Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEQCB Min 1994-02-08 ~." .- . . . . I Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes February 8, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 p.m II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Present Absent: Also Present. Voce, Logan, Hood, Nakagawa Hurley (excused) Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant (planning) IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - none V. OLD BUSINESS - none VI. NEW BUSINESS 1 City Response to "Draft Environmental Impact Report (OElR) for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project" Mr Whittenberg delivered the staff report including the City's draft response letter on the "Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Bolsa Cruca Project" The City's response letter centers on those impacts the City feels may have a direct impacts on the City of Seal Beach, primarily in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise and cumulative impacts The purpose of the meeting is to ensure the comments and concerns of the Board are included in the draft letter Mr. Whittenberg indicated the City has two (2) major concerns 1) A proposal to up size Pacific Coast Highway from four (4) to six (6) lanes The EIR indicates this is not a feasible action If so, the City believes this should not be considered in the EIR as a reasonable alternative 2) Any alternatives are quickly dismissed indicating the developer is not willing to build the project with a downsizing in the number of dwellings The City believes F \ IEQBCIMIN94-2 BCC bee EQCB MInutes of February 8, 1994 . the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate various alternatives as to what is feasible to do, not what the developer is willing to do Finally, there is a number of internal technical inconsistencies in the document that City staff feels must be corrected Chairman Voce clarified this is a "draft" EIR A "final" EIR will then be prepared which will also address comments received Chairman Voce opened the matter for public comments PUBLIC COMMENTS Connie Boardman - Huntington Beach She indicated she is a biologist and a member of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. She expressed concern with errors in the document, particularly in the biological discussion She indicated Bolsa Chica is a unique area for Red-tailed Hawk habitat Ilene Murphy - Huntington Beach Also with Bolsa Chica Land Trust She discussed human remains and questioned why recent finds haven't been discussed in the EIR . Dr Robert Winchell, Geologist - CSULB. Also a resident of Huntington Beach He discussed error in the document. He expressed concern with seismic matters/geology The soils types are poor for habitation due to both the soils types and the proximity to the Newport-Inglewood fault system He felt this is not a full disclosure document Due to liquefaction and proximity to fault this is the worst type of site for habitation Mr Nakagawa asked how bad the ground really is Dr. Winchell indicated land with high liquefaction potential are likely to see severe damage in a significant earthquake Katherine Sidler - Huntington Beach' She's a member of Citizens Against Rerouting Pacific Coast Highway (CARP) She's supports a partial cross-gap collector or the ATIP proposal, though she is not in favor or opposed to the project Dave Hall- Huntington Beach. The DEIR fails in its review of traffic, recreation and wetlands, as well as impacts on Least Tern and Burrowing Owls He discussed diminishment of beach front, impacts on surfing He felt the Seal Beach and Bolsa Chica wetlands are very unique and interrelated and the DEIR should address this Al Hoyo - Huntington Beach He discussed future impacts on Pacific Coast Highway He supports the A TIP proposal Bob Traber - Huntington Beach He supports the ATIP proposal Suzanne Buechema - Huntington Beach: She supports the ATIP proposal and the project . Susan Perrell - Seal Beach She discussed hydrology and geology She felt the seismic Page 2 F \ IEQBC\MIN94-2 BCC bee EQCB Mmutes of February 8, 1994 . hazard assessment is inadequate She questioned the impact on energy services She felt the stability of the bluffs, with new irrigation in place, should be assessed Finally, she discussed the tidal channel and potential negative impacts on water quality She felt the worst case model was not considered David Rosenman - Seal Beach. Discussed the cost of mutual aid and impacts on adjacent cities and taxpayers in the event of a seismic catastrophe in this area Gordon Labetz - Seal Beach. Spoke regarding the importance of the PCH corridor PCH is the only access in and out of Surfside and