HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Comments to Draft EIR for the Replacement of the Rocky Point Pump StationCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 19
July 27, 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: City Manager's Office
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
644 -3222, swood @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Replacement of the Rocky Point Pump Station
APPLICANT NAME: Orange County Sanitation District
ISSUE:
Should the City Council provide comments on the Draft EIR?
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter.
DISCUSSION:
The existing Rocky Point Pump Station is located at 1575 West Coast Highway, at the
north end of the Balboa Bay Club apartments and adjacent to the Orange Coast College
School of Sailing and Seamanship. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is
proposing a new pump station at 1700 through 2000 Coast Highway, across from the
existing facility. The new station has a higher design capacity that can operate in a
new, series configuration with three other stations in Newport Beach. This new
configuration will allow the District to shut down one of the two force mains beneath
Coast Highway to clean lines, make repairs, etc. without risk of a sewage spill.
OCSD has prepared a Draft EIR on the project, which has been reviewed by the
Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC). EQAC's comments, approved at
their meeting of July 19, are attached. I have prepared a draft letter for the City
Council's consideration and the Mayor's signature that is based on EQAC's comments.
Differences between EQAC's memorandum and the draft letter include the deletion of
some details throughout, as well as revisions to the Project Description, Hydrology and
Water Quality and Traffic sections. I deleted the section dealing with Geology and Soils
Comments on DEIR for Relocation of Rocky Point Pump Station
July 23, 2004
Page 2
because the most significant comments were repeated in Hydrology and Water Quality,
and the section on Hazards and Hazardous Materials because it appears to me that the
DEIR's analysis of these issues is adequate. I have added comments to the Land Use
section regarding potential noise impacts on the residents above the project site, and to
Traffic based on the City Traffic Engineer's review of the DEIR.
Submitted by:
Sharon Wood
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: Memorandum from EQAC
Draft letter from Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway and Members of the City Council
City of Newport Beach
From: Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee ("EQAC ")
City of Newport Beach
Subject: The Orange County Sanitation District's Draft Environmental Impact
Report( "DEIR ") for the Replacement of the Rocky Point Pump Station
Project (the `Project "); SCH # 2003111056
Date: July 23, 2004
Cc: Homer Bludau, City Manager, City of Newport Beach
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments on the
captioned DEIR for the Project. We commend the District on its clear, elegant and
straightforward environmental document which specifically identifies and numbers
potentially significant Project related impacts and provides clear mitigation measures.
Notwithstanding our comment above, we offer the following comments on
the DEIR in the hopes of improving the DEIR and the Project.
A Brief Summary of Our Concerns.
We recommend that the District reconsider and revise the DEIR and /or
respond to the following concerns during the public review process for the DEIR. We
make these recommendations for several reasons:
(1) The DEIR attempts to incorporate an earlier environmental document.
However, the Project proposes operational changes not analyzed in either
the DEIR or the earlier environmental document.
(2) The Project has significant aesthetic, soils and geology, hazardous
materials, land use, water quality and traffic impacts which are neither
analyzed or mitigated in the DEIR.
(3) The DEIR's alternatives analysis is problematic for several reasons and
should be revised.
II. Introduction: EIR Standards.
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 2
July 23, 2004
An EIR constitutes the heart of CEQA: An EIR is the primary environmental
document which:
".. serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the
proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the project, and ways
to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects."
CEQA Guidelines section 15149(b). See California Public Resources Code section
21003(b) (requiring that the document must disclose impacts and mitigation so that the
document will be meaningful and useful to the public and decision makers.)
Further, CEQA Guidelines section 15151 sets forth the adequacy standards for
an EIR:
"An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide
decision - makers with information which enables them to make a decision
which takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation
of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be
exhaustive, but sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what
is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an
EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith attempt at
full disclosure."
Further, "the EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the agency's bare
conclusions or opinions." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District
Agricultural Association. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929 (Emphasis supplied.).
In addition, an EIR must specifically address the environmental effects and
mitigation of the Project. But "[t]he degree of specificity required in an EIR will
correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is
described in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines section 15146. The analysis in an EIR must
be specific enough to further inform decision making and public participation. The EIR
must produce sufficient information and analysis to understand the environmental
impacts of the proposed project and to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far
as environmental aspects are concerned. See Laurel Heights Improvement Association
v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376.
