HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem FAGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 13, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESPONSE LETTER RE:
"NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT #551" FOR THE PROPOSED
BRIGHT WA TER DEVELOPMENT- BOLSA CHICA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter on the "Notice of Preparation of Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report # 551 ", and instruct staff to forward to the
Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Receive and File Report.
BACKGROUND:
Summary of Proposed Project Background Information, and CEQA review:
Summary of Proposed Project:
The City has received the "Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft Environmental Impact Report
#551'. The proposed action is the construction of 387 single -family residential units within
the 105 -acre "Upper Bench" upland areas of the Bolsa Chica.
The applicant (Hearthside Homes, Inc.) has submitted planning applications and Tentative
Tract Map No. 15460 requesting approval of a residential development on the "Upper
Bench" of Balsa Chica Mesa, also known as Warner Mesa, with the following land uses:
❑ 387 single family homes and community facilities on 76.3 acres;
❑ an underground water reservoir on 0.6 acres; and
❑ recreation/conservation open space areas on 29 acres.
Agenda Item /
C:NryDocu..U\30MACH1.PB69hc . w DSM NOP.CC Suff Rc,n.d U.WM -30 -01
City Council Comment Letter re:
Notice of Preparation —Draft Supplemental EIR
Brightwater Development Project (Balsa Chico)
City Council Staff Report
August 13, 2001
Summary of Background hiformation•
In 1996 the County of Orange certified EIR #551 for a larger development project at Bolsa
Cbica. That project included residential development on Bolsa Chica Mesa, and portions of
the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. In November, 2000, the Coastal Commission approved a local
coastal program for the Bolsa Chica area that identified residential development not
exceeding 1,235 units on the Bolan Chica Mesa Upper Bench area, and open
space/conservation on Bolsa Chica Mesa Lower Bench. The local coastal program was
never certified because the County of Orange did not accept the local coastal program, and
the Coastal Commission's action on the local coastal plan is currently the subject of
litigation. Consequently, there is no applicable local coastal program for the Bolsa Chica
area.
CEOA Review:
Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County,
acting as the lead agency for environmental review, must evaluate the potentially significant
environmental effects of the proposed development. Based on an initial review of the
application for the proposed project, the County has determined that a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) must be prepared. The SEIR will assess the proposed
project's effects on the environment; identify potentially significant impacts; identify
feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant environmental
impacts; and discuss feasible alternatives to the project that may accomplish basic project
objectives while lessening or eliminating any potential significant project impacts. The
SEIR will address changes to the project description and environmental setting since
certification of EIR No. 551.
Summary of Proposed Bnghtwater Project:
A residential development involving up to a maximum of 387 units is proposed on 76.3
acres. This proposal also includes the development of 29 acres of open spacelconservation
areas and an underground water reservoir on 0.6 acres.
The proposed project requires the following discretionary actions by the County of Orange:
❑ Certification of the Supplemental EIR;
❑ Adoption of Mitigation monitoring Program; -
❑ Approval of a Master Site/Area Plan;
❑ Approval of Project Site Development Plans;
❑ Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15460; and
u Approval or related additional permits and approvals to allow the planned
development to proceed, such as grading plans, street work permits, building
permits, and certificates of use and occupancy.
BdgMwamr DSEnt NOP.CC Sian Report
City Council Comment letter re:
Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplemental EIR
Brigh eater Development Project (Bolsa Chico)
City Council Staff Report
August 13, 2001
Table A, Master Site Plan Statistical Summary, page 6 of the NOP document, provides a
summary of the proposed land uses, the number of acres within the proposed land uses, and
the proposed use or number of housing units for each of the development areas proposed
within the project description.
Comment Period.
A 30 -day comment period on this Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIR began on July 20,
2001 and will conclude on August 20, 2001. Written comments may be submitted to the
County of Orange.
Future public review and public hearing(s) will be scheduled by the County of Orange to
receive oral testimony on the DEIR at a date to be determined.
Public Availability:
City staff has provided copies of the Notice of Intent to Prepare Draft Supplemental EIR
#551 to each of the libraries located within the City of Seal Beach.
Future City Actions:
Staff will continue to monitor the environmental review process regarding the subject
project, and will prepare a draft comment letter on the SEIR when the document is
undergoing the required public review and comment period. This will allow the
Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council to prepare a formal comment
statement to the County of Orange regarding this project, if determined appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None, other than allocation of existing staff hours to review the Notice of Intent to Prepare a
Draft Supplemental EIR, prepare comments, and assist the Environmental Quality Control
Board and City Council in the preparation of formal comments on the SEIR when it is
released for public review and comments. Estimated staff allocation of between 5 and 10
hours for the completion of the necessary tasks as described above.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize Mayor to sign comment letter on the "Notice of Preparation of Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report # 551 ", and instruct staff to forward to the
Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. Receive and File Report.
Bn,hvw., DSM HORCC Sniff Report 3
City Council Comment Letter re:
Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplemental EIR
Bright Ater Development Project (Balsa Chico)
City Council Staff Report
August 13,2001
NOTED
e =ttenberg John . ahorski
Director of Development Services C' onager
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Draft City Comment Letter re: "Notice of Preparation —
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report # 551"
Attachment 2: "Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report # 551 ", prepared by the
County of Orange, dated July 19, 2001
Bd,hmaur DSEM NOP.CC Suff Report
August 13, 2001
George Britton, Manager
Environmental and Project Planning Services Division
Planning and Development Services Department
County of Orange
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
Dear Mr. Britton:
SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION, DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR #551, BRIGHTWATER
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of Preparation to prepare
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) # 551 and has several general
comments and observations relative to the document.
The City is concerned that the overall focus of the document not be strictly focused upon the
City of Huntington Beach, particularly in the areas of Transportation and Traffic
Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Significant Irreversible Changes Which Would Be
Involved With The Action Should It Be Implemented. It is of extreme concern that the
impacts of additional vehicular traffic on Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner Avenue be
fully discussed, evaluated, and mitigated in the above mentioned areas of concern. It is the
opinion of our City Engineer and Director of Development Services that a substantial
amount of additional vehicular traffic will utilize Pacific Coast Highway north of Warner
Avenue, which could have adverse impacts on Pacific Coast Highway and other roadways
within the City of Seal Beach, and resultant air quality, noise, and cumulative impacts upon
adjoining residential and commercial. areas. The Draft SEIR will need to identify roadway
and intersection capacity deficiencies, and appropriate mitigation measures. The traffic
deficiencies could result in substantial "spillover" impacts to Sunset Beach, and the Surfside,
"Old Town ", and "Hill' areas of Seal Beach.
Additionally, any proposed strategy of augmenting the capacity of intersections to alleviate
the identified deficiencies should include a clearly defined and established program of
C:Wy Do u=nu1601SACHUTfighlwa¢r DSM NORCC I. eaecgocU.W108 -14 -01
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplememal EIR #SSI
Brightivater Development Project
August 13, 2001
alleviating any mid -block volume - to-capacity deficiencies. The environmental impacts of
those mid -block volume -to- capacity improvements should also be adequately discussed,
evaluated and mitigated as pan of this Draft SEIR.
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that the above referenced portions of the EIR
should be carefully constructed and written to address the concerns discussed above,
evaluate the impacts, and propose implementable mitigation measures.
In reviewing the response section of the Initial Study Checklist, the following areas would
seem to require additional analysis than described within the Notice of Preparation:
Conflict with Applicable Environmental Plans: The Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Santa Ana Region, has recently issued "Interim Draft NPDES Permit No. CAS
618030 (Order No. 01 -20). The SEIR document should evaluate all water quality and
drainage issues in light of these proposed regulations, which are anticipated to be
adopted by the Regional Board on September 14, 2001. In addition, all applicable
provisions of the adopted Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) for Orange County
should also be evaluated within the SEIR. Further, the long -term maintenance and
operational funding requirements for constructed storm water and water quality facilities
should be set forth within the SEIR.
Hydroloey and Drainage: The comments immediately above would also be applicable
to the environmental analysis of this portion of the SEIR. The project description
indicates that a series of wetland ponds and drainages will be created as part of the
project. The SEIR should include a detailed presentation of these proposed areas,
including construction and long -term maintenance details, anticipated water quality
impacts, and impacts to any downstream wetland or drainage areas that the created
facilities will ultimately drain into. Again, the long -term maintenance and operational
funding requirements for constructed storm water and water quality facilities should be
set forth within the SEIR.
❑ Water Quality: The comments regarding "Conflict With Applicable Environmental
plans" above would also be applicable to the environmental analysis of this portion of
the SEIR.
Cultural/Scientific Resources: The Initial Study indicates ongoing data recovery is
occurring at CA- ORA -83, and that the SEIR will evaluate the impacts of the proposed
project on these important cultural resources. It is unclear if preservation of the site will
be considered if the site is determined to be significant and eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. The SEIR should include discussion regarding
avoidance of the site if is determined to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register
of Historic Sites.
❑ Recreation: The analysis should include a detailed analysis of the potential impacts of
the resident's of the proposed 387 housing units upon neighborhood, community, and
Brighrwm r OSER NOP.CC Later
IN
City of Seal Beach Comment letter re:
Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplemental EIR #551
Brightwater Development Project
August 13, 2001
regional recreational facilities. The proposed project does not appear to provide any
substantial active recreational facilities, and the impacts of this needs to be adequately
evaluated and mitigated.
In addition, the Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council of the City of
Seal Beach have previously indicated by letters to the City of Huntington Beach, the County
of Orange, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers that both bodies consider the Bolas
Chica wetlands to be an invaluable, indeed essential, natural resource in our environment,
and urge the County of Orange not to approve the proposed Brightwater Development
Project unless and until the ecological integrity of the wetlands can be guaranteed, including
the lower bluff areas of Bolsa Chica Mesa.
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach considered and reviewed the Notice of
Preparation of the Draft SEIR and an accompanying Staff Report on August 13, 2001. The
City Council authorized the Mayor to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the
City of Seal Beach.
Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Our point of
contact on this matter is Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall,
211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee
Whittenberg at telephone (562) 431 -2527 x313, if you have any questions regarding this
matter. In addition, please provide eighteen (18) copies of the Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report to Mr. Whittenberg for distribution to the appropriate
Commissions, the City Council, and libraries within the City when it is available. If the
SEIR document will be available in a digital format, please provide the digital format also to
Mr. Whittenberg.
