LOCATION: 17301 Graham St. (West side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel)

STATEMENT OF ISSUE:

• Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (EIR No. 97-2):

- Analyzes proposed development on an approximate 49 acre vacant site for the purpose of constructing up to 208 homes, associated infrastructure and private and public open space.

- Documents potential impacts to land use compatibility, aesthetics/light glare, transportation/ circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities.

- Evaluates nine alternatives to the originally-proposed 208 unit project.

- Concludes that Alternatives 1, 7 and 9 are the environmentally superior alternatives.

- Concludes that potential impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels for the original project and all of the alternatives.

• Staffs Recommendation:

- Certify EIR No. 97-2 because it adequately analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and identifies project alternatives and mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts consistent with General Plan policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Motion to:

"Certify Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 as adequate and complete in accordance with CEQA requirements by approving Resolution No. 1574 (Attachment No. 1)."

ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):

The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as:

A. "Deny certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Continue certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and direct staff accordingly."

A. Land Use Element

Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and #2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Policy LU 2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities.

Mitigation Measures #4 and 5, Public Services and Utilities, require that the developer pay required school fees and comply with a Mitigation Agreement with the affected school districts.

Policy LU 4.1.2: Require that an appropriate landscape plan be submitted and implemented for development projects subject to discretionary review.

Mitigation Measures #1 and 2, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, require compliance with all applicable City plans, policies, and ordinances with respect to landscaping, including submittal of a landscape plan for the Graham Street frontage.

Policy LU 5.1.1: Require that development protect environmental resources by consideration of the policies and standards contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element of the General Plan and Federal (NEPA) and State (CEQA) regulations. During the development review process: a) Review any development proposal for the Bolsa Chica area to ensure that no development is permitted in Federally delineated wetlands; and b) Review any development proposed for non-wetland areas to ensure that appropriate setbacks and buffers are maintained between development and environmentally sensitive areas to protect habitat quality.

The project EIR documents the former existence of 0.2 acres of remnant coastal salt marsh-type vegetation (patchy pickleweed), 0.4 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands and approx. 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the parcel that is proposed for annexation. The patchy pickleweed and potential jurisdictional wetlands partially overlap. The EIR recommends that elimination of sensitive biological resources under the original project be mitigated by requiring replacement at a ratio of 4:1 within the Bolsa Chica lowlands or an alternative mitigation site, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. With Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed and no potential wetland is disturbed. Alternatives 6-9 increase the buffer from the EPA designated ESHA from 60 to 464 ft.

Policy LU 9.1.2: Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character...

Mitigation Measure #1, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, requires compliance with City comments/ conditions pertaining to design and layout of buildings and landscaping for the purpose of achieving a high quality design.

Staff Report-9/10/02 3 (02sr32)

B. Historic and Cultural Resources Element

Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected.

The EIR documents all known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project and reports that the project has been designed to avoid sensitive resources, i.e. CA-ORA-83. Mitigation Measures #1-3, Cultural Resources, require completion of additional cultural resource testing for degraded sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, which are characterized as low significance sites - specifically subsurface testing and, if necessary, consultation with appropriate groups and a cultural resource management plan.

C. Circulation Element

Policy CE 2.3.1: Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy CE 2.3.4: Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets, including but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service.

The EIR included a detailed traffic analysis to document potential impacts associated with the project. The EIR traffic studies demonstrate that with and without the project, the level of service on Graham Street will be level A, the best rating. Mitigation Measures #1-5, Transportation/Circulation, require the developer to complete various traffic improvements including restriping and installation of a traffic signal as well as payment of traffic impact fees to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated.

D. Utilities Element

Objective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins.

The EIR Technical Appendices include a Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan that accounts for new 2001 permitting requirements. The EIR includes Mitigation Measures #2 and 3, Drainage/Hydrology, and #4, Earth Resources, to address water quality issues that may arise from dewatering, the requirement for a Water Quality Management Plan and compliance with NPDES requirements.

Objective U 3.1: Ensure that adequate storm drain and flood control facilities are provided and properly maintained in order to protect life and property from flood hazards.

The developer submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding potential flooding for the site and surrounding area. FEMA approved the CLOMR on June 6, 2002. The CLOMR is based on certain storm drain and flood control improvements being completed. Supporting documentation for the CLOMR and a discussion of potential impacts is included in the EIR. Mitigation Measure #1, Drainage/Hydrology, requires that the improvements be completed.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 4 (02sr32)

E. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element

Goal ERC 2: Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands for their intrinsic values.