Sunset Beach He felt the City should also comment on biological consequences Ernest Bartollo - Huntington Beach He supports the ATIP proposal Bruce Stark - Seal Beach' Indicated we should protect our heritage and save historic wetlands Questioned whether the archaeological report was adequate. Was there a conspiracy to conceal finds? Theresa Thomas - Seal Beach. Was opposed to a widening of Pacific Coast Highway, particularly through Seal Beach. Bob Pitzgar - Huntington Beach He supports the A TIP proposal. . Kieth Decker - Seal Beach. Felt this project will result in worsened traffic and pollution impacts Reva Olson - Seal Beach Said that wetlands are the bottom of the food chain If they are destroyed all other life forms will ultimately die She felt archaeology was not properly addressed and felt there may be a cover up of evidence. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Hood Agreed with proposed letter Felt issues which indirectly affect Seal Beach should be considered in the letter The traffic plan dumps vehicular sewage into Seal Beach He also felt the City should address wetlands restoration in its letter He suggested integrating the comments of Messrs Hall, Labetz and Stark particularly relating to the interdependency of the Seal Beach and Bolsa Chica wetlands . Mr. Nakagawa Expressed concern with inadequacy of biological review Regarding historic/archaeological concerns he felt we should encourage others to live to our standards. He felt no further homes should be built in southern California until a long term fresh water solution can be found, possibly through desalinization or new aqueducts Regarding seismicity he felt more modeling and earthquake preparation is needed. He felt provisions for earthquake self-sufficiency are needed. Perhaps the developer and future residents could post a bond for water, food, additional health care and housing in a disaster situation. If these aren't provided, Seal Beach would be affected because its Page 3 F \ IEQBC\MIN94-2 BCC bee . . . EQCB MInutes of February 8, 1994 residents would have to use its own resources to help the new residents He was completely perplexed by the traffic impacts section How could 40,000 new cars with no infrastructure improvements result in better conditions Also, he would like to see all projects result in zero impacts on streets and intersections Chairman Voce recommends the environmentally superior alternative He feels sociological impacts on existing population would be immense He felt impacts on emergency services provided by the AFRC are unacceptable Finally, Native American concerns regarding archaeological impacts must be better addressed He proposed adding a comment to the proposed letter indicating "We hereby object to the approval of the project in its present form The above comments and all references contained therein are hereby incorporated into their official record of the proceedings of this project and its successors " MOTION BY HOOD; SECOND BY NAKAGAWA: TO FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDA TION ON PAGE 5, APPROVING THE STAFF'S PROPOSED RESPONSE, AND ALLOWING CHAIRMAN VOCE TO SIGN THE LETTER. A PROPOSAL TO TIE IN THE EFFECTS OF THE BOLSA CHICA RESTORATION TO THE SEAL BEACH WILDLIFE PRESERVE; IMPACTS ON GEOLOGY AND THE FAILURE OF BRIDGES ON THE SURFS IDE COLONY; AND, EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITIES, BOTH ON THE CITY AND ON THE AFRC, WOULD ALL BE ADDED TO THE LETTER. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 4-0-1 VOCE, LOGAN, HOOD, NAKAGAWA NOES: ABSENT: HURLEY VII. BOARD CONCERNS - none VIII. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg indicated the City has received the final AICUZ study Staff will prepare a response letter and forward it to the appropriate agency tomorrow Page 4 F \ IEQBCIMIN94-2 BCC bee . . . IX. ADJOURNMENT EQCB MInutes of February 8, 1994 MOTION BY HOOD; SECOND BY LOGAN: TO ADJOURN. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8 58 P m Curtis, Jr , Environmental Quality Control Board Page 5 F I IEQBCIMIN94-2 BCC bee 4-0-1 VOCE, LOGAN, HOOD, NAKAGAWA HURLEY . . . E;OO::H.~;T T ~c.... GOOD EVENING MAYOR----------- AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS EILEEN MURPHY, I AM SECRETARY OF THE BaLSA CHICA LAND TRUST AND LIVE AT 201 21ST STREET. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK ON THE EIR TONIGHT. ACCORDING TO THE INDEPENDENT OF JAN. 27TH A SPOKESPERSON FOR KOLL SAID "THE REASON FOR NOT REPORTING THE 1992 FINDINGS OF HUMAN REMAINS TO THE EIR WAS" HOW DO YOU REPORT SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE?" IN THE REGISTER,JAN 25 THE SAME PERSON SAID, "THE BOTTOM LINE IS ,THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THERE THAT IS SIGNIFICANT." THE DEVELOPER'S ARCHEOLOGIST SAID IN THE JAN.26 REGISTER "BONE FRAGMENTS WERE DISCOVERED NEAR WARNER AVE LAST SUMMER BUT I BELIEVED THEY WERE ANIMAL BONES UNTIL FINDING THE PIECE OF SKULL IN OCTOBER." MY QUESTION IS IF HUMAN REMAINS WERE FOUND IN 1992 AS ADMITTED WHY WEREN'T THEY REPORTED IN THE EIR? sINCE 1992 THERE HAVE BEEN TWO DRAFT EIR'S AND BOTH SAY "NO HUMAN REMAINS WERE REPORTED. wHY DIDN'T THE DEVELOPER OR THE ARCHEOLOGIST ASK WHAT THE BONES WERE DURING THE LAST TWO YEARS? THESE ARE SERIOUS OMMISSIONS IN MY OPINION AND MAKE THE EIR INCOMPLETE.I THINK THE EIR IS A LEMON. . . "" > a :s c !r &.3 .. .. o 0 5 F So !!: .. n .. ::z It :' . " _./ o lIll > N IS ... N 8 z o :s It "ll ." ~ Q, It r:r i: "" .It z o :s It .ij o :1 It tll '0 ... :0 .. :s Q, lIll o lIll > N >0 N U. 8 z o :s It .~ :- r- :c ~. ~ ii:'!r !l a .. .. o F .. r:r c :s Q, .. a So ~ ~ o ii:' n ~ ." ~ z z o 0 :s :s It It .ij .ij o 0 :1 :1 8. 8. !II 1" .. &. 'S o ~ N C8 C It .. ~ 8. z o :s It ;r:Q 3 Q, .. ",- ~~ ~oi 8~' "ll en :r !!: .. n .. ::z It .. "" > a :s c !r &.a = ~ o _ :> . It . .. :r:r - It . - 0;; ~. ::: Q,i: 2.: .." =-." ~~ .8 . c Q, -. It "0 r:r 3 - It 10 :s"" =--$1 o-j o ~ -< Q, It .. a '< 8. o ~ 0. 00 '" o ~ .... a'a- 3 :;- ",ii 00. 8ii1 , :s ~'!!!. cs~ := ~ ... .. en :1 :r - It ii:'= ; ~ ::z It :' z o :s It .8 o :1 8. tll '0 b ~ .. :s Q, lIll o ~ 0. N '" o ~ ~ ." ~ .. ~ a . o .- .. &. .. r:r c :s Q, .. a ... r:r c :I. .. - tll it! '0 t b :0 .. &. lIll :c = ~ ! !l! ii o lIll > N 00 00 C It .. ~ It z o :s It ~ > :s !r a .. o F .. :r !!: .. n .. ::z It .. z o :s .. .ij o [ o-j o ~ -< Q, It .. ~ 8. 6-11'17 o lIll > 0. a- N '" ~ z o :s It a'''' 3 :;- ....ii -.. ooiil '?:s ..."" ... -. 00:> 0"" ~ :c 'P' .o~ :- en :r !!: .. n .. ::z It :' l~ :c?- :c51 _2. -.. 5r -;. e g- =:> .. Q, g. ~ :s ; :1 ~ II ~ :> c 3 It a c .. R o ii:' II ."'l "" a c :s Q, .. o :s It z o :s It .ij o :1 8. tll it! '0 -:" ;0 o ~ 0. '" N N ~ :c c ~ :s r:r o & :s !a 8. llIlI it! '0 t :0 .. :s Q, lIll o ~ 0. .... t::J 00 >0 i a'''' 3 :;- ....ii ,," 8ii1 J,.~ i:jS 0"" ~ > :s !r a .. o F .. r:r c :s Q, .. a . :r F .. :1 ;; n 10 z o & .ij o :1 8. tll it! '0 t b :0 .. :s Q, lIll o lIll > 0. ~ .... .... ... o ~ a'~ 3 Q, oo~ ~= . .. -:s "''''' 8~' := .~ .. . :1 n ;;~ n"" .i: It .. en ~o a & ! ~ Eit .. . &.~ ~[ =~ -. ." S~ ;:~ g. g- ? &. .. a Qgo! c It r:r= .. . :s .. Q,~ :ca ~~ -.. S' :.. ~ ~ ;= ;;- g a ? ::z It :! \~ & .ij o :1 8. tll it! '0 i- :0 .. &. lIll tll o - .. n :r ;; .. o c :s z o :s It tll it! :0 ~ .. :s Q, lIll o llIlI lIll n > ~ 3: 00 II 110 !l! ii a- .... ~ z o :s It :c r- :c .. n > 6 " > :t! ;- z ? !l!~ [;- i' -r-a III a. n '< <=!!l l:1ilg" :I 0 1:1 llIlI=I- , ~ .... :'1'-0 - a. 110 ;- ~ ~i' III 110 i > ::l II" 110 3 6' ~. !. i a- il = i ! " i I' i- I' i l IZ E6IIEIt I m u-oa = o r"'" CI.l > n :c n > > '" n :c > ~ o r"'" o C') n > r"'" CI.l ~ ~ CI.l CI.l ~ :: :: > '" -< ~ = cr ii" ~ - - ~ . ~~~~'.;4- ~ 16291 Kim Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4114 Feb. 8, 1994 . The Environmental Quality Control Board The City of Seal Beach Dear Board Members: The importance of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Mesa mandates that a complete and thorough Environmental Impact report be made by the (0 County. Unfortunately, the document fails speci~ically in three regards: traffic, recreational and biological resources. First, I support staff concerns regarding traffic mitigation in the EIR. The EIR does not eveb mention any mitigation for the projected increase in traffic from the proposed project north of Warner Avenue~ on Pacific Coast Highway. This increase in traffic from the project :. . will impact Sunset Beach and Seal Beach. Staff is correct in _ '::__-,.1 questioning a lack of mitigation for the increase in traffic north of Warner on PCH. Second, the construction of a channel at the Bolsa Chica will impact recreational opportunities for local and other Southland residents. Not only will beach be lost, but surfing will be impacted, as well. The EIR is deficient in addressing this recreational impact . Third, the.. Seal Beach and Bolsa Chica Wetlands are valuable places for endangered and threatened species. Both 'are homes to dozens of rare species. And both wetland systems are interdependent. $he Bolsa Chica wetlands are home to the california Least Tern, an endangered species. The construction of homes so close to their . nesting site at Bolsa Chica and the influx of people, noise and :. i..:l:c light will impact this species. Construction will cloud the waters at Bo1sa Chica making fishing for small fish nearly . impossible for the terns. What will be