Also, to the extent that an EIR proposes mitigation measures, it must provide
specific measures. It cannot defer such measures until some future date or event. "By
deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that
policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the
planning process." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296,
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 3
July 23, 2004
308. See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com.(1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 282 (holding
that "the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as
possible in government planning. "); Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Regents of
University of California (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that environmental
problems should be considered at a point in the planning process "where genuine
flexibility remains "). CEQA requires more than a promise of mitigation of significant
impacts: mitigation measures must really minimize an identified impact.
"Deferral of the specifics of mitigation is permissible where the local entity
commits itself to mitigation and lists the alternatives to be considered, analyzed and
possibly incorporated in the mitigation plan. (Citation omitted.) On the other hand, an
agency goes too far when it simply requires a project applicant to obtain a biological
report and then comply with any recommendations that may be made in the report.
(Citation omitted.) Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine, 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1031 at 25
(Cal. Ct. App., 2004).
III. Chapter 1: Introduction.
Chapter 1 discusses the purpose of the DEIR. In 1999, the District prepared a
Strategic Plan Program EIR ( "1999 PEIR "). The Project "was not described in the
District's [1999 PEIR]."
"However, the Project was not described within the overall objectives and
policies of the 1999 Strategic Plan [and therefore not addressed in the
PEIR] and does not substantially alter the conclusions of the PEIR with
respect to the District's adopted policies regarding the level of treatment
and peak discharge strategies as analyzed in the [1999] PEIR.... The
Project is consistent with the wastewater flow projections calculated in the
1999 Strategic Plan. As such, this EIR tiers from the 1999 PEIR ... and
evaluates the construction and operational activities associated with the
new Project only."
This analysis and its tiering are interesting but conflict with the Project description and
with the DEIR's discussion of the need for the Project.
Although the 1999 Strategic Plan included wastewater flows through 2020,
subsequent engineering studies discovered that the Rocky Point Station lacked
capacity to handle future flows and, indeed, lacked capacity to handle current flows.
However, after the 1999 Strategic Plan, the District developed a plan to reconfigure
several pump stations within the City of Newport Beach and create a new operational
protocol: linking several pump stations with the Rocky Point Pump Station in a series
before reaching Treatment Plant No. 2. Neither the 1999 Strategic Plan nor the 1999
PEIR addressed or considered this new operational protocol.
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 4
July 23, 2004
The DEIR fails to discuss or analyze such new operational protocol and its
impacts if any. The 1999 PEIR did not do so. In order for the District to implement the
Project and the new operational protocol, the District must conduct some additional
environmental analysis for such new protocol.
IV. Chapter 2: Project Description.
Section 2.1 addresses the Project's objectives which include increased pumping
capacity, upgrade the pump station including bringing it up to all applicable codes, e.g.
building and electrical code standards, and other improvements.
Section 2.2 locates the existing Rocky Point Pump Station: 1575 West Coast
Highway in the City of Newport Beach; within the boundaries of the north end of the
Balboa Bay Club which is on land owned by the City of Newport Beach. The DEIR fails
to recognize the City's property interest in the current site. The DEIR should be revised
to address and analyze the Project's impacts, if any, on the City's property interest and
propose necessary mitigation.
Section 2.3 addresses the possible proposed Project locations:
Options 1 and 2 would be located at the H &S Yacht Sales site at 1700
West Coast Highway on the inland side of Coast Highway.
2. Option 3 is located west of Options 1 and 2 at approximately 1730 and
1800 West Coast Highway, currently the site of a vacant building and an
antique shop.
The Project pump station covers approximately 10,000 square feet and the remaining
usable area, 12,000 square feet "may be used for District parking or leased in the
future." Section 2.3 states that the District has no current plans to proceed with any
additional development. To the extent that the Project will require 12,000 square feet of
parking, the DEIR should analyze this requirement. To the extent that the District will
use the 12,000 square feet of the site for other uses, the District must comply in the
future with the requirements of CEQA. In addition, to acquire this excess property, the
District should be required to make appropriate findings that such property is necessary
for a public purpose. The DEIR should be revised to support the acquisition of such
excess property.
