HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2004-12-13 #AA •
(tt
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 13, 2004
•
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
•
THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF COMMENT LETTER — SUNSET
HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AND
DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION EIR
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Instruct Mayor to sign Comment Letter, with any amendments determined appropriate.
Forward approved, comment letter to the Planning Commission and Environmental
Quality Control Board for information purposes. Authorize Director of Development
Services to attend Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting to address City issues.
Receive and File Staff Report.
BACKGROUND:
The City has previously received a copy of the "Draft EIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat
Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion ", and authorized the mayor to sign a
comment letter after City Council consideration on June 14, 2004.
The County has now prepared the following supplemental documents to the DEIR for the
subject project:
❑ "Draft Responses to Comments"
❑ "Draft Errata to the Environmental Impact Report", and
❑ "Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program ".
A copy of the proposed City Council comment letter on the EIR documents is provided as
Attachment 1 and the County prepared "Draft Responses to Comments" document is
provided as Attachment 2 for the information of the City Council.
The project has been considered by the following agencies of the County prior to this City
Council meeting:
❑ Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commission — December 2, 2004: This
Commission will be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
Agenda Item /»I
Z:\My Documents \CEQA \Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Repurt.doc \LW\12 -02 -04
•
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking .
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
about the project as it relates to the use of Harbors, Beaches and Parks'
assets and resources.
❑ Planning Commission — December 7, 2004: The Planning Commission will
be reviewing the EIR and making a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors on the EIR's adequacy.
Since neither the Environmental Quality Control Board or the City Council
•
had a meeting prior to the Orange County Planning Commission meeting,
staff prepared a letter for consideration by the Orange County Planning
Commission regarding the EIR document and attended that meeting to
address the issues set forth in the comment letter and respond to questions of
the Planning Commission. A copy of that staff - prepared comment letter is
provided as Attachment 3 for the information of the City Council. Staff will
•
provide a. verbal update as to the actions of. the Orange County Planning
Commission.
Summary of Proposed Action and Environmental Impacts:
Staff has previously provided a complete copy of the DEIR in May 2004 for the information
of the City Council in reviewing the proposed project and draft comment letter that was
approved on June 14, 2004.
Project Summary:
The project involves expansion of the Marina's existing 4.5 acre boat launch parking area
into an adjacent undeveloped portion of the property; 2.32 acres would be added to
provide an additional 72 boat trailer and launch vehicle parking spaces for a total of 273
spaces. A separate, adjacent 6.13 -acre area would also be 'constructed and be operated as
a boat storage- facility accommodating 314 dry stand boat spaces. A 100 -foot buffer
would be maintained between the developed areas and the adjacent wetlands (Seal Beach
•
National Wildlife Refuge).
•
Project Objectives:
The County of Orange has identified project objectives as follows:
❑ Provide enhanced recreational boating opportunities through more convenient
direct access to the water for users of both the boat launch ramp and the dry
boat storage area;
D Accommodate a greater number of smaller, less expensive boats;
❑ Create a safer and more efficient traffic pattern for the users of the boat
launch, particularly during the peak boating season;
•
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
' Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December I3, 2 004
❑ Reduce impacts to public street traffic and to adjacent residenti neigh bors by
eliminating on- street (Edinger Avenue) parking of boat trailers and vehicles;
and
❑ Enhance revenues to the County's Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Fund.
Summary of Potential Significant Environmental Impacts after Mitigation:
The DEIR document does not identify any environmental impacts as significant after the
imposition of mitigation measures.
Principal Discretionary Actions and Approvals Required:
The County of Orange has identified the following discretionary actions:
❑ Certification of an Environmental Impact Report — County of Orange;
❑ Approval of Lease Amendment with Sunset Aquatic Park, Ltd. — County of
Orange;
❑ Issuance of a Coastal Development Permit — California Coastal Commission
Other agencies with discretionary and /or permit authority over some aspect of the project
are identified as:
❑ City of Seal Beach — Local jurisdiction review and "Approval in Concept" of
Coastal Development Permit.
❑ Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board — National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES); construction storm water
Notice of Intent review; Section 401 water quality certification.
❑ State Department of Fish and Game — 2081 Consistency Finding; Endangered
Species Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement.
❑ State Department of Toxic Substances Control — Approval of Preliminary
Endangerment Assessment.
❑ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Section 404 Permit for impacts to jurisdictional
drainages.
❑ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Section 7 or l0a Permit for impacts to federally
threatened and endangered species.
DEIR Comment Period:
•
The comment period on the DEIR concluded on June 24, 2004. Written comments were
received by the County from the following agencies and organizations:
❑ State of Califomia Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State
Clearinghouse
❑
California Coastal Commission
❑ California Department of Fish and Game
❑ Native American Heritage Commission
3
Sunset Marina Boat hunch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
. Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
❑ Department of Toxic Substances Control
❑ California Regional Water Quality Control Board
❑ U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
❑ City of Seal Beach
❑ Orange County Coastkeeper .
❑ Friends of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Public Availability of EIR:
A copy of the EIR, including the "Draft Responses to Comments", "Draft Errata to the
Environmental Impact Report", and "Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program" is available at
the Department of Development Services and the Office of the City Clerk for review.
Recommended City Action:
The City Council is requested to authorize the Mayor to sign the proposed comment letter
provided as Attachment 1 to indicate to the Orange County Board of Supervisors those
remaining issues of concern to Seal Beach regarding the proposed project. As indicated in
the proposed comment letter, the County has responded to the large majority of the
comments and concerns of the City in a positive manner, particularly regarding the plan
review and permit issuing authority by the City of Seal Beach for this project. The EIR has
been revised to clearly indicate throughout that the City of Seal Beach will be the permit
• issuing authority for all required grading and construction permits to complete an approved
project at Sunset Harbour Marina. The County has fully incorporated our requested
revisions to the language in the "Executive Summary", Section 1.1 Item 5, Additional
Permits and Approvals (pages 1 -1 and 1 -2); Table 1.6 -A (pages 1 -4 through 1 -21); Table
7.A: Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist (pages 7 -3
through 7 -25).
There are some remaining issues of concern, and those are addressed in the proposed
comment letter. Those concerns are related to:
❑ Requested Flow Diversion System:
❑ Requested Sewer Service:
❑ Inclusion of Light and Glare buffering feature for least tem nesting area:
FISCAL IMPACT:
No direct impacts. If increased environmental degiddation upon the City is experienced as a
result of the proposed project, the costs of appropriate mitigation measures should be the
responsibility of the project proponent. To the extent that those impact mitigation costs are
not completely the responsibility of the project sponsor, the City of Seal Beach may
4
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
Approval of Continent Letter re: " Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Drr Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13. 2004
ultimately have to incur significant expenses to adequately mitigate unfunded environmental
mitigation programs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Instruct Mayor to sign Comment Letter, with any amendments determined appropriate.
Forward approved comment letter to the Planning Commission and Environmental
Quality Control Board for information purposes. Authorize Director of Development
Services to attend Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting to address City issues.
Receive and File Staff Report.
NOTED AN , APPROVED:
/0
e ittenberg r Jo )r Bahorski
Director of Development Service j Manager
Attachments: (3)
Attachment 1: Proposed Comment Letter to Orange County Board of
Supervisors re: "EIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch
Parking And Dry Boat Storage Expansion ", prepared by the
County of Orange, dated October 2004
Attachment 2: "Draft Responses to Comments" document for "EIR 601 —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking And Dry Boat
Storage Expansion ", prepared by the County of Orange,
dated October 2004
Attachment 3: City Comment Letter to Orange County Planning
Commission re: City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Draft
Environmental Impact Report 601, Sunset Harbour Marina
Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion ",
dated December 2, 2004
* * * *
5
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
,
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council StaffReport
December 13, 2004
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED COMMENT LETTER TO
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS RE: "EIR - SUNSET
HARBOUR MARINA . .BOAT LAUNCH
PARKING AND DRY BOAT STORAGE
EXPANSION ", PREPARED BY THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE, DATED OCTOBER 2004
•
6
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Lettcr.CC Staff Report
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2009
•
December 13, 2004
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Thomas W. Wilson, Board Chairman
10 Civic Center Plaza, Room 465
Santa Ana, CA 92701 •
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Environmental Impact
Report 601, Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and
Dry Boat Storage Expansion" fl
DR IS •
Dear Chairman Wilson and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
• The City Council of the City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the County of Orange, which includes the
following supplemental documents to the EIR for the subject project:
❑ "Draft Responses to Comments"
❑ "Draft Errata to the Environmental Impact Report", and
❑ "Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program ".
The proposed project is within the City of Seal Beach, and as such raised concems •
regarding environmental impacts upon our community, in particular regarding the Seal
Beach National Wildlife Refuge located north of the subject property and the least tern
nesting area west of the existing boat launch facility at Sunset Harbour Marina. The City
Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council both reviewed the Draft EIR and
a comment letter was approved by our City Council on June 14, 2004 regarding the DEIR.
The responses to that comment letter are set forth as Response Number SB -1 through SB -43
in the "Draft Responses to Comments" documentation before this Commission.
In our review of the responses to the City comments it is recognized that the large
majority of our comments and concerns have been addressed in a positive manner by your
staff and the environmental consultant. The City sincerely appreciates the recognition and
effective responses to our concerns, particularly regarding the concern regarding plan review
and permit issuing authority for this project. The EIR has been revised to clearly indicate
7
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking .
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
throughout that the City of Seal Beach will be the permit issuing authority for all required
grading and construction permits to complete an approved project at Sunset Harbour
Marina. The County has fully incorporated our requested revisions to the language in the
"Executive Summary", Section 1.1 Item 5, Additional Permits and Approvals (pages 1 -1
• and 1 -2); Table 1.6 -A (pages 1-4 through 1 -21); Table 7.A: Mitigation ,Measure
Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist (pages 7 -3 through 7 -25). The efforts
• of Rich Adler in working with our staff to address our plan review and permit issuance
concerns deserves recognition from the County of Orange.
The City still feels that "Alternative 2: Wetlands Consolidation" is an
environmentally superior alternative. However, in reviewing the provisions of the
California Coastal Act, dur staff concurs with your staff and consultants determination that
such an alternative is not a feasible project in light of the provisions of Sections 30007.5,
30233(a), 30240, and 30411 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) and court decisions
interpreting the language of those sections.
However, there are still a few issues that remain a concern to us, and those concerns
are set forth below:
Revision to Proposed Dry Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Area:
❑ Requested Flow Diversion System: DRAFT
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all flows from the dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area should be directed to a treatment system of possibly the
sewer system for treatment, thereby eliminating potential adverse water quality impacts
from this activity on the project site, and potentially within Anaheim Bay. In addition,
the County of Orange should investigate with the City of Huntington Beach the
possibility of diverting low flow waters from the boat launch facility. to the sewer system.
The response to our comment is that such provisions • "is not within the scope of the
project ". •
We disagree with that determination and feel that since there will be increased usage
of the dry boat storage area and the boat wash area if this project is approved that such an
effective water - quality treatment mitigation measure should be fully incorporated into "the
scope of the project" during its final approval and design stages. Such an action would
totally eliminate all water quality issues regarding the use of the enlarged dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area.
❑ Requested Sewer Service:
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all wastewater flows tributary to the
Marina enter the City's sewer pump station and the station is currently subsided by the Seal
8•
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report •
•
Approval of Continent Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
Beach rate payers. There is a large inequity for the sewer service provided versus the fees
collected. It is recommended that the station ownership and maintenance responsibilities be
transferred to the County, similar to the County owned sewer lines on -site. The City will
also be preparing a water and wastewater rate study to evaluate the costs for these services.
❑ Inclusion of Light and Glare buffering feature for least tern nesting area:
❑ Page 41 -2, Section 4.1.1.3, Light and Glare: The section indicates light
glare from night boat launches is temporary, of short duration, and does
not affect any sensitive uses, as none are within close proximity to the
project site. The City is still very concemed that the conclusions reached
in this statement appear to be unsupported, and may be incorrect. These
concerns are based on the following factors:
❑ The least tern nesting island is located directly to the west of the boat
launch facility; please refer to Figure 4.1.1, View Locations.
❑ Any type of night boat launch activity may impose light glare from
either the boat itself or the launch vehicle, directly towards this nesting
area for an endangered species.
❑ There is no citation of any authoritative study or research effort to
clearly document that sudden, unexpected, and potentially obtrusive
light glare impacts will not substantiallipair the nesting habits of
the least tern. DR At
The City continues to request provision of additional mitigation measures in
the Final EIR to address the above concems and to consider the following
actions to mitigate potential adverse impacts to nesting least terns,
particularly after reviewing the comments from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and.Game:
❑ Creation of a visual barrier between sensitive habitat areas and the
areas of human activity, such at least a 4 -foot high earthen berm
planted with native plant species to provide additional height to the
visual barrier, or a semi -solid fencing structure, around the edge of the
parking lot and storage areas that would block headlights from shining
directly into the marsh habitat areas.
❑ Such a structure should be located so as not to disturb the existing
wetland areas to be preserved as part of the proposed project, and
should be designed in conjunction with the lighting plans for the
Dry Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Areas.
❑ Consideration of a mitigation measure that will prohibit night launch
activities between 1 -hour after sunset and 1 -hour before sunrise during
the nesting season of the least tern.
9
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter CC Staff Report
•
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
Our Director of Development Services, Mr. Lee Whittenberg, will be in attendance
at your Board meeting when this matter is scheduled for consideration to present the above
concerns to the Board and respond to any questions that you may have at that time. Mr.
Whittenberg can also be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e -mail at
lwhittenbereaci .seal- baech.ca.us, if you need to discuss any of these matters with him prior
to the scheduled Board meeting.
Sincerely,
• Paul Yost •
Mayor, City of Seal Beach III
Distribution: •
California Department of Fish and Game
Attn: Donald R. Chadwick
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
Attn: Refuge Manager
P. O. Box 815 •
Seal Beach, CA 90740
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
•
10
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC Staff Report
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental Impact Report —
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Staff Report
December 13, 2004
ATTACHMENT 2
"DRAFT RESPONSES TO COMMENTS"
DOCUMENT FOR "EIR 601 - SUNSET
HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH
PARKING AND DRY BOAT STORAGE
EXPANSION ", PREPARED BY THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE, DATED OCTOBER 2004
11
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC State Report
City of Seal Beach
NOV 10 2004
Development Svcs.
DRAFT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY STORAGE EXPANSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE EIR NO. Lox
SCH NO. 2003081008
■
•
LSA
October 2004
•
•
DRAFT
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
COUNTY OF ORANGE EIR NO. Go'
SCH NO. zoo3o8roo8
•
Prepared for:
County of Orange
Resources and Development Management Department
300 N. Flower Street
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702 -4048
•
(714) 834 -2300
•
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
20 Executive Park, Suite 200
Irvine, California 92614 -4731 -
(949)553 -0666
•
LSA Project No. GRK330
•
LSA
October 2004
I
■
I
1.
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 1
INTRODUCTION 1
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 1
INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 2
COMMENTS FROM STATE AGENCIES 4
RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCIES 30
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH, STATE CLEARING HOUSE 31
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 32
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 34
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 35
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL • 36
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD 37 •
• U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 38
COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES 43
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AGENCIES, 63
CITY OF SEAL BEACH 64
COMMENTS FROM SPECIAL INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS 69
• RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS 80
ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER 81
FRIENDS OF SEAL BEACH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 84
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final E02\Responsc to Comments\Response to Comments.doc ((10/07/04»
•
F
II
•
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 1004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
I
I I
c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the Draft EIR or may be a 1
• separate section in the final ELR. Where the response to comments makes important changes
• in the information contained in the text of the Draft EIR, the lead agency should either: • g i
1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or �i
2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the responses to
• comments.
Information provided in this Response to Comments clarifies, amplifies, or makes minor
modifications to the Draft EIR. No significant changes have been made to the information contained E
in the Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion Draft EIR as a
result of the responses to comments, and no significant new information has been added that would
require recirculation of the. Draft EIR. Therefore, this Response to Comments document is being
prepared as a separate section of the EIR, and is included as part of the Final EIR, for consideration .
by the County of Orange Planning Commission.
INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The following is an index of the agencies and persons who commented on the Draft EIR prior to the .
close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized in a manner that
facilitates finding a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment has been organized into
one of the following three categories: (1) State agencies, (2) local agencies, and (3) special interest -
organizations.
•
This division is the basis for the numbering of each comment. Each commentor has been assigned a
letter code. This letter code is combined with sequential numbering for each comment. For example,
the.comment number OPR -1 refers to the first comment in the letter from the State of California
Govemor's Office of Planning and Research.
Federal/State Agencies
OPR State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
CCC California Coastal Commission .
DFG California Department of Fish and Game
' NAH Native American Heritage Commission
• TSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
WQCB • ' California Regional Water Quality Control Board •
USFW U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Seal Beach National. Wildlife Refuge ,
•
Local Agencies -
. SB City of Seal Beach
i
P:1GRK330\Final EIRUtesponse to Comments\Response to Comm ents.doc «10/07104» `
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
CC OTOBER 3 004 INC. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
OCBER 001 AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
INTRODUCTION
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Sunset Marina Boat Launch
Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion yeas circulated for public review for a period of 45 days,
. from May 7 to June 24, 2004. Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the State Clearinghouse,
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (15 copies), and other federal, State, and local.agencies.
Copies of the Draft EIR were available for public.review at the County of Orange Resources and
Development Management Department, the Orange County Branch Library in Seal Beach, the City of
Huntington Beach Central Library, California State University at Fullerton Library, and the • •
University of California at Irvine Main Library. In compliance with State CEQA Guidelines Section
15087, a public notice of availability was published in the Orange County Register and notices were
mailed to interested parties, which included adjacent landowners. • •
• COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR --
A total of five comment letters were•received during the public review period. Comments were
received from State and local agencies and special interest organizations. Comments that address
environmental issues are thoroughly responded to in this Response to Comments document. In some
• . cases, additional information is provided for clarification. Comments that do not address the adequacy
or completeness of the Draft EIR, that do not raise environmental issues, or that request the
incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues do not require a
response, pursuant to Section 15088(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
.Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons
who reviewed the Draft FIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall
respond to comments received during the noticed commenfperiod and any extensions and
may respond to late comments.
b) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised
(e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In
particular, major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance
with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail,
giving the reasons that specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be
good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual
information will not suffice.
•
•
P \GRIv30 tnai EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10/07/04» . 1
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
Special Interest Organizations
OCC Orange County Coastkeeper
FNWR Friends of Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
•
•
•
P: \GRK3301Final EIRRtcsponsc to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10/07/04* 3
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
•
OCTOBER ROOD SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
•
COMMENTS FROM STATE AGENCIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\f inal ElR\ Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «I0 /07/04» 4
I
CEQAnet - Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion OPR
hlorday 23, 200
California Nome ;r ` ' _
a m
p " !" t ' } '� � v f.I j�.4 'bi�� n`i. TA: e �F¢ ir �� 4 �f� � �+ r 9 �
t r-
,ti.11: vFdr , me> O
ux�Aet y fF S i every > Search
CPR Fame ce ° Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion
SCH Number. 2003081008 OPR -1
Type: EIR
Project Description Expansion of an existing 4.50 -acre boat launch parking area into an adjacent undeveloped portion of the property;
2.32 acres would be added o
provide an additional 72 boat trailer
n
and launch vehicle
accommodating rki dry Races boat opa of 273 spaces. Development and operation of a separate, adjacent
6.13 -acre area as a boat storage facility
Project Lead Agency .
Orange County - --
Contact Information
Primary Contact:
William Grieman
Orange County - ,
714- 834 -5175
P.O. Box 4048 -
Santa Ana
CA, 92702-048 - - - - - --
Project Location
County: Orange
City: Seal Beach
Region:
Cross Streets: Edinger Avenue /Bolsa Chico St.
Parcel No: 178- 661 -01 -
Township:
Range:
Section: o
Base:
Other Location Info: --
Proximity To
Highways: California 1
Airports:
Railways:
Waterways:
Schools: Marina High School
Land Use: Open Space /Recreation
Development Type
Recreational
LocaI.Action ,
Local Coastal Permit. Other Action `
l
8/23/2004
11
r
_
Jun -23 -2094 01:54pm From - California Coastal Commission
T -816 P.002/996 F -504
- STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY - ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Gcverrw
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
• South Coast Area 0190) ..
200 ocea'ngate, Sulfa 1000
Long Beach, CA 909024302 u'e
_ (552) 5905071 `
June 22, 2004
County of Orange
Resources and Development Management Department ���
300 N. Flower Street p
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
. Re: Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion
Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCHtt 2003081008)
To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset"
Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion Project. According to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed project consists of: "...expansion of this existing
4.50 -acre area [Sunset Harbour Marine Facility) into en adjacent undeveloped portion of the
property; 232 acres would be added to provide an additional 72 boat trailer and vehicle parking
spaces for a total of 283 spaces (there are currently 201 parking spaces). A separate, adjacent 6.13
—acre area would also be constructed and be operated as a boat storage facility accommodating 314
dry stand -boat spaces. A 100 -foot buffer would be maintained between the development areas and
adjacent wetlands. Several small, isolated wetland areas would be maintained In their present state
along the northern, eastern, and western perimeter of the parking areas within the buffer zone," In
regards to water quality, the proposed project would do the following: "Runoff from the developed
areas would be controlled by drainage conveyance structures, which would include water quality
filters and debits traps; located along the perimeter adjacent to areas that border the marina
waterways. Additionally, a landscaped biofilter drainage area will be established to minimize runoff
into the adjacent wildlife refuge and dry land areas.'
The proposed project is located within the coastal zone in the City of Seal Beach. The proposed
development will require a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.
•
The following comments address the issue of the proposed project's consistency with the Chapter 3
policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976. The comments contained herein are preliminary and
those of Coastal Commission staff only and should not be construed as representing the opinion of •
the Coastal Commission itself. As described below, the proposed project raises issues related to the
protection of wetland habitat, water quality, and coastal access and recreation.
Below are the comments by Commission staff on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
1. ' Public Access and Recreation
Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum ac r
ce ss, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational o CCC -1
be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect alt
public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.
•
Jun -23 -2004 01:54mm From - California Coastal Commission T -816 P.003/006 F -504
Draft Environmental Impact Report C C C
Sense[ Harbour Marina Boat Dry Launch Parking and Dry Beat Storage Expansion
Page 2of5
•
Section 302125 of the Coastal Act states: f
Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilif es, including parking areas or facilities, shall
be distributed throughoutan area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, CCC -1
of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.
Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
•
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.
Section 30214 of the Coastal Act states:
(a) The public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into ((
account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access.depending on the
facts and circumstances in each case including; but not limited to, the following: • 1
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity.
•
(3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass
depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the
proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses.
(4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the
privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by
providing for the collection of litter. •
•
• (b) !t is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried
out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the
individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4
of Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto
shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of
Article X of the California Constitution.
(c) in carrying out the public access policies of this article, the commission and any other
responsible public agency shall consider and encourage the utilization of innovative access
management techniques, including, but not limited to, agreements with private organizations
which wou /d minimize management costs and encourage the use of volunteer programs.
Section 30220 of the Coastal Act states: •
. Coasts! areas suited for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided
at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses.
Section 30221 of the Coastal Act states:
Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and
development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial •
recreational activities that could be accommodated cn the property is already adequately
provided for in the area.