The EIR documents the presence of significant habitats. Mitigation Measure #2, Biological Resources, requires that the 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and the 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands (half of the total EPA wetlands) that was to be removed on the County parcel under the original project be replaced by the developer off-site at a 4:1 ratio, per the recommendation of the State Department of Fish and Game. However, with Alternatives 6-9, the patchy pickleweed and EPA delineated pocket wetlands are not removed, and the mitigation is not necessary; in addition, the 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on the County parcel are not disturbed.

Policy ERC 2.1.10: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources.

Mitigation Measure #1, Biological Resources, requires that if construction takes place during normal breeding season for area raptors, a survey shall be conducted for active nests. If found, construction would be required to maintain a distance of 500 feet from the nests.

F. Environmental Hazards Element

Objective EH 1.1: Ensure that land use planning in the City accounts for seismic and geologic risk, including ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence, soil and slope stability, and water table levels.

Objective EH 6.2: Minimize peat hazards through the regulation of construction.

Mitigation Measures #1 and 2, Earth Resources, fulfill these objectives of the General Plan by requiring that the recommendations of the project geotechnical study be completed.

G. Housing Element

Policy H 3.1.1: Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community, with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities.

Mitigation Measure #1, Land Use Compatibility, addresses compliance with the City's affordable housing requirements.

H. Coastal Element

Policy C 1.2.3: Prior to the issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the Coastal Element, at the time of occupancy.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology; #1-18, Public Services and Utilities; and #2 and 4, Transportation/Circulation require construction of improvements including a traffic signal, storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and a new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 5 (02sr32)

Policy C 5.1.2: Where new development would adversely impact archeological or paleontological resources within the Coastal Zone, reasonable mitigation measures to minimize impacts shall be required.

Policy C 6.1.1: Require that new development include mitigation measures to enhance water quality, if feasible; and, at a minimum, prevent the degradation of water quality of groundwater basins, wetlands, and surface water.

Policy C 7.1.2: Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.

Policy C 7.1.4: Require that new development contiguous to wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat areas include buffer zones. Buffer zones shall be a minimum of one hundred feet setback from the landward edge of the wetland...

The EIR documents the presence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs) as designated by the State Department of Fish and Game. Alternative 7, the applicant's request, proposes a minimum distance, or buffer, of 464 feet from the nearest ESHA. A wetlands delineation prepared for the applicant for the unincorporated area in 2002 and included in the Final EIR concluded that there was a potential wetland area that overlapped the already documented patchy pickleweed. In the companion staff report regarding actual development of the site, staff recommends deletion of Lot No. 4 in the unincorporated area to achieve a minimum 100 ft. buffer from this potential wetland.

Policy C 7.1.5: Notify County, State and Federal agencies having regulatory authority in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive habitats when development projects in and adjacent to such areas are submitted to the City.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 6 (02sr32)

As part of the EIR preparation, review and public participation processes, the City contacted the following agencies with respect to the potential existence of wetlands and ESHAs on the project site:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Game and California Coastal Commission. Documentation and analysis regarding the presence or absence of these features on the project site is provided in the EIR.

Objective C9.1: Provide and maintain water, sewer and drainage systems that adequately serve planned land uses at a maximized cost efficiency.

Mitigation Measures #1, Drainage/Hydrology and #1-18, Public Services and Utilities require construction of improvements including storm drainage improvements, flood control protection and new sewer lift station and force main to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure.

Zoning Compliance: Not applicable.

Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable.

Environmental Status:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 was prepared by EDAW Inc., a consultant hired by the City to analyze the potential impacts to the project. The EIR must be certified by the Planning Commission prior to any action on Annexation No. 98-1, General Plan Amendment no. 98-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 94-6 and associated entitlements.

The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. The EIR covers the proposed land use designation amendments and annexation, as well as, proposed development of the site. EIR No. 97-2 discusses potential adverse impacts in the areas of land use compatibility, aesthetics/light and glare, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, earth resources, drainage/hydrology, biological resources, cultural resources and public services and utilities. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives.

Environmental Procedures

The procedure that was followed during the preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 97-2 is outlined below:

DATE

ACTIVITY

September 15, 1997

Staff conducted an initial study and determined that an EIR was necessary.