Sin erely,
killham J. an
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
Distribution: City Council
Planning Commission
Environmental Quality Control Board
City Manager
Director of Development Services
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
Mghtwawr USER NORCC I "r
City Council Comment letter re:
Notice of Preparation — Draft Supplemental EIR
Brfghtwater Development Project (Balsa Chico)
City Council Staff Report
August 13, 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
"NOTICE OF PREPARATION - DRAFT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT # 551 ", PREPARED BY
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, DATED JULY
19, 2001
Bdghtwuer DSER NORCC Staff Report 10
FY m0 'tiy2 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTME
J}
m 300 N. FLOWER STREET CITY OF SEAL BEACH
U P.O. BOX 4048
09 }w SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 JUL 1 9 2001
<IFO>t
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
NOTICE OF PREPAFMITOUBEACH
JUL �, 0 2001
DATE: July 19, 2001
SUBJECT. Notice Of Intent To Prepare Draft Supplemental Environment I M94 RmEp1Tfif VICES
Project Tide: Brightwater Development Project
Applicant: Hearthside Homes
Project Contact: Grace Fong Phone: (714) 834 -2708
The Orange County Planning & Development Services Department has conducted an Initial Study for the
subject project and has determined that an Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is necessary.
The County of Orange will be the Lead Agency for the subject project and will prepare the Supplemental
EIR. In order for the concerns of your agency to be incorporated into the Draft Supplemental EIR, we
need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information
relevant to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project Your agency
must consider the Supplemental EIR prepared by the County of Orange when considering your permit or
approval for the project. The project description, location, and an analysis indicating the probable
enviommental effects of the proposed action are contained in the attached materials. Interested
individuals and groups are also invited to comment on the scope of the anticipated Draft Supplemental
EIR.
Pursuant to Section 21080.4 of CEOA, your response must be sent as soon as possible but not later than
30 days after receipt of this notice.
All parties that have submitted their names and mailing addresses will be notified if any significant
changes in the proposed project occur. If you wish to be placed on the mailing list, please submit your
name and mailing address to the contact person at the mailing address below, If you have any questions
or need additional information, please call the Project Contact of the Environmental & Project Planning
Services Division at the number listed above. The mailing address is Planning & Development Services
Department, P.O. Box 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048.
Submi y:
N me: George Bdtto anagt
Environments' Project Planning
Services Division
Attachment: Initial Study No.PA010070
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL EIR NO. 551
PROJECT INFORMATION FOR THE PROPOSED
BRIGHTWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
Summary
The Project Applicant, Hearthside Homes, Inc., has submitted planning applications (PA 9010070)
and proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 15460 requesting County of Orange (the County) approval of
the proposed Brightwater Development Project.(BDP or proposed project), a residential development
project, including the following land uses: 387 single family residences, an underground water
reservoir, and approximately 29 acres of recreation/conservation open space. The proposed project
site, also referred to as the Upper Bench, is approximately 105 acres on the Balsa Chica Mesa (also
known as Warner Mesa) (Figure 1).
Previously, the County of Orange certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 551 for a larger
development project within the Bolsa Chica area (SCH 993- 071064), including the Balsa Chica Mesa
Upper Bench, the Lower Bench, and portions of the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. EIR 551 was certified in
June, 1996. The County approved a General Plan Amendment and Planned Community (PC)
program for residential and related development on the Upper and Lower Benches, along with major
restoration and creation of wetlands and sensitive habitat areas in the Bolas Chica Lowland.
The current application focuses on the development of the Upper Bench area in a manner consistent
with existing County of Orange General Plan and zoning approvals. The project site is located within
the coastal zone and is also subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act of 1976. Currently,
there is no certified local coastal, program for the Bolsa Chica area, and Coastal Act permitting
jurisdiction rests with the California Coastal Commission. In November, 2000, the Coastal
Commission approved a local coastal program for the Bolsa Chica area that identified residential
development (1,235 dwelling units) on the Balsa Chica Mesa Upper Bench area, and open
space/conservation on the area of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Lower Bench. The local coastal program
was never certified because the County did not accept the local coastal program, and the Coastal
Commission's action on the local coastal program is currently the subject of litigation. Consequently,
there is no applicable local coastal program for the Bolas Chica area.
35 Under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the County, acting as
36 the Lead Agency for environmental review, must evaluate the potentially significant environmental
37 effects of a proposed development. Based on an initial review of the application for the proposed
38 project, the County determined that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) must be
39 prepared to assess the proposed project's effects on the environment, to identify potentially significant
40 impacts, to identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant
41 environmental impacts, and to discuss feasible alternatives to the project that may accomplish basic
42 project objectives while lessening or eliminating any potential significant project impacts. The SEIR
43 will address changes to the project description and environmental setting since certification of EIR
44 No. 551.
P'.WSH130 i0F\dna- vayrr0nLwpd 471199 U>
I
60
San Berriardinc,
60 County
Los Angeles Co" 57 71 r
eo
tY
Riverside
91 County
41
55 Orange
22
1
5
County
PROJECT 133 41
LOCATION
73
1, 74
CD
San Diego
County
L S A
Brightwater Development Project
Regional Location
I:WSMISWtegiontl.dr l]9/01)
vAr INC. ONN VNITY O 6v960INENT PLAN
anI eeicxrw.Teec
1 This Notice of Preparation (NOP) is being circulated pursuant to California Public Resources Code
2 Section 21153(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. Public agencies and the public are invited to
3 comment on the proposed scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the
4 EIR. A 30 day comment period is provided to return written comments to:
5
6 County of Orange
7 Attention: Ms. Grace Fong, Environmental and Project Planning Services
8 Planning and Development Services Department
9 PO Box 4048
10 Santa Ana, California 92702 -4048.
11
12
13 Project Location, Surrounding Uses, and Site Conditions
14 Project Setting. The BDP proposed development site is located in the west - central portion of the
15 County, in an unincorporated area adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach. The project site is
16 shown in its regional context in Figure 1. Regional access to the vicinity of the project site is
17 provided by Interstate 405 (I -405) to the northeast, Beach Boulevard (State Route 39 [SR -391) to the
18 east, and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH; SR -1) new the southwestern boundary of the project site.
19 The project site is located at Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue (Figure 2) and is bounded on the
20 north by Los Patos Avenue and on the east by Bolan Chica Street.
21
22 The project site is located in an unincorporated area of the County at the edge of existing urban
23 development, as depicted in Figure 2. Existing development in the adjacent areas ranges from single
24 family residential development to multiple - family apartment development and with visitor /recreation
25 commercial land uses typical of those associated with PCH and coastal beach communities. The
26 project site overlooks the Pacific Ocean, the Boise Chica lowlands including existing oil operations
27 and the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Bolsa Chica State Beach, and the site of the proposed
28 Harriett Wieder Regional Park on the Huntington Mesa, two miles to the south.
The project is proposed to be located adjacent to two existing residential neighborhoods: the recently
approved Sandover Development on the southwest comer of Bolsa Chica Street and Los Patos
Avenue and the existing residential neighborhood on the north side of Los PaNs Street. The Lower
Bench area bounds the project area on the west and southwest, and the southern margin of the
property is bounded by State -owned portions of the Bolsa Chica Lowland (the "isolated pocket
lowland' '), the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg (EGGW) Flood Control Channel, and properties
owned by Shea Homes and Donald Goodell (Figure 2).
The approximately 105 acre project site is located on a mesa above the historic floodplain of the
Santa Ana River. Most of the Upper Bench is an upland area consisting of normative grasslands.
The area was formerly used as a borrow site for agriculture, oil well development, and for on -site
military bunker construction and as a material borrow site for off -site roadway construction.
Land use and development of the project site is governed by the land use designations set forth in the
County of Orange General Plan and the Bolsa Chica Planned Community originally adopted for the
site by the County in 1994 and amended in 1998.
P:VISHJ3" Pdnft- WPfranLwpd«7 /19MIH
L 5 A rtuuxr.c
1.wSHumt.«eaon.w MMU
B4Otwater Development Project
Local Vicinity
�aao
MT
1.wSHumt.«eaon.w MMU
B4Otwater Development Project
Local Vicinity
IRA A CIeT[]. INC. TICE OP PREPARATION
fPO
JOLT I bAtCMTVAT6P COMMVNOT 1I6v[LOPV[N1 PLAN
I The project site contains various wildlife and plant species. The wildlife found on the project site
2 consist of: mammals such as coyotes, ground squirrels, rabbits, and mice; common reptiles; and
3 several species of birds, including raptors. Much of the vegetation found on the project site reflects
4 previous human activities, while others are vestiges of native Southern California vegetation types.
5 Some of the vegetation associations include nonnative grassland, eucalyptus grove, willow woodland,
6 and vestiges of coastal sage scrub. Southern tarplant is a special interest plant species that occurs
7 within the grassland. A eucalyptus grove on the southern margin of the project site was designated in
8 1986 by the California Department of Fish and Game as environmentally sensitive habitat (i.e.,
9 environmentally sensitive habitat area [ESI-IA]). The project site is adjacent to the Balsa Chica
10 lowlands and Inner and Outer Bolsa Bay, which provide potential habitat for several endangered
11 avian species. The Bolsa Chica lowlands are not proposed for development and are subject to a
12 separate wetland restoration project
13
14
IS Project Description and Discretionary Actions
16 The proposed project provides for the orderly development and conservation of resources on the
17 project site. The project responds to the physical characteristics of the project site and will be
18 implemented by a series of permits, plans, and programs to be approved by the County of Orange and
19 other agencies. The development program primarily involves permitting and approvals from the
20 County of orange, the Lead Agency, and other Responsible or Trustee Agencies, including but not
21 limited to the California Coastal Commission. The SEIR being prepared for the proposed project will
22 satisfy CEQA requirements for all permits or approvals needed to implement the BDP project at a
23 construction level of detail, so that additional EIRs/CEQA clearances will not be required.
24
25 At this time the applicant is requesting the following approvals from the County:
27 • Certification of the supplemental Environmental Impact Report
28 • Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring Program
29 • Approval of a Master Site /Area Plan
30 • Approval of Project Site Development Plans
31 • Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15460
32 • Approval of related additional permits and approvals to allow the planned development to
33 proceed, such as grading plans, street work permits, building permits, and certificates of use and
34 occupancy.
35
36 The project site is designated Residential (0.5 -18 dwelling units [du] /acre), Residential (18 and above
37 du / acre), and Open Space in the County General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with these
38 designations, and an amendment to the General Plan is not required to accommodate the proposed
39 development.
40
P:WSH13"MO ft-ENI WPI(OI19I01m 5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
41
urea. ixc. x eoe o
iucr a.a saiexrw.ru eaxxox ITr e�eeor.ea +aT rux
The proposed site plans emphasize: the conservation of natural resources, including an isolated
wetland; the provision of public parks, open space, and recreational opportunities; and the
development of high quality residential uses. As indicated in Table A, Master Site Plan Statistical
Summary, and Figure 3, Master Site Plan, the development is separated into four land use types:
recreation open space; conservation open space; community facility ; and residential. The Master
Site Plan provides for the development of 378 single family residential units; 0.6 acres of community
facility area for a water supply reservoir, 5.0 acres of Conservation Open Space (CON /OS) that have
environmental resources and/or scenic value, and 24.2 acres of Recreation Open Space (REC/OS)
that include a trail system, public parks, created wetland ponds, drainages, and open space. NOTE:
The entire Brighrwater community encompasses a total of 387 residential units. However, nine of the
proposed residential units, adjacent to the existing Sanover project, are located either partially or
wholly within the City of Huntington Beach. For purposes of the Supplemental EIR, all 387
residential units will be included in the analysis of the project. The City of Huntington Beach will
have permitting authority over the nine dwelling units. The City of Huntington Beach is considered a
Responsible Agency under CEQA.
