Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-04-25 #M STAFF REPORT 6 ,0 Date: April 25, 2005 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: John B. Bahorski, City Manager From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: APPROVAL OF COMMENT LETTER - SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN DRAFT PROGRAM EIR SUMMARY OF REQUEST Authorize Mayor to sign proposed Comment Letter with any revisions determined appropriate, and instruct staff to forward to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works. Receive and File Staff Report. DISCUSSION The City has received a copy of the "San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan Draft Program EIR ", which is in the public comment stage of review. The comment period on the Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) will close at 5:00 PM on May 5, 2005. Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts: Staff has previously provided a complete copy of the DPEIR for the information of the Board, the Planning Commission, and City Council in reviewing the proposed project and draft comment letter. The following schedule of review of the document has been established: ❑ Planning Commission: April 6, 2005 (Regular Meeting) ❑ Environmental Quality Control Board: April 13, 2005 (Adjourned Meeting) ❑ City Council Meeting: April 25, 2005 (Regular Meeting) ❑ DPEIR Comment Deadline: May 5, 2005 Project Summary: The following information is from the "Executive Summary" of the DPEIR document: AGENDA ITEM M Z:Uvly Documents\San Gabriel River\Master PLan\DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Reportdoc\LW\04 -13 -05 Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 "The Master Plan is an overall conceptual plan that focuses primarily on developing the river corridor as an integrated watershed system that enhances habitat, provides recreational benefits, and protects open space, while maintaining and enhancing flood protection and water resources. 1.1 BACKGROUND In order to address conditions along the River, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors passed a resolution in 1999 instructing the Department of Public Works to prepare a San Gabriel River Master Plan for Board approval, with the assistance of the Department of Regional Planning, Department of Parks and Recreation, and the National Park Service (NPS) (Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program). To develop the Master Plan, LADPW established the San Gabriel River Master Plan Steering Committee (Steering Committee) composed of a broad range of stakeholders, including: cities along the river; water and regulatory agencies; interested community, business, and environmental groups; and other interested individuals. The Steering Committee is open to the public, and members have met more than 40 times over the past 4 years. In addition to the Steering Committee, a Planning Committee consisting of Los Angeles County, San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC), and NPS staff meets monthly. 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Steering Committee and LADPW developed a vision statement and a set of broad goals. As defined by the Steering Committee, the vision for the project is: The San Gabriel River will be the corridor of an integrated watershed system while providing protection, benefit and enjoyment to ,the public. The following goals of the Master Plan support the vision for the San Gabriel River: 1. Habitat Preserve and enhance habitat systems through public education, connectivity, and balance with other uses. 2 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 2. Recreation: Encourage and enhance safe and diverse recreation systems, while providing for expansion, equitable and sufficient access, balance, and multi - purpose uses. 3. Open Space: Enhance and protect open space systems through conservation, aesthetics, connectivity, stewardship, and multi- purpose uses. 4. Flood Protection: Maintain flood protection and existing water and other rights while enhancing flood management activities through the integration with recreation, open space, and habitat systems. 5. Water Supply and Water Quality. Maintain existing water and other rights while enhancing water quality, water supply, groundwater recharge, and water conservation through the integration with recreation, open space, and habitat systems. 6. Economic Development Pursue economic development opportunities derived from and compatible with the natural aesthetic and environmental qualities of the river." Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, these goals also serve as the CEQA project objectives for the Master Plan. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Master Plan study area is a 1 -mile wide corridor along 58 river miles of the San Gabriel River from its headwaters in the San Gabriel Mountains to its terminus at the Pacific Ocean between Long Beach and Seal Beach (Figure 1 -1). The headwaters extend from the West Fork of the River upstream of Cogswell Dam in the Angeles National Forest. The study area includes 19 cities as well as unincorporated areas of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and encompasses a total of approximately 58 square miles. The San Gabriel River is part of an extensive network of channels, dams, and spreading grounds used for flood control and water conservation. LADPW and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are the two primary agencies responsible for operating these facilities. Except in reaches upstream of Morris Dam, the River has been modified to make the channel straighter, deeper, and narrower, and the sides and /or the bottom of the channel have been lined with concrete or stones. The San Gabriel River Watershed (the area that drains into the River) DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 3 • Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 encompasses 635 square miles. The major tributaries to the River are Walnut Creek, San Jose Creek, and Coyote Creek. The Rio Hondo, a distributary of the River, branches from the River just below Santa Fe Dam and flows westward to the Whittier Narrows area. 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Master Plan includes: ❑ Master Plan Vision, Goals, Objectives and Performance Criteria — For each Master Plan goal (habitat, recreation, open space, flood protection, water supply and water quality, and economic development; see Section 1.2), the Steering Committee and LADPW defined multiple objectives that support the Master Plan vision and the goal. Performance criteria were then developed to measure progress toward those objectives. ❑ River Enhancement Project Concepts — The following eight categories of project concepts were developed from a collective review of proposed projects along the San Gabriel River. The eight project concepts illustrate the types of projects that can be implemented along the river corridor to help achieve the vision and goals of the Master Plan. ❑ Trail Enhancements ❑ Educational Centers ❑ Bridges, Gateways and Connections ❑ Parks and Open Space ❑ Redevelopment and Reclamation ❑ Habitat Enhancement ❑ Water Quality and Supply ❑ Studies ❑ River Corridor Projects, Policies, and Programs, and Design Guidelines — River corridor -wide efforts, policies, and guidelines intended to connect site - specific projects or address issues common to most Master Plan projects. The aesthetic design guidelines identify the types of materials, colors, and forms that can be incorporated into the design of project facilities (e.g., fences, gates, and walls) and landscaped areas to create an identity for the River. ❑ Stakeholder Projects — Summary descriptions of 134 projects suggested or proposed by Steering Committee members. Five of 4 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council StafReport April 25, 2005 these projects are highlighted in the Master Plan as Concept Design Studies (see below). ❑ Concept Design Studies — Five of the stakeholder projects are highlighted in the Master Plan as Concept Design Studies (see Figure 1 -1 for locations). The Concept Design Studies were defined to illustrate the types of multi - purpose projects to be fostered by the Master Plan. The conceptual project descriptions detailed in the Master Plan are the result of a Steering Committee exercise to help provide tangible examples of how the Master Plan multi- objective approach might apply to projects in the San Gabriel River corridor. These studies are intended for illustration purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the intent of the project sponsors. Environmental analysis in this Program EIR is based on the conceptual project descriptions in the Master Plan. ❑ San Gabriel Canyon Spreading Grounds — Proposed by LADPW and the City of Azusa, this project will provide aesthetic improvements and recreational amenities for the area between the River and the San Gabriel Canyon Spreading Grounds. Potential project elements include improvements to the fencing around the spreading basins, landscaping, habitat restoration /enhancements, trail enhancement, and interpretive signage. ❑ Woodland Duck Farm — Proposed by the Watershed Conservation Authority (WCA), this project will modify an abandoned duck farm site into an open space area with passive recreation and native habitat enhancements. Potential project elements include trails, habitat, improved site access and parking, an educational center, and constructed wetlands. ❑ San Gabriel River Discovery Center at Whittier Narrows — Proposed by the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation, and RMC, this project will include replacement of the existing Whittier Narrows Nature Center building with a new San Gabriel River Discovery Center, habitat restoration /enhancements, improvements to the existing trail system, and development of constructed wetlands. ❑ Lario Creek — Proposed by LADPW and North East Trees, this project will enhance water conservation by increasing the capacity of Lario Creek, a man -made conveyance structure operated by LADPW to divert water from the San Gabriel River to the Rio DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 5 Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Hondo through the Whittier Narrows Flood Control Basin. The project also proposes improvements to the surrounding Whittier Narrows Nature Area (e.g., trails, signage, constructed wetlands, and habitat restoration /enhancements). ❑ El Dorado Regional Park — Proposed by the City of Long Beach, this project includes improvements to the City's El Dorado Regional Park. Potential project elements include: development of constructed wetlands, replacement of the existing water supply for the man -made lakes in the park with a non - potable source, and habitat restoration /enhancements. 