9, 2012 letter (refer to Comment 8 above). The changes in Visitor - Serving and Open Space uses resulting from project implementation are addressed in Response to Comment 8 -1 and project alternatives are addressed in Response to Comment 8 -2. This comment also alleges the project reduces the Open Space "by over 10 percent." As discussed in Response to Comment 8 -1, the Draft EIR uses acreage, not percentages, for the purposes of identifying and analyzing the environmental impacts of a project with 4.1 acres proposed for residential development and 6.4 acres of open space. This approach more accurately communicates the actual changes that would occur with implementation of the proposed project than a proportional approach. The decrease in Open Space is concluded as a less than significant impact, as discussed in Response to Comment 8 -1. 21 -51 Coastal Act Policy 30222, which addresses the use of private lands for Visitor - Serving commercial recreational facilities, was not included in Table 5.1 -5 (page 5.1 -29 of the Draft EIR) because the project site's current entitlement (i.e., the 1996 DWP Specific Plan) allows for a hotel and the necessary ancillary support uses, and not commercial recreational uses. Therefore, this policy was not considered relevant to the project. Notwithstanding this, the project's change in use from Visitor - Serving to Residential is addressed throughout the Draft EIR Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, impact analysis, and in particular in Table 5.1- 4 and the Proposed Specific Plan Amendment Section (on page 5.1 -41 of the Draft EIR). Additionally, the approximate 4.1 -acre decrease in Visitor - Serving uses is addressed in Response to Comment 8 -1. Final • April 2012 2 -212 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 21 -52 Refer to Response to Comments 8 -1, 21 -50, and 21 -51. 21 -53 The comment states that the fencing that currently screens the property should not be included among the existing conditions used as a baseline for analyzing visual impacts because Coastal Commission has stated that a coastal development permit is needed for the fence. As the comment acknowledges, CEQA presumes that the existing conditions normally will be the baseline for analyzing project impacts. Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4 for a discussion of why the baseline in the Draft EIR is correct and why the resulting analysis is correct. 21 -54 This comment makes a legal argument that the "public trust doctrine prohibits the type of residential land use proposed in this Project...." Such argument does not raise new environmental information or challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. In that this argument does not question the Draft EIR's factual conclusions or the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -213 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 22 Bay City Partners 2999 Westminster Avenue Suite 211 Seal Beach, California 90740 562- 594 -6715 Mr. Mark Persico, Director Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 January 9, 2012 Re: Comments on Department Of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report Public Review Draft November 2011 Dear Mark, Enclosed herein are the comments of Bay City Partners on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The format of the comments is as follows: Black Text - EIR Text Blue Text - E I R Text specifically being commented on Red Text - Comments Edward ❑ Selich Bay City Partners Project Manager 627 Bayside Drive Newport Beach Ca 92660 949 - 723 -6363 edselich(@roadrunner.com 1 Section 3.3.1 Project Description Table 3 -1 Proposed DWP Specific Plan Amendment Page 3 -7 and Exhibit 3 -4 Area Layout Page 3 -8 Comment No 3 -1 This Table and Exhibit do not accurately reflect the project proponent's application The property owner is proposing that the Open Space lots in the depicted Residential Area 5 be classified as Park/Open Space as it is intended to make these available for public use even though they are being maintained by the community association. All diagrams and references should be revised to accurately show this. Section 5.1.2 Regulatory Setting Table 5.1.3 Summary of Existing Zoning Districts Page 5.1 -16 and Exhibit 5.1.2 Page 5.1 -17 Comment No 5.1 The table and map diagram do not correctly reflect the legal zoning of the property. The property is zoned as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The City of Seal Beach has never provided documentation that this property was properly rezoned. The property owners research of city records shows that it is designated Unzoned and Commercial/Park 4C/P) as shown on Exhibit A. The errors were pointed out by the property owner to the City in numerous communications during the adoption process of the 2010 zoning code but the opportunity to correct the deficiency was routinely ignored during multiple public hearings. Those objections should be included as part of the EIR to give the reader an accurate view of the zoning and the fact that the current SPR zoning designation is disputed by the property owner. The City Attorney should give a written documentation in which a chronological step by step description of the Planning Commission and City Council hearings and adopted ordinances is presented to assure the public that the property is properly zoned SPR as is claimed by the city 22 -1 22 -2 Z 22 � � $ _ -� � • CS Z k AMI \ ,vA N (D C) E c _ ca tjE_ _ x « Z W \ U) \e x w �_ @ Am @ E E � O AIM a 22-2 Section 5.2 Aesthetics / Light and Glare Comment 5.2 General Comment on Section 5.2 Aesthetics / Light and Glare: The analysis and conclusions in this section are not supported by technical studies, opinions of qualified experts or factual information as required by CEQA. The comments below attempt to present supportable facts to the discussion and conclusions rendered by the El authors in this section. Page 5.2 -19 Paragraph 2 Key View 2. Views from Key View 2 are afforded to the project site from northbound motorists Along 1st Street as well as residents to the east of the project site; refer to Exhibit 5.2 -7, Key View 2 - Existing and Proposed Conditions. As depicted on Exhibit 5.2 -7, the existing residential structures to the east of the project site front 1st Street. These existing buildings also include rear loaded garages, which allow for a pedestrian- friendly streetscape along 1st Street. Comment No 5.3: The E I R or Technical Appendices present no evidence nor cite credible sources that state that rear loaded garages allow for a more pedestrian friendly street. it is an unsubstantiated opinion of the report's author. Figure 1 "B" Street Cross Section shows a section of "B" Street with alley loaded garages on the north side and street loaded garages on the south side. The pedestrian zone (sidewalk to curb) is the same on both sides of the street creating equal pedestrian experiences. The fact that driveways cross the sidewalks on the south side is no less pedestrian friendly that the majority of subdivisions in Seal Beach and Southern California where driveways routinely cross sidewalks. In fact Photo 1 shows a view looking down Ocean Ave easterly which is a similar street section to Street "B "of the proposed project. It shows the same sidewalks and parkways on both sides of the street, It shows front yard patios on the north side and driveways crossing the sidewalk on the south side similar the south side of "B" Street. This section of Ocean Ave is a highly used pedestrian way in the Old Town and is not considered pedestrian unfriendly. Thus the conclusion of the EIR's author is not true. A comparison of existing and proposed conditions from Key View 2 reveals that project implementation would change the character of the area as a result of the inconsistency of the proposed building orientation compared to the surrounding structures. Comment No 5.4: Key View 2 shows the building orientation of the proposed project fronting on the open space area which is consistent with Ocean Ave lots fronting on the beach open space as shown on attached Figure 2 Proposed. Proiect Compared To Old Town Seal Beach. The standard of review here is the Character of Old Town Seal Beach overall and not just the lots directly across First Street. Figure 2 definitively shows there are a variety of lot orientations in Old Town Seal Beach and having 3 lots siding on First Street is not inconsistent with the overall development pattern of Old Town Seal Beach. Page 5.2 -19 Paragraph 3 The future residential uses at the project site would be restricted to a maximum building height of 25 feet and maximum lot coverage of 75 percent, and thus would be similar in building height, massing, and scale to the existing residential structures to the east. However, the visual character and quality of Old Town Seal Beach is established through minimum 25 -foot lots with frontage along the roadway and garage access provided through the rear yards and alleys. This supports the pedestrian scale that is desired for Old Town (the project area). Comment No 5.5: This is not a true statement and is not 22 -3 22 -4 22 -5 supported by any evidence in the EIR or Technical Appendices. Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared To Old Town Seal Beach shows that Old Town Seal Beach is characterized by many different lot orientations and garage access situations. The garage orientations to the street in the proposed project only occur where the lots front on an open space area or the river trail which is consistent with all the Ocean Ave and Seal Way lots fronting on the beach open space areas in Old Town Seal Beach. Implementation of the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17425 would result in future residential structures with side yards along 1st Street (particularly Lots 13, 24, and 25). This design feature would be visually incompatible with the character of the residential uses to the east of the project site and would alter the neighborhood's pedestrian scale and appearance. Comment No 5.6: This is not true. Six locations in the Old Town Area have exactly the same situation where side yards are across front yards (Blue dots on Figure 2). These are not unusual nor are they non pedestrian friendly. These locations are as pedestrian friendly as other portions of Old Town Seal Beach. In addition there are 63 locations, where side yards are located adjacent to a street rather than an alley (Green dots on Figure 2). Photo 3 shows that even on First Street the lot at the corner of First and Ocean has its side yard along First Street. Figure 3 Proposed Project Compared To Lots Across First Street shows that the lots across First from the Proposed Project have varying characteristics which make this conclusion invalid. As Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared To Old Town Seal Beach shows, lots on First Street do not need to have their front yards on First Street to be compatible with the lots across First Street. The lots across First Street are of varying width. As an example, shown in Photo 5, the lots closest to Marina Drive have been merged into one large lot with a multi unit building on it. Also the lots on the south side Central Way at First Street have been merged into one large lot with a multi unit building on it. Both of these mergers create lot frontages on First Street equal to or greater than the frontages of Lots 13, 24, and 25 further diminishing the conclusion in the EIR that the proposed project lot orientation on is not compatible with the Character of the neighborhoods as not all the lots across First Street from the project are of a similar width and character. No feasible Mitigation Measures exist that would reduce these impacts to the character of the area. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Comment No 5.7: The only way that lots that have side yards along streets could be considered incompatible with the Old Town Neighborhood is if the side yards had 6' fences adjacent to the street right of way or did not have architectural design features on the street side elevation. To insure that the lots siding on First Street and Marina Drive are compatible with the Old Town Area the project applicant submitted to the City on September 14, 2611 a fencing plan, Figure 4 Perimeter Fencing Plan, that shows no fences on the portions of lots with side yards along a street. This plan has been ignored in the EIR. The project applicant also stated to the Development Services staff that lots with side yards along a street on would be required to have architectural detailing on the side yard equal to the front yard side of the structure. The fact that three lots on First Street have their side yards along First Street does not make them incompatible with the lots across First Street nor makes them not pedestrian friendly. Ample evidence has been presented above that this is not unusual or not pedestrian friendly. As Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared To Old Town Seal Beach shows, lots on First Street do not need to have their front yards on First Street to be compatible with the lots across First Street. To reduce the "Potential Impacts" of side yards along First Street and Marina Drive to a level of insignificance it is suggested the following mitigation measures be added: AES -1a All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have no fences in the side yards along those frontages and the side yards landscaped to be compatible with each lot's front yard area. 22 -5 22 -6 22 -7 22 -8 AES -1b All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have architectural detailing and features along the 22'$ side yards abutting those frontages to be compatible and equal quality with each lot's front elevation. Page 5.2 -22 Paragraph 1 However, similar to KV 2, the proposed structures along Marina Drive would not front the street, but would rather have side yards along Marina Drive. Further, front - loaded garages would be visible for proposed structures fronting 'A' Street. Implementation of the proposed project would alter the pedestrian scale of the neighborhood. No feasible Mitigation Measures exist that would reduce these impacts to the character of the area. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Comment No 5.8: As stated in Comment No 5.7 the only way that lots that have side yards along streets could be considered incompatible with the Old Town Neighborhood is if the side yards had 6' fences adjacent to the street right of way or did not have architectural design features on the street side elevation. To insure that the lots siding on Marina Drive are compatible with the Old Town area the project applicant submitted to the City on September 14, 2011 Figure 4 Perimeter Fencing Plan that shows no fences on the portions of lots with side yards along a street. This plan has been ignored in the EIR. The project applicant also stated to the Development Services staff that lots with side yards along a street on would be required to have architectural detailing on the side yard equal to the front yard side of the structure. The fact that three lots on Marina Drive have their side yards along Marina Drive does not make them incompatible with the townhomes across Marina Drive nor makes them not pedestrian friendly. Ample evidence has been presented above that this is not unusual or not pedestrian friendly. As Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared To Old Town Seal Beach shows, lots on Marina Drive do not need to have their front yards on Marina Drive to be compatible with the lots in Old Town Seal Beach. As stated in Comment No 5.7 to reduce the potential impacts of side yards along First Street and Marina Drive to a level of insignificance it is suggested the following mitigation measures be added: AES -la All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have no fences in the side yards along those frontages and the side yards landscaped to be compatible with each lot's front yard area. AES -1b All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have architectural detailing and features along the side yards abutting those frontages to be compatible and equal quality with each lot's front elevation. Page 5.2 -22 Paragraph 2 C1 22 -'9 22-10 2241 Overall, as is evidenced by the discussions presented above, the proposed project is considered compatible in massing and scale to the surrounding uses. However, the project would result in a change in character, as the proposed structures would impact the pedestrian scale along 1st Street and Marina Drive. Impacts in this regard would be significant, despite compliance with the City's Zoning Code (i.e., RHD -20 development standards and Ocean Place Property Owners Architectural Guidelines). No feasible Mitigation Measures exist that would reduce these impacts to the area's character. Thus, impacts pertaining to the degradation of character/quality, particularly the character of the proposed structures compared to the existing residential structures in the area, are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Comment No 5.9 As stated in Comment No 5.7 and Comment No 5_8 above to reduce the potential impacts of side yards along First Street and Marina Drive to a level of insignificance it is suggested the following mitigation measures be added: AES -1a All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have no fences in the side yards along those frontages and the side yards landscaped to be compatible with each lot's front yard area. AES -lb All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have architectural detailing and features along the side yards abutting those frontages to be compatible and equal quality with each lot's front elevation. Pane 5.2 -23 last Paragraph continued to top of pane 5.2 -23 Other sources of new lighting would include vehicle headlights entering and exiting the project site. Implementation of the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17425 would develop 'A' Street and 'B' Street. 