Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem L June 28, 1999 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: COMMENTS ON "NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA IMPROVEMENT PLAN", COUNTY OF ORANGE (Negative Declaration IP 99-053) -`f SUMMARY OF REQUEST Authorize Mayor to sign Response Letter, with any amendments determined appropriate. Receive and File Staff Report. Instruct Staff to forward to Environmental Qulity Control Board for information. DISCUSSION 'The City has received a copy of the "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan", from the County of Orange. This document evaluates the environmental impacts of proposed improvements to Sunset Harbour Marina, involving the replacement of all slips within the marina, resurfacing and restriping of the existing parking lot areas, and rehabilitation of the existing restroom facilities at Sunset Harbour Marina, in the City of Seal Beach. Proposed Project: Proposed improvements at Sunset Harbour Marina involve the: o Replacement of all slips in the marina. This includes removal and replacement of all the existing docks and reconfiguration of the dock adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel to accommodate larger boats. This will result in a decrease in the number of boat slips in the Marina. The basic footprint of the marina will remain constant while the slip mix has been AGENDA ITEM Z- C:1My Documents\CEQA\Sunset Harbour Marina Nes Dec,CC SR.doc\LVA0i6-23-99 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan Comment Letter from City of Seal Beach City Council Staff Report June 28, 1999 modified. The slips will range in size from 25 to 48 feet. The slip configuration for the 76 slips in the Main channel area will not change. The average slip length in the Bolsa Chica Basin area is increased from 28.5 feet (existing) to 31.7 feet (proposed). The existing slip count of 176 slips in the Balsa Chica Basin will change to the proposed slip count of 161, a net loss of 15 slips. The total linear feet of docks in the Bolsa Chica channel portion of the marina would increase from the existing 5,012 to 5,098 linear feet, a net increase of 86 linear feet. The reconfiguration results in a loss of slips but an increase in total rentable slip length. o Resurface and re-stripe the existing parking areas. The parking lot configuration will not change. The parking areas will be asphalt paved and graded to control runoff. The parking areas will be lighted and landscaped. o Rehabilitation of restrooms. The building rehabilitation will not change the configuration or location of the existing facilities. The improvements will focus on structural and aesthetic improvements necessary to upgrade the structures to their original condition such as replacing tiles and fixtures.' Comment Period on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: The comment period on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will close on July 2, 1999. Due to the time constraints in commenting on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration by both the City Council or the Environmental Quality Control Board due to meeting schedules, staff has prepared this matter for review and consideration by the City Council, without the matter being reviewed by the Environmental Quality Control Board. This is the first available meeting of the City Council, and the Environmental Quality Control Board will not meet until June 30, 1998, with the next City Council meeting being July 12, 1999, after the close of the comment period. Comments on the subject document should be sent to: George Britton, Manager Environmental &project Planning Services Division Planning and Development Services Department P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts: Staff has provided as Attachment 2, a complete copy of the "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan", which provides an overview "Initial Study for Negative Declaration IP 99-053, Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan", County of Orange, Planning and Development Services Department, June 2, 1999 Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec,CC SR 2 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour bnprovenunt Plan Comment Letter from City of Seal Beach CYty Council Ste Report June 28, 1999 of the proposed project, a summary of requested project approvals, and proposed mitigation measures. Staff has reviewed the proposed mitigation measures set forth by the County regarding Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, and Noise. The proposed mitigation measures are felt to be adequate to reduce potential impacts to a level as insignificant as possible. However, staff is recommending the issue of storm water protection be addressed during the winter storm season while the project is under construction. A development phasing plan should be prepared to provide for adequate protection for adjoining properties during the winter storm season when construction activity is ongoing. In addition, staff is recommending the formal establishment of"Mitigation Measures" for actions related to Water Quality (Section 6) and Biological Resources (Section 10). Staff has prepared a draft comment letter for City Council consideration. Please refer to Attachment 1. RECOMMENDATION Authorize Mayor to sign Response Letters, with any amendments determined appropriate. Receive and File Staff Report. Instruct Staff to forward to Environmental Quality Control Board for information. NOTED APPROVED Whittenberg, Director Keith R. Till Development Services Department City Manager Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Response Letter re: "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan" Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec,CC SR 3 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan Content Letter from City of Seal Beach City Council Staff Report June 28, 1999 Attachment 2: "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan", County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department, June 2, 1999 (complete) • Sunact Harbour Marina Neg Dec,CC SR 4 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan Comment Letter from City of Seal Beach City Council Staff Report June 28, 1999 ATTACHMENT 1 Response Letter re: "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan" Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec,CC SR 5 y !'} •.p`} yW '�. 3 %C' SKC Fes. tir. , ,.:-,. - 4. *tie:-- -4.-:-.- ' ":."'-;".,s". A �Nri LI'4' CITY HALL x+,.`21 I EIGHTH STREET ; K 4 ` C ?" ! ,: SEAL BEACH'CALIFORNIA 90740 6379 _ , � < � dd2j43I1527 •4' At* ` , A4{4 tcs: :".. "?-'^* , 1 -1-, r '?4r . _ . i ; r .