Table A: Master Site Plan Statistical Summary
Land Use
Acres
Development
Area
Residential Lots/
Square Feet/Um
Recreation Open Space
Recreation Open Space
24
3A
Open space, (mils, wetland ponds
Subtotal
24
Conservation Open Space
Conservation Open Space
5.0
3B
Ezisting eucalyptus ESHA
Subtotal
5.0
Water Reservoir
Water Reservoir
0.6
4B
Water supply reservoir; pump station
Subtotal
0.6
Residential
Residential
Recreation Center
Single Family Development
Single Family Development
Single Family Dwelling
Single Family Dwelling
2.2
11.9
7.7
6.1
48.4
7 -1
7 -2
7 -3
7-4
8
FICA Recreation Center and Open
Space
77 Units
64 Units
28 Units
218 Units
Subtotal Residential
76.3
387 Units
To 11
105
Source FORMA (2001)
p:WSH13"oOP -aoprmncw0((7119101»
goo I
t
�n awe LE
5
3a
.t
- -t H
a
, ^..
r li
Y
z 9'�
d� bl8 C;g� j xLL, Li
s. �i$$.J3333Z �t 1
I�
C
c u
4
r
op G
2 �
w
e
C
e
TO. INC. OT C[ 01 R YL0.ATION
�y�y 1y�C1 84�ONTYAT[0. CONY VNITY O[V CLOIY CMT ILAX
Residential development will take up most of the relatively flat portion of the Upper Bench (totaling
76.3 acres), with project grading used to restore the historic gentle seaward slope of the area. The
area is currently crisscrossed by dirt and asphalt roads previously used for oil and agricultural
operation (Figure 4). Included in the residential area designation is a private recreation center and
open space (Development Area 7 -1; 2.2 acres) that will be operated and maintained by a homeowners
association (HOA). A small existing wetland area located on this parcel will be maintained through
appropriate landscaping and drainage design solutions.
The planned recreation/conservation open space areas extend along the entire southern margin of the
project site, encompassing the slope transition area leading to the Lower Bench and the adjacent
portion of the existing eucalyptus ESHA along the border of the site (Figure 3). The eucalyptus
ESHA is planned as an open space conservation area (Planning Area 3 -13, 5 acres). The elongated
area along the bluff face (Planning Area 3A -1, 24.2 acres) will support passive recreation open space
uses, including trails, 35 public parking spaces, as well as the linear series of ponds that will be
created to serve both as habitat and as a sequence of constructed wetlands that will provide on -site
stormwater retention and water quality management.
The community facility area (Development Area 4 -8, 0.6 acre) is the site of an underground domestic
water reservoir and aboveground pump facility, most of which will be covered with earth and
landscaped as part of a passive open space area adjoining the HOA recreation center.
The Circulation Plan, Figure 4, illustrates the proposed on -site circulation improvements required to
serve the proposed project. Primary vehicular access will occur through a new intersection at Warner
Avenue, which will provide for movement of vehicles and people within the project site. The
existing intersection of Warner Avenue and Los Patos Avenue is proposed to be closed. Vehicular
access to the project site is also proposed from Bolsa Chica Street.
The following actions are contemplated by the County to implement the proposed BDP:
Consistent with the Orange County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, the Bolas Chica Planned
Community (PC) Program was approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County
on June 18, 1996, by Resolution No. 96-464 and Ordinance No. 3964, and subsequently amended on
February 3, 1998 by Resolution No. 98-43 and Ordinance No. 0 -98 -2. The PC Program comprises
the zoning ordinance text, statistical summaries, and zoning/development maps required by Orange
County Zoning Ordinance Section 7 -9 -103, PC "Planned Community" District Regulations. The
Bolsa Chica PC Program establishes the legal description, the PC Zoning Map and Statistical
Summary, and the PC Development Map and Statistical Table that is used by the County to formally
track and monitor development of the community over time. The PC Zoning Map and Statistical
Summary, together with the PC Program Text, constitute the zoning for the Brightwater project area
as defined in California Planning and Zoning Law (i.e., Government Code Sections 65000 - 66025)
and the Orange County Zoning Code, and were adopted by County Ordinance.
The landowner has filed seven Planning Applications with the Director of the County's Planning and
Development Services Division (PDSD), pursuant to Section 10.3 of the Planned Community
Program and Section 7 -9 -150.2 of the Orange County Zoning Code, including applications for:
• Approval of a Master Site Permit(Area Plan for the Brightwater project area;
P:Vi,H13 OFdma.nopfMnLWPd«7 /19NIH
v C
� n
o �
4
C
� o
c _
� U
3
J � \l e 4
LfA w390CIwT[f. INC oN
jYV 1001 0410MTwwT[0. COMNUxiTY e[v[LOPN[Ni I LwM
• Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Planning Areas 3A and 3B (Passive Recreation,
Wetlands Creation, and Open Space);
permit for Development Area 4B (Water Storage Reservoir);
4 • Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Development Area 7 -1 (HOA Recreation Facilities);
5 • Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Development Area 7 -2 (77 Detached Residential
6 Condominiums);
7 • Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Development Area 7 -3 (64 Detached Residential
8 Condominiums);
9 • Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Development Area 7 -4 (28 Detached Single Family
10 Homes); and
11 • Approval of a Project Site Plan Permit for Development Area 8 (218 Detached Single Family
12 Homes).
Approval of a Master Site Permit/Area Plan is being requested to set forth the major components of
project development. Application requirements for Master Site Plans are set forth in Section 10.3.1
of the PC Program and include a Master Grading Plan, Master Drainage Plan, Master Roadway
Improvement Plans, Master Utilities and Backbone Infrastructure Improvement (if applicable), and
any revisions to the Planned Community Development Map and Statistical Table.
PC Program Section 10.2.5(2) requires processing of an Area Plan for one or more Residential,
Recreational, and/or Public Facility Planning Areas pursuant to the Area Plan content requirements of
Orange County Zoning Code Section 7 -9 -150 and Section 10.3.2 of the PC Program. The Area Plan
establishes the master plan for Site Development Plans/permits, setting forth the areas for which
Project Site Plans are prepared by the developer and approved for development
Project Site Plans for the Brightwater project have been prepared to satisfy the PC Program
requirements for Site Development Permits. PC Program Section 10.2.5(3) requires that a Site
Development Permit be prepared for each residential, recreational, and public facility project within
Planning Areas 3 through 8 of the Planned Community. Section 10.4 allows these Project Site Plans
to be processed concurrently with Master Site and Area Plans, in conjunction with a Tentative Tract
Map(s), and with one environmental review.
Application requirements for Master Site Plans are set forth in Section 10.3.1 of the PC Program, and
include a Master Grading Plan, Master Drainage Plan, Master Roadway Improvement Plans, Master
Utilities and Backbone Infrastructure Improvement (if applicable), and any revisions to the Planned
Community Development Map and Statistical Table.
Concurrent with the filing of the Planning Applications for Brightwater, the landowner filed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 15460 with the County of Orange for approval by the Orange County
Subdivision Committee, pursuant to the California Subdivision Map Act and County Subdivision
Ordinance. County approval of these maps shall not require subsequent site development plans
beyond the site plans listed above.
The applicant recognizes that in addition to the County Master Site/Area Plan and Project Site Plan
approvals identified above, it must obtain one or more Coastal Development Permits for the
ruesH13"Oo dla Gpfmn[wpd(0119rof» 10
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
O MOTICC 0f 1la1.11lTiOM
JULYram ru. ix nlie,.rel couuvxirr opveweuanr eux
Brightwater project in compliance with the requirements of the California Coastal Act. Additionally,
other permits and approvals may be required from County, State, and federal agencies, or other
governmental entities to implement the project.
Responsible and Trustee Agencies
According to sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County of Orange has
been designated as the Lead Agency. Responsible agencies are those agencies that have
discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with the development of a proposed project.
Trustee agencies are State agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural
resources affected by a proposed project that are held in trust of the people of the State of California.
The potential responsible and trustee agencies that have been identified as of the preparation of this
document and the required permits, approvals, or their associated responsibilities for the proposed
project are identified in Table B, Potential Responsible and Trustee Agencies.
Table B: Potential Responsible or Trustee Agencies
Agency Permit/Approval/Agency
County of Orange -
Annexation to Sanitation District of Orange County
Local Agency Formation
Commission
Southern Califomia
Water supply and distribution
Water Company
Sanitation Districts of Orange
Sewage collection and nuisance water discharge to sewer system
County
Reclaimed water distribution
City of Huntington Beach
Permits for nine single family residences. Encroachment permit(s
for street work and signal
South Coast -Air Quality
Rule 402 and 403 Permits
Management District
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit
State of California Water
)compliance /construction storm water Notice of Intent
Quality Control Board and
Santa Ana Regional Water
revew
revew
i
Section 401 water quality certification for stormwater runoff
Quality Control Board
handling and quality
California Coastal Commission
Coastal Development Permits
Environmental Procedures
This NOP for Supplemental EIR No. 551 will be submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Responsible
Agencies, and other interested parties that have specifically requested a copy of the NOR
After the 30 day review period for the NOP is complete and all comments we received, a Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) will be prepared in accordance with CEQA as
amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines for
w,ursw3owOn ft- nopfroncwpd«MMU 11
w88OCIwTt3. I-0. [ Op p
BeI CH Tw'wT[R CO- -UNITY nC'/[LOB -8NT PLAN
)VLT SOpI
Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). This Draft SEIR
will comply with the procedures for implementation of CEQA adopted by the County of Orange.
The Draft SEIR will examine the proposed project in the context of the County's existing General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance and other relevant planning programstpolicies. Detailed analyses will be
conducted in order to ascertain the proposed project's effects on the environment and the relative
degree of impact prior to implementation of mitigation measures. Where impacts are determined to
be significant, mitigation measures will be prescribed with the purpose of reducing the project's
effects on those impacts either completely or to the maximum degree feasible. Where appropriate,
County approved plans, policies, and standard conditions of approval will be applied to the
development requirements, and/or amendments to those plans/policies will be discussed as part of the
project. An analysis of alternatives to the proposed project will also be included in the Draft SEIR,
including alternative site plans and the No Project Alternative.
