HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2003-08-25 #I AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 25, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Comment Letter Regarding "Notice to Intent
to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -105" — County
of Orange, Los Alamitos Pump Station Project
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft letter, with whatever changes the Council deems
appropriate
BACKGROUND:
The City has received a copy of the above referenced document. The project is to replace
the existing, outdated pump station with a new pump station. This new pump station
would provide additional capacity for the 100 year storm event and should eliminate
flooding in the surrounding area. Additionally, due to the age of the existing pump
station, finding parts is increasingly difficult for the County, and maintenance is therefor
very difficult and expensive.
The proposed project would construct a 4 pump station facility approximately 140 feet
south of the existing pump station with space for an additional 5` pump. The station is
located far enough away from the existing station to allow the existing station to remain
in use during the construction of the new station. The proposed pump station would be
approximately 131 feet long, 57 feet wide, and 27 feet deep in the wet well, and would be
powered by a 1,450 horsepower pump through 4 mixed flow pumps. The station would
have a maximum capacity of 880 cfs. Construction access is proposed from Pacific Coast
Highway, through the existing access road which runs through the Hellman property and
Southern California Edison property, pending easement acquisition from the property
owners.
Maintenance activities would include the following:
• Weekly general maintenance, including checking & running pumps for 5 to 10
minutes, & checking remaining systems
• Exercising the generator once to twice a month
• Annual general maintenance including surveying the basin, grading as necessary,
and pulling each sump pump as necessary
• After significant rain, debris would be removed by appropriate personnel
Agenda Item I
.
• Main pump would be pulled for maintenance every 5 years
The proposed station would take approximately 24 months to complete construction, and
the existing station would remain fully intact during the construction period. The new
discharge pipes would be connected to the existing discharge pipes during the summer
months after the station is complete. A City of Seal Beach water line would need to be
relocated as part of the project. A series of permits (other than local permits) are required,
though no Seal Beach permits are necessary.
Review of the CEQA Negative Declaration:
Staff has reviewed the document and feels that a response from the City is necessary. A
draft copy of the proposed letter is attached for your review. Generally, the comments fall
in line with omissions and further clarifications which need to be made within the
document. These comments fall into the following categories:
• Omission of County Water Quality checklist issues relating to the Drainage Area
Master Plan Chapter 7
• Issues relating to the Coastal Commission and providing access from Pacific
Coast Highway through the Hellman Ranch Property
• Clarification of what would happen in the event of a failure of an existing levee
during the construction phase
• City would support construction access from Adolfo Lopez
• Cumulative discussion relating to the Boeing project must be included
• Within the Hazards section, there is no discussion of methane gas risk
• General clarifications where language appears ambiguous
This site is located partly within the City of Seal Beach and partly in the City of Long
Beach. The area is of importance to the City for both water quality concerns, as well as
possible flooding issues, should the pump station fail. Staff generally feels that the
document adequately addresses the project and it's environmental impacts, but
recommends that the City request different mitigation in some areas, and further clarify
effects in others. Staff has provided the Council with a draft letter to consider at this
evening's meeting. This matter was heard by the EQCB on Wednesday, August 20, 2003.
Changes proposed by the EQCB are in BOLD, 14 point font, with redline, strikeout
changes notes from the original draft letter.
Staff has provided the Council with the introduction, Project Description, Environmental
Checklist, Environmental Analysis, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for your review. A copy of the document in its entirety is available for review at City
Hall.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. Staff time in drafting staff report and draft letter.
Agenda Item
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Mayor to sign the draft letter, with whatever changes the Council deems
appropriate
Mac Cummins, AICP
Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager
Attachments (2):
1. Draft letter to the County of Orange
2. Negative Declaration 03 -105
Agenda Item
Attachment 1
:
f
ro c§.SEA(B,`CII�
1 Itt
-a \ a �pRPDy grf ..e, 4
:o a
litri 16
, CITY }IALL 211 EIGHTH STREET
SEAL BEACH,' CALIFORNIA 90740
( 562) 431 =2527• TAM. ci seal beach.ca vs
August 25, 2003
FILE COPY
Tim Neely, Manager
Environmental Planning Services Department
Planning & Development Services Division
•
PO Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
Attn: Lisa Cibellis
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach Comments re: "Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated
Negative Declaration 03 -105, Los Alamitos Pun2p Station"
Dear Mr. Neely:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced Notice of intent to adopt
Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -105. The project is located within the city limits of the
City of Seal Beach and will therefore impact our City, and the project is proposed to be
accessed through the Hellman Ranch site. With these facts being present, the City has the
following continents regarding the negative declaration:
❑ Environmental determination checklist:
The Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) chapter 7 environmental checklist issues
should be utilized within this section, with corresponding discussion in the
appropriate places throughout the document. Water quality issues are important and
should be considered through the CEQA process, in light of the new County
standards and NPDES permit requirements. Compliance with these standards should
be maintained.
❑ Page 8 — Right of Way
The City has been apprised of concerns regarding any easement across the
Hellman Ranch site from the California Coastal Commission. The concern
references potential wetlands restoration which might be put into jeopardy should
any additional easement be present. This concern should be addressed in the
document.
IP
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Los Alamitos Pump Station
August 25, 2003
❑ Item 5 -g— Hydrology/Water Quality
Provide appropriate volume numbers for the 25 year event and indicate how the
project would meet that standard.
❑ Item 5-1— Hydrology/Water Quality
Response is ambiguous. Please address what would happen should an existing
levee fail between now and the final construction date. What flood hazard exists
in this situation?
❑ Item 6 -d - Transportation
The City strongly suggests the County utilize the Adofo Lopez drive entrance for
access to the site. The Hellman Ranch site has many biological features which
make it less desireable to be hauling construction trucks across, in addition to
California Coastal Commission concerns regarding a easement across the
property. The Adolfo Lopez street entrance would be preferable.
❑ Item 7 -E — Air Quality
AQMD Rule 403 is referenced as a standard, but is not specifically set out as a
mitigation measure. Please add this as a mitigation to further define allowable
dust levels and time duration.
❑ Item 8 - Noise
Discussion does not include any cumulative impact analysis with the Boeing •
Integrated Defense Systems Specific Plan, which was recently approved by the
City of Seal Beach. This analysis should include analysis of both long term and
temporary_ construction effects related to the cumulative effect of the County-
project and the Boeing project.
The analysis of construction impacts is incomplete. No estimate of initial site
preparation time, nor of how close construction machinery will come to Leisure
World and for how long is provided. Without those estimates, no realistic estimate
of the impact on Leisure World residents can be made and no valid conclusion
can be made that CEQA Guidelines Appendix G section XI (d) does not apply
here.
❑ Page 46
• Document text is missing footnotes 16 -18. Where are these located in the
document?
•
2
V
•
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
Los Alamitos Pump Station
August 25, 2003
❑ Item 5 -i— Hydrology/Water Quality
Response is ambiguous. Please address what would happen should an existing
levee fail between now and the final construction date. What flood hazard exists
in this situation?
❑ Item N -1
Will the project be inspected by the City of Long Beach, or merely by a County
Inspector? The language is ambiguous here.
❑ Page 48
Document text is missing footnote 21. Where is this located in the document?
❑ Item BR -6
Mitigation Measure should include discussion of Coastal Commission jurisdiction •
over the project.
❑ Page 55
Document text is missing footnote 30. Where is this located in the document?
❑ Item CR -5
Mitigation Measure should include discussion of City of Long Beach being the
responsible agency should resources be found on their side of the city limits.
❑ Item CR -6
Mitigation Measure should include discussion of Coastal Commission. The
language from the mitigation plan would be appropriate here.
❑ Item 14 -b - Hazards
Discussion is inadequate, and should include a discussion of what, if any, risk is
present from methane gas. Reference the technical studies provided as appendices
D & E. This discussion should include limits and what will happen should those
limits be exceeded.
❑ Item 14 -i - Hazards
3
1
City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re:
1 Los Alamitos Pump Station
August 25,2003
Discussion basically reads like a mitigation measure. If these are going to be the
measures taken to control vectors and odors, this should be a mitigation measure
within the mitigation plan.
The Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) considered and discussed the
Mitigated Negative Declaration document on August 20, 2003. 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 August 25, 2003, authorized the Mayor to sign
the letter.
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. Mac Cummins,
AICP, Associate Planner at (562) 431 -2527, extension 316. He will be most happy to
provide any additional information or to provide clarification of the matters discussed in this
comment letter
Sincerely,
6k
Patricia E. Carnpbel / • ohn Unrath
Mayor Chairman
City of Seal Beach Environmental Quality Control Board
Distribution:
Seal Beach City Council Seal Beach Planning Commission
•
City Manager Environmental Quality Control Board
Director of Development Services
•
1
4
f
Attachment 2
o 07/21/03
{ County of Orange CITY OF SEAL BEACH
, 1' � Planning &Development Services Department JUL .� 4 2003
p 0
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
NOTICE OF INTENT
TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Negative Declaration IP 03 -105
In compliance with Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and the County of
Orange Procedures, notification is hereby given to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, interest groups and
the general public, that the County of Orange proposes to adopt Negative Declaration No. IP 03 -105 for the Los
Alamitos Pump Station Project.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and supporting attachments are available for review by the general
public at the offices of the PDSD /Environmental Planning Services Division, Room 321, 300 N. Flower Street,
Santa Ana CA, 92702. Additionally, copies of the Initial Study are available for review at the City of Seal Beach
City Hall, City of Long Beach City Hall, City of Seal Beach Library and Island Village Homeowners Association.
The proposed ND will undergo a 30 -day public review period during which time comments will be received,
starting July 24, 2003 and ending August 25, 2003. Comments responding to the adequacy and
appropriateness of the ND should be sent to:
Tim Neely, Manager
Environmental Planning Services Division
Planning and Development Services Department
P.O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
ATTN: Lisa Cibellis
Commentors wishing to appeal the decision to prepare a ND must specifically state this intention in their letter.
Project Location: The LAPS site is located south of Westminster Avenue between the San Gabriel
River and the Los Alamitos Channel, approximately one mile north of Pacific
Coast Highway.
Project Description: Reconstruction of the existing Los Alamitos Pump Station to provide sufficient
pumping capacity for the 100 -year storm event and eliminate flooding in the
surrounding area.
Project Contact Gene Estrada (714) 834 -2823
CEQA Contact Lisa Cibellis (714) 834 -2089
Jerry Mitchell (714) 834 -5389
Action is anticipated to be taken by the Orange County Board of Supervisors in the Fall of 2003.
I
■
r
�, �FEA(
,:- \ ��pRPORg TF , , ,fe ,
*; *
'l y 4 if ffd!!�
O
f
i
,,� , `9 27 � 1 �� 0
I l k % ° UNTV' \
CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740
(562)` 431 - 2527• WV, w. ci.seal- beacli:ca.us'.
BY FACSIMLE TO (714) 834 -5791
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
August 5, 2003
Lisa Cibellis
Environmental Planning Services Division
Planning and Development Services Department
P. O. Box 4048
Santa Ana, CA 92702 -4048
Dear Ms. Cibellis: -
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - TO
PROVIDE COMMENTS - MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION 03 -105, LOS
ALAMITIOS PUMP STATION PROJECT
In accordance with our telephone conversation of July 30, 2003 the City of Seal Beach is
requesting an extension of time to provide comments relative to proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration 03 -105 regarding the Los Alamitos Pump Station Project.
This project is immediately adjacent to the City of Seal Beach and involves work with the
retention basin, a portion of which is located within the City of Seal Beach. Our normal
process is to have the Environmental Quality Control Board of the City review and
approve a comment letter for final City Council approval. The City can complete this
review and approval of a comment letter by the evening of August 25, which is a regular
City Council meeting night.
The City requests an extension of time to provide a FAX copy of the City Council
approved comment letter by noon on Tuesday, August 26, 2003. Thank you for your
hopeful concurrence to this request and accommodation to allow the City Environmental
Quality Control Board and the City Council to conduct an appropriate review of the
subject environmental document.
Z:\My Documents \RETENT.BAS\Neg Dec Extension Request Letter.doc \LW\08 -05 -03
City of Seal Beach Request for Extension of Comment Time re:
Mitigated Negative Declaration 03 -105 re:
Los Alamitos Pump Station
August 5, 2003
Please contact my office at your earliest convenience to confirm the requested time
extension for receipt of comments or if you require additional information , or have
questions regarding this matter. I can be reached at (562) 431 -2527, extension 313, or by
e -mail at lwhittenberg @ci.seal- beach.ca.us.
Sincerely,
e Whittenberg 7 -
Director of Development Services
Cc: John Bahorski, City Manager
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Neg Dec Extension Request Letter 2
l'- \": ., , - t- , .. , •••,‘
.• ., -„, 0 , ..•:••:,. ''. r 1: ‘",' - -,-i: . -:" 1 1 ,..:• V : .._ J N., : ,. - -- - z. - ..,_.. -4 ., - "L . \ ' •-••••
1
i
...,.. '1 ,, ••;r , • . -4i'
- :.3...../ a + ' T 4- , ..- : -, -
:
qi .. .- ''''i'=,T'•' 1 ' '
t i?..
..,,., f a:. .. .:71V: .• - t. .... .......•-••••—• . • 1,,,a." \ - 1.. ‘...)."■• Ze'
,,' a .• • 7a
74,...................cl
j;g1,14,. 1111 rfg 7 .. • - t: '''' -0 I' ' ' 2 7 -1 ''.1.A. • --'-'1% '. .
. 4).
'I. , - v..; ,,•'' ".---",' t ,, it '' '.4 Li •
',. ' -; ---. ). '', . $:- 1 1` •-• . ,e ' r 14 •
- 1 . >• - •--4- - :-.48, , , .. ,I4 f• 1...,..........:..... ,....,,: ,
-",
‘4 1. - 1 ''. .,,iir • Af •‘:.:: .**, ‘ ,..A . 1, ..! 1 . ' ■ e ' ' ,'' ! :a - . -" 1 i t •""",.%/-. 1 ••■• „ ..t.' , • i 7 :„,.. l .. :. .,,,.. 1 la,-,, i _. „:,-, ,,• \;) 5.
) •% "'AV': ''''J "`..LiQ ,i, ; ,, . i' - ' Ptt ; 4 , Jr, I, ' . .. - --• ,„•-:: 7k, , 1 I • :, w ,,,ik \ ' , ........,?. ' .:1, •. •
i`rd • •• ; '• '' t , ‘''..... ,$' " i ii . ' 7 , . • \ - • - A -
,.,, I
''' l'-' - .." . -'''''
• :".Fli•
' i..
..,,,„ ' ' • ••••••.--... - `tih=• ; u• -4. _ • .37,, •-tr ,. 1 . 0 -•••:;.:- l',b ,.';' ri -
1 St - 4 , 7e . ,.•'* •.:i.": - -- 7, ' 4 ---.----., gr t' : • - 1 ' ,,_,... i . - ■or ,-........ ' )•;.: • :
'.., I i It....... „.....,„....,. ,,,•\ • • .......
- .3 • ,.. - 4 f_l•-..A.IP;,e —•••••••-••••`- •-';'-p i . • • • 7 • .i.A;‘ ; i `,•
iv : - t 17 - • •-• •-• ‘. - Na...-_- .7
pa-T.141-` 0 14-p c t i i • It „,,.- 1 , -1 ,:q ...ii ,1•
l i
•O11. r,r. r :'-i! „!'1.1 , I g: ' 4 1 .! ..---- --. , - . . 4 : 1 ‘, . .....d.k • -- t
=no.••••••-• - , 1... •:.;-; • ,,„,. ,4 ii ,, 4 ..
1 bYt• 1 4
' 1 • - - ' i ?ri -''W, • •!."1 ;.=•ifi• ' . . -, , ;„,-i , `z- i . . ; •* , ' . - - ":. ' . .. , 1 - ....ts. 17.1 -
:il.... „..,...,_•:'*„...:1 . f•---, "'''' it •-•1 „ -- . 1 '.. 1 ,
• - 1 , 1- --• •..,r r ... .., ,:i
i 3.....t:i.V.::, ..5„ ' • ,11 ,I.. •.: . .....:1
;.!.-:-' 4 -4- t; . ..,1,;,,,t.,‘, .1. ..-f. ir; LI= 1.: ,‘- L=.= .', t 1 .. -,, 4, . ; 1... 4 ,- r.-_ I: .5. - mr._ ,-. :cf.. r- 5. +•••• -:..+- ' -. ........;.::.... ... - . :
1: 1 - - ,r;".14 - ,..3„,•• '-'4 ei- .. F......ii;-,,.' 1-...-- . .. - 4.:g „. 1;,.-;: .. - :4,7.; Mk''' , '"'•i' , , ,-A. r ' Pi , -. ' '
.-'...:. ',- 04 ur- ,Z4 - z1...011 4 . - tke:;;-.'''.': - cifge't'''' - d er" : , I 1. ildirw ' 1 a r , 1 , . I :w ill! i , . ; 14-J rijir---- •
;Ls
..., .
r -•
„,.. :-, s ak,,‘:;• - :,; i - ? - --;'' d ': .• ,.
•::,,,‘ . .
•
1.41
' ' - - ."-- kirlr '‘.44§‘,...e.: ..,•,- .. ...•• 1 - ...,-, -....,
.44 ,r ,,,1:.•:i1-" ,, - 1 ..liv‘e.s ..: .,-,- •• .-'.. f
..,‘,. ., ''S=. litto,.. ,.,^e. k S.... --; -4 i
1/
.. : _ ..,
-,‘• I r. . 41111.- .44.1414. 1. 144 1 • , 4.. 4 ' -
c 'Mt •-• la , , . ..,..