In line with the above, the DEIR notes that the Project will require two curb cuts.
It is unclear why the Project would require two such cuts. The DEIR should be revised
to address the reason for the two cuts.
Also, although the District has no current plans for improvement of the excess
property, the DEIR is silent on use and /or disposal of existing improvements.
Regardless of the subsequent use and attendant environmental documents for such
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 5
July 23, 2004
use, the DER should provide some discussion and analysis of the use and /or disposal
of existing improvements so that the public may understand the full nature and extent of
the Project and its construction activities.
Section 2.4 addresses the Project's design. It includes up to six new pumps with
a total design capacity of 23.6 mgd. This increase will allow for the new operational
protocol. In addition, the Project consists of a below ground wet well and pump room,
and an above ground electrical control building and a generator building /room. A small
above - ground, double - walled diesel storage tank of about 500 gallons are proposed to
be located in the standby generator room. The below ground wet well /pump room will
extend about 22 feet below grade; excavation could go as low as 37 feet deep.
The electrical control building will measure 32 feet by 20 feet by 20 feet tall within
the footprint of the 1,440 square foot underground facility. All facilities, below and
above ground, will be offset from the right of way line by 12 feet.
The DER states that all architectural features will comply with the design
standards for the City's "Mariner's Mile Master Plan." This raises several problems.
First, the Mariner's Mile Plan is known as the "Mariner's Mile Specific Plan" and the
design guidelines are in the "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework."
Second, without more, the DER fails to explain how the public and /or decision makers
may evaluate whether the architectural plans comply or who will make that decision.
Further, the DEER has no landscaping plans so it is impossible to tell if any proposed
landscaping will screen the facility.
In addition, the Project will require reconfiguration of the upstream gravity sewers
to the Project. The Project will lie about 320 feet northwest of the existing site. Further,
the Project will require reconfiguration of the discharge main piping which will extend
approximately 50 feet from the new station. The forces mains and the gravity sewers
will be up to 20 feet deep and require trenches up to five feet wide.
The construction schedule covers more than 17 months; the Project will be fully
constructed within the initial 14 months prior to demolition of the existing facility.
Construction is planned from August 2006 and ending in December 2007: spanning two
summers during the initial 14 months.
V. Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation.
A.
Section 3.1: Aesthetics.
Section 3.1.1 addresses the environmental setting. The Project falls within
the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach's Mariner's Mile planning district along
West Coast Highway. This area lies at the base of a series of bluffs which form the
residential areas of Newport Heights and Cliffhaven. The DER fails recognize this
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 6
July 23, 2004
residential area; it should be revised to recognize the Project's relation to such
residential areas and its impacts on the residential areas.
In addition, although West Coast Highway is within spitting distance of Newport
Bay, the DEIR notes that:
"There are no officially designated scenic vistas or highways located in
the vicinity of the Project site."
The DEIR should be revised to recognize and analyze the Project's location in the
relation to West Coast Highway and Newport Bay.
In addition, DEIR proposes Impact No. 3.1 -2: the project would create a new
source of nighttime light which could adversely affect neighboring land uses. However,
because the DEIR fails to recognize that the Project is immediately down slope from
significant residential areas in the City of Newport Beach, it fails to analyze the impacts
of Project lighting on such structures: even with Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2 which
provides that lighting shall comply with Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design
Framework with motion sensors, Project lighting may affect bluff top residences. The
DEIR should be revised to discuss the Project's location in relation to the bluff top
residences and, if necessary, provide mitigation.
In addition, the Project will stand 20 feet high, will cover 32 feet by 20 feet and
will be off set from the right of way by 12 feet. Regardless of its compliance with
architectural standards, the 20 foot high structure likely will have significant aesthetic
impacts. As discussed below, most of the alternatives are no higher than 12 feet.
Given the height of the reasonable alternatives, the DEIR should be revised to analyze
the height of the Project and address a change to the structure to limit it to 12 feet.
As indicated above, the DEIR provides no specifics on how the architectural and
landscaping features would be compatible with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and
Design Framework and how this determination will be made. Importantly, the DEIR
provides nothing specific on what the Project will actually look like upon completion.