'A' Street would terminate at Marina Drive, directly across from the parking lot uses and associated ornamental landscaping within the Townhomes by the Sea. The nearest residence would be approximately 100 feet away and would not be anticipated to be directly impacted by vehicle headlights exiting the project site (as these structures are separated from the project site by Marina Drive, associated landscaping, and parking lot uses. However, 'B' Street would terminate at 1st Street, directly across from existing residential structures (approximately 60 feet away) Comment No 5.10: This is not a true statement and is not supported by any evidence in the EIR or Technical Appendices. There is no technical study presented in the EIR that concludes the difference between 100' and 60' produces any significant difference in headlight glare or that the intersection of "B" Street at First Street will create significant headlight glare impacts on the houses at the intersection. There are 8 instances of offset streets in Old Town Seal Beach (Red Dots on Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared to Old Town Seal Beach) all of which carry more traffic than "B" Street is projected to carry with no significant impact from headlight glare. The existing structures include three -foot perimeter fencing and ornamental landscaping, which would partially obstruct direct headlights from each of the residences. However, the lighting effect on these sensitive receptors would be a significant light/ glare impact. Comment No 5.11 Shown on Figure 6 Glare Exhibit: "B" Street Vehicle Egressing From "B" Street is a typical vehicle with NHSTA headlight height of 22.5" approaching the intersection at 271' and 91' away from the residences. At 271' the potential glare is reduced by the distance from the houses. At 91' the beam projection is 2.7' or 32.2" above grade at the houses which is below the 3' 22 -11 015 K 22 -13 fencing height cited by the EIR. These walls and plant material will filter out any potential glare that may penetrate these obstacles No Mitigation Measures are feasible to reduce these impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Comment No 5.12: Based on the lack of a technical study in the EIR this is a "potentially" significant impact for which feasible mitigation measures are available. For example Street "B" could be limited to one way traffic entering from First Street. However, in modern subdivision design two way "T" intersections are a commonly accepted design feature and not considered objectionable for headlight glare. In addition to the eight "T" intersections in Old Town, (Red Cots on Figure 2 Proposed Project Compared to Old Town Seal Beach) there are 19 "T" intersections in the newer residential area north of Coast Highway in Seal Beach (Figure 5 ,r Intersections In Seal Beach ). They are commonly accepted in the city. Photo 4 shows the closest "T" Intersection to the proposed project at Central Way and Fourth St. The project traffic engineer, LNG, estimates that only 19 trips per day (EIR Traffic Study Appendix Fig 6 -6) would occur at peak hour PM, after dark during winter hours, making potential headlight glare a less than significant number. A typical automobile headlight is 22.5" above the street. Figure 6 "B" Street and First Street Intersection Cross Section shows the path of a typical automobile headlight beam. Photo 5 shows the houses across the street from the intersection. There is sufficient wall and plant material height (as evidenced by the attached Photo 5 and Figure 6) to screen the headlights. Combined with the fact that in the evenings automobiles are typically parked on all available parking spaces on the street and block potential oncoming headlight glare the headlight beam projection is at a level of insignificance. However, to address reducing the "Potential Impacts" of headlight glare from "B" Street to homes across First Street to a level of insignificance it is suggested the following mitigation measure be added: AES -4 Prior to recordation of the final tract map an automobile headlight glare study shall be conducted a lighting expert to analyze the glare from headlights on the home across First Street from the intersection of "B" Street. If the glare is significantly impactful upon the homes then a median shall be required as shown on Figure 7 Modified "B" Street Intersection with landscaping of sufficient height to block the glare from oncoming headlights. Page 5.2 -27 Paragraph 1 The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. However, project implementation would result in the degradation of character /quality along 1st Street and Marina Drive as a result of the alteration of the neighborhood's pedestrian scale. Comment 5.13: This is an incorrect statement. See comments under "Page 5.2 -19 Paragraphs 2 and 3" above. Thus, significant and unavoidable impacts involving the degradation of the existing character /quality would result. Comment No 5.14: This is an incorrect statement. See comments under "Page 5.2 -19 Paragraphs 2 and 3' above. Further, implementation of the proposed project would introduce new lighting (from vehicle headlights) onto adjacent residential structures, which would be a significant and unavoidable light/ glare impact. Although these significant and unavoidable impacts would occur, these impacts are site - specific. Comment No 5.15: This is an incorrect statement. See comments under "Page 5.2 -23 last Paragraph continued to top of page 5.2 -23" above. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to aesthetics /light and glare. 1 22 -13 22 -14 22 -15 22-16 Page 5.2 -27 Paragraph 2 If the City of Seal Beach approves the project, the City shall be required to cite its findings in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. Comment No 5.15: With the suggested mitigation measures above on aesthetics and glare there will be no reason to have a statement of overriding concerns on the proposed project as there are no significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.. Comment No 5.16: Summary of comments on Section 5.2 Aesthetics Light /Glare. There are three impacts identified in the EIR that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In summary they are: "However, the project would result in a change in character, as the proposed structures would impact the pedestrian scale along 1st Street and Marina Drive. Impacts in this regard would be significant, despite compliance with the City's Zoning Code (i.e., RHD -20 development standards and Ocean Place Property Owners Architectural Guidelines). No feasible Mitigation Measures exist that would reduce these impacts to the area's character. Thus, impacts pertaining to the degradation of character /quality, particularly the character of the proposed structures compared to the existing residential structures in the area, are concluded to be significant and unavoidable" As Comments 5.3 through 5.9 demonstrate the following suggested mitigation measures reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance: AES -1a All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have no fences in the side yards along those frontages and the side yards landscaped to be compatible with each lot's front yard area. AES -lb All lots abutting First Street and Marina Drive shall have architectural detailing and features along the side yards abutting those frontages to be compatible and equal quality with each lot's front elevation. "However, 'B' Street would terminate at 1s' Street, directly across from existing residential structures (approximately 50 feet away) The existing structures include three -foot perimeter fencing and ornamental landscaping, which would partially obstruct direct headlights from each of the residences. However, the lighting effect on these sensitive receptors would be a significant light/ glare impact. No Mitigation Measures are feasible to reduce these impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable." As Comment No 5.10 through Comment No 5.12 demonstrate the following mitigation measure reduces potential impacts to a level of insignificance: AES -4 22 -17 22 -18 Prior to recordation of the final tract map an automobile headlight glare study shall be conducted a lighting expert to analyze the glare from headlights on the home across First Street from the intersection of "B" Street. if the glare is significantly impactful upon the homes then a median shall be 22-18 required as shown on Figure 7 Modified "B" Street Intersection with landscaping of sufficient height to block the glare from oncoming headlights. 10 n Entry Walk f_ Landscaped Area c c n � 8 3 � C Q m R Entry Walk Landscaped Area Parkway Tree Enny Wafk `c Franc o Petb LL G an5 Parkway tree ,: ✓,�,. Landscaped Area Entry Wafk A j Entry Walk - r #� "; ` -T Landscaped Area Landscaped Area s _ Entry Wafk 17 LJr1Valeay Patio � aezesoerevun � I' Pedestna� I I I "8" Street (Public) Plan View ".TS. q wW � I c 4' I 6' 18" 18' I 6' 4' S I W PKWY `t P - KKO01 &W I Street (Public) Section A -A MT.S. Path g O W Entry Walk - r #� "; ` -T Landscaped Area Landscaped Area s _ Entry Wafk 17 LJr1Valeay Patio � aezesoerevun � I' Pedestna� I I I "8" Street (Public) Plan View ".TS. q wW Figure 1 "B" Street Cross Section 11 � I � 4' I 6' 18" 18' I 6' 4' S I W PKWY P - KKO01 &W I Street (Public) Section A -A MT.S. Figure 1 "B" Street Cross Section 11 1� 12 L LL s U ('6 Q) m N U) C 0 12 0 Q� rL�C \U ��0\ U N 0 L W U) 0 Cl 0 ryL W 13 N N L VJ LL 111L {n U) O L U of O J cY 2 -0 D N �] L E O U O L d N N O Q O L Perimeter Fencing Plan CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17425 p.�1z90 44 PAD-, wm -r�.� 39 h ISO � � ; 36 PAO..ISJ PA0�1,6,$ PA6t15.1 111 *A V Il M IIi 96M1 'a [/ I PA I PA A 35 �! 14 �♦ 1 2 3 A FAD-M1 p� — PM =i4.i wn9 PAD= PA9= R1ps PAp- _ I IA,1 1I,7 IS6 ]39 I21 11.9 vmxalli'. P . n •' �• 7S 11 ►• - PAD.ISB �.I 16 ` m _ - iMO =!59 'r198� - % — P46I1.] I r• , e 4 - _ ' I 32 �• v � 17 y. — IIHCI 1 PAD= M$ ) d n L '1 PAf1�fSL`. ~i I Pb ei ]'6 ~i ru I ocnxax PAri�4 I I PAO =ISJ '� � ply / N�17.1 —, 29 -►• 20 old t j PAD =l5.1 10 _► ' 28 y •I ✓ 1 21 b _ PAO -11,9 a rryi PAf1�i4.9 �Sle PAU =1J4 pr - r"j f e [ I 27 �► • , 22 -D.a PAS+ I.6 4 1 I I 26 s °iii 23 =�`i4 I wu i A I lf I �F Bl 1ST StREET {PU9tAQ Cj I� PY— 36" High Tubular Steel View 1 Privacy Fence with optional gate access to Open Space and River Trail 6' High Side Yard Fence (Subjegt -td front and year yard height limits) No fence proposed Figure 4 14 15 0 U N N L rm- rw 1 Co Cll Lo C N L U) � L U N U) L c rZ G XG 7 AM A7,3 -� IIcv a� MOH AIM Qa I CV N .a� ro N s a ro a, 2 Co 2 R N 0 w U rV)r` � V 's h I-- L.v W I- t—� V) LLJ Li-i - w C �L LL- LLJ L L� LEI Q� /''�� D cL LLJ Q LLJ U_ I lw► 11 1 Modified "B" Street Intersection 17 Photo 1 View looking east on Ocean Ave from First. Street. Street section and pedestrian zone similar to "B" Street in Proposed Project. m�Q� esteeevew Photo 2 View looking east on Central Ave showing structure with no side yard fence and architectural detailing on the side yard elevation equal to the front yard elevation. 18 Photo 3 View from First Street and Ocean Ave looking North on First Street showing lot with side yard along First Street ow Mu E,tstreetve Photo 4 "T" intersection View from Central Way to Third Street showing one of the 8 "T" or offset intersections in Old Town Seal Beach. 19 Photo 5 View from intersection of Proposed "B" Street with First Street showing homes at the intersection. Photo 6 View at First Street and Marina Drive looking east showing combined lots into a multi unit structure. 20 Section 7.2 "MODIFIED LAYOUT " ALTERNATIVE Page 7 -4 Paragraph 1 The project site encompasses the 10.7 -acre property, which is known as the Department of Water and Power (DWP) Specific Plan Area (SPA) and 0.3 acre involving adjacent properties. The DWP SPA consists predominantly of undeveloped, disturbed non - native grassland. The sewer parcel is improved with landscaping and a sidewalk, the driveway parcel is a paved driveway that provides access to the public parking lot (i.e., the River's End Staging Area [RESA) and public beach [Seal Beach] located to the south). The western portion of the DWP SPA (bike trail /river parcel) includes a segment of the San Gabriel River Trail and extends into the San Gabriel River. The project also involves three adjacent properties: two parcels, which are a part of the California Everglades commercial establishment, and contain one occupied single- family dwelling and a boat parking area, and one parcel, which is part of the current 1st Street right -of -way (ROW) and contains roadway pavement, curb gutter, sidewalk, and ornamental landscaping. Exhibit 3 -4, Area Layout, illustrates the various project areas. Comment No 7.1 This property should be correctly identified by its correct title "Marina Beach House LLC ". There is no "California Everglades" associated with this property. One of the tenants of "Marine Beach House LLC" sells a boat brand named "Florida Everglades ". However, the property owner is "Marina Beach House LLC" and should be properly identified here and elsewhere in the EIR where the term "California Everglades" is used. Page 7 -25 Last Paragraph The project site's long -term visual character would be altered with the proposed project, because the predominantly vacant and unimproved land would be replaced with new development. The northern portion of the property would be subdivided and developed with single - family dwellings, and the southern portion would be developed with park /open space uses. The project's long -term impacts to the neighborhood's visual character/quality due to side yards fronting onto 1st Street, and front - loaded garages along proposed 'A' Street, are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. These impacts would be eliminated with the Modified Layout Alternative. As discussed in detail in the Tittle 10, Subdivisions Section above and illustrated on Exhibit 7 -2, Key View — Modified Layout Alternative, the northern portion of the property would be subdivided into 41 residential lots, with front yards along 1st Street, under this Alternative. Comparatively, this Alternative's proposed modifications would change the orientation of the front yards, as compared to the project, which proposes side yards along 1st Street. The proposed modifications would be in furtherance of the neighborhood's desired pedestrian scale. Therefore, the project's significant and unavoidable impact to the neighborhood's visual character/quality would be avoided with the Modified Layout Alternative. Comment No 7.2 The suggested mitigation measures in the comments on Section 5 reduce the impacts here to a level of insignificance. The environmentally superior alternative analysis should be modified to reflect this. Page 7 -27 Paragraphs 2 and 3 22 -19 22 -20 The proposed project would introduce new lighting associated with vehicle headlights entering and 22 -21 exiting the site. The project's long -term (operational) light/glare impact as a result of vehicle 21 headlights is concluded to be significant and unavoidable. These impacts would be avoided with the Modified Layout Alternative. As discussed in detail in the Title 10, Subdivisions Section above, the modified Tentative Tract Map would align the Central Way ROW prolongation ('B' Street) with the existing Central Way ROW. Comparatively, this Alternative's proposed modifications would relocate the Central Way prolongation approximately 50 feet south. Therefore, the project's significant and unavoidable impact associated with vehicle headlights would be avoided with the Modified Layout Alternative, The Modified Layout Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project regarding aesthetics /light and glare, given it would avoid the project's long -term significant and unavoidable impacts involving visual character and light /glare from vehicle headlights. Comment No %3 The suggested mitigation measures in the comments on Section 5 reduce the impacts here to a level of insignificance. The environmentally superior alternative analysis should be modified to reflect this. 0 10111 22 -21 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 22. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM BAY CITY PARTNERS, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 22 -1 Although the Applicant is proposing open areas within the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17425, the purpose of these lots is to satisfy water quality and water detention requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Draft FIR appropriately and conservatively does not include these lots (open for the purposes of project - related runoff and water quality measures) to be counted towards the project's contribution to park /open space. 22 -2 The comment does not raise new environmental information. In that this comment does not question the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR, no response is necessary. 22 -3 A structure with a street - loaded garage would have a character /landscape more suited for motorists than pedestrians, and could create more instances of pedestrian /vehicle conflicts. In contrast, the structure with the rear - loaded garage pushes the residential structure itself closer to the sidewalk and removes driveways and garages from direct views to pedestrians. Thus, the structures with a rear - loaded garage would allow for a more pedestrian friendly environment. Although there are structures with driveways crossing sidewalks in the City (including those along Ocean Avenue), the majority of the structures in the adjoining residential neighborhood to the east of the project site include rear - loaded garages. As depicted in Exhibit 7 -1, Alternative 2: Moo ed LavoutAlternative, of the Draft EIR, the Modified Layout Alternative considered as part of the EIR would refigure the lots at the project site so that the majority of the lots include rear - loaded garages, including those units along 1" Street; where rear - loaded garages are not feasible, street- loaded garages are afforded. As the majority of the public would experience the project site from Marina Drive and Is' Street, this alternative would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. 22 -4 The existing residential structures along 1" Street do not include street - loaded garages fronting open space and vacant lands (the project site). Although those structures along Ocean Avenue (south of Ocean Avenue) do include street- loaded garages, this is because locating rear - loaded garages along beach areas is infeasible. As discussed in Response to Comment 22 -3, the Modified Layout Alternative (Exhibit 7-1, Alternative 2: Mooed Last Alternative, of the Draft EIR) would refigure the lots at the project site so that the majority of the lots include rear - loaded garages, and, where rear - loaded garages are not feasible, street - loaded garages are afforded (similar to those currently experienced along Ocean Avenue). Although there are a variety of lot layouts throughout the City, the analysis in the Draft EIR relates to the environmental setting for the topical area being analyzed (i.e., the aesthetics /character - quality). This analysis pertains to the localized viewshed in proximity to the project area. 22 -5 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -3 and 22 -4 Final • April 2012 2 -236 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 22 -6 As discussed in Responses to Comments 22 -3 and 22 -4, the majority of residential units include rear - loaded garages and in instances where rear - loaded garages are not feasible, street - loaded garages are provided. Similarly, the majority of residential structures in the neighborhood to the east of the project site front public streets and in instances where this is not feasible, side yards are allowed along public streets. The Modified Layout Alternative (Exhibit 7-1, Alternative 2: Mod4ied Layout Alternative, of the Draft EIR) would reconfigure the lots at the project site so that the majority of the lots front 1" Street. However, in instances where this is not feasible, side lots exist. Note that page 5.2 -22 (second paragraph, first sentence) states that overall the proposed project is considered compatible in massing and scale to the surrounding uses. This statement includes considerations of lot widths and depths as well as building heights. 22 -7 Refer to Response to Comment 22 -6. Proposed fencing (including areas that would not include fencing) was considered in the analysis presented in the Draft EIR and was also reflected in Exhibit 5.2 -7, Kw View 2 - Existing and Proposed Conditions, and Exhibit 5.2 -8, Eje View 3 - Existing and Proposed Conditions, of the Draft EIR. Excluding fencing along 15` Street and Marina Drive would not reduce the project's significant and unavoidable impacts. 22 -8 The recommended Mitigation Measure AES -1a is not required as the Applicant's Fencing Plan (excluding fencing along 1" Street) and landscape requirements (which are required by the City's Municipal Code) would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts along Is' Street that would result from building orientation compared to the surrounding community. Mitigation Measure AES -1b is not required as it is assumed that the proposed structures would be constructed as required by the City's RHD -20 design standards and Ocean Place Property Owners Architectural Guidelines. Implementation of these design standards would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts that would result. 22 -9 Refer to Response to Comment 22 -7. Refer to Response to Comment 22 -3 regarding the project's incompatibility with the surrounding community and reduced pedestrian - friendly landscape. 22 -10 Refer to Response to Comment 22 -8. 22 -11 Refer to Response to Comment 22 -8. 22 -12 As discussed on page 5.2 -23 (last paragraph) of the Draft EIR, `A' Street would terminate at Marina Drive, directly across from the parking lot uses and associated ornamental landscaping within the Townhomes by the Sea. The nearest residence would be approximately 100 feet away and would not be anticipated to be directly impacted by vehicle headlights exiting the project site (as these structures are separated from the project site by Marina Drive, associated landscaping, and parking lot uses). However, `B' Street would terminate at Is' Street, directly across from existing residential structures (approximately 60 feet away). The existing structures include three -foot perimeter fencing and ornamental landscaping, which would partially obstruct direct headlights from each of the residences. However, the lighting effect on these sensitive receptors would be a significant light /glare impact beyond current baseline conditions. As these homes front Is' Street, their windows are directly facing the terminus of the proposed `B' Street. Thus, the lighting effect on these sensitive receptors would be a significant light /glare impact. No Mitigation Measures are Final • April 2012 2 -237 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report feasible to reduce these impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Although no feasible mitigation measures exist to minimize this impact, the Draft EIR considered the Modified Layout Alternative (Exhibit 7 -1, Alternative 2: Moo ed Layout Alternative, of the Draft EIR), which would refigure the lots at the project site so that the proposed `B' Street would line up with the existing Central Way, thus eliminating the project's significant and unavoidable impact regarding introduced lighting onto residential structures as a result of on -site vehicle headlights along the proposed `B' Street. Figure 2, provided as part of Comment Letter 22, depicts locations of existing vehicle headlights in residential areas of the City. CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) states that an EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation (NOP) is published. This environmental setting would normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. Currently, no vehicle headlights are present at the project site. CEQA requires that the project be analyzed as follows: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? As concluded in Impact Statement AES -4, and further discussed in detail in Response to Comment 22 -12, the lighting effect on the residents to the east of the proposed `B' Street alignment would result in significant new sources of nighttime lighting at these residence. No Mitigation Measures are feasible to reduce these impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. 22 -13 Although a typical vehicle with NHSTA headlights standards may include headlight beams with the dimensions discussed in Comment 22 -12, not all vehicles may conform to current NHSTA standards. Also, the conditions at the homes located throughout the City may have different conditions than those in the project vicinity (i.e., increased shrub landscaping, perimeter fencing to screen headlights from windows, etc.). Consequently, the Draft EIR provides a conservative of potential adverse impacts, in compliance with CEQA. 22 -14 Refer to Response to Comment 22 -12. Although "T" intersections are present in the surrounding neighborhoods, the conditions at these other homes may have different conditions than those in the project vicinity (i.e., increased shrub landscaping, perimeter fencing to screen headlights from windows, etc.). Further, as discussed in Response to Comment 22 -12, CEQA requires the analysis to consider the project's impacts compared to existing conditions. Although other "T" intersections are present in the area, no vehicle headlights are currently present at the project site. Thus, as concluded in Impact Statement AES -4, and further discussed in detail in Response to Comment 22 -12, the lighting effect on the residents to the east of the proposed `B' Street alignment would result in significant new sources of nighttime lighting at these residences. No Mitigation Measures are feasible to reduce these impacts. Thus, impacts in this regard are concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Final • April 2012 2 -238 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 22 -15 Recommended Mitigation Measure AES -4, provided as part of Comment 22 -15, is not a feasible mitigation measure. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a) (1) (B), formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time unless the measure specifies performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. The recommended headlight glare study does not include specified performance standards to be achieved nor does it state what methodology the study would employ. It should be further noted that landscaping is not an effective means of mitigating light impacts, as it would not be of sufficient depth or density to eliminate pass through light. Thus, the recommended mitigation measure is not feasible or allowed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1)(B), and impacts those impacts discussed in the Draft EIR remain significant and unavoidable. Further, recommending a right -in and right -out only limitation at the proposed `B' Street /15` Street intersection would not eliminate or reduce this significant unavoidable impact (as vehicles would still utilize this driveway location [located across from existing residents that front Is' Street] for ingress /egress at the project site), nor would requiring a median be feasible due to the existing width along 1" Street which would does not have enough room to allow for a landscaped median (per Figure 7, Modified B' Street Intersection, provided as part of Comment Letter 22). 22 -16 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -3 through 22 -7. Refer to Responses to Comments 22- 12 through 22 -15. 22 -17 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -8, 22 -10, 22 -11, and 22 -15 regarding recommended mitigation measures provided throughout Comment Letter 22. 22 -18 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -3 through 22 -11 and Response to Comment 22 -17 regarding recommended mitigation measures provided throughout Comment Letter 22. 22 -19 The existing commercial property operating at this adjoining property is signed as "California Everglades" per the existing commercial signage present along Marina Drive (see picture below) . Final • April 2012 2 -239 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 22 -20 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -8, 22 -10, 22 -11, and 22 -15 regarding recommended mitigation measures provided throughout Comment Letter 22. 22 -21 Refer to Responses to Comments 22 -8, 22 -10, 22 -11, and 22 -15 regarding recommended mitigation measures provided throughout Comment Letter 22. Final • April 2012 2 -240 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 23 Nancy Slusher 319 Spinnaker Way Riverbeach Resident Comments on the DWP Planned Property Development (Ocean Place) for the Draft EIP 1. RETURN TO THE 70/30 SPLIT. The original Master Plan was for a 70/30 split. A change to the 60/40 split is not called for by the community. With the Draft EIR proposal, the project contains home sites that are cramped together and includes houses facing the river. Returning to the original 70/30 split will snake for a more `workable' project area. And... an important factor: there will be more space at the corner of First and Marina. 23 -1 2. BY NARROWING MARINA DRIVE AND FIRST STREETS traffic on these already heavily traveled streets will be markedly increased. Construction for many years and new resident 23 -2 traffic will create both a traffic and air quality problem. 3. THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO OCEAN PLACE should not be on Marina drive. Current plans call for the community's entrance to be opposite the entrance to RiverBeach. 23 -3 This will create traffic congestion , and safety problems as well. 4. CLARIFY TRAFFIC CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF FIRST AND MARINA. 123 -4 The EIR discusses a'blinking light, a traffic signal and a roundabout.' 5. How will the developers /city IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS FOUND ON SITE. Draft EIR posits that there are no hazardous substances in the property. This cannot be 23 -5 possible. F. What will be the process for IDENTIFYING AND DEALING WITH ARCHEOLOLOGIAL REMAINS FOUND ON THE SITE. The Draft EIR concludes that there are no possible remains on the site. It presents a multi step 23-6 process for identifying potential remains. Per the process, the Coroner's office is not contacted until step 4. 7. THERE IS NO COMPLETION DATE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. The construction and preparation of each lot for sale needs a termination date. 23 -7 Furthermore, Since the lots will be sold individually and each owner will decide when to build, there will be construction noises, dust /dirt, debris, material delivery by heavy trucks, and traffic, for a considerable time. This will be a construction zone for an undetermined number of years as an ongoing project! There will be a major impact on the Riverbeach 23 -T residents' quality of life. S. IDENTIFY SOME METHOD TO CONTROL NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. THESE WILL BLOW DIRECTLY INTO RIVERBEACH. The prevailing winds blow from the ocean inland. Any debris, dust, or other material used in the 23'8 construction process will blow directly into RiverBeach 9. The "ocean breezes " which Riverbeach Residents enjoy will be eliminated by construction of this project. 