•
•
•
' Jun -U -2004 01:55pm From -California Coastal Commlcsion i -616 P.004/006 F -:04
• Bo Impact Report
C CC
Sunset Harbour Marna a Boat bunch unch Park Parking and Dry Post Storage Expansion
Page 3 of 5
Section 30223 of the Coastal Act states:
CCC -1
Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such
uses, where feasible. •
Section 30224 of the Coastal Act states:
Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance
with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities,
•
providing additional berthing space in existing harbors, !uniting non - water - dependent land
uses that congest access condors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors
of refuge, and by providing for new.boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water
areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. -
Section 30252 of the Coastal Act states:
The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance .public access to
the coast by (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing
commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will
minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the
development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of
serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit
for high intensity uses such as high -rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the
recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by
correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans
with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development.
•
The stated purpose of the proposed project Is to provide enhanced public recreational access to
coastal waters. Commission staff commends any genuine effort to improve coastal access and
recreational opportuniies. In this case, the method of increasing public access would be to provide
an additional parking facilities and a dry boat storage facility. Increasing the quantity of dry storage
is certainly in keeping with Section 30224 of the Coastal Apt. However. the property is also uniquely
situated adjacent to a national wildlife refuge. New development which encourages other lower cost
recreational activities such as allowing for the enjoyment of the scenic qualities of the refuge with
trails and picnicking areas, wildlife observation areas, and fishing are also encouraged under the
Coastal Act. Under the proposed project most of the land area is devoted to boat storage and
parking. The unique characteristics of the site suggest that boating uses need to be balanced with
other lower cost recreational opportunities on the site as well as appropriate wildlife protection areas.
Therefore, the EIR should consider project alternatives that also include as a component of the
overall project lower cost recreational facilities. .
2. Buffers
Section 30240 of the Coastal Act states:
• (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant
disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be
allowed within those areas.
(b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks
•
• and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would
•
•
•
Jun - ?3-2004 01:55pm tram-Cal ifornia Coastal Commission T -816 P.005 /006 F -504 �-y
Draft Environmental Impact Report (Cl l�
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion
Page of
•
significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of
those habitat and recreation areas.
The proposed project includes buffering between development areas and adjacent Wetlands. CCC -
Typically. a minimum of 100 -foot buffers is required from wetlands. However, the proposed project
will use setbacks that vary from a few feet to approximately 100 -feet. The EiR considers these
reduced buffers to be of adequate width due to its' determination that these wetlands are artificial
and are in a degraded condition. Nonetheless, a minimum 100 -foot buffer should be implemented to
the maximum extent feasible to avoid any adverse impacts to the wetland. Buffers less than 100 -
feet, especially buffers only consisting of a 'few feet' would likely not adequately protect the wetland.
• Therefore, the EiR should consider project alternatives that incorporate a minimum 100 -foot buffer
from the wetlands. •
3. Water Quality .
•
•
Section 30230 of the Coastal Act states:
•
Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced: and where feasible, restored. .Special
protection shall be given to areas and species of special biological or economic significance.
Uses of the marine environment shall be Gamed out in a manner that will sustain the
• biological productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of aN
species of marine organisms adequate for long -term commercial, recreational, scientific, and
educational purposes. '
Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states:
The biological productivity and. the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries,
and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the
protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through,
among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment,
controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference
with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation
buffer areas that protect riparian habitats. and minimizing alteration of natural streams. .
. The proposed project includes measures such as debris traps and landscaped bidfitter drainage CCC -
areas to manage water quality Impacts caused by the proposed development. The proposed •
measures must be sized and designed to mitigate water quality impacts generated by the
development The Commission has recently required that post -development peak runoff rates and
average volume from the developed site shall not exceed pre -development levels for the 2 -year 24-
hour storm runoff event. In addition, post -construction treatment control BMPs shall be designed to
mitigate (treat, infiltrate or filter) stormwater runoff from each storm event, up to and including the
85th percentile, 24 -hour storm event for volume -based BMPs, and/or the 85th percentile, 1 -hour
storm event, with an appropriate safety factor (i.e., 2 or greater), for flow -based BMPs. If the
proposed water quality mitigation measures do not meet the above criteria, water quality could be
adversely impacted. The EIR should address whether the proposed development meets the above
guidelines and any impacts upon water quality. which may result if the development is not consistent
with the guidelines.
•
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset
Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion Project. Commission staff
request notification of any future activity associated with this project or related projects. Please note,
•
•
Jun -23 -2004 01:66pm from - California Coastal Commission T -816 P.006 /006 F -804
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion CCC
Page 5 of 5
the comments provided herein are preliminary in nature. Additional and more specific comments
may be appropriate as the project develops into final form arid when an application is submitted for a
coastal development permit. Please feel free to contact me at 562 - 590 -5071 with any questions.
•
n , rely,
41, k _eta
Fem a 5y V
Coastal Program Analyst
Cc: State Clearinghouse
H:1fsy\EIR Letters\ Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion (SCHJS
2003081008)Na
•
•
•
•
•
•
11
State of California The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
i'caJaintd DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
lisig http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov �� '
4949 Viewridge Avenue $ o
San Diego, CA 92123
1. (858) 467 -4201
June 22, 2004
William Grieman
Planning and Development Services Department
County of Orange
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Harbour Marina
• Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion
County of Orange EIR No. 601 . •
• State Clearinghouse Number 2003081008 .
Dear Mr. Grieman: .
•
• The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the above - referenced Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEmR). The following comments have been prepared pursuant to
the Department's authority as Trustee Agency with jurisdiction over natural resources affected by
the project (CEQA Section 15386) and pursuant to our authority as a Responsible Agency under
• CEQA Section 15381 over those aspects of the proposed project that come under the purview of
the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.).
The Sunset Harbour Marina (Marina) is a 24 -hour public boat launch ramp and parking -
area located in the westem part of Orange County, at the western terminus of Edinger Avenue,
within the city of Seal Beach. The Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is directly north and
west of the project site. .The proposed project includes expansion of existing facilities to provide
an additional 72 boat trailer and vehicle parking spaces, and a boat storage facility that would
accommodate 314 dry stand boat spaces; The new facilities would occupy about 8.5 of the
• approximately 18 acres that are currently undeveloped at the Marina site; an additional 4 acres
would include existing patches of wetlands and buffer. The Department has several concerns
regarding both the adequacy ofthe document and certain project features. These concerns .
include the survey methodology, project lighting, and the buffer area.
The Department provided a comment letter in response to the Notice of Preparation for DFG -1
this project indicating that, in part, focused surveys for sensitive species would need to be
conducted at the appropriate time of year. The literature review and records search that was done
for this project as part of the biological assessment revealed a number of annual plants, both
listed and sensitive, with potential to occur on the project site. However, the field surveys were
conducted in October, November and December, when annual plants would only have been
present as seed or maybe as standing remains of growth from the previous spring and summer..
•
F
County of Grange DEG
June 22, 2004
Paget
The timing of the surveys would also have missed nesting bird activity. Additional surveys, DFG -2
conducted at the appropriate time of year, will be necessary before any vegetation removal
activities to ensure that impacts to listed and sensitive species have been addressed pursuant to
all applicable laws and regulations. •
The DEM acknowledges that lighting will be introduced into an area that currently is not DFG -3
illuminated. However, the document does not include enough information on this project feature
to adequately evaluate its potential impacts on listed and sensitive species in adjacent habitats,
both within the buffer and in the wildlife refuge. There isincreasing evidence that artificial
- lighting decreases adjacent habitat values. Incidental illumination of adjacent habitats should be
decreased as much as possible by keeping project lighting to a minimum, and all overhead
lighting should be replaced with low level ground- directed lighting. Additional measures, such
as the berm described in the paragraph below, should also be incorporated into project plans to
reduce the amount of light transmitted to areas outside of the parking and storage areas.
•
The buffer between the proposed project and wetland habitats ranges from a few feet to DFG 4
approximately 100 feet. With the flat topography of this site and its 24 -hour use, the Department
is concerned that this may not -be adequate to attenuate increased activity and light that will be
brought into close proximity to sensitive habitats. Although increasing the buffer distance may
reduce these impacts, it may be more useful in this case to create a visual barrier between the •
habitat and human activity. The DE1R indicates that grading is expected to result in an ['excess of .
14,500 cubic yards of material that will need to be exported from the site. This material should
be used to create a -5 -foot high earth berm around the edge of the parking lot and storage areas •
that would block headlights from shining directly into marsh habitats. In addition, planting
shrubs at the top of the berm would increase its height, and decrease the level of human activity
that is visible from the habitat areas. Native plant species should be used for planting the berm,
and fencing should.be added between the project and the buffer, on the project side of the berm. •
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions
regarding this _letter and further. coordination on these issues should be directed to Pam Beare at
(858) 467 -4229.
Sincerely, y
i
Donald R. Chadwick
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
cc: State Clearing House
PH:pb
SunsetHarbourJtr.6cc - •
•
916 657 5390 -� ner rnaimni.>» ...^ =ve
Received: 0/23/ 10 001
06/23/2004 16:36 FAX 916 65i 5390 NAEC
NAH • A F __ •: — ..
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
915 CAL MA11. ROOM 364 ' -� ' h�
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 r
(916) 659-082
(916)657-5 -Fax
June 23, 2004
•
Mr. William Grieman
County of Orange -
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702
•
Re: Draft EIR; Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Expansion
SCH# 200308100
Dear Mr. Grieman:
-
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above - mentioned document. The Commission was able NAH -
to perfomi a record search of its Sacred Lands File for the project area, which failed to indicate the presence of
Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area_ The absence of area. ecific site information
sources ation in the
S Lands File does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project
cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Early consultation with tribes in the project vicinity is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a
project is underway. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of
cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recrommendation or preference of a single
individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse .
impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated. If they cannot supply
information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. A minimum of two weeks must be allowed for
responses after notification. If you ereceiveennotification of change a we of
are able s and phone
onu sts con aim any these
individuals or groups, please notify
information. .
Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not prelude the existence of archeological
resources. Lead agencies should include provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during NAH -
construction per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public Resources Code §15064.5 (f): Health and
Safety Code §7050.5; and Public Resources Code 65097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an
accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery and should be included in
an environmental documents. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 653 -6251. .
• Sincerely, - -
r yi
Carol Gauba-
Program • i., t .
Ca State Clearinghouse .
•
•
Received: 6(23 /04 16:09;
nie esr 5aa� nor ...., Z002
06/23/2004 16:36 FAX 916 657 5390 NAFIC
NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS A
OrangeCounty
June 23, 2004 !
1
Samuel H. Dunlap Craig Torres
I
P.Q. Box 1391 Gabrielino 713 E. Bishop , Gabrielino Tongva
Santa Ana , C A 92701
Temecula C A 92593 Labelle
Luiseno (714) 542 -6678
(9 (909) 262 -9351 (Cell)
09) 693 -9196 FAX
Ti'At Society , . Coastal Gabrieleno Diiegueno
Cindi Alvttre . . Jim Velasques
6602 Zelzah Avenue Gabrielino 5776 42nd Street • Gabrielino
Reseda , C A 91335 , Riverside C A 92509 Kumeyaay
(714) 504 -2468 Cell •(909) 784 -6660
eatniesnorrangre Casa Gebrieiino Tagva Nelsen
Jo hn lino Tongva Indians Vice California
ha r)E w eflt 5 01 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Gabrielino Tongva
John Tomy Roses, Vice Chair/En Monica 90401 -2415
4712 Admiralty Way, Suite 172 Gabrielino Tongva G A
Marina Del Rey. C A 90202 (310) 587-?203
• 31010-5704
hhcc@rricn.org (310) 587 -2281 Fax
.
i
Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians o CA
Anthony Morales, Chairperson Ms. Susan Frank h
Gabrielino Tongva PO Box 3021 Gabrielino
PO a Box 693 Beaumont , C A 92223
(626) ) 2.86 -
SanGabriel 6-1632 C A 91778 (702) 647 -0094: Phone/FAX
(626) 286 -1262 Fax
. [626) 286 -1758 (Horne)
MIS ust la =Tent only as of the dela of this document laws of the Health one
.Dlstibud o
on of this list does not Slave any person at stat itoty responsldlftY as defined In Secdan
Safety Cock, ,gdon 5097.64 of the �Pyu�bllic Resodrtes Code end Section .5�00997Y 96 of the Pudic Resources Cods
This
Draft a, on sM Mariana B oar Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage 6xpSnolCn. 20 tor
a nge County.
Fece iveC: B/23/ 16eO9% 916 657 5390 -i pier rn umni.m mvm , =v ■ --
06/23/2004 16:37 FAX 916 657 5390
NAHC X003
NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS NAH
OrangeCounty 1 11
June 23, 2004
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources
5450 Blouson. Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrielino Tongva
Culver City , CA 90230 -6
gqttop a @earthlinlc_net
56261 -6417 - voice
562-920-9449 - fax
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
Mercedes Dorame, Tribal Administrator
20990 Las Flores Mesa Drive Gabrielino Tongva
Malibu , C A 90202
Pluto05 @hotmailcom
•
This It Is currant only as of the date al this d0cwler2
Satiny Code, Section 5097.94 m 1f)e Public c S Code fl Section 5091.92 .92 of the Pubic ResourCes Cade Hearth and
This fist Is only applicable tor contacting ;coal Native Americans with regard to cultural reeoo,xs assessment for the or000sed
Draft LIR, Sunset Harbour Marine Boar Launch Parking and Dry Boat Stomge Espanalon, SCNI 21,03021,03061000. 0610 Orange Coisrty-
TSC
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F. Lowry, Director
Terry Tamminen 5796 Corp orate Avenue
Agency Secretary
Cal/EPA Cypress, California 90630 Arnold scn.varzenegc
Governor
June 22, 2004
Mr. William Grieman
Public Projects Section
•
Environmental Planning Services DIVision
Planning and Development Services Department
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, California 92702
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SUNSET HARBOUR
• MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION,
APRIL 2004 (SCH# 2003081008)
Dear Mr. Grieman:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Expansion, April, 2004. Based on the review of the currently •
submitted document DTSC has comments as follows:
•
•
1) Please address all of the comments in DTSC's August 18, 2003 letter to your
agency regarding a Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR for the Sunset Harbor TSC -1
.Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion Project that were
•
not addressed in this EIR.
- 2) If the subject property was previously used for vegetation, agriculture, weed
residue, fuel waste or other chemical waste. The site may have contributed to • TSC -2
soil and groundwater contamination. Proper investigation and remedial actions
•
should be conducted at the site prior to the new development.
3) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil. TSC -3
If the .soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
4) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site should be TSC-4
o Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. William Grieman TSC
June 22, 2004
Page 2 -
P
conducted to provide basic information for determining if there are, have been TSC -4
or will be, any threatening releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk
to human health or the environment.
5) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the TSC -5
Califomia Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5).
6) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes
are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, TSC -6
or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. The facility
should contact DTSC at (818) 551 -2171 to initiate pre application discussions
and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility.
7) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from TSC -7
the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the
requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
8) if the project plans include discharging waste water to storm drain, you may be
required to obtain a waste water discharge permit from the Regional Water TSC -8
Quality Control Board, Region 8.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Ms.Teresa Hom, hProject
Manager, at (714) 484 -5477.
■
Sincerely,
,--<>
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Southem California Cleanup Operations Brandi - Cypress Office
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
Mr. Guenther W. Moskat, Chief
Planning and Environmental Analysis Section
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, . California 95812 -0806
u / /N2r' 2N04 10:40 9097316296 REGIONAL WATER ECiRD PAGE 02
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region ti
Terry Tamminen 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501 -3348 ,Arnold Sch »�renegaer
Secretary for (909) 7824130 • Fax (909) 711.6288 Governor
Fnviramnenm( ,, httplww w
wsrch.ca,gov':nvueb8
Protection .
July 2, 2004 W Q CB
William Grieman
Orange County Resources and Development Management.Dept.,
300 N. Flower Street
P.O. Box 4048 _
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048 ,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EXPANSION OF SUNSET HARBOUR .. .
MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AMC DRY BOAT STORAGE, SUNSET AQUATIC PARK
LTD., ANAHEIM BAY, CITY OF SEAL BEACH, SCH #2003081008 .
Dear Mr. Grieman:
Staff of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), have reviewed the
. April 2004 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding the above - referenced project on the
northern shore of Anaheim Bay. Sunset Aquatic Park Ltd. leases the 50 -acre area from the County
of Orange as the Sunset Harbour Marina, a public facility. The project consists of a 2.32 -acre
expansion of the existing 4.50 -acre vehicle and boat trailer parking area, located adjacent to the
site's one boat launch ramp, as well as expansion of dry stand boat storage to 6.13 additional acres
• (314 total spaces). The expansion is proposed to occur within the northern ruderal portion of the
leased premises, adjacent to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (SBNWR) and the western
terminus of Edinger Avenue. We have the following comments:
1. Anaheim Bay has been listed as an impaired waterbody under Clean Water Act (CWA) WQCB -1
Section 303(4). The pollutants known to be causing water quality impairment include
copper, dieldrin, nickel, and poly - chlorinated biphenyls(PCBs) but the sources have not.
been identified. The additional activities proposed by the expansion could contribute to
increased copper loading into Anaheim Bay directly by leaching from copper -based boat
paint. Anaheim Bay's CWA 303(d) listing will eventually require the development of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the pollutants of concern.., We encourage the Sunset
Harbour Marina to evaluate their discharges for these pollutants, and if found, their •
reduction or elimination in stormwater or dry- weather discharges will help reduce the
issuance of requirements.
2. The applicant has identified mitigation measures (Measures 4.6), including three' drainage WQCB -2
' systems to be constructed with swales and /or filters, intended to convey filtered runoff to
Anaheim Bay. These drainages are intended to implement best management practices
(BMPs) to prevent the transfer of additional pollutants from the parking lot and bcat storage
surfaces into Anaheim Bay and the SBNWR. Although the BMPs appear to be adequate in
preventing adverse water quality impacts to the waterboclies, the Regional Board may •
require that the attendant Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) include
• additional practices or specific water quality monitoring in order to document that the Marina
is not contributing to already poor water quality conditions. For instance, petroleum •
• hydrocarbons are not mentioned as one of the projected analytes on p.4.6 -26. Aside from
the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit mentioned in 4.6 -8, the project must
comply (in cooperation with the City of Seal Beach) with the Areawide Urban Storm Water
• . California Environmental Proie Agency
Recycled Parer •
SUL -02 - 2004 to : 2SRM TE — )9097216280 IC) )FIJ&JTRrWMFNTf Pi N(' PC4 P:flt P Pr1G0z
0 7/02 10:40 299731E288 REGIONAL WATER EO,.RD PAGE 02
1, 1 Q C B
William Gr eman .
2 - July 2, 2004 )
WQCB 2 A l i
Runoff Permit for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District, and 1
-
Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region (Order No. R8 -2002-
0010, NPDES No. CAS618030). Information about this permit program can b f ound at
k i
http://www.swrcb.ca.govistormwtrIconstruction.htrnl. • ii •
3. We recommend that the project consider the practices outlined through the State Nonpoint W Q CB -3
• Source Program's marina workgroup. There are also some voluntary marina programs
(e.g, California Sea Grant) that could be contacted to discuss good marina impact reauction
strategies. We wish to advise marina operators that boat leaning, including deck
washdowns and the removal of barnacles from hulls, should be conducted in dry dock
• where possible, with all washwater captured and contained for sewering. In the setting of E
this expanded project, boat washing may be conducted using such nonhazardous, , I
phosphate -free solutions as citrus and vegetable -based acids, muriatic add, borax and
lemon juice, or baking soda end vinegar. These residues should still be contained and WQCB -4
hauled off for sewer disposal. If fueling is to occur an site (an activity which.is not apparent
. • from the DER) we are concemed.that all co ntainment measures be taken around tanks or
fuel dispensers to prevent drips, leaks, and spills from entering waters of the state.
4, Section 4.3.1.4 identifies 5.15 acres of potential wetland areas that may fall within the WQCB 75
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). • Even though no filling of
• channels or shoreline areas is indicated in the DEIR, both the installation of swafe drainages
leading to Anaheim Bay and the disturbance of wetlands may constitute a need. for I
obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the Corps. if so, before the Corps I
can issue the Section 404 permit, the Regional Board has to certify and condition pursuant
• to Section 401that the proposed project and operation will not adversely affect water quality
standards, i.e., will provide safeguards for water quality objectives and beneficial uses. •
Compensation for any wetland areas lost must be In-kind" and fully functional.) Information
concerning a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) can be'ffound at
www. swrcb .ca.govirwocb8/htm11401.html, on the Regional Board's website. Please contact I
Adam Fischer of our office at (909) 320 -6363 for information regarding this issue.
5. While a buffer area of existing ruderal vegetation is planned between the area of WQCB -
constructlon and the SBNWR, there is no vegetational or similar habitat mitigation plan 6
proposed to compensate for the overall encroachment o t he exp project on
eti l oci l
ecos We believe thataugmentational native vegetation p 9 P p
portions of the project area would enhance wildlife habitat beneficial uses andIprovide (at
• least' in part) robust estuarine wildlife habitat and movement corridors. We recommend that
• the DEIR include and describe a plantingirrfaintenance program intended to support the
BIOL, WILD, RARE, SPWN, and MAR beneficial uses identified for Anaheim Bay -Seal •
Beach National Wildlife Refuge in the RWQCB Basin Plan:
6. The DEIR indicates that the project will not conduct resulting onduct c onstruction ac tivities in the WQCB 7
spread' of Caulerpa taxifolia (Ct), an invasive marine alga. However, increased boat traffic
can contribute to the chopping and spread of Ct pieces, which then establish' multiple
colonies. Prior to construction, the project should survey for Ct and if it is found, the
California Department of Fish and Game or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration must be notified so that the Ct is removed prior to the start of construction
activities. Additionally,. a survey for eelgrass, akeystone native species, should be
conducted also and mapped in relation to Sunset Harbour Marina.
•
California Environmental Protection Agency
• fecvded Parser •
In _no_ >rrn 1ra. CQM • T1 1gng7R1cPAA ID)ENIIPDMENTRLPL NG PAGE:003 R =100%
G rI U[.I =LTV" 10.4u 700(010 4C0
rCQLLHYHL WMIGK nLJ4KL) HA'%=
WQCB
William Gr eman
3 - July 2, 2304
•
If you have any questions, please contact me at (909) 782 -3259 or Mark G. Adelson, Chief of the
Regional Planning Programs Section, at (909) 782 -3234.
Sincerely,
•
Glenn S. Robertson
Engineering Geologist
Regional Planning.Programs Section
cc; Scott Morgan - State Clearinghouse
• Q: Planning )Groberts&Letters /CEQA/DEIR- City of Seal Beach- Sunset Harbour Marina Expand
•
•
•
•
•
• California Environmental Protection Agency
c acycled Paper
JUL- 62 -2004 10:::0AM TFL)9097816269
ID)ENVIRONMENNTALPIJ4 PAGE:00 R =100%
•
USFW
r o United States Department of the Interior r ,,,, m
H
P . r c„ F
o Fish and Wildlife Service SCIIVICZ
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
i ` ^`` P.O. Box 815 •
• \ Seal Beach, California 90740
July 9, 2004
Mr. Richard Adler •
County of Orange
Resources and Development Management Department
300 N. Flower Street -
Santa Ana, California 92702-4048
•
Re: County of Orange DEIR No. 601, SCH.No.2003081008 •
Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and •
Dry Boat Storage Expansion
•
•
Dear Mr. Adler:
•
As manager of the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), I want to thank you for personally USFW -1
delivering to me a copy of the referenced Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). For some
reason unbeknownst to both of us the document had not been sent to the NWR. Again, thanks for the
opportunity to share the following comments on the Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and
Dry Boat Storage Expansion development proposal (Project).
