Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 2002-123
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-4 TO AMEND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES TO REFLECT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NOS. 96-5A AND 96-513 BY AMENDING ZONE 2-LAND USE PLAN AND ACCOMPANYING TEXT OF THE CITY'S COASTAL ELEMENT FOR THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GRAHAM STREET, SOUTH OF KENILWORTH DRIVE AND REQUESTING CERTIFICATION BY THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach seeks to amend its Local Coastal Program to reflect approximately 36.8 acres as Low Density Residential (maximum 7 units per acre) and 8.2 acres as Open Space-Park on 45 acres of the subject property within the City of Huntington Beach; and to reflect 1.6 acres as Low Density Residential (maximum 7 units per acre)and 3.3 acres as Coastal Conservation on an approximately 5 acre, pre-annexation portion of the subject property; and After notice duly given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and Public Resources Code Section 30503 and 30510,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4; and Such amendment was recommended to the City Council;for adoption; and The City Council has, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, reviewed, considered, and certified as adequate and complete the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (Exhibit F) and has adopted the Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, and Mitigation Monitoring Report for the Final EIR; and The City Council, after giving notice as prescribed by law, held at least one public hearing on the proposed Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4, and the City Council finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Huntington Beach General Plan, the Certified Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program (including the Land Use Plan), and Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act; and The City of Huntington Beach intends to implement the Local Coastal Program in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 02reso/LCPA 96-4/11/15/02 1 leca- a00.? - 1a3 SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution is bounded by Graham Street, the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, unincorporated Bolsa Chica, and single-family homes along Kenilworth Drive and consists of approximately 45 acres within the City of Huntington Beach which includes the approximate 40-acre Area of Deferred Certification, and approximately 5 acres within the County of Orange (Exhibit A). SECTION 2: That the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-1, consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 and Zoning Map Amendment Nos. 96-5A and 96-513, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibits B and C, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby approved. SECTION 3: That the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan/Coastal Element for the Subject Property is hereby changed (Exhibit D)as follows: A. The Area of Deferred Certification portion of the Subject Property amended to reflect approximately 2.8 acres as OS-P (Open Space-Park), and approximately 36.8 acres as RL-7 (Low Density Residential—maximum 7 units per acre); and B. Pre-General Plan an approximately 5 acre portion located within the County of Orange as OS-C (Open Space—Conservation)—approximately 3.3 acres, and RL- 7 (Low Density Residential—maximum 7 units per acre)—approximately 1.6 acres. SECTION 4: That the Local Coastal Program/Implementing Ordinances (Zoning Maps) for the Subject Property are hereby changed (Exhibit E)to be consistent with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, and Coastal Element as follows: A. Rezone approximately 40 acres of the subject property to add CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay)to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential—Floodplain Overlay) designation; and B. Rezone 8.2 acres from RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay) and RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential—Floodplain Overlay)to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space-Parks and Recreation-Coastal Zone Overlay); and C. Pre-zone the approximately 5 acre portion located within the County of Orange as follows: approximately 1.6 acres RL-7 -FP2—CZ (Residential Low Density— Floodplain Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay); and approximately 3.3 acres CC - FP2 - CZ (Coastal Conservation—Floodplain Overlay—Coastal Zone Overlay). SECTION 5: That all development shall comply with the requirements of the Local Coastal Program, including the Land Use Plan (Coastal Element) and Implementing Ordinances (Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance). The City will issue Coastal Development Permits in accordance with its Local Coastal Program, and intends the Local Coastal Program will, in all respects,be carried out in a manner fully in conformity with the Coastal Act. 02reso/LCPA 96-4/11/15/02 2 AC,, . Q DOS —/a 3 SECTION 6: That the City hereby requests delegation of Coastal Development Permit authority for the deferred certification area and pre-annexation area of the affected property. The date upon which the City shall begin issuing Coastal Development Permits shall be upon this Local Coastal Program Amendment certification and, for the pre-annexation area, upon Local Agency Formation Commission's approval of the annexation. SECTION 7: That the California Coastal Commission is hereby requested to consider, approve and certify Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. SECTION 8: That pursuant to Section 13551(b) of the Coastal Commission Regulations, Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 will take effect automatically upon Coastal Commission approval, as provided in Public Resources Code Sections 30512, 30513 and 30519. In the event that the Coastal Commission proposes revisions, this Land Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances amendment shall not take effect until the City Council adopts the Commission modifications and all the requirements of Section 13544 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations are met. SECTION 9. This resolution supercedes City Council Resolution No. 2002-101. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 day of Nov ber , 2002. A W2 a,4� Mayor ATTEST: 'CONNIE 13ROCKWAY APPROVED AS TO ORM: City C erk C tt �¢ VIEWED AND APPRPR OVED. INITIA D ND APPROVED: 62�-•7 SJ City AdnWilistrator Pl ing Director EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map. B. Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment No.98-1.CQ&' Alo, tad:)Go_ C. Ordinances for Zoning Map Amendment Nos. 96-5A and 96-513. 3-6 315'1 D. Changes in Coastal Element/Land Use Plan: ./ Pg.IV-C-I1 Discussion and Table Pg.IV-C-21 Figure C 16 E. Changes in Coastal Element/Implementing Ordinances:DM 33Z F. Resolution Certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 flees' We, �201*a-4 7, 02reso/LCPA 96-4/11/15/02 3 r � Mm son oil vigils f • m ■ a�lw l Tea • ♦� ♦� C. mm s =� Sm '`�♦i�,��f� ��� I�iiiii ltiinni►� � /,► � � gUiliD o:: Wiililtitimr� - fiy�i��j�� _ �i�� �„'�; ;ire um■tmii�'. am HIM ; . btt- . oZ b Ool—/o7 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 proposes to amend the Land Use Plan by: 1. Designating 2.8 acres of real property on the west side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, as more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto, from RL-7 (Low Density Residential-maximum 7 units per acre)to OS-P (Open Space-Park)to expand the current park area shown on the General Plan to accommodate the proposed larger park area; and. 2. Predesignating approximately 4.9 acres of real property located within the County of Orange on the south side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive as more particularly described on Exhibit`B" attached hereto, as follows: (a) 3.3 acres of OS-C (Open Space—Conservation); and(b) 1.6 acres of RL-7 (Low Density Residential—maximum 7 units per acre); and General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 also proposes to amend the Public Facilities and Public Services Element by removing the proposed Graham Street Fire Station(Figure PF-1), as more particularly described on Exhibit"C" attached hereto; and Pursuant to California Government Code,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council;and Pursuant to California Government Code,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 98-1; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution(hereinafter referred to as the"Subject Property") is generally located on the west side of Graham Street, south of Kenilworth Drive, and adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel in the City of Huntington Beach, and is more particularly described in the legal 02ord/opa 98-1/9/4/02 1 Res. No. 2002-100 .A-0 AZ P2.,.. aaoJ-Ia3 description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits"A" and`B,"respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 98-1,which amends the General Plan Designation for the Subject from Low Density Residential to Open Space-Park(Exhibit"A"); provides a General Plan designation of Open Space-Conservation and Low Density Residential on a portion of the Subject Property located within the County of Orange (Exhibit"B"); and amends the Public Facilities and Public Services Element by removing the proposed Graham Street Fire Station(Exhibit"C"), is hereby approved. A map depicting the Land Use Plan designations is attached hereto as Exhibit"D". PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of oct er ,2002. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT TED AND APPROVED: City Ad nistrator rector of Planning EXHIBITS A. Legal description of Subject Property located within the City of Huntington Beach and sketch. B. Legal description of Subject Property located within the County of Orange and sketch. C. Figure PF-1 Public Facilities locations and amendments. D. Vicinity Map and Proposed Land Use Plan. 02ord/gpa 98-1/9/4/02 2 Res. No. 2002-100,L.., EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Shea Homes Park Parcel Southeasterly of the Zone Line in the City of Huntington Beach A parcel of land in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, being a portion of Parcel A of the land described in the deed recorded September 19, 1996, as Instrument No. 19960479182 of Official Records of said County, said parcel of land being described as follows: Beginning at point on the northerly line of said Parcel A, South 89°35'37" East 530.22 feet from the northwesterly corner thereof; thence South 31°08'36" West 603.33 feet; thence South 89058'29" West 219.75 to a point in the boundary of said Parcel A, being South W10'28" West 520.23 feet from said northwesterly corner; thence, along said boundary, South 0°10'28" West 404.67 feet; thence South 89°49'32" East 17.00 feet; thence North 40°35'12" East 32.40 feet; thence South 89°49'32 East 80.00 feet; thence North W10'28" East 71.16 feet to a tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 275.00 feet; thence northeasterly 304.78 feet along said curve through a central angle of 63°30'01"; thence tangent from said curve North 63°40'29" East 213.26 feet to a tangent curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 1505.00 feet; thence northeasterly 167.25 feet along said curve through a central angle of 6°22'02" to a compound curve concave westerly having a radius of 28.00 feet; thence northerly 37.39 feet along said curve through a central angle of 76°30'29"; thence tangent from said curve-North 190 12'02" West 59.23 feet to a tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 275.00 feet; thence northerly 94.11 feet along said curve through a central angle of.19°36'25"; thence tangent from said curve North 0°24'23 East 19.46 feet to a tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 100.00 feet; thence northerly 45.51 feet along said curve through a central angle of 26°04'37" to a reverse curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 67.00 feet; thence northerly 30.49 feet along said curve through a central angle of 26 04 37 , thence tangent from Revised September 5, 2002 October 16,2000 Pagel of 2 W.O.0061-15377CX H&A Legal No.5113 Prepared By:V.Edge Ck'd By:R.Williams/tl Res. No. 2002-100 t 7 D said curve North 0°2423" East 128.77 feet to said boundary; thence, along said boundary, North 89°35'37"West 36.06 feet to the Point of Beginning. As shown on exhibit attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. �,AN D SUNG ^; /1 Rory S.Williams Exp.12131/03 Rory Uhams, L. S. No 6654 License Expires- D cember 31, 2003 0, No.6654 \Q, Date: 9�CF CAL\F��� Revised September 5, 2002 October 16, 2000 Page 2 of 2 W.O. 0061-15377CX H&A Legal No.5113 Prepared By:V.Edge Ck'd By: R.Williams/d n Z Res. no..� C� EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH to Accompany Lega[ Description �89ec P.O.B. L l L S89°35'37"E 530.22' N00024'23"E� ;-128.77' NW'LY. COR. PCL. A ,- I - pr.26004'37" m =i==—R=67.00, ^� I L=30.49 A=26004'37" R=100.00' I L=45.51' N m =� �� I N o PROPOSED "' ; - R=275.00 W o _v t.L=94.t1 H 9 or¢ W Lj Q Q LLJ .04 o � Z v R 2�°30 0� 500• o i 1 o '`.f I N00°10'28"E I % -_ S89°49'�E_ 1 80 00- j 0 -''�N I C� Sage�9,10 32 Q°35)2 F� / /\ � � SON/ / ':•�`.��' ,�,�Fv�I`i,� .M�. _^.•. ` \ ` GOBS�\c� Hunsaker & Associates SHEA SEly OF PAR LINE RCEL Irvine, Inc. Three Hughes. Irvine. CA 928f8 •(714)583 ng IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALlFORN IA Planning • Engineering • Surveying w,0. 61-15377C+X 11 "`° R.Williams SCALE 1°=200. 0AW- 10-16-00 DATE 9-05-02 '18p.G T. VO 9r. SHEET 1 OF 1 Id 5113\SHT01.dw NOG CAD H&A LEGAL No. 5113 I:\MWD-SHEA\ \ A Res. No. „ EXHIBIT LEGAL.DESCRIPTION arcel in Unincorporated County Territory Open Space P ,i e County f Orange, State of California,being portions of Parcels A, B and - A parcel of land �'o as Instrument No. f C of the land described in the deed recorded September 19, 1996, 1 19960479182 of Official Records of said County, said parcel of land being described as follows: 1 Beginning at the southwest corner of said Parcel C; thence along the boundary of said Parcel C North ollowin courses: North 26°19'31"West 95.04 feet, North 18007'10" East 231.15 feet, 0 feet the f g ° 2903751" East 37.58 feet, North 57°3654" East 150.89 feet, North 44 4913 East 1 and along and North 32°53'40" East 47.24 feet; thence continuing along said Parcel C boundary t in the Westerly the boundary of said Parcel B North 89°58'29"East 155.96 feet to an angle porn City of Huntington Beach per Annexation No. 15 to Orange County Sanitation boundary of the ry Dist rict No. 11; thence leaving said Parcel B boundary and along said annexation boundary9 54" thence South 0010'2$" Nest 4.84 fe South 45'35'11" East 9.77 feet; et; thence 9�fee[, a radial West 87.88 feet to anon-tangent curve concave westerly having a radius {e t along said curve line to said point bears North 70052'19" East; thence southerly 16.61 central an le of 13°02'33" to anon-tangent curve concave northwesterly'having a through a $ rad ius of 98.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears South 8 0425" East;a thence southwesterly 81.78 feet along said curve through a central angle of reverse curve concave easterly having a radius of 42.00 feet; thence southerly 5M7 feet along curve through a central angle of 72°48'33" to a reverse curve concave westerly having of said cu g through a cen radius of 98.00 feet; thence southerly 70.36 feet along said curve radial line to 41°08'10" to a non-tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 64.60 feet, e curve through a said point bears North 66°03'35" Nest; thence southerly 44.64 feet along entral an le of 39°35'25"; thence non-tangent from said curve South 26°19'31" East 7 C 0 fee I O lc cg to the northerly right-of-Nvay line of Orange County Flood Control District, Parcel i o . October 14, 2000 Page 1 of 2 W.O. 0061-15377 H&A Legal No.5117 Prepared By:V. Edge Ck'd By: R.NVilliams/d V j Res. No. 20022—�10U . i ik�b T the deed recorded in Book 71S1. Page 74S of said Official Records: 196.00 feet wide.. per thence leaping said annexation boundary° and along said northerly line South 63°-10"_'9" \Vest 450.16 feet to the Point of Beginning. shown on exhibit hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. �O \,&N D Sv�G s Rory S.Williams � Exp.12131M3 l J, No.6654 \Q. c 9�OF CAS\F��� Rory S.Williams, L. S. No. 6654 License Expires: December 31, 2003 October 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 X\'.O.0061-15377 H&.�Legal Nio. 5117 Prepared By:V. Edge Ck'd By: R. Williams/d $ �Z a0 01--1Z3 EXHIBIT "13-1" SKETCH 9� to Accompany Legal Description 4S3O 1028 w nwft curve zN70052_19_E ShF� ��� RAD N83°Ss.52`_ ;; a=13°02'33" : ,,BRAD to N ly m R=72.951=16.61'� ' v �887004`25'E_ - o� R-98.0047°48'g6• RAD to S'Iy curve r o m 81.78' N39'15'29'_W c p o I RAD PRC 1�' " w 0D o z r-Z 5 i &=72°48'33" �R m¢ z R=42.00-; P L=53.37 J cc: '1 oo� _p° 8 " 410 o r o r L--70.36 0 i a U N66° ;'S70_55'S3'_E zo Z - '�'. . .... . .:".. RAp t 35_w, RAD to N'Iy curve curve S 1 � u 0 r Y v e -t a ° � N 3 9 " O 3 5' v R=64.6p'�544.64' C,O N89°58'29"E .� OHO O� , /V 0 DETAIL °°�1ti° °�•'F �°,� �P�� �� SCALE 1"_ 100' N29037'51"E_ 37.58 `.� SEE DETAIL ABOVE \ �:%.,• �\ ' FOR E'LY LINE J. i°s i z Rg0��' _ ::: t✓0���;/ rF'P�Gl�qp �o�sS9. O,pyl-0� ox� 0 N cF Pre-General Plan Land Use Designation: "OS-C" (Open Space— Conservation) S. PCL (remainder) IN HEA HOMES O. COUNTY & Associates S ORY OF THE er IT H'u'tisak UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY Irvine, Inc. �!4 583-1010 GE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Three Hughes. Irvine. Cd 926 •(-carve n UNINCORPORATED RERR(TORY OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE w.0. 00fi1-15377 Planning • E'ngineerin S '� 9 SCALE: 1"=200� "`'° R. Williams R:v. ' V, Edae er• p SHEET 1 OF 1 °' ` 10-14-00 oA= None er. CAD HCAA LEGAL No. 5117 LOG I:\Mwo-shEA\L�\s� 1�\�r�o� .owc 'N Res. No. 2002-100� EXHIBIT n$,��� fo) LEGAL DESCRIPTION i Residential Parcel in Unincorporated County"Territory t of Orange, State of California, being portions of Parcels A, B and A parcel of land in the County 996, as Instrument No. C of the land described in the deed recorded September 19, 1 19960479182 of Official Records of said County, said parcel of land being described as follows: Beginning at a point in the westerly boundary of the City of Huntington Beach per Annexation No. 15 to Orange County Sanitation District No. 11, South 45°35'11" East 9.77 feet from the northeasterly rn asterl comer of said Parcel B, said northeasterly corner being an angle point in said westerly boundary; thence South 0°10'28" West 4.84 feet; thence South 52*51'54" West 87.88 ent curve concave westerly having a radius of 72.95 feet, a radial line to said fe et g through a central point bears North 70*52'19"East; thence southerly I6.61 feet along said curve radius rof 98.00 feet a angle of 13°02'33 to anon-tangent curve concave northwesterly having a e to the beginning of said curve bears South 87°04'25" East; thence southwesterly. radial line g + 81.78 feet along said curve through a central angle of 47°48'56" to a reverse curve concave easterly having a radius of 42.00 feet; thence southerly 53.37 feet along said curve through a 0 feet; central angle of 72°48'33" to a reverse curve concave westerly having a radous 'of'9 o0a non' thence southerly 70.36 feet along said curve through a central angle of 41 0 1 tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 64.60 feet, a radial line t0 said point'bears 6°03'35"West; thence southerly 44.64 feet along said curve through a central angle of North 6 19'31" East 76.00 feet to the northerly 39°35'25"; thence non-tangent from said curve South 26° tt w d right-of--way line of Orange County Flood Control District,Parcel No. C5-101, 196.00 feet , thence, along said _ per the deed recorded in Book 7181, Page 748 of said Official Records; thence, northerly right-of-way North 63'40'29" East 343.89 feet to said westerly boundary, 1" West 3I6.26 feet, to the Point of Beginning. along said westerly boundary, North 4�35'1 October 14, 2000 Page 1 of 2 W.O.0061-153'r 7 H&A Legal No. 5116 Prepared By:V. Edge Ck'd By: R-Williams/El Res. No. 2002-100 MTs�*1..h'1T As shoum on exhibit attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. ��O 1AN S(r�, s z Rory S.WIIIIamS Jo i Exp.12M/99 No.6654 \� 9TFOF 17,vr Rory S. j iams, L.S. No. 6654 License Expires: December 31, 1999 October 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 NV.O. 0061-153 77 I-I&A Legal No. 3116 Prepared By:V. Edge Ck'd By: R.I-Villiainsid Res. NO. ZUUZ-1UU v4 Q 41-?)•. EXHIBIT "13-2" SKETCH S00°t0'28..w . to 4ctompany Legal Description 4.8 N70_52_19_E hti�, o z RAD %`� g'1' ° a'S2"E o 0 13°02'33". RA 5to-N�ly curve R=72.95L=16.6i'"; �S87°04'25"E 0 d-47 ---- -- tr w R'9g•00'L_g8�8 RAD to Sly curve o m o= z N39°t5'29" t= o w , RAD PRC =m o z F Q=72°48'33" %'s- 0 55 o 'MR=42.0 ;: N6l-'-PRr- zO L=53.37 % NZ ¢ ' _ -R=70.36' CL o N6 , S70055'S3_E Z o z U RAD 35;w, RAD to My curveIt 39 $'2 R764 6 -- N 0 Jc, 0'C.-44.sq' ao4 1 O� ,o;NG� Sl -RA4 { �� N89°58'29'E 0 / �- -155.96' �0 #cv, 1-o tiAs° FLU 0�0��O NO DETAIL , SCALE 1 = 100 � '1°�p�� � •r�' � / `ate- N29037'51"E ' 37.58 _ SEE DETAIL ABOVE FOR WLY LINE 69 per- oti9� .•: _ 000 ". 'QjJ�,Q�l- ��`\9. J- D,n 00, cr. Pre-General Plan Land Use Designation: "RL-7" (Low Density Residential) HzcARCEL IN nsaker & Associates SHEA HOMES RESIDENTIAL OF THE COUNTY Irvine, Inc. UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY l Three Hughes, Irvine. CA 925r8 • (714J 5E3-10f0 UNINCORPORATED REAARORY OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OFCAL1FOflNIA Planning • Errg'ineering • Surveying W.O.�0063T7 _v cwc c"° R. Williams SCALE: 1"=200'10-14-00 oa- None =r• V Ed e er• SHE CAD H&A LEGAL No. 5116 I:\mWC—SH_:`\LD\5116`,,SHT01.CWG IN to Res iro. �v —moo-a 1 U W EXHIBIT i W [C f- 1 ;•-- GPA No. 98-1 WESTMINS i ER BEACH BCi:A!I - —. Yz �• •I mMCo 1ADDE4 .I 4 ED�lG�2 � I ML O © ` tArARNM FOUNTAIN I VALLEY S ATR • �. 'TAL M P . . �• ORANGE �• (BOLSACHICA) Legend `� E ./ City Boundary �. •�Fire -�� .���` CNIC CENTER • 0 Gothand Station !YQRKTOwN © Mu*Station © Busbard Station ' ADAW I Q Magnatia Station PACIFIC © Lake Station OCEAN i Q Station 7-Warner ATLANTA Q Station 8•Hell(to be abandoned) Q Graham Station(proposed) apt IE Graham SWm and E&WAwve Area / HATA9 TDN Q Station 6-Springdale(proposed) Sptvgdale Street and the Proposed Crtss-GaP Connedar BA►Nw Station 9-Garfield Posed,I no Crass Gap Conned O COSTA MESA Station B-Graham Force ! (proposed,tino Cross-Gap Conn* Lbrary 0 Main Station Central library © OaNew Center Substation Q Graham Branch Downtown Substation ftning Branch Huntington Center Substation Main Street Branch © Huntington Harbour Substation Oamew Branch PUBLIC FACILITY LOCATIONS PF-1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BE GENERAL PLAN III-PF-2 !' 11 11 'r► _ .now mm OEM UNINNUI a!�/m I,:■w/lrur Run me •i///i1. I __Fulm��r � s imTun� awn-_r __ _ �� =a=j Is /i/ll ♦ /i I iil/i!/1/I// .. rl ,mot sr. �pUN Res. No. 2002-100 z00L-t�3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook, ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ORDINANCE NO. r�;� AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADD THE CZ COASTAL ZONE OVERLAY (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-5A) WHEREAS,pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A,wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council,the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That approximately 40 acres of real property generally located on the west side of Graham Street, north of the East Garden Grove-W-mtersburg Channel and 1500 feet south of Warner Avenue as more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein is hereby changed from a base district of RL (Low Density Residential) and RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential with a Flood Plain Overlay District)to add the Coastal Zone Overlay District(-CZ). SECTION 2. That approximately 8.2 acres of real property generally located 1600 feet west of Graham Street and 1500 feet south of Warner Avenue as more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby changed from RA (Residential Agriculture District) and RL (Low Density Residential District)to OS-PR(Open Space—Parks & Recreation Subdistrict). SECTION 3. That the Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 33 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance. The Director of Planning is further directed to file the amended map. A copy of such map, as amended, shall be'available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. The ordinance shall take effect immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission:- _ ord/02zoning/zma 96-5/914/02 1 .A Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT D AND APPROVED: City Adnfffilistrator a or of Planning ord/02zoning/zma 96-5n/26/02 2 - EXHIBIT"A„ C 't'e At4 • >14 a D 0 2—/.Z 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR RE-ZONINIG PURP75ES A parcel of fund in the city of Huntington $caca, Cor:aty ci'Orarlgc, ,, ce or Galifor_ir:, bens a portion or Parcel A of ehe land described in the deed recorded September 19, 1995. as rasttumient No. 19060:79162 of Offici1 Records of scud Count,, said parcel of Wad 1=t•nt, described a;follows: Beginning at a point on the \mesterly line of the botintlary of s,ud Parcel A• being the northeasterly corner of the land described in the document record in Bools 4960, age 8" of mid Official Records; thence, along the easterly prolongation of the northerly Ime of said Land, North 89"382 1" East 219.76 feet to the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly?Lne of !Tact No. 5792 as shown on a map filed in Book 220 Pages 8 through 1_,inclusive, in the office of Coumcy Recorder of said County; thence, along said southwesterly Prolongation, North 31*08"' " East 603.58 feet to said boundary; thence,-along said bmadary oaf Parcel A, Suudt 8903537" East 1612.42 feet to a line parallel with and 40.00 feet westerly of the comerline: of Grahau Street as shown on a Record of Survey filed in Book 92,Pages 1.9 through 28 of records of Survey in said Office; thence, along said parallel line South 0"10'50""Alest 587.24 feet to saic? boundary of Parcel A; thmm, along said boundary, South. 65,40'29" West 213,3.11 feet to the westerly boundary of the City o=Hur_tington ]:leach per.Annexiition Na. 15 to Orange Bounty Sanitation District No. 11, thence, along said westerly boundary, North.450,3511"Went 326.03 feet and North 0°10'28"East 600.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. As shown on Exhibit attached hereto and by this reference m.?de a part hixeof. 1AN b , Bruce G eke 1 race-F. Ht=r�.saker L Huns r � .S. 59ry1 "" ' ' Nly License Expires: December 1, 2004 Exp.12191I04 Rate: bu-A-e Gy, 7 .""'v �, No.5921 ' q Fofi cA Fay: ,June- `002 Fage�l of 7 •Sti.O. 0031-13 ,".i H&-;Le-xl No. 5509 27gared By:V. Edge r Ck'3 By: R.VAllian:sirg ZMA No. 96-5A Arir'i "( 7" ((�nactPI 7r)nP nv(mrlgv) 1� .; ice•c.i nw11:"nrNcrc a X-6 �? 7."G-.�_w■�� Cam. a 44 •�eLW.�.' EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH to Accompany Legal Description. `�d/v ez t Lp zz M.a a �+ cv r�m N� uj m W co 'rI .y•'r G AP ;kl-chl I . 13D v�s c �d �� � Sic• � ��, � ''�: �pN Xunsaker dr Issooicates �6 Irtr*w, Inc. RE-ZONING Thrcc Fu#hei.,[v-XhF, CA 92618 •fs►t;M-101t7 Planning • Zngin.aerino. Sur vying CITY OF HUNTINGTON S-ACK COUNT,' OF ORANGE STAT't;CF CAUFORNIA All: 6—G4-02 1 1 N(:ne ��° V. Edge s' 8. Hunsok:rl SCALE: ."-200' W.C. OOo1-15377 \4` Ld CAD H&A LEGAL Na 5509 SHEET I OF 2 .�..� ZMA No. 96-5A Add "CZ" (Coastal Zone Overlay) n 7 EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH to Acca rparty Legal Description IN, TT;„ —i -i.,. r I 1 1, ,) I.r F, 17 1 I CC .J. I yy ,�..._ 15t2.42' tV M 40' uj Hunrak-er & Associates Irvin,-,, �E���N���,G Inca �i 791rel F.u;hes.!rv*%C. CA P2918•,M f)SW3-folo Plarir�tng + ir►r>-.mar.-iatg• �urveyiv�g C�iY CF iUNiiN,."CN SEAIWI 1.COt11,'7Y OF CR;•NGq 8TATn 0=C, ORNIA a•� 5•-0'-02 o? Nome '3r V. Edge ?. Httn:cker SCALE: 1"-200' ".1.0. 0061-15377 1:\`v;Vt'0-S1=A'\ t 5:.C9\�1-!i02 ���ra CAD H&A LEGAL No. 5�05 Shc£T 2 GF 2 ..�� TOTAL P.06 ZMA No. 96-5A Add "CZ" (Coastal Zone Overlay) 4 EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSED CITY PARK ,r%parcel orland in the Cite of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, S=e of C1lifornia,being 0r.Eion of.Parcel A of the lrald described in the deed recorded September 19, !996, as Instn:ment N'o. 1.0960479192 of Official Records of said ConiLry, ;aid parcel of land being described as foLows: Beginn9ng at a point in the westerly line of the boundar v of said P_rcel A South 00'1012"West. 924.90 feet from the nor-thwesterly corner thereof; thence, along said boundary North 0°10'28" La;t 924.90 feet and South 89*55'77" East 561.27 feet; thence South O'24'23- "N-Vest 133.25 feet; thence South 81°44'11" Fast 46.94 feet to a point on a non-cxngeni curve concave easterly having a radius of 53.00 feet, a radial line to said poitnt hears North-31°�4. 'l I" West: thence southerly 7,27 feet along said curve through a cents: angle of i°511i'; thence -wingrnt from said curve South 0°24'23"West 74.90 feet to a tangent curve concave m terly having a radius of SS0.00 feet; thence southerly 85.55 feet along said curve through, a central angle of 19'36'25"; thence tangent fron-, said curve South 19°12'02" Fast 59.40 feet to a tangent curve concave westerly.having a radius of 52.00 feet; thence southerly 69.44 feet alwg said curve through a central angle of 76°50'29" to a compound curve concave northwesterly hzx ng a radius of 1529.00 Feet; thence southwesterly 159.92 feet along said curve through a central aangle of &22'02"; thence tangent from said curve South 60 40'29"West —913.25 teet to a tangent curve concave southeasterly haying a radius of 261.00 !'eet; thence southwesterly 278.18 feet along said cun,'e through a cennzl at:dhL of 68°30'01"; thence tangent from vrid curve South 0°10'_8" West 71.16 feet; thence North W.9'52, " Nest 104.00 feet; thence South 40°55 1`'_" West 322.40 Feet; thence North 8964132"Nest 17.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. A.s shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto aad by t its reference made a part hercoE Bruce F. * Nunsaker 1033 ? � Exp.12191i0W June 3, �GG2 Bruce F. Hunsaker, L.S. 3921 0, No.5021 Page 1 of I Orly -icense L_tpires: December 3 i,2004 �� ��� 1ti'.O. (1L�E>>-1�i??7 Date: :'�.r—r.+rx . 'T�e y. O C H �Legal No. 5:i 14 Ck d By:B. I1unsak_r ZMA No. 96-5A Rezone Base District to "OS-P" (Open Space-Park) 1� 1 )1.0 -e q_;A /a 3 EXHIBIT "B" SKETCH to Accompany Legal Description '_• =89.35'37"E 561.27' NW'LY. COR, PCL A.--/ S00.24w S81'44'11•e 1 r R°: V`i=%.2T v RAD 46.94'. -• l I%.SOQ°24'23.W �c PROPOSED CITY PARK � =�.� 14.900 {- n l 1 Rn25Q.ce'�-Ea.55' 3 2'02'E cz _� R=1529.00, Z 0.7�- W U. �i r�� (Vag�40. A. C� r /r� 001 et �V•71.16' P.O.B. �• y� N89°49'32"w f� 104.00' cp ;..i � ��� QED ����`� ,�!:jf;• - �..�;:%o� . n � �',So Irvine, oz�t�s PROPOSED CITY PARK Is-riirt,e, Inc.�n Ara Sighes.fm1 mr, C.l Melt -1•7"4)m,,,OrO Pl¢T.rti•t gixrr,-sre3. $urveytir o IN ,He CV OF mug'.[N=?4 BCs..CH,CCL^f:Y CF OR&43E Si�7f OF CaL1=��IIA 6-04—OZ : T None =r '✓. doe n' 8. unseker� SCALE: t•=�00' ; W.O. 0461-153T 1:\P, WD-5HEA\:d\551 C S.-ITG 1.Cwq CAD 1 HaA LEGAL IJo. 5510 SHEET 1 OF 1 ZMA No. 96-5A Rezone Base District to "OS-P" (Open Space-Park) 2, Ord.No.3584 .4 tCzu keS >1.0. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ao o�--/U3 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY,the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a r- egular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of October,2002,and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November, 2002, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. The ordinance shall take effect immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. AYES: Green,Dettloff, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer NOES: Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on t- V Od -'�A 2002. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Connie Brockway City Clerk City Clerk and ex-officio erk Deputy city clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California I ORDINANCE NO. 3585 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PREZONE ACREAGE ADJACENT TO THE EAST GARDEN GROVE- WINTERSBURG CHANNEL (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO.96-5B) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5B, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. . NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That approximately 1.6 acres of real property located within the County of Orange adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel approximately 2200 feet southwest of Graham Street and adjacent to the proposed Parkside Residential project as more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein is hereby prezoned to (RL-FP2- CZ) Low Density Residential District with Floodplain and Coastal Zone Overlay Districts: SECTION 2. That approximately 3.3 acres of real property located within the County o Orange adjacent to the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel approximately 2200 feet southwest of Graham Street and adjacent to the proposed Parkside Residential project as more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein is hereby prezoned to Coastal Conservation with Floodplain and Coastal zone overlay districts (CC-FP2-CZ). SECTION 3. That the Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 33 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance. The Director of Planning is further directed to file the amended map. A copy of such map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4 The amendment becomes effective immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. or&'02zoning/zma 96-5B/9/4/02 1 1,.( . 3sgs- PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November , 2002. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City �,City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITI ED AND APPROVED: I � City Adrr&strator it for of Planning ord/02zoning/zma 96-5B/9/4/02 2 XV. 3 -�'8 S,t:� ^X ;b i f C t; k,.o EXHIBIT"A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Residential Parcel in Unincorporated County Territory A parcel of land in the County of Orange, State of California, being portions of Parcels A, B and C of the land described in the deed recorded September- 19, 1996, as Instrument No. 19960479182 of Official Records of said County, said parcel of land being described as follows: Beginning at a point in the westerly boundary of the City of Huntington Beach per Annexation No. 15 to Orange County Sanitation District No. 11, South 45°35'11" East 9.77 feet from the northeasterly corner of said Parcel B, said northeasterly corner being an angle point in said westerly boundary; thence South 0'10'28" West 4.84 feet; thence South 52°51'54" West 87.88 feet to a non-tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 72.95 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 70°52'19" East; thence southerly 16.61 feet along said curve through a central angle of 13'02'33" to a non-tangent curve concave northwesterly.having a radius of 98.00 feet a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears South 87'04'25" East; thence southwesterly 81.73 feet along said curve through a central angle of 47'48'36" to a reverse curve concave, easterly having a radius'of 42.00 feet; thence southerly 53.37 feet along said curve through a central angle of 72'48'33" to a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 98.00 feet; thence southerly 70.36 feet along said curve through a central angle of 41°08'10" to a non- tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 64.60 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 66°03'35" West; thence southerly 44.64 feet along said curve through a central angle of 39°35'25"; thence non-tangent from said curve South 26°19'31" East 76.00 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of Orange County Flood Control District, Parcel No. C5-101, 196.60 feet wide, per the deed recorded in Book 7181, Page 743 of said Official Records; thence, along said northerly right-of-wav North 63040'29" East 343.89 feet to said westerly boundary; thence, along said westerly boundary, N orth 45'35'11" West 316.26 feet, to the Point of Beginning. ZMA No. 96-5B October 14, 2000 Pre-zone to RL-FP2-CZ (Low Density Residential- Page 1 of W.O. 0061-13377 Floodplain-Coastal Zone) H&A Legal No. 5116 Prepared Bv:V. Edge Ck'd Bv: R.Williams/d As shown on exhibit attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. LPN D S�RGF Rory S.Williams 70 Exp.12131/99 No.6654 dry �Q- ,, cn •1 -9�OF CAL\FOB [,CJ iL Rory S.AFjTiams, L.S. No. 6654 License Expires: December'0 1, 1999 October 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 w.O.0061-16377 HSc.k Legal No. 5116 Prepared By:V. Edge Ck'd By: R. N-V'illiains/d d � 2, a . -�U. 3sgS,.� �M . a3 QDe'• EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH SOO.10'28"pI to Accompany Legal Description 4.84'--_ } a C 0 RAD ` h� � z ` � N83_�1_52.E w o Q=13°02'33` to Nty curve R=72.95'L=16.61"' --"RAO � y `�87°04_25"E R'98•DO L'-8 5 RAD t 5'ly curve }c o N39015'29 w ;� 0o z z RAD PRC �. „� m O Co �72°48'33" : •5Sg8 LU w c Z I L=53.3�' �6'I PD PSG z ` -'R W< �� p.:41°0810• a a W w L--70.36 jL o N66 S70055'53_E z Z o v RAp-Oc S,_N'- .� RAp to N'ly cury _ y Z . Cur ge Y �, _'•. 4*3903525" �• '•.;: �'.. PGA Z N89'58'29`E ; �VNPNGE 7 G o. 155.96- DETAIL .>x���o O� SCALE . 1"= 100' ��' �1ti Q ��s0�>> N29°37'5i"E _ - d- 37.58' SEE DETAIL ABOVE FOR W'LY LINE Z °� a � SCR e 41 ( 0�PS ` 01P9 . Y / cF ZMA No. 96-5B Pre-zone to RL-FP2-CZ (Low Density Residential-Floodplain-Coastal Zone) Hunsaker & Associates SHEA HOMES RESIDENTIAL PARCEL IN Irvine, Inc. UNINCORPORATE6 TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY Three Hughes. Irvine. CA 9251E •(714)523-1010 Planning • Engineering • Surveying UNINCORPORATED RERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CAUFORNIA '"" 10-1�-00 a�v None Y` V, E�oe u` R. Willioms SCALE 1"=200' W.O. 0061-15377 17 !:\MWD—SHE..-\LD\51 'CE 'SHT01 .5WG CAD H&A LEGAL No. 5116 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 A ,TLb z o a.i-t A3 . EXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION Open Space Parcel in Unincorporated County Territory A parcel of land in the County of Orange, State of California, being portions of Parcels A, B and C of the land described in the deed recorded September 19, 1996, as Instrument No. 19960479182 of Official Records of said County, said parcel of land being described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Parcel C; thence along the boundary of said Parcel C the following courses: North 26°19'31"West 95.04 feet, North 18°07'10" East 231.15 feet, North 2903751" East 37.58 feet, North 57°36'54" Fast 150.89 feet, North 44°49'13" East 172.30 feet and North 32°53'40" East 47.24 feet; thence continuing along said Parcel C boundary and along the boundary of said Parcel B North 89°58'29" East 155.96 feet to an angle point in the Westerly boundary of the City of Huntington Beach per Annexation No. 15 to Orange County Sanitation District No. 11; thence leaving said Parcel B boundary and along said annexation boundary South 45°35'11" East 9.77_feet; thence South 0°10'28" West 4.84 feet; thence South 52°51'S4" West 87.88 feet to a non-tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 72.95 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 70°52'19" East; thence southerly 16.61 feet along said curve through a central angle of 13*02'33" to a non-tangent curve concave northwesterly having a_ radius of 98.00 feet, a radial line to the beginning of said curve bears South 87°04'25" East; thence southwesterly 81.78 feet along said curve through a central angle of 47"48'56" to a reverse curve concave easterly having a radius of 42.00 feet; thence southerly 53.037 feet along said curve through a central angle of 72°48'33" to a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 98.00 feet; thence southerly 70.36 feet along said curve through-a central angle of 41°08'10" to a non-tangent curve concave easterly having a radius of 64.60 feet, a radial line to said point bears North 66°03'35" West; thence southerly 441.64 feet along said curve through a central angle of 39°35'25"; thence non-tangent from said curve South 26°19'31" East 76.00 feet to the northerly right-of-Nvav line of Orange Count, Flood Control District, Parcel No. C5-101, October 14, 2000 ZMA No. 96-513 Page 1 of W.O. 0061-15s77 Pre-zone to CC* FP2-CZ (Coastal Conservation- Hgk Legal No. 5117 Prepared By:V. Edge Flood plain-Coastal Zone) Ck'd By: R.i�rilliams;tl 1.5� bi ,Z D o-17.—/d 3 196.00 feet N%ride, per the deed recorded in Book 7181, Page 748 of said Official 1 e ords; thence leaving said annexation boundary and along said northerly line South 63°40'29" West 450.16 feet to the Point of Beginning.. As shown on exhibit attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Rory S.Williams Exp.12131/03 (P No.6654or 9�QF CAL\F��� Rory S.Williams, L. S. No. 6654 License Expires: December 31, 2003 October 14, 2000 Page 2 of 2 V.O. 0061-153i 1 H8ta Legal No. 5117 Prepared Bc:V.Edge Ck'd BY: R.Nlilliams/d � ; 2 12�� • Y10 • ,Zb oI i -3 EXHIBIT "B" SKETCH Zo Accompany Legal Description a: N7C_52'19`E Sg'L��� o I RAD - f % N83_54_52 E_ e @=i3'02'33" ,•'•RAD to N ly cure_ i %,'S87004'25"E P 980p'L,4856 RAD to Sly- curve 78 c¢ m 29" C N39015' o W o= z WAD PR C �•' o L--72Li ° 55T'�. m c z I 48 33" ; L=53.37' % CZ Uj �41°OB'10" Q a z R=9S OQ a o L=70.36 o co c•a �, o y o ►— o N66.03 �;S70 55'S3"E L) z z n'qp' -S_,Iv. , RAD tc z o z cu ve �y ,` N IY curve Z o c� ». ca 035, 6 s0 2$- :.r E ... .... ». .E�.. PGA Lr N89058'29"E 0• DETAIL .�� �� `\�� ems• oP���.P�`°t��� SCALE ]'= 100' N NAP ON tea,, N29037'51"E 37.58' SEE DETAIL ABOVE FOR E LY LINE 70, 0 p \ a+• �j vJ-PIP, OPfl- \ 01P ro yCF ZMA No. 96-513 Pre-zone to CC-FP2-CZ (Coastal Conservation-Floodplain-Coastal Zone) Hunsaker & Associates -SHEA HOMES O. S. PCL. (remainder) 1N Irvine, Inc. UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY Thrre Hughes. !mine. CA 926r8 •(ir4J 58j-1010 ?Canning - Engineering . Surueyi7ig UNINCORPORATED RERRITORY OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10-14-001 ��': None ey V, Edce 9° R. Williams SCALE: 1"=200' W.O. 0061-15377 is\�,1Vi�—S�E;\.LD\51 17\SHi01 .[)W �N` CAD { H$A LEGAL No. 5117 SHEET 1 OF 1 rl 2 Ord.No. 3585.t4 At o . A0 0 '4--J 1-3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected,qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City,do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October,2002,and was again read to said City Council at an adjourned regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November,2002,and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. The ordinance shall take effect immediately upon certification by the California Coastal Commission. AYES: Green,Dettloff, Houchen,Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook,Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City- Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on 2002. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Connie Brockway.City Clerk City Clerk and ex-officio erk n �j Denuty City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California EXHIBIT "D" a ooa LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Zone 2—Bolsa Chica This area of the Coastal Zone extends between Warner Avenue to the City limits near the Huntington Beach Mesa bluffs. (Figure C-6.) Existing Land Uses Inland(Pacific Coast Highway wid areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) The majority of Zone 2,the Bolsa Chica, is located outside the City's corporate boundary, within the County of Orange. The area is in the City's Sphere of Influence for possible future annexation. Existing land uses in the Bolsa Chica area include vacant land, habitat preservation/wetland and oil production. Approximately 300 acres of residential area lie north of .this area. Single family residential is the primary land use,with one three-acre neighborhood park. The area between Warner Avenue and Los Patos Drive, west of the unincorporated area includes approximately 27 acres of low density, single-family homes and two acres of medium density residences. A 44 45 acre area between Los Patos Drive and the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel is vacant and includes a small section of the Bolsa Chica bluffs rf unincorporated area is annexed, this becomes "approximately 50 acres"). Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway.) This area consists of the Bolsa Chica State Park Beach. The State Park includes open shoreline, parking facilities, restroom facilities and snack facilities. Coastal Element Land Use Plan Inland(Pacific Coast Highway and areas north to the Coastal Zone boundary.) The Coastal Element does not present a land use plan for the Bolsa Chica. The land area north of the Bolsa Chica, within the City's corporate and Coastal Zone boundaries, is built out consistent with its Coastal Element designation of low density residential. The area west of the Bolsa . Chica is also developed consistent with the Coastal Element Land Use designation of low density residential. T1, t 44aer-earea nex4 t the Winte -b.. n,.Reed Genifel Channel r-etaias its IV-C-11 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COASTAL ELEMENT (LCPA96-4 Rm) (LCPA NO. 96-4/LAND USE PLAN) e-xistif .7 .7 site, an The Coastal Element land use designation for the vacant 45 acre area next to the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Flood Control Channel)vas recently certified as RL-7(Low Density Residential) and OS-P(Open Space-Park). In addition, approximately S acres of land Svcs annexed from the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach This area is designated RL-7(Lo)v Density Residential) and OS-C(Open Space—Conservation). Coastal(Seaward of Pacific Coast Highway.) The land within this area is designated as OS-S, Open Space-Shoreline with a 4S Design District Overlay. ZONE 2—LAND USE DESIGNATIONS RESIDENTIAL RL-7 OPEN SPACE OS-P, OS-S, OS-C PUBLIC P ZONE 2—SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS None ZONE 2—GENERAL PLAN OVERLAYS 4G, Q See Table C-1 for land use category definitions. t" IV-C-11 (LCPA96-4 Reso) HE •• �as i•�••�i��i�yi •. Yam' seip� -_ .•. �Oi •� -�N ter-� ��•��' y • I7 I EXHIBIT `E' PLANNING ZONING DM 33Z SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 28-5-11 ° NOTE: CITY '�•� ADOPTED AUGUST 15.1960 ALL DIMENRONE ARE IN FEET ®� 13 I ZONE AOJORANGEXT AMT gMNT OF WAT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. IS INTENDED 70 EXTEND O TNT CENTER OF SUCH RIWMT of war AMENDED � AMEND � ORtDNO. LEGEND: T■HyY■ T{ 9-3-63 352 mm 10-I6-72 71-201U 1761 ® ataalED CLAEEIINCAT104 a-y V NTINGT®N BEACH ID_T.63 365 1007 5_5_75 75-2 2133 ® .03LOW10"DENRf9mm401ESnR 4-6-64 396 TOES 12_15-75 75-09 Y029 NIONRAY COMMTRCUL MsmmtCT S-IB-64 396 103G 12-6-75 75-i1 2133 MEDIUM.MWI DEN9TT RESDENTUL DISTINCT 4-5-65 505 1132 4-17-79 76-5 2279 M60AR2 oEN811'7 RESIDEIITYL DISTRRT. 10-18-65 526 1162 1-2-79 76-25 2339 ® OFFICE PROFEESEINAL DNETRKT 6-6- 66-1G 7-79 76-0 62365 ®® REOm u 'mmunim OIEMCT `NR�1QE`NU .ORANGE C 0 UN T Y, CALIFORNIA 5-I-66T 67.6 1319 5•7-79 79.22m CONAA�T 1CRATONADSTMT 7-17-67 67.12 1339 6.15-81 81-4 2462 ® COMM ZONE EUFFiv 6-7-67 PP67.2 1343 7-2.84 84-7 27OS -.� Cry ZONE BawOtR1 2-S•66 6T-3S VMS8.20-64 8413 2712 •-._ EETSACK UNE 4-7-69 69.3 1467 4.1-83 85-1 2755 7.17-71 71-9 1659 1_17-63 FLDODBM29DS --- ULTIMATE RIONT OF NAY 2-22-72 71-45 1723 10.5-87 67-1 2906 �FR6JSE PLAN OF ETREET AUGNMDR 8-21-72 PP72-4 1771 9-4-89 89-5 3073 PLOODIRL"O6TRET 20 21 NITIB/FLWmIONE rtP2 i1 22 29 to t EE 27 WARNER Ji AVE. �C4:OP R3PC R3-PD RI. RI Rf - I 22 EL DOR400 OR. h+� GERS W m l rn I R2 RZ RI z RI IRI R4 .C4 �] J 1 L SO 4 n ouNeAlr R2 RI PEN LEMON 1-Rw2 F I RI Rl Rl RI Rl R >;r R3-23 �p ==t>�� R2 n L; RI RI 3 RI I eR"R RI R I W 1 BRUN ER ORVNNX 3t Rl R3-23 115-23 / Y GLEN a - RI R ` R1 ° RI 4• ' LIE DR. 0 R7KENILWORTH O OR ( J m RI �i P.: WENT DR RA-CZ n o t S-P -CZ D• ` ,.ag Er:,R„ED n-M—CZ RI ���\ +'' "1s'1E � os RI RI RI R BOLSA CIECA/ EMWF u C F—E / COUNTY OF D. RI PIQUE �--Wsz+wU Rl ORANGE < � 4 RAM v Wv .RI RIs" �1. I Olt. o c• i �� I 1e2 4 0• 22'ITm w n».2. su E F. s. 2 P.r2r.saw CC- 2-CZ a'2 ��•G R" 6 cN3 , RI-CZ 5 R I * b V Mo N N 8 N PACE ¢ OR i v RI-CZ Gt o.j '—� SERE RI R1 Rl RI Ma2oR \GZ RI-CZ 'Ql.� R• m RT RI-CZo R I -CZ Rl-C.z OR Q Olt. Rl�Z E3 R I RI-CZ RAPIMEL Rl Do- AN C., �PQ+ a—mmsA> RKn RI UN BOLSA CTE L/ . a COUNTY OF RI a R ORANGE Ilk R I 6ti c2 a a RI-CZ IS .� LANGTMSD a C� RI-CZ G � ftl-CZ RI-CZ 3_33 IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES/ DM33Z(Revised) 43" 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NUMBER 97-2 FOR THE PARKSIDE ESTATES PROJECT WHEREAS, Environmental Impact Report (EIR)Number 97-2 was prepared to address the environmental implications of the proposed Parkside Estates Project. • On September 17, 1997, a Notice of Preparation for the draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. • On April 17, 1998, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse. • The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment from April 17, 1998 to June 15, 1998, and was available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library. • on June 29, 2001, a Notice of Preparation for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research and to other responsible agencies. • The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR were circulated for public review and comment from June 29, 2001 to August 12, 2001, and available for review at several locations including City Hall and the Huntington Beach Public Library; and The Planning Commission held public meetings on the EIR on September 10, 2002, and September 24,2002 in which comments were received on the EIR; and The Planning Commission certified the EIR on September 24, 2002; and The City Council held a public meeting on the EIR on October 21, 2002 in which comments were received on the EIR, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations, the following findings are hereby made; 1. The environmental analysis covers the areas of Land Use Compatibility, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality,Noise, Earth 02reso/parkside eir/10/8/02 I Res. No. 2002-97 Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. 2. As mitigated,there are less than significant impacts on 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. 3. There are no significant unavoidable impacts. SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby additionally find that the EIR identifies cumulative project impacts that are mitigated to a level considered less than significant. SECTION 3. Based upon the above findings,written comments and verbal testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings held for the project, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf,the City Council further finds as follows: 1. At public hearings,the City Council considered public testimony, staff presentations, and Planning Commission and City Council reports on the EIR prepared for the project. 2. The EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects. The EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each of these impacts. SECTION 4. Based upon the above recitations, findings, and conclusions the City Council hereby determines: 1. Pursuant to Section 15090 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, the City Council certifies that EIR 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051)has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was presented to, and the information contained therein reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to reaching a decision on the Parkside Estates Project. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Huntington Beach acting as Lead Agency for the project pursuant to Pub. Res. Code Section 21082.1(c)(3). 02reso/parkside eir/]018/02 2 Res. No. 2002-97- 2. The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby certify EIR Number 97-2 (SCH No. 97091051), set forth in Section 3 above. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of October , 2002. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALMe le /a v0 - J z- City erk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI D AND APPROVED: City Adm nistrator for of Planning 02reso/parkside eir/10/8/02 3 Res. No. 2002-97 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21 st day of October, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Houchen, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Cl Irk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT EIR VOLUME I _-j vft AIP Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. d July 2002 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II : j - ► AD i s Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 i y PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 FINAL EIR TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOLUME IIA 1-0 - it`41R� _ - � �•.- � Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. ;. July 2002 Pis IDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 COM MENT CARDS AND COMMENT LETTERS PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MAY 1491998 & JULY 259 2001 VOLUME III rL = WEI..lp ,ram w► Wi K - ,� ', Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 Res. No. 2002-123 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Houchen, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook, Winchell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CONNIE BROCKWAY City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT EIR VOLUME I J d i Vl� J f y r �► ' �j m y � / Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 1-1 2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW...............................................................................2-1 3.0 DRAFT EIR COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS.....................................................3-1 3.1 Verbal Comments/Responses to Comments Index........................................................ 3-3 3.2 Comment Cards/Responses to Comments Index...........................................................347 3.3 Comment Letters/Responses to Comments Index.........................................................3-52 4.0 NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT EIR COMMENTS/RESPONSES TOCOMMENTS.........................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 Verbal Comments/Responses to Comments Index.........................................................4-3 4.2 Comment Cards/Responses to Comments Index...........................................................4-42 4.3 Comment Letters/Responses to Comments Index.........................................................4-50 VOLUME II 5.0 FINAL EIR.............................................................................................................................................a VOLUME IIA FINAL EIR TECHNICAL APPENDICES VOLUME III 6.0 COMMENT CARDS 6.1 Comment Cards from the Draft EIR Public Information Meeting on May 14, 1998 6.2 Comment Cards from the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR Public Information Meeting on July 25, 2001 7.0 COMMENT LETTERS 7.1 Comment Letters on the Draft EIR 7.2 Comment Letters on the New Alternatives to the DEIR \\IROINVOLI\PROJFR-Z1997\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOCOMMENiS\NREW-RTC.DOC 1 b �, a 0 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document for the Parkside Estates project. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR as of June 2002 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines. This Response to Comments document consists of three (3) volumes. Volume I contains four (4) sections; in addition to this Introduction, the other sections are Public Participation and Review, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, and Responses to Comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. Volume II contains the Final EIR. Volume IIA contains Final EIR Technical Appendices. Volume III contains two (2) sections: copies of comment cards received at two Public Information Meetings and comment letters received on the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR documents. Section 2.0 Public Participation and Review outlines the various methods the City of Huntington Beach (City) has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft EIR. This section also identifies the various methods taken by the applicant and the City to provide public review and receive public comment on the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project. Section 3.0 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR is comprised of three (3) subsections: 1) verbal comments/responses; 2) responses to comment cards; and 3) responses to comment letters. Subsection 3.1 Verbal Comments/Responses contains comments raised at the May 14, 1998 Public Information Meeting (for the Draft EIR), and provides responses for those comments that raise significant environmental issues. Subsection 3.2 Responses to Comment Cards provides responses for those comments identified on comment cards received at the Public Information Meeting that raise significant environmental issues. Volume III of this document(Subsection 6.1)corresponds directly with Subsection 3.2,as it contains a copy of all comment cards received at the Public Information Meeting. Subsection 3.3 Responses to Comment Letters provides responses for those comments raising significant environmental issues identified within written correspondence received from agencies, groups, organizations and individuals as of June 16, 1998 for the Draft EIR. Responses to each comment have been numbered. Volume III of this document (Subsection 7.1) corresponds directly with Subsection 3.3 in that it contains copies of the letters received, bracketed and numbered to correspond with the responses found in Subsection 3.3. Section 4.0 Responses to Comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR is also comprised of three (3) subsections: 1) verbal comments/responses; 2) responses to comment cards; and 3) responses to comment letters. Subsection 4.1 Verbal Comments/Responses contains comments raised at the July 25, 2001 Public Information Meeting(for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR), and provides responses for those comments that raise significant environmental issues. Subsection 4.2 Responses to Comment Cards provides responses for those comments identified on comment cards received at the Public Information Meeting that raise significant environmental issues. Volume III of this document (Subsection 6.2) corresponds directly with Subsection 4.2, as it contains a copy of all comment cards received at the Public Information Meeting. Subsection 4.3 Responses to Comment Letters provides responses for those comments raising significant environmental issues identified within written correspondence received from agencies, groups, \\II201\VOLl\PRO]FRZ1997\7Nl5001\RF.SPONSETOCOMNENTSWEWRTC.DOC 1-1 organizations and individuals during the public review period from June 29, 2001 through August 12, 2001. Responses to each comment have been numbered. Volume III of this document (Subsection 7.2) corresponds directly with Subsection 4.3, as it contains copies of all comment letters received, bracketed and numbered to correspond with the responses found in Subsection 4.3. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft EIR or do not raise significant environmental issues. For example, many of the comments reflect the concerns of the commentor only as they relate to the merits of the proposed project (i.e., land use plan and Tentative Tract Map(s)) and not to the adequacy of the environmental information and analysis contained in Draft EIR. Other comments request additional information. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, a substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of CEQA and therefore have not been prepared. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Certain topics in the Draft EIR were commented on numerous times in the letters received. Thus, a response to a comment in one letter may refer to the response in another letter where the response being referred to completely answers the point in question. Section 5.0 Final EIR is provided in Volume II and shows corrections of minor errors and requested Draft EIR modifications as well as the New Alternative Plans which have occurred as a result of comments received on the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives documents. New technical reports/analyses, as technical appendices to Final EIR(Volume In are provided in Volume HA. The Mitigation Monitoring Program(MMP) will be prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and will include a comprehensive list of mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR. Any modifications to Draft EIR mitigation outlined in Section 5.0 will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program The Mitigation Monitoring Program will also identify the timing and party responsible for each mitigation measure. The MMP will be included as a stand alone document prior to the project hearings on the Final EIR. This document (including Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the related technical appendices) will become part of the official public record related to the EIR for the Parkside Estates project. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision-makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. The document is not intended to provide justification of the project or an alternative to the project. The document does provide elected and appointed decision-makers,responsible and trustee agencies, and citizens with information regarding the issues and concerns raised during the planning process. UIROIXVOLI\PROII9I.E I997\7N15OOlN SPONSETOCOMIvffiNTSN W-RTC.DOC 1-2 2.0 Public Participation and Review 2.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals of the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Parkside Estates project. The City of Huntington Beach took the following actions to solicit public input during the preparation of the Draft EIR. 1. The Initial Study was prepared on September 15, 1997 by the City of Huntington Beach. A copy of the Initial Study is included within Appendix A of the Draft EIR. 2. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project on September 17, 1997. A copy of the NOP is included in Appendix A-1 of the Draft EIR. The NOP with the Initial Study was circulated for a 30-day public review period on Wednesday, September 17, 1997. 3. Though not required by CEQA, a Public Scoping Meeting was held on October 9, 1997 and notice of this meeting was mailed to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project property boundary. Notice of the scoping meeting was also published in the Huntington Beach Independent Newspaper. Written comments were received in response to the NOP and Initial Study. A copy of these comments is included within Appendix A-2 of the Draft EIR. 4. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on Friday, April 17, 1998. The Draft EIR and NOC were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. A copy of the NOC and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648. 5. Due to several requests made to the City,the public review period was extended from 45 days to 60 days,and the State Clearinghouse established an official 60-day public review period for the Draft EIR. It began on Friday,April 17, 1998 and officially ended on June 15, 1998. A copy of these letters is contained in Volume III of this document. The City accepted public letters through June 26, 1998. 6. A Public Information Meeting was held related to the proposed project and the Draft EIR on Thursday,May 14, 1998. Verbal and written comments related to the Draft EIR were accepted at this Public Information Meeting. Notes on the verbal comments along with responses to both verbal and written comments are contained within Volume I of this document. Written comments received at this meeting are contained in Volume III of this document. 7. In accordance with City policy, public meeting notices (including an EIR availability notice) were mailed to all property owners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project property boundary. Additionally, notices were sent to individuals who requested to be notified by completing a public meeting sign-in sheet and those individuals who telephoned City Hall with a request to be notified. Notice of the Public Information Meeting was also published in the Huntington Beach Independent newspaper. \\QL01\VOLT\PROIPIIE11997\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOMNUeNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 2-1 8. Following the close of the 60-day public review period ending on June 15, 1998 and based on the written and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR 97-2, City staff and EDAW began preparation of formal responses and Draft EIR Errata pages. The formal responses are part of the Response to Comments document. At City staffs request, the project applicant also prepared a Reduced Density Alternative Concept from July 1998 through February 1999. 9. Based upon the Draft EIR comment letter from the County of Orange dated May 27, 1998, City staff and the applicant met with the County of Orange between June 1998 and June 2000 to discuss the status and results of the WEST Consultants'new analysis of the C05 Channel watershed. The results of this analysis were used for the issuance of a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map covering the project site. 10. In response to the issuance of the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) on June 14, 2000, issued by FEMA; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA by Shea Homes; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission decision,which designated the 4.5-acre County portion of the project site as "conservation," City staff requested and the applicant agreed to prepare a series of alternatives that would address this new information. Based on the new alternatives, staff recommended preparation of a New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, which disclosed the impacts of the new alternatives. 11. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. The State Clearinghouse established an official 45-day public review period for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. The review period began on June 29, 2001 and officially ended on August 12, 2001. A copy of the comment letters is contained in Volume III of this document. The City accepted public letters through August 15, 2001. 12. A Public Information Meeting was held related to the proposed project and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR on Wednesday, July 25, 2001. Verbal and written comments related to the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR were accepted at this Public Information Meeting. Notes on the verbal comments along with responses to both verbal and written comments are contained in Volume I of this document. Written comments received at this meeting are contained in Volume III of this document. 13. Public Meeting notices including a "notice of availability" for the New Alternatives document were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project property boundary and the notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent Newspaper. 14. Following the close of the 45day public review period ending on August 12, 2001 and based on the written and verbal comments received on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, City staff and EDAW prepared formal responses and New Alternatives Errata pages. The formal responses are part of this Response to Comments document. 15. The Final EIR, which includes the original Draft EIR, comments and responses on the Draft EIR, the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, comments and responses on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, and Errata pages will be considered for certification. \\IROI\VOLI\PROIFILE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMONTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 2-2 3.0 Draft EIR Comments/Responses to Comments 3.0 COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates project was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of sixty (60) days. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on April 17, 1998 and expired on June 15, 1998. The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through June 26, 1998. Comments on the Draft EIR were accepted for response via three (3) different methods: 1) verbal comments received at the public information meeting; 2) comment cards distributed at the public information meeting received at the meeting and at the City of Huntington Beach; and 3)comment letters received at the City of Huntington Beach. The comments have been grouped under each category; verbal comments versus comment card comments versus comment letters with each category formatted as follows: • List of Commentors and Comment/Response Series • Responses (see below explanation) It should be noted that many identical/similar comments were provided on the Draft EIR through the above three methods. In an effort to make this document more "reader friendly," the following "response approach"has been taken. The responses on comments/issues raised in Section 3.1 (verbal) are copied and duplicated for identical/similar comments in Section 3.3 (comment letters) the first time the same comments/issues are raised. Thereafter, for the comments that raised the same issue within Section 3.3 (comment letters), a reference to the "above response" within Section 3.3 is made. This approach prevents the reader from having to search a different section of the responses to obtain the information. Thus, all the references are made within the same section. This approach, which is common industry practice, is necessary to reduce redundancy and keep the document to a manageable size. In order to further facilitate review of the comments and responses to comments, the comment cards and comment letters are located in a separate volume (Volume III). This enables the reader to look concurrently at both the comment and the response. Because the verbal comments were not as detailed, both the verbal comment and response are contained within the same volume, with the response following the comment. 3.1 VERBAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Public Information Meeting The responses to the verbal comments raised at the May 14, 1998 Public Information Meeting have been correspondingly numbered and are provided directly after each verbal comment. While an official court- reporter was not present at the public information meeting to allow for a verbatim account of the meeting proceedings, explicit notes were taken. Verbal comments have been summarized as accurately as possible. All members of the audience were given an opportunity for verbal comment; after which time, the meeting moderator officially closed the verbal comment period. Subsequent to the close of the verbal comment period, several members of the audience continued to provide comment and ask questions of the panel. Many of these comments were addressed at the meeting; however, this document also includes \UROI\VOL1WtOJFRS\199T7NI5001\RBSPONSET000NSENTS\NEWRTC.DOC 3-1 additional response for those comments that raise significant environmental issues. A list of the verbal comments received and the comment/response series is provided in this section beginning on page 3-3. 3.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENT CARDS Comment cards were submitted b members of the public to the meeting moderator at the Public Y P g Information Meeting. These comment cards enabled the meeting moderator to properly acknowledge those that wished to comment. A majority of the comment cards that were submitted did not contain any specific comments; other than that they wished to speak at the meeting (see verbal comments section). Copies of the submitted comment cards are included under Volume III - Section 6.0 of this document. A list of the comment cards received and the responses to each comment that raises a significant environmental issue is provided in subsection 3.2 beginning on page 3-47. 3.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS The comment letters, which were submitted to the City by agencies, groups, organizations and individuals by June 26, 1998, have been bracketed and numbered(refer to Volume III—Section 7.0). The responses to the comments have been correspondingly numbered and are provided in Subsection 3.3 of this document.Responses are presented for each comment that raises a significant environmental issue. A list of the written comments received via comment letter and the comment/response series is provided in this section beginning on page 3-52. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft EIR or do not raise significant environmental issues. For example, many of the comments reflect the concerns of the commentor only as they relate to the merits of the proposed project (i.e., land use plan and Tentative Tract Map(s)) and not to the adequacy of the environmental information and analysis contained in Draft EIR. Other comments request additional information. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, a substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of CEQA and therefore have not been prepared. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. \\IROl\VOLT\PROJFII,\1997\7Nl5001\RESPONSETOCOhRAENT5WEW-RTC.DOC 3-2 3.1 Verbal Comments/Responses to Comments Index 3.1 VERBAL COMMENTS J RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT COMMENT/RESPONSE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SERIES PAGE# 1. Doug Stewart DS 1-4 3-6 to 3-9 5342 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2. Sandy Genis SG 1-5 3-10 to 3-15 1586 Myrtlewood Costa Mesa,CA 92626 3. Connie Boardman CB 1-3 3-15 to 3-24 8401 Sweetwater Huntington Beach, CA 902649 4. Jerry Fuller JF 1 3-25 6241 Warner Ave. #177 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 5. Eileen Murphy EM 1 3-25 2012V St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 6. Dean Albright DA 1-2 3-25 to 3-26 17301 Breda Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 7. Dan Kittredge DK 1 3-26 to 3-28 5332 Glenstone Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 8. Aimee Toth ATa 1 3-28 4536 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 9. Joseph Racano JR 1 3-28 301 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 10. Joe Buley JB 1 3-28 to 3-29 17192 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach, CA Note: The unidentified speakers (i.e.,those who did not provide their names for the record) are not included in this index. \VR01\VOLI\PROJP0M1997\7N1S001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-3 3.1 VERBAL COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT COMMENT/RESPONSE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SERIES PAGE# 11. Kim Kennedy KKa 1 3-30 122 9`h St. Apt. D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 12. Elaine Hankin EH 1 3-30 17142 Newquist Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 13. Jan Vandersloot JV 1 3-30 to 3-32 2221 E. 16`h St. Newport Beach,CA 9266? 14. John Scandura JS 1 3-32 to 3-33 17492 Valeworth Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 15. Charles Beauregard ChB 1 3-33 to 3-34 17221 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 16. Bob Winchell BW 1-2 3-34 to 3-38 6411 Weber Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92647 17. Patricia Kepler PK 1 3-38 5442 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 18. Bob Schwarte BSa 1 3-39 5422 Glenstone Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 19. Marty Annenberg MA 1 3-39 17152 Camelot Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 20. Dick LaGrew DL 1 340 to 341 Resident on Sweetwater Circle 21. Bob Schwarte BSb 1 341 5422 Glenstone Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Note: The unidentified speakers (i.e.,those who did not provide their names for the record)are not included in this index. Mol\VOL1W20JFILE\19977N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSNEW-RTC.DOC 34 3.1 VERBAL COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT COMMENT/RESPONSE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SERIES PAGE# 22. Aimee Toth ATb 1 343 to 344 4536 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 23. Charles Dildine CD 1 3-45 24. Kim Kennedy KKb 1 3-45 122 9'St. Apt. D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 25. Joe Kong JK 1 3-46 Note: The unidentified speakers(i.e.,those who did not provide their name for the record)are not included in this index. \VR01\VOLI\PROJFQE\1997\7N15001�MPONSECOCOMNENTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-5 RESPONSES TO VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. DS-1 Comment(Also commented as Speaker 8 and 13 within Section 4.1 of this document) Speaker brought up 4 main issues. The first issue regards dewatering. Speaker felt this issue was not addressed in the EIR other than a paragraph stating they're going to snake 30 to 40 wells and continuously pump water for 6 months to be able to have their skip loaders and backhoes excavate 19 feet of dirt out and then put it back. Speaker does not feel that this paragraph, in addition to a recommendation that there be monitors put next to the existing houses to stop any problem if it occurs, adequately addresses all the needs regarding this issue. DS-1 Response According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet. Perched ground water was observed in borings and test pits at levels varying from 4 to 19 feet below existing grades. These water levels vary, to some extent, seasonally and are considered to be "perched" above less permeable silt and clay seams. Those interbedded seams are discontinuous laterally and as a result water is flowing both vertically and laterally within the more permeable sand layers. Based upon excavations that were monitored in March and May 1998, digging to depths of approximately 10 feet, water levels at that period were approximately 6 feet below ground surface(bgs). The excavations were pumped on two occasions and monitored periodically in between. The following were the conclusions: 1. No fluctuations in water levels were observed during tidal changes and; 2. Relatively slow recharge(approximately 24 hours)was observed after pumping. The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique, which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4± feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, further excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removals will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavations will be segmented in approximate 200 x 200 feet±increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with similar surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points,and dewatering wells. In order to monitor the boundary conditions,the following tasks are planned to be accomplished prior to and/or during site grading: 1. Conduct a topographic survey of existing conditions; 2. Install piezometers to monitor groundwater levels; 3. Install and monitor survey monuments; 4. Prepare a detailed dewatering plan for review by the governing agency(s). WROIXVOL11PROIFUZI99T7N15001VRESPONSETOCOMI.ENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-6 It should be noted that similar conditions have been encountered elsewhere and procedures similar to those proposed for this site have been successfully implemented on numerous projects throughout the Huntington Beach,Fountain Valley, and Westminster areas. Monitoring of boundary conditions at the south side of the project associated with construction of the sheet pile levee fronting East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (C05) will be as discussed in prior certified EIR 560. Geotechnical conditions and construction details are available from the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record in accordance with CEQA Section 15148. The additional information presented herein regarding the proposed dewatering plan "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions regarding construction traffic and/or short-term construction noise impacts (i.e., noise from dewatering pumps, as discussed in Section 5.5 Noise and Appendix C of the EIR). Additional information regarding the dewatering and grading issue is contained in Section 4.1 response DS-2(page 4-36)of this document. DS-2 Comment The second issue speaker brought up is flooding and drainage. Speaker feels there is not a great deal of technical support as to how the flood control infrastructure in and around the area will be replaced, removed, and added to. Speaker asked where the improvement to the EGGW Channel will be done and who will do it. Speaker stated that according to County records,the channel could withstand a 10-15 year event,certainly not a 100-year event as indicated in the EIR. DS-2 Response According to the project civil engineer, the existing storm drain system was designed to accommodate a 10 to 25 year storm. The Orange County Hydrology Manual defines a storm "frequency" as "the frequency of occurrence of events with the specified precipitation depth and duration. This is expressed in terms of either the return period (e.g., 10-year) or exceedance probability. Exceedance probability is the probability or chance that a given storm magnitude will be equaled or exceeded in any year. The County also notes that "a 100-year precipitation event will not necessarily occur exactly once in every 100 years but actually has a finite probability that it will occur in several consecutive years or not at all in a period of 100 years. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandates that communities (city/county) administer flood plain regulations, including mandatory flood insurance and development criteria to meet the impacts of a(100-year)flood hazard. This change in design criteria has resulted in a deficiency in most storm-drain facilities built prior to the mid-1980's. The City's Master Plan calls for the storm drain system in Graham Street to ultimately be a 120-inch diameter pipe. The existing 60-inch diameter pipe in Graham Street was sized and designed using the older and now outdated hydrology criteria and cannot accommodate the current expected runoff volume of a 100-year frequency design storm flow. The City has adopted design criteria specified by the County of Orange Hydrology Manual, which uses the current and more stringent design criteria to comply with FEMA's flood protection standards. The proposed Parkside Estates development conforms with the master-planned drainage upgrades required by the City (please refer to Exhibit 42 for the original project and Exhibits 58 and 71 for the New Alternatives in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume Il), and also will provide a much- improved level of flood protection for the homes within the neighborhoods to the north and east of the \IIl201\VOLIIPROIFMZ1997VN15001A SPONSErOCOhU,MNTSNIEW-RTC.DOC 3-7 Parkside Estates Project by intercepting upstream flows with a larger pipe system and creating additional capacity in the 60" storm drain in Graham Street. There is no difference in water surface displacement or flood risk to neighboring property whether the project is constructed at 5.5 feet or 11 feet (NAVD 1988 datum). All alternatives will provide improved drainage. The applicant is being required by the City and County to improve the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel by removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet-pile or equivalent. This will widen and increase the capacity of the channel by turning the trapezoidal channel into a rectangular one on the proposed development side. This will provide for a stable barrier against the erosion of the channel berm (refer to Exhibit 6c-1 located in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II and Mitigation Measures identified on page 5-142 of the EIR). The north side of the flood control channel that fronts the project site will be improved as a condition of development imposed by Orange County. The levee will be reconstructed using sheet piling or equivalent. The project proponent will pay for construction, but design will be according to County standards, and construction will be subject to County inspection. Impacts of construction of flood control channel improvements was discussed in prior certified EIR 560 dated February 1998. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 requires that the potential adverse impact of construction of any reach, on any downstream reach, be investigated: "Improvements to those areas of the channel system with the greatest deficiencies would be provided prior to those areas with less deficiencies, subject to the evaluation that upstream improvements do not adversely impact unimproved downstream reaches." (emphasis added). The proposed channel improvements will result in water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street to remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (-one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of Slater Pump Station during pumping. The north levee at this location will be sheet pile or equivalent construction. The south levee at this location is reinforced concrete. The basis for County records is the assumption that all the runoff in the upstream watershed can be delivered to the flood control channel and conveyed downstream. This assumed "future condition"flow is appropriate for design of new flood control structures. This assumed flow will also be used for design of the improvements fronting the project site. The existing watershed condition,however,includes areas of upstream flooding and reaches of channel that overtop and release excess flow before it can reach the project site. The design flow cannot now be delivered to the project site primarily due to the deficiencies in the C05 Channel from Beach Boulevard to Woodruff Street. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 recommends restricting upstream improvements to those reaches that will not cause an increase in flow in downstream unimproved reaches. FEMA, in a letter dated December 3, 2001, has also concluded that breakouts upstream provide protection for downstream reaches: "However, the additional data submitted in support of this request indicate significant storage in the watershed and breakout of flows along the channel that cause a lower base flood discharge to reach the Shea Homes Parkside Estates property. Given these characteristics,we believe that the revised base flood discharge estimate also is reasonable." DS-3 Comment Speaker brought up a third issue regarding the 500-foot notification process used by the City. Speaker stated that there are people within 200 feet of him who have never been notified. \\➢LOI\VOLT\PROIFQ.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNCS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-8 DS-3 Response The City notified property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project site. DS-4 Comment The last issue speaker brought up was regarding the replacement of existing walls. Speaker inquired whether Shea has the right to tear down his wall with foliage on it and whether speaker has right to tell him no. Speaker inquired about these walls being put in to serve as a sound buffer, aesthetic mechanism, or a barrier for regular water flows. Speaker also asked if EDAW works for Shea on this project for the EIR process. DS-4 Response Shea originally proposed to build a 6'±high masonry wall along the north(adjacent to Kenilworth), east (adjacent to Graham Street) and south (adjacent to EGGW Channel) boundaries of the site. This wall would serve as a privacy wall and for aesthetic purposes. Along the southwestern boundary of the project site (along the proposed homes), there is a proposed seawall of varying height. No fencing is required along the northwestern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed park site. Shea proposes to protect,in place, the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site(i.e., homes along the south side of Kenilworth Drive). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 3-14, contained in Volume R for the revised text. Under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document, a new 6-foot high masonry wall would not be needed along the north boundary for privacy/aesthetic reasons(due to the 133-foot buffer which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. If a wall is required by the City,the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons. The single wall would avoid nuisance or hazards, and satisfy maintenance concerns. EDAW is under contract with the City of Huntington Beach. In regards to the hiring of EDAW as the EIR consultant, upon the determination that an EIR be prepared for the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach staff used the common and customary process of hiring a consultant. In July 1997,the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach sent a request for proposal (RFP) to four environmental consulting firms. These firms were, the Planning Center, The Chambers Group, Urban Vision, and EDAW, Inc. The Planning Division received and evaluated the proposals from the consulting firms and determined that EDAW's proposal was superior to the other proposals in its response to the City's RFP. On August 18, 1997, EDAW received a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Community Development indicating that staff reviewed EDAW's proposal and was recommending to Council that EDAW be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report. On September 15, 1997, staff recommended that the City Council approve a contract between the City and EDAW, Inc. for preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the proposed Parkside Estates residential project. The Council approved the staff s recommendation unanimously. \\IROI\VOLIWROJFMZ1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENfS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-9 2. SG-1 Comment Speaker raised 5 issues. The first issue is regarding the language used in the EIR. Speaker felt language used was unclear for the general public. Speaker indicated it would be helpful if there was a brief description of the mitigation in the Project Impact Summary matrix, instead of stating to "refer to Mitigation Measure 2 or 4." In addition, speaker suggested that when talking about "no project development,"it would be helpful if the EIR said, "this alternative will eliminate the impact" as opposed to"reduce it to a level that is less significant or still significant." SG-1 Response Table B, Project Impact Summary Matrix, of the EIR has been revised to include recommended mitigation measures. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,pages 2-3 to 2-19, contained in Volume 11, for the revised text. The revised text does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. SG-2 Comment Speaker brought up second issue of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan. Speaker stated that the EIR needed to consider the possibility of getting a best case situation, and that would be open space that would need buffers and that should be reflected in the plan. While the LCP has been adopted, it is by no means final and is subject to litigation. SG-2 Response The LCP Land Use Plan did not designate the County Portion of the proposed project site as Open Space, but rather it proposed this area for residential development. The Bolsa Chica Mesa Area located west of the site was also designated for residential development. The EIR is not required to speculate on the outcome of current lawsuits. On April 16, 1999,the California Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to remand the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Coastal Commission for consideration. The Court determined that the trial court erred in finding that the relocation of raptor habitat was permissible,although it upheld the Commission's approval of the LCP in all other respects (Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al. V. The California Coastal Commission, Court of Appeal, No. D029461, No. D030270). The action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area(ESHA). The Appellate Court's finding-that the eucalyptus grove could not, as a bird habitat,be legally relocated -led the Court to remand the LCP back to the Coastal Commission for further consideration. The protection of the eucalyptus grove, within the context of the overall LCP, went before the Coastal Commission on November 2000. On November 2000, the Coastal Commission designated the entire 4.5-acre as conservation, along with other Bolsa Chica lowland property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court on January 12, 2001 by the owner of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, therefore, the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential on the 4.5-acre County parcel remains in effect on the County General Plan and Specific Plan but has not been approved on the LCP. \UR01\VOLS\PRO*M.ZI"7\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-10 SG-3 Comment The third issue speaker raised was that the 4.5 acres is not within the City. Speaker indicated that since this portion is not under city charter, the EIR needs to address where the water supply would come from for those homes located in the 4.5 acres. SG-3 Response The project applicant proposes to annex the 4.5-acre County portion of the project site into the City of Huntington Beach. If the annexation were to be approved by Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the City would then be responsible for water supply to the homes located within the 4.5 acres. As indicated on page 5-183 of the EIR, the City cannot supply water to any development that is not within the City's limits unless the City declares there is a surplus of water and LAFCO approves the service, or the area is annexed to the City prior to being served. The EIR provides mitigation to ensure that potential impacts related to water supply for those homes to be located on the 4.5 acres are reduced to a level less than significant. As indicated on page 5-189 of the EIR, "the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel, at no cost to the City. Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works-Water Division." The EIR concludes that the implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 through 13 (Section 5.10, Public Services and Utilities, EIR) will reduce potential impacts to water services and facilities resulting from development proposed within the County of Orange to a level less than significant. SG-4 Comment The fourth issue speaker brought up is regarding circulation. Speaker stated it is peculiar that there would be no traffic impact from a couple thousand cars coming to the same place onto the same street. Speaker stated that it will be a different situation when there is an accident at the one corner where you have 208 homes with one way in and out and no way to get a fire truck in or out. SG-4 Response 1. The consulting traffic engineer and City Engineer have concluded that a single access to Graham Street is adequate to handle traffic from this project. Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A or B with the project, which represents free flow during peak hours including when school buses are active. 2. A traffic signal at the project's access street will create gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate that will be for emergency access only. 3. The applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the stacking, traffic flow, and safety issues raised. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The new layout also provides additional sight-stopping distance from the crest of Graham Street bridge. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. This additional distance will provide the necessary stacking area during peak periods. \\IROI\VOLT\PROnME\1997\7N15001VWSPONSETO0OMMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-11 The traffic study for this project, prepared in accordance with accepted methodology,concluded that the area around this project would still operate satisfactorily with the addition of project related traffic; therefore, the project does not have a significant impact as defined by the City of Huntington Beach. SG-5 Comment The last issue speaker brought up is regarding the premature declaration of no wetlands. Speaker suggested the disking be eliminated,then wait a full rainy season before it is stated that there is no impact to wetlands. Speaker stated that this would be an inconvenience to the developer, but the developer should bear the responsibility since Shea chose to disc. SG-5 Response According to the project biologist, most of the Parkside Estates project site lies within an active agricultural field, on the north side of the EGGW Channel. The channel has embankments on either side with rise ± 10 feet above the grade on the north side, and somewhat higher on the south side, with a bottom grade within the channel several feet deeper than the surrounding land. The project site was,prior to its conversion to cropland over 50 years ago, a contiguous portion of what is now known as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.The agricultural use of the site, documented in the EIR(pages 5-145 through 5-149), has been continuous at least since the early 1950's, and it also appears that much of the site received excess soils from the construction of the EGGW Channel. A chronology of non-agricultural site use (stables, rodeo arena, soil depositing,etc.)also was documented in the Draft EIR. Nearest Remnant Marshland As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is presently no natural coastal marsh habitat within the project boundaries, or immediately adjacent to the development area. The agricultural fields contain a mixture of non-native ruderal herbaceous species and disturbance tolerant native taxa, including some marshland species able to tolerate saline soils. The small remnant marshland patches which were originally present within the Orange County parcel in January 1997 and were eliminated by disking actions on that portion of the overall property in June 1997 (as detailed in Appendix G of the EIR) and have currently been reestablished at 1.2 acres (refer to June 29, 2001 correspondence from California Coastal Commission). The nearest area of remnant marshland on the northern side of the EGGW Channel lies within oil fields west of the westernmost terminus of the Orange County portion of the site, and the northernmost areas of contiguous Bolsa Chica Wetlands lie adjacent to the southern margin of the channel and existing residential developments. Tidal Flow Influences As indicated in the Draft EIR, changes in surface soils and topography associated with agricultural use altered and removed whatever natural marshland configuration might once have occurred on the site, and the presence of the EGGW Channel and oil field roadway dikes have effectively eliminated all natural tidal flows or influences. The depth of the EGGW Channel and elevations of the surrounding land preclude subsurface hydrological intrusion from the south, and high flows within the channel are of short duration, and most are primarily urban runoff. Kenilworth residential development and other projects along the north side of the property eliminated all upland habitat connectivity to or from the site, and most of the surface flows which once reached the property from that direction now are conveyed off-site through underground pipes. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJPII.E11997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSWEW-R7C.DOC 3-12 Natural Source of Surface Water As indicated in the Draft EIR, the only natural source of surface water to the site is rainfall and direct runoff from the knoll, both of which are unpredictable, seasonal, freshwater sources. An illegally installed (i.e., there was no city permit obtained), unmetered PVC water pipeline serving the former stables at the foot of the knoll has been broken numerous times during the past several years, causing localized surface flooding along the southern portion of the agricultural fields, and during years of heavy Winter rainfall (such as 1997/99) surface water accumulates in some lower portions of the site. At such times, salt-tolerant native plant species may germinate from latent seedbanks in the soil, and ruderal formations may become very dense and robust. However, this type of vegetation response is typical within all open lands, whether in active agricultural use or lying fallow, whenever abnormally high rainfall amounts accumulate on the surface. It is the nature of most ruderal and many disturbance-tolerant halophytic plant species to persist within and around human use areas, to produce great quantities of seeds annually,most of which remain ungerminated in the soil for years awaiting suitable conditions for germination, and then to respond rapidly and vigorously to adventitious hydrology or unusually high amounts of surface moisture. Site Left Fallow for Two Years According to the project biologist, leaving the project site fallow for a time of two years would not accomplish any worthwhile end, because the site simply does not have true wetlands characteristics. True, functional wetlands possess a matrix of essential characteristics, including seasonal, ephemeral or persistent waters, and a suite of vegetation and faunal elements associated with and supported by the hydrology. Over time, such sites develop the soils characteristics employed by some agencies as a third parameter for determination of wetlands. The mere fact of standing water in low areas on level sites may or may not indicate a natural wetland, particularly if the site has been altered from its original topography,is under constant agricultural or other use,has never supported such systems historically,has standing water only as a result of extraordinary conditions (such as "El Nino rainfall years or broken water pipes),and possesses no other natural features of such a system The use of a single parameter such as the presence of pooled rainwater for any given period of time during an extended rainy season to demonstrate wetlands presence or absence is not valid biologically or ecologically. The project site once was coastal saltmarsh, not an upland with brackish seasonal ponds, and it was the position of the EIR biological assessment that it would not revert to its former coastal saltmarsh condition under any natural circumstances.The altered topography and soils, lack of any means by which tidal flows can reach the system, absence of consistent hydrological support (aside from rainfall), absence of typical coastal saltmarsh plants or animals, and complete physical isolation from natural saltmarsh habitats precludes this site ever recovering to its former natural condition. The argument that this site, or any other such area, may exhibit minor amounts of facultative or disturbance-tolerant wetlands vegetation if left undisturbed does not change these facts.Maintained or left fallow,this site has the potential only to remain a largely ruderal field, with occasional areas of standing water following heavy rainfall. During years of "normal" rainfall, there would be little likelihood that standing water would persist for more than a few days following storms, and the character of the vegetation would reflect the drier conditions. Given the high growth of ruderal species observed from 1998 to 2001, it seems likely that fire clearance regulations will continue to be applied, regardless of ownership or project status. \VROIkVOLIIPROIFR.L'11997\7N15001u2ESPONSE7DMMN9ENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-13 State and Federal Agency Conclusions Additionally,both State and Federal Agencies that have jurisdictional authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineer (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Pertinent correspondence from these agencies is discussed below and contained in Section 5.0, Volume RA, Final EIR Technical Appendices. Please refer below for a discussion of both State and Federal level agencies and their conclusions related to the issue of wetland existence on-site: State Level The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) maintains State jurisdiction over the site. In a letter dated June 15, 1998, the California Coastal Commission provided the following statements regarding wetlands status: "To address the wetland delineation issue, the City of Huntington Beach hired Tom Dodson and Associates to evaluate prior wetland determinations and to conduct additional work for determining if wetlands exist on the portion of the project site located within the City of Huntington Beach. Through a letter dated December 17, 1997, an ecologist for Tom Dodson and Associates concluded that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach did not contain any wetlands based on the Coastal Commission's wetland criteria. The City of Huntington Beach(January 8, 1998) then requested that the California Department of Fish and Game evaluate the work done by Tom Dodson and Associates. The Department of Fish and Game (March 16, 1998) concurred with the assessment of Tom Dodson and Associates that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach does not contain wetlands. The Department of Fish and Game also acknowledged that the County portion of the project site contains wetlands in the form of remnant saltmarsh vegetation(estimated at 0.2 acres in the Draft EIR)." "The findings of Tom Dodson and Associates including the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game with those findings,have been questioned by Scott White Biological Consulting(April 5, 1998)." The California Coastal Commission has indicated verbally and in writing that it relies on the DFG to provide guidance on wetlands determinations.A June 15, 1998 letter from the DFG stated that, "Appendix G of the Draft EIR includes a March 16, 1998 letter written by the Department to the City of Huntington Beach. In that letter, the Department concurred with the no wetland value determination as described in the December 17, 1997 verification/update report of the wetland value determination conclusion prepared by the City of Huntington Beach's consultant, Tom Dodson and Associates, for the Shea Company Property TT#15377." The DFG has indicated in their June 15, 1998 letter that it does not recognize wetlands on the site, which addresses and nullifies Scott White's assertions as raised in the Coastal Commission correspondence; however,it does recognize significant wildlife resource values on the site. k\IROINVOLI\PRO1FaZI99T7N15001\MPONSETOMt^MNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-14 DFG further recommended that wildlife values on the County Parcel be mitigated by the enhancement of 2.0 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat at a location acceptable to the Department. They requested that Section 5.8 Mitigation Measure No. 2 be amended to increase the mitigation from 0.8 to 2.0 acres. They also requested that, "This mitigation encompass the protection and enhancement of wildlife value on or as a part of a significant ecological system in the project vicinity, such as the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Alternative equivalent mitigation may also be acceptable if it is consistent with the Draft EIR and approved by the Department prior to any site development activities" Additionally, as part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002)and is included in Volume RA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area (refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland) will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Federal Level Based on issues raised in several letters on the Draft EIR, most notably in the June 15, 1998 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., "the Corps has yet to confirm whether the "seasonal pond... on the site on the westerly end of the property [within the County parcel]..." is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or not..."), the City of Huntington Beach agreed that a formal letter from the Corps addressing the status of the seasonal pond on-site would be imperative prior to the completion of the response to comment/Final EIR document. It took several months during this process to determine whether the Federal wetland authority does in fact concur with the findings of the Draft EIR(i.e., 8.3-acre portion of City parcel is accurately designated as Prior Converted Cropland). The reason for the delay in response from the Federal wetland authority is due to the fact that there have been recent changes in law governing which agencies at the Federal level make the determinations. Ultimately through conversations with Eric Stein and Fari Tabatabai of the Army Corps of Engineers, it was determined that based upon the 1996 Farm Bill, the NRCS maintains jurisdiction over wetland determinations for the project site. The City of Huntington Beach submitted a formal letter to NRCS on November 10, 1998, requesting that they indicate the status of the 1992 Prior Converted Cropland designation for the site. After NRCS' review of all pertinent information, they concluded in a letter dated November 20, 1998, that the site's designation of Prior Converted Cropland is still valid. 3. CB-1 Comment Speaker stated that the biological section of the EIR does not adequately examine the impacts of the project on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project, and other areas of Bolsa Chica. Speaker pointed out that the proposed development lies within a few hundred feet of the Bolsa Chica Marshlands, and that peripheral impacts will affect those areas. Impacts specifically noted are those of the gum trees (Eucalyptus sp.) around the base of the knoll area, the loss of habitat \VROl\VOLT\PROJPRE\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMWNTS\4EW-RTC.DOC 3-15 values for species residing within the Bolsa Chica Reserve, and predation upon sensitive bird species by cats and other predators roaming out of the residential areas. The potential loss of the gum trees was stated to be a significant impact to birds of prey, and that the non-native trees on Bolsa Chica Mesa are "part of an environmentally sensitive habitat area afforded special protection by the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game." Speaker stated that Bolsa Chica is one eco-system, the Shea property is part of the eco-system, and what happens on this property will affect the wetlands and the mesa at Bolsa Chica. Speaker stated it does not make sense to propose over 200 units at this site and not mention the impact this development would have on the wildlife there. According to the speaker, it's almost as if the project is being planned for another City instead of on the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. Speaker stated the EIR limits itself to what impacts the development will have on the flora and fauna on the 49 acres and that this project does not exist in a vacuum. Appendix G states that project implementation would generate no direct significant adverse impacts to native wildlife populations or sensitive species locally or regionally. As a biologist, speaker does not agree with this. Speaker finds it lacking in that it does not adequately examine the impacts of the project on the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve and other areas of Bolsa Chica. Speaker gives an example: all of the endangered birds that nest at Bolsa Chica, waterfowl and other shore birds are ground nesting birds. Those that are not such as the birds of prey like white tail kites, red tailed hawks and the great blue herons nest in the eucalyptus trees on the mesa. CB-1 Response According to the project biologist, the biological assessment for the Draft EIR did not consider the actions proposed for the project site to constitute significant adverse environmental impacts to the off- site Bolsa Chica Wetlands System. The two areas contain completely different habitat types and values, and the interposing EGGW Channel creates a significant biological barrier between the areas. The project site contains only upland formations, predominantly ruderal systems typical of highly-disturbed substrates and agricultural areas throughout coastal southern California. None of the trees, shrubs or vegetation formations on the City portion of the site are natural, and are comprised almost entirely of invasive alien plant species; these elements do not provide resident habitat, foraging areas or other essential resources for any agency-listed sensitive plant or animal species. There are no migratory wildlife corridors, habitat linkages, essential seasonal resources, unique, unusual or sensitive resource assemblages present on or adjacent to the site (outside the Bolsa Chica Saltmarshes). The cover and species resource values are insufficient to induce native marshland species to forage or nest outside of the higher quality systems of Bolsa Chica, and existing levels of human disturbance are much greater on the site than south of the channel. These areas have been so severely altered and degraded biologically that they no longer are a functional part of the nearby wetlands ecosystem, nor do they mesh visually or ecologically with that system. The EGGW Channel has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and terrestrial connection between the project site and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and actions on the site would not have any measurable effect on the hydrology or water quality of the reserve or restoration areas. There are no tidal flows crossing, reaching or draining from the project site into any other natural area, nor are there any natural freshwater flows or nutrient transport systems entering or exiting the site to or from adjacent natural areas. \UROIWOLI)PROJFIIEU997\7N15001T.ESPONSEI'OCOMMENTSWM-RTC.DOC 3-16 Artificial Boundaries The California State Lands Commission noted that "biological resources do not acknowledge [the] artificial boundaries" such as the EGGW Channel, tract map lines or municipal jurisdictions; however, they do recognize and respond-- positively or negatively-- to the presence or absence of suitable habitat values and resources. The ruderal fields and non-native trees, lacking saltmarsh cover, structure or resources on the project site would not induce marshland birds or mammals to leave their natural habitats and cross the channel, regardless of the distance, and there are no habitat values for shorebirds on the site. Endangered or Sensitive Bird Species Additionally,according to the project biologist,none of the endangered or sensitive bird species from the Bolsa Chica System nests,roosts or routinely forages within the project site, and much greater quantities of much higher quality natural resources are available within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for shore and marshland birds. Species such as least tern routinely forage within the open waters of the EGGW Channel, but do not forage terrestrially on the project site. The loss of the open, ruderal fields on the project site would not constitute a measurable reduction in any essential habitat value or support resource for any of the sensitive species presently residing in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Ecosystem, nor would it in any way jeopardize the potential for successful restoration of habitat values for these species in areas south of the EGGW Channel. Neither white-tailed kite nor red-tailed hawk are limited distributionally or populationally in southern California by a lack of roosting or nesting site resources, as both will nest in tall trees regardless of species,and often in man-made structures as well. Red-tailed hawks habituate readily to human presence, and are not considered sensitive species by any agency, although all native birds of prey are protected from direct harm or harassment(as was noted in the Draft EIR). The project does not propose to remove the stand of mature healthy gum trees from the City portion of the site. Although the original project as proposed would impact trees on the County portion of the project site, the four new alternatives to the Draft EIR will avoid impacting/removing the gum trees on the County parcel. Therefore, there would be no significant loss of habitat or nest sites for this species, although disturbances will arise as a result of construction activities. The portion of the City parcel nearest the grove of trees is designated as a park site (and under the four new alternatives, either the County portion of the site adjacent to the gum trees will be open space or under Alternatives 8 and 9 the entire County parcel will not be developed),and it is unlikely that these birds would abandon their nest site as a consequence of the development. White-tailed kite populations in California have rebounded dramatically from their historic lows in the early part of the century and ± 35 years ago, when their numbers dropped as a result of habitat losses, direct predation by humans, pesticide residue effects, and possible crashes in their prey species populations. It is now known that their numbers and local distribution fluctuate seasonally and annually according to prey species abundance, and that they tend to be somewhat nomadic, changing roosting and nesting sites as they locate new hunting areas. Their relationship to the project site is relative to the presence of the gum trees, as the field probably does not contribute significant food resources; content analysis of 544 white-tailed kite cast pellets from one Santa Barbara site showed evidence of 777 rodents, most of which were voles and house mice, with nothing as large as a ground squirrel or pocket gopher. Since the field supports mostly California ground squirrels and Botta pocket gophers, it is probable that the majority of the kite foraging locally is over non-agricultural fields adjacent to residential areas (where house mice are abundant)and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands (for voles). IVROI%VOLI\PROJFUIM1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-1/ The proposed project would not significantly reduce or alter essential foraging habitat for white-tailed P P P J � Y g g kite locally, as much larger areas of higher quality, natural habitat exist within the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands System; nor would project implementation result in the loss of kite nesting resources, if they were to nest within the gum tree grove (no nests were observed during the 5 original and 3 subsequent field visits) on-site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 1 requires construction activities be limited to areas 500 feet away from any raptor nests identified by a survey conducted immediately prior to project grading. Existing high daily levels of human activity (including hikers, bikers, dogs, equestrians, heavy equipment driving through, disking of the fields, agricultural activities, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the gum trees, with which the kites presently co-exist, should decrease following project development, as the City portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as a park and under the new alternatives to the Draft EIR all or a portion of the County portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as open space,and no longer be open to vehicle trespass or other disturbance. There are no identified great blue heron rookeries within the mature gum trees on the property, although these birds do roost in the taller trees on occasion. They also forage for gophers and other small vertebrates in the agricultural field, as well as along the EGGW Channel. The project thus would result in a minor, incremental loss of casual foraging habitat for this species locally, but would not eliminate rookeries,roost sites or major foraging areas, or otherwise endanger the species locally or regionally. Non-Point Pollution and Indirect Impacts The depth of the intervening Wintersburg channel, relative to adjacent surface land levels, and limitations of surface and subsurface hydrological movement makes the potential for non-point pollution of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands from chemical spills, or topical applications of herbicides, pesticides, etc. on the project site extremely remote. While the linear distance between the proposed development and the nearest adjacent restorable habitat south of the channel is relatively slight, the intervening channel berms obstruct direct line of sight from ground level. There will be some tangential impacts from light, noise, dust, air pollution and other similar disturbances during construction and following residential occupation, but these too will be incremental relative to the approximately 200 acres of existing residential units situated directly adjacent to the wetlands on the south side of the channel. Whatever increases in these types of disturbances might arise from the project would be minor(i.e., not significant) in terms of their impacts, given existing levels of the same sorts of actions within these more proximate developments, and the buffering effect of the EGGW Channel and its berms. The project proposes no new roads to or from the area south of the channel or along the berms, nor will project infrastructure enter or cross the channel or wetlands.The existing foot bridge will be removed as part of the project. Although a significant impact has not been identified, Conditions of Approval are suggested by the City to further reduce or guard against indirect impacts to peripheral resource areas: 1) Security lighting and street lighting shall be low-intensity and directed away from sensitive habitat areas. Non-essential night lighting shall be on timers or motion sensors, and shall not be left on past normal activity hours. 2) Use of gas-powered leaf blowers and other non-essential noisy,polluting devices shall not be permitted within the development or around the periphery. Parks and other public areas shall not be used for overtly intrusive activities such as rock concerts. 3) Landscaping palettes shall utilize drought-tolerant native taxa, and shall not introduce any non-native species known to spread from cultivation into natural areas. \UR01\VOL1WRO7FR.E\1997N7N15001\RESPONSETDMhDtENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-18 4) Fire clearance and other physical maintenance of undeveloped areas shall be performed by hand and shall be confined to the minimum disturbance required by ordinance. 5) Aerial application of herbicides, pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals shall not be permitted within or around the development, and harmful chemicals, which have the potential to permeate into the water table, shall not be stored or used within the development. 6) The project proponent shall store all construction materials in such a manner as to prevent spillage of paints, solvents, oils, or fuel onto the substrate. Materials stored shall be kept on palettes or tarps, and all debris shall be cleared away to proper disposal sites. Areas, which might attract or support house mice or black rats shall be cleaned up and properly maintained. 7) Prior to grading,a survey shall be conducted, and any red foxes on or near the site be trapped and removed consistent with Fish and Game policies prior to project implementation; or the project applicant shall participate in any approved programs for the control of red foxes,that will be implemented by the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. Impacts on Adiacent Wetland Restoration Western Terminus Off-site wetlands adjacent to the western terminus of the project site may be restored to higher levels of biological functionality as part of the overall Bolsa Chica Habitat Restoration Program. Although the area currently is in a severely degraded condition, it has restoration potential and possesses the essential characteristics of coastal saltmarsh, and must be considered a sensitive environmental area for CEQA and other regulatory analyses. At present the 4.5-acre project County parcel contains mostly ruderal understory elements with dense thickets of submature gum trees, and as such has no substantial natural habitat values relative to adjacent saltmarsh ecosystems. As part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associated on May 21, 2002) and is included in Volume HA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. The original TTM analyzed in the Draft E1R identified the western end to be within a restricted use/storm drain easement,at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The original TTM use (i.e., stormdrain easement) would be passive and according to the project civil engineer, storm flows would not enter off-site wetlands. In addition to the conditions of approval provided above, the new alternatives locate the closest residential unit in the County parcel 464 feet (Alternatives 6 and 7) and 767 feet (Alternatives 8 and 9) from the westerly property boundary, and 3.3 acres immediately adjacent to the westerly property boundary are proposed to be maintained as open space under Alternatives 6 and 7 and the total 4.5-acre County parcel is proposed to be maintained as open space under Alternatives 8 and 9. Based on the statements above, the project's proposal for the western portion of the Orange County parcel, would not compromise efforts to restore biological functionality to the existing degraded saltmarsh beyond the site. Untreated wastewater drainage shall not be directed into this area, nor shall roads, lighting, or other physical intrusions be sited such that they have an impact on the adjacent land. This end of the project site shall be fenced against human and pet intrusion into the wetlands, and project exterior walls shall be designed to confine persons and pets away from this area. Therefore, no significant impacts from 40 development(four new alternatives)are anticipated to occur to the adjacent wetlands areas. \\IROI\VOLT\PRO7FRZ1997\7NI5001\MPONSETOCON54ENTS\NL'W-RTC.DOC 3-19 CB-2 Comment Speaker found no mention in the EIR of the impact domestic pets would have on the wildlife in the wetlands. She indicated that instead there are statements in the EIR as to how dangerous eucalyptus trees are to birds. Speaker indicated that according to a study published in a newsletter with a sample size of 2, eucalyptus trees might suffocate birds with the sticky nectar clogging the nasal passages. Speaker questioned why a newsletter article with a sample size of 2 was included as a reference in the EIR when articles published in scientific journals that document the loss of millions of birds into captivation were not sited. According to speaker, since newsletters of organizations seem to be acceptable as scientific sources in this EIR, she would share one of her own, from the Natural History Museum of San Diego. It documents that in one San Diego least tern colony, 60 of 120 chicks were killed in one night by cats. According to speaker, there's a colony of endangered least terns on the south island of Bolsa Chica, which at low tide is accessible to cats and other terrestrial predators. However, this obvious impact was not even mentioned in the EIR. Instead cutting down the eucalyptus trees nesting and perching habitats of birds of prey was justified as a way of reducing impact of predation of birds in the wetlands even though there is no evidence presented in the EIR that this predation on the birds is significant. CB-2 Response According to the project biologist, anecdotal observations made in the Draft EIR(as mentioned above in the CB-2 comment) indicate that some songbirds may die as a result of feeding on insects or nectar from gum trees, the sticky pollen clogging their nostrils, suffocating them. This observation was offered simply as an indication that some songbird deaths may occur as a result of flow-feeding on these trees. Given the tremendous number of gum trees in California, and the difficulty in documenting the fate of small birds as they scatter over the landscape, nasal obstruction from the pollen of non-native trees and shrubs actually may be an overlooked cause of mortality in migratory songbirds; that issue aside, the anecdote in the EIR was offered simply as another reason why gum trees should not be viewed as an ecological amenity. According to the project biologist, another impact to the adjacent wetlands potentially arising from project development is increased intrusion into sensitive habitats by cats, dogs and humans and provides the following response: Direct human intrusion creates disturbances in sensitive habitat areas, including trampling vegetation, upsetting or stepping on nests, or preventing natural courtship,nesting or feeding behaviors. Urban dogs usually are not particularly effective or focused predators, but if allowed to run free may develop feral behaviors or form packs, hunting or harassing smaller animals. Even fully-domesticated dogs may chase or disturb sensitive species during the breeding season, and could adversely affect colonies of ground-nesting birds if able to gain access to them. Cats are the greatest urban-fringe threat to birds which nest in the open or low in shrubs; as noted by one commentor, cats may destroy colonies of ground-nesting birds, and also will prey upon most other small vertebrates. Because cats kill out of instinct,not necessarily related to hunger,they may destroy eggs and nests in greater numbers than would most native predators. An increase in the number of dogs and cats living adjacent to a natural wetlands or ground-nesting bird colony could result in significant adverse impacts if they are not properly confined to residential perimeters. The project lies on the north side of the channel from natural habitat areas, and considerably farther from any ground-nesting bird colonies, but cat, dog and human intrusions could originate from the site, provided that they are able to cross the channel. Existing use of the project site includes numerous \\IROI\VOLTVRO*ILE\1997\7NI5OOl\RESPONSETOMN,MffiNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-20 humans and their dogs walking in the fields or along the channel berms. Cats were not seen in the area, but at the time of the project biologist's visits, there were red foxes present around the stable area and in the County parcel, and this species is an effective cat predator. The significance of an incremental increase in disturbance impacts from humans and feral pets is difficult to assess given the impossibility of factoring probabilities for numbers of individuals added to existing intrusions from developments on the south side of the channel. There currently are three (3) unrelated residential developments on the south side of the EGGW Channel from the project site and physically contiguous with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands along at least one perimeter. There are 848 total units within these 3 developments, 32 of which lie along the margin of the tracts, immediately adjacent to the wetlands. It is assumed that these developments contain a proportional number of children, cats and dogs to other urban residential areas in the region, so at a minimum they generate intrusion impacts relative to their general size and contiguity. The proposed project has no direct perimeter with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, but the westernmost terminus of the Orange County parcel does approach an area intended for restoration efforts. Of the original 206 total units proposed for the development (plan analyzed in Draft EIR), 3 border the western terminus of the parcel, about a dozen are contiguous with the southern toe of the knoll, and ±18 abut the EGGW Channel berm west of the margin of the existing south-side development. The potential for intrusion impacts from the proposed project would have to be factored incrementally relative to the existing levels from the 848 units presently situated next to the wetlands. On a per-unit basis there would be a direct increase of about 20% in the overall number of people and pets available to generate adverse impacts, but at most a 6% increase in the number of units immediately adjacent to marshland habitat(=the 3 lots at the terminus of the Orange County parcel). It should also be noted that under the new alternative plans (see Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 6-32 to 6-108, contained in Volume H, and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document) no residential units are proposed at the westerly terminus of the Orange County parcel (9 units are proposed in the eastern portion of the site under Alternatives 6 and 7 and 0 units are proposed under Alternatives 8 and 9). The closest proposed residential unit is 464 feet (under Alternatives 6 and 7) and 767 feet (under Alternatives 8 and 9) from the project site's westerly property boundary. Whereas cats, dogs and humans can directly enter the wetlands from the perimeters of the south-side projects,the only terrestrial access to the south side of the EGGW Channel from the project site is by crossing the small bridge left from the old oil field activities. Although no specific significant adverse biological impacts to the Bolsa Chica Saltmarsh can be identified for this project, the project biologist suggested implementation of the following Conditions of Approval to minimize the possibility of intrusion disturbance to the wetlands: 1) Because the only routes by which humans or pets might cross the EGGW Channel is the existing small foot bridge,the bridge shall be removed. 