B. Section 3.5: Geology and Soils.
Section 3.5.1 states that the Project site is situated 15 feet above sea
level, adjacent to the Lido Channel, and lies at the foot of a slope rising about 70 feet
high. It also recognizes bluff top homes in the area. Section 3.5.1 also recognizes that
the Project site is subject to various geologic hazards including earthquakes,
liquefaction, expansive soils and landslides.
Section 3.5.2 addresses Project impacts and mitigation. Impact No. 3.5 -1
recognizes that the Project could expose structures to earthquake induced landslides
and construction activities could weaken the slope behind the Project and induce slope
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 7
July 23, 2004
failure. Mitigation Measure No. M -3.5 -1 states that, in order to mitigate such impacts,
the District shall incorporate recommendations from the geotechnical investigation and
slope stability analysis which shall include checking shoring frequently for lateral and
vertical movement, removing such shoring carefully and requiring compaction at
specific levels. As indicated above, the lead agency may not defer mitigation and
simply require compliance with a subsequently prepared report. Defend the Bay at 25.
Here, the District attempts to require compliance with the subsequent geotechnical
report. Such is improper. The District should prepare a geotechnical report and revise
the DER to include the report and its analysis, as well as its specific mitigation
measures.
Section 3.5.1 recognizes that liquefaction potential is greatest in areas of
saturated soils where groundwater depths are less than 50 feet. Impact No. 3.5 -3
recognizes that the Project could expose structures to liquefaction. However, the
analysis concludes that Project soils are not subject to liquefaction, the impact is
insignificant and no mitigation is required.
However, nothing in the discussion of Impact No. 3.5 -3 discusses depth to
groundwater. As indicated above, the Project site is close to Newport Bay and likely
groundwater is within 50 feet of ground level. Because of the potential presence of
groundwater, the Project still could be subject to liquefaction.
The District's geotechnical study should include discussion of depth to
groundwater. The DER should be revised to include such study and, if necessary,
propose adequate mitigation.
C. Section 3.6: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Section 3.6.1 recognizes that the Project site and surrounding properties
have accommodated various land uses which could have resulted in groundwater and
soil contamination. The DER indicates that the Phase I study conducted visual
examination and found minor quantities of gasoline but no chemical spillage or
hazardous materials. However, the Phase I revealed significant contamination of
surrounding properties and groundwater: Properties within 700 feet are under
remediation for petroleum hydrocarbons and potentially leaking underground gasoline
storage tanks. Significantly, the DER does not include the Phase I as an appendix or
exhibit. Moreover, the Phase I appears to have tested only for petroleum hydrocarbons
and did not test for other contaminates.
Also, the District commissioned additional reports regarding underground gasses
and groundwater. The vapor study encountered significant quantities methane gas
(CH4) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The groundwater studies showed that groundwater
occurred within 19 feet of the surface with oil found in stone at 11.5 feet. Again, neither
study was incorporated in the DER.
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 8
July 23, 2004
The DER should be revised: the Phase I, vapor survey and groundwater study
should be included in the document. Also, the Phase I should be extended to study any
other potential contamination, e.g. PCB, at the site.
Impact No. 3.6 -1 recognizes that construction and excavation may result in
discovery of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater. Mitigation Measure M-
3.6-1 mitigates the soils contamination by requiring disposal of contaminated soils
which exceed regulatory levels in accord with applicable regulations. However, as to
groundwater, Mitigation Measure M -3.6 -2 indicates that the District will collect and
analyze groundwater for petroleum hydrocarbons to ensure compliance with source
control requirements for discharge to sanitary sewers. However, if levels exceed
source control requirements, Mitigation Measure M -3.6 -2 provides nothing specific for
discharge, treatment or removal.
D. Section 3.7: Hydrology and Water Quality.
Section 3.7.1 addresses both surface and groundwater at the site.
Surface water near the Project consists of the upper and lower Newport Bay and its
tributaries. The coastal cliffs behind the Project drain to the storm drain system within
West Coast Highway. Groundwater at the site is shallow, potentially tidally influenced
and of poor quality.
This section discusses groundwater contamination issues omitted in Section 3.6.
As indicated above, Mitigation Measure M -3.6 -2 fails to address disposal or treatment
of contaminated groundwater, Section 3.7.1 states that contaminated groundwater
which exceeds regulatory standards, "a pretreatment system would be required, subject
to the review and approval of the District's source control department ..." This
observation should be included in Mitigation Measure M- 3.6 -2.