23'9 10. HOW WILL THIS PROJECT FIT INTO THE CITY'S PLAN FOR A NEW SWIMMING POOL AND PARK ON FIRST STREET? That project also calls for eliminating parking spaces on First Street. It also impacts other areas of city life. Where will residents and their visitors have extra spaces to park? 'FINALLY... THIS PROJECT AS PRESENTED IN NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE QUALITY OF LIFE THAT IS OUR PRESENT COMMUNITY! 23 -1Q City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 23. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM NANCY SLUSHER, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 23 -1 This comment states the Commenter's position on land uses for the project site and the project itself. The comment does not raise any environmental issues nor does it challenge any portion of the Draft EIR. Accordingly, no further response is required. Nonetheless, the Commenter is directed to Response to Comment 8 -1. 23 -2 Section 13.0 of the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Pr ject (prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated October 27, 2011), contained within Draft EIR At�t�endi�11.5, Trac Impact An provides a construction traffic impact assessment, which is also discussed within Draft EIR Section 5.5, Traac /Circulation, under Impact Statement TRA -1 on page 5.5 -18. As concluded in the Draft EIR, construction- related traffic impacts are reduced to less than significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1 (Construction Management Plan). Refer to Response to Comment 15 -11 regarding long -term operational traffic. Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project were analyzed in Section 5.6, Air uali , of the Draft EIR. As concluded under Impact Statement AQ -1, construction- related air quality impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2. As concluded under Impact Statement AQ -2, long -term operational impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 23 -3 Refer to Response to Comment 17 -1. 23 -4 As discussed on Draft EIR page 5.5 -35, Is' Street would be required to be restriped within the proposed 40 -foot paved cross section to provide one 16 -foot southbound departure lane, a 10 -foot northbound left -turn lane, and a 14 -foot northbound shared through /right -turn lane. In order to accommodate the proposed project improvements on Is' Street, south of Marina Drive, the existing median and roadway cross section would be required to be modified to minimize the offset through the intersection and realign the southbound approach with the proposed northbound approach on Is' Street. Within a recommended paved cross section of 40 -feet, the proposed project would be required to provide one 16- foot northbound departure lane, a 10 -foot southbound left -turn lane, and a 14 -foot southbound through lane; a separate southbound right -turn lane would also be required to be maintained (refer to Draft EIR Mitigation Measure TRA -4). Refer to Draft EIR Exhibit 5.5 -4, Proposed Protect Conceptual Improvement Plan —I' Street at Marina Drive, for the recommended layout of the intersection of 15` Street at Marina Drive upon completion of the proposed project. As discussed on Draft EIR page 5.5 -42, the Marina Park Development (identified in Draft EIR Section 4.0, Basis of Cumulative Anal, and not a part of the proposed project) is located to the northeast of the project site and proposes an approximate 3.0 -acre expansion of the existing park. The concept level site plan for the Marina Park Development anticipates conversion of two northbound lanes on 1" Street. Draft EIR Exhibit 5.5 -5, Conc tual Improvement Plan Alternative 1 — 9s' Street at Marina Drive, and Exhibit 5.5 -6, Conc tual Improvement Plan Alternative 2 (Roundabout) — Is' Street at Marina Drive, presents two conceptual improvement alternatives for the intersection of Is' Street at Marina Drive upon completion Final • April 2012 2 -243 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report of the proposed project and the Marina Park Expansion project. Alternative 1 (Exhibit 5.5- 5) indicates that the proposed cross section /lane geometry of ls` Street south of Marina Drive can be designed to accommodate the narrowing of V Street, north of Marina Drive, which is proposed as a part of the Marina Park Expansion project. Under this alternative, the existing intersections all-way stop control is maintained. Alternative 2 (Exhibit 5.5 -6) is a roundabout option. Under Alternative 2, the proposed cross section /lane geometry of 15` Street south of Marina Drive as well as the narrowing of ls` Street, north of Marina Drive along the Marina Park frontage can be accommodated within the roundabout design. Both plans have been prepared for informational purposes only, and serve to illustrate two potential design options for the 15` Street /Marina Drive intersection upon completion of both the proposed project and the Marina Park Expansion project. It is noted that these alternatives are being consider as a result of the Marina Park Development project and would not occur as a result of the proposed project alone. 23 -5 Refer to Responses to Comments 11 -2, 11 -3, 11 -6, and 11 -7. 23 -6 Refer to Response 3 -2. 23 -7 Construction- related impacts have been fully considered and mitigated in the Draft EIR. Refer to Response to Comment 15 -10 regarding construction noise; refer to Response to Comment 16 -2 regarding construction traffic; refer to Response to Comment 17 -2 regarding construction debris; and refer to Response to Comment 23 -2 regarding air quality during construction. 23 -8 Refer to Responses to Comments 17 -2 and 23 -2. 23 -9 This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 23 -10 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -12 pertaining to the narrowing of 1" Street and public parking. Further, the Marina Park Development to the northeast of the site would be developed separately from the proposed project and would be required to provide adequate public parking, as required by the City. The proposed project would not conflict with the plans proposed for the Marina Park Development. Final • April 2012 2 -244 Response to Comments [fill 1�IL,I4y110:1 14: +z' 1 Comments from Mike Buhbe on the DWP Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report To Mark Persico From Mike Buhbe 412 Central Way Seat Beach 90740 562 548 2269 Questions for the DWP EIR I . What are the parking impacts on nearby residents? Are there studies to show how much parking overflow results when a development has little street parking for lots designed for a two -car garage? This has potential impacts on neighboring streets where parking is already congested, difficult, and minimal. Residents of the new development will leave spare vehicles, their own guests, and possibly more than two driving age residents whose number of cars exceed the parking capacity of the two car garage. 24 -1 2. What are the cumulative impacts of the soil contamination? 1 24 -2 3. What are the possibilities to study deep soil contamination that has not been I 24 -3 sampled thus far because of concrete barriers left over from the power plant? 4. Are there studies of cumulative impacts from power plant sites that have been I 24 -4 demolished? City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 24. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM MIKE BUHBE, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 24 -1 Refer to Response to Comment 16 -2 pertaining to parking impacts. 24 -2 On -site soil contamination (which the Draft EIR concluded was less than significant) is a project- specific impact and would not produce a cumulatively considerable impact in the project area. 24 -3 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -9. 24 -4 Appendix 11.9, Hazardous Materials Data, includes documentation of past hazardous materials investigations that have been conducted for the project site as a result of the former on -site power generating station. This information is reflected throughout Section 5.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Further, on -site soil contamination (which was determined to be less than regulatory thresholds for residential use) is not a cumulatively considerable impact. Refer also to Responses to Comments 11 -2, 11 -3, 11 -6, 11 -7, 11 -8, and 11 -9. Final • April 2012 2 -246 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 25 Robert L Goldberg 345 Clipper Way Sea[ Beach, CA 990740 January 9, 2912 Mark Persico Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8t" Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 RE: COMMENTS ON DWP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRAFT EIR Dear Mr. Persico, I respectfully submit the following comments on the Draft EIR (DEIR) as a private citizen (not as a Planning Commissioner): 5.1 Land Use and Relevant Planning Comment #1 Page 5.1 -41: Towards the bottom of the page, is a statement that "The proposed SP Amendment would allow the following amendments: 0.1 acre form Open Space to Residential 4.1 acres from Visitor- Serving to Residential 0.2 acre added to the SP (from No Category to Residential)" This statement appears to be inaccurate due to the following considerations: a) The proposal development is for 4.5 acres of Residential. The listing of amendments above sum to only to 4.4 acres. b) The 1995 SP designated 30% of 10.7 acres, or a total of 3.2 acres, for Visitor - Serving. Therefore, the reference above to 4.1 acres is incorrect. The correct statement describing the proposed SP Amendments should be 1.1 acre from Open Space to Residential 3.2 acres from Visitor- Serving to Residential 0.2 acre added to the SP (from No Category to Residential) Note that this correction would be consistent with the statement found in the last paragraph of page 1 -51 which describes the 1996 SP "Alternative" as providing an "additional 1.1 acres of open space" compared to the 48 -home proposal. 25 -1 Comment #2 Page 5.1 -44: The second major paragraph from the bottom of the page states that "As indicated on Exhibit 5.1 -5 and Table 5.9 -10, the area generally located north of the Central Way POW prolongation (4.5 acres) is designated Residential. " However, Exhibit 5.1. -5 clearly shows that the Residential area will not only include the area north of the ROW, but also the area within the ROW. Therefore, the statement as written is inaccurate and misleading. It should be rewritten (underlined words) as follows: "As indicated on Exhibit 5.1 -5 and Table 5.1 -10, the area generally located within and north of the Central Way ROW prolongation (4.5 acres) is designated Residential." Comment #3 Page 5. 1-45: The DEIR states that "The project proposes amending the Redevelopment Plan..." However, this may conflict with AB 26 which was recently upheld by the California Supreme Court. AB 26 added Section 34164 to Part 1.8 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code. Part (a) of this Section specifically prohibits Redevelopment Agencies from amending redevelopment plans. The DEIR needs to discuss this potential legal roadblock to the project. 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare Comment #4 The DEIR describes the existing views and vistas without consideration of the impact of the opaque fence surrounding a large portion of the project area. The DEIR notes that the fence obstructs public views through the project site. However, the DEIR then treats this highly degraded state as the "baseline" view condition. This does not seem to be appropriate since the opaque covering material was added to the fence just several years ago by the project proponents. Assessment of the visual impacts of the project should consider the views that were existent before the opaque material was added. Due to consideration of the opaque fence, the DEIR selects only Key View 1 (looking south on the bike path) "to depict potential impacts to scenic views and vistas." This disregards the dramatic background views of Catalina Island from Key View 3 (Marina Avenue looking south) that existed prior to installation of the fence covering. It also similarly disregards the dramatic "pre- covering" background views of Alamitos Bay, the City of Long Beach skyline„ and the Palos Verdes hills from the eastern side of 1 st Street. 2 25 -2 25 -3 25 -4 The final EIR should describe views and vistas as they would exist without the opaque fence. This approach would necessitate adding a fourth Key View from the perspective of a pedestrian, homeowner, or driver directly facing the project' from the eastern side of the intersection of 16t Street and Central Way (see Attachment 1). 5.5 Traffic /Circulation Comment #5 Exhibit 5.5 -4 shows various road modifications of 1st Street north of Marina Avenue. However, these are not discussed in the text of the DEIR, nor listed as a mitigation measure. The final EIR should discuss these modifications and clearly identify which party (project applicant vs, the City) will be financially responsible for them. 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality Comment #6 Per Appendix 11.10, page 27, "Verification that no adverse flooding impacts caused by the proposed site at the intersection of Marina Drive and 1st Street during the 100 -year storm event are required." However, the only design features presented in the DEIR relate to protection for a 25 -year storm event (Mitigation Measure HWQ -5). In regards to a 100 -year storm, Mitigation Measure HWQ-6 allows the applicant to demonstrate no impact after the final EIR is approved. It is unclear why the DEIR provides different Mitigation Measures for 25 -year vs. 100 -year storm events, when the standard for no significant impact relates to a 100 -year storm event. For the final EIR to conclude that the project has no significant impact on storm water drainage, the applicant should be required to provide detailed plans on how the run --off from a 100 -year storm will be retained on -site prior to the final EIR approval. These plans should be equivalent in detail to those presented in Appendix 11.10 for a 25 -year storm. This is critical since the DEIR states on Page 5.11 -19: "The incorporation of additional on -site retention to limit runoff volumes to pre - project conditions is constrained by several factors. Infiltration is not feasible due to poor percolating soils and high groundwater. Water reuse demands based on the on -site irrigation demand is not sufficient to utilize the retention volumes within a timely manner as required by the Model WQMP. Additionally, hydromodification impacts would not be significant since the San Gabriel River is tidally influenced and an engineered, hardened, and maintained channel." 3 pi-si 25 -& 5.13 Public Services and Utilities Comment #7 Mitigation Measure PSU -2 requires modification of off -site sewer lines, but does not identify the legally and financially responsible party for these modifications. The final EIR should rectify this issue. 7.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Pro -ect Comment #8 The DEIR does not present an alternative that is consistent with the current Specific Plan designation of 70% open space. The assumption is made that this impact will be mitigated by simply amending the DWP Specific Plan to delete this requirement. However, this assumption disregards the likelihood that such an amendment will likely result in public objections from a large number of residents. Such objections have been raised at numerous public forums to date, Similarly, there may be objections from the Coastal Commission, According to the minutes of the City Council meeting held on November 23, 1981, "The City Manager stated the Coastal Commission staff had indicated there could be no flexibility from the Commission [regarding the] approved 70130 land use." Thus, while inclusion of a 70% open space alternative may not be required by CEOA, it would be extremely helpful to the public discourse regarding the proposed amendments to the DWP Specific Plan. Furthermore, a feasible alternative that closely approximates 70% open space has already been publicly suggested by a member of the DWP Specific Plan Committee. At the December 15th meeting of this Committee, Rita Strickroth suggested that an alternative be included in the final EIR that did not include any homes to the south or west of the proposed extension of Central Way (see Attachment 11). The final EIR should include an analysis of this secondary "Modified Layout" alternative, Thank you very much for consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ob 4Go 1 erg ' Attachments I Key View 4 II 70% Open Space Modified Layout E 25 -7 25 -8 Attachment 1: Key View 4 Attachment !ie 70% Open Space Modified Layout `. MAX i RVIIIP FW > r J Yttn \ ACENnIAL WAY S } ' t it 3iem #• j } Attachment !ie 70% Open Space Modified Layout City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 25. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ROBERT L. GOLDBERG, DATED JANUARY 9, 2012. 25 -1 This comment states that the summary of the project's proposed amendments, as presented in the Draft EIR page 5.1 -41 is inaccurate, as their sum is 4.4 acres rather than the 4.5 acres of Residential uses proposed by the project. The 0.1 difference is due to rounding. The summary is presented below in greater detail, demonstrating that the 4.5 -acre calculation is accurate. ■ 0.1299 acre from Open Space to Residential; ■ 4.1208 acres from Visitor - Serving to Residential; ■ 0.2302 acre is added to the DWP Specific Plan (from No Category to Residential); and ■ 0.0463 acre is excluded from the DWP Specific Plan. This comment also states that the "4.4 acres" would be consistent with the statement "an additional 1.1 acres of open space" found on page 1 -51 of the Draft EIR; that information, in turn, is based on Table 7 -1, Com4arison of Proposed Protect and No Proiectl1996 D1IP S ec c Plan Alternative, on page 7 -13 of the Draft EIR. It is noted that the 1.1 -acre reference is inclusive of the Central Way right -of -way prolongation. Exclusive of the right -of -way prolongation, approximately 6.6 acres of Open Space are proposed. Additionally, the summary presented above addresses amendments, whereas Table 7 -1 compares totals. 25 -2 The comment indicates an inadvertent error in the Draft EIR regarding the Central Way prolongation. The Comment is acknowledged. The area generally located within and north of the Central Way right -of -way prolongation (4.5 acres) is designated Residential. This clarification to the Draft EIR does not constitute "significant new information" pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required. 25 -3 The comment raises the potential conflict between the project's proposal to amend the Redevelopment Plan and AB 26. Due to AB X1 26, the Redevelopment Agency has been dissolved, and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that the project applicant was seeking is no longer required. 25 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4. 25 -5 The Commenter states that the road modifications in Draft EIR Exhibit 5.5 -4, Proposed Pr2ect Conceptual Improvement Plan — Is' Street at Marina Drive, are not discussed in the text or listed as mitigation. However, Draft EIR pages 5.5 -35 and 5.5 -36 discuss the modifications (i.e., stop signs, stop bars, and striping) shown in Exhibit 5.5 -4. Refer to Mitigation Measures TRA -3 and TRA -4 for the recommended mitigation shown in Exhibit 5.5 -4. This mitigation would be the responsibility of the project applicant. 25 -6 The reviewer is requesting detailed plans on how the project would mitigate the 100 -year runoff from the site so as not to impact the intersection of Marina Drive and 1" Street. Flooding at Marina Drive and 1" Street is not caused by runoff from the adjacent properties, rather it is caused by either high tides or high water levels in the San Gabriel River, or both Final • April 2012 2 -253 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report for a worst case scenario. Per the City of Seal Beach Master Plan of Drainage Update, Section 4- 3.1.6, San Gabriel River Drainage Area and Storm Drain S, sue: "Ground elevations vary from 24.4 feet above msl along Ocean Avenue to 7.9 feet above msl at the northwest corner of the V Street /Marina Drive intersection. The 100 -year water surface elevation at San Gabriel River is approximately 10.5 feet. Therefore, this area cannot be drained to San Gabriel River by gravity flow without ponding during a 100 -year flood, or when the water level exceeds about seven feet above msl in the San Gabriel River." Thus, the Master Plan of Drainage Update indicates that the intersection may flood to a depth of 2.6 feet whenever a 100 -year event occurs. This water surface elevation would be above the inverts of any detention basin designed on -site, reversing the normal flow of water and causing water from the intersection to flow to the on -site basins instead of the other way around. This effectively renders the on -site basins, regardless of size, useless as a site mitigation measure for the 100 -year event. Therefore, verification that no adverse flooding impacts would occur at the intersection of Marina Drive and V Street would be required to be demonstrated through compliance with the recommended Mitigation Measure 14WQ -6 of the Draft EIR. In concurrence with final project design (prior to issuance of a grading permit) the Applicant would be required (by Mitigation Measures HWQ -6) to provide precise engineering plans and supplemental analysis to the City Engineer that demonstrates that Mitigation Measure HWQ -6 is accomplished and no flooding would occur at the intersection of Marina Drive and 15` Street during a 100 -year event. 25 -7 Mitigation Measure PSU -2 requires a new eight -inch sewer pipeline from the project site to connect to an existing pipeline, and requires an existing pipeline within the alley to the east of the project site to be upgraded to an eight -inch pipeline. This mitigation would be the responsibility of the project applicant. 25 -8 The Commenter notes that the Draft EIR does not present an alternative that is consistent with the "current DWP Specific Plan designation of 70 percent open space." As noted in the Response to 8.1, the current (i.e., 1996) DWP Specific Plan is internally inconsistent as to the amount of open space. In any event, Draft EIR Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed PM ect, includes a "No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative," which considers a project that would not require any amendment to the DWP Specific Plan, and thus is an alternative consistent with the 1996 Specific Plan in all respects, including the amount of open space required. This alternative was fully analyzed for each impact area within the Draft EIR. However, it was determined that this alternative would not attain the project's identified objectives nor significantly reduce the project's unavoidable impacts. Final • April 2012 2 -254 Response to Comments EIR Comments Attention: Mark Persico COMMENT LETTER 26 I realize that the settlement agreement does not specifically commit the City to the proposed project. However, the fact is that the City signed on to an agreement that: 1) would cost us, The City of Seal Beach, a great deal of money if the project is not approved - and - 2) also requires the Counci I to advocate for the project to the Coastal Commission. 26 -1 With this information, one could conclude that the City is predisposed to approve of this project. 26 -2 Therefore, any input by the citizens "after the fact" of this so- called agreement, sets a new precedent in this city for developer agreements. In the past, citizen input 26 -3 was taken first, before council approved of any agreement. Now the reverse seems to be happening. Since additional housing is not required to meet the City's regional housing needs assessment, there really is no necessity for more houses which will add little to city f inoncial needs. Because Seal Beach already has more housing than employment opportunities, this project results in a Sobs /housing imbalance. This type of imbalance leads to impacts from traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, The General Plan land Use Element f Inds the project site to be desirable for visitor - serving uses. The project would require an amendment to this General Plan policy which was intended to provide benefits to the entire region. Approving far reaching land use plan changes, on a case -by -case basis, as is being done for this project, conflicts with the purposes of regional planning. Case -by -case reconsider- at ion of regional land -use policies, in the context of a project- specific EIR, is the very antithesis of that goal. Submitted by: Jane McCloud 700 Balboa Urive 26 -4 26 -6 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 26. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM JANE MCCLOUD, NO DATE NOTED. 26 -1 The Commenter expresses an opinion on the Settlement discussed in Responses to Comments 21 -2 and 21 -4. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 26 -2 The Commenter expresses an opinion on the Settlement discussed in Responses to Comments 21 -2 and 21 -4. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 26 -3 The Commenter expresses concern that the citizens were not involved in the Settlement process. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 26 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -31. 26 -5 The Commenter states that the approval of a General Plan Amendment conflicts with the purposes of regional planning. This comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -256 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 27 December 13, 2011 Environmental Quality Control Board Public Hearing Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach Member of Public Comment Barbara Barton The Draft EIR needs to include an analysis on traffic flow noise impacts on Ocean Avenue. What is the buildout date? Is the soil clean enough to build residential uses on? Had concerns about the roundabout presented in the cumulative traffic analysis. Ms. Barton would like to re -name the proposed "alleys" to proposed "streets ". Ms. Barton would like the layout exhibits to be larger. Marla Smalewitz An economic analysis of the hotel use versus residential uses should be provided. Is there an affordable housing component proposed? Mario Voce The No Project Alternative should be the environmentally superior alternative rather than the modified layout alternative. Why is the green fencing currently located at the project site? How is this addressed /quantified in the analysis? The baseline setting for the biological resources section should be the conditions that existed prior to the power plant being constructed. Why isn't PCH /2nd Street intersection not included in the traffic analysis? Finds it hard to believe that some of the study intersections currently operate at LOS "A ". When and at what time were the traffic counts taken for the traffic study? What type of equipment is being used during construction (low sulfur)? Who polices the idling time limits? 27 -1 27 -2 27 -3 27 -4 27 -5 27 -6 27 -7 27 -8 27 -9 27 -10 27 -11 27 -12 27 -13 27 -14 Jim Caviola Charles Antos Nancy Slusher Mr. Voce believes that the future residents on -site will replace the proposed gas fireplaces with wood. Mr. Voce would like an analysis of wood - burning 27 -15 fireplaces in the EIR. Mr. Voce would like to know at what depth asbestos (in soils) is present on- I 27 -16 site. Requests a full project -level analysis on the hotel use alternative (No 127 -17 Project /1996 Department of Water and Power Specific Plan). The 2002 Phase II Report notes that a tank was crushed in place on -site. Mr. Caviola believes that the 2002 Phase II Report was not addressed in the Draft 27 -18 EIR. Jim Caviola notes that there is evidence to suggest that underground I 27 -19 structures are on -site. Requests that the EIR address economic impacts. I 27 -20 Referenced "A Story of Seal Beach" by Jean B. Dorr. Mr. Antos stated that I 27 -21 the oldest skull in Orange County was found on -site. Site disking at the project site has lead to uncertainty regarding previous on- 27-22 site resources. Sampling should occur deeper due to underlying asbestos. I 27 -23 Demolition of the previous on -site tank has resulted in potential I 27 -24 hydrocarbons on -site. How will this project affect the residents across the street on Marina Drive? Construction emissions will blow across the site. Traffic will increase along Marina Drive. Also, traffic in the summertime will increase. The Draft EIR did not explain the hotel impacts. 27 -25 27 -26 27 -27 27 -28 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 27. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL BOARD HEARING, DECEMBER 13, 2011. 27 -1 The Commenter provided questions, comments, and concerns regarding traffic noise along Ocean Avenue, the project buildout date, soil contamination, the roundabout, the naming of the alleys, and the size of the Draft EIR exhibits. Traffic noise modeling performed for the proposed project was based off of the project's traffic study (Traffic Fact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated October 27, 2011, contained within Draft EIR At2nendix 11.5, TralficlmpactAnalv Figure 5 -1 of the TrafclrizpactAnalysis depicts the project's trip distribution, which indicates that no traffic associated with the project would utilize Ocean Avenue. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project would not increase the existing traffic noise along Ocean Avenue. 27 -2 As stated on Draft EIR page 3 -12, for the purposes of conducting environmental review and analysis, the document assumes 24 homes per year in 2014 and 2015. This time frame is conservative in that it assumes all of the impacts from the construction of the homes would occur by year 2015, which is a conservative worst -case scenario in regards to environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. Refer to Response to Comment 15 -10 regarding the project buildout date. 27 -3 Refer to Responses to Comments 5 -2, 11 -2, 11 -3, 11 -6, 11 -7, 11 -8, and 11 -9 regarding on- site soils as a result of the former generating station. 27 -4 The roundabout presented in the cumulative traffic analysis was one potential development scenario that was considered as part of the Draft EIR. As concluded on page 5.5 -45 of the Draft EIR, with implementation of a roundabout, the intersection of 15` Street and Marina Drive is forecast to operate at acceptable LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours in the Year 2015 and the Year 2030 with the proposed project. 27 -5 The comments regarding the alleys and the exhibits are acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 27 -6 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -6. 27 -7 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -23. 27 -8 As stated on page 7 -33 of the Draft EIR, the No Project /No Build Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid or lessen the majority of impacts associated with development of the proposed project. However, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), `No Pr iect" Alternative, "if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." Thus, the Modified Layout Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it eliminates the project's only long -term significant and unavoidable impact. Final • April 2012 2 -259 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 27 -9 The existing perimeter fencing at the project site was installed for security and to prevent unauthorized access to the project site. The perimeter fencing has been considered in the Draft EIR analysis as an existing condition per CEQA Guidelines 15125(a). Refer to Response to Comment 8 -4. 27 -10 Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), "An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant." Thus, the existing on -site conditions presented in the Draft EIR are consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR properly analyzed the project's biological impacts to the existing baseline condition. 27 -11 Refer to Response to Comment 10 -4 regarding the PCH /2nd Street intersection. 