the impact on the California Least Terns at Seal Beach wet1ands2~u ~L The burrowing owl is another example of the Bo1sa;chica projects on local wildlife. Only 50 pairs remain. The loss of the Bo1sa Chica Mesa as foraging area for the burrowing owl and the loss of nesting habitat on Bo1sa Chica Mesa and huntington Mesa will mean the owl will further crowd the nesting colony at Seal Beach.Wet1ands. What will the impact of the loss of least tern and burrwoing owl i. _.j';' habitat be upon the endangered wildlife at the seal Beach wetlands? The EIR fails to address the loss of least tern, burrowing owl, peregrine falcon, be1ding savannah sparrow and red tailed hawk habita at Bo1sa Chica and its impact upon the nearby Seal Beach wetlands. . The impact is.rea1 and irr~versab1e. This EIR is a white-wash of the impacts of this misguided project..The EIR is a blueprint for the destruction of the Bo1sa Chica. I would like to have the following responses included in the staff ,- L responses. 9ilelilYW~ l.IDave Hall . . 1. The diminishment of beachfront and the co~ruction of a channel at Balsa Chica will impact surfing and recreational ~pportunities for the citizens of Seal Beach. 2. Both the Seal Beach and Balsa Chica Wetlands are important and unique preserves for threatened and endangered species and we urge that the ErR stress their mutual and interdependent relationship so that the biological integrity of both areas will be preserved. . . 'E,<k.~;* S . February 8, 1994 COMMENTS FOR SEAL BEACH PUBLIC HEARING ON TRAFFIC Good evening. My name is Al Hoyo. I live at 16418 Harbour Ln., Huntington Beach. I thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak this evening. I would like to add that I, unlike many others who have or will be speaking in front of you this evening, was born in Orange Co., and I've lived here all my life. I've driven up and down PCH ever since I was 16, and before that I hitch hiked. Traffic on PCH has always been a problem during the summer months, or any other time the weather is nice. It's something you learn to accept if you live at the beach. I believe that the A TIP proposal described in the draft EIR helps those of us that are concerned about any forced widening of PCR. It does this by upgrading and creating capacity on already existing roads (Warner, Bolsa Chica, and Golden West). These roads, once improved through ATIP, will carry traffic away from PCR. . My thinking is as follows: If PCH is already crowded and there is new room on other roads created by ATIP, traffic will flow to those newly opencd roads. (L.A.'s adjustment to the earthquake-related closing of the 1-10 demonstrates this principle perfectly.) If there is no new capacity created, then the pressure on PCH will steadily increase. PCH will be the only option available - just as it is today! If PCH is the only option, the pressure to widen it will mount until eventually a widening will occur. Then what will we have? The EIR shows that even if PCH is widened to 6 lanes, we won't be any better off, PCH will still function at an unacceptable level. So, we will have 6 lanes functioning at an unacceptable level instead of the 4 lanes that we have today. We have an already existing problem today. No one can make it go away. It will always be there. The sooner we learn to live with it and make thc bcst of it, the better. The A TIP can help by making the improvements necessary to keep our transportation system working without widening PCR. A TIP provides, for the first time, a plan that accommodates all general plan regional growth and keeps PCH as it is. The system won't be perfect but, it will work without widening PCR. Please help the council understand this. I, like others, want to see the wetlands restored. The Bolsa Chica project makes this possible. If restoring the wetlands would have forced the widening of PCH, I would have been reluctant to support it. But, now that there is a way for both restoration and keeping PCH at 4 lanes, I enthusiastically support it. Please, don't oppose the restoration made possible because of traffic. We already have a traffic problem with or without the project. The project makes possible wetlands' restoration and an alternative to widening PCH. Thank you, w~~ . . . . ~~~~ February 8, 1994 Good evening. My name is Ernest Bartolo. I live at 6142 Jasonwood Drive in Huntington Beach. Thank you for conducting this meeting and focusing attention on the important issue of traffic in our region. I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1979 and watched the increase in traffic congestion. I have also watched the Bolsa Chica wetlands continue to deteriorate. If you have toured the back of the