Section 3.7.2 addresses water quality impacts and mitigation. Impact No. 3.7 -2
recognizes that the Project may have impacts as a result of the disposal of groundwater
during the dewatering process. Mitigation Measure M -3.7 -2 indicates that the District
will evaluate groundwater quality prior to dewatering and that the District will pretreat
any groundwater which does not meet its source control requirements. This measure
supplements M- 3.6 -2. However, Mitigation Measure M -3.7 -2 fails to indicate where the
District will dispose any and all groundwater subject to its dewatering measures.
The DER should be revised so that Mitigation Measures M -3.6 -2 and M -3.7 -2
are complete: each should incorporate the provisions of the other.
E. Section 3.8: Land Use.
Section 3.8 addresses land use impacts. Impact 3.8 -1 recognizes that the
construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with existing land
use plans, policies, or regulations including zone designations. Among other things,
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 9
July 23, 2004
this impact notes that the Project will not affect surrounding land uses or generate
excessive noise which would affect those land uses, because the Project will be
situated underground. However, the DER fails to discuss the nature of the
underground construction methods, what the noise and vibration levels of such
construction may be, and what noise and vibration attenuation measures the District will
employ. The DER should be revised to address these potential impacts and provide
necessary mitigation.
The discussion of Impact 3.8 -1 also states that "Minor utilities, such as the
proposed project are considered a permitted use and would not require a Use Permit
from the Planning Department." However, this section fails to explain this statement or
justify the finding that the Project is a "minor utility."
Also, the discussion of Impact No. 3.8 -1 indicates that the District will prepare a
Traffic Management Plan "to minimize impacts." Without more specifics, it is
impossible to assess whether or not such impacts will be mitigated. The DER should
be revised to provide these specifics so that the public and decision makers may be
able to make the determination that the impacts will be insignificant.
F. Section 3.10: Traffic.
Section 3.10.1 addresses the existing traffic setting around the Project
site. Among other things, this section states that in the Project vicinity,
"[T]he highway runs in a northwest- southeast direction and consists of six
lanes (three 12 -foot lanes in each direction)."
Unfortunately, this characterization is inaccurate: the Project lies in a transition zone
along West Coast Highway: four lanes in the southeasterly direction for the Project
become six lanes northwesterly of the Project. That is, the Project lies within an
unfortunate lane restriction. On the best of days, this lane restriction affects traffic
adversely; as discussed below, with Project construction impacts, traffic on the best
days will be difficult.
Section 3.10.2 addresses Project traffic impacts and mitigation. Impact No.
3.10 -2 recognizes that construction of the Project will have adverse traffic impacts.
Mitigation Measures M 7.1 -1a through 7.1 -1e as well as PER Mitigation Measures 7.2-
1 a through 7.2 -1 n will mitigate such impacts to insignificance. None of these mitigation
measures provide any specifics regarding traffic re- routing during construction so that
the public and /decision makers may assess the measures and determine the adequacy
of such measures. Further, none of these mitigation measures discuss the construction
schedule or the feasibility of nighttime construction activities as discussed above. The
DER indicates that construction of the Project will consume 17 months from August
2006 through December 2007 with the initial 14 months, August 2006 to October 2006,
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 10
July 23, 2004
as the months for construction of the Project and the remaining 3 months as the
demolition period for the existing station. That is, the full construction schedule spans
two summers and one Christmas holiday season. That schedule itself creates
significant short -term construction impacts.
The DER should include a new mitigation measure M- 7.2 -10 which schedules
the construction to avoid summer months: Construction spans fourteen months from
October 2006 to December 1, 2007. This would mitigate some of the Project's traffic
impacts.
Further, the DER contains no specific description on the configuration of traffic
re- routing during construction in order to accommodate daily traffic. Also, the DER fails
to consider an important mitigation measure /design feature which has worked well for
other pipeline construction on Coast Highway: use of nighttime construction. Nighttime
construction would alleviate much of the construction impacts and would aid in traffic
flow. Correlatively, nighttime and daytime construction could significantly cut
construction times. The DER should be revised to consider and analyze alternative
construction times and provide specifics on traffic re- routing.