' . g
• • i '
..k. •. • ' ..t . . .a.
'
. . ,' ` . ft •,..• . - 11. :- -. -* • , ; - 1 i
s _ ,,,, . --. •-,- e,. ,. .e -17 1
.A'.'"„F4 • „ , , , , , ,..'"1--, ,, k i' t '''.1' ." ' ' " ' 0 ■ . ' I . . . e 1 rtr ..% ' • . ... : ,
_
• - l , .....1, ,,
. r
f .- •. ,.p.S.. .;" ,.` - -,- `, -- ', ..,,, . . r f _ ...._-•--- ----. k....: 1
_ 1 .. ' . . V' 1,";,‘ -* '? ....) . :• -; , , ,.... 1.... .• _,-,,,
, llt.
_ ,
• - i r• ' i '
- ',7 ' '. • 4 .., .1411. \ ‘.
:I. .
„ , ....V.1........,..........,-....- -._.....,,, .!
li '."•- ...,4 - I. i
■ r.:- 1 4 ,.....:4,,....... 4=7,
„,.. . , ,, . . .e , .- ' IV; - ,„ik- tr't.••••• • "'"'' •••• ' •te-4' Y ;
I ..
/ ...-•
/. .6f..3.01i 7„: t v.... , ,., ..., - • _.- .,,, . w, ,,.. ... ,. ....IA . F4.......0.1....7.:A4.:., _ -0,......,-.1,-
., ,
...
''''' 41, --'- c.- 42 k ` .; . I ' ' ' - `gic- _Ovr ov...n... .,',Fli 1
-1
, ;
i 1 ),, ii -;.; '
f ..,- • 1 ,-...•••,.
4
f "Pt - 1 - -` .c ... ilas‘c .' - ,t- t` -• - ' • • •• - ' '''' - .I ' „..,,. . , - I ' ir -'' ' • '''' . -....
"- •,itt,f ,..•.- it 1
r
„,...,4 ..,1,, .. ......r.t.c*,.f..,,,;:.. .r ,.
. .,
.. .,,, ," ,..,..•.
... „4.., 1- ,•,:'1 V ,..... ,4s. . ."; ' k ' • ; °L .. a.. W.: -.• .
-•' ,-. - ; ' ... .*•• l• :‘,” (.. ,,-,„; '. • . :. - ; , 440 ::•IN.'• ,-„ '' ' . ' '' •• - e I 1.1
., ..
; ..-...,. d' ‘ t • - _..., ',.‘,-;-..-.. • - -:- r .
. , .,........,,,,y. R.,4„,...e.,..... -1/4: ., - , ..
F. ? lg P.."' ,' '' '' . s .' ' •
A
• , - I , -,' : ...,zt• •41 ...).:...., . . • ... ,,,
.rl, f ., 1.1 •
.% • • • .■ J. .........:4 ' • -" '...... . i 5 ' .:...:. • .• - s '" , . •
PM 1 ft ' j ' „/ • ', ., ,..; - ,
..!,. "-ty, . 74:1- ' - '''■ f . : -,, - . - Y....i r f: :7 : : . , : . = --.- ...., -,=,.. i
.- - -, ., k.-. --/. : - : • ... 4fle:...i." • -• - •-7, , • , %f""'-',;..•'' , "'•' .. .r•- • • • • - ••;;,..y•.--•-••••-•-•-..,•
..).-..., „, Cik
k: - ' ' .'
'' '' ••• .r . k t(4.. ."T• 11:... ... ..' '. 1•6 ''''....i ..:? ...e......:.% •• 1 1.. .n..
' :Ai': ... es - 7 - '12- 1 — , -',-. • • „,.` .•-•*..,-,..'• . 7' ----..,
' • • ,e ..- •-• • _ - '. „, - ••• . ,..., - • .• , ...,-- .,47- •• .„:...: .., , -.., i ..,,...,,,;- ..—„,.. .,. • ,...- -. . • >n - ':•• sb ' 'oh ..._ ""....,
.-r • ..,i.- * -ka. , •-•.: :•••-• A. •••'•' ••Mtt f••■ N ti: z.' `..! ' s''M" - V r " %- '. 4 1/4, - P • ,'' ''''• ''.--:- •
•" 13- - . 4 --). s -).:
, - • ,- .. - ''- , • ' _ ' -• .. -• ; 4
• • • • •` '' ... - 7: - ,:. • ; .1k • • .''-t- .' • - -;•-.1"-"- L ,%,:---.. 4 ' • .
-••,-- - ,- ..' ,.
-I ...1: -.;• ,..- -•;,•,-• , '.. '-'. , 4 :•"' e — .N re • st ../. ' • ••••••:, -' " '; ..,c...v.,-,%--d.' a - ..--„,.•.- •„.. •-•
• •:-/ L , - - - ... • .'s . , .., , N. ,,-,:-.• • ,• ‘, -;;;,;• . -f"; :,. .• ;••••• .. , • •••:., -. IA - „ - - •p,„;.,-7,1 .. -4. ,.••• ••• .-..,
-•:, , ,, : ,,,,:. ,. ". . • - 'cl ' ' ,..„ ; A:'•,,,,A - - ' ..• ....,` 474 ..;;:.- ' ;:g:4 4 1 r 7" '....." . ., ,....' ' 41, , `3. . V.,•, -••,:.•1:14,•`••••'...:." i-- --- 1 .1;•..;
•,• -.,•• , -- -• , - . •' 4 N
,kz-7 . .-.••• •;:h s • •••.• ...11.-., ' . fi ........ . '7•..,
' : ti..s - l • - • - .0' ,•: .:" .' I 4 .73.1-40 '; ' . .....t... - ,i4 a-4- . .*: • • ' :..."-.' : i . ra . `
. - . . ,. -T . , • • ..4. -4..ix 1.1_,-, ''.4,'"•`-'-.',.?.?:*:,.`..,'-',.:0...-4,''. ° '44 ....„ :... -• - 1,," . .,,,.; e . :, 6 , ' ''.:. - 1-
- • ,' - :"4.410r -i- .. '...4,- ‘..- • . -4a - os. . .cs..-h4. 1 ,:.,:'-' 4 . -- '- -• .. ,r•gh;,'„-,,•.„...•:,..z"• .1- .‘,::.- •,.,' • . .
...":-". - :' ,' ..• f' „ ./'•00t.‘ • , ' . .-: - `-s' : Mc - ref7 ""‘r" 7:'?"4 \ •-',.... .1 ' •4 " ' . ',.. • ... 74 .... v . ,.. •
.■ - '... n 1 1, .,
•• .
4 ,
4
c . 2 ..'-';':"-'...14T- 0 0 •-••.......,, _ •••„•. .,..,,,..-,..,... . • :a -,..., -• .,. r.-inZ: - , ..
• -
•_4 .. stiteY. ....' - '---,,t,,,•:..-:',...:,::, ... : '-.1.'-e •
r ,t, . .....:.„-..,
. 1
.. . ,... .
, „,t .
I
ilil` 71.• 4 . -. - , • .`• ..,....4
irrs Li ' 1 --cm - ' , ' . • .. • ..-: . ... ,h - , - , . ,.... •;-. - . - ...,_,...,. -., •• r. • ' • . .;
- ft,. c, , I ' ..-,,,..,.:- -- , -....,_ ', -,',,„,-..-•., • ---_, , .,-141 1 ,, - --,-'.,.- , - ,,'::., 7 :.'",..0 - ..... - 2i-,41:-%: - .-,.. - ",..4 ...- --- -- - -4- It'i-; --- z-- ' -. r - '; ---- '' . - - .
4
, :,..;,,.,.:,-._.,....„.. ' - - _ .. •, ,7- 9 , •,' , r . • '.. ' ei"' : .1.3i'.; yi,".1. ':e. ,z,•,. .'...'il'' ''''...:.,..:•:;! ' , ; - '- • ' • . ' .• ,
- - , ..-, ,-;•• 3 • - , - -:;—' - +' - :•''!1' '71'''' - k - ;I -'• ' ''• :-.:.•4 , '"N"•; r•• .41• . • -:, -•"- .-----; Prepared for: -.
. e k li ''-....-..:,:......,.,.._,,- _ ... „,„..,, , ,_„ 2 .‘-•:4•••.,. 4 .• ' - ;• ''''•• - ,--,;- -' -: •••• ,•-,- --- •c,...•14:.•: . - - -
-4. ••••w.....4.---1' "f"`it„,. ---'. ,t-•,- 1-- Z-Isicy,..;,t , ': , :•:... - p , ' ,. ;;;Pr".4i4;- , 1-,1:- . ;,i•-: - ... -,,,:,, - .,-S:•:, , i,--,:.. : .4 - " ."'' 3 7 -- 1 ••• . ' - "1 -
.. -
II, slr.•••• .•••• •,_fl rij ir-- _,..„. - .‘„,,,,,, ?;.r.-,-,-- ., ,„,, -. .•74r - ....4 : , ,s . , 4 °' o itt
„,,,,,,;_,.;4,-; 4-4:-,- . ,t4 , ,..i■ . ,,e5, ,,,,i,... II .' . .._, ,., . , .. , .
1,-. ......-4 - '-''' - ---,, --1- - ,,.--- ., ‘,-_, • , •,, ,0 Ls • ----t-; - . _ 4 -• 4 i. Y ,......J P......Z4
a . ....,.... ... . ..,,,,,...,.....;„......i..........;;,.....,.....„4„,,,,, 7 'At. •• .„-.4 _IV, ' -, • 1,,,- ,... .., ...,, "... .., 4 . I - • . V . .,) AV. ' ••• i •
A
_,,4.4...„,..„,„......_„.........„,...,,,,,,,,,...,_4-,-;:-,-,--,-; i• it I el* . ...t ili • 1 ri.r4 .' . • I 4 t . 9
-"" ea •• , ..7 4 1: ..1
1 . .4k , ..., •i --.-, -..,- ......, 'T‘11,, ''..--;.• - t. - `,„ . 1,'„-:',,c, - e . 11," 1.4 -4. 4. .,..,....*.• ..... Vi - , - . ...,:'''` 4 !•;71. - .4.1;4
, - 4.• . ,, .. '-: - ...--,:,e4"J'A 4i' .7, .- ' - '14 .4 ,.._` • ..., , ‘`...SI . .■■>•.;.. 4-1 .. . • .• '-. . •
.}4L AV r.,.",•i'...'
P . •`;‘,7 ,. r, , L . ' ' i ' ,- r t “.` • s.,...-. - - • itrffarIS • ..r. •A`T'Oi FZ.;404.- 1•• ':"..% • C 4 . ‘ j•% \. 7 : . • -: '. --).. .. 0 ": ' ,17 7 ? F
3 ......-:: --,_ -..... .4., -,- .-',...,--- -•-..--L '- 1 • 4 ...,, . ' ..C.--7,-; • - ••• ... . . ..,.1PC.1y.
- 91331 , . . .. - ---4 ."' • '' ';'..--.1
0 ' lit A " " 1;4 -1e to : ..2(Vg ---- ''.
filt
.. .47,1`. ., ' 3 i,.. - • "'' •._ ..: ..----. - ' 1 . Lii.....1 .4:Will '''. : ,,, „,..7"Ta_ — -- ' .., "- ' 4 ". -" ,.'
8 x__*;:-.,,,. ' '' '''7-4 •''' ''*- -t i. .;-. -- '. k-t' ' •-i• -. ' • W 4i-. W ia .' 11.174r- ri-r a t if 6-"-- I t r4Filli.C : F Clirr lei'
,,,, • I 11 .-..... „ j • il .• Pii :44 _ '. • .-,,,, _,...7 r '
• _ ) • , ,
4: •;, • Bt g,,,„ . •l ip: - a , -- qtftesou - qeor - -..-..--, ... . .,,
rt, -rr- e- ...-r ... • ,..1 .
! b-., , ' , !..:',. .4:3, . -.4 ....:.•-•,, . .. r ..
t . •••-• ' A : . .f4 - •N I - 1 •••• . - - : ' - -
.._,,.. .. vat. 4....4 ..f_sb4r tf ' -..,
r5.1''',.1.0,,'
‘ - , 4 ''''''' •pt.... _ I,: :. : ..!-•-. ••...• )17:-.: , - - • ...: 4-
7- --,-- '-i- ‘ - .1%-•-c
°•-..2-1 1.- - ., . •Pf , ,.., c• . , : . . , ......,,r . f ..-:,4„,,,, _I!
'' .:. ''''‘• f " - . A '''. 4 .1. .„ ..?4, (--:;:, ..,Lt..• J:.9.
. Lr'4....-..k4' ..3, •ei-",,,,4 7 - r - 4e- -1 ,,... - ? T it.. - -1:41.....1.. . t 6% 771 ' • ' - '1 4 .71 .: f' relk. " ::• t i " re : . ra *ie ,31. 64-44hiZtA;110'...."1:4-‘722'....
; si,‘I ' - 2.`„P"•i - - ... - :'" ' • . - __ • ! " ' - . - - e• ...10 - _ ekiz- ...., 1 ::-.,c .: ...,„..- - - „ ,--1 -.' . 01-,-- -- ' - . 4 ',.,' •.‘,
s• ,,Itik'.. '',. '''.. , . - -z . ,-f>„::-...- --.. . ‘ 7 . _
"kq,.;‘ '4 '-'" '' ; i%,:, ' _4=:' ■ '' i
--14r•;',g ,' -,., -.. 1 .. -A ,„,,.......11 „1„, ‘.;,-A, - -, •••.. - • ..; .!,..-.716:, - , - Ifet.' -.. r • i: -- ".. . - .41.W . ,:frin--
- ,.„.
- I -I.- '1 '77 - j A:tr . - '..: -- • • '- :lye • " .!. .1 - ..-•? • :, „A:
' 4.' r " i tit.t...''" - T - 1/91,t - i..•;:c1- 4.1" •"1: :.• ,/ , f. Or : pft ' r. • r• ' .-- :.--
■ 4 c ) " ... "-'-`;.• 4; vi . _*_17"'.f...;',„: - -,, , - .1:,..• .. k- - 0,..,:r-, ' ,it t iff zir - - - -...4:_. : '..4.,.:Z.J • -71,.,1.-1i j • 4
\
...
! t.,,,,...1441; , ...i ,:. ,,,,.:.` --.. -.... ..' -` 4 i i i i 14, 1.:::5;-"';'7C.;.:'', :...V:I.:Iii.'.i.M.f:,.. ' 'q. '4,r4.0F..• '- 1 ' ) ; # 7 1C "' L \ r. ...I, -21. • ' ,1 . ' ' ..'
iralitiX: • 4, ;.." ' '-' ' ' :, ',4. . 1: - .... '4...• .., .--.' .‘•i• • ,. ,4,- 0.1" '', ::"PtY 7 ? - itif • '
. -It
t ' ,.•4.1.- -I '' *kw. . -' - ' ' 1 4 's, .. '''' .' '', d : -. .t. , - . :1' - .4 7... 1, - 4‘ - T‘ IF IJ' E t - it' - ' - C - t 7 61
T
.. - • • • !. .. ‘.. .1 .. ':-.- . - / .40 .4,.. . - ..• ' ;4-.4 ..,1 ,, r iv ,.;.. . _ _ .
.„?,- - . . . . • ...., 1,44fil 3.a.1,-, tx.,• . . .. ,.....* , . ,__ . .,,, . ,
,..;;;...-.."-",.... -471 r .1E.',", - .. '~ , ` , ..-..- 7 6 .. i . .11..... .-iik.?„-.- , As1„eek• ., /,..A.,1 .t771 1 4411a . ...0-41. • . ' - .4.:14 :'
i Netr t ''‘,. - 4.--. 1.7,,,-.4%ky.. - ' -vt • / • t.. i * - qel i • t'.. - ' '-' - 7••- - '''''''. - i 'Z i ' '- •P -'-- . - ' .'''' r .
1;4; —;, ..... -. , 1„... ..,,... 4 - 7. - • - ..;$ 7 '4• - zr-firv- 1 " • 1 -r-r - t-i•P': ---..* - ' , 4. F• .- V p..r.....fe: -.6 .,..
,....„,. • ..„,. -No/ -%..4,;,.:...... I .*, ...- ......,), ,...„,„•. , ...,..„ ..„....,.„•,., :••••,.,_ .. , „ „„,,,./. ... , ,. ... .
- r......... , t ,i --. "..-....--.,,, • - ,-- - ...--•:.•: .
zwf•f•Vti " ..;:: - , . ... 4 ; ',....4.5... e.r., i,; .,11 ; 1 1...0: 2/ .......-- ;. ..- •-_-- ....... .. - . , , , .....-‘,...,.,
-If- I-V. •.. ", .-...:'''
A 'pl., . ..,..r." ....; (4 ' i ' l A.C , ',,,,14, • ', ' 1 1 .11,? ; e:).W4' - : 71e s.,-P - - 1 ,. x i•„ .i... A . , . , .....- ..........-.- • •v• 4 .......... .„,; ' ..- .,,,
, ,„..,__.,.„,...,./„.,,,, .,..,„„, ..,..„., _,,,.,.:., .. , ,, 4 . ..0.••■,..'` '" •• '• • „_ 3 ', ....: y „h..•• • .....,
::'•..f...- . ....• vs' 1‘ ••1' . '''"" '' 1: ' .7' .::. .-... 1,3.: . - 10r - ... •,.4 Ar— • ,.-. ,.....•,.... - - -- .--- .
t tcle • "......„, N • . 4. . ...V • .....• • ka A. ••• V • - s• - .