As I understand it, the Project is to be located on an already partially developed, publicly -owned 50-
acre parcel currently known as Sunset Harbour Marina (previously named Sunset Aquatic Park).
Existing facilities located on this parcel (Leased Premises) include boat slips available for lone -term
lease, a boat launch ramp, parking for boat trailers and vehicles, and a shipyard. About 1/5 (20 acres)
of the 50 -acre parcel is still vacant. It is on this vacant land that the Project proponent plans to expand
the existing boat launch parking area and to construct a new long -term boat storage area. A perimeter
• buffer area will also be created adjacent to the Refuge to protect the seasonal wetland areas on the
site: Upon Project completion, 86% of the Leased Premises will be built out. -
There is reference in the DEIR of an existing, 3 -acre dredge disposal basin within the eastern edge of USFW -2
the Leased Premises; however it is not described under existing facilities of the project description.
There is also reference to a 5.5 -acre least tern nesting area west of the marina although it is not part of
the Leased Premises.
There are five Project objectives, including: (1) enhance recreational boating opportunities, (2) USFW -
accommodate a greater number of less expensive boats, (3) create a safer, more efficient traffic
pattem for users of the boat launch, (4) reduce impacts to public street traffic and to residential
. neighbors, and (5) enhance public revenues.
The DEIR includes an analysis of several dimensions of the project's environmental impacts. My
comments will focus on biological resources, water quality, land use, noise, and public services, but
•
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 2 of 9
first some general comments.
General Comments
1. - I note that those responsible for the preparation of the DEIR did not contact Refuge USFW-4
management in the course of preparing their analysis. I would recommend that there be
some communication and consultation with the Refuge in the matter of development
proposals that have potential impacts on the Refuge.
2. As noted above, the proposed Project is located adjacent to a National Wildlife Refute. f {
The Refuge was originally protected as a U.S. Navy Wildlife Refuge in 1964. In 1972, USFW -5
three years after the opening of the Sunset Harbour Marina, the Navy refuge was
designated as a unit of our country's National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge was
established with the purpose of protecting estuarine and saltwater marsh habitats of
Anaheim Bayand threatened plants and wildlife that lived there or temporarily
depended on the area during.migration or over the winter season. In the 1960's, the idea
of protecting coastal wetlands from urban development was gaining the public's
recognition. In fact, at the time, the Toss of over one third of the Anaheim Bay wetlands .
resulting from the Huntington Harbor development added impetus and urgency to the
need to balance socioeconomic, housing and recreational needs with natural ecosystem
requirements. I ask, have the proponents of the current project considered their proposal
from this broader, historical perspective related to wetland protection? If the proponent
has not, I would urge the Commission members and Supervisors tasked with making a
decision regarding the appropriateness of the project, to decide based on the broad public
utility of the land. It is a paradox to me that some among County government are
proposing more development on property that was once a natural wetland, and at the same
time others in the County are teaching children how we have destroyed or degraded so
many of our coastal wetlands in Orange County to the detriment of our flood control
capacity, water quality, recreational fishing opportunities, and our resident and migratory
wildlife. I ask if the proponents of the current project have considered the restoration of
the 18 acres to their original wetland status.
3. There was little discussion regarding the purpose and need of this project. The objectives
were succinctly stated. They presumably are based on some needs analysis but there was USFW -6
no supporting.data offered in the DEIR. It is difficult for me, as an affected land manager
with public trust responsibilities, to balance socioeconomic needs with environmental
needs without substantive information related to the scope and magnitude of the public
needs and benefits being addressed by the groposed Project. Some information can be
gleaned from the DEIR's discussion of alternatives but this is meager and mostly
tangential to the explaining or discussing the actual need. I wonder how the decision
makers will come to reasonable decisions regarding the use of public land.
As an illustration, under the "no build" alternative discussion in the DEIR. reference is USFW -7
made to the creation of more efficient internal boat launch oriented circulation system;
however, there is no description of the inefficiency of the current configuration! Reference
is made to the reduction of on street parking of boats and trailers; but there is no data
presented to give the public a picture of the problem or its magnitude. Perhaps the very
extensive, northern shoulder of that stretch of Edinger Avenue leading into the park
would contribute toward the solution with the benefit of not disturbing existing wetland
•
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 3 of 9
and wildlife resources and not destroying potential and suitable wetland restoration sites. I USFW -7
The first objective of the proposed Project is to "provide enhanced recreational
opportunities through more convenient direct access to the water for users of both the boat USFW -8
launch ramp and the dry boat storage area." I do not entirely understand how providing
more convenient direct access translates into an enhanced recreational opportunity. It
appears that it will allow 72 individuals (and their families /friends) to launch and park
their boat on any given day; these people would otherwise have to find parking some
other place. This additional space will require 2:3 acres of historic wetland. Those people
who do the parking will need to walk 100 to 200 yards from the parking lot to the boat
launch facility. To put this level of "convenience" in perspective, I and my wife recently
attended a music festival in the of Long Beach, near the Queen Mary; we parked in
public parking and walked approximately 400 yards to the venue. It was great exercise.
We sometimes have to walk just as far to a picnic table site in Mile Square Park on a busy
• afternoon. The proposed dry boat storage area, which will cover 6.13 acres, will
accommodate 314 dry stand spaces. This is to say that 314 additional boat owners will be
able to store their boat on what was, not too long ago, coastal salt marsh wetland. I
speculate that most of the 314 individuals/families /friends will not use their boats on most
days of the year; however, no data is provided in the DEIR to make an educated estimate.
4. The DEIR states that "There is no wastewater generation rate for the proposed project
(boat storage and day use parking), and the proposed project will not add wastewater- USFW -9
generating facilities such as toilets and sinks." Where is the boat users' wastewater going
to go? What about the boat wash facility?
5. The DEIR states that "currently, OCFA cannot meet the response time goals described in
Section 4.9.1. Therefore, an increase in activity on the site could result in potentially • USFW -10
significant impacts relating to fire and emergency service." The document goes on to state
that various mitigation measures will reduce those impacts to less than significant Even
with the mitigation measures (e.g., For road less than '36 feet wide, "No Parking" signs
shall be provided ensuring safe access by firefighting equipment "), the conclusion does
not make common sense. The DEIR states that there is likely to be an increased need for
these services and at the same time admits that the service provider is not meeting its
response time goals. Putting up no parking signs and fire hydrants does not address the
fact that currently the fire department cannot respond in an appropriate time to
emergencies. Increasing the likelihood of the need for such services by implementing the
project, even with its mitigation measures, only ensures the likelihood that the service
provider will not meet its goals for its existing clients, viz., the existing homeowners,
apartment dwellers, and commercial and retail businesses in the service area.
6. The DEIR states that while the proposed project is a commercial use, it will not generate a
substantial new use of portable water. The City of Seal Beach Public Services Department USFW -11
provides the Lead Agency with a unit for calculation purposes, but this water unit flow
factor of 3,000 gallons pc acre per day is dismissed based on an unsubstantiated claim.
The only potential use of water would be for limited landscape area irrigation. Where and
with what water are boat owners expected to clean their crafts? With what water are they
expected to supply their on -board water reservoirs? Exactly how much water is typically
used for irrigation and what amount is anticipated for this use? Are fire hydrants
considered part of the portable water system infrastructure?
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 4 of 9
•
7. It is hard to imagine that boating activity in the harbor will not increase, especially as that USFW -12
appears to be one of the project's objectives. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why
the Sheriffs Department is not anticipating an increased need for staffing or equipment.
One objective of the proposed project is to accommodate a greater number of smaller, less
expensive boats. An increase in smaller boats could lead to an increased number of
- incidents of trespass on to the National Wildlife Refuge and result in disturbance to the
sensitive habitat and wildlife protected at the site. Currently, I do not have the staff to deal
with the existing incidents. I gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of
personnel from both the County Sheriff s Department and the Harbor Security unit at the
Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach. The funds to adequately support the personnel and
equipment required to patrol the Apaheim Bay and to deal with unauthorized entry into •
the marsh are neither currently nor likely to be budgeted. The greatest problem .
experienced on the Refuge from unauthorized entry comes from owners of small craft and
renters of the same. Additional signs informing boaters might alleviate this problem;
however a combination of buoys and booms would be the best solution in my opinion.
The matter of a preventing unauthorized access on to the NWR is presumably also a USFW -13
matter of serious concern tothe U.S. Navy. Many facets of the proposed Project could
have direct and indirect impacts on the Navy's mission. The NWR is managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) which is a bureau of the Department of the Interior.
The Service is responsible for the management of the land as a national wildlife refuge;
however, the Department of Defense is the title holder of the property and its mission of
national security is considered primary.
8. The DEIR concludes that the project will not result in any significant impacts with respect
to existing traffic volumes and level of service during its construction and on -going USFW -14
operation. This is good news, as so many projects do add to the traffic tie -ups so' "often
encountered on local and regional arterials. Nevertheless, the functional status of the
intersection of Bolsa Chica Avenue and Edinger Avenue ought to be monitored during the
construction phase and contingency measures implemented if unanticipated delays
unreasonably affect the major arterial function of this intersection.
• 9. , Since I was not around when the Sunset Harbour Marina was originally constructed, I am
' ignorant as to whether or not the current 18 -acre proposed Project site was left USFW -15
undeveloped as part of an "enlightened" open space land use policy or as some type of
mitigation for the construction and development of the existing facility. Grading has
occurred on the site during the five years that I have managed the Refuge. Was a grading
permit required? And if so, did those responsible for the grading obtain the proper
authorization?
10. The DEIR states that the County has historically utilized material from the proposed
Project site for embankment repair for local flood control channels. Please describe in the USFW-1 6
Final EIR how this flood control management need will be addressed and what the costs
will be compared to continuing to use the proposed Project site.
11. I was unable to ascertain in the DEIR an evaluation of the overall fiscal impacts on the
County of the proposed Project. One of the objectives of the project is to "enhance USFW -17
revenues to the County's Harbors, Beaches, and Parks Fund." Please explain in the Final
EIR how exactly the proposed project is being financed. The County is obviously the
Lead Agency with respect to State CEQA Guidelines. But I am unclear as to whether this
is a project proposed and /or endorsed by the County and will be financed by public funds.
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 5 of 9
Who has paid for the development and preparation of the DEIR? It appears from USFW -17
Appendix C and G that the biological assessment and data regarding hydrology and water
quality were initially prepared by a private consultant at the request of Sunset Aquatic
Park, Ltd. Regardless of who prepares the information, it would seem reasonable to
expect some type of financial assessment of the project given one of the objectives of the
proposed Project and given the fact that the Project will result in permanent alteration of
landscape currently owned by the public. If this is not the case, please clarify this point in
the Final EIR
Specific Comments
12. In the section on biological regources, the DEIR states that the Project site was an
intertidal salt marsh prior to the deposition of fill in the .1960's following the construction USFW -18
of the Bolsa ChiS Channel. The northern and western perimeter of the project site lies
adjacent to the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach ( NWSSB). The NWSSB encompasses
825 acres of the Anaheim Bay estuary. The estuary encompassed over 1300 acres of salt
• marsh habitat before the Huntington Harbor residential and retail- commercial complex
was constructed in the 1960's. Forty years later the 18 -acre Project site and the 5.5 -acre
tern nesting site west of the present marina are all that remain of the bay wetlands outside
the boundaries of the NWSSB, and the Project advocates are proposing to encroach
farther onto what little there is left under their jurisdiction. We recommend that the
decision makers consider rejectine or substantially reducing the extent of this project
proposal in favor of preserving the opportunity of restoring this portion of the Leased
Premises to tidal salt marsh.
13. The DEIR states that, according to LSA biologists, 10.95 acres of the project site is USFW -19
"disturbed" as either "bare ground" (8.05 acres) or "graveled" (2.9 acres); that the
disturbed area dominates the 18 -acre site. As a manager of a wildlife refuge, and as fish
and wildlife biologist, I would suggest that both bare ground and graveled -over ground
can provide habitat and refuge to wildlife. Both bare ground and graveled upland areas
are used by wildlife and can serve important functions in the life history of many plant
and wildlife species.
14. 'Eighteen (18) acres of open space, adjacent to a. relatively pristine tidal wetland, obviously USFW -20
serves as a buffer against existing development. The precise value of such buffer space is
difficult to formulate in quantitative terms. Further development of existing open space on
the Leased Premises, which results in increased human activity, will unquestionably result
in disturbance of the wildlife that uses the open space and the wildlife that makes its
permanent or temporary home in the marsh lands of the Refuge.
15. Against what exactly does the current open space provide a buffer zone? First the space
provides some buffer against invasive and exotic plant species by accommodating such USFW-2 1
species. If the buffer did not exist it is likely that the Refuge would be more vulnerable to
invasion by non - native weedy plant species. Invasive weeds that colonize the non -tidal
portions of the pickleweed habitat will result in the elimination of nesting habitat for the
State- listed endangered Belding's savanna sparrow. So while this habitat is intended to be
preserved within a natural buffer zone under the current Project proposal, the threat from
invasive weeds is not addressed. As a land manager, it is realistic to predict the increased
colonization of the Refuge upland edge by weedy species as a result of the proposed
project.
USFW
Page 6of9
Mr. Richard Adler
16. The proposed project, providing parking and storage over an area greater than 2.7 million USFW -22
square feet, results in a substantial surface water drainage challenge. The marine resources
and aquatic habitat of the Refuge, by their location north and west of the proposed
Project, will be subject to the site's surface water runoff. Several pages of the DEIR are
devoted to addressing hydrology and water quality issues. Several site design and
treatment best management practice are incorporated into the proposed project "to reduce
potential impacts to site hydrology and Huntington Harbor." I am particularly concerned
with the proposed efficacy and maintenance of the bioswale "proposed in Watershed 1 to
treat runoff from the gravel boat storage are targeting sediments, nutrients, metals; and
pathogens." The DEW states that this vegetated swale "will act as a buffer between the
• project site and the adjacent wetlands areas." I presume from the text that runoff from the
Project site's Watershed 1 will flowrinto the Refuge; it is not by any means clearly
depicted in Figure 4.6.2, at least to me, the non - architect and non - engineer. Please visually
indicate in the Final EIR the precise location of the. "outfall in the cove near the boat
launch" referred to on p. 4.6 -26 of the DEIR The 10 -year storm water flow for the
implemented project was characterized as a "minor increase" over the existing 10-year USFW -23
flow estimate, 1.7 vs. 1.4 cubic feet per second. This is slightly greater than a 20%
increase. The idea that the proposed project does not involve a change in land use is .
frequently re- iterated in the DEIR Not very familiar with land use planning, I am not
clear what this means or its broader significance. From a layman's perspective, the
proposed 18 -acre project site is undeveloped, open space. Converting approximately 8.5
acres to parking and storage areas appears to be a change in land use. If the proposed
Project were considered a change in land use, please explain in the Final EIR how that '
would affect requirements and regulations related to hydrology and water quality.
17. I could only locate in Figure 4.3.1 one of the three distinct stands of southern spikeweed I USFW -24
(Centromadia parryi ssp. Australis), a plant of special interest, reported to be located on
the site.
18. The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines annum) was taken off of the federal
I USFW -25
endangered and threatened species list in October of 2001.
19.. The federally listed endangered, migratory Califomia least tern (Sterna antillarum) should USFW-26
be included in the list of sensitive avian species regularly foraging during its April-
• through- August breeding season in estuarine waters adjacent to the proposed Project site.
20. The rare Nelson's sharp - tailed sparrow (Ammodramus nelsoni) should be included in the - 1
list of sensitive avian species that is moderately likely to occur on the proposed Project USFW -27
site, given its regular wintering occurrence in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
Project site.
21. The DEIR states that the loss of 2.6 acres of ruderal goldenbush scrub and 0.07 acres of
ruderal annual grassland as a result of the expanded vehicle and trailer parking area and USFW -28
the new boat storage area represent a Tess than significant impact due to the generally
disturbed condition of these habitats and the relatively small amount of area to be
affected. Please provide data in the Final EIR, from the local vicinity, explaining this
conclusion. In addition, please explain how this open space area came to be either bare
ground or covered with ruderal vegetation. If past human activity may have contributed,
then it might be concluded that increased human activity in the area would result in a
similar degradation of other habitat on the proposed Project site. .
22. The DEIR states that the endangered Belding's savanna sparrow use adjacent marsh USFW -29
upland areas, "especially young birds undertaking their initial dispersal away from the
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 7 of 9
natal homes." I would conclude, therefore, that for those Belding's savanna sparrows who
fledge in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, the availability of the upland habitat USFW -29
may be critical to their survival and recruitment into the population. Furthermore, it is not
only hatch year birds that use marsh upland habitat This habitat is essential to all
- Belding's savanna sparrows during the extreme high tides that occur on a regular basis in
the Anaheim Bay marsh. During these high tide events, the sparrows and other birds such
as the endangered Light- footed clapper rail, require the elevation and cover needed to
protect themselves from predators. Upland, even ruderal upland habitat, serves this critical
function. If the birds do not have this type of micro - refugia, they are left exposed and
vulnerable to predators, such as Merlin, Red - tailed hawk, Northern harrier, Great blue
heron, Short -eared owl, and feral cat. Destroying open space around any Refuge may
result in concentrating those animals that previously used the area in a manner that
disrupts the functioning of the bordering community. For example, the Merlin may
continue to fregdent the project site, as stated in the DEIR, but the 8.45 acres of open
space, designed to accommodate parking and boat storage, will hardly be available for it
to forage over. Instead, it is forced to rely for its prey from a smaller area.' Initially this
may not prove to be an adverse outcome, since the smaller area may have a greater
concentration of prey that have been forced out off the project site into the smaller area.
However, cumulatively over time, the numbers and diversity of animal species are likely
to diminish.
23. The DEIR states that because the proposed Project will not affect any Pickleweed salt
marsh habitat, many species including the Loggerhead shrike, California homed lark, San USF\V -30
Diego black - tailed jackrabbit, impacts to these species are considered less than significant.
But it is not Pickleweed habitat that these species primarily use; it is weedy annual
grassland and scrub that provide habitat for these critters, and the proposed project will be
destroying a relatively good- sized, well - positioned chunk of it
24. Regarding wildlife corridors, the DEIR concludes that the proposed Project "will not • .
directly impact" those habitat areas on the project site most likely to support wildlife and USFW -31
its movement. To the extent that the 8.45 acres is used by wildlife, both during day and
night, there will obviously be a direct effect by its conversion to parking and boat storage.
But, in addition, there is likely to be several indirect effects during both the construction
and operation of the facility. All noise associated with the construction is likely to result in
wildlife reducing their movement within and around the site. Night lighting associated
with the operation of the facility will also alter the movement patterns of various nocturnal
animals in a way that could discourage or adversely affect their use of the site.
25. There is the distinct likelihood that the additional human activity and the storage of boats,
resulting from the proposed Project, would attract animals that currently do not use or USFW -32
only occasionally use the open space area, particularly dogs, feral and domestic cats,
raccoons, opossums, etc. These animals could adversely alter the movement of the coyote
around the Refuge. The coyote is extremely important in the balanced functioning of the
Refuge's marsh community. It is our natural protection against the non - native red fox
which wreaked havoc on the ground- nesting birds of the Refuge and Station in the 1970's
and 1980's, including sensitive species as the endangered California least tern, Light -
footed clapper rail, and Western burrowing owl. The clapper rail population had been
reduced to 6 pairs from a late 1960's estimate of around 100 pairs. It was only after 350
red foxes were removed from the NWSSB/Refuge and a comprehensive management
policy recognizing the key role played by the coyote in the community that the rail
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 8 of 9
population began to recover. Any proposed action that might prevent or discourage the 1
• movement of the coyote in and around the Refuge is significant. The highest USFW -32 I
concentration of nesting Light- footed clapper rails on the Refuge is in the marsh adjacent
to the proposed Project site.
26. As the DEIR notes, "the California Coastal Commission typically requests a 100 -foot •
buffer zone between residential and commercial developments and adjacent wetlands." USFW -33
But without providing any real justification, the DEIR concludes that "a buffer this wide
would not be warranted for the use proposed in this particular project." The discussion in F
the DEIR related to a buffer zone appears focused on maintaining the sites hydrologic
integrity. The DEIR that a buffer zone of Tess than 100 feet is considered adequate given
the project design features and given the artificial, degraded condition of the jurisdictional
nontidal wetlands that exist on.the yite. But in this respect it seems reasonable to assume
that the larger the buffer the more likely the subject wetlands, "sustained hydrologically E
by rainfall," would accumulate surface runoff and thus be more likely to be preserved.
The DEIR does not inform the reader as to the reasons why the California Coastal I
Commission typically look for a 100 -foot buffer between development and wetlands.
From a refuge management perspective I will list several issues and recommend a j
substantially larger, 250 -foot buffer to minimize the direct and indirect impacts to
biological resources resulting from the proposed Project.
> Domestic pets — both direct and indirect problems are associated with this issue.
Directly, pets frequently result in increased predation of sensitive species and increase
dollars spent for predator management. Indirectly, increased public outreach is
required relative to predator management activities.
3 Trash — unfortunately, trash is the most obvious, and often used public gauge of
management capability. Also, the unavoidable human trampling associated with trash
clean -up is unarguably better done within a buffer zone than in salt marsh vegetation.
Regarding solid waste management, the DEIR states that the project may require an
additional trash bin and another weekly pickup, and that this would not be beyond the
capability of the private service provider. Again, I am provided no data by the Lead
Agency to support this conclusion. I am left to guess at what will happen to the
garbage and trash that is inevitably associated with commercial and recreational
activity. The matter of trash is something very significant from the perspective of .
refuge management. A great deal of personnel and volunteer time is expended in
attempting to . keep wildlife habitat free of human trash.
i Erosion — this is inevitable, but a sensible buffer zone design will impede soil
movement which will then prevent the destruction of significant native vegetation.
> Unauthorized access — a 250 -foot wide zone would provide ample acreage for
appropriate native vegetation restoration that could help in deterring off -site access by
both humans and canine species.
> Invasive weeds — the greater the distance between invasive weed species and the
Refuge the less chance there is for exotic seeds to disperse onto Refuge property.
> Storm water run -off — a 250 -foot wide buffer would serve to minimize pollutant and
sediment transfer into the Refuge.
➢ Noise- the breeding success of "shy" species such as the Light - footed clapper rail is
presumably affected by factors such as noise. If nesting areas can remain at an
adequate distance from human sources of noise, breeding success can be better
assured.
USFW
Mr. Richard Adler Page 9 of 9
Artificial lighting — shielding will be required to reflect Tight away from the Refuge, USFW -33
but the distance of the lights from the Refuge boundary remains a factor. A 250 -foot
buffer provides that safe distance.
I hope I have adequately described the importance of a 250 -foot buffer between the
proposed Project and the Refuge.
With several of the previous comments in mind I would recommend that the project proponents
either pursue the no project/off -site storage alternative or the wetlands consolidation alternative. USFW -34
The former alternative would have the least short-term adverse biological impacts; however. there
are enhancement and restoration activities at the site that should be implemented at some point; if
these do not occur, then the biological resources will suffer over the long term. The wetlands
consolidation alternative could be a viable opportunity:
➢ If the project design would incorporate an elevated, berm -type barrier along the western
and northern perimeter of the construction footprint; ,
�^ If that footprint would be pulled back some to afford a wider buffer between the project
and the Refuge, and
• If the project design would include habitat enhancement and restoration in the remaining
open space buffer.
