Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project — Environmental Impact Report - CorrespondenceMay 25, 2021 Item No. 16 From: Laurie Sloan <lauriesloan74@grnai1.com> Sent: Friday, May 21, 20218:14 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Opposition to the Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Project (DEIR) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachnyents unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank you, Laurie Sloan May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 From: Michael Luebbers <mjluebbers@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 21, 202110:59 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Draft EIR for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I oppose the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). True, we must: identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, but the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a -technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You,. Michael Lubbers, PE Tustin, CA I May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 From: Juliet Sussman <julietmariesuss@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20216:10 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: No on DEIR Categories: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this project. Thank you, Juliet M. Sussman 760.408.3866 J.D. Candidate 2021 Loyola Law School Linkedln May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Helen E. <helen.estrada0104@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 12:50 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: CAD Message To Newport Beach City Council Members Categories: Jen n [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Helen Estrada May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Holly Suther <suther.holly@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 20218:59 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Categories: Jenn [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Holly Suther 2 May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Ari Sanchez <ariana6896@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 20213:32 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Public Comment Categories: Jenn [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Ariana Sanchez May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Ryan B <rb4431@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:49 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Public Comment Regarding DEIR [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Rya n B. May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Caroline You <yhcaroline@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:22 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: City Council public comment [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Caroline You May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: C Monks <b.claire.m@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 202111:20 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, B. Claire Arre 3 May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Jamie Smith <jamiesmithS4321@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:00 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: DEIR [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Jamie Smith May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: marie-helene luebbers <mhluebbers@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:55 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Comment on DEIR project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Marie Luebbers 14201 Cherrywood Ln Tustin CA 92780 Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. I am a resident of Orange County, and I regularly go to the beach and swim in Newport Beach beaches. Thank You, Marie Luebbers rJ May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Jim Krause <jwkrause@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 10:45 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Newport Bay [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, James Krause Dr. Nancy Krause 3 May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: LISE MILLER <genereaux@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 20219:44 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: DEIR Report [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Joan Miller Sent from my iPad 4 May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Maureen Hewitt maureenh@dlsextreme.com Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 May 24, 2021 Office of the City Clerk City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Bay E, 2nd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov CR b R A N G E C O U N T Y I COASTKEEPER 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-110 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone 714-850-1965 www.coastkeeper.org RE: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project and Environmental Impact Report (ER2021-001) To Whom it May Concern: Orange County Coastkeeper is a non-profit environmental organization with the mission to protect and promote sustainable water resources that are swimmable, drinkable, and fishable. Coastkeeper represents thousands of members, including Orange County residents and strong supporters of environmental quality and public health. In addition, Coastkeeper conducts a variety of marine habitat restoration projects within Newport Bay (the "Bay"). Coastkeeper is also represented on the Southern California Caulerpa Action Team ("SCCAT"), a committee comprised of representatives from local, state, and federal governmental entities, as well as private and non-governmental organizations, to respond to the recently discovered invasive alga scientifically known as Caulerpa proliifera in the Bay. In addition to the comment letter we previously submitted to the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report and Appendices (DEIR) for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Construction Project (the "Project"), Coastkeeper respectfully submits the following comments on behalf of our organizational interests and our membership. I. INTRODUCTION — APPLICABLE LAW An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") must disclose all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of a project. Pub. Res. Code, § 21100(b)(1); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126(a); Berkeley Keep Jets Over The Bay Committee P. Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that an EIR not only identify the impacts, but also provide "information about how adverse the impacts will be." Santiago County Wlater Dist. P. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 818, 831. The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the fording. Kings County Farm Bureau P. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 731. CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002(a) (2)-(3); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1354. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines, 5 15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment Orange County Coastkeeper CAD Comment Letter May 24, 2021 Page 2 of 5 where feasible" and that unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub. Res. Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15092(b)(2)(A)-(B). In general, mitigation measures must be designed to minimize, reduce, or avoid an identified environmental impact or to rectify or compensate for that impact. CEQA Guidelines, � 15370. Where several mitigation measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. Id. at § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). CEQA requires the lead agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures that will substantially lessen or avoid the project's potentially significant environmental impacts and describe those mitigation measures in the CEQA document. Pub. Res. Code, §§ 21100(b)(3), 21002, 21081(a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. CEQA Guidelines, § 15364. "Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments." CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2). "Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project. The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context." CEQA Guidelines, 5 15125.3(c). II. INADEQUATE PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES As discussed in greater detail in Coastkeeper's prior comment letter, the EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project's cumulative impacts on the biological resources of the Bay. Newport Bay is an ecologically rich area that provides key habitat, including key nursery habitat, for a variety of species. As the EIR acknowledges, many species which have historically called the Bay home have been harmfully impacted by development and human activity over the years. (DEIR 5 3.3.1.2). These historic impacts create all the more reason to carefully protect and preserve the Bay's biological resources. The Final Draft EIR concludes any substantially adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species would be "less than significant" and, thus, no mitigation measures are required. (FDEIR Table 1-4). Per the DEIR, "[t]he proposed Project site's highly developed condition precludes the presence of most special -status species." (DEIR § 3.3.1.2). Nonetheless, the DEIR lists numerous special -status species present in the area, but dismisses their significance in each instance. (DEIR 5 3.3.1.2.1 — 3.3.1.2.6). According to the DEIR, the California least tern is only "present in small numbers," the western snowy plover unsuccessful in nesting, tidewater goby "extirpated ... due to habitat degradation," sea turtles "rare," dolphins "not expected to be present," and whales, which have been occasionally sighted in Newport Bay,' are entirely left out of the analysis. Id. (discussing occasional gray whale visits in the nearshore zone and LA -3, but not the proposed CAD facility and maintaining "[t]he only marine mammals expected in proposed CAD facility or dredging areas would be California sea lions and harbor seals"). While the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") noted potential impacts on the endangered California least tern, the City declined to incorporate the suggested mitigation measures, citing "extended construction delays and other ' See, e.g., CBS Los Angeles, Gray Whale Spotted in Newport Beach Harbor (2017) hgps://youtu.be/HoYLQLEK_s0 (last accessed January 20, 2021). N Orange County Coastkeeper CAD Comment Letter May 24, 2021 Page 3 of 5 impacts." (FDIER, page 51). It is understood that mitigating for impacts on endangered species may cause delays. This does not necessarily render the mitigation infeasible. See CEQA Guidelines, § 15364. Coastkeeper urges the City to revise the DEIR to adequately account and mitigate for impacts on special -status species. Further, with respect to dolphins, the DEIR notes: "[v]arious dolphin species are known to enter Lower Newport Bay but are not expected to be present at the proposed CAD facility or dredging areas, as general activity and noise during dredging activities typically act as a deterrent." (DEIR 5 3.3.1.2.6) (emphasis added). Frustratingly, in the City's response to Coastkeeper's comment letter, the City stated: "no evidence supports a conclusion that [gray whales and/or dolphins] would be