2) The entire periphery of the residential development should be walled to a height of at least 6 feet. The final wall plans shall be reviewed and approved by the project biologist and the City Department of Planning. 3) Residents shall be given written notification of the presence of sensitive environmental resource areas adjacent to the project, and shall be instructed to obey all ordinances regarding confinement and leashing of pets. Local animal regulation agencies shall be contacted and requested to vigorously enforce all appropriate ordinances. This notification shall be subject to the approval of the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits for residential units. \\IR01\VOL1\PROJPQ.E\19977N15OOl\RESPONSETOCONV 1IENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-21 CB-3 Comment Speaker indicated that the eucalyptus trees on the Bolsa Chica Mesa are part of an environmentally sensitive habitat area afforded special protection by the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game even though they are non-native trees their importance to their birds of prey at Bolsa Chica has given them this special designation. According to the speaker, it is true that some of the trees of the Shea properties are dying but even dead and dying trees have important wildlife habitat values. According to the speaker, the EIR claims that these trees are non-native and therefore justifies removing them. Speaker indicated that she might believe this if they were going to replace these trees with native trees, but instead they propose to replace these trees with housing, hardly native. There's also an argument named that it's also unnatural to have trees bordering the salt marsh. Speaker pointed out that it's also unnatural to have houses border the salt marsh. According to the speaker, the EIR even seems to blame the presence of crows at Bolsa Chica on the eucalyptus trees, when it is urbanization that attracts crows to the area. Crows can be an important predator on the least tern. Speaker commented that she personally observed crows eating eggs and chicks at a colony at Terminal Island. The construction of 200 units on the site will only attract more crows into the wetlands area. The EIR does admit that the removal of active nesting sites of bird of prey would be a significant impact. To mitigate this, the trees will only be removed during the non-breeding season.And the EIR suggests that because of the eucalyptus trees on the mesa,there doesn't need to be any replacement habitat. According to the speaker, it should be evident to any biologist that in an area like urbanized Orange County, competition for nesting areas for birds of prey is great. The birds displaced by the removal of trees on the Parkside Estates property cannot just elbow their way into existing territories already on the mesa. What will happen is that these birds will be forced out of the area or they will force birds out of existing territories. Also,while the Bolsa Chica Land Trust currently has a legal case on appeal which if won would prevent the destruction of the eucalyptus grove on the mesa, loss of the case could result in destruction of this growth. So there goes the habitat which the EIR implies could be used by the birds displaced from the destruction of the eucalyptus trees on the Shea property. The EIR also explains that replacement is not needed because the birds are not sensitive species that use these trees. The EIR admits that in June of 1997 a pair of white tail kites was seen roosting and foraging in the eucalyptus trees on the northern margin of the Orange County area. The birds indicated a local territory. Last year there were three (3) active nests of white tail kites in the eucalyptus groves at Bolsa Chica. The white tail kite is a sensitive species. If these birds are nesting on the Shea property then mitigation for a sensitive species would be required and the EIR does not address this. Speaker indicated that she had other concerns regarding the wetlands on the site, which would be included in written comments. Speaker believes that the scope is not appropriate as that it does not evaluate the impact of over 200 units with at least 500 additional people living virtually within the Bolsa Chica System. CB-3 Response Eucalyptus Grove(s) Conclusions According to the project biologist, although the grove of gum trees at the eastern base of the knoll is not jeopardized by this development, some of the smaller trees within the Orange County portion of the site may be removed with implementation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. Several commentors took exception to statements within the EIR to the effect that removal of exotic gum trees would not constitute a significant biological impact, and in fact might enhance local wildlife values. The primary area of contention centered around their use by birds of prey, and whether or not this is of benefit to other local wildlife,particularly sensitive species within the adjacent wetlands. \VROI\VOLI\PROIFMM1997\7Nl5OOl\RE5PONSECOCOMWNTSU -RTC.DOC 3-22 There is virtually universal agreement among biologists and ecologists that invasive, alien plant species degrade, not enhance, habitat values wherever they occur. It is the official position of the California Native Plant Society that such species not be encouraged, used in landscaping, or permitted to colonize natural environments, and one of the least desirable non-native trees is the blue gum,because it seeds-out vigorously and forms vast, dense forests, often crowding-out natural habitats and suppressing the growth of native shrubs and herbaceous taxa. It is also considered a "thirsty" species, with a high evapotranspiration rate capable of dewatering wetland soils. Highly flammable and often carrying considerable dead wood in their crowns, gum trees can propel wildfire into riparian areas, wetlands and other systems not adapted ecophysiologically to burning. Native insects generally do not pollinate or feed upon gum trees, and very few native wood-boring insects utilize their dead wood, retarding the normal processes of wood decomposition and nutrient cycling, and resulting in large accumulations of dead wood and shed bark on the ground beneath groves, lowering the natural ecological value of the understory. The architecture of gum trees is suitable for a number of habitat predator and generalist bird species (such as red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, American crow, common raven, great horned owl, barn owl)to either nest or day-roost in them,but most bird species neither nest nor forage extensively in these trees. The presence of roosting and nesting birds of prey is not a natural circumstance for most open wetland systems such as Bolsa Chica. While the direct impacts of these predators on adjacent ground- nesting and saltmarsh species has not been documented,it is probable that some,if not all,of the birds of prey present hunt within the marshlands. Egret feathers and body parts were found beneath the gum trees on one occasion,possibly having been taken by a great horned owl. Also, the gum trees and residential trees (once mature) attract crows to the area, and these birds are notorious predators upon the eggs and nestlings of other birds. According to the project biologist, anecdotal observations (cited in the EIR, and taken exception to by the commentor) indicate that some songbirds may die as a result of feeding on insects or nectar from gum trees, the sticky pollen clogging their nostrils, suffocating them. This observation was offered simply as an indication that some songbird deaths may occur as a result of flower-feeding on these trees. Given the tremendous number of gum trees in California, and the difficulty in documenting the fate of small birds as they scatter over the landscape, nasal obstruction from the pollen of non-native trees and shrubs actually may be an overlooked cause of mortality in migratory songbirds;that issue aside,the anecdote in the Draft EIR was offered simply as yet another reason why gum trees should not be viewed as an ecological amenity. The non-native trees on Bolsa Chica Mesa are part of an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) afforded special protection by the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game. It is the opinion of the project biologist that the presence of the eucalyptus groves have the potential to adversely alter predator — prey dynamics within the adjacent coastal saltmarsh refuge, and by their shading and non-decomposing litter they lower natural substrate and understory resource values, while providing no value to the adjacent natural coastal wetlands ecosystems and at most minimal, non- essential habitat values for other local wildlife. Based upon the above statements, the Draft EIR concluded that their removal from this site would not constitute a significant adverse impact to native wildlife or natural ecosystems,nor a loss of essential or natural biological habitat. Reduced Density Alternatives In response to comments received from the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT), and others during the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates \VROIiVOLT\PROJFH.ZI997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMAMNT9\NEWR7CAOC 3-23 project, the City of Huntington Beach directed the applicant to prepare an alternative plan to be considered as part of the EIR. The following specific issues raised within the comment letters (indicated in parentheses noted at the end of each issue bullet)influenced the preparation of thealternative concept: • Avoid eucalyptus trees on the County portion of the site, which are part of a larger Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) previously designated by Fish and Game (BCLT) • Design project to avoid impacts to remnant wetland (i.e., remnant pickleweed) area located in the County portion of the project(DFG) • Explore a project alternative which avoids impacts to the A-acre EPA delineated wetland area in the County rather than simply proposing that adverse impacts be mitigated(CCC) • Consider alternative uses (i.e., open space/scenic greenway)for the 4.9-acre County parcel that would avoid houses jutting further into the lowland area currently being planned for restoration and long-term conservation of fish and wildlife(USFWS) The alternative concept was used in conjunction with the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel to prepare four (4) new alternatives to the Draft EIR. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was prepared under a separate cover and was circulated for public review from June 29, 2001 through August 13,2001. Additionally, subsequent to the end of the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR, the Court of Appeal rendered a decision on the appeal of the trial court's decisions pertaining to the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica Project. As part of the decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's decision with respect to relocating the bird habitat proposed as part of the Bolsa Chica Project. According to the Court of Appeal, the Coastal Act does not permit destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA) simply because the destruction is mitigated off-site. The proposed original plan and alternative plans accommodate this court decision. The 4.5-acre County parcel contains 0.13 acre(west of the above ground gas line) of the Fish and Game designated ESHA (please refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b in Section 5.0 Final EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). The Parkside Estates original project proposes development of 27 single-family homes within the County portion of the project site, which would require the removal of eucalyptus trees. Although most of the trees, which would have been removed, were not part of the larger designated eucalyptus ESHA, impacts associated with tree removal were identified in the Draft EIR. In an effort to reduce the impact related to removal of these trees to a level less than significant, the EIR proposed mitigation requiring replacement of the trees at a 2:1 ratio. The four alternative plans result in complete avoidance of all County eucalyptus trees including the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Implementation of any of the four alternative plans, which would result in development of 9 lots (Alternatives 6 and 7) and/or 0 lot(Alternatives 8 and 9)vs. 27 lots within the County parcel, would ensure that impacts related to the removal of on-site trees remain less than significant. A detailed description of the alternative plans and associated environmental analysis is located in Section 5.0 Final EIR,pages 6-32 to 6-108, contained in Volume II, and in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. 1VR011VOL11YROJFREV99T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-24 4. JF-1 Comment Speaker is concerned with the ecological situation of the area.. Speaker stated it would not be a good impact on very small part of what is left from what used to exist. JF-1 Response Please refer to above response to CB-1 (page 3-16), regarding impacts to off-site Bolsa Chica Wetlands or the Ecological Reserve. 5. EM-1 Comment(Also submitted comment card 3 within Section 3.2 and commented as Speaker 3 within Section 4.1 of this document) Speaker stated that the water stands for 12 consecutive days and pictures have proven that. Speaker stated that the site is a wetland and no amount of planning will change that fact. Speaker indicated that the surrounding houses have flooded. EM-1 Response According to the project civil engineer,photos documenting Historical Record of this site do not indicate a history of standing water. Any standing water on this site documented by pictures, is either from an excessive rainfall which occurred prior to the photographs or the broken 2-inch water service line that crossed this property. 1998 was a year of abnormal rains referred to as El Nino. The pictures could have been taken after any of these abnormal storms. In response to the comment that "surrounding houses have been flooded," it must be noted that such flooding has occurred in the past due to an inadequate existing storm drain system. The proposed project will improve the local storm drain system (refer to Section 5.7 of the EIR and Exhibit 42 in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II) and provide regional benefit. See response to BLM-3 in Section 3.3 (page 3-105)for additional discussion. Additionally, please refer to above responses to SG-5 (page 3-12), regarding wetlands issues on the project site and DS-2(page 4-36)in Section 4.1 of this document,regarding flooding issues. 6. DA-1 Comment Speaker raised several issues. Speaker stated concerns regarding debris,such as balls,disposable diapers, etc., backing up stormdrains and sewer pumps. Speaker stated he has pictures of balls, ranging in size, that are sitting in the EGGW Channel. Speaker is concerned about pumps becoming ineffective if items, such as these, inhibit them from working properly. Speaker is concerned about what would happen if the new pump, which is to be added with this project, failed and quit pumping water. The water would still be coming down from Warner and will back up throughout this project. DA-1 Response According to the project civil engineer, debris such as balls, disposable diapers, etc., noted in this speaker's concern is found in all County flood control channels. This project will be required to install debris removal devices in the stormwater treatment train prior to entering the pump station. Pump stations are designed with a trash rack that will prevent the debris from getting into the pump bays. 0 Furthermore, the pumps can handle any trash or debris that makes its way through the trash rack. The addition of the new pump, required as project mitigation, will provide additional back up for existing facilities. tlD201\VOL1\PROIFHM1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCC)MMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-25 Additionally, please refer to response to DS-2 (page 4-36) in Section 4.1 of this document, regarding flooding issues. DA-2 Comment Speaker's next issue was regarding a 10-inch gas main above ground at the end of the project that appears to go through someone's back yard. The speaker's last issue was regarding rainwater drainage. DA-2 Response According to the project civil engineer, the existing gas line is located within an open space area to be maintained by the Homeowners Association(HOA)and not anyone's backyard. Additionally, please refer to above responses to EM-1 (page 3-25), regarding standing water/rainfall issues, and DS-2(page 4-36)in Section 4.1 of this document,regarding flooding and drainage issues. 7. DK-1 Comment Speaker stated he supports the "No Development" alternative of the EIR. Speaker stated that the site is critically important due to the proximity to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Speaker stated the one entry into the proposed project is impractical and that a secondary exit along Greenleaf is crucial. Speaker proposed a two-exit,two-entrance alternative,maybe from Bolsa Chica Street. DK-1 Response Please refer to above response to CB-1 (page 3-16), regarding impacts to the off-site Bolsa Chica Wetlands or the Ecological Reserve. Use of Existing Streets as Secondary Access According to the project traffic engineer, although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets to the north are used as secondary access to the project, the impact will be minimal. Traffic from the project would add 38 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles in the PM peak hour to Greenleaf Lane south of Warner Avenue. Although Greenleaf Lane was designed to connect to the Shea Homes site to provide internal circulation, due to neighborhood comments it is the position of the City that existing local streets to the north would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access, and therefore, City staff will propose a Condition of Approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane to an unrestricted public street access. The Greenleaf "emergency only" access can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Second Access from Bolsa Chica Street According to the project traffic engineer, all logical street extensions from the project to the west create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. In order to create a safe 1VR01\VOL1\PROJFIIB\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS*WW-RTC.DOC 3-26 intersection at the middle alignment, adjacent property would be rendered undevelopable due to the major cuts required to create 2:1 slopes for the roadway. In addition to Section 6.6 Alternative 5 Alternative Roadway Connections of the Draft EIR, which addresses the feasibility of roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street, the project traffic engineer provided further analysis of the roadway connections through revisions of the text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR contained in Volume H. The additional information does not change the conclusions made in the Draft EIR and is provided below: Alignment A(Northerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer, this alignment is unacceptable because it creates a confusing and potentially dangerous intersection at Bolsa Chica Street. There is an existing Bolsa Chica Intersection at Los Patos Avenue to the west and an opposite private driveway serving the condominium development to the east. The extension of Bolsa Chica Street will have a prevailing speed of about 45 mph. Adding another intersection immediately adjacent to the private driveway would create turning conflicts at the three legs intersecting Bolsa Chica at nearly the same point. Alignment B (Middle Extension) According to the project traffic engineer,in order to maintain a maximum 8 percent grade,this extension would create a massive cut (from 130 feet to 170 feet wide) through privately owned property virtually destroying its development potential. Because of cut slope, access from that property to this street would not be feasible without further impacting that property. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there may be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica. Alignment C(Southerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer, Bolsa Chica Street at this intersection will be on a horizontal and vertical curve with prevailing speeds of about 50 miles per hour. The southerly extension will be on a horizontal curve and an uphill grade of about 4% at its intersection with Bolsa Chica. Acceleration from a 4%uphill grade onto a street with vertical and horizontal curves and prevailing speeds of 50 miles per hour at the intersection would be challenging for the average driver. In addition, there will most likely be sight distance limitations for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles on Bolsa Chica. The severity of the sight distance limitations will depend on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica. Additionally,this alignment requires a fill slope of almost 30 feet. Extension to Bolsa Chica Conclusions According to the project traffic engineer, all three alignments have serious drawbacks. The northerly alignment creates an intersection on Bolsa Chica that is spaced too closely to an existing driveway serving a major development. The center alignment could create a reasonably safe intersection with Bolsa Chica but would be extremely costly and would destroy adjacent property in the process. The southerly alignment creates an intersection with Bolsa Chica with potentially serious grade and sight distance problems. \UR01\VOLt\PROJFMZ1997\7Nt5001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTSNEW-RTC.DOC 3-27 The proposed Parkside Estates residential development will have little effect on existing or future levels of service on Graham Street. The installation of a traffic signal on "A" Street and Graham will create gaps in traffic in the AM and PM peak hours, which will help motorists accessing Graham Street from Kenilworth Drive. Because of the acceptable LOS on Graham Street with the project, there is no need for additional access to the west at Bolsa Chica. S. ATa-1*Comment Speaker stated that she has walked through the site and there is a great wealth of wildlife. Speaker stated that the site is a wetland and this would not come back if developed. Speaker suggested that taxpayer's money should be spent to preserve this site. Speaker stated that the traffic signal along Graham Street is silly. ATa-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. According to the project traffic engineer, a traffic signal at the project's access street is required due to the limited sight distance between Graham Street bridge and vehicles exiting the new development. 9. JR-1" Comment Speaker stated that he is familiar with the Bolsa Chica and currently volunteers with the Wetlands Wildlife Center off of Newland where he has seen many displaced creatures. Speaker stated it is important to save open space for the wildlife and we need to draw the line. JR-1 Response Please refer to above response to CB-1 (page 3-16), regarding impacts to off-site Bolsa Chica Wetlands or the Ecological Reserve. 10. JB-1 Comment Speaker stated that over time people in the community and people on the commission change. People will want a second exit. Speaker stated that the Darnell traffic report in the EIR is misleading. Speaker commented that there is a way to put a second access into the property and it can be done economically. Speaker stated all the Shea contractor has to do is (word inaudible) going to be used to haul 200,000 yards of fill dirt and make that the permanent second access road. Speaker inquired about how the developer is going to donate $250,000 for the development of the park. Speaker asked if it would be done concurrently?Is it going to be a greenway?Are they going to grass it? Are they going to provide security, drinking water, and toilet facilities? Speaker commented that people participating in physical activities in the park might relieve themselves in the trees if there are no toilet facilities provided. Speaker stated that neighbors should be fully aware of the size of construction that would be taking place. Speaker suggested noise control and control of hours worked. Controlling for the disruption of the natural habitat and the animals. * The recording of the proceedings of the meeting had inadvertently ended at this point. Speaker's comments were noted to the best of the ability of note takers that were present at the meeting. \\IROl\VOLI\PRO]FU.E\I997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMI.MNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-28 JB-1 Response According to the project traffic engineer, all logical street extensions from the project to the west create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. Without extensive cut slopes, the grade of a critical section of this alignment would exceed 20 percent, which is considered unacceptable for a public street. Please refer to above response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding alternative roadway connections. A street extension to Bolsa Chica is unnecessary. Graham Street will operate at a Level of Service A or B with the project (with level of service A being an optimum condition of free flow traffic). Although Greenleaf Lane was designed to connect to the Shea Homes site to provide internal circulation, due to neighborhood comments, it is the position of the City that existing local streets to the north would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access, and therefore, City staff will propose a Condition of Approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane to an unrestricted public street access. The Greenleaf "emergency only" access can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. The new alternatives to the Draft EIR include a total of 14.4 acres of parktopen space. This total is comprised of 4.1 acres of passive public park, 4.1 acres of active public park, and 6.2 acres of paseo park/HOA common area/passive open space. The 50-foot linear paseo park will act as buffer between the existing Kenilworth residences and proposed residential units within Parkside Estates project and will provide pedestrian access to the 8.2-acre public park at the northwest comer of the project site. The City Department of Community Services had approved the preliminary park plan prepared by Frank Radmacher Association. The plan calls for an open turf area, tot lot and basketball area (not full court, but a space with a concrete pad and basket for pickup games by the neighborhood youth). According to the City Department of Community Services, they would not allocate the park to any youth sports organization for regular practice or games. Basically, an open turf area could be used by neighborhood families and children for softball, soccer, football, throwing a Frisbee, playing tag, etc. There would be no drinking fountain or restroom facilities in the park, since these are high maintenance items for a City and the concept of a neighborhood park is to serve the immediate area and not to have organized, competitive sports group usage of the park. The City also recommends that this park have security lighting, but no sports lighting. Security lighting is needed to create a safe environment for the members of the public who might be walking through the park at night. Exhibit 5a,Conceptual Park Plan has been added to the Project Description (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 3-1 and page 3-6, contained in Volume II). According to the City Department of Planning, the developer has agreed to dedicate additional land and pay$250,000 toward constructing the park as an offset to the request for some lots to be less than 6,000 square feet. The construction possibly could be accomplished as part of the residential development by the developer. This is the most cost-effective approach and allows the park to be developed with the first phase of the project. Lastly,please refer to Section 5.5 Noise of the EIR,which includes Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures for noise control and control of hours worked. M01\VOLIWRO1FU.ZI997\7N15001\RESPONSEI'OCOMMCNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-29 11. KKa-1 Comment Speaker raised the issue of a letter written by the US Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Speaker stated that she came to speak about DFG's involvement in this EIR process. Speaker commented that the letter was based on information that was given to them by a consultant that was hired by the City. Upon reading this, speaker noted evidence supported - that claims otherwise to contradict a lot of items that were brought forth in that letter. Speaker stated that now DFG is reconsidering their letter, they have been accused of taking sides, basically the side of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. Speaker stated she feels DFG is doing its job and is being as non-biased as possible. Speaker stated that DFG is taking photos, aerials, maps, and personal statements from many people in the community and they are trying to form the best, non-biased opinion possible. Speaker stated she has heard that they are getting blasted for it and she doesn't know by whom, but she thinks it's an insult. Speaker stated her disgust at certain Council members who, at a City Council meeting, actually got up while the Mayor was speaking and spoke to a Shea representative during the meeting. KKa-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. 12. EH-1 Comment Speaker raised concern about her neighborhood(in the Prestige Tract)being impacted by the cars (at 2-3 cars per household) of 206 families going to her tract. Speaker stated if one tract is important so are the other tracts. Speaker stated she thought the EIR had not addressed the traffic adequately. Speaker stated that people make many, many more trips in a day than what has been reflected in the EIR. Right now Graham is gridlocked at 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon. Speaker concluded with the statement that she understands the buyer of a piece of land would want to do something with it to gain his/her money back to make a profit. Speaker commented that she only hopes that the developer is willing to cooperate with the community and not wreck their standard of living. EH-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-4(page 3-11)and DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic issues. 13. JV-1 Comment(Also submitted comment card 8 within Section 3.2 and commented as Speaker 4 within Section 4.1 of this document) Speaker stated that the EIR needs to do a better job of analyzing wetlands. Speaker pointed out that City staff has evidence from the EPA in 1988 that delineated 8.3 acres of wetlands, maps dating back to 1973, which shows tidal influence going way up into this area,photos showing standing water and pooled water. Speaker commented that the Reported Historical Site Usage document has information concerning the wetlands aspect of the property. Speaker commented that even consultant Hovore mentions standing/ponding water on several aerial photographs that might last from January to March of a typical year. Yet, the EIR flatly denies there are any wetlands out there. Speaker stated that this is a severe deficiency in the EIR. Speaker stated report preparers need to go back and look at the EPA delineation process to see if those conditions have been applied over the intervening years between then and now. Speaker commented if aerial photos are looked at, frequent water in those areas would be seen in the areas that EPA designated as wetlands, as well as water along the flood control channel. Speaker gQtOl\VOLI\PROIFQ.E\1997VNl5ODl\RESPONSETOCONUAENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-30 commented that the Historical Site Usage report needs to be seen by the public and should be made part of the EIR. Speaker stated if wetlands are there, that creates a whole new scenario where alternative analyses must be developed. These alternatives in the EIR should avoid the wetland impacts because federal, as well as state permits should be obtained. Speaker commented that Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers must be involved. Preparation of EIR should have included these agencies from the start. Speaker also commented that during the past month there have been two (2) meetings that the public has been excluded from where there were representatives from Shea and the City, DFG, US Fish and Wildlife Service,and the Coastal Commission. The speaker indicated that one member of the public, Bob Winchell, was allowed to sit there but could not speak. Bob Winchell listened to the three-hour discussion on technicalities of whether or not the property has wetlands on it. Speaker commented that it makes sense that it has wetlands in it (word inaudible)for 100 years and in 1988, so why wouldn't there be wetlands in 1998. Speaker stated what has changed is it has been farmed all these years. A farmed wetlands simply needs to show ponding water for two weeks in a growing season in an average year. Speaker stated he has talked to many residents that say water might stand there for 3 months at a time in the wintertime. Speaker asked where is that information, why is the EIR that's supposed to be an independent document to benefit the people of Huntington Beach, being biased against this wetlands issue?Speaker also asked further questions such as,why is consultant denying that there are wetlands out here, and have the consultants been working for Shea or been paid for by Shea. Speaker asked if the analysis done by Frank Hovore and Associates, Inc. is the independent analysis that is being paid for by Shea. Speaker commented that this is not a situation where we have a non-biased, independent opinion. Speaker stated independent people are needed in here to look out for what's good for the people of Huntington Beach and what's good for the people of the State of California, not for Shea. Speaker commented Shea is a developer who has worked all up and down the state who has a lot of cash and paying money here there and everywhere.Speaker asked, why deny the existence of one of the families of Bolsa Chica Wetlands? Speaker commented that those wetlands should be protected as much as any other Bolsa Chica Wetlands. JV-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Hunsaker & Associates prepared the Historical Site Usage document specifically for Shea Homes for submittal to the California Coastal Commission (referenced in the Parkside Estates EIR within Section 5.2,Aesthetics/Light and Glare). The project biologist,Frank Hovore,EDAW's subconsultant, reviewed the aerial photographs contained in the Historical Site Usage document microscopically, and summarized his subjective assessment of the land use patterns exhibited in these photographs in the Draft EIR (refer to Appendix G of the EIR). A copy of this document was provided to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game on May 4, 1998 (during the 60-day public review period for the Draft EIR) for their review. A copy was also submitted to the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. This document is also on file at the City Department of Planning. It is not uncommon for City staff to have meetings with other public agencies and a project applicant to discuss project-related issues. There was no legal requirement to hold these meetings as public meetings or hearings. EDAW is under contract with the City of Huntington Beach. In regards to the hiring of EDAW as the EIR consultant, upon the determination that an EIR be prepared for the proposed project, the City of \\IROI\VOLINROJFICE\1997\7NI5001\RESSPONSETOCOMWNTS\NP.W-RTC.DOC 3-31 Huntington Beach staff used the common and customary process of hiring a consultant. In July 1997,the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach sent a request for proposal (RFP) to four environmental consulting firms. These firms were, the Planning Center, The Chambers Group, Urban Vision, and EDAW, Inc. The Planning Division received and evaluated the proposals from the consulting firms and determined that EDAW's proposal was superior to the other proposals in its response to the City's RFP. On August 18, 1997, EDAW received a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division indicating that staff reviewed EDAW's proposal and was recommending to Council that EDAW be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report. On September 15, 1997, staff recommended that the City Council approve a contract between the City and EDAW, Inc. for preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the proposed Parkside Estates residential project. The Council approved the staff s recommendation unanimously. Please refer to above response to CB-3 (page 3-22),regarding the new proposed alternatives. Unrecognized Speaker 1 Comment Speaker commented that the fact remains in Orange County, the experts who put the EIR together are paid for by the developer. Unrecognized Speaker 1 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisiomnakers. 14. JS-1 Comment Speaker commented that he prefers this land be left as open space. His family has enjoyed the property the way it is for years. Speaker continued to state that if indeed the project is going to go through, a number of changes are needed to lessen the environmental impact to make it more amenable to the residents who live around there. Speaker stated that there needs to be another outlet for these residents to get out of that tract,not only for all the other reasons brought forth, but for the possibility of an earthquake along the Newport/Inglewood fault, a flooding or some other kind of natural disaster. Speaker commented that it would be difficult for the people living in this tract to get out through this street here, especially on a busy Graham Street. Speaker stated that Graham Street often becomes gridlocked, especially during morning and afternoon hours as parents bring/drop off their kids to Marine View Middle School. Speaker commented that the location of this outlet is problematic because Graham Street goes up and over the EGGW Channel. Speaker stated anybody that would need to make a left turn onto Graham Street is susceptible to accidents and that people going north bound on Graham are coming up over a hill at 35-40 miles per hour and the people making a left turn out of here may not see them. Speaker suggested that the only way that it can be controlled is if signs or signals are put up and that would create another problem. Speaker stated that there would be an aesthetic impact from the proposed wall behind lots 66, 67 & 68. That would create a major aesthetic impact because now as one drives south on Graham, one sees a site of trees back in there, the hills, the mesa, even down to the ocean. With a wall there that view would be lost.A way to mitigate that kind of an impact would be to put the park right here rather than back there. to he site and bring new fill in and re-compact the S Baker commented on the issue of the need to de-water the g P existing fill. Speaker also stated that there's going to be quite a bit of fill that's going to have to come over from the Bolsa Chica Mesa. Speaker commented that no kind of commitment should be one of \\IROI\VOL1\PRO.(FILE\1997\7N15001VMPONSETOCONMMNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-32 importing fill from the mesa to the site until the final disposition on the mesa is made. This is because there's still a pretty good chance that the mesa is going to stay undeveloped. Speaker stated that the location and extent of wetlands on the site should be resolved before any decisions are made,either you have wetlands there or you don't have wetlands there. Speaker commented that the project size would have to be reduced in order to protect those wetlands and also provide for adequate buffers and other protections for the wetlands. JS-1 Response According to the project traffic engineer, Graham Street will operate at a Level of Service A or B with the project(with Level of Service A being an optimum condition of free flow traffic). Refer to Section 5.3 of the EIR). Standard traffic impact analysis methodology, to which this project's analysis conforms, accounts for unusual peaking of traffic during time periods as short as 15 minutes in length. This time interval conforms to the length of time congestion is most severe in the vicinity of a school. The traffic count data show that during the AM peak period, traffic patterns are not unusually "peaked" in character. Specifically,the Peak Hour Factor(defined as the total traffic flow in one hour divided by four times the largest 15-minute period within that hour) is about 0.90 at Graham/Warner; if it were less than 0.85, the methodology would need to be adjusted. Since pick-up operations at the end of the school day do not coincide with the afternoon peak traffic period,they were not analyzed. Please refer to above response to DK-1 (page 3-26), regarding secondary emergency only access. Also, please refer to above response to SG-4(page 3-11),regarding the bridge issue. Regarding aesthetics, although a neighborhood park location was considered along Graham Street and was found to be an inferior location for reasons stated below,the project entry has been redesigned under the new alternatives and includes a landscape median at the entry road with a 50-foot wide landscaped paseo park. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 52 (page 6-53) and Exhibit 67(page 6-90),contained in Volume IIA,and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR As referenced above, a neighborhood park location was considered along Graham Street, but it was found to be an inferior location for two reasons. First, considering the limited frontage along Graham, a park along Graham would have been bisected by the project entrance therefore limiting its use for active sports purposes. Second, locating the active use park adjacent to the preserved open space results in a superior overall park for the public to enjoy for active and passive purposes. Section 6.5 of the EIR provides a detailed environmental analysis of alternative park site location and indicates additional impacts that would have resulted had the park site been relocated adjacent to Graham Street. Additionally, because the General Plan Land Use Element denotes an open space designation in the northwest corner,location of the park adjacent to the open space designation would be appropriate. Please refer to above response to DS-1 (page 3-6),regarding dewatering issue. Additionally,please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issue. 15. ChB-1 Comment Speaker alluded to a brief history of the site. Speaker commented that he found a picture of his son at the site in or around 1982, 1983. The picture shows almost the entire site filled with water, and/or mud. \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFHE\199T7N15001\RFSPONSET00OWaNTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-33 Speaker pointed out that the mud was so deep it comes up almost to his son's hips. Speaker stated that the site has given him a nice view for a long time. Speaker commented that he was told in the past that the City would never allow the site to be developed. Speaker stated that Smokey Stables used to let people dump waste on the site and no one ever did anything to stop it. (TAPE ENDS HERE AND DID NOT RESUME UNTIL COMMENT BW-1 BELOW) ChB-1 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally,please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands. 16. BW-1 Comment Speaker raised issues regarding the purpose of the EIR. Speaker stated that he is a professional geologist and familiar with what appears and what should appear in terms of CEQA and satisfying those requirements. Speaker stated that EIR should be a full disclosure document. Speaker commented on concerns about the EIR not being a full disclosure document. Speaker stated that without this criterion,the document fails. Speaker stated that this fails as a full disclosure in 2 ways. One is in terms of the supplementary information as its been referred to and complementary information that appeared in a meeting some two weeks ago as a separate volume that contains aerial photographs and water usage on the project. Speaker stated that he,understands that the issue of the Historical Site Usage document being part of the EIR has been brought up and the response has been that the EIR can't include everything or we'd have volumes that were stacked up high. Speaker stated that he subscribes to the terms of the fact that it was known there would be an argument over the wetlands issue on this project, what they were, the extent to which they were there and the protection that would be necessary for that project. Speaker stated it is necessary to include the aerial photos that were in that document so that somebody who has that expertise can evaluate that. BW-1 Response Please refer to above response to 7V-1 (page 3-31),regarding the distribution of the Historical Site Usage report. Additionally,please refer to above response to SG-5(page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. BW-2 Comment Speaker furthermore stated that the documentation is needed in order for someone to determine whether or not the water on the site is due to continual breaks in water lines, as claimed. Speaker stated that the EIR failed knowing that this is a necessary ingredient for the public to make an evaluation to provide the appropriate information. Speaker stated that there appears to be an attempt to hide behind the fact that only 60 days maximum are required except in terms of extenuating circumstances. Speaker pointed out that this is one significant extenuating circumstance which would require that it be done, the notification not only for the Notice of Preparation but also for the supposed public meeting that went out is in contention. Speaker asked the public and the panel to try and see that this gets done. \\IROI\VOLT\PROJPII.E\1997\7NISOOIXRESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-34 Speaker stated that typically in those documents the geological hazards in the earth resources section that are associated with a project like this will appear. Speaker stated that he did not see the word geological hazard in the document at all. Speaker stated this document did not provide a full disclosure by virtue of the following kinds of considerations, which will be amplified in written comments subsequently. Speaker indicated first, there's no fault map in the EIR. This project is in close proximity to one of the most dangerous faults, the Newport/Inglewood fault. It has all kinds of geological hazards associated with it,and geological consequences once the project is built. Speaker stated that if one reads this document, one will read about the mitigation of taking out material and replacing it with re-compacted material, thereby eliminating liquefaction problems and liquefaction potential. Speaker commented that when man-made compaction fill is introduced over incompetent materials like those that will form the sub-base of this project, it introduces the characteristic of wave amplification when there is an earthquake at that interface. The waves are amplified. Speaker stated that this is important for the public to know because most of the damage in the earthquake is the result of shaking, liquefaction is a problem where it occurs. Speaker stated that fault displacement is not much of a problem unless you build over the fault itself. That presumes you know where the faults are. Speaker stated that it has been said in the EIR document that there are no reported faults on this property. Speaker stated that he doesn't get any sense that there's going to be any work to determine whether or not there are faults there. Speaker commented that he submits that, however, areas like this are filled with faults. To be a full disclosure document, this document must present the results should that shaking occur. Speaker commented that the effects, for instance, are what happens to structures. What happens to people who occupy these structures? Speaker commented that people are subject to that,then why shouldn't we do this? Speaker stated that he doesn't consider that to be much of an argument. Speaker stated that if you make mistakes driving on the wrong side of the road on a one way street that's a mistake, hopefully one won't continue that mistake. Speaker stated without having an intensity scale to tell you what the damage is, there is no idea what they are telling you here, you have no way to evaluate whether this project should be built or not. Speaker stated that it may be eventually decided to build this project,but you should at least know what its going to cost you, in the way of money,potential lives, who's going to pick up that bill. Speaker stated that, typically, what happens is developers walk away and the public picks up those bills. Speaker stated that if the public is satisfied to pick up those bills,pick them up. Speaker commented to put in EIR something about the intensity scale and what the ground accelerations mean in terms of damage to structure, in terms of tax dollars,because most of the time in these kinds of events the public picks up the tab. Speaker stated that a fault map is needed in the EIR, in addition to, showing what that means in terms of proximity of the fault. Speaker stated that discussions of the shaking effects are needed more than just the seismicity. Speaker stated that the EIR does not fully inform the public and allow them to make the decision. BW-2 Response The water consumption summary table for 1991 through 1998, obtained from the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works, Water Division, demonstrates periods where water consumption doubled and tripled. According to the City Water Division representatives, water consumption above 2,000 gallons/day is considered atypical. Subsequent to the abandonment of the water line on September 10, 1999, no ponding has been observed or recorded on the site. Lastly, according to Harvey Beagle of Reed Thomas, once his company repaired the water pipe breakage, they observed that the areas of ponding dried up within a couple of days to one week. \\MOIkVOLIIPROIFH-E\1997\7NI5Wl%ESPONSMOCOACI ENnWEW-RMWC 3-35 According to the project geotechnical consultant, PSE (1998; Appendix E of EIR) discussed briefly both the Newport-Inglewood (N-I) fault zone and the Bolsa-Fairview fault(B-F) as mapped by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR, 1968). PSE also summarized the reasons the B-F is neither included in an Alquist-Priolo (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986a, 1986b) zone, nor afforded a structural setback on the study site. PSE, however, expands its discussion(refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Technical Appendix 2, contained in Volume HA) of the B-F to both respond to the concerns expressed in EIR review comments by Dr. Winchell and to aid future reviewers. This expanded discussion (summarized below and included in its entirety with actual exhibits in Section 5.0, Volume IIA,Final EIR Technical Appendices)does not change any analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The activity-level of the B-F is particularly important because it has been inferred to underlie the study site, hence its importance relative to the potential for fault ground rupture. Review suggests, however, that the CDWR criteria for geological recent movement along the B-F(or even its existence) is specious based on both regional and site-specific assessment. The intensity scale is included in the project geologist's Response to Comments, dated August 3, 1999, as Table B. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,Technical Appendix 2,contained in Volume HA. Regional Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, the B-F was first mapped at and near the study site by CDWR in 1968 (Figure 1, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA) based on several lines of indirect evidence: 1)topography on Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) an inferred 3-meter vertical offset of the lower Holocene to uppermost Pleistocene Bolsa Aquifer; 3) differences in ground water quality in late Pleistocene deposits across the inferred fault, and 4) oil-well data northwest of Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Sunset Beach Oil Field. For reference, the inferred trace of the fault as mapped by the CDWR (1968) is shown on Plate I(in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). The City of Huntington Beach(1995),the State of California(1986a, 1986b), and Bryant(1985)indicate, however, that the fault is not active based on a variety of arguments. A map of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone [Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, modified from City of Huntington Beach (1995)] depicts the B-F as "inactive or non-existent (sic)." Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that the B-F, if extant, is pre-Holocene. For example, the commonly cited topographic evidence for existence of the fault and of its activity-level on nearby Huntington Beach Mesa is an apparent left-lateral offset drainage course. This deflection is in essence most likely a remnant or antecedent bend in the old drainage course, for lateral slip along elements of the N-I is exclusively dextral or right-lateral. Further, the assumed 3-meter (-10 feet) offset of the Bolsa Aquifer is based on information interpolated between two water wells about 2500 feet apart(Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA) --insufficiently close enough to distinguish fault offset from slight(.23 degrees)regional dip or irregularities in the top and bottom of the Bolsa Aquifer. Differences in ground water quality across the inferred B-F are seemingly detectable in the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) deposits (Figure 4, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA). Those differences, however, are not detectable across the mapped fault in the uppermost Pleistocene to lower-Holocene Bolsa Aquifer(Figure 5, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). As shown on Figure 6, (Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA)the faults mapped at the Sunset Beach Oil Field (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991) neither trend in the same direction as, nor are they spatially or laterally consistent with, the inferred B-F fault. Further, the cross-section in Figure 6 shows the oil field faults as being pre-middle-Pliocene -- several million years old. Thus,evidence of the B-F northwest of the study site is,at a minimum,equivocal. \1Il201\VOLI\PROIFUIE1997\7N15001VMPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW.RTC.DOC 3-36 Site Specific Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, from a site-specific standpoint, examination of both hollowstem-auger borings and cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings in the context of the regional geology suggests that if indeed the B-F is present beneath the surface at the study site, it is pre-Holocene. These explorations allow PSE to synthesize an uppermost Pleistocene to upper Holocene stratigraphic section useful for judging the B-F activity level. Uppermost Pleistocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 2/Lower Stage 1 (Bolsa Aquifer) Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, basal sands that are perhaps 20- to 30-feet thick (CDWR, 1968, Cross-Section G-G'; Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II) overlie middle to upper Pleistocene deposits (PSE, 1998; Exhibits 38 through 41, EDAW, Inc., 1998) and form the base of unlithified sediments in the upper stratigraphic section at the study site. Based on stratigraphic position,lithology, location,and water-bearing characteristics,PSE correlates this basal unit with the "Bolsa water bearing gravel/sand (Aquifer)" of Poland, et al. (1956) and CDWR (1966, 1968) that was previously considered lower Holocene. However, recent investigations (Law/Crandall, 1994; Shlemon et al., 1995; Grant,et al., 1995)demonstrate that the Bolsa is uppermost Pleistocene rather than Holocene in age. The dating stems from correlation of the basal sands and gravels to the marine oxygen isotope stage chronology and from 10,700 to 11,700 years old radiocarbon dates for immediately overlying sediments. These basal sands/gravels make a rather remarkable time line and marker bed, for they are easily recognizable in boring logs, and have sharp, unique signatures on the cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings. Holocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 1 Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, lower to upper (modern) Holocene fining upward sediment superposed on the Bolsa basal sands (Aquifer)consists of about 30-to 40-feet of locally fossil- rich, gleyed (unoxidized) clays, silts, fine- to occasionally coarse- grained sands and occasional peat beds. These are alluvial/intertidal/ marsh sediments, replete with small outwash channels that were laid down as Holocene sea-level rose. These deposits are locally well stratified and provide good signatures on cone penetrometer test(CPT)soundings. Bolsa-Fairview Fault Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant,for this transmittal,PSE compared or"calibrated" cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings with hollowstem-boring logs to identify and match the "30 to 40 feet basal sands" (Bolsa Aquifer) reported in the boring logs with CPT sounding signatures. Comparison of the boring logs with the CPT soundings showed that the basal sands gave rise to a unique, identifiable CPT sounding signature, and that some Holocene sand/clay beds, also yielded useful "marker" signatures. A commonly used and an increasingly acceptable method of fault exploration (Grant, et al., 1995; Law- Crandall, 1994;Freeman,et al., 1992;PSE, 1996)in areas underlain by saturated sediments is correlation of CPT soundings across a suspected fault, much like the use of E-log correlation's in oil field exploration. This firm thus constructed three cross-sections or CPT Correlation Lines across the inferred B-F of CDWR (1968). Although the elevations of the CPT soundings were not surveyed, adequate topographic control was available on Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume UA. \UROI\VOLT\PROJFIl.E\I997\7NI5001\RFSPONSETOCONSMNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-37 The Bolsa Aquifer does not seem to be offset (faulted) near the inferred trace of the CDWR (1968) B-F based on CPT Correlation Lines A-A' through C-C' (Plates II through W, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). Rather, the top of the Bolsa seems "undisturbed". And overlying Holocene marker beds are likewise not offset. Near the southwest corner of the site, the Bolsa is five to ten feet deeper than below the rest of the site. By contouring the top of the Bolsa in that area (Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA), it is clear that the change in depth is not linear, as would be expected if the stratum were offset by a fault. The change is semi-circular, thereby indicating that depositional processes (channeling; topographic controls) account for the differences in depth. Note that the dip of the top of the Bolsa in the area of depth change is but two to three degrees. The exaggerated vertical scale of the CPT Correlation Lines makes the depth changes seem abrupt. Summary According to the project geotechnical consultant, in sum, on-site evidence strongly suggests that, if extant, the B-F is pre-Holocene, and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards; such is consistent with the Class D assignment of the fault (Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) by the City of Huntington Beach (1995). Further, regional evidence is equivocal for even its existence. Accordingly, no setbacks have been recommended for the inferred B-F of CDWR(1968). 17. PK-1 Comment Speaker, who lives on Kenilworth, commented that people coming through her little development will be one hell. Speaker stated that Kenilworth is the only straight through-street back to Graham and Greenleaf and Lindquist jog around and that's not a very good way for people to get up to Warner. Speaker stated that the EIR has to look at the impact this development is going to have on the neighborhood. Speaker stated that Shea has said that its going to do all these wonderful things to keep the surrounding neighborhoods from flooding, and other things and sewer pipes but that doesn't really have to do with the surrounding neighborhoods. Speaker stated that it really has to do with what Shea has to put in to take care of their development. Speaker commented it is going to create a tremendous impact. Speaker commented that they've had traffic engineers from the City speak to them at some of the neighborhood meetings. Speaker stated that the City says they can handle this. Speaker stated that they don't believe them nor that one exit is going to take care of things. Speaker commented that neighbors have three and four cars and if you add that to 206 houses who have three to four cars coming down this exit or his neighborhood, there will be gridlock. Speaker stated she lives the third house from the corner from Graham. Speaker stated that as it is, coming into the neighborhood one cannot make a left turn into his drive way without getting broad-sided because people aren't going to slow down. Speaker commented that these are neighbors who are not going to slow down to allow a car to make a left turn into his driveway. Speaker stated that the impact of the local neighborhood should seriously be considered. PK-1 Response Please refer to above responses to SG-4 (page 3-11), DK-1 (page 3-26), regarding traffic and access issues. \VR01\VOLIWROIME\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCONMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-38 18. BSa-1 Comment Speaker inquired about what's going to happen to all the homes and the water in the channel around the project site when the developer pumps all the water from the site. Speaker stated this report has to obviously address the issue of this water table when they pump the water. Speaker asked if it is clear in the EIR at the library who he sends comments to and what these mitigation measures in here are? BSa-1 Response Please refer to above response to DS-1 (page 3-6),regarding dewatering issues. The Notice included with the Draft EIR does indicate clearly where EIR comments should be sent. Section 8.4 of the EIR provides a summary of all mitigation measures included in the EIR. 19. MA-1 Comment Speaker commented that on the previous meeting there were two exits to Graham and now there is only one and that is inadequate. Speaker stated that there should be one or two to Bolsa Chica Street. Speaker also stated that one exit from that whole tract is very unsafe. Speaker stated that if this tract develops into houses and the people buying the houses were aware of the fact that an accident or earthquake would block their access in and out, they probably won't buy those houses. Speaker commented that maybe somebody standing with a sign when they're selling those houses informing buyers of this might put the whole project in economic jeopardy. Speaker commented that if Shea wants to do good for their own economic well being,they'll put at least one exit to Bolsa Chica Street. Speaker asked if the drainage of water from this site is adequate or will it dram into the Prestige homes area. Speaker commented that it should be made certain it is adequate and the pumps will take all their water and get it pumped into the flood control channels and not into the adjoining tracts. Speaker asked if,during this public review period,there will be any additional meetings for public input? Speaker commented that if the City really wants people to come to the meetings, sign should be posted around the neighborhood like people post signs for garage sales. Speaker stated that's what people look at. Put up some signs from Springdale and Bolsa Chica from Edinger to Slater and you'll get 5 times as many people down here. MA-1 Response Please refer to above response to DK-1 (page 3-26), regarding alternative roadway connections and access issues. This proposed project complies with the master-planned drainage upgrades required by the City (please refer to Exhibit 42 for the original project and Exhibits 58 and 71 for the new alternatives in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11), and will also provide a much improved level of flood protection for the homes within the neighborhoods to the north and east of the proposed Parkside Estates project. (Please refer to Section 5.7 of the EIR, which contains information supporting the above response). Notices were sent out to a 500-foot radius surrounding the project site, and notice of the Public Information Meeting was posted in the Huntington Beach Independent newspaper. Unidentified Speaker 2 Comment Speaker asked who will have access to the names and addresses given at the meeting? \\IROI\VOLT\PROIFE-\1997\7NI5001\MPONSETOCOMMENTSWEW-RTCAOC 3-39 Unidentified Speaker 2 Response Copies of sign-in sheets from the Public Scoping Meeting are included within Appendix A of the EIR. The sign-in sheets from the Public Information Meeting are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning. Unidentified Speaker 3 Comment Speaker stated that there's a new project that's built in the local tracts and all these people in the area are all going to be affected by the traffic and have not been notified. Speaker asked why this is. Speaker asked if the City could canvas a five-square mile area? Unidentified Speaker 3 Response Please refer to above response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic issues. Additionally, notices were sent out to a 500-foot radius surrounding the project site, and notice of the Public Information Meeting was posted in the Huntington Beach Independent newspaper. Unidentified Speaker 4 Comment Speaker asked how far out the notices are sent. Unidentified Speaker 4 Response Notices were sent out to a 500-foot radius surrounding the project site. Additionally, notice of the Public Information Meeting was posted in the Huntington Beach Independent newspaper. 