EF03530
o
°41' ~�
9L7F p4ti .TIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF SEAL BEAC} LA VNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARMENT
300 N. FLOWER STREET
but ') d [UU3 P. O. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702 -4048
DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Exempt Per Gov. Code 6103
In accordance with Orange County Board of Supervisor's policies regarding implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, the County of Orange has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the County of Orange hereby finds that the proposed
project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report because either the proposed project:
❑ has or creates no significant environmental impacts requiring mitigation; or
® will not create a significant adverse effect, because the Mitigation Measures described in the initial study have
been added to the project.
The enviornmental documents, which constitute the Initial Study and provide the basis and reasons for this determination are
attached and hereby made a part of this document.
PROJECT:
Title: Los Alamitos Pump Station Project File No: IP 03 -105
Location: The LAPS site is located south of Westminster Avenue between the San Gabriel River and the Los Alamitos
Channel.
Description: Reconstruction of the existing Los Alamitos Pump Station to provide sufficient pumping capacity for the 100 -year
storm event and eliminate flooding in the surrounding area.
Project Proponent or Applicant: Orange County Flood Control District Address: 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA
Division/Department Room No. 7` floor
Responsible for Proposed Project: PFRD/Flood Control Design
Address: 300 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703 - 5000
Contact Person - Project: Gene Estrada Telephone: (714) 834 - 2823
Contact Person - CEQA: Lisa Cibellis Telephone: (714) 834 - 2089
Jerry Mitchell (714) 834 -5389
NOTICE:
The Negative Declaration may become final unless written comments or an appeal is received by the office listed above by 4:30
p.m. on August 25, 2003. If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, address your written
comments to our finding that the project will not have a significant adverse - effect on the environment: (1) identify the
environmental effect(s), why they would occur, and why they would be significant, and (2) suggest any mitigation measures
which you believe would eliminate or reduce the eft - . an accept • .le - vel. Regarding item (1) above, explain the basis for
your comments and submit any supporting data or refere /i -
Dated: 2.21. 03 B : l►�' 2
r /
NOTE. The public is invited to review this document and supporting a . hments. This is an information document about
environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed in the office listed above. The
decision - making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering
the proposed project.
Lel Minitel Pump Steno'
Mal S /Mated Native holarathe
Prepared for
-14 /FOIL'
County of Orange
Public Facilities
and Resources
Department
Prepared by:
RP
Q®NsuLTMVI
July 24, 2003
ti ^ Fip
w;` Environmental Determination
t
� q i t
( IFtaF"
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
— Aesthetics — Agriculture Resources — Air Quality — Biological Resources
_ Cultural Resources — Geology_/Soils — Hazardous Materials — Hydrology / Water Quality
— Land Use / Planning — Mineral Resources — Noise _Population / Housing
— Public Services — Recreation — Transportation / Traffic — Utilities / Service Systems
— Mandatory Finding of Significance — Cumulative Impacts
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially
significant unless mitigated impact on the environment. but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
— I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) have been
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
il:I 4 ,�idz&14 703
Signature efl'itle Date
,,,,,"0„
J -,i Table of Contents
u Ilf:. . -k
I t /FOCI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 16
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 27
4.1 Land Use and Planning 27
4.2 Agricultural Resources 28
4.3 Population and Housing 29
4.4 Geology and Soils 29
4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 33
4.6 Transportation/Circulation 36
4.7 Air Quality 38
4.8 Noise 43
4.9 Biological Resources 49
4.10 Aesthetics 53
4.11 Cultural Resources 55
4.12 Recreation 58
4.13 Mineral Resources _ 59
4.14 Hazards 59
4.15 Public Services 61
4.16 Utilities and Service Systems 62
4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance 63
5.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 65
6.0 REPORT REFERENCES 68
7.0 REPORT AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 71
8.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 72
9.0 APPENDICES
A. Biological Constraints Survey
B. Cultural Resources Assessment
C. Preliminary Environmental Noise Study
D. Geotechnical Investigation
E. Air Quality Data
F. Phase I Site Assessment
July, 2003 i Los Alamitos Pump Station
in; «;.a1 Cf,,rh,
Of
}r- - Table of Contents
MBA,' -,•"-
TABLES
Table 1— Construction Emissions 40
Table 2 — Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels 43
Table 3 — Long Beach Noise Standards 45
Table 4 — Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration 45
Table 5 — Comparison of Altematives 67
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1— Regional Vicinity 9
Exhibit 2 — Project Location 10
Exhibit 3 — Aerial Photo 11
Exhibit 4 — Improvement Plan 12
Exhibit 5 — Los Alamitos Retarding Basin Constructed Wet Basin/Channel 13
July, 2003 ii Los Alamitos Pump Station
T..:.:..1 c....i..
0„e7 Introduction
v
c 9 �lFOR a` —
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to identify potentially significant impacts that would result
from the implementation of the proposed project and to provide the lead agency with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration (ND), or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). If, based on the
information presented in this Initial Study, the County of Orange determines that the proposed
project will have one or more significant impacts to the local environment above a level considered
less - than - significant, an EIR will be prepared. The proposed project evaluated in this Initial Study
is the reconstruction of the Los Alamitos Pump Station located in the cities of Seal Beach (County
of Orange) and Long Beach (County of Los Angeles).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES
This IS has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq.), and the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000, et. seq.), as
amended. According to § 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines:
(a) Following preliminary review, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to
determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment...
(b) Results
(1) If the agency determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of
the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect
on the environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is
adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall do one of the following:
(A) Prepare an EIR, or
(B) Use a previously prepared EIR which the Lead Agency determines
would adequately analyze the project at hand, or
(C) Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another
appropriate process, which of a project's effects were adequately
examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration...
State CEQA Guidelines §15382 defines "significant effect on the environment" as a substantial, or
potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by
July, 2003 1 Los Alamitos Pump Station
initial Cfiiriv
xi of O
o G Introduction
4FOR
the project including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and object of historic
aesthetic significance.
An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the lead agency to determine whether an EIR
or Negative Declaration must be prepared and to identify the significant effects to be analyzed in an
EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15365).
The environmental checklist, approved by the County and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, is
used to focus this study on physical, social, and economic factors that may be further impacted by
the proposed project.
The Initial Study for the proposed project will serve to focus on effects determined to be potentially
significant. This document has been prepared as an objective, full- disclosure document to inform
agency decision - makers and the general public of the direct and indirect physical environmental
effects of the proposed action and any measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts.
Section 2.0 provides a project description of the Los Alamitos Pump Station. Section 3.0 is an
Environmental Checklist revised from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Explanations for the
determinations in the Environmental Checklist are provided in Section 4.0. An Alternatives
Analysis is provided in Section 5.0. References are provided in Section 6.0. Section 7.0 lists the
report authors and consultants involved. Section 8.0 contains the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. Section 9.0 contains the technical reports prepared for this project.
LEAD AGENCY /CONTACT PERSONS
In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the County of Orange
Public Facilities and Resources Department (PFRD) has been designated the "lead agency," which
is defined as the "public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving
a project."
County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department (PFRD):
300 North Flower Street
Santa Ana, CA 92703 -5000
Project Contact: Gene Estrada (714) 834 -2823
CEQA Contact: Lisa Cibellis (714) 834 -2089
Jerry Mitchell (714) 834 -5389
July, 2003 2 Los Alamitos Pump Station
:-4 o,
a Introduction
U
IFOV
TECHNICAL STUDIES
The following technical studies have been prepared for the proposed project and utilized in the
preparation of this IS:
❖ Preliminary Environmental Noise Study for the Design of the Proposed Los Alamitos Storm
Water Pump Station in the City of Long Beach, Wieland Associates, Inc., February 10, 2003.
❖ Phase I (Cultural) Resources Assessment, BonTerra Consulting, February 27, 2003.
❖ Biological Constraints Survey for the Los Alamitos Pump Station, BonTerra Consulting,
February 26, 2003.
❖ Summary of Geotechnical Information for Value Engineering Submittal Los Alamitos Pump
Station, Earth Mechanics, Inc., January 30, 2003.
❖ Phase I Site Assessment, Hart Crowser, October 18, 2002.
•
•
July, 2003 3 Los Alamitos Pump Station
i_:.:..i
Project Description
4� m
9 trFOna t •
SECTION 2.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
•
BACKGROUND
The initial construction of the Los Alamitos Pump Station (LAPS) was completed in 1958. The
Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) is the fee owner of the 30 -acre Los Alamitos
Retarding Basin (LARB) and the area where the existing pump station is located. The Orange
County Flood Control District also owns a 50 -foot wide and approximately 610 -foot long easement
between the existing pump station and the San Gabriel River for the existing discharge lines.
However, the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department (PFRD) on behalf of
the OCFCD maintains and operates the pump stations. The storm water pump station consists of
four axial flow, single- stage, Cascade pumps driven by 350- horsepower electric motors. The total
design capacity of the existing station is approximately 450 cubic feet per second (cfs). Of the pump
stations the OCFCD operates, LAPS is the only station that utilizes electric motors to drive the
pumps. The LAPS utilized the electric motors because they were economical, having been surplus
Navy electric motors. All other OCFCD pump stations utilize natural gas - fueled combustion
engines. Under the proposed project, the new pump engines would be powered by natural gas.
In 1963, modifications to the LAPS discharge pipes were completed, enabling the nearby Haynes
Power Plant's cooling water canal to be installed. The Haynes plant, owned and operated by the
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), is located across the street from the
project site, on the north side of Westminster Blvd. The 1963 modifications added an inverted
siphon to each of the four 54 -inch discharge lines and the 12 -inch sump discharge line. The siphons
split the existing discharge lines into thirds. Additional information on the existing discharge lines
can be found in the February 2003 Draft Los Alamitos Pump Station Value En Report
prepared for the proposed project (a copy of this report is available at the County PFRD office for
review).
Shortly after its construction, LAPS experienced operational problems, known as "vortexing." This
problem effectively reduced the station's capacity by as much as 30 percent. In 1980, structural
modifications were made to the wet well and trash rack along with other changes to address the
vortexing problem.
During the 1995 storm season, the region experienced several storms that exceeded the capacity of
the subject drainage system, resulting in flooding in some portions of the drainage areas served by
the system. This illustrated the need to increase overall pumping capacity into the San Gabriel
River. A subsequent engineering study recommended installing pumps at the Rossmoor Retarding
Basin, located approximately three miles upstream of the LARB, which would decrease the flow
volume into the LAPS.' Installation of the Rossmoor Retarding Basin was completed in the
summer of 2002.
1 Draft Project Report Analysis of Los Alamitos Pump Station and Proposed Rossmoor Pump Station,
Simons Ly and Associates, Inc., February 1999.
July, 2003 4 Los Alamitos Pump Station
• Tnitial Study
se , � Project Description
I tzFORa` .
PROJECT LOCATION
Most of the LARB is located within the City of Seal Beach in Orange County with the eastern
portion located within the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County. The LARB is approximately
30 acres, which serves as a drainage tributary area of approximately 3,584 acres and provides
approximately 242acre -feet of storage volume for a 100 -year storm event.
The LAPS is located mostly within the City of Long Beach, in Los Angeles County, near the
northwest corner of the adjacent LARB. The existing pump station is located approximately 1,000
feet south of Westminster Avenue between Studebaker Road and Seal Beach Boulevard (refer to
Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity and Exhibit 2, Project Location). The proposed project site is an
approximate 30 -acre detention basin and pump station located south of Westminster Avenue
between the San Gabriel River and Los Alamitos Channel, approximately one mile north of Pacific
Coast Highway. The site consists of a depressed basin bordered by an unpaved road that is level
with the surrounding topography.
Industrial facilities including the Boeing Space and Communications facilities and the Haynes
Generating Plant are located to the east and north of the project site. In 1973, the Island Village
residential development was constructed along the northerly border of the LAPS and retarding
basin (see Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo); these single - family residences remain adjacent to the project
site. The Haynes Generating Plant Channel and the San Gabriel River are located to the west of
the project site. Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge is located one mile southeast of the project
site.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The primary purpose of the proposed project is to replace the existing outdated pump station with a
new pump station that can provide sufficient pumping capacity for the 100 -year storm event and
eliminate flooding in the surrounding area. A secondary purpose for the new pump station relates
to PFRD's ability to service the pumping and associated equipment. Due to the equipment's age, it
has become difficult to locate replacement parts for the existing pumps as newer, more efficient
technology has become available.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
RBF Consulting, Inc. (RBF) engineers have examined several possible pump station locations and
configurations in determining the most viable and economical option. Consideration was given to
numerous environmental factors including; noise, economic, geotechnical, and hazardous materials
impacts and other factors in the review and selection process. The 3A Alternative has been
modified and is analyzed in this IS/MND as the "proposed project."
The proposed project would construct a 4 -pump station approximately 140 feet south of the existing
pump station with space for an additional fifth pump (refer to Exhibit 4, Improvement Plan). This
position is far enough away from the existing station to allow the existing station to remain in
service during construction of the new station. Additionally, feasible noise attenuation measures
have been employed including providing a median, which would also provide visual and aesthetic
July, 2003 5 Los Alamitos Pump Station
a jr , Project Description
R
�' tr
9 �lFOCN a
benefits to the Island Village residential area (located north of the proposed pump station). The
proposed pump station would be approximately 131 -feet in length, 57 -feet wide and 27 -feet deep in
the wet well. The water would be pumped through four mixed flow pumps. The driver is the 1,450
horsepower (hp) engine. The power would be transmitted through a right angle gear drive, which
would also reduce the speed of the engine (1,200 rotations per minute (rpms)) to the operating
speed of the pump (355 rpms). The sump pumps would handle low flows, however, during a 100 -
year storm event (when the maximum water level is expected to reach 0.0 elevation) the lead pump
would turn on at water elevation of —5.5. The proposed pump station would have a maximum
capacity of 880 cfs, with a maximum pump station outflow of 774.4 cfs. This would provide for
adequate drainage assuming a 100 -year expected runoff value of 1,707 cfs and a one -day storm
runoff volume of 928.9 acre -feet. Construction access is expected to be provided from Pacific Coast
Highway along the existing access road running through the Hellman Ranch and Southern
California Edison parcels, pending acquisition of easements from the property owners.
Modifications to the Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) would include minor grading activities
to provide a constructed wet basin/channel to achieve dry weather flow water quality treatment
(refer to Exhibit 5, Los Alamitos Constructed Wet Basin/Channel). The constructed wet basin
would consist of a permanent pool of water with an estimated size of approximately 0.3 acre -feet
and a permanent pool volume of approximately 2.8 acre -feet. The wet basin would have a
maximum depth of 3 feet with 5:1 side slopes. The wet basin would also contain sediment forebay;
slopes vegetated with emergent wetland and regulated discharged flow. A constructed low flow
channel would connect the wet basin to the proposed pump station. The low flow vegetated
channel or a serpentine channel would meander within the basin floor to receive initial treatment in
the constructed wet basin where concentrations of sediment, nutrients and metals are expected to
be reduced. After receiving initial treatment within the wet basin, the low flow would continue to
meander along the low flow vegetated channel to achieve reduction in bacteria concentration by
achieving a longer hydraulic residence time. Pollutant removal along the vegetated channel is
achieved by infiltration, settling of sediment by reducing flow velocity, UV light exposure, and
nutrient uptake by the vegetation. The low flow channel would extend approximately 3,300 linear
feet from the wet basin to the outlet of the Los Alamitos basin.
Maintenance activities for the proposed pump station would include the following:
1. Weekly general maintenance would include:
a. Running pumps five to ten minutes;
b. Battery maintenance (checking water, voltage and terminals);
c. Engine check (heater, water, oil, hours);
d. Running the engine;
e. Check for leaks (coolant and oil)
f. Cleaning of the wetwell, driveway and trash removal;
g. Check turbine oil, air compressors, logger, sump level, rain gage, perimeter,
clutch, controllers and sump pump;
3. Exercising the generator once to twice a month;
4. Annual general maintenance would include:
a. Survey of basin;
b. Grading as necessary;
July, 2003 6 Los Alamitos Pump Station
T..:+...1 V+...i.,
- O!
Project Description
t � P
i lk •
c. Pulling each sump pump for maintenance;
5. After significant storm events (more than 1" of rain) floatable and other debris clean up
would require a VOC truck, trash truck, dump truck and cleaning personnel; and
6. The main pump would be pulled for maintenance once every five years.
Construction Phasing
Construction of the LAPS is anticipated to take up to 24 months to complete. The existing pump
station would be maintained at full capacity during the winter months throughout the construction
period. The new discharge pipes would be connected to the existing discharge pipes during the
summer months after the new pump station is substantially complete. Demolition of the existing
station would take place after the connection to the new discharge pipes are completed and
acceptance by PFRD on behalf of OCFCD.
Utilities
Utilities required for the proposed project would include installation of a gas line (as the main fuel
supply) to the new engines, a water line connection for fire flow and domestic purposes, a sewer
lateral connection, a telephone /cable connection and an electrical connection. The City of Seal
Beach would require relocation of an existing 18 -inch water line that currently extends along the
westerly property line of the LARB. Gas and electrical lines would be installed temporarily above
ground in order to perform start-up tests, after which the permanent lines would be buried
underground.
