Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem K u c Nov7 p ember 8, 1999 7 ham. / STAFF REPORT - Supplemental To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Attention: Keith R. Till, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 99-1, SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD/I-405 OVERCROSSING WIDENING PROJECT AND DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY SUMMARY OF REQUEST Adopt Resolution Number 4765, adopting Negative Declaration 99-1 and finding the project consistent with the General Plan, and instruct Staff to file the Notice of Determination. Receive _ and File Staff Report. DISCUSSION This matter was considered by the City Council at a public hearing on October 25, 1999. At the conclusion of the public hearing, it was the determination of the Council to continue the public hearing to this evening to allow staff to prepare written responses to the verbal comments received at the October 25 meeting. Staff has reviewed the comments received by the City Council at the public hearing and has prepared written responses to each of those comments. Please refer to Attachment 1. Staff is recommending the City Council adopt the proposed Resolution, adopting the proposed Negative Declaration and finding the project consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Please refer to Attachment 1 of the October 25 City Council Staff Report for a copy of the proposed City Council resolution and to Attachment 9 of the October 25 City Council Staff Report to review the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). AGENDA ITEM C:1My Documentg%SBB-1405 Bridge Widening\Consideration by City Council.Staff Report-Supp.doa- 11-04-99 r. Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Supplemental City Council Staff Report November 8, 1999 RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 4765, and instruct staff to file the Notice of Determination. Receive and File Staff Report. NOTED AND APPROVED Whittenberg, Director Keith R. Till Development Services Department City Manager Attachments: (1) Attachment 1: "Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 - SCH 990710%, October 25, 1999 City Council Public Hearing", prepared by Department of Development Services, dated November 4, 1999 Consideration by City Council.Staff Report-Supp 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Supplemental City Council Staff Report November 8, 1999 ATTACHMENT 1 "Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 — SCH 99071096, October 25, 1999 City Council Public Hearing", prepared by Department of Development Services, dated November 4, 1999 Consideration by City Council.Staff Report-Supp 3 Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 October 25, 1999 City Council Public Hearing SCH No. 99071096 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF SEAL BEACH • 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Prepared by Lee Whittenberg Director of Development Services November 4, 1999 C:1My Documents\SBB-1405 Bridge Widening\CC Public Hearing-Response Document doc\L.W\11-04-99 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project City Council Public Hewing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 INTRODUCTION The Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for the required 30-day public review period, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA Guidelines and the City of Seal Beach policies for implementing CEQA. This included distribution of the Notice of Intent to Adopt the ISIMND to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project limits, as well as to a project interest list developed by City staff(refer to Appendix A, NOI Mailing List). It should be noted that the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15074(b)) do not require preparation of written responses to public comments on an IS/MND, although the City has prepared these responses to ensure adequate consideration of the comments received. This Comments and Responses document, combined with the Draft IS/MND circulated from July 23, 1999 to August 23, 1999, and the "Final Comments and Responses" document dated October 11, 1999, make up the Final IS/MND. Following adoption of this IS/MND, City staff will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. CC Public Hearing-Response Document 2 Mitigated Negative Dedaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Gory Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 Comment and Response No Commenting Party Page No. 1 Doug Korthoff 4 2 Chris Caldwell 9 3 ,Reg Clewley 15 • • • CC Public Hearing-Response Document 3 • Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Cory Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 Comment and Response No. 1 Doug Kathoff: Comment la: The problem is not the bridge, it is Lampson Avenue, the Rossmoor entrance roads and Katella Avenue. Response la: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion as to the necessity of the project. It does not provide any comment on the information within the Negative Declaration document. Comment Ib: Live within your means, don't widen Seal Beach Boulevard. Response lb: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion as to the necessity of the project. It does not provide any comment on the information within.the Negative Declaration document. Comment lc: Human remains have been found on the property. Response lc: There has been no evidence provided to indicate that human remains have been found on the property impacted by the proposed project. Human remains have been located on the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station property in relatively close proximity to the project area. :; The Negative Declaration indicates in the discussion on page 27 regarding Section 3.5 Cultural Resources the following: Project implementation would have no impact on the significance of a known cultural resource as none are known to occur in the immediate project area. Further, the possibility that one would be encountered