present during the life of the proposed Project" and "[e]ven if such transitory species are present at some point during the construction and operation of the proposed Project, the potential effects from noise are anticipated to be less than significant." (FDEIR, page 67) (emphasis added). Effects from noise cannot be "less than significant" yet "deterrent"; the City cannot have it both ways. Coastkeeper urges the City to revise the DEIR to adequately account for cumulative impacts on marine life. Additionally, Coastkeeper notes that various sections of the DEIR rely on outdated data and unsupported assumptions for impact and feasibility analyses. Indeed, in its comment letter, the California Coastal Commission "accurately note[d] that no physical, recent, quantifiable survey has been conducted to assess existing conditions and to evaluate impacts that could occur with implementation of the proposed Project." (FDEIR, page 46). For example, the DEIR presumes the existence or nonexistence of species based on existing reports and assumes "the Newport Beach nearshore habitat is not anticipated to have changed since 2009." (DEIR § 3.3.1). As highlighted by the recent identification of an invasive alga scientifically known as Caulerpa prol fera in the Bay, such assumptions can have dangerous consequences. In spring 2021, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration identified Caulerpaprolifera in the Bay.' This was the first positive identification of Caulerpa prolifera on the U.S. West Coast.3 As described by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board ("SARWQCB"), Caulerpa prol fera is "a rapidly growing alga that has a high tolerance to severe nutrient limitations and salinity and temperature fluctuations."4 "It is also known to produce toxic secondary metabolites that may be toxic to marine invertebrates and fish.i5 "Any species of Caulerpa that is allowed to establish and spread within coastal areas may adversely impact local fisheries and disrupt seagrass communities important to protected species.i' While recent diver surveys confirmed this infestation has been taking over eelgrass habitat in the Bay, the SARWQCB and relevant entities are still working to identify the extent of the infestation.' The presence of Caulerpa prolifera in the Project area has not been adequately analyzed in CEQA documentation to date. Compare Final EIR, p. 201 claiming "there are no known eelgrass beds or Caulerpa within the proposed Project area" with Final EIR, Figure 1-1 (including area immediately 2 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, New Invasive Aquatic Plant Discovered in Newport Bay, California, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/public_notices/docs/2021/invasiveplant.pdf (last updated May 19, 2021). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 Id. ' Id. 3 Orange County Coastkeeper CAD Comment Letter May 24, 2021 Page 4 of 5 adjacent to China Cove — the site of the currently known Caulerpa infestation — in the Project Site) and 2020 Eelgrass Survey, Figure 8 (showing eelgrass in areas identified in the Figure 1-1 Project Site). As the Final Draft EIR states: "[t]he purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to inform decision -makers and the general public of the potential environmental impacts resulting from a project; as well as the mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or minimize identified significant impacts." (FDEIR 5 1.1.1). Leaving out pertinent information from an EIR severely disadvantages decision -makers and the general public. The City Council needs complete, accurate information in order to make an appropriate, fully informed decision on this Project. Coastkeeper requests the City reject the EIR and require it to be updated to reflect and adequately analyze current conditions in the Project area, particularly with respect to Caulerpa prolifera. III. INADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Additionally, the City failed to adequately analyze Project alternatives. The EIR purports to analyze five alternatives: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative/No Dredging • Alternative 2: No CAD Construction Alternative • Alternative 3: Reduced Dredging • Alternative 4: Upland Trucking of Material • Alternative 5: Alternative Location within Newport Harbor. (DEIR § 6.3). However, the DEIR only addresses two of the above: Alternative 1, which is the "No Project Alternative" required per CEQA, and Alternative 2, "No CAD Construction Alternative." Id. The "analysis" of Alternatives 3 and 4 amounts to a mere one-page, three paragraph discussion concluding: "both scenarios were essentially analyzed in Alternative 1 (less dredging) and Alternative 2. . ." (DEIR § 6.3.3). Duplication of prior analyses does not constitute new alternatives. Alternative 5 proposes siting the CAD facility in closer proximity to the unsuitable sediment. (DEIR § 6.3.4). Per the DEIR, this alternative was specifically recommended by the Harbor Commissioners. Id. Disappointingly, "[b]ecause the alternative locations would require chemistry sampling to define design depths and sizes of CAD facilities, a full alternatives analysis [of Alternative 5] could not be completed." (DEIR 5 6.3.4.4). Coastkeeper maintains that, contrary to the DEIR, a full alternatives analysis could be completed, but the City chose not to do so as it would have required additional testing. In response to Coastkeeper's comments on this point, the City noted that CEQA alternatives "need not be co -equal assessments; rather, they need to allow for a meaningful comparison and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (FDIER, page 68). Coastkeeper agrees with the City in principle, but disputes that the DEIR allows for