Permits
The following permits would be required for the reconstruction of the LAPS and the LARB:
Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
❖ Form 400A - Permit to Construct and Operate
❖ Form 400CEQA - for Air Quality Impacts
❖ Form 400E13 - for Internal Combustion Engines
Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
California Department of Fish and Game (CDGG) 1601 Agreement
City of Long Beach Fire Department
Above Ground Storage Tank Permit (for back -up propane tanks).
L.A. County Flood Control District
Flood Control Permit for Structural Modifications within San Gabriel River right -of -way (includes
encroachment and discharge into the San Gabriel River).
California Coastal Commission
A Coastal Development Permit would be obtained through the California Coastal Commission.
July, 2003 7 Los Alamitos Pump Station
-T Project Description
u
cnA
<<FOR
City of Seal Beach' "
Grading Permit (as a formality, the City of Seal Beach Public Works Department may issue and
administrative permit for any grading associated with the LARB).
Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) — 401 Certification/Waiver
(Potentially the Los Angeles Region as well)
Right -of -Way
Implementation of the proposed project would necessitate that temporary construction easement
rights be acquired from the city of Los Angeles, the adjacent Hellman property, Southern
California Edison and potentially the Island Village Homeowners Association. Temporary
construction easements may be required from Pacific Coast Highway. However, alternative routes
may include utilizing existing right -of -way from Westminster Avenue or possibly from Seal Beach
Boulevard to the east of the Project site. Thirty foot wide temporary construction easements will
also be required adjacent to the existing 50 -foot easements for excavation purposes and during
installation of the liner within the discharge pipes siphon areas.
July, 2003 8 Los Alamitos Pump Station
T..:r:.,l Ct...i..
<
San LOS ANGELES 'SAN BERNAR INO
Fernando A.m. COUNTY 1 COU
"iii
i A.1.1%
® Burbank i WI
Pasadena Glendora / Fontana
® Rancho _
Cucamonga
• West ® Pomo a Ontario - -
---
40110 C , / . -- L _
1'1 �I 1 Chino
\N Los ! - J Riverside
Angeles
..... Whittier -- ® - . ® i
— ' Y orba _1
�
di
� J Linda \` Norco
1
® rr Fullerton 6 Corona
"4 ` Torrance
^I �`
f '� .�. i \ � RI ERSIDE
}!.' 0 Garden � \ C O U N T Y
Grove L
- -. , '$., .s ORANGE
„ = ~��a., �\ COUNTY
S anta ,. _
- ;:�` o f ' .,,L Ana `
- u ; * ALong -i„ r Pr Si Irvine a \
_ •- .;.,• Costa
r :.., _i.C; :fin ` „s
_2',.. z.,'. , v ■
='
• - =U ` '`` _r:lia-54 Huntington? Mesa
- - -'y , r . =' " • =Beach `0' ,
-h' .,il.. ..: :.:his 1- ,' -
' ,,, t =:._ _.. ,. „Be ® /
j el (
- gip.'- . _ •_s 'r_ \
w :y " _ " Beacham - ° �C
- i r .4 3 < , 4L-4-4 San Juan i
r;: •rj = "'� a. r ` - `y;= Z?', -.., Capistrano ) 1. -- -�
• - - ` _: ;_�_ ' �'° ' . ' " . Dana
. t't -i•' ° fi s '- +` i - - F r 1 f `-
- _ -:,1, . '.: S ■ USMC
. ,. 01 .
J : 1
• 4 _ �"' a s • v�C ente Camp Pendleton
_ i t ;�.c. y +.i��• � " ' - ., y
�-C" :..:; 9 ,- ;; :w ya p �b T- - t'g `R
i
- ' ... _ ._ _-: �' :
. - w k: :. • .f.41 4:•,S pF rua...
.., .;11 _ r1,..1‘.. =; Oc eans id e
• • __ ' . r V ;:
1 LOS ALAMITOS PUMP STATION IS /MND
s_ _� m11es Regional Vicinity
i t.I • • APPROXIMATE
CONSULTING I 3/7/03 JN 10-101928 Exhibit 1
•
r , fir • vJV • � s� .•� '' _ r •'' j f •Y �5. . . d. . ; 1` ,-
k/ ,' - ..' - f..„,, • s . - , fir, - i ` F \ O 1• ! f
Jf �'.% c' ' •/•
am - � -� •: I .-- vi ^ ti'' ,�','
.--:':-..-/r.:-- _ - .I r S r, - . �� , q t r,- _. -
i'- - ; . _ 4 -: . .. f - -
, •y r � : .. - t, W _frt s • 'r� ' .' o-- :',.' : ! Y � , "' /' - (i :
q { I.� _ o
* � Ln r '� 4ti ! � 1, •.� y ' qf� J' '...F
i ' , ~ -...3 F I- - h _ r •_'I; -; ',;_, -r ; ..
' ` <- LI D'''''.,3. ` 4 i 7' BM 5:1 : • h
, '. = • � . ; .
e■ ' ~ti a A;: .n,=.ice I ti - Z ubsta t Lc ! ` . � 'y: %/ ��^^ ` t ,\ •
it - - - '.0. ] =. "� ' - '' i �. t _ - f : • ,; _ • ." r o- .I o ' WESTM I ,NM T €R • A✓A 1 .
�` - _ 0 - 6.r ` — , -a - -- c +_ Project Site Island ,
• - -, , ° 11 4 ' '0 UII -• •,
n I..._ is + ✓a }t a IR4 ten. O _._ / A. 1 el.''— 1 • .,r 1: ON- • . Ill r�. ?.. f i r s + a:s _
� �' ' ► � ft € le c am: �-
'� +`� �' ' ' 11-12 . * Los Alamitos; t . r. :�; •
= _-:------='u +I � . c I etarding Basi , a' 21
,. . I ...• ik . .. I ' ./. ° • ' '7.
N. It 'li . r 4 .. - ' b t ,
/ ? Yt?
,, , _ • m f r / +* "~ t k• r a - -: �,11
)1 , ( r f I - - – t� I JP
.., s a .^ ....; I . I a . .7f • Or (-- :-
I ' o -A �sL(N- • r.,: ::•:�- •;- I 11 e l'' _ . ^.. 4 3 • ; ,, 1 . ' u.
t I I} ma •-I .. 1- . • r :
. fi r: r , p . ; '' 1.A .. ,- ' ;-/ :. _ Q �_ .I ' ji ' { • _ +r' � r:;L
',. '''• ' t 1 r .- • :. . tS. •
J • ' "ii,„" _ : -` ,,:. r t•- ;,:. ^ - w , ; 1 _,, �.' # } /�•/'��/
•0#••- r ' __-. "4*— `i !}'.• _ r ^ ':..• s '-. " , 2 %rj `•," t.` . - i1 - *R, - _ •J .• t ,J 4 /Y
• _ .
.Kl. � . - G� { L� 1 A: � L...- : f. .�, �:.- r' F r ,il .. • ~ •_ + 4 - I • . �- / r
'~•- ~ .... � •' - i 4' . 5 e,� ir FL'y �"�'• '. I!- -. I• ....3:: /. 0
• V at....i., --- . AV.- 4,,, 7
`4,64+.'- •'• 1. yam, - 7,+•..'- •.• �} r (� - • • - - 1' ' K1i, --=-74r..4.11.-41 _ •
_ - T y � L s � r" '.."'•• - "r . . •• .y . - -. 1 -4,. - • h ... ff • °. �ti" k?/ f 1 -.f ' tr � � 7 r +4 � r' _ +•r, -•J'' r -
6 `� •a• . _ ' II&
I..' + � r ' .tire' , • . �' � � ' •� • .
- %� 1" # i; 'I'4 +337'.'• r - t . a,, ty -
LOS ALAMITOS PUMP STATION IS /MND
Not to scale Project Location
CONSULTING ? 5115103JN10- 101928 Exhibit 2
_ a rc, : { . '_ .t'Y.. - �+S'.. R , • Z
�- �� T.��_ -� •: i "S�c.• • .:- ' ; �'". . • -, ,� ' w _ , ▪ 7+ -. "ry:- : _ _ , '� . _ 4 i'-T 4::'14- : -.,-. C ....0 t -.+
17:174-..r;..7:::.!_'.7.-.4" K . $ , ' =4•� i' ~ a . te t iti:1 iN _ - = ".�.r; ^:; +: :,! :•t • l;: ;'',..:;::',1•;."•9•,,1:1-7:41 ` ' -• — O
,,- •7.,,- i c ) _. '� F- 's:�++"':?'.:�:`:;+• >t r !•,� a!:' - ' , ' i _ � : � to
1 i t ;: + !1$ : -a :: , r-^ ; r ;, -; F ?.. 7. 1 6,4 r -: `' . 47 _ `c. •: -; ,"} : ,
■ _7/ t 1 , �v.i.• r - a•. -,; �'+' " , rv i:�r:.�,� ^"r�''s'� ` 4 Z x C.... t_ _� - r , ,'1 441,"'"1:-",' • >r .y ` " •e', _'± 1 { i t '.:y' '•u •... , n'e, �• ! '; "+ - ' )l 2, + . ' '" t r U a w
• ( 1 ' - f, ' f 111111 L ' • 4 : : .'-' - - -.. -"7 Ella
.." :'' , - .. i ' -- , a. - ' - ' ' '' ' - \ a . „.....„-,..........,,,,.„..."...:-.,„:„..„...„..__ .„...,-„.......,...,,,,...„.,....,_.. .. ,,,,
, _.., ._ ,.-,. ,,, -_ ....,......,„„,........., ..„_,,„,,,,„-,.:,_,..,„,,,,,,,,,,,...,-,,,.,-..„-,,,,,,,.„;
4,
, r ..4 9 ,. _ c: _ i 4 -- i...- ._,,,....,\ ':,....;:- Z .t ,:, - .... .' ,, ;_. 4 - , ,• A „4 „,, ::, , 1/4 „,_:1.., ' - '?", % '.- ... „., ...J
( � . ; , `' i. ,� - - :, n:n V ��, , p.:. . •,' • .' h. ;•;ar :. • 1
A a zi t 1.1L t . .- - �` ' t y ' '
\' \ ;� ..-..q1-1;-•_e___,'
Yes . i q . .,�7p \ ;, b ' ? r�+ti y � Y y 0.`'` �' T f . ;'^
, }� �.♦ T�:�_3 r j_ a1z t I t a as z 9 ` : cc . ... r •. .� � :fit • • a ; • -L im, , _ '" _ __ s - - , , ,i rr i:' ; - z : . `,
' ✓' i7.. �w '_ --'' ▪ ••-. g� ^^�A '
ri
a , , \ - . .. .sa... -+,•,� rti L � ? 7 1E *'a..' ,71 = '"` :.
ra..% '� : -� • �I , it :'d �i ys a : 'E3r:;.e 11: � ' 4.1 • , J , t �: ; ` „, N ., T i ' - i " t . . : ' -_ ' i_ _7.-' ::, . 4vri... . - . - ,- ✓ i ` 4 . ' ;, e, - .• . ` xtr_'3:t•
i � - � \ .x• ' • - - ice , r- f • r
ici
_ � " I. 1. • �.: c r , . +jam i.` . -A U- a y
-.- . • . . • - -- ilt. . t -d r e_ ..- 2 . - .!. _.-„
,..---0 s ` � T"E . -„:,4,15.4.:..,..:4e ♦ S ... .- ! ,-� + �, a X 1 - }
• j r.:.:117: t .4. N •
iv-1 . i• ,'"Z • v�, j f � i I II. F•;
i a . •'T - -•. 1 ' • 4,..,.. y t `T ?• ''''.1414:-.;'". ' 'y,' '^ , .?.L' +d -` ry
= s_ .. t • ' •• '^ ..--- ..:40;‘,._ "°! e+ "e''v . • ' ' • te e• - r v r --
• • „-., ��• mob - r •
' 4 ' - — CL '--, . Isitih, C-1- ' - ,...\-t,..... if - -
, I I 1: \ : . :4, -- _ -... . , -, 1., , , ..... . 0', . i, _,,,,, yr:: ,,,,ott„ . 1/4 . 7% ,,, tZtrc .,,,o,q,
. .
ii FF / ( �s„, " 7 , M &,.i
al
• , i ) --.........-7-....' ' • 1 � °�- m r . -- '1Yt - >Y - .1-, r R` a ,I-4 ' mi l. - . ` ' � . ' : - - . + ;-t ;j17.,3 "t N
- ; r. if :Mit! 7 is:All'..1 - •; - :', • 4.: ..g....1,.. ' - � - , - - W '. ,:;•71 - 't sS G ' !+•£ • _ , y ' ,' ..:. • - P - (i '74 Y� , - '.. . - ;;a F �f-`� 'ice - '5 _i � - +• +- _S .14g, ^ :'.. . -tea &r _.. . _ Z`sl -; �” ;3� -•P - '.++' f r, -. • { " #, , 44 e A i F es `1 ,... i • °)• ,r' 4 if. , ' f y'r - 5
, ; r _ . { L ..4 , sti:,' ,°..+ y a .. , T4 =. � . _r ! ,� r "C• ' ,. : ., .� +f� j -Y , ` " Q to to
r ` ,- 4 P 1 : T x `"„ - ce 45 -- -^ • r y lr t `' � : w Q z
: f -T .9� y . ‘ . .• ri.I - m^ h 7 , jam <' , ! • Z to
4,1' -'' E : - -':ye•e. r l rr r ' rr��_ ,,,e'7;:' � �� y ��t r '7 )Et i _ n '' - 7
°! • ` I f . - • ^ •'' _ J ?... 'I l�r•.. Vf, w • , & .._ . `• _ s• ' �G• - c•� Y '�S O
S U
NISVB ONIOVVIEW .. \ Z = -
SO1bW7v SO1 .a.a
xi
a
$ sa - 4 o , w
0 0 I TW O °` 1._ It i
VI CI)
1
IT 4
3 1 b / 1 e ° C -.'' !w . . , . ii. Aro.
$; :, 1, h, : T a .. . f t �$�, { Q
0
■
2.
•
i
. , ' t'::".4 kkt.1‘ :7 -• — " , :tii . r. . , . y w°'. 4 A `
-' r -
a :a:.: a s a b •
•. t _ 1 s � _ •
•r .t,,J, :IiiJ
•
•
. J J
F J {JJirx"r
7 ° 1 J J I g .
\' JJ .
•
9.
„ :s ;.: • r.`"\ qJ•
MI
4 CT ••\
64.,„„ *ob. m
en
Z
•\ o 1
al z
0
•
. z
• 7
m
•\
• Z
•
•\
V
c
- //• C ja
/ / ZO C 7. la •
3c a • • <=
/ Ln V
= / a
o
F / a •■
rn
•
r 11.
; v, „,
...
-...„.. .g ,---,, c
;ZV 1 ....:52 Q dr 0
C . ‘e � .••• 1 JCL... �� ■i
Ch
\ • w \ - l O
+'
' C M �
s'F! s ' " "A t W
illy \ %x1:r 3 D)
1 O ll 1 o 1 i:�4Y`. 8 8 3
SC
Cti
•ij y .��/lZI ' I� 1 Li.
- • . a c1)
I A
% A
I CC
i ,� `. - o
4_
V)
41 i
. '^ a
cc
c., o
cp
N
■ Z
0
0
Project Description
ul j P
•
. .
r y
,,... N..
Pro : m
14FO1,
•
INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT TITLE: Los Alamitos Pump Station Project
LEAD DIVISION: County of Orange (PFRD)
PROJECT NUMBER: IP 03 -105
INITIAL STUDY NUMBER: IP 03 -105
PROJECT CONTACT: Gene Estrada PHONE: (714) 834 -2823
CEQA CONTACT: Lisa Cibellis PHONE: (714) 834 -2089
Jerry Mitchell (714) 834 -5389
PROJECT LOCATION: The LAPS site is located south of Westminster Avenue between the San
Gabriel River and the Los Alamitos Channel, approximately one mile north of Pacific Coast
Highway.
PROJECT APPLICANT: Orange County Flood Control District
County of Orange — Public Resources and Facilities Department
ADDRESS: 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, California 92703 -5000
PHONE: (714) 834 -2089
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconstruction of the existing Los Alamitos Pump Station to provide
- sufficient pumping capacity for the 100 -year storm event and eliminate flooding in the surrounding
area.
DECISION MAKER: Board of Supervisors; County of Orange
SOURCES OF INFORMATION (as listed in environmental document): Refer to Section 6.0,
Report References, of this Mitigated Negative Declaration.
RESPONSIBLE/TRUSTEE AGENCIES INVOLVED: Southern California Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD); Army Corps. Of Engineers; California Department of Fish and
Game; City of Long Beach Fire Department; L.A. County Flood Control District; California Coastal
Commission; City of Long Beach, City of Seal Beach; Santa Ana Region RWQCB.
LAND USE ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY:
General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space (City of Long Beach, City of Seal Beach)
Zoning: Open Space (City of Long Beach, City of Seal Beach)
July, 2003 14 Los Alamitos Pump Station
C .� a gee_
Project Description
• y a�P
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None
INITIAL STUDY DATE: July 24, 2003
July, 2003 15 Los Alamitos Pump Station
.sJ Cr o
Environmental Checklist
U ...,, m
cy 2
SECTION 3.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1) A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as
well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,
based on a project - specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where
the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant
Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated
or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -
specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
July, 2003 16 Los Alamitos Pump Station
c r Oft
- Environmental Checklist
y < <FOS
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used
or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however,
lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to
a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
July, 2003 17 Los Alamitos Pump Station
a 0
a -4 Environmental Checklist
rte
U j),
4
�IFO1
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Potential Less than Less than
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, Or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific ❑ ❑ ❑
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ •
natural community conservation plan?