1.5 PROGRAM EIR APPROACH The Master Plan is a set of policies and actions to increase open space, habitat, and recreation opportunities in the San Gabriel River corridor. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, this document has been prepared as a Program EIR to consider the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives of the proposed Master Plan as a whole. Because this document is a Program EIR, it generally contains less detail than typical development project EIRs. For the most part, specific sites and /or construction and operation plans have not been determined. The level of detail in the impact analysis reflects the level of detail in the project description. Based on the conceptual designs described in the Master Plan, more detailed descriptions are provided for the Concept Design Studies (San Gabriel Canyon Spreading Grounds, Lario Creek, Woodland Duck Farm, El Dorado Regional Park, and San Gabriel River Discovery Center at Whittier Narrows). However, since the project descriptions for the Concept Design Studies are conceptual and not approved plans, this EIR is not meant to be a project -level review of the Concept Design Studies, but instead analyzes their impacts (as best as can be determined at this preliminary stage in their design) as examples of Master Plan projects and the types of impacts expected. For each of these sites, the actual planning process by project sponsors still needs to be carried out or is ongoing, including appropriate public involvement and environmental review. For several sites, potential project elements that are different from the concept designs described in the Master Plan have been identified during the planning process by project sponsors. As the Concept Design Studies or 6 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 other future Master Plan projects are proposed for implementation, project proponents will prepare a second -tier CEQA document (a Negative Declaration or an EIR) for each project. The data on existing conditions, CEQA thresholds of significance, and the programmatic analyses and mitigation measures presented in this Program EIR will then serve as a source of background information and model to guide further project -level CEQA review for the Concept Design Studies, or other Master Plan projects. This document is intended to streamline the environmental review and documentation process for Steering Committee members proposing projects in the river corridor. 1.6 CEQA ALTERNATIVES The Master Plan document does not detail any alternatives. Therefore, for the purposes of EIR analysis, the environmental effects of the following alternatives to the Master Plan were evaluated (Table 1 -1): • DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 7 Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Table 1 -1 Summary of CEQA Alternatives Alternative Impact Discussion No Project — Under this alternative, ❑ Biological resources — reduced there would not be any unifying consistency of restoration projects, planning process or Master Plan possible reduction in the use of document to guide individual projects native species and therefore along the river corridor proposed by reduced habitat values, no planned various municipalities, agencies and wildlife corridors or linkages would interest groups. be established, reduced coordination for invasive species removal and therefore potentially reduced success of individual efforts ❑ Recreation — reduced integration of trails and reduced focus on underserved areas ❑ Open space — reduced integration of land acquisition, potentially reduced coordination of clean -up efforts ❑ Water resources — elimination of another coordination mechanism for TMDL and NPDES processes ❑ Aesthetics — reduced potential for common design elements for signs, fences, gates, etc. Under the No Project alternative, the environmental benefits that would result from the collaborative process and the multi- objective planning approach advocated by the Master Plan would be reduced. Therefore, the No Project alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 8 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: `Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Table 1 -1 (Continued) Summary of CEQA Alternatives Alternative Impact Discussion No Project — Under this alternative, ❑ Biological resources — reduced there would not be any unifying consistency of restoration projects, planning process or Master Plan possible reduction in the use of document to guide individual projects native species and therefore along the river corridor proposed by reduced habitat values, no planned various municipalities, agencies and wildlife corridors or linkages would interest groups. be established, reduced coordination for invasive species removal and therefore potentially reduced success of individual efforts ❑ Recreation — reduced integration of trails and reduced focus on underserved areas ❑ Open space — reduced integration of land acquisition, potentially reduced coordination of clean -up efforts ❑ Water resources — elimination of another coordination mechanism for TMDL and NPDES processes ❑ Aesthetics — reduced potential for common design elements for signs, fences, gates, etc. Under the No Project alternative, the environmental benefits that would result from the collaborative process and the multi- objective planning approach advocated by the Master Plan would be reduced. Therefore, the No Project alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the Proposed Project. 9 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Table 1 -1 (Continued) Summary of CEQA Alternatives Alternative Impact Discussion Maximum Habitat Alternative - Under This alternative does not avoid any this alternative, each future Master significant unmitigable impacts Plan project would maximize the identified for the Proposed Project but opportunities for habitat preservation would have greater beneficial impacts and enhancement available at each on biological resources than the site. The recreation component of proposed Master Plan by encouraging each project would consist mostly of a greater number of projects to passive forms of recreation that are maximize habitat enhancement and compatible with the habitat component preservation of open space. The of the project (e.g., bird watching, Maximum Habitat Alternative would wildlife appreciation, etc.). mostly avoid potentially adverse impacts associated with the Recreation, Flood Protection, Water Quality, and Economic Development Elements. For example, this alternative would largely avoid the traffic, noise, and air pollutant emissions related to an increase in recreational visitor trips associated with active recreation. For this reason, and since this alternative would maximize habitat restoration efforts within the river corridor resulting in greater beneficial impacts on biological resources, it can be considered the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would not encourage projects that provide active recreation to the communities along the river. Since it would fail to meet the goal of balancing habitat, recreation, and open space, as intended by the Board of Supervisors resolution and as defined by the project objectives, it is rejected and not proposed for adoption by the Board and the other municipalities in the river corridor. DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 10 Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Table 1 -1 (Continued) Summary of CEQA Alternatives Alternative Impact Discussion Maximum Recreation Alternative - This alternative does not avoid any Under this alternative, each future significant impacts identified for the Master Plan project would maximize Proposed Project but would have the opportunities for providing greater beneficial impacts on recreational facilities, particularly those recreation than the proposed Master for active forms of recreation. The Plan by encouraging a greater number habitat component of each project of projects to maximize recreational would consist of landscaping, tree opportunities. The Maximum planting, and other forms of Recreation Alternative would mostly enhancements that are compatible avoid potentially adverse impacts with human activities. associated with the Habitat, Open Space, Flood Protection, Water Quality, and Economic Development Elements. For example, this alternative would avoid impacts associated with development of stormwater retention facilities such as an increase in mosquito breeding habitat or potential liquefaction concerns. However, this alternative would have increased