truly meaningful comparison. If additional testing is required to fully analyze Alternative 5, Coastkeeper requests the City Council require the additional sampling to allow for meaningful comparison. Again, the Council needs complete, accurate information in order to make an appropriate, fully informed decision on this Project. Coastkeeper further notes a number of feasible alternatives left out of the DEIR — including alternatives specifically recommended by City residents and the SARWQCB and an alternative currently being study by the Harbor Commission. See, e.g., (DEIR, Appx. B, p. 5-6) (suggesting two smaller CADS be constructed in areas closer to unsuitable material, such as at the mouth of the Rhine 2 Orange County Coastkeeper CAD Comment Letter May 24, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Channel).' Coastkeeper requests the City Council require the DEIR be revised to fully and sufficiently address all feasible alternatives. IV. INADEQUATE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Finally, as discussed more thoroughly in Coastkeeper's prior comment letter, Coastkeeper remains concerned about the lack of earnest public engagement on the Project. For one, Coastkeeper notes that interested parties were only notified of the May 24`' City Council comment deadline and May 25t1i City Council public hearing on the afternoon of Friday, May 21 s`. This was the case even though the City's Notice of Public Hearing was released at least as early as May 10`' The delay in communicating deadlines to interested parties is unfortunately a pattern of this Project. For example, the DEIR and corresponding Appendices — comprising over 10,500 pages — were uploaded on December 4, 2020 with the comment period expiring January 20, 2021. Notwithstanding ten officially calendared City holidays during the review period, the City provided just two extra days to account for facility closures.' As reflected in responses to comments, the City denied multiple short requests for extensions from each of Coastkeeper, the SARWQCB, and CDFW. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research underscores that "CEQA establishes a floor and not a ceiling for public review and comment periods. Lead and responsible agencies may use their discretion to extend such time periods to allow for additional public review and comments." 10 Coastkeeper laments that the City disallowed sufficient time for complete, adequate public engagement. V. CONCLUSION Orange County Coastkeeper urges the City Council to require the DEIR to be modified in accordance with the comments submitted above. Coastkeeper thanks the City Council for its careful consideration of our comments. If you have any questions regarding Coastkeeper's comments, please feel free to call me at (714) 850-1965 or email me at lauren@coastkeeper.org. Regards, Lauren Chase Staff Attorney Orange County Coastkeeper a Additionally, the City is aware of the significant amount of contaminated sediment remaining in the Rhine Channel but is not sizing the CAD to accept that volume of sediment. All alternatives should incorporate removal of the remaining contaminated sediment in the Rhine Channel into their analysis. 9 City of Newport Beach, City Calendar, https://newportbeachca.gov/government/data-hub/city-calendar/-curm-1/- cury-2021 (last visited January 20, 2021). 10 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act, https://opr.ca. _op v/ceqa/ (last accessed January 20, 2021). 5 Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 ,ED S7. °�0 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX �z 75 Hawthorne Street ''` PAOI/ San Francisco, CA 94105 May 24. 2021 MEMORANDUM To: City Council, City of Newport Beach c/o David Webb, Director of Public Works From: Brian Ross, Dredging & Sediment Management Team US EPA, Region 9 Subject: EPA Statement on the proposed Lower Newport Bay Dredging and CAD Project, Newport Bay, California Dear Newport Beach City Council and Mr. Webb, Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement concerning the "Lower Newport Bay Dredging and CAD Project 2021 ", that you will be considering at your May 25, 2021 meeting. The purpose of this statement is to confirm EPA's coordination to date on technical aspects of the proposed project, and our view that a properly designed and managed Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) site could be a positive aspect of the larger goal to improve sediment and water quality in Lower Newport Bay. EPA appreciates the City's ongoing work managing the Regional General Permit for dredging in Lower Newport Bay, and its commitment to beneficial use of the dredged material whenever possible. EPA has been involved in Newport Bay dredging and sediment quality issues for some time. Much of the sediment dredged from Lower Newport Bay is clean enough to be suitable for either ocean disposal at EPA's offshore -LA-3" ocean disposal site (for mud) or for beneficial use to nourish local beaches (sand). However some portions of the Federal channels, and private docks and other facilities surrounding them, contain materials that are unsuitable for ocean disposal or beach nourishment. These sediments require management that either isolates them from direct exposure to marine organisms or removes them from the aquatic environment entirely. CAD, when properly designed and maintained, can be an appropriate management option for such sediments. While EPA has no role in approving the CAD project at this stage, EPA staff have coordinated with the City's design contractor team over the past year on technical aspects of the proposed CAD option. This coordination included EPA review of the April 29, 2020 "Draft Basis of Design Report, Sediment Dredging and Confined Aquatic