27 -12 The Trafc Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, dated October 27, 2011, and contained within Draft EIR Appendix11.5, Traoc Impact Anal, was prepared pursuant to the City of Seal Beach Traffic Impact study Guidelines (March 2010). LOS and peak hour calculations were conducted per this methodology are found to be at LOS A at 5 study intersections during the AM peak hour and 1 study intersection during the PM peak hour. 27 -13 Existing traffic counts were taken as part of the Trafc Impact Analysis on July 28, 2010, during the peak traffic hours which are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., as well as between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 27 -14 The construction equipment to be utilized during construction would be required to be consistent with current California Air Resources Board and South Coast Air Quality Management District requirements for construction engines. Detailed assumptions for the equipment that would be utilized by the project can be found in Appendix11.6. Air Ouali 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data, of the Draft EIR. As required by recommended Mitigation Measures AQ -1 and AQ -2, the City Engineer and the Chief Building Official or Designee would enforce these measures during construction as part of on -site field inspections. 27 -15 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 445 consists of two key components: Beginning March 9, 2009, permanent indoor and outdoor wood- burning devices (such as fireplaces and stoves cannot be installed in new developments. However, open- beartb fireplaces n�itb gas -log sets or other popular design features that don't use wood -- sucb as flames in river rock or broken glass -- are allowed. The future residential uses on the project site would be required to abide by SCAQMD Rule 445. Final • April 2012 2 -260 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 27 -16 Refer to Responses to Comments 5 -2, 11 -2, 11 -3, and 11 -7 regarding asbestos in soil. 27 -17 Draft EIR Section 7.1.2, adequately analyzes the "No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative" to the extent required by CEQA. CEQA does not require that an alternatives analysis include the same level of detail as is presented for an analysis of the proposed project. Instead, CEQA requires only that the EIR "include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. The Alternatives section of the Draft EIR describes each alternative, analyzes potential impacts, and compares those impacts to the impacts anticipated under the proposed project. Thus, the Alternatives analysis n the Draft EIR fully complies with CEQA. 27 -18 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -6. 27 -19 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -9 regarding on -site concrete foundations. 27 -20 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -6 regarding economic impacts. 27 -21 Refer to Response to Comment 3 -2 regarding cultural resources on -site. 27 -22 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -5 regarding on -site disking and Response to Comment 3 -2 regarding potential cultural resources. 27 -23 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -2 regarding asbestos and soil sampling. 27 -24 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -6 regarding the on -site tank and hazardous materials. 27 -25 The Draft EIR considered impacts to residents to the north along Marina Drive. As stated on page 3 -4, the multi - family residential uses (River Beach Townhomes by the Sea) located to the north of the project site were considered in the baseline conditions for the project area. All environmental topic areas analyzed as part of Section 5.0, Environmental Anal, of the Draft EIR, considered impacts to those residents along Marina Drive as a result of the project. As described in Section 5.0, all environmental impacts to the residents to the north of the project site would be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of impacts to the degradation of character/ quality along 1" Street and Marina Drive as a result of the alteration of the neighborhood's pedestrian scale. 27 -26 Refer to Responses to Comments 17 -2 and 23 -2 regarding construction emissions. 27 -27 A project- specific traffic study was conducted for the project. Draft EIR Section 5.5, Traffic /Circulation, discusses and analyzes the potential traffic impacts of the project. Impacts were concluded to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Also refer to Responses to Comments 9 -10 and 19 -1. 27 -28 As the project does not propose a hotel, these impacts were only presented in Section 7.1.2, which adequately analyzes the "No Project /1996 DWP Specific Plan Alternative" (which would result in a hotel at the project site) to the extent required by CEQA. Refer also to Response to Comment 27 -17. Final • April 2012 2 -261 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 28 December 14, 2011 Archeological Committee Public Hearing Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach Member of Public Comment Paul Burger What is an Area of Potential Effects and is it applicable to the site? For the cultural resource mitigation measures, why do so many steps have to be taken prior to the coroner being contacted? Bruce Fitzpatrick Is on -site house occupied? David Fuller How are archaeological /native American monitors paid? Was the site filled as part of the DWP powerplant demolition? Charles Antos Referenced "A Story of Seal Beach" by Jean B. Dorr. Mr. Antos stated that the oldest skull in Orange County was found on -site. Jane McCloud Stated that the Settlement Agreement causes the City to be an advocate of the project to the California Coastal Commission. Stated that the City does not need more housing and that the project would lead to a job /housing imbalance. Opposes the General Plan Amendment. 28 -1 28 -2 28 -3 28 -4 28 -5 28 -6 28 -7 28 -8 28 -9 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 28. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM ARCHEOLOGICAL COMMITTEE HEARING, DECEMBER 14, 2011. 28 -1 The Commenter provided questions, comments, and concerns regarding the area of potential effects (APE) and cultural resource mitigation measures. The APE is the geographic area where an undertaking may cause changes in the resources present. In the case of the proposed project, the APE is the geographic area that could be potentially affected by implementation of the proposed project (i.e., area within the site boundary). 28 -2 As described in Mitigation Measure CUL -3, these steps are required to be taken in accordance with existing state and federal law (Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99). 28 -3 The on -site residence is currently occupied. 28 -4 The archaeological /Native American monitors would report to and be under contract to the City of Seal Beach. The Applicant would reimburse the City for any costs related to these activities. 28 -5 Following the demolition of the former power plant, the site underwent remedial activities which included the excavation of contaminated soil and backfill. Also refer to Responses to Comments 8 -5 and 11 -7. 28 -6 Refer to Response to Comment 3 -2 regarding cultural resources on -site. 28 -7 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -2. 28 -8 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -31. 28 -9 The Commenter states an opinion regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment. The comment is acknowledged. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Final • April 2012 2 -263 Response to Comments COMMENT LETTER 29 December 15, 2011 DWP Committee Public Hearing Seal Beach City Hall 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach Member of Public Comment Gary Bemis Traffic for a hotel use is 4 to 4.5 times greater than a residential use. Supports residential uses on the site. Mike Buhbe Will this meeting be recorded? Bruce Monroe Mr. Monroe would like to request an extension of the planning period due to potential climate change issues. Rita Strickroth Page 1 -2, regarding the 70/30 commitment: visitor serving north of Central Way; project causes a decrease of 7.5 to 6.4 acres of open space; and area south of Central Way should be open space. Draft EIR states the split will be 41/59. The 13 proposed riverfront lots should be eliminated in order to allow for 7.25 acres of open space. The 2015 buildout scenario is unrealistic; there would be more noise impacts. The narrowing of 1s` Street would create an impact as traffic is already bad going to Long Beach. When was the traffic study prepared? Nancy Kredell When was V Street widened? Public Trust Doctrine — how does it pertain to the land? Were property owners aware of the 1996 DWP Specific Plan when they bought the land? Seal Beach has more housing than jobs; replacing the hotel with residential uses will increase greenhouse gas emissions and traffic /jobs - housing imbalance. Seth Eaker Mitigation Measure AES -3 — does the modified layout result in light and glare not being significant and unavoidable? Lots 36 through 48 would be impacted by graffiti. Are there any Eel Grass impacts? Native plant species should be encouraged for the project site. 29 -1 29 -2 29 -3 29-4 29 -5 29 -6 29 -7 29 -8 29 -9 29 -10 29 -11 29 -12 29 -13 29 -14 29 -15 Are there cumulative traffic impacts due to the Marina Park expansion and 129 -16 the PCH /2nd Street project? How are bike paths and pedestrian facilities impacted by the reduction of 129 -17 the V Street right of way. Will infrastructure /public facilities ultimately be undergrounded? 129 -18 Flooding in Old Town needs to be addressed. 129 -19 Please define what BMPs are (i.e., Filterra type media). I 29 -20 Why didn't the Housing Element include the DWP site? 129 -21 Can density be increased to add affordable housing? I 29 -22 Page 5.1.6 — any public transport opportunities provided? 129 -23 Wants photorealistic simulations to show what the final look of the homes 129 -24 will be like. Exhibit 5.2 -7 should be more detailed. 129 -25 Analysis of Coastal Act Section 30213 on page 5.1 -24 of the DEIR. How 129 -26 does this analysis on visitor serving uses compare to the hotel study. Any loss of this site as a commercial space is a significant impact. 129 -27 Were sea level rise impacts analyzed? 129 -28 Was a roundabout at Marina / 1s` analyzed in the cumulative section? 129 -29 Will implementing Mitigation Measure TRA -4 result in a loss of on- street 129 -30 parking? What are sensitive receptors? 1 29 -31 Will additional asbestos testing be completed? 129 -32 Dudek report; page 7 — half of samples over PAH limit, please explain why this is a less than significant impact. 29 -33 • Why was a 12' foot depth for groundwater chosen? • Explain the methodology for selecting the depth of the soil samples. The buildout timeframe seems unreasonable. 1 29 -34 Marc Loopesco I Why was a 25' lot width chosen for the alternative site layout? 1 29 -35 29 -36 29 -37 29 -38 29 -39 29 -40 29 -41 29 -42 29 -43 29 -44 29 -45 29 -46 29 -47 29 -48 29 -49 Jim Caviola Provided an overview of his comment letter which contained exhibits A through I. Mike Buehbe Wants cumulative parking impacts addressed (i.e., new parking demand created by future residences on- site). Wants the soil quality of the site analyzed due to previous on -site uses by LADWP. Are the standards for contaminants going to change over time and impact people's ability to live on -site? Charles Antos Stated that the DWP committee cannot make any decisions until they have reviewed the Final EIR. With regard to asbestos contamination, is the open s ace area safe? Chris Aldiger Mr. Aldiger stated that the Alternative Site Plan is worse than the preferred plan. The 70/30 split is a guideline that can be deviated from. A hotel is not an appropriate use for the site. Stated that the EIR adequately addresses the on -site asbestos issue. Bruce Monroe Mr. Monroe would like the EIR to describe the history and intent of the California Coastal Act. Requests that the EIR address sea level rise. Stated that the project would result in a loss of open space, and that the open space should be preserved. Mr. Monroe wanted to know if the California Coastal Trail runs through the site. 29 -36 29 -37 29 -38 29 -39 29 -40 29 -41 29 -42 29 -43 29 -44 29 -45 29 -46 29 -47 29 -48 29 -49 City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 29. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM DWP COMMITTEE HEARING, DECEMBER 15, 2011. 29 -1 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter is in support of the proposed project. The commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -2 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -3 As analyzed in Impact Statement GHG -1 (on page 5.7 -14 of the Draft EIR), operational - related "business as usual" emissions would be 1,057.30 MTCO2eq /yr, which are below the 1,100 one metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2eg6 /yr) threshold. The project's transportation, energy, area source, and water efficiency design features would further reduce project - related GHG emissions, as presented in Table 5.7 -2, Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. These measures are consistent with the Attorney General's recommended design features, and would reduce GHG emissions to 953.87MTCO2eq /yr. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with regards to GHG emissions. 29 -4 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -1. 29 -5 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -6 As discussed on page 5.8 -21 of the Draft EIR, the "2015 No Project" and "2015 Plus Project" were compared for long -term conditions. In Table 5.8 -12, Forecast 2015 Noise Scenarios, the noise level (dBA at 100 feet from centerline) depicts what would typically be heard 100 feet perpendicular to the roadway centerline. As indicated in Table 5.8 -12 under the "2015 No Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 56.5 dBA to 69.0 dBA. The highest noise levels under "2015 No Project" conditions would occur along Pacific Coast Highway, north of 15` Street. Under the "2015 Plus Project" scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline would range from approximately 56.9 dBA to 69.0 dBA. The highest noise levels occurring under these conditions would occur along Pacific Coast Highway, north of 1" Street. Table 5.8 -12 also compares the "2015 No Project" scenario to the "2015 Plus Project" scenario. The proposed project would increase noise levels on the surrounding roadways by a maximum of 0.5 dBA along 1" Street, north and south of Marina Drive, with baseline noise levels less than 60 dBA. Therefore, noise levels resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. 29 -7 Refer to Response to Comment 15 -11. 6 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2eq) — A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential. Final • April 2012 2 -267 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 29 -8 City records indicate that 1s` Street was widened at the southwest corner of V Street and Marina Drive in 1973. 29 -9 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -54. 29 -10 It is assumed that the Applicant was knowledgeable of the zoning and General Plan designation of the project prior to purchase. 29 -11 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -31. 29 -12 As stated on Draft EIR page 7 -27, the Modified Layout Alternative would avoid the proposed project's significant and unavoidable light /glare impact from vehicle headlights. 29 -13 Refer to Response to Comment 21 -14. 29 -14 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -5. 29 -15 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -18. 29 -16 The Marina Park Development and the 2nd and PCH Development were considered as part of the cumulative traffic impact analysis (page 5.5 -41 of the Draft EIR). No significant cumulative traffic impacts were identified. It should be noted that the City of Long Beach City Council denied the application for the proposed 2nd and PCH Development located at 6400 East Pacific Coast Highway on December 20, 2011. Thus, this project is no longer anticipated to be constructed. Consequently, the cumulative impacts analysis included in the Draft EIR is conservative in that it includes potential impacts from the 2nd and PCH Development project. Without this project, cumulative impacts are anticipated to be even less than described in the Draft EIR. 29 -17 Refer to Responses to Comments 9 -13 and 10 -5. 29 -18 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -20. 29 -19 Refer to Response to Comment 25 -6. 29 -20 Refer to Responses to Comments 9 -21 and 21 -21. 29 -21 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -23. 29 -22 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -23. 