Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-08-08 #R r > IV. / ) -h -> -). \ ��d August 8, 2005 5 --CD STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: John B. Bahorski, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: ADOPTION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3 - GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER SUMMARY OF REQUEST Adopt Resolution Number , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Adopting Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, and Instructing Staff to File Appropriate Documentation with the County of Orange. DISCUSSION NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3 - GROIN REHABILITATION PROTECT AT SEAM BEACH PIER: ❑ Project Location and Environmental Setting; The proposed Groin Rehabilitation Project is located adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier.. Seal Beach is situated on the coast in northwest Orange County between the City of Long Beach and the City of Huntington Beach and includes the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (Figure 1 of the Initial Study /Negative Declaration {IS/ND }). Approximately one mile of coastline lies along the City's southwest boundary. The Seal Beach Pier and adjacent groin is 0.6 miles southeast of the San Gabriel River and 0.46 miles northwest of the west jetty of Anaheim Bay. The Pier itself is approximately 1,800 feet in length. The groin, which is on the west side of the pier, is 750 feet long, with its top elevation ranging from +13 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at the landward end to +5 feet MLLW at the offshore end. The seaward end of the groin is located at a bottom depth of approximately -8 to -10 feet MLLW depending on seasonal sediment movement. Agenda Item R. Z:\My Documents \EIRS \ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report.doc\LW\07 -26 -06 1 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ❑ Project Description: The proposed project is to rehabilitate the existing groin structure. The length of the groin will not be changed as a result of this project. The proposed project would install new 8 -inch wide by 3 feet long sheet piles adjacent to the existing piles on the east (downcoast side) of the existing sheet piles along the outer 252 feet of the groin. On the west (upcoast side) of the groin, new sheets would be installed at the damaged piles (45 feet of pile). Only the last 350 feet of cap would be replaced while the remaining cap would be repaired. Figures 3 and 4 of the IS/ND show the proposed groin reinforcements. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 199 square feet to the current groin footprint of 750 square feet. The structural section would be significantly stiffer than the original and should result in a much longer service life. Construction would be done by a 40 ton truck crane working from the pier. Piles would be driven into the sediments from a piledriver attached to the crane. The 32,000 foot/pound pile hammer would probably be diesel powered although air /steam hammers are available. The concrete sheet piles would not need to be chemically treated. The crane would be placed on mats that span from pile cap to pile cap to distribute the loads to the pile caps and piles. The outrigger spread of the crane and the matting would occupy virtually the entire deck width of the pier except at the widened portions of the pier. Table 1 lists the number of days involved in the construction operations. ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 2 1 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 Table 1 Number of Days for Groin Rehabilitation Project Operations and Equipment Operation Time Required Demolition 5 crane days Pile Driving 8 crane days Concrete Cap Forming 2 crane days Concrete Cap Casting 1 crane day Form Removal 1 crane day Pile Hammer 8 driving days Concrete Pump 1 day The pier would be closed to the public during construction. Construction hours would be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. It is possible that work also may be conducted between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekends. To minimize the inconvenience of closing the pier, the groin repair project is anticipated to occur at the same time as the expansion of the Ruby's Diner at the end of the pier, which has been previously approved by both the City and the California Coastal Commission. The Ruby's expansion is planned to occur this winter and requires that the pier be closed. It is anticipated that the groin rehabilitation would occur between November 2005, and January 2006, and would take about two months. During the period that the pier is closed the oil platform shuttle that operates off the end of the pier would be rerouted to Long Beach. The staging area for the groin rehabilitation would be in a portion of the East Beach parking lot. It is anticipated that the staging area would be about 6,000 square feet. The portions of the old cap that would be replaced would be hauled by truck to a suitable offsite disposal area outside of the coastal zone. Best Management Practices (BMP) would be followed during construction to prevent the spill of concrete, fuels, or any chemicals into the ocean. Trucks would deliver the piles and concrete and remove the debris from the demolished portions of the groin. Table 2 describes the number of truck trips. ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 3 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 Table 2 Number of Truck Trips Operation Truck Trips Demolition and Removals 18 Pile Delivery 33 . Concrete Delivery 23 ,Summary of Negative Declaration Preparation and Public Review Process; The Negative Declaration for the has Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier been prepared by a city- selected consultant, Chambers Group, Inc., and has completed the required 30 -day time period for receipt of comments. Comments were received by the City from June 13 to July 13, 2005, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of the subject document is provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the City Council. The Initial Study, proposed Negative Declaration, and required public notices are on file at the Department of Development Services. The City received comments from the following agencies or individuals, as listed below: ❑ California State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ❑ California Department of Transportation, District 12 ❑ California Department of Fish and Game ❑ City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2005 ❑ City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of June 29, 2005 CEQA Section 21091(d)(1) requires that the City, as lead agency, must consider any comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that are received during the public review and comment period. Pursuant to CEQA, the lead Agency is only obligated to respond to comments on an Environmental Impact Report, not for a proposed Negative Declaration. However, the City does prepare written responses voluntarily in order to acknowledge public input and fully address any issues raised. The "Responses to Comments" document is provided as Attachment 5 to this Staff Report. ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 4 r Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 Staff Recommendations regrding Negative Declaration 0.5 -3 —Groin Rehabilitation Project The Initial Study/Negative Declaration does not identify impacts that are either "Potentially Significant" or "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ", and therefore there are no "Mitigation Measures" identified. Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution that will memorialize the following determinations of the Council (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the proposed resolution): ❑ The City Council hereby affirms that it independently reviewed and analyzed proposed Negative Declaration prior to acting on the project and finds as follows: ❑ Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, was prepared by a city- selected consultant and the final document was approved by City Staff and therefore reflects the independent judgment of the City; ❑ There is no substantial evidence in the record that would support a fair argument that approval of the project might have a significant environmental impact; ❑ Approval of this project involves no potential for adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife. The project consists of the repair of an existing groin structure adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier. Based on the results of a marine biological assessment conducted by Coastal Resources Management in October and November 2004 and as set forth on page 5 -6 through 5 -10 of the Negative Declaration, it has been determined that: ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact" on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ❑ the project would have "No Impact" on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact" on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact' on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites; ❑ the project would have "No Impact' and does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 5 1 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ❑ the project would have "No Impact' and does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The City Council directs the Director of Development Services to file the appropriate De Minimis Impact Finding for the California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption. • ❑ The City Council approves the "Notice of Determination" and "California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption" and instructs the Director of Development Services to execute and file these documents in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. Copies of these documents are provided as Attachments 3 and 4, respectively. Upon City Council adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 staff will finalize the formal submission package to the California Coastal Commission for this project. FISCAL IMPACT None. This project is budgeted within the Capital Improvement Program budget of the City. Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 will allow this project to proceed to preparation of final construction plans and specifications and eventual construction. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution Number , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Adopting Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, and Instructing Staff to File Appropriate Documentation with the Co - ty of Orange. i N• L i'l D P'(, D , Zi. _ .i.11 f III Whittenberg, Director John 1. Bahorski D evelopment Services Departm- t City anager Attachments: (5) ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 6 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 Attachment 1: Resolution Number , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Seal Beach Adopting Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, and Instructing Staff to File Appropriate Documentation with the County of Orange Attachment 2: Initial Study and Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. for the City of Seal Beach, June 2005 Attachment 3: Notice of Determination, Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier Attachment 4: California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption - Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier Attachment 5: Responses to Comments for Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier, dated July 28, 2005 ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 7 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 2 , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER, AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO FILE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ND 05- 3.Grom Repair Project.CC Staff Report 8 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 RESOLUTION NUMBER A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER, AND INSTRUCTING STAFF TO FILE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WHEREAS, the City has proposed to repair the existing Seal Beach Groin by installing new fl- inch wide by 3 feet long sheet piles adjacent to the existing piles on the east (downcoast side) of the existing sheet piles along the outer 252 feet of the groin. On the west (upcoast side) of the groin, new sheets would be installed at the damaged piles (45 feet of pile). Only the last 350 feet of cap would be replaced while the remaining cap would be repaired. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 199 square feet to the current groin footprint of 750 square feet; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared and circulated an Initial Environmental Assessment and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The comment period on the subject Negative Declaration ended on July 13, 2005. As of July 13, 2005, The City had received comments on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration from: ❑ California State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit; ❑ California Department of Transportation, District 12; ❑ California Department of Fish and Game; ❑ City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2005; ❑ City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of June 29, 2005; and WHEREAS, the City's staff has prepared a "Responses to Comments for Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier" document to all of the above - received comments on the subject Initial Study/ Negative Declaration. A copy of that document was provided for the information of the City Council; and ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 9 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject Initial Environmental Assessment and proposed Negative Declaration on June 22, 2005, received public comments and also provided comments, which are responded to in the "Responses to Comments" document prepared by City staff; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Quality Control Board reviewed the subject Initial Environmental Assessment and proposed Negative Declaration on June 29, 2005, received public comments and also provided comments, which are responded to in the "Responses to Comments" document prepared by City staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the adoption of the subject Negative Declaration and the Responses to Comments document, along with a Staff Report on August 8, 2005, and received additional public comments; and WHEREAS, the City has addressed each of these concerns within the Initial Study/Negative Declaration document. Moreover, although CEQA does not require responses to comments made concerning a negative declaration, the City responded in writing to comments received, in the "Responses to Comments for Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 05 -3, Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier" document dated July 28, 2005. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. Finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Finds that there has been no evidence presented that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been "substantially revised" so as to require recirculation under the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration 05 -3 — Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier. 4. Determines that approval of this project involves no potential for adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife. ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 10 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 5. Finds that the foregoing findings are based on substantial evidence in the record, including without limitation, the draft Negative Declaration 05 -3, staff reports and both oral and written testimony. The documents that comprise the record of the proceedings are on file with the Department of Development Services, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach. The custodian of said records is the Director of Development Services. 6. Instructs the Director of Development Services to file appropriate documentation with the County of Orange. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers • NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Charles Antos Mayor ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 11 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005. City Clerk ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 12 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER, PREPARED BY CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. FOR THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, JUNE 2005 ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 13 INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF SEAL BEACH 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 • Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 17671 Cowan Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92614 (949) 261 -5414 June 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION 1 -1 SECTION 2.0 - PROJECT LOCATION 2 -1 SECTION 3.0 - PROJECT BACKGROUND 3 -1 SECTION 4.0 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 -1 SECTION 5.0 - EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES 5 -1 SECTION 6.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 6 -1 • 3281 IS -MND I 6/8/05 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Vicinity Map 2 -2 2 Project Area 3 -2 • 3 Side View of Proposed Groin Rehabilitation 4 -2 4 Typical Section of Proposed Groin Restoration 4 -3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Number of Days for Groin Rehabilitation Project Operations and Equipment 4 -1 2 Number of Truck Trips 4 -1 3 Projected Construction Emissions (Lb /Day) 5-4 4 Sensitive Marine Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity 5 -8 5 City of Seal Beach Exterior Noise Standards 5 -18 6 City of Seal Beach Interior Noise Standards 5 -18 7 Noise Levels Generated by Typical Construction Equipment 5 -20 • • 3281 IS-MND 111 6/8/05 SECTION 1.0 — INTRODUCTION This Initial Study /Negative Declaration has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Groin Rehabilitation Project in Seal Beach. This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City of Seal Beach's procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Initial Study describes the proposed project and environmental setting, and evaluates whether the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. The results of the analysis are documented on the Environmental Checklist for CEQA Compliance and in the accompanying text that explains the checklist responses. • 3281 I5-MND 1 -1 6/8/05 • SECTION 2.0 — PROJECT LOCATION The proposed Groin Rehabilitation Project is located adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier in Orange County. Seal Beach is situated on the coast in northwest Orange County between the City of Long Beach and the City of Huntington Beach and includes the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (Figure 1). Approximately one mile of coastline lies along the City's southwest boundary. The Seal Beach Pier and adjacent groin is 0.6 miles southeast of the San Gabriel River and 0.46 miles northwest of the west jetty of Anaheim Bay. The groin, which is on the west side of the pier, is 750 feet long, with its top elevation ranging from +13 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) at the landward end to +5 feet MLLW at the offshore end. The seaward end of the groin is located at a bottom depth of approximately -8 to -10 feet MLLW depending on seasonal sediment movement. 3281 IS-MND 2 -1 6/8/05 3281 - April 22, 2005 tiffl - • ..i, '_ US MOANS' `• 1 �_�, 7' l • , f , r tai : ia'ewuis' sot, ,_ • I ll itgr �_' 511 §11 ` • '' '' . X .