The wetlands consolidation alternative would have the least adverse long -term effects on habitat
and also result in substantial, more durable benefits to wildlife. The DEIR identified the wetlands
consolidation alternative as the environmentally superior option but, unfortunately, it is not
described in any detail. As manager of the Refuge and a potentially affected neighbor, I would he
happy to participate in future planning meetings regarding the proposed Project. Please call me at .
(562) 598 -1024 if you have any questions or need clarification regarding the above comments.
Sincerely,
Johh R. Bradley, Ph.D.
Refuge Manager
Copy: Robert Schallmann (NWSSB)
Gregg Smith ( NWSSB)
Susan Fujioka (NWSSB)
Mendel Stewart (USFWS)
Ken Corey (USFWS)
•
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
RESPONSES TO STATE AGENCIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc a10/07/04D 30
_
...
,
,
,
.
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. - RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 7004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND
RESEARCH, STATE CLEARING HOUSE
OPR -1 Completion of the Draft EIR public review requirements of CEQA is acknowledged.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P:1GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Conunents.doc «10/07/04» - 31
*
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER ASSOCIATES. 20 0 4 INC. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
CBER 14♦ AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CCC -1 As stated in Chapter 3.0 of the EIR, the objectives of the project included provision
of enhanced .boating opportunities for the general public and accommodation of
smaller, Tess expensive boats. The proposed project expands the existing low -cost
recreational uses at the Sunset Harbour Marina facility, which include the public boat
launch ramps, public walkways, and a public picnic area. Therefore, the proposed
project is consistent with the policies stated in the comment letter dated June 22,
2004, which emphasize access by the public to a range of coastal- related activities
and facilities.
CCC -2 While the Coastal Commission does typically require a 100 -foot buffer between
development areas and adjacent wetlands, at on -site and off -site meetings and
subsequent instances, Coastal Commission staff did acknowledge that there are
circumstances associated with some projects in which buffers may be reduced to less
than 100 feet. LSA biologists believe such circumstances are justified and applicable
for this proposed project.
The proposed buffer zone for the project would provide a minimum of 100 feet (and
more than 100 feet in many instances) of buffer space between the proposed
development area and the existing naturally occurring, high -value salt marsh
wetlands associated with Anaheim Bay. And while there are less than 100 - foot -wide
buffers proposed between development areas and several small patches of adjacent
wetlands, these wetlands are artifacts of previous fill and are isolated, highly
degraded, and support very little wildlife use. In addition, while a 100 -foot buffer
would provide an increase in distance from the proposed development, a much
smaller but well - defined buffer zone would still afford these disturbed wetland
fragments more protection than is currently piovided on site. As indicated in the
Draft EIR, the existing condition and value of these disturbed wetlands provides
ample justification for a buffer zone of less than 100 feet. However, the Coastal
Commission will make the final determination concerning an acceptable buffer
through their permit process.
CCC -3 Comment noted. The second sentence in the first paragraph on page 4.6-27 has been
corrected to read, "The 2 -year, 24 -hour storm runoff for the developed condition was
calculated by BLUEWater Design Group to be 1.7 cfs as opposed to 1.4 cfs in the
existing condition, for a minor increase of 0.3 cfs." The correction is included in the
Errata to the DRAFT EIR.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 (page 4.6 -26) requires the preparation of a WQMP in
accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit, which details the numerical standards
for treatment of the 85th percentile storm. Water quality quantitative analysis of the
proposed treatment BMPs was conducted using the 0.2- inch - per -hour storm
consistent with the NPDES requirements (page 5 -1 of the Water Quality Impact
Analysis, Appendix F). The analysis found that levels of pollutants.of concern were
below the levels in the existing condition and below comparable standards or
benchmarks (total coliform concentrations were only_below existing condition
P \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Commentsaesponse to Comments.doc «10/07 /04B - - 32
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
concentrations) (Table 4.6.P, page 4.6 -25). This is the basis for the finding of no
significant impacts to water quality with implementation of mitigation measures.
•
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Rcsponse to Comments.doc «10 107/04» 33
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 1004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
DFG -1 The site is very disturbed and was thoroughly inspected by LSA biologists. LSA did
discover the occurrence of a sensitive plant species (i.e., Centromadia parryi ssp.
australis) on site. Aside from this species, only two other sensitive plant species
(Atriplex coulteri and Nemacaulis denudata var. denudates) were likely to occur
within the project limits, but neither of these is expected to occur on site. Atriplex
coulteri is a somewhat woody perennial and would have been detected if present, and
habitat and soils that typically support Nemacaulis denudata var. denudates are
lacking from the project site. Therefore, additional botanical surveys conducted in the
spring were not deemed-to be warranted.
DFG -2 See response to comment DFG -1, above.
DFG -3 Comment acknowledged. The recommendation to replace overhead lighting with
low - level, ground- directed lighting has been incorporated into the project design.
This correction has been made to the third sentence in Section 4.1.3.2 on page 4.1 -6
of the Draft EIR and to Mitigation Measure 4.1 -2 on page 4.1 -8 of the Draft EIR and
is included in the DRAFT EIR Errata.
DFG -4 The construction of a five - foot -high earthen berm around the outer edge of the
proposed development area is not a practical or feasible recommendation. The
construction of such an earthen berm would either remove a 20- foot -wide band of the
useable project area or adversely impact jurisdictional wetlands. Such impacts would
be prohibited by the Coastal Commission, since this proposed action is not an
allowable use as identified by the Coastal Commission regulations Section 30233(a).
•
•
P \GRK33OWinal EIRUtesponse to Conunentsaesponse to Comments.doc «10 /07/04» 34
•
•
1
r
•
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. • RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER R004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
NAH - Comment noted. The proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR does not have
federal involvement and is not subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). The Native American Heritage Commission was provided a Draft EIR for
• review as a State agency. No additional Native American consultation was
conducted, or is required by CEQA.
NAH - Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 of the Draft EIR addresses the appropriate
procedures should archaeological materials be encountered during construction. In
addition, Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2 addresses the procedures to be followed in the
event human remains are encountered per Health and Safety Code 7050.5 and Public
• Resources,Code 5097.98.
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Rcsponse to Comments\Response to Convnents,doc «10/07 /04» 35
. .
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OC OTOBER 3 004 INC. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAIINCH PARKING
OCBER 2004 AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
TSC -1 Comment acknowledged. As stated in the NOP, the County determined that due to
the nature of the proposed project for parking and dry boat storage, no hazardous
materials will be used or stored on the project site. Although no separate hazardous
materials section was prepared, a hazardous material database search was conducted
for the project site by Environmental FirstSearch on September 24, 2003. The results
of the hazardous material database search did not identify any . records of hazardous
materials on site. In addition, no adjacent properties were identified as contaminated
properties or listed on the hazardous materials databases.
Potential oil and gas seepage/leakage from boats and vehicles is discussed in Chapter
4.6 of the EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality.
TSC -2. Comment noted. The site has does-not have any historical uses associated with
vegetation, agriculture; weed residue, fuel, or other chemical wastes.
TSC -3 Comment noted. Potential impacts associated with soil disturbance during grading
and construction are addressed in Chapter 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality. See
Mitigation Measure 4.6 -2 on page 4.6 -24 of the Draft EIR.
TSC -4 Comment noted. Refer to responses to comments TSC -1, TSC -2, and TSC -3.
TSC -5 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment TSC -1.
TSC -6 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment TSC -1.
TSC -7 Comment noted. Refer to response to comment TSC -1.
TSC -8 The proposed project does not include any wastewater - generating facilities, such as
toilets and sinks. Potential_ impacts associated with wastewater discharge to the storm
drain system are addressed in Chapter 4.9 of the EIR, Public Services and Utilities.
•
P: \GRK3301Final EIR\Response to Commcnts\Response to Comments.duc R10 /07/04» 36
1 _
LIA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 1004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
WQCB -1 The Draft EIR acknowledges that metals are a pollutant of concern due to
impairments and land use (boat storage and parking lot). A media filter that removes
metals (Aqua- Guard) is proposed for treating the boat wash runoff. A vegetated
Swale, which removes metals, is proposed for the boat storage area. Fossil filters or
an equivalent, which remove metals, are proposed for the catch basins and in the
trench at the top of the boat launch. The Water Quality Impact Analysis considered
the expansion of the site, and proposed source control BMPs and treatment BMPs in
its modeling and calculations. The analysis found that metals concentrations
discharging from the site would be lower with the proposed project than in the
- existing condition. Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 on page 4.6 -26 of the Draft EIR requires
a WQMP for the project; additional treatment BMPs could be added to final plans if
required by the County of Orange or the City of Seal Beach.
WQCB -2 The list of pollutants listed in Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 (page 4.6 -24 of the Draft
EIR) was not meant to be inclusive of all construction- related pollutants. Mitigation
Measure 4.6.2 on pages 1 -15 and 4.6 -24 of the Draft EIR has been corrected to
include petroleum hydrocarbons and is included in the DRAFT EIR Errata.
Compliance with the City of Seal Beach's enforcement authority for NPDES
requirements is addressed in response to comment SB -7, described later in this
document.
WQCB -3 Comment noted. Refer to response to comments SB -9 and SB-42.
WQCB -4 Comment noted. Refer to response to comments SB -37 and SB -39.
WQCB -5 The project as proposed will not result in the loss of any areas identified as potential
jurisdictional wetlands. All of the potential jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved
in place, and development of the project site will avoid these areas.
WQCB -6 Comment noted. Although a landscape planting and maintenance program was not
part of the proposed project analyzed in the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3 -5 on
pages 1 -9 and 4.3 -13 ensures that that no invasive or exotic plants shall be used.
WQCB -7 Construction of the proposed project will not occur within, or directly disturb, the
harbor waters. The addition of dry boat storage facilities is intended to supplement
the existing dry land marina facilities. Therefore, because the project is not located
within the waters where there is a potential for Caulerpa taxifolia or eelgrass to
occur, no surveys are deemed necessary. In addition, boating and launching activities
already occur at the project site with no treatment for runoff; the proposed project
design includes mitigation measures and BMPs to ensure that runoff from the project
will not adversely impact harbor waters. (Refer to Mitigation Measures 4.6- 1- 4.6 -5.)
P: \GRK330Winal EIR\Response to Comments\ Response to Comments.doc uI0 /07/04» 37
-
.0
•
■
I
r
1
J
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OC A INC. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA GOAT LAUNCH PARKING
OCBE AND DRY GOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
USFW -1 Comment noted.
USFW -2 The dredge disposal basins are a part of the undeveloped acres of the leased area, as
correctly noted in the comment. However,,as stated on page 3 -8 of the Draft EIR, the
least tern area is not a part of the leased premises or within the project area. The
reference to the least tern area is for informational purposes.
USFW -3 Comment noted.
USFW -4 A Notice of Preparation was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
manages the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. Future correspondence will be
made directly with the Refuge management as requested.
USFW -5 As discussed in Section 1.3 on page 1 -2 of the Draft EIR, the remaining undeveloped
18 -acre area of the Sunset Harbour Marina was graded in the 1960s and fill was
deposited on site in anticipation of future development of marina facilities. A
majority of the study area contains unnatural topography resulting from a buildup of
substantial fill material over the years following the construction of the Bolsa Chica
Channel. Please refer to response to comment SB -1 regarding wetland restoration and
uses of the site allowed by the Coastal Commission and response to comment DFG -1
regarding biological resources on the site:
USFW -6 As required by CEQA Guidelines 15124(b), the objectives of the project are stated in
order to assist the lead agency, in this case the County of Orange, in developing
alternatives and to assist decisionmakers in evaluating the project. CEQA does not
require that an EIR contain substantive information related to the scope and
magnitude of public needs and benefits, as suggested in the comment. Please refer to
Table 4.7.A on page 4.7 -5 of the Draft EIR for a comprehensive summary of Coastal
Act Policies and proposed project's consistency with these policies.
USFW -7 According to the City of Seal Beach Police Department (Section 4.9.1 of the Draft
EIR), illegal parking outside of the marina on Edinger Avenue during summer
holidays is a problem due to a lack ofparking within the marina. Providing additional
parking space along the northern side of Edinger Avenue as suggested is not feasible,
since it would result in encroachment on several areas of wetlands and because
adequate parking for vehicles with trailers is not optimal in a parallel parking
configuration. Please see response to comment SB -I regarding wetland restoration.
USFW -8 Provision of more convenient direct access results in enhanced recreational
opportunities since it allows more people to utilize such facilities, including those
persons seeking, or requiring, passive recreation. Please refer to Table 4.7.A on page
4.7 -5 of the Draft EIR for a comprehensive summary of Coastal Act Policies. In
particular, see Section 30224, which states that "increased recreational boating use of
coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing
dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing
space in existing harbors, limiting non - water- dependent land uses that congest access
P: \GRK330YFinal EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc a 10/07/04» 38
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE. EXPANSION
corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by
providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, and
in areas dredged from dry land."
USFW -9 Please see response to comment OCC -17 related to sewage and response to comment
SB -1 I for a discussion on the boat wash facility.
USFW -10 The fire protection and emergency service analysis in the Draft EIR was based on
information provided by the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). As stated in a
letter from OCFA dated September 30, 2003 (Appendix G of the Draft EIR),
implementation of the proposed project would not increase OCFA response times to
the project site, nor would it create a need for additional equipment or staff.
Therefore; the analysis concluded that implementation of the project does not impact
response times to existing clients. Mitigation Measures 4.9 -1, 4.9 -2, and 4.9 -3 were
recommended by OCFA to mitigate the potential risks associated with their current
inability to meet response time goals; however, these mitigation measures will not
shorten OCFA response times.
USFW -11 The water generation factor stated on page 4.9 -5 of the Draft EIR is based on
commercial uses because no water generation factors are available for park or
recreational land uses. Although the Draft EIR analysis overstates project impacts to
sewerage, water, and park use, a more conservative analysis is provided for CEQA
purposes. The project does not require an amount of potable water comparable to
typical commercial uses, which commonly include office buildings and retail
businesses such as shopping centers and restaurants. The commercial generation
•
factor was therefore determined to be greater than appropriate for the proposed uses
(primarily parking and storage), which only required water for limited landscape
irrigation and the boat wash area. The fourth paragraph on page 4.9 -5 of the Draft
• EIR has been corrected to clarify the water generation assumptions and is included in
• the Errata.
•
•
Compliance with the Irrigation Systems and Landscape Design Best Management
Practices found in Table 4.6.G on page 4.6 -13 of the Draft EIR will ensure that water
conservation methods are incorporated into the project design.
The proposed boat storage parking spaces will be.sized to accommodate smaller
boats (30 feet or Tess in length) and their associated trailers. Boats of this size are
typically not equipped with water storage tanks or they have small tanks (less than 20
gallons). Use of potable water to fill water reservoirs on boats is anticipated to be
low.
Fire hydrants are part of thetity's potable water system and will be installed as
needed. OCFA requires hydrants to be 300 feet apart and have a water flow capacity
of 2,000 -2,500 gallons per minute.
P: \GRK330\Fnal EIRaesponse to Comm�ents\Response to Commcnts.doo 410/07/04» - 39
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
•
OC ASSOCIATES. INC. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
OCTOBER $B0� AND DRY BOAT STORAGE. EXPANSION
USFW -12 In response to the commentor, the project proponent has agreed to place buoys along
the National Wildlife Refuge in Anaheim Harbor to deter unauthorized entry of boats
into the Refuge. Section 3.3, Project- Related Features, on page 3 -11 of the Draft EIR
has been corrected to reflect the placement of buoys and is included in the Errata.
USFW -13 The U.S. Navy did not comment on the NOP or the Draft EIR. The project is not
anticipated to increase the threat of national security through coastal access because
the marina is an existing use and the expansion of parking and storage does not create
new or previously unavailable access to the marina. According to the OnTrac Trade
Impact Study (Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, September 11,
2003), barges with cargd containers are of most interest to terrorists because of their
capacity to store weapons. The boats stored and launched at the marina are typically
smaller, privately owned recreational vehicles. Existing law and boater regulations,
along with law enforcement activities and harbor patrols already in place, are
sufficient to reasonably ensure security.
USFW -14 Comment noted. The traffic analysis determined that there would be no significant
impacts due to construction traffic generated by the proposed project during the six -
week construction period (page 4.10 -6 of the Draft EIR). In addition, Mitigation
Measure 4.2 -1 requires the construction period to be extended from six to eight
weeks and for truck trips to be evenly distributed over the eight -week period. It is
anticipated that this will further reduce inconveniences associated with construction .
traffic.
• USFW -15 The comments regarding past site activities, especially going back five years or more,
are very difficult to investigate and are beyond the purview of this EIR. Because this
comment does not relate to the proposed project or the proposed environmental
effects of the project, no further response is warranted.
•
USFW -16 The local flood control channels are not a part of the project or located within the
project boundaries, and therefore flood control management 'costs are outside the
scope of this EIR.
USFW -17 The proposed project is in response to public demand and is being proposed by the
County's leaseholder, Goldrich and Kest. • LSA Associates, Inc. was retained by the
County to prepare CEQA- required environmental documentation. County financial
benefits would result from leaseholder payments.
USFW -18 Comment noted.
USFW -19 Comment noted.
USFW -20 Comment noted. The 4.05 -acre buffer area and 2.95 -acre wetland zone were
determined by biologists to provide an effective buffer between the boat storage area
and the wildlife refuge. •
P: \GRKi30\Final EtR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments do< «10 /07/040.
40
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 8004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA DOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
USFW - 21 Invasive, exotic plants will not be used as part of the project's landscape, as required
by Mitigation Measure 4.3 -5.
USFW -22 Water from Watershed 1 will flow northwest to the four - foot -wide vegetated
(landscaped) bio-swale drain located in the northwest portion of the watershed.
Drainage conveyance structures will convey the water south through filters to the
"24 -inch check valve outlet pipe" near the boat launch. Therefore, flow from
Watershed I will not flow toward the Refuge. The "outfall in the cove near the boat
launch" is shown as the 24 -inch check valve outlet pipe on Figure 4.6 -2. Please see
responses to comments CCC -3, SB -2, and SB -3 for further information on hydrology
and water quality.
USFW - 23 The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land uses in the County of
Orange General Plan and the City of Seal Beach General Plan. Therefore, the project
does not propose to change the planned land use for the site. Please see responses to
comments CCC -3, SB -2, and SB -3 for further information on hydrology and water
quality.
USFW -24 The three strands of southern spikeweed are located within the one location
illustrated on Figure 4.3 -1. However, due to the scale of the illustration, the strands
cannbt be identified as three distinct areas.
USFW -25 Comment noted. The second bulleted item in the fourth paragraph of page 4.3 -6 has
been removed and the correction is included in the errata.
USFW -26 The California least tern is addressed and included in the Biological Assessment
conducted for the project (refer to Table A on page 15 of Appendix C to the Draft
EIR).
USFW -27 The Nelson's sharp - tailed sparrow is not included on the State list of sensitive
' species. In addition, it would be considered to have a low probability for occurring on
the project site.
. USFW -28 Goldenbrush scrub and ruderal annual grassland are not sensitive natural
, communities or otherwise considered critical. The site is artificial in nature and
contains bare ground due to the history of the site, which included filling with dredge
spoils over several decades (refer to the Delineation of Wetlands report, Appendix
C). The historic use of the site for fill materials has resulted in the ruderal and
disturbed characteristics of the project site. Therefore, in the professional opinion of
• the LSA biologists, it was determined that removal of 2.60 acres of goldenbrush
scrub and 0.07 acre of ruderal annual grassland would not result in a significant
impact to wildlife.
USFW -29 Comment noted. The comment is the opinion of the author, which does not alter the
findings and conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the use of upland areas by
Belding's Savannah sparrow. As stated on page 4.3 -10 of the Draft EIR, the proposed
project would not result in the loss of any salt marsh habitat that would be considered
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Commcnts\Response to Conunents.doc «10/07 /04» 41
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
suitable to support the Belding's Savannah sparrow. The edges of the project site that
contain salt marsh habitat have the greatest potential to support wildlife species.
However, based on the most current site development plan, the project as proposed
will not directly impact these areas or their associated habitats. Therefore, the Draft
EIR concluded that development of the proposed project is not expected to have a
significant impact on the species.
USFW -30 Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3 will function to ensure that potential
impacts to sensitive species are reduced to a less than significant level.
USFW -31 LSA biologists have surveyed the site and in their professional opinion determined
that it is not a wildlife corridor. Use by wildlife, in and of itself, does not constitute a
"wildlife corridor," as suggested in the comment. Construction related impacts (i.e.,
noise, air pollution, and traffic) are addressed in Mitigation Measures 4.2 -1, 4.2 -2,
and 4.8- 1. impacts relating to vegetation clearing during breeding season is
addressed in Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3. Please see response to comment DFG -3
regarding reduced lighting on the project site.
USFW -32 Comment noted. The County's lease agreement for the project site includes measures
to manage trash on site to reduce the potential for attracting animals into the area.
Specifically, Clause 25, Operation Obligations of Tenant, in Section B of the lease
(Protection of Environment) requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent
littering within the premises. The management of on -site trash and littering -
discourages scavenging animals who could potentially alter the movement of the
coyote within and around the National Wildlife Refuge.
USFW -33 The commentor's recommendation for a 250 -foot buffer area is noted. Please see
response to comment USFW -32 regarding control of predatory animals.
The service provider for trash disposal indicated that the project would not extend
• beyond its capacity to serve.
Please refer to response to comment CCC -2 for a discussion of required buffer zones.
USFW -34 Comment noted. The commentor prefers the no project/off -site storage or the
wetlands consolidation alternative. Please see response to comment DFG-4 regarding
berm construction.
•
P: \GRK330\Flnal E112\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc al0 /07/04), 42
I .
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 7004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
COMMENTS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10/07/048 43
,
r
�w- °1y =r-
"Y' v in r � '. c n . .
g s r s a z' n t < - t o {g ar ;
r a"l S g i F � iYI.Y a4 L .C;t 'tin r ' n s rV g .A -"i Y T . ';; } '" aF
t htF v� vt 't , ...,, ygrr n > v J y r �i- 4. �' l`I'it "'t"sl' c t � -
3 i +' t fa 'r'. xklLVa +c:. r °� " . , i - � r' - 41'..74 - r"` � ' { � . �,. s* "
sF < r ur .� i d s,wY .a r'-` + r ' �.4.+�'y�. ar a -.` t c t °' r �<h �' *
EF '�" � 1: � r r....ti- c �, ,� ^r �'�j`/' } ,s. 4 S ` y �r o i 4 � � ` r .� -/ e � "F�
F N"s'� , �� a � .0 Y .s' ry z " y ,. °�''b 'YN s""
( tTl 3' w :. s k.. • . 5 y � in t 4 -= Th e _ ' ", ° r t iA ; • ;411:; x.'
`d ' c.e. , .' - - # r : �", tli ,- -� , � f Il yS fii Y om.. -. '.2-:.