20. DL-1 Comment Speaker stated that when coming to the meeting he passed development after development after development all along Main Street, all the way over through Garfield and such. Speaker expressed concern about that. Speaker stated that the Bolsa Chica is an emotional issue and that there are a lot of people at the meeting who feel we need to save that whole thing. Speaker stated his concern for City's vision of what Huntington Beach will look like in another 20-30 years. Speaker commented that there's not going to be much open space left if the rate of development is kept at the current rate. Speaker commented that he would hate to see kids in another two or three generations have that experience of not knowing what it is like to experience nature and only experiencing development to the point they are thrilled by seeing a caterpillar in their front yard. Speaker asked the City to take a look at the overall impact and the direction of this City and begin listening to the public who has some strong feelings about what's happened. Speaker stated that we're isolating the City, not the development. Speaker commented that the City of Huntington Beach is at 200,000 people and its time to look at what is going to happen to the quality of life here. DL-1 Response Residential development as the project proposes is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach Land Use Plan. Additionally,the project site has been zoned for residential uses since 1971. Impacts associated with loss of open space have been addressed in the EIR, Section 5.2. \UROl\VOLI\PROIFIIE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCONU,MNTS\NEWRTC.DOC 3-40 Unidentified Speaker 5 U S eak Comment P Speaker stated that on page 5-5 Table C,they went around and looked at the adjacent,the ones that aren't condos. (Reads the table and houses per acres) (speaker inaudible) Speaker commented that when he brought that up it doesn't stop there. Speaker stated that where we're going with everything being discussed here tonight we're going to a hearing, we're going to a public hearing. Speaker commented that this whole process culminates with a public hearing first in front of the planning commission and then the City Council. Unidentified Speaker 5 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 21. BSb-1 Comment Speaker asked Ron Metzler how many projects does he have in the City? Speaker also asked if this is really a pretty significant one. Speaker commented that his point is that Shea has worked with the City on other projects (speaker inaudible). His thought is as to why all of a sudden people have been saying that this is a wetlands and Shea is being given the opportunity to try to develop it? BSb-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Unidentified Speaker 6 Comment Speaker commented it was zoned as open space and the residents in their neighborhood were 300 feet. Speaker stated that there must have been something legal in the newspaper about the changing of the zoning. Speaker commented that not one person in their area ever received any notice, the first time they knew there was a change in the zoning to R-1 was when they were invited by Shea to come and see this wonderful development that was going to occur. Speaker commented that something must have happened in the notification of the nearby residents. Speaker questioned as to whom reads the legal portion of the newspaper. Speaker commented that they had no knowledge of this, not one person was sent a notice of this change of zoning. Speaker stated that it doesn't always occur properly. Speaker inquired about what year the zoning took place. Speaker stated that there was a meeting and they wanted to put condos back there and everyone showed up and they really put it down and so at that meeting which was in the 1970's that it was told to us that it was open space. Speaker commented that is the last that any of the residents knew of the zoning that it was open space and if they changed it that was without any notification. Speaker commented to Jim Barnes that some of the land was zoned in the last general plan. Unidentified Speaker 6 Response The City Portion: The project site has been zoned for residential development since 1971. The City took action in 1986 to change the land use designation on most of the project site (under MWD ownership at that time)from Residential to Conservation on the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. At that time the City was actively negotiating with the County over the ultimate land use for the Bolsa Chica. The City decision in 1986 to propose designating the MWD Property Conservation was partly in response to a proposal by the County and Signal Landmark to intensively develop the Bolsa Chica. \VROI\VOLIIPROJPB-Bkl997\7N150011RESPONSETOCONAMNTSNIEW-RTC.DOC 3-41 Another historical factor influencing the land use designation on the site is the issue of whether the property may have value as a wetland. In the early 1980's the property was declared to be potentially restorable to wetlands by the State Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. In 1986 this issue was unresolved. Due to the City's negotiating posture on the Bolsa Chica and the uncertainty of the site's wetland status in 1986, it made sense for the City to designate the site Conservation. However, by 1989 the less intense Bolsa Chica plan had been proposed by the Bolsa Chica Coalition, and after further study the US Army Corps of Engineers declared the site as "Prior Converted Crop Land," eliminating any concern that the site contained wetlands. The Conservation designation on the City's Coastal Element Land Use Plan was never taken forward by the City to the Coastal Commission for approval. This process is required before the City can implement the Conservation designation. The City initiated the Comprehensive Update to the General Plan in 1991. In the process of updating the General Plan, a portion of the MWD property that is not proposed for residential development under the project was reviewed for redesignation from Open Space-Park to Low Density Residential, however,the land use designation was ultimately not changed and still remains Open Space - Park (OS-P). The land use designation of Residential on the remainder of the site was included on the Land Use Plan and adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1996. The City followed all legal noticing requirements during the General Plan Update Process. It should be noted that the zoning designation on the portion of the property that is proposed for residential development has been R1 or RL (Single Family Residential) since 1971. In October of 1996, the current owner of the site, Shea Homes, filed applications to develop a 181 lot single family residential subdivision on the City property. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Bolsa Chica Coalition and land use designations adopted by the City. Shea Homes has indicated to the City staff that in August of 1996 they met with residents in the Kenilworth Drive tract to solicit input on their plans to develop the property with residential uses. The project will be thoroughly reviewed by City staff and ultimately scheduled for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The public will be notified of these hearings in accordance with legal requirements. The County Portion: The 4.5-acre portion of the project site located within the County is proposed for annexation into the City. The following is a brief overview of land use factors relating to County General Plan and Zoning history of the site. The existing Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program currently zones the site Medium-Low density residential. Several General Plan and Local Coastal Program(LCP) amendments have been approved by the County of Orange and Californian Coastal Commission but were subsequently challenged in court. When the application by Shea Homes was submitted, the property was designated for Medium-Low density residential use in the General Plan. This designation was approved by the Coastal Commission, however,the plan was challenged in court and later reconsidered by the Coastal Commission and County. The most recent action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated ESHA. The Coastal Commission subsequently designated the entire 4.5-acre as conservation, on November 2000, along with other Bolsa Chica lowland property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court on January 12, 2001 by the owner of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, therefore, the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential remains in effect on the County General Plan and Specific Plan but has not been approved on the LCP. \UROI\VOLIWRO]FH,EU99T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMAAENTS\NL'W-RTC.DOC 3-42 Unidentified Speaker 7 Comment Speaker stated they were the first people to buy the house on 2100 block. Speaker bought it because of (speaker inaudible). Speaker stated that they are very reluctant to put this type of money down for a house, don't worry about it (speaker inaudible). Speaker stated that this is fantastic, property values are going to go sky high. Speaker commented that every weekend they drove in from Gardena to their big beautiful country home which was gorgeous out here and watched it being built and in April came up the street the house was on and there's a 15-foot mound of dirt. An artesian well had popped up. Speaker stated that it cost Mr. Doyle $60,000 to cap it, put it in today's dollars. Speaker stated that the place has water all the time. Speaker commented that they've had problems with Smoky and all that. Speaker stated that Shea has a beautiful project there. Speaker stated that if you take into consideration the Meadowlark area, Meadowlark Airport, they're going to build 350 houses. Speaker stated that traffic is going to be enormous, many people have talked about one entrance that is absurd. Speaker stated that the City says they can't go to Bolsa Chica, which is absurd. Speaker commented to please think about those things. Speaker stated that its going to help property values, once they build them and once they've sold them, they're going to be gone and the public is going to be stuck with them. Speaker urged to look at Meadowlark. Unidentified Speaker 7 Response According to the project traffic engineer, all logical street extensions from the project to the west create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. Please refer to Section 6.0 Alternative to the Proposed Project for a detailed discussion of potential secondary access to the project site. The Meadowlark development is included in the EIR (page 4-3), as Catellus Residential development consisting of 325 single-family detached dwelling units, a public park, and two private parks. Summerlane is the current name of the project. Additionally,Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 21, 2001 that includes the following: 1) the reduction in dwelling units from 208 to 171 for the project and 2) the inclusion of 350 dwelling units from the Meadowlark(Catellus) project, which was previously omitted (please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR). The revised study does not alter the conclusions or mitigations presented in the Draft EIR. Additionally, please refer to above response to DK-1 (page 3-26), regarding alternative roadway connections and access issues. 22. ATb-1 Comment Speaker commented that as far as notifications, is there any way they can be notified, even by e-mail to get notice of this type of hearing? ATb-1 Response Notices were (and always will be) sent out to at least a 500-foot radius surrounding the project site. Additionally, notice of the Public Information Meeting was posted in the Huntington Beach Independent Isnewspaper. WROI\VOL11PROJFT1.EU997VN15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSW W-RTC.MC 3-43 Unidentified Speaker 8 Comment Speaker asked if one of the agencies that are being notified for comment is the EPA? Unidentified Speaker 8 Response The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) occurs at two (2) levels - the State (Cal EPA) and the Federal EPA. The Parkside Estates Draft EIR was not sent to the Federal EPA. According to Bruce Henderson, the Army Corps of Engineers representative who was involved with the 1992 reclassification of 8.3 acres as "Prior Converted Cropland," the Federal EPA Region 9 is located in San Francisco. Tom Yocom, the person involved in the 1989 EPA delineation, is employed at the San Francisco Federal EPA Region 9 office. Both Tom Yocom and Bruce Henderson indicated that the Federal EPA is not required to review the Parkside Estates Draft EIR and would rarely review an EIR unless it involved large Federal jurisdictional issues. The Federal EPA does have jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to designate "special case areas." In 1989, the EPA designated Bolsa Chica as a "special case area." The purpose of this was so EPA could complete a wetland delineation for the Bolsa Chica Area. After that delineation was published and adopted in 1989,the special case designation ended. At that point in time, the Army Corps of Engineers became the primary agency for dealing with jurisdictional issues under the Clean Water Act of 1972. Subsequent to the 1989 delineation, Bruce Henderson indicated that the Corps was provided with additional data and they were requested to make determinations under the Clean Water Act on areas covered by the 1989 delineation (including the MWD parcel). Based on data, which the Corps shared with EPA and Tom Yocom, the 1992 reclassification of 8.3 acres as "Prior Converted Cropland" was made on the MWD parcel. The EPA was fully informed of the Corps determination. Additionally, County of Orange staff indicated that the Federal EPA did not provide written comments on the 1994 or 1996 EIR's on Bolsa Chica LCP. There is not a Federal clearinghouse for EIR distribution. The Federal EPA oversees the publication of NEPA EIS documents in the Federal Registrar. If City staff believes that a project requires any permitting or approval from Federal agencies such as the Army Corps (permit authority for wetlands), or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (permit authority for endangered species), etc. then those agencies should be sent copies of the project's environmental document for review. The Parkside Estates EIR was sent to several federal agencies including the Army Corps and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Cal EPA is the oversite body for agencies such as the Water Resources Board,Toxics,etc. An analyst at the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) will determine which agencies have jurisdiction over a project by referring to the Notice of Completion(NOC)transmittal form. If that person determines that the agencies under EPA will need to be notified, then OPR sends the document to the specific agency, like the CA Waste Management Board. The Parkside Estates EIR was distributed by OPR to several State Agencies (see Letter No. 73 from OPR) including the Regional WQCB #8, which is an agency under Cal EPA. Unidentified Speaker 9 Comment Speaker asked if the property is zoned residential,why is Shea farming it? Unidentified Speaker 9 Response According to a correspondence dated October 1, 1998, although the property is zoned residential, the City has determined that farming on this site is a legal non-conforming use,based on the fact that farming has historically taken place. Farming has been the only active use that has occurred on the site over the \\IROI\VOLI\PROJFIU\1997\7N15001\RESPONSEI'OCOI^MNTS\NEW-RTC.MC 3-" years. Based on the City's Planning and Public Works Departments, the farming operations on the Shea Homes site has been actively monitored by City inspectors. The inspectors have not reported any violations of City codes during their visits to the site. Unidentified Speaker 10 Comment Speaker expressed concern about the possibility of being out of town with the study session coming up. Speaker asked to submit concerns and evidence of concerns? Unidentified Speaker 10 Response At the May 14"', 1998 meeting City staff indicated that comments could be submitted to the City during the 60-day review period which expired on June 15, 1998. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 23. CD-1 Comment Speaker stated that traffic impact is a concern. Speaker commented that, unfortunately, in this day and age, unlike when his 29-year-old daughter was able to walk to school. Speaker stated that neighbors that have small children are all being carried by vehicles. Speaker commented that there are that many automobiles every morning and every afternoon that includes Graham out there, greatly impacts the neighborhood. Speaker stated that the kids going to Huntington Harbor have to be driven over. Speaker stated that his point is, that is the trend and we're going to have that continually and we're going to be impacted. CD-1 Response According to the project traffic engineer, Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A or B with the project(with Level of Service A being an optimum condition of free flow traffic), which represents free flow during peak hours including when school buses are active. Additionally, please refer to above response to SG-4 (page 3-11), regarding traffic signal and entry reconfiguration. 24. KKb-1 Comment Speaker asked if the property is zoned residential and not agricultural then why is Shea farming it? KKb-1 Response According to a correspondence dated October 1, 1998, although the property is zoned residential, the City has determined that farming on this site is a legal non-conforming use,based on the fact that farming has historically taken place. Farming has been the only active use that has occurred on the site over the years. Based on the City's Planning and Public Works Departments,the farming operations on the Shea Homes site has been actively monitored by City inspectors. The inspectors have not reported any violations of City codes during their visits to the site. \\IROIkVOLI\PROIPUZ1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCONOdENTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-45 25. JK-1 Comment (Also prepared letter 42 within Section 3.3 and commented as Speaker 1 within Section 4.1 of this document) Speaker stated that his first concern is the environmental impact and the mitigation measures. Speaker stated that in the matrix it shows the impact most of them are significant. Speaker commented that it should be in more detail in the mitigation section. Speaker stated that there are only a couple of pages to go back there and take a look at it and see if it can be expanded. Speaker commented that if and when Shea gets the green light to build, then they're going to tear down the wall in his back. Speaker asked how long will it stay torn down and will they have security measures in place to protect his property? JK-1 Response Please refer to above response to SG-1 (page 3-10),regarding the Project Impact Summary Matrix. Please refer to above response to DS-4 (page 3-9), regarding the wall along the site's northerly property boundary. MOM\VOLI\PROJP1,E\199T7N15001\RESP014SEPOCOMINENTS\NEW-RTCAOC 3-46 3.2 Comment Cards/Responses to Comments Index 3.2 COMMENT CARDS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX COMMENT/RESPONSE COMMENT CARDS SERIES PAGE# 1. Sandy Genis SG 3-49 1586 Myrtlewood Costa Mesa,CA 92626 2. Connie Boardman CB 3-49 8401 Sweetwater Huntington Beach, CA 92649 3. Eileen Murphy EM 3-49 201 21s1 St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 4. Aimee Toth AT 349 4536 Heil Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 5. Joseph Racano JR 3-49 301 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 6. Joe Buley JB 3-49 17192 Greenleaf Ln. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 7. Kim Kennedy KK 349 122 9"'St. Apt.D Huntington Beach,CA 92648 8. Jan Vandersloot JV 349 2221 E. 16`s St. Newport Beach, CA 92663 9. John Scandura JS 3-50 17492 Valeworth Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 10. Charles Beauregard ChB 3-50 17221 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 NR01\VOLI\PROIFII,E\1997VN15001UMPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 347 3.2 COMMENT CARDS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE COMMENT CARDS SERIES PAGE# 11. Bob Schwarte BS 3-50 5422 Glenstone Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 12. Marty Annenberg MA 3-50 17152 Camelot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 13. Elda Barry EB 3-50 to 3-51 4089 Aladdin Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 14. Susan&John Rogers S&JR 3-51 17172 Greenleaf Huntington Beach, CA 92649 15. Dixie Grimmett DG 3-51 5322 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 16. Glenna Touhey GT 3-51 4665 Twintree Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 17. Mary Ann Toler MAT 3-51 15051 Baylor Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 .1R VOL11PROJFH-MI"7\7N150011MPONSEIDMNMMMSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-48 RESPONSES TO COMMENT CARDS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. SG-1 Please refer to response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands. 2. CB-1 Please refer to response to CB-1 (page 3-16), regarding impact of project on Bolsa Chica Mesa or Ecological Reserve. 3. EM-1 Please refer to response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding on-site wetlands issues. 4. AT-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 5. JR-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 6. JB-1 Please refer to response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding access issues. Additionally, the comment expressed in the comment card regarding "Designated Park Area" is unclear, and therefore,response has not been provided. Park issues are addressed in response to JB-1 (page 3-29), in Section 3.1 of this document. Lastly, the comment regarding "Agency Support for Enviromnent" is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Regarding construction concerns, the EIR addresses the short-term construction impacts of the project. 7. KK-1 Please refer to response to SG-5 (page 3-12), regarding on-site wetlands and role of the DFG in the EIR process. 8. JV-1 The summary of the comments provided on the comment card is responded in its entirety in both verbal testimony (JV-1) (page 3-31) and the comment letters (letter No. 65, JDV-1 through JDV-34) (pages 3- 168 to 3-174) of this document. Please refer to those sections for detailed responses regarding the issues of concern. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJFILE\1997\7N15001\RPSPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-49 9. JS-1 Please refer to DK-1 (page 3-26), regarding traffic impacts. Aesthetic impacts are addressed in Section 5.2 of the EIR. Additionally, as indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR, if the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has environmental clearances to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from existing residential streets to the north. Refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the haul route. Also, according to the project civil engineer, the neighboring site referred to would be one alternative source of fill material. There are other alternative locations off-site. The dirt will only be removed from the adjacent site if and when there is an approved grading plan and permit on that site, in which case removal of dirt will be in accordance with the approved plan. The alternative source of material has not been determined,but will be selected during the permit process for the grading plan (please refer to page 3-21 of the EIR for a discussion of the borrow pit). Lastly, it should be noted that the neighboring site, if utilized as the proposed borrow site, shall be required to be returned to a natural graded, contoured condition that blends into the surrounding landscape. City Staff will recommend a condition of approval that will ensure the above is implemented. Lastly, please refer to SG-5 (page 3-12), verbal comments section of this document, regarding on-site wetlands issues. 10. ChB-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 11. BS-I Please refer to response to DS-1 (page 3-6),regarding dewatering issues. Please refer to response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic/circulation issues. 12. MA-1 Please refer to response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding access to Bolsa Chica. 13. EB-1 Please refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a detailed discussion of potential impacts related to traffic resulting from the proposed project. As indicated in this section, the proposed project would not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the existing plus project condition. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in level of service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and \\IROI\VOLI\PROIFIIZl"7\7N15001\RESPONSECOCOMNE;MI'S\NM-RTC.DOC 3-50 Warner Avenue under the year 2020 condition. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 as described in Section 5.3 of the EIR would reduce the project's incremental impacts to a level less than significant. Also, impacts associated with "Koll Building on the mesa" referred to in Section 4.5 of the Parkside Estates EIR as the Bolsa Chica LCP were addressed within the County Certified EIR 551. 14. SJR-1 Please refer to response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic/circulation issues. Please refer to response to SG-5 (page 3-12),regarding flooding and wetlands issues. Lastly, please refer to Section 5.10 for an analysis of impacts on schools, "Education Space" as referenced in the comment card. County certified EIR 551 analyzed the specific school impacts that would result from the Bolsa Chica Mesa development and proposed mitigation measures for the identified impacts. The school districts have considered the cumulative buildout of surrounding development including the Bolsa Chica Mesa in providing the EIR consultant with information to be included in the Draft EIR. Pages 5-185 and 5-190 identify cumulative impacts. Lastly, it should be noted that mitigation agreements between developers and the school districts typically go beyond the State's required fee program and are therefore,encouraged by cities and school districts. 15. DG-1 Please refer to responses to SG-5 (page 3-12) and CB-1 (page 3-16), regarding value of site as open/natural area. Additionally,please refer to response to DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic/access issues. Lastly,please refer to response to BW-2(page 3-35),regarding faulting. 16. GT-1 Please refer to response to SG-5 (page 3-12), regarding wetlands issues. Also, please refer to BW-2 (page 3-35),regarding fault zone and DK-1 (page 3-26),regarding traffic/access. 17. MAT-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 0 k\MlkVOLI%PRO.IFII.EI1997\7N15001T.ESPONSETOCOMNMN7SINEW-RTC.DOC 3-51 3.3 Comment Letters/Responses to Comments Index 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 1. Southern California Association of Governments SCAGa 1 3-61 J.David Stein 818 West Seventh St., 120'Floor Los Angeles,CA 90017-3435 2. Ronald E. Reed SCGC 1 3-61 Southern California Gas Company,Box 3334 Anaheim,CA 92803-3334 3. Joe and Geri Buley J&GB 1-12 3-61 to 3-64 (Copy of letter also sent to Councilmember Garofalo) 4. Marianne and Joel Tonjes M&JT 1-5 3-64 to 3-66 5. Miriam Wedemeyer MW 1-6 3-66 to 3-75 4165 Warner Avenue 103 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4255 (letter sent to Planning Commissioners and City Council) 6. Donnamarie Risse DR 1-4 3-75 5422 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 7. Department of Transportation DOT 1-3 3-76 Robert F. Joseph District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana,CA 92705 8. Dr. Michael A. Cohen MC 1-6 3-76 to 3-82 19741 Elmcrest Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92646 (Also sent to Mayor Detloff—Received 5/27/98) 9. Adrea Stoker AS 1-2 3-82 5157 El Roble Street Long Beach,CA 90815 \UR "O'I\PROJFH.BIM7N15001\RESPONSETOMMNENTSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-52 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 10. Elda Barry EB 1-2 3-82 Ms. Senior America of California 4089 Aladdin Drive Huntington Harbour,CA 92649 11. Jack and Dori Vance J&DV 1-3 3-82 to 3-83 Management Research,Inc. 3592 Venture Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (also sent to councilmembers) 12. Jean McGrath JMa 1-3 3-83 16341 Anita Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647 13. Jean McGrath JMb 1 3-83 16341 Anita Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92647 (letter to Mayor Detloff) 14. Mrs.Patricia S. Bystrom PB 1-2 3-84 18091 Brentwell Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92647 (Also sent to Councilmember Bauer—5/29/98) 15. Jacqueline G.Dvorman JD 1-2 3-84 17128 Bluewater Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92849 (Also sent to Mayor Detloff—received 5/27/98) 16. Environmental and Project Planning Services OCPD 1-19 3-84 to 3-89 Division,County of Orange George Britton,Manager 300 N.Flower Street, 3rd Floor Santa Ana, CA 92702 17. Barbara Olson BO 1-6 3-89 to 3-90 18. Sylvia Marson SM 1-6 3-90 339 Walnut Street Costa Mesa,CA 92627 (also sent to Councilmembers) \UR01\VOL1\PROIFOMI"7\7N35001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-53 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 19. John Hermann JHa 1-2 3-90 6424 Madera Long Beach,CA 20. Joan Hemphill JHb 1-5 3-91 1905K East I"Street Long Beach, CA 90802 (also sent to Councilmembers) 21. Betsy Neuwirth BN 1-5 3-91 1640 Pasadena Glen Rd. Pasadena,CA 91107 (also sent to Councilmembers) 22. Mr. and Mrs. George Maylor GM 1-3 3-91 to 3-92 23. W. Craig Hoad WCHa 1-6 3-92 P.O.Box 121 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 (also sent to Mayor Detloff) 24. W. Craig Hoad WCHb 1-2 3-92 P.O.Box 121 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 (letter to Councilmember Bauer and also sent to Mayor Detloff) 25. Leonora Holder,Everett Gantz&Family LH 1 3-93 9130 Marina Pacifica Drive North Long Beach, CA 90803 26. Susan Fish SF 1-3 3-93 17442 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (also sent to Mayor Detloff) 27. Katherine Lander KL 1 3-93 28. Sally Ludlow SL 1-5 3-93 to 3-94 16696 Intrepid Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFHE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMIMNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-54 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) is COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 29. Samuel and Rose Moreno S&RM 14 3-94 4821 Los Patos Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (letter sent to Mayor Detloff) 30. Mrs. CR Robison CRR 1-2 3-94 to 3-95 4682 Warner Avenue,B204 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 31. Nancy Bucciarelli,MD NB 1 3-95 6695 Pageant Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 32. Timothy Roberts TR 1-5 3-95 4791 Curtis Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 33. OCTA OCTA 1 3-96 Kia Mortazavi,Manager 550 South Main Street PO Box 14184 Orange,CA 92863-1584 34. Mary Jane Wiley MJW 1-7 3-96 to 3-97 6192 Moonfield Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 35. Robert Neuwirth RN 1-3 3-97 1640 Pasadena Glen Road Pasadena,CA 91107 36. Mrs. Jean M. Anderson JMA 1 3-97 37. Marinka Horack MHa 1-10 3-98 to 3-99 21742 Fairlane Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92646 38. Marinka Horack MHb 1 3-99 21742 Fairlane Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92646 \VROI\VOLT\PROIFnZ\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOT bZMNTS\NEW-RTC,DOC 3-55 S3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 39. Jody L. Graham JLG 1-3 3-99 to 3-100 5151 Skylark Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 40. California State Lands Commission CSLC 1-19 3-100 to 3-104 Dwight E. Sanders 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Sacramento,CA 95825-8202 41. Barbara L. McCoy BLM 1-3 3-104 to 3-105 42. Mr. and Mrs. Sing Joe Kong SJK 1-6 3-105 to 3-107 5402 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 43. Suzi Tomkins ST 1-3 3-107 19871 Deguelle Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 44. Wendy Morris WM 1-5 3-107 to 3-108 45. Mary Camarillo MaC 1-4 3-108 16192 Brent Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 46. Mr. Robert Williams RW 1-16G 3-108 to 3-113 9161 Annik Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 47. Mr. &Mrs. James L.Denison JLD 1-2 3-114 6931 E. 1 Ph Street Long Beach, CA 90815 48. David Carlberg,Ph.D.,President ADBC 1 3-114 Amigos de Bolsa Chica P.O.Box 3748 Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3748 49. Edward F. Hughes EFH 1 3-114 8886 Plumas Circle, 1122B Huntington Beach, CA 92646 \UROi\VOL1\PRO1F[LE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSE'I000M ENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-56 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 50. Susan Dominguez SD 1 3-114 51. Lee J. Haber LJH 1-9 3-114 to 3-115 5392 Glenroy Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 52. Juana R.Mueller,Vice President BCLT 1-59 3-116 to 3-134 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 207 21St Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 53. Ken Feldman KFa 1-7 3-134 to 3-137 5411 Glenstone Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 54. Kenneth Feldman KFb 1 3-137 to 3-138 5411 Glenstone Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4705 55. Kenneth Feldman KFc-1 3-138 56. Jayson Ruth JR 1-5 3-139 6452 Oakcrest Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (also sent to Mayor Detloff—6/15/98) 57. Michael J.Lester MJL 1-5 3-139 to 3-140 5096 Tortuga Drive,#211 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (letter also sent to Councilmembers) 58. Lionel Okun LO 1-5 3-140 to 3-141 13801 El Dorado Drive#11F Seal Beach,CA 90740-3923 59. Alan White AW 14 3-141 P.O.Box 596 San Clemente,CA 92674-0596 \\IROIkVOLI\PROIFH.MI99T7N15001gtESPONSETOCOMNMNTSINEW-RTC.DOC 3-57 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 60. Steve Van Nattan SV 1-3 3-141 3727 Canehill Avenue Long Beach,CA 90808 61. Neil Wagner NW 1-13 3-141 to 3-143 17241 Berlin Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4505 62. Connie Boardman CB 1-37 3-144 to 3-154 Professor of Biology 11110 Alondra Boulevard Norwalk,CA 90650-6298 63. John Scandura, Chairman JES 1-13 3-154 to 3-156 Environmental Board 64. Dr.Robert Winchell REW 1-36 3-157 to 3-168 Department of Geological Sciences CSULB 6411 Weber Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92647 65. Jan D. Vandersloot,M.D. JDV 1-34 3-168 to 3-174 2221 East 16''Street Newport Beach,CA 92663 66. James Hudson,Jr. JLHa 1 3-174 to 3-175 5331 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 (sent to Ms. Melanie Fallon) 67. James Hudson Jr. JLHb 1-2 3-175 5331 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 68. Orange County Area Supervisor CCC 1-19 3-175 to 3-177 California Coastal Commission Stephen Rynas,AICP 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 90802-4302(sent via Fax 6/15) \\IROI\VOLT\PROIFH.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMWNTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-58 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 69. Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO 1-3 3-177 Dana Smith,Executive Officer 12 Civic Center Plaza,Room 235 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (sent via fax 6/16) 70. Douglas Stewart RPA 1-68 3-178 to 3-192 Resource Preservation Alliance 5342 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 71. So. Cal. Association of Governments SCAGb 1 3-192 David Stein,Manager 818 West Seventh Street, lfh Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 72. US Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS 1-9 3-192 to 3-194 Jim A.Bartel,Asst.Field Supervisor 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad,CA 92008 (also sent via fax—6/15) 73. State of California, OPR OPR 1 3-194 Antero Rivasplata 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento,CA 95814 74. Department of Fish and Game DFG 1-12 3-194 to 3-196 Ronald D. Rempel,Regional Manager 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, CA 90802 (also sent via fax—6/15) 75. Dan Kittredge DK 1-4 3-196 to 3-197 5332 Glenstone Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 76. Bryan&Robin Foster B&RF 1-10 3-197 to 3-198 5282 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 \UROIIVOLI\PR0RUZI%'A7NI5001\RESPONSETOCot^MNTS1NEW-RTC.DOC 3-59 3.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 77. Glenna Touhey GT 1-3 3-198 to 3-199 4665 Twintree Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 78. Cherie&Danny Maruki C&DM 1-3 3-199 5176 Tortuga Drive# 110 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 \MI\VOLT\PRO]PQZ1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC 3-60 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS 1. SCAGa-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 2. SCGC-1 (Also prepared letter 1 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 3. J&GB-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 Use of Existing Streets as Secondary Access According to the project traffic engineer, although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets to the north were used as secondary access to the project, the impact would be minimal. Traffic from the project would add 38 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles in the PM peak hour to Greenleaf Lane south of Warner Avenue. Although Greenleaf Lane was designed to connect to the Shea Homes site to provide internal circulation, due to neighborhood comments it is the position of the City that existing local streets to the north would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access, and therefore, City staff will propose a Condition of Approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane to an unrestricted public street access. The Greenleaf "emergency only" access can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Second Access from Bolsa Chica Street According to the project traffic engineer, all logical street extensions from the project to the west create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. In order to create a safe intersection at the middle alignment, adjacent property would be rendered undevelopable due to the major cuts required to create 2:1 slopes for the roadway. In addition to Section 6.6 Alternative 5 -Alternative Roadway Connections of the Draft EIR, which addresses the feasibility of roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street, the project traffic engineer provided further analysis of the roadway connections through revisions of the text. Please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR contained in Volume II. The additional information does not change the conclusions made in the Draft EIR and is provided below: Alignment A(Northerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer,this alignment is unacceptable because it creates a confusing and potentially dangerous intersection at Bolsa Chica Street. There is an existing Bolsa Chica Intersection at Los Patos Avenue to the west and an opposite private driveway serving the condominium development to the east. The extension of Bolsa Chica Street will have a prevailing speed of about 45 mph. Adding another intersection immediately adjacent to the private driveway would create turning conflicts at the three legs intersecting Bolsa Chica at nearly the same point. Also,this alignment would create a new street immediately adjacent to the condominiums. UR01\VOLT\PROJFME\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-61 Alignment B (Middle Extension) Accordingto the project traffic engineer, in order to maintain a maximum 8 percent grade, this extension P J g P would create a massive cut (from 130 feet to 170 feet wide) through privately owned property virtually destroying its development potential. Because of cut slope, access from that property to this street would not be feasible without further impacting that property. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there may be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica. Alignment C(Southerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer, Bolsa Chica Street at this intersection will be on a horizontal and vertical curve with prevailing speeds of about 50 miles per hour. The southerly extension will be on a horizontal curve and an uphill grade of about 4% at its intersection with Bolsa Chica. Acceleration from a 4% uphill grade onto a street with vertical and horizontal curves and prevailing speeds of 50 miles per hour at the intersection would be challenging for the average driver. In addition,there will most likely be sight distance limitations for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles on Bolsa Chica. The severity of the sight distance limitations will depend on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica. Additionally,this alignment requires a fill slope of almost 30 feet. Extension to Bolsa Chica Conclusions Accordingto the project traffic engineer, all three alignments have serious drawbacks. The northerly P J g � alignment creates an intersection on Bolsa Chica that is spaced too closely to an existing driveway serving a major development. The center alignment could create a reasonably safe intersection with Bolsa Chica but would be extremely costly and would destroy adjacent property in the process. The southerly alignment creates an intersection with Bolsa Chica with potentially serious grade and sight distance problems. The proposed Parkside Estates residential development will have little effect on existing or future levels of service on Graham Street.The installation of a traffic signal on"A"Street and Graham will create gaps in traffic in the AM and PM peak hours, which will help motorists accessing Graham Street from Kenilworth Drive. Because of the acceptable LOS on Graham Street with the project,there is no need for additional access to the west at Bolsa Chica. J&GB-4 Refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61). J&GB-5 Refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61). J&GB-6 Refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61). \\IR01\VOLI\PROJF11.E\i997\7N15001%ESPONSETOCOhMMMV4EW-RTC-.DOC 3-62 J&GB-7 is Refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61). Additionally,regarding haul road, according to the project civil engineer, the Parkside Estates project has been designed to protect the environmentally sensitive bluff area and archeological site. The haul road alignment and grade does not meet the standards required for public streets. The alignment and location of the haul road is not a feasible alignment for a public street due to sight distance and vertical constraints. (Please refer to the Traffic and Geotechnical studies in Appendices B and E of the EIR). J&GB-8 The new alternatives to the Draft EIR include a total of 14.4 acres of park/open space. This total is comprised of 4.1 acres of passive public park, 4.1 acres of active public park, and 6.2 acres of paseo park/HOA common area/passive open space. The 50-foot linear paseo park will act as buffer between the existing Kenilworth residences and proposed residential units within Parkside Estates project and will provide pedestrian access to the 8.2-acre public park at the northwest corner of the project site. The City Department of Community Services had approved the preliminary park plan prepared by Frank Radmacher Association.The plan calls for an open turf area,tot lot and basketball area(not full court,but a space with a concrete pad and basket for pickup games by the neighborhood youth). According to the City Department of Community Services, they would not allocate the park to any youth sports organization for regular practice or games. Basically, an open turf area could be used by neighborhood families and children for softball, soccer, football, throwing a Frisbee, playing tag, etc. There would be no drinking fountain or restroom facilities in the park, since these are high maintenance items for a City and the concept of a neighborhood park is to serve the immediate area and not to have organized, competitive sports group usage of the park. The City also recommends that this park have security lighting, but no sports lighting. Security lighting is needed to create a safe environment for the members of the public who might be walking through the park at night. Exhibit 5a, Conceptual Park Plan has been added to the Project Description (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 3-1, contained in Volume 11). According to the City Department of Planning, the developer has agreed to dedicate additional land and pay $250,000 toward constructing the park as an offset to the request for some lots to be less than 6,000 square feet. This possibly could be accomplished as part of the residential development by the developer. This is the most cost-effective approach and allows the park to be developed within the first phase of the project. J&GB-9 In accordance with CEQA, the EIR (Exhibit 25) and page 5-45 depicted and discussed the designated trails as proposed by the most current City/County plans in effect at that time. Additionally, the Draft EIR identified a potential project impact to County proposed trails and proposed Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.2 for this identified impact. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume H, which includes the revised page 3-14a and the addition of Exhibit 5b, Proposed Conceptual Trails and Bike Paths, which clearly depicts the trail linkages proposed by the project and how they tie into existing trails or future trails proposed by others. The applicant has met with the County of Orange to ensure that the proposed public access and recreation plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the County. The project proposes a Class I (off-road \\IR01\VOLI\PROIFRE\1997\7N15001\RFSPONSETOCOMWNTS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-63 paved, striped and signed) bikeway along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to the alignment of the EGGW Channel. Once completed, the bikeway would allow for connection from Graham Street/Slater Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. J&GB-10 With respect to the California Coastal Commission letter (Letter No. 68), please refer to responses to CCC-14 through CCC-16(page 3-177)regarding public access and trail concerns. J&GB-11 According to the project geotechnical consultant, excavation depths will vary from 4 to 19 feet with the majority of the deeper excavations required to facilitate deep utility construction (i.e., storm drain and sewer). Grading projects of this size and magnitude have been accomplished in Huntington Beach and surrounding areas. We concur that the project will require significant schedule and project controls and the geotechnical report(PSE, 1998;Appendix E of the EIR)forms the basis for those controls. Additionally,please refer to the following response to M&JT-1 on this page,regarding a detailed analysis of dewatering. J&GB-12 As indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR, if the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has environmental clearances to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from existing residential streets to the north. Refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the haul route. Also, according to the project civil engineer, the neighboring site referred to would be one alternative source of fill material. There are other alternative locations off-site. The dirt will only be removed from the adjacent site if and when there is an approved grading plan and permit on that site, in which case removal of dirt will be in accordance with the approved plan. The alternative source of material has not been determined, but will be selected during the permit process for the grading plan (please refer to page 3-21 of the EIR for a discussion of the borrow pit). Lastly, it should be noted that the neighboring site, if utilized as the proposed borrow site shall be required to be returned to a natural graded, contoured condition that blends into the surrounding landscape. City Staff will recommend a condition of approval that will ensure the above is implemented. 4. M&JT-1 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet. Perched ground water was observed in borings and test pits at levels varying from 4 to 19 feet below existing grades. These water levels vary, to some extent, seasonally and are considered to be "perched" above less permeable silt and clay seams. Those interbedded seams are discontinuous laterally and as a result water is flowing both vertically and laterally within the more permeable sand layers. Based upon excavations isthat were monitored in March and May 1998, digging to depths of approximately 10 feet, water levels at that period were approximately 6 feet below ground surface (bgs). The excavations were pumped on two occasions and monitored periodically in between. The following were the conclusions: \VR01\VOLI\PRORIME\1"7\7N15001UZESPONSET000MMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-64 1. No fluctuations in water levels were observed during tidal changes and; 2. Relatively slow recharge(approximately 24 hours)was observed after pumping. The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique, which will be used in proximity to the northerly project boundary, will be initiated 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4± feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, further excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removals will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavations will be segmented in approximate 200 x 200 feet±increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with similar surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. In order to monitor the boundary conditions, the following tasks are planned to be accomplished prior to and/or during site grading: 1. Conduct a topographic survey of existing conditions; 2. Install piezometers to monitor groundwater levels; 3. Install and monitor survey monuments; 4. Prepare a detailed dewatering plan for review by the governing agency(s). It should be noted that similar conditions have been encountered elsewhere and procedures similar to those proposed for this site have been successfully implemented on numerous projects throughout the Huntington Beach,Fountain Valley,and Westminster areas. Monitoring of boundary conditions at the south side of the project associated with construction of the sheet pile levee fronting East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (C05) will be as discussed in prior certified EIR 560. Geotechnical conditions and construction details are available from the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record in accordance with CEQA Section 15148. The additional information presented herein regarding the proposed dewatering plan "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions regarding construction traffic and/or short-term construction noise impacts (i.e., noise from dewatering pumps, as discussed in Section 5.5 Noise and Appendix C of the EIR). Additional information regarding dewatering and grading issue is contained in Section 4.0 response DS-2 (page 4-37)of this document. M&JT-2 According to the project traffic engineer,the intersection of Kenilworth and Graham will be benefited by the traffic signal at"A" Street because the signal will create gaps that will allow traffic from Kenilworth to enter northbound Graham Street,a condition that does not now exist. Additionally, please refer to response to J&DV-1 (page 3-82), regarding detailed analysis of traffic/circulation and congestion issues. \UROI\VOLIWROJnl&l"7\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOCOMNMWSWEW-RTC.DOC 3-65 M&JT-3 According to the project traffic engineer, as indicated in the EIR (page 5-60), traffic counts were completed as a part of the project's traffic study.The results show that Warner Avenue and Graham Street currently operate at Level of Service A or B during peak hours, which represents free flow including when school buses are active. The stopping sight distance design between the bridge and the signal at Graham Street/"A" Street entrance will be addressed during design of Graham Street reconstruction. Regarding exhaust impacts, the air quality section of the EIR (Section 5.4) concluded that the project would exceed SCAQMD's daily thresholds emission levels for CO and ROC by 26% and 2%, respectively. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 within Section 5.4 was proposed to reduce the impacts. SCAQMD identified that the proposed mitigation measures were capable of reducing CO emissions by up to 31% and ROC emissions by up to 6%. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a level less than significant. Additionally, the SCAQMD was sent a copy of the Draft EIR for review and comment and have provided no comments to the City. Moreover, under the new reduced density alternatives, the air quality impacts were considered less than significant. M&JT-4 Refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. The alignment suggested by the commentor most closely follows alignment A (northerly extension)discussed within J&GB-2 and 3 (page 3-61). M&JT-5 Please refer to above response to M&JT-3. 5. MW-la Please refer to response to MC-5 (page 3-78) (within Letter No. 8), regarding the existence of wetlands and ponding on the project site. MW-lb Earthquakes In response to the second comment about inadequate study of earthquake, the following provides a detailed analysis regarding earthquake and faulting issues: According to the project geotechnical consultant, PSE (1998; Appendix E of EIR) discussed briefly both the Newport-Inglewood (N-I) fault zone and the Bolsa-Fairview Fault (B-F) as mapped by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR, 1968). PSE also summarized the reasons the B-F is neither included in an Alquist-Priolo (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986a, 1986b) zone, nor afforded a structural setback on the study site. PSE, however, expands its discussion (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendix 2, contained in Volume IIA) of the B-F to both respond to the concerns expressed in EIR review comments by Dr. Winchell and to aid future reviewers. This expanded discussion (summarized below and included with actual exhibits in Section 5.0, Volume IIA, Final EIR Technical Appendices) does not change any analysis or conclusions presented in the EIR. The activity- level of the B-F is particularly important because it has been inferred to underlie the study site, hence its \UR01%VOLlXPR07FQ,EU997%7N15001u FSPONSBTOCOMMNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-66 importance relative to the potential for fault ground rupture. Review suggests, however, that the CDWR criteria for geological recent movement along the B-F (or even its existence) is specious based on both regional and site-specific assessment. Regional Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, the B-F was first mapped at and near the study site by CDWR in 1968 (Figure 1, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA) based on several lines of indirect evidence: 1) topography on Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) an inferred 3-meter vertical offset of the lower Holocene to uppermost Pleistocene Bolsa Aquifer; 3) differences in ground water quality in late Pleistocene deposits across the inferred fault, and 4) oil-well data northwest of Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Sunset Beach Oil Field. For reference, the inferred trace of the fault as mapped by the CDWR (1968) is shown on Plate I(in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). The City of Huntington Beach(1995),the State of California(1986a, 1986b), and Bryant (1985)indicate, however, that the fault is not active based on a variety of arguments. A map of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone [Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, modified from City of Huntington Beach(1995)] depicts the B-F as "inactive or non-existent(sic)." Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that the B-F, if extant, is pre-Holocene. For example, the commonly cited topographic evidence for existence of the fault and of its activity-level on nearby Huntington Beach Mesa is an apparent left-lateral offset drainage course. This deflection is in essence most likely a remnant or antecedent bend in the old drainage course,for lateral slip along elements of the N-I is exclusively dextral or right-lateral. Further, the assumed 3-meter (-10 feet) offset of the Bolsa Aquifer is based on information interpolated between two water wells about 2500 feet apart (Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) -- insufficiently close enough to distinguish fault offset from slight(.23 degrees)regional dip or irregularities in the top and bottom of the Bolsa Aquifer. Differences in ground water quality across the inferred B-F are seemingly detectable in the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene) deposits (Figure 4, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume IIA). Those differences, however, are not detectable across the mapped fault in the uppermost Pleistocene to lower-Holocene Bolsa Aquifer(Figure 5, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). As shown on Figure 6, (Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA)the faults mapped at the Sunset Beach Oil Field(California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991)neither trend in the same direction as, nor are they spatially or laterally consistent with, the inferred B-F fault. Further, the cross- section in Figure 6 shows the oil field faults as being pre-middle-Pliocene -- several million years old. Thus,evidence of the B-F northwest of the study site is, at a minimum,equivocal. Site Specific Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, from a site-specific standpoint, examination of both hollowstem-auger borings and cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings in the context of the regional geology suggests that if indeed the B-F is present beneath the surface at the study site, it is pre-Holocene. These explorations allow PSE to synthesize an uppermost Pleistocene to upper Holocene stratigraphic section useful for judging the B-F activity level. Uppermost Pleistocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 2/Lower Stage 1 (Bolsa Aquifer)Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, basal sands that are perhaps 20- to 30-feet thick (CDWR, 1968, Cross-Section G-G'; Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II) overlie middle to upper Pleistocene deposits (PSE, 1998; Exhibits 38 through 41, EDAW, Inc., 1998) and form the base of unlithified sediments in the upper stratigraphic section at the study site. Based on stratigraphic \\IR01\VOLT\PROIFR.E\1"7\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNffiNTSVM-RTC-.DOC 3-67 position, lithology, location, and water-bearing characteristics, PSE correlates this basal unit with the "Bolsa water bearing gravel/sand (Aquifer)" of Poland, et al. (1956) and CDWR (1966, 1968) that was previously considered lower Holocene. However, recent investigations (Law/Crandall, 1994; Shlemon et al., 1995; Grant, et al., 1995)demonstrate that the Bolsa is uppermost Pleistocene rather than Holocene in age. The dating stems from correlation of the basal sands and gravels to the marine oxygen isotope stage chronology and from 10,700 to 11,700 years old radiocarbon dates for immediately overlying sediments. These basal sands/gravels make a rather remarkable time line and marker bed, for they are easily recognizable in boring logs, and have sharp, unique signatures on the CPT soundings. Holocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 1 Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, lower to upper (modern) Holocene fining upward sediment superposed on the Bolsa basal sands (Aquifer) consists of about 30-to 40-feet of locally fossil- rich,gleyed(unoxidized)clays, silts,fine-to occasionally coarse-grained sands and occasional peat beds. These are alluvial/intertidal/marsh sediments,replete with small outwash channels that were laid down as Holocene sea-level rose. These deposits are locally well stratified and provide good signatures on CPT soundings. Bolsa-Fairview Fault Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, for this transmittal,PSE compared or "calibrated" CPT soundings with hollowstem-boring logs to identify and match the "30 to 40 feet basal sands" (Bolsa Aquifer) reported in the boring logs with CPT sounding signatures. Comparison of the boring logs with the CPT soundings showed that the basal sands gave rise to a unique, identifiable CPT sounding signature, and that some Holocene sand/clay beds,also yielded useful "marker" signatures. A commonly used and an increasingly acceptable method of fault exploration (Grant, et al., 1995; Law- Crandall, 1994; Freeman, et al., 1992; PSE, 1996)in areas underlain by saturated sediments is correlation of CPT soundings across a suspected fault,much like the use of E-log correlations in oil field exploration. This firm thus constructed three cross-sections or CPT Correlation Lines across the inferred B-F of CDWR (1968). Although the elevations of the CPT soundings were not surveyed, adequate topographic control was available on Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA. The Bolsa Aquifer does not seem to be offset (faulted) near the inferred trace of the CDWR (1968) B-F based on CPT Correlation Lines A-A' through C-C' (Plates H through IV, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). Rather, the top of the Bolsa seems "undisturbed". And overlying Holocene marker beds are likewise not offset.Near the southwest corner of the site,the Bolsa is five to ten feet deeper than below the rest of the site. By contouring the top of the Bolsa in that area(Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA), it is clear that the change in depth is not linear,as would be expected if the stratum were offset by a fault.The change is semi-circular, thereby indicating that depositional processes (channeling; topographic controls) account for the differences in depth. Note that the dip of the top of the Bolsa in the area of depth change is but two to three degrees.The exaggerated vertical scale of the CPT Correlation Lines makes the depth changes seem abrupt. Summary According to the project geotechnical consultant, in sum, on-site evidence strongly suggests that, if extant, the B-F is pre-Holocene, and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards; such is consistent with the Class D assignment of the fault (Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical \VRO1\VOLT\PR03FM\1997VIN15001)RESPONSETOCOMI,MNTSWEW-RTG.DOC 3-68 Appendices, contained in Volume RA) by the City of Huntington Beach (1995). Further, regional evidence is equivocal for even its existence. Accordingly, no setbacks have been recommended for the inferred B-F of CDWR(1968). Flooding With respect to inadequate study of flooding hazards, according to the project civil engineer, the existing storm system was designed to accommodate a 10-25 year storm. However, in 1983, the City adopted, by ordinance, the regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which mandate that communities (city/county) administer flood plain regulations, including mandatory flood insurance and development criteria to meet the impacts of a (100-year) flood hazard. This change in standards has resulted in a deficiency in most storm drain facilities built prior to the mid-1980's. The City's Master Plan calls for the storm drain system in Graham Street to ultimately be a 120-inch diameter pipe (the proposed project will be intercepting an existing 60" line in Graham Street with a 102" line at Kenilworth). The existing 60-inch diameter pipe in Graham Street was designed per the old and now outdated hydrology criteria and cannot accommodate the current expected runoff volume of a 100-year frequency design storm flow. The design criteria specified by the County of Orange Hydrology Manual has changed to current and more stringent levels to comply with FEMA's flood protection standards. This proposed project conforms with the master-planned drainage upgrades required by the City (please refer to Exhibit 42 for the original project and Exhibits 58 and 71 for the new alternatives, in Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume II and will also provide a much improved level of flood protection for the homes within the neighborhoods to the north and east of the proposed Parkside Estates project. (Please refer to Section 5.7 of the EIR,which contains information supporting the above response). NM-lc Bolsa Chica Wetlands With respect to inadequate study of impact on Bolsa Chica Wetlands,mesa and sensitive wildlife habitat, the following provide a detailed response: According to the project biologist,the biological assessment for the Draft EIR did not consider the actions proposed for the project site to constitute significant adverse environmental impacts to the off-site Bolsa Chica Wetlands System. The two areas contain completely different habitat types and values, and the interposing EGGW Channel creates a significant biological barrier between the areas. The project site contains only upland formations, predominantly ruderal systems typical of highly-disturbed substrates and agricultural areas throughout coastal southern California. None of the trees, shrubs or vegetation formations on the City portion of the site are natural, and are comprised almost entirely of invasive alien plant species; these elements do not provide resident habitat, foraging areas or other essential resources for any agency-listed sensitive plant or animal species. There are no migratory wildlife corridors, habitat linkages, essential seasonal resources, unique, unusual or sensitive resource assemblages present on or adjacent to the site (outside the Bolsa Chica Saltmarshes). The cover and species resource values are insufficient to induce native marshland species to forage or nest outside of the higher quality systems of Bolsa Chica, and existing levels of human disturbance are much greater on the site than south of the channel. These areas have been so severely altered and degraded biologically that they no longer are a functional part of the nearby wetlands ecosystem, nor do they mesh visually or ecologically with that system. The EGGW Channel has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and terrestrial connection between the project site and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and actions on the site would not have any measurable effect on the hydrology or water quality of the reserve or restoration \UR01\VOLT\PROJFU.MI997\7N15OO1\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NM-RTC-.DOC 3-69 areas. There are no tidal flows crossing, reaching or draining from the project site into any other natural area,nor are there any natural freshwater flows or nutrient transport systems entering or exiting the site to or from adjacent natural areas. Artificial Boundaries The California State Lands Commission noted that "biological resources do not acknowledge [the] artificial boundaries" such as the EGGW Channel, tract map lines or municipal jurisdictions; however, they do recognize and respond-- positively or negatively-- to the presence or absence of suitable habitat values and resources. The ruderal fields and non-native trees, lacking saltmarsh cover, structure or resources on the project site would not induce marshland birds or mammals to leave their natural habitats and cross the channel,regardless of the distance, and there are no habitat values for shorebirds on the site. Endangered or Sensitive Bird Species Additionally, according to the project biologist, none of the endangered or sensitive bird species from the Bolsa Chica System nests,roosts or routinely forages within the project site, and much greater quantities of much higher quality natural resources are available within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for shore and marshland birds. Species such as least tern routinely forage within the open waters of the EGGW Channel, but do not forage terrestrially on the project site. The loss of the open, ruderal fields on the project site would not constitute a measurable reduction in any essential habitat value or support resource for any of the sensitive species presently residing in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Ecosystem,nor would it in any way jeopardize the potential for successful restoration of habitat values for these species in areas south of the EGGW Channel Neither white-tailed kite nor red-tailed hawk are limited distributionally or populationally in southern California by a lack of roosting or nesting site resources, as both will nest in tall trees regardless of species,and often in man-made structures as well. Red-tailed hawks habituate readily to human presence, and are not considered sensitive species by any agency, although all native birds of prey are protected from direct harm or harassment(as was noted in the Draft EIR). The project does not propose to remove the stand of mature healthy gum trees from the City portion of the site. Although the original project as proposed would impact trees on the County portion of the project site, the four new alternatives to the Draft EIR will avoid impacting/removing the gum trees on the County parcel. Therefore, there would be no significant loss of habitat or nest sites for this species, although disturbances will arise as a result of construction activities.The portion of the City parcel nearest the grove of trees is designated as a park site (and under the four new alternatives,either the County portion of the site adjacent to the gum trees will be open space or under Alternatives 8 and 9 the entire County parcel will not be developed), and it is unlikely that these birds would abandon their nest site as a consequence of the development. White-tailed kite populations in California have rebounded dramatically from their historic lows in the early part of the century and ± 35 years ago, when their numbers dropped as a result of habitat losses, direct predation by humans, pesticide residue effects, and possible crashes in their prey species populations. It is now known that their numbers and local distribution fluctuate seasonally and annually according to prey species abundance, and that they tend to be somewhat nomadic, changing roosting and nesting sites as they locate new hunting areas. Their relationship to the project site is relative to the presence of the gum trees, as the field probably does not contribute significant food resources; content analysis of 544 white-tailed kite cast pellets from one Santa Barbara site showed evidence of 777 rodents, most of which were voles and house mice, with nothing as large as a ground squirrel or pocket gopher. Since the field supports mostly California ground squirrels and Botta pocket gophers, it is probable that the majority of the kite foraging locally is over non-agricultural fields adjacent to residential areas (where house mice are abundant)and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands(for voles). \UROl\VOLI\PROIFUM1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-DOC 3-70 The proposed project would not significantly reduce or alter essential foraging habitat for white-tailed kite locally, as-much larger areas of higher quality, natural habitat exist within the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands System; nor would project implementation result in the loss of kite nesting resources, if they were to nest within the gum tree grove (no nests were observed during the 5 original and 3 subsequent field visits) on-site. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 1 requires construction activities be limited to areas 500 feet away from any raptor nests identified by a survey conducted immediately prior to project grading. Existing high daily levels of human activity (including hikers, bikers, dogs, equestrians, heavy equipment driving through, disking of the fields, agricultural activities, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the gum trees, with which the kites presently co-exist, should decrease following project development, as the City portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as a park and under the new alternatives to the Draft EIR all or a portion of the County portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as open space, and no be longer open to vehicle trespass or other disturbance. There are no identified great blue heron rookeries within the mature gum trees on the property, although these birds do roost in the taller trees on occasion. They also forage for gophers and other small vertebrates in the agricultural field, as well as along the EGGW Channel. The project thus would result in a minor, incremental loss of casual foraging habitat for this species locally, but would not eliminate rookeries,roost sites or major foraging areas,or otherwise endanger the species locally or regionally. Non-Point Pollution and Indirect Impacts The depth of the intervening Wintersburg channel,relative to adjacent surface land levels, and limitations of surface and subsurface hydrological movement makes the potential for non-point pollution of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands from chemical spills, or topical applications of herbicides, pesticides, etc. on the project site extremely remote. While the linear distance between the proposed development and the nearest adjacent restorable habitat south of the channel is relatively slight,the intervening channel berms obstruct direct line of sight from ground level. There will be some tangential impacts from light, noise, dust, air pollution and other similar disturbances during construction and following residential occupation, but these too will be incremental relative to the approximately 200 acres of existing residential units situated directly adjacent to the wetlands on the south side of the channel. Whatever increases in these types of disturbances might arise from the project would be minor(i.e., not significant) in terms of their impacts, given existing levels of the same sorts of actions within these more proximate developments, and the buffering effect of the EGGW Channel and its berms. The project proposes no new roads to or from the area south of the channel or along the berms, nor will project infrastructure enter or cross the channel or wetlands.The existing foot bridge will be removed as part of the project. Although a significant impact has not been identified, Conditions of Approval are suggested by the City to further reduce or guard against indirect impacts to peripheral resource areas: 1) Security lighting and street lighting shall be low-intensity and directed away from sensitive habitat areas. Non-essential night lighting shall be on timers or motion sensors, and shall not be left on past normal activity hours. 2) Use of gas-powered leaf blowers and other non-essential noisy,polluting devices shall not be permitted within the development or around the periphery. Parks and other public areas shall not be used for overtly intrusive activities such as rock concerts. 3) Landscaping palettes shall utilize drought-tolerant native taxa, and shall not introduce any non-native species known to spread from cultivation into natural areas. 4) Fire clearance and other physical maintenance of undeveloped areas shall be performed by hand and shall be confined to the minimum disturbance required by ordinance. \\IR01\VOLT\PRO]FIl.E\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCONS ENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-71 5) Aerial application of herbicides,pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals shall not be permitted within or around the development, and harmful chemicals, which have the potential to permeate into the water table shall not be stored or used within the development. 6) The project proponent shall store all construction materials in such a manner as to prevent spillage of paints, solvents, oils, or fuel onto the substrate. Materials stored shall be kept on palettes or tarps, and all debris shall be cleared away to proper disposal sites. Areas, which might attract or support house mice or black rats shall be cleaned up and properly maintained. 7) Prior to grading, a survey shall be conducted, and any red foxes on or near the site be trapped and removed consistent with Fish and Game policies prior to project implementation; or the project applicant shall participate in any approved programs for the control of red foxes, that will be implemented by the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. Impacts on Adiacent Wetland Restoration Western Terminus Off-site wetlands adjacent to the western terminus of the project site may be restored to higher levels of biological functionality as part of the overall Bolsa Chica Habitat Restoration Program. Although the area currently is in a severely degraded condition, it has restoration potential and possesses the essential characteristics of coastal saltmarsh, and must be considered a sensitive environmental area for CEQA and other regulatory analyses. At present the 4.5-acre project County parcel contains mostly ruderal understory elements with dense thickets of submature gum trees, and as such has no substantial natural habitat values relative to adjacent saltmarsh ecosystems. As part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associated on May 21, 2002) and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. The original TTM analyzed in the Draft EIR identified the western end to be within a restricted uselstorm drain easement, at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The original TTM use(i.e., stormdrain easement)would be passive and according to the project civil engineer, storm flows would not enter off-site wetlands. In addition to the conditions of approval provided above,the new alternatives locate the closest residential unit in the County parcel 464 feet (Alternatives 6 and 7) and 767 feet (Alternatives 8 and 9) from the westerly property boundary, and 3.3 acres immediately adjacent to the westerly property boundary are proposed to be maintained as open space under Alternatives 6 and 7 and the total 4.5-acre County parcel is proposed to be maintain as open space under Alternatives 8 and 9. Based on the statements above, the project's proposal for the western portion of the Orange County parcel, would not compromise efforts to restore biological functionality to the existing degraded saltmarsh beyond the site. Untreated wastewater drainage shall not be directed into this area, nor shall roads, lighting, or other physical intrusions be sited such that they have an impact on the adjacent land. This end of the project site shall be fenced against human and pet intrusion into the wetlands, and project exterior walls shall be designed to confine persons and pets away from this area. Therefore,no significant impacts from development(four new alternatives) are anticipated to occur to the adjacent wetlands areas. MW-ld Regarding inadequate public notice and EIR review period, due to several requests made to the City, the public review period was extended from 45 days to 60 days. The public review period began on Friday, April 17, 1998 and ended on June 15, 1998. Comments were accepted through June 26, 1998. MOl\VOLi\PROIFE.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMIvtENTS\NEW.RTC-.DOC 3-72 MW-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, please refer to the discussion below, regarding the four new alternatives, which have been added as new alternatives to the Draft EIR in a separate document called New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. Responses to comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document are contained in Section 4.0 of this document. In response to comments received from the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BOLT), and others during the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates project, the City of Huntington Beach directed the applicant to prepare an alternative plan to be considered as part of the EIR. The following specific issues raised within the comment letters (indicated in parentheses noted at the end of each issue bullet)influenced the preparation of the alternative concept: • Avoid eucalyptus trees on the County portion of the site, which are part of a larger Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) previously designated by Fish and Game (BCLT) • Design project to avoid impacts to remnant wetland (i.e.,remnant pickleweed) area located in the County portion of the project(DFG) • Explore a project alternative which avoids impacts to the A-acre EPA delineated wetland area in the County rather than simply proposing that adverse impacts be mitigated(CCC) • Consider alternative uses (i.e., open space/scenic greenway) for the 4.9-acre County parcel that would avoid houses jutting further into the lowland area currently being planned for restoration and long-term conservation of fish and wildlife(USFWS) The alternative concept was used in conjunction with the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel to prepare four (4) new alternatives to the Draft EIR. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was prepared under a separate cover and was circulated for public review from June 29, 2001 through August 13, 2001. Additionally, subsequent to the end of the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR, the Court of Appeal rendered a decision on the appeal of the trial court's decisions pertaining to the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica Project. As part of the decision, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's decision with respect to relocating the bird habitat proposed as part of the Bolsa Chica Project. According to the Court of Appeal, the Coastal Act does not permit destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area(ESHA) simply because the destruction is mitigated off-site. The proposed original plan and alternative plans accommodate this court decision. The 4.5-acre County parcel contains 0.13 acre (west of the above ground gas line) of the Fish and Game designated ESHA (please refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11 and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). The Parkside Estates original project proposes development of 27 single-family homes within the County portion of the project site, which would \MM1\VOLT\PROIFILE\1997\7N15W1\RF.SPONSETOCONUvW-NTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-73 require the removal of eucalyptus trees. Although most of the trees, which would have been removed were not part of the larger designated eucalyptus ESHA, impacts associated with tree removal were identified in the Draft EIR. In an effort to reduce the impact related to removal of these trees to a level less than significant, the Draft EIR proposed mitigation requiring replacement of the trees at a 2:1 ratio. The four alternative plans result in complete avoidance of all County eucalyptus trees including the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Implementation of any of the four alternative plans, which would result in development of 9 lots (Alternatives 6 and 7) and/or 0 lot (Alternatives 8 and 9) vs. 27 lots within the County parcel, would ensure that impacts related to the removal of on-site trees remain less than significant. A detailed description of the four alternative plans and associated environmental analysis is located in Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 6-32 to 6-108, contained in Volume II and in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. MW-3 According to the project civil engineer,the existing sewer pump station at Kenilworth Drive and Graham Street is obsolete and marginally effective. Because of the condition of the sewer system, the applicant would remove this outdated and under capacity sewer pump station and replace it with a new pump station per today's standards and sized to accommodate the flow from the proposed development, as well as the existing flow from surrounding neighborhoods. The proposed project will install a sewer force main in Graham Street from the proposed sewer pump station to Warner Avenue. Additionally,please refer to response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding ponding on the project site. MW-4 Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation of the EIR identifies impacts anticipated to result from the proposed project. The information contained in Section 5.3 summarized the Traffic Study for the Graham Street Residential Development, June 27, 1997, prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc. Mitigation measures were provided to reduce significant impacts related to traffic/circulation to a level less than significant. Additionally, according to the project traffic engineer, Warner Avenue and Graham Street currently operate at Level of Service A or B during peak hours, which represents free flow. The addition of project traffic does not change the level of service on either arterial. (Please refer to Table 2 of the Traffic Study in Appendix B of the EIR). MW-5 As indicated in Section 6.0 of the EIR, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, all logical street extensions from the project to Bolsa Chica Street create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. Refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. Additionally, regarding the unsafe condition in a single entry-exit point, according to the project traffic engineer,the single point access to the development will be signalized at Graham Street. A protected left turn lane will be painted on Graham Street for vehicles turning into the development. The single point access will operate at Level of Service A at peak hours which represents free flow. Lastly, the applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the stacking, traffic flow, sight distance and safety issues raised. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. This additional distance will provide the necessary stacking area during peak periods. WR01\VOL1\PROIPR£\1997\7NI5001\RF.SPONSETOCOMNMWSWM-RTC-.DOC 3-74 MW-6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 6. DR-1 (Also prepared letter 2 within Section 4.3 of this document) According to the project geotechnical consultant, Mitigation 4, in conjunction with the construction methodology/sequencing described in above response M&JT-1 (page 3-64), will mitigate this concern to a level less than significant. Evaluation of the causes of past distress to existing properties is beyond project's purview. Any past distress to the property could have been caused by any of several possibilities, none of which will be significantly affected by the proposed construction. Drainage will be improved by the proposed development when surface and subsurface drainage systems are constructed. For additional information regarding this issue,please refer to response PMK-5 (page 4-20)in Section 4.1 of this document. DR-2 According to the project traffic engineer,construction vehicles will enter the property from Graham Street or from the west(via an approved haul route, see Exhibit 15,Haul Route for Import Map, of the EIR),not from existing residential streets to the north. This information has been added to Section 3.0 Project Description of the EIR(page 3-23).Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,page 3-23, contained in Volume H,for the revised text. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. DR-3 Please refer to above response to DR-1,regarding subsidence. DR-4 Shea originally proposed to build a 6'±high masonry wall along the north(adjacent to Kenilworth), east (adjacent to Graham Street) and south (adjacent to EGGW Channel) boundaries of the site. This wall would serve as a privacy wall and for aesthetic purposes. Along the southwestern boundary of the project site (along the proposed homes), there is a proposed seawall of varying height. No fencing is required along the northwestern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed park site. Shea proposes to protect, in place, the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site (i.e., homes along the south side of Kenilworth Drive). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 3-14, contained in Volume 11, for the revised text. Under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document, a new 6-foot high masonry wall would not be needed along the north boundary for privacy/aesthetic reasons (due to the 133-foot buffer, which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. If a wall is required by the City,the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons. The single wall would avoid nuisance or hazards and satisfy maintenance concerns. \VR01\VOLT\PROJPM1997\7N15OOlWX.SPONSETOMMWNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-75 7. DOT-1 (Also prepared letter 3 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DOT-2 Prior to preparation of the Draft EIR, a letter from the Department of Transportation (DOT) was submitted to the City of Huntington Beach in response to the Notice of Preparation prepared for the proposed project. This letter raised concerns related to potential impacts to the intersection of Warner Avenue and SR-1. The project's traffic engineer provided a response letter to DOT dated November 3, 1997 to address this issue. According to the project traffic engineer, two-way peak hour project traffic on Warner Avenue west of Bolsa Chica Street is only 16 vehicles in the AM peak and 20 vehicles in the PM peak. Of that volume, approximately 70 percent would travel north or south on Pacific Coast Highway from Warner Avenue. According to the project traffic engineer, this volume is insignificant and does not warrant a traffic study of Pacific Coast Highway as a part of the Parkside Estates EIR. According to the project traffic engineer, there is no change with the addition of cumulative traffic. The 2020 traffic volumes on Warner Avenue west of Bolsa Chica are the same in the March 29,2001 report as in the June 27, 1997 report. DOT-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 8. MC-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. MC-2 According to the project biologist, another impact to the adjacent wetlands potentially arising from project development is increased intrusion into sensitive habitats by cats, dogs and humans and provides the following response: Direct human intrusion creates disturbances in sensitive habitat areas, including trampling vegetation, upsetting or stepping on nests,or preventing natural courtship,nesting or feeding behaviors. Urban dogs usually are not particularly effective or focused predators, but if allowed to run free may develop feral behaviors or form packs, hunting or harassing smaller animals. Even fully domesticated dogs may chase or disturb sensitive species during the breeding season, and could adversely affect colonies of ground-nesting birds if able to gain access to them. Cats are the greatest urban-fringe threat to birds which nest in the open or low in shrubs; as noted by one commentor, cats may destroy colonies of ground-nesting birds, and also will prey upon most other small vertebrates. Because cats kill out of instinct,not necessarily related to hunger, they may destroy eggs and nests in greater numbers than would most native predators. An increase in the number of dogs and cats living adjacent to a natural wetlands or ground-nesting bird colony could result in significant adverse impacts if they were not properly confined to residential perimeters. The project lies on the north side of the channel from natural habitat areas, and considerably farther from any ground-nesting bird colonies, but cat, dog and human intrusions could originate from the site, provided that they are able to cross the channel. Existing use of the project site includes numerous humans and their dogs walking in the fields or along the channel berms. Cats were not seen in the area, \\1R01\VOLT\PROIPUM1997\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOCOMI,ffiNTS\NEW-RTC-.WC 3-76 but at the time of the biologist's visits there were red foxes present around the stable area and in the Orange County parcel, and this species is an effective cat predator. The significance of an incremental increase in disturbance impacts from humans and feral pets is difficult to assess given the impossibility of factoring probabilities for numbers of individuals added to existing intrusions from developments on the south side of the channel. There currently are 3 unrelated residential developments on the south side of the EGGW Channel from the project site and physically contiguous with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands along at least one perimeter. There are 848 total units within these 3 developments, 32 of which lie along the margin of the tracts, immediately adjacent to the wetlands. It is assumed that these developments contain a proportional number of children, cats and dogs to other urban residential areas in the region, so at a minimum they generate intrusion impacts relative to their general size and contiguity. The proposed project has no direct perimeter with the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, but the westernmost terminus of the Orange County parcel does approach an area intended for restoration efforts. Of the original 206 total units proposed for the development (plan analyzed in Draft EIR), 3 border the western terminus of the parcel, about a dozen are contiguous with the southern toe of the knoll, and ±18 abut EGGW Channel berm west of the margin of the existing south-side development. The potential for intrusion impacts from the proposed project would have to be factored incrementally relative to the existing levels from the 848 units presently situated next to the wetlands. On a per-unit basis there would be a direct increase of about 20 percent in the overall number of people and pets available to generate adverse impacts, but at most a 6 percent increase in the number of units immediately adjacent to marshland habitat(=the 3 lots at the terminus of the Orange County parcel). It should also be noted that under the new alternative plans (see Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 6-32 to 6-108, contained in Volume II and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document) no residential units are proposed at the westerly terminus of the Orange County parcel (9 units are proposed under Alternatives 6 and 7 and 0 units are proposed under Alternatives 8 and 9). The closest proposed residential unit is 464 feet (under Alternatives 6 and 7) and 767 feet (under Alternatives 8 and 9) from the project site's westerly property boundary. Whereas cats, dogs and humans can directly enter the wetlands from the perimeters of the south-side projects, the only terrestrial access to the south side of the EGGW Channel from the project site is by crossing the small bridge left from the old oil field activities. Although no specific significant adverse biological impacts to the Bolsa Chica Saltmarsh can be identified for this project, the project biologist suggested implementation of the following Conditions of Approval to minimize the possibility of intrusion disturbance to the wetlands: 1) Because the only routes by which humans or pets might cross the EGGW Channel is the existing small foot bridge,the bridge shall be removed. 2) The entire periphery of the residential development must be walled to a height of at least 6 feet. The final wall plans shall be reviewed and approved by the project biologist and the City Department of Planning. 3) Residents shall be given written notification of the presence of sensitive environmental resource areas adjacent to the project, and shall be instructed to obey all ordinances regarding confinement and leashing of pets. Local animal regulation agencies shall be contacted and requested to vigorously enforce all appropriate ordinances. This notification shall be subject to the approval of the City prior to issuance of occupancy permits for residential units. MC-3 According to the project traffic engineer, although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets are used as secondary access to the project, the impact on those streets will be minimal. All logical street NROlWOLI\PRO]F1LU1997VNI5001VLESPONSETOCON&MNTSWM-RTC-.DOC 3-77 extensions from the project to Bolsa Chica Street create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. Additionally, it is the position of the City that existing streets would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access,and therefore, City staff will propose a condition of approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane. Moreover, the applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the stacking, traffic flow, sight distance and safety issues raised. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. This additional distance will provide the necessary stacking area during peak periods. MC-4 The project applicant proposes to annex the 4.5-acre County portion of the project site into the City of Huntington Beach.If the annexation were to be approved by LAFCO, the City would then be responsible for water supply to the homes located within the 4.5 acres. The incremental water needed for homes on the County parcel would be insignificant and could be adequately served by the City if incorporated. The EIR provides mitigation to ensure that potential impacts related to water supply for those homes to be located on the 4.5 acres are reduced to a level less than significant. As indicated on page 5-189 of the EIR, "the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel, at no cost to the City. Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works — Water Division." The EIR concludes that the implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 through 13 will reduce potential impacts to water services and facilities resulting from development proposed within the County of Orange to a level less than significant. MC-5 According to the project biologist, most of the Parkside Estates project site lies within an active agricultural field, on the north side of the EGGW Channel. The channel has embankments on either side with rise ± 10 feet above the grade on the north side, and somewhat higher on the south side, with a bottom grade within the channel several feet deeper than the surrounding land. The project site was,prior to its conversion to cropland over 50 years ago, a contiguous portion of what is now known as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.The agricultural use of the site,documented in the EIR(pages 5-145 through 5-149),has been continuous at least since the early 1950's, and it also appears that much of the site received excess soils from the construction of the EGGW Channel. A chronology of non-agricultural site use (stables, rodeo arena, soil depositing,etc.)also was documented in the Draft EIR. Nearest Remnant Marshland As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is presently no natural coastal marsh habitat within the project boundaries, or immediately adjacent to the development area. The agricultural fields contain a mixture of non-native ruderal herbaceous species and disturbance tolerant native taxa, including some marshland species able to tolerate saline soils. The small remnant marshland patches which were originally present within the Orange County parcel in January 1997 and were eliminated by disking actions on that portion of the overall property in June 1997 (as detailed in Appendix G of the EIR) and have currently been reestablished at 1.2 acres (refer to June 29, 2001 correspondence from California Coastal Commission). The nearest area of remnant marshland on the northern side of the EGGW Channel lies within oil fields 1.I IIVOLIIIR1.1 EI199IINISOOlI2 POII EIll .MI lTSl N -RTC-,. 1-78 west of the westernmost terminus of the Orange County portion of the site, and the northernmost areas of contiguous Bolsa Chica Wetlands lie adjacent to the southern margin of the channel and existing residential developments. Tidal Flow Influences As indicated in the Draft EIR, changes in surface soils and topography associated with agricultural use altered and removed whatever natural marshland configuration might once have occurred on the site, and the presence of the EGGW Channel and oil field roadway dikes have effectively eliminated all natural tidal flows or influences. The depth of the EGGW Channel and elevations of the surrounding land preclude subsurface hydrological intrusion from the south, and high flows within the channel are of short duration, and most are primarily urban runoff. Kenilworth residential development and other projects along the north side of the property eliminated all upland habitat connectivity to or from the site, and most of the surface flows which once reached the property from that direction now are conveyed off-site through underground pipes. Natural Source of Surface Water As indicated in the Draft EIR, the only natural source of surface water to the site is rainfall and direct runoff from the knoll,both of which are unpredictable, seasonal,freshwater sources. An illegally installed (i.e., there was no city permit obtained), unmetered PVC water pipeline serving the stables at the foot of the knoll has been broken numerous times during the past several years, causing localized surface flooding along the southern portion of the agricultural fields, and during years of heavy Winter rainfall (such as 1997/98) surface water accumulates in some lower portions of the site. At such times, salt- tolerant native plant species may germinate from latent seedbanks in the soil, and ruderal formations may become very dense and robust. However,this type of vegetation response is typical within all open lands, whether in active agricultural use or lying fallow, whenever abnormally high rainfall amounts accumulate on the surface. It is the nature of most ruderal and many disturbance-tolerant halophytic plant species to persist within and around human use areas, to produce great quantities of seeds annually, most of which remain ungerminated in the soil for years awaiting suitable conditions for germination, and then to respond rapidly and vigorously to adventitious hydrology or unusually high amounts of surface moisture. Site Left Fallow for Two Years According to the project biologist, leaving the project site fallow for a time of two years would not accomplish any worthwhile end,because the site simply does not have true wetlands characteristics. True, functional wetlands possess a matrix of essential characteristics, including seasonal, ephemeral or persistent waters, and a suite of vegetation and faunal elements associated with and supported by the hydrology. Over time, such sites develop the soils characteristics employed by some agencies as a third parameter for determination of wetlands. The mere fact of standing water in low areas on level sites may or may not indicate a natural wetland,particularly if the site has been altered from its original topography, is under constant agricultural or other use, has never supported such systems historically, has standing water only as a result of extraordinary conditions (such as "El Nino rainfall years or broken water pipes), and possesses no other natural features of such a system. The use of a single parameter such as the presence of pooled rainwater for any given period of time during an extended rainy season to demonstrate wetlands presence or absence is not valid biologically or ecologically. The project site once was coastal saltmarsh, not an upland with brackish seasonal ponds, and it was the position of the EIR biological assessment that it would not revert to its former coastal saltmarsh condition under any natural circumstances. The altered topography and soils, lack of any means by which tidal flows can reach the system, absence of consistent hydrological support (aside from rainfall), absence of typical coastal saltmarsh plants or animals, and complete physical isolation from natural saltmarsh \\iR01\VOLI\PRO1FR,MI997\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOCOMAgNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-79 habitats precludes this site ever recovering to its former natural condition. The argument that this site, or any other such area,may exhibit minor amounts of facultative or disturbance-tolerant wetlands vegetation if left undisturbed does not change these facts. Maintained or left fallow,this site has the potential only to remain a largely ruderal field, with occasional areas of standing water following heavy rainfall. During years of"normal" rainfall,there would be little likelihood that standing water would persist for more than a few days following storms, and the character of the vegetation would reflect the drier conditions. Given the high growth of ruderal species observed from 1998 to 2001, it seems likely that fire clearance regulations will continue to be applied,regardless of ownership or project status. State and Federal Agency Conclusions Additionally,both State and Federal Agencies that have jurisdictional authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineer (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Pertinent correspondence from these agencies is discussed below and contained in Section 5.0, Volume IIA, Final EIR Technical Appendices. Please refer below for a discussion of both State and Federal level agencies and their conclusions related to the issue of wetland existence on-site: State Level The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) maintains State jurisdiction over the site. In a letter dated June 15, 1998, the California Coastal Commission provided the following statements regarding wetlands status: "To address the wetland delineation issue, the City of Huntington Beach hired Tom Dodson and Associates to evaluate prior wetland determinations and to conduct additional work for determining if wetlands exist on the portion of the project site located within the City of Huntington Beach. Through a letter dated December 17, 1997, an ecologist for Tom Dodson and Associates concluded that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach did not contain any wetlands based on the Coastal Commission's wetland criteria. The City of Huntington Beach(January 8, 1998)then requested that the California Department of Fish and Game evaluate the work done by Tom Dodson and Associates. The Department of Fish and Game (March 16, 1998) concurred with the assessment of Tom Dodson and Associates that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach does not contain wetlands. The Department of Fish and Game also acknowledged that the County portion of the project site contains wetlands in the form of remnant saltmarsh vegetation (estimated at 0.2 acres in the Draft EIR)." "The findings of Tom Dodson and Associates including the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game with those findings, have been questioned by Scott White Biological Consulting(April 5, 1998)." The California Coastal Commission has indicated verbally and in writing that it relies on the DFG to provide guidance on wetlands determinations. A June 15, 1998 letter from the DFG stated that, "Appendix G of the Draft EIR includes a March 16, 1998 letter written by the Department to the City of Huntington Beach. In that letter, the Department concurred with the no wetland value determination as described in the December 17, 1997 verification/update report of the wetland value determination conclusion prepared by the City of Huntington Beach's consultant,Tom Dodson and Associates,for the Shea Company Property TT#15377." \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFME\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOIANMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-80 The DFG has indicated in their June 15, 1998 letter that it does not recognize wetlands on the site, which addresses and nullifies Scott White's assertions as raised in the Coastal Commission correspondence; however,it does recognize significant wildlife resource values on the site. DFG further recommended that wildlife values on the Count, Parcel arcel be mitigated by the enhancement of 2.0 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat at a location acceptable to the Department. They requested that Section 5.8 Mitigation Measure No. 2 be amended to increase the mitigation from 0.8 to 2.0 acres. They also requested that, "This mitigation encompass the protection and enhancement of wildlife value on or as a part of a significant ecological system in the project vicinity, such as the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Alternative equivalent mitigation may also be acceptable if it is consistent with the Draft EIR and approved by the Department prior to any site development activities." Additionally, as part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002)and is included in Volume HA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area(refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland) will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Federal Level Based on issues raised in several letters on the Draft EIR, most notably in the June 15, 1998 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., "the Corps has yet to confirm whether the "seasonal pond... on the site on the westerly end of the property [within County parcel]..." is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or not..."), the City of Huntington Beach agreed that a formal letter from the Corps addressing the status of the seasonal pond on-site would be imperative prior to the completion of the response to comment/Final EIR document. It took several months during this process to determine whether the Federal wetland authority does in fact concur with the findings of the Draft EIR (i.e., 8.3-acre portion of City parcel is accurately designated as Prior Converted Cropland). The reason for the delay in response from the Federal wetland authority is due to the-fact that there have been recent changes in law governing which agencies at the Federal level make the determinations. Ultimately through conversations with Eric Stein and Fari Tabatabai of the Army Corps of Engineer, it was determined that based upon the 1996 Farm Bill, the NRCS maintains jurisdiction over wetland determinations for the project site. The City of Huntington Beach submitted a formal letter to NRCS on November 10, 1998, requesting that they indicate the status of the 1992 Prior Converted Cropland designation for the site. After NRCS' review of all pertinent information, they concluded in a letter dated November 20, 1998, that the site's designation of Prior Converted Cropland is still valid. MC-6 The plan to put 21 units on 7 acres of City land on the Mesa is referred to as the Sandover Project(TTM 15734)and it is separate from Parkside Estates project. It is under different ownership and was proposed by an entirely different applicant. That project has its own entitlement requirements and associated \VRGI\VOLT\PROJFa E\1997\7N15001\RE5PONSETOCOMMENTSNEW-RTC-.DOC 3-81 environmental documentation process, separate from the proposed project. The Sandover Project was approved by the City Council on June 7, 1999 and is currently builtout. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 9. AS-1 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding the impact of the project on wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Lowlands or the Ecological Reserve. AS-2 Please refer to above responses to MC-4 and MC-5 (page3-78), regarding supply of water to the County parcel and on-site wetlands issues. 10. EB-1 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. EB-2 Please refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a detailed discussion of potential impacts related to traffic resulting from the proposed project. As indicated in this section, the proposed project would not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the existing plus project condition. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in level of service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the year 2020 condition.Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 as described in Section 5.3 of the EIR would reduce the project's incremental impacts to a level less than significant. 11. J&DV-1 As indicated within Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation of the EIR, Graham Street would operate at Level of Service A or B with the project (with Level of Service A being an optimum condition of free flow traffic). According to the project traffic engineer, although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets to the north were used as secondary access to the project,the impact would be minimal. Traffic from the project would add 38 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles in the PM peak hour to Greenleaf Lane south of Warner Avenue. Moreover, the applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the stacking, traffic flow, sight distance and safety issues raised. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. This additional distance will provide the necessary stacking area during peak periods. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-4 (page 3-78), regarding supply of water for the project. \UROI.V "\PROIFQ.E\1997\7N15001UZEMNSETOCOb^MNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-82 J&DV-2 The plan to put 21 units on 7 acres of City land on the Mesa is referred to as the Sandover Project and it is separate from Parkside Estates project. It is under different ownership and was proposed by an entirely different applicant. That project has its own entitlement requirements and associated environmental documentation process, separate from the proposed project. The Sandover Project was approved by the City Council on June 7, 1999 and is currently complete. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. J&DV-3 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding impact of the project on the mesa or the ecological reserve and on-site wetlands issues. 12. JMa-1 The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This report complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Huntington Beach for implementation of CEQA. The EIR evaluates the potential project-specific and cumulative impacts regarding Land Use, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. Significant impacts, the level of significance, and the mitigation measures recommended are summarized in the Project Impact Summary of the EIR, which begins on page 2-3. In response to comments on the Draft EIR from the California Coastal Commission(CCC),the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT), and others during the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates project, the City of Huntington Beach directed the applicant to prepare an alternative plan to be considered as part of the EIR. This Reduced Density Alternative concept has been used in conjunction with the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5- acre County parcel, to prepare four (4) new alternatives to the Draft EIR. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was prepared under a separate cover and was circulated for public review from June 29,2001 through August 13,2001 (refer to Section 5.0,Final EIR for details of the new alternatives). JMa-2 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel issues. JMa-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 13. JMb-1 Please refer to above response to MC-6 (page 3-81), regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. In addition,the Sandover project is in a part of the City with an approved LUP. \UR01\VOLT\PROJFILE\199T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMH93NTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-83 14. PB-1 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. PB-2 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding single entry to the project and the alternatives. Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding the supply of water. Lastly, Section 5.10 of the EIR provides a full analysis of potential impacts to water, school, and other public services. 15. JD-1 The EIR does address off-site as well as on-site impacts resulting from the proposed project. Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the wildlife on the mesa or the ecological reserve. Additionally, please refer to above response to J&DV-1 (page 3-82) and SG4 (page 3-11) in Section 3.1 of this document,regarding circulation,congestion,and signal issues. JD-2 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. 16. OCPD-1(Also prepared letter 8 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. OCPD-2 Any levee reconstruction required will be in accordance with recommendations contained in the report for EGGW Channel and to standards and criteria used by Orange County Flood Control District. Also, please refer to below response to OCPD-3 on this page,regarding pad elevations. OCPD-3 Subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received new information related to a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000 and the submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001. The new information triggered preparation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, which outlined four alternatives taking into account the new information which was not available at the time the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. The new elevation requirements of the June 14, 2000 FEMA FIRM map and the CLOMR application of February 2001(which establish the need for an increase in the required final pad elevations) are detailed in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, which was circulated for public review from June 29, 2001 through August 13, 2001. The responses to comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document are contained in Section 4.0 of this document. \\[ROI\VOLI\PROJFMMI"'AIN15001\RESPONSETOCOMWNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-84 Originally, off-site studies were not intended to delineate a floodplain. These studies were performed, to the City's satisfaction, to demonstrate that no off-site storm flows would enter the site during a 100-year storm. The on-site storm drain system will be designed to protect all proposed pads from the 100-year flood flows. Please refer to "Flooding"discussion found on page 5-136 of the EIR. Note, however, that at the time of the release of DEIR No. 97-2, only the future condition full delivery, full conveyance design hydrology was available. The FEMA Detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent(January 30, 2002) supersedes the channel overtopping estimates on Page 5-138. An updated existing condition flooding scenario is provided by the responses to RPA-25 and RPA-26 (page 3-183 to 3-184) in Section 3.3, and TAD-3 (page 4-71) in Section 4.3 of this document regarding the existing condition flooding scenario: If a storm event is significant enough to overtop the channel, it will occur upstream of this property. If overtopping occurs upstream, the volume of water in the channel will be reduced and results in additional capacity in the downstream channel. (Please refer to EIR, Appendix F, Hydrology Inundation Reports). The Flood Insurance Study for the currently adopted FIRM was prepared by WEST Consultants. The original project plans met the requirement of FEMA based on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIMR) in effect in 1998. However, WEST Consultants did not produce a detailed flood insurance study. They were directed by the County to provide an "approximate" watershed analysis of the C05 to the Orange County Flood Control District, for submission to FEMA. Subsequently, new base flood elevation contours were "informally" produced by the County of Orange from the WEST study in June 2000. These new informal, non-published or "unofficial" base flood elevation contours were made available to the City of Huntington Beach on an information basis for design review purposes to establish minimum pad elevations for new developments within the watershed study area. The City's interpretation of the base flood contours required pad elevations of Tentative Tracts 15377 and 15419 to range between 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) and 11.4 feet (NAVD 88) - considerably higher than any prior base flood elevation previously predicted for the subject property. With the release of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) by FEMA on July 1, 2000, depicting a new floodplain area boundary, the "A99" designation that was assigned to the property was removed and the area around and including this project was incorporated into a Zone "A" special flood hazard area. Due to the lower level of detail provided by the WEST study, this flood hazard area / designation leaves the depth of flooding "to be determined by the best available information from local flood studies." As stated above, a complete hydrologic study of the watershed for the area to develop a more precise, up to date and accurate flooding depth that will serve as the best available information to establish an accurate base-flood elevation for the area was prepared by Exponent and is entitled "FEMA Detailed Flood Insurance Study"(January 30,2002 FEMA submittal). In addition,the CLOMR request included a study entitled "Final Response to FEMA May 2, 2002, Comments on February 5, 2001, Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision: Shea Homes Parkside Estates Tentative Nos. 15377 & 15419. Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Watershed from the Tide Gates to I405 Freeway,"prepared by Exponent dated May 16, 2002. This study is comprised of detailed proposed conditions "with-levee" and "without-levee" HEC-UNET, Version 4.0, models dated May 16, 2002. These models include East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel from its confluence with the tide gates to its crossing under the San Diego Freeway; Ocean View Channel from its confluence with East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel to its crossing under the San Diego Freeway; and associated levees, pump stations, bridge structures, and gated culverts. Because the existing levees along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel are not certified in accordance with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations, the modeling involved failing levees in accordance with the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, dated February 2002. As a result of these hydraulic models and a revised delineation of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), the FIRM and FIS report can be revised not only for the Shea Homes property but also for the entire study reach once the proposed study improvements are constructed. \UR01\VOLI\PRORFIMI"7\7NI5001URESPONSETOCOWaWSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-85 FEMA reviewed the submitted models and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for the Shea property and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The effective HEC-RAS model dated January 26, 2000, was used as the base conditions model in FEMA's review of the proposed conditions model for the CLOMR request. As a result of more detailed topographic information, the water-surface elevation (WSEL) of the base flood will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL, 1.9 feet, will occur approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Gothard Street. FEMA concluded in a CLOMR to the City of Huntington Beach, dated June 6, 2002, that "as a result of the more detailed topographic information, the proposed project, and the failure of uncertified levees, the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The base flood WSEL within the Shea Homes property will be 2.2 feet,referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD)of 1929." The conversion of NGVD 29 Datum to NAVD 88 Datum (which is the base datum being used in the design of the project) is calculated by adding 2.4 feet. Therefore, the approved CLOMR WSEL or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the project site as adjusted to NAVD 88 datum is 4.6 feet. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document includes two (2) alternatives #7 and #9 with a BFE of 4.5 feet. These two alternatives and the environmental analysis of these alternatives are consistent with the June 6, 2002 approved FEMA CLOMR for the project site. OCPD-4 Since this letter was received, the study has since been completed, as mentioned in the above response. Please refer to response OCPD-3 (page 3-84). OCPD-5 An encroachment permit will be obtained from OCFCD for any work to be performed within their right- of-way. The work proposed as part of this Development will include removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet piling (or equivalent), installation of storm drain channel crossing, bike trail, and removal of the existing bridge in the vicinity of the Slater Pump Station. Please refer to "Mitigation Measures"on page 5-142 of the EIR. OCPD-6 The project does implement the proposed Class I bikeway on that part of the flood control facility within the project boundaries to facilitate connection with the flood control facility that will remain in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Plan. Please refer to responses to OCPD-7 through OCDP-9 below, regarding bikeway and trail issues. Additionally, both the City and project applicant have continued to coordinate with the County regarding this issue. Subsequent meetings with County staff and written correspondence dated 1/8/98 and 7/29/98 from County staff have occurred. OCPD-7 Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume H, which includes the revised Exhibits 5b and 6c and the new Exhibits 57 and 70 (of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). These exhibits \MW1\VOLT\PROJFILE\1997\7N15WlUffiSPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTGAOC 3-86 depict the Proposed Class I Bikeway. The County standard for this bikeway will be implemented. The added exhibits do not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor do they raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. OCPD-8 Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II, which includes the revised page 3-14a and the addition of Exhibit 5b, Proposed Conceptual Trails and Bike Paths, which clearly depicts the suggested linkage. This modification to the document and added exhibit does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, both the City and project applicant have continued to coordinate with the County regarding the issue of a Class I bike trail linkage between the Channel and the neighborhood park. Subsequent meetings with County staff and written correspondence dated 1/8/98 and 7129/98 from County staff have occurred, regarding the project's proposal of a Class II bike trail linkage between the Channel and the neighborhood park. OCPD-9 Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II, which includes the revised page 3-31 with the added project objective. The following objective was added: "Provide a Class I bikeway connecting the project site to Graham Street, the proposed local park and the future Bolsa Chica Open Space Trails/Bikeway System." This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. OCPD-10 Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II, which includes the revised page 5-181. While this page has been revised to include a description of the County Local Park Code requirements (because a portion of the project site is within the County), our analysis still utilized the City's park requirements in determining the project's parkland requirement, as it is more stringent. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. The applicant proposes to meet the park requirements by dedicating 8.2 acres to the City. OCPD-11 According to the project traffic engineer, Graham Street is currently built to secondary arterial standards (64 feet curb to curb) between Warner and Slater, with the exception of a short section at the EGGW Channel bridge, and the project will be conditioned to provide the necessary improvements along this portion of roadway segment. This information was included on page 5 of the Traffic Study, Appendix B of the EIR. OCPD-12 The comment raises the issue of the quality of the water in Huntington Harbor. As discussed below in response OCPD-13, the proposed project will not adversely affect water quality in the harbor. In fact, as a result of the project, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Please refer to the "Water Quality" section found on page 5-141 of the EIR. \\IROI\VOLT\PROIFII.