Disposal" (BODR). EPA's comments on the draft BODR were provided on May 14, 2020. Overall, we found that, "the draft BODR and its appendices analyze issues associated with CAD in an appropriate manner, consistent with EPA and U.S Army Corps of Engineers national technical design guidelines. In particular, it evaluates the cap design in terms of chemical isolation, biological isolation, potential cap scour, and potential water quality effects that could occur during construction of the C,41) cell and disposal of'dredged material into it. The BODR does a good job presenting each of these analyses and documenting an adequate basis for the proposed CG4D dimensions and the proposed cap thickness. " We also provided a number of specific comments for clarifying the analyses in the BODR. The EPA comments on the BODR were appropriately addressed and incorporated into the November 29, 2020 version included as Appendiy, C to the project's Environmental Impact Report. The revised BODR provides a robust and appropriate technical analysis to support consideration of moving forward with permitting of the proposed CAD. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this statement. Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Seymour Beek <sbeek@earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, May 21, 202111:53 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Council Meeting May 25, 2021, Agenda Item 16, Resolution 2021-46, Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project Categories: Jenn [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: Newport Beach City Council From: Seymour Beek 528 S. Bay Front Balboa Island The purpose of this communication is to support adoption of the resolution to construct a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) facility in Lower Newport Bay. I have a strong interest in the welfare of the bay, having been swimming in and boating on the bay throughout my life. I also live on the bay front and am a principal in two waterfront businesses, the ferry and a fuel dock. While dredging is essential to the welfare of the bay, disposal of contaminated dredged material poses a difficult problem. I believe this problem has been thoroughly studied by the city staff and the Harbor Commission, and it appears that construction of a CAD is the only practical method for disposal of this material. I have been observing the dredging operation currently in progress near Balboa Island. At times the equipment, consisting of barges, crane and tugs, has been working about 100 yards from my dock, so I get a good view. I assume the equipment used to create a CAD would be quite similar. The noise from this equipment is minimal. Even though the barges are large and imposing, I notice that bay traffic, including commercial fishing boats, the Catalina Flyer and numerous large yachts, pass the equipment with no difficulty. In front of my home the bay area is somewhat restricted compared to the area proposed for the CAD, so I would anticipate creation of the CAD would not pose significant bay traffic problems. Sailboat racers learn to deal with obstructions. I would have liked to deliver this message in person, but have out-of-town commitments. Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Lynn Friedman <haus2ful@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 202110:25 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Comment on DEIR - Oppose current form of report Categories: Jenn [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Lynn Friedman 3704 Channel PI Newport Beach 92663 2 Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Ann Dorsey <aedorsey@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 10:29 PM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: Comment on the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project Categories: Jenn [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Ann Dorsey 3 Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: Clare Dowling <claremaedowling@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 20219:42 AM To: City Clerk's Office Subject: CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Categories: Jen n [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Clare Dowling Sent from my iPhone 1 Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, UU - It �' Phyllis Parkhurst beaconservice@aol.com cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 John Davies 112 Opal Ave Newport Beach, CA 92662 5/24/2021 Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I'm writing to ask that more information be collected prior to coming to a final conclusion for the lower Newport Bay confined aquatic disposal construction project. Disposal of toxic settlement in Newport Bay it's a very delicate and complex situation. 1 know that we all want to protect the Bay, the wildlife and humans who enjoy it so much. Can you please request additional studies and create an advisory committee to help make certain that the ultimate decision is the best possible outcome. Thank you, John Davies Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 May 24th, 2021 Re: Resolution No. 2021-46: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project No. ER2021- 001 Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I would like to voice my concerns regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project. The report does not provide satisfactory information relating to the impact on wildlife in the Newport Bay, nor does it look at alternative methods or locations to dispose of toxic sediment. A committee to provide input on monitoring, management and design would be valuable to this project and the residents of the Lower Bay area. I am requesting the city council reject this DEIR based