2. AGRICULTURE. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non - agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ❑ ❑ ❑ •
of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
3. POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ,
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ •
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ •
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, Injury, or death
involving:
July, 2003 18 Los Alamitos Pump Station
c
_ jT_ ` Environmental Checklist
o �n
CJ
£IFOw
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Potential Less than Less
ni than
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ❑ ❑ • ❑
or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ • ❑
iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? • ❑ ❑
iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ • ❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ • ❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ ❑
• potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of
the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial ❑ • ❑ ❑
risks to life or property?
•
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ •
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
-
wastewater?
5. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ • ❑
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ❑ ❑ ❑ •
of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ ❑ ❑ •
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or nver, or substantially increase the rate or amount ❑ ❑ ❑ •
of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding
on- or off -site?
July, 2003 19 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Cr o4
j <'r - = i Environmental Checklist
U,
9 *&IFOR' s
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Potential Less than Lens than
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ Cl •
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ • ❑
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that ❑ ❑ ❑ •
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Toss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ • ❑
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
6. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the
project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of ❑ • ❑ ❑
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ • ❑
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that ❑ ❑ ❑ •
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ❑ ❑ ❑ •
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, ❑ ❑ ❑ •
bicycle racks)?
7. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
July, 2003 20 Los Alamitos Pump Station
cr
Environmental Checklist
m
9�IFOR�" •
Potential gnfi than Less
gni than
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: n
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ❑ ❑ ❑
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ❑ • ❑ ❑
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ❑ ❑ ❑
of people?
8. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ • ❑ ❑
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ • ❑ ❑
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ • ❑ ❑
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ •
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the ❑ ❑ ❑ • •
project area to excessive noise levels?
9. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ❑ ❑ ❑
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
July, 2003 21 Los Alamitos Pump Station
- 0,
- Environmental Checklist
o n
y •.
Potential gnfi than Less than
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant
Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California ❑ ❑ • ❑
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, ❑ • ❑ ❑
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ❑ •
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ •
ordinance?
t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ •
or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
10. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings ❑ ❑ ❑ •
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ • ❑ ❑
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would ❑ • ❑ ❑
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
11. CULTURAL/SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ • ❑ ❑
historical resource as defined in 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an- ❑ • ❑ ❑
archaeological resource pursuant to 150643?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑
• ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
•
July, 2003 22 Los Alamitos Pump Station
- - Environmental Checklist
O
� m,
(1 tp
£ /FO .
Potential Less than Less than
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Significant
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑
• outside of formal cemeteries?
12. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ •
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that ❑ ❑ ❑ •
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
13. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the ❑ ❑ ❑ •
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general ❑ ❑ ❑ •
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
14. HAZARDS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal ❑ ❑ • ❑
of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ❑ ❑ ❑
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ❑ ❑ ❑ •
one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑ •
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ •
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would ❑ ❑ ❑ •
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
July, 2003 23 Los Alamitos Pump Station
.
ter' Environmental Checklist
U m
<<FO%
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Potential gnf than Less than
significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ •
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ❑ ❑ ❑ •
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
" residences are intermixed with wildlands?
i) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control
Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality
treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the ❑ ❑ ❑ •
operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ •
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ • ❑
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
July, 2003 24 Los Alamitos Pump Station
` ' Environmental Checklist
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES: Potential gnfi than Less s ca
Significant Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ❑ ❑ ❑ •
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ • ❑
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by -a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ • ❑
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
•
regulations related to solid waste? - ❑ ❑ ❑
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ❑ ❑ ❑
• plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ❑
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of -
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or ❑ ❑ • ❑
indirectly?
July, 2003 25 Los Alamitos Pump Station
_.,...,,, ct
- i. Environmental Checklist
.
1 fi
Potential i fi gn fi than Less than
ISSUES & SUPPORTING DATA SOURCES:
Signifi Significant w/ Significant
Impact Mitigation Impact No Impact
DETERMINATION: •
Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist
explanation, cited incorporations and attachments, I find that the proposed project:
COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration (ND) will be
prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075.
COULD HAVE a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures have been added to the project A mitigated negative declaration (MND) ■
will be prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 6, 15070 through 15075.
MAY HAVE a significant effect on the environment, which has not been analyzed previously. Therefore, o
an environmental impact report (EIR) is required.
1
Signatur�
Jr IL alEgzsz
Planner: Lisa Cibellis
Public Facilities & Resources Department
Telephone: (714) 834 -2089
NOTE: All referenced and/or incorporated documents may be reviewed by appointment only, at the County of Orange
Public Facilities & Resources Department. 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana. California, unless otherwise specified. An
appointment can be made by contacting the CEQA Contact Person identified above.
July, 2003 26 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
1Y " 40r
!T_ fi r Environmental Analysis
C
LIFOR:
SECTION 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANLYSIS
The following environmental analysis responds to the questions on the Environmental Checklist
Form, providing additional information on potential environmental impacts. Each response is
identified with the number, name, and letter(s) that correspond to the impact category shown on the
checklist form.
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?
NO IMPACT. The project site is located approximately 300 feet south of a residential
community (Island Village) and north of residential units located off of Gum Grove Park.
The proposed project would conduct construction activities and ultimately operate within
the existing LARB and LAPS sites. A minimal amount of right -of -way would be acquired
for easements for construction and access purposes, though no component of the project
would physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur and
- no mitigation measures are necessary.
b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project is located in the cities of
Seal Beach and Long Beach. Since the relocation and construction of the new pump station
facilities would occur in an area already designated Public Facilities and no zoning change
or General Plan amendment would be required by any of the jurisdictions in which the
proposed project is located, no impact would occur in this regard.
However, implementation of the proposed project would necessitate that temporary
construction easement rights be acquired from the city of Los Angeles, the adjacent
Hellman property, Southern California Edison and potentially the Island Village
Homeowners Association. Easements will be required for temporary and permanent access
to the pump station through existing access roads from Pacific Coast Highway or potentially
Westminster Avenue. Thirty foot wide temporary construction easements will also be
required adjacent to the existing 50 -foot easements for excavation purposes and during
installation of the liner within the discharge pipes siphon areas.
A Coastal Development Permit is required from the California Coastal Commission prior
to approval of the project. The purpose of the Coastal Development Permit is to ensure
consistency with the Local Coastal Program. Because the project falls within two different
counties and two different cities, the Coastal Commission would require preliminary
approvals from the City of Long Beach and the City of Seal Beach. The Coastal
Commission has conditionally approved the -City of Seal Beach's Draft Coastal LUP;
July, 2003 27 Los Alamitos Pump Station
T., ;t ;.1 „fi„
�1 OF 0.44
- j- i Environmental Analysis
( m
i'
IFOC-
however, it was not certified. Since the City's LUP has not been certified, the proposed
project would be subject to compliance with Coastal Act Section 30600(c), which requires
that a Coastal Development Permit be obtained from the Coastal Commission. Issuance of
a Coastal Development Permit requires compliance with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act,
Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies, which outlines the
policies /standards by which the permissibility of proposed development are determined. To
ensure less than significant impacts would result, OCFCD, as project applicant, will work
closely with the Coastal Commission to further identify the processing requirements for the
Coastal Development Permit application.
c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
NO IMPACT. The project site is not located within the boundary of an adopted habitat
conservation plan or natural community plan. The proposed project site is not located
within one of the eleven planning subregions of the southern California coastal sage scrub
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) region'. The proposed project would
not conflict with other local NCCP's, nor with other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plans. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
2. AGRICULTURE
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural
use?
NO IMPACT. Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program for the
California Resources Agency, the proposed project would not displace any land identified
as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance (Farmland)'.
All related facilities are located in previously disturbed areas, and there are no agricultural
resources or operations located within the project vicinity. Therefore, no impacts would
occur.
b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
NO IMPACT. The project site is zoned Open Space (OS) by both the City of Long Beach
and the City of Seal Beach. Additionally, there is no Williamson Act parcels or parcels
zoned for agricultural use on or within the affected project area. As a result, there would be
no impacts in this regard.
2 CA Department of Fish and Game website, visited March 2, 2003 at http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov /nccp /cssreg.htm
County of Orange General Plan, Resources Element, February 2000.
July, 2003 28 Los Alamitos Pump Station
"o
fir Environmental Analysis
U t m
�IFOR'
c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use?
NO IMPACT. As previously stated, there are no agricultural resources or operations
located within the project vicinity. Thus, the project does not involve changes in the existing
• environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use.
3. POPULATION AND HOUSING
a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would involve relocating and constructing a new four -
pump pumping station, with the option to add a fifth pump in the future. No housing would
be constructed, destroyed, or replaced as a result of the project. Therefore, the proposed
project would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or indirectly,
resulting in no impacts in this regard.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
NO IMPACT. No housing would be constructed, destroyed, or replaced as a result of the
project and no element of the project would displace any existing housing. Therefore, no
impacts would occur in this regard.
c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
NO IMPACT. As noted in Response 3(b), no housing would be constructed, destroyed, or
replaced as a result of the project, and no residences, people or alternative means of
housing would be displaced. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.
4. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -
a) Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
- substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project site is located within the seismically
active southern California region and would likely be subjected to groundshaking, thus
exposing proposed facilities to seismic hazards. Each year, low and moderate intensity
earthquakes occur within or near the region. Southern California is likely to experience, on
average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0 and ten earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a
July, 2003 29 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
+^� " O
Environmental Analysis
U j4` tr
9 ltFOR a `
period of 10 years. There are several active and potentially active fault zones that could
affect the project site.
Among the ten active faults and fault zones identified within proximity of the project site,
three faults are expected to generate earthquakes of significance affecting the project site;
these are the Newport- Inglewood, the Whittier- Elsinore and the Palos Verdes fault zones.
Despite values of Magnitude 7.5 and larger, the San Andreas, Raymond, San Fernando -
Sierra Madre and San Jacinto systems are of secondary consideration because of their
distance from the site.
A geotechnical investigation was performed for the proposed project site in order to assess
the geologic conditions and possible hazards associated with the project site. The
investigation identified the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone (NISZ), which lies
approximately 300 meters southwest of the project site, as the controlling fault for the
project site. Based on a deterministic analysis performed, the NISZ is primarily a strike -
slip fault with local reverse and normal components, with a maximum magnitude of 7.0.
However, there are no known active faults that traverse the project site nor does the project
site traverse an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly "Special Studies Zones ").
Adhering to standard engineering practices and design criteria as contained in the current
Uniform Building Code (UBC) relative to seismic and geological hazards would ensure
impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
u) Strong seismic ground shaking?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As previously stated, the project site is located
within the seismically active region of southern California. Southern California is likely to
experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of
Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years.
The geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed project site, determined the
peak bedrock acceleration for the project site to be 0.65g (where g = 32 feet per second per
second (980 cm/sec on the earth), based upon the Caltrans Seismic Hazard Map and the
attenuation relationship of Maulchin. Adherence to standard engineering practices and
design criteria as contained in the current UBC relative to seismic and geological hazards
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Liquefaction is the loss of shear strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the
pore -water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the
overburden pressure. The primary factors influencing the potential for liquefaction include
the elevation of the groundwater table, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative
Summary of Geotechnical Information for Value Engineering Submittal Los Alamitos Pump Station, Los
Angeles County, California, Earth Mechanics, Inc., January 30, 2003.
5 Ibid.
July, 2003 30 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
A -4 "o
• Z -7- -"It Environmental Analysis
u •4
9 �IFOR .a
density of soil, initial confining pressure and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Soils
most susceptible to liquefaction are low- density sands and silty sand that are usually within
15 meters of the ground surface.
The geotechnical investigation performed a liquefaction analysis of the project site. Based
on the analysis, the following conclusions were determined: (a) liquefaction of the majority
of soils is considered unlikely either because of the relatively high fine content of the soils or
the dense nature of sandy soils; (b) from an elevation of +6 feet to —24 feet, many layers
(less than 0.5 feet to five feet thick) of sandy and silty soils are susceptible to liquefaction;
and (c) below an elevation of —24 feet, only several thin (less than one -foot thick),
discontinuous layers are susceptible to liquefaction. The bottom of the proposed pump
station is located between elevations —18.1 and —16.5 feet; consequently, the liquefiable
materials at these higher elevations, within the footprint of the pump station, would be
removed due to construction of the structure. However, mitigation measures are
recommended in order to ensure impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
The magnitude of seismically induced settlement, due to liquefaction, was analyzed for the
proposed project site. Based on the analysis, the magnitude of liquefaction- induced
settlement of soils directly beneath the proposed pump station is estimated to be less than
1.0 inch. However, outside the footprint of the structure, liquefaction- induced settlement is
estimated to range between 2.0 and 6.0 inches.' Pipe connections and support equipment
would have to be designed to accommodate the estimated settlements given above and the
corresponding differential settlement. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
seismic - related ground failure and liquefaction impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
GS -1 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, a soil report shall be conducted prior
to construction activities, which will identify existing soil conditions and required
mitigation measures in order to ensure that all soil impacts would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
GS -2 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications include a remedial grading program.
GS -3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
6 Summary of Geotechnical Information for Value Engineering Submittal Los Alamitos Pump Station, Los
Angeles County, California, Earth Mechanics, Inc., January 30, 2003.
7 Ibid.
July, 2003 31 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
. r m
<<FOC •
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, all built elements of the - LAPS
project shall comply with the UBC and CBC to minimize potential seismic impacts.
iv. Landslides?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The generally flat slope of the project site would
generally preclude the potential for landslides. The risk of landslides is considered low to
unlikely. Therefore, less than significant impacts related to landslides would occur as a
result of implementation of the proposed project.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. According to the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) (1978), three different soil series underlie the project site. Most of
the soil is a variant of the Bolsa series, either a silty loam or a silty clay loam. Soils in the
Bolsa series form on nearly - level, large alluvial fans. The project site is underlain primarily
by sandy silts and silty clays with scattered generally thin silty sand layers. The LAPS site is
relatively flat, and no substantial erosion or landslide impact is expected as a result of the
project. Less than significant impacts would result from project implementation.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on, or off, site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The
geotechnical investigation performed a static settlement analysis. Based upon the analysis,
the consolidation settlement along the westerly edge of the proposed pump station structure
is negligible and the settlement along the easterly edge of the structure was estimated to be
up to five inches. In addition to the settlement induced by the bearing pressure of the mat,
consolidation settlement of underlying compressible soils would be caused by the proposed
fill embankment surrounding the proposed pump station structure. Consequently, support
structures and equipment within the pump station area could experience settlement.'
Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce impacts regarding settlement and
compressible soils to a less than significant level.
The proposed project site is located on a relatively flat alluvial plain, and no landslide or
lateral spreading would occur with adherence to Mitigation Measures GS -1 through GS -3,
above. Less than significant impacts would result with incorporation of Mitigation
Measures GS -1 through GS -3.
•
s Summary of Geotechnica/ Information for Value Engineering Submittal Los Alamitos Pump Station, Los
Angeles County, California, Earth Mechanics, Inc., January 30, 2003.
July, 2003 32 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
"
Environmental Analysis
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform
Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes. This can cause heaving and
cracking of slabs -on- grade, pavements and structures on shallow foundations. The silty
sands that comprise much of the underlying soil are generally classified as non - expansive.
Implementation of recommended Mitigation Measures GS -1 and GS -2, above, would
reduce the potential for substantial risk to life or property, resulting in less than significant
impacts.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
NO IMPACT. Due to its nature, no septic tanks are necessary with the LAPS project. The
proposed project would not involve the use of any septic tanks, and would be hooked up to
a lateral sewer connection. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the project.
5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed reconstruction of the Los Alamitos
Pump Station would upgrade the LAPS pump infrastructure and the Plant's ability to
handle high stormwater flows and eliminate flooding in the local area. Modifications to the
Los Alamitos Retarding Basin (LARB) would include minor grading activities to provide a
constructed wet basin/channel to achieve dry weather flow water quality treatment (refer to
Exhibit 5). The constructed wet basin would consist of a permanent pool of water with an
estimated size of approximately 0.3 acre -feet and a permanent pool volume of
approximately 2.8 acre -feet. The wet basin would have a maximum depth of 3 feet with 5:1
side slopes. The wet basin would also contain sediment forebay and slopes vegetated with
wetland habitat. The constructed wetland channel would connect the wet basin to the
proposed pump station. The low flow vegetated channel would meander within the basin
floor in order to cleanse the flow before entering the wet basin where concentrations of
sediment, nutrients and metals are expected to be reduced. After receiving initial treatment
within the wet basin, the low flow would continue to meander along the low flow vegetated
channel to achieve further reduction in bacteria concentration by achieving a longer
hydraulic residence time. Pollutant removal along the vegetated channel is achieved by
infiltration, settling of sediment by reducing flow velocity, UV light exposure and nutrient
uptake by the vegetation. The low flow channel would extend approximately 3,300 linear
feet from the wet basin to the outlet of the LARB.
In addition, projects proposing the disturbance of one acre or greater are required to
prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for compliance with the Phase
II Statewide General Stormwater Construction Activities permit. A SWPPP provides a plan
for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to avoid discharging
July, 2003 33 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
•
^� r o
-�� Environmental Analysis
9 !lFOR'�'
construction runoff water to the storm drains in order to prevent negative impacts to surface
water quality. A SWPPP would be prepared for the project, in conformance with County of
Orange standards. Preparation of the SWPPP and development of the wet basin /channel
improvements would ensure impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering
of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
NO IMPACT. Groundwater within the project area is very shallow; boreholes drilled for
the geotechnical investigation encountered groundwater at approximately 15 to 16 feet
below the ground surface, relative to the top of the basin. Older regional groundwater maps
show groundwater to be approximately 10 feet below sea level, which is approximately the
elevation that EMI encountered water during the field investigation. - The historic high
groundwater level was near sea level.'