16 H. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST AND RESPONSES
17 Introduction
18 Compliance with CEQA is required to implement the proposed BDP. An Initial Study (IS) is a
19 preliminary environmental analysis of a proposed project prepared by the Lead Agency to determine
20 whether a Negative Declaration or EIR must be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15365).
21 As the County has determined that an EIR is warranted, the IS is used herein to focus the discussion
22 of the analysis to be performed in an SEIR.
23
24 The Initial Study Checklist addresses each question required by the State CEQA Guidelines. An
25 indication is provided related to the potential impacts of the proposed project. The IS provides an
26 analysis of the physical effects of the proposed project and provides a determination as to whether or
27 not further study is required in the SEIR. The Analysis Section indicates if the proposed project will
28 have an impact that is:
29
30 1. Potentially Significant;
31 2. Potential Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated;
32 3. Less than Significant Impact; or
33 4. No Impact.
34
35 The Initial Study Checklist and Responses Section has been prepared according to Sections 15063,
36 15064, and 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines and County requirements.
37
PU H13"OP ft- nopfron[wpd<M191a ) 12
. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
Project Number
Potential Leis than Less than No
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Effect Mitigation Impact
I. LAND USE & PLANNING. Would the project
a) cob act with geoenl pkn designation on mngg?
b) CPna1w with applicable mrironmenbl pkv w W irks
of ageuieawMlu^*diction over the p,.0
c) D.,pl m divide the Pkrion, artan8ement of.
emblished rommuniry (e.g qw income, mr.on r)?
d) Connive with obl' L..be, by plowed Wd use?
2. AGRICULTURE. Would project:
u) con. Far nhbds I.ud. -Prime', - Qque' or of'SUewide
Imlmr.nee; u shown on tln Smx Fumkod Mapping ad Monitoring
Pogrom, on un- WicWmnl ux7
b) kvolve other cb oge m are exlsdng envtmnmmt whirr due on
theb location or move, could r.uh in unrmion dFannW W
to boo.' aloud ux?
3. POPULATION & HOUSING. would projae
a) Cumulatively reed adoPUd relli w Icd powlo ioo pajmgeR
b) Ieb o, subaunNl pinyin in an area d.ecdy or indirectly though
project in m undeveloped u w reemmn of major infrbm .?
e) ,,pone ex.dngY bins .Huai., a worbold umbe of people?
J. GEOPHYSICAL. Would project ..it in or e8pme
people to imps" involving:
a) Wral fiult mime?
b) scorn o: growl shaking of liyueficuao?
c) Have aoik incaeable ofahgwelY suppmmng the ux of xpda teaks or
a,yrobb a wen was. thspoeal synem when xwms m eat
available qr the d.pod of wane woe?
d) U )albs or modalilw?
e] Erosion, oho M ob r 8 ,raphY or uwdble awl cone— fivm
f) 5uboaenc of the land?
el ExWmive xi.?
h) IfWym geologic or physicd fonu.?
5. HYDROLOGY &DRAINAGE. Would the project:
a) SuMwtullY alnr the wining dnwap Poore" of the airc or are;
Wcludibe on n..- of the --- ofd sum or rarer. in mamas
which wool i no mot in:
i) whreantioolawlonwsiloonn-n- oroRain?
a subswor l inm.se in the rue w moms of mrfwe nor ff q
Ij ommer which would nult W flooding m -w off-site?
b) Cmx w rornibun Iwoff wiser which wind r-eed the ob u, of
Warne w plumed nwmwate drainage symmr oo p "vide wbotmtd
addidoml swuce of pollmd mnaft?
c)11. wMired Flooddows?esedarc wucmm wWon woWd
dJ Expox people w seucmre m a sigh! rot tide ofloss. inlury w death
nwlror bro, brobr - bflooding.a muttofthel -7 oft
levee w dm, a iowdadon by xghe, uwmni, or mdaaw?
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
Cl
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES:
6. WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
e7 V.I., my wqm quality mndatds mg wane diems erequiremme?
b) Substaamly regime r, mism am them m i be n e with
istmee i sOr3osohthen therewamoedamt ruleit in
aquifer wlume er a lowing of a local gwadwarc table level?
c) Otbarwi n subumaally regime warm 90 h,?
7. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would
the project result in:
a) baeaetl vehicle oim or onfic m nett mbeyonm implied policing
adpr finecao?
b) Exaad either inaividmny or cumulatively. a level of service staMars
esesblished by the messy mngegion go-From agemy for
m.i®aem roam or highwaye?
e) senry hounds Gam design features It', zoom cows a liar's.
erommoo or mom embie uses (c & ism momment)?
OF) losedmua¢ emceeeelt - .. or ices to neemy men?
s) laoficimt p rem, mPxiry onatm On Wrote?
Q limit, a helium 6r pod.. or bicyelise?
g7 CmRics with mepxd policies tensioning sl¢madve euupotwion
(8.8. bustwm M bicycle resist?
h) Rail, wumhome or ,v naRtc immmn?
i) Chmge in nv aFic enema, includes either m iesseese in tri flc
levels ma ease in luaem. then restils in substantial safety risks?
8. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Excel any SCAQPID moment or contrition re env goYiry
temominn heymmp i ... of XAQbmy
b) Expose Seemliw mpulemst Soups he Poll—lit exengs of
mmelible levels?
e) M. au movement resm., e¢mpmnue,w my emerges
disci.
d) Crete olimemoaesble coon entering s sons ems' Dumber ofpeaple?
9. NOISE. Would the project:
u Itmxmeesisdnemixlewlt?
b) P pcse Peopk On mix kwb euodinR inme"i Como standards?
c) Iflm smi vii in m dmon Wd me elm m, whex auehplen less mt
test, stmen, within two miles ofa gtblic meon m mblic one mane,
espax purple resse ng a —&me in the Pojat use to move w ooim
levels?
10. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the
project impact:
a) Ev&no s�l u (including bus
nmd On Pwn, fn4 inecu.mmas end mrse
b) I.omlly despoiled slain (e. g. henuee Dee)?
<) Locally dements mongol communities (e.g. oak Imes. camel hem.
ex.r(
d) WaWnd hebimt(e.g. meM, riparian and moral me)?
to Wildife dimming or migromin mindless?
fl Adoged or propoxd cmxrrmim pima ad polies. (e8. No mm
Commuviry Commonness %a m Reswres himngement plat?
11. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Mat a xmin vino or New memo to the public?
b) Ma[, d.ipaed smom Meow.?
c) and its inerr Y resrade the exiaing visual eharacm a 9ualiry otthe six
as its sumoadnp?
d) Cream light or glue beyond the physical Items of the pm ttl six?
Potential Less than Less than No
Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact
Effect Mitigation Impact
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
Cl
❑
❑
®
Cl
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
Cl
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
Cl
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
Cl
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES:
Potential
Significant
Effect
Less than
Significant w/
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES,
Would the prolecn
al nluudamhauapd<omoorc -?
®
❑
❑
Cl
b) �t m Mound nemumea?
®
❑
❑
❑
c) Hare the pmutial to ca -e u physical change which would W.
®
❑
❑
❑
miy -e cant' cdmd wales?
13.
RECREATION. Would project:
a) de w areniat'r eeighddmd ad mgimil pals or olhc
rtc'curmn u od fn diiue ouc h tha wbamaad physid dcdomuun of the
®
❑
❑
❑
facility world occw er be xeelcatd?
'coal mafpapd faction -or nroWm me maaa -ion 0 .... anion
Of mmeauanel fOcilian which might lure m dorm physid eaeet m
❑
❑
®
❑
the co— rucanr?
') Conflict with idoWd mm --cull plan orpol i -?
❑
❑
®
❑
14.
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
•) -mm�
to or.ilani m cold
❑
❑
❑
would pot �k, don--?
b) a-dt in an Iw davailability of a IcaItytimpaant m rend'_oral
Ma
❑
ou"u, fine dela-ttdwa' -Ig-eN plan, ryeafie pi-w
❑
❑
Ind w plan?
IS.
HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Coot, a ouni to the pablic c de .—old thmulb the maim
❑
❑
®
❑
nmapon, u.e. a dispod afhaaudwu manila?
b) Crean a hand in the public or 'e ewwmomt through rmsonubly
6rve -Me -poet aM Occident ... dinmu rawly lul the Meax of
®
❑
❑
❑
hatundwa.'- renal- into We mvirenmmrt
c)Expmurt of people tn- toting murc- ofheild hands?
®
❑
❑
❑
d) For a prole- lantcd within - avport land alt plan c. where fuch plan
has not heuatluyred, within two miles of a public ainpn or mbl' ufe
❑
❑
❑
vnpm4 would the mci-t two in a -fiery haunt for pagln mining
ar womm�g.n de oral -yam?
n) For a purl. within Ne vlcui, ofpmae airfnip, would Ae pfolxt
❑
❑
rmWt m a safety hoard fc people revdng a wanking in an pwlcct
❑
f) �pir iap'menmam Of 01 �yfiulll imed'ee win m adopted
❑
❑
®
❑
agency mpnu plan cpmry evavrenun pal+
g)E[W. wpleww-emrta to i signifemt oile«I con, injury or dual
ong wildn when nd firm, including wh wild. art a laced, to
mM
®
Cl
❑
❑
topaniaed tea a once no idenc -ae intefoibd widr wildands?
16.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would project result in
need(s) for oew /altered government
facilities/services in:
❑
❑
a) Fifeproacam?
®
❑
b) Polic, pcitOtion?
®
❑
❑
❑
c) Schmb?
®
❑
❑
❑
4) ,, ntionce urpblicfnciliaey including rods?
❑
❑
®
Cl
') Otlur goretpccrserim?
®
❑
❑
❑
17.
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would p.oiett
malt in nano rot oew 0 w Win n did .Menlo -In:
a) Pow- aoauNg -?
®
❑
❑
❑
b) Communication- fyaema?
®
❑
❑
❑
')Cool pr rtgipil watt v- mmtwduidtm fs'tia -?
®
❑
❑
❑
d) Sewn c septic clout?
®
❑
❑
❑
c) Solid want di.paal?
®
❑
❑
❑
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant Significant wl Significant
Effect Mitigation Impact
No
Impact
MANDATORY FINDINGS
a) Dan rise pmj.t ea- he p?mn.l m ticmade, Ne quatiry pf �M1e.vironmmt, ® ❑ ❑
fish m Nnp below
❑
suMUndelly redu. a< Use. of s w wddlire MoUtan
self suaAang levels. dues. m eliminse a Poet a sel cp -in,,
.sate he ember o, ranie, 0< range of a we m .EZngmed plzni of
animal, m eliminate impo.e eamnpin tf he major periods of califamu
hiaory,e peteomp
b)
om aNevedm smunrnW
g �mmw
El
guilt me disdveu<f dw psed"
e) Dne have ppadble em?
la�ivs ® ❑ ❑
❑
el , aura iss (%se.tT.en y ce.ndeeable' mrnnl a
ma so
ae,Usbnownweladv<ly
Uc? noble wh.
ha he inrmm.ml effao use individual project v
awed in .mm ee eff ofaher
Use tss enedr bepsaprotectso.)
cunrns pnoleas, aM du eRem o(pmbeble fuare pmj.u.)