Impact No. 3.10 -3 recognizes that the Project will adversely affect access to
businesses from West Coast Highway during construction. The DER maintains that
Mitigation Measures 7.2 -1a -n and PER mitigation measures will lessen this impact to
insignificance. However, none of these mitigation measures compensate businesses
for interruption. Further, none of these measures address seasonable variances which
may exaggerate the Project's impacts. The mitigation measures should be revised to
mitigate these impacts.
Also, Impact No. 3.10 -3 concludes that, although the Project construction will
remove 35 parking spaces on West Coast Highway, this will not significantly reduce
available parking in the area. However, this conclusion is not supported. Parking
including on- street parking along Mariner's Mile is a critical issue. The DER contains
no specifics regarding current use of the 35 spaces and provides no explanation to
support its conclusion that the Project's construction impacts on parking will be
insignificant.
As indicated above, the District may use the majority of the Project site for
parking. The DER should be revised to address the need and extent of such use.
VI. Chapter 4: Project Alternatives.
Section 4.5 concludes that the Project is the environmentally superior alternative.
However, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that this analysis be limited
to the alternatives considered in the DEIR.
The Hon. Mayor Tod Ridgeway
Members of the City Council
Page 11
July 23, 2004
As indicated above, the Project description states that the Project will include a
20 foot building. However, Chapter 4's discussion of Project alternatives states that
none of the alternatives include a 20 foot building: Site Alternatives 1, 3 and 5 limit
building height to 12 feet. The DER should revise Chapter 4 to discuss and explain
building dimensions and heights.
Further, none of the alternative sites have square footage dimensions. The
DER should include such information.
Finally, the alternatives analysis should include a discussion of the relative
traffic impacts including impacts during construction associated with alternatives
located on the same side of West Coast Highway as the current pump station.
VII. Conclusion.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned document. For the
foregoing reasons, we recommend that the DER be revised to address the issues
raised above.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
Tod W. Ridgeway
July 28, 2004
Mayor Pro Tem
DRAFT
Garold B. Adams
Council Members
Steven Bromberg
Orange County Sanitation District
John Heffernan
10844 Ellis Avenue
Richard A. Nichols
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
Steven Rosansky
Don Webb
Attn: Angie Anderson
Draft Environmental Impact Report for
Replacement of Rocky Point Pump Station
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. The City of Newport
Beach has an Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee
(EQAC), which reviewed the DER, EQAC commended the District on its
clear, straightforward environmental document, which specifically identifies
and numbers potentially significant Project related impacts and provides
clear mitigation measures.
EQAC also provided comments on the DER for the City
Council's consideration. This letter is based on those comments and is
offered in the spirit of improving the DER and the Project.
I. Chapter 2: Project Description.
Section 2.3 addresses the possible proposed Project locations:
• Options 1 and 2 would be located at the H &S Yacht Sales site
at 1700 West Coast Highway on the inland side of Coast
Highway.
• Option 3 is located west of Options 1 and 2 at approximately
1730 and 1800 West Coast Highway, currently the site of a
vacant building and an antique shop.
Although the DER notes that Option 3 was chosen as the project
based on comments received during the EIR scooping process, it does not
Citv Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard • Post Office Box 1768
Newport Beach, California 92658 -8915 • w,w�a.citv.newport- beach.c.a.us
101M k.1.1 h11
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 2
elaborate on what those comments were and how the decision to develop
Option 3 was made. This is important information for the public to
understand why the proposed project includes a higher, more visible building
than other alternatives, whether it makes the most efficient use of the site,
and whether the entire site is required for the project.
The DER notes that the Project will require two curb cuts. It is
unclear why the Project would require two such cuts. The DER should be
revised to address the reason for the two cuts.
Section 2.4 addresses the Project's design. The DER states that all
architectural features will comply with the design standards for the City's
"Mariner's Mile Master Plan." The City would like the District to note that
the Mariner's Mile Plan is known as the "Mariner's Mile Specific Plan" and the
design guidelines are in the "Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design
Framework." More importantly, the DER fails to explain how the public
and /or decision makers may evaluate whetherthe architectural plans comply
or who will make that decision. Further, the DER has no landscaping plans
so it is impossible to tell if any proposed landscaping will screen the facility.