operational impacts on traffic, air quality, and noise associated with recreational visitors as compared to the Proposed Project. This alternative would not encourage projects that provide habitat restoration and preservation of open space reducing beneficial impacts on biological resources. Since it would fail to meet the goal of balancing habitat, recreation, and open space, as intended by the Board of Supervisors' resolution and as defined by the project objectives, this alternative is not identified as the environmentally superior alternative and it is rejected and not proposed for adoption by the Board and the other municipalities in the river corridor. DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 11 Comment Letter re: `Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Table 1 -1 (Continued) Summary of CEQA Alternatives Alternative Impact Discussion Maximum Master Plan — Under this Removal of concrete to re- naturalize alternative, the goal of the Master Plan the river would result in: would be to restore the river to more a ❑ Significant flooding impacts from natural state reminiscent of its decreased flood control capacity condition prior to urban development currently designed into the system, (e.g., removal of dams, lined channels or and other engineered features that ❑ Significant land use changes from provide flood control and water supply expansion of the floodplain to benefits). accommodate flood flows, for example, the displacement of existing residential, commercial, and industrial land uses through building demolition and replacement with open space. This alternative does not avoid any significant impact identified for the proposed project but could maximize beneficial impacts on biological resources, recreation, and open space. However, this alternative would have significant impacts on water supply, flooding, land use, population, and housing. This alternative is not identified as the environmentally superior alternative and it is rejected and not proposed for adoption by the Board and the other municipalities in the river corridor. Specific Alternatives for Individual Overall, definition of component - Master Plan Projects — For many of specific alternatives will focus on the future Master Plan projects, more balancing the multiple uses of the sites than one project description will be to accommodate various interests and considered. These alternatives may maximize beneficial effects. focus on balancing project objectives at specific sites. 12 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 1.7 AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY In the course of preparation of the Master Plan and the Program EIR, the following issues of concern have been identified: ❑ Potential impact on existing flood control facilities and capacities associated with actions involving modification of the river channel related to the integration of recreation and habitat elements. ❑ Potential impact on surface and ground water rights associated with actions involving groundwater recharge or surface diversions. ❑ Potential impact on public health from increase in mosquito- breeding conditions associated with creation of constructed wetlands or other surface water features. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts related to these topics to Tess than significant levels. 1.8 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES As summarized in Table 1 -2, ( "Summary of Master Plan Impacts and Mitigation Measures" provided as Attachment 3), many of the impacts on the environment related to implementation of the Master Plan are beneficial or less than significant. For topics with potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to below a level of significance; mitigation has also been identified to further reduce less than significant effects. Impacts and mitigation measures identified for the Concept Design Studies based on the design concepts described in the Master Plan are summarized separately in Table 1 -3 (which is set forth in the DEIR document and not provided with the Staff Report as the Concept Design Studies do not impact Seal Beach). Master Plan Study Reaches The Master Plan divides the San Gabriel River geographically into seven reaches: 1. Headwaters 2. San Gabriel Canyon 3. Upper San Gabriel Valley 4. Lower San Gabriel Valley 13 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 5. Upper Coastal Plain 6. Lower Coastal Plain 7. Zone of Tidal Influence Seal Beach is located within Reach 7, Zone of Tidal Influence, which is described within the DER as: "7. Zone of Tidal Influence — For the last 3.5 miles of the San Gabriel River from the confluence with Coyote Creek to the Pacific Ocean, the channel again has a soft bottom. The river flows between Long Beach in Los Angeles County and Seal Beach in Orange County, and borders portions of Los Alamitos and Rossmoor (unincorporated) in Orange County. In this reach, the river water mixes with ocean water in a natural estuary before its terminus at the Pacific Ocean." 3.3.1.2 River Corridor Policies and Programs In addition to the Master Plan goals, objectives and performance criteria described above, the Master Plan also outlines the need for development of river corridor policies and programs. Further reference to these river corridor policies and programs is not made in the environmental impact sections of this Program EIR since the policies and programs are to be defined in the future and would not have environmental impacts that are different from the Master Plan elements described above. The types of policies and programs to be developed as identified in the Master Plan are: ❑ Establish standard design guidelines; ❑ Develop public access guidelines; ❑ Develop policies regarding permitted and prohibited uses; ❑ Ensure compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act for structures and trails; ❑ Maintain access for operations and maintenance needs; ❑ Consider durability and maintenance requirements; ❑ Support coordinated systematic exotic plant removal efforts; ❑ Develop programs and policies to ensure the safety and security of visitors; ❑ Coordinate with local mosquito and vector control agency. Design to avoid vector breeding that might create a risk to public health; ❑ Encourage water quality and water supply BMP implementation; 14 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ❑ Create opportunities for stormwater infiltration; ❑ Recognize existing water rights; ❑ Encourage water conservation education programs and policies; ❑ Encourage reclaimed water use in commercial and industrial settings; ❑ Consider habitat integration; ❑ Consider public education regarding respecting wildlife; ❑ Implement public awareness and information programs; ❑ Serve the economic interests of cities along the corridor while also helping to achieve the Master Plan vision; and ❑ Acquire land within or near the river corridor to adapt for public open space, habitat, water conservation, and /or flood control functions 3.3.1.3 Design Guidelines The design toolbox is comprised of design guidelines for each of the seven reaches of the San Gabriel River. The elements are specific to the topography and culture of the specific reach. The design toolbox focuses on color, texture, form, and materials. The design guidelines heavily reference the Los Angeles River design guidelines from a functional point of view (e.g., trail width). However, the aesthetic guidelines are specific to the San Gabriel River (e.g., style of signage, color and texture of building materials, and gate appearance)." Section 4 of the DPEIR evaluates potential environmental impacts in the following areas of environmental concem: 4.1 Air Quality 4.7 Land Use 4.2 Biological Resources 4.8 Noise 4.3 Cultural Resources 4.9 Public Services and Utilities 4.4 Geology and Soils 4.10 Recreation 4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.11 Traffic and Transportation 4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality As the DPEIR is a "program EIR" as discussed above, the environmental evaluation is much more general than what would be expected for a "project level" EIR document. The DPEIR concludes that the Master Plan will have impacts that will be beneficial and that several impacts will be potentially significant, but will be reduced to less than significant with the imposition of mitigation measures. Provided as Attachment 2, "Summary of Environmental Impacts Identified in San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan DPEIR by Master Plan Element ", is a summary of those 15 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 impacts determined to be beneficial and less than significant with mitigation. Impacts that have been identified as "Neutral" in the DPEIR are not discussed within this attachment, and are discussed within the body of the DPEIR discussion for each area of environmental concern. Principal Discretionary Actions and Approvals Required: The City of Los Angeles has identified the following discretionary actions by the City of Los Angeles: ❑ Certification of an Environmental Impact Report; and ❑ Adoption of the San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan. Future implementation projects will require permits from varying permit - issuing authorities, depending on the location, nature and potential impacts to wetlands, waters of the United States and other environmental issues that would be site - specific to a particular project. Table 2 -2, "List of Permit, Approvals, and Coordination Potentially Relevant to Future Projects in the Master Plan Planning Area" (pages 2 -6 and 2 -7 of the DPEIR), provides a listing of federal, state, regional and local agencies that could have potential