on insufficient / incomplete information . Al Ricci (Property Owner) AlRicci@RicciRealty.com Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 May 24th, 2021 Re: Resolution No. 2021-46: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project No. ER2021- 001 Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I'm writing you with concern regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. ER2021- 001 for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project. This report does not specifically provide enough information relating to the impact on wildlife in the Newport Bay, it also does not provide other methods or locations to dispose of toxic sediment. A Technical Advisory Committee providing input on monitoring, management and design would be valuable to this project and the residents of the Lower Bay area. For the reasons stated above I am requesting the city council reject this DEIR. Mary Ricci (Property Owner) Mary@ Ricci Realty.com Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 CAD message to Newport Beach City Council Members Dear Mayor Avery and Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project (DEIR). While we must identify a way to dispose of the toxic sediment in Newport Bay, the DEIR is incomplete and, therefore, inadequate for making the appropriate decision for Newport Bay. Specifically, the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the project's impacts on the wildlife in Newport Bay, does not include the creation of a Technical Advisory Committee, and neglects a number of feasible alternatives. Please reject this DEIR and direct City staff to fully and sufficiently address all the issues with sufficient information to allow an appropriate, fully informed decision for this important project. Thank You, Peter Scharnell Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, May 24, 20217:15 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: NO on CAD From: ccmason@roadrunner.com <ccmason@roadrunner.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 7:15:19 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: NO on CAD [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the Council, I have read through many of the materials regarding the proposed CAD in the middle of our harbor. Dredging up mercury -contaminated areas of the harbor, that have been shown not to adversely affect the aquatic animal population while they remain in situ, is irresponsible and dangerous. As a regular user of our harbor, I have not noted the need for this kind of radical dredging. We do not have a commercial harbor, and I don't think many residents would be in favor of our harbor being used by larger vessels. So the dire need for this gargantuan project is not at all apparent to me. If there is need for some dredging, the responsible course is for the the city to look at a drastically downsized project, where there is the possibility of disposing of dangerous materials in land disposal sites. The harbor is the reason that most residents are here. They are the ones you answer to. To disrupt our harbor for years for a project that really serves only a few people is not warranted. The inconvenience, pollution, and possible dispersal into the harbor of hazardous materials is too high a price to pay. Please do what is right and drop this project, or study other alternatives which will allow for land-based disposal. Sincerely, Carol Mason Lido Isle Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 Mulvey, Jennifer From: City Clerk's Office Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 11:09 PM To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim Subject: FW: Resolution #2021-46 DEIR 5/26/2021 Let's Dredge From: Shana Conzelman <sconzelman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 11:08:21 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) To: City Clerk's Office <CityClerk@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov>; Avery, Brad <bavery@newportbeachca.gov>; Blom, Noah <NBlom@newportbeachca.gov>; Muldoon, Kevin <kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov>; Brenner, Joy <JBrenner@newportbeachca.gov>; O'Neill, William <woneill@newportbeachca.gov>; Duffield, Duffy <dduffield@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Resolution #2021-46 DEIR 5/26/2021 Let's Dredge [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As you know I have researched the proposed CAD and asked many questions from the beginning of the CAD planning process. When the term VAULT was used at the first meeting I asked them to explain what they meant by a vault. I'm sure when you get specific on this question you will find out what I did almost two years ago; the CAD is not a vault at all, but rather a 47' by 450' squared deep hole with a layer of `good' sand on the top. There are several issues with the CAD as proposed, which are: 1) The potential for contaminates to spread laterally, making the whole basin a contaminated waste area 2) An inability to ever dredge that area again 3) The potential for Earthquake disturbance 4) Toxic DDT plumes created from the in -bay disposal. Plumes which will be ever present due to the constant dumping 5) Long term cost of monitoring and waste discharge fees paid to the Consultants and State is likely greater than $300,000 a year, which eliminates any perceived costs savings of the CAD after a few years 6) Newport Beach would be the first recreational harbor on the west coast to have a CAD, which is usually a Port solution, and not one involving contact recreation. 7) The City consultant, Anchor QEA, has a direct conflict of interest. They planned this, have billed the City millions in developing this bad idea, and stand to gain millions more from monitoring and continual permitting. 