In addition, the Project will require reconfiguration of the upstream
gravity sewers to the Project. The Project will lie about 320 feet northwest
of the existing site. Further, the Project will require reconfiguration of the
discharge main piping which will extend approximately 50 feet from the
new station. The forces mains and the gravity sewers will be up to 20 feet
deep and require trenches up to five feet wide.
The construction schedule covers more than 17 months; the
Project will be fully constructed within the initial 14 months prior to
demolition of the existing facility. Construction is planned from August
2006 and ending in December 2007: spanning two summers during the
initial 14 months.
11. Chapter 3: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation.
A. Section 3.1: Aesthetics.
Section 3. 1.1 addresses the environmental setting. The Project
falls within the boundaries of the City of Newport Beach's Mariner's Mile
planning district along West Coast Highway. This area lies at the base of a
series of bluffs which form the residential areas of Newport Heights and
Cliffhaven. The DER fails to recognize this residential area; it should be
revised to recognize the Project's relation to such residential areas and its
impacts on the residential areas.
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 3
For example, the DEIR identifies Impact No. 3.1 -2: the project would
create a new source of nighttime light which could adversely affect
neighboring land uses. However, because the DEIR fails to recognize that
the Project is immediately down slope from significant residential areas in the
City of Newport Beach, it fails to analyze the impacts of Project lighting on
such structures. Even with Mitigation Measure 3.1 -2, which provides that
lighting shall comply with Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design
Framework with motion sensors, Project lighting may affect bluff top
residences. The DEIR should be revised to discuss the Project's location in
relation to the bluff top residences and, if necessary, provide mitigation.
In addition, although West Coast Highway is identified as a scenic
highway in the Newport Beach General Plan, the DEIR notes that:
"There are no officially designated scenic vistas or highways
located in the vicinity of the Project site."
The DEIR should be revised to recognize and analyze the Project's location
in the relation to West Coast Highway and Newport Bay.
In addition, the Project will stand 20 feet high, will cover 32 feet by 20
feet and will be off set from the right -of -way by 12 feet. Regardless of its
compliance with architectural guidelines, the 20 foot high structure likely will
have significant aesthetic impacts. As discussed below, most of the
alternatives are no higher than 12 feet. Given the height of the reasonable
alternatives, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the height of the Project
and address a change to the structure to limit it to 12 feet.
As indicated above, the DEIR provides no specifics on how the
architectural and landscaping features would be compatible with the
Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and how this
determination will be made. Importantly, the DEIR provides nothing specific
on what the Project will actually look like upon completion.
B. Section 3.7: Hydrology and Water Quality.
Section 3.7.1 addresses both surface and groundwater at the
site. Surface water near the Project consists of the upper and lower Newport
Bay and its tributaries. The coastal cliffs behind the Project drain to the
storm drain system within West Coast Highway. Groundwater at the site is
shallow, potentially tidally influenced and of poor quality.
Mitigation Measure M -3.6 -2 fails to address disposal or treatment of
contaminated groundwater. Section 3.7.1 states that, for contaminated
groundwater which exceeds regulatory standards, "a pretreatment system
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 4
would be required, subject to the review and approval of the District's source
control department ..." This observation should be included in Mitigation
Measure M- 3.6 -2.
Section 3.7.2 addresses water quality impacts and mitigation. Impact
No. 3.7 -2 recognizes that the Project may have impacts as a result of the
disposal of groundwater during the dewatering process. Mitigation Measure
M -3.7 -2 indicates that the District will evaluate groundwater quality prior to
dewatering and that the District will pretreat any groundwater which does not
meet its source control requirements. This measure supplements M- 3.6 -2.
However, Mitigation Measure M -3.7 -2 fails to indicate where the District will
dispose any and all groundwater subject to its dewatering measures.
C. Section 3.8: Land Use.
Impact 3.8 -1 recognizes that the construction and operation of the
Project would be required to comply with existing land use plans, policies, or
regulations including zoning designations. Among other things, this impact
notes that the Project will not affect surrounding land uses or generate
excessive noise which would affect those land uses, because the Projectwill
be situated underground. However, the DER fails to discuss the nature of
the underground construction methods, whatthe noise and vibration levels of
such construction may be, and what noise and vibration attenuation
measures the District will employ. The DER should be revised to address
these potential impacts and provide necessary mitigation.