approval or permit issuing authority for specific projects proposed in the future that within the scope of the Master Plan. DPEIR Comment Period: The comment period on the DPEIR will conclude at 5:00 PM on May 5, 2005. Written comments may be submitted to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works as noted below: Mr. Marty Moreno County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division P. O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802 -1460 E -mail comments may be sent to Mr. Moreno at MMORENO @ladpw.org. Public Availability of DPEIR: A copy of the DPEIR is available at the Department of Development Services for review. In addition, the DPEIR is available at each library within the City. 16 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Both the DPEIR and the San Gabriel Rover Corridor Master Plan are also available for review at http: / /www. sangabrielriver.com. Recommended CiIy Action: Staff has prepared a comment letter for consideration of the Planning Commission, Environmental Quality Control Board, and the City Council (Refer to Attachment 1). The comment letter focuses on revisions to proposed Mitigation Programs proposed within the DPEIR and technical corrections to the document. The Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered this matter on April 6 and 13, respectively. Suggested revisions by the Planning Commission and EQCB are shown as hnld and rinnhle- nndprline fnr tpvt to hp ardded_and by FISCAL IMPACT No direct impacts. Any future City- sponsored projects that are contemplated within the San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan area will require separate environmental evaluations that may have cost implications for the City. Those cost implications will be considered by the City Council in authorizing projects to proceed through the required environmental evaluation requirements of CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Instruct Chairman to sign proposed Comment Letter, and instruct staff to forward to the City Council for review and approval. Receive and File Staff Report. N g Df i AP's OVED // A O If ACealrf.e6iLL ee Whittenberg, Director John`:. Bahorski Development Services Dep. I -nt City, / anager Attachments: (4) Attachment 1: Proposed Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" 17 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Attachment 2: Summary of Environmental Impacts Identified in San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan DPEIR by Master Plan Element Note: provided to the City Council, Staff, City Attorney, public counter copy and to all libraries. Not provided with this staff report to other parties: Copies of this attachment will be available at the City Council meeting Attachment 3: Executive Summary, Table 1 -2, "Summary of Master Plan Impacts and Mitigation Measures" Attachment 4: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan ", prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, dated February 2005 Note: Previously provided to the City Council, not provided with this Staff Report. A copy of the complete document, including the technical appendices will be available at the Commission meeting * * * * 18 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED COMMENT LETTER RE: "DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN" 19 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report . ` pyerr. - "e _'.r L y� 1T "}� s^::' �y o Y �s•ra s + n t _ 4• 'f.' ".i_4i r ti. r v - +'e•.u.`••`... .f. .Vg r- :1 :_g r- , r: ' •+ S41 _ - �1 s � 7 -�. a• �,..v ;.' w �, ' r < : i • .�C: • :4 .*., , - .; 7 r ., , ; '+},' . il•! •j -Ii LL 1. �. .=ti t ;i11-/' . ' III* ' • •2'+' G - r 5. -: ^;d. :. ;-, ,. j - 75, -�y, J S+: _- r : a l . 0. - ' r � 'r,.•i;' •,73: •S � • . c' '�^ - '$• '3'�;.a' •' a 5'#°.4 -;,.: -•,r.f p'S ••• =i - ' 4: - . _ .•�. .p „ r • .•Y t �x 4 ur� ,- �,.•'�+..`� :s =�7 .; .eg .,:. +• �.� -] . `+• ' .3 - ,.� � +.: "€t. i�% 4• '`` ' ° :" '- .''t•'':: . ,:' _ ' .�.:. .fiE•,.,�� •i. is r `-; .t .r :� �0 QT � , • -71! . •, �.t; - a r r",. ; f f , ± . „ �: . . : ;:c..; �: s - '.7.; ".+ f .�.` , -" ` ,+;s'r� a '"! - . r,: y pti•'1.r' �' �,y FlwF' �}'.l. � t, r y'� �' "f! ` 1 � [ y, .. < h.. ' -3: �-; •- .. ° r. rr e •r --- ;i - ;'•: ° '; ':, ": , a... ' •� l-! 1- �0-' ; IS .d-k "!� i +.l.' 9 t s 't. * s ' 'n .7 eT's`` _ ' • • •411.!Z: - , •: . -K 1& C' _ A•- s• 2. * • ia- ':.a'r, +:4:`•`q•.. 9, o • � b r `�' .f': qY - 'tYr s Q � ` r N3 i �1 • P � Y s : t '� �^.t „r2° yp .` . :�� � i �- .�`•t i "�� �- � � t - I F 0 • s f 0 © ® I. % ',' f x•�" .{ ' : i.t, -. - ” n S Y: G 9r „il, , � , . ?`qa`• '3. k ` R„ �R y +�#� • : `}... • �` ,1 , � •::, J a .r' � >•; •°' A -^'`- - - - ; a. :- '''. .���•: '- Y•r,' �_ a: ,,,,, ,' - At ... ; pi : ::i't w ,,iko.f i ',,F:•"xr- • N,,,;T►V6,, r p. .y- 'r �•_ _ :',�'-�t_ 7,:,a °i • i• t r. ' , ..' : " 't1 <. �:.,'. '.'rte ¢'_ 1 1"P �.xr � "�s`:.. i-F•__ . :- _ �; < .� x� - � ; _ y + Y .; : • {. 'YA ' e . •' : Sti es. ' Y. b• J : .V : ' �f.f; 'iE: ': • -- : sw c 4-5r$� , r';' $ e, :.+ 'dla. _ C�' ;i :- y • •i ::!, .g pmt•: - j.• y :J " > � '' '°•"__ ' *i, •- ,;- � =• r'- 4 '1 2 !-. � ;- _ �� ` �� ;�o:'a`a•� %'r �•_.:• -" < c:. r CITY.F Y k. s ,t• /�Z••jA . O. : y : ;e:- _ . %� k 0 ,.� „ .� , :•`; t t i. . t : '" a i Y:�;,is`• K``* - •�:'�µ -: x� -. SEL N t�L- •r10El, ALI 90740. y •..? .; r a- ..' • .i: r - • '• g F , :'• y ° . a • ^ .,' t ' � •'y t,.: rv April 25, 2005 Mr. Marty Moreno County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division P. O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802 -1460 Dear Mr. Moreno: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN" The City Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Board of the City of Seal Beach have reviewed the "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "DPEIR "). Our staff has been working closely with the Department of Public Works and the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for several years in a cooperative manner to ensure that the concerns, goals and aspirations of Seal Beach are properly set forth both within the "San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "Master Plan") and the subject DPEIR. Our staff has also reviewed the various components of the DPEIR to ensure that the document accurately reflects, at the program level of environmental analysis, the anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts of the adoption of the Master Plan and this DPEIR both to our community and to other areas of a local concern to our community. The document provides an adequate level of environmental analysis of the beneficial, potentially adverse, and neutral impacts on the environment of the proposed Master Plan. The areas of environmental concern reviewed in the DPEIR do not fully include all areas of concern as was addressed in our letter of May 28, 2003 on the "Notice of Preparation" for this DPEIR. It was requested at that time that the "Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards." In our review of the areas of environmental concem discussed within the DPEIR, this does not appear to have been accomplished. Z :\My Documents\San Gabriel River\Master PLan1DPEIR City Comment Letter.04- 25 -05.dockLW\04 -25 -05 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan Apri125, 2005 The San Gabriel River watershed is within the boundaries of the Los Angeles and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements, local agencies within Orange County are also required to evaluate the following areas of concern in a CEQA document relative to "Hydrology" or "Utilities and Service Systems" that have not been evaluated in the DPEIR document: "Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? 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? Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas ?" Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (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)? The City also requested in our May 28, 2003 comment letter on the "Notice of Preparation" that the Program EIR evaluate programs and methods of reducing solid waste transport along the River to the Pacific Ocean within the analysis. The impacts upon the City of Seal Beach and also Long Beach are substantial, and create adverse environmental impacts due to wash -up of solid waste materials on the local beaches. During the first three months of 2005 Seal Beach removed in excess of 540 tons of debris for our beaches that had been washed down the San Gabriel River during the storm season. The loss in beach availability, and the resulting adverse economic impacts of decreased visitors to the local beaches should be considered, evaluated, and mitigated within the Program EIR. One methodology of dealing with solid waste within the River is an evaluation of strategically placed debris booms along the length of the River or other appropriate best management practices to trap floating material and intercept that material from reaching the Ocean at various locations upstream. This type of program should specifically be evaluated within the Draft Program EIR. Further, several of the proposed "Mitigation Program Measures" require language clarification as indicated below: ❑ Cultural Resources: DPEIR City Comment Letter.04 -25 -05 2 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan April 25, 2005 ❑ MP -C1 — Item 3 should be revised to require all field reconnaissance activities to also include the presence of a "qualified Native American Monitor ". ❑ Geology and Soils: ❑ MP -G1 — the last sentence should be expanded on to indicate that any stormwater not infiltrated due to high groundwater levels that "would be diverted to storm drains or onto street surfaces or routed to other stormwater management facilities as applicable" will be required to include best management practices (BMPs) as part of the proposed diversion system to comply with the relevant stormwater discharge permits of the appropriate agency responsible under the applicable Regional Water Quality Board (Los Angeles or Santa Ana Regional Board). ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: ❑ MP -H2 — The last sentence should also include Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base for notification. The Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the DPEIR document on April 6 and April 13 2005, respectively, and the City Council considered the DPEIR document on April 25, 2005. The City Council, Planning Commission, and the EQCB authorized the Mayor and the respective Chairs to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Upon the preparation of the Final Program EIR for this project, please send 4 hard copies and a digital copy, if available, to Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. If you have questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whittenberg at telephone (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e-mail at lhittenberg@ci.seal- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, Paul Yost, yor ' '1 Ladner, Chairman City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Mario Voce, Chairman Environmental Quality Control Board DPEIR City Comment Letter.04 -25 -05 3 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan April 25, 2005 Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager Director of Development Services Director of Public Works /City Engineer 4 DPEIR City Comment Letter.04 -25 -05 Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 April 26, 2005 Mr. Marty Moreno County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division P. O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802 -1460 Dear Mr. Moreno: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN" The City Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Board of the City of Seal Beach have reviewed the "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "DPEIR "). Our staff has been working closely with the Department of Public Works and the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for several years in a cooperative manner to ensure that the concerns, goals and aspirations of Seal Beach are properly set forth both within the "San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "Master Plan") and the subject DPEIR. Our staff has also reviewed the various components of the DPEIR to ensure that the document accurately reflects, at the program level of environmental analysis, the anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts of the adoption of the Master Plan and this DPEIR both to our community and to other areas of a local concern to our community. The document provides an adequate level of environmental analysis of the beneficial, potentially adverse, and neutral impacts on the environment of the proposed Master Plan. The areas of environmental concern reviewed in the DPEIR do not fully include all areas of concern as was addressed in our letter of May 28, 2003 on the "Notice of Preparation" for this DPEIR. It was requested at that time that the "Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional 20 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Water Quality Control Boards." In our review of the areas of environmental concem discussed within the DPEIR, this does not appear to have been accomplished. The San Gabriel River watershed is within the boundaries of the Los Angeles and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements, theme 1=1 agencies within Orange County are also required to evaluate the following areas of concern in a CEQA document relative to "Hydrology" or "Utilities and Service Systems" eirtiTM717reiltareerliS that have not been evaluated in the DPEIR document: "Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? 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? Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas ?" Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (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)? • 1 , ! • . • 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 IN • 1 1 1 1 • 6 • 1, - - - • 1 ,1 1 1 r i • . 1 7 ! , 7 1 1 1 . i • . 1 . .e 1 l • . .1 '1 • 1 ! !I • 1 • 11 1 . 1 • • . . 1 - 1 1 1 1 . 11. 11 I • 1 1 . 6 1 1. i • 1 • • 11 1 1 1 6 Wing Opal Reach removed in pYrpec of G4111 tong nf tlehric for our hearhee that had heen, availability and the requiting ativeree ernnnmir impaete nf deereacetl vieitnrc to the Meal • •!_ !! _..--- ' ' • !!- ' • • ' • - -"-- - --- • 1 -- ' Iit l• • L ' - - • • ' ' - - - - ! • —' " ! ! 1? i • 21 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff •Report Apri125, 2005 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 11 1 1 1• I J I 1 1! 1! 1 1 11 d 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 tha draft Prnoram FIR_ Further, several of the proposed "Mitigation Program Measures" require language clarification as indicated below: ❑ Cultural Resources: ❑ MP — Item 3 should be revised to require all field reconnaissance activities to also include the presence of a "qualified Native American Monitor ". ❑ Geology and Soils: ❑ MP — the last sentence should be expanded on to indicate that any stormwater not infiltrated due to high groundwater levels that "would be diverted to storm drains or onto street surfaces or routed to other stormwater management facilities as applicable" will be required to include best management practices (BMPs) as part of the proposed diversion system to comply with the relevant stormwater discharge permits of the appropriate agency responsible under the applicable Regional Water Quality Board (Los Angeles or Santa Ana Regional Board). ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: ❑ MP - H2 — The last sentence should also include Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base for notification. The Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the DPEIR document on April 6 and April 13 2005, respectively, and the City Council considered the DPEIR document on April 25, 2005. The City Council, Planning Commission, and the EQCB authorized the Mayor and the respective Chairs to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Upon the preparation of the Final Program EIR for this project, please send 4 hard copies and a digital copy, if available, to Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. If you have questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whittenberg at telephone (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e-mail at lwhittenberg@ci.seal- beach.ca.us. 22 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWHfor the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Sincerely, Paul Yost, Mayor Phil Ladner, Chairman City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Mario Voce, Chairman Environmental Quality Control Board Distribution: Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board City Manager Director of Development Services Director of Public Works /City Engineer 23 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN DPEIR BY MASTER PLAN ELEMENT NOTE: PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY, PUBLIC COUNTER COPY AND TO ALL LIBRARIES. NOT PROVIDED WITH THIS STAFF REPORT TO OTHER PARTIES. COPIES OF THIS ATTACHMENT WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 24 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, TABLE 1 -2, "SUMMARY OF MASTER PLAN IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES" • DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 25 • Z+ Impact 0 us E cci Significance 1-1 N E After Mitigation 01 ; N 0 4. U a, u ea 1 7 as ` a .� Q 0 o o c .. Et . �. P . W I O. w .; eu ` o 5 a > W c 0 a > � + e 6 re =.. .. .1- °� 1 E" ..4 ' 3 p u 0 o I- b 44 o r2 0 �o ° � 3 0 u d d c o m °^ Sa • o m ° u w W C 5 Q O �+ O CL 4+ a. d = e a`"i > e c..) v "d % G 5 C al o as •a u w 5 o B' e • 1 °' •8 ' 0 [ >, y = .5 _ .0 5c >> 0 6 x o 8 y c 0 .,.., c ' ' � o ' V o Ed 37 w v . r r�' MI 0 1 :3. 13 IG e U a 'O q W ~ m • 'mw >.. N 0 w N u 5 ,zr N H Z 8 0. .0 +V o o m R" a -.T. p -o `tea > -. v - q y 8 O g E c'j O E , 'a w 0 ' 0C ° oo ° 8 eo 8 3 ��, vi o. �, b �, 8 0 o > ., I w 12 '8 Q� 0 a z ig 43 a7 • •.2 V 8 A. a E al e ,-. 0 w 0 g, a'e 3 16 0 " . .-; ri ri 'w in co Impact r E Significance a' rn 5 co 0 o -0 r Q, p c Si 0 re re a •� V >3 8 -J a .... a W . d W O w it rg 0 a [ 0 a a 8 <� • • L Impact E Significance ^ N E After Mitigation a r O n.= CO w [ 8 . ►. ~ y ° G U CO si u. "" cs, w C c o LA d .a o. � w a 02 0 :. ' W s ° °'° g ° €o 03 0 r' - a� u ..= ea .. ° °. a wc C o N > ' � o °o b . � m ° q O GO W "" vj CL rte' co d 1 75 .2 0 � i3 d ° o m .: 6, 8 ° 0 .8. 6 3 .n d es CO i i _ W c 0 . _ n ij a`°i . OA 1 �06'3�N� � O c• °ra m.�3 0 «. ° s � .[ w v. +=' • a .E . °' c o m ; o m 0 a _ °. ° � i ' Q Irio o u3 3E 6 ~ o °c, .yw c '� € . s.N an o •v Zi cc o a0 g b8 AEY N° o _ • mac •s E .0 a ea 4.4 O b 0 w O C C. > ° N t a a ' .g 'b E E S4 • T v W �t A a) m V e > .. a [ o° a .0a..- •0 Sao 63 N E . . 0 2 'o j 1 $ 8 i3 a o x w o a° c ° g 41> H 3 w o •, u o z w ° R a U U co CA a w .3— a.-a v. E V c 4 W m Y 8 • • • • • • • • • • • iw. • • • • • 0 Fa Z' 9 E Impact .S Significance 2 Z E 5 cn o. . a la .. N E 0 o a E W la se cc w 6 a 8 oz m� <� Z< rii too ` Impact N o E Significance a . N E After Mitigation 1-1 ; C l) c 0 - w o a co a) ,..0 A C�v O u y 0 y yy b y u u p c0 1. O ' 'r e." C o � CO m a v C > w �. • v O 0 ... R 0 y O > w K am � 5 t w oo° • e .� .,CI>a V • w .E a a E i [c °It�bw. E a Q a � i. a- . < ... o ,-.0 ' It � o a a � i � g � J� ' c ▪ q U o O . M 2. 