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-87 OCPD-13 With regard to the Parkside Estates project, a report prepared by Rivertech Inc., a water quality management engineering company, has evaluated the water quality impact from this site and the 21.8 acres located to the northwest of this site which will be conveyed through this site to the Slater Pump Station. Rivertech's recommendation and conclusion is that by installing a pollution separation device, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Therefore, the proposed Parkside Estates development in conjunction with the recommended separation device is expected to improve the quality of urban runoff to the Slater Pump Station forebay. This information does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. A copy of the Rivertech report has been added to Appendix F - Hydrology/Inundation Reports of the EIR (refer to the Final EIR Technical Appendices- Appendix 5,contained in Volume IIA). In addition, Rivertech, Inc. has recently prepared an Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan dated February 2002. The analysis described in the report is consistent with EPA's rule of '/2 inch of runoff over the watershed as the 'first flush" event. Using that rule, EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant area-wide reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 Addendum report, it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel from development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. The reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates,but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. The February 2002 Addendum provides information on current water quality control requirements and includes an appendix that presents information regarding the Urban Runoff Management Plan that will be applied to the Parkside Estates Project. The Urban Runoff Management Plan identifies specific BMPs to be used. The Addendum is included in Section 5.0, Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, and is part of Appendix F of the EIR document. The additional details regarding water quality "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of the EIR,and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions. Additionally,please refer to below responses to RWQCB-3 through 5 (pages 4-92 to 4-93)in Section 4.3 of this document regarding the impact of water quality removed during dewatering. OCPD-14 While responsibility for conducting scientific or environmental studies for the "Countywide" Drainage Management Plan lies with the County, a report has been prepared by Rivertech Inc. addressing this issue for the project.Please refer to above response to OCPD-13 on this page. OCPD-15 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the methodology utilized in their evaluation of liquefaction and other geologic hazards is consistent with the requirements of Special Publication 117. Additionally,please refer to response MW-lb(page 3-66),regarding impacts of geologic hazards. \\IROI\VOLI\PROHaE\1997\7N15001\MPONSETOMWAFNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-88 OCPD-16 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the major natural slope ascending from the site is comprised of dense Pleistocene sands that are not subject to seismically induced landslides or lateral spread. The majority of manufactured slopes within the project will be on the order to 2 feet or less and will be comprised of compacted fill. A maximum 9-foot high 4:1 slope is proposed at the extreme west end of Tract 15419. Remediation of potentially liquefiable soils will be accomplished prior to construction of all slopes. Sheet piling is to be installed along the north bank of the EGGW Channel. Upon completion of construction,lateral spread and seismically-induced landslide hazards will not exist. OCPD-17 According to the project geotechnical consultant,the only known existing utilities consist of. 1) a 60-inch RCP adjacent to the northerly property line, 2)the EGGW Channel, and 3) the 10-inch above ground gas line on the County parcel. The 60-inch RCP will be protected in-place and remain functional until replacement systems can be constructed. Grading adjacent to the EGGW Channel and within the right-of-way will be conducted, and an encroachment permit will be obtained prior to construction. Details for grading and construction in proximity to the channel can be discussed with County personnel prior to implementation. According to the project civil engineer, the existing gas line is located within an open space area to be maintained by the Homeowners Association(HOA). Additionally,please refer to above response to OCPD-5(page 3-86),regarding an encroachment permit. OCPD-18 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. OCPD-19 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 17. BO-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. BO-2 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding on-site wetlands issues. Additionally, Section 5.8 Biological Resources of the EIR summarized the results of a technical report prepared by the project's biological consultant. As indicated on page 5-144 of the EIR, sensitive biological resources present(or potentially present) on-site were initially identified through a thorough literature review using materials from the following sources: US Fish and Wildlife Service (1993, 1994, 1996, 1997), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (1992, 1995, reviewed 1997), and the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Standard field guides were used for field identification of resources and a spectrum of appropriate literature resources pertinent to the project area or issues under consideration were also consulted. BO-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFU,E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMI.MNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-89 BO-4 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding traffic and access issues. BO-5 Please refer to above responses to J&DV-1 (page 3-82) and M&JT-3 (page 3-66), regarding access, circulation,and traffic issues. Additionally, a traffic signal at the project's access street will create gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. (Please refer to Traffic Study,Appendix B of the EIR). BO-6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 18. SM-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. SM-2 The EIR does address off-site as well as on-site impacts resulting from the proposed project. Additionally, please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the wildlife on 0 the mesa or the ecological reserve. SM-3 Please refer to above response to MW-5 (page 3-74),regarding access issues. SM-4 Please refer to above response to MC4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel. SM-S Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. SM-6 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. 19. JHa-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JHa-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. \VROI\VOL1\PROIFME\1"7\7NS5001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-90 20. JHb-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JHb-2 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the wildlife on the mesa or the ecological reserve. JHb-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JHb-4 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JHb-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 21. BN-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. BN-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. BN-3 Please refer to above response to MC-2(page 3-76),regarding the impact of pets on the area. BN-4 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. BN-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 22. GM-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally,regarding the wetlands located on-site, the new alternatives do not propose development on the wetlands identified within the County parcel. No wetlands occur within the 45-acre City parcel within the project. \\IR01\VOLT\PROIFU.E\1997\7N15001UZESPONSETOCOMNILNTSV'EW-RTC-.DOC 3-91 GM-2 and GM-3 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the mesa or the ecological reserve. 23. WCHa-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. WCHa-2 The Draft EIR concluded that although the project will result in an increase in noise levels,the short-term impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures, and the long-term impacts are not considered significant. Please refer to Section 5.5 Noise of the EIR for a discussion of impacts related to increase in noise resulting from the proposed project. Please refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare for a discussion of light and glare impacts. Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding the impact of development on wildlife in the ecological reserve and the impact of cats and dogs on the area, respectively. WCHa-3 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding single entry to the project and alternative proposals. WCHa-4 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel. WCHa-5 Please refer to above response to MC-5(page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. WCHa-6 According to the project traffic engineer,the volume of traffic resulting from the proposed project added to Pacific Coast Highway in the Sunset Beach area would be less than significant. Additionally, please refer to above response to DOT-2 (page 3-76), regarding potential impact to traffic volumes. 24. WCHb-1 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. WCHb-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. U[Rot\VOLT\PROJFQ.E\1997\7N1S001\RESPONSETOCOMN ENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-92 25. LH-1 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding the impact of the project on the biological resources on the mesa or the ecological reserve. 26. SF-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. SF-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. SF-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 27. KL-1 Please refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare for a discussion of light and glare impacts. Additionally, please refer to above responses to MC-2(page 3-76)and MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding the impact of cats and dogs and impacts of project on the wildlife on the mesa or the ecological reserve, respectively. 28. SL-1 The Draft EIR concluded that although the project will result in an increase in noise levels,the short-term impacts will be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures, and the long-term impacts are not considered significant. Please refer to Section 5.5 Noise of the EIR for a discussion of impacts related to increase in noise resulting from the proposed project. Please refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare for a discussion of light and glare impacts. Please refer to above responses to MC-2 (page 3-76) and MW-1c (page 3-69), regarding the impact of pets and impacts of project on the wildlife on the mesa or the ecological reserve,respectively. SL-2 Please refer to above response to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding single entry to the project and the proposed alternatives. SL-3 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel. SL-4 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), on-site wetlands issues. XM1\VOL11PROJFHEM1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCONDMgTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-93 SL-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 29. S&RM-1 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding impact of the project on the wildlife on the mesa or the ecological reserve and impacts of cats and dogs. S&RM-2 Please refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation of the EIR,which summarized the Traffic Study for the Graham Street Residential Development,June 27, 1997,prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc. The traffic study was prepared in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, July 1993. Discussions were held with the City of Huntington Beach traffic engineering staff prior to preparation of this study to establish the project scope, methodology, and technical assumptions. S&RM-3 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water. Additionally,please refer to Section 5.10 of the EIR for an analysis of project impacts on water supply. . S&RM-4 With regard to the commentor's concern regarding piecemeal development the following response is provided: Although a small portion of the proposed project is physically located within the County of Orange on a part of what is considered the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the City's consideration of the proposed project is not piecemealed.The majority of the site(approximately 45 acres)is located in the City of Huntington Beach and the City anticipates annexation of the 5-acre County portion of the site into the City. Piecemealing occurs when, in an attempt to minimize environmental impacts or minimize environmental review, the consideration of a project and its impacts are segmented and considered separately. Neither the environmental review, nor the planning of the County portion of the project site located on the Bolsa Chica Mesa is being piecemealed. The City is in the process of conducting a full environmental review for the Parkside Estates project, which has considered all impacts of the proposed development. Additionally,the project has independent utility on its own(i.e.,could stand on its own and be considered for implementation regardless of what happens with the other portion of the Bolsa Chica Mesa). The Parkside Estates proposal for development would not be a segmentation of a larger project, but rather, they are two separate actions. It should be noted that Bolsa Chica was included in the cumulative analysis for the Parkside Estates project. 30. CRR-1 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding traffic issues. Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding impacts on wildlife and impacts of cats and dogs. Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding water supply. 1\IRO1\VOLI\PROJFR.ZI"7\7N15001UZESPONSETOCOMWNTSWEW-RTG.DOC 3-94 Additionally, please refer to Section 5.10 of the EIR, Public Services and Utilities, regarding police and fire services. CRR-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 31. NB-1 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. Additionally, aside from the Bolsa Chica Street connection alternative analyzed in Section 6.6 of the EIR, which concluded the connections were not environmentally superior, no additional road development for the project is proposed that would extend to Bolsa Chica Mesa. The proposed development of the City parcel is consistent with the General Plan and City Water Master Plan. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC4 (page 3-78), regarding water use issues for the County portion of the site. 32. TR-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. TR-2 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. TR-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. TR-4 EDAW is under contract with the City of Huntington Beach. In regards to the hiring of EDAW as the EIR consultant, upon the determination that an EIR be prepared for the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach staff used the common and customary process of hiring a consultant. In July 1997, the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach sent a request for proposal (RFP) to four environmental consulting firms. These firms were, the Planning Center, The Chambers Group, Urban Vision,and EDAW,Inc. The Planning Division received and evaluated the proposals from the consulting firms and determined that EDAW's proposal was superior to the other proposals in its response to the City's RFP. On August 18, 1997, EDAW received a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division indicating that staff reviewed EDAW's proposal and was recommending to Council that EDAW be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report. On September 15, 1997, staff recommended that the City Council approve a contract between the City and EDAW, Inc. for preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the proposed Parkside Estates residential project. The Council approved the staff's recommendation unanimously. TR-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. WR01\VOLI\PROJFILE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-95 33. OCTA-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 34. MJW-1 The reason for the difference in elevations between the Project Summary (7.4 feet near the East Garden Grove Channel) and the NOP (9.5 feet near the East Garden Grove Channel) is that the NOP incorrectly stated the existing grade. The correct existing grade is 7.4 feet. The finished grade proposed at that time was 9.5 feet. (Due to recent City requirements, the proposed finished elevations at that location have been slightly changed and are now proposed to be 10.0 feet). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR(page 5-49 and pages 6-32 to 6-108) contained in Volume Il. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Average elevation change was calculated by considering the existing and proposed elevations of the overall site. MJW-2 According to the project traffic engineer, projected traffic volumes from the Bolsa Chica and Holly- Seacliff developments were included in the traffic study prepared for the proposed project(refer to page 9 of the Traffic Study, Appendix B of the Draft EIR). The project does not cause study intersections or street segments to operate at unacceptable levels of service. MJW-3 Tables G and H (pages 5-66 and 5-69 of the EIR) are correct. Exhibit 30 of the EIR shows existing 24- hour volumes on Graham Street of 7,200. With the addition of project traffic, 24-hour volumes on Graham south of the new "A" Street are 8,200, an addition of 1,000 trips or 40 percent of project traffic, and 8,700 north of"A" Street, an addition of 1,500 trips or 60 percent of project traffic. It should be noted that the total trips would be 9,696 only if 100% of the project traffic were assigned to Graham Street either north or south of "A" Street. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is calculated according to National Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. MJW-4 According to the project traffic engineer, the sight distance impact at the EGGW Channel bridge is mitigated by a combination of design elements including the installation of a traffic signal. The project- specific impact is that without a traffic signal the corner sight distance is less than the required standard for the existing speed limit on Graham. The installation of a traffic signal on Graham at"A" Street(refer to page 5-74 of the EIR) will provide advance warning to stop. All signal indications facing northbound traffic on Graham will have more than adequate stopping sight distance. Additionally, the applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the stacking, traffic flow, sight distance and safety issues raised in other comments. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. MJW-5 With respect to the commentor's questions regarding parking,the following responses are offered: WROI\VOLi\PROJFH.OIW'A7Nl500lMPONSETOCONMMNTSMW-RTC-.DOC 3-96 According to the project civil engineer, the City's Department of Planning is proposing, in their preliminary conditions of approval, that the proposed project provide 30 on-street parking spaces for the park. City staff has further required that these 30 spaces be provided over and above the on-street parking required for guests of the residences within this proposed project. A parking designation plan has been submitted to the City, which includes the required parking spaces. The park site is designed as a neighborhood park. It is anticipated that many park attendees would walk to the park. Please refer to above response to J&GB-8 (page 3-63),regarding the park issue. With respect to the comment related to "common driveway," according to the project civil engineer, it is assumed that this comment references Lots 14 through 17 of Tentative Tract Map 15419. The project civil engineer reviewed the tentative maps for compliance with City safety measures and meeting Fire Depart- ment requirements. Common drives are not unusual and are used throughout Orange County. On occasion, the Fire Department may require the last one or two houses that obtain access from a common drive to be sprinklered for safety purposes. All houses within this Development will be equipped with fire sprinklers and parking will not be permitted on the private drive. Common drives do not effect the serv- iceability of any of the houses from an emergency service standpoint since driveways are accessible to ambulances and law enforcement agencies. MJW-6 According to the project traffic engineer, exiting project traffic in the AM peak hour would stack at a higher level without a traffic signal at"A" Street than they will with it.The signalized intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A, which represents free flow. Exhaust fumes do not need to be mitigated at LOS A. MJW-7 Page 5-83 of the EIR and Page 26 of the Traffic Study found in Appendix B of the EIR adequately describes the proposed striping on Graham Street. 35. RN-1 Please refer to above response to S&RM-4(page 3-94),regarding piecemealing. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-6 (page 3-81), regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. RN-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. RN-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 36. JMA-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally,please refer to MW-lc (page 3-69),regarding wetlands and wildlife issues. MOl\VOL1\PROJFII..E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-97 37. MHa-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. MHa-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. MHa-3 Please refer to above response to MC-2(page 3-76),regarding the impact of house cats on the endangered birds. MHa-4 Section 5.9 Cultural Resources of the EIR addresses potential impacts to archaeological resources resulting from the proposed project. This section summarizes the technical report prepared by Brian D. Dillon, Ph.D. titled Archaeological Assessment of the Shea Homes Project Tentative Tract 15377 and Tentative Tract 15419, March 1997. Section 5.9 focuses on the on-site archaeological resources, the significance of the resources, potential project impacts to the on-site resources, and mitigation measures required reducing or eliminating project impacts. MHa-5 According to the project biologist, the ephemeral areas of standing water which often accumulate on the site following storms do not create habitats which are different, unique or vital resources locally, but rather are temporary, low quality fresh or brackish pools, lacking the native aquatic vegetation or invertebrates (--natural forage values) of natural marshlands. Nevertheless, the pools may be a visible attractant to birds, particularly ecological generalists (such as great blue heron, great egret, black-necked stilt, spotted sandpiper, killdeer, Canada goose, mallard, etc.) which typically forage in ruderal habitats and unnatural water bodies, including percolation basins, cattle ponds, and flooded agricultural fields, throughout North America. The fallow agricultural areas, which may contain seeds and chaff from ploughed ruderal and crop vegetation, also may attract generalist feeders such as Canada goose, snow goose, white-fronted goose, mallard, and other species which readily forage in fallow croplands. None of these species is considered sensitive by resource agencies,although many of them are managed for hunting by California Department of Fish&Game. None of the species which have been noted at the ephemeral pools or feeding within the fallow agricultural areas are biologically or ecologically dependent populationally, locally or regionally upon the resources of the site, or upon any other ruderal or upland area within the site vicinity. Those species which breed locally may do so within natural wetlands, or in created environments with suitable characteristics (such as golf course water features), but do not reside or reproduce within the project boundary. The loss of a minor amount of casual foraging field area for Canada geese would not in any measurable way adversely affect this common and widespread game bird,nor any of the other species. Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands. MHa-6 According to the project civil engineer,there is no run-off directed to the wetland restoration area as pro- posed by the Parkside Estates project. The engineer has designed the site to have raised elevations on the west end and local drainage will flow toward the center of the site. The run-off from the proposed project \\IROl\VOLI\PRO1F11.E\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETO( MNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-98 is collected on surface and in underground pipes and then conveyed to the Slater Storm Drain Pump Station, where it is pumped into the EGGW Channel. Please refer to Volume II, Appendix F of the EIR for an expanded discussion of this information. Please refer to above response to OCPD-13 (page 3-88),regarding water quality issues. Additionally, according to the project biologist, the EGGW Channel has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and terrestrial connection between the project site and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and actions on the site would not have any measurable affect on the hydrology or water quality of the reserve or restoration areas. There are no tidal flows crossing,reaching or draining from the project site into any other natural area, nor are there any natural freshwater flows or nutrient transport systems entering or existing the site to or from adjacent natural areas. MHa-7 Implementation of Mitigation Measures 6 through 15 proposed in Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of the EIR (refer to pages 5-187 through 5-189) would reduce impacts to water services and facilities to a level less than significant.Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78), regarding supply of water to County parcel. MHa-8 According to the project traffic engineer, the project's level of service impacts are within acceptable levels. Please refer to page 5-73 of the EIR. MHa-9 Please refer to Sections 5.3 Transportation/Circulation, 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology, and 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of the EIR. MHa-10 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 38. MHb-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 39. JLG-1 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impacts of the project on the wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding the impact of cats and dogs on the surrounding environment. JLG-2 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Additionally,please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding traffic issues and alternative roadway connections. \VROl\VOLT\PROJFIIF\1"7\7N15001\MPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-99 JLG-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 40. CSLC-1 (Also prepared letter 11 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. CSLC-2 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-2(page 3-76),regarding the impact of the project(including the introduction of domestic pets)on the wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Lowlands or Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration project. Please refer to above response to MHa-6(page 3-98),regarding runoff/water quality issues. CSLC-3. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR addresses impacts anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project and proposes mitigation for every significant impact identified in the EIR. The City of Huntington Beach will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented in the event that the project is approved. The MMP will be included as a stand alone document prior to the project hearings on the Final EIR. Additionally, EDAW has added the proposed mitigation measures to the Project Impact Summary matrix (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Table B,pages 2-3 to 2-19, contained in Volume II). This allows the reader an opportunity to identify the anticipated impact and the mitigation measures that have been proposed to reduce the specific impact to a level less than significant. This addition to the matrix does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. The EIR does discuss that the project site has been designated for development of residential uses and that the proposed project would be consistent with the City's Land Use Plan; however, the EIR also recognizes that the proposed project would result in several other impacts. Please refer to the Section 2.2 Project Impact Summary for a discussion of anticipated impacts. CSLC-4 Paragraph three on page 3-29 states, that the property was excluded from the Prospective Federal Wetlands Restoration project area(known as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project) and not from wetland jurisdiction. The coverage of wetland function, jurisdiction and allowable use is addressed in Section 5.8 and Appendix G of the EIR. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3- 78),regarding the status of on-site wetlands issues. CSLC-5 The CSLC has been added to page 3-34 item 14 as an agency that has interest in the environmental impacts of the proposed project (refer to section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. ..I \VOLT\PROD=\1997\7N15OO1\RESPONSETOMMNffi TSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-100 CSLC-6 This section on page 4-3 has been updated in response to the comment (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. CSLC-7 The information describing the land west of the 4.5 acre County parcel has been added (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-2, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that based upon the most recent LCP ownership map and assessor records, the 24.5-acre parcel is not immediately contiguous with the property owned by Shea but is rather immediately contiguous with a parcel owned by Hearthside Homes and that parcel is immediately contiguous with the parcel owned by MWD and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. CSLC-8 The paragraph on page 5-27 of the EIR has been revised to further clarify the statement that the project does not propose cul-de-sacs (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. CSLC-9 Based upon data provided in the EIR and technical appendices,pages 5-29 and 5-30 of the EIR accurately describe the project's consistency impacts with the applicable policies of the City's Environmental Resources/Conservation Element. The City's Environmental Resources/Conservation Element is comprised of components such as, open space, biological resources, mineral resources, aesthetic resources, and water, electricity and gas conservation. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR propose and include features that ensure potential impacts are further reduced. The new alternatives propose between 14.4 to 16.1 acres of open space; provide for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area; provide for 464-767.3 feet of separation from the closest proposed residential use to the portion of the ESHA located onsite; and include a 133- foot separation(including a 50-foot wide paseo park)from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential unit. These and additional project elements provide for consistency with the City's Environmental Resources/Conservation Element. Additionally,please refer to above responses to MW-lc(page 3-69) and MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding the impact of the project on the off-site Bolsa Chica Lowlands or Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. CSLC-10 CEQA Guidelines do not require that this type of analysis be conducted. As indicated in Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the EIR, the proposed project may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. However, due to the fact that this area has been designated as RL-7 Residential Low Density in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and is in effect an infill project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Additionally, the proposed project will not result in impacts to a City-proposed scenic route designated adjacent to the site. WROI\VOLI\PROIPD.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMAMNTS\NEW.RTC-.DOC 3-101 Additionally, under the new alternatives, to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternatives on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55, All Alternatives Visual Simulations—Existing Condition contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR). The existing condition view (top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternatives (please refer to Exhibits 56 and 62,contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume R). Please refer to the complete analysis contained within Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume 11,for additional details regarding this issue. CSLC-11 The EIR preparers do not "dismiss the concerns of the public" but rather provide an impact analysis utilizing the impact criteria provided on page 5-47 of the EIR. The conclusions of the Aesthetics/Light and Glare section are based upon the impact criteria and the EIR preparers independent judgment provided in the analysis on pages 5-45 through 5-55 of the EIR. Facts regarding the project site such as its past and current uses and its General Plan and zoning designations are typically used by EIR preparers to characterize a project site and define how the City Master Planning documents"envision"the property. CSLC-12 The short-term impact analysis was provided consistent with 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook for air quality analysis. Although the proposed project does not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds provided in its Table 6-3, "Screening Table for Construction—Quarterly Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality," short term construction impacts were estimated using Table 9-1, "Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction Emissions" of the Handbook. The assumption of construction days (i.e., 1,248 work days) shown on Table 9-1 in appendix D of EIR is consistent with the assumptions listed in section 3.5 Phasing of the EIR. The total construction is estimated at 4 years (i.e., 6 months for remedial grading and 3.5 years for construction). The 1,249 workdays assumed a six- day workweek. The construction details requested by the comment letter are not known at this time. Additionally page 9-1 of the SCAQMD Handbook states, "while foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can (CEQA Guidelines Section 15144). The District recognizes that in all cases the information necessary for estimating emissions may not be available. However,in preparing the emission calculations,the lead agency should take a best-effort approach. If quantification is not possible, then a qualitative evaluation of project emissions may be acceptable to identify probable or likely emissions from construction and operational sources." Additionally,the SCAQMD was sent a copy of the Draft EIR for review and comment and have provided no comments to the City. Lastly,please refer to response PMK-5 (page 4-20)within Section 4.1 for response regarding construction impacts associated with the four new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document entitled "New Alternatives to the Draft EIR#97-2." CSLC-13 Table O of the EIR does not contain inconsistencies as mentioned in the comment letter. Page 6-4 of the SCAQMD handbook includes the construction emission significance thresholds listed on page 5-93 of the EIR. Page 6-4 of the SCAQMD Handbook also states, "however, if emissions on an individual day \\1R01\VOLT\PROIFRE\1997WN15001UMSPONSETOCOMAMNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-102 exceed 761bs. a day for ROC, or 100 lbs. a day for NOx, or 550 lbs. a day for CO, or 150 lbs. a day for PM10 and SOx,the project should be considered significant." Lastly, page 64 states "Table 6-3 of the hand book provides a screening table for determining when a project construction emissions could exceed the threshold of significance." As stated above the proposed project does not exceed the thresholds included on Table 6-3. However, as indicated above a short-term construction impact analysis was provided in the Draft EIR. CSLC-14 The project applicant is being required by the City and County to improve the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel by removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the Channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet-pile or equivalent. This will widen and increase the capacity of the Channel by turning the trapezoidal Channel into a rectangular one on the proposed Development side. This will also provide for a stable barrier against the erosion of the Channel berm (please refer to Exhibit 6bl, Sections A-A, B-B, and C-C (within Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II), contained in Volume II), and Mitigation Measures on page 5-142 of the EIR.)Environmental Impacts resulting from channel improvements have been addressed in EIR 560. CSLC-15 According to the project civil engineer, the most recent information regarding water quality is found in the County of Orange approved EIR 560 for the EGGW Channel improvements. This EIR based their water quality discussion on the certified version of EIR 551 for the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program as well as consultation with local County staff, site visits and information provided by Huitt Zollars. A copy of Section 5.3 Water Resources of EIR 560 is located at the County of Orange Archives. With regard to the Parkside Estates project, a report prepared by Rivertech Inc., a water quality management engineering company, has evaluated the water quality impact from this site and the 21.8 acres located to the northwest of this site which will be diverted through this site to the Slater Pump Station. This water quality report with recommendations represents the first step in implementation of mitigation measure 3 provided on page 5-142 of the EIR. Rivertech's recommendation and conclusion is that by installing a pollution separation device, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Therefore, the proposed Parkside Estates development in conjunction with the recommended separation device is expected to improve the quality of urban runoff to the Slater Pump Stations forebay. A copy of the Rivertech report has been added to Appendix F - Hydrology/Inundation Reports of the EIR. (Please refer to the Final EIR Technical Appendices-Appendix 5,contained in Volume IIA). Additionally,according to the project civil engineer,there is no run-off directed to the wetland restoration area as proposed by the Parkside Estates project. The engineer has designed the site to have raised elevations on the west end and local drainage will flow toward the center of the site. The run-off from the proposed project is collected on surface and underground pipes and then conveyed to the Slater Storm Drain Pump Station, where it is pumped into the EGGW Channel. Please refer to Volume II, Appendix F of the EIR for an expanded discussion of this information. In addition, Rivertech, Inc. has recently prepared an Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan dated February 2002. The analysis described in the report is consistent with EPA's rule of lh inch of runoff over the watershed as the "first flush" event. Using that rule, EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 Addendum report, it is \\[ROl\VOLt\PROSPME\1997\7Nl5OOl\MPONSETOCOMNMNn\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-103 predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent: the reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates,but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. The February 2002 Addendum provides information on current water quality control requirements and includes an appendix that presents information regarding the Urban Runoff Management Plan that will be applied to the Parkside Estates Project. The Addendum is included in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices contained in Volume IIA and is part of Appendix F of the /Final EIR document. The additional details regarding water quality"constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions. CSLC-16 The detailed water quality measures to be implemented are contained in the Rivertech report, which has been added to Appendix F of the EIR. As stated above, these measures represent the first step of mitigation measure 3 (i.e., a water quality management plan). Monitoring and maintenance of the system will be at the City's discretion(refer to pages 5-141 and 5-142 of the EIR). In addition, please refer to above response to CSLC-15 (page 3-103), regarding Rivertech's Addendum report. CSLC-17 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc(page 3-69)and MC-2(page 3-76),regarding the impact of the project(including the introduction of domestic pets)on the wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Lowlands or Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project(BCWRP). CSLC-18 The project proponents have discussed possible mitigation with representatives of the BCWRP Steering Committee. The project proponents attended a public information meeting on October 27, 1998 to discuss the restoration project. The BCWRP EIR was prepared by the Chambers Group and was certified in 2002. Additionally, mitigation measure 2 on page 5-162 has been revised in response to comments (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11). The revised mitigation allows for "on-site" restoration. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. CSLC-19 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 41. BLM-1 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69) and MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding impact of the project and impact of resident's pets on the wildlife on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. \\IR01\VOLI\PROIFLE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSET000MW.NCSVJEW-RTC-.DOC 3-104 BLM-2 Please refer to above response to MW-lb(page 3-66),regarding potential flood hazard for the project site and the adjacent residences. Additionally, please refer to above response to CSLC-14 (page 3-103), regarding improvements to EGGW Channel. BLM-3 According to the project civil engineer, if an area did not flood during the last 100-year flood, it will not flood during the next 100-year flood as a result of this property being developed. In fact, after the storm drain improvements associated with the proposed project are completed, the potential of flooding within adjacent neighborhoods will be reduced. The City's responsibility is to enforce regulations set by federal and state agencies as it relates to flooding. Currently, these regulations call for any new development to be built at an elevation, which is one foot above the 100-year flood elevation as designated on the FEMA maps or as derived from the best available local studies. In the case of the proposed project, the City has requested additional regional improvements to be made to the storm drain system to ensure that the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive will also meet the 100-year flood protection, which it currently does not have. The City and County typically require a Developer to improve their one-half (lh) of any public facility they abut. This is why the applicant is being required to improve their 1/z of the EGGW Channel abutting the project site.The proposed housing within the project will be protected from the 100-year flood per the City criteria(refer to"Flooding",pages 5-136 through 5-138 of the EIR). All potential flood hazards applicable to the subject site, and the surrounding area, have been studied and the reports are on file with the City Department of Public Works (refer to EGGW Channel(C05) 100-year inundation study located in Appendix F of the Volume II of the EIR). The proposed improvements to the EGGW Channel are to be constructed per the Orange County Flood Control District's latest proposed Development Study(see Orange County EIR 560 and the related project report). The applicant would contract with a licensed contractor to construct the channel improvements per County standards (refer to Mitigation Measures,page 5-142 of the EIR). Additionally, please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding single entry and exit to the project. 42. SJK-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. SJK-2 Please refer to above response to DR-4(page 3-75),construction of new wall. Additionally, according to the project geotechnical consultant, the entire grading process is likely to require approximately 6 months to complete. Grading along the 50-foot wide strip immediately adjacent to the northerly property line would likely occur near the end of that process since the existing storm drain must remain functional until a replacement system can be constructed. Replacement walls would necessarily be constructed after completion of grading in the area. \\IRDI\VOLT\PROIFH.E\1997\7NIMDI\RESPONSETOCONV,MNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-105 Additionally, please refer to grading and import amounts for the new alternatives in Section 5.0 Final EIR,page 6-41,contained in Volume II, and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. SJK-3 According to the project traffic engineer, a traffic signal at the project's access street will cause gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. Additionally, all logical street extensions from the project to Bolsa Chica Street create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding detailed analysis of access and circulation issues. SJK-4 According to the project civil engineer, the numbers related to flooding used in the EIR are correct. The peak storm flows from different drainage areas do not all arrive at the confluence points at the same time, therefore, the peak flows cannot be directly added. It is not accurate to add flows from different areas without consideration for their time of concentration. The formula of calculating drainage area flows is based on the current Orange County Hydrology Manual(refer to Appendix F of the EIR). The additional Q100 peak discharge from the project remains at approximately 126 cfs. The additional volume is about 2 acre-ft. One pump will be added to Slater Pump Station to mitigate the additional peak discharge as calculated in the local drainage study included as a support document in the detailed flood insurance study submitted to FEMA. A copy of this flood insurance study was provided in Appendix C of the Parkside Estates New Alternatives to the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume II- Technical Appendices, dated June 2001. A second pump will be installed and will be available for additional capacity or backup. The initial new pump will be more than adequate to handle the additional peak discharge. The second additional pump will offer a measure of assured backup and provide additional offsite regional benefit. The assumption that there are currently three pumps in use in the Slater Pump Station is incorrect. There are currently five pumps in use in the Slater Pump Station. The five pumps that are currently in the Slater Pump Station along with the proposed additional pumps will be pumping flows from the entire Slater Channel drainage area, which includes project site. The addition of one pump noted above will increase the pump station capacity by at least 20 percent since the new pump will be more efficient then the existing pumps. SJK-5 The Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. Study (East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (C05) 100-year inundation study in Appendix F, Volume H of the EIR,page 3,Executive Summary)determined that, if a 100-year storm run-off is carried in the existing EGGW Channel,the channel will over-top upstream for a period of approximately 2'/z hours. This over-topping occurs between Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue. The flooding from the overtopping is on the north side of the EGGW Channel and is contained within several existing low areas and does not enter the Graham Street drainage area. These low areas would be pumped back into the Channel after the peak flows in the EGGW Channel subside. The 52-acre feet was not factored into the determination of the cumulative flow rate. Over-topping on the north side of the EGGW Channel primarily occurs much further up stream and is stored in low points and drained back into the channel after the peak flood flows pass. The overtopping flows never reach the Graham Street Drainage System(refer to"On-Site/Off-Site Drainage",page 5-138 of the EIR). NROI\VOLT\PROJME\1997\7N15OOl\RFSPONSETOCONMffiNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-106 Please refer to below responses to RPA-25 (page 3-183), RPA-26 (page 3-184), and TAD-3 (page 4-70) in Section 4.3 of this document,for additional information,regarding EGGW Channel issues. SJK-6 According to the project civil engineer, the point in question is the intersection of Graham Street and the new entry road leading into this Development. The proposed 120-inch storm drain within this Development will intercept the existing 60-inch storm drain in Graham Street (at the project frontage) at the new intersection. Reference is made to the hydrology report and exhibit(42).The existing 60-inch drainage system(once it passes the project frontage, it changes into 66-inch) in Graham Street extends south past the frontage of the proposed project and does not have the required capacity to convey all flows tabled to be conveyed to the Slater Channel. This project proposes to re-route the flow from the existing 60-inch storm drain pipe located in Graham Street, by intercepting this line at Kenilworth and constructing a new 120-inch storm drain line within the project, and directing the flow into the Slater Pump Station. Therefore, after the proposed improvements are made, the storm drain line in Graham Street, which extends south of the project,will only convey the flows that originate east of Graham Street(refer to Exhibit 42 of the EIR). 43. ST-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. ST-2 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69),regarding impact of the project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. ST-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. 44. WM-1 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. WM-2 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of the project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. WM-3 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding single entry to the project and proposed alternatives. WM-4 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel. WROI\VOL1\PROIFH_MI997\7N 15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-107 WM-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisiomnakers. 45. MaC-1 The EIR addresses both on-site as well as off-site impacts. Additionally,refer to above responses to MW- lc(page 3-69)and MC-2(page 3-76),regarding impact of the project on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve and impact of cats and dogs on the area,respectively. Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the EIR addresses the potential impacts related to increased lighting resulting from the proposed project. The EIR acknowledges that the majority of the site is undeveloped, characterized by the absence of light and glare, and implementation of the proposed project would occur from the illumination of on-site residences. Required street lighting would also increase the source of night lighting within the area (refer to page 5-54 of the EIR). Mitigation measures were provided within the EIR to ensure that these impacts are reduced to a level less than significant. MaC-2 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding single access to the project site. MaC-3 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding water supply issues. MaC-4 Please refer to above responses to MC-5 (page 3-78) and MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding on-site wetlands issues and impact of the project on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve,respectively. 46. RW-1 The commentors request that subsurface testing be done at this time so as to"fully determine the nature of the site" is unreasonable in light of present evidence from surface and subsurface contexts discussed at some length in the project's March 20, 1998, archeological report(Appendix H). Surface inspections of small,badly disturbed archaeological sites is a standard investigative practice used by all field archaeologists, and one which normally can be expected to yield accurate results in a majority of cases. The accuracy of the diagnosis is, however, largely dependent upon the archaeological investigator's own level of training and experience. If an archaeologist can learn 90% of the available information about a given site as the result of a one-day surface inspection, it does not necessarily follow that an additional week or month of archaeological excavation will result in any additional information of strikingly different nature from that already obtained. Additionally, Appendix H (Dillon, 1997: 64-67) indicates that not only has CA-ORA-1308 already been the subject of a past subsurface testing program, which yielded equivocal results, but that previous researchers were not fully convinced of its actual status as a bona fide archaeological site. Lastly, Mitigation Measure 1 on page 5-172 requires a subsurface test excavation for CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mitigation Measure 2 on page 5-172 requires preparation of a cultural resource management plan based on the results of Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure any project impacts to CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309 are mitigated to levels less than significant. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJFQ,E\199T7NI5001\RBSPONSECOCOMNENTSNIEW-RTC-.DOC 3-108 RW-2 Please refer to above response RW-1 (page 3-108). RW-3 The EIR, which includes a detailed archaeological report(Appendix H) does incorporate consideration of "state and federal definitions of archaeological significance" and Native American concerns for archaeological site significance. The report in Appendix H of the EIR begins with a discussion of the State of California's legal definition of archaeological significance (Dillon, 1997: 1-2), then moves on to a consideration of the differences between state and federal legislation regarding archaeological site protection keyed to significant archaeological sites (ibid: 2-3) and also cites the legal requirements relative to Native American concerns about significant archaeological sites as overriding federal legislation (ibid: 3). The report also raises the issue of Native American participation later in the text (ibid: 75), and notes recent precedents in Orange County. RW-4 All three separate loci of CA-ORA-83 which exist on the proposed project property are specifically described separately from each other (Dillon, 1997: 63-64), the potential project impacts likely to be experienced by each locus are likewise specifically discussed separately from each other(ibid: 70-71), as are mitigation alternatives tailored specifically for protection of individual CA-ORA-83 loci. RW-5 Please refer to above responses RW-1 through RW-3 (pages 3-108 to 3-109). Please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA for Mr. Dillon's February, 2000 Addendum Report, which confirms that the most recent TTM at that time follows the "avoidance" recommendations for the CA-ORA-83 entire (central, south, and north) archeological site, located within the Parkside Estates property boundaries. This TTM reduced the total unit count from 208 to 206. RW-6 Please refer to above responses RW-1 (page 3-108)and RW-2 on this page. RW-7 The commentor compares archaeological sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309,both of which lie entirely within the project boundaries, with the bulk of CA-ORA-83, which lies off the project site to the west and southwest (on the mesa), and argues for the same level of investigative effort already expended on the latter site to be focused upon the two former sites. In the project archeologist's professional opinion this is not justified. The first distinction to be drawn is that CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, as suggested in the 1997 report (Appendix H), were very small and probably shallow sites which, at the comparatively brief time of their use, lay on the edge of an intertidal marsh. As such, both sites would have been regularly inundated, and, consequently, would have been completely uninhabitable for extended periods of time. Alternatively, CA-ORA-83, many dozens of times larger in surface extent than both CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 combined,and known or suspected to be quite deep and quite old, lay, from its earliest time of occupation many thousands of years ago, high and dry \UROI\VOLT\PRO]FU.E\i997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-109 atop the mesa overlooking the seasonally waterlogged CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 sites below. CA-ORA-83 would have been habitable during times of the year when both ORA-1308 and 1309 would not, and it is most probable that the former site was occupied long before the two much smaller sites were, and also not unlikely that it continued to be occupied after both other sites were abandoned. The second distinction, discussed at length in the 1997 report (Appendix H), is that while some archaeological sites may merit great expenditures of investigative effort, others do not, despite their geographic proximity to other, much more spectacular archaeological sites of proven significance. One would not dispute the conclusion that the main body of CA-ORA-83 off the proposed Parkside Estates parcel is a very significant archaeological site, perhaps one of the most significant sites in Southern California, certainly Orange County as a whole. But, what the commentor may not appreciate is that this significance has been presumed for nearly 80 years, since the first unique archaeological discoveries were made at the CA-ORA-83 site in the 1920's. Subsequent archaeological work has of course increased our store of knowledge about this site, but has not modified the basic perception that CA-ORA-83 is a most significant site,a conclusion based entirely upon surface observations some three generations ago. Although impact to CA-ORA-83 is not considered significant, measures have been recommended to avoid the site. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA for Mr. Dillion's February, 2000 Addendum Report, which confirms that the most recent TTM follows the "avoidance" recommendations for the CA-ORA-83 entire (central, south and north) archeological site, located within the Parkside Estates property boundaries. Additionally, as a recent development on the historic status for Bolsa Chica, the site has been placed on the California Register.The proposed project has no impacts on this historic site. RW-8 Please refer to above responses RW-4(page 3-109)and RW-7(page 3-109). RW-9 Please refer to above responses RW-1 (page 3-108)and RW-3(page 3-109). RW-10 As indicated on the bottom of page 5-171 of the EIR and page 70 of Appendix H, the project will not result in impacts to CA-ORA-83. "According to the Dillon report and an evaluation of currently proposed tentative tract maps (see Exhibits 6a and 6c contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume In, the proposed project will not result in impacts to CA-ORA-83. As described in Section 3.0,the approximately 8- acre parklopen space(with±3 acres of improved turf area)is proposed and will not be disturbing CA-ORA- 83 (complete avoidance of the area), as it will be left as open space. The±3-acre area will be surface cleared and/or filled with clean dirt import as described in Section 3.0 of this document." Also,please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA for Mr. Dillion's February, 2000 Addendum Report, which confirms that the most recent TTM follows the "avoidance" recommendations for the CA-ORA-83 entire(central, south and north) archeological site, located within the Parkside Estates property boundaries. Additionally, the commentor misquotes the Draft EIR indicating, "surface clearing of CA-ORA-83 north locus could include subsequent grading (see reference to "fill")." Page 3-14 of the EIR and page 5-172 indicate that the park site will be filled with clean dirt imported after the site is surface cleared, "not graded," \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFRE\1997\7N1500t\RESPONSETOCOWAENTS\NL'W-RTC-.MJC 3-110 to depths of historical disking. This proposed activity was reviewed with the project archeologist and was concluded to have no impact on the CA-ORA-83 site. 0 RW-11 Please refer to above responses RW-1 and RW-2(pages 3-108 to 3-109). RW-12 Please refer to above response RW-3 (page 3-109). RW-13 Please refer to above response RW-10 (page 3-110). The project does not propose "grading" to any portion of CA-ORA-83 as suggested by the commentor; therefore, the mitigation (requiring subsurface test investigation for CA-ORA-1308 and 1309) proposed on page 5-172 of the EIR do not apply. The proposed project, as described in Section 3.0 of the EIR, followed the avoidance recommendation proposed on Page 76 of Appendix H for the CA-ORA-83 archaeological site. Also, please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA for Mr. Dillion's February, 2000 Addendum Report, which confirms that the most recent TTM follows the "avoidance" recommendations for the CA-ORA-83 entire archeological site. RW-14 Please refer to above responses RW-1,RW-3,RW-7,RW-10,and RW-13 (page 3-108 to 3-111). RW-15 Mitigation measures (defined by CEQA guidelines section 15126.4(a)) and project alternatives (defined by CEQA guidelines section 15126.6(a)) in the context of an EIR constitute completely different solutions. The March 1997 archeological report presented the "full spectrum" of mitigations and project alternatives. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA,the Draft EIR evaluated the impacts of a specific development project; proposed 2/11/98 TTM described in Section 3.0 of the EIR. Based upon the CEQA impact analysis of the proposed project(see pages 5-169 through 5-172), appropriate mitigation measures were developed using the report in Appendix H as the basis. Section 3.0 of the EIR describes the proposed remedial grading work necessary for the proposed residential development part of the project. In reviewing this section of the EIR, one can understand why Capping ORA-1308 and 1309 (suggested on page 76 of Appendix H)is not a feasible mitigation measure which could be implemented in the context of the proposed project. Therefore, alternative mitigation measures provided in Appendix H were proposed as mitigation measures 1-3 in the EIR. The proposed mitigation 1-3 achieve the result of reducing potential project impacts to ORA-1308 and 1309 to levels less than significant. Additionally, an analysis of the"no project"alternative as required by CEQA is included in Section 6.0 of the EIR. RW-16A In responding to this comment, we believe it's appropriate to outline the project archeologist's credentials since the commentor questions his ability and character. Mr. Dillion has Ph.D. in archaeology from the University of California, Berkeley. There is no higher degree within the discipline. Mr. Dillion is also SOPA certified in various fields, and has taught archaeology at the University level for the past 20 years. \VR01\VOLI\PROJFE.E\1997VN15001\RESPONSETOMMWWSWM-RTC-.DOC 3-111 He has 26 years of experience in California archaeology, over the course of which he has evaluated hundreds of archaeological sites similar to those upon the Parkside Estates Project. The sentences referenced in the comment do not indicate bias. RW-16B The project archeologist's report provides lengthy sections on the archaeological background of the general area(Dillon, 1997: 11-32), on the ethnographic background of the study area(ibid: 32-35), and on its historic background (ibid: 35-42). Additionally, there is exhaustive documentation of previous work done on and adjacent to what is now called the Shea Homes or Parkside Estates parcel (ibid: 44-56), and discussions regarding the pattern of non-compliance with OUP standards of report filing that seems to have characterized much of the previous work on or adjacent to the study parcel (ibid: 4244). For whatever reason or reasons, a number of archaeologists working in the vicinity of the Parkside Estates project area have neglected to file their reports with the UCLA Archaeological Information Center as is customary, and, in fact, required by both custom and written guidelines. Contrary to the commentor's assertion of "insufficient effort", the project archeologist did solicit numerous unfiled reports from their authors or from review agencies instead of accessing them, as is the normal situation, from the OHP files at UCLA. Although there are no legal requirements to contact any or every person/organization the commentor suggests,Mr.Dillion contacted a number of individuals likely to shed light on various unclear aspects of prior work in the project vicinity(ibid: 77). RW-16C The commentor is correct in his assertion that the project archeologist did not document in writing any formal attempt to locate the most likely descendants of any Native California Indian tribe so as to solicit their opinion as to the significance of any of the Parkside Estates (Shea Homes)archaeological sites. The commentor may not be aware that such formal solicitation, while required on all Federally-mandated projects, or those with Section 106 connections, is not required on projects subject to California(CEQA) review. As a courtesy, however, such involvement of concerned Native Americans is now routine on many southern California archaeological projects, despite no legal requirement for it. It should also be pointed out that such involvement typically does not take place until or unless scientific excavations are undertaken or ground is broken and Indian monitoring is required. The present project has not yet reached this stage. The project archeologist did discuss the proposed project informally with local California Indians at the time of writing his report, as well as upon a number of occasions subsequently. These discussions took place without any formal or informal unilateral or bilateral commitments simply because the project is still very much in the planning stages. No final decision on the project or proposed mitigation has been made.When a decision is made,local Indian involvement may or may not be appropriate depending upon the option chosen. The commentor also fails to note references to local Indian rights and interests as stated in the archeological report (Dillon, 1997: 3; 75), which conveys the erroneous impression that the project archeologist might be unaware of these. RW-16D The commentor states that the Parkside Estates (Shea Homes)project cannot proceed until the "results of the current CA-ORA-13 site excavation [off-parcel to the west and southwest] analysis is reported, reviewed and integrated into the archaeological record". \UR01\VOLT\PR01F[LE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSET000MNENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-112 Please refer to above response RW-7 (page 3-109). The conclusions of the CA-ORA-83 excavation analysis has been completed and the results are contained within the November 17, 2001 Certified Brightwater EIR. These results do not affect the conclusions of the Parkside Estates EIR with respect to CA-ORA-83. RW-16E The commentor objects to the lack of mentions of"Chumash" or "island indian [sic] influence" within the background section of the archaeological report. The proposed project study area lies far to the south of the commonly accepted protohistoric Chumash boundary, and is also on the California mainland rather than on the Channel Islands. The southernmost protohistoric Chumash boundary lay far to the north of the Bolsa Chica Area, beginning around Topanga Canyon on the coast, but this was still something of a frontier area. The permanent Chumash boundary may have lain farther up the coast, perhaps around the present-day Malibu area or even at Arroyo Sequit on what is now the Ventura County line; no serious archaeological researcher has yet suggested an extension southwards so as to take in Orange County. And, if this geographical argument is not weighty enough, there is a chronological one to be added: the Millingstone and pre-Millingstone levels at CA- ORA-83 greatly predate, perhaps by thousands of years, the Late Prehistoric and protohistoric people known in the literature as the Chumash. But, the lack of consideration of such issues is more perceived than real. The March 20, 1997 report (Appendix H of the EIR)contains an extensive discussion of Late Prehistoric Canalino archaeology along the southern California coast. This, in the northern area of review coverage,becomes "Chumash" with the advent of the protohistoric and historic periods, but becomes "Gabrielino" and "Juaneno" during these chronologically more recent periods within the southern area of coverage (i.e.: that within which the proposed project exists). Page 24 of the 1997 report, provides a specific reference to "backwash" influence from the Channel Islands back to mainland prehistoric cultures. Several other mentions of mainland/island connections exist in the report,in various locations. RW-16F The commentor suggests that the archaeological report (Appendix H) lacks mention of specific archaeological sites on Bolsa Chica Mesa or Huntington Beach Mesa for comparative use in evaluating the proposed project archaeological sites.Again,this statement is inaccurate. Discussions of some of the sites mentioned above are worked into the archaeological background section (cf: Dillon, 1997: 29) and specific reference to such sites are again made (by site number) elsewhere in the report(ibid: 43, for example). Finally, an extended discussion of sites on and adjacent to Bolsa Chica Mesa is likewise presented(ibid: 44-56). Please refer to above response to RW-16B and RW-16D (page 3-112), regarding archaeological work on the surrounding area. RW-16G Please refer to above response RW-15 (page 3-111). Both the"NO Project/NO Development" alternative and the "Development under Existing Zoning" alternative are given complete analysis in Section 6.0 of the EIR. \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFME\199T7N15001V2ESPONSETOCOh1MENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-113 47. JLD-1 Please refer to above response to MaC-1 (page 3-108),regarding inadequate analysis of the impacts of the proposed project. JLD-2 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. 