The LAPS reconstruction would not impact groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. The storage of storm water in the LARB and more efficient
release of outflow water to the San Gabriel River (resulting from implementation of the
proposed project) would likely enhance percolation and groundwater recharge. Therefore,
no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would involve the construction of a vegetated channel. -
Basin grading would consist of excavation of a shallow channel beginning at the terminus of
the Los Alamitos channel, meandering through the basin floor and would extend
approximately 3,300 linear feet to the settlement basin in front of the LAPS (refer to
Exhibit 5). The development of this drainage channel would provide bio- remediation
treatment to treat dry weather flows within the existing regional flood control facilities such
as the Los Alamitos Channel and basin and ultimately into the San Gabriel River and the
Pacific Ocean. Water quality improvements within the Los Alamitos basin would aim to
achieve a reduction in bacteria levels to downstream water bodies. The development of the
wetland channel would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Therefore, no
impacts would occur in this regard and no mitigation measures are necessary.
d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off -site?
9 Summary of Geotechnical Information for Value Engineering Submittal Los Alamitos Pump Station, Los
Angeles County, California, Earth Mechanics, Inc., January 30, 2003.
July, 2003 34 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
- _ Environmental Analysis
NO IMPACT. Please refer to Response 5(c).
e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
- of polluted runoff?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would involve improvements to the stormwater
drainage system. The proposed project would involve development of a new four -pump
station (with the capacity to add a fifth pump, if needed), which would provide for a
maximum capacity of 880 cfs and a maximum pump station outflow of 774.4 cfs. In
addition, it is expected that runoff from the reconstructed LAPS would not exceed the
capacity of the existing storm drain facilities. Due to the beneficial improvements made to
the LAPS pump station, there would be no impacts associated with stormwater drainage
system with implementation of the proposed project.
f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Please refer to Responses 5(a) through 5(e).
g) Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
NO IMPACT. Although the project site is located within the 100- and 500 -year flood
hazard area the proposed project does not involve the construction of housing or other
residential units. In addition, the proposed project improvements would provide for
adequate drainage for a maximum 100 -year expected runoff value of 1,707 cfs and a 1 -day
storm runoff volume of 928.9 acre -feet; compared to the existing pump station capacity,
which only provides pumping capacity for a 25 -year storm event. As a result, no impacts
would occur.
h) Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
NO IMPACT. The structure that would house the new pumps would be designed to
accommodate future 100 -year flood flows. In addition, the pump station would retard and
then redirect any flood flows. Any structure developed in conjunction with the LAPS
reconstruction would be designed such that it would not impede or redirect flood flows,
resulting in less than significant impacts in this regard. Refer to Response 5(g).
i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
' Orange County APPS Geographic Information System searchable layers database, visited February 28, 2003
at http:// apps2. oc. ca. gov /appsgis/internet/viewer.htm.
July, 2003 35 Los Alamitos Pump Station -
Initial Study
•
cr pre_.
Environmental Analysis
4 yt.
tlFOR
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. There are no levees or dams immediately
upstream of the LAPS, such that levee or dam failure would subject the pump station to
flooding. Consequently, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, resulting in less than significant
impacts. Refer to Response 5(g).
j) Would the project expose people or structures to .risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow? '
NO IMPACT. A seiche is a rise or fall of the surface of a water body due to strong winds
blowing across a long axis in a lake or bay. A tsunami is a series of large waves generated by
a strong earthquake. Due to the location and nature of the proposed project, approximately
1.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and 0.5 miles from the San Gabriel River, the potential for
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow is not anticipated. In addition, while
development of the proposed project would include development of a building that would
house the pump station, the building will not be utilized to house people permanently.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
6. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
a) Would the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Project will
not generate increased long -term vehicle trips or traffic congestion. However, there will be
temporary short-term increases in traffic due to haul trucks and worker vehicle trips.
The personal vehicles of the on -site construction company employees for the duration of
the Project implementation will also generate a small quantity of traffic. However, these
traffic increases are expected to be temporary in nature and are not considered significant.
Additionally, the City and County must approve a haul route access plan prior to the
initiation of construction activities.
Mitigation Measure
T -1 Prior to commencement of construction, a draft haul route access plan developed by
the contractor and County OCFCD will be submitted to the Cities of Seal Beach
and Long Beach and PFRD/Traffic Engineering for review and approval to ensure
impacts to surrounding land uses are minimized, if required by the Cities. The plan
will include access routes on public streets for heavy equipment and construction
materials import and export operations. The plan will also show staging area(s) for
storage of equipment, materials, construction vehicles and workers' personal
vehicles, as well as provide safe crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists.
July, 2003 36 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
r Di
� r Environmental Analysis
9 �IFOC'
b) Would the project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would not change, or
otherwise exceed the traffic patterns already associated with the existing LAPS. With
minimal, infrequent trips by maintenance and operations supervisors, the proposed
construction of the pumps and related facilities would not contribute to any exceedance of
local Level of Service (LOS) standards adopted by the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach,
or by the County of Orange. Less than significant impacts would result.
c) Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not involve changes in air traffic patterns, and
would not affect air traffic. No impacts would occur as a result of the project.
d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
NO IMPACT. The construction of a pump station facility would not substantially increase
traffic hazards or the potential hazards associated with incompatible uses. The proposed
project would require an all weather access road, which would be a paved surface. The
County currently has access for small vehicles from its maintenance road from Westminster
Avenue. Construction access is expected to be provided from Pacific Coast Highway along
the existing road extending through the Hellman Ranch and Southern California Edison
parcels, pending acquisition of easements from the property owners. If easements are not
obtained from the Hellman Ranch and Southern California Edison property owners, access
may be provided via Adolpho Lopez Street.
e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would include the
relocation of the pump station and upgrades associated with the facilities at LAPS. No
impacts to emergency access would occur. Emergency access to the project site would be
maintained at all times during construction activities.
f) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
NO IMPACT. As a fully mechanized plant, the LAPS would include only a few parking
spaces for maintenance and operational supervisors. The site would be usually closed to the
public and would have no parking facilities for public use. The proposed project would not
generate additional demand for parking or result in inadequate parking capacity.
Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
g) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
July, 2003 37 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
r o
- - Environmental Analysis
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not conflict with the policies, plans, or
programs adopted by the cities of Long Beach and Seal Beach, or by the County of Orange
that support public and alternative transportation. Since the LAPS facility is not open to
the public and does not interface with any alternative transportation modes, no impacts
would result.
7. AIR QUALITY
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Of primary concern is that project - related impacts
have been properly anticipated in the regional air quality planning process and reduced
whenever feasible. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the project's consistency with the
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP).
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is managed by the
SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has prepared multiple Air Quality Management Plans
(AQMPs). The most recent AQMP was adopted in 1997. The AQMP relies on a multi-
level partnership of governmental agencies at the federal, state, regional and local level.
These agencies (EPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and the SCAQMD) are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP
programs.
SCAG is responsible under the Federal CAA for determining conformity of projects, plans
and programs with the SCAQMD AQMP. SCAG released the Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (RCPG, 2000). The RCPG is a compilation of the summaries of Plans for
the Southern California Region. It establishes a broad set of goals for the region, and
identifies strategies for agencies at all levels to use in guiding their decision - making toward
implementation of the proposals." The Growth Management and Regional Mobility
Chapters contain policies to help guide local agencies in developing a more balanced
number of houses and jobs.
Policies within these chapters of the RCPG are aimed at SCAG's overall goals to: 1)
reinvigorate the region's economy; 2) avoid social and economic inequities and the
geographical isolation of communities; and 3) maintain the region's quality of life.
Although air quality is a regional problem, SCAG's RCPG and SCAQMD's AQMP place a
heavy reliance on local implementation measures, such as land use decisions and local
employment transportation programs. The implementation process stresses the freedom of
cities to choose attainment measures that best suit local conditions.
11 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, Southern California Association of Governments, May 1995,
page 1.
July, 2003 38 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
0„ �i Environmental Analysis
9 <lFOr `
As indicated in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, there are two main indicators of
consistency:
• Whether the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay
timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions
specified in the AQMP; and
• Whether the project would exceed the AQMP's assumptions for 2010 or increments
based on the year of project build -out and phase.
The proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designation of Public
Facilities. In addition, the proposed pump station would generate the same amount of
maintenance and operational traffic associated with the existing pump station. Therefore,
the project is considered consistent with the AQMP.
b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes thresholds to analyze construction and
operational air quality impacts. Exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds could result in a
potentially significant impact. However, ultimately the lead agency determines the
thresholds of significance for impacts. The construction and operations significance
thresholds, as applicable to the proposed project, are discussed below. If the project
proposes development in excess of the established thresholds, a significant air quality
impact may occur and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of
impacts.
SHORT -TERM EMISSIONS
Short-term air quality impacts would occur during grading and construction operations
associated with implementation of the proposed project. The short-term air quality analysis
considers cumulative construction emissions combined with the proposed project.
Temporary impacts include:
• Clearing, grading, excavating and using heavy equipment or trucks creates large
quantities of fugitive dust, and thus Mi
• Heavy equipment required for grading and construction generates and emits diesel
exhaust emissions;
• The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling equipment
generate and emit exhaust emissions;
•:• Off -site regional air emissions associated with temporary power lines needed to
operate construction equipment (although these emissions are locally minimal they
July, 2003 39 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
°, 00 „,
Environmental Analysis
are dispersed throughout the western U.S., and individual power plants are required
to mitigate air emissions); and/or
❖ Emissions from the stationary construction equipment used on -site.
The above described emissions from electricity demand, site grading and motor vehicles
would be generated during construction activities. Project- related emissions are further
analyzed in the long -term impacts portion of this Response. Potential odors generated
during construction operations are temporary in nature and are not considered to be an
impact. It should be noted that emissions produced during grading and construction
activities are "short- term" in nature as they endure only for the duration of construction.
As indicated in Table 1, Construction Emissions, emissions associated with construction
activities within the project area are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction
thresholds. In addition, adherence to standard construction practices involving properly
tuned equipment, covered haul trucks and reduced speeds on exposed roads would reduce
- the significance of short-term construction emissions to less than significant levels. As such,
short-term air emissions would be considered less thansignificant.
Table 1
Construction Emissions
,,, <• - ./< . , : r, � 3s . w • -9• .�� . 4 +`i. .,�' r - �. ^5 `:• s
- ^ °' y"':i°:.v 'psx r '°" ti -}:� a •' � s.:}F�'iy� " olltiiant• unds/da t- y�rt m•_::e. .
Emissions �" :�;. �• �},„ _ - -� � . p1 �- z` �: ,
_ +• : ,Y ., d , y..t1. s% , sw' .s, '�`� •x .slti,e r. J7_..`a.: i .3i •. ,B
; :' .our : . =� : • 'htROGt ..; , RNO :. CO ` :t :. �•PM`.. ;� :
+.� ,psi: .� -:,.� ., S _.. :r • * , �,..:. �, fit x� > >`,
Unmitigated Emissions 5.15 83.53 0.00 11.76
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150
Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No No
Mitigated Emissions
•
4.91 79.37 0.00 9.66
Is Threshold Exceeded After Mitigation? No No No No
ROG = reactive organic gases NO = nitrogen oxides
CO = carbon monoxide PM = fine particulate matter
NOTES:
' Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2001 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD and Project specific
construction data provided by the Project applicant.
2 Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment,
diesel and gas mobile equipment, off -site haul route import and asphalt off gassing Results are based on the maximum amount of
site grading, construction and asphalt activity that would occur in one day Refer to Section 8.0, Air Quality Data, for assumptions
used in this analysis, including quantified emissions reduction by mitigation measures.
3 The reduction /credits for construction emission mitigations are based on mitigations included in the UREBMIS 2001 computer
model and as typically required by the SCAQMD. For mitigation measures uses in the modeling analysis, please refer to Section 8.0,
Air Quaky Data
LONG -TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Operations of the LAPS would involve emissions from the following sources: (1) periodic
vehicle travel (i.e., weekly) for monitoring purposes throughout the LAPS project area; and
(2) daily vehicular traffic to the pump station for inspection and maintenance.
July, 2003 40 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
NL , ' O
- -`j" Environmental Analysis
O a .
U 4�
'Q P
< :
Emissions associated with operations are expected to be negligible resulting primarily in
NOx and diesel particulate emissions from operations of the pump engine. The pump
engine would be a 1,450 hp with 16 cylinders, a catalytic converter and critical grade
mufflers. Based upon information provided by the SCAQMD, the proposed pump station
would emit 6.9 grams/hp/hour of NO The SCAQMD limits the use of emergency engines
to 200 hours per year. Therefore, the maximum NO emissions that the engine would emit
would be 2.0 tons per year or 12.1 pounds per day (lbs /day), which is well below SCAQMD's
threshold of 55 lbs /day. The pump station would result in 0.4 grams/hp/hour of diesel
particulate emissions. With a maximum use of 200 hours per year, the proposed pump
station would emit approximately 0.116 tons per year or 0.70 lbs /day of diesel particulates.
Compliance with the SCAQMD requirement that limits the use of the engine to 200 hours a
year would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed
project would be required to obtain the following permits by the SCAQMD:
❖ Form 400A - Permit to Construct and Operate
❖ Form 400CEQA - for Air Quality Impacts
❖ Form 400E13 - for Internal Combustion Engines
Overall, project - generated emissions from both construction activities and operations would
not result in significant air quality impacts on a local or regional basis since State or Federal
air quality thresholds or standards would not be exceeded. However, implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures would ensure that impacts regarding air emissions
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
A -1 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
403, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or
other dust preventive measures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Districts Rules and Regulations.
A-2 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County -
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
403, ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be
controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune
per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the Resident Engineer.
Compliance with this measure will be subject to periodic inspections of construction
equipment vehicles by OCFCD representatives.
12 Per communications with Mike Mills, General Commercial Supervisor at SCAQMD, on May 27, 2003.
13 Ibid.
July, 2003 41 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
of
- - Environmental Analysis
•A m
V 4
9 �IFO%
A -3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confine
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, in compliance with SCAQMD Rule
403, all materials transported off -site shall be sufficiently watered or covered to
prevent excessive fugitive dust.
A-4 Prior to the approval of the project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer, PFRD, or designee, in consultation with
the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm that
the plans and specifications stipulate that during overall site grading and public
infrastructure construction phases, construction equipment and supply staging areas
shall be located as far as practicable from the nearest residence. During
structure/building construction, equipment and supply staging areas shall be located
as far as practical from the nearest residence.
c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Refer
to Response 7(a) and Response 7(b).
d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior
citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air
pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors
typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent
homes and retirement homes. Sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site include
the residential community of Island Village, approximately 300 feet north of the proposed
project site and residential units to the south of the LARB, off of Gum Grove Park. These
residences, however, are not situated adjacent to roadways serving project - related traffic. In
addition, maintenance and operational traffic associated with the pump station would be the
same as with the existing facilities and therefore there would not be a significant
contribution to pollution levels, resulting in less than significant impacts.
e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Construction activities associated with the project
may generate detectable odors from heavy -duty equipment exhaust. Odors associated with
diesel and gasoline fumes are transitory in nature and would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people. The project would implement standard
construction practices to minimize potentially adverse effects, including compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 and 404, siting construction staging areas as far as practicable from
sensitive receptors, and utilizing non - residential routes for all construction traffic where
July, 2003 42 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
cr
Environmental Analysis
possible. The impacts from these odors would be short-term, would cease upon project
completion, and therefore would not be significant.
Similarly, there would not be any significant odors emitted from the project under normal
operating parameters. Although there are residential areas in the vicinity of the proposed
LAPS, the pump station would not generate significant emissions, as it would utilize pumps
driven by natural gas. Therefore, less than significant long -term air emissions or odors
would occur due to project implementation.
8. NOISE
a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Construction activities related to the proposed project would last approximately 18 to 24
months. Groundborne noise and other types of construction related noise impacts would
typically occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of
noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases.
Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils compaction. High
groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can be created during this
phase due to the operation of heavy -duty trucks, backhoes and front -end loaders. Noise
levels typically range from 73 to 96 dBA at a range of 50 feet from individual pieces of
equipment. The figures indicated in Table 2, Typical Construction Equipment Noise
Levels, represents a "worst- case" scenario in which all equipment used during a given phase
is operating. Since in most cases all equipment would not be operating during construction,
actual noise levels would be lower than the levels presented in Table 2. However, these
activities could impact properties located within the cities of Seal Beach and Long Beach.
Therefore, analysis of construction noise impacts will include consistency with both City's noise
ordinances.
Table 2
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
ny ^ . _u; x s.�.. , ... ... . � _ .. .. «i -. r .- ,.o.. ;' ;'. ^` •• ». r.:t: .:. ,, ..e. ,+.,,r« I .* r c^ ...,. • .�. 6 >•.
. Pe ,of Egniprn"e"nf t ' w ....Maximum Level „dB' S0 feet;_thence. 7 ;
,. • .s,•r..w't !^ 3 iu 4..^ � R. •w. .�'.Sx •r �.. .i. . .... •_ � x.. .. l..J I0�'�e -» • F ^�,'. •• N+R^W , S+.x �
Scrapers 88
Bulldozers 87
Heavy Trucks 88
Backhoe 85
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source "Handbook of Noise Control,” prepared by Cyril Harris, 1979.