8) The costs of the project don't add up. There is only enough money to dig the CAD, and the Harbor Staff will have to return for more. 9) No long-term sediment management needs or the identification of a process for making sure these areas do not get contaminated again. Our colleagues have spoken directly with the Army Corps of Engineers, and despite previous statements made they are not pushing the CAD as a condition of dredging. Further, the Cal -EPA (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board) called into the Harbor Commissioners meeting to admonish the City's attempt to downplay the severity of the contamination. The Council Needs to take this seriously, as a lawsuit under the guise of CEQA 1 will stall the CAD process, and the dredge process, thereby causing the City to miss the opportunity to offset dredge costs through federal involvement. However, there is a workable and practical option that can save the City millions of dollars over the next 10 years, provides a long-term non-polluting sediment management option, and can be accomplished within the same schedule as outlined in the DEIR. My thought at this point after having my concerns and those of my Neighbors dismissed during the comment period, is to let the USAGE dredge the good material now that is suitable for offshore/nearshore disposal, but leave the contaminated material in place, while a more beneficial alternative can be developed. Because of the project schedule, this has zero effect on the timeline and will allow for the USAGE to come in and offset the costs of the City. Also, by not dredging the big hole for the CAD, the City would save $10M on the construction, which could be used to design a better alternative to the CAD. This plan would pause the current CEQA analysis, which is not needed for the dredging, and restart that process once a beneficial reuse alternative can be found and included in the CEQA process. Please do not use biased economic analysis, or time spent driving the wrong way down a one-way street as an excuse to make a permanent decision that sets the environmental efforts in the Bay back by decades. Please don't consolidate contaminants in our beautiful `Five Points' area. Not when better alternatives are possible. The Council as our representatives have a unique opportunity to save lower Newport Bay, and ensure that the environmental stewardship of Newport Bay remains a priority for generations to come. Everyone knows the CAD is not the answer, there just needs to be a workable alternative that elicits federal support, provides a long-term solution, and promotes a healthy Newport Bay. PLEASE DO NOT approve the EIR. Shana Conzelman 939 Via Lido Soud Newport Beach, CA 92663 Please accept my apologies for late submission as I was out of the country. ra Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Item No. 16 From: Rieff, Kim To: Mulvey, Jennifer Subject: FW: City Council meeting for 5/25/21 --proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) project Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:05:36 PM From: George Lesley <GLesley@glesley-cpa.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 202112:05 PM To: Dept - City Council <CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: City Council meeting for 5/25/21 --proposed Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am responding to the Insider's Guide regarding the above proposed project. The Insider's Guide states that the proposed dredging project will remove about 1 million cubic yards of sediment from the Bay ---and that about 10% of that ( i.e.-100,000 cubic yards) will contain mercury and must be disposed of in a safe way. The proposed CAD project would dispose of the mercury containing sediment by digging a hole in the floor of the Bay, depositing the mercury containing sediment in the hole, the covering the hole with some other material. My questions are: 1. It sounds like the hole in the Bay to bury 100,000 cubic yards of mercury containing sediment would need to be gigantic. What would be the dimensions of the hole, including how deep ? Is this feasible ? 2. How is the "bad" sediment separated from the "good" sediment ? 3. How is the "bad" sediment stored while the hole in the Bay is being dug ? 4. The Insider's Guide states: "A CAD is constructed underwater by digging a hole and disposing of the initial material removed from the hole in the ocean (you mean Bay ?), and then placing the non open ocean quality bottom sediment back inside the hole". This sentence is unintelligible. What is "non open ocean quality bottom sediment" ? 5. Also: "A cap of suitable material is then placed on top, creating a physical barrier..." What would be a suitable material ? 6. Would the portion of the Bay where the CAD hole would be dug be unusable for a period of time ? 7. What is the estimated cost ? 8. Has this process been successfully used elsewhere ? 