**140114050014: June 28, 1999 George Britton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Services Division Planning and Development Services Department P. O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Dear Mr. Britton: SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan" The City Council of the City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding proposed improvements to Sunset Harbour Marina. The City of Seal Beach strongly supports the proposed improvements to this facility within the City. The upgrading of a major recreation facility within the City limits is seen as a positive action by the leaseholder of this county-owned facility. In reviewing the subject document, the City concurs with the proposed mitigation measures relating to Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality and Noise impacts identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed mitigation measures are felt to be adequate to reduce potential impacts to a level as insignificant as possible for these identified areas of environmental concern. The City of Seal Beach does have a concern regarding the response to Item 5b of the Initial Study. The response does not address the impacts related to water quality issues. The Negative Declaration should address compliance with the non-point source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal program of with the City of Seal Beach is a co-permittee with the County and provide a formal "Mitigation Measure' to address the following concerns, similar to those set forth for Air Quality and Transportation/Circulation. Reference should be made to compliance with the requirements of Appendix G of the Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). Specifically, for each development, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) should C:\My Documents\CEQA\Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec CC Lena.doc\LW\06-28-99 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration—Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan June 28, 1999 be prepared and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permits or building permits, whichever comes first. The WQMP should follow the guidelines in Appendix G, Section C. In terms of broader mitigation measures for project impacts, the Negative Declaration analysis should consider and include as appropriate mitigation measures the following: o Preparation of a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) under State NPDES requirements; o incorporation of those construction notes recommended in the Countywide DAMP New Development Appendix; o incorporation of Federal EPA/NOAA guidance measures for coastal non-point source pollution; o incorporation of other measures from the State Municipal Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual; o incorporation of other measures from the State Urban Runoff Technical Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations, and o development of a long-term post-construction water quality management plan, describing commitments to installation and maintenance of structural facilities and conduct of non-structural BMPs consistent with the DAMP New Development Appendix. The City of Seal Beach also has a concern regarding the response to Item 5d of the Initial Study. The response does not address the exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding during the term of the project construction, which will include the winter storm season of 1999-2000. The City of Seal Beach requests as a formal Mitigation Measure the preparation of an "Interim Stormwater Protection Plan" to address the safety of property and structures during the winter storm season. This issue is vitally important given the localized flooding during the winters of 1995, 1993 and 1992 within the City of Seal Beach. Section 6a discusses the water quality impacts of the proposed project and indicates a number of actions that will occur to ensure a "less than significant impact" for this area of concern. The City of Seal Beach requests these measures be incorporated into formal "Mitigation Measures", specifying the actions to be taken. The City of Seal Beach appreciates the Mitigation Measure 7.1, regarding the ability of the City to approve a haul route access plan prior to the initiation of construction activities. Included as a part of this plan should be any detour plans to accommodate construction activities with special attention to vehicle drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and a parking plan for construction worker vehicles. These plans will be required to be reviewed and approved by the City of Seal Beach Public Works Department prior to initiation of construction activities. Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec CC Letter 2 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration—Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan June 28, 1999 Section l0a discusses the biological resource impacts of the proposed project and indicates a number of actions that will occur to ensure a "less than significant impact" for this area of concern. The City of Seal Beach requests the measures identified in the discussion be incorporated into formal "Mitigation Measures", specifying the actions to be taken. The City of Seal Beach appreciates the inclusion of our community in reviewing the "haul route access plan", and the other areas of concern set forth above. These measures will help ensure the project is not unduly intrusive to our residents and is protective of natural resources and private property within the project area. Please be aware the City of Seal Beach does not have a Local Coastal Plan, and this project will require Coastal Commission approval prior to issuance of building permits by the City of Seal Beach for the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services at (562) 431-2527, extension 313, if you have any questions regarding this matter. He can provide additional clarification of the concerns of the City and provide direction regarding the processing of development plans through the City building permit review process and the Coastal Commission approval process. Sincerely, Aid iS74121 Paul Yost, Mayor City of Seal Beach Distribution: Seal Beach City Council City Manager Seal Beach Planning Commission City Engineer Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Director of Development Services Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec.CC Letter 3 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Improvement Plan Comment Letter from City of Seal Beach City Council Staff Report June 28, 1999 ATTACHIVIENT 2 "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration -Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan", County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department, June 2, 1999 (complete) Sunset