- - ' 4 � • 1.2Y• ! i {a$•.7i : :' H' _� ` y . Or• ... ' 8 , \ / - " E" i > g& `.. 1 PA K ' ; t11 Lh . 1 `'` mss-' a =.'i` t i 1 1 k a� `. 1 Ki" • . - y f• � rr ro , ` i ' •, .0 iraa , 'E T i : 1 -2 ,. t - li ll� .d r1 t A ' a.1.1 ` .. ai.,,e" r :.0 , M- .�.1""a� T:•~ �L _ � • � � f•7_r L 1621.12U fi� �� C� • B9 s •• *:`,�' ?• '� •:. e i ' ' V' e 1 4:' i .:- � 1 ■lirlirrij Esill Y/ -'ri6, �a j — _BEY � , 1 It- -i- 4. - -•' ` w.n . 3 /l N�'"' q • 5•.s, t _J I( Ellis 'ilE t� .: -- .. - . ..1, -- ,t : iii . a . ,� - _ — -- 11 -- : -. -- :' e • i)R:-. i °11,+x'' `" ., 'I,' , I - ,..- ...-,-. - -s'.— kzi„ e ���i���1s; s � a9 ��i s �: � . .'i•: .e, s I� SL A V A S �� h'" .q ee . *.. i • e 1 y •••:•_,'.2.;',-4 mi -1� i , T ® �f' ® . - \ \ a s '•. : . � L ^ r� , . °a �. �I ± a - i • _ - �.� „r , `14 ���®® , ," i , i'4 � °� I. ; r is�.i .... • . ` t J .! F • GG p d 7 • ,ff eu s, (� • L _ - j ` - -� 4 4117 „ # , .,1: t . 4 4 s� .I /e j t .. {`• l � ! L..1 W E. A 0 r ' s:T w 1`- � B4 ..,, i . r ' y �y . „, _ •J . - r y : : 8 ' • .. ° , • f ” " a fI{ —imp % A �_ � ['T SEA BEACH { ''• : w ' > e '"•• • ` ='1 ^.. c f.'' -e .1 i * 7 ' t `e . /r ... \ .L-°ggge i i-g` • ii ..i'_ :.F3 _..1... -' •�r- 9_4_.....;.__:.-:__ • LONG 4er o6 . ! „7-4/ � � : a e py,T • 6 .."7,.... - : a : �. _ - �' . — .H. • 4.7 ,, }' yips � A _ ji is ' - - ` - -- '' - - -•_ `V �- 4iq 9 0 C...,H• ,IAA %07iMIWiiT - _' � .. .t_ = -.-. �. i. � ' • ,VW... 'y ,� Project L J/ s�y,, _ ", ` - 1 o SSSEEE AAAIIL.. BEACH .G ° t � • = c.:: •- -_ . 2'' \ "` f' "° ` T_ of 1 TON < 5 `\ - Stmset . :�,, - c? • N 0 0.5 1 2 Figure 1 w �� E 1--1 1-1 1 1 Miles Project Vicinity Map 1 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 s E I F---1 1 I Feet. Data Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, and Long Beach Quads File Location: Z: \Prof \3281_Seal_Beach \Location_Map.mxd SECTION 3.0 — PROJECT BACKGROUND The beaches within the City of Seal Beach are major local and regional attractions that provide recreational opportunities for over 2 million beachgoers a year. The sandy beaches also protect adjacent public and private property from coastal flooding and storm wave damages. Construction of navigation structures and flood control improvements has resulted in significant impacts to the littoral processes in the City of Seal Beach (Moffatt and Nichol 2004). Construction of jetties at the San Gabriel River mouth and Alamitos Bay to the west and at the entrance to Anaheim Bay on the east has transformed the Seal Beach shoreline into a pocket beach, which is almost totally isolated from sand transport from adjacent beaches. In addition, upstream flood control improvements to the San Gabriel River and its tributaries have caused a marked decrease in the amount of sand supplied by the river to the beach. To mitigate beach erosion, in 1959 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a pre- stressed concrete sheet pile groin immediately west of the Seal Beach Pier (Figure 2). The groin helps stabilize the sandy shoreline by reducing the erosion rate of sand from East Beach, and, thus, retains a higher and wider beach at East Beach than would otherwise occur. Without the groin, it is expected that East Beach would retreat significantly, placing both public and private property at risk. The groin is now over 45 years old and has deteriorated. A portion of the groin failed in March of 2001, resulting in a large gap between sheet piles (Moffatt and Nichol 2004). Water moved at high velocities through the gap during the passing of each wave. The gap provided a transport path for sand erosion from East Beach, a point of undermining of adjacent sheet piles, and a very significant hazard to swimmers and surfers. The portion of the cap section that remained had rotated and appeared ready to fail under severe wave action. The damage to the groin was repaired temporarily by installing steel sheet piles on each side of the breech. The City of Seal Beach recently entered a Beach Erosion Control Construction Agreement with the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBAW) for repair or replacement of the groin. DBAW is authorized under the Harbors and Navigation Code Section 65.2 to cooperate with a municipal agency to plan and construct beach erosion projects for the best interest of the State. A study was conducted that showed that reinforcement of the outer 252 feet of the groin, installation of new sheet piles on the opposite side at damaged piles, and construction of a new cap for 350 feet with repair of the remaining cap was the most cost - effective and least environmentally damaging alternative (Moffatt and Nichol 2004). If the groin is not repaired or replaced, it has deteriorated to the point where it could potentially collapse causing rapid and catastrophic losses of sand on East Beach. The loss of sand would result in loss of recreational use of the beach, and coastal properties likely would suffer damage during high surf conditions. Failure of the groin also would pose a safety hazard to swimmers and surfers. 3281 IS-MND 3 -1 618/05 1 . ri Pi < CNI 11.1 cu _, 1 —1 w4. co 0, s tu >- 4C m co cu 0 a 2 ILI to x 0 2 a O z CC cc a O. o. DOLPHIN STREET • :.% • •:• '(\ • ..il% 0 0 Op . .r 1-X 1 ui q •- 4 c.) 13TH STREET •.• _ Du • ,: co n •,: Du .:* c.) cc 0 cc P., 1 c cg 0 11 . • 1 c7) • '`• cc i D w ... • , MAIN STREET : _ .. • • li 112 • ..••,:., \ \ UJ Z •.• • 11.1 I— • :% 0 ILI 5 • .::'..% CC CC EC I 1* :••;.: UZ :• . . • 0 0 0 Z 0 iil 0 CC U.! C.) s •• ' . .:, cc F. cg : • .-% UI : ..... I • ;•• < • -:•*%" liJ CO : • • x • ;•. c .) ... • < • : IJJ . LC • • .1. >- r :. • • w %.% • .. .. • , 1. . r , w u.1 -. . w - 3 —I • 1: I— 0 ••:,f., (n a ci mu ••• •• :,• . _ / • :.•-• • • •.• • - ).. SAN GABRIEL RIVER r w w = e ENTRANCE CHANNEL ALAMITOS BAY / l.7 in L. tu E m .c siJ • SECTION 4.0 — PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would install new 8 -inch wide by 3 feet long sheet piles adjacent to the existing piles on the east (downcoast side) of the existing sheet piles along the outer 252 feet of the groin. On the west (upcoast side) of the groin, new sheets would be installed at the damaged piles (45 feet of pile). Only the last 350 feet of cap would be replaced while the remaining cap would be repaired. Figures 3 and 4 show the proposed groin reinforcements. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 199 square feet to the current groin footprint of 750 square feet. The structural section would be significantly stiffer than the original and should result in a much longer service life. Construction would be done by a 40 ton truck crane working from the pier. Piles would be driven into the sediments from a piledriver attached to the crane. The 32,000 foot/pound pile hammer would probably be diesel powered although air /steam hammers are available. The concrete sheet piles would not need to be chemically treated. The crane would be placed on mats that span from pile cap to pile cap to distribute the loads to the pile caps and piles. The outrigger spread of the crane and the matting would occupy virtually the entire deck width of the pier except at the widened portions of the pier. Table 1 lists the number of days involved in the construction operations. Table 1 Number of Days for Groin Rehabilitation Project Operations and Equipment Operation 1 Time Required Demolition 5 crane days Pile Driving 8 crane days Concrete Cap Forming 2 crane days Concrete Cap Casting 1 crane day Form Removal 1 crane day Pile Hammer 8 driving days Concrete Pump 1 day The pier would be closed to the public during construction. Construction hours would be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. It is possible that work also may be conducted between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekends. To minimize the inconvenience of closing the pier, the groin repairs would occur at the same time as the expansion of the Ruby's Diner at the end of the pier. The Ruby's expansion is planned to occur this winter and requires that the pier be closed. It is anticipated that the groin rehabilitation would occur between November 2005, and January 2006, and would take about two months. During the period that the pier is closed the oil platform shuttle that operates off the end of the pier would be rerouted to Long Beach. The staging area for the groin rehabilitation would be in a portion of the East Beach parking lot. It is anticipated that the staging area would be about 6,000 square feet. The portions of the old cap that would be replaced would be hauled by truck to a suitable offsite disposal area outside of the coastal zone. Best Management Practices (BMP) would be followed during construction to prevent the spill of concrete, • fuels, or any chemicals into the ocean. Trucks would deliver the piles and concrete and remove the debris from the demolished portions of the groin. Table 2 describes the number of truck trips. Table 2 Number of Truck Trips = . 7 Operation.' - ° , Truck Trips'= ` Demolition and Removals 18 Pile Delivery 33 Concrete Delivery . 23 3281 IS-MND 4 -1 6/8/05 § zM 2 OL I— g a z N A I ' ii 1 .J 0 I m m 0 = < Lu z I VA w CC a V z CI LL 1 O Q0 CC W w co D 0 _� O N N N w a1 N - 0 O W N _1o z a a NWT I L v -az Iv = W v /, _ > a „ W N 0. W 0 N N in N b M • N z W� p Z - W ,1 a0 a WN • A ? • 7 v ON Ili 1 Na o z U 1 X I- l7 Lai C CL I w = a av I N E iu 2 I 3N11H�lt/W V SEAL BEACH 3261 04/22/05 NEW CAST -IN -PLACE REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP NEW PRESTRESSED CONCRETE 8 "X 3' SHEETPILE (TYPICAL) CONCRETE FILL AT BROKEN SHEETPILE EXISTING CONCRETE 12" x 3' SHEETPILES TOP VIEW Not To Scale NEW CAST -IN -PLACE REINFORCED CONCRETE CAP DOWELS GROUTED INTO HOLES CAST IN SHEETPILES :: _________ STRUCTURAL Z4 x 3 X 1/2 x 0'- 6" EACH SIDE W /CLAMPING BOLT -2 EACH PILE NEW PRESTRESSED CONCRETE 8 "x 3" SHEETPILE (TYPICAL) 0 r WATER LEVEL VARIES 0 EXISTING CONCRETE 12 "x 3" SHEETPILES • SAND LEVEL VARIES I TYPICAL SECTION OF PROPOSED GROIN RESTORATION C hambers Group Figure 4 SECTION 5.0 — EXPLANATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RESPONSES The following analysis is based on the items checked on the completed Environmental Checklist attached as Section 6.0. Discussion is included in several categories to identify design standards, ordinances and construction practices that will be implemented to ensure the project's compliance with all relevant environmental issues. Each checklist question is noted as be in one of four impact categories, consistent with the Environmental Checklist attached as Section 6.0. These impact categories are: > Potentially Significant Impact > Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated > Less than Significant Impact • No Impact I. AESTHETICS The shoreline of Seal Beach is considered to be of regional significance. Recreational activities are associated with the ocean, the beach and the pier. Seal Beach contains approximately 2 -miles of beachfront. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (No Impact). The project only involves minor construction to improve the groin at the base of the pier in the sand. No scenic vista changes will occur. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact). There are no scenic resources at the base of the pier. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (No Impact). The project only involves minor construction to improve the groin at the base of the pier in the sand. . d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (No Impact). No lighting will be used, as such no impacts will result. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES The project site is the base of the Seal Beach Pier, designated as Beach use in the City of Seal Beach General Plan (City of Seal Beach 2003). a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact). The project area would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non- agricultural use. No impacts would result from the proposed project. 3281 IS -MND 5 - 6/8/05 b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (No Impact). According to the Williamson Act contract, there is no existing zoning for agricultural usage. No impacts would result in the proposed project. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact). No other changes in the existing environment could possibly result in the conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use. No impacts would result in the proposed project. III. AIR QUALITY Atmospheric Setting The Groin Rehabilitation Project, located in Seal Beach, lies in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), which includes all of Orange County as well as the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographical location. The Basin is located in a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean in the southwest quadrant with high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. The general region lies in the semi - permanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Temperature and Precipitation The annual average temperature varies little throughout the 6,600 square -mile Basin ranging from the low . 60's. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the inland portion shows greater variability in the annual minimum and maximum temperatures. The mean annual high and low temperatures in the project area, as measured in Los Alamitos, are 71 and 51 ° F, respectively. The overall climate is a mild Mediterranean, with average temperatures reaching up to 80 ° F in the summer and dipping to 42 ° F in the winter. In contrast to a very steady pattern of temperature, rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable. The total average annual precipitation is 12.24 inches as measured in Long Beach, and the majority of precipitation occurs between November and April. Humidity Although the Basin has a semi -arid climate, the air near the surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by offshore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods of heavy fog, especially along the coastline, are frequent; and low stratus clouds, often referred to as "high fog" are a characteristic climatic feature. Annual average humidity ranges from a high of about 72 percent at the coast to about • 58 percent in the eastern portion of the Basin. The average relative humidity for both the project area is reported at 74 percent as measured at the Los Alamitos monitoring station. Wind Wind patterns across the south coastal region are characterized by westerly and southwesterly on -shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Typical summer winds in the project • area range from 7 to 10 miles per hour (mph) during the day and 4 to 6 mph during the night. 3281 IS-MND 5 -2 618105 Between the periods of dominant airflow, periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours. Whether such a period of stagnation occurs is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During the winter and fall months, surface high - pressure systems over the Basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally have a duration of a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished. Within the project area Santa Ana winds have a decidedly distinct pattern. Santa Ana winds from a northerly direction pour through the Cajon Pass then follow the Santa Ana River in a southwestward motion direction to the coast. The highest wind speeds typically occur during the afternoon due to daytime thermal convection caused by surface heating. This convection brings about a downward transfer of momentum from stronger winds aloft. While the maximum wind speed during Santa Ana conditions is undefined, peak wind gusts of 62 mph (with average peak gusts of 49 mph) have been measured at the Los Alamitos station. Inversions In conjunction with the two characteristic wind patterns that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. These inversions are the marine /subsidence inversion and the radiation inversion. The height of the base of the inversion at any given time is known as the "mixing height." This mixing height can change under conditions when the top of the inversion does not change. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the highly degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in the winter in the project area. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant Impact). Air emissions in Basin are regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is required pursuant to the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the District is in non - attainment. Strategies to achieve these emissions reductions are developed in the Air Quality Management Plan. This Plan establishes the regulatory framework needed to bring the Basin into compliance with the national ozone and particulate standards as well as the California Clean Air Act. Individual projects and long -term programs within the region are required to be consistent with these Plans. The proposed project would not involve growth inducing impacts or cause an exceedance of established population or growth projections and is consistent with the existing and surrounding land uses. Furthermore, the project would not produce either short- or long -term significant quantities of criteria pollutants or violate ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional plans. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Less than Significant Impact). Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term during demolition and construction activities. Long -term emissions are typically associated with the operation of a facility. Short-Term Air Quality Impacts • Regional Construction Emission Standards The following significance thresholds for construction emissions have been established by the SCAQMD. Projects in the South Coast Air Basin with construction - related emissions that exceed any of these emission thresholds should be considered to be significant: > 75 pounds per day of ROG > 100 pounds per day of NO 3281 IS-MND 5 -3 818/05 • • 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PM10 • 150 pounds per day of SO The project consists of the installation of sheet piles and cap. Construction would be performed using a crane working from the pier. Piles would be driven into the sediments from a pile driver attached to the crane. Construction is estimated at under two months. Equipment would operate approximately 8 hours per day. . Construction is of limited duration. Equipment use is based on data supplied by Moffatt & Nichol and is broken down by construction phase. Initially, demolition would involve a crane. Materials would be removed directly to awaiting trucks. The demolition is estimated at five days and includes 18 truck trips. Pile driving would also be performed using the crane with the appropriate attachment. This phase includes 33 truck trips over eight days. Concrete delivery and casting is estimated to make use of the crane for four days and 23 truck trips would be incurred, or about six trips per day. This latter phase also includes a concrete pump and includes the highest number of trucks per day and as such, is used in the analysis of potential impacts. As per the URBEMIS2002 model, truck trips are estimated at 30 miles, round -trip. Additionally, for the purposes of this analysis, a dozen workers are assumed. As per the model, these trips are estimated at 20 miles per round -trip. Equipment emissions are based on emissions factors included in Tables A9 -8 -B, A9 -8 -C, and A9 -8 -D of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Vehicle emissions are based on a Year 2005 model run of the EMFAC2002 computer model (BURDEN2002 module) distributed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Worker vehicles include a weighted emissions average for those vehicle classes up through 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. Delivery trucks include a weighted emissions average for those vehicles over 8,500 pounds. Minimal dust would be generated during the construction effort. All work would be performed from the existing pier. Piles would be driven into the ocean sediments. Removed debris would be wet. As a worst case analysis it is assumed that 1 /2 acre is disturbed and in accordance with the URBEMIS2002 model, such a disturbance would generate 5 pounds of PM per day without active watering. Due to the fact that the equipment will be working over water and removing wet debris, a control efficiency of 50 percent is assumed. The results of this analysis included in Table 3 note that all emissions are well under their respective criteria and the impact is less than significant. Table 3 Projected Construction Emissions (Lb /Day) Source 1 CO 1 NO 1 ROG 1 SOx 1 PM70' 1 Crane 6.0 15.4 2.0 1.3 1.00 Concrete Pump 1.5 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 Dust - -- — — - -- 2.5 Passenger Vehicles 3.