J ,�- x �.1, a� rj v �( 1 !.. x 3'' ti� N a C ��� �.
sqr �n - 4 „ ' +t? :Pv '4 t r - C i- �� r..'1, y . s� r " nr a
-T. its ' � .r t - a n' - ¢Y"�` r '" t ' r � Vr T.4 .,' �y '� 'h , a
1. Y ="' r ,.f ^l. 7 "'�aY .r ¢ x ...
Y ! -J!^ N 4 %f ✓�
R _r r t r i � it , '413 _ Wit- -
. , - ' 'ifiiP ck "? `^ a „- f. ..- ........5e�s - -ES
June 14, 2004 SB
Bill Grieman
RDMD'Environntental Planting Services
300 N. Flower Street
PO Box 4048
Santa An CA 92702 -4048
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Draft Environmental
Impact Report, Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Expansion"
•
Dear Mr. Grieman: '
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) prepared by the County of Orange and has several comments
relative to the document Theproposed tnental
project within
he i of Seal Beach, and
ity, m particular s sch
has raised concerns recatding ty, propetty and
l regarding the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge located north of the subject
the least tern nesting area west of the existing boat launch facility at Sunset Harbour Marina.
In addition to the comments set forth within the body of the letter, several comments related
to technical issues and orrections ..are provided in tEichibit A - Staff Technical
and Co ection Comm ntsA lo cntainedwithin the body of the letter and
ed
Exhibit A should be responded to in a re- circulated Draft Ed p e of a that is des f n this
appropriate, or in the "Response to Comments" to be prepared
project.
City of Seal Beach Preference for Environmentally Superior Alternative - .
Alternative 2: Wetlands Consolidation with Revision:
•
The City of Seal Beach supports the implementation of Alternative 2, Wetlands SB -1
Consolidation, rather than the proposed project,
al submission the vari Ty review
and
to p approve the Alternative project
permitting agencies, including the California Coastal Commission. This alternative will
would m habitat valuetandtherfracmented seasonalawetland preservedsn the
•
Z:,..My Document Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Song DEIR.CC Comment lxna.doc,L\ 06 -14-04
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: � �
Draft DE1R — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Par,(an
and Dn' Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
proposed project. It is the position of the City of Seal Beach to support this altemative
with the following revision.
Revision to Alternative 2 Supported by the City of Seal Beach:
The proposed dry boat storage facility is to be comprised of parking stalls located on
permeable gravel surfaces, with asphalt paved drive aisles. The DEIR document indicates SB-2
this treatment is proposed " .. to aid infiltration ofstormwater and reduce flows discharging
from the area." This approach is of concern to the City of Seal Beach as the potential for
infiltration of sediments, nutrients, pathogens, metals, and oil and grease into the underlying
water table, and eventual migration into the waters of Anaheim Bay, and potentially into the
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, is not clearly and convincingly addressed within the
DEIR. The City of Seal Beach would request that the dry boat storage area be paved with
an impermeable asphalt pavement, as will be the proposed expanded boat launch parking
area, and be provided with the same water quality treatments as is proposed for the
expanded boat launch parking area
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all flows from the dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area should be directed to the sewer system for treatment, thereby SB -3
eliminating potential adverse water quality impacts from this activity on the project site.
In addition, the County of Orange should investigate with the City of Huntington Beach
. the possibility of diverting low flow waters from the boat launch facility to the sewer
system.
This alternative, as described on pages 5 -9 through 5 -1 1, will result in essentially the SB 4
same project, except that the seasonal wetland areas would be consolidated into one larger
area that would be improved with riparian vegetation and maintained with a reliable source
of water and managed by the project proponent. This alternative is identified as meeting all
of the project objectives, which relate to the boat launch parking area expansion and the
construction of the dry boat storage facility, while providing the additional benefit of a
consolidated and monitored wetland in the anthem portion of the project site.
This alternative is identified on page 5 -10, in the `Biology" section as:
"The wetlands consolidation alternative would remove the existing ground
depressions, aggregate their present acreage and create a larger area along
the eastern perimeter of the project site... Therefore, by the creation of an
On-site viable wetlands feature that • would have greater habitat value as
compared to the seasonal wetlands as part of the proposed project, the
wetlands consolidation alternative would have less of an impact on
biological resources as compared to the proposed project."
This alternative is further described on page 5 -19, in Section 5.9, "Environmentally
• Superior Alternative" as: follows
2
Sunset Manna &at launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.CC Continent Letter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: (^� T
Draft DEIR - Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking 1 \J 1KJ
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June /4, 2004
"Pursuant to the discussion in the previous section and in comparing the
alternatives in Table 5.8 -A, both the no project and the wetlands SB -4
consolidation alternatives are environmentally superior to the proposed
project. Additionally, the wetlands consolidation alternative would
provide additional boat launch parking spaces and more dry boat storage
parking in the new parking lot, as compared to the proposed project.
Therefor, it would meet project objectives of increasing boating facilities
and lease revenue to a greater extent than the proposed project All
impacts of the wetland consolidation alternative and the proposed project
are expected to be similar, except in the case of biological resources. The
wetlands consolidation alternative would result in a larger, maintained
wetland area, vegetated with riparian species, and would offer more
habitat value: than the fragmented seasonal wetlands preserved in the
proposed project "
DEIR Document Does Not Clearly Set Forth the Review and Approval
Functions of the City of Seal Beach:
Throughout the document, and particularly in Table 1.6 - A, Summary of Impacts SB -5
and Mitigation Measures, and in Table 7.A, Mitigation Measures bnplententation
Schedule and Monitoring Checklist, it is unclear as to the permit issuance authority that the
City of Seal Beach will be responsible for in the ultimate approval of any construction plans
for this project. On August 27, 2001 a letter was sent to Vicki Wilson, Director of Public
Facilities and Resources Department, County of Orange, clarifying the City of Scal
Beach's position on the planning and building penntt process for Sunset Marina
That letter indicated the following relating to the of permit authority of the
City of Seal Beach:
"0 Construction Approvals and Inspections
I 'has been the position of the City of Seal Beach than all activities
requiring permits in accordance with the provisions of the Code of the
City of Seal Beach, will be plan checked, issued, and inspected by the
City. The City and County have processed several previous land use
entitlements within Sunset Marina under this same understanding, and is
currently awaiting submittal to the City of required documentation to issue
the necessary permits for the construction of the slip replacement project
at the Marina."
The Final EIR should be revised to clearly indicate throughout that the City of Seal
Beach will be the permit issuing authority for all required grading and construction permits
to complete an approved project at Sunset Harbour Marina. This would require revisions to
the language in the "Executive Summary", Section 1.1 Item 5, Additional Pennits and
3
Sunset Marina Boat munch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.CC Comment Letter
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft DE1R - Sunset Harbour ttlarina Boat Launch Parking SB
and Dry Bow Storage Pro/ect
June 14; 2004
Approvals (pages 1 -1 and 1 -2); Table 1.6 -A (pages 14 through 1 -21); Table 7.A: Mitigation
Measure Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist (pages 7 -3 through 7 -25). SB -6
The following "Mitigation Measures" have been identified by the City of Seal Beach
as requiring approval of final plans, permits, and/or specifications by the Director of
Development Services or the Director of Public Works /City Engineer prior to the beginning
of construction activity on the project site, including any grading activity:
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.1 -1 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.1 -2 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.1 -2: ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.5-4
O Mitigation Measure 4.2 -2 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4:6 -1
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.6 -2
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 • ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.6 -3
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.64
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.34 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.6 -5
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.3 -5 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1
O Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.9 -3
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.9-4
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 ❑ Mitigation Measure 4.9 -8
❑ Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1 ❑ Mitigation Measure 49 -9 •
It is requested that County staff meet with the Director of Development Services and
the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to prepare revised language for the above - listed
mitigation measures to accurately reflect the approval authority.of the City of Seal Beach on
all applicable plans, permits and/or specifications relating to project implementation.
All of the mitigation measures relating to water quality and hydrology need to be
revised to indicate that the City of Seal Beach also has established municipal storm water SB -7
permit requirements in accordance with the Orange County Drainage Area Management
Plan and the project will be required to comply with the local City of Seal Beach
standards, as implemented by the provisions of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, Chapter -
9.20, Storm Water Management Plan, and the provisions of Section 8.0, Construction, of
the City of Seal Beach Local Implementation Plan.
•
In addition, the following language should be added to the revised language of
Mitigation Measures 4.1 -1, 4.2 -1, 4.2 -2, 4.3 -5, 4.5 -1, 4.6-1, 4.6 -3, 4.6 -5, and 4.9 -8: SB -8
"Project proponent shall reimburse City for costs of independent third -
party peer review of said plan, permit, and /or specifications."
Inadequate Characterization of Water Quality Treatment Program During
Construction and Operation:
•
4
Sunset Marina Baal launch and Dr Boat Siorag DEIR.CC CommentLena
• City of Seal Beach Comment Lester re: , S B
Drafr DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
Page 1 -2, Project Description: The language in the third paragraph of this section
needs to be expanded upon to include discussion of the runoff control measures during both
• •
construction and operations in greater detail. It is also requested that the detailed discussion SB -9
of water quality and hydrology indicate that the project has been evaluated in accordance
with the applicable provisions and requirements of the Califomia Nonpoint Source Program
Implementation Plan for the period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2008, prepared by
• the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Coastal Commission
(CCC). The Five -Year Plan is posted on the SWRCB web
site, www.scrwb.caeovtnps/5yrplan. It is the concern of the City of Seal Beach that the
proposed project and continuing operations of boat launch and dry boat storage activities
fully incorporate the best available design and construction practices, as well as appropriate
operation and maintenance practices and encourage the use of effective pollution control
• and education efforts. Section V of the Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Plan for
2003 -2008, "Marinas and Recreational Boating Category" sets forth several "management
measures" that need to be considered by the County in its stormwater and water quality
evaluations and program implementation. The more applicable "management measures"
include: .
❑ Management Measure 4.1 — Assessment, Siting and Design
❑ C — Water Quality Assessment
- ❑ E — Storm Water Runoff
❑ G — Sewage Facilities
❑ H— Waste Management Facilities
❑ Management Measure 4.2 —Operation and Maintenance
❑
•
A — Solid Waste Control •
❑ C - Liquid Material Control
• •
❑ D — Petroleum Control
❑
•
E — Boat Cleaning and Maintenance
❑ F — Maintenance of Sewage Facilities
❑
•
G — Boat Operation
❑ Management Measure 4.3 — Education and Outreach -
•
The water quality and hydrology section of the EIR document should be expanded and
discuss in greater detail how the proposed facilities, including. construction and operation
phases will address each of the areas of concern set forth above. The County of Orange
should focus its mitigation measures in the EIR document to coincide with the goals of the
Nonpoint Source Program Implementation Plan for 2003 -2008 of
D preventing discharges of waste oil; sewage, petroleum, solid waste and hazardous
substances either from surface runoff, improper boat cleaning/maintenance
activities, lack of disposal facilities or improper maintenance of existing facilities;
❑ relying on education and outreach efforts to marina owners and operators and the
boating public to provide information on pollution problems and management
practices that can be implemented to prevent or control improper disposal of
•
pollutants.
•
5
Sunset Marina Boaz launch and Dry Boat Sturwwe DEILCC Commem Lone
City of Seal Beach Comment Lester re: S B
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parting
. and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
Concerns regarding "Marinas" and "Boativash" discussion in Appendix
F, Final Water Quality Impact Analysis Report: i
This document includes a characterization of project runoff, water quality SB -10 i
modeling results, and an evaluation of post- construction BMPs to mitigate stormwater
runoff impacts. The City of Seal Beach has concerns regarding the discussion in the
. following portions of this document:
❑ Page 3 -1, Section 3.1.1, "Marinas" discusses boat yard operations and
compares the proposed project to a boat yard in Coos Bay in central Oregon.
The discussion goes on to state that chromium and pH levels are not an issue
for the subject development, since boat maintenance activities will not occur.
It is our position that this conclusion may not necessarily be correct, as boat
owners may iii fact undertake some boat maintenance activities within either
- the dry boat storage area 6r the boat launch parking area. These maintenance
activities may range from minor wash down and cleaning operations to
emergency repairs or parts replacement that are necessary to be able to
successfully launch and operate a boat. Please provide additional discussion
as to what activities are considered "boat maintenance" and how the project
operator will prohibit such activities from occurring on the project site: •
❑ Page 3 -3, Section 3.1.4, "Boatwash" discusses this proposed facility and
includes specified measures to reduce water quality impacts from this facility. SB l 1
However, those stipulated measures are not set forth in Section 4.6.3.2, j
Potentially Significant Impacts, Surface Water Quality, Operations. In 1
fact this section of the DEIR only once indicates that there is a "boatwash"
facility, and the project maps and exhibits do not clearly indicate where this
facility is to be located. The EIR must clearly indicate within the project
description, and all appropriate project maps and . exhibits the location of the
"boatwash" facility, and all appropriate mitigation measures must be revised
. to clearly indicate the appropriate BMPs to be utilized for water quality
treatment requirements.
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the SB -12
Draft DEIR document on June 2, 2004. The EQCB recommended to the City Council to
authorize the Mayor to sign this comment letter and forward it to the County for response.
The City Council, on June 14, 2004, authorized the Mayor Pro Tern to sign the letter.
Upon the preparation of a re- circulated Draft EIR or the Final 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.cams.
6
Sunn0. Marina Boat latmat and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.CC Comment Letter .
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: S B
Draft DE1R - Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Pariing
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
•
Sincerely,
•
Charles Antos, Mayor Pro Tem Mario Voce, Member
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Attachments: (1)
Exhibit A — Staff Technical And Correction Comments
Distribution: •
Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission
City Manager Environmental Quality Control Board
Director of Development Services
7
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIACC Comment liner
r
•
• City of Se.al Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft DER- Sunset Harbour Marina Boar Launch Parking S B
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
E_XH1BIT A •
. STAFF TECHNICAL AND CORRECTION COMMENTS
• 1. Page 1 -2, Project Description: Please clarify the language in the second paragraph •
of this section to clearly indicate that "recreational vehicle" parking or storage is not SB -13
to be permitted. The City of Seal Beach is most concerned that the expanded boat
launch parking lot does not become a de -facto overnight parking area for
recreational vehicle owners who would also utilize the boat launch and dry boat
storage facilities. Such a use of the project area would generate substantial adverse
. impacts upon' the surrounding environment and is entirely unacceptable to the City
of Seal Beach.
2. Page 1 -7, Table 1.6.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures,
• Mitigation Measures 43 -2, Biology. Revise the language of this mitigation SB -14
measure to reference utilization of the "survey protocol" for the westem burrowing
• owl.
3. Page 1 -10, Table 1.6.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures,
Mitigation Measures 4.4, Cultural Resources. Revise the language of these
mitigation measures to read as follows: SB -1 b
• . "Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1. Training of Construction Personnel.
Prior to the institution of grading operations, the project proponent will
develop and implement a worker training program. -The program will •
be developed to convey (1) the necessity of training to recognize
potential cultural resources during grading activities: (2) the •
procedures to be employed if any potential cultural material is exposed •
or excavated during construction grading- operations: and- (3). the
procedures to be used in the event of a discovery of cultural resources.
The training will consist of in -field worker orientation accompanied by
• distribution. of pamphlets describing. the potential cultural resources
that may exist and the appropriate archaeological procedures to follow,
including the telephone contact, information for the Director of
Development Services of the City of Seal Beach and the City- selected
archaeologist and Native American monitor. The City- selected
archaeologist will prepare the training materials in consultation with
the Chief, RDMD /Harbors, Beaches and Parks/Historical Facilities
Section, County of Orange and the Director of Development Services
of the City of Seal Beach."
8 •
Sunset Mama Boat launch and Dry Soot Stange DEIR.CC Comment Latter
City of Seal Beach Comment Later re: S B
Draft DEIR - Sumer Harbour Marina Boat bunch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage' Project
June 14. 2004
Existing Mitigation Measures 4.4 -1 through 4.4-4 should be
renumbered to 4.4 -2 through 4.4-5, respectively. SB -16
Revised Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2 should be revised to read as
follows:
"Mitigation Measure 4.4 - 2. If archaeological materials are identified
during grading and construction, the project proponent's contractors SB -17 ._
shall cease all earth removal or disturbance activities in the vicinity
and immediately notify the Director of Development Services of the
City of Seal Beach whp shall immediately notify the City - selected
archaeologist and Native American Monitor. The City- selected
archaeologist will have the power to temporarily halt or divert the
excavation equipment in order to evaluate any potential cultural
material. The City selected archaeologist shall evaluate all potential
cultural findings in accordance with standard practice, the
requirements of the City of Seal Beach Archaeological and Historical
Element, and other applicable regulations. Consultation with the
Native American Heritage Commission and data/artifact recovery, if
deemed appropriate, shall be conducted."
Revised Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3 should be revised to read as
follows: .
"Mitigation Measure 4.4 - 3. Should any human bone be encountered SB -] 8
during any earth removal or disturbance activities, all activity shall
cease immediately and the city selected archaeologist and Native
American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then
immediately notify the Director of Development Services. The
Director of the Department of Development Services shall contact the
Coroner pursuant to Section 5097.98 and 5097:99 of the Public
Resources Code relative to Native American remains. Should the
Coroner determine the human remains to be Native American, the
Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
If more than one Native American burial is encountered during any
earth removal or disturbance activities, a "Mitigation Plan" shall be
prepared and subject to approval by the City of Seal Beach
Community Development Department. The Mitigation Plan shall
include the following procedures:
Continued Native American Monitoring
9
Sunsct Manna Boat launch and Dry Boat Stung DEIR.CC Comment later
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: . S B
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Manna Boat Launch Parking 1..J
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
❑ All ground disturbance in any portions of the project area with the
potential to contain human remains or other cultural material shall SB -18
be monitored by a Native American representative of the Most
Likely Descendent (MLD). Activities to be monitored shall
include all construction grading, controlled grading, and hand
excavation of previously undisturbed deposit, with the exception of
contexts that are clearly within the ancient marine terrace.
❑ Exposure and removal of each burial shall be monitored by a
Native American. Where burials are clustered and immediately
adjacent, one monitor is sufficient for excavation of two adjoining
burials.
•
❑ Excavation of test units shall be monitored Simultaneous
excavation of two test units if less than 20 feet apart may be
monitored by a single Native American. •
❑ If screening of soil associated with burials or test units is done
concurrently with and adjacent to the burial or test unit, the Native
American responsible for that burial or test unit will also monitor
the screening. If the screening is done at another location, a
• separate monitor shall be required.
❑ All mechanical excavation conducted in deposits that may contain
•
human remains (i.e., all areas not completely within the marine
terrace deposits) shall be monitored by a Native American.
Notification Procedures for New Discoveries
❑ When possible burials are identified during monitoring of
mechanical excavation, or excavation of fest units, the excavation
shall be temporarily halted while the find is assessed in
• consultation with the lead field archaeologist. If the find is made
during mechanical excavation, the archaeologist or Native
American monitoring the activity shall have the authority to direct
the equipment operator to stop while the find is assessed.. If it is
determined that the find does not •.constitute a burial, the
mechanical excavation shall continue.
❑ If the find is determined to .be a human burial, the lead
archaeologist shall immediately notify the Site Supervisor for the
developer, as well as the Principal Investigator. The Principal
Investigator shall immediately notify the MLD and the Director of
Development Services for the City of Seal Beach. The City shall
provide the Coastal Commission with weekly updates describing
•
the finds in writing.
Identification of Additional Burials
•
10
Sunscl Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Storagc DEIRCC Comment Lcttcr
•
•
Ciro of Seal Beach Conunent Letter re:
• Draft DEER — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Paring S B
and Dr: Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
❑ For all discovered human burials, attempts shall continue to be
made to locate additional burials nearby through hand excavation SB -18
techniques. This shall be done through the excavation of 1 x 1 m
exploratory test units (ETUs) placed along transects extending
radially from each identified burial or burial cluster. The spacing
of the ETUs shall be determined upon consultation with the Project
Archaeologist and the MLD. The radial transacts shall be designed
to test areas within 50 feet (15 m) from the edge of each burial or
• burial cluster. Excavation of these units shall be limited to areas
containing intact cultural deposit (i.e., areas that have not been
graded to the underlying : marine terrace) and shall be excavated
until the marine terrace deposits are encountered, or to the
excavation depth required for the approved grading plan. The soil •
from the ETUs along the radial transects shall be screened only if •
• human remains are found in that unit.
❑ Controlled grading shall be conducted within these 50 -foot
heightened investigation areas with a wheeled motor grader. The
motor grader shall use an angled blade that excavates 1 to 2 inches
at a pass, pushing the spoil to the side to form a low windrow.
Monitors shall follow about 20 feet behind the motor grader,
examining the ground for evidence of burials.
❑ When a burial is identified during controlled grading, the soil in
windrows that may contain fragments of bone from that burial
shall be screened. At a minimum this shall include the soil in the
windrow within 50 feet of the burial in the direction .of the grading.
• ❑ If additional burials are found during controlled grading, additional
ETUs will be hand excavated in the radial patterns described
•
above. •
•
Burial Removal and Storage
❑ Consultation with the MLD shall occur regarding the treatment of
discovered human.burials: If the MLIi determines it is appropriate ,
to have discovered human remains pedestaled for removal, that
activity shall be conducted in a method agreed to by the MLD.
❑ After pedestaling or other agreed upon burial removal program is
completed, the top of a burial shall be covered with paper towels to
act as a cushion, and then a heavy ply plastic will be placed over
the top to retain surface moisture. Duct tape shall be wrapped
around the entire pedestal, securing the plastic bag and supporting
the pedestal. Labels shall be placed on the plastic indicating the
burial number and the direction of true north in relation to the
individual burial. Sections of rebar shall be hammered across the
bottom of the pedestal and parallel to the ground. When a number
of parallel rebar sections have been placed this way, they shall be
11
Sunset Marina Final bunch and Dry Boat Storage DEIRCC Comment L crta
•
Ciro of Seal Beach Continent Letter re: - S B
Draft DEIR — Sunset Marina Boar Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
lifted simultaneously, cracking the pedestal loose from the ground.
The pedestal shall then be pushed onto a thick plywood board and SB -18
lifted onto a pallet. A forklift shall carry the pallet to a secure
storage area or secure storage containers located on the subject
•
property.
❑ If another agreed upon burial removal program is utilized, that
method shall be carried out in a manner agreed upon after
consultation with the MLD.
Study of Burial Remains
•
❑ If the burials are removed in pedestal and are incompletely
exposed, - osteological studies are necessarily limited to
•
• determination (if possible) of age, sex, position, orientation, and
trauma or pathology. After consultation, and only upon written
agreement by the MLD, additional studies that are destructive to •
the remains may be undertaken, including radiocarbon dating of
bone or DNA studies. If the MLD determines that only non-
destructive additional studies may be allowed, one shell may be
removed from each burial and submitted for radiocarbon dating. •
The assumption here is that the shell would have been part of the
fill for the burial pit, and therefore would provide a maximum age
for the burial.
. ❑ The MLD may indicate a willingness to consider some additional
exposure and study of the skeletal material removed from the sites.
Such study would not involve removal of the remains from the
project area, but rather would be undertaken near the storage area.
To the extent allowed by the MLD, the bones would be further
exposed within the existing pedestals or other medium containing .
•
• the human remains and . additional measurements taken.
Consultation with the MLD regarding the feasibility of these •
additional studies prior to reburial would occur. •
Repatriation of Burials and Associated Artifacts .
❑ Once all portions of the project area have been graded to the
underlying culturally sterile marine terrace deposits, or to the
excavation depth required for the approved grading plan, the
repatriation process shall be initiated for all recovered human
remains and associated artifacts. Once a reburial site has been
identified and prepared, the remains and associated artifacts shall
be transported from the secure storage area to the site for reburial.
Appropriate ceremony will be undertaken during this process at the •
discretion of the MLD.