September 15-17, 1997

A Notice of Preparation was sent to responsible agencies and filed with the State Clearinghouse to notify public of intent to prepare an EIR. A 30-day public review period was established. A notice of availability was sent to area property owners and interested parties.

February 18, 1998

Staff, EDAW and applicant meet with State Dept. of Fish & Game (DFG) regarding wetland delineation for the property.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 7 (02sr32)

DATE

ACTIVITY

October 9, 1997

A Scoping Meeting was held to take comments on the Initial Study and NOP.

March 16, 1998

City received letter from DFG determining that site "does not meet wetland criteria."

April 17, 1998

Notice of Completion filed with the State Clearinghouse. Draft EIR available for public review and comment for 45-day public review period.

April 20, 1998

At City Council public hearing on City's Annual Weed Abatement Program public testimony was offered regarding the potential existence of wetlands on the Shea property. A DFG staff person indicated that they may reconsider their position on the wetland issue.

April 28, 1998

Meeting between City staff, DFG, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, California Coastal Commission staff, EDAW, Shea Homes, Mayor Dettloff, and Bolsa Chica Land Trust representative. DFG indicated any change in their previous position would be submitted in writing.

May 4, 1998

Staff presented a status report on the project to the City Council. Bolsa Chica Land Trust requests an extension of the EIR public review period.

May 14, 1998

Staff and EDAW held a public information meeting on the project.

May 15, 1998

City Council determined that EIR public review period should be extended from 45- to 60-days. Notice of extended review period mailed.

June 15, 1998

EIR public review period ended. DFG comment letter received recommending that mitigation for loss of degraded pickleweed habitat on the County piece be expanded from 0.8 to 2.0 acres; no change in wetland status indicated.

June 1998

City requests applicant to prepare a reduced density alternative for consideration in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. City and applicant begin meetings with County regarding a new watershed analysis under preparation for the County. City and EDAW begin preparation of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports.

June 14, 2000

FEMA issued a revised Flood Map for City, including applicant's property. City and applicant determine additional alternatives needed due to new Flood Map.

June 29,2001

New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document filed with State Clearinghouse and responsible agencies. Notice sent to area property owners. 45-day public comment period begins.

July 25, 2001

Public information meeting on the New Alternatives document held.

August 12, 2001

Public comment period on New Alternatives document ends.

August 13, 2001

City and EDAW begin completion of response to comments, including preparation of addendum technical reports.

August 2, 2002

Response to Comments on Draft EIR and New Alternatives document. Final EIR, Additional Technical Appendices and Comments made available for public information and sent to Responsible Agencies. (CEQA requires Response to Comments be sent to Responsible Agencies 10 days prior to certification hearing.)

August 27, 2002

Study Session for the Planning Commission on the EIR

September 10,2002

Public hearing before Planning Commission to Certify EIR

No. 97-2.

Staff Report-9/10/02 (02sr32)

Summary of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2

In the preparation of an environmental impact report, potential impacts associated with the proposed project (annexation, land use and zoning amendments, development-tentative tract maps, conditional use permit, etc.) are identified and analyzed pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. EIR No. 97-2 determined that all of the potential adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. A Project Impact Summary in the Final EIR (pages 2-3 through 2-19) describes the impact categories, descriptions of impacts, mitigation measures and levels of significance, and staff recommends these be incorporated into the project. The EIR also contains information mandated by CEQA on Alternatives to the Project (pages 6-1 through 6-108). Written responses prepared by City staff in conjunction with EDAW to all of the comments received at the two public information meetings and during the 60-day public review period on the Draft EIR and the 45-day public review period on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document have been completed and made available for public review. The Final EIR, which integrates the Draft EIR and New Alternatives documents, incorporates changes (errata) in response to comments or for clarification/update.

Environmental Board'.

The City's Environmental Board reviewed the DEIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and provided two comment letters (letter #63,1998 and letter #6, 2001) during the public review periods. The letters have been responded to in the Response to Comments. In summary, the Board commented on the following: impacts to Bolsa Chica lowland restoration, one traffic egress/ingress point, potential loss of wetlands on unincorporated parcel, use of fill from mesa and associated impacts to mesa, potential impacts to archaeological resources, potential privacy impacts, clarification about flooding impacts with only one side of the channel proposed for improvement, and a preference for Alternative 9.