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 Delivery Vehicles 3.2 4.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 _Total Daily Emissions 14.3 22.5 3.2 1.7 3.8 SCAQMD Daily Threshold _ 550 100 75 150 150 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No ' Assumes that all of the noted equipment works 8 hours per day. .. ' - Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, C EQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 - 3281 IS-MND 5-4 618/05 Long -Term Air Quality Impacts Subsequent to construction, the pier would resume normal operations. The project would not increase attendance at the pier, and no new Tong -term emissions are associated with the groin rehabilitation. No new trips would be generated and no new emissions are associated project implementation. As such, any potential for impact is Tess than significant. Microscale Projections An impact is also potentially significant if emission levels exceed the State or federal ambient air quality standards. CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere. As such, adherence to ambient air quality standards is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Because the project would only generate minimal vehicle trips during construction and no new trips for is subsequent operation, it would not create or add to any CO violations and any potential impact is less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Less than Significant Impact.) The CEQA Guidelines require that projects be evaluated with respect to their contribution to the cumulative baseline conditions. This contribution with respect to air emissions would include both construction and operational emissions. Cumulative projects include local development as well as general growth within the project area. However, as with most development, the greatest source of emissions is from mobile sources, which travel well outside the local area. Therefore, from an air quality standpoint, the cumulative analysis would extend beyond any local projects and when wind patterns are considered, would cover an even larger area. Accordingly, the cumulative analysis for the project's air quality must be generic by nature. The project area is out of attainment for ozone and PM Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality of regional air cell will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. The project does not result in the generation of significant short- or Tong -term emissions. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that results in emissions that do not exceed the threshold values or can be mitigated to less than significant do not jeopardize the attainment status and as such, do not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As such, because the project does not result in significant air quality impacts, it does not result in a cumulatively significant impact. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant Impact). As described above, project operations would not increase localized emissions or create a condition whereby these emissions exceed the air quality standards. As such, no significant impacts related to sensitive receptors are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less than Significant Impact.) Project construction will involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from construction activities and from trucks bringing building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such 3281 I&-MND 5 -5 6/8/05 emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they will be diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An occasional "whiff' of diesel exhaust from trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A marine biological assessment to identify biological resources that might be affected by the Seal Beach Groin Rehabilitation Project was performed in October and November 2004 (Coastal Resources Management 2004). The assessment included a literature search, a site visit on October 14,2004 and a subtidal SCUBA diving survey on November 5, 2004. This description of biological resources in the project area is based primarily on that report. Sand Beach The shallowest portions of the groin are located adjacent to the pier on the sand beach of West Beach. A community of sandy beach invertebrates occupies the intertidal zone of sand beaches in southern California. Sandy beach invertebrates burrow into the sand or live amongst decaying organic debris. These species are adapted to the seasonal shifts of sand, the force of waves, and the variation of the tides. Common sand beach invertebrates include beach hoppers (Orchestiodea spp.), isopods (Exocirolina spp.), sand crabs (Emerita analoga) and polychaete worms (Euzonus muronata, Nerinides acute, Neptys californiensis, Pygispio californica). These invertebrates are fed upon by a variety of shorebirds. Common shorebirds include sanderlings (Calidris alba), willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus) and black - bellied plovers (Pluvialis squatarola). Seagulls (Larus spp.) also forage amongst the debris on the beach California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) are water column fish that inhabit the nearshore waters and spawn on sand beaches during the highest monthly tides (i.e., two to six nights after the full and new moons) between March and August. Grunion spawn in the beach sands in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier. During summer, 2004, grunion spawned along the Seal Beach shoreline from April through early June (K. Martin, Pepperdine University, pers. comm. to Rick Ware in Coastal Resources Management 2004). The runs varied in strength but spawning was observed all along the beach, particularly around the pier and extending downcoast to the Anaheim breakwater. Cement Groin The man -made cement groin provides habitat for a variety of marine organisms. The cap of the groin ( +13 ft. MLLW) provides roosting habitat for birds such as brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.) and seagulls, while the surface of the groin provides attachment sites for intertidal and subtidal algae and invertebrates. Fishes forage on these attached organisms. Sand movement alternately exposes and covers the areas at the base of the groin. Therefore, the portions of the groin just above the sand support few attached organisms. The most shoreward 250 feet of the groin are located on the backshore of the beach above the tide lines and are devoid of marine life. The splash zone on the groin is colonized by organisms that can withstand long periods of drying. The dominant organisms on the upper parts of the groin are periwinkle snails (Littorina spp.), barnacles (Chthamalus spp.), sea lettuce (Ulva californica) and unidentified blue /green algae. The mid and low intertidal portions of the groin support a greater number of plants and animals than the high intertidal because the tidal inundation period is longer. California mussels (Mytilus californianus) and gooseneck barnacles (Pollicipes polymerus) form the dominant biomass on the groin and account for up to 90 percent of the biological cover. Within the mussel mass, several species of invertebrates were observed. Including green anemones (Anthopleura xanthogrammica), snails (Acanthina spirata), chitons (Mopalia muscosa, Nutallina californica), limpets (Lottia spp.) and polychaete worms. The subtidal portions of the groin supported a similar assemblage but there was greater secondary coverage of sponges and hydroids on the surface of the mussels. Ochre sea stars (Pisaster 3281 IS -MND 5-6 6/8/05 ochraceus) were observed foraging on the mussels. Ectoprocts (Hippodiplosia insculpta), tube snails (Serpulorbis squamigerus), and tunicates (Botrylloides/Botryllus spp. and Styela montereyensis) also were observed on the subtidal portions of the groin. The invasive brown algae, Sargassum muticum, was the only brown algae species on the groin. Subtidal Sand The sand bottom environment along the 12 foot isobath offshore of Seal Beach upcoast of the pier consists of very fine sediments upcoast of the pier because the quiet waters in the lee of the San Gabriel River jetty allow fine sediments to settle to the bottom. The monitoring program for the Haynes- Alamitos Generating Station collected 53 species of benthic infuanal invertebrates in this area in July 1998 (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1998). Shallow subtidal sediments are coarser downcoast of the pier and the infuanal invertebrate fauna is less diverse. Forty -two species were collected downcoast of the pier in July 1998. Common larger, mobile invertebrates living on the surface of the sediments in the general vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier include the sand star Astropecten armatus, the short- spined sea star Pisaster brevispinus, and the hermit crab Isocheles pilosus. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) was not observed in the vicinity of the Seal Beach groin. Open Water Water depths within the project area range from 0.0 ft. MLLW at the shoreline to approximately — 18 ft. MLLW at the offshore end of the Seal Beach Pier. Water depth at the offshore end of the groin is approximately -8 to -10 ft. MLLW. Fishes in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier are collected annually by otter trawl as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) monitoring program for the Haynes and Alamitos Generating Stations (MBC Applied Environmental Sciences 1998). The most abundant fish species between 12 and 18 feet water depth are white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), queenfish (Seriphus politus), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), speckled sand dab (Citharichthys stigmaeus), bat ray (Myliobatis californicus), round stingray (Urolophus hallen), California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), spotted turbot (Pleuronichthys ritten), and diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata). California halibut and round stingray use the mouth of the San Gabriel River as breeding habitat. The area historically has been known as "Ray Bay" because of the large number of rays that congregate in the area during the late spring to summer months. Fishes that are associated with hard substrate occur in the immediate vicinity of the pier and groin. These pier- associated species include shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregate), black surfperch (Embiotica jacksoni), and pile perch (Damalichthys vacca). Common bird species in the ocean waters in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier would be expected to include the California brown pelican, surf scoter (Melinita perspicillata), western gull (Larus occidentalis), western grebe (Aecmophorus occidentalis), and double- crested (Phalacrocorax auritus), Brandt's (P. pencillatus) and pelagic (P. pelagicus) cormorants. Marine mammal species that occur regularly in the nearshore coastal waters in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier include the California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), the Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), the California sea lion (Zalophus californicus), and the harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). Sensitive Species Table 4 lists sensitive marine species that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier. • 3281 IS-MND 5 -7 6/8/05 Table 4 Sensitive Marine Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name 1 Status CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES Chelonia midas Green sea turtle FE CLASS AYES BIRDS Gavia immer Common loon SSC Pelecanus occidentalis California brown pelican FE, SE californicus Phalacrocorax auritus Double- crested cormorant SSC Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Western snowy plover FT, SSC Numenius americanus Long - billed curlew SSC Larus californicus California gull SSC Sterna elegans Elegant tern FSC, SSC Sterna antillarum browni California least tern SE, FE Rynchops niger Black skimmer SSC CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS Enhydra lutris nereis Southern sea otter FT Arctocephalus townsendii Guadalupe fur seal FT, ST Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale FE Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale FE Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale FE Megaptera novaenglinae Humpback whale FE Eubalaena glacialis japonica Pacific right whale FE Physeter catondon Sperm whale FE FE = Federal Endangered FT = Federal Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened FSC = Federal Species of Concern SSC = State Species of Special Concern The State and Federal Endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) nests at several locations along the Los Angles /Orange County Coast. The closest least tern nesting locations to the Seal Beach Pier include sites within the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and in the Port of Los Angeles. Least terns nest between April and August and winter in Central or South America. The preferred prey of California least terns is northern anchovy and topsmelt (Atherinops affinis). Least terns forage in the nearshore waters of Seal Beach. The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is a Federal Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. This small shorebird nests on coastal sandy beaches and the shores of salt ponds and alkaline lakes. They forage for insects and marine invertebrates in wet sand along the edge of the water.. The closest regular snowy plover nesting site to the Seal Beach Pier is in the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Wintering snowy plovers would be expected at times to forage along the sandy intertidal zone in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier The Federal and State Endangered California brown pelican nests on Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, off the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico and in the Gulf of California, Mexico. California brown pelicans are common in the waters offshore Seal Beach especially during the non - breeding season of July through December. They feed primarily on northern anchovy. 3281 15-MND 5 -8 6/8/05 Several marine bird species that are California Species of Special Concern are fairly common in the nearshore waters offshore Seal Beach. These species include the common loon (Gavia immer), double - crested cormorant, and elegant tern (Sterna elegans). Of these species only elegant terns breed locally. There is a large elegant tern colony in the Boise Chica wetlands. Black skimmers (Rynchops niger) also nest at Bolsa Chica as well as in Upper Newport Bay, and forage occasionally in ocean waters. California gulls (Larus californicus), a California Species of Special Concern, nest inland primarily at Mono Lake but are common on the beaches and nearshore ocean waters in the vicinity of Seal Beach during the non - breeding season. The long- billed curlew, a California Species of Special Concern, is a shorebird that winters in southern California and is most common in wetlands. They might occasionally forage on the sandy beach near the Seal Beach Pier. The other sensitive species listed in Table 4 would be expected to occur only very rarely in the nearshore waters in the vicinity of the Seal Beach Pier. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Less Than Significant Impact). The proposed groin rehabilitation will temporarily disturb a portion of the Seal Beach Pier and the offshore sections of the groin. No impacts will occur to the State and Federal Endangered California least tern because the repairs would occur in the winter when least terns are not present. The State and Federal Endangered California brown pelican and the double- crested cormorant, a California Species of Special Concern, would be displaced temporarily from roosting on the top of the groin when the repair activities were taking place. When the repairs are completed, these birds would again be able to roost on the groin. In addition, even during the repair period, birds would be able to roost on the groin at night because work will only occur during daylight hours. Temporary Toss of a small amount of roosting habitat would be a less than significant impact. In addition pelicans and other special status water birds may avoid the waters in close vicinity to the groin during pile driving and other activities. Again, this disturbance would be for a brief period of time in a small area and impacts would be less than significant. No impacts are expected to occur to the Federal Threatened western snowy plover, because no repair activities would occur on the beach where snowy plovers forage. Retention of beach by repair of the groin might have a beneficial effect on western snowy plovers because rehabilitation of the groin would help to retain their sandy beach foraging habitat. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact). Rehabilitation of the groin will affect a minor amount of ocean habitat. There will be no effects on riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural plant community. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Less than Significant Impact). The proposed project would not affect any federally protected wetlands. Rehabilitation of the groin will result in a small expansion of the groin footprint and a loss of approximately 199 square feet of subtidal sand bottom habitat. This habitat falls under the designation of "Other Waters of the United States," and placement of the structures will require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Loss of this small amount of subtidal habitat would be a less than significant impact. There also will be a Toss of encrusting organisms on the sections of the groin that would be demolished. A similar biological community would be expected to recolonize the new portions of the groin within 1 to 2 years and temporary Toss of subtidal and intertidal encrusting organisms would be a less than significant impact. 3281 I5-MND 5 -9 6/8/05 d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Less than Significant Impact). • Rehabilitation of the groin would temporarily disturb a small area of subtidal and intertidal habitat. The groin is not located in any important migratory or movement corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. Marine organisms may avoid the immediate vicinity of construction activities when operations such as pile driving are taking place. The impacts of this temporary avoidance would be less than significant. Grunion spawn on the sand beach near the pier. Groin repair would not occur on the sandy beach, and would not take place during the grunion spawning season. Therefore, the proposed project will not impact grunion spawning. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact). The proposed project would not conflict with any local ordinances or policies protecting biological resources. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact). The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES All project activities will occur in an active littoral zone that has been subject to past construction activity with the construction of the pier and existing groin. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as . defined in §15064.5? (No Impact). The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource, as it is located in an active littoral zone. No historical or archaeological resources have been identified on the site and recovery of any such resources is unlikely due to the active littoral zone. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (No Impact). The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource (see response to item a) above. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (No Impact). The project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, as it is located in an active littoral zone. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (No Impact). The project will not disturb any human remains, as it is located in an active littoral zone. 3281 15-MND 5_10 8/8/05 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The shoreline along the City of Seal Beach is a pocket sand beach that has been affected by historical construction of shoreline protective structures (Moffatt & Nichol 2004). The beach is widest along the northwest section of the City, and gradually narrows to the southeast. The beach is a fine- grained, moderately sloping beach with a wide low tide terrace. Beach width is a function of seasonal sand loss and accretion, relative to the shoreline stabilizing structures including the groin west of the pier. Subtidal sediments in the vicinity of the groin consist of fine sand. The Long Beach Breakwater shelters Seal Beach from waves approaching from the west, and significantly reduces the amount of easterly sand transport that otherwise would nourish the eastern segments of East Beach and West Beach (Moffatt & Nichol 2004). In addition, the reflection of wave energy off the Anaheim Bay west jetty has resulted in a local increase in westerly sand transport at the eastern end of East Beach. Waves approaching from the west are reflected off the jetty back towards the west. Consequently, Iongshore sediment transport at this location is increased to the west causing localized erosion. A sediment budget analysis indicated that East Beach is losing sand that moves around and over the Pier groin, offshore and through the west jetty of Anaheim Bay, at a rate of 4,200 to 7,800 cubic yards per year causing the beach to recede at roughly 1.75 to 3.25 feet per year. The loss of beach makes public facilities and private residences behind East Beach vulnerable to wave damage from winter storms. Severe storm waves have flooded the public promenade and damaged residences. Since the early 1960's the City of Seal Beach has protected structures from winter wave damage by constructing a sand dike on the beach between the homes and the ocean. The dike has been generally effective, but sometimes becomes overtopped by large waves during high tides. East Beach also has been nourished by sediments from dredging at the mouth of the San Gabriel River and Anaheim Bay and backpassing from West Beach. The material from maintenance dredging is often fine sand that is rapidly moved offshore. The City also purchases beach fill material if funds are available when the beach becomes narrow and an opportunity to purchase suitable material exists. The DBAW funded a beach nourishment project in 1997 to 1998, that resulted in a significantly wider beach than in recent history. Retention of sand on East Beach is greatly augmented by the Seal Beach groin. a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (Less Than Significant Impact). The site is not located within an Earthquake Fault (Alquist- Priolo zone). The nearest zoned fault is on the segment of the Newport- Inglewood fault zone located approximately 5,600 feet to the north (formerly an Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone). Seismic damage could occur to the groin and pier since all of Southern California, including the project site is subject to the effects of seismic activity. The project itself will not expose people or structures to potential adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. 3281 IS-MWD 5 -11 6/8/05 b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Impact). Because the groin is within sand in the littoral zone of the beach it is constantly subject to sand movement from wave actions. The project is designed to prevent further losses of sand on East Beach, and prevent further loss of beach recreational use and damage to coastal properties that could occur during high surf conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce beach erosion and would have a beneficial impact. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Less than Significant Impact). While the project is located on beach sand that is subject to stability issues and liquefaction, the groin project is designed to prevent further losses of sand on East Beach, and prevent further loss of beach recreational use and damage to coastal properties that could occur during high surf conditions. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (No Impact). The project would not be located on expansive soil where structures (buildings) would be located. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (No Impact). The soils structure of the project areas will not change. The project would not result in soils being incapable of supporting septic tanks or other wastewater treatment systems. No such facilities would be constructed. • VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Areas located near major roadways, railways, pipelines, airports, industrial sites, and waterways that either are use for the transport of hazardous materials, or on land uses where hazardous materials are used in industrial processes have the highest risk of spills of hazardous waste materials, and highest risk of being identified as a hazard. The primary transportation routes of hazardous materials in and near Seal Beach are the 1-405 and 1 -605 freeways, and some of the major local streets including Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard. Hazardous materials associated with the project are limited to construction fuels used in heavy construction equipment. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact). • No transport of hazardous materials is associated with the project. Emissions from construction equipment are addressed under Air Quality. b Would the project create a significant 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 project would only use diesel fuels for construction equipment. No other hazardous materials would be associated with construction. Diesel fuel has the potential spill into the waterway. The potential impact is discussed under Hydrology/Water Quality. 3281 IS-MND 5 -12 618105 c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less than Significant Impact). One elementary school is located within one - quarter mile of the project site. As indicated in (a) and (b) above, use of hazardous materials associated with construction is limited to fuels for construction equipment. BMP will be in place for construction activities. No significant impacts would occur. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact). There are no hazardous materials sites within the immediate beach area. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 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 project is not located within an airport land use plan. O For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact). The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact). The project is temporary construction, which would have no impact on local emergency response planning. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (No Impact). The project is temporary construction on the beach, which would have no impact on wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Tides in the project area are semi - diurnal with an average daily range of approximately 6 feet (Moffatt & Nichol 2004). The annual extreme tides usually are slightly above + 7 feet MLLW. The highest tide recorded at the nearest tide station (Los Angeles) was +7.96 feet, MLLW on January 27, 1983. The event has a recurrence interval of approximately 100 years. The 20 -year recurrence interval water elevation is +7.7 feet MLLW. These water levels include El Nino Southern Oscillation effects and storm surge, but do not include wave - induced setup. Waves approach the project site from a directional window oriented to the south through the northwest (Moffatt & Nichol 2004). Northwest swell and southerly seas are typical of winter wave conditions. Southern hemisphere swell and tropical hurricane swell are characteristic of summer. Large waves usually are a result of the combination of northern swell and locally generated seas during the winter. Most storm damage occurs from these large waves, which have breaking wave heights as high as 18 feet for an event with a 10 -year recurrence interval. The locally generated seas have wave periods ranging from 6 to 14 seconds and the swells have periods ranging from 12 to 22 seconds. Flooding and damage to Seal Beach typically occurs during times of combined high waves and high tides in winter. 3281 IS-MND 5 -13 5/8!05 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states develop a list of waterbodies that need additional work beyond existing controls to achieve or maintain water quality standards. Seal Beach is on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for Enterococci bacteria for the ocean waters within a 50 yard radius of the drain at 1 Street (RWQCB 2003). Except for this localized area of bacterial contamination around the terminus of the storm drain, the water quality of Seal Beach marine waters is generally good. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (No Impact). The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge retirements. The portions of the old cap that would be removed would be hauled to a suitable offsite disposal area outside of the coastal zone. BMP would be followed during construction to prevent the spill of concrete, fuels or any chemicals into the ocean. Debris and garbage will be placed in containers and hauled from the site for disposal outside of the coastal zone. The concrete sheetpiles would not be chemically treated. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (No Impact). Rehabilitation of the groin will have no effect on groundwater. c) . Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? (No Impact). Repair of the groin will not alter any drainages or drainage patterns. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or offsite? (No Impact). Repair of the groin will not alter drainage patterns or have any effect on surface runoff. e) Would the project 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 would have no effect on surface runoff. t) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Less than Significant Impact). Installation of the sheetpiles temporarily would disturb sediments in the immediate vicinity of the activity and generate a small amount of localized turbidity. Piles would be driven into the sediments rather than hydro jetted to minimize water turbidity. Some sediment disturbances associated with pile driving activity will occur within the immediate interface of the piles and the sand bottom. Sand in the vicinity of the groin frequently is disturbed by wave action. Turbidity generated by pile driving would be less than naturally generated turbidity and would have a less than significant impact on water quality. 3281 tS-MND 5 -14 6/8/05 g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (No Impact). The proposed project does not involve the construction of any housing. h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact). The proposed project would not involve the construction of any structures. i) Would the project 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? (No impact). The project does not involve construction resulting in flooding. j) Would the project expose people to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact). The project does not involve construction resulting in exposure to the public of seiche, tsunami or mudflow. k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (No Impact). Construction activities will have no effect on stormwater runoff. I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post - construction activities? (No Impact). The repaired groin will have no effect on stormwater runoff. m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Less than Significant Impact). All handling of fuels and maintenance of equipment will take place away from the ocean.. Debris, trash and other material generated during groin repair activities will be stored in containers to prevent them from being washed or blown into the ocean. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? (Less than Significant Impact). Because BMP will be implemented to prevent the degradation of water quality during groin rehabilitation, beneficial uses of ocean waters would not be impaired by stormwater discharges. o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (No Impact). Repair of the groin will not affect the flow velocity or volume of stormwater. p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (No Impact). Repair of the groin will not increase erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. To the contrary it will help to reduce erosion of the sand on East Beach. 3281 IS-MND 5 -15 6/8/05 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project site is the base of the Seal Beach Pier, designated as Beach use in the City of Seal Beach General Plan (City of Seal Beach 2003). The pier is located within Planning Area 1 of the General Plan. Planning Area 1 encompasses approximately 331 gross acres of the City, including the downtown area, the Department of Water and Power site, Surfside, and the Sunset Marina Park. Planning Area 1 is located entirely within the California Coastal Zone. a) Would the project physically divide an established community? (No Impact). The proposed project site is beach. There would be no division of an established community. Therefore no impacts would result. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (No Impact). The project only involves the construction of groin reinforcements at the base of the pier, to replace the existing damaged groins and to avoid further impacts to the beach. The proposed project would include reinforcement of the outer 252 feet of the groin, installation of new sheet piles on the opposite side at damaged piles, and construction of a new cap for 350 feet with repair of the remaining cap. The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over it. Therefore no impacts would result. The project is located in the Coastal Zone and is subject to the California Coastal Act. At this time, the City of Seal Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal Program and project compliance with the Coastal Act is reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. Project compliance with relevant policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (beginning with Section 30210) is the review standard. Section 30235 of the Act addresses groins (and other structures) designed to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. This is the intent of the proposed project, as such, it is in compliance with Section 30235 of the Act. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (No Impact). No changes would occur that would affect habitats or natural communities significantly. The small amount of construction associated with the project for groin repair would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. No impacts would result X. MINERAL RESOURCES One oil extraction site is maintained within the tidelands area of Seal Beach, known as Esther Island. Oil extraction operations are also conducted along the Newport- Inglewood Fault on the Hellman Ranch • Property and on an oil lease site in the National Wildlife Refuge on the Seal Beach Weapons Station. a) Would the project 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.) There are no known mineral resource that would be of value on the beach. Therefore no Toss of an available mineral could occur. 3281 IS-MND 5 -16 6/8/05 b) Would the project 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 is no known resource of a locally important mineral recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Therefore no impacts would result. XI. NOISE Regulatory Environment County of Orange The Noise Element of the County of Orange General Plan has developed noise standards for mobile noise sources. These standards address the impacts of noise from adjacent roadways, John Wayne Airport and MCAS El Toro. The County specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for .residential uses, places of worship, educational facilities, hospitals, hotels /motels, commercial, and other land uses. The noise standard for exterior living areas is 65 dBA CNEL. The County prohibits new residential land uses within the 65 -dBA CNEL contour from any airport or air station. Non - residential noise - sensitive land uses, such as hospitals, rest homes, convalescent hospitals, places of worship, and schools, will not be permitted within the 65 dBA CNEL area from any source, unless appropriate mitigation measures are included such that the standards contained in the Noise Element and in appropriate State and Federal Codes are met. The standard Conditions of Approval of the County of Orange require that all residential and non- residential noise - sensitive structures be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources (including aircraft and highway noise) to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and Land Use /Noise Compatibility Manual (i.e., 45 dBA CNEL interior). Concerning construction noise, the standard Conditions of Approval require that all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, that all operations comply with Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control), and stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas must be located as far as practicable from dwellings. As specified in the Orange County Codified Ordinance Division 6 (Noise Control), construction activities are generally restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. from Monday through Saturday. No construction activity is permitted on Sundays and federal holidays. Construction noise during the allowed construction time periods is exempted from the noise level provisions in the noise control ordinance. With respect to vibration, the County Section 7 -9 -95.7 (j) notes. "No machine, process or operation shall produce a vibration discernible without instruments at or beyond a property line of the building site upon which the source is located." City of Seal Beach The Noise Element of the General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise control in the planning process. It is a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining compatible land use with environmental noise levels. In support of the Noise Element, Chapter 7.15 of the City Municipal Code specifies environmental performance standards for noise. With noted exceptions included in the City Municipal Code, the City Code adopts the County Municipal Code by reference. Section 7.15.015 sets exterior noise standards. These noise level limits are not to exceed the values included in Table 5 for 30 minutes in any hour (L The level may be increased by 5 dBA for 15 minutes (L 10 dBA for 5 minutes (L and 15 dBA for 1 minute in any hour (L Noise levels are not to exceed the noise standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time (Lmax). 