Also, the discussion of Impact No. 3.8 -1 indicates that the District will
prepare a Traffic Management Plan "to minimize impacts." Without more
specifics, it is impossible to assess whether all potential impacts will be
addressed (e.g., noise from traffic driving over metal plates) and whether
such impacts will be mitigated. The DER should be revised to provide these
specifics so that the public and decision makers may be able to make the
determination that the impacts will be insignificant.
Impact 3.9 -2 notes that operation of the project could generate noise,
but fins that the impact would not be significant because the pumps would be
housed underground in a concrete structure. The DER does not discuss the
potential for use of above ground generators in emergency or other
situations, and what the noise impact such operations would have on the
residential uses above the project site.
D. Section 3.10: Traffic.
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 5
Section 3.10.1 addresses the existing traffic setting around
the Project site. Among other things, this section states that in the Project
vicinity,
"Mhe highway runs in a northwest- southeast direction and
consists of six lanes (three 12 -foot lanes in each direction)."
Unfortunately, this characterization is inaccurate: the Project lies in a
transition zone along West Coast Highway: four lanes in the southeasterly
direction for the Project become six lanes northwesterly of the Project. That
is, the Project lies within an unfortunate lane restriction. This lane restriction
already affects traffic adversely; as discussed below, with Project
construction impacts, traffic flow could become more impeded.
Section 3.10.2 addresses Project traffic impacts and mitigation.
Impact No. 3.10 -2 recognizes that construction of the Project will have
adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures M 7.1-1a through 7.1-le as well
as M itigation Measures 7.2 -1 a t hrough 7.2-1n are said to mitigate such
impacts to insignificance. None of these mitigation measures provide any
specifics regarding traffic re- routing during construction so that the public
and /decision makers may assess the measures and determine the adequacy
of such measures.
Further, none of these mitigation measures discuss the construction
schedule. The DER indicates that construction of the Project will consume
17 months from August 2006 through December 2007 with the initial 14
months, August 2006 to October 2006, as the months for construction of the
Project and the remaining 3 months as the demolition period for the existing
station. That is, the full construction schedule spans two summers and one
Christmas holiday season. That schedule could create significant short -term
construction impacts. The DER should include more detailed information on
the construction schedule, so that potential impacts can be identified and, if
necessary, mitigated. For example, is it possible to schedule the
construction to avoid summer months and the holiday season?
Further, the DER contains no specific description on the configuration
of traffic re- routing during construction in orderto accommodate daily traffic.
Also, the DER fails to consider an important mitigation measure /design
feature which has worked well for other pipeline construction on Coast
Highway: use of nighttime construction. Nighttime construction could
alleviate m uch of the construction i mpacts a nd would a id in traffic flow.
Correlatively, nighttime and daytime construction could significantly cut
construction times. The DER should be revised to consider and analyze
alternative construction times and provide specifics on traffic re- routing.
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 6
Also, Impact No. 3.10 -3 concludes that, although the Project
construction will remove 35 parking spaces on West Coast Highway, this will
not significantly reduce available parking in the area. However, this
conclusion is not supported. Parking, including on- street parking along
Mariner's Mile, is a critical issue, especially during the summer season. The
DER contains no specifics regarding current use of the 35 spaces and
provides no explanation to support its conclusion that the Project's
construction impacts on parking will be insignificant.
The DER does not include any discussion of regarding construction
worker parking, material deliveries, etc. These facets of the construction
phase also could cause or contribute to impacts, and should be analyzed.
III. Chapter 4: Project Alternatives.
Section 4.5 concludes that the Project is the environmentally
superior alternative. However, CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2)
requires that this analysis be limited to the alternatives considered in the
DER.
Orange County Sanitation District
July 28, 2004
Page 7
IV. Conclusion.
The City of Newport Beach appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the DEIR. We look forward to working with the District to resolve the
issues raised in this comment letter, and to coordinate management of the
construction project to minimize impacts to our residents and businesses.
Sincerely,
Tod W. Ridgeway
Mayor
M Environmental Quality Affairs Committee