" United States EPA, 1971.
July, 2003 43 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
er O!
Environmental Analysis
.
9 �IFOF ;
Construction noise would last the duration of construction, although it would be most
noticeable during the initial months of site - intensive grading and building construction.
Noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the construction site, which include the Island
Village community, would experience increased noise levels resulting from construction
activities. The Island Village community is a gated community surrounded by a 6 -foot high
block wall. This community could face a slight increase in noise levels generated by
construction work. The City of Seal Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 13D) exempts
construction activities from adhering to City noise standards as long as construction is
limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
on Saturdays or when the City Building Inspector approves special provisions for
construction activities. Additionally, the City of Long Beach Municipal Code noise
standards (Section 8.80.202) stipulate that the project will be in conformance as long as
construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, between 9:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays or when the City Building Inspector approves special provisions
for construction activities.
These impacts, however, are short-term and would cease upon completion of the
initial/construction phase. As such, construction impacts are concluded to be less than
significant. Implementation of the recommended mitigation (i.e., muffling/placement of
construction equipment) recommended in Mitigation Measures N -1 through N -3 and
compliance with Code requirements as outlined above, would serve to minimize the length
of time residents are exposed to significant noise levels. Additionally, it should be noted
that the estimated construction noise levels do not account for any noise attenuation due to
existing walls, berms, intervening structures or topography. These factors may account for
an acoustical attenuation level of up to 3 dBA. The primary sources of acoustical
disturbance would be random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as
dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts.
However, based upon the analysis, the local receptors would not experience ambient
construction noise levels that are in excess of existing levels. With adherence to the
Municipal Code, noise and vibration impacts are concluded to be less than significant.
Based upon the nominal increase in construction noise levels, compliance with the City's
Municipal Code, as outlined in Mitigation Measures N -1 through N -3, would reduce
groundborne noise and vibration impacts to a less than significant level.
Long -Term (Operational) Impacts
Both the project site and the adjacent Island Village residential development (sensitive
receptors that would be the most impacted by noise generated from LAPS operational
activities) are predominantly located within the City of Long Beach. Therefore, the City of
Long Beach's noise standards have been used to evaluate the potential operational noise
impacts of the proposed project, since the City of Long Beach Noise Ordinance is more
stringent than the City of Seal Beach Noise Ordinance.
City of Long Beach Noise Standards
Chapter 8.80, Noise, of the City of Long Beach Municipal Code is designed to control
unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise vibration within the City. The City of Long
July, 2003 44 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
C' -O!
Environmental Analysis
O I ttFOv'
Beach's Noise Ordinance regulates noise levels based upon land use and time of day (refer
to Table 3, Long Beach Noise Standards) and also the duration of excessive noise levels
(refer to Table 4, Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration).
• The City of Long Beach Community Noise Ordinance divides the City into five districts and
assigns exterior noise limits to each district based on the predominant land use. Both the
Island Village residential development and the project site are within "District Three' "
Unlike other Districts, such as the residential District One, District Three does not have day
or nighttime noise thresholds and instead is characterized by a 65 dB(A) threshold at "Any
Time" (refer to Table 3, Long Beach Noise Standards). While appropriate for an industrial
use such as the pump station, such a high level is generally inconsistent with a residential
zone and would likely result in annoyance and complaints. The City of Long Beach District
One noise standards are used in the Noise Study and in the analysis of the LAPS acoustical
impacts (refer to Table 3).
Table 3
Long Beach Noise Standards
•Noise Levels • that :District One ' .. :District Three
may not be .. • :a: , ':.
_ •Da '' ' • - • „, '
Nighttime Daytime• Nighttime
exceeded f or. more • • a • *;
than... (7 am -10 pm) ,., (10 pin -10 pm) ;> • (10 pm - 7 am)'
30 minutes in any 50 dB(A) 45 dB(A) NA NA
hour
15 minutes in any 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) NA NA
hour
5 minutes in any 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) NA NA
hour
1 minutes in any 65 dB(A) 60 dB(A) NA NA
hour
Anytime 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 65 dB(A) 65 dB(A)
Notes: NA - Not Applicable
Source: Prehminary Environmental Noise Study For the Design of the Proposed Los Alamitos Storm Water Pump Station in
the City ofLongBeach, Wieland Associates, Inc., February 10, 2003.
Table 4
Long Beach Noise Levels and Duration
•
" Noise=LevelExcPededr Duration Period ,
Noise Standard for a cumulative period 30 minutes in any one hour
5 dB(A) above Noise Standard 15 minutes in any one hour
10 dB(A) above Noise Standard 5 minutes in any one hour
15 dB(A) above Noise Standard 1 minute in any one hour
20 dB(A) above Noise Standard Not Permitted
Source: City of Long BeachMumcipal Code, Chapter 8.80, Noise.
15 City of Long Beach Community Noise Ordinance, Section 8.80.010.
July, 2003 45 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
The following regulations apply to noise sources generated by construction activities:
❖ Weekdays and federal holidays — except for emergency work, construction noise is
prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.
❖ Saturdays — except for emergency work, construction noise is prohibited between the
hours of 7 p.m. on Friday and 9 a.m. on Saturday, as well as after 6 p.m. on
Saturday.
❖ Sundays — except for emergency work, construction noise is prohibited at all times
on Sunday.
Existing noise levels at the LAPS site were obtained on November 4, 2002, indicating a
noise level of 60 dB(A) at the residential property line with three of the four pumps
operating simultaneously The ambient noise level was 46.5 dB(A) during the daytime
period without the pump engines running . The estimated future range of noise levels with
project implementation and operation is 68 — 69 dB(A) without any mitigation measures
applied.
The noise sources of greatest concern with the project include the pump engines, exhaust
stacks, pumps, gear drives, ventilation fans and an air compressor. The operational features
of LAPS would be mitigated to reduce potential noise impacts of the proposed project. As
indicated above, it is estimated that the proposed project would generate levels of 68 — 69
dB(A) at the Island Village residential development. Therefore, the project design would
need to include mitigation that provides a reduction of at least 8 to 9 dB(A) in noise level
and which would also minimize the exhaust tones. The following mitigation measures
(Mitigation Measure N -4) would reduce the noise level to at least 45 dB(A). This noise
level is well below the City of Long Beach's noise threshold for District Three of 65 dB(A)
(refer to Table 3) and for residential District One's threshold of less than 50 dB(A) during
the day and less than 45 dB(A) during the night. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation
Measures N -1 through N -4 would reduce noise impacts associated with the project to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
N -1 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, construction activities shall be
limited to 7.•00 a.m. and 7.•00 p.m. on weekdays, between 9 :00 a.m. and 6 :00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and no construction on Sundays and holidays. The County inspector will
be responsible for ensuring that contractors comply with this measure during
construction.
16 City of Long Beach Community Noise Ordinance, Section 8.80.010.
17 Preliminary Environmental Noise Study for the Design of the Proposed Los Alamitos Storm Water Pump
Station in the City of Long Beach, Wieland Associates, February 10, 2003.
38 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
m Ibid.
July, 2003 46 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
�IFOn'
N -2 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, the construction contractor shall
incorporate feasible muffling features into construction vehicles and equipment and
into construction methods, and shall maintain all construction vehicles and
equipment in efficient operating condition. The County inspector will be
responsible for ensuring that contractors comply with this measure during
construction.
N -3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas
shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction
activities
N-4 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that:
♦ Two Maxim M51 silencers shall be included in the exhaust path for each
engine, and should be located within the pump station building.
♦ The walls of the pump station shall be constructed with 12-inch thick concrete
blocks, solid grouted.
♦ The roof of the pump station shall be constructed with a metal built -up roof,
at least 9 pounds per square foot of surface area (psf).
♦ The ventilation openings in the north and south walls of the pump station
should be fitted with duct silencers to minimize noise propagation to the
exterior of the building. These silencers should be situated so that half of their
• length is inside the building and half is outside the building. The gap between
the silencers and the walls should be kept at a minimum, and should be tilled
with acoustical sealant.
♦ The metal roll -up doors on the east, west and south sides of the pump station
should be replaced with sound -rated single or double leaf doors. The IAC
Noise -Lock doors shall provide sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 43.
♦ The personnel doors on the north, south and east sides of the pump station
should be sound -rated single or double leaf doors The IAC Noise-Lock doors
shall provide sound transmission class (STC) ratings of21.
July, 2003 47 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
• o
Environmental Analysis
c 9L� V
♦ ' The interior walls and ceiling of the pump station should be lined with sound-
' absorptive panels that provide a minimum noise reduction coefficient (NRC)
of 1.30. The panels should be distributed evenly over the walls and ceiling
rather than being concentrated at any one location. In distributing the
material, the following should be considered:
a. The panels should be attached with a Type A mounting (i.e., the panels
are attached directly to the wall with glue, clips, pins or similar methods.
b. The panels should be separated at least 6inches from each other.
c. Panels placed in corners will provide greater benefit than those placed in
the field of the wall or ceiling.
d. Panels placed at the intersection of two walls or at the intersection of the
walls with the ceiling will provide greater benefit than those placed in
the field of the wall or ceiling.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Refer
to Response 8(a).
c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measure N -4, above, would reduce
ambient noise levels associated with long -term project operation to a level consistent with
the residential standards for District One of the Long Beach Community Noise Ordinance
(refer to Table 3) With mitigation incorporated, the project would not result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and less than
significant impacts would result.
d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Implementation of the recommended Mitigation Measures N -1 and N -3 would reduce
temporary noise levels due to construction activities. The proposed project could result in
periodic increases in temporary construction- related noise above those levels associated
with the current sound environment of the existing pump station. Potential impacts related
to elevated temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be less than
significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. In addition,
while the pump station's operational noise levels could result in a noise level of 68 to 69
21 United States EPA, 1971.
u Preliminary Environmental Noise Study for the Design of the Proposed Los Alamitos Storm Water Pump
Station in the City of Lon Beach, Wieland Associates, , February 10, 2003.
July, 2003 48 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
vi ;` -
4
C Rlt � a` v
dB(A) for the Island Village residential development, noise - muffling devices as included in
Mitigation Measure N -4, would reduce the noise levels by 23 to 31 dB(A). Thus, noise
levels would be below Long Beach's Noise Ordinance, resulting in less than significant
impacts.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no
mitigation measures are necessary.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
9. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The
proposed project site is located within an area that historically has been fully disturbed.
Several special status plant species are known to occur on the adjacent Hellman Ranch
property and there is potential for nine special status species to occur on the project site
A spring botanical survey for these special status plants would be necessary to determine the
presence or absence of these species. If, at that time, special status plant species are
discovered, mitigation would be required in accordance with the Project's regulatory agency
permitting through the California Coastal Commission, Army Corp. of Engineers and the
California Department of Fish and Game. Such mitigation may include avoidance,
relocation, or purchase of offsite habitat areas containing these species to complement
existing open space areas. Direct and indirect impacts to special status plant species on the
Hellman Ranch property would not be considered significant.'
The proposed project site contains potential habitat for the Gabb's tiger beetle, which is
considered a - Special Animal (SA) by the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG). The project site also contains potential habitat for the sandy beach tiger beetle,
which is considered a Species of Concern (SOC) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
(USFWS). Focused surveys by a qualified biologist for the two beetle species would be
Biological Constraints Survey, BonTerra Consulting, February 26, 2003.
24 Ibid.
July, 2003 49 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
° f
o _y Environmental Analysis
t.n rn
4
9< <FOC y
required prior to development of the proposed project in order to determine the presence
or absence of these species on the project site. If the Gabb's tiger beetle and the sandy
beach tiger beetle were determined to be present, impacts on these species would be
considered adverse, but less than significant.' Therefore, no mitigation is expected.
Indirect impacts to the Gabb's tiger beetle and sandy beach tiger beetle populations in close
proximity to the project (Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge) would not be considered
significant.'
The proposed project would impact foraging habitat for the light- footed clapper rail,
California least tern, and tricolored blackbird. The loss of foraging habitat would
cumulatively contribute to the ongoing regional and local loss of foraging habitat for these
species. This is considered an adverse, though not significant, impact because a relatively
substantial amount of foraging habitat for these species is available in the region and
adjacent to the project site.'
Although resources on the project site are limited, the western snowy plover has the
potential to occur on the project site. Focused surveys for this species should be conducted
prior to construction activities, during the spring season in order to document the use of
foraging and nesting habitat for this species. If this species is identified during the spring
survey, to occur on or immediately adjacent to the project site, consultation and permitting
with the USFWS would be required. Appropriate mitigation may include avoidance,
restoration, or purchase of off -site habitat. The presence of these species could
substantially constrain construction activities. Indirect construction impacts such as noise
and dust could impact this species during the breeding season (March through September)
if any of these species are found on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
The February 2003 Biological Constraints Survey indicated that there is marginally suitable
habitat for this species given the presence of sparsely vegetated, sandy areas and the
proximity of a known population of the species in the vicinity at the U.S. Naval Weapons
Station. Impacts to burrowing owl burrows could be potentially significant without
mitigation. To mitigate potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls, mitigation is
required. The mitigation for burrowing owls, in combination with a spring botanical survey,
and the recommended preconstruction focused surveys for the Gabb's tiger beetle, sandy
beach tiger beetle, and western snowy plover would reduce potentially adverse effects to less
than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
BR -1 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, the contractor
shall provide documentation that a survey for burrowing owl burrows will be
Ibid.
m Ibid.
27 Estimated total acreage of this habitat is approximately 231 acres, per the Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
Amendment Environmental Impact Report.
July, 2003 50 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
er O
Environmental Analysis
LIFO
conducted 30 days prior to commencement of any construction activities initiated
during the breeding season. -
BR -2 If any occupied nests or burrows are found during survey efforts the following
measures shall be implemented:
• The burrowing owl nests shall be mapped on the construction plans. If
burrowing owl species or burrows are found, a qualified biologist shall
recommend appropriate restrictions on construction activities in the vicinity of
the nest until the nest is no longer active.
• During the non - breeding season, Burrowing Owls shall be passively relocated to
the new habitat dedication area by placing one -way doors at burrow entrances
for at least 48 hours to allow exit without re -entry to encourage habitat
relocation.
• Burrowing Owl burrow entrances within 160 feet of all graded areas shall be
closed to prevent re- occupancy.
• Burrowing Owl burrows shall be surveyed daily one week prior to grading to
verify thatno burrow has been reoccupied.
BR -3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District; the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, a spring botanical survey shall be
conducted prior to construction activities, for the nine special status plant species
suspected to occur on the project site. Mitigation measures will be developed
during the resource agencies permitting process if the proposed project would result
in direct impacts to these species or ifa population of these plants are found and the
status of that population warrants a finding of significance. Mitigation may include
avoidance, relocation, or purchase of offsite habitat areas containing this species to
complement existing open space areas.
BR-4 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
- that the plans and specifications stipulate that, a focused survey has been conducted
for the Gabb's tiger beetle and the sandy beach tiger beetle. Mitigation measures
will be developed during the resource agencies permitting process if the survey
determines the presence of either type of beetle. Mitigation may include
revegetation of the plants the Gabb's tiger beetle and the sandy beach tiger beetle
would forage upon.
BR -5 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
July, 2003 51 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
ANL rro
•
} T` - fir Environmental Analysis
9 N`�
�IFpR
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, focused surveys for the western
snowy plover shall be conducted during the spring season in order to document use
of foraging and nesting habitat for this species. Four surveys shall be conducted
from March through June for this species. If this species were found to occur on or
immediately adjacent to the project site, consultation and permitting with the
USFWS would be required.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project site does not lie within a
known sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, or by CDFG or
USFWS. Additionally, the project site is not located within one of the eleven planning
subregions of the southern California coastal sage scrub NCCP region.' Impacts would be
less than significant.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Wetland habitat does occur within the Basin, which provides foraging habitat for a number
of wildlife species. As part of the project's permitting process, a wetland delineation would
be conducted to identify any Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional areas on the project site. If these agencies do
claim any jurisdiction over the project site, a permit/agreement would be required from one
or both of these agencies. Acquisition and implementation of the permit /agreement could
constrain development and impacts to these areas should be minimized to the extent
practicable. In addition, the permit/agreement process would be considered a federal /state
nexus; thus consultation with the USFWS and CDFG would be necessary for any impacts
- on federally or state - listed species. Implementation of the recommended mitigation
measure would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
BR -6 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, a wetland delineation shall be
conducted to identify any ACOE and CDFG jurisdictional areas on the project site.
If these agencies do claim any jurisdiction over the project site, a permit/agreement
will be required from one or both of these agencies, including appropriate
conditions and/or mitigation.
28 CA Department of Fish and Game website, visited March 2, 2003 at http: / /www.dfg.ca.gov /nccp /cssreg.htm.
July, 2003 52 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
��•� ,r of
Environmental Analysis
C. f � a •
. '
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
NO IMPACT. The Biological Constraints Survey did not identify any migratory wildlife
corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site that would be substantially
disrupted by the proposed project. Likewise, the proposed project would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
or with established native resident through such wildlife corridors or nursery sites. No
impacts would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would be consistent with and would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance. No impacts would result.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? -
NO IMPACT. The proposed project site is not located within one of the eleven planning
subregions of the southern California coastal sage scrub Natural Community Conservation
Planning (NCCP) region. The LAPS project would not conflict with other local NCCP's,
nor with other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. No impacts are
would occur.