3281 IS-MND 5 -17 6/8105 Table 5 City of Seal Beach Exterior Noise Standards Affected Land Uses 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. (Receiving Noise) (dBA) (dBA) Residential 55 50 Commercial 65 65 Industrial 70 70 The City also sets interior noise standards for residential uses as included in Table 6. These levels are not to be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour. The levels may be exceeded by the standard plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of no more than 1 minute in any hour and is not to be exceeded by 10 dBA for any period. Table 6 City of Seal Beach Interior Noise Standards Affected Land Use 7:00 a.m. — 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. — 7:00 a.m. (dBA) (dBA) Residential 55 45 Section 7.15.025 included exemptions to the regulations. Of note, Section 7.15.025,E. exempts noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling or grading of real property performed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Existing Noise Levels In accordance with the General Plan Noise Element, the predominant noise source in Seal Beach originates from motor vehicles. Existing levels are also influenced by overflights from military aircraft. The project is not located near any major arterials or freeways. Noise contours included in the Noise Element indicate that existing noise levels would be less than 60 dBA CNEL. Actual noise levels would vary with respect to proximity to Ocean Avenue and the breaking of the ocean waves along the shoreline. Impact Analysis The generation of noise associated with the proposed project would occur over the short -term for site preparation and construction activities. This would require that the pier be closed during the construction period, estimated at under 2 months. Once the existing groin is refurbished, the pier would re -open. The groin rehabilitation would not increase attendance at the pier and no new Tong -term noise would be produced as a result of the project. a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Less than Significant Impact.) The project includes the rehabilitation of an existing groin with new sheet piling and cap surface. The project would not result in any change to the operation of the pier and no new vehicle trips would result when the pier is re- opened. As such, any potential for impact would occur during the construction period. 3281 IS-MND 5 -18 6/8/05 As noted, construction within Seal Beach is exempted from the noise ordinance so long as it is restricted to those hours included in the Municipal Code (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays). Compliance with City Code is requisite and construction would not take place outside of these hours. Additionally, the City Code adopts the County Code by reference and in accordance with the County Code, all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, and stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas must be located as far as practicable from dwellings. As such, project construction would not to exceed the applicable standards and the impact is less than significant and no mitigation is warranted. b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less than Significant Impact). The proposed project would involve the rehabilitation of an existing groin with new sheet piling and cap surface. Caltrans notes that groundborne vibrations are typically attributable to blasting, heavy demolition, and the use of pile drivers. While the use of this equipment is exempted when construction is performed within the hours prescribed by the City, an impact could still be significant if this vibration were to cause physical damage to neighboring structures. Caltrans sets their minimum criterion for significant vibration impact at 0.2 inches per second. (The maximum criterion is set at 2 inches per second.) Caltrans presents the vibration produced by a 50,000 foot -pound force with distance for both clayey and sandy /silt soils as a function of distance. Caltrans indicates that the 0.2 inches per second vibration level is expected to occur at a distance of about 50 feet (15 meters). No sensitive structures are located within this distance and pile driving is unlikely to cause damage of any type. Vibration levels at the nearest residence, located at a distance of about 400 feet, are estimated at 0.017 inches per second when pile driving is conducted at the north end of the pier. This level represents the approximate the threshold of vibration perception. Again, this intrusion is considered as acceptable when construction is performed within the designated hours, and the impact is less than significant. At the completion of construction, no excessive groundborne vibrations or noise would be created by the operation of the proposed project and no significant vibration impacts would result from project development. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less than Significant Impact). CEQA notes that a project may be significant if it creates a substantial increase in the existing noise levels. Noise impacts can be broken down into three categories. The first is "audible" impacts, which refers to increases in noise level that are perceptible to humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dBA or more since this level has been found to be barely perceptible in exterior environments. The second category, "potentially audible," refers to a change in noise level between 1 and 3 dBA. This range of noise levels was found to be noticeable to sensitive people in laboratory environments. The last category includes changes in noise level of less than 1 dBA that are typically "inaudible" to the human ear except under quiet conditions in controlled environments. Only "audible" changes in noise levels at sensitive receptor locations are considered potentially significant. Mobile- source noise (i.e., vehicle noise) is preempted from local regulation. Here an impact is considered significant if the existing noise levels exceed the objectives of the General Plan and the project were to increase this noise level by 3 dBA CNEL (barely noticeable in an exterior environment); or if the project adds 5 dBA CNEL (noticeable to most people) and the resultant noise level remains under the objectives of the General Plan at sensitive receptor locations. 3281 IS-MND 5 -19 618/05 The project consists of the rehabilitation of an existing groin. The project would not result in any additional trips and no changes would occur to the existing traffic patterns. Any potential impact is then less than significant. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less than Significant Impact). Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and • equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the increase in noise would be Tess than 1 dBA when • averaged over a 24 -hour period, and would therefore have a less than significant impact on noise receptors along the truck routes. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by onsite construction operations and local residents could be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of onsite construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessment at a distance of 50 feet. Table 7 Noise Levels Generated By Typical Construction Equipment Type of Equipment Range of Sound Levels Suggested Sound Measured Levels for Analysis (dBA at 50 feet) (dBA at 50 feet) Pile Drivers, 12,000 to 18,000 ft-lb/blow 81 to 96 93 Rock Drills 83 to 99 96 Jack Hammers 75 to 85 82 Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85 Pumps 68 to 80 77 Dozers 85 to 90 88 Tractor 77 to 82 80 Front -End Loaders 86 to 90 88 Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86 Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86 Graders 79 to 89 86 Air Compressors 76 to 86 86 Trucks 81 to 87 86 Source: Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, BBN 1987. While most of the construction period would use a crane for the demolition and replacement of existing structures, the placement of the piles involves pile driving, estimated at approximately 8 days. Noise for the crane is estimated at about 86 dBA L while that from pile driving ranges from about 81 to 96 dBA L both as measured at a distance of 50 feet. Actual noise from pile driving would be expected to be at the lower end of the range as the piles are being installed in a relatively soft sandy substrate rather than hard soil. 3281 15-MND 5 -20 618/05 1 The nearest existing residential units are located to the north, north of Ocean Avenue approximately 400 feet from the proximate project site. Based on an L value of 86 dBA, resultant construction noise is estimated at about 68 dBA L Based on the suggested level of 93 dBA L the resultant noise from pile driving activities could be on the order of 75 dBA L at these closest residents. Interior levels could be reduced by over 20 dBA from these values. During the vast majority of the construction period both exterior and interior noise levels would be 20 to 30 dBA lower, due to lower power settings and sound attenuation provided by longer distances and partial blocking. This range of noise levels is considered acceptable during daytime hours. The City recognizes that the control of construction noise is difficult at best and provides exemption for this type of noise when the work is limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Additionally, all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, and stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas must be located as far as practicable from dwellings. Mandatory adherence to the City Municipal Code would ensure that any potential noise impacts would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a 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 Long Beach Municipal Airport is located approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is not located within the prevailing flight path and is well beyond the airport's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. No impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation is necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact). At over 4 miles to the northeast, the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center represents the nearest non - public air installation. Again, project site is not located within the prevailing flight path and is well beyond the airport's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. No significant impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Seal Beach sits on the coast as the gateway to Orange County between the cities of Long Beach and Huntington Beach, with a population of 24,098. Seal Beach is the home of Leisure World, a gated senior citizen community of approximately 7- 10,000 persons. The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station comprises 2/3 of the land within the City. a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No Impact). There are no proposed new homes and or businesses as part of this project. No impacts would result. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact). No existing housing would be affected or require removal /relocation. No impacts would result. 3281 IS-MND 5 -21 6/8/05 c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact). The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people. No impacts would occur. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? (No impact). The project only involves the construction of new groins at the base of the pier, to replace the existing damaged groins and to avoid further impacts to the beach. The project would not result in any need for new or expanded services. XIV. RECREATION The project site is the base of the Seal Beach Pier, designated as Beach use in the City of Seal Beach General Plan (City of Seal Beach 2003). The pier is located within Planning Area 1 of the General Plan. The shoreline of Seal Beach is considered to be of regional significance. The City's beaches and pleasant weather attracts more than 2,000,000 visitors each year making recreation an important factor in the local economy in this otherwise residential community. To accommodate visitors Seal Beach maintains a municipal pier, a beach park, and a skate park. Recreational activities associated with the ocean, the beach and the pier, include swimming, wading, surfing, pier and sport fishing, sunbathing, jogging, volleyball, and some non - organized games. Seal Beach contains approximately 2 -miles of beachfront. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact). The construction associated with the project is temporary. No increase of visitor facilities is proposed, and no impacts will occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion or recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact). No increase in recreational facilities is proposed. No increase in or expansion of recreational facilities will occur. c) Does the project include potential safety impacts to recreational users? (Less than Significant Impact). The pier and construction working area would be cordoned off and closed to the public for the approximately two month duration of the project. This would occur between November 2005 to January 3281 IS-MND 5 -22 8/8/05 2006, which is typically the slowest time of the year for recreational activities. In addition, construction is expected to occur simultaneously for modifications to the Ruby's restaurant at the end of the pier. Because the area would be cordoned off to protect the public, impacts to public safety would be Tess than significant. XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC The major street accessing the pier is Ocean Avenue via Seal Beach Boulevard. No traffic data is contained in the General Plan Circulation Element (City of Seal Beach 2003) for Ocean Avenue or Seal Beach Boulevard south of Pacific Coast Highway. However, the segment of Seal Beach Boulevard just north of the project area shows an existing Level of Service (LOS) at A, the least crowded condition. However, Pacific Coast Highway in the immediate area shows a LOS at F, the worst crowded traffic condition. Intersection capacity utilization for the intersection of Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway operates at LOS C during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Construction hours would be 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. It is possible that work also may be conducted between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. on weekends. Construction is of limited duration. Initially, demolition would involve a crane. Materials would be removed directly to awaiting trucks. The demolition is estimated at five days and includes 18 truck trips. Pile driving would also be performed using the crane with the appropriate attachment. This phase includes 33 truck trips over eight days. Concrete delivery and casting is estimated to make use of the crane for four days and 23 truck trips would be incurred, or about six trips per day. a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Less than Significant Impact). The project only requires construction equipment and materials to access the staging area to the site. No increase in traffic load or capacity to the street system will occur. b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact). Because there will not be a permanent increase in traffic, there will be no cumulative addition to the roadways in the area, and no impacts to established congestion management plans. c) Would the project result in a 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). The project does not involve air traffic, thus there will be no impacts. d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact). The project does not propose to redesign roadways. There will be no hazards impacts. e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? (No Impact). The project construction is limited to the base of the pier and will be closed to the public during construction. The staging area will be within a small area of the nearby parking area. No impacts to emergency access would occur from the construction activity. 3281 IS-MND 5-23 6/8/05 f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? (No Impact). No permanent changes to parking capacity will occur as a result of the proposed modifications. Construction equipment will be confined to the staging area (parking lot) and this portion parking lot will be closed to the public for the duration of project construction. The remaining parking spaces would continue to be available for use by the public. g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No Impact). The project is of a temporary nature and will not affect existing plans, policies or programs. • XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements will occur. b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No need for new water or wastewater treatment or expansion of existing facilities will occur. c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No need for new stormwater drainage facilities will occur. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No need for new or expansion of existing water supplies facilities will occur. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No need for new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities will occur. t) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Less than Significant Impact). The project entails only minor construction. Debris will be disposed of at a local landfill outside the coastal zone. However, quantities are small, as such impacts will be less than significant. 3281 1S-MND 5 -24 8/8/05 g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact). The project entails only minor construction. No need for new or expansion of existing solid waste facilities will occur. h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practices (BMP), (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? (No Impact). The project only entails minor construction. No new or retrofitted storm water treatment control system is required. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Based on the above environmental analysis, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, result in long term or cumulative impacts, or have substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. • 3281 IS-MND 5 -25 8/8105 SECTION 6.0 — ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: - City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 3. Contact Person and Telephone Number: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services (562) 431-2527 4. Project Location: Seal Beach Pier, City of Seal Beach 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 6. General Plan Designation: Beach 7. Zoning: Beach 8. Description of Project: The proposed Groin Rehabilitation Project is located adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier in Orange County. The groin, which is on the west side of the pier, is 750 feet long, with its top elevation ranging from +13 feet above MLLW at the landward end to +5 feet MLLW at the offshore end. The seaward end of the groin is located at a bottom depth of approximately -8 to -10 feet MLLW depending on seasonal sediment movement. The project entails rehabilitation of a portion of the groin that is now over 45 years old and has deteriorated. The City of Seal Beach recently entered a Beach Erosion Control Construction Agreement with the State of California DBAW for repair or replacement of the groin. The project entails reinforcement of the outer 252 feet of the groin, installation of new sheet piles on the opposite side at damaged piles, and construction of a new cap for 350 feet with repair of the remaining cap. If the groin is not repaired or replaced, it would deteriorate to the point where it could potentially collapse causing rapid and catastrophic losses of sand on East Beach. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 198 square feet to the groin footprint. The structural section would be significantly stiffer than the original and should result in a much longer service life. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Seal Beach is situated on the coast in northwest Orange County between the City of Long Beach and Huntington Beach and includes the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station (Figure 1). Approximately one mile of coastline lies along the City's southwest boundary. The Seal Beach Pier and adjacent groin is 0.6 miles southeast of the San Gabriel River and 0.46 miles northwest of the west jetty of Anaheim Bay. 3281 IS-MND 6 -1 6/8/05 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required: Agency 1 Permit or Approval 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit/Consistency Certification Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards /Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation /Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Mandatory Findings of ❑ Geology and Soils ❑ Population and Housing Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially ❑ significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, ❑ because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. lo_a_o Signature 0 Date Printed Name J Agency 3281 IS-MND 6 -2 618/05 Environmental Impacts (Please Explain All "Potentially Significant Impact ", "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" And "Less Than Significant Impact" Answers In Section 5.0.) Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial. adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ El scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, ❑ ❑ ❑ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial Tight or ❑ ❑ ❑ glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide •Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ El • use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? 3281 IS-MND 6 -3 6/8/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ 0 -• ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other. sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 3281 IS -MND 6 -4 6/8/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ® ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native • resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ❑ ❑ ❑ Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ '® significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ ❑ paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 3281 IS-MND 6 -5 6/8/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated • Impact Impact (1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ® ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? • Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ® ❑ liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ ❑ ❑ loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ ►�� the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of 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? 3281 IS-MND 6 -6 618/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a ❑ ❑ ❑ El list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the • environment? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI use plan or, where such a 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ ❑ �� waste discharge requirements? • b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3281 IS-MND 6 -7 618/05 • Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ ►.1 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ ❑ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ ❑ structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant ❑ ❑ ❑ El risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from ❑ ❑ ❑ ►.1 construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from ❑ ❑ ❑ post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? 3281 IS-MND 6 -8 618/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact n) Result in the potential for discharge of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes ❑ ❑ • ❑ El in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of ❑ ❑ ❑ the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ - ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ El policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. 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? 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? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ►Z 1 ❑ noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3261 IS-MND 6-9 6/8/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ use plan or, where such a 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or • indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3281 IS -MND 6 -1 0 6/8/05 • Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial • adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial in relation to .the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, ❑ ❑ ❑ a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 3281 IS-MND 6 -11 68105 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? • d) Substantially increase hazards due to a ❑ ❑ ❑ design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? • e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ ❑ programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ .1 requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which • could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to ❑ ❑ ❑ serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ❑ Z/ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate • capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 3281 IS-MND 6 -12 6/8/05 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or ❑ ❑ ❑ retrofitted storm water treatment control BMP, (e.g., water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g., increased vectors and odors)? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ ❑ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 3281 IS -MND 6 -13 6/8/05 Sources Bolt, Beranek, and Newman 1987 Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants. California Air Resources Board 2002 EMFAC2002 Computer Model, Version 2.2, September 23, 2002. Caltrans 2002 Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations, February 20, 2002. City of Seal Beach 1993 Land Use /Noise Compatibility Manual, December 14, 1993. 2003 City of Seal Beach General Plan Noise Element, December 2003. 2003 City of Seal Beach General Plan Land Use Element, December 2003. 2004 City of Orange Municipal Code, Chapter 7.15 Noise, May 26, 2004. Clean Air Act 1988 Outline Prepared by Daniel J. Dunn, Holme Roberts & Owen, 1988. Coastal Resources Management 2004 Marine Biological Assessment for the Groin Rehabilitation Project, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for Moffatt & Nichol. County of Orange 1984 Noise Element, March 27, 1984. Moffatt & Nichol Engineers 2004 Groin Rehabilitation Study, Seal Beach, California. Prepared for City of Seal Beach. Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 2003 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segment. South Coast Air Quality Management District 1980 A Climatological /Air Quality Profile, California South Coast Air Basin, Prepared by Ralph W. Keith. South Coast Air Quality Management District 1993 Rules and Regulations, January 1993. 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. 1998 — 2002 Air Pollution Data Monitoring Cards (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). 2003 Final 2003 AQMP, August 1 2003. Southern California Association of Governments 1997 Draft 1997 Air Quality Management Plan. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1984 A Guide to HUD Environmental Criteria and Standards Contained in 24 CFR Part 51, August 1984. 1985 The Noise Guidebook, March 1985. 3281 IS-MND 6 -14 6/8 /05 Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal Appendix C . For U.S. Mail: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 SCH# For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 Project Title: . Grnin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier Lead Agency: City of Seal. Rearh Contact Person: Chri T eagu e Street Address: 211 Eighth Street Phone: ( 562) 431 -2527 Ext. 316 City: SPA Rearh Zip: 90740 County: Orange Project Location: County: Orange City/Nearest Community: Sea Reach Cross Streets: Main Street / Ocean Avenue zip code: 90740 Assessor's Parcel No. 199 105 - Section: Twp. Range: Base: Within 2 miles: State Hwy#: 1 Waterways: Pacific Ocean, Anaheim Bay Airports: Railways: Schools: McGaugh FlPmentary Document Type: CEQA: NEPA: Other: ❑ NOP ❑ Draft EIIt ❑ NOI ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Cons ❑ Supplement to EIR ❑ EA ❑ Final Document t Neg Dec ❑ Subsequent EIR ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Other ❑ Mit Neg Dec ❑ Other: ❑ FONSI Local Action Type: ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Master Plan ❑ Use Permit , Coastal Permit ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, ❑ Other ❑ General Plan Element ❑ Site Plan etc.) ❑ Community Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment Development Type: • ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sgfi. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sgft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sq ft. Acres Employees ❑ Power: Type MW ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment: Type MGD ® Recreational Municipal Pier ❑ Hazardous Waste: Type Total Acres: (approx.) ❑ Other: Project Issues That May Have A Significant Or Potentially Significant Impact: . ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public ❑ Traffic /Circulation ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Fiscal . Services/Facilities . ❑ Vegetation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Water Quality ❑ Archeological/Histori ❑ Forest Land/Fire ❑ Schools/Universities ❑ Water oal Hazard ❑ Septic Systems Supply /Groundwater ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Geologic /Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Minerals ❑ Soil Erosion/ - ❑ Growth Inducement ❑ Drainage /Absorption ❑ Noise Compaction/Grading ❑ Land Use • ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Solid Waste ❑ Cumulative Effects Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Other Present Land Use/Zoning /General Plan Designation: Publ i c Land Use /Recreation /Beach Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary) Structurally reinforce Seal Beach pier. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice or Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in. Revised 2004 Reviewing Agencies Checklist Appendix C continued Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below. Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation X California Highway Patrol Parks & Recreation X Caltrans District # 12 Pesticide Regulation, Department of Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Public Utilities Commission Caltrans Planning Reclamation Board Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy 1( Regional WQCB # 8 X Coastal Commission X Resources Agency Colorado River Board S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission Conservation, Department of San Gabriel & Lower Los Angeles Rivers Corrections, Department of & Mountains Conservancy Delta Protection Commission San Joaquin River Conservancy Education, Department of Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Office of Public School Construction X State Lands Commission Energy Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants X Fish & Game Region # 5 SWRCB: Water Quality Food & Agriculture, Department of SWRCB: Water Rights Forestry & Fire Protection Tahoe Regional Planning Agency General Services, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of Health Services, Department of Water Resources, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board X Other: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Native American Heritage Commission Other: Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date June 13, 2005 Ending Date July 11, 2nn5 Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): Applicant: City of Seal Beach City of Seal Beach Consulting Firm: Address: 211 Fighth Street Address: 211 Eighth Straet Cy /State /zip: Seal Beach, CA 90740 City /State /Zip: Seal Beach, (:A 9074n Phone: (52) 431 =2527 Ext. 316 Contact: Christy Teague or Raymond Velasco Phone: ( 562 _ 431 -2527 Ext. 316 Signature of Lead Agency Representative 41,44,4 Date: 1 -13 -05 Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.. Adoption of Negative Declaration 05-3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT 3 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project CC Staff Report 14 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 1' I I 1 ! City of Seal Beach, 211 8 Street ® ® ® ® ® ®® Seal Beach, CA 90740 11:_p_gATITO,562- 431 -2527 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: X_ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Seal Beach State of California Department of Dev Services 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 211 Eighth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Seal Beach, CA. 90740 _X_ Clerk- Recorder, County of Orange 12 Civic Center Plaza, Room 106 Santa Ana, CA 92701 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code;, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIFR Project Title _SCH 2005061069 State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to State Clearinghouse) _ I ee Whittenberg Contact Person Area Code/Telephone /Extension: (567) 431 -2527, ext 313 The project is located immediately upcoast of the Seal Beach Pier in the Pacific Ocean and on the public beach, in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County Project Location Repair the existing Seal Beach Groin by installing new 8 -inch wide by 3 feet long sheet piles adjacent to the existing piles on the east (downcoast side) of the existing sheet piles along the outer 252 feet of the groin. On the west (upcoast side) of the groin, new sheets ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 15 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 would be installed at the damaged piles (45 feet of pile). Only the last 350 feet of cap would be replaced while the remaining cap would be repaired. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 199 square feet to the current groin footprint of 750 square feet. Project Description This is to advise that the City of Seal Beach (Lead Agency) has approved the above - described project on August 8, 2005 and has made the following determinations regarding this project: 1. The project will X not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Mitigation measures were X were not made a condition of approval of the project. 3. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, and was reviewed and considered by the decision making body prior to its decision on the project. The Environmental Impact Report and record of project approval, including comments and responses, is available to the public at: City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. The City found that environmental effects of the project could be mitigated by modifications to the project which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. Specific economic, social, and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or . project alternatives identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was __X was not adopted for this project. ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 16 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 This document is being filed in duplicate. Please acknowledge the filing date and return acknowledged copy to: City of Seal Beach, Attn: Planning Department, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Date Received for Filing Signature Director of Development Services Title ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 17 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT 4 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION - GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Projcct.CC Staff Report 1 Adoption ofNegative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title/Location (include County): Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier The project is located immediately upcoast of the Seal Beach Pier in the Pacific Ocean and on the public beach, in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County. Project Description: Repair the existing Seal Beach Groin by installing new 8 -inch wide by 3 feet long sheet piles adjacent to the existing piles on the east (downcoast side) of the existing sheet piles along the outer 252 feet of the groin. On the west (upcoast side) of the groin, new sheets would be installed at the damaged piles (45 feet of pile). Only the last 350 feet of cap would be replaced while the remaining cap would be repaired. The proposed project would result in a finished groin that is similar in appearance to the original, but with a slightly larger footprint. The proposed reinforcement of the groin would add an additional 199 square feet to the current groin footprint of 750 square feet. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): Approval of this project involves no potential for adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife. The project consists of the repair of an existing groin structure adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier. Based on the results of a marine biological assessment conducted by Coastal Resources Management in October and November 2004 and as set forth on page 5 -6 through 5 -10 of Negative Declaration 05 -3, it has been determined that: ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact" on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ❑ the project would have "No Impact' on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 19 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant Impact' on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; ❑ the project would have a "Less Than Significant lmpacf' on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites; ❑ the project would have "No Impact' and does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; and ❑ the project would have "No lmpacf' and does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above findings and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. (Chief Planning Official) Title: Director of Development Services Lead Agency: City of Seal Reach Date: August R, 7005 Section 711.4, Fish and Game Code DFG: 12/90 ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project. CC Staff Report 20 Adoption of Negative Declaration 05 -3 Seal Beach Groin Repair Project City Council Staff Report August 8, 2005 ATTACHMENT 5 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOR INITIAL STUDY/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION 05 -3, GROIN REHABILITATION PROJECT AT SEAL BEACH PIER, DATED JULY 28, 2005 ND 05- 3.Groin Repair Project.CC Staff Report 21 Responses to Comments for Initial Study /Negative Declaration 05 -3 City of Seal Beach Seal Beach Pier Groin Repair Project Prepared by: City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Contact: Christy Teague, Senior Planner (562) 431 -2527, extension 316 July 27, 2005 Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction 1 Section 2 Comment Letters and Responses 3 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 4 California Department of Transportation, District 12 7 California Department of Fish and Game 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2005 11 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Minutes of June 29, 2005 14 * * * * Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 1 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project • Section 1. Introduction This document has been prepared to respond to public comments received on Negative Declaration 05 -3 for the proposed Groin Rehabilitation Project at the Seal Beach Pier. The Negative Declaration was subject to a 30 -day public review period from June 13, 2005 to July 13, 2005. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15073(a) states that the Lead Agency shall provide a public review period of not less than 30 days for a proposed Negative Declaration when review by state agencies is required. Distribution of the Initial Study /Negative Declaration and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for review and comment included the following agencies and organizations: State of California Office of Planning and Research County of Orange — County Clerk County of Orange — Public Facilities and Resource Department City of Long Beach — Planning Department City of Huntington Beach — Planning Department Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region South Coast Air Quality Management District Army Corps of Engineers — Los Angeles District California Department of Fish & Game — Region 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Coastal Commission — South Coast Region Orange County Sanitation District Caltrans District 12 California State Lands Commission California Resources Agency California Highway Patrol Mailed copies of the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration were provided to 85 property owners and occupants adjacent to the subject property on June 13, 2005. Copies of the Negative Declaration were also made available for public review at the Development Services public counter and at each library within the City. The City of Seal Beach received 2 comment letters on the Negative Declaration from public agencies and also received comments from the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board during the public comment period. CEQA section 21091(d)(1) requires that the City, as Lead Agency, must consider any comments on the proposed Negative Declaration that are received within the public review period. Pursuant to CEQA, the Lead Agency is only obligated to respond to comments on an Environmental Impact Report, not for a proposed Negative Declaration. However, the City does so voluntarily in order to acknowledge public input and fully address any issues raised. Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 2 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(b) provides that in reviewing negative declarations, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should 1) identify the specific effect; 2) explain why they believe the effect would occur, and 3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. CEQA Section 15204(c) further advises: "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15604, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence. Section 15204(d) also states, "each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." Section 15024(e) states, "this section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." Each comment letter received during the public review period is included in its entirety in this document. Each letter is followed by responses corresponding to comments submitted in the letter. Responses are provided for all comments submitted. No new significant environmental impacts are raised by the submitted comment letters. * * * * • Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 3 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Section 2. Comment Letters and Responses This section provides complete copies of all comment letters received during the public review period and by the Environmental Quality Control Board and the Planning Commission for the proposed Initial Study /Negative Declaration. Each letter or meeting minutes is included in its entirety for the subject Negative Declaration, followed by responses that correspond to the comments raised. Response Agency /Organization /Individual Letter Date Number 1 Responses to Comment Letter 1 California State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit July 14, 2005 2 Responses to Comment Letter 2 California Department of Transportation, District 12 June 28, 2005 3 Responses to Comment Letter 3 California Department of Fish and Game July 8, 2005 Response Agency Public Comment Meeting Meeting Date Number 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 22, 2005 • 5 City of Seal Beach Draft Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 2005 * * * * Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 4 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Letter 1: State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, July 14, 2005 oaf m44 STATE OF CALIFORNIAN ee l Governor Office of Planning and Research $ � State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit ' Arnold Sean Walsh Schwarzenegger Director Governor July 14, 2005 Mot Seld Bead:; Christy Teague 1UL 21 2005 City of Seal Beach Development Svcs. 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Subject: Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier SCH #: 2005061069 Dear Christy Teague: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on July 13, 2005, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the 1 1 environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, e/4 , ,� Terry R erts Director, State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812 -3044 TEL (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 5 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Letter 1: State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, July 14, 2005- Page 2 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2005061069 Project Title Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier Lead Agency Seal Beach, City of Type Nag Negative Declaration Description Structurally reinforce Seal Beach pier. Lead Agency Contact Name Christy Teague Agency City of Seal Beach Phone (562) 431 -2527 x316 Fax email Address 211 Eighth Street City Seal Beach State CA Zip 90740 Project Location County Orange City Seal Beach Region Cross Streets Main Street / Ocean Avenue Parcel No. 199 - 105-03 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 1 Airports Railways Waterways Pacific Ocean, Anaheim Bay Schools McGaugh ES Land Use Public Land Use / Recreation / Beach Project Issues Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region; Department of Fish and Game, Region 5; Department of Water Resources; California Coastal Commission; Califomia Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 12 Date Received 06/14/2005 Start of Review 06/14/2005 End of Review 07/13/2005 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 6 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Response to Comment Letter 1 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, July 14, 2005 1 -1 This letter acknowledges that the City of Seal Beach, as Lead Agency for the project, has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. * * * * Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 7 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Letter 2: California Department of Transportation, District 12 -June 28, 2005 STATE O0 CAI. IFORM BUSNESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD) SCIIWARZENEGGER- Gomm DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2267 • —• ° "• Flax your power Fax: (949) 724 -2592 Be energy efficient? June 28, 2005 Ms. Christy Teague File: IGR/CEQA City of Seal Beach SCH #: 2005061069 211 Eight Street Log #: 1570 Seal Beach, California 90740 SR #: PCH Subject: Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier Dear Ms. Teague, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier project. The project proposes 2 _ structural reinforcement of the pier. The nearest state route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of -way, an encroachment permit will 2 - 2 be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, 2 - 3 please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, ,'• • ROBERT F. JOSEPH, C �ef IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning Gale McIntyre, Deputy District Director "Cal:rens improves mobility across California" Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 8 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Comment Letter 2 California Department of Transportation, District 12 — June 28, 2005 2 -1 The comment reviews the project components and indicates the nearest State Route to the project is Pacific Coast Highway. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 2 -2 The comment indicates that Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency on this project. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 2 -3 The comment asks for continued information regarding any impacts that could potentially impact transportation facilities and raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. * * * * Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 9 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Letter 3: California Department of Fish and Game — July 8, 2005 i , , , ,,,,, , State of California - The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor lagG ` DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ,+K , .. SHAM htto: / /www.dfg.ca.gov L'r , ., +. Marine Region Flex T ti 20 Lower Ragsdale Drive, Suite 100 your a, ,i Monterey, CA 93940 P OWER HELP CALIFORNIA FILE ' • rls ��f CONSERVE ENERGY L I July 8, 2005 on! ^° :, f Ms. Christy Teague ��� i 11 ut :; City of Seal Beach + 211 Eighth Street liI'-` Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Ms. Teague: The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the City of Seal Beach's Initial Study /Negative Declaration (IS /ND) for the Groin Rehabilitation Project located adjacent to the Seal Beach Pier in Orange County. The proposed project will install new 8 -inch wide by 3 -feet long concrete sheet piles next to the existing sheet piles along the east side of the 252 foot -long groin. On the west side of the groin, new sheet piles would be installed only at damaged areas (45 feet of sheet pile). The shoreline portion of the cap will be repaired while the remaining 350 feet of cap will be replaced. The finished groin will have a 199 square foot larger footprint than the existing 750 square foot groin. The groin functions to help reduce the rate of erosion from East Beach. Repairs are anticipated to take two months and will occur between 3 - 1 November 2005 and January 2006. The Department believes the IS /ND is adequate in its portrayal of impacts to fish 3 - 2 and wildlife resources and habitats associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the Department does not object to the adoption of the recommended plan as currently described. As always, Department personnel are available to discuss our comments, concerns, and recommendations in greater detail. To arrange for a discussion please 3 - 3 contact Ms. Marilyn Fluharty, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Game, 4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, telephone (858) 467 -4231. Ca --------- " - Thomas Napo l Staff Environmental Scientist MR- San Diego cc: Marilyn Fluharty MR- San Diego Conserving California's Wi fe Since 1870 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 10 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Comment Letter 3 California Department of Fish and Game — July 8, 2005 3 -1 The comment reviews the project components. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 3 -2 The comment indicates Department of Fish and Game belief that the document is adequate and does not object to the adoption of the recommended plan. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 3 -3 The comment indicates Department of Fish and Game staff availability for discussion. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. * * * * Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 11 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 4: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2005 (Minute Excerpt) City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005 ' SCHEDULED MATTERS 3 4. Receipt of Public Comments and Commission Review of Initial Study /Negative 4 Declaration 05 -3 — Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier. 5 6 Staff Report 7 8 Mr. Whittenberg stated that in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act 9 (CEQA) the City has prepared an environmental review document, Negative Declaration 10 (ND), for a proposed rehabilitation project of the groin at the Seal Beach Pier. He 11 explained that the groin is a seawall structure that runs perpendicular to the ocean to 12 keep sand from back passing from the south side of the beach up to the north side, 13 reducing the beach in front of the homes on Seal Way between the pier and the Navy 14 jetty at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach. He indicated that the groin was 15 initially installed in approximately the late 1950's to early 1960's and has since 16 experienced some damage. He noted that in the year 2001 the groin had substantial 17 cracks in it and water was flowing freely through the structure posing potential harm to 18 surfers, so the City completed an emergency repair to the groin. He stated that the City 19 has now obtained a state grant through the Department of Boating and Harbors to 20 repair the groin, and as a part of the process to get the work approved, the City must go 21 through the environmental review process. He noted that the comment period for the 22 ND began on June 13, 2005 and will end on July 13, 2005, and once all comments are received, Staff will prepare a Response to Comments document to be provided to City Council (CC) along with the original ND for review and approval. He stated that at this 25 point the City would submit a formal application to the California Coastal Commission 26 (CCC) to receive a Coastal Development Permit for completion of the groin repair. 27 Once this permit is issued, CC would prepare final plans and specifications, go through 28 a bidding process, bid the project and construct it. He said that it is anticipated that if 29 the process progresses smoothly, the pier will be closed down from November 2005 30 until approximately January 2006, for the groin repair work. He explained that at the 31 same time Ruby's Restaurant would also complete the construction work for the outside 32 dining patio project, which received approval from the City and the CCC late last year. 33 He noted that the existing oil island operations that occur off the end of the pier, with 34 employee transport boats going from the pier to Platform Esther will be relocated to the 35 City of Long Beach on a temporary basis while the repair work is being done. He 36 reported that copies of the ND were provided to the PC, Environmental Quality Control 37 Board (EQCB), CC, and were mailed out to all required state agencies, with a notice of 38 availability mailed to all property owners and occupants of residences and businesses 39 within 100 feet of Eisenhower Park. He indicated that the environmental analysis has 40 determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts to doing the repair 41 work, and found that no mitigation measures are necessary. He noted that the ND 42 would also be reviewed by the EQCB at its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 43 6:30 p.m. 44 45 Page 11 of 18 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 12 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 4: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2005 (Minute Excerpt Continued) City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005 1 Commissioner Questions 2 3 Commissioner Roberts asked if the groin repair and the Ruby's project would be 4 overlapping or done at different times during the proposed 3 -month work schedule. Mr. 5 Whittenberg stated that it would be difficult to do an overlap, as the crane to be used for 6 the pile driving is so large that it would be difficult to get past it to the end of the pier. He 7 noted that while the staging work is going on, Ruby's might be doing some demolition 8 work. 9 10 Public Comments 11 12 Chairperson Ladner opened for public comments. 13 14 Ed Simmons provided a brief history of the groin noting that in the 1950's the ocean 15 came up to the homes along Seal Way and there was no sand but a rock jetty, and 16 where the sand ends now underneath the pier, there used to be ocean water deep 17 enough to dive into. He stated that the groin has worked and today there is more sand 18 on both sides of the beach than ever before. He indicated that the sand on the north 19 side of the pier is 80 -90 yards farther out than on the south side, and during the storm of 20 1983 the pier collapsed due to the groin and sand being built up so high undemeath the 21 pier. He said that the beach has so much sand now that the new groin could be cut 22 back 50 yards from the front of the existing groin, as currently the water on the south 23 side of the pier is always much cleaner than that on the north side, which gets dirtier 24 because it cannot move. He noted that during the rainy season the water gets even 25 dirtier and cutting back the groin would allow for a mile of beach that could clean itself if 26 allowed to flow naturally, noting that the ocean water is now "landlocked" between the 27 jetties at both ends, the pier, and the groin. He recommended that a study be done to 28 confirm that cutting back the groin will alleviate this problem. 29 30 Commissioner Deaton asked who would be responsible for doing these studies. Mr. 31 Whittenberg stated that the City would retain a coastal engineering firm, and in the past 32 the firm of Moffett & Nichol Engineers (MNE) has been used to do all coastal 33 engineering projects. He noted that the study done by MNE when the groin was initially 34 constructed is on file with the City. Commissioner Deaton asked if the groin has been 35 proposed without any new studies made. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only thing 36 being proposed is to repair the existing structure. Commissioner Deaton corrected her 37 question and asked if the groin repair is being proposed without any new studies to see 38 if this lateral movement of the water is needed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes 39 this issue was addressed in other studies done by MNE, but this would not be a part of 40 the environmental analysis, and would be more a policy decision by CC. 41 42 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed public 43 comments. 