A) Don peojes love envwnmesml a. which will cause subawdai adverse ® ❑ ❑
❑
en.s a Amon beings riN<r dirtcdy or iMie.dy
DETERMINATION:
Based upon to evidence in light of the whole record documented in he attached eneironmenrel che,kii t explanation, cited
incospormicens and attachments, I find that the proposed pmicet:
COULD NOT have a significant effect on he environment, and a negative declaration (ND) will be pMased pooleam to CEQA
❑
Guil,imes Amcle 6,1507Q through 15075.
COULD have n significant eft et on the environment, these will not be a significant eBea in his case becanse the "band"
be to CEQA Guidelines Anidc 6,
Cl
messo es have been added m he project. A negative deco adon (ND) will imposed pursuant
15070 daough 15075.
N"y have a sienif nett on he environment which has not bcce analyzed previously. Therefore, an enviromnenml Mi net
rtpon(EIR)is uirt
Signamrt:
Planner. on6
EnvironmenW rojeC Planing Division
Telephone'. (T1 ) BJ641D8
NOTE' All mfereamed and/orimnryorated doceeenu may be reviewed by a,,oinsmenr onty,mhe County of0—V PlaamingQ
apecied An appoh bosom can be made by
Development Services Deto ant m, 300 N. Flower Ssmep Santa Arm. California, unless otherwise
contacting Oa CEQA Conrad Personal .aisd above.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
LeA Auocl ATU. INC. vveuuTI.N
,.LV 1001 aelONTWATE2 COYMYNITT Oeve LOYY[NT PLAN
III. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS/ISSUES
This section provides detailed discussion supporting the conclusions identified in the Environmental
Checklist Form, Section II. The conclusions were based upon preliminary assessment of the
proposed project using available sources and documents.
The environmental checklist form identifies four categories of project impact: "potentially significant
impact," "less than significant with mitigation incorporated," "less than significant impact," and "no
impact." A response of "potentially significant impace' applies if there is a substantial evidence that
an effect is significant. A response of "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" applies
where the mitigation measures are available to reduce an effect from "potentially significant impact"
to a `less than significant impact." A response of "less than significant impact" applies if there is
evidence that potential project impacts are not significant A response of "no impact" indicates that
the project will have no effect on the environment.
References Used in Completing the Environmental Checklist
The following documents were used in completing the Environmental ChecklisNnitial Study and the
discussion provided herein. These documents are available for review at the County of Orange,
Planning and Development Services Department, 300 North Flower Street, Rm. 356, Santa Ana,
California, 92702. Where appropriate, the documents have also been cited in the Environmental
Checklist.
County of Orange General Plan (2000)
County of Orange Recirculated EIR No. 551 (Certified, 1996)
1. LAND USE & PLANNING
A. Conflict with General Plan Designation or Zoning?
No Impact. The County of Orange approved a General Plan Amendment in 1996 to allow residential
development on the Upper Bench and Lower Bench areas. The proposed project site has a County of
Orange General Plan designation of Residential (0.5 -18 dwelling units [du] /acre), Residential (18 and
above du/acm), and Open Space. The proposed project is consistent with these designations, and an
amendment to the General Plan is not required. The proposed project site was zoned for development
through County adoption of the Bolas Chica Planned Community Program in 1994, and amended in
1998. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with the existing General Plan or zoning
designations.
P:WSHi3"Ormhwk[Mtra me."d(4 /19/0 U>
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
NOTICE Of PIEPARATION
IEOCI LTE]. INC. RRICXTw.1TER COYNU NITY C av ELOEYEXT IL.X
JULY tool
B. Conflict with Applicable Environmental Plans or Policies of Agencies with Jurisdiction
over the Project?
Potential Significant Effect. The proposed project is consistent with the County of Orange General
Plan. An evaluation of the project's compatibility with other relevant environmental plans and
policies of other regional and local agencies will be included in the SEIR_
C. Disrupt or Divide the Physical Arrangement of an Established Community (e.g., Low
Income, Minority)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not physically divide an established
residential community. The project site is located in an area at the edge of urban development
composed of various densities. Density ranges are defined as follows: high density is greater than 25
dwelling units per acre (do/=); medium -high density is between 15 and 25 du/ac; medium density is
7 to 15 du/ac; and low density is between 4 and 7 du/ac. High - density condominiums, the Huntington
Harbour Racquet Club, and community commercial uses are found along Warner Avenue, between
Pacific Coast Highway and Los Patos Avenue. Low - density, single family homes are located along
Los Pains Avenue immediately adjacent to the north of the project site. To the east, across the flood
control channel, detached single family residences exist. Proposed project improvements will
provide for passive open space with public parking and interpretive trails, along a linear series of
wetland ponds created to serve as habitat.
The existing use of the proposed project site does not physically connect an established community.
Therefore, the proposed project does not separate or disrupt any existing community. Therefore, this
issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
D. Conflict with Adjacent, Existing or Planned Land Uses?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in Checklist Response I.C. above, the proposed
project is consistent with adjacent residential land uses and planned land uses on site. However,
issues such m compatibility with adjacent open space areas, coastal areas, and the lowland restoration
areas should he addressed. These issues will be further discussed in the SEIR to provide full
disclosure and analysis of the land use issues.
2. AGRICULTURE
A. Convert Farmlands Listed as "Prime," "Unique," or "Of Statewide Importance,^ its
Shown on the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, to Non - agricultural
Use?
No Impact. According to the latest farmland mapping provided by the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, there are no soils designated as prime, unique, or of statewide importance on
the project site. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
PMSHI3M0fthecRlHCesp9nsew,d <0119MIN,
INC. NOTtOt OPP PwOwTION
,YLT 0001 BRIGNTwwTOR COMMUNITY O0V0LOPY0NT PLAN
B. Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or
Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Farmland to Non - agricultural Use?
No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area not currently used for agricultural
purposes. The project would not result in the conversion of on -site or off -site farmland to a non-
agricultural use. Therefore, this issue will not be analyzed in the SEIR.
3. POPULATION AND HOUSING
A. Cumulatively Exceed Adopted Regional or Local Population Projections?
10 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation
1 I for the project site. The project site is surrounded by urban development. The County General Plan
12 designates the site for Residential (0.5 -18 dwelling units [du] /acre), Residential (18 and above
13 du/acre), and Open Space. An analysis of the proposed project compared to adopted County,
14 regional, and local population projections will be included in the SEIR
IS
16
17 B. Induce Substantial Growth in an Area Directly or Indirectly Through Project in an
18 Undeveloped Area or Extension of Major Infrastructure?
19 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the extension of roads and the
20 construction and reconstruction of infrastructure to service the proposed project. As the project is an
21 "in -fill" parcel within an existing developed community, is self - contained via a loop road, and has
22 infrastructure facilities designed to accommodate the proposed project only, the potential for
23 substantial growth inducement as a direct result of development or indirectly through
24 extension/upgrade of existing infrastructure is unlikely. This impact is not considered significant.
25 This issue will be discussed further in the Growth Inducement Section of the SEIR
26
27
28 C. Displace Existing Housing Affecting a Substantial Number of People?
29 No Impact There are no existing housing units located within the proposed project site, and housing
30 displacement impacts will not occur. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the SEIR
31
32
33 4. GEOPHYSICAL
34 Would Project Result in or Expose People to Impacts Involving:
35 A. Local Fault Rupture?
36 Potential Significant Effect. The project site is located in a seismically active region near major
37 faults. A geotechnical analysis (AGRA Earth & Environmental, June, 1997) was conducted for
38 Recirculated Final EIR No. 551 to evaluate potential geotechnical constraints for the entire Bolas
39 Chico area and will be relied upon for the SEIR. The northwest trending Newport- Inglewood
40 Structural(Fault Zone traverses the western portion of the project site. Other major "active" faults of
41 seismic concern in the region include: the San Andreas Fault Zone, the Whittier -North Elsinore
PMSH13M0FIc!ecklis Wnse.N.pd«7 /19101» 3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
J VLY to,ICl Tat. Ixc.
N OTIC[ O P48x Ae AT�Ox
•¢IOMTw ATe! COYNJnITT D8V8LOPN exT PLAN
Fault, and the Palos Verdes Fault. An "active" fault is defined by the State of California as having
had displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The potential effects of fault
rupture and proposed mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts will be further
addressed in the SEIR.
B. Seismicity: Ground Shaking or Liquefaction?
Potential Significant Effect The project site is subject to secondary seismic effects, including
ground shaking and liquefaction. This issue and proposed mitigation measures to reduce potentially
significant impacts will be further addressed in the SEIR.
C. Have Soils Incapable of Adequately Supporting the Use of Septic Tanks or Alternative
Waste Water Disposal Systems Where Sewers Are Not Available for the Disposal of
Waste Water?
No Impact. No septic systems are proposed. This issue will not be discussed in the SEIR.
D. Landslides or Mudslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The geotechnical analysis did not identify the potential for
landslides or mudslides on the project site. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
E. Erosion, Changes in Topography or Unstable Soil Conditions from Excavation,
Grading or Fill?
Potential Significant Effect. Approximately 460,000 cubic yards of cut and 220,000 cubic yards of
fill will be required. The remaining cut will be transported to an adjacent residential parcel within the
City of Huntington Beach. The grading on site will serve to replace, fill, and recontour several
borrow sites that were excavated during the 1900s for the construction of military bunkers and off -
site developments. Because of the grading activities and on -site soil conditions, the proposed project
site is subject to erosion and unstable soil conditions. The project will increase erosion potential due
to exposure of soil during and immediately after grading. During construction, short-term erosion
will occur from grading and trenching activities. The erosion potential will be evaluated in the SEIR
and mitigation measures identified to reduce potentially significant impacts if necessary.
F. Subsidence of the Land?
38 Less Than Significant Impact. Ground subsidence can be defined as the gradual changes in
39 elevation of land surface and is measured in total subsidence or as a rate in inches per year. Local
40 subsidence has been noted in the Huntington Beach area by the U.S. Geological Survey, the State
41 Division of Oil and Gas, the State Division of Mines and Geology, and the Orange County
42 Environmental Management Agency (Chambers Group, Inc., 1996). These reports generally
43 concluded that, based on the average rate of subsidence from 1982 to 1985 new the Huntington
P��xsHi30w0Pc Kkrl,ve:vDJ><.,raa (0119A 0) 4
EOOIATEf. INC. NOTICE OF PIEPARATION
LEA ,." I..I CaiEMTw.,TEP C O NII O N ITT OEV ELGIN BxT 11wN
Mesa, the anticipated yearly sea level rise at the site will be 0.015 ftlyr. (0.75 feet in 50 years
(Chambers Group, Inc.). This is not considered an appreciable change in tectonic settlement and is
considered less than significant. This issue will not be Rather addressed in the SEIR.