1 °6* °= e X3.0 06 � � cr q tra v H Q _ V O V ▪ al yy VJ M 'b r.• 'S 62 y • Cd 7 CD V O m v '+�. O C ed > • C p O 0 in d . 8' y m c z. 1) w N N 0 y .0 0 0 ~ C►. O C• 0 . as C .. [� pl., �a � I 40 C 0 5 [- o Z E c x O v W a 2 g e. 5 E E F + o O w u ai r, u ° E b a 'd V 4. C w 0 y 0 •a m ++ 0 If A _ 0 0 * 6. g 0 eD .. R C , [ O� . ► 8 t0 0 • g — 5 � °'w ° E a w w' �..� c°� p, °' S po 0. w • a 5 : ua — a -5. 5u 0.�c')�a0 >� • V, y o 4+ w 1 d 3 C w., A p .415) ▪ r. O O u .. ▪ 0G, 0 o C4 c.) co Q � ea � a. a >_ m .3 S' .5 .8 Vic > °° w ok a D. ,I • � .. "., O > w0 0. w .• .+ 0, 0 o 00 0 4r > F., a 62 ,O : + 0 O a • pp :.4. 'd 0 •0 h U 0 O N 0. 0 c's . •• 00 • � t0 - MO b o L. al I a� 6 a w a s 5 . m 0 ei a. w � E LI •L-2 • a m u I— '- b eo � 6 � _ >°' � °" .0laa1t'2 0 .0 0 y t' f E E Ott E g u m � > z s a 5 i a' - i .0 . at 0 w H R, x 8 as m a4' c • eo W ea > to LI 117 as a) W x v ^' N .� . eo Impact e F Significance 2 z cnn s 5 67 u re c y W ▪ id F7 E ea 0 as as Q' b 0 a 0 0 a 0 „ ° 0 oo as :: s 0 0. v ce O G .' - '' . W W , X II = o > a w g 0. —;- co 0.b• -' 0t O .5 51a z • Qi LEI 0 • Impact o ca E Significance t...1 ' w E After Mitigation at , d 2 w ° a d o e c 5 u. o y O , m . , w C C. � '�' i N CD L. 0 O 0 .S ° eo B g C .. a� W ` c c ° o w 0 a 0 0 O a. a h c . .t'H a5 a �° i w w • 0 5 U 0 g 'S7 q S - e a w ° u or 0 03 act ca T. CL act 15 b : V . _ O m 0.40 0 as N m .0 ;; 8' > o C 0. ai a . d w 3 a� � °�' 8 3 $ . CO iii. . o E a s ,14 0 a on a3 �' w° 0 �„ 0 E co O C y E c c w w b .a « a° q w to e i. Qf ° 0> � e n > 0 L .0 b m °� o ' �_'' 2 S'' ea `g S .ra W•O o '' ea y ° > 3 w v > m C E; � d, c8 n. •o k� �u� °0 a ++ O •> C fir. o 4 0 ' aaw 5 . .2 0 w p LI = m ta 0 ca o a .2 , - , c ° 5, 0 °a • ,a.�'3S U c, v • a. C E dco , � , c, 3w 0� w • ° R c;; d yam ..a, $ 0 0� °• $ ti at y �: 1.-. 0 m P. of � a m b � ° . 4 • ; 4 03'1 o 9 co G0 on °3o Q .5 2 O ° O. � � �• w E RI Impact 6 E Significance A, = 5 a 3 W s g ca a m 0 b S ° ' n. 0 0 m o 0 aa. I ° re 7; cal a O as CL 49, .. W W V pp s g U '0 d W O al re re . C S r el • ft1 a 0 01 • A Impact v a E Significance o:1 N After Mitigation • N j " V Is C v W {L 41) 00 > ao 'S D 9, . O 8 T v p .p a 'V N > v 7 m U O y.. O C S CI) • •... . yy + q S •.. .C am ' O y 8 4 . O r 0 d m . 1 ' U C ;o w N.0 m w 1.4 ' 0 " 0 Id. w o 'O w c '� a 9 « C7 ao m 42 W u ''" o t �� 3 ° ~• • a s °' A Ew ea to o) 03 O ....8 t '° 3 3'aa N H c 9, m�qg >.��-0 e o >> . o • 5 co 5 > 0. e0 . G. . 8 a 'a g re . 8 a d 3 � a..,w �a c� 3� r 0 � pg 01 E. 0 'q � p a . > • E se V C y b�� 0 �t O ww 0 m a;:: .� y w m )% ca 0 to 01 0 a � a a . Q a .4 . �z 1� €n d y .d C p 4.0 ..n° u 00 al p,'Q V a a , C � ii ai ° " : , � , E 0 a � s� y Co 1 .6 E rE « to U 31 _ 11 rx � a u . $ o •° � � � � �' c 5 a w .4 4., u a, 7 C C0 a w p ," . ° ° 3 es . • . C O 8 C 0 V. O O W co C .7 41 $. y Q . > i 0 p, I . l'" d : 9 , o00 ° o v al P4a o Ua � � � �° �' o. H c > 4 .4 4. vi � a 4 E to Impact .E E Significance a f z ' 0 5 c W ao e m O. CS. rd E > O O y 0 E Is re E . 0 W W m 2 3 G Wow 0 al re re 15. 0 ;t E z • id g a 1. Impact rn us CO Significance a a a N .. After Mitigation o d 0 '4 7 v G a C in p- y b ► 1L so i/ • v �+ .+ I � r+ 0. � S .Y o � 6 x y • U � O 4.d +O+ 0 47 pp 7 - C --s w .'.� w 'C b 5 0 ,., f° [ U h. a4 V o � F,� m o � � ° �. S o.o 5. `° o m W a° co a ire "' a' o � • m � I !..5. d 42 rA a w 0. w .So3 � , a,_ � .5� C .. O y o , m ' c O � m Z 14 '� .di > • n L eo . 0 . -0 o , o ° is u vs .n .- a d a, a° s r. t t >+ 0 . 0 H r te" 1 7, CO ma g � .5.�, .—co - c a S co ce . c o o _ a— ��y O cd C el C ac ▪ an N °.. •S 0 te a. ,, °' _ C� c ' w .' CO CD o �' g °° �•b • ti �`S 4 y 5 c o .S s re a _ o C H o �" � o � ` ° '"^ 00' 3 m y w y ' ° W O, d '�' w� r � ;o O v 'fl '. v 6 u w m w .5 >_, '. . y '. w N ., S io� g 0 o oas !• C ° 9 .. 4 > . J S A 'S o , — 43 ' •0 5 ° 0 bb is E 67 `" y w O •... U y m CL V >. v w b > al 43 c.. "� ' '° O i ......2.3 as > la • b �' y o w o - `"" r• w a a « y y p. b m 00 y aw eZ' �l > O O d ad H 8 2 y r, 2 8 c a0.— an a ., g'°' Coati 0 0$ a • co pr.. :9 a,b FCi o •Sow V — 'o IF 0 E i • d y �.. p m ad .r' ' 8 •C � . R O Q' v .0 co Impact on on on y E Significance ' a, a. or g V 3 ° c ° o: ?4 'S7 w a 0 'gig o iz a ,� ° y o �. . 8 . ° y eo To Rte" 0 ce C a4 �� y y .. y . a. 0 • v o:W E ' c. 6 y p :: 0 .3� m ae o V W tx et a oh . -• ; g z � o a m w 4142 " t $3 413 as 4. P w . r m 4" g 7. Pc1 rd o a a • v m 13 3 AA:: P. eil 6 <g • • u • c0 GC CI Z' Impact o E co Significance a N E After Mitigation o 6' • • • u. i • di o E.J. . g o > g w o co m m ta o I 1 o g � "2 aa6.E 3 ° a:s�m� �� m la .ti r. 'P 8 O '; ° E w 1 . .ti b y 0 ° O m • 0 I "070. 8 o0 0 > 2 . ° 0. $ �0 0. ;: b cc�a. $ 0 — " 0 • '0.• ' o — w . o u d a a 0.E - 0 °v ' a° ° 's 5 09.., Q . 5'= co , � 5 �w oU o o g ' �� � ..C7 7 .-, ° 'C o CC 4 m c 0. • a� 72 I C . i Q c. 4 •4 0 �. .� d 00.� y 0.7 'n v • .� . > O 0 — ° u � W a co so CD 0 m v p •— L ' e. •.. m i+ 0. ,�� " O s 8 d V n. W 8.812.`41—.5: . -a t 8 •E .• g X 07„ 'O ' • y ,� • O � O 0.0 9 'C 5�2 r 0 q 0.i ` `4�`j , :J s., � ▪ w ! G �G O O C O y t� 'O g N O O 43 R D O a ' m o '- " . ° to " y °� w > m rb • 12i 0 • o v m ea CI :: � ..... c � n• � a>i. l ea. .. $ ` ° c m'_t - 0 Cti a .•, a ° o O V O " . w >, •E co., 6 - v a •o • " co 8 ..,:.......„..,m • v V Cl 6 w E as C � 0 m a ' B � ..... a' • . 3i ° b o y a 0 °: ag g a c o 14 as " b � � o = - ° o ° 8 8 off .. C 4i e :d44 4- ►°7. a a. • • , iw-8Q _ � ° A ` mo o o o v, �d t� o q w w ° � 15 Z , a $ E .8 •s ZU.8 c ea Impact y . E Significance a O a. N m 2 o re 73 re OD m co 1 0 a v B C c.� .5 oe 5 10 0 re w 0 w W8 m p d O m 8 • • Impact A H IV Significance ' a a a `�' ' a E a ri E A fter Nfiitigat .z , : • W 1. t U " m 'S .., 0 N w C �i ^h •E > ' w +a g C .. 2 -0 4.. ' ad v , .r m a a., q° ..... ' ° a �w c 5 8.5 m Ca ?t, $o ° $ °'° 0 .000.1:1W W wo ' er' °[' w 0 . 0 s 3 wa an O m +.'' o O u H . ., � a o � a 3 ..8 � .o o TS $ 3 3 0 • U I1I.iUIII 8. °.C� •� m as .. m I. a) .. W .12 ta V. C �00I -, ` 4b .. C o. to `a ag 0 S8F — ° ° � `= 0= $ m" di 0° go -41 N E N ba� 5 a� .sg � a. _ � : v d0 a O em � ` O O O as m .0 .G � ° i , n� g E e� i ce 5 � � 5 ; y a y • 5 g. °.� ° 13� a a H X; • ;t O ai R3 a) .8 .'" O ed w V ar y .+ R E TI 0 Ca w 4 "'r ; O �E � — a y g • � a � „� �> oo . Q .E 1 . 0 C7 O .. > O O .4 oO.S•e z Xi.5.3 : o"��035 41 r E 4' Impact `n ' `n 1 a Significance p'' `i 14 p" E w 3 z rx? w w .o. C O CI tgi el 0 0. . E L 9 .5 G 8 c Ti r 0 o . O O C .. � M `" 4 8 .5 8 s / g4 1 zI • . t ; ea m C m 01 as C a. '5' .E 0'' C Ca Tr L .L O w id w A. [ 1 J a a, • . E -s s cr= , ; z 4 � • • • id cc In ZI Impact ' !� y' Y - - - 00 H co Significance a a. . rn o After Mitigation d • 3 a. U. O 7 a z a O . 4 ; v . :r j .. as c , � .. w u v acd[ 12 I . g a1- g a .5 co u r72 j3 tg3 I.:: ca CO WI md. K a " C R, i a> 0 ti t13. a > c IS eta OD .sd 'S gm.. co o d � 1 jii w 4. h a .g a E. °'. v c 40 C fA 4 .5 Wm8 0 a € g v > i OS 3 • W+ OO "....C. r 1r 8 4 ~ p, w o C 1. a V c 0.•-• flij . � L ' " .: V v .s - °.2 00 4 48 CO 7 4. , z ,.. . p O O ea gy p, p p O O. U •b F u .4': i. cad •.a , 'N b m a7 0 a v CD E su add 0 a ad �' I • {i.i . 0 . :. �[ 0 . • O .1 .. 1 O g Ra tu 00 5 653, g - �:" 8 o - 3 0 .0 .0 p a. • e�3 ir' ,a El o E Impact y 33 . cn v] 32 E Significance `" q. gi. a a. a p _ .-A- r A .9 ;. E'. 8 . a g .. o e ' ,.. A a a. < t43 j 49 2 " •-• ' � • ° y 5 o •ti �3 , o O ~,fl as • ° c .. a. v lici C ' 7 . w • F w m m g 1 .9 ° al W O w.� 1 41 .;. mm'1i Au R1 re p,' coo °I .12 0 � 0' � 1 1 at 4rc U N. 4 zcc 11 . 6i CI a Z' Impact '114f a y E Significance a a E A fter Mitigation 'f `� a � al N o E a` o .+ w 1.6: O as w +' N m p 1 12 . .s ; 0 .. .... g ;:. cd. . b W �� ° 3 -c, �r °� w m.S I Ra ea .. c 'c I u a° }:� a a w v a 7 120 ^[ 9. •0 :ti "eg a i a ° • b E:'O:' S m2 2 g R. ' " ° m m as k 4:1 m v? An n - a. a. �+ ` ` N ' ° IC co F �,, a 15 -8 ++ �° a+ C . ►� te a + 0 i U tw CU In C CO w § O, 0C 6'8 , p a rr 8, Ks C i.. b E a6 O 6. I"'. « 2 b q ,-.: . v m :. m 1 2 § i 0 c3i Y•:' m o o " i $ c a.'4. oo 8 g 6n 3 ,4 a .h 8 o to It i C w s°'e S i. 9 0 w611.14. � � o U �« . m ,. g b V. G... 8.. o , w t,) p , ti fi 5 c. w b a E. .S a. be. 4 — '. c - ge o g o� a O m _ a• o aim av� a :, , . . • 8 CU CL a �, w o o r �3. �a :a �?�_, .... Q . � .. 0 = o c ° E ° � ° • [ 1 a • oi cd E 4E SE 4 ER. S 4 ° • �c a • �. v,. ° 3 § 1 cv Impact r 4 il' 2 a E Significance 3 2 3 r 5 y }r or y q f , .0 a ti 11 O. a m .=•, g ao v 0 1 6A t o,. C a i 1 a a CZ •e h. z v al oll "5 g ��: and a.„: di g 0 Z' Impact a in o E Significance a a , N E After Nfitigation m t• �2 N . : , - 'c • u. > -a c 5 a 0 5 -8, b 0 v b • W v O Pr +� FL m at m • 5 it g� , � � N � ..Ss I o � 3 �0� > 5 a� m c °i a a o• z E s- c is qa �•• g ' - b a � E ' o U3 CD 43 N m om _, N -. a) d N '"''^' b .:. E 0 .E Ti O ea a 0a' 5hr.."a w anbA r 1 - a 5 9 a� Ui 1 in a, al ■ e; g o ebb e ° a .. -4 CFI �•, o A : . 1 ' aec €p re C. • e $ to 0 4.. 5 a 0 >,� , 3 .a0b m eO Umm a ma c H ° . 5 • a T ° 'Sa ° .. A u g a a a 3 0 .5A. e, C) ea � pm.�,,8�t°c g 0 > u t4p ...5a. w N om. w 4 I m .s- s u ° s a w t� � �.' o •= ICI ca ` ' t z= 3 scn 6b • E '5 a w ° . a o r ., 3 ~d o• (. .dwO ° .5eo a•go ' m p a) a ' ` a ° i w 5w>' a .,.. �' ° i ce ' a 5 ° M ° a3 +� .0 .. wto sa $ � Cgm N g eo b °'� °° 0 CI S s a. 0 0 g a' .