during construction is not likely since the majority of improvements would occur within the existing ROW, which was disturbed in the past as part of construction of the existing facilities.' Further, the City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration on September 29, 1999 and forwarded a Memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the document. The EQCB provided the following information to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding archaeological resources within that Memorandum: "3. Page 27, Section 3.5,.Cultural Resources, item "b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?" As indicated in the response to Caltrans comment 3d, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to CC Public Haring-Response Document 4 a Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- S Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrosring Widening Project Cory Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 assess the site if archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities. It is recommended that the following additional mitigation measures be required regarding "Cultural Resources" and be included within Section 4.0 of the Initial Study/Mtigated Negative Declaration: o An archaeologist and a Native American Monitor appointed by the City of Seal Beach City Council shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities related to rough grading and other excavation for foundations and utilities that extend below five feet of the pre-grading natural surface elevation. If any earth removal or disturbance activities result in the discovery of cultural resources, the project proponent's contractors shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities immediately and notify the City selected archaeologist and/or Native American Monitor, who shall immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The City selected archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural material. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the requirements of the City of Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission and data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate, shall be conducted. o If potentially significant cultural resources are encountered during earth removal or disturbance activities, a "Test Phase", as described in the Archaeological and Historical Element of the City General Plan is required and shall be performed by the City selected archaeologist, and if potentially significant cultural resources are discovered, a"Research Design document" must be prepared by the City selected archaeologist in accordance with the provisions of the Archaeological and Historical Element of the General Plan. The results of the test phase investigation must be presented to the Archaeological Advisory Committee for review and recommendation to the City Council for review and approval prior to continuation of earth removal or disturbance activities in the impacted area of the proposed project. o During all "test phase" investigation activities occurring on site, the City selected archaeologist and the Native American monitor CC Public Hearing-Response Document 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Sed Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project City Coundl Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4, 1999 shall be present to conduct and observe, respectively, such "test phase" investigation activities. o Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the City selected archaeologist and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The Director of the Department of Development Services shall contact the Coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. a If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the contractor shall contact the City Development Services Department. With direction from the City, an Orange County Certified Paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resource Mitigation Program." As indicated within this comment from the EQCB, the "Responses to Comments" document addressed this issue due to a comment from Caltrans. Their comment 3d raised archaeological concerns. Provided below is the appropriate Comment and Response to Caltrans comment 3d: Caltrans Comment 3d: "Although the likelihood of encountering cultural or paleontological resources during construction is remote, we suggest including the standard statement to the effect that should such resources be encounterea; work will halt while an archaeologist assesses the site." City Response to Comment: '3d. Section 4.0,List of Mitigation Measures, will be revised to include the following mitigation measure: CC Public Haring-Response Document Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project C ty Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 If archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, work within the area of the resource shall be halted and a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to assess the site." In addition, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station also raised concerns regarding archaeological impacts. Provided below is the appropriate Comment and Response to Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station comment 2b: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Comment 2b: "The Negative Declaration reviews the potentialto affect cultural resources; however, it does not appear to adequately take into account the recent findings around the project. Just south of the I- 405 off-ramp an archaeological site containing human remains was discovered and north of the 1-405 an archaeological site was discovered during grading for a redevelopment project. The City has been provided all documentation available for the U.S. Navy archaeological site. The City needs to consider what shall be required for completing Section 106 documentation under the National Historic Preservation Act if any portion of this proposed project in on U.S Navy land Please, contact