Coastal Status:

The proposed project is within the Coastal Zone. The portion of the site within the City is an area of deferred certification and governed by the Coastal Act. The applicant has filed a request for a Local Coastal Program Amendment that would certify the site as a part of the adopted Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. After the City approves the Local Coastal Program Amendment it is subject to the approval of the California Coastal Commission. The portion of the site within unincorporated Orange County would have been covered by the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program had it ultimately been approved. However, pending resolution of a law suit the standard of review for any development occurring within the area of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program is the Coastal Act.

Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board'. Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns:

The EIR was circulated to other Departments for review and comment. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the EIR and its mitigation measures. No conditions of approval apply to the EIR. As development of the proposed project occurs, compliance with mitigation measures

Staff Report - 9/10/02 9 (02sr32)

will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the staff report for development of the site.

Public Notification:

For the August 27, 2002 Study Session notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. For the September 10,2002 public hearing, legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on August 29, 2002, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. As of September 5,2002, three communications supporting or opposing the request to certify the EIR have been received (Attachment No. 4).

Application Processing Dates:

DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES:

EA Application Submitted: October 8, 1996 September 27, 2002 (Within one year of complete Draft EIR: April 17,1998 application with up to 90 day reasonable extension

New Alternatives to the Draft: June 29, 2001 ^allowed)

ANALYSIS:

The analysis section provides an overview of the EIR and its conclusions, a review of the project alternatives and a summary of the response to comments.

EIR Overview

The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential impacts associated with the proposed project. The issues discussed in the EIR are those that have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The EIR discusses potential adverse impacts in 10 issue areas. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the project are addressed, as are the impacts of project alternatives.

Through the use of appropriate mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all potentially adverse impacts associated with the project can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and there are no unavoidable significant impacts. The Findings of Fact, as required by CEQA, review each of the impact areas and list the recommended mitigation measures (see companion report for Tentative Tract Map). A summary of key issues and mitigation measures as a result of the environmental impact report process is provided below.

• Land Use Compatibility

The EIR indicates that potential impacts related to land use compatibility are limited to the provision of affordable housing. The recommended mitigation measure is to have the developer comply with

Staff Report-9/10/02 10 (02sr32)

the City's affordable housing requirements, which require submittal of an affordable housing plan prior to recordation of a final map.

• Aesthetics/Light and Glare

Potential impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare arise from the development of a site currently used for agricultural purposes and the introduction of new lighting sources into the area. The EIR includes seven mitigation measures regarding these issues. The mitigation measures address landscaping and site design, bikeway planning, lighting plans and the use of non-reflective materials. In addition. Alternatives 6-9 require elevation of the building pads for floodproofing purposes. However, this does not warrant additional mitigation measures due to the revised site design that increases the separation between the existing Kenilworth homes and the proposed homes by 108 to 119 ft. including a 50 ft. wide paseo park, increases the amount of open space and decreases the number of units. These alternatives also do not require the removal of any of the Eucalyptus trees that were proposed for removal on the unincorporated parcel with the original project making the tree replacement mitigation (measure #3) unnecessary. As part of the Response to Comments, the EIR also contains a headlight study, visual privacy study and visual simulations that conclude no significant impacts associated with the project.

• Transportation/Circulation

Potential impacts to transportation/circulation stem from the trips associated with construction and occupancy of the project. There are five mitigation measures which address these impacts. Specific improvements required include: 1) constructing a traffic signal at Graham and "A" Streets, 2) restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to Warner, 3) payment of traffic impact fees and 4) submittal and approval of a haul route plan to Public Works. The traffic study concludes that an acceptable level of service (A or B) will exist on surrounding streets. In addition, there will be adequate ingress/egress for Kenilworth Street residents due to the restriping of Graham; the relocated project entry also allows for sufficient stacking (approximately nine cars) between the signal and Kenilworth Street.

In response to questions raised at the Study Session, the original traffic study for the project was completed in 1996, with traffic counts done in October. The baseline, or existing, condition examined traffic conditions (counts) at that time. Thus, impacts associated with nearby Marine View School traffic were included as school was in session (1996 enrollment of 715). The baseline analysis also included traffic associated with the Meadowlark Commercial Development as that project was constructed in 1994 (Ralph's Grocery opened in October 1994). The traffic study then analyzed the existing 1996 condition plus the project and analyzed short-term cumulative impacts [existing condition plus project plus Meadowlark residential (Summerlane) and Holly Seacliff. In terms of analyzing the short-term cumulative situation, the traffic study is conservative: it assumed 350 Summerlane units when only 313 were ultimately approved/constructed, and it assumed 2,580 units in Holly Seacliff when less than 2,350 are anticipated in the Holly Seacliff area including Ellis-Goldenwest. In terms of the 2020 traffic projection, based on direction from the City, the traffic study used Bolsa Chica Project Traffic Impact Analysis completed in 1994, which assumed a substantially larger Bolsa Chica development than is currently being considered. Staff believes the traffic study adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with the project as well as the cumulative impacts associated with area development. Even though there has been an increase in Marine View