6 G. Expansive Soils?
7 Potential Significant Effect. The on -site project soils possess expansion potentials that range from
8 very low to moderate. The on -site soils appear to be predominantly granular and thus possess a low
9 expansion potential (AGRA, 1997). However, clayey soil, a more expansive material, will be
10 exposed on site during grading. This issue will be discussed in the SEIR.
11
12
13 H. Unique Geologic or Physical Features?
14 No Impact Ground surface elevations on the project site are steeply sloped and range from
15 approximately +30 to +50 feet MSL, and are relatively flatter from +50 to +55 feet MSL. There are
16 no unique geologic or physical features on the project site. This issue will be further discussed in the
17 SEIR
18
19
20 5. HYDROLOGY & DRAINAGE
21
22 A. Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of the Site or Area, Including the
23 Alternation of the Course of a Stream or River, in Manner Which Would Result In:
24 i.) Substantial Erosion or Siltation On- or Off -Site?
Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an
increase in the rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the watershed that
includes the site. The storm drain system would be improved to accommodate the increase in
runoff. Erosion on and off site would increase as a result of project implementation. The
increase in urban runoff from the project site has the potential to degrade water quality and
could violate existing water quality standards, especially sedimentation during grading.
Technical reports will be prepared to address potential water quality impacts during
construction and after development and capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage
systems. These issues will be discussed in the SEIR
ii.) A Substantial Increase in the Rate or Amount of Surface Runoff in Manner Which
Would Result in Flooding On- or Off -Site?
Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an
increase in the rate and amount of stotmwater runoff generated from the watershed that
includes the site. The storm drain system would be improved to accommodate the increase in
runoff. The increase in urban runoff from the project site has the potential to substantially
increase and may affect downstream properties. Technical reports will be prepared to
PUiSHII op,Checkluu,ONnse."d((]/19/01»
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
wifOEl wTtf. IME. NOT CC[ OF RtPw0.ATION
IVLY ,001 e0.1EN TMwT{0. EOYY VNITY v{LO PN tNT PLAN
address potential water quality impacts and capacity of existing and planned stormwater
drainage systems. These issues will be discussed in the SEIR.
B. Create or Contribute Runoff Water Which Would Exceed the Capacity of Existing or
Planned Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of
Polluted Runoff?
Potential Significant Effect. Currently, stormwater runoff from the watershed for the site flows to
five areas and is distributed as follows: Bolsa Chica Mesa lower bench (42 percent), Los Patna
Avenue (28 percent), MWD property (17 percent), Bolsa Pocket easterly depression (7 percent), and
Bolsa Pocket (6 percent). Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in the
rate and amount of stormwater runoff generated from the watershed that includes the site. The storm
drain system would be improved to accommodate the increase in runoff. Erosion on and off site
would increase as a result of project implementation. The increase in urban runoff from the project
site has the potential to degrade water quality and could violate existing water quality standards,
which are designed to protect human health. Technical reports will be prepared to address potential
water quality impacts and capacity of existing and planned stormwater drainage systems. These
issues will be discussed in the SEIR.
C. Place Within a 100 -Year Flood Hazard Area Structures Which Would Impede or
Redirect Flood Flows?
Less Than Significant Effect. The project site is not located within a 100 year flood hazard zone
nor is it within a designated floodway; therefore, it would not be affected by flood hazard or alter
flood flows. This issue will not be further discussed in the SEIR.
D. Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving
Flooding, Including Flooding as a Result of the Failure of a Levee or Dam, or
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow?
Less Than Significant Effect. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area and,
therefore, would not be affected by dam inundation hazards. Therefore, this issue will not be
discussed in the SEIR.
6. WATER QUALITY
A. Violate Any Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements?
Potential Significant Effect. Water quality could be affected by urban development at a site
currently in open space. Impacts could occur from sedimentation during grading, vehicle discharges
on project streets, and from landscaping chemicals after development. A Water Quality study will be
prepared for the SEIR to analyze water quality and groundwater impacts associated with construction
activities and long -term operation of the project.
F1 SH13"ONcheMiav ,Owe.wVd 07119M D>
,.nfLOCInT[L. �xC. N.I.C. OI pIVNATIOx
Lr inn LRICKYWATER COMMUNITY YLYLLOPMENT PLAN
1 B. Substantially Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere with Groundwater Recharge
2 Such That There Would Be a Net Deficit in Aquifer Volume or a Lowering of a Local
3 Groundwater Table Level?
4 Potential Significant Effect. Stormwater runoff will change site percolation and draining
5 characteristics. A Hydrology/Water Quality study will be prepared for the SEIR to analyze water
6 quality and groundwater impacts associated with construction activities and long -tem) operation of
7 the project.
8
9
10 C. Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality?
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Potential Significant Effect. Stortnwater on the project site currently drains into the Bolas Chica
wetlands, located west of the project site. The constructed wetlands on the western portion of the
project site will be designed to handle 85 percent of all storm event runoff. The remaining IS percent
will be diverted through structures referred to as "smart boxes," which flow into proposed detention
basins. During peak flows, stornwater from the constructed wetlands will flow into an existing
pocket wetland on the Upper Bench of the Mesa via an underground pipe, which will provide the
needed base flow to sustain the existing pocket wetland. A Hydrology/Water Quality study will be
prepared for the SEIR to analyze water quality and groundwater impacts associated with construction
activities and long -term operation of the project.
7. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
A. Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion Beyond Adopted Policies And /Or
Forecasts?
Potential Significant Effect The proposed project is consistent with the County General Plan and
will not result in traffic trips not already accounted for in adopted policies and forecasts. A traffic
analysis will be conducted for the SEIR to evaluate the effect of the proposed project on existing and
projected traffic volumes on roadways within the County and the City of Huntington Beach. This
issue will be fully analyzed in the SEIR.
B. Exceed, Either Individually Or Cumulatively, A Level Of Service Standard Established
By The County Congestion Management Agency For Designated Roads Or Highways?
Potential Significant Effect. Project impacts to County congestion management roads and highways
may occur. A transportation impact analysis report will be prepared to determine project and
cumulative impacts. This issue will be fully analyzed in the SEIR.
C. Safety Hazards From Design Features (E.G. Sharp Curves Or Dangerous Intersections)
Or Incompatible Uses (E.G. Farm Equipment)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Design of the proposed project does not include roadway
improvements that incorporate hazardous design features, such as sharp curves or dangerous
P:W H13M0fthMkliswponu.wpd l(7 /19N I>)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
^Tef 1XC OX OTIC[ Ol vgelge., T10M
N rer vai
enw gr..rw coq. ir. oe.uolgegr e�.n
intersections that may affect public safety. All street access will be designed and constructed at
grade, and will provide adequate sight distance and traffic control measures to allow smooth traffic
flow on site and reduce potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. This issue will not be further analyzed
in the SEIR.
D. Inadequate Emergency Access or Access to Nearby Uses?
Potential Significant Effect. The proposed project will result in changes to the adjacent roadway
system, including a new intersection at Warner Avenue. The existing intersection of Warner Avenue
and Los Patos Avenue will be closed. Project vehicle access and emergency access will be altered by
the project. The effect of implementation of the proposed project on emergency access and access to
adjacent uses will be analyzed in the SEIR.
E. Insufficient Parking Capacity On -Site or Off -Site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a residential development and is not
expected to generate parking demand on or off site. The proposed recreation open space area in
Planning Areas 3A and 3B provides for a parking area for the public. Parking code requirements and
parking demand will be further discussed in the SEIR_
F. Hazards or Barriers for Pedestrians or Bicyclists?
Less Than Significant Impact. Design of the proposed project does not incorporate hazardous
design features. The proposed project will be constructed to County of Orange standards and will not
result in the creation of hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists. In addition, the applicant is
preparing a Design Guidelines document to be adopted as part of the proposed project. This issue
will be analyzed in the SEIR.
G. Conflicts with Adopted Policies Supporting Alternative Transportation (e.g. Bus
Turnouts, Bicycle Racks)?
Less Than Significant Impact. Compatibility of the proposed project with policies identified by the
County, City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Transportation Authority, and SCAG regarding
incorporation of facilities that accommodate alternative modes of transportation into new
developments will be evaluated in the SEIR.
H. Rail, Waterborne or Air Traffic Impacts?
No Impact. The proposed project will not affect rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts due to the
absence of such facilities within the project site. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the
SEIR.
P:WSHOOWOP h-kli— '- 'e.wpd(0119 /00)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
u. •aaom.ru. i"c.
JVLV vei
xOn Ce or reo.e.nox
eem nr. n.en eo uuox�rr oe•uoru exr run
I. Change in Air Traffic Patterns, Including Either an Increase in Traffic Levels or a
Change in Location That Results in Substantial Safety Risks?
No Impact. Air traffic movement will not be directly affected by the proposed project due to the
absence of such facilities within the project site and the limited potential for the proposed project to
affect the existing facilities. Therefore, this issue will not be discussed in the SEIR
S. AIR QUALITY
A. Exceed Any SCAQMD Standard or Contribute to Air Quality Deterioration Beyond
Projections of SCAQMD?
Potential Significant Effect. Although the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan
designation for the project site, construction of the proposed project will result in short-teen
construction impacts and long -tenn operational air emissions that may exceed SCAQMD standards.
This issue will be discussed in the SEIR
B. Expose Sensitive Population Groups to Pollutants in Excess of Acceptable Levels?
Potential Significant Effect. The air quality analysis will evaluate the long -tern effect of air
emissions from increased traffic on local and regional roadways. Increased traffic generated by the
proposed project has the potential to result in congestion on existing roadways in the vicinity of the
project site. Congestion on local roadways may result in the generation of carbon monoxide "hot
spots" or exacerbate an existing "hot spot." Carbon monoxide "hot spots" (locations where pollutant
levels exceed accepted federal and State standards), if any, will be identified in the air quality
analysis and in the SEIR.
C. Alter Air Movement, Moisture, or Temperature, or Cause Any Change in Climate?
No Impact. The proposed project is a residential development and is not of a significant size or
scope to alter air movement and temperature or cause any change in climate. Therefore, this issue
will not be discussed in the SEIR.
D. Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People?