Lisa Ellen Bosalet, Cultural Resources Coordinator for our command at (562) 626- 7637, fax (562) 626-7131. Or electronic mail address leb065nasbeach.naw.mil,forfarrther information" City Response to Comment: '2b. Three recorded archaeological sites are located adjacent to the proposed interchange improvements. According to a Revised Draft Historic Properties Evaluation Plan, dated June 1, 1999 these sites (30-0010502, 30-001503, and 30- 001504) are located adjacent to Seal Beach Boulevard, south of the proposed improvements. These findings include human remains, chert cores, and various fragments. As indicated on Figure 3 within the Revised Draft Historic Properties Evaluation Plan, due to the locations of the recorded archaeological resources from the project site, no impacts would occur.'2 'Final Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1(SCH No.99071096),October 11, 1999 2 Final Comments and Responses for the Seal Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1 (SCH No. 99071096),October 11, 1999 CC Public Hearing-Response Document 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Sed Beach Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Llry Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4, 1999 The City Council adopted the EQCB recommended conditions as mitigation measures for the subject project, providing adequate protection for any archaeological resources that may be encountered as part of the project completion. Again, it is unlikely that this project will encounter archaeological resources,as the project area was heavily disturbed in the construction of the existing roadways, and the creation of the support slopes for the existing freeway overpass bridge. Comment Id: There is not an established relationship with Native American tribes. Response 1d: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion regarding relationships with Native American tribal organizations. It does not provide any comment on the information within the Negative Declaration document. Comment le: Native American monitors have to be approved by the Gabrielino/Tongva tribal organization. Response le: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion. The City is not aware of any requirement of law that requires Native American Monitors to be approved by the Gabrielino/Tongva tribal organization. Comment If This is not a separate project, it is part of the Bixby project. "- Response IF This issue has been addressed in the Final Responses to Comments document, dated October 11, 1999. Please refer to Comment and Responses la and lb. The widening of the Seal Beach Boulevard overpass at the I-405 Freeway has been planned in the City's General Plan since 1975. * * * * CC Public Haring-Response Document 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Oven-tossing Widening Project Qiry Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4, 1999 Comment and Response No. 2 Owls Caldwell Comment 2a: The Responses do not address the issues. Response 2a: The City has addressed each issue or concern raised during the public comment period in a formal "Response to Comments" document. The speaker may disagree with the specific responses, but provides no specific instances. Each of the issues raised in his comment letter was responded too fully in the "Final Responses to Comments" document. Please refer to Response No. 1, pages 1-3 of the subject document. In addition, it is noted that the City is under no obligation to provide any written response to comments received regarding a negative declaration (See Public Resources Code § 21091(d)(1) and § 21091(d)(2)(A). The City has determined exceed the requirements of CEQA in order to provide this information to the City Council and to the public to clarify the issues and concerns presented during the public review period on the subject negative declaration. The City has prepared a document in good faith that provides discussion, information, and the basis for the determinations of no significant environmental impacts for the proposed overcrossing widening and associated interchange improvements at the San Diego Freeway (I-.. 405) and Seal Beach Boulevard. The initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the proponent before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review will avoid those effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Comment 2b: Project is not separate, it cannot be piecemealed from the Bixby project. Response 2b: This issue has been addressed in the Final Responses to Comments document, dated October 11, 1999. Please refer to Comment and Responses la and lb, prepared in response to similar written comments provided by this speaker. Comment 2c: Request Final EIR and Development Agreement for Bixby project be included in the Administrative Record. Response 2c: These documents are not part of the subject project, and the files regarding these documents are kept in their proper file locations within the Department of Development Services. CC Public Hearing-Response Document 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Bou evard/1.405 Overcrossing Widening Project City Council Public Hearing of October 25,'1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 Comment 2d: Mitigation Measures of the Negative Declaration are infeasible, as they cannot be imposed under terms of the Development Agreement. Response 2d: This commentreflects the speaker's opinion. Each -of the mitigation measures is fully capable of being imposed upon the proposed project. Provisions of a development agreement (presumably the Bixby Old Ranch Towne Center Development Agreement) have no impact or bearing on the capabilities of the City proceeding with full implementation of the City Council approved mitigation measures for this project. Comment 2e: Request Powerpoint presentation be included as part of the Administrative Record. Response 2e: The Powerpoint slides will be included as part of the file record for the subject negative declaration. The City does not prepare an "Administrative