12
•
Sunset Marina Boni launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.CC Comment Lena
Cin' of Seal Beach Continent Letter re:
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Pariang
and Dry Boat Storage Project SB
June 14, 2004
Additional Studies
. 1
❑ Considerable additional data relating to regional research issues SB_1g
may be uncovered if substantial numbers of human burials and
- other archaeological features are encountered during the
construction monitoring for the development If this occurs,
additional analysis will be conducted. The analysis shall be
designed to more completely address the research issues discussed
. in the approved "Research Design', and to provide additional .
mitigation of impacts to the sites in light of the new finds. The
following studies would be potentially applicable:
❑ Radiocarbon Dating. _ In considering the implications of the
. burials in interpreting site use and regional settlement, it is
• critical . to assess the time range represented by. the interments. ..
Do they correspond fo the full temporal range of site use, or only •
a limited timeframe? ' Although direct dating of the bones may
- not possible due to the destructive nature of the radiocarbon -
• technique, the MLD may approve the removal of a single shell
from the interior of each burial for dating. Although this shall
not provide a direct date of the burial, assuming the shell was .
• part of the burial fill it should provide a maximum age (that is,
the burial should not be older than the shell). In addition, an
equivalent number of additional samples from non - burial
contexts would also be taken for comparative purposes. These
data would provide a more secure measure of the intensity of
occupation during different periods.
❑ Sediment Cores. Dating results obtained to date on the Hellman
. Ranch/John Laing Homes properties may suggest a possible link
between the use of the sites within the project area and the
. productivity of the adjacent lagoon and estuary systems. To .
assess this link using "independent environinedtal data on the
subject properly, two sediment cores will be taken from suitable
locations of the property. Sediments in - the cores shall be .
examined and described in the field by a geologist, and samples
collected for dating and pollenanalysis. These data shall then be
• used to help reconstruct the habitats present on the property
during the periods the sites were occupied. This analysis shall be
included in the final report documenting the testing, data •
recovery, and construction monitoring phases of this
investigation.
❑ Comparative Studies. The substantial assemblage of
artifacts recovered during the monitoring on the Hellman -
Ranch /John Laing Homes properties provides a basis for
• comparison with other sites and shall contribute to an
•
• 13 '
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIRCC Comment Letts
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: B
Draft DEER - Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parlang
• and Dry Boat Stornge Project
June 14, 2004
understanding of regional patterns. This analysis shall be
• included in the final report (see below). SB -18
❑ .Animal Interments. Animal interments may be discovered •
within the project area. Because these are not human remains,
. somewhat more intensive study is possible. Because these
features are uncommon and represent very culture- specific
• religious practices, they are useful in reconstructing cultural areas
during certain times in prehistory. Analysis of animal interments
will include: (1) exposure to determine burial position; (2) photo
documentation; (3) examination of skeleton for age/sex;
traumatic injury, .pathology, butchering, or other cultural
modification; (4) radiocarbon dating; and (5) examination of
grave dirt for evidence of Brave goods or stomach contents.
Curation
•
• ❑ Cultural materials recovered from the cultural resources
• monitoring and mitigation program for the development shall be
curated either at an appropriate facility in Orange County, or, in
consultation 'with the City, at the San Diego Archaeological
Center. •
Preparation of Final Report •
❑ The final technical report shall be prepared and. submitted to the - .
City and CCC within 12 months of the completion of the
archeological field work. The report shall conform to the •
guidelines developed by the California Office of Historic
Presentation for Archaeological Resource Management Reports
• (ARMR). It will be prepared in sufficient quantity to distribute to
• interested regional researchers and Native American groups. It •
shall thoroughly document and synthesize all of the findings from
all phases of the cultural resources program.. Funding shall be
provided by the landowner."
• 4. Page 1 -15, Table 1.6.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures,
• Mitigation Measures 4.6 -2, Hydrology and Water Quality. Revise the SB -
• language of this mitigation measure to require a weekly inspection schedule
• during the dry season and a bi- weekly inspection schedule during the wet season
for the duration of project construction or until all common areas are landscaped.
This increased inspection schedule is requested due to close distance to the Seal
Beach National Wildlife Refuge and the least tern nesting island located west of
the current boat launch location.
•
•
14
Sunset Manna Boat launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIRCC Cvnuiuvt,Letta
C&y of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft DER — Sunset Harbour Marina Boca Launch Parking S B
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
5. Page 1 -18, Table 1.6.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures,
Mitigation Measures 4.8-1,Noise. Revise the language of this mitigation SB -20
measure to reference the allowable hours for construction activities to those set
forth in the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
6. Page 1 -20, Table 1.6.A: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, SB -21
Mitigation Measures 4.9 -2 and Mitigation Measure 4.9 -7, Public Services.
Revise the language of these mitigation measures to reference the requirements of
the Seal Beach Police Department for inclusion of the following additional
security measure to reduce calls for service to the subject property:
❑ Project Proponent to provide 24 -hour security personnel presence
at the subject site. Such security' personnel shall be responsible for
continual surveillance of the project site and to report any fire,
police and/or other required emergency response to the appropriate
responding agency as soon as the need for such emergency
response is apparent. All security .personnel shall . undergo a
training and response program with at a minimum the Orange
County Fire Authority, the Seal Beach Police Department, and the
Seal Beach Department of Public Works.
4
7. Page 2 -1, Section 2.1, first paragraph, first sentence: Please clarify whether SB 22
• the County of Orange holds a fee title interest in the subject property or. if the
County of Orange is a long -term lessor of the subject property from the State
Lands Commission.
•
8. Page 2 -1, Section 2.1, second paragraph, item (3):' the reference needs to be
changed from "Merite Wildlife Refuge to "Seal Beach National Wildlife. SB -23
Refuge." (emphasis added)
9,' Page 3 -8, Section 3.2, fourth, paragraph, second sentence: Revise to read as
follows: SB -24
", r An existing 3.03 -acre ... - .
10. Page 4.1 -2, Section 4.1.1.3, Light and Glare: The section indicates light glare
from night boat launches is temporary, of short duration, and does not affect any. SB -25
sensitive uses, as none are within close proximity to the project site. The City is
very 'concerned that the conclusions reached in this statement appear to he
unsupported, and may be incorrect. These concerns are based on the following
factors:
❑ The least tern nesting island is located directly to the west of the boat
launch facility; please refer to Figure 4.1.1, View Locations.
❑ Any type of night boat launch activity may impose light glare from either
the boat itself or the launch vehicle, directly towards this nesting area for
an endangered species.
I5
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry boat Steraec DEIR.CC Comment L alcr
•
City of Seal Reach Cantntcnt Letter re: S B
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
❑ There is no citation of any authoritative study or research effort to clearly SB -25
document that sudden, unexpected, and potentially obtrusive light glare
impacts will not substantially impair the nesting habits of the least tem.
-- The City would request provision of additional discussion in the Final EIR to
address the above concerns and do the following:
❑ Provision of additional information regarding any research studies that
have been done that support the conclusion of the Draft EIR regarding "no
impact ", particularly regarding the nesting habits of the endangered least
• tern, or
❑ consideration of a mitigation measure that will prohibit night launch
activities between 1 -hDur after sunset and 1 -hour before sunrise during the
• nesting•season of the least tern.
•
11. Page 4.1 2,.Section 4.1.2.1, Views and View Simulations: The section should
be revised to indicate the distance from each view location discussed to the SB -26
project site.
12. Page 4.1 - 6, Section 4.13.1, Less Than Significant Impacts: The section may
need to be revised based on the determinations of the County regarding potential
SB-27
night light glare impacts from boat launch operations on the least tern nesting
island during the nesting season of the endangered least tem.
13. Page 4.1 - 6, Section 4.13.2, Potentially Significant Impacts: The section may .
need to be revised based on the determinations of the County regarding potential
• night light glare impacts from boat launch operations on the least tern nesting SB -28
island during the nesting season of the endangered least tern. The County may
need to develop additional mitigation measures to address the issue of impacts to
the least tern during the nesting season from night boat launch light glare
• activities if those are determined to be potentially significant.
14. Page 4.1 - 6, Section 4.13.2, Potentially Significant Impacts, Light and Glare,
Mitigation Measure: The proposed mitigation measures need to be revised to SB -29
indicate that the City of Seal Beach will issue electrical permits for new exterior
lighting fixtures, and that the project proponent may need to reimburse the City
for costs of an independent, third party review of such exterior lighting plans, if
determined necessary by the Director of Development Services.
15. Page 4.1 - 8, Section 4.1.4, Cumulative Impacts: The section may need to be
• revised based on the determinations of the County regarding potential adverse SB -30
impacts to nesting least terns from night boat launch light glare impacts. In
addition, the language in the fourth sentence should be revised to indicate,
"Lighting for the project site and lighting for any present and future projectsin the
area must meet County and Citv of Seal Beach requirements to minimize..."
•
16
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Stannic DEIR.CC Comment Letter
I
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Draft DEIR - Sunset h'arbwr Marina Boat Launch Pal-tang
• and Dry Boar Storage Project -
June 14, 2004 '
16. Page 4.2-7, Section 4.2.13, Local Air Quality: The 8th and 9th sentences are SB -31
• unclear. Please review and reconcile conflicting statements regarding PM2s
concentrations.
17. • Page 4.2 -15, Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: The mitigation measure needs to be
revised to indicate that the "dust suppression plan" shall be approved by SB -32
Director of Development Services for the City of Seal Beach prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, and that such plan shall also include the "additional
SCAQNID CEQA Air Quality handbook Dust Control Measures set forth at the
top of page 4.2 -15. .
18, Page 4.6 -10, Municipal Storm Water Permit: This section needs to be revised t
to indicate that the City of Seal Beach also has established municipal storm water SB -33 •
permit requirements in accordance with the. Orange .County Drainage Area
Management Plan and the project will be required to ,comply: with the local City
of Seal Beach standards, as. implemented by the provisions of the Seal Beach
Municipal Code, Chapter 9.20, Storm Water Management Plan, and the
provisions of Section 8.0, Construction, of the City of Seal Beach Local .
Implementation Plan.
19. Page 4.6 -17, Table 4.6.J: Average Concentrations of Parking Lot Runoff i
Constituents: The City of Seal Beach is extremely concerned by the utilization SB -34
. of parking lot mean concentration levels of various constituents obtained from the
City of Long Beach. The proposed facility is not a standard municipal parking lot
that generally accommodates passenger vehicles and occasional delivery vehicles;
. • it is a marina facility parking lot and boat storage area, and the constituents of 1.
concerns, and the mean concentrations of those constituents of concern may be
• dramatically different. The analysis should be revised to include actual
characterization studies of the constituents of concern generated at the current
boat launch parking area on the subject site.
20. Page 4.6 -19, Section 4.6.3.2, Potentially .Significant Impacts, .Surface Water .
Quality, Construction: The second paragraph, first sentence needs to -be revised SB -35
to indicate that "construction sites are subject to inspection by the RWQCB
(State General Construction Activity .NPDES permit
• ` i 1 ' d and by the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code." .
21. Page 4.6 -20, Section 4.6.3.2, Potentially Significant Impacts, Surface Water .
-Quality, Operation: The second paragraph, first sentence needs to be revised t�
read as follows: "In order to comply with waste discharge requirements of the SB -36
• t €- L'-- -e pal and the City of Seal
municipal NPDES permit r
Beach Municipal Code. the conceptual drainage .., " .
22. Page 4.6 -22, Table 4.6.L, Project Routine Nonstructural Source Control
BMPs: Identifier SC -20, "Vehicle and Equipment Fueling ", indicates that this SB -37
17 ,
- Sunset Manna Barn launch and Div Boat Storage DEIRCC Comment Lena ,
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: ("1 T
• Draft DE1R - Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking 1 \ J L K
and Dry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
measure is not included, indicating that there will be "No on -site fueling ". The SB -37
City is concerned that this response may not be correct and that this measure
should be included as an appropriate BMP. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 indicates
that: "The grading period will be extended from six to eight weeks." The County
• - needs to clarify that all equipment utilized during the 8 week grading period will
not require re- fueling while on the site, or include the appropriate routine non-
structural source control BMPs to address this issue.
23. Page 4.6 -23, Table 4.6.N, Project Treatment Control BMPs: Identifiers TC-
12, TC -20, TC -21, TC -22, TC -32, MP -50, indicates that "Site too small" as to SB -38
why these measures are not prpposed. There needs to be discussion within the
body of the document to explain this conclusion.
24. Page 4.6 -26, Drainage and Erosion: the next to last sentence of the first
paragraph of this section indicates that "The boat wash will drain into the storm, SB -39
drain system via a wash water treatment system (Aqua Filter)." It is the position
of the City of Seal Beach that all flows from the boat wash should be directed to
the sewer system for treatment thereby eliminating potential adverse water
quality impacts from this activity on the project site. In addition, the County of
• Orange should investigate with the City of Huntington Beach the possibility of
diverting low flow waters from the boat launch facility to the sewer system. •
25. Page 4.8 -9, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1: Item "c)" of this mitigation measure
needs to be revised to state: "All stationary noise - generating sources, such as air SB -40
compressors and portable power generators, shall be located as far as possible
from homes and the sensitive habitat areas of the least tern nesting area
located westerly of the existing boat launch facilities."
26. P age 4.8 -9 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1: This mitigation measure should also be
revised to indicate that construction activities will not occur during the nesting SB -41
season of the least, tern (March 1 — August 31), as elevated background noise
levels can adversely impact nesting least terns in the following ways, as discussed
on page 4.8 -6:
❑ Interfere with maintenance of territories;
❑ Interfere with contact between mated birds;
❑ Interfere with warning calls signifying impending threats; interfere with
feeding behavior of the young; and
❑ Interfere with the ability to detect predators.
27. Appendix F — Final Water Quality Impact Analysis Report (March. 5, 2004),
page 4 -2, Section 4.2, Source Control BMPS: This section sets forth a number SB -42
of source control BMPs, including structural and non - structural BMPs that reduce
or prevent pollution runoff, that have been incorporated into modeling and other
calculations to predict runoff water quality. All 12 measures set forth in this
section should be separately set forth in the appropriate mitigation measures to
18
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Storage. DE1a.CC Common letter
•
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: S B
Draft DEM — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and pry Boat Storage Project
June 14, 2004
ensure that all BMPs utilized in the modeling that determined the runoff water
quality are clearly included.
•
28 Appendix F — Final Water Quality Impact Analysis Report (March 5, 2004),
SB -43
Appendix A — Bluewater Design Drawings: The drawings in this appendix
• appear to be 11' x 17' and were copied in an 81/2" x 11" format,
rendering the drawings unreadable. Please ensure that correct sized copies of
these "Bluewater Design Drawings" are included in the Final EIR.
* * *
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
19
Sunset Marina Boat launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.CC Comment Lana
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
RESPONSES TO LOCAL AGENCIES
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10 /07/04» - 63
•
-
11
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
SB -1 Comment acknowledged. Alternative 2, Wetlands Consolidation, is a preferable
alternative for this site's biological resources due to the creation of a larger, well-
.
defined and more sustainable wetland area. However, current Coastal Commission
regulations, specifically Section 30233(a) of the California Coastal Act, prohibit the
taking of any wetlands if there is a feasible, less environmentally damaging
alternative. Because the proposed project does not fall within the project categories as
defined in this section of the California Coastal Act, and because consolidation of the
fragmented wetland areas would necessitate the filling, or taking, of some of the
identified wetlands, Alternative 2, may be the superior environmental
alternative, does not meet the criteria for Coastal Commission approval. Therefore,
this alternative is not considered feasible due to current California Coastal Act
regulations and policies.
SB-2 The gravel boat storage area is not proposed as a treatment BMP. The proposed
permeable gravel surface will slow the movement of surface water and will allow
some infiltration of storm water, thereby reducing storm flows from this portion of
the site. Source control BMPs are required to minimize pollutants on the site (Tables
4.6.F and 4.6.G). Runoff from this area is proposed to be directed to a vegetated
swale for treatment and then to a fossil filter prior to discharge, consistent with
NPDES requirements (page 4.6 -20). Because the site is located in a bay, groundwater
is affected by salt water intrusion, precluding any beneficial uses (page 4.6 -5). There
is no water quality benefit in paving this area with asphalt. Impermeable surfaces
(paved areas) increase the ability of storm water to transport pollutants to receiving
waters (page 4.6 -20).
SB-3 Comment noted. Boat storage and launching activities already occur at the project
site with no treatment for runoff. There is no sewer to serve the drainage of the
proposed development area. The existing sewer line serves the restroom facility by
means of a six-inch lateral and force mains. This project addresses the water quality
requirements by the use of structural and nonstructural BMP mitigations. Addressing
low -flow diversion or design and construction of a special sewer to convey storm .
water to a treatment plant is not within the scope of this project.
The proposed project includes several treatment BMPs to target pollutants of concern
in accordance with NPDES requirements. Quantitative analysis conducted for the
project showed an improvement in runoff quality when compared to the existing
condition (Table 4.6.P).
SB-4 Comment acknowledged. See response to comment SB -1, above.
SB -5 The County of Orange and the City of Seal Beach coordinated to resolve the issues of
permit authority and mitigation. Based on that meeting, the County has agreed that
the City of Seal Beach will be the permit- issuing authority for all grading and
construction permits required for the proposed project.
•
•
P: \GRf:330Winal EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10/07/04» 64
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS •
OC OTOBER i 004 ING. SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
OCBCR 2004 AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
Reference to the Proposed County Actions on page 1 -1 of the Draft EIR has been
corrected and is included in the Errata. I
SB-6 . Based on a subsequent agreement between the County and the City of Seal Beach,
the following mitigation measures have been corrected to reflect the permit authority l
of the City of Seal Beach and are included in the Errata:
Mitigation Measures 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2; 4.2-1 and 4.2-2; 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -5; 4.4 -1
through 4.4 -5; 4.5 -1 through 4.54; 4.6 -1 through 4.6 -3; 4.6 -5; 4.8 -1; 4.9 -2; and
4.9 -7. •
SB-7 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.6 -3 on pages 1 -16 and 4.6 -26 of the
. Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB -8 The language of Mitigation Measures 4.1 -1, 42 -1, 4.2 -2, 4.3 -5, 4.5 -1, 4.6 -1, 4.6 -3,
P
4.6 -5, and 4.9 -8 has been revised and is included in the Errata to indicate that the
project proponent shall reimburse the City of Seal Beach for costs of independent
third -party peer review of project plans.
SB -9 The purpose of the introductory project description on page 1 -2 is to provide an
overview of the physical features of the project. Analysis and discussion of �
regulatory requirements are provided in Chapter 4. The EIR evaluates the proposed I
project, which includes expansion of the existing boat trailer and vehicle parking area
and boat storage area. As a priority project under the Municipal NPDES Permit, the
project is required to implement source control and treatment BMPs that are not
required of existing boat storage areas, marinas, etc. BMPs such as public and I
employee education, good housekeeping, and-hazardous materials storage are
required of priority projects. That is, the requirements for priority projects are
consistent with the objectives of the California Nonpoint Source Program. The
County of Orange supports the objectives of this program, which are applicable to the
entire Sunset Harbour Marina, and should not be applied only to a portion of the
marina. The California Nonpoint Source Program objectives would be applicable to .
the Sunset Harbour Marina with or without the project.
SB-10 Boat maintenance activities will not be allowed at the project site. The permitted
activity includes only boat dropoff and pickup. There is a Marina Manager who lives
on site 24 hours /day, and he will monitor boat activities to ensure adherence to all
marina rules. In addition, public awareness will be enhanced through signs
prohibiting boat maintenance activities.
SB -11 The purpose of the boat wash area is to allow rinsing of salt water from the boats. As
stated on page 4.6 -20, an Aqua Guard filter is proposed to treat runoff from the boat
wash area. This BMP was selected because it removes metals and hydrocarbons,
which are associated with boats. The boat wash area is illustrated in Figure 4.6.2,
which has been revised to clarify the location and has been included in the Errata.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 requires that a WQMP be prepared for the project; the
WQMP shall identify and incorporate DAMP - required BMPs. Additional treatment
P \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Responst to Comments.doc III0 /07/04» 65
L]A ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENT] •
OCTOPER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
BMPs could be added to plan if required by the County of Orange or the City of Seal
Beach.
SB -12 Comment acknowledged. Four copies of the Final EIR will be forwarded as
requested.
SB -13 Comment acknowledged. The third paragraph on page 1 -2 of the Draft EIR has been
corrected and is included in the Errata. .
• SB -14 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2, on pages 1 -7 and 4.3 -11 of the
•
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB -15 Based on'a•subsequent agreement between the County and the City of Seal Beach,
Mitigation Measures 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -5 have been revised and renumbered and are
included in the Errata.
SB -16 Comment acknowledged. See response to comment SB -15.
SB -17 Comment acknowledged. See response to comment SB -15.
•
SB -18 Comment acknowledged. See response to comment SB -15. •
•
SB -19 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.6 -1 on pages 1 -14 and 4.6 -24 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB -20 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 on pages 1 -18 and 4.8 -8 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB-21 • Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measures 4.9 -2 and 4.9 -7 on pages 1 -19, 1 -20,
4.9 -6 and 4.9 -8 of the Draft EIR have been corrected and are included in the Errata.
SB -22 The County of Orange owns all of the proposed project property in fee title.
SB-23 Comment acknowledged. The first sentence in the third paragraph on page 2 -1 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is ipcluded in the Errata.
SB-24 Comment acknowledged. The second sentence of the last paragraph on page 3 -8 of
the Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB-25 The least tern species has been known to nest in highly disturbed areas (e.g.,
airports). In addition, Mitigation Measures 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 are proposed to ensure
that new sources of lighting do not extend beyond the project limits.
•
SB -26 The distances from the view locations to the project site, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.1
of the Draft EIR, are as follows:
• View I— approximately 2,700 feet
P \ORK330 \Final EIR\Itesponse to Convnents\Response to Comments.doc n10 /07/04» 66
i
i
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION•
• View 2— approximately 1,200 feet
• View 3— approximately 1,000 feet.
SB -27 Comment noted. Because light and glare impacts to the least tem nesting area are
considered less than significant, no revision to this section is necessary. See response
to comment SB -25. •
SB -28 Comment noted. See response to comment SB -25.
•
SB -29 Comment acknowledged. See responses to comments SB -6 and SB -8.
SB -30 Comment noted. Because light and.glare impacts to the least tem nesting area are
considered less than significant, no revisions to the conclusions in this section are
• necessary. See response to comment S13-25. The fourth sentence in Section 4.1.4 on
page 4.1 -8 of the Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB-31 Comment acknowledged. The ninth sentence in Section 4.2.1.3 on page 4.2 -7 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
•
SB-32 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -2 on pages 1 -6 and 4.2 -15 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB -33 Comment acknowledged. The third paragraph on page 4.6 -10 of the Draft EIR has
•
been corrected and is included in the Errata.
•
SB-34 The Municipal NPDES Permit does not require storm water sampling for each new
development/redevelopment. As the Principal Permittee, the County conducts storm
water monitoring at several different sites with various land uses, which is published
in its annual t . Other agencies have ducted stu of st r runoff for
•
• various land uses repor i n various receiving waters These data dies are m ade or ava t the
public for reviewand comparison with other studies. It is common practice to use
data from a variety of sources that most closely resemble a target property to provide
appropriate input for a water quality model. Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 requires a
WQMP for the project; revised or additional treatment BMPs could be added to the
plan if required by the County of Orange or the City of Seal Beach. •
SB-35 Comment acknowledged. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 4.6 -19
• of the Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
•
SB -36 Comment acknowledged. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 4.6 -20
of the Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
SB-37 No on -site fueling will be allowed after construction of the project. As indicated in
Table 4.6.L on page 4.6 -22 of the Draft EIR, SC -20 is applicable to the operation of
the site. It is possible that on -site fueling may occur during construction activity, in
. which case the applicable BMP (NS -9 from the California BMP Handbooks -
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final Ent\Response to Commenis\Response to Comments.doc «10/07/04u 67
•
ESA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
Construction Activity) must be incorporated into the SWPPP and enforced in
accordance with the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (refer to
Mitigation Measures 4.6.1 and 4.6.2).