� ° � � �a� m era '� g ° •° a b b w w � g ; •ti � `n '� 8 a � . � G °s p"'2 ° 3 °i g j e Impact 0 E Significance a a °' z n co W a Ca a Irs 8 s� .. eg e g g 0 C C4 R .E., A WW 0 ;141 42 0 5 e o RI re re ra .40 U c U ,0 z< • • fd w 0 Z1 Impact E Significance XI a a ra o E After Nfitigation `a m W tL 7 N 1 no a es 7 v o ^ 0 o.s o r f. g. 2 a � 5 'ti ° a` A �w v sa i to'�2 bgr m x a A V N 0 as 0 m �' .. a w m � ° W W 0 ' b� °i 5 m ° � � " eom 11 q� co m 3 a8 17 0 E * O '� " v 1 w 1'i a t m . + ° . m 8 'O ea a i w d 0 „ 5 s 0 C L v .s 00 Z as g 0 w P. b . g C �e .ao0 .00a'ti c`�C• a' 8 t c 0 0 m ob - b ° 0 ri q « 0 3 0 tr. �bm a o �3�w a' ° ' >oea o w «— m m o w 'o 0 .s staA tt a s w '° � w x' €b en 13 X i ' ia.8 g � g.bg `"b .. gy m a. C o '° > b ° °O > t 0' >a•= J oa F o C3 en . .., o . Ts' w ° .a E II .s ' �� = n' o s 3 a ' W g A. ...a 3" 6 a.s O° D .0a .a 0 s > .s 0 0 b , ;; 3 b A. . E .0 b F °g � `t' . o 00 -9 m d C • p . p .1 ,.,, a ' a o .. �f w c a b 0 e c y o o 0 al m alaa A8 - 's � beo `A 8 . s �a 5 6 O sd ° 3 1- 01' O I*4.6135 Q ' as al I O •s g •1 .0 •g 0 .1 a i 21°.1 A .>. ►w.. • 'C Ca Aa o dsd6ch'ti b .B0€'0•0 p' Q'. a A '> s • S . s 9. y- A l . 5 31 C 0 ' 1 `� G vs,.. 0. § ' U � •s 311 .5 1 � e' ° ° a .. w . ° S 's a b 2 S co Impact rn E S ol ignificance a. a. a' 3 z z N e. b = Q. as _I w w 0 , 0 . ° as c «. . g a 4. tO • a� . q rd 0 a 3 o :; 0"c z • • • • R1 a o tb Impact N N O E Significance a a w N E After Mitigation d ti 0 l3 6 • u. 5 'S am ° °6 w8 °a,.9 . >b 0 ssi� o ° u b oa 0 .. o E.S o"a 'ats X344 w �C a m o' on p., . [ g m m N, m o W -000 .b ` =0 ,L a, 8 > o o w � C s .-. 8 g -21`5 > s 4 E�'4 S 68 °� .: cd o g .S m a. ° .9 ° 8 w g .8 b° d •... — S ' ?3 � m w. b 03 � w a O � ° 5 o .1 8 co y e - . i s 4 b eo I U a Pr . w 0 v, .. C la -. u c a -•-• s Ti 1 0 .2 L9 4 . 4 ] 1 1 .; ‘ 1 ;1 ru.. ...go a —rs ,„; ..9 . .-. 4 ; to r.: g .4 ag °" a >, '1a ,,��+8o o 7 02 E CO 02q•�1a °'°a' ° g � 04 . Ca o 1 0 O ti) ' U m = ' F N 7 ' a a° 1 7 N .•. ..... 0 e ° r. « CL 7 'm C a ° b 8 ea 0 ° b ° a ' a . a • S • p .1:3 a •b €h.� . w % � b S 4 i .. •d o gyp, o w a,S -. -xi eo . La s � ��-, eo 8 '� d a E O 8' S O V d•S- y08 � 0.4,O a) co c N. ° u ° B Q Q'� c 8O' o F, Ut m m 11 .S CO a '� ^ O O ° 1 C7 'O +�' ! ° .S co Impact r r a E Significance w a 3 z N W 0 w 2 C 16 I» a + .S 8 0 W w w O J r,. . W 5 5 ��r+ d re g O b.51 s 0 12 6 a ae.4..Sa0.S C 7c . ® id toe t" Impact RI Significance I 0 b..4 itz E E After Mitigation it .X. 0 E, ....]: 0 0 = 2 1 44 '1.* ";4 1 ;; " 11.4 CM T s .:,‘ j '-'•'-' 2. 2 0 0 ‘,- 0 IL. co . ' .r ; , . .... .-• . 0 .. ,■4 co ".......: y ,t 8 ..,. 6 .47,1 0 •s 1 .2, FP ? . "S 1 . ri : a g . 4 • S ,03 -. = 1. 2 •„„ o ;a ., a a .. >. ' a, • 8 1. a .:.- 1.1 • a -'-,: I 8X 0 .s 4 - 1 .s .. g ...= • x _ 0 ••,.... 0 ••0 > ird % 1 2 02 U. '''''': ' ..u. 0 u I 0 d 0.1 .._ •? - a* • 2 - -a 8 P., • E 0 r20 *I 7 • a .- . , 0 .1-• a - 0 1 • 03 0. 6 • .. , C . . 0 ... 0 2 A .-:: i .2 5 ] i o A .-• l• .s 3 :.,,:,:., a . 4 r 7) • al ... .; C.) U ... E 11 : •:4 0 a• 6 I e., 13 :::.' 6 3 . 0 , ....0 • Cy. ! • . 00 ci, ,....-0 ,_,,, a 2 g 1 ,.. .2 .■• La ... 0 .'" ' , >I ..... '.,:%, .22 .= ', $ g cn ,_ ICI *o fn u, CU 10 t %I CY a .5. ''''u _..rs x a • • : d .,4' ra .7.. ,0 py ..4 v 1 N 2 ".. Ct - • ,, 2 8. CD II ai CI3 8 .f a u. a . `.11 4 71 i 0 Li' •Yrt to. 4- ' ° 4 4 0 .2 = 11 `!:"4i - .a = c 0 Oa 6 .s s ho t - 11 . 6 ..., ,. .,..• 0000 .. u :I 6 -8 a ;Jr *o • r, 8 it. "g,.. - . 0 ca a C) z -8 •E M ...6. g is. 0! r g) ;_a, CU Cl .....,' • • cd 113 ..m. S 04 0 .0 Id irt. ' --a T, •.„ c , ,..1.-a = . 0 '.:1 8 0 To ra fa g 0 . - - -0 t. >-. 13 7313 3 t . .'•;,06 . : ba .g -.0 co .0 A z i 1- 11 8 14 rg: . s•ts ra = 4.3 .8 - te • •$ .,.. 03 ° bo . 00 .... 0 to Fro 122 .2 = c 119 0 e." u 1 00d.1,s .? qt,, ° 113 ei Z u ' E 14 ' 41 c co 0 'A 0 o .....- r..) X, rn sa - r., vs ,•• di • = .01 12, 0. r.:: , ,S a .1. _..'• , . 4 g ... . sa h....., 8 2 o .- st; 1 o a !•L•.„ •.e ..., ‘ u In 0 .. 6i •,, 1 , 32. ' i 2 Ca 4 C3 al •S 6 k.c.. 0 • • g 1 a = to 2 ' "'" u co ..' . g 3 P. ........ p ..., ig.., > . - • 0 ii i. • I Ti a 8 2 r->- ',. : . 5; 1 . 2 i...... •••;. 1 • ... 0 .1... a* 45 It 0 0 4 • h g S i la. - . : 6 .= A i 4-. 0 0 • -I 1 .9 -61, 44.-. 4 8 1 CD g = .... • co . h g m 2 '7. ... ..0 el I g , 4 1...,; . 4:, ... . ..-. I ra.• Ta nv T „,''' ..":1,! S ° Z.t fy = ..... • V ..,,,,,,_ g u 1 4 4 ., "3„ Id I I - 3 . g C12 a". • ... E b a.g.iv 1-, 8 0 ,., • i'q•-;. & 0 Y• 8 '...41: ..,4 .0 a 0 .y., • 43 "r 0. •••• - 4 ' S tr . '-' ' •-• I IMI CO Cil .5 V .... -6 l ..-c, tos wi I . ,,,,, . . .9 c, . ,,,... V ). • 2 ,_, 3 . 2 t a " E. '• • s, 1•••1 1.1 • .. IS to ▪ 0 ' u .0. 02 .00 03 4% u.0 C2 8 .0 g '‘.sq 4 0 r) 0 al ii:i ii •S c..) 1 3 14: z tiv. 9 00.. I ... "I:3 0 ca 41 •: 0 i I. 0 mi .1 tt CLI 0 8 8 3 .s *P. z a 3 8 -; i.i ,,,,„•. ii. es Impact '..1.4. gli co rn q. v2 T. E Significance • , om V•.' ZIT .i ) .1 Z E 44 t k i s: .frit •. ati4:: 1 8 A , • p.,..i - ,•• •• u] 2 u t 5:: • % 13 ti b go ' . :a = I; •E te oh El ,A, z a *4 1 i 1 14a - a 2 Al ..f. O r0 L, .6 II3 al v .. a • . .g . . 6 . g 3 d a 8 CO .: 6 02 0 m . r• vs "" .6.. • < cc .:14 • • ' Zi • . , Impact 0 os a Significance .- N E After Mitigation • is ; E S '' a W w 0 b a a • r ,8 a ~ .E 6 u. . co CD a O a w • °° a CO 8 . A a a ~ 44 OS g u y ^ a Al 00 m .. 0 , ,a w ea ^� a • t4' > I •2 g > o q w 8 ° C 5 a m g g 6' " ' , w 6 • a a 0 a 'b i eq 'C! a m a 8 to i' = m m 0 d d a a ua 4 a H 3 t 8 a g 0 0 g N a • 0 = o w .� a TS .0 o C 0 a 'S a W C O w ,y .o a •� o . h § ei .0 p 0 . 0 + e .s � � bk� � • .S t g El A es o 01 0 •a m o '3 €h .•. C Ta 01 o �a ° � 3 v c 9 ° o . o `La w A o m 1c Ti a 4. O 0 a s 2 .0 0 C r y aeot3 >03 s 'a a -° o u a a C a'e�ca a 9 A $ 0 3 - 0w •0 mw N 0. C7 e 0 a • ^ � . V a « a V W O1 'a - .0 E W ay 1 � . R2 •o' R. 88 8 • 4. �? . 3 m w -a a m b m ° a 'v gg u a a +r e •a o c 0 a l '> 0 E . =11 m �Q'O 1.1" $•= W w v� a e •.a 3 aA a R— eo8 wvf a•� to .. �'a • • • w > 8 w . o •;, ill co — N rr1 1r1 'p 0 E Impact 5 a E Significance ,. _ . 5 N o: 0 0 0. El 0 air t 0: e v re • � W W a re a 7 s to -re a J W w oa m = <� o z4 g 0 0 • Z+ Impact '1,:. E CO 10 Significance a � ' a rn . N After Mitigation s `; ' „ t, E m ao N y 3 „ •°% ea _ U 1 6. 02 S @ u Di in 17. U • S �. u _ as as a .� b0 T . • a0 _ : C O CL O O a. 0 e 8 � . a, L eo w ` i 1 1 1 ItI1 T. N o p t',., * b mo o w a • �' ° ° . 1 . io 13 i = iU u is R CL 8 7 2 0 v Em 7a tm o a i s.0 • 8 B O 'b o O a R , p = 00 O ei , c u) Ala a. N E i .M , o k '_: u w • ry $ 9 `tea. 8 8 .. m a o E � a . a0 g 7, _ .mi o . 'ti.": o o. 03 ti B i bo a 'El 1 4-. > 0 I"' 6.• 01 ° 0 : a � a � � . ® 8 • au 0 8 ea � �[ � a g . g . ° 9 0 ~' s °ow l e g. u i 1 4 ,F. , a, . , , w R, a, P. m w ... o .. 1 1 1 I t e: a. q E Impact a �, �' a E Significance ` , 3 z , E 9 : a re o > ? °1 0 :' ' 3 00 o O a, w ,p,: m '' w p , v . O m' 'd a . 0 IIJ 7 W W 2. Pa 011 '11 88 1 LI ct O a' o w w ao 0 U a. o O $ • „� is 0 • Impact 7 0 E S 2 a N After Mitigation a • SI E P. 7 ° .ti o d W m 0 03 •� 83 6a en ' F � eo . a A a g '4" y o , � F a�r a� c g I i0.1 V8 x u y � -' E U 113 ao � . °. . .. To' 3 8 3 0 I [ n. ..1% ^ - o .2 C 12 S a .g�v71 g ° 6i u ,°� w g 2 Z 8 ,«; i v 8 g m B 8 ei. , CD MI Z oi� �a.z og o S 0 w�, o 1 y > u C co 0 6 2, . o "Ci a ca a ti is a. 8 -. a *4 m g 0 °m G a C m u O m O a" 42 0 a p a a''1 13 °° s . t , 8 ° ' c .5 e°w 5 °o ._ d g to V O • C ` O y 0 *- am, p a+ y ++ 67 . 0 .0. a ° v, w T.". ° � A '- P. B X • • • • • :1 � I • • • .4 0 Impact 0 y E Significance a' a 7 u N a y 2. _ C m I a — 8 O 0 1 04 Ca ej re ►e, 'c�3 eo 0 °� C w . a a� �4 I c E a. zi o. 83 a t t3 +' • A W i S : w eo b , � •5 f4 re re 1 a. U e U 51 4 a p er $ g ` • • • 07 in 0 • • Z+ Impact P. III es Significance a rn a a r E Miter Mitigation m t. m 0 N 8 sr 0 .. $ m o '� y G 'S E.) wm w. 63 • � 0 1.1 ' 3 m • 0 o is b 3 .5 0i 5 V 5 0 0 > > m u o a f a; • "° eo o, � " 0a� 3agw �m a, r, 0 � 0 wo W cw a 0.8 0 0 +03 °. 2 m � � � g 1 o w U°`a° . [ % b s 8 _ 0 C 0 Po ' = 3 ° 0 • 0 0- 0 m ,g v°i,aai° $> a 'S$ 'b .o v cn � 1 0° '' '- o 0 b .S b .N A - N 0 �� •S �� �� 0 0 a �.0�� H $" a te g ,„ c ° o' w.5w 0 = Co R o •n w. R. 0) 0 o a S o 0. w '� a A. a' c o 0 w 5 a R. E E. at co 0 _ 0, A 4 . 3 a a b .5 E "a.1 g €b re 2 z o � � _ _ ° , . 9 ,� . VS Ob C cu ma 0 d 0> w . m" a A. t) 03 , 4. o eoa`3a' .' .5 ;b a: 00 -o • 0`- ' ° v9 ..p 3 5 ear 0 0 0; w• 3 m 3 0 g p, -. � ww A. d C 1_, g .5 61 •.: O O B b 0 y R. F + i:, i3 0 0 F- a � $ c a ,... i t° 0 0 5 .S Br ,. A' VI ea tu o cw o a', 3 .513 l g o �..0 w y„ C g w 0 o• ,9 v2 m ..5.5 w . ,5 u 0 z 1 a 0 E 8 s • 0 0 m Impact - y • E Significance a . a a . z y 1 a n a. b 3 • c. g re .. cog g 0•� < cc 0 02 241 . E+,0 a v 0 it o: 0 a o i 05 � c C.) 0 R . N � : A. . ' Z W w � a 3 9 o c • W 0 0 -.o m 0 c 010 v m n a ° 4 b E 8'Imi 8"40 4 m8 < 0 • • id a o • • • Impact 1 7 g co Significance E After Mitigation ,,. '119.,- • 0 t. E , u . 0 - ,,,, •- 0 :.. t. 45 . u ..... P. ..a .... .■. ., 21 „ 1 .., .. II .... . = •' C I. ' 1 4 0 a .5 a u , o w. 0 h g 0 0 . /-: k. a -3 ._. I Si t= f)tr, E oo CO .,>;:s m .2 - ... , , - ,.., , u- !.. .- -... w tu . - 6* '-'..: .; •S , be.,3 .4 0 a a u • .0,):..r. rc V i g 8 42 :!.', , of c4..1 • 1 C, a -E•4 ›, 0 "g t 4... 0 " 52 6 . CO CI• C ..... ' r rvi Ar. o g ▪ 8 to - . =1 ' • o. 8 - T2 8 c g e , :7.... 9 ,... 8 0 _ ' -, / ° "s is 0 o s; • 4 u ., e ..t.. a LI t gE -"• An IJ CO Ga - ,..! MI .0 og , so-0u.o ,... O ,.. .0 :: ,: :41 8 3 b .5 1 j2 i 0.1 04 " r 0 -. PA St, • :•4 l el ..... in te s 4 15 0 .1..z. 11 . rd E ., s..: 4r • . -0 . a •.= K. E N 4 8 '8 .8 2 6. bav 0 , w .5 Ti •E t...0 y 2 - - 0 7' nz - irrjAlg81 X • C ea .51 "'" u o o co ..0 c P 40 ° .....g 4., t ., am. . .4 al ,- - = " . . 4.. 1 :1 FPI ma CO 0 z...s, 0 "6' ' , t 1 * S tY 5:, 40 .0 0 "0 • 8 .;., 03 o = 1 t tylv,, 0 o 02 •._ . t :a u 0 i I Kt a E-• a Ts -9" "W 7 ris ••il • •S . • .-E. S .... 0. 1 . V • E 1 - 8 U 0 mi A "13 § '•:`'s? 40 II ..t.: ''''' . •d 0 • . n ..!• 4 - 6 C.) • !to ° c to • m - ,• .i a 0 u . .... 0 ,... _ - . E al , e L S - .-Sil 0 2 - el . 1.44 ,,...it F-.: - 0 4.1 . . 2 I m w . - x . .. & !NMI C In • . 0 'OS._ t: 0 u . Vt , 1 • • .S 0 ." 0 0 u ,ti .1 -.' -a o - rn .• 0 10 .. • 5, -4 - 0 .,,, ,,, ,,,, b 0. A .0 .,,,,, 0., u u 0 2 tc, • .• ,. Cli 1 ,,,...... 