Staff Report-9/10/02 11 (02sr32)

enrollment (2002 enrollment of 793, 11% increase, as well as the higher enrollment of 823 in 1999), this is more than offset by the conservative estimates assumed for surrounding development.

• Air Quality

Short-term construction activities and long-term changes in traffic generation can result in air quality impacts. There are eight recommended mitigation measures designed to reduce impacts from construction to a less than significant level and minimize long-term impacts including synchronization of traffic lights and use of energy saving features in the homes as well as construction measures to reduce short-term impacts.

• Noise

Potential noise impacts relate to short-term construction activities and long-term changes in ambient conditions related to the public park. Two mitigation measures address construction related noise requiring noise reduction for construction equipment and a noise mitigation plan. The last mitigation measure requires that if new wall are constructed between existing homes and the proposed homes or along Graham that they maximize noise attenuation. As discussed in the Tentative Tract staff report, staff is not recommending a new wall be constructed along the north property line; however, a new wall along Graham would be built and would be required to comply with this mitigation measure.

• Earth Resources

The project site is an area characterized by loose, compressible soils, with varying degrees of corrosivity, in the upper layers and peat within five feet below ground surface (bgs). Due to the nature of the soils there is the potential for liquefaction. In addition, ground water (perched water, not the water table) was encountered at six feet bgs. Given the site's history of agricultural production since the 1950s, the EIR also indicates the possibility of pesticide residue in the soil. The EIR identifies six mitigation measures specific to grading and construction of the project because of these factors. The mitigation measures are designed to minimize or avoid impacts related to compressible materials, ground subsidence, dewatering, corrosive soils, pesticides and seismic activity. The mitigation measures would require overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from five to 19 feet, use of surface pumps and monitoring of boundary conditions during dewatering. The project would also be required to comply with Uniform Building Code requirements and complete a Phase II assessment.

• Drainage/Hydrology

Existing drainage systems in the vicinity of the project are inadequate and the area experiences flooding. Impacts associated with the project include increased runoff, i.e. drainage, potential impacts to new homes due to flooding and water quality impacts associated with the runoff. The EIR identifies three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project will be required to complete the following improvements: 1) construct three new storm drain lines (60 inch, 102 inch and 120 inch); and 2) complete Channel improvements, e.g., sheetpile, along the site's developed edge. (It should be noted that the existing 60" line along the northerly property line will be used to drain the paseo park area or a local drain will be installed for the paseo park.) In addition, the project will be required to comply with the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with regard to floodproofing the homes. The CLOMR

Staff Report-9/10/02 12 (02sr32)

requires a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 4.6 ft. which is comparable with the BFE of 4.5 ft. analyzed in Alternatives 7 and 9. Finally, with regards to water quality, the project will be required to complete a Water Quality Management Plan and comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

In response to questions raised at the Study Session regarding water quality, the EIR Technical Appendices include an Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis prepared in 1998 as well as an Addendum prepared in February 2002 to address the new permitting requirements adopted in 2001 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR documents that the project will treat the "first flush" event consistent with regulatory requirements. The "first flush" treated would include runoff from the project as well as an existing 21.8 acre developed area to the northwest. Based on the analysis, it is predicted that pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. Thus, the treatment improvements proposed by the project will result in an improved water quality condition. Staff believes that the EIR adequately analyzes potential impacts associated with drainage/hydrology.

• Biological Resources

The Draft EIR concluded that the original project could result in potential impacts to biological resources due to proximity of raptor nesting sites to areas of construction and the loss of 0.2 acres of patchy pickleweed and 0.2 acres of EPA delineated pocket wetlands on the unincorporated parcel. Two mitigation measures were recommended. The measures are designed to lessen impacts by limiting the location of construction during nesting season and by requiring replacement of the sensitive biological resources with preservation and enhancement of two acres of appropriate habitat per the State Department of Fish and Game. However, Alternatives 6-9 avoid these biological resources due to fewer units on the unincorporated parcel, making the replacement mitigation unnecessary if one of those alternatives were approved. In addition, no eucalyptus trees would be removed in this area with these alternatives. The Final EIR Technical Appendices also include an updated wetland delineation for the unincorporated parcel in response to comments from the Coastal Commission. The study concludes that there are 0.36 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands on this parcel that partly overlap the pickleweed area. No additional mitigation measures are required because the applicant's revised request (Alternative 7) does not propose construction/disturbance to this area.