10. AESTHETICS
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
NO IMPACT. The pump station is not located within a scenic vista as designated by the
City of Seal Beach General Plan or the City of Long Beach's General Plan. Westminster
Avenue is not designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under
the Scenic Highways Program, nor is it located within a state designated scenic highway.
Therefore, there would be no impacts in this regard.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
NO IMPACT. No unique rock outcroppings or historic buildings are known to exist within
the affected area. As noted above, the pump station is not located within a scenic vista as
designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) under the Scenic
Highways Program, nor is it located within a state designated scenic highway. Therefore,
there would be no impacts in this regard.
July, 2003 53 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
,ci °, Or
C ;- ° -_ Environmental Analysis -
�' tp
I tJFO%
c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The
proposed project includes the reconstruction of the LAPS immediately south of its existing
location, which would utilize the existing discharge lines to the adjacent San Gabriel River.
This position, approximately 300 feet (verify)south of the property line between the basin
and the residential development (Island Village) to the north, provides a median, which
would provide visual and aesthetic benefits to the Island Village residents. In addition, the
proposed pump station would be completely enclosed (as opposed to the existing pump
station which reveals the pump engines and infrastructure) within gray smooth face block
walls. The decorative style of the building would be compatible with the Island Village
development, with decorative accents along the walls would include a two -foot band in dark
gray split -face block at the outside corners and around major openings. Hollow metal
doors would provide access to the individual pumps, which would be painted green with
diagonal designs. Approximately one dozen residents would have views of the pump station
but otherwise the pump station would only be visible to those using the existing trail.
However, southerly views from the first and second story residential units in Island Village
would be slightly impacted with the development of the proposed project as the facilities
building would be at least 24 feet tall. Views from the first story residential units are already
impeded due to the block wall that surrounds the community. Second story views would be
partially obstructed by the proposed facilities; however, the residents would still be afforded
a majority of their views. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the
degradation of the proposed project site, resulting in less than significant impacts in this
regard.
Finally, the proposed project may create temporary aesthetic nuisances due to construction
activities. Exposed surfaces, construction debris, equipment and truck traffic may
temporarily impact views adjacent to the site. These impacts are considered short-term,
would cease upon project completion and the recommended mitigation measures would
• further reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
AES -1 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, Project construction shall implement
standard practices to minimize potential adverse aesthetic impacts, including the
following:
• Construction staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive
receptors;
♦ Construction areas shall receive appropriate routine maintenance to minimize
unnecessary debris piles; -
July, 2003 54 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
� Environmental Analysis
9 ftFOS a
♦ Construction areas shall have appropriate erosion and dust control programs
in place; and
♦ Construction lighting shall be limited to that sufficient for safety and security,
and shall be directed to minimize light and glare impacts to any adjacent
sensitive receptor(s).
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
During operation of the proposed project, direct lighting would be provided at the pump
station for security and maintenance, the scheme of which would be similar to existing
lighting conditions at the current pump station. However, lighting plans would comply with
applicable local ordinances to minimize potential light and glare impacts to less than
significant levels. Incorporation of the mitigation measure described below would further
minimize potential day and/or nighttime views in the area:
Mitigation Measure
AES-2 For all above ground facilities, lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security
and maintenance, and shall be directional and/or shielded in order to minimize
spillover effects to any adjacent sensitive receptors. Lighting plans shall comply with
applicable standards of the local jurisdiction.
11. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. A
Cultural Resources Assessment was conducted for the proposed project site. Part of the
investigation included a survey of the existing pump station, which was examined from the
surface as well as from within a semi - subterranean chamber beneath the pump motors. The
station is constructed largely of poured concrete and features four large General Electric
induction motors mounted above a semi - subterranean chamber containing massive
conduits. Based on the as -built drawings, the finished date of the pump station was late
1958 or later'. While the pump station does not appear to be potentially significant in
architectural terms, the station should be considered as a local historic resource. The
County of Orange does not consider the pump station to be historically significant. The
pump station itself has undergone periodic maintenance /repairs that compromise the
original structural mechanical integrity. A discussion with staff at the Orange County
Natural History Museum confirms the lack of historical significance. The pump station
Final As -Built Drawing, Sheet 1 of3, Orange County Flood Control District, Approved February 1961.
30 Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment :: Los Alamitos Pump Station Project in Long Beach, Los Angeles
County, and Sea /Beach, Orange County, California, BonTerra Consulting, February 26, 2003.
3' Per conversation with Laura at the Orange County Natural History Museum, June 20, 2003.
July, 2003 55 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
" 0,
Environmental Analysis
V
��FOR
and pump motors will be historically documented and made available for relocation by any
interested non - profit historical society, which would reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measure
CR -1 The County, in consultation with the PFRD/HBP Historical Facilities will make the
pump station motors available to any non-profit historical society for relocation at
their expense.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. As
part of the Phase I assessment, the records search showed that prehistoric archaeological
sites CA -ORA -850 and CA -ORA -1544 are recorded directly adjacent to the eastern edge of
the retarding basin at the surface elevation, but no archaeological sites have been identified
within the project area. CA -ORA -850 was recorded during a 1980 Archaeological
Associates survey that included most of the LARB. The site was described as a prehistoric
deposit of marine shell in disturbed silty sands with scallop and clam remains, but no
artifacts or features clearly of cultural origin. The deposit is or was located directly adjacent
to the southeastern corner of the retarding basin just outside the current projected
boundary.
CA -ORA -1544 was recorded during a 2000 survey of the western area of the Boeing
property east of the retarding basin. The site was described as an extensive prehistoric
deposit of marine shell in plowed soils with clam and scallop remained across a wide area
measuring approximately 400 meters. The surveying archaeologist noted the presence of a
prehistoric ground stone tool where the soil appeared darkest and the shell density
appeared greatest. The site area extends along the western edge of the Boeing property
between Adolfo Lopez Drive and an unnamed canal that enters the retarding basin at its
northeastern corner. The site record indicates that the deposit could extend westward into
the retarding basin area.
While, no archaeological evidence was observed within the project area during the Phase I
survey, due to the proximity of confirmed prehistoric archaeological sites in the vicinity of
the project, unknown archaeological sites could be encountered during excavation. In order
to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources during excavation activities,
mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, although no sites have been recorded
within the proposed project limits, due to the proximity of recorded archeological sites, the
following mitigation measure would ensure that less than significant impacts result.
Mitigation Measure
CR -2 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications by the Orange County
Flood Control District, the Chief Engineer PFRD, or his designee, in consultation
with the Manager, PDSD/Environmental Planning Services Division, shall confirm
July, 2003 56 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
m
U ..
(1'5 0\
4 IFOR•
that the plans and specifications stipulate that, sites CA -ORA -850 and CA -ORA-
1544 be avoided by not grading the eastern perimeter road and restricting
construction activities to the basin floor and ex sting access ramp located along the
northern side of the basin.
CR -3 Prior to construction, the OCFCD's contractor shall hire a County certified
archaeologist to observe grading activities and salvage and catalogue archaeological
resources as necessary. The archaeologist shall be present at the pre grade
conference, shall establish, in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for
temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and
evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If the archaeological resources are found
to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine appropriate actions, in
cooperation with the Project applicant, for exploration and/or salvage.
CR-4 Prior to construction, the OCFCD's contractor shall present evidence that a Native
American Monitor shall be present during earth removal or disturbance activities
related to rough grading and other excavation for foundations and utilities that
extend below five feet ofpre grading surface elevation. Consultation with the Native
American Heritage Commission and data/artifact recovery, if deemed appropriate,
shall be conducted.
c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. There
are no unique geologic features on the site. However, the project site could yield fossil
remains, which are valuable for paleo - biological, paleo - environmental, and paleo-
climatological studies. Grading could lead to the loss of valuable fossil resources and limit
scientific knowledge regarding the geologic past of the site and surrounding area. Of note is
the fact that grading associated with the project could unearth fossil resources, which may
not have ever been discovered otherwise. The potential loss or destruction of fossil
resources and the concomitant loss of scientific knowledge is considered a potentially
significant impact under CEQA and mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
CR-5 If evidence of subsurface paleontologic resources is found during construction,
excavation and other construction activity in that area shall cease and the contractor
shall contact the City of Seal Beach Development Services Department. With
direction from an Orange County Certified Paleontologist, the project proponent
shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontologic Resource Mitigation Program,
prior to initiation of any further construction activities.
d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
July, 2003 57 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Or o!
Environmental Analysis
O 14 4 m
9 ��FOC�
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.
Human remains in a previously unknown burial site could potentially be encountered during
construction activities associated with the proposed project. Any alterations to human
remains associated with project implementation would be considered a significant adverse
impact. However, implementation of the mitigation which details the appropriate actions
necessary in the event human remains are encountered would reduce impacts in this regard
to a less than significant level.
•
Due to the discovery of human remains on the nearby Hellman Ranch properties, there is
an increased potential for the discovery of unknown locations for human remains on the
subject property. Mitigation procedures have been identified that would be required based
on the compliance issues raised on the Hellman Ranch/John Laing Homes project to the
south. The procedures have been utilized at the Hellman Ranch site in consultation with
the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) to mitigate the impacts to the discovery of any
unknown human remains. Mitigation involves a "Mitigation Plan," should a significant
number of unknown human remains be encountered during the test phase and construction
grading monitoring on the project site.
Mitigation Measure
CR -6 Should any human bone be encountered during any earth removal or disturbance
activities, all activity shall cease immediately and the County selected archaeologist
and Native American monitor shall be immediately contacted, who shall then
immediately notify the Director of PFRD. The Director of PFRD shall contact the
Coroner pursuant to Section 509Z98 and 509Z99 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 509Z98.
CR -7 If more than one Native American burial is encountered during any earth removal
or disturbance activities, a "Mitigation Plan" shall be prepared by the OCFCD and
subject to approval by the Native American Heritage Commission.
12. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
•
NO IMPACT. The proposed project includes the reconstruction of the LAPS, which would
not directly or indirectly increase the demand for, or use of, existing neighborhood parks or
other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures
are necessary.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
July, 2003 58 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
_ r
- or 0 l
s -�- - Environmental Analysis
�IFOF'• ,
NO IMPACT. The proposed project does not include any recreational facility or
component and would not directly or indirectly increase the demand for, or use of, existing
neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur and
no mitigation measures are necessary. Refer to Response 12(a).
13. MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any
mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the state.
Though there are existing oil well pumps located on an adjacent property, the proposed
project would be limited almost entirely to the existing LARB and LAPS, and no impacts
would result.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
NO IMPACT. The County of Orange, Seal Beach and Long Beach General Plans do not
delineate a mineral resource recovery site within the project site Refer to Response
13(a).
14. HAZARDS
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. As with existing operations of the LAPS, the
proposed project would require the use or storage of approximately 3,000 to 6,000 gallons of
propane used as back -up fuel supply. However, it should be noted that the transportation
of hazardous materials is regulated by standards set forth by the United States Department
of Transportation for the safe handling and transportation of hazardous materials.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment
through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, and less than significant
impacts would result. -
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would be required to
comply with all requirements of the Long Beach Fire Department for the storage and use
of any hazardous materials utilized at the pump station. Therefore, the project would not
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably
32 County of Orange General Plan, County of Orange Planning and Development Services Department, 1998;
City of Long Beach General Plan.
July, 2003 59 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
o OI
Environmental Analysis
-
U m
9 CIFOV \
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into
the environment. Refer to Response 14(a).
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project is not within one - quarter mile of a school. Therefore,
no impacts would result.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
NO IMPACT. The existing LAPS site is not included on the Department of Toxic
Substances Control's (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site -List (also known as
"the Cortese List ") As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant
. hazard to the public or the environment, and no impacts would result.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
NO IMPACT. The project site is not located within an Airport Land Use Plan, or within
two miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of
the project.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
NO IMPACT. No private airstrip is located within the vicinity of the project site. No
impacts would occur as a result of the project.
g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
NO IMPACT. In the event of an emergency, all emergency procedures would be
implemented within local, state, and federal guidelines during construction and operation of
the proposed project. No impacts to emergency services or facilities would occur as a result
of project implementation.
h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
DTSCs Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), current as of March 4, 2003, located at
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm.
July, 2003 60 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
Environmental Analysis
6 ' - m U 4
•
N �IFO��
NO IMPACT. The LAPS and LARB are located in previously disturbed areas, and though
the local area surrounding the project has been urbanized since the 1950's, no wildlands
exist in, or interface with, the proposed project or surrounding land uses. No impacts
related to wildland fires would occur as a result of the project.
i) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice
(BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation
of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
NO IMPACT. The Los Alamitos basin will involve a combination wetbasin and constructed
wetland, which differ by depth of water and amount of vegetation. Constructed wetlands
are constructed basins that have a permanent pool of water throughout the year (or at least
throughout the wet season) and differ from wet ponds primarily in being shallower and
having greater vegetation coverage.
The following measures will be taken in order to control vectors (mosquitoes) associated
with wetbasins. Where permitted by the Department of Fish and Game or other agency
regulations, the wet ponds /constructed wetlands will regularly be stocked with mosquito fish
(Gambusia spp.) in order to enhance natural mosquito and midge control. In addition, the
proposed project will also involve the maintenance of vegetation to assist their movements
in order to control mosquitoes, as well as to provide access for vector inspectors. An annual
vegetation harvest in summer appears to be optimum, in that it is after the bird breeding
season, mosquito fish can provide the needed control until vegetation reaches late summer
density, and there is time for re- growth for runoff treatment purposes before the wet
season. In certain cases, more frequent plant harvesting may be required by local vector
control agencies. Therefore, implementation of the measures identified will ensure that
there would be no impacts regarding vectors and odors as a result of construction of the
wetbasins.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would relocate the pump station and upgrade
associated facilities at LAPS. No impacts to fire or police services would occur. Emergency
access to the project site would remain as it is currently, and would be maintained at all
times during construction activities. Though construction at the site would take place
July, 2003 61 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
�~ r, 04, / Environmental Analysis
� 4
1!FOR"
adjacent to the nearby residential developments, these would be temporary, and would not
impact any public services used by those residents. Nearby parks and schools would be
unaffected by the proposed project, which would be reconstructed for the same purpose at
the existing site. Due to the transition from the LAPS utilizing natural gas as opposed to
electricity, there would be a minimal increase in natural gas consumption and a reduction in
electric use. However, due to the small size of the project, impacts to natural gas would be
less than significant. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would not exceed
wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). The project consists of the reconstruction of an existing storm water
pump station and would therefore not generate any significant quantities of wastewater
requiring treatment. Less than- significant impacts would occur with development of the
proposed project.
b) Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project involves the development of
a new pump station, of which the environmental impacts are being analyzed in this
document. The analysis provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, identifies
potentially significant impacts regarding Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils and Noise. However, the mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, included as part of this document, would
reduce all impacts to a less than significant level.
c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Refer to Response 16(b).
d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
NO IMPACT. No new or expanded entitlements are needed to provide sufficient potable
or storm water supplies to the project. Therefore, no impacts would result.
July, 2003 62 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
- r- � Environmental Analysis
c
v
-IFOV
e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. Because the stormwater collected at the
reconstructed LARB would be retained and pumped during storm conditions into the San
Gabriel River, it would not impact the wastewater provider's treatment facilities in any
measurable way. An increased demand for additional wastewater treatment capacity would
not occur as a result of development of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts in this
regard would be less than significant. Refer to Response 16(a) and 16(b).
f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project's solid waste disposal needs?
LESS SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would affect solid waste
disposal capacity needs. Apart from construction- related debris, which would be disposed
of in accordance with the Cities of Long Beach and the County of Orange regulations, the
proposed project would not likely generate additional solid waste beyond what it currently
generates under existing operations. Therefore, the project would be served by local
landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the proposed project's solid
waste needs. Less than significant impacts would result and no mitigation is necessary.
g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
NO IMPACT. The proposed project would not generate significant solid waste beyond that
associated with current LAPS operations, and would comply with all federal, state and local
statutes and regulations pertaining to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts would occur and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The
proposed project would reconstruct the stormwater pumps and associated facilities at the
LAPS and LARB. The LARB does not generally support wildlife, nor are significant
cultural resources known to exist at the site. The proposed project would not degrade the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory.
July. 2003 63 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study
cr0
Environmental Analysis
• b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would reconstruct the
stormwater pumps and associated facilities at the LAPS and LARB. Resulting from specific
facility needs at the LAPS site, the proposed project would enhance the reliability of
PFRD's stormwater management resources, and is consistent with the Countywide
stormwater management, program. As described in the preceding environmental analysis,
the potential effects of this project are expected to be limited in nature and fully mitigable,
and therefore would not create secondary impacts that would be cumulatively considerable.
In addition, the proposed project would include water quality treatment devices within the
existing regional flood control facilities such as the LARB. Under the proposed project,
pollutants currently flowing untreated into the San Gabriel River and Pacific Ocean would
flow through a channel meandering along the basin floor, providing bioremediation and
enhancing the water quality of the flow into the San Gabriel River and Pacific Ocean.
•
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The proposed project would reconstruct the
stormwater pumps and associated facilities at the LAPS and LARB. By increasing the
pump station's efficiency in retaining and processing stormwater, it is likely that flooding in
the local vicinity could be reduced, which would be contribute a net positive indirect impact
on human beings. The mitigation measures identified in this document would ensure that
no significant adverse impacts to human beings would be associated with operation or
construction of the proposed facilities.
•
July, 2003 64 Los Alamitos Pump Station
Initial Study