Potential Significant Effects. During construction, diesel operated machinery will be used in
grading and building operations. The use of diesel may produce odors that may affect adjacent
residences. This issue will be addressed in the SEIR
P:nISHIJOWOPcheckliauespome.wpd 10/1910111
���rsaocuru. Inc.
aaoi
anicxr..nrac co..cnry oe «o..eenraun
1 9. NOISE
2 A. Increase Existing Noise Levels?
3 Potential Significant Effect. Increased traffic and public use generated by the proposed project may
4 result in increased noise levels along roadways adjacent to and surrounding the project site. Short-
5 term noise will result during construction of the proposed project. A noise analysis will be conducted
6 for the SEIR to document the existing noise environment along adjacent roadways and land uses in
7 the vicinity of the proposed project and to estimate the proposed project's potential effect on existing
8 and projected future noise levels.
9
10
I1 B. Expose People to Noise Levels Exceeding Adopted County Standards?
12 Potential Significant Effect. As described in Checklist Response 9.A above, the proposed project
13 will result in increased traffic and public use and short-term construction noise impacts. The noise
14 levels generated by the proposed project may exceed adopted County standards. This issue will be
15 technically analyzed in the SEIR.
16
17
18 C. If Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan Or, Where Such Plan Has Not Been
19 Adopted, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Expose People
20 Residing Or Working In The Project Area To Excessive Noise Levels?
21 No Impact. There is no airport within two miles of the project site; therefore, this issue will not be
22 discussed in the SEIR.
23
24
25 10. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
26 A. Endangered, Threatened or Rare Species of Their Habitats (Including but Not Limited
27 to Plants, Fish, Insects, Animals and Birds)?
28 Potential Significant Effect. Although the project site contains various wildlife and plant species,
29 the Upper Bench of Balsa Chico Mesa does not provide habitat for any endangered, threatened, or
30 rare species. The wildlife found on the project site consists of mammals such as coyotes, ground
31 squirrels, rabbits, and mice; common reptiles; and several species of birds, including raptors. Many
32 of the vegetation associations found on the project site are associated with the previous human
33 activities on the project site, while others are native to Southern California. The Lower Bench of the
34 Mesa does contain sensitive plant species, and the impact of development of the adjacent Upper
35 Bench will be addressed in the EIR The project site is adjacent to the Balsa Chica lowlands and
36 Balsa Chica Inner and Outer Bay, which provide potential habitat for several endangered avian
37 species. The Balsa Chica lowlands are subject to a separate wetlands restoration project being
38 undertaken by the State and federal government.
39
40 The project proposes substantial alterations to the existing setting, which have the potential to impact
41 the biological resources found on the site, including an adjacent ESHA. The SEIR will discuss the
P:nISHI30WOPkhakliartaponae.wptl (0/19/)1» 10
NOTICZ OF
luu aaei aaicN.w.rna CO.. NITI on.uorNe. *n.wN
project's impacts to the on -site and off -site biological resources and assess project effects in relation
to adopted plans and applicable regulations protecting biological resources.
5 B. Locally Designated Species (e.g. Heritage Trees)?
6 Potential Significant Effect. The project site contains a small number of trees. The project
7 proposes substantial alterations to the existing site, which may have the potential to impact tree
8 resources found on the site, including an adjacent ESHA of eucalyptus trees. The SEIR will discuss
9 the project's impacts to the on -site and off -site tree resources and assess project effects in relation to
10 adopted plans and applicable regulations protecting biological resources.
11
12
13 C. Locally Designated Natural Communities (e.g. Oak Forest, Coastal Habitat, Etc.)?
14 Potential Significant Effect. The project site contains various wildlife and plant species. The entire
15 project site lies within the coastal zone, and an adjacent stand of eucalyptus trees has been designated
16 an environmentally sensitive habitat area by the Department of Fish and Game because of its use m a
17 roosting area for raptors. The project site is also adjacent to the Bolsa Chica lowlands that, in
18 addition to areas of restored and degraded wetlands, includes other areas designated environmentally
19 sensitive habitat areas by the Department of Fish and Game.
20
21 The project proposes substantial alterations to the existing setting, which have the potential to impact
22 the biological resources found on the site, including an adjacent ESHA. The SEIR will discuss the
23 project's impacts to the on -site and off -site biological resources and assess project effects in relation
24 to adopted plans and applicable regulations protecting biological resources.
D. Wetland Habitat (e.g. Marsh, Riparian and Vernal Pool)?
28 Potential Significant Effect. Although there is an isolated pocket of wetland located on the Upper
29 Bench of the Bolas Chica Mesa, the project proposes to avoid impacts to this wetland. Areas
30 adjacent to the project site, such as the Lower Bench of the Bolsa Chica Mesa and the Bolsa Chica
31 lowlands, include areas of wetland habitat; however, the project does not propose to affect these
32 habitat areas. The SEIR will discuss the project's impact to these on -site and off -site biological
33 resources.
34
35
36 E. Wildlife Dispersal or Migration Corridors?
37 Potential Significant Effect. The project site contains various wildlife and plant species; however,
38 the project site has not been designated nor is it known to be a wildlife dispersal or migration
39 corridor. The adjacent Bolsa Chica lowlands provides habitat for several endangered avian species
40 and is used by a variety of other animal and avian species. The SEIR will discuss the project's impact
41 to the on -site and off -site biological resources and assess whether any wildlife dispersal or migration
42 corridors exist proximate to the site and the projects impact, if any, on these areas.
P.WSi I30u40M a kliaacaponx.wpd(MIMi>> I I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.ree. ue. xan eOe or rnv.e.nox
fULYZOO. .mm�r..rae eo.xvnirI vawa.exr ee.n
F. Adopted or Proposed Conservation Plans and Polices (E.g. Natural Community
Conservation Plan or Resource Management Plan)?
Potential Significant Effect. The project site is not covered by an adopted or proposed conservation
plan. The stand of eucalyptus trees on the Bolsa Chica Mesa, including a portion on the project site,
has been designated an environmentally sensitive habitat area by the Department of Fish and Game
pursuant to the Coastal Act. In addition, the State and federal governments are preparing a wetlands
restoration plan for the Bolsa Chica lowlands, which lie adjacent to the project site. The project's
impact on the restoration plan and any areas designated ESHA by the Department of Fish and Game
will be addressed in the SEIR.
11. AESTHETICS
A. Affect a Scenic Vista or View Open to the Public?
Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project will alter existing views from
the publically accessed roadways and public open spaces surrounding the project. A visual impact
assessment to evaluate the proposed project's potential effect on existing views from surrounding
public vantage points and publically accessed uses in the proximity of the project will be completed
m part of the SEIR.
B. Affect a Designated Scenic Highway?
Potential Significant Effect. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as a Viewscape Condor in the
County of Orange Scenic Highway Plan (County of Orange General Plan, 2000). A V iewscape
Corridor is a route that traverses a corridor within which unique or unusual scenic resources and
aesthetic values are found. This designation is intended to minimize the impact of the highway and
land development upon the significant scenic resources along the route. The proposed project will be
visible from Pacific Coast Highway and may adversely views from that arterial to the site. A visual
impact assessment to evaluate the proposed projects potential effect from Pacific Coast Highway will
be completed as part of the SEIR
C. Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of the Site and its
Surroundings?
33 Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project will substantially alter the
34 existing visual character of the site and will potentially affect views from public view areas. A visual
35 impact assessment to evaluate the proposed project's potential effect on existing views from adjacent
36 sensitive land uses within the proximity of the proposed project area will be completed as part of the
37 SEIR. This assessment will describe the existing aesthetic quality and visual resources on and
38 adjacent to the project site. Potential visual impacts on existing public viewsheds at selected
39 locations will also be assessed.
40
PMSHUa OTChecklisno nu.%pd <01I9MD) 12
fVLY L
e[IONTMwTER CONUVNITY Oev[LO PN [NT PL.N
D. Create Light or Glare Beyond the Physical Limits of the Project Site?
2 Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project may result in the generation of
3 light, glare, shade and shadow that would potentially impact adjacent land uses, including the
4 potential for the spillover of light from residences. Lighting from the proposed uses on the project
5 site will be visible from adjacent residential land uses. Lighting and view impacts will be identified
6 and the severity of these impacts determined.
7
8 Potential impacts related to light and glare issues, aesthetics, building height, and potential shade and
9 shadow impacts will be evaluated in the SEIR This analysis will include an evaluation of the
10 proposed project in relation to surrounding adjacent sensitive land uses and how they may be visually
11 impacted.
12
13
14 12. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
15 A. Disturb Archaeo or Paleo Resources?
Potential Significant Impact. Recirculated FEIR No. 551 included an extensive discussion of the
prehistoric and historic resources on the Balsa Chica property, including the Upper Bench of Bolsa
Chica Mesa. There are several prehistoric cultural sites located on the Upper Bench of Bolsa Chica
Mesa, the most significant of which is ORA -83. In certifying EIR 551, the County adopted
mitigation measures, project design features, and standard conditions to address the impact of future
development on Boise Chica Mesa on these resources. The project proponent is currently complying
with and implementing the mitigation measures requiring further test excavations and data recovery
of the prehistoric and historic cultural resources on the Upper Bench of the Bolas Chica Mesa.
Ongoing data recovery and report preparation on the archaeological excavations and historic resource
evaluations are currently in process. The impact of the proposed project on these resources will be
addressed.
29 B. Affect Historic Resources?
30 Potential Significant Impact. See Checklist Response 12.A, above.
31
32
33 C. Have the Potential to Cause a Physical Change Which Would Affect Unique Ethnic
34 Cultural Values?
35 Potential Significant Effect. See Checklist Response 12.A, above. The impact of the development
36 of the Upper Bench of the Bolas Chica Mesa was previously addressed in FEIR 551. The FEIR also
37 addressed the potential effect of development of Bolsa Chica Mean on Native American concerns as
38 the cultural resource sites that may be impacted by development activities may contain resources
39 important to Native American cultural heritage. Project design features including Native American
40 monitoring and compliance with the provisions of Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code
41 were identified with which the project developer is currently implementing as part of the ongoing
42 archaeological mitigation work. This issue will be addressed in the SEIR
43
P:uLaH13o Oft WisvcWme.wpd ar19MM 13
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
om.ro. ixe. xon Oe or va.+ l 1eox
uLr vooi nuenr.nru eouucxirr xecorenr nn
13. RECREATION
A. Increase the Use of Existing Neighborhood and Regional Parks or Other Recreational
Facilities Such That Substantial Physical Deterioration of the Facility Would Occur or
be Accelerated?
Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project may increase demand for local
or regional parks or other recreational facilities in the area, since it is primarily a residential project,
which generates permanent residents and an ongoing demand for recreational resources. Although
the proposed project provides for approximately 24 acres of recreation open space, which will
include traits and wetland ponds, an analysis of the project's effects on neighborhood and regional
parks will be provided in the SEIR.
B. Include Recreational Facilities or Require the Construction or Expansion of
Recreational Facilities Which Might Have an Adverse Physical Effect on the
Environment?
Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed project provides for recreation open space, including
public trails and wetland ponds. The provision of recreational facilities in the project will satisfy
demand for such facilities. Impacts of construction of recreational use are included in the overall
project and do not substantially impact the environment. Because there are private recreational
facilities provided on site, there is nothing to indicate that additional facilities will be necessary.
Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
C. Conflict with Adopted Recreational Plans or Policies?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be discussed in relation to consistency
with adopted recreational plans and/or policies. This issue will be addressed in the SEIR
14. MINERAL RESOURCES
A. Result in the Loss of Availability of a Known Mineral Resource That Would Be of
Value to the Region and the Residents of the State?
No Impact. According to the County's General Plan, there are no mineral resources of regional or
Statewide importance within the project area (County of Orange General Plan, 2000). Therefore, this
issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
B. Result in the Loss of Availability of a Locally - important Mineral Resource Recovery
Site Delineated on a Local General Plan, Specific Plan, or Other Land Use Plan?
No Impact. According to the County's General Plan, there we no mineral resources of local,
regional, or Statewide importance within the project area (County of Orange General Plan, 2000).
Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
P:urSH130WOP\che 115eaxponsewpd N7119NU)
14
LIA AL CCIAT[.. INC.
)YLY vest
1 15. HA7ARDS
NOTICE CI • TI ON
[YCNTVAI[a COMMUNITY oeveLOPKIINr PLAN
2 A. Create a Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through the Routine Transport,
3 Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials?
4 Less Than Significant Impact. Planned land uses within the proposed project are primarily
5 residential, open space, and public roadways. These uses do not generally have the need to store
6 substantial amounts of hazardous materialsisubstances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, gas, or
7 radiation. However, the proposed water pumphouse attached to the water reservoir and residential
8 uses are generators of potentially hazardous storage and/or waste. This issue will be addressed in the
9 SEIR.
10
11
12 B. Create a Hazard to the Public or the Environment Through Reasonable Foreseeable
13 Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials into the
14 Environment?
15 Potential Significant Effect. Planned land uses within the proposed project are primarily residential,
16 open space, and public roadways; these uses do not generally emit or require storage of hazardous
17 materials that may result in health hazards to adjacent sensitive land uses. The potential for the
18 proposed project to pose a health hazard to adjacent land uses will be assessed in the SEIR.
19
20
21 C. Expose People to Existing Sources of Health Hazards?
22 Potential Significant Effect Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments will be
23 conducted for the proposed project. Existing sources of health hazards will be assessed in the SEIR
24 and potential mitigation measures identified to reduce impacts to below a level of significance.
25
26
27 D. For a Project Located Within An Airport Land Use Plan, Or Where Such Plan Has Not
28 Been Adopted, Within Two Miles Of A Public Airport Or Public Use Airport, Would
29 The Project Result In A Safety Hazard For People Residing Or Working In The Project
30 Area?
31 No Impact The site is not within an Airport Land Use Plan or in close proximity to any airport.
32 Therefore, there is no potential effect, and this issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
33
34
35 E. For A Project Within The Vicinity Of A Private Airstrip, Would The Project Result In
36 A Safety Hazard For People Residing Or Working In The Project Area?
37 No Impact The site is not within an Airport Land Use Plan or in close proximity to any airport.
38 Therefore, there is no potential effect. This issue will not be addressed in the SEIR.
39
P'41SH13oW0PC1Uckh$OC,pon C.wpd ((7 /19NU) 15
or e
aaoe urea. INC- au cnrx.ran couxvxir. vevewrurenr run
ivec aooi
F. Impair Implementation Of Or Physically Interfere With An Adopted Emergency
Response Plan Or Emergency Evacuation Plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in a new
concentration of development and people that may not be anticipated in adopted County and City of
Huntington Beach emergency plans. Affected agencies will be consulted regarding the compatibility
of the proposed project with County and City emergency plans and evacuation routes. This issue will
be addressed in the SEIR.
Y
10 G. Expose People or Structures to a Significant Risk or Loss, Injury or Death Involving
11 wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
12 residences are intermixed with wildlands?
13 Potential Significant Effect. The proposed project site is adjacent to undeveloped areas that contain
14 trees and grassland. The potential fire hazard will be assessed in the SEIR.
Is
16
17 16. PUBLIC SERVICES
is Would the Project Result in the Need(s) for New /altered Governmental Facilities/services
19 In: Fire Protection, Police Protection, Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads,
20 or Other Governmental Services?
21 A. Fire Protection and B. Police Protection?
Potential Significant Effect. Implementation of the proposed project will result in additional
demand on existing public services, including City fire and police protection. Affected purveyors of
public services will be contacted to determine the level of existing services, projected future capacity,
and the ability to accommodate the increased demand associated with the proposed project. The
SFIR will include an assessment of the project's effect on public services.
C. Schools?
Potential Significant Effect. Schools in the general area are experiencing growth in student
population, which has led to the need to build additional classrooms and schools. The proposed
project will add to this demand and to the overcrowding impacts in area schools. This impact will be
addressed in the SEIR
D. Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will add a minimal amount of vehicle trips,
trash truck trips, and deliveries to the arterial system. This increase is considered de minimus.
16
a:utsuua OMWkaanaswxae.wua «rn9M>)
cs. Inc.
JV V....'
E. Other Government Services?
NOTICE OF
PREPARATION
COMMUNITY oc.e�or
Potential Significant Impact Library service will be affected by the proposed project due to
increased demand. This issue will be addressed in the SEIR.
7 17. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
8 Would Project Result In The Need For New Or Substantial Alterations In: a) Power Or
9 Natural Gas, b) Communications Systems, c) Local Or Regional Water Treatment Or
10 Distribution Facilities, d) Sewer Or Septic Tanks, Or e) Solid Waste Disposal?
I 1 Potential Significant Effect. The proposed project is a residential development and will require
12 electricity, natural gas, communications systems, sewer service, and solid waste disposal. The
13 implications of the project on these services could be cumulatively significant in combination with
14 other existing, planned, and proposed projects. Service providers will be contacted, and the demands
15 of the proposed project will be analyzed in the SEIR.
16
17
18 MANDATORY FINDINGS
19 A. Does The Project Have The Potential To Degrade The Quality Of The Environment,
20 Substantially Reduce The Habitat Of A Fish Or Wildlife Species, Cause A Fish Or
21 Wildlife Population To Drop Below Self - Sustaining Levels, Threaten To Eliminate A
22 Plant Or Animal, Or Eliminate Important Examples Of The Major Periods Of
23 California History Or Prehistory?
24 Potential Significant Effect. FEIR 551 analyzed and identified a number of potential significant
25 effects of the project that could affect the quality of the environment, including impacts to biological
26 resources, air quality, and cultural resources. Because the proposed project still has the potential to
27 affect these same environmental issues that could affect the quality of the environment, these issues
28 will be analyzed in the SEIR.
29
30
31 B. Does the Project Have the Potential to Achieve the Short -term Environmental Goals to
32 the Disadvantage of the Long -term Environmental Goals?
33 Potential Significant Effect. Short-term impacts will occur during the construction of the proposed
34 project. Surrounding lands may be temporarily affected by fugitive dust, noise, and construction
35 related air quality. During grading, wind and water erosion of soils may occur. Long -term effect is
36 the conversion of the site from a predominately open area into an urban community including
37 residential, open space and a series of linear ponds that will be created to serve as both habitat and as
38 a sequence wetlands. The short-tern impacts of project implementation and construction will
39 provide long -term benefits associated with a new wetlands system to provide habitat opportunity
40 provide for on -site stormwater retention and improve water quality management. These issues will
41 be analyzed further in the SEIR.
42
43
PWSH130W ft IIECkliavopanu.wpd «7/19100) 17
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Is
16
17
Is
19
20
uA AILOCUTIL. txC
tuLT Lau
xonee o1 .v el AeAn on
aICxTw ATe0. COxuUURY OL'/ILOIx LMT PLAX
C. Does The Project Have Impacts That Are Individually Limited, But Cumulatively
Considerable? ( "Cumulatively Considerable" Means That The Incremental Effects Of
A Project Are Considerable When Viewed In Connection With The Effects Of Past
Projects, The Effects Of Other Current Projects, And The Effects of Probable Future
Projects.)
Potentially Significant Eff"L In conjunction with other development within the City of Huntington
Beach and the County of Orange, the proposed project has the potential to contribute significantly to
cumulative impacts on public services, school capacity, traffic, noise, and air quality. An assessment
of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project and reasonably foreseeable future projects will be
conducted.
D. Does The Project Have Environmental Effects Which Will Cause Substantial Adverse
Effects On Human Beings, Either Directly Or Indirectly?
Potentially significant impact. Increases in traffic related noise and air pollutant emissions,
alteration of views, the introduction of new lighting and glare sources, and cumulative regional air
quality and traffic congestion may potentially have effects on persons in the vicinity of the project
site. The SEIR will assess the severity the effects generated by the proposed project.
I,ISROMC) shwkuis P-- wpd(MMI)>
New Mexico Municipal League (10 1)
New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials (555)
North Carolina League of Municipalities (517)
North Dakota League of Municipalities (330)
Oklahoma Municipal League, Inc. (434)
League of Oregon Cities (238)
Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities (69)
Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns (37)
Municipal Association of South Carolina (27 1)
Tennessee Municipal League (343)
Texas Municipal League (1,031)
Vermont League of Cities and Towns (246)
Virginia Municipal League (217)
Association of Washington Cities (277)
West Virginia Municipal League (234)
League of Wisconsin Municipalities (557)
Wyoming Association of Municipalities (97)
Other State Organizations
Florida Fire Chiefs' Association
Texas City Management Association
Cities, Towns, and Townships
City of Alameda, CA
City of Albany, CA
City of Brea, CA
City of Atascadero, CA
City of Cathedral City, CA
City of College Station, TX
City of Costa Mesa, CA
City of Culver City, CA
City of Daly City, CA
Township of Delta, MI
City of Foster City, CA
City of Fremont, CA
City of Hanford, CA
Town of Hillsborough, CA
City of Huntington Beach, CA
City of Lacey, WA
City of Laguna Beach, CA
City of Livermore, CA
City of Moline, IL
City of Monterey, CA
City of Mountain View, CA
City of Newark, CA
City of Pasco, WA
City of Piedmont, CA
City of Pleasanton, CA
City of Porterville, CA
City of Raleigh, NC
City of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
City of Redwood City, CA
City of San Bruno, CA
City of San Marino, CA
City of San Rafael, CA
City of Santa Barbara, CA
City of Santa Fe Springs, CA
City of Selma, CA
City of Temple, TX
City of Tulare, CA
City of Union City, CA
Fire Protection Districts
Mason County Fire Protection District 5, WA
Orange County Fire Authority, CA
San Mateo County Fire Chiefs' Association, CA
South County Fire Protection Authority of San Mateo County, CA
South Haven Area Emergency Services Authority, Ml