• Cultural Resources

Potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed given the location of all or a part of three archaeological sites on the project site. Two of the sites (CA-ORA-1308 and 1309) were considered of very low significance and very degraded; the third site (CA-ORA-83) is located on a portion of the site proposed to remain as open space. In response to comments on the Draft EIR, the original project was reduced by two units upon additional site investigation and cross-checking of the tentative maps with CA-ORA-83. Thus, the Final EIR reflects a total unit count of 206 for the "original" project instead of 208. The EIR recommends three mitigation measures for the two degraded sites that 1) require a subsurface investigation, 2) if necessary, based on the results of the subsurface investigation, a cultural services management plan, and 3) retention of an archeologist for a pre-grading conference and monitoring.

Staff Report - 9/10/02 13 (02sr32)

• Public Services and Utilities

Impacts to Public Services and Utilities may result in several areas: in 1998 the project was expected to be beyond the Fire Dept.'s five minute response time goal due to the relocation of Station #8; there will be an increased number of calls to the Police Dept; there will be increased demand on school facilities; and additional utility services (water, sewer, electricity, etc.) will be required. There are 18 recommended mitigation measures to ensure that no significant impacts result to public services and utilities. The measures speak to conservation of resources, payment of school fees, compliance with Fire Dept. requirements in addition to provision of fire sprinklers throughout the project, consultation with the Police Dept. and construction of a new sewer lift station and force main. In response to Study Session questions regarding Fire Dept. response times, the Dept. has provided a memorandum (Attachment No. 5) and has explained that with the construction of Station #6, the area will not be deficient; accordingly, staff has prepared three errata pages for the Final EIR (Attachment No. 6).

Alternatives

A range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project was identified in Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. With the circulation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document in 2001, four new alternatives were added. The discussion of alternatives focuses on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental impacts, or reducing the impacts to a level of insignificance even if the alternatives would hinder the attainment of project objectives or would be more costly. Thus, not all of the alternatives are carried forward for analysis. The analysis concludes that Alternative 7, the currently requested project, and Alternative 9 are environmentally superior alternatives. A table summary of key issues for the original project and the alternatives that were carried forward in the EIR is presented below. A discussion of all the alternatives follows.

Alternatives Under Consideration in the EIR

Issue

Original Project 208 units

Alt. 1 No project/ No development

Alt. 5 Alternate Roadway Alignment B

Alt. 7 171 Units w/BFEof4.5ft. (Applicant's Request)

Alt. 9 161 Units w/BFEof4.5ft.

Provides new residential opportunities

Improves infrastructure for existing as well as new development

Avoids all sensitive biological resources

Compatible with adjacent development and property

Impacts mitigated to level of .insignificance

Environmentally Superior

Note: Although Alternatives 6 and 8 (with BFE of 10.9 ft.) were carried forward for consideration in the EIR; they are not necessary due to the CLOMR approved by FEMA on June 6, 2002 that established a BFE of 4.6 ft.

Staff Report-9/10/02 14 (02sr32)

Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development

According to the analysis presented in the EIR, the No project/No development alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. However, according to CEQA guidelines, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

The No project/No development alternative would not meet the basic project objectives outlined in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of the EIR. This alternative would not meet the development objectives of the applicant, nor would it accomplish City objectives for new residential development and providing infrastructure improvements to accommodate demands of existing development as well as new development.

Alternative 2 - Development Under Existing Zoning

This alternative was presented in the Draft EIR in the context of the original project. It assumed maximum buildout of the site per the zoning code which would allow a total of 367 units. This alternative was not carried forward for additional analysis because it would result in greater impacts than the original 208 units and did not meet the project objectives.

Alternative 3- Alternative Location

This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the Draft EIR due to the fact that there were no other sites in the City with similar characteristics to the project site including size, landform and amenity opportunities. Although the Holly Seacliff area was evaluated at the time, there were no undeveloped or unentitled properties in that area that could accommodate the proposed project.