Record" for a project until such a document is prepared in accordance with the requirements of law for a pending legal action regarding the particular matter of concern. Comment 2f: In his comment letter he requested information regarding the eucalyptus tree issue. No "Response" was provided and there is a conflict with the Eucalyptus Ordinance of the City, a significant impact. • Response 2f The speaker is referring to his written comment Id, which was responded to in the "Draft" and "Final Response to Comments" documents. As a fundamental matter, it must be noted that the City's Eucalyptus Tree Preservation ordinance does not apply to CalTrans property. However, the City has nonetheless committed itselfto replace affected eucalyptus trees. For the benefit of the speaker, the previously provided written comment and response is again provided below: '1d. The following revision to page 38 of Negative Declaration 99-1 is included to further clarify the intent of the proposed project: "In addition, existing trees which will be removed shall be replaced on-site with species consistent with current Caltrans/City requirements" Mitigation Measure 4.1a on page 45 of Negative Declaration 99-1 will be revised to reflect the following: "All mature trees removed by the project shall either be salvaged or relocated in the project area, or shall be replaced with similar CC Public Haring-Response Document 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beads Boulevard/I-405 Overcrossing Widening Projea ay Council Public Hearing of October 2S. 1999-C.onvnents and Responses November 4.1999 species consistent with current Caltrans/City requirements at-a-14 In addition to this direct response to the speakers comment, The EQCB also provided additional comments to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the eucalyptus tree concern in their Memorandum of September 29. Those comments are provided below: "2. Page 26, Section 3.4, Biological Resources, item "f. Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?" The response should be modified to indicate the City has an "Eucalyptus Grove Preservation" ordinance (Chapter 7D of the Code of the City of Seal Beach)which regulates the removal of eucalyptus trees within the City. However, the provisions of Chapter 7D do not apply to Caltrans property, as it is not controlled under the provisions of Section 7D-4(bx1) or (2). However, it is recommended that an additional mitigation measure be proposed to require the replacement of any eucalyptus trees at a 2:1 ratio within the project area and that the type and size of replacement eucalyptus trees be approved by a city-selected arborist." The City Council is requested to impose the following mitigation measure in approving the subject Negative Declaration, as indicated in "Exhibit A" of proposed City Council Resolution Number 4765, included within the City Council Staff Report of October 25 as Attachment l: "Aesthetics a) All mature trees removed by the project shall either be salvaged or relocated in the project area, or shall be replaced with similar species at a 1:1 ratio the in project area. The replacement of any eucalyptus trees shall occur at a 2:1 ratio within the project area and the type and size of replacement eucalyptus trees to be approved by a city-selected arborist." The recommended revision to this mitigation measure recommended by the EQCB regarding aesthetics, added after circulation of the negative declaration, is not required by CEQA, does not create new significant environmental effects and is not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. It is an additional project mitigation measure recommended to further enhance the aesthetic and biological diversity within the project area, and to provide additional eucalyptus trees within the project area. CC Public Hearing-Response Document 11 Mitigated Negative Dedaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrosring Widening Project Cry Council Public Hearing of October 25. 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 Comment 2g. The "vehicle per day" number regarding the bridge was incorrect. Although the number was corrected, there was no new analysis, and therefore the impact analysis is flawed. The benefits are overstated, the additional impacts are not disclosed, and. the City needs to re- circulate the Negative Declaration. Response 2g: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15073.5, Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption: "(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability . . . . (b) A "substantial revision"of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the impact of the significance, or (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures •. or project revisions will not reduce potential effects to less than • significance and new measures or revisions must be required. (c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration." As indicated in the comment, the City did correct an incorrect number within the initial study to indicate the correct vehicles per day utilizing the bridge. That number was corrected from 37,100 to the correct number of 47,955 vehicles per day (See Response to Comment lh, Final Comments and Responses, dated October 11, 1999). Correction of this number does not identify a new, avoidable significant effect which requires a new mitigation measure or project revisions to be added in order to reduce the impact of the significance, or require the City to determine that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential CC Public Haring-Response Document 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/I.405 Overcrossing Widening Project Qty Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 effects to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. In this case, an existing traffic congestion indicator was corrected in order to correctly present the current traffic congestion existing within the project boundary, the significance conclusions will remain the same, and no