0 ..,,, F_I , ... •.. g. la .... s no 'V • c. 8 - 1 - 0. = ,-.. 2 e c9 '1 ..o 1 ri .20 7-4 0 g 2 g e4 :#,: .i r 151)4' ' wl M C.) • I. ■ A 1 .". . 00 = 9 a o 8 8 8 2 I - o ;.- .1'''' 0 hi t° " 3 • F or IOW o EI-VEg • • • g 4. .re Z doi• Z'I 1 ea Impact cn 01 E significance - PI V. 41 on ,2 z E q . Ai. 5 7 0 4 re 4 a '.,..-9).. ._. 5 g ,•• 10 5' 3 .. ii-1 . • 0 .> .... id Z 13 0 • ' ,.,,, 0 12'1,1 a > 2 0 to •. 1 ... ,., • :. ..,,, t1 tr 0 8 •, 0 iX oh u •.7.1 o E .1 IS § 1 ;.= k • eel t. ... 1 C.2 la - -a . ,„,., 0 . i B i g - 1 g- o 41. N 0 1 ... ., .. w o o E 0 •-o ':- 0 4- 0 u b ° 4. tto :-* - 04 Cli E Cli E . 2g .t IU 1U l fy 0.0- 0.0 . t 1 ax 0 ,,,•... i g 1 -4 ; i: .... 0 6. 4.• . . t I . I . E tb S I 4:1 C cc ic V 70 co 4. 8 ••••• -- I o U c w 1 3 1 ..it 8 .§ g W ja A E ge .... ... ... , 0 .... ..,-. 1, a - ,... u •■•■■ mu ;:=... wi . 8 0 PI. • 04 8 il ail 4 < 1 § '1 .1.• a 0 •: ts - • S . 6 . g . 1■I II:1 . 13 it. u 2 ,.... ... L g p [-I 13, al E-4 il...E Z S I. Gr • ' 1m ea S B • i;4 • J-i • • Z+ Impact ai w E Significance o E After Mitigation m • ; a w w ); a. 3 = ° � • =.� w° 8 3 .2 . 0 c 2. a °1 t7 . n ' ,i 3 .. o ;, m C� C eo . ,� 0 • ma y � y a � y ij .O O 'd v H o :i~ 00 � ▪ o �o id � � e � � 5 E I CD o .0 3 al 0 ` " o• >+A - 3.5 g.. "� a 65 m � ° o N = 1 .gaS o= mwg ��9 .s 7 ,C 'b o H O 4, eo b • - 0 > c . ° 3 O la .0 u o u � a. g v 7. c us .4 12 °.I ' ad O -°• b V y 4. g G w ° �J 1. b ° . • s p a Co 0 Q Pi en Q t y l . -C3 = C. 'V b y I 2 0 • , � C = S 'o ; 9 0 ti,d o 0 c co =H���' � om "' m se m c�o ...D. eo �U. obb o �: � . � .. 'n o o °f a. �.. o c o m C �'�° . v b • .0 .O . O O � :7 a O m o `� G 3 ' b U dl■ o «�' P. ' • . • . • r. co Impact ti E Significance Z c 5 re W . E c a li °s3' o C 9 � c o .7 p ca 2 W I. ' S m • 5 0 'o r4 , 0 W N ^, , a ' 8 a m x 6 �, �0� and at g' 0 Impact o ie E Significance ? N E Af Mitigation 4 RI N 0 m U a) 0 y .y u. u 4 �' W 6 U o 0 C g 1 'g p c u o . a. c U In N ' oa H 0 °' u E CD m Q wb ` C C U a eu w '4 p a °° I = 3 xt ac X au .. g p ,' 6� a 4 C co m ti t - al 0 0 h l L ! a U a" i co 41- W '. 0 g w •E � 2 I CO G 0 .6 a [ v� u 73 y.. gb 0 • • • •a a M Impact g E Significance z 5 0 ce • es e C O V t o E C a p a. C C ] W W 0 v 1.. 3 W 0 WO P4 mge . 0 1 z Mi ea ca , Comment Letter re: "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" (SCH 2003041187) DEIR prepared by MWH for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 4 "DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN', PREPARED BY MWH FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, DATED FEBRUARY 2005 NOTE: PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT PROVIDED WITH THIS STAFF REPORT. A COPY OF THE COMPLETE DOCUMENT, INCLUDING THE TECHNICAL APPENDICES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 26 DPEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report 1 s 4.1'; � , -'-':.,k---,, � p i s ,' F SEA[ g y q{ t y J . 1 y f d Q q 4. 3 = � � � � . y � � ,. ``` ��` cOPPORgT Fes// - � �O�P Q c 1 V COUN'n GP 4' ITV. HALL 2] 1 E11 1111 STREET. x � i4 :: 'SF at BEACH CALIFORNIA 9070 - _ r ,•r_ - (562)_431 2�27��NHticci.seal beach "ca.u� % < 4' _ _., . ti' .- i^ . n F am. - `. fr _ .�'� A .. . � 'ri n �' :'...k -. t .a� c Jin7.i ?tit. ' !3. J April 25, 2005 Mr. Marty Moreno County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Watershed Management Division P. O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802 -1 460 Dear Mr. Moreno: SUBJECT: CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE: "DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — SAN GABRIEL RIVER CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN' The City Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Board of the City of Seal Beach have reviewed the "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report - San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "DPEIR "). Our star has been working closely with the Department of Public Works and the San Gabriel Rivers and Mountains Conservancy for several years in a cooperative manner to ensure that the concerns, goals and aspirations of Seal Beach are properly set forth both within the "San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan" ( "Master Plan") and the subject DPEIR. Our staff has also reviewed the various components of the DPEIR to ensure that the document accurately reflects, at the program level of environmental analysis, the anticipated beneficial and adverse impacts of the adoption of the Master Plan and this DPEIR both to our community and to other areas of a local concern to our community. The document provides an adequate level of environmental analysis of the beneficial, potentially adverse, and neutral impacts on the environment of the proposed Master Plan. The areas of environmental concern reviewed in the DPEIR do not fully include all areas of concern as was addressed in our letter of May 28, 2003 on the "Notice of Preparation" for this DPEIR. It was requested at that time that the "Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards." In our review of the areas of environmental concern discussed within the DPEIR, this does not appear to have been accomplished. Z:\My Documents\San Gabriel River\Master PLan\DPEIR City Comment Letter.04- 25- 05.doc\LW104 -25 -05 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan April 25, 2005 The San Gabriel River watershed is within the boundaries of the Los Angeles and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and the Program EIR should contain evaluations as to how the Master Plan will comply with and be consistent with the NPDES permit requirements of both of the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In accordance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements, local agencies within Orange County are also required to evaluate the following areas of concern in a CEQA document relative to "Hydrology" or "Utilities and Service Systems" that have not been evaluated in the DPEIR document: "Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post - construction activities? 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? Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas ?" Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (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)? The City also requested in our May 28, 2003 comment letter on the "Notice of Preparation" that the Program EIR evaluate programs and methods of reducing solid waste transport along the River to the Pacific Ocean within the analysis. The impacts upon the City of Seal Beach and also Long Beach are substantial, and create adverse environmental impacts due to wash -up of solid waste materials on the local beaches. During the first three months of 2005 Seal Beach removed in excess of 540 tons of debris for our beaches that had been washed down the San Gabriel River during the storm season. The loss in beach availability, and the resulting adverse economic impacts of decreased visitors to the local beaches should be considered, evaluated, and mitigated within the Program EIR. One methodology of dealing with solid waste within the River is an evaluation of strategically placed debris booms along the length of the River or other appropriate best management practices to trap floating material and intercept that material from reaching the Ocean at various locations upstream. This type of program should specifically be evaluated within the Draft Program EIR. Further, several of the proposed "Mitigation Program Measures" require language clarification as indicated below: ❑ Cultural Resources: 2 DPEIR City Comment Letter.04 -25 -05 City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: Draft Program Environmental Impact Report — San Gabriel River Corridor Master Plan Apri125, 2005 ❑ MP -C1 — Item 3 should be revised to require all field reconnaissance activities to also include the presence of a "qualified Native American Monitor ". ❑ Geology and Soils: ❑ MP - G1 — the last sentence should be expanded on to indicate that any stormwater not infiltrated due to high groundwater levels that "would be diverted to storm drains or onto street surfaces or routed to other stormwater management facilities as applicable" will be required to include best management practices (BMPs) as part of the proposed diversion system to comply with the relevant stormwater discharge permits of the appropriate agency responsible under the applicable Regional Water Quality Board (Los Angeles or Santa Ana Regional Board). ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials: ❑ MP - H2 — The last sentence should also include Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base for notification. The Planning Commission and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the DPEIR document on April 6 and April 13 2005, respectively, and the City Council considered the DPEIR document on April 25, 2005. The City Council, Planning Commission, and the EQCB authorized the Mayor and the respective Chairs to sign this letter indicating the official comments of the City of Seal Beach. Upon the preparation of the Final Program EIR for this project, please send 4 hard copies and a digital copy, if available, to Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, City Hall, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, 90740. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. If you have questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Whittenberg at telephone (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e-mail at lhittenberg@ci.seal- beach.ca.us. Sincerely, Paul Yost, yor Phil Ladner, Chairman City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Mario Voce, Chairman Environmental Quality Control Board DPEIR City Comment Letter.04 -25 -05 3