44 45 Page 12 of 18 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 13 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Public Meeting 4: City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, June 22, 2005 4 -1 The comment suggested a study should be conducted to consider reducing the length of the groin. Reducing the length of the groin would have a significant negative impact on beach width at East Beach. The dry beach width and overall stability of East Beach depends almost entirely on the sand blocking effect of the groin. While there is significant beach width immediately adjacent to the groin, the beach width farther to the east in the vicinity of Dolphin Street suffers from chronic erosion. This is documented in the Groin Rehabilitation Study dated August 2004 and other past shoreline studies. Since the groin functions as an "anchor" for this entire beach, a 50 -yard reduction in length could result in a rapid reduction of beach width of comparable magnitude in the vicinity of Dolphin Street, shifting the shoreline further landward toward the boardwalk and residences. This would exacerbate the on -going flooding problem that typically occurs in this vicinity. In addition, shortening the groin would allow more sand to deposit at West Beach, where a wide dry beach width already occurs. The costs to the City for offsetting beach losses at East Beach due to groin shortening would be significant. Mitigation efforts would include both additional sand back - passing from West Beach and likely accelerated beach nourishment from external sources. Regarding impacts of the groin on water quality, it is the opinion of Moffatt & Nichol, the City's coastal engineering firm, that the groin has little to no detrimental impact on water quality. Firstly, the west portion of the beach is closer to the San Gabriel River and would therefore be expected to exhibit lesser quality than East Beach, regardless of the groin. Second, West Beach receives significant turnover of water due to waves and tides. The ocean circulation at this location is a large enough scale as to not be impacted the groin length reduction. The City is also unaware of any research or water quality studies that indicate the potential of the groin to create reduced water quality at West Beach. According to Moffatt & Nichol, consulting engineering and coastal scientist firm which authored the Groin Rehabilitation Study dated August 2004, if the groin does in fact create some negative water quality impact on West Beach, any benefit gained by reducing its length would be greatly offset by the negative impacts of shoreline erosion and related cost impacts on East Beach. Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 14 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 2005 (Minute Excerpt) City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2005 1 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 2 AYES: Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard DRAFT 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 10. City Response Letter Re: "Draft 2005 First Semiannual Post - Closure 7 Inspection and Maintenance Report, Installation Restoration Program Site 7 8 (Station Landfill), Naval Weapons Station." 9 10 Recommendation: Authorize the Chairman to sign the draft response letter, 11 with any additional comments determined appropriate. Instruct staff to forward 12 the comment letter to the City Council for information. Receive and File Staff 13 Report. 14 15 Staff Report 16 17 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is the first semi - annual monitoring report of activities 18 required as part of the site remediation for the landfill site at the Naval Weapons Station 19 (NWS). He explained that the basic methodology for restoration activity is to put a soil 20 cap approximately 2 feet thick on top of the exposed areas in the station landfill area. 21 He indicated that this monitoring is an effort that will continue for at least 5 years, with 22 semi - annual reports being circulated for at least the first 3 years, and then depending 23 upon how successful the cap and re- vegetation of the area is, the Navy may issue an 24 annual report for the last 2 years. He indicated that this first report shows that there 25 were areas that did not re- vegetate as planned due to the high amount of rainfall 26 experienced this winter. As a result the some areas will have to be re- vegetated and 27 reshaped. He indicated that the comment letter essentially concurs with the Navy's 28 recommendations. He noted that Member Hurley had noted a correction to Paragraph 29 1, Line 2 of the letter to read, "the City concurs with." 30 31 MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Vineyard to authorize Chairperson to sign the response 32 letter, with any additional comments determined appropriate, and instruct Staff to forward 33 to the City Council for information purposes. Receive and File Staff Report. 34 35 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 36 AYES: Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard 37 NOES: None 38 ABSENT: None 39 40 11. Receipt Of Public Comments and Board Review Of Initial Study/ Negative 41 Declaration 05 -3 — Groin Rehabilitation Project At Seal Beach Pier 42 43 Recommendation: Receive presentation from Staff regarding the proposed 44 project and the environmental review process. Receive comments from the 45 public and provide any Board comments regarding the proposed Initial Study/ 46 Negative Declaration. Receive and File Staff Report. Page 5 of 10 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 15 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 2005 (Minute Excerpt Continued) City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2005 1 Staff Report DRAM' 2 3 Mr. Whittenberg stated that an environmental consultant has prepared this report for the 4 City, which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of a repair project on the 5 groin on the up coast side of the Seal Beach Pier. He explained that the groin is 750 6 long, with the pier measuring 1,800 feet long. He indicated that the groin was installed 7 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the mid- to late 1950s to help alleviate sand 8 transporting problems occurring by waves reflecting off the Naval Weapons Station 9 (NWS) jetty and scouring out the sandy beach area in front of the homes along Seal 10 Way moving the sand from the south side to north side of the pier. He stated that the 11 groin is over 40 years old and a portion of the capstone recently sloughed off, and the 12 groin itself has several fairly wide cracks that can present potential danger to surfers or 13 people body boarding. He reported that the City completed an emergency repair in 14 2000 -01 and the City then applied for and received a grant from the State Boating & 15 Waterways Department to help cover the cost of the repair work. He explained that the 16 repairs will entail driving new sheet piles adjacent to a 250 -foot long portion of the pier 17 side of the existing groin structure, and also along a 45 -foot long area on the up coast 18 side, as well as installation of a new capstone. He noted that the coastal engineers 19 estimate that these repairs will maintain the groin in good condition for another 40 -50 20 years. He indicated that because a crane will be located on the pier for completion of 21 the pile driving, the pier would be closed to the public. He stated the hope is that the 22 groin repair work can be coordinated with the construction work for the new outdoor 23 dining patio for Ruby's Restaurant at the end of the pier. He said that the construction 24 schedule would run from November 2005 to January 2006, and existing oil island 25 operations that occur off the end of the pier, with employee transport boats going from 26 the pier to Platform Esther will be relocated to the City of Long Beach on a temporary 27 basis until the work is complete. Mr. Whittenberg then indicated that there would be no 28 identified environmental impacts requiring mitigation measures, as most of the work will 29 be done 500 -600 feet offshore. He said the pile driving will be done during the day and 30 there will be some noise from that but City Ordinances do provide exemptions for noise 31 activities during allowable construction hours. He noted that the comment period for 32 this document ends on July 13, 2005, and does not require discretionary review or 33 approval by the Planning Commission as this work is being done on a public pier facility, 34 but it will require approval of the Negative Declaration (ND) by City Council (CC) and 35 approval of a coastal development permit. He indicated that CC would consider the 36 final adoption of the ND at the July 25, 2005 meeting. 37 38 Board Questions 39 40 Member Hurley requested a description of a sheet pile. Mr. Whittenberg explained that 41 a sheet pile is a long, thin strip of metal measuring 8 inches thick, 20 feet wide, and 40 42 feet long, and will be driven into the sand on both sides of the existing stone structure of 43 the groin to a point to where the top of the metal pile is level with the top of the existing 44 groin. Also, new capstones will be fitted on top to enclose all of the components. 45 Member Hurley asked how the sheets would be attached to the existing groin. Mr. Page 6 of 10 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 16 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 2005 (Minute Excerpt Continued) D R p,Fll3 City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2005 1 Whittenberg stated that the sheets will not be physically attached but will be held in 2 place by the sand, the wave pressure, and the capstone on top. 3 4 Chairperson Voce inquired about the type of metal to be used. Mr. Whittenberg stated 5 that he believes it will be stainless steel, and it will be metal that does not need to be 6 chemically treated against corrosion. 7 8 Member Barton asked what the cost of the project would be. Mr. Whittenberg 9 approximated that the cost will be $1.3 million. Member Hurley asked how much the 10 grant amount would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the grant covers 85 -90 percent of 11 the cost. Member Barton then asked if only residents on the south side of the pier 12 received notice. Mr. Whittenberg stated that residents within a 100 -foot radius of the 13 boundaries of Eisenhower Park received the Notice of Availability for this document. 14 15 Board Comments 16 17 Member Hurley commented, "a Negative Declaration (ND) is supposed to be a full 18 disclosure information document to help concemed citizens understand the 5 19 environmental consequences of a project." He indicated that he believes this ND fails to 20 do this in several places. He then noted his questions /comments as follows: 21 22 Pg. 3 -2 The lengths of the pier and the groin should have been 5-2 23 indicated on the drawing. 24 25 Pg. 5 -20, Last Paragraph Have no idea what the term L signifies and there is no 5_ 3 26 definition provided. 27 28 Pg. 5 -21, Paragraph 1 29 Line 2 Why is there no explanation of why 86 dBA is the correct L 5-4 30 value for construction? 31 32 Pg. 5 -21, Paragraph 1 33 Line 4 The number 75 dBA is wrong. Using the -6 dBA for each 34 consecutive doubling of distance, the number would actually 5 - 5 35 be 81 at 300 feet and 75 at 600 feet, not 400 feet. 75 dBA is 36 still 20 dBAs above the City standard. 37 38 39 Pg. 5 -21, Paragraph 1 40 Line 5 "over 20 dBA . . ." Should state "least likely reduction" rather 41 than "best possible reduction," considering the surrounding 5. 6 42 residences may have been constructed before the 1970's 43 when present guidelines were instituted. 44 45 46 Page 7 of 10 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 17 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes June 29, 2005 (Minute Excerpt Continued) D City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2005 1 Pg. 5 -21, Paragraph 1 2 Line 7 '... partial blocking." No explanation of how sound will be 3 blocked between the pier and the residences to the south. 5 - 7 4 5 Pg. 5 -21, Paragraph 2 6 Line 7 Mystified that exemption of construction noise from City 5 - $ 7 standards can change the noise generated to "less than 8 significant." 9 10 Pg. 5 -24, Paragraph 0 Fails to discuss how many workers will be taking up parking 5 _ 11 spaces and where that will occur. 12 13 Chairperson Voce stated that the heavy machinery to be used for this project are "fume 14 makers" in terms of being diesel powered similar to the Marina Drive Bridge Project, 15 where machines are stationary and creating fumes all day long, but he is unaware of 5 - 10 16 machinery to do this type of work that doesn't make fumes, and there is no real way to 17 filter them. He suggested notifying the public that there can be fume and noise 18 conditions during the work hours. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the allowable work 19 hours are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and on Saturdays from 8:00 20 .a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Chairperson Voce asked if the crew would be working until 8:00 p.m. 21 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he doubted this, and anticipates that work will cease at 3:00 22 or 4:00 p.m. Chairperson Voce reiterated that surrounding residents should be notified 23 of this so that they can close their windows and be warned not to use their cooling of 24 heating systems during these hours, as they can siphon the fumes into their homes. 25 26 Public Comments 27 28 Chairperson Voce opened for public comments. 29 30 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Voce closed public comments. 31 32 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff anticipates that it should take approximately 3 months 33 to complete both projects; however, because the work will be done during the winter 34 months, there may be some delays due to inclement weather. 35 36 MOTION by Hurley; SECOND by Vineyard to Receive and File Staff Report for Initial 37 Study/ Negative Declaration 05 -3 — Groin Rehabilitation Project At Seal Beach Pier 38 39 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 40 AYES: Voce, Barton, Hurley, and Vineyard 41 NOES: None 42 ABSENT: None 43 • 44 45 46 Page 8 of 10 Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 18 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes, June 29, 2005 5 -1 The comment from a board member indicates his belief that the document fails to provide full disclosure information to help concerned citizens understand the environmental consequences of the project. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -2 The comment from a board member states the lengths of the pier and the groin should have been indicated on the drawing on page 3 -2. The length of the groin is indicated on Page 2 -1 as 750 feet. Section 4.0, Project Description, sets forth the areas of the groin proposed for rehabilitation on Page 4 -1. The length of the Seal Beach Pier is approximately 1,800 feet. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -3 The comment from a board member noted the term L on page 5 -20 was not defined. "L is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The L can be thought of as a steady sound level, which, in a stated period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time - varying sound level during the same time period. L is typically computed over 1, 8, and 24 -hour sample periods. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -4 The comment from a board member questioned the lack of explanation of determining correct sound values for construction on page 5 -21. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -5 The comment from a board member indicated the noise rating of 75 dBA is incorrect as stated on page 5 -21. He noted the 75 dBA calculation is 20 dBAs above the City standard. The concern of noise in excess of the City standard is addressed on page 5 -21 and noise impacts are indicated in the Initial Study on page 6 -9. During authorized construction hours of Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 8:00 pm and Saturdays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm, temporary construction noise is exempt from City noise standards according to the Seal Municipal Code Chapter 7.15. Also, according to the Negative Declaration document page 5 -21, all construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, and stockpiling and /or vehicle staging areas must be located as far as practicable from dwellings. Mandatory adherence to the City Municipal Code would ensure that any potential noise impacts would be less than significant. Since construction activities are exempt from the Noise standards of the City, there is no adverse environmental impact. Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 19 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Public Meeting 5: . City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes, June 29, 2005 (Continued) 5 -6 The comment from a board member regarding page 5 -21, the sentence, "Interior levels could be reduced by over 20 dBA ..." should state "least likely reduction" rather than "best possible reduction" considering the Responses to Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes, June 29, 2005 — Page 2 surrounding residences may have been constructed before the 1970s when present guidelines were instituted. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -7 The comment from a board member regarding page 5 -21, the reference to "...partial blocking" presented no explanation of how sound will be blocked between the pier and the residences to the south. Sound considerations have been addressed in Response 5 -5. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -8 The comment from a board member concerned that exemption of construction noise from City standards can change the noise generated to "less than significant." Sound considerations have been addressed in Response 5 -5. The comment raises no environmental issues regarding the proposed project. No response is necessary. 5 -9 The comment from a board member, referring to page 5 -24, stated the document fails to discuss how many workers will be taking up parking spaces and where that will occur. As noted on page 5 -24, the only impacts on parking will be temporary during construction. The Groin Rehabilitation Study of August 2004 by Moffatt & Nichol indicates on page 31 that 6,000 square feet is expected to be used for temporary staging and parking during construction. Construction is to be scheduled during non -peak, winter hours when the beach parking lots are least used. Since construction activities create a temporary situation, and since the construction • is planned for the non -peak demand season in the beach parking lots, there is no adverse environmental impact. 5 -10 The comment from the board chairman stated the pieces of heavy machinery for this project are "fume makers ". He suggested surrounding residents be notified of this so they can close their windows and be warned of using cooling or heating systems which could bring the fumes into their homes. Surrounding occupants Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 20 Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project Responses to Public Meeting 5: City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board Meeting Minutes, June 29, 2005 (Continued) and owners were notified by mail of availability of the Initial Study /Negative Declaration document. Air Quality is addressed on pages 5 -4 and 5 -5 in the document, stating short-term and long -term impacts are less than significant. Due to the facts that construction operations would operate for approximately 8 hours a day for an estimated two months, equipment emissions and truck emissions are within thresholds established by the California Air Resources Board, minimal dust is expected to be generated for work on the existing pier, and the pier would resume normal operations subsequent to the construction, any potential for impacts are considered to be less than significant. The comment presents no new information on the issue of air quality impacts and no other environmental issues regarding the proposed project are raised. No further response is necessary. Negative Declaration 05 -3 - Responses to Comments 21 • Seal Beach Pier Groin Rehabilitation Project