site, you will see that the wetlands have been abused and neglected. The are basically dry, desolate oil fields. I want to see the wetlands restored with as little negative impact on traffic as possible. While the EIR shows that the Koll plan will add 2,000 cars to PCH by the year 2010, it also states that traffic will increase even if the project is not built (see page 4.8-35). This means that there will be more traffic on PCH with or without the Bolsa Chica project. However, with the ATIP mitigation plan, significant enhancements to Warner, Bolsa Chica and Golden West will create capacity that is badly needed and which will allow our regional traffic system to operate without widening PCH. I believe that the Koll proposal provides a realistic plan for BOTH restoration and traffic. As such, it deserves our fullest consideration. Our choice is: o more cars on PCH without any regional improvements or wetlands' restoration, or o more cars on PCH with ATIP improvements and wetlands' restoration. I ask that you recommend to your council the alternative that provides for both restoration and traffic mitigation. ATIP as well as restoration can benefit our communities. Thank you. . . . Connie Boardman 8401 Sweetwater Cir. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 841-0057 In my opinion the draft EIR for Bolsa Chica is incomplete, and inadequate for the following reasons. 1. The EIR states that the loss of wintering ground for 30-40 red-tailed hawks is adverse but not significant because the red-tails are not a " sensitive" species. However, on page 4.7-39 a sensitive species is defined as an animal protected by a law such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. All birds but pest species are protected under this act. Therefore the red-tails are a sensitive species and the impact would then be It..!I~'~I~o-n.'''''''1' o-('"sit}ri1fre"8'n~taccordlng to their definifions~"Sihce this is the case, mitigation -measures be included for this impact. Also the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not include a provision to define an impact as significant if a species is on a Federal or State list, as the EIR does. It instead requires an evaluation of a substantial effect on the population of a species, and this population can be a local population. Since this project will have a substantial effect on the local population of red-tailed hawks, mitigation measures should be included. Since this was not done, the report is incomplete. 2. On page 4.7-48: There is a discussion of the impact erosion will have on water turgidity, and the reduction in prey availability for terns, pelicans, loons grebes, ducks, and ospreys. These impacts are considered adverse, but not significant because "foraging habitat is in abundance for these species in Huntington Harbor." Huntington Harbor is ringed with houses, and has boats, and boat docks along the houses in addition to Peters Landing Marina. The claim that these birds would use this as foraging habitat is mistaken. Mitigation measures should be developed which would not force the birds into other foraging areas. . . 3. Also on page 48 : To reduce the impact lighting will have on the species in the wetlands" residents living adjacent to the wetlands and buffers shall be informed that stray light can impact birds in the wetlands. These residents will be encouraged to place lighting fixtures in a manner in which they will not effect the wetlands. As a result this potential impact should not reach a level of significance." The residents should be required to place lighting fixtures in a manner so they will not effect the wetlands. One can not assume the homeowners will do what they are encouraged to do. 4. Much of the proposed mitigation of impacts is based on the creation of "new" habitat in the form of the restoration plan. The only problem with this is that KolI states they will only do restoration if they get to build 876 homes on the wetlands. Even if allowed to build , the restoration is anywhere from 15-20 years away if it actually occurs. Another problem with restoration is that even with the best intentions, wetland restoration does not always work. Restoration should be successfully accomplished before building begins. ~ . . . . . . 1. The diminishment of beachfront and the co~ruction of u a channel at Bolsa Chica will impact surfing and recreational ~pportunities for the citizens of Seal Beach. 2. Both the Seal Beach and Bolsa Chica Wetlands are important and unique preserves for threatened and endangered species and we urge that the EIR stress their mutual and interdependent relationship so that the biological integrity of both areas will b be preserved.