Harbour Marina Neg Dec,CC SR 9 �4i CfTY OF SEAL BEACH Jam'' County of Orange 1641. Planning & Development Services Department JUN - 3 1999 • <IFOR • NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Negative Declaration IP 99-053 In compliance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and the County of Orange Procedures, notification is hereby given to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups and the general public, that the County of Orange proposes to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IP 99-053 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) and supporting attachments are available for review by the general public at the offices of the PDSD/Environmental & Project Planning Services Division, Room 321, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana CA. 92702. The proposed Mitigated ND will undergo a 30-day public review period during which time comments will be received, starting June 2, 1999 and ending July 2, 1999. Comments responding to the adequacy and appropriateness of the ND should be sent to: George Britton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Services Division Planning and Development Services Department P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 { ATTN: Lisa Cibellis Commentors wishing to appeal the decision to prepare a Mitigated ND must specifically state this intention in their letter. Project Location: Where Edinger Avenue ends at Huntington Harbor in the City of Seal Beach Project Description: The proposal involves improvements and maintenance of the existing facilities that includes replacement of all slips in the marina, resurfacing and restriping the existing parking areas and rehabilitation of the restrooms. The improvements involve no expansion of use. Project Contact Rich Adler (714) 834-6792 CEQA Contact Lisa Cibellis (714) 824-2089 Exempt per Govt. Code Section 6103 DATE POSTED DATE FINAL b 7j 14 IF 0.0> NEGATIVE DECLARATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARMENT 300 N. FLOWER STREET P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA,CALIFORNIA 92702-4048 In accordance with Orange County Board of Supervisor's policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,the County of Orange has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study,the County of Orange hereby finds that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report because either the proposed project: a. has or creates no significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation;or b. will not create a significant adverse effect,because the Mitigation Measures described in the initial study have been added to the project. The enviornmental documents which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this determination are attached and hereby made a part of this document. PROJECT: Title: Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan File No: IP 99-053 Location: Western edge of Orange County where Edinger Ave ends at Huntington Harbor, in the City of Seal Beach. Description: Improvements and maintenance of an existing facility with no expansion of use. Project Proponent or Applicant: Goldrich&Kest Division/Department Responsible for Proposed Project: Public Facilities and Resources/Real Property Room No. Address: 300 N.Flower St., Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Project Contact Person: Rich Adler Telephone: (714) 834-6792 CEQA Contact Person: Lisa Cibellis Telephone: (714) 834-2089 NOTICE: The Negative Declaration may become final unless written comments or an appeal is received by the office listed above by 4:30 p.m.on July 2, 1999 . If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document,address your written comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment: (1) identify the environmental effect(s),why they would occur,and why they would be significant,and(2) suggest any mitigation measures which you beli would eliminate or reduce the effect to an acceptable level. Regarding item(1)above,explain the basis for your coy and su, T/sup�rting data or references. Dated: S'2-,' L / �... // ,-I • NOTE: This document and supporting attachments are provided for review by the general public. This is an information document about environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The decision- making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the proposed project. RA/RHCB FORMS OCT 1997 i aZ rr n n da CO 'C O O U O = OS a. O •E w TsU E s = ai E cis w w r ea Tis' as 1::: w U c 'v �'00 cn - c OS = ° V CISt C t' s i a U C 0 c u C. n OS c a OS A n co I. c G a: � dG • ° :: es Z c U a •°u° a o°o 03 �OS74 E o W ra. •MIU c 'C d C. :: ° .76 53 M M WD as .c I U OS = 00 00 C A ., >� O w c c aJ =L. •C = Q 'it ..- V p x ws 'C el = S:LI zA I5 z � Lx xx = = 0oA> � =. It CA ,14 C. o c > ea 40 c p V)C M "" C C ° a \ 00 4W WN > v as = Oos c... = E g o c I. w at ° 03 Ge asa. E� v t- in u ° u e c a ta M.y N C 0C =es O / ° L c -- O W ° Q v U _ a co a .c c .. n O A Q • M.y = OT L W .c W Lam' p L Q .'6' 7 U Al C A 0. oo o� = u > U oo a'c > a' eiS z 6 N lei fn a •v ^ i % Ocij N u c o z W 8 ►.a Ts O6.S o '" Q .� a' o o F. H " o p Q j ""It s i U x a W U ag C., h U e Z w w u E-' W e •� c.4 u c WQ :� a m .. O c H �- E" d aai = ›, 5 a o..., ,.., ESL A ad w Q z wg CZ a� — t F..] g g, en- , CI:i E( z a 3 En ti g A «°� H p 44 04 °Q W c t) W �' v� c • z . °o W OS a, v �� t tatb � � owzh � woa � P ' 'c - �+ z E ° w) O ' is a - a r�,",,co O O E" O d O O A O O = U g 0 O . c �i F Q `'� 0� a x a w rx a x a a q w o ° W P w a s a U a a a a i i A cn WU a C7 © A. n U C • tr C V C El ❑ El ..? M 4 ,J CC ..w y y C p J . C " N C E < O . ,..._...„ 1== �^ " 3 � RIR v Y. , „ ' - \ $ tl „ .0 �r E $ u a r, C g .g L', c "90 .. g e Co EE c •, a Eu ~`' 1 LEe .gE ° & O 'E` :FC Is� r ....,..„.,,, Cyd Ot C g V c C= C C V V V W c . p lh � 3c �' 'a 1. . .02_,) -, - e N b (`oA�nyt a [Cy ( W h. C q .. q t` Z L L' g h ; v C o V V t V u C 7 t U pp U •` L t [y 4 z Is E. i7. E , ... 1,-„c,w E 1 c° p . C7 L c e o4r wflU Ccw htt uJ <USU U 2 .E in au - 2E0ttCi F� `c 0-1 zI ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ct 4311 ❑ 00000 0000 ❑ 0 0 0 0 w Ai z3I = 0 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 Iii :41: I Eii 0 00000 00ts000 0 0 0 0 Wp e ^ oof B Y� p wy Ti C i— - 1=•O p VV �'� Y I� ff v 4 sC 42 = 2” O s L y _A Y x f s n ae, �as � `o s8 E v I , A 8g cn .211 i # a k g 11 V: — — I i rai — t b -.