SB -38 Table 4.6.N illustrates the proposed treatment BMPs based on conceptual design and
preliminary hydrology for the project. These documents indicate that space is not
available for large BMPs. The quantitative analysis. (Table 4.6.P) demonstrated that
•
the proposed treatment BMPs would be effective in removing pollutants of concern
from storm water runoff. A final drainage study must be prepared based on final
design and reviewed and approved by the County and the City of Seal Beach
(Mitigation Measure 4.6•.5). In addition, a WQMP based on final design will have to
be prepared and reviewed and approved by the County and City of Seal Beach
• (Mitigation Measure 4.6.3). The WQMP will describe the process for selecting and
eliminating treatment BMPs.
SB -39 Comment noted. Please refer to response to comment SB -3.
SB-40 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 on pages 1 -18 and 4.8 -8 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata.
•
SB -41 Comment acknowledged. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 on pages 1 -18 and 4.8 -8 of the
Draft EIR has been corrected and is included in the Errata. In addition, Mitigation
Measure 4.3 -3 on pages 1 -7 and 4.3 -11 has been expanded and is included in the
Errata. •
SB-42 Comment acknowledged. The specific source control BMPs discussed in the Water
Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F) that are part of the project design and water
quality modeling have been incorporated as project design features on page 4.6 -20 of
the Draft EIR and are included in the Errata. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.6.3
requires that the WQMP prepared for the project include provisions for source
control BMPs. The City of Seal Beach will review and approve the WQMP prior to •
issuance of grading permits.
•
SB-43 Comment noted. Appendix drawings have been copied in 11" x 17" format and are
included as attachments to the Errata;
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Commcnts.doc 410 /07/04» 68
-
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 - SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
COMMENTS FROM SPECIAL INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc 0.10 /07/040. 69
:
,
,
e
,
occ
COMMENTS ON SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA
BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
TO: County of Orange, Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies
FROM: Orange County Coastkeeper
DATE: June 22, 2004
•
The Orange County Coastkeeper appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
proposed Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and Dry Boat Storage
Expansion. This process encourages responsible government agencies to
become better acquainted with emerging strategies, techniques and technologies
for managing urban runoff and protecting our fragile wetlands, estuarine and
coastal resources.
•
This letter is being submitted by Orange County Coastkeeper, a nonprofit
environmental organization, as comments regarding the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch
Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion. Please consider the comments set
forth herein in making any decision regarding the proposed expansion of Sunset
Harbour Marina in the city of Seal Beach, hereinafter referred t� as the "project."
This project will have an adverse impact upon wetlands, water quality and other
project - related environmental issues. We believe that the DEIR does not
adequately convey the actual or the potential impacts that the proposed project OCC -1
will have on this location. Therefore, unless adequate information is first obtained
to effectively evaluate these impacts, we formally oppose the project unless
sufficient measures are required to insure that these environmental concems are
• remedied.
A review of the DEIR prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. for the County of Orange
regarding this project indicates several areas of significant concern. First, we will
focus on those issues related to water quality, our primary area of interest. Our
organization is directly involved with the protection of our coastal areas from
pollution caused by urban runoff and other sources of contamination. Second, we
noticed other areas of the environment that will be•adversely impacted, including
• but not limited to, air quality, noise and vibration levels, traffic, Homeland Security
and cumulative impacts.
For the administrative record, please review our comments and alternative
suggestions:
Wetland Impacts and Water Quality OCC -2
This project is located on a site that contains several valuable wetland habitats
that host an array of sensitive plant and animal species. Its location is directly
adjacent to the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge. As a condition of the
project, Orange County Coastkeeper believes action must be taken to enhance
and expand the wetland edge/north end of the property. The DEIR denotes the
•
•
•
•
0 C
existence of Pickleweed Salt Marsh, which has the ability to support sensitive
species, such as the Belding's Savannah Sparrow. This important wetland OCC -2
• habitat area is adjacent to the parking and storage areas of the project. By •
restoring and widening the wetland habitat along the north /east edge of the
project and adjacent to the wildlife refuge, the project will also be increasing the
buffer between the parking /storage areas where project runoff poses a potential
hazard and significant impact to the tidal waters and surrounding sensitive
habitats, endangered species and other fauna that frequent the region. Wetlands
are valuable in their ability to help filter and reduce pollutants. They are also
consistent with the habitat of the surrounding area.
•
The DEIR mentions the targeted con6rolling of pollutants through the use of
several filter systems. However, iE is not certain that these filters along with a OCC -3
bioswale will be sufficient to contain and prevent runoff to the surrounding
wetlands and channel. Will the use of a bioswale as a buffer be effective in
• preventing runoff and protecting the wetlands and channel? How will it be
maintained and how much will this cost? What if this bioswale is inadequate? If
the project is to use a bioswale, its effectiveness would be increased if it were
required to be larger and wider to insure that the project will not impact the
existing wetland edge that we recommend be enhanced and restored. This is the
portion of the identified wetlands that border the north /east side of the project.
This edge also faces the Naval Station and is surrounded by the Seal Beach
National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the bioswale should be required to be
• redesigned and moved back nearer to the perimeter of the proposed parking,,
• area.
The existing wetland pockets will be adversely impacted . by the runoff from the
project and there is a diminished setback planned for these wetlands because OCC -4 •
the Applicant claims that they "do not accumulate surface.runoff from the
extensive surrounding areas." The entire remaining wetland whether
• fragmented or not, should be restored and protected by sufficient buffer zones.
The California Coastal Commission typically requires a .100 -foot buffer zone
between cornmerciial development and adjacent wetlands, yet the County is
• considering allowing this number to be reduced significantly. The impacts to the
on -site wetland habitat are therefore not.adequately addressed. Although the
DEIR claims the project "will avoid these areas," this appears to be accomplished
by the use of a chain link or snow fence. However, access to the wetlands can
•
also mean via runoff, dust and other means that a fence cannot deter.
Furthermore, there is no discussion of the impacts that chain link or snow fencing
will have on the wetland habitat and wildlife movement.
The DEIR concedes that 0.7 acres of wetlands will be destroyed by the project.
With over 95% of California's wetlands now destroyed, this is certainly not a less OCC -5
than significant argument. Orange County Coastkeeper is categorically opposed
to the infilling and degradation of our remaining wetlands. A fair argument exists
that the wetland site is integral to the health of the federal Wildlife Refuge
•
occ
•
because sensitive wildlife use both sites. It is impossible to isolate wildlife to a OCC -5
single "island" of land and assume their survival. (Peck 1998)
•
Coastkeeper would also like to recommend integration of all the east -end OCC -6
wetlands to be designated and protected from future development and
incorporated into one contiguous habitat. .
•
A contiguous corridor between the restored wetland edge and the'two existing
de- silting basins would enhance the value of this habitat while providing an
important buffer directly facing the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge.
Although water quality monitoring-information has been provided in this DEIR, it
is insufficient and outdated: Comprehensive water quality figures are absent. The OCC -7
County has recently performed an extensive Water Quality study for sediment
and water column sampling, but the data and the report are still not available for •
public review. This type of data is imperative to determining what the starting
•
point is for existing water quality and whether or not additional increases in
various levels will be significant or not. We must have this data for the project
area before a determination can be accurately made regarding present and
future water and sediment quality. Therefore, it is premature to submit this DEIR
and require the public to comment without this extensive water quality study.
Impacts related to violating any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements are less than significant because "potential impacts to water quality OCC -8
will be minimized." Without water quality studies or projections, a is impossible to
• assume there will not be substantial impacts. The minimal impact to water quality
from this project may be unacceptably high; an alternative use may need to be
explored. Minimal does not mean low and it does not mean acceptable. It only
. means the lowest amount possible with the project. The latest "extensive County .
Water Quality study" must be made available for public review prior to making a
determination of how this project will impact water quality.
The runoff issue is very important due to the proximity of the proposed site to the OCC -9
water channels, wetlands, Wildlife. Refuge, Anaheim Bay and Pacific Ocean.
We are also concern about the proposed boat wash. The DEIR plans to divert
the runoff from the boat wash to a filter, through a trench and then out to the OCC -10
channel and ocean. The boat wash will increase potential pollutant loading and
there is no evidence that the BMPs suggested will adequately address and
prevent potential adverse impacts to the surrounding wetlands and Marina.
The chemicals, toxins and metals washed from these boats, trailers and vehicles
will significantly add to the existing sediment contamination levels. This is •a
problem, as the Harbour is listed on the Califomia 2002 303(d) list as impaired.
Neither the individual nor the cumulative impacts of these levels are adequately
addressed in this DEIR.
•
•
•
OCC
•
This project will increase the amount of impervious surface and result in an OCC -11
increase in the quantity and velocity of both peak and off-peak runoff. The
aggregate proposed for portions of the dry dock poses more problems than it
does benefits. The aggregate will have to be compacted during construction, and
will continually be compacted as boats, trailers and equipment are run over it.
Therefore, the absorption rate of the aggregate will be somewhere between low
and none, bringing into.serious question the conclusion that storm water will
percolate through the base and will not contribute a significant amount of surface
water to the total runoff. To the contrary, the increase in impervious surface
combined with the boats themselves with pollutants that may wash or spill into
• runoff poses a significant risk to watej quality. Furthermore, the aggregate will
likely scatter onto the roads and contribute to runoff pollution loading and to
habitat destruction. A fair argument, as defined under CEQA (Public Resources
Code §21160, 21168, 21168.5, No Oil; Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974)
13.Ca1.3d 68, at 75, Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Cal.App.4 1307,
at 1318)_certainly exists to have the DEIR explore the potential impacts related to
water quality and runoff and provide alternative runoff management technology to
each design alternative. Anaheim Bay and Huntington Harbor have been
designated as toxic hot spots, contain legally unacceptable levels of Cadmium,
Copper, Lead, Chromium, and Selenium, and is a high priority for clean -up and
rehabilitation. (SARWQCB 1995) Clearly in contradiction to the Water Quality
Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin, this project will contribute multiple
pollutants to the bay and coastal habitat.
•
•
The increase of impervious surface will alter the microclimatic conditions within
and adjacent to the project site and must be addressed. Non - impervious OCC -12
.surfaces that are being proposed for underneath the, boat storage units are also
of major concern. A recent visit t to the site revealed an outboard motor oil
change in progress. Unfortunately, the boat maintenance person left a fully
. exposed, unattended bucket of used engine oil standing on the ground below the
motor adjacent to the sidewalk and water channel, This poses ..a threat to the
ecology of the surrounding wetlands and wildlife refuge. What assurances are
there that such activities will not continue? It is likely to occur more often based
on the increase of boats stored or parked at the project site. The DEIR states that
such activities will be prohibited; however, these activities are prohibited now ands
continue to occur. How will this hazardous activity be monitored and stopped?
Additionally, the non - impervious surfaces allow the oil, grease and other toxic or
hazardous elements that exist on the exterior surfaces of the vehicles, vessels OCC -13
and trailers to be absorbed into the groundwater, vegetation or to become
contaminated runoff. There is no data to support that the type of filters, swales •
and separators currently recommended in this DEIR will successfully control'
erosion and eliminate the oils, greases and other contaminates from having
adverse impacts on the local ecosystem and waters.
•
•
•
0 C
The hydrology mapping is also difficult to follow. Please provide drainage OCC -14
• patterns off the property. This is important in identifying the proper treatment of
' the water flows. It is also difficult to ascertain if the CDS_unit is at the front of the
water flow where it would attempt to contain sediment and large debris before
• sending it on to the filter. Also, is there a catch basin located at the lowest
elevation to contain debris and hydrocarbons? Also, where exactly is the
proposed boat wash location and how will water flow at this source? In a heavier OCC -15
storm event, where will the water travel on the project site? There is also a
concern that the Fossil Filter technology is not the best available. It is not certain
whether it would sufficiently capture the hydrocarbons in any significant way.
The Cumulative Impacts portion Af the DEIR states that there will be no
significant adverse cumulative impacts to the region's hydrology and water OCC -l6
quality. This is based on a claim that, although there are future developments
proposed. in the surrounding areas; they will only "result in a minor increase in
impervious area and stormwater flows" and that all other future developments will
comply with existing water quality regulations. Additionally, since there is no
change in land use and BMPs will be utilized, these impacts are not considered
•
significant.
•
First of all, cumulative impacts must be addressed in terms of how all of the
surrounding project's minor increases in impervious areas and stormwater flows •
will have combined. This impact is to an already impaired location. Thus, any .
additional runoff flows are significant. This DEIR fails to address the foreseeable
future impacts that this development, combined with the other future
developments, will have on the wetlands, surrounding habitats, Naval Station and
neighborhoods. These impacts must be adequately addressed and remedied
prior to approval of this DEIR and project.
•
• Vessel pumpout stations are run down by comparison to other harbors, have OCC -17
• inadequate instructions for boater use and their locations are not well marked.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not the project limits the size of vessels that
• will access this facility. and whether or not the existing or proposed vessel
pumpout facilities can accommodate such vessels and are. functioning properly.
All of the vessel pumpout stations need to be fully operational. Orange County
Coastkeeper submits the following concerns:
Has there been any localized testing of the water in and around the current
vessel pumpout stations? What are the test results? Bacteria counts around
these stations warrant further testing to ensure there are no leaks. There is a
question as to whether the number of pumpout stations compared to the number
of boats permanently moored in the harbor is adequate. What will be the ratio of
pumpout stations to vessels? The DEIR should address how it will deal with the
dumping of gray water or sewage from vessels at this location, and how the boat
operators will be educated and monitored to prevent future degradation of water
quality..
•
•
•
•
OCC
Huntington Harbour should implement an overall management program and OCC -I8 •
improve a repair and maintenance program to ensure that boaters have a
place to safely dispose of their vessel waste. Repair parts for the vessel pumpout
stations should be stocked and the harbor should have a trained employee that is
able to repair the stations quickly. Most problems at the public pumpout stations
could be solved if parts and trained staff were available for quick repairs.
Traffic impacts are likely to be significant, contrary to the conclusion made by
the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There is an increase.in morning and • OCC -19
afternoon peak hour traffic volumes. There is already an existing period of
gridlock traffic at this location during peak hours. There will certainly be an impact •
when new traffic combines with the existing traffic, creating new bottlenecks. The
. impacts that the construction traffic will have on the peak hour traffic will also be
significant. Increased vehicle fret-loin and of itself will degrade water quality due
to individually small but cumulatively large amounts of oil and chemicals leaking
and then being carried off in runoff or soaking into the non - impervious soils. III
Boats will leak oil and chemicals and will be washed with chemical soaps, all of OCC -20
which will degrade water quality in this sensitively located region surrounded by
and containing wetlands and other protected habitats. Although the DEIR claims
that no such harmful soaps should be used, who will monitor this and ensure that
toxic chemicals are not used? •
•
In order to ensure that project- related emissions are accurately identified, OCC -21
categorized and evaluated, the DEIR must address the negative impacts it will
have locally as well as cumulatively on air quality. Vehicles traveling at slower
• speeds produce more air pollution, especially in stop and go traffic. Boat - trailers
ingressing and egressing at this bottleneck location will have an adverse impact
• to traffic conditions, especially at peak hours. This issue is not adequately
• addressed or mitigated. •
•
Noise and vibration levels will also have a significant impact on the region, both OCC -22
• from additional vehicular traffic and boating noise increases. What impacts will
these pollutants have on the neighboring wildlife, habitat.and residents'?
Homeland Security
Because of the proximity to the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, the DEIR OCC -23
should address the effects that this project will have on the Naval Station in terms
of Homeland Security. By expanding this part of the Marina in close proximity to
. the military facility, the DEIR should address potential impacts to our National
Security.
Orange County Coastkeeper believes that this project would undoubtedly have OCC -24
an adverse impact upon water quality under the existing proposal. Coastkeeper
opposes any degradation of wetlands and remains eternally vigilant in supporting
their restoration throughout the county. This project site provides a prime
•
OCC
opportunity for the county to be a leader and support the measures to protect and
promote the.valuable wetland habitat potential adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge. OCC -24
We therefore oppose any approval of the project unless sufficient measures are
required to ensure that these environmental concems are remedied or mitigated.
We stand ready and willing to assist. Runoff management techniques are
improving exponentially and we can benefit from emerging pilot efforts. The
Sunset Harbour Marina, located in one of the most affluent areas of Orange
County, can become a leader in this important regional, statewide and global
movement to maintain and restore healthy aquatic environments.
Thank you for including Orange County Coastkeeper in the project review
process.
Sincerely,
Garry Brown
President
Orange County Coastkeeper
441 Old Newport Blvd., Suite 103
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Tel: (949) 723 -5424
Fax: (949) 675 -7091
http://www.coastkeeper.org
•
k i , x v k ,
■
fi occ
t �5"�^'Aaq �14t'.4w.r"
ii
a {�d 'k MZ� d i.t �,a E
t } L z .a x � rz t fTC..: ry S -..m�, �'`F^" • � 5 C x z n.rx, 1.�'k'`.,s r� ' cam" -`t'i3 'r�
=T + +'Y "," ' „''�'?i'4�t i
F X�g� �r � Y S.r+h yF'
pi yc . LA { �- i.%n.SY ^Y+F�. `5 Y4
I.; 3
t“,,... -+ '3� .,..Y, v ro c �W e" ,e. 4 'R i
a ..„, w, -Z.Y ,,;a. pW —r ' "ti2 ^ - a '� r "y `: I
A } Y ` Y L F e` say ...-..t " . Tq;; e�.wr "� ' .. i r
..'gyp T.Ja ad- Nva J k + t
F
' �
C
c �YU+ 4 k Yd'. i ^ % - 4.: y am ,
ter '. S� } i Yam^
li •
tea. ' w- y " , 3{.f - ' Y
' 3+ a < i o-s ' _ r+� sa '°' rt Y' 1T`"7.g ... 71 C • O C C r te ' �' 4 N' , �k+ "*r ,=-',.-
"tea y � ., a � y 1. 'F^
f r } t`s, " e r 3 . n i '.} y , . 'tf/f j � y
t
t i i ',``�- y ° w r . } -164a r a : 3 t Z , ` � cy ,�y ^. r ,, .1 ( a rm r ;. ' ., .
(..31.11;•—•.1t*- 1i�f
i I s t f 4445 •D',-1, ,s t. Vfy Y q §
.ye ✓ s 1 9i L am* - : � i � F .g%� -. OZ f& - i tt... -' 5
r
F � -C rs t l^ '- --" `Tit d%`i 't' , . l y '.
ar a. e r s _.e"" ' , ''` y �.' : Ya1- 4.7;,. F a - . '
Y - 45 A i t ∎ a 1 a�? o i �!� 4'_ �+,t ' � .
�� � t -55� t �a r t+i s r , �.. � � ,/ .
s wY 7 �` Y+� €y, , *j, C nn - t r .h � S �{y re `
i- i —, * - 7, & � -- * -,- -*.�.- �i" 1 • y ' atm.., t p- n '_H',i, -,
ti a,-' L + A Y tG i4.1. ' j. 3 � + � r r..- b -. + —'1" -y r a 'a ' ,,- _ -. _ , - , X 1 1
i �s�z t ar, -r ...t a te . ` !i ce` y� .x r' { !f
ice, K "rK b t n , w J 'F'7�,� t .y tt . . a•A'S' +�a �1++ - ,
;71 y i ,.i -Cd % r y 1. fr r',. v t whn'"'� ..Y , "; �� M .�'`re .vT
tt"-s iZ �^ Tigs F k, . i r t - r j r + y,`^' • ,..; �,�.
: ^r 4'.:'`�`. f --,.,4 i . ii Y ' f� i'+`'12: ! s r � „
i m `r .,,,.L+' _aa i .._re:� � +i! srt;ati v,r r'. Z;1^' .. ...,. .......
•
n
FNWR
Ashley Davis
From: Tim Anderson (lebateautim @earthlink.net) ,
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 1:00 PM
To: Rich Adler
Subject: RE: Sunset Marina Expansion
Mr. Adler,
Thank you for extending the comment period for the proposed expansion of FNWR -1
Sunset Marina Park, the proximity to the Seal Beach National Wildlife
Refuge is of concern to the Friends of Seal Beach NWR because the buffer
zones around the refuge are so narrow that any nearby activity has
negative effects on the Endangered Species of the refuge. The highest
and best use of the property would be to remove the dredge spoils and •
restore it to marsh then deed the property to the USF &WS for
- stewardship.
As a long time boater I know the need for this project exists, but as a
•
citizen that cares about the health of. our environment and as one that
' has spent hundreds of hours working for the recovery of Light Footed
Clapper Rails a State and Federally Listed Endangered Species, I pray .
that you will revisit the project and pare it to down size it to provide
a larger wetland buffer zone and include a provision to plant that area
with native coastal upland plants. There also needs to be a protective
barrier that prevents vehicles from entering the wetland buffer zone. .
` This project will probably have negative impacts on one of our FNWR -2
most Endangered Species, the Light- footed Clapper Rail, because the most
productive nesting area for this species is within 100 feet of the
project. This species is very leery of humans and the increased activity
of vehicles and humans near their nests could result in reduced nesting
therefore fewer hatchings. •
` The existing light pollution emanating from the site already
reaches several hundred feet into the marsh and should be reduced; any _
additional lighting will most certainly be a problem unless there is a , FNWR
serious effort to reduce the distance the light reaches into the marsh.
Run-off of contaminated rain -water and bilge water must be led
into the sewer system rather than just through filters and into the bay.
The bottom paints used on boats to prevent fouling species growth are • FNWR -4
designed to be ablative and will most assuredly flake off the boats in
the storage area and in tum contaminate the soils underneath the boats.
These materials include tri -butyl tin from aluminum boats, arsenates' of
copper from fiberglass and wooden boats as well as white and red leads
- from bedding compounds; all of these compounds are harmful to benthic
- . species that are prey for many species of fish and birds.
* Visits to the site over the years have shown serious failures of
the current tenant to maintain the area and prevent their cfients from
driving in closed areas, during the spring of this year (2004) the two FNWR -5
wetland swales indicated as C +D in Figure 2 were used as a fun zone by •
• off -road vehicles to spin donuts in the mud. These two ephemeral ponds
provide feeding areas to migratory birds sp. Least and Westem '
Sandpipers (I will provide video of them if you'd like)
• An additional concern is the uses of plastic sandbags to prevent
run-off from the gravel parking lot (an admirable goal) but they FNWR -6
breakdown in the sun and in tum pollute the refuge with small bits of
• plastic that blow /wash into the marsh.
Tim P Anderson, Co - chair Friends of the Seal Beach NWR _
- -- Original Message - --
1
•
•
•
•
•
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC., RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2104 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTEREST ORGANIZATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10 /07/04» 80
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 7004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER
• OCC -1 Comment noted. Comment is introductory and summarizes specific points in the
letter.
OCC -2 Comment acknowledged. The comment supports consolidation, expansion, and
restoration of on -site wetlands. See response to comment SB -1.