29 -23 The project site is in proximity to existing bus stops. As discussed on page 5.5 -13 of the Draft EIR, the project area is primarily served by bus transit lines operated by Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Long Beach Transit (LBT) also provides service in proximity to the project site. Lines within the study area are: Final • April 2012 2 -268 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report ■ OCTA Route 1. Provides services between El Camino Real and Avenida Santa Margarita in San Clemente to 7th Street and Channel Drive in Long Beach. Within the study area, Route 1 provides service along Pacific Coast Highway. ■ OCTA Route 42/42a. Provides services between the Village in the City of Orange and Pacific Coast Highway and Balboa Drive, within the study area. ■ LBT Route 131. Provides services between Electric and Main Street, near the study area, to the Wardlow Station in Long Beach, which provides access to the Metro Blue Line. ■ LBT Route 171. Provides services between Electric and Main Street, near the study area, to Pacific Coast Highway/ Cabrillo in Long Beach. However, no new transit stops would be added as part of the proposed project. Also, refer to Response to Comment 9 -25. 29 -24 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d) states that the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical change in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3) goes on to say that an indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. As discussed on page 3 -10 of the Draft EIR, the project does not involve construction of single - family dwellings within the new subdivision. Rather, the project would allow for future builders and owners to construct homes on -site at a future date. These future builders and owners would be bound by a set of architectural standards to be adopted as part of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R's) for the Tract Map. The CC &R's are enforceable by the Home Owners Association (HOA) only. Minimum building standards proposed by the applicant are provided on page 3 -10 of the Draft EIR. As the specific structures that would be constructed on -site are not know at the time of the preparation of the Draft EIR, the view simulations included within the Draft EIR involve simple massing diagrams of the proposed buildings. Windows, doors, and other architectural details are not modeled as the final design of the homes is unknown and would be speculative. Thus, the analysis presented in Section 5.2, Aesthetics /Light and Glare, of the Draft EIR examines the proposed project for vista /view and character /quality impacts that would result from the project's proposed scale (e.g., size relationships between adjacent buildings, and between buildings and adjacent open spaces); and front, side, and rear yard setbacks. This massing analysis would present a worst -case scenario and further consideration of the project's proposed Ocean Place Property Owners Arcbitectural Guidelines would further reduce the visual impacts in this regard. Final • April 2012 2 -269 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 29 -25 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d) states that the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical change in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(d)(3) goes on to say that an indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable. As the specific structures that would be constructed on -site are not know at the time of the preparation of the Draft EIR, the view simulations included within the Draft EIR (including that presented on Exhibit 5.2 -7 of the Draft EIR) involve simple massing diagrams of the proposed buildings. Windows, doors, and other architectural details are not modeled as the final design of the homes is unknown and would be speculative. Thus, the photosimulations and associated analysis presented in the Draft EIR are consistent with the requirements of CEQA and are not more detailed, as this detail would be speculative and not reasonably foreseeable. 29 -26 The analysis of the existing allowable visitor serving uses was considered in Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning. The hotel economic study was prepared by the Applicant in order to determine whether or not construction of a hotel use at the project site is economically feasible. Refer to Response to Comment 8 -1 pertaining to the project's consistency with the Coastal Act Section 30213. 29 -27 Environmental impacts as a result of the change in land use from visitor - serving uses to residential use was analyzed throughout the Draft EIR, including, but not limited to, Section 5_1, Land Use and Relevant Plannina, Section 5.12, Population and Housing, and Section 5.13, Public Services and Utilities. All impacts associated with the project's change in land use from visitor - serving uses to residential uses were found to be less than significant with implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures. Also, refer to Response to Comment 8 -1 regarding the project's reduction of visitor - serving uses. 29 -28 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -6 pertaining to sea level rise considerations in environmental documents. 29 -29 Refer to Response to Comment 27 -4. 29 -30 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -12. 29 -31 Sensitive receptors are sensitive populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive receptors include: children under 14, elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, day -care facilities, elder -care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. 29 -32 Based on the hazardous materials investigations previously conducted at the project site, additional asbestos sampling (other than within on -site structures) is not anticipated to be required at the project site. However, if unknown wastes or suspect materials (including Final • April 2012 2 -270 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report those materials suspect of containing asbestos) are discovered during construction by the contractor, which he /she believes may involve hazardous wastes /materials, the contractor would be required to comply with the following (Mitigation Measure HAZ -5): • Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area; • Notify the City Engineer of the City of Seal Beach; • Secure the areas as directed by the City Engineer; and • Notify the Orange County Health Care Agency's Hazardous Waste /Materials Coordinator. 29 -33 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -6 pertaining to PAHs. Historically, depth to groundwater at the site has been reportedly shallow. During Dudek's 2011 investigation, depth to groundwater was observed to be between 8.4 feet and 10.7 feet below ground surface. Thus, the borings were advanced to 12 feet below ground surface in order to obtain a groundwater sample. Due to the history of the project site (historically occupied by a generation facility that was demolished on- site), asbestos was historically aerially deposited on -site during demolition. Thus, the on -site soil samples were shallow soil samples (collected at approximately 0.25 to 1.5 feet below ground surface). 29 -34 Based on the Application submitted for the proposed project (and discussed on page 3 -12 of the Draft EIR), the residential units would be developed individually by homeowners depending on market conditions and demand. But for the purposes of the environmental review, the document assumes 24 homes per year in 2014 and 2015. This time frame is conservative in that it assumes all of the impacts from the construction of the homes would occur by year 2015, which is a conservative worst -case scenario in regards to environmental impacts. 29 -35 The proposed Modified Layout Alternative would result in 27 -foot lot widths along Marina Drive and 32.5 -foot lot widths along Is' Street. This Alternative was not determined by using specific lot widths, but rather the goal of this Alternative was to re- orient the on -site lots to better co -exist with the surrounding residential community in order to reduce the project's significant and unavoidable impacts pertaining to aesthetics /light and glare. 29 -36 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. Nonetheless, the Commenter is also referred to Comment Letter 11 and associated Responses to Comments 11 -1 through 11 -10. 29 -37 The traffic study prepared for the project states that project would be required to adhere to the City's parking requirements contained within the Municipal Code, and that no unmitigatable parking impacts would occur. It is assumed that any future development within the City would also be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code with regard to parking. Thus, with implementation of the City's Municipal Code, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to parking impacts. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. Refer to Response to Comment 9 -12. Final • April 2012 2 -271 Response to Comments City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 29 -38 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -14. 29 -39 Based on the past hazardous materials investigations, concentrations noted on -site are below the regulatory thresholds for residential use, at the time of this environment document. Impacts associated with development of residential use at the project site (with regard to hazardous materials) are less than significant with implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures. It is noted that the Applicant, future contractors, and future builders are all subject to federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. 29 -40 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -41 Refer to Response to Comment 11 -3 29 -42 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -43 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -44 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -45 This comment is acknowledged. The Commenter does not raise new environmental information or directly challenge information provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is necessary. 29 -46 Page 5.1 -4 (first paragraph) of Section 5.1, Land Use and Relevant Planning, of the Draft EIR, discusses the regulatory framework of the California Coastal Act, as relevant to the proposed project. 29 -47 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -6 pertaining to sea level rise considerations in environmental documents. 29 -48 Refer to Response to Comment 8 -1. 29 -49 Refer to Response to Comment 9 -6. Final • April 2012 2 -272 Response to Comments Section 3.0 - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document which includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program. This requirement ensures that environmental impacts found to be significant will be mitigated. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring and Uorting Checklist, has been prepared for the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment (the project). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist is intended to provide veri fication that all applicable Conditions of Approval relative to significant environmental impacts are monitored and reported. Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation; and 3) retention of records in the Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment project file. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program delineates responsibilities for monitoring the project, but also allows the City flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure. Adequate monitoring consists of demonstrating that monitoring procedures took place and that mitigation measures were implemented. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist (Table 1). If an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. Reporting consists of establishing a record that a mitigation measure is being implemented, and generally involves the following steps: ■ The City distributes reporting forms to the appropriate entities for verification of compliance. ■ Departments /agencies with reporting responsibilities will review the Initial Study, which provides general background information on the reasons for including specified mitigation measures. ■ Problems or exceptions to compliance will be addressed to the City as appropriate. ■ Periodic meetings may be held during project implementation to report on compliance of mitigation measures. Final • April 2012 3 -1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report ■ Responsible parties provide the City with verification that monitoring has been conducted and ensure, as applicable, that mitigation measures have been implemented. Monitoring compliance may be documented through existing review and approval programs such as field inspection reports and plan review. ■ The City prepares a reporting form periodically during the construction phase and an annual report summarizing all project mitigation monitoring efforts. ■ Appropriate mitigation measures will be included in construction documents and /or conditions of permits /approvals. Minor changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if required, would be made in accordance with CEQA and would be permitted after further review and approval by the City. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Final • April 2012 3 -2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 c� 0 a� 0 U 0 w w I--I w z W O �W W r-1 A �z z W 0 I--I z 0 z 0 w V O V w O z o � V A o o o o ° ru [� �'�CJQa a�CJQa'Q o U wo w � 0 O � U Q O w w 0 o -M 0 0 u � U U cut fin' 8 b,O U U U O b�A U iU" N ap Q V It a) bA c� v w C bQ u u a v u U bq SAN y O C V o W N E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 O a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w y w O bO �..^ bO'� r. bA w 0 O O ~ ~ H H W O w O U U o b0 ' a ° °�' ;:4 ;:4 a F 14, ° 141 bO N N bO . o '0 N cd bO '� r. ,�' U �, Sa, U �' p ti bO N w m O bt0 O bO N O C C U � � ' +' U s-' s-i y..i ;� O O bO U N w C O �' U 0 0 '�bO +' bO Q'' O („) .� U � . bO .'' r. C v 0 O U w�bO— ti 0 to '-O ,N' O u a O � .� � U .� � �O w CO u 4b.1 S 142 "z O� E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. B 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w o o bO bo bO w � u O Q r. 7� Q � O w° u� r y opt y a I oap�.�o.- a) o° U o u��.oa)� -a ° U, U 1 n to U O y U 0 bn oap w o 41 U O U U O- u .y N� U U� z u � � O z V U E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M N rr O CL �i • w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U u Cl. a 0 a� 0 a� c� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bn bo by bo by H Q C7 Q C7 bn w 0 O O ~ ~ H H bO b bO b Q � Q O °-' to O G1 U to . - O .� S� CL yN, �, '�i' - E, v U "a w to s: 0 O U U�nR;�- i a `� U Z`�", C�, CX�.� CL E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 l� M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o .�. °o °�' o o� a o o 0. a) w Z u O a N N bJJ a p d O O yid O .. .� U 141 O U by cam_ p C W N p 0 O to N ,� bn bO • y U Q ti O' c� y c'~�i c�Ui y '+� '��'' c�Uj U y O y bA •" z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o B ci o U N a o o o o o b,Q .� .�° '� o U CUB Z7" 0 7� u 48 U ) O OU 7� m U i U U .� I1 bO ¢I��ySjy O O O y U u U • V� O • zQ O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o bO 0 Q U N '� �" it —u N U ya a, -.� .�" R +� u L9 '� '"� �' '� O bIJ O w 0 •� � .�" U � ,� � � ' � U , � O � U � � bO � O U � cad .��' p 141 U N .a O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 al M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o �. w bIJ a) O 0 Z7, b 7E co U U U W � by 7� 142 141 c� :� O ' m '� S�" N '� c � N bO cad 'm O N U u S� U O U U 7-' C� 4bJJ U u U O U U U O O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an 0 r. M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o Oat -a U to 21 s. to w U co t ' c� 7 a� a s�-i U U O 7 0 m w O � u� U O 0 O GQ O y bA " z E c� an 0 an 0 an 0 0 an M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o 141 141 '� lut Cl, bJJ � ° Q bIJ r. 7a `u' o op a o co ¢ F" o w a s °`° U �U a u bO ° N N s� ° U U w� N N ,� c" '' y O Q v 0. O u u Q O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o C) 141 bO o 141 v U a 141 L"i � "C� U U ~ O O `''"� a w a O OU C O O U 0 C) a � u � �' U � U p bO w O °' °' y y d W Q d d a B- W O • I O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an en M cq O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o o N u E o f E o U 'p cad y O N ,0 W W O S� ,p ���' ,�' •� 141 a a bJJ 141 y 0 0 UO O U bO + N 'r. ..11 '"a B� N CJ� O N U O G L C vU U W O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an r. M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o o O y a u --g r� C a a o a) u y a w ° bIJ n. O bO 0 w ° O O C w U S� bA C 0 C�, - � w U U _O sue-' U �cd '� 141 p..i U cad 0 m N � p b�O p a bA C N b Q p O Q U U ,-a w �' N 4 °U b-i sU-i a yU, cz '"u '5 s: 7� bJJ .