-: — — i-1124 If.T, E 1, tt . t cc DII g � � 'E3 0: 113 It� IIJIJ g Fi 11111 p E,E a ; � � P II!IIII § E 1iiiijii wn .r x . SOURCES OF INFORMATION • COUNTY OF ORANGE GENERAL PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT • FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT, SECTION 404 AND PURSUANT REGULATIONS • CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE, SECTION 1601 • ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT • SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, CEQA AIR QUALITY HANDBOOK • ORANGE COUNTY CERTIFIED ORDINANCES, DIVISION 6, NOISE CONTROL • ORANGE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, RESOURCES ELEMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 478. sf ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS INITIAL STUDY IP 99-053 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA IMPROVEMENT PLAN Background The County-owned Sunset Harbour Marina was opened for waterfront recreational facilities in 1969. This opening reflected the first phase of park development. The Phase I facilities included a 276-boat slip marina, dry boat storage area, boat launching ramp, land trailer parking area, boat repair yard, marine supply store, Harbor Patrol command post, and public greenbelt and picnic areas. Environmental Impact Report 478, was prepared for Phase I and is hereby incorporated by reference. All existing facilities are maintained and operated through a County lease agreement with Goidrich and Kest The lessee provides an on-site Marina Manager to oversee boat ramp, boat storage and boat slip operations, and the County maintains the Harbor Patrol office at the marina. Sunset Harbour Marina is located at the western edge of Orange County at the end of Edinger Avenue within the city limits of the City of Seal Beach ( see attachment 1 &2). The marina separates Anaheim Bay, a major coastal wetlands and estuary system from the inland marina channels of Huntington Harbor. The Bolsa Chica flood control channel is located between the marina and the Huntington Harbor community. The Huntington Harbor residential community lies to the south and east of the site across navigable channels. Commercial and medium density residential uses have been developed along Pacific Coast Highway across the main channel from the marina. Project Description The proposed project does not involve any expansion of the facilities but involves the following improvements and maintenance of existing facilities: • Replacement of all slips in the marina. This includes removal and replacement of all the existing docks and reconfiguration of the dock adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Channel to accommodate larger boats. This will result in a decrease in the number of slips at the marina. The basic footprint of the marina will remain constant while the slip mix has been modified. The slips will range in size from 25 to 48 feet The slip configuration for the 76 slips in the Main channel area will not change. The average slip length in the Bolsa Chica Basin area is increased from 28.5 feet(existing) to 31.7 feet(proposed). The existing slip count of 176 slips in the Bolsa Chica Basin will change to the proposed slip count of 161, a net loss of 15 slips. The total linear feet of docks in the Bolsa Chica channel portion of the marina would increase from the existing 5,012 to 5,098 linear feet, a net increase of 86 linear feet. The reconfiguration results in a loss of slips but an increase in total rentable slip length. • Resurface and re-stripe the existing parking areas. The parking lot configuration will not change. The parking areas will be asphalt paved and graded to control runoff. The parking areas will be lighted and landscaped. N. -44‘ at • I, i WESTMINSTER BLVD. CITY OF LONG 0 . BEACH ` I Qv r ' 4Q4' CITY OF Unites{ States Navel Weapons A. � .-i � , BEACH Station ��i � rt 1 r � zl / t .4.'``-<' / •1ir � _ It', 00 7.,..,4 (4iiir Anaheim. . EDINGER AV. `. viaat.2;4" .../11 I . - ‘ ,* t1).ill \414 yy , /\ e ` .. ^ _/tel F SUNSET HARBOUR PARK 1 7 %;1"!,-%- 8',. l 2901 EDINGER AVENUE -`*; •i I _ SEAL BEACH, CA 92649 '''� �"` "';',7N. ., Litit- .- SUNSET Pacific Ocean BEACH Aw w„ N 4,,,,., SCALE k i E - I 0 s.000 :Loo 3,000 ft. • VICINITY MAP • ATTACHMENT 1 �\ r Z W W 1 • 34• a - )\ i .-\.•I 4 , ...t.\ c- � 1; \. / // t� ./ a F - t a c / m < / Tir)...J'\''' 0 . ,\ - --./,. 4*. '-` ''' - -: ::-...i,,,,... 4 \ - t S/ d, \ / % ' \ fc–X,..____:;11, _ • `i, / r n`S Fes:. a ♦ / w,' r / -�.,-`-�. ..i .., ��lij J.) d ► \ d 1 _J 1 a. •••I ,AL �r . '� ::•. i:'1:[iii.:• ,: , �r- 1\ )i :N.\\ .. ':i ,,,;! Itiiii!ialihii;,. ,, • ... 0 ' • "•,' :...''!Niiiiiiiiii!i;';' ..iii! 'ft"......./ „___ 0 < I :. WQ bcc > W 0 - / • c::2•2 0 . - i; a ..': ,i!iii , . . m ..1._ ,. . ....____. ._____ .4,. t•-• \ , 1:iiiIi1;• .4 - — v-) L-I 7c " + h E i i: i' QYi 1-\;....-- ....'''./7/: .4'.7.' -4_ /,/. --P(' y 4 7 '' y Sillili \ \ • LI -f U 1 ! � ' r €i' ,, ;7 cn Q M `)�• `' ''`. 1 , - ,,,,\,„. `� : . 7 ..,: ■ 10 1 .46 l• 1 \ /r. ..; ii;ft: I---2 ossa I �\._Jar n 2 R s ‘..----- \ c,--_, ..,...0 foi x , ,i -•••■( * %:\ S - m ATTACHMENT 2 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 • Rehabilitation of restrooms. The building rehabilitation will not change the configuration or location of the existing facilities. The improvements will focus on structural and aesthetic improvements necessary to upgrade the structures to their original condition such as replacing tiles and fixtures. The improvements to the marina restrooms and parking area are maintenance activities. The slip reconfiguration is a result of the public demand for larger boat slips. No residential, commercial or industrial structures or private property will be permanently impacted by the project. When construction is finished the Marina will be essentially the same intensity of use. It is expected that the project construction will start in September of 1999 and that it will take approximately 12-18 months to complete. Environmental Documentation and Project Approvals Under Sections 15063 and 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines, this project must undergo the scrutiny of an Initial Study to determine if it may cause a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the proposed project in response to the completion of an Initial Study (IP 99-053)which indicates that the proposed improvements will not generate significant unavoidable environmental impacts. In addition to compliance with CEQA, the applicant must also obtain an 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, Section 10 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and a Section 401 certification from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the applicant will need approval by the California Coastal Commission and may need to obtain a haul route permit from the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Seal Beach. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The following analysis corresponds with and responds to questions on the attached initial study checklist ("Environmental Analysis Checklist'): 1. LAND USE & PLANNING.Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? NO IMPACT Since the project is an improvement project and does not propose any change in land use it remains consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Designations. The existing project is contained within land that is either owned by the County or leased from the State Lands Commission. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies of agencies with jurisdiction over the project? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT One federal agency and four state agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G), the Santa Ma Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission have jurisdiction within the project area. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review the project with respect to potential impacts to Federal Endangered Species and condition the project as part of the Corps Section 10 Permit. The applicant will be required to obtain all the applicable permits prior to any improvements taking place. c) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(e.g. low Income, minority)? NO IMPACT Since improvements will take place to an existing facility the project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of any established community. Page 2 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 d) Conflict with adjacent, existing or planned land uses? NO IMPACT The proposed improvements do not propose anything new that would conflict with adjacent, existing or planned land uses. 2. AGRICULTURE.Would project: a) Convert Farmlands listed as "Prime", "Unique"or of"Statewide Importance"as shown on the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, to non-agricultural use? NO IMPACT The project would not affect any farmland. 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? The project is an existing use and would not change any land use. 3. POPULATION & HOUSING.Would project: a) Cumulatively exceed adopted regional or local population projections? NO IMPACT There is no residential development proposed as part of the project. b) Induce substantial grown In an area directly or Indirectly through project In an undeveloped areas or extension of major infrastructure? NO IMPACT The project would not induce substantial growth. c) Displace existing housing affecting a substantial number of people? NO IMPACT The project would not displace existing housing. 4. GEOPHYSICAL.Would project result in or expose people to impacts Involving: a) Local fault rupture?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The nearest major active fault along which a rupture or a major seismic event could occur is the Newport- Inglewood Fault, the traces of which underlie the extreme east corner of the site. Since this is an existing facility, impacts as a result of this project are no more serious than what presently exist. Any improvements would be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code seismic safety standard for California and would not expose people to any additional geologic hazards beyond what exists on a daily • basis in Southern California. b) Seismicity:ground shaking or liquefaction? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Since this is an existing facility, impacts as a result of this project are no more serious than what presently exist.Any improvements would be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code seismic safety standard for California and would not expose people to any additional geologic hazards beyond what exists on a daily basis in Southern California. 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 The site has existing waste water service. Page 3 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan 1P 99-053 d) Landslides or mudslides? NO IMPACT No landslides or mudslides will occur as a result of the proposed maintenance project e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? NO IMPACT Since the project is a maintenance project to an existing use, there would be no changes to the topography that would result in erosion. f) Subsidence of the land? NO IMPACT There would be no changes to the topography that would result in subsidence, since the project is a maintenance project to an existing use. g) Expansive soils?NO IMPACT There would be no changes that would result from expansive soils as a result of this project h) Unique geologic or physical features?NO IMPACT Since the project is a maintenance project to an existing use, there will be no changes to the topography including unique geologic or physical features. 5. HYDROLOGY& DRAINAGE.Would the proposal result in: a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in manner which would result In: I) Substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? NO IMPACT The proposed project is a maintenance and improvement project to an existing facility. The improvements proposed will not result in erosion or siltation. II) A substantial increase In the rate or amount of surface runoff In manner which would result In flooding on-or off-site? NO IMPACT As proposed the improvements to the existing facility would not result in flooding on or off-site. 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? NO IMPACT The proposed project is a maintenance and improvement project to an existing facility. The improvements proposed would not result in an increase in runoff. c) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? NO IMPACT Improvements would not impede or redirect flood flows. Slips are designed to allow flood flows to bypass freely. Location and orientation of new slips will not compromise, impede or redirect Bolsa (CO2)flood channel flows. d) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of 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? NO IMPACT Page 4 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 The proposed project is a maintenance and improvement project to an existing facility. The improvements proposed will not expose people to any increased risk of flooding that did not previously exist. 6. WATER QUALITY.Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT During removal and re-construction of the docks and slips, temporary discharges of construction debris, pollutants and sediments into surface waters could occur that may adversely affect water quality in the bay. The applicant has indicated that floating booms will be used to contain any debris. Divers will recover any misplaced non-buoyant debris, as soon as possible, after the loss. In addition, the project applicant will be required to obtain permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as the Corps of Engineers prior to commencement of construction. The Regional Board will address any potential turbidity impacts due to pile driving or other construction activities in the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements in the Adopted Order for the project. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit In aquifer volume or a lowering of a local groundwater table level? NO IMPACT The proposed project would not result in depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge, since it is a maintenance project to an existing facility. c) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?NO IMPACT The proposed project is not expected to result in degrading the water quality of the bay since it is an existing use and the intensity of use will not change. 7. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.Would the proposal result in: a Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond adopted policies and/or forecasts? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 4' The project will not generate increased long-term vehicle trips or traffic congestion. There will be temporary short-term increase in traffic, however, from trucks and construction worker's vehicles during construction. Truck traffic will result from transporting materials to and from the project site. Transport of materials to and from the site would primarily be'associated with reconstruction of the boat slips. An average of 7-8 daily truck trips will be required to remove the existing docks and slips and deliver the prefabricated replacements. The personal vehicles of the on-site construction company employees for the duration of the project implementation will also generate a small quantity of traffic. However, these temporary traffic increases are expected to be temporary in nature and are not considered significant Mitigation Measure 7.1 Prior to commencement of the project, a draft haul route access plan developed by the contractor will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Seal Beach for review and approval to ensure impacts to surrounding land uses are minimized, if required by the Cities. The plan will include access routes on public streets for heavy equipment and construction materials import and export operations. Page 5 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 b) Exceed, either Individually or cumulatively, a level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?NO IMPACT Due to the low number of tuck trips per day and the low number of construction workers needed to complete the job, the project will not exceed any level of service standards. c) Safety hazards from design features(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? NO IMPACT No roadway improvements or modifications are proposed by the project In addition, the contractor will utilize an approved haul route plan to ensure safe access to and from the site by heavy equipment during construction operations. d) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? NO IMPACT The construction portion of the project occurring outside of the local street system will have no affect on emergency access or access to nearby uses. As part of the plans and specifications, the contractor will be required to prepare a haul route plan for consideration by the City of Huntington Beach and the City of Seal Beach (see 7.1 above). e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?NO IMPACT The project will have no impacts on parking capacity on site or off. t) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?NO IMPACT There is a class II, on road, stripped bike trail along Edinger Avenue that leads into the marina, although with the number of truck trips per day (7-8), it is not expected to create a hazard. The construction areas will be properly fenced to insure that people cannot access the construction site. g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?NO IMPACT The project will not create conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. As a result, there will be no change in the number of bus turnouts or bicycle racks. h) Rail, waterborne or air traffic Impacts? NO IMPACT There will be no rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts as a result of this project 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 Changes in air traffic patterns will not result from this project 8. AIR QUALITY.Would the proposal: a) Violate any SCAQMD standard or contribute to air quality deterioration beyond projections of SCAQMD?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project will not generate any long-term air quality impacts. However, during the approximately one year construction period, there will be emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx)and reactive organic gases (ROGs) from heavy equipment and workers'vehicles. Neither NOx nor ROG Page 6 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 emissions are anticipated to exceed significance thresholds of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). Fugitive dust, in particular the criteria air pollutant PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter), will also be generated by excavation, disturbed surfaces and transit of vehicles on unpaved surfaces. PM10 is generally considered to account for approximately 50 percent of fugitive dust emissions. Fine particulates are considered a potential health hazard because they can become deposited within the lungs and cause permanent damage. Fugitive dust from the project will be reduced by a variety of means, including the application of water or soil binders to exposed soils and unpaved road surfaces (or piles of debris), covering or watering the loads on haul trucks, and controlling the driving speed of construction vehicles, and therefore will not be a significant impact MITIGATION MEASURE: 6.1 Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or his designee, in consultation with the Manager, P&DSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division, shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, fugitive dust throughout the site shall be controlled by the use of a watering truck as necessary, and/or the use of an environmentally safe chemical dust suppressant Controls shall be applied to all onsite unpaved roads and ramps, stockpile areas, actively excavated or exposed sites, and all areas that may be temporarily inactive but include exposed (unvegetated) or disturbed surfaces. 6.2 Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or his designee, in consultation with the Manager, P&DSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division, shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, that all grading and excavation should be curtailed during periods of high winds (e.g. over 25 miles per hour) if dust is being generated and cannot be controlled by watering alone. 