OCC -3 A hydrology and hydraulics analysis (Appendix F) was developed based on the
conceptual design and grading plan. The project site would be graded in order for
each watershed to drain,to a specific point and treatment BMP (refer to Figure 4.6.2
on page 4.6 -21 of the Draft EIR). bioswale (vegetated swale) is not proposed as a
buffer to the wetlands area, it is a treatment BMP for the boat storage area
(Watershed 1). The wetlands buffer zone would be located between the swale and the
wetlands. Maintenance is required as part of the WQMP and is required in order for
all BMPs to remain effective (refer to Mitigation Measure 4.6.4). Costs are not
evaluated under CEQA. The water quality analysis considered the proposed
hydrology and treatment BMPs and found them to be effective at removing pollutants
of concern. Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 requires preparation of a WQMP, which may
require additional treatment BMPs or increased sizing based on final project design.
OCC -4 See response to comment OCC -2. Any fencing proposed as part of the project will
not be placed within defined wetland habitat areas.
OCC -5 As stated on page 4.3 -12 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project will not result in the
loss of any areas identified as potential jurisdictional wetlands. All potential
jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved in place, and development of the project site
will avoid these areas. Refer to Figure 4.3.3 on page 4.3 -9 of the Draft EIR.
OCC -6 See response to comment SB -1.
OCC -7 Impacts to water quality from implementation of the proposed project were analyzed
with the most current available information.
OCC -8 The impacts to water quality were found to be less than significant based on a
quantitative analysis utilizing calculations and modeling for pollutant loads from
comparable land uses and inputting proposed treatment BMP removal efficiencies.
The Water Quality Impact Analysis (Appendix F) found that with treatment and
source control BMPs implemented, pollutant concentrations in runoff would be lower
with the project than in the existing condition. (See Table 4.6.P on page 4.6 =25 of the
Draft EIR). This is due to the fact that there are no treatment BMPs currently in
operation at the site.
OCC -9 Comment noted.
OCC -10 See responses to comments SB -9, SB -10, SB -11 OCC -7, and OCC -I6.
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc RIO /07/00.» 81
•
•
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 1004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
OCC -11 Storm water flows are based on the hydrology and hydraulics analysis prepared for
the project, which considered the layout of the project, including asphalt parking
areas and the gravel boat storage areas. The gravel gradation proposed for the
pervious area is Number 2 from Table 200- 1.4(B) of the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Construction. This gradation is low in fines, and the particles have no
more than one - fractured face. This aggregate will not compact to an impervious
condition, and we have assigned a very conservative C -value of 0.40 for use in our
hydrology calculations. Refer to responses to comments SB -2, SB- 3, .SB -9, OCC -7,
and WQCB -1.
OCC -12 Source control and treatrxentBMPs are required to prevent degradation of water
quality and will be further detailed and discussed in the WQMP for the project as
required by Mitigation Measure 4.6.3 on page 4.6 -26 of the Draft EIR. The dry boat
storage area will be fenced.with gated and controlled access, increasing the ability of
the on -site Marina Manager to monitor activities: Refer to response to comments
OCC -11 and SB -10.
OCC -13 Refer to responses to comments SB -2 and SB -3.
OCC -14 Figure 4.6.2 has been revised to provide clarity of the boat wash location and
drainage areas and is included in the Errata. Also, see response to comments SB -9
and SB -10.
OCC -15 Comment noted. Refer to pages 4.6 -20 and 4.6 -26 of the Draft EIR for a complete
discussion of drainage flow and treatment. Also, see response to comments SB -9 and
SB -10.
OCC -16 Quantitative analysis determined that pollutant concentrations in runoff are lower
with the project than in the existing condition without the project. The site is an
existing boat storage and launching facility that does not currently treat any runoff.
. The minor increase in flow will not contribute to a capacity issue in Huntington
Harbor. Therefore, cumulative contributions are not considered significant.
OCC -17 The project is for the dry storage of vessels only, and a pump out station is not
required part of the project. There is an existing pump out station located in the
marina at a public dock adjacent to the public launch ramp. This pump out station is
relatively new (three years old) and is maintained by the Marina Manager. Currently,
there are four public pump out stations in Huntington Harbor, and there is no
• practical way to determine the ratio of stations to boats. However, the pump out
stations are connected directly to the sewer system and have unlimited capacity.
Water quality information, while not specific to the immediate area of the pump out
stations, included data from the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan
(DAMP), prepared in September 2003. Also, see response to comments SB -9 and
SB -10.
OCC -18 Comment noted.
•
P: \GRK330\Final ELR\Response to Comments\Response to Conunents.doc R10 /07/04» 82
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 2004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
OCC -19 The criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts, as stated on
page 4.10 -2 of the Draft EIR, are based on CEQA Guideline and require that the
project either substantially increases traffic in relation to existing traffic (i.e., results
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections), or exceeds, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency. As stated on page 4.10 -4 of the Draft EIR, the project is
expected to generate a total of 39 additional peak -hour trips and 77 additional daily
trips (ADT). The additional ADT is less than 1 percent of the existing ADT on
Edinger Avenue. In accordance with the City of Huntington Beach's General Plan,
LOS C (v /c < 0.80) is considered acceptable for roadway links. Even if the project's
trip generation were doubled, Edinger Avenue would still operate at LOS A with a
v/c ratio of 0.49. Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded that the amount of additional
traffic does not meet either of these threshold criteria and that traffic impacts are less
than significant. '
OCC -20 Refer to responses to comments OCC -8 and OCC -16.
OCC -21 Comment noted. The air quality analysis is based on the traffic data developed for the
proposed project. The additional peak -hour trips that are projected do not cause any
air quality thresholds to be exceeded.
OCC -22 Comment noted. The project site is already developed, and existing uses include
boating and parking activities that produce noise. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3 on pages
- 1 -7 and 4.3 -11 of the Draft EIR ensures that construction activities will avoid the
breeding and nesting seasons of sensitive species.
OCC -23 See response to comment USFW -13.
OCC -24 Comment noted.
P: \GRKJ307inal EIR\Response to Comments\Response to Comments.doc «10 /07/04» 83
.
:
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
OCTOBER 1004 SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA BOAT LAUNCH PARKING
AND DRY BOAT STORAGE EXPANSION
•
FRIENDS OF SEAL BEACH NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
FNWR - Comment noted. Please see responses to comments SB -I and USFW -5 for
additional information regarding restoration of the site to wetlands.
FNWR -2 • Comment noted. Please see response to comment USFW -30 and Mitigation
Measures 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -3, which are proposed to ensure that potential impacts
to sensitive animal species either observed in the project site or having a possibility
• of occurring in these habitats are reduced to a less than significant level.
FNWR -3 Mitigation Measures 4T1 -1 and 4.1 -2 are proposed to ensure that new sources of
lighting do not extend beyond the project limits. In addition, please see response to
comment DFG -3 regarding reduced lighting on the project site.
FNWR -4 See response to comment SB -3 for information on runoff and sewer connections
and response to comment OCC -17 for a discussion of pump -out stations related to
boat bilge wastewater.
FNWR -5 Comment noted.
•
• FNWR -6 As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Draft EIR (page
4.6 -10), the use of sandbags is included on the list of typical construction Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that were developed by the California Storm Water
Quality Association, an advisory body of municipal agencies, and are presented in
the three California Stormwater BMP Handbooks (2003) for new
development/redevelopment and municipal,_ industrial /commercial, and
construction activities.
•
•
•
•
•
P: \GRK330\Final EIR\Response to Comments\Responsc to Comments.doc n10/07 /04» 84
Approval of Comment Letter re: "Environmental impact Report —
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dry Boat Storage Project
EIR prepared by County of Orange
City Council Stuff Report
December 13, 2004
ATTACHMENT 3
CITY COMMENT LETTER TO ORANGE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE:
CITY OF SEAL BEACH COMMENTS RE:
"DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT 601, SUNSET HARBOUR MARINA
BOAT LAUNCH PARKING AND DRY BOAT
STORAGE EXPANSION", DATED
DECEMBER 2, 2004
12
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR Comment Letter.CC State Report
5 r lr �ly y r Si '' -r; •
•
o a
• AA �..1!!/' .• t /Nri ` CFO • • , feUNPI GP
. ... - , CITY,BAL7.21m £IGRTH STREET si.
�t r �� i 5 SEALBEACB CALlFORNIA'J074D - ' f
`': r i .. r fL ' L. _„ ..} : ;�562j413]- -2527, wwrvccs "eahbeacL.ca.us'
2 !Nt � Tf i try -. N S. 3tK S s . .. 2e4:6:44'.7c -Pi OkkEV .. , r 'yEY C g `r ^As } +taU >l,.#L t t ai
�' � t c t.at i � G �i- x 1� ;r �i Y rt � i5 �' ��x; .-`F �G{' �'` i., ^`.'�S:!s.''N.,�a.��u.x. °'l^ -.
.. �-. ^. � �y s -- �..M.....'.✓ ..�r. r,.:. , . ..'S a.._� net`s t Yr. _ ^+....�":2., r.
December 2, 2004
Orange County. Planning Commission
Attn: Rick Goacher, Chairman
300 N. Flower Street, Room 315
Santa Ana, CA 92703 -4048
•
SUBJECT:. City of Seal .Beach Comments re: "Draft Environmental
Impact Report 601, Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch
Parking and Dry Boat Storage Expansion"
Dear Chairman Goacher and Members of the Planning Commission:
The Department of Development Services of the City of Seal Beach has reviewed
the above referenced Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared by the County of
Orange, which includes the following supplemental documents to the DEIR for the subject
project:
❑ "Draft Responses to Comments"
❑ "Draft Errata to the Environmental impact Report", and
❑ "Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program ".
The proposed project is within the City of Seal Beach, and as such raised concems
regarding environmental impacts. upon our community, in particular regarding the Seal
Beach National Wildlife Refuge located north of the subject property and the least tern
nesting area west of the existing boat launch facility at Sunset Harbour Marina. The City
Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council both reviewed the Draft EIR and
a comment letter was approved by our City Council on June 14, 2004 regarding the DEIR.
The responses to that comment letter are set forth as Response Number SB -1 through SB -43
in the "Draft Responses to Comments" documentation before this Commission.
In our review of the responses to the City comments it is recognized that the large
majority of our comments and concerns have been addressed in a positive manner by your
staff and the environmental consultant. The City sincerely appreciates the recognition and
effective responses to our concerns, particularly regarding the concem regarding plan review
and permit issuing authority for this project. The EIR has been revised to clearly indicate
throughout that the City of Seal Beach will be the permit issuing authority for all required
Z:\My Documents \CEQA \Sunset Marina Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.00 Planning Commission Comment
Letter .doe \LW \]2 -02 -04
t
City of Seal Beach Staff . Comment Letter re:
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
and Dty Boat Storage Project
December 2, 2004
grading and construction permits to complete an approved project at Sunset Harbour
Marina. The County has fully incorporated our requested revisions to the language in the
• "Executive Surmnary", Section 1.1 Item 5, Additional Permits and Approvals (pages 1 -1
and 1 -2); Table 1.6 -A (pages 1-4 through 1 -21); Table 7.A: Mitigation Measure
Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist (pages 7 -3 through 7 -25). The efforts
of Rich Adler in working with our staff to address our plan review and permit issuance
concems deserves recognition from the County of Orange.
The City still feels that Alternative 2: Wetlands Consolidation is an environmentally
superior alternative. However, in reviewing the provisions of the California Coastal Act, we
concur with your staff and consultants determination that such an alternative is not a feasible
project in light of the provisions of Sections 30007.5, 30233(a), 30240, and 30411 of the
Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) and court decisions interpreting the language of those
sections.
However, .there are still a few issues that remain a concern to our staff, and we feel.
ultimately will remain concerns of our City Council. Please note that our City Council has
not had a meeting to review and discuss this matter as of yet. The City Council will be
meeting on December 13, 2004 and will be considering approval of a comment letter to the
Board of Supervisors that is proposed to restate the following staff concerns:
Revision to Proposed Dry Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Area:
❑ Requested Flow Diversion System:
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all flows from the dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area should be directed to a treatment system of possibly the
sewer system for treatment, thereby eliminating potential adverse water quality impacts
from this activity on . the project site, and potentially within Anaheim Bay. In addition,
the County of Orange should investigate with the City of Huntington Beach the
possibility of diverting low flow waters from the boat launch facility to the sewer system.
The response to our comment is that such provisions "is not within the scope of the
project ".
Since there will be increased usage of the dry boat storage area and the boat wash
area if this project is approved, it is felt that such an effective water - quality treatment
mitigation measure should be fully incorporated into "the scope of the project" during its
final approval and design stages. Such an action would totally eliminate all water quality
issues regarding the use of the enlarged dry boat storage area and the boat wash area.
❑ Requested Sewer Service:
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all wastewater flows tributary to the
Marina enter the City's sewer pump station and the station is currently subsided by the Seal
Beach rate payers. There is a large inequity for the sewer service provided versus the fees
2
Sunset Marina Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIROC Planning Commission Comment Letter
City of Seal Beach Staff Comment Letter re:
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking
• and Dry Boat Storage Project
December 2, 2004
collected. It is recommended that the station ownership and maintenance responsibilities be
transferred to the County, similar to the County owned sewer lines on- site.' The City will
also be preparing a water and wastewater rate study to evaluate the costs for these services.
❑ Inclusion of Light and Glare buffering feature for least tern nesting area:
❑ Page 4.1 -2, Section 4.1.1.3, Light and Glare: The section indicates light
glare from night boat launches is temporary, of short duration, and does
not affect any sensitive uses, as none are within close proximity to the
project site. The City is still very concerned that the conclusions reached
in this statement appear to be unsupported, and may be incorrect. These
concerns are based on the following factors:
❑ The least tem nesting island is located directly to the west of the boat
launch facility; please refer to Figure 4.1.1, View Locations.
❑ Any type of night both launch activity may impose light glare from either
the boat itself or the launch vehicle, directly towards this nesting area for
an endangered species.
❑ There is no citation of any authoritative study or research effort to clearly
document that sudden, unexpected, and potentially obtrusive light glare
impacts will not substantially impair the nesting habits of the least tem.
The City continues to request provision of additional mitigation measures
in the Final EIR to address the above concerns and to consider the following
actions to mitigate potential adverse impacts to nesting least terns, particularly
after reviewing the comments from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Game:
❑ Creation of a visual barrier between sensitive habitat areas and the areas of
human activity, such at least a 4 -foot high earthen berm planted with
native plant species to provide additional height to the visual barrier, or a
semi -solid fencing structure, around the edge of the parking lot and
storage areas that would block headlights from shining directly into the
marsh habitat areas.
❑ Such a structure should be located so as not to disturb the existing
wetland areas to be preserved as part of the proposed project, and
should be designed in conjunction with the lighting . plans for the Dry
Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Areas.
❑ consideration of a mitigation measure that will prohibit night launch
activities between 1 -hour after sunset and 1 -hour before sunrise during the
nesting season of the least tern.
I will be in attendance at your Commission Meeting on December 7 to address these
concerns to the Commission and respond to any questions that you may have at that time. I
can also be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e -mail at iwhittenberana ci.seal-
haech.ca.us, if you need to discuss any of these matters prior to the scheduled Commission
meeting. - -
3
Sunset Marina Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.00 Planning Commission Comment Letter
Citr of Seal Beach Staff Comment,Letter re:
Draft DEIR — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking •
and Drip Boat Storage Project
December 2, 2004
•
Sincerely,
ittenberg •
Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
California Department of Fish andGame
Attn: Donald R. Chadwick
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
4949 Viewridge Avenue •
San Diego, CA 92123
•
United States Fish and Wildlife Service •
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
•
Attn: Refuge Manager •
P: O. Box 815
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission "
Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
•
City Manager Director of Public Works /City Engineer
•
•
•
• 4
Sunset Marina Boat Launch and Dry Boat Storage DEIR.00 Planning Commission Comment Letter
`, - - ac°evagy1fa9•y,1
! '. * fly
d � nI 6Q '1 '
♦ I^ q , t �1
C� O u �U .P` :
j � I CITY HALL 211 E IGHTH STRE ET , ?
' z rir - SEALBEACH CALIFORN1A90740
^L. ' 4' , . - '` . , " '.(362) 4 31 - 2517 +avww.oseallmacheaus
:• F t F ^ s r y, aY .'PiSt NPO ;1) 5. - u 'Z �nA' 'l'14,,'rf 1 S N .r , ifitg M;T iF VicFici: � V Fcr4Vi i t .,
Y r > m iT •.',' :aleysmt aYrtt` .S'� � �-„'w� �� y vs-MS v9Y*�5 „?� i •Erna �',�`s^�n'*.°'k -4'h? ,4�3"S n.:a,';: = i, -»CL. hz� k-.., +.rlw f1.s'R -, C63e ?. sx •
•
December 13, 2004 FILE COPY
•
Orange County Board of Supervisors
Thomas W. Wilson, Board Chairman
10 Civic Center Plaza- Room 465
Santa Ana, CA 92701
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beac Comments re: "Environmental Impact
Report 601, Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch Parking and
Dry Boat Storage Expansion"
•
Dear Chairman Wilson and Members of the Board of Supervisors:
•
The City Council of the City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by the County of Orange, which includes the
following supplemental documents to the EIR for the subject project:
❑ "Draft Responses to Comments"
❑ "Draft Errata to the Environmental Impact Report", and
❑ "Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program ".
• The proposed project is within the City of Seal Beach, and as such raised concerns
regarding environmental impacts upon our community, in particular regarding the Seal
Beach National Wildlife Refuge located north of the subject property and the least tern
nesting area west of the existing boat launch facility at Sunset Harbour Marina. The City
Environmental Quality Control Board and the City Council both reviewed the Draft EIR and
a comment letter was approved by our City Council on June 14, 2004 regarding the DEIR.
- The responses to that comment letter are set forth as Response Number SB -I through SB-43
in the "Draft Responses to Comments" documentation before this Commission.
In our review of the responses to the City comments it is recognized that the large
majority of our comments and concems have been addressed in a positive manner by your
staff and the environmental consultant. The City sincerely appreciates the recognition and
effective responses to our concems, particularly regarding the concern regarding plan review
and permit issuing authority for this project. The EIR has been revised to clearly indicate
throughout that the City of Seal Beach will be the permit issuing authority for all required
grading and construction permits to complete an approved project at Sunset Harbour
Z:\My Documents \CEQA \Sunset Manna Boat Launch FEIRCC Comment Lena .doc \LW \12 -13 -04 _
•
•
City ojSeat Beach Comment Letter re:
"EIR 601 — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
December 13, 2004
•
Marina. The County has fully incorporated our requested revisions to the language in the
"Executive Summary", Section 1.1 Item 5, Additional Permits and Approvals (pages 1 -1
and 1 -2); Table 1.6 -A (pages 1-4 through 1 -21); Table 7.A: Mitigation Measure •
Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist (pages 7 -3 through 7 -25). The efforts
of Rich Adler. in working with our staff to address our plan review and permit issuance
concerns deserves recognition froni'ithe County of Orange.
•
The City still feels that "Alternative 2: Wetlands Consolidation" is an
environmentally superior alternative. However, in reviewing the provisions of the
California Coastal Act, our staff concurs with your staff and consultants determination that
such an alternative is not a feasible project in light of the provisions of Sections 30007.5,
30233(a), 30240, and 30411 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) and court decisions
interpreting the language of those sections.
However, there are still a few issues that remain a concern to us, and those concerns
are set forth below:
Revision to Proposed Dry Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Area:
❑ Requested Flow Diversion System: •
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all flows from the dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area should be directed to a treatment system of possibly the
sewer system for treatment, thereby eliminating potential adverse water quality impacts
• from this activity on the project site, and potentially within Anaheim Bay. In addition,
the County of Orange should investigate with the City of Huntington Beach the
possibility of diverting low flow waters from the boat launch facility to the sewer system.
The response to our comment is that such provisions "is not within the scope of the
project ".
•
We "disagree with that determination and feel that since there will be increased usage
of the dry boat storage area and the boat wash area if this project is approved that such an
•
effective water - quality treatment mitigation measure should be fully incorporated into "the
scope of the project" during its final approval and design stages. Such an action would
totally eliminate all water quality issues regarding the use of the enlarged dry boat storage
area and the boat wash area.
❑ Requested Sewer Service:
It is the position of the City of Seal Beach that all wastewater flows tributary to the
Marina enter the City's sewer pump station and the station is currently subsided by the Seal
Beach rate payers. There is a large inequity for the sewer service provided versus the fees
collected. It is reconunended that the station ownership and maintenance responsibilities be
transferred to the County, similar to the County owned sewer lines on -site. The City will
also be preparing a water and wastewater rate study to evaluate the costs for these services.
Sunset Marina Boat Launch EEIR.CC Comment Letter 2
1
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
"EIR 601 — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Launch
and Dry Boat Storage Project"
December 13, 2004
•
❑ Inclusion of Light and Glare buffering feature for least tern nesting area
❑ Page 4.1 -2, Section 4.1.1.3, Light and Glare: The section indicates light
glare from night boat launches is temporary, of short duration, and does
not affect any sensitive uses, as none are within close proximity to the
project site. The City is still very concerned that the conclusions reached
in this statement appear to be unsupported, and may be incorrect. These
concerns are based on the following factors:
❑ The least tern nesting island is located directly to the west of the boat
launch facility; please refer to Figure 4.1.1, View Locations.
❑ Any type of night boat launch activity may impose light glare from
either the boat itself or the launch vehicle, directly towards this nesting
area for an endangered species.
❑ There is no citation of any authoritative study or research effort to
clearly document that sudden, unexpected, and potentially obtrusive
light glare impacts will not substantially impair the nesting habits of
• the least tern.
The City continues to request provision of additional mitigation measures in
the Final EIR to address the above concerns and to consider the following
actions to mitigate potential adverse impacts to nesting least tems,
particularly after reviewing the conunents from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game: •
❑ Creation of a visual barrier between sensitive habitat areas and the
areas of human activity, such at least. a 4 -foot high earthen. berm
planted with native plant species to provide additional height to the
visual barrier, or a semi -solid fencing structure, around the edge of the
parking lot and storage areas that would block headlights from shining
directly into theMarsh habitat areas.
❑ Such a structure should be located so as not to disturb the existing
wetland areas to be preserved as part of the proposed project, and
should be designed in conjunction with the lighting plans for the
Dry Boat Storage Area and Boat Wash Areas.
❑ Consideration of a mitigation measure that will prohibit night launch
activities between 1 -hour after sunset and 1 -hour before sunrise during
the nesting season of the least tem.
Our Director of Development Services, Mr. Lee Whittenberg, will be in attendance
at your Board meeting when this matter is scheduled for consideration to present the above
concerns to the Board and respond to any questions that you may have at that time. Mr.
Whittenberg can also be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by e -mail at
1whittenberac ci .seal - haech.ca.us, if you need to discuss any of these matters with him prior
to the scheduled Board meeting.
•
Sunset Marina Boat Launch FEIR.CC Comment Letter 3 •
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
"EIR 601 — Sunset Harbour Marina Boat Lciunch
and Dty Boat Storage Project"
•
• December 13, 2004
6 ,1_ Th
Jo • :. Bahorski
ty Manager. City of Seal Beach
Distribution:
•
California Department of Fish and Game
• Attn: Donald R. Chadwick •
Habitat Conservation Supervisor
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge
• Attn: Refuge Manager
P. O. Box 815
Seal Beach, CA 90740
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
•
•
•
•
Sunset Manna Boat Launch FEIR.CC Comment Letter 4