� B • 7a .Ur U O 0 ° U I'l w O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an r. M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o � °' Q 1 o �bO °' op o U ap °� o 0 0 op t o o. r o o 7a te bO u r r. o r. "� ° o M u u u �' a o B u ,a v °? o u u o o a u , ° o w o o o u bO r. o C C a o —b r ° �' u ° 4 O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an r. M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o o o� u o 0 5 u u u u a u u o u-um - � C=) Q U N u w O O O � m cn w O 0 O C) O O U o w U (� O w p� O w u�. a 0 u an u -w u� 0 M w U u M o U a a O N _� ,� �' O 142 C14N N c� cad U U v u w Ov Q '(� U p U C14 O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an r. M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w W o � o bO bA W W O \ p O N .� � Q O m a� =4 C O U Ley" u U B p U u a p bq a UO 'd �, Q , v Cm O `p U 141 v W O ^ U , C 4bl U C O y} u O O O o O a� �� U O� U u U U U sa � a) '� � bb bO V c cif w � H E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an ao M N r. 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o U° � o a o 5 o u a o N a) o �apa) u J4 o a o o o N� 141 W� p B 4b O +°� U � n O O C� 14 11 b o O �'y� N y V S" y a� o �O O 0 0 bO O r. C o'"' � a� O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an c� r. M rl 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w w O bO wo � o W w u p p � H b,O U U U U u J 0 U v U 0 0 by O u bO U u C by '-p w C U y U w w W u p ,� , r. a 0. 141 �a� p OA b�A y o � N E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 O N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 U w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bA w O O w w O OU bO •S". v U v. wo •� o W W bA w p O bIJ w p O to � O O H C +-' +-' U p '-O '-O 41 O C u bO 51 v� U 1421 •�, °' ,ti �� py U U U Lti" U U a L"" L"y B O to U by •� 1r`S' U Abp .ti cti N W ,�°i a r '"d a yam, �S"" U N U p� .� "O .a "O U a b!J w , N' y0 + u a Ha C7 � a acv C�v a� U W CX aa7a bn E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an a-I N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w o o o b b .0 bO ,= w � U an �l 141 apo 0 W w o U o U O o o y bO O w a r. bq w U _ ,5 bO sa O b! U U 4 to s7 U U � �d W O N W ,si �(✓-i p o w o a W Q d Q m 4 o .-, bO °Q N� o owe �`�a �� as E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N N M 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H pp sari p U U U O 141 U 141 141 ' O O 141 ci U U U a O a a y N O C14 a) C14 U yv 5S U U ,y O U N — y O i y w 41 O 4 ' u ,�' U �cd sa a� O DS u sa a ° B as O B r. ° u a B a'a � U O C • • • • • U O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w o o bO bO'-= U an �l 141 bO r. W w w o U y a a 0 0 ap o ap 7� ' a ° ap �. bO O y C O B O a W U a /X �, o 4 O E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � V A w o o bO bO',= U bn o � u O Q O � U � y a s a o o a U U o�°� Q p° O 0 " u U a O� + O � 'S ' O O C O U 'S ',sJ cn cn U + U O O O � O y bn �' z °z �z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bA H bA o � o a. bA O 4? Q. H r C U is . �' O ,y U O '� U N bb U bO !J O i ,�' O � � O b!J bO by ..� Ncad " N s-� ' N •� +� 14y w 141 � �i' 7 b!J r '.+ r. r, O N �, � U b!J U O U O O O O O U U �] U i," U ¢r yam, U U c-i U U • O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 N M O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w w o o brO wo .w U � o W w � U H °'Us a CZ B u p 0 o iN 4.1 u p.ap o (Z' o� �,., a r� a u B° o ° aCA o5 by °� by o r co bA a� S� N p °' U "� a' � C � N U O a� E Q Ov ia, 0 '� yy Ll U lJ O S� a) b! °. v v ,�' O U U O w C U uJ' w r, n w W W u O oo oo LJ 0 O E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H L ^^ cad cad N r. bq "� ,� bIJ a� o CZ w U cl, U U O w bO VI a o U vi o 0 � ti a a bpi bIJ C;z� u C w 3 s' C7 a O U Q O° aL by� to ti . U O per¢ ct N el 'Ll N � a ao O O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 141 141 bhp bO • Q C 141 C U ,�' �'w O W o E y 00 a. a 7a o� a w° u-M C� W a ° a B a? o • • O y bA •" z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 ON N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H w w ,� ,y O U U to 'y w U iO-� O OU 5 0 w bQ C O O 0.� B '� w u U U Z� O U W a O U -:9 U O �. U .� O. b!J +� cN '� 0."p 0.� .� N U bO O p �cd ' U c� m �U�� (�U B N �d�U -M U a) ,�' N N L7 �" U B N Ou R i O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 0 M M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U u Cl. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H "c� b!J 141 U v U C U a) v `+a U w aj U aj B bO �ww�CU go o N° o ate' a �° co a Z7, u o o o o ap r y 'a u ; o o o ° to 4 o w ° O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H bO U 0 w p '-� C� p�' O bO u a �O 7E 7� O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H bO y 0 w 0 u O u u 00 ON v v O�� v N O O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H O 142 ,�' w C�, cd 45 . - b�q U O 141 .2 p sU-i �, O U b ! C O O O p 2 w Uaj 141 O v'�oo L7+ �BU p ti 141 b! U U- O O O O U O u N w m a ' m' C) O h w � Z N w S� N u N N 0 O � �U! � W N •� a U N N 1 1 m 7� C�, C', c/] O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 7� O �+ U m oo w �O O IU w 141 w w �O O y bA E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 7� a) C '-C� '-C� U U U U-C�- U b!J w w w 7� N � m '> m a) G1 b!J .. U 141 C) - - � a .� N 'C b!J b!J O ) p N --� .� y U O ° '—' O '� . U a) �cd o b!J b! S� .O °� °o `— o ti a) a o 141 o a o a t U, N o a CZ ao 1 o ° O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 141 141 bJJ ' 7� ° . N ,sj w p.., �' by p y 'y �"' N aJ o an bb y ° ° a" by a by o a B °' °� o a bO 141 y C� }} w w 4. 4� N ' O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 141 O U N p r. bO bO . w U a ° N bq °� ° Q 144 144 ° a� a bO o U N ° w y bO C U ' 1 O � t bO r. w 2 'E 0lt� C� w O O • O y bA E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H p •7 U U `+-4 N of B U 141 w U p U u U U 7� 1) O C C U u aJ C U U 0' 0. OU O O cr) O y bA •" z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 c� M M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bA H bA o � o a. bA H o � o 0 0 b�O 0 0 w .7� u 0 -c� 0 y U C b O "� 141 7� w bq U s p O U U Oc�.� bO O '"a at v �.9 p 'd . v U C 141 ,� ,41 y,, U a� U }�,� a� O ,� U . bA U w .� �" �S }�,� U �" S!J O O �U C U uU ;� U �1J . � � � S-i � Sa U O1J U U V] U S� S� � � ' m ;� m � � W CL • O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 0 M cq O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bA H bA • o � o a. bA H o � o r. 'a °C� u u o a C O u w a M p u o a" u �a o o 141 U o o B o w o ; U ° U c-i U U (� m 7� N u a � y p +=' U y0 U s-i �' 'map p Ln u ti C 0 0. O �� w Q ° w C C U U U O y bA •" z E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 bA M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an p p O 4? Q. H b,O r. O O O �i O E r u b,O O U r ,+� U -a U. �' 0 by U �"'• � C y y0 pbIJ ,�' sU-i C \ a� 4 5 - B b m o u a � � � � U U 141 U C+ O bQ vi .� U u u B O v u a a B bi N y bbO O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an O 0 N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an O 4? Q. H 00 N 1O 00 U U 0 7a u 'C� c� O -M b�O 0 N �y 0 79 bO "'' S� 'N ,sue-' ¢a a u-M by cd O 'r. a •, .�. N r. b!J cad N N m s-i c� O m "' U off" .� .� `� O O Lrl o o u °� u O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w bA H bA o � o a. bA H o � o bi 141 u a a o a w U ¢° O 144 m u ,' US". U U U U b,O p Z7, O u U Q C w w U bA y O O �. O u 3 U O u m 0. U U U a� 00 C:14 Lti" c� cad C14 � R' B�� W o m � o O y O y bA •" z E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w bA H bA o � o a. bA H o � o 141 o o Ca u a 7a o a o °) u w 4bIJ to . ' y '� O U Ly +r co C u�� '� u O U bq O O w c� � bA 7� 'u ,�' bJJ w ,� '� -d O U , UbA ' c� N 0 u CL �� U -CaC cl, O i-� U C U 0 O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 bA 0 bA 0 0 Ln M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o o a y _I:i bO U e a u a o v , O O a) O L7 y U U U a) O bq cad O O w N O O SU-' O N S� bq a p, N N N C N bO O u E y a u U �"' -,:I ;:4 by c� bJJ bIJ bIJ g, q� O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M �Nr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o w w C y ° v w bq r. bIJ w 0 C bb O '� U s,' 0., 0 C 7� O O 7� b�O C�, u N C) , U U bO O O is u . U O �r v C� c� O ° N N W ° U° O U w C � O v 142 0 0 IS -S a lu O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 r- M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w an H an o � o a. an H o � o y 141 p u �p 'N w u N U c� O O bq O U `+a � U + w co u O 12 C $jjj O a� 142 0 bO U S� i." N U '"� '� 7� C O bb r. Sa bU Sa ,� U bU Sa bIJ bU b�A bC 0� O W �� B O�w° w O Z ° by U d OU O C u. �Ww O y bA " z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 00 M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. B 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w 141 bO 141 wo ^ w C 0 y 8 Up O 0 0 o u u 0 to 0 o u u U u o o -u u y o a a o o o to u to to o to U y a It � to a a B a In -u a w° u U y .� u � o .Z o U o o O u O b!J 0 an a u r ap " o C7 't u v4 O u °' ap ° o-M U .71 bn E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 all M cq 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� c� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w C w bO � O U � Q wo U • w O U y,, r� O bO r. C O n O p u U O � 5 Q Q � CU bn w to Q O � O O H + U U U b!J b1J O N O 0 O s'x-i CU a o 06 a N U U a U .� °' u '-� " ° ��' � by 0 It p o����o� bO °° U bO �. UOQ �.���oou�U �i- It,��y� -M �� ci O y N cn E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 0 M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U u Cl. a 0 a� 0 U w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w b u Q Q O U O W W U O U u u O � � y o U r. B U U U u ° B co o o r. o U- o -,:1 a o a o s y y 0 a U U a o w U o N o .� u U W U o m o¢ x o U o U o app o U ° a cl, U O C O CL AS � bA � u OU �� C/' -u r. cu) O p O O b!J a cad lJ bQ 0 u '6 u. U bq O ' O � OU � CU) w O p ' O c}n U aU 78 U U w O N E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 an fn N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� c� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w � o � Ei Q � o U � CU � o Q O U � O � U U Qr O H U � p b!J � � � � � � �' � CO N N NNNNa U � � O ' '"' ' c� .S.J' � c� U ✓ U N N N N U 4 p a� O p U U O D U U O � � ` � N z E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 N M N rr O N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w W V O � V w O z o � V A w `41 bO ° 0 ru 0 ru 0 0 ° `41 0 ap 0 0 ap u y, U o bO t W° to u u ti o 7� O� Q bO � aW �wP, 142 yob U ��a�,�.� Lrl v, o o a� °U U i a �'° a ci °o '$���°ti a 5C) o N O U J � � O a U N O R U N 7 x d o W y �,��ao� u w� o� o� C) owo�ozQo w o °C o u°o 0 ��N. 0 �z xx x x E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M M cq 0 w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w w w w wo •� o W W W w w w O y O u u �. H U O O a 7- .� �, U 's 7- U U U i� ,-� sue' ' � N U ¢r .� U U a) a) U .� V V a) O co bq vi ,� C u ',zt " ,-O p C tZ� �� ¢., O Q B y v O a) O U a N u m� a a) m O s v 0. �� Q O •O+ U a bA O v O bq ~ C a) .�. �O + ] ci bO � O '"� �' '� � � � . •�• a) � cad � a) m L7 b!J +' U �" L7 c� G� � 141 U acv a a a E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M N rr O w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 a� w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z o � A V w an o o bO y w o° bO y w o° bo x o w O '� U W W w w w bO u 7a u a u a O . ° o w U k p o U a 141 7� o o n ° O¢ N w bO a ¢0 v' o O 0� r CO3� w � N� Q 141 w .a W o o U. ° bO CZ a w O y oo V E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 M 0 N w a� a� 0 U a� a� c� a U U a. a 0 a� 0 w 0 U 0 w w w V O V w O z O � V A w w 0 w wo � CU o b!J 0 0 O b!J H to to bO 0 + r p U r. S� a 141 S�" S-i S� O at N CZ 141 c� U UU w + U ¢ p C + C C U O '� N N � U N E c� Gn 0 an 0 an 0 0 l� M N rr O N w Section 4.0 — Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 ERRATA Due to AB X1 26, which was approved by Governor Brown on June 28, 2011, and upheld by the California Supreme Court (California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (2011) 53 Cal. 4th 231), the Redevelopment Agency has been dissolved and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment that the project Applicant was seeking is no longer required. Accordingly, the following lines in the text of the Draft EIR are hereby deleted. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. • Page 1 -1: The proposal would require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, DWP Specific Plan Amendment, , Tentative Tract Map, and Lot Line Adjustment. • Page 1 -4: 1-� Redevelopment Man for the River-frew Redevelopment Prejeef • Page 1 -51: ... Plan), , or Official Zoning Map /Zoning Code would be implemented. • Page 1 -51: All of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Piff and Official Zoning Map /Zoning Code would be implemented. • Page 2 -6: �Pzw_. - - - - • Page 3 -5: The proposal would require a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, DWP Specific Plan Amendment, , Tentative Tract Map, and Lot Line Adjustment. Final • April 2012 4 -1 Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report • Page 3 -9 • Page 3 -13: Page 3 -13: Additionally, there may be a development agreement, ftgfeeffiew , or disposition and development agreement between the Applicant and the City of fhe c..,., , efteh Reele__ele ...e._f getteJ_ which would require discretionary review and approval in accordance with applicable law. • Page 5.1 -14: - -- - 9 - - Mi Im. - -- - 9 - - Final • April 2012 4 -2 Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report • Page 5.1 -20: • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (refer to Impact Statements LU -1 through LU- 7); and /or • Page 5.1 -20: The project components also include amendments to the General Plan Land Use, Circulation, and Open Space /Recreation and Conservation Elements, „f.,,..IA ffie s ~e , amendments to the Official Zoning Map and Zoning Code, and Tentative Tract Map No. 17425 (TTM), among others. • Page 5.1 -45: Ll -:!,90 N MIN =A BMW PA ISBN M-2 RAW WE MI *J a Final • April 2012 4 -3 Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report • Page 5.1 -46: Local: Coastal Program, General Plan, , and Municipal Code Consistency ... It is assumed that cumulative development would progress in accordance with the relevant Local Coastal Program, General Plan, Plfftt, and Municipal Code of the respective jurisdictions. Each project would be analyzed in order to ensure that the goals, objectives, and policies of the respective General Plan, and regulations and guidelines of the respective Municipal Code are consistently upheld. Moreover, as concluded above, the project is consistent with the Coastal Program, and consistent with the General Plan; and Municipal Code. Analysis has concluded that impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required. • Page 5.1 -47: With the amendments discussed in this Section, the proposed project complies with the goals and objectives of the Coastal Act, Seal Beach General Plan,and Seal Beach Municipal Code, . Thus, there are no significant unavoidable impacts as to land use and relevant policies. • Page 5.2 -12: Section 8.0 Architectural Control. Spanish -style architecture shall be used for all buildings and structures located on the northerly 30 percent of the site. As _ttflio fi!e by fhe v___..tfrott • Page 7 -4: None of the proposed amendments to the Seal Beach General Plan (General Plan), , or Official Zoning Map /Zoning Code would be implemented. Page 7 -5: Therefore, the project's proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Open Space /Recreation and Conservation Element, , and the Official Zoning Map and Zoning Code, would not be implemented. • Page 7 -6: Final • April 2012 4 -4 Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report • Page 7 -15: . . .. Rung Page 7 -22: ... All of the proposed amendments to the General Plan, , and Official Zoning Map /Zoning Code would be implemented. • Page 7 -25: Final • April 2012 4 -5 Errata City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. Final • April 2012 4 -6 Errata