6.3 Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or his designee, in consultation with the Manager, P&DSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division, shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, all materials transported onsite or offsite shall be sufficiently watered or covered to prevent excessive fugitive dust. 6.4 Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or his designee, in consultation with the Manager, P&DSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division, shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that mobile heavy equipment(e.g. scrapers, haul trucks)on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to an onsite speed that avoids dust impacts • offsite. b) Expose sensitive population groups to pollutants In excess of acceptable levels?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not expose sensitive population groups to pollutants in excess of acceptable levels. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change In climate? NO IMPACT The proposed project is limited in scope and does not have the potential to alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?NO IMPACT The dock replacement project is not expected to produce any objectionable odors. The contractor will be required to comply with all existing SCAQMD regulations and any changes to SCAQMD regulations that may occur during the course of the project. Page 7 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan • IP 99-053 • 9. NOISE.Would the proposal: a) Increase existing noise levels?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT There is no long-term, operational noise that is expected to occur as a result of the implementation of the marina improvement project. During the approximately 12 to 18 months of construction, heavy equipment operation and miscellaneous construction-related activities will temporarily increase existing noise levels near some noise-sensitive land uses such as residential areas located across the harbor. However, because of the temporary nature of these construction-related activities and requirements for contractor compliance with County and City noise ordinances, noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Construction activities associated with the marina improvements would temporarily increase noise levels at off-site, noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. Construction noise levels at 50 feet from operating heavy equipment could reach a maximum of approximately 90 dBA. At 500 feet from construction activities, the maximum noise level would be about 70 dBA. Average noise levels would be substantially less. b) Expose people to noise levels exceeding adopted County standards?NO IMPACT City noise ordinances vary, though generally they exempt construction activities from having to meet standard noise levels provided they occur within the designated hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday. Although the construction noise could cause annoyance for surrounding residential and recreational users, due to the temporary nature of the construction activities and the fact that construction activities are exempt from the County's and City noise ordinances, the project's impact related to noise standards is considered to be less than significant MITIGATION MEASURES • 9-1: Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department, the Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or designee, in consultation with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division; or designee, shall confirm that the plans and specifications stipulate that the construction contractor shall incorporate feasible muffling features into construction vehicles and equipment and into construction methods, and shall maintain all construction vehicles and equipment in efficient operating condition. The County inspector will be responsible for ensuring that contractors comply with this measure during construction. • 9-2: Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Director, Public Facilities and Resources Department, the Chief Engineer, PF&RD, or designee, in consultation with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental and Project Planning Services Division, or designee, shall confirm that the plans stipulate that construction activities shall be limited to daylight hours(7 a.m. to 8 p.m. weekdays)with no construction on weekends and holidays. The County inspector will be responsible for ensuring that contractors comply with this measure during construction. c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working In the project area to excessive noise levels?NO IMPACT The project is not located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport 10. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project Impact: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats Including, but not limited to,plants, fish, Insects, animals and birds?LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Page 8 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 Most impacts related to the loss of eelgrass habitat, temporary effect on marine organisms, including possible mortality and potential indirect impacts associated with noise and motion disturbing to wildlife will be a result of the County of Orange dredging project. The applicant will coordinate with the County in order to minimize any additional impact as a result of this project. The County of Orange has already obtained all the necessary permits required to mitigate all environmental impacts that result from the dredging project including permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission and the California State Lands Commission. As part of the improvement project, some of the dock piles will be removed and placed elsewhere, but since this will be done in conjunction with the dredging project, impacts resulting form this are considered less than significant since the area will be highly disturbed and those impacts already are mitigated for. An eelgrass survey of the entire project area will be performed within 60 days of the start of the work and any loss of eelgrass will be mitigated for according to the regulations of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. In addition, since this project will be closely coordinated with the previously permitted dredging project, no work will occur near sensitive or endangered species nesting or foraging areas during time periods that are considered sensitive by the Resources Agencies. b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have any impact on locally designated species. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have any impact on locally designated natural communities (see 10a above). d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have any impact on wetland habitat. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have any impact on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. f).` Adopted conservation plans and policies (e.g. Natural Community Conservation Plan or Resource Management Plan)?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have any impact on locally designated species 11. AESTHETICS.Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or view open to the public?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not affect a scenic vista or view open to the public, since it is a maintenance project to an existing facility that does not propose any changes that would expand use beyond what presently exists. b) Affect a designated scenic highway?NO IMPACT The proposed maintenance project is an existing facility that does not propose any changes that would expand use beyond what presently exists and therefore will not affect a scenic highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? NO IMPACT Page 9 of 12 1 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 The proposed project would not degrade the visual character of the site, since it is a maintenance project to. an existing facility that does not propose any changes that would expand use beyond what presently • exists. d) Create light or glare beyond the physical limits of the project site?NO IMPACT Lighting improvements will be directed inward and down so as not to project beyond project limits. 12. CULTURAUSCIENTIFIC RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Disturb archaeo orpaleo resources?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not disturb archaeo or paled resources. b) Affect historical resources?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have an impact on historical resources. c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not have an impact on unique ethnic cultural values. 13. RECREATION.Would proposal: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration or the facility would occur or be accelerated?NO IMPACT The project is an improvement/maintenance project to an existing recreational facility. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?NO IMPACT The project is an improvement/maintenance project to an existing recreational facility with no expansion of use beyond what previously exists. c) Conflict with adopted recreational plans or policies?NO IMPACT The project proposes improvements to an existing recreational facility which does not conflict with adopted recreational plans or policies. :14. MINERAL RESOURCES.Would the project: 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 The project is an improvement/maintenance project to an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what previously exists. There will be not impacts to mineral resources as a result of this project. 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 There are no known mineral resources designated on site that would be impacted by implementation of this project Page 10 of 12 Sunset Harbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 15. HAZARDS. Would the project: a) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not create a hazard to the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. b) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not create a hazard to the public by releasing hazardous materials into the environment c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not involve the use of hazardous materials. • d) Exposure of people to existing sources of health hazards?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not expose people to existing sources of health hazards. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?NO IMPACT The proposed project is not located within two miles of an airport f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?NO IMPACT The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g)'`Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?NO IMPACT The proposed project will not interfere with any adopted emergency response plans, therefore this is not an issue. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wild/and fires, Including where wild/ands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are Intermixed with wildlands?NO IMPACT Implementation of the proposed project will not expose people to risk of wildland. 16. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would project result in needs for new/altered government facilities/services in: a) Fire protection?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not create the need for new fire protection or the extension of existing facilities. b) Police protection?NO IMPACT Page 11 of 12 • SunsetHarbour Marina Improvement Plan IP 99-053 The proposed project would not create the need for new police protection or the extension of existing • facilities. c) Schools?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not create the need for new schools or the extension of existing facilities, which could have adverse physical impact since it is not a residential project and is not located near a school. d) Maintenance of public facilities, Including roads?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not create the need for new public facilities or roads or the extension of existing facilities,which could have adverse physical impact since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. e) Other government services?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not create the need for new government services which could have adverse physical impact, since it is an existing facility. 17. UTILITIES&SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would project result in needs for new or substantial alterations: a) Power or natural gas?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not result in the need for new or substantial alterations to power or natural gas utilities or service systems since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. b) Communications systems?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not result in the need for new or substantial alterations to communication systems since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?NO IMPACT -�f The proposed project would not result in the need for new or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. d) Sewer or septic tanks?NO IMPACT • The proposed project would not result in the need for new or substantial alterations to sewer or septic tanks since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. e) Solid waste disposal?NO IMPACT The proposed project would not result in the need for new or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal since it is an existing facility with no expansion of use beyond what presently exists. Page 12 of 12