significant traffic, air, or noise impacts would occur on a project or cumulative basis. As indicated in the initial study discussion, the project would result in an overall positive impact, in that LOS levels will improve from a current level of LOS F, as noted in the corrections based on the comment received, to LOS D. There are no additional impacts created by the correction the vehicle per day number, the analysis still indicates the proposed overcrossing widening project will improve LOS levels of service within the project area. An improvement in LOS level is not a significant impact under CEQA or the Congestion Management Element of the Seal Beach General Plan or the Orange County Congestion Management program. An improvement in LOS levels is seen as a positive impact of the project, resulting in less traffic congestion, thereby improving traffic flow, reducing air quality impacts, and reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. Comment 2h: The additional comments from the Environmental Quality Control Board require re-circulation of the Negative Declaration. Response 2h: Comments and recommendations from the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) do not require recirculation of the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5. The recommendations of the EQCB, to the extent they modify the Negative Declaration at all, constitute the replacement of mitigation measures with equal or more effective measures, project revisions that are not new avoidable significant effects, and measures or conditions of project approval which are not required by CEQA, do not create new significant effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable environmental effect. No evidence to the contrary has been submitted. Recirculation is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15073.5(c). Comment 2i: There will be significant impacts from this project, and an EIR, not a Negative Declaration, is required. Response 2i: No substantial evidence, in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21080(e), 21082.2(c) or CEQA Guidelines § 15384, has been presented to support the speaker's opinion. No substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair argument" that the project may cause a significant impact on the environment. The City has prepared a document in good faith that provides discussion, information, and the basis for the determinations of no significant environmental impacts for the proposed overcrossing widening and associated interchange improvements at the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and Seal Beach Boulevard. The initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative CC Public Hearing-Reponse Document 13 Mitigated Negative Dedaration 99-1- Seal Beath Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project CFry Council Public Hearing of October 25. 1999-Canvnents and Responses November 4,1999 declaration and initial study are released for public review will avoid those effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Comment.2j: There is no NEPA compliance, and there should be a NEPA analysis, due to the involvement of Federal lands. Response 2j: NEPA is not triggered merely by some impact on federal lands. Further, the speaker has not clarified what Federal lands are involved. A portion of property owned by the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station will be impacted by the proposed project. However, those areas to be impacted are already subject to an easement (Noy (R) -62948) that was given to the State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways in 1962 for highway development. As indicated in the response to this comment from the Navy(Response 2a): "The City of Seal Beach is proposing improvements for the Seal Beach Boulevard Overcrossing as part of implementing the City's General Plan Circulation Element and Capital Improvement Program (CIP). As portions of the project are located within the State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways easement (NOy (R)-62948), appropriate documentation from the State as to permissible uses of the easement shall be submitted to the U.S. Navy prior to initiation of construction. The potential for additional real estate documentation (if necessary) from the Navy for the use of Navy land may be required These issues shall be resolved prior to onset of construction." Comment 2k: The requested approval action will not comply with CEQA. Response 2k: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion. The City has prepared a document in good faith that provides discussion, information, and the basis for the determinations of no significant environmental impacts for the proposed overcrossing widening and associated interchange improvements at the San Diego Freeway (1-405) and Seal Beach Boulevard. The initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review will avoid those effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. * * * * CC Public Hearing-Response Document 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration 99-1- Seal Beach Boulevard/1-405 Overcrossing Widening Project Airy Council Public Hearing of October 25, 1999-Comments and Responses November 4,1999 Comment and Response No 3 Reg Clewley Comment 3a: Don't push this project through, you don't need to widen the bridge. Response 3a: This comment reflects the speaker's opinion as to the necessity of the project. It does not provide any comment on the information within the Negative Declaration document. Comment 3b: Need archaeological resources to be extensively studied in the area, you are attempting to avoid that. Response 3b: Refer to Doug Korthoff comment and response number lc, above. Comment 3c: You are attempting to hide archaeological resources, you know they are there. They may be significant, take time to study them. Response 3c: Refer to Doug Korthoff comment and response number ic, and Chris Caldwell comment and response number 2h, above. * * * * CC Public Haring.Response Document 15