9. What has Newport Beach done with contaminated sediment in the past ? George M. Lesley glesleyPglesle)j-cpa.com Received After Agenda Printed May 25, 2021 Mulvey, Jennifer Item No. 16 Subject: FW: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project From: rondaclark09@gmail.com <rondaclark09@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 24, 20213:48 PM To: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Afternoon Mr. Miller, Thank you for your response to my inquiry regarding the proposed CAD project it is appreciated. Please note below my additional questions and/or comments regarding your response. I look forward to attending (via Zoom) the City Council meeting tomorrow. Best Regards, Ronda Clark From: Miller, Chris <CMiller@newportbeachca.gov> Sent: Monday, May 17, 202112:12 PM To: Ronda Clark <rondaclark09@gmail.com> Cc: Dixon, Diane <ddixon@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: RE: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project Hello Ms. Clark, I was forwarded your message below and asked to address your concerns. Also, sincere apologies for my tardy response. Thank you for attending the Harbor Commission meeting in April. I felt is was a good discussion. You noted that there were several public comments made during the meeting, but you didn't notice a response to each during the meeting. Although I can't speak for Harbor Commission Chair Bill Kenney or the other Commissioners, I can say that it has been my experience that the Harbor Commission does indeed consider all public comments, and their decisions are thoughtfully rendered on all issues. RC/Although I appreciate that the Harbor Commission has likely invested a significant about of time studying the proposed project and EIR report before voting I still believe there were several comments and information provided by the public that suggested further consideration prior to voting. As such I will continue to encourage our City Council representatives to consider this information prior to voting tomorrow. The City received many public comment letters during the official public comment period from December 4, 2020 to January 20, 2021 as required by CEQA. Every comment received was specifically addressed in the draft Environmental Impact Report that the Harbor Commission reviewed. That report, and all information about the project, and be found here: www.newportbeachca.gov/harbordredging RC/Thank you I reviewed several of the reports. Regarding the draft Mitigation and Monitoring Report, I am urging additional monitoring regarding the proposed MM-GEO-1 Periodic Monitoring of the CAD Facility. Annual monitoring is not adequate from my perspective as a nearby resident. Regarding the MM-GHG Emission Offsets, what is the maximum emission level that is still safe for the surrounding residents and harbor users? Although I understand Offsets are common practice I do not agree with using them as it is a disproportionate impact to the community. At a certain level of emission exposure would it not be prudent to have another remedy to ensure the safety of the residents and users of the Harbor? Mr. Luckey presented some ideas for the Harbor Commission to consider, and indeed, the Harbor Commission formed a subcommittee to investigate these options independent of the EIR process (i.e. parallel paths). Mr. Luckey's ideas were good, however, they would be extremely challenging from a logistical, constructability and permitting perspective. The Harbor Commission's committee has since had a few conversations with Mr. Luckey, and I understand that there has not been a proposed approach submitted to date. It is my sincere hope that Mr. Luckey's proposals were seriously considered as it would be a significant savings to the taxpayer and may result in a better solution. Can you expand on how it is challenging for a logistical, constructability and permitting perspective? I hope this helps address your questions noted below. Please feel free to reach out to me directly if you need further clarification. Thank you, Chris Miller Public Works Manager (949) 644-3043 From: rondaclark09@gmail.com Date: May 11, 2021 at 10:54:43 AM PDT To: Diane Dixon <Ddixon@dianedixonnb.com> Subject: Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project Dear Ms. Dixon, I am following up regarding the Lower Newport Bay Confined Aquatic Disposal Construction Project and am hoping you or your staff can update me as to the status. I attended the Harbor Commission meeting on April 14, 2021 (virtually) and was extremely disappointed and surprised that the commission voted to move forward to adopt Resolution No. HC2021-002 recommending the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2021-001 and adopt the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and approve the construction of a confined aquatic disposal facility and dredging outside the Federal Channels in Lower Newport Harbor (PA2019-20). At the meeting there were several credible public comments and questions that received no response. It is also my understanding that the Lido Association sent in questions and comments and did not receive responses to the questions prior to the meeting on April 14, 2021. Additionally Mr. Palmer Lucky, a citizen/public attendee, was one of several pubic speakers with comments which I believe deserves review and questions. His comments during the three minute allocation for speakers presented his willingness to cooperate with the City to review/present alternatives based upon new technological advances for removal of contaminated materials as well as he also generously offered to purchase and remove the contaminated materials (projected project budget as high as $35M). The Commission considered his comment for only a few minutes and as there was already a motion to approve the Resolution, they did not consider one Commissioner's suggestion to delay the vote for thirty (30) days to meet with Palmer Lucky to review his offer and alternatives for removal. I appreciate that there are many factors that I am unaware of as it relates to this project and I have no expertise related to CAD's although as fiduciaries for tax payer dollars how could Mr. Palmer's proposal be dismissed so quickly, not to mention the potential to eliminate the risk of a future environmental hazard spill in an area of the bay that currently has no contamination? I would greatly appreciate an update on this Resolution status as well as your thoughts on the Resolution and the proposal by Lucky Palmer. I appreciate your service and thank you for your attention to this matter. Best Regards, Ronda Clark