48. ADBC-1 (Also prepared letter 10 within Section 4.3 of this document) Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding the on-site wetlands issues. 49. EFH-1 The continent is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 50. SD-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 51. LJH-1 The comment expressed is the opinion of the commentor. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. LJH-2 According to the project traffic engineer, lane capacity is based on the terrain, percentage of trucks and critical Level of Service (LOS "D"). The 1700 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) capacity used in the traffic study is mandated by the Orange County Congestion Management Program and is the standard for ICU analysis throughout Orange County. LJH-3 According to the traffic engineer, as indicated on pages 5-73 and 5-74 of the EIR, the traffic signal is recommended on Graham at "A" Street because of sight distance restrictions at the EGGW Channel, not because it is warranted by traffic volumes. Reducing the project size would not eliminate the need for the traffic signal. The distinction between rural and urban signal warrants depends only on the prevailing speed of traffic on the main street; the urban warrant is used if the prevailing speed is less than 40 miles per hour, and the rural warrant is used if the prevailing speed is 40 miles per hour or greater. LJH-4 According to the project traffic engineer,as indicated on Figure 5 of the Traffic Study(Appendix B of the EIR), the 60/40 percent split at "A" Street was agreed to between the consultant traffic engineer and the City Traffic Engineer.The City felt that there is considerable attraction toward employment centers in the Costa Mesa/Irvine areas. Only five percent of project traffic is projected to travel on Graham Street south of Slater Avenue. Projected traffic volumes on Warner Avenue and Springdale are based on existing \UR01\VOLI\PROJFO.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCONR7MNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-114 volumes and trip distribution from the project. The traffic counts reported in the report for Warner Avenue closely match other counts performed at other times. LJH-5 According to the project traffic engineer, a gap analysis is not necessary because of the relatively low volume/capacity ratio on Graham Street. LJH-6 According to the project traffic engineer, a queue analysis is not necessary because of the relatively low volume/capacity ratio on Graham Street. The traffic study analyzes the intersections of Graham and Glenstone and Graham and Slater. The project adds 80 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 100 vehicles during the PM peak hour to both intersections.This does not change the Level of Service at either intersection. LJH-7 According to the project traffic engineer,the project's impact on Warner Avenue east of Springdale Street during the AM peak hour is 14 vehicles eastbound and 6 vehicles westbound. During the PM peak hour, there will be 8 vehicles eastbound and 18 westbound from the project. This impact is insignificant on the traffic carrying capacity of Warner Avenue. LJH-8 According to the project civil engineer, three road alignment studies were evaluated in the Draft EIR. The alignment suggested in this comment is not any more practical due to traffic and geologic constraints. Furthermore, the haul road does not meet the standards required for public streets. The alignment and location of the haul road is not a feasible alignment for a public street due to sight distance and vertical constraints. Regarding access from Graham, the traffic engineer has analyzed the access to Graham Street along with several other traffic scenarios. It was determined that both left and right turn traffic movements from this development are required in all instances. As such, a traffic signal is proposed at the entrance to the project on Graham Street). Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. LJH-9 The EIR did evaluate a "No Project" alternative as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e). Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented and the site would remain in its current undeveloped state. Additionally, please refer to above response to MW-2 (page 3-73), which describes the four added alternatives that reduce the number of units to be developed to 171 lots for Alternatives 6 and 7 and 161 lots for Alternatives 8 and 9. Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61). \\IROIkVOLT\PROIFMD1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-115 52. BCLT-1 (Also prepared letter 9 within Section 4.3 of this document) Please refer to following responses to BCLT-3 through BCLT-59 (pages 3-116 to 3-134), which provide more detailed responses to specific questions raised. Based upon the answers and modifications to the Draft herein; recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), because "significant new information" has not been added to the Draft EIR prior to certification. The "significant new information" would include a revelation that would show, "l) a new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; 2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measure are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of significance; 3)a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it; 4) the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." Additionally, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), a Draft EIR does not need to be recirculated if the "new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR," Therefore, based on the above descriptions, a recirculation of the Draft EIR is not deemed necessary, because no"significant"new information has been added to the Draft EIR, and the additional information merely clarifies or amplifies certain issues commented on during the public review period. Subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received new information related to a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000 and the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001. The new information triggered preparation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document,which outlined four alternatives taking into account the new information which was not available at the time the Draft EIR was circulated for public review. The new elevation requirements of the June 14, 2000 FEMA FIRM map and the CLOMR application of February 2001(which establish the need for an increase in the required final pad elevations)are detailed in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, which was circulated for public review from June 29, 2001 through August 13,2001. The responses to comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document are contained in Section 4.0 of this document. BCLT-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. This response to comments document has provided completed responses to each of the referenced letters. Please refer to responses CB-1 though CB-37 (pages 3-144 to 3-154) (letter No. 62), RW-1 through RW- 16G(page 3-108 to 3-113) (letter No. 46) and REW-1 through REW-36(page 3-157 to 3-168) (letter No. 64). BCLT-3 The Draft EIR conclusions regarding on-site wetlands have been confirmed/validated by State and Federal agencies with the jurisdiction to make such a validation. Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. WROI\VOLIIPROWU.MI99T7N15001\RESPONSETOCON04ENTSINEW-RTC-.DOC 3-116 BOLT-4 The rationale for why the City took action in 1986 to change the land use designation on a major portion of the project site from residential to conservation on the Coastal Element is provided in response KFb-1 (page 3-137). Please also refer to Section 3.4 of the EIR for the history of the project. In 1998 a Bolsa Chica Coalition was successful in negotiating a much less intensive Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan. Consequently,the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan proposed Residential Development on the MWD Property. Additionally, after further study the US Army Corps of Engineers declared a portion of the City site as "Prior Converted Crop Land," eliminating any concern that the City portion of the site contained wetlands. With respect to the inadequacy of the Draft EIR showing the relationship of the project site to the Bolsa Chica Property, please refer to Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity; Exhibit 3, USGS Map; Exhibit 4, Aerial Photo; Exhibit 15, Haul Route For Import Map; Exhibit 25, City/County Designated Trails; Exhibit 43, Watershed Boundary Map; and Exhibits 44 through 46, Circulation Alternatives A through C in the EIR. The project's relationship to surrounding development, roadways and uses is shown on Exhibits 2 though 4, with Exhibit 3 clearly depicting the project sites relationship to the Bolsa Chica Property, Huntington Harbor and the former Meadowlark Airport property. Exhibit 15 shows the project site in relationship to the adjacent proposed borrow site, which also occurs on Bolsa Chica Property. Exhibit 25 shows the project site in relationship to on-site and adjacent City and County designated trails, which extend from the project site and onto the Bolsa Chica Property. Exhibit 43 shows the site in relationship to the surrounding watershed areas. Finally, Exhibits 44 through 46 show circulation alternatives, which are different alignments of a potential connection of Bolsa Chica Streets to the project site. All these circulation alternatives show the project site in relationship to the Bolsa Chica Property. Lastly, Exhibit 5b, Conceptual Trails and Bike Paths Plan, has been added in response to the EIR comments (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume Il) and further meetings with the County to resolve trail related issues (please refer to Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.2 of the EIR). This exhibit also shows the project site in relationship to Bolsa Chica Property. Lastly, please refer to above response to MW-lc(page 3-69),regarding the project's relationship to the Bolsa Chica Mesa. BCLT-5 Please refer to above response to MC-5(page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues,and response MW- lc (page 3-69),regarding the project's impacts/relationship to the adjacent Bolsa Chica Open Space Area. BCLT-6 The EIR does adequately describe the wetland values of the project site, and the State and Federal Agencies that have jurisdictional authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Additionally,please refer to above response to MW-2,regarding new alternatives,which have been added in response to public comments; the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding wetlands issues. It should be noted that the No Project/No Development alternative assumes that the site would not be developed. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJFHX\1997\7NI4001\RESPONSETOMMWNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-117 BOLT-7 This comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor regarding their belief that the EIR defers impact analysis and mitigation measures. The EIR provides an analysis of impacts consistent with CEQA requirements. Additionally, Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires the development and implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This program is required to specify the party responsible for implementation of mitigation, timing of mitigation, and the party responsible for verification of mitigation implementation,consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6. The Mitigation Monitoring Program shall ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. This program will be included as a stand alone document prior to the project hearings on the Final EIR. CEQA Guidelines do not require the EIR to include all alternatives to the proposed project as submitted from the public. In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR including the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR provides a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The EIR including the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR must also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. By providing this range of alternatives, the decision-makers are allowed to take action within the range presented in the EIR. The Draft EIR provided an analysis of five (5) different alternatives (including 3 alternative roadway connections) as directed by City Staff and the NOP scoping process (Please refer to pages 6-1 through 6-31 of the EIR). The Draft EIR further provided rational for rejection of a sixth alternative suggested by a NOP comment letter. Lastly, in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the new information related to a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a Conditional Letter of map Revision (CLOMR) application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel, four new alternatives have been added to the EIR (refer to Section 6.7 on page 6-32 of this document entitled Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11). These four alternatives were also included in a separate document entitled New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, which was released for public review and comment from June 29, 2001 through August 13, 2001. Responses prepared for the comments received on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, are contained in Section 4.0 of this document. The four proposed alternatives reflect two different density concepts in conjunction with two floodplain elevation alternatives: • Alternative 6 -Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County) with Existing Base Flood Elevation(June 2000 FEMA)- 10.9 feet at northeast corner • Alternative 7 - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Flood Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR)-4.5 feet • Alternative 8 -Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Food Elevation(June 2000 FEMA)- 10.9 feet at northeast corner • Alternative 9 - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Flood Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR)-4.5 feet The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) states: The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. (f) (3) states: "An EIR \\IROI\VOLT\PROIFME\1997\7N15001\RESPONSE000OMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-118 need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative(Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal, App. 3d 274)." In helping to define the range of alternative analysis necessary, the Court in Bowman v. Petaluma (1986) 185 Cal App. 3d 1065, held that CEQA does not require analysis of very imaginable alternative or mitigation measure; what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned; i.e., a range of alternatives that adequately represents the spectrum of reasonable alternatives. Also refer to above response to MW-2(page 3-73)regarding the four new alternatives. With respect to the commentor's concern that the EIR concludes there will be no significant unavoidable impacts of the project after mitigation, it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. As has been done on prior EIR's prepared for projects in the City, the preparers of the Draft EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. BCLT-8 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Refer below to responses to BCLT-9 through BCLT-12 (pages 3-119 to 3-121) which provide specific responses to the specific examples provided. BCLT-9 and BCLT 10 The EIR does not refer to another certified EIR, 551 for a "description of the location of sites" for importation of 210,000 cubic yards of dirt to raise the elevation of the site. As indicated on page 3-21 of the EIR, the dirt import to create the new grade would be obtained from a borrow site on the adjacent Bolsa Chica Property. The possible locations of the borrow site are shown on Exhibit 15, which is the Haul Route for Import Map. Additionally, the EIR preparers believe the EIR clearly documents that there would be no export of soil, just import as noted on page 3-21, Section 5.6 of the EIR and Table 1 of Appendix E of the EIR. Therefore, it is not necessary to provide additional detail regarding export, since none of the 470,000 cubic yards of soil referred to would be hauled off-site. Additionally, according to the project geotechnical consultant(PSE),there are minor amounts of peat that exist below the surface of the site that will be encountered during remedial grading. Such soils could be removed from the site or could be disposed of within the passive onsite land use areas such as the park sites. The quantity of such material is expected to be very small,on the order of a few truck loads,at most. There was no intent by the Draft EIR preparer to "incorporate by reference" certified EIR 551, rather Certified EIR 551 was cited as a reference only. The EIR does not provide an incorporation by reference to certified EIR 551 since an incorporation by reference, as defined by Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines, is not required. Since the impacts associated with grading and soil export on the adjacent site were fully disclosed as part of a prior certified EIR, a reference or citation of this fact is appropriate and allowed for under CEQA (Section 15148 of the Guidelines). Additionally, Section 3.4 of the EIR provides a summary of prior EIRs which have addressed portions of the 49-acre project site. Certified EIR 551 is included in the summary. Section 5.0 of the EIR also summarizes the Bolsa Chica LCP Project, which was analyzed in certified EIR 551. The cited EIR documents are also listed in Section 9.4 References of the EIR. As it stated on page 3-21 of the EIR, an analysis of impacts of grading (i.e., soil removal) on the adjacent borrow site is contained in certified EIR 551. The dirt would only be removed from the adjacent site if and when there is an approved grading plan and permit on that site, in which case \UR01\VOLT\PROIFH,E\1997\7NI5001\RF.SPONSECOCOMNENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-119 removal of dirt will be in accordance with the approved plan for that project. The Parkside Estates EIR does address the impacts associated with the actual potential "haul route (Exhibit 15) that would be necessary for the import of fill within Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation. Since the approval status of TTM 15460 was not known at the time of Draft EIR preparation, other potential alternative borrow sites were identified. As indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR, if the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has "environmental clearance" to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from existing residential streets to the north. Lastly, the fill material at the borrow site shown on Exhibit 15 of the EIR would meet the specifications necessary for the proposed project as noted in Appendix E of the EIR. Mitigation Measure 1 on page 5- 130 of the EIR provides further assurances that all earthwork activities (as detailed in the Mitigation Measure and Section 7.0 of Appendix E) would be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Standard City Conditions for projects within the City also require that any dirt import is "certified" by a geotechnical engineer and meets Fire Department Standards for"clean fill." BCLT-11 The EIR acknowledges that implementation of the proposed project may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. As discussed in Section 5.1 Land Use of the EIR, in order to reduce this impact to a level less than significant, mitigation was provided, requiring that the applicant satisfy the City's policy requiring 10 percent of proposed units to be affordable. The mitigation measure offers the choice of three (3)methods for meeting the City's requirement. This mitigation must be satisfied subject to the discretion of the City Department of Planning. It is the City's standard mitigation measure for affordable housing and has been implemented on several prior projects to the satisfaction of the City and is routinely required for project throughout the City. The City does not require the submittal of a specific affordable housing plan at this stage of the entitlement process. The affordable housing plan is required prior to recordation of a final map. Shea Homes has indicated that it will meet its affordable housing agreement by partnering with a non-profit organization or by acquiring a multi-family project that would be preserved as affordable. Both methods have been approved by the City for numerous other projects in the past five years. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR need not"speculate" on information, which is not available or known at the time of the EIR preparation. BCLT-12 Please refer to responses to CSLC-12 and 13 (pages 3-102) regarding air quality construction impacts. The impact analysis was provided consistent with 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)CEQA Handbook for air quality analysis. Lastly,the SCAQMD was sent a copy of the Draft EIR for review and comment and have provided no comments to the City. Please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64), regarding dewatering issues. The additional details regarding the proposed dewatering plan "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions regarding traffic or noise impacts. The construction activities that will take place, as well as the proposed phases of project development,are described at pages 3-21 through 3-23 and page 3-30 (section 3.5) of the EIR. It would be speculative to specify precisely the number of employees and construction-related trips at any given time. %\MI\VOLT\PRO)FQ£\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOIAhMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-120 The impacts of construction traffic and haul road traffic are discussed at page 5-67 of the EIR. Mitigation for construction-related traffic impacts is discussed at pages 5-83 through 5-84 of the EIR. The impacts of construction on air quality are described at pages 5-94 through 5-96 of the EIR. Cumulative construction air quality impacts are discussed at pages 5-97 through 5-98 of the EIR. Measures to mitigate construction impacts on air quality are discussed at page 5-98 through 5-101 of the EIR. The project's construction noise impacts are described at pages 5-107 through 5-108 of the EIR, and mitigation measures for those impacts are discussed at pages 5-112 through 5-113 of the EIR. The quantities and types of dewatering equipment are indicated on pages 3-21 and 5-108 of the EIR. During construction, Graham Street will be used as a point of access to the project site. Bolsa Chica Street,to the south of Los Patos Avenue, connecting to one or both of the dirt paths shown on Exhibit 15 of the EIR, might be used as a second point of access for construction vehicles. It is not possible at this time to determine with more precision the precise routes construction and dirt haul trucks will take to and from the project site. As stated in the Draft EIR, before building permits are issued, the applicant must coordinate a truck and construction vehicle routing plan, which must be approved by the City Engineer. This plan must specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction-related impacts to adjacent residences. The Department of Public Works normally requires trucks hauling dirt to proceed along arterial streets to the maximum extent possible in order to minimize neighborhood and traffic impacts. The City's standard conditions of approval include limiting haul truck trips to Monday through Friday, restricting haul trucks from entering the project site before 7:00 a.m. or leaving it after 8:00 p.m., and requiring haul trucks either to be covered or to have water applied to exposed surfaces before leaving the site to prevent dust from affecting the surrounding areas. The other EIR mitigation measures for construction impacts include maintaining grading and earth-moving equipment in proper tune in order to minimize air quality impacts, requiring a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions, and equipping all grading and construction vehicles and equipment with effective muffler systems that use state of the art noise attenuation. Further mitigation measures to minimize construction-related impacts are discussed at the above-noted pages of the EIR. The project mitigation measures will reduce impacts associated with construction truck traffic to a less than significant level. Additionally, please refer to response PMK-5 (page 4-20) within Section 4.1 for response regarding construction impacts associated with the four new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document entitled"New Alternatives to the Draft EIR#97-2." The level of construction activity described above is typical for the construction of residential projects of a similar size. As described in the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives document, the impacts of construction are expected to be less than significant after mitigation. BCLT-13 and 14 Page 2 of the FH&A Biological Assessment (Appendix G of the EIR) outlines the dates of the five (5) field visits made by the project biologist. The fieldwork performed for this project is more than adequate to satisfy CEQA requirements. Additionally three (3) subsequent field visits have been made by the biologists in 1998, 1999, and January 2000. The findings of these visits do not change the original conclusions of this report regarding on-site biological resources. Additionally, the wetlands on the 4.5-acre County parcel have been addressed through prior environmental documentation(refer to Section 3.4 of the EIR). The EIR conclusions regarding wetlands in the 4.5-acre County parcel are consistent with the certified EIR 551 conclusions regarding wetlands on this parcel. Also, please refer to response BCLT-19 (page 3-123) for additional information regarding a May 2002 LSA wetland delineation for the 4.5-acre County parcel. \UROl\VOLi\PRO7FBEM199T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.MC 3-121 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding on-site wetlands issues and MHa-5 (page j 3-98) regarding areas of standing water. It should be noted that the more recent observations do not indicate any additional areas that would be classified as wetlands. BCLT-15 The comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor, regarding the EIR's setting/study area descriptions and cumulative impact analysis. The EIR does not provide an "artificially narrow study area". Section 5.0 of the EIR provides a description of the project area from a regional, citywide and local perspective. The project site itself is also discussed. The setting section has been divided into these three subsections to indicate and discuss the three distinct areas in which the project may affect or be affected by existing and proposed development. The study areas discussed in this section were designated for the purpose of evaluating project impacts only and do not necessarily represent an adopted study area of the City of Huntington Beach. For the proposed project quantification of transportation and circulation and noise cumulative effect were analyzed through the use of. 2020 traffic volume projections obtained from the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis (Please refer to page 5-76 of the EIR). These traffic volumes were approved for use by the City of Huntington Beach. Cumulative impacts are discussed as appropriate in various individual EIR chapters and in the relevant Technical Appendices (e.g., traffic, drainage and flood control, cultural resources,etc.). Additionally the EIR Short-Term construction impact analysis for air quantity did include the remedial grading component of the project. Refer to the above responses BCLT 9 (page 3-119) and BCLT 12 (page 3-120). BCLT-16 and BCLT 17 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Again the comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor regarding the Draft EIR's "lack of support" for its conclusions regarding "loss of open space", "loss of agricultural land", and "impacts of the borrow sites on habitat, air quality, and related impacts", aesthetic impacts associated with conversion of open space to development,and growth inducing impacts... As stated above, the EIR analysis and conclusions are based upon CEQA Guideline Criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. With respect to "loss of open space", as indicated in Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the EIR, the proposed project may be perceived as having a substantial,demonstrable,negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. However, due to the fact that this area has been designated as RL-7 Residential Low Density in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and is in effect an infill project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. With the respect to "loss of agricultural land,"this issue was addressed in both the Initial Study and EIR Section 8.1. The documents conclude that the project will result in the loss of farmland currently located on the site; however, according to the State Department of Conservation, the site is not designated as prime or unique farmland. The project is consistent with the site's land use designation. According to the prior property owners (MWD),the project site has been farmed for bean crops and/or regularly disced and cleared for the past 30 years. The Initial Study / NOP & Draft EIR were circulated to the State \UROI\VOI.INPROJFILE\1997VNl5OOlN SPONSETOCOMNENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-122 Clearinghouse for review and comment. The agencies which have the expertise in addressing agricultural/farmland issues have provided no comments regarding the Initial Study and Draft EIR conclusions/analysis regarding this issue. With respect to impacts of the borrow sites on habitat, air quality and related impacts, please refer to above responses to BCLT 9 (page 3-119)and BCLT 12(page 3-120). With respect to the remainder of"general statements" regarding impacts in this comment, the comments outlined in BCLT 18 through BCLT 41 (pages 3-123 to 3-131) below are more specific and deal with issues / concerns for each topical EIR Section outlined in "Bold" (Items A to E). Please refer to the responses provided below which address the specific statements / concerns of each comment by topical EIR Section. BCLT-18 The comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor that the Draft EIR Summary Table "includes numerous vague references to impact significance." The "format" of Table B, Project Impact Summary Matrix, of the EIR is consistent with CEQA requirements(CEQA Guidelines Section 15123)and is commonly utilized by EIR preparers. Please refer to the far right column of Table B which provides the "Level of Significance" statements for each of the listed impacts. This column does indicate which impacts are significant prior to mitigation and those that were found to be less significant prior to mitigation. The analyses included in Section 5.0 of the EIR provides the"detailed conclusions"for each topical issue addressed in the EIR. BCLT-19 Please refer to page 5-14 of the EIR which lists the applicable goals of the Environmental Resources / Conservation Element and pages 5-29 and 5-30 which provide the explanation of why the project is consistent with the goals of this element. The only listed policy, which refers to wetlands listed on page 5-14 is "Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands, for their intrinsic values." The consistency statement is not in conflict with the conclusions of the Biological Resource Section, which finds that "implementation of the proposed project would not remove or alter any natural or native vegetation formations on the property. The site contains no natural wetland habitat, coastal sage scrub or other sensitive natural assemblages. No natural plant communities or natural populations of native species would be affected,directly or indirectly,by the proposed development." The Biological Resources Section further concludes the following on page 5-160 related to wetland values "It should be noted that the delineated "pocket wetlands" shown on the EPA map (refer to EIR Appendix G) within the Orange County parcel do not overlay the area of patchy pickleweed. Mitigation Measure 2 will reduce the impacts associated with the removal of EPA delineated pocket wetlands to a less than significant level." The comment also indicates that page 5-150 of the EIR refers to ".2 acres of wetlands being destroyed by disking." This is not true and the statement on page 5-150 of the EIR has been further clarified, and an additional map showing the EPA delineated pocket wetland in relation to the patchy pickleweed area has been added to Appendix G (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). The "patchy pickleweed" (encompassing about 50'xl50') referred to on page 5-150 was not within the boundaries of the EPA's delineated pocket wetlands as stated above. Although this patchy pickleweed area did not fall within the EPA's delineated pocket wetland boundaries, and had not previously been delineated as "wetlands" by EPA, the EIR recommend mitigation for its removal consistent with Policy 2.2.25 of the Bolsa Chica LCP. It should also be noted that Mitigation Measure 2 has been revised in response to comments received from the Department of Fish and Game and requires the "preservation and enhancement" of 2.0 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat for the loss of 0.2 acre of patchy pickleweed. \VROl\VOLIWROJF[I.E\1997VNI5001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-123 As part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002) and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area, (refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland), will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Lastly, consistent with Environmental Resources / Conservation Element the proposed project would provide public parkland and open space in an area which is currently maintained as private property with the majority of the site in agricultural production or maintenance. BCLT-20 The possible conflicts or inconsistency impacts that could result to the LCP LUP are the development of units that exceed the density cap for the Bolsa Chica area. The discussions on pages 5-17 and 5-18, as well as on page 5-32 clearly indicate that the originally proposed 27 units within the 4.5-acre County parcel are within the unit density cap for the Bolsa Chica Area. As stated on page 5-32 of the EIR"As indicated under existing conditions, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (medium low residential — 6.5 — 12.5 dwelling units per acre). Additionally, the approved LUP identifies a cap of 1,235 residential units to be developed within the Bolsa Chica Area. Potential development of the County portion of the project site has been accounted for under the LUP. Construction of 27 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel would result in a density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre, which is lower (but not significantly lower) than the existing designated density of between 6.5 and 12.5 DU/AC." The 27 units at a density of 5.2 du's/ac are clearly within the unit density and are actually lower than the"low end" (6.5 du's/ac) of the project site's allocated density. BCLT-21 Page 5-19 of the EIR clearly outlines the policies of the Resource Restoration and Conservation component of the Bolsa Chica LCP. As indicated on page 5-19, the Orange County parcel is designated as Medium-Low density residential and is not located within a Conservation Planning Area, as identified on the LUP. However,the parcel does contain an area of designated"pocket"wetland and 0.13 acre of an ESHA. (Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Exhibits 47a and 47b on page 6-46, contained in Volume II and Technical Appendix 6 in Volume IIA). Additionally, page 5-32 of the EIR has been revised to indicate that the EPA designated pocket wetland has been changed from the original 0.2-acre estimate to 0.4-acre. In response to comments received .on the Draft EIR, computer digitization of the original EPA delineated mapped areas, contained in certified EIR 551, was conducted and found that the area of EPA delineated wetland on the Parkside Estates County parcel was actually 0.4 acres. The original 0.2-acre estimate was derived from tabular information contained in Certified EIR 551. (Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-32, contained in Volume M. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Lastly, as noted within Biological Resources section of the EIR, plan policy 2.2.25 does allow for mitigation of"pocket wetlands" at a 4:1 ratio. Therefore, the mitigation provided in the Drat EIR is in fact consistent with LCP policy regarding a delineated"pocket wetland"area. \\IR01\VOLT\PROJFH.E\1997\7N15001WMPONSETOCOMNff.+NTS\NEW-RTC.DW 3-124 BOLT-22 Please refer to above response to BCLT-19 (page 3-123), regarding consistency with the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element (i.e., wetlands issues). The consistency statements for the Coastal Element (wetlands issues in particular) do not conflict with the conclusion of the Biological Resource Section of the EIR and wetlands issues. BCLT-23 The EIR provides lengthy analysis within Section 5.7, Drainage/Hydrology and technical Appendix F, Hunsaker and Associates' Hydrology and Inundation Study of how the proposed project would implement water quality management and flood control policies. Section 5.7 and Appendix F are the appropriate sections to provide the detailed analysis related to these issues. CEQA Section 15141 (Page Limits)discourages duplication of information within an EIR, and therefore, the conclusions and detailed information provided within Section 5.7 regarding water quality management and flood control have not been reiterated or duplicated within the Land Use section of the EIR. References to appropriate topical sections (for the detailed analysis) within an EIR is a common and accepted technique utilized by EIR document preparers to reduce the number of pages contained in an EIR document. The EIR document is in excess of"300 pages", and Section 15141 states "the text of EIR's should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages. Additionally,please refer to response OCPD-13 (page 3-88)regarding water quality issues. BCLT-24 Again, as with the above response BCLT-23 on this page, the commentor objects to the EIR's references within the Land Use Compatibility Section to appropriate technical sections (i.e., 5.6 Earth Resources, 5.2 Aesthetics / Light and Glare, and 5.10 Public Services and Utilities) for detailed discussions / analysis related to the particular issue. Typically, most EIR readers would review the entire document and not just the Land Use Compatibility Section, therefore, reference to topical sections for detailed analysis is appropriate. BCLT-25 Page 5-34 of the EIR concludes "The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area." Based on the analysis provided in the EIR showing that the project is consistent with policies of the General Plan(after mitigation), and the fact that the Project's General Plan Amendment requests are to designate a greater amount of open space on the City parcel and less density within the County parcel, the project's contribution to the cumulative impact is not considered significant after mitigation. Additionally, please refer to above responses BCLT 19 and 21 (page 3-123 and 3-124) regarding the project's impacts to wetland and resource related policies mentioned above. The project's incremental contribution is not significant. BCLT-26 Impacts associated with loss of agricultural land are addressed above in BCLT-17(page 3-122). With respect to loss of"recreational (equestrian) uses", page 5-2 of the EIR states there are currently no equestrian related uses on-site. At the time of the Draft EIR preparation/circulation, there was a stable, which was operated by the "Hole in the Wall" riding club, located off-site near the project's western \VR01\VOLT\PROJFH.ZI99T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-125 boundary. According to County of Orange records, this stable (Smoky Stables) was permitted under Use Permit 93-0222, which expired on October 15, 1996. The stables were granted an extension of 18 months by an amendment to the plan (CP950071). Based on a conversation with Joe Von at the County, as of January 3, 2001, the Smoky Stables have been closed down and the associated structures removed, pursuant to Code Enforcement file 990213. As indicated on Page 5-182 of the EIR the originally proposed TTM project exceeded City (more stringent than County) park dedication requirements by 4.63 acres, and the current TTM project will exceed this requirement by more than the original 4.63 acres. Lastly, consistent with Environmental Resources / Conservation Element the proposed project would provide public parkland, trails, and open space in an area which is currently maintained as private property with the majority of the site in agricultural production or agricultural maintenance. BCLT-27 Again the commentor is expressing their personal opinion regarding disagreement with the Draft EIR's conclusions regarding "loss of open space". As stated in BCLT-16 (page 3-122) above, based upon CEQA impact criteria and City policy the Draft EIR conclusions regarding "loss of open space" are appropriate and correct. BCLT-28 Please refer to pages 5-52 and 5-54 of the EIR for an analysis of views from proposed adjacent trails. Section 5.2 of the EIR provides Exhibits 20 through 24 (Site Photos), as well as Exhibit 25 (City/County Trails), and Exhibits 26 and 27(Site Cross-Sections)which"visually depict" the project site in relation to surrounding uses / trails. The Site Cross-Sections also depict future project site conditions should the project be implemented. These Exhibits adequately support the conclusions of the EIR (CEQA does not require photo simulations). Additionally, under the new alternatives, to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternatives on the existing residential development along Kenilworth,a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions(please refer to Exhibit 55,All Alternatives Visual Simulations—Existing Condition contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR). The existing condition view(top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternatives (please refer to Exhibits 56 and 62,contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume II). Please refer to the complete analysis contained within Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume H,for additional details regarding this issue. BCLT-29 Please refer to Appendix G of the Draft EIR, report entitled "Verification Update of Wetland Determinations for TTM # 15377 which explains how the soil types do not meet Coastal Commissions definition of wetlands. Please refer to pages 5-123 and 5-124 of the EIR, which address the source of the "groundwater table." Additionally, as noted by PSE (1998), contained in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, and earlier reports by others (see references), semi-perched ground water levels varied both spatially and temporarily. Such differences were ascribed to several possible reasons including local ground-water mining, seasonal fluctuations, local drainage devices ("Slater Drain"), possible faulty measurements, and, most \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFH.M1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMhMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-126 importantly, the scattered and discontinuous nature of lenses and seams of highly permeable sands and less permeable fine-grained soils that locally both convey and temporarily impede the downward migration of incident rain and irrigation waters. Cone Penetrometer Test Correlation Lines A-A' through C-C'(contained in Appendix E of the Draft EIR)illustrate those inhomogenities. Information about water levels appears in the exploratory logs and tables of PSE and previous geotechnical reports. The reviewer or user (for example, the biologist) of the PSE reports can use the information as required, or to make maps as necessary. However, such maps were not necessary for the preliminary geotechnical assessment, because a conservative ground water level of six feet below ground surface was used in the PSE (1998) liquefaction potential calculations--even though the water may be transient and even though in some areas the ground water levels were deeper(up to 19 feet deep)than six feet. This conservative estimate provided a"worse-case"impact analysis for CEQA purposes. Additionally,this response incorporates by reference the response to the comment letter of Dr. Robert E. Winchell. BCLT-30 and BCLT 31 Please refer to above response to MW-lb(page 3-66),regarding faulting issues and Bolsa-Fairview Fault. Additionally, according to the project geologists, the Bolsa-Fairview Fault, if extant or present on-site, is not a near-surface fault, and thus does not affect near-surface ground water conditions. BCLT-32 According to the project civil engineer, the writer's conclusion is correct. The entire cumulative flow shown on Table W does flow into the EGGW Channel. The proposed storm drain system is adequately sized to accommodate run off from this site and the off-site areas being diverted through this site. BCLT-33 Please refer to above response to MHa-6(page 3-98),regarding water quality and runoff issues. BCLT-34 Please refer to above response to BCLT-30 on this page that address faulting and how it may affect the hydrology. BCLT-35 and BCLT 36 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding on-site wetlands issues. The attached photographs show the results of an unusually rainy year. Additionally, quantification of wetland acres on the County parcel was addressed in the Draft EIR and is further clarified in above responses BCLT 19 (page 3-123) and BCLT 21 (page 3-124). Lastly, please refer to above response MW-2(page 3-73)regarding the proposed alternatives. It should be noted that this reference incorporates by reference the response to Connie Boardman's comment letter. Also, it should be noted that the City has reviewed the information submitted by BCLT along with the comment letter, however, nothing in that letter causes the City to change its conclusions regarding the presence of on-site wetlands. \\IR01\VOLT\PROIFII.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-127 BCLT-37 and BCLT 38 Although above response MW-lc provides a detailed response regarding the sites relationship/impact on the Bolsa Chica Wetland, the following is also offered in response to the commentor concerns and deals with specific issues of this comment. According to the project biologist, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Habitats consist of a variety of coastal marshland, sand island and open water habitats, none of which have occurred within the City portion of the project site for at least 40 years (as evidenced by the aerial photographs) summarized in Section 5.8 of the EIR. Patchy Pickleweed As indicated in the Draft EIR, remnant patches of pickleweed habitat were present within the Orange County parcel until cleared in 1997. These patches of pickleweed contained only a thin cover of native vegetation, and were carefully surveyed on several different occasions to determine whether or not they supported any native marshland species or sensitive taxa (in particular, Belding's savannah sparrow). In addition to observations timed to locate adult individuals of native wildlife, all shrubs, subshrubs and substrate areas were carefully inspected for evidence of native birds and mammals (nests, burrows, fur, tracks, etc.). No detectable sign of any listed species was found within the habitat patches, nor was there evidence that the area supported even viable population segments of other native wetlands or coastal marsh species (such as voles, harvest mice), and in fact, there was substantial indication that the habitat patches were being routinely invaded by feral pets, as well as being hunted within by non-native red foxes. Any ground or shrub nesting birds or marshland foraging species likely would be harassed or killed by cats, dogs or foxes, and the intensive disturbance pressure within the patches rendered them unsuitable as resident habitat or population maintenance sites for any native wildlife (except, perhaps, invertebrate taxa,none of which were found during the surveys). Species normally associated with coastal marshland habitats, but which would not have resided within these patches due to their disturbance, might occasionally have crossed from the Bolsa Chica System to the site,to forage or shelter within the pickleweed. Species observed foraging within the Orange County marshland patches primarily were taxa which behave as ecological generalists during migration or wintering, and are equally common within coastal lowland habitats, urban settings, interior chaparral and lower montane woodlands. Although individual white-crowned sparrows annually may return to a given site to forage or winter, such species are not dependent ecologically upon any given patch of habitat for their survival, particularly where greater acreage of suitable foraging cover occur within surrounding areas. Ecoloeical Relationship between City Parcel and Bolsa Chica Wetlands According to the project biologist, the ecological relationship between the City portion of the project site and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands across the EGGW Channel may be determined by evaluating the nature of the habitat values present(on the project site),the species which might utilize them, and the nature of that use. The City portion of the project site consists of active agricultural fields (which are at times left fallow or disked, but not farmed, as part of maintenance) and the lower portion of one side of an upland knoll with a fringe of gum trees. The knoll contains no native habitats within the project zone of impacts, possessing a soil cap of dredging spoils from the construction of the EGGW Channel, spread over the site and routinely disked for fire hazard suppression. Knoll vegetation consists almost entirely of ruderal annual grasses and herbaceous plants, with the understory values of the gum tree grove being entirely non-native and inhibited by the presence of the dense tree overstory and accumulated layers of leaf and branch debris.According to the project biologist,no native species have been found on the City portion of \UR01\VOLT\PROJFffEkl997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTSVJEW-RTC-.DOC 3-128 the project site, and the conditions cannot be considered essential resources for any native species, much less those which presently reside within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands System. Ephemeral Areas of Standing Water According to the project biologist, the ephemeral areas of standing water which often accumulate on the site following storms do not create habitats which are different, unique or vital resources locally, but rather are temporary, low quality fresh or brackish pools, lacking the native aquatic vegetation or invertebrates (= natural forage values) of natural marshlands. Nevertheless, the pools may be a visible attractant to birds, particularly ecological generalists (such as great blue heron, great egret, black-necked stilt, spotted sandpiper, killdeer, mallard, etc.) which typically forage in ruderal habitats and unnatural water bodies, including percolation basins, cattle ponds, and flooded agricultural fields, throughout North America. The fallow agricultural area, which may contain seeds and chaff from ploughed ruderal and crop vegetation, also may attract generalist feeders such as Canada geese, snow geese, mallard, and other cropland foraging species. None of these species is considered sensitive by resource agencies, although many of them are managed as hunting commodities by Fish & Game agencies. None of the species which have been noted at the ephemeral pools or in the agricultural areas are biologically or ecologically dependent populationally,locally or regionally upon the resources of the site, or upon any other ruderal or upland area within the site vicinity. Those species which breed locally do so within the natural wetlands, or in similar created environments(such as golf course marshes and lakes),but do not reside or reproduce within the project boundary. Terrestrial and Non-Native Wildlife Species According to the project biologist, existing tracts of off-site upland open space adjacent to the EGGW Channel and the project site contain a variety of largely ruderal field type resource areas,but with some remnant patches of coastal sage scrub. These areas are entirely outside the project area, but are part of the overall ruderal habitat zone which covers most of the knoll and mesa areas, and therefore interact ecologically with the upland portions of the site. Disturbance-tolerant native terrestrial wildlife species, including coyote, raccoon, California ground squirrel and Botta pocket gopher, occur over most of the area in varying densities, according to habitat abundance, levels of disturbance, and carrying-capacity for the particular species. Non-native wildlife species, including red fox, opossum, feral cat, black rat, and house mouse also occur over most of the mesa and knoll area, and all of these species probably occur within the project site uplands, at least occasionally. None of them is considered a wetlands or marshland species, although some also may occur in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Their use of either habitat type is casual, in that none of these species is specialized to any particular local ecosystem type, and all of them commonly occur within urban open space throughout southern California. Their presence in the Bolsa Chica Uplands is reflective of their having found their way into that system, and is not dependent in any way upon the presence of adjacent wetlands,and vice-versa. According to the project biologist, coastal saltmarsh and beach strand specialists such as Belding's savannah sparrow, California least tern, saltmarsh harvest mouse,and a suite of wading and shorebirds might occasionally forage over or within upland habitats adjacent to their saltmarsh habitat. The forage values of the uplands for these or other marshland species would be directly related to the feeding preferences and styles of the individual species, and the seasonal or persistent availability of the particular resource being utilized. None of the coastal marshland, beach strand or open water specialist species known to occur within the Bolsa Chica Wetlands environs would be dependent upon the natural resources of the adjacent uplands for population maintenance or survival. Some of the generalist species, particularly herons and egrets, would be expected to forage for smaller vertebrates within the ruderal uplands, as they often frequent agricultural fields, rural residential areas, and man-made aquatic sites. However, such use of the uplands is not considered essential. MOI\VOL1\PRO]FME\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMIdENT WM-RTC-.DOC 3-129 According to the project biologist, the gum tree grove along the base of the knoll serves to introduce native birds of prey to non-native songbirds to the adjacent wetlands;prior to the introduction of tall trees near the open marshland and beach strand habitats, these species were able to hunt over the coastal wetlands only by traveling to them from nesting areas further inland. Now, with the trees next to the habitat of ground and shrub-nesting birds, predators and nest-robbing species such as Cooper's hawk, red- tailed hawk, American kestrel, barn owl, great horned owl, white-tailed kite, great blue heron, and American crow can reside locally and prey more efficiently upon the sensitive species in the marshlands. Paradoxically, the California Department of Fish and Game (1982, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas at Bolsa Chica, p. 10)noted that these species "hunt in the wetlands... but return to the eucalyptus grove to rest and consume their prey," and considered this unnatural predation upon species which evolved without protections against same as part of the reasoning for designating the gum trees as an ESHA. According to the project biologist, the primary benefit of the uplands to the wetlands, then, is as a physical buffer zone between the coastal marshes and the residences already occupying the mesa and adjacent lowlands. Placement of residential development closer to the natural habitat areas increases the negative effects of light,noise,grading and construction activities, and the distance to be traveled by cats, dogs and humans to the wetlands. Refer to above responses MW-lc and MC-2 regarding impacts of cats and dogs and non-point pollution and indirect impacts. The project site itself has been in agricultural cultivation since the 1950's (or earlier), and in recent years has received near-continuous human use associated with the stables, power pole storage areas, and casual recreation, which has reduced its value as an ecological buffer zone. The project contains only a few acres of ruderal upland habitat on the face of the knoll, outside the agricultural fields, with the remainder of the Bolsa Chica Mesa lying outside the project zone of impacts, and control of the project applicant. Development of the project would bring homes closer to the EGGW Channel and the Bolsa Chica wetlands which are southwest of the Channel. Under the new alternatives, a separation of 464 or 767.3 feet from the closest residential unit to the on-site ESHA(north of the Channel)is provided. Based upon the above stated facts, the development of the site with one of the new alternative plans would not significantly alter the site's role as a buffer. No Wildlife Corridors On-Site According to the project biologist, because the agricultural fields are at the terminus of the overall undeveloped area of which the project land is a part, they are neither a resource "reservoir" for wildlife populations (providing surplus individuals to emigrate from the site), nor a destination for terrestrial migrant species seeking new resident territories or foraging areas. The casual foraging use of the site by migratory waterfowl or birds of prey does not constitute a biological necessity to any of the species known to occur there, nor does it provide essential habitat values (particularly in comparison with the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands)for migrants along the Pacific flyway. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the project site is not part of any identified wildlife corridor or habitat linkage zone, and functions only as a casual use area for ecological generalist species, including some non-listed migratory species and a number of birds of prey (including sensitive taxa). The birds of prey are present largely in response to nesting and roosting opportunities provided by the gum tree grove, and this area will not be altered by the new alternatives. Retention of the gum tree groves will insure that the birds of prey are able to persist locally. \UROINVOLI\PROIFR,E\1"7\7NIMOI\2ESPONSETOMMMENTSWM-RTC-.DOC 3-130 BCLT-39 and BCLT 40 The EIR provides more than adequate mitigation(refer to revised Mitigation Measure 2)for"the project's contribution" to the loss of biological resources as required by CEQA. Per the Department of Fish and Game, the project will be required to provide a preservation and enhancement plan for 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat to the satisfaction of the Department of Fish and Game. Additionally, the project site's value to the long-term viability of adjacent habitat areas was addressed in the Draft EIR and detailed above in BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3-128 to 3-130) and MW-lc (page 3- 69). The four new alternatives proposed in response to Draft EIR comments and new information on FEMA and the Coastal Commission decision locate the closest residential unit in the County parcel over 470 feet from the westerly property boundary, and 3.3 acres immediately adjacent to the westerly property boundary are proposed to be maintained as open space under the new alternatives. Based on the response in MW-lc above, the project's original proposal and alternative for the western portion of the Orange County parcel, would not compromise efforts to restore biological functionality to the existing degraded saltmarsh beyond. Wastewater drainage shall not be directed into this area, nor shall roads, lighting, or other physical intrusions be sited such that they have an impact on the adjacent land. This end of the project site shall be fenced against human and pet intrusion into the wetlands, and project exterior walls shall be designed to confine persons and pets away from this area. Lastly, as indicated in response MC-5 (page 3-78) above,the State and Federal Agencies with jurisdiction authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conversation Service(NRCS)at the Federal level. BCLT-41 The stand of the gum trees in the City portion of the site does not fall within the 1982 Fish and Game designated ESHA. Only 0.13 acre of the stand of the gum trees within the County portion falls within the Fish and Game ESHA. (Refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). The original Tentative Tract Map analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed four new alternatives do not propose removal of the 0.13 acre portion of gum tree ESHA on-site. While the original TTM would have impacted gum trees within the County parcel, the trees were not part of the Fish and Game ESHA which, occurs west of the above ground gas line. The new alternatives propose no removal of any gum trees within County parcel of the project site. Please refer to the updated Arborist Report contained in Appendix B of the June 2001 New Alternatives to the EIR document to become Appendix G of the EIR. Please also refer to above response to MW-2(page 3-73),regarding discussion of eucalyptus trees. Additionally, please refer to response to CB-19(page 3-149),regarding monarch butterflies. BCLT-42 and BCLT 43 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Refer to above response BCLT-11 (page 3-120),regarding affordable housing. \\[R01\VOLT\PRO7F11-E\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-131 BCLT-44 Mitigation Measure 4 under Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare requires that prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall show proof that the project is consistent with the County Master Plan of Bicycle Trails. Without this proof, building permits would not be issued; therefore, the mitigation is not uncertain and ensures that the proposed project is consistent with the County's Master Plan of Bicycle Trails. The County has reviewed the mitigation and proposed project's trails and commented on the design of the trails and specific trail linkages. Please refer to their comments(OCPD-6 through OCPD-9) in Volume Ill. The County also suggested slightly revised wording for Mitigation Measure 4. Please refer to OCPD#2-12(page 4-76). BCLT-45 Again the commentor is expressing their personal opinion regarding disagreement with the Draft EIR's conclusions regarding "loss of open space". As stated in BCLT-16 (page 3-122) above, based upon CEQA impact criteria and City policy the EIR conclusions regarding"loss of open space"are appropriate and correct. Again, with the respect to "loss of agricultural land," this issue was addressed in both the Initial Study and EIR Section 8.1. The documents conclude that the project will result in the loss of farmland currently located on the site; however, according to the State Department of Conservation,the site is not designated as prime or unique farmland. The project is consistent with the site's land use designation. According to the prior property owners(MWD), the project site has been farmed for bean crops and/or regularly disced and cleared for the past 30 years. The Initial Study / NOP & Draft EIR were circulated to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. The agencies which have the expertise in addressing agriculturallfarmland issues have provided no comments regarding the Initial Study and Draft EIR conclusions/analysis regarding this issue. BCLT-46 Please refer to above response BCLT-9 (page 3-119) regarding the requirement of a future truck and routing plan. Page 5-67 of the EIR states "If an adjacent borrow site can be utilized,no traffic impacts are anticipated since the haul route (refer to Exhibit 15 in Section 3.0) would not occur on public roadways. Should a different local borrow site be required, the haul route would utilize the public street system. Mitigation Measure 1 is proposed to ensure use of the public streets for a haul route would not result in significant traffic impacts." It is currently not known if an alternative borrow site (which would utilize public roadways) is necessary. As stated above, Section 15145 of CEQA indicates that an EIR need not "speculate" on information, which is not available or known at the time of the EIR preparation. Lastly, Mitigation Measure 1 has been used by the City on other projects and has been proven effective in mitigating potential impacts. BCLT-47 Please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64)and MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding groundwater and wetlands issues. BCLT-48 Please refer to above response to Mfla-6(page 3-98),regarding runoff/water quality impacts. \VROIWOLI\PROJFE.E\199T7NMIVtESPONSETOCONRaNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-132 BCLT-49 Please refer to above response BCLT-19 (page 3-123). Mitigation Measure 2 has been revised to allow for on-site mitigation. Additionally under the new alternatives a minimum of 100-foot buffer from the EPA pocket wetland and the area which once contained the patchy pickleweed will be maintained. BCLT-50 As stated above in response BCLT-19 (page 3-123) the project's incremental impact on wetlands is mitigated by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 which has been revised in response to comments from the Department of Fish and Game (Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-162, contained in Volume 11). The new mitigation measure reads as follows: "Wetland impacts to the isolated pocket wetlands shall be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1 (square footage of wetlands to square footage of fill). The Coastal Development Permit shall require that mitigation for the fill of the pocket wetlands be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the 4.5 acre County Parcel The mitigation site shall be on-site or within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands unless the Lowlands are sold to a new landowner and the new landowner is unwilling to allow the proposed mitigation to proceed.In such a case,the developer of the site shall find an alternative mitigation site. The total mitigation for the loss of two small patches of degraded pickleweed habitat shall include the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game." No additional measures for the project's incremental contribution to cumulative wetlands impacts have been suggested/required by the resource agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands. BCLT-51 With respect to the commentor's concern that the Draft EIR concludes there will be no significant unavoidable impacts of the project after mitigation, it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. As has been done on prior EIRs prepared for projects in the City, the preparers of the Draft EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. As identified within the Draft EIR, the project's impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant; therefore, the project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be reduced to a level less than significant. Please refer to above responses to MC-5 (page 3-78) and MHa-6 (page 3-98), regarding on-site wetlands and runoff/water quality impacts and above response BCLT-17 (page 3-122) regarding "loss of open space"and agricultural lands. BCLT-52 Please refer to above response to BCLT-7 (page 3-118) regarding CEQA requirements for Alternative Analysis. BCLT-53 Please refer to above response to BCLT-28 (page 3-126) regarding conclusions on visual impacts from trails. \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFIl.E\1997\7N150O1\RESPONSETOCOMAMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-133 BCLT-54 Please refer to above response to NM-2(page 3-73),regarding the proposed alternative plans. BCLT-55 and BCLT 56 Please refer to above response to BCLT-11 (page 3-120),regarding affordable housing issues. Additionally, it should be noted that CEQA requires only discussion of alternatives to the project as a whole, that the suggested alternatives are not alternatives to the project as a whole. Affordable housing impacts will be fully mitigated. BCLT-57 Please refer to above response to BCLT-7 (page 3-118) regarding CEQA requirements for Alternative Analysis. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) states: "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." In addition to the EIR analysis which finds that alternative roadway connections A, B, and C are not environmentally superior including Table AA which lists additional impacts of the alternatives that would not result from the project, please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding the connections to Bolsa Chica Street and further rationale regarding the feasibility of these connections. BCLT-58 and BCLT 59 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to above responses to BCLT-1 through BCLT-57(pages 3-116 to 3-134). As specifically indicated in response to BCLT-1 (page 3-116) above, Draft EIR recirculation is not required per CEQA Section 15088.5(a). 53. KFa-1 (Also prepared letters 54 and 55 within this Section and letter 13 within Section 4.3 of this document) The following addresses the five major concerns that the commentor outlines in the comment letter. These concerns were listed in the October 13''letter to Julie Sakaguchi: First Major Concern Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation summarized information contained in the Traffic Study for the Graham Street Residential Development, June 27, 1997, prepared by Darnell and Associates, Inc. This study was prepared in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines,July 1993. While the EIR did not cover a five-mile radius specifically,it did look at traffic distribution resulting from the proposed project (refer to page 5-69 of the EIR). Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic and is based on the geographical location of employment centers,commercial centers,recreational areas, or residential concentrations. Trip \\IROI\VOLI\PROIFILE\1997\7NI5001W,ESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-134 distribution for the project was estimated using likely travel routes and destinations,as well as access and proximity to traffic generators, such as freeways, shopping centers,etc.The trip distribution patterns were based upon accepted traffic study criteria which have been consistently adopted and used by the City of Huntington Beach for new development. The radius of the project's traffic impact analysis was approximately four and one-half miles in order to include all other relative projects. Second Major Concern The off-site studies were not intended to delineate a floodplain. The commentor's statement that the area around the project site is flood-prone is correct. The property to the north does indeed flood under existing conditions because of an inadequate existing drainage system. With the proposed project, however, substantial improvements will be made to the off-site storm drain system serving the community; in particular,the Graham St.-Kenilworth Dr. intersection will become passable during a local 100-year storm event. Among the many conditions of development imposed by the City and County is the requirement that there will be no adverse impact to the properties either to the south of the flood control channel or along the proposed development frontage to the north. The project proponent is required to make the intersection of Graham Street at Kenilworth Drive passable during a 100-year storm based on future development conditions. New catch basins and storm drains will pick up storm water in the intersection and convey the flow to Slater Channel where it will be pumped into the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel. Additional pumping capacity will be provided for Slater Pump Station that will benefit properties to the north and south of the flood control channel. The overall conclusion is that any potential impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by flood control improvements that are conditions of development. A flood water displacement analysis requested by the City concluded that any impact of project fill will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the new storm drains, additional pumping capacity at Slater Pump Station, and improvements to East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood control channel. In addition,please refer to"Flooding"discussion found on page 5-138 of the EIR. Note,however, that at the time of the first drafting of DEIR No. 97-2, only the future condition full delivery, full conveyance design hydrology was available. The approved FEMA Detailed Flood Insurance Study supersedes the channel overtopping estimates on Page 5-138. An updated existing condition flooding scenario is provided by the responses to RPA-25 and RPA-26 in Section 3.3, and TAD-3 in Section 4.3 of this document regarding the existing condition flooding scenario: If a storm event is significant enough to overtop the channel, it will occur upstream of this property. If overtopping occurs upstream, the volume of water in the channel will be reduced and results in additional capacity in the downstream channel. (Please refer to EIR, Appendix F, Hydrology Inundation Reports). According to the project civil engineer, the County has designed the ultimate capacity of the EGGW Channel to accommodate a 100- year event after completion of the proposed improvements to the entire channel. As the channel currently exists and after the proposed channel improvements associated with this Project are completed, the EGGW. Channel still will not be capable of conveying a 100-year storm event; however, the capacity of the EGGW Channel will be improved as a result of this proposed development. According to the project civil engineer, the impact of additional runoff from the project site and additional pumping capacity will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by improvements to EGGW flood control channel. Water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street will remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (-one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet only during pumping activity. This increase will not extend into Bolsa Chica. Note that the EGGW flood control channel in the vicinity of Slater Pump Station has at least 2 ft of freeboard, and will be able to absorb the small temporary increase in water surface elevation. FEMA, in a letter dated December 3, 2001, has also concluded that breakouts upstream provide protection for downstream reaches: "However, the additional data submitted in support of this request indicate significant storage in the watershed and breakout flows along the channel that cause a lower base flood discharge to reach the Shea Homes Parkside Estates property. Given these characteristics, we believe that the revised base flood discharge estimate also is reasonable." \UROl\VOLT\PROIFILE\19977N15001\RESPONSETOC MNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-135 Third Major Concern Please refer to Section 5.8 Biological Resources (pages 5-144 to 5-162) of the EIR on-site wildlife and anticipated impacts to such wildlife,resulting from the proposed project. Fourth Major Concern This project will be in full compliance with the Clean Water Act, and will be required to construct and maintain structural improvements onsite that will eliminate or capture waste and pollution runoff before it enters the public storm drain system. These improvements will be installed before occupancy of the units is permitted. Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology and Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of the EIR for a discussion related to removal of waste products, and impacts to flood control channels. The Mitigation Measures in sections 5.7 and 5.10 regarding upgrades to the existing and new infrastructure systems are to be completed prior to issuance of building permits(Please refer to Mitigation Measure 1 on page 5-142 and Mitigation Measure 16 on page 5-190). Fifth Major Concern The density of the proposed homes and their compatibility with adjacent existing homes is discussed and analyzed on pages 5-2 through 5-4 of the EIR. The density of the proposed project is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations for the site. KFa-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The EIR provided an impact analysis consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The analysis included the topics of concern expressed in this comment. KFa-3 Please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64),regarding dewatering issues. KFa-4 Please refer to the Biological Resources section of the EIR (page 5-144 to 5-162) for an analysis of impacts on wildlife. KFa-5 EDAW is under contract with the City of Huntington Beach. In regards to the hiring of EDAW as the EIR consultant, upon the determination that an EIR be prepared for the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach staff used the common and customary process of hiring a consultant. In July 1997, the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach sent a request for proposal (RFP) to four environmental consulting firms. These firms were, the Planning Center, The Chambers Group, Urban Vision,and EDAW,Inc. The Planning Division received and evaluated the proposals from the consulting firms and determined that EDAW's proposal was superior to the other proposals in its response to the City's RFP. On August 18, 1997,EDAW received a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Community Development indicating that staff reviewed EDAW's proposal and was recommending to Council that EDAW be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report. On September 15, 1997, staff \\IR01\VOLt\PRORFIM1997\7N15001\RESPONSETO(, NMMNTSWLW-RTC-.DOC 3-136 recommended that the City Council approve a contract between the City and EDAW, Inc. for preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the proposed Parkside Estates residential project. The Council approved the staff's recommendation unanimously. KFa-6 The EIR is a City document. As stated above, EDAW was hired by the City to prepare this document; however, City staff from various City Departments completed a thorough review of the Screencheck EIR document, and prior to distribution of the Draft EIR, changes were made to the document to reflect City comments. KFa-7 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 54. KFb-1 (Also prepared letters 53 and 55 within this Section and letter 13 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. This letter attaches three letters prepared by Kenneth Feldman: the first letter is dated June 14, 1998 addressed to members of the California Coastal Commission;the second letter is dated June 14, 1998 addressed to Jim Barnes; and the third letter is dated October 13, 1997 addressed to Julie Sakaguchi. In response to the first letter: Regarding wetlands issues,please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78). Regarding history of zoning,the following outlines the history of zoning in the area: The City Portion: The project site has been zoned for residential development since 1971. The City took action in 1986 to change the land use designation on most of the project site(under MWD ownership at that time) from Residential to Conservation on the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. At that time the City was actively negotiating with the County over the ultimate land use for the Bolsa Chica. The City decision in 1986 to propose designating the MWD Property Conservation was partly in response to a proposal by the County and Signal Landmark to intensively develop the Bolsa Chica. Another historical factor influencing the land use designation on the site is the issue of whether the property may have value as a wetland. In the early 1980's the property was declared to be potentially restorable to wetlands by the State Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. In 1986 this issue was unresolved. Due to the City's negotiating posture on the Bolsa Chica and the uncertainty of the site's wetland status in 1986, it made sense for the City to designate the site Conservation. However, by 1989 the less intense Bolsa Chica Plan had been proposed by the Bolsa Chica Coalition, and after further study the US Army Corps of Engineer declared the site as"Prior Converted Crop Land,"eliminating any concern that the site contained wetlands. The Conservation designation on the City's Coastal Element Land Use Plan was never taken forward by the City to the Coastal Commission for approval. This process is required before the City can implement the Conservation designation. The City initiated the Comprehensive Update to the General Plan in 1991. In the process of updating the General Plan, a portion of the MWD property that is not proposed for residential development under the \VROI\VOLT\PROJFIIE\199T7NI5001\MPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-137 project was reviewed for redesignation from Open Space-Park to Low Density Residential, however, the land use designation was ultimately not changed and still remains Open Space - Park (OS-P). The land use designation of Residential on the remainder of the site was included on the Land Use Plan and adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1996. The City followed all legal noticing requirements during the General Plan Update Process. It should be noted that the zoning designation on the portion of the property that is proposed for residential development has been R1 or RL (Single Family Residential) since 1971. The Count Portion: The 4.5-acre onion of the project site located within the Count is proposed for Y Y p P P P J annexation into the City. The following is a brief overview of land use factors relating to County General Plan and Zoning history of the site. The existing Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program currently zones the site Medium-Low density residential. Several General Plan and Local Coastal Program(LCP) amendments have been approved by the County of Orange and Californian Coastal Commission but were subsequently challenged in court. When the application by Shea Homes was submitted, the property was designated for Medium-Low density residential use in the General Plan. This designation was approved by the Coastal Commission, however,the plan was challenged in court and later reconsidered by the Coastal Commission and County. The most recent action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated ESHA. The Coastal Commission subsequently designated the entire 4.5-acre as conservation, on November 2000, along with other Bolsa Chica lowland property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court on January 12, 2001 by the owner of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, therefore,the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential remains in effect. In October of 1996, the current owner of the site, Shea Homes, filed applications to develop a 181 lot single family residential subdivision on the City property. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Bolsa Chica Coalition and subsequent land use designations adopted by the City. Shea Homes has indicated to the City staff that in August of 1996 they met with residents in the Kenilworth Drive tract to solicit input on their plans to develop the property within residential uses. After the applications are accepted as complete,the project will be thoroughly reviewed by staff and ultimately scheduled for public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. The public will be notified of these hearings in accordance with legal requirements. Regarding removal of dirt from the site, remedial grading activities are being proposed to reduce impacts related to liquifiable soils on-site,as discussed on page 5-121 and 5-122 of the EIR. To respond to the second letter, please refer to above responses to KFa-1 through KFa-7 (pages 3-134 to 3-137). This letter is a duplication of the letter,which was sent previously and is responded to above. To respond to the third letter, the Draft EIR did take into consideration the comments as noted in the October 13, 1997 letter submitted to Julie Sakaguchi. Additionally, please refer to Kfa-1 (page 3-134), which addresses each of the five(5)major concerns raised in the October 13, 1997 letter. 55. KFc-1 (Also prepared letters 53 and 54 within this Section and letter 13 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. This letter attaches a letter prepared by Kenneth Feldman, dated October 13, 1997 addressed to Julie Sakaguchi. This letter was previously sent. Please refer to above response to KFb-1 (page 3-137). \\IROl\VOLT\PROJFO.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSEfOCONAfMS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-138 56. JR-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JR-2 According to the project biologist, the ephemeral areas of standing water, which often accumulate on the site following storms, do not create habitats, which are different, unique, or vital resources locally, but rather are temporary, low quality fresh or brackish pools, lacking the native aquatic vegetation or invertebrates (= natural forage values) of natural marshlands. Nevertheless, the pools may be a visible attractant to birds, particularly ecological generalists (such as great blue heron, great egret, black-necked stilt, spotted sandpiper, killdeer, mallard, etc.) which typically forage in ruderal habitats and unnatural water bodies, including percolation basins, cattle ponds, and flooded agricultural fields,throughout North America. The fallow agricultural area, which may contain seeds and chaff from ploughed ruderal and crop vegetation, also may attract generalist feeders such as Canada geese, snow geese, mallard, and other cropland foraging species. None of these species is considered sensitive by resource agencies, although many of them are managed as hunting commodities by Fish & Game agencies. None of the species, which have been noted at the ephemeral pools or in the agricultural areas are biologically or ecologically dependent populationally,locally or regionally upon the resources of the site, or upon any other ruderal or upland area within the site vicinity. Those species which breed locally do so within the natural wetlands, or in similar created environments (such as golf course marshes and lakes), but do not reside or reproduce within the project boundary. The loss of a minor amount of casual foraging field area for Canada geese would not in any measurable way adversely affect this common and widespread game bird, nor any of the other species noted in the comment. Additionally,regarding monarch butterflies the following response is provided: According to Walt Sakai of the Monarch project, because of the deteriorating nature of the trees located on the project site,it is not a site for wintering aggregations of Monarchs and has not been previously mapped as so. The physical characteristics and lowland setting of the trees on the Shea site probably could be suitable for Monarch roosting use, but no evidence of such use was found, and it is highly unlikely that any new roost areas would be formed within the period of time (i.e., June 1999 and January 2000) since the last field surveys. Trees on slopes or mesas generally are not sufficiently sheltered or buffered from the elements to attract aggregations of Monarchs. JR-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JR-4 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JR-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 57. MJL-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. \VR01\VOLI\PROnMM1997\7N15001XMPONSETOCOM)IMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-139 MJL-2 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. MJL-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding destruction of on-site wetlands. MJL-4 Please refer to above response to MC-2 (page 3-76), regarding the impacts of cats and dogs on off-site Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Additionally,please refer to above response to MW-lc(page 3-69),regarding the impact of the project on the wildlife on the Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. MJL-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Regarding the park issue, the City and County have pursued a regional park in the vicinity of the project site. Harriet M. Wieder Regional Park encompasses a 106-acre site located primarily on the bluff-tops of the Huntington Mesa overlooking the Bolsa Chica Wetlands in the jurisdictions of both the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange. The County is the lead agency in this project. Park facilities included in the General Development Plan/Resource Management Plan (GDP/RMP) consist of an interpretive center with on-site parking for approximately 100 cars, two (2) local park areas and habitat restoration planting areas throughout the park consisting of mixed woodland, coastal scrub and native grassland. The City Council approved the GDP/RMP and Coastal Development and Conditional Use Permits for the first phase of the park on April 21, 1997. The applications were then forwarded to the Orange County Board of Supervisors for final approval on May 6, 1997. Please refer to above response to KFb-1 (page 3-137),regarding zoning for the site. 58. LO-1 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), regarding impact of project on wildlife on the off- site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. LO-2 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding access issues. LO-3 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water. LO-4 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. \VROI\VOLI\PROIFQE\I"7\7NI500I\RESPONSETOCOMIvMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-140 LO-5 According to the project traffic engineer, the project did not analyze impact on Seal Beach Boulevard. The project adds only 16 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 20 vehicles in the PM peak hour to Warner Avenue west of Bolsa Chica Street. This traffic will dissipate before reaching Seal Beach Boulevard. Based upon the above statements regarding traffic, emergency response along Seal Beach Boulevard would not be impacted by project traffic. 59. AW-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. AW-2 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. AW-3 Please refer to above response to MW-lc(page 3-69),regarding impact of project on off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. Additionally, please refer to Section 5.2, Aesthetics / Light and Glare, of the E1R for analysis of light 1 glare impact on the Bolsa Chica Preserve. Regarding the impact of domestic pets, please refer to above response to MC-2(page 3-76). AW-4 Please refer to above response to MC-4(page 3-78),regarding supply of water to County parcel. 60. SV-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. SV-2 Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69),regarding impact of project on off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. SW The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 61. NW-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. NW-2 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding second access road to the project. \UROI\VOLT\PROIPOE\1997\7N15OO1\RESPONSETOCOhIMENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-141 NW-3 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding connections to Bolsa Chica Street. Additionally, according to the project civil engineer, the City's General Plan designates the park, eucalyptus trees, and slope area as "Open Space", and has discouraged any intrusion into the open space area. This is demonstrated by the City staff's requirement to have Shea Homes relocate the intersection of I Street and M Street out of the Open Space Area. The two (2) northerly road alignments traverse the slope area, elevated±40 vertical feet through the Open Space Area, which is environmentally unsuitable due to the adverse impact to CA-ORA-83 and intrusion into the eucalyptus trees and the slope area (designated as Open Space by the City). In addition,the road will not meet public street standards due to sight distance and vertical constraints. With regard to the southerly alignment, it would penetrate through County"Open Space"Area. Additionally,the alignment proposed by the Commentor has several other drawbacks as follows: ■ In order to maintain a maximum 8% grade, massive cuts would be required, resulting in extremely high costs. ■ The intersection of this alignment with "I" and "M" Streets would be at an excessive grade resulting in potentially unsafe conditions. ■ Because of the massive cuts,this alignment would destroy the natural slope designated as open space. ■ This alignment would intrude into an existing eucalyptus grove. In addition, because of the acceptable Level of Service on Graham Street with the project and the presence of the traffic signal on Graham at "A" Street, there is no need for a secondary access to Bolsa Chica Street. NW-4 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. Regarding the grade of Greenleaf Street, according to the project civil engineer, the top of curb elevation for Greenleaf Street, adjacent to this site is—1.79 and at the curb return of Kenilworth Drive 106' north of the site is—1.98 providing an average gradient of 0.12%. NW-5 As indicated on Figure 6 of the Traffic Study dated 1/9/97 (contained in Appendix B of the EIR), an analysis of opening Greenleaf to project traffic has been made. The results showed that this would be insignificant to Graham Street traffic projections. NW-6 According to the project traffic engineer,signal-ahead signs would be routinely installed in advance of the new signal on Graham at"A"Street. NW-7 As indicated on Figure 11 of the Traffic Study dated 1/9/97 (contained in Appendix B of the EIR), prohibiting left turns from "A" Street to Graham would require project access at Greenleaf and \\IROI\VOLT\PROSPIl,EU997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-142 considerable more project impact on Greenleaf and Kenilworth Drive; therefore, restriction of left turn movements onto Graham Street from Street"A" will not be implemented. NW-8 According to the project traffic engineer,Graham Street can be re-striped with, a center turn lane and bike lanes with or without this project at the City's discretion. Additionally, speed limits are established by the City,based on traffic engineering surveys. NW-9 According to the project traffic engineer, a bike trail along the EGGW Channel would be accessed by the public from Graham Street. Please refer to Exhibit 25, City/County Designated Trails, in the EIR for Parkside Estates for bike trails. Additionally, the new alternatives to the Draft EIR depict the proposed trail access on Exhibits 57 and 70(please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,contained in Volume II). Additionally, please refer to above responses to OCPD-6 and OCPD-7 (pages 3-86 to 3-87), regarding Class I Bikeway issues. NW-10 In accordance with Section 15064(e) of CEQA, the EIR does not address the potential for economic changes (i.e., property values) to adjacent properties. Section 15064(e) states in part, that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Additionally, even if an analysis were to be conducted, it would be speculative at this point to attempt to quantify property value differentials positively or negatively as they might be experienced by any adjacent property owner. NW-11 In accordance with Section 15126(d)2 of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 6.2 of the EIR includes an analysis of the No Project/No Development Alternative. Additionally,please refer to above response to BCLT-7 (page 3-118),regarding alternatives. NW-12 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. Also,potential impacts associated with the"Proposed Koll Development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa" or the Bolsa Chica LCP were addressed in County Certified EIR 551. (Refer to Section 4.5 of the EIR for a description of this project). Please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69),regarding the proposed project's impact on the off- site Bolsa Chica Mesa and Ecological Reserve. NW-13 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, refer to above responses to NW-3 (page 3-142), regarding a connection to Bolsa Chica Street. \\MI\VOL1\PRO1F-Q.E\1997\7N15001W,ESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NM-RTC-.DOC 3-143 62. CB-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. CB-2 The EIR describes the setting for both the local area and the region. As stated previously in above response BCLT-15 (page 3-122), Section 4.0 Regional, Citywide, and Local Setting of the EIR discusses the three distinct areas in which the project may affect or be affected by existing and proposed development. The EIR also addresses related projects in the local vicinity of the project site (refer to Section 4.5 of the EIR). The study areas discussed in this section were designated for the purpose of evaluating project impacts only and do not necessarily represent an adopted study area of the City of Huntington Beach. Lastly, specific responses are provided below to specific examples cited in the comment letter. As spelled out in above response BCLT-1 (page 3-116), EIR recirculation is not required per CEQA Section 15088.5. CB-3 The "50 to 75 year" life span of structures is a typical assumption used on construction design estimates for general materials based upon average uses and maintenance. Additionally, the comment requests clearer language be presented in the second paragraph of the summary section regarding the loss of open space. The next paragraph on the same page states "Development of the site would result in a cumulative reduction in open space in the City; however, most of the site has been designated for residential since 1971." CB-4 Please refer to above response to MC-4 (page 3-78),regarding supply of water to the County parcel. The mitigation proposed does not just suggest annexation (alone) would mitigate potential water supply impacts. As indicated on page 5-189 of the EIR, "the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel, at no cost to the City. Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works—Water Division." The EIR concludes that the implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 through 13 will reduce potential impacts to water services and facilities resulting from development proposed within the County of Orange to a level less than significant, and with above mitigations,the City has an adequate supply of water to meet project demand. The addition of up to 27 additional homes will have no significant impact on the City's supply of water. CB-5 and CB-6 According to the project biologist, there is no contradiction in the language of the Biological Assessment regarding the accumulation of rainfall on the site. Seasonable ponds would be regular, identifiable features of the site and would exhibit detectable underlying edaphic characters and surface topography. Biologically, a seasonable pond would possess characteristics such as hydrophytic vegetation and aquatic invertebrates. The use of the terms seasonable ponds and vernal pools follow accepted ecological norms, and are not applied arbitrarily to all residual accumulations of runoff or rainfall where no other supporting biological, hydrological, ecological or topographical features are present. The standing water on the site exhibited no such features, and clearly was accumulated rainwater from the heavy El Nino storms of that Winter, standing in ruts and low spots on the field and access roads. Standing water does not in and of WROl\VOLI\PROIFHM199T7N15001\RESPONSETOOOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-144 itself constitute a seasonal pond. Such accumulations were abundant on level ground everywhere in southern California that season, and the water on the site was neither unique nor typical of other years with lower rainfall totals. The site had been left fallow for much of the overall period during which visits were conducted, and most of the plants in question are not annual or ephemeral species, but rather are low, woody perennials. Therefore, visits made in the late part of the year, following the season of vegetative production, would easily detect such plants,were they present. It also may be noted that the site was revisited following the submittal of the report upon which the comments were made; several brief visits were conducted in 1998 and 1999, in March and July. During both of these visits the entire area in question was planted and maintained in active agriculture, mostly producing zucchini squash. There were no areas of native vegetation retained within the footprint of the agriculture. Lastly, please refer to above responses BCLT-13 and BCLT-14 (page 3-121) regarding biological site visits, and BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3-128 to 3-129) regarding a two-paragraph discussion on "Ephemeral Areas of Standing Water." CB-7 The comment asserts that photographs taken in April 1998 depict grading activities allegedly to cover an existing pond or wetland area. As indicated in above responses CB-5 and CB-6 (page 3-144), the project site does not contain seasonal ponds or vernal pools. The Draft EIR's conclusions regarding on-site wetlands have been confirmed/validated by State and Federal agencies with the jurisdiction to make such a validation. Please refer to the response to MC-5 (page 3-78)above,regarding on-site wetlands issues. The plowing and discing that have been performed on the site have been for weed abatement and farming purposes. They are consistent with the farming activity that has been performed on this site for approximately 50 years. The applicant acquired the property in 1996, and continued farming the property in the same manner as the prior owner. On May 8, 1997, the Coastal Commission cited the applicant for discing without a coastal development permit. On February 25, 1998, the Coastal Commission retracted the citation, which allowed the applicant to resume farming the property. During that period that the Coastal Commission citation was in effect and the applicant was unable to farm the property, the El Nino storms occurred and weeds grew to a height of approximately seven feet. In April 1998, the applicant's farmer prepared the soil for planting crops through weed abatement, plowing, land leveling, and cultivating the soil. Even after that preparation, the oat crop that the farmer first planted was of low quality because of the amount of weeds that regerminated on the property, growing among the oat plants. As a result, the farmer applied herbicide on May 26, 1998, which killed both the weeds and the oats. In June 1998, the farmer planted a crop of beans. Since then,the property has been regularly farmed by the same farmer and an irrigation system has been installed. The farmer has planted and harvested various crops, including beans, squash,cabbage, and celery. This activity is consistent with the Clean Water Act's and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' understanding of normal farming activities. In the early 1990's, the Corps determined the property in question does not contain any waters of the U.S., but that the property constitutes "prior converted farmland" on which normal farming activities are allowed. The Clean Water Act defines normal farming activities as including "plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation practices." The Corps has defined "plowing" to mean "all forms of primary tillage, including moldboard, chisel, or wide-blade plowing, discing, harrowing and similar physical means utilized on farm, forest or ranch land for the breaking up, \\IROI\VOLI\PRO]FU.Ek1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-145 cutting, turning over, or stirring of soil to prepare it for the planting of crops." The Corps and EPA have jointly stated that"plowing"includes"land leveling,to prepare it for the planting of crops." CB-8 Please refer to the most recent correspondence from the Department of Fish and Game dated June 15, 1998 (letter#74 of this document). The Department's position regarding the status of on-site wetlands is stated in this letter and is consistent with the findings of the EIR. The Department of Fish and Game further requested revisions to Mitigation Measure 2 within Section 5.8 of the EIR. Those revisions have been incorporated into Mitigation Measure 2. (Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-162, contained in Volume II). The applicant did not carry out any illegal cultivation or grading activity. CB-9 According to the project biologist, the statement regarding the connection of the Shea property to other similar open space was made in regard to its proximity to coastal marshland habitat, not the ruderal uplands on the knoll and mesa. These areas are not similar ecologically to the agricultural areas in that they are elevated terrain, neither under active cultivation, nor are they part of the former extent of the marshlands. The western margin of the overall site does connect with upland and degraded marshland to the west, presently in open space, but at least a portion (as identified in Section 4.5 of the EIR — Bolsa Chica LCP) of which is under consideration for development. Also as stated in above response to MC-6 (page 3-81) a portion of the Mesa (west of the proposed project) was approved for development by the City Council in June 1999 and was completed as the Sandover Project. Additionally, please refer to above responses MW-lc (page 3-69) and BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3- • 128 to 3-130) for detailed responses regarding the project sites relationship to the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Wetlands. CB-10 On April 16, 1999, the California Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to remand the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Coastal Commission for consideration. The Court determined that the trial court erred in finding that the relocation of raptor habitat was permissible, although it upheld the Commission's approval of the LCP in all other respects (Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al. v. The California Coastal Commission Court of Appeal No. D029461 No. D030270). The action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated ESHA. The Appellate Court's finding—that the eucalyptus grove could not,as a bird habitat,be legally relocated —led the Court to remand the LCP back to the Coastal Commission for further consideration. On November 2000 the Coastal Commission designated the entire 4.5-acre County parcel as conservation, along with other Bolsa Chica low land property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court, on January 12, 2001, by the owner of Bolsa Chica, therefore, the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential remains in effect on the County General Plan and Specific Plan but has not been approved on the LCP. It would be speculative to assume that the Bolsa Chica Land Trust will acquire the Bolsa Chica property. Additionally, please refer to above response to CB-9 on this page, regarding connection of the site to Bolsa Chica. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJPILE\1997\7N150O1\RESPONSETOCOhA9ENTSWM-RTC-.DOC 3-146 CB-11 and CB-12 According to the project biologist, groundwater under the agricultural fields would be expected to be brackish or saline, as both the underlying soils and sediments, as well as the topsoil,were formerly part of the original marshland. The unsubstantiated statement that groundwater on the site is "salt water" does not prove subsurface transmissivity of water to the site from the south side of the channel. The surfacing of the bottom of the channel is not of consequence in this issue, as it is lower than the water table in the referenced photograph. For surface water(tidal flows) or subsurface water to move from the wetlands to the site it would have to sink below the level of the channel and resurface under the site. There has been nothing provided in any of the hydrological analyses of the property to indicate that this is in fact happening. Additionally, the project applicant has complied with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act jurisdictional issues (please refer to August 11, 1999 correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). According to Tom Dodson and Associates(TDA),the jurisdictional delineations conducted on this parcel determined the site to have been isolated from historical hydrological sources: a) a fresh water channel to the north where a residential development (tract # 5792) has diverted the historical flows from the site; and b) tidal influence due to historic filling of the site and the construction of the EGGW Channel to the south. Also, according to the project geologists and as noted in above response BCLT-29 (page 3-126) variations in ground water levels have been previously documented on-site. Geotechnical recommendations regarding ground water are contained in the 1998 report (Appendix E of the EIR). The ground water levels and moisture contents of the near-surface soils are similar to those observed throughout the Huntington Beach area. Although those conditions will have an economic impact on grading of the site (in the form of above normal grading costs), the final product will be no more affected by ground water conditions than other similarly developed sites in the area. Ground water levels have been considered in the design of improvements. Lastly, details regarding the construction of the EGGW Channel were known by the EIR preparer particularly since the project engineers addressed the necessary channel upgrades as part of their analysis prepared per the City and County of Orange. Additionally,please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64),regarding groundwater levels. CB-13 According to the project biologist, the pickleweed patches on the site were within the Orange County portion, not within the agricultural fields on the City land. These patches were small and confined to the lowest levels of the site, in an area, which had not been totally converted from its original marshland vegetation type. Pickleweed is a halophyte, but it commonly grows on dredging spoils and other salt- laden soils deposited in areas wherein the only water source is urban runoff or rainfall. The presence of the remnant pickleweed patches may or may not reflect the presence of subsurface water movement from the wetlands to the west. Although most of the pickleweed patches on the site were removed by disking activities in 1997, the species is highly tolerant of such disturbances, and frequently persists in areas which have been mechanically altered; it likely would recover to some extent on the Orange County parcel if left undisturbed. Additionally, please refer to above responses BCLT-37 and BUT 38 (page 3-128) regarding survey results of the patchy pickleweed and BCLT-19 (page 3-123)regarding mitigation required for removal of the patchy pickleweed. WROINVOLI\PROJFMZ1997\7NI5001\RF.SPONSETOCOMIMMS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-147 CB-14 Please refer to above response to MW-2 (page 3-73), regarding the ESHA issue and the proposed alternatives. The stand of the gum trees in the City portion of the site does not fall within the 1982 Fish and Game designated ESHA. Only 0.13 acre of the stand of the gum trees within the County portion falls within the Fish and Game ESHA. (Refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). The original Tentative Tract Map analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed four new alternatives do not propose removal of the 0.13 acre portion of gum tree ESHA on-site. While the original TTM would have impacted gum trees within the County parcel, the trees were not part of the Fish and Game ESI4A which, occurs west of the above ground gas line. The new alternatives propose no removal of any gum trees within County parcel of the project site. Please refer to the updated Arborist Report contained in Appendix B of the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document to become Appendix G of the/Final EIR. According to the project biologist, the Biological Assessment regarded the presence of non-native gum trees adjacent to open coastal saltmarsh as an unnatural element. The report noted that, as such, they provided roosts and nest sites for predatory bird species which historically would either not have occurred anywhere near the marshlands (crows, ravens, Cooper's hawk), or which would have nested no nearer than the riparian woodlands along inland channels feeding the wetlands (white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk). These birds now have ready access to the unwary ground-nesting and shrub-nesting marshland birds,many of which have not directed adaptation to avoiding predation by these species. The statements concerning the negative aspects of the gum trees on the site generally reflect the sentiments of reputable biologists, ecologists and community botanists concerning the use of Eucalyptus trees in natural settings, and the introduction and/or maintenance of non-native species within sensitive habitat areas. Many of the gum trees are dead or dying, for a variety of reasons, and the commentor considers the dead trees to be "important habitat for wildlife." According to the project biologist, because they are non- native trees, and the wood has no native primary decomposer species to reduce it and return its nutrients to the soil, it provides little organic material for ecosystem use. Further, the dead leaves, branches and trunks decay slowly, if at all, with only drywood termites reducing their mass, and the accumulations of rank debris beneath the canopy offer habitat for only the most generalist of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa, many of which (Argentine ants, house mouse, black rat, opossum, red fox) are not native and are predatory upon bird eggs and nestlings, posing a particular threat to species nesting low to the ground or on open substrates. Native species which might shelter in the gum tree understory include raccoon and coyote, both of which are found throughout North America in virtually all habitat types, including urban settings, and are not necessarily present because of the tree debris. Cavity-making birds, such as woodpeckers, do create nest holes in dead gum tree snags, which may be used by American kestrel (another predator not normally found next to the wetlands), but mostly appear to attract non-native European starlings and house sparrows locally. As stated above, the proposed development will not remove or alter the trees in the ESHA, so their value to wildlife(birds of prey)will remain intact. CB-15 The Draft EIR required tree replacement mitigation at a 2:1 ratio with approval by Planning and Public Works consistent with standard City policy. Additionally, conditions of approval were suggested in response MW-lc above, and included provisions for use of drought-tolerant native taxa in the project's landscaping adjacent to open space. While non-native trees (and the homes) are "equally non-native" to the area bordering the marshland, it is unusual for birds of prey to nest within urban street and yard settings, although some species (such as barn owl and American kestrel) will nest in residential areas. Crows are favored by urbanization, and likely will continue to be a problem locally, with or without the gum tree groves. \\[ROI\VOL11PROIFH.&1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMI'NTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-148 CB-16 Please refer to above responses to BCLT-37 and BCLT 38 (page 3-128) regarding biological survey results of the patchy pickleweed and BCLT-19 (page 3-123)regarding mitigation required for removal of the pickleweed patch. CB-17 and CB-18 According to the project biologist, these comments concern themselves with the presence of red foxes on the site, and their relationship to coyotes and development. The red foxes are a non-native species locally, and as such can cause substantial harm to native wildlife populations, particularly terrestrial invertebrates,reptiles,rodents,and ground-nesting birds. Where coyotes persist in an area,they may prey upon the foxes, and in some areas, they may control fox numbers or even eradicate them. The relationship between red foxes and coyotes, within the Bolsa Chica Uplands and Marshlands, is not known to us at this time, but both species are present, at least in low numbers, on and around the base of the mesa. Direct evidence of the foxes (tracks, scats, fur, musk areas) was found on the property primarily in the Orange County parcel, although it was evident from tracks that they also ranged out into the agricultural fields during nocturnal foraging. They appeared to be most common around the base of the knoll outside the project area(and within the County Eucalyptus grove). Coyote range over the entire upland area, including the project site,but their numbers are not known to us at this time. The coyote do not maintain a den on the site, and will not be directly extirpated by the development, although it does represent an incremental loss of general foraging areas as identified in the Draft EIR. The Project is not expected to cause significant impacts related to predation by red foxes. Subsequent to project implementation, should it be approved, the foxes presently known to occur near the site may or may not persist around the urban margins. The density of foxes within the overall uplands is not known to us, but the species may occur in relatively high numbers in limited habitat areas, so the individual(s) presently living near the site may be able to move into areas already occupied by other foxes. They also may move off-site,closer to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an EIR need not "speculate" on information which is not available or known at the time of the EIR preparation. As part of the above response to MW-lc above,regarding the project's potential impacts on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa and Ecological Resource,conditions of approval were recommended. One of the conditions of approval was that prior to grading, a survey be conducted, and any red foxes on or near the site be trapped, and humanly extirpated prior to project implementation, or the project applicant shall participate in any approved programs for the control of red foxes that will be implemented by the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. CB-19 According to the project biologist, the comment questions the significance assessment given to monarch butterflies on the site, particularly as concerns the presence or absence of an aggregation site. The butterflies observed on the site numbered from one to several at any given time, and the site was observed in the morning and late afternoon on cool days during the winter aggregation season, by an entomologist (Hovore) with several decades of direct experience with monarchs in southern California including projects in the Santa Barbara/ Elwood aggregations. No winter aggregations were observed, nor was there evidence that the trees on-site are used as such, as was noted in the Biological Assessment (Appendix G of the EIR). MOI\VOLT\PRO]FUM1997\7N15001\MSPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-149 According to Walt Sakai of the Monarch project, because of the deteriorating nature of the trees located on the project site, it is not a site for wintering aggregations of Monarchs and has not been previously mapped as so. The physical characteristics and lowland setting of the trees on the Shea site probably could be suitable for Monarch roosting use, but no evidence of such use was found, and it is highly unlikely that any new roost areas would be formed within the period of time(i.e., June 1999 and January 2000) since the last field surveys. Trees on slopes or mesas generally are not sufficiently sheltered or buffered from the elements to attract aggregations of Monarchs. CB-20 and CB-21 Please refer to above response to MW-1c (page 3-69), regarding impact of project on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. Additionally, please refer to above responses to BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3-128 to 3-130), regarding the project's relationship to the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa and Lowlands. CB-22 and CB-23 Please refer to above response to MC-2(page 3-76), regarding impact of domestic pets on the wildlife in the wetlands. Additionally, please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3- 128 to 3-130),regarding project impacts on wildlife in the adjacent wetlands. Lastly, according to the project biologist,anecdotal observations (cited in the EIR, and taken exception to by the commentor) indicate that some songbirds may die as a result of feeding on insects or nectar from gum trees,the sticky pollen clogging their nostrils, suffocating them.This observation was offered simply as an indication that some songbird deaths may occur as a result of flower-feeding on these trees. Given the tremendous number of gum trees in California, and the difficulty in documenting the fate of small birds as they scatter over the landscape, nasal obstruction from the pollen of non-native trees and shrubs actually may be an overlooked cause of mortality in migratory songbirds; that issue aside, the anecdote in the Draft EIR was offered simply as yet another reason why gum trees should not be viewed as an ecological amenity. Project documentation is not analagous to scientific publication, and information from sources such as newsletters may be included to provide additional insight or perspective on a particular issue,regardless of whether or not it would be proper for use in a peer-reviewed journal article. CEQA does not require the dispensation of dissertation-level reports, merely sufficient information for concerned agencies and individuals to adequately assess the impacts of a proposed land use change. CB-24 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The issue of the potential impacts from domestic pets (i.e., cats) on the wildlife in the wetlands is addressed in above response to MC-2(page 3-76). CB-25 According to the project biologist, the EIR does not suggest that crows are present because of the gum trees, only that they follow the line of trees outward from the existing urban areas to the margin of the wetlands. As the commentor noted, the presence of crows adjacent to the Bolsa Chica System has already resulted in predation impacts to sensitive species therein. The comment that the construction of 200 more housing units on this site will "only attract more crows into the wetland area..." assumes that there are no \\IROI\VOL1\PROI=kl997VNlM\RESPONSETOCOMNENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-150 crows presently in the area of the proposed construction. Because the site presently is used for agriculture, it attracts large numbers of crows to the same footprint as will be occupied by development-- probably as many or more than would occupy the proposed residential area. Additionally, because the residential areas would not extend crow-favoring habitat alteration closer to the wetlands than the gum trees groves already exist,there is nothing to substantiate the statement that crows would be attracted into the wetlands in any greater numbers or frequency than presently exist. This is an impact which already is occurring, and it would be"speculative"to conclude that impact might increase as a result of the project. CB-26 and CB-27 The EIR preparers cannot find where the Draft EIR suggests that "because there are eucalyptus trees on the Bolsa Chica Mesa there does not need to be any replacement of the lost nest sites". Mitigation Measure 1 provided in the EIR is consistent with prior Resource Agency recommendations regarding potential impacts to occupied bird of prey nests. Additionally,please refer to above response to MW-2(page 3-73),regarding removal of the trees/ESHA issue and the new alternatives. Additionally, according to the project biologist, neither white-tailed kite nor red-tailed hawk are limited distributionally or populationally in southern California. Red-tailed hawks habituate readily to human presence, and are not considered sensitive species by any agency, although all native birds of prey are protected. The project does not propose to remove the stand of mature healthy gum trees from the City portion of the site (and the new alternatives do not propose to remove any gum trees within the County parcel), and so there would be no significant loss of habitat or nest sites for this species, although disturbances will arise as a result of construction activities. The portion of the City parcel nearest the grove of trees is designated as a park site (and under the new alternatives, the County portion of the site adjacent to the gum trees will be open space), and it is unlikely that these birds would abandon their nest site as a consequence of the development. White-tailed kites are not considered state- or federal-listed threatened or endangered species; they are considered fully protected (FP)in California. White-tailed kite populations in California have rebounded dramatically from their historic lows in the early part of the century and ±35 years ago, when their numbers dropped as a result of habitat losses, direct predation by humans, pesticide residue effects, and possibly also crashes in their prey species populations. It is now known that their numbers and local distribution fluctuate seasonally and annually according to prey species abundance, and that they tend to be somewhat nomadic, changing roosting and nesting sites as they locate new hunting areas. Their relationship to the project site is relative to the presence of the gum trees, as the field probably does not contribute significant food resources; content analysis of 544 white-tailed kite cast pellets from one Santa Barbara site showed evidence of 777 rodents, most of which were voles and house mice, with nothing as large as a ground squirrel or pocket gophers. Since the existing project site supports mostly California ground squirrels and Botta pocket gophers, it is probable that the majority of the kite foraging locally is over non-agricultural fields adjacent to residential areas (where house mice are abundant) and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands(for voles). The proposed project would not significantly reduce or alter essential foraging habitat for white-tailed kite locally, as much larger areas of higher quality, natural habitat exist within the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands System; nor would project implementation result in the loss of kite nesting resources, if they in fact nest within the gum tree grove (no nests were observed during the 5 original and 3 subsequent field visits) on-site. Additionally,Mitigation Measure 1 requires construction activities be limited to areas 500 feet away from any raptor nests identified by a survey conducted immediately prior to project grading. Existing high daily levels of human activity(including hikers,bikers,dogs, equestrians, heavy equipment driving through, disking of the fields, agricultural activities, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the gum \UROIWOLI\PROJFHE\1997\7N15001\MPONSETOCOMMENTSVEW-RTG.DOC 3-151 trees, with which the kites presently co-exist, should decrease following project development, as the City portion of the site(adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as a park and under the new alternatives the County portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as open space, and no longer open to vehicle trespass or other disturbance. CB-28 Please refer to Section 5.2 Aesthetics / Light and Glare for a discussion of this issue. Page 5-55 of the EIR states, "Development of the project site will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve Area south of the site. Outdoor lighting due to the project will contribute to the general night sky illumination. Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare will reduce this impact to a less than significant level." Additionally, please refer to above response to MW-lc (page 3-69), which suggested additional conditions for lighting. CB-29 According to the project biologist, there is not evidence that white-tailed kites nested within the 49 acre project site, nor is the agricultural field a primary hunting area for them. Casual use of the site by foraging kites does not constitute a resource dependent relationship. There are no monarch butterfly winter roosts on the site; casual use of a site by a few butterflies does not constitute a resource dependent relationship. Therefore,the statement is correct as given. Additionally,please refer to above responses to CB-19 (page 3-149), CB-26, and CB-27(page 3-151). CB-30 According to the project biologist, the bird species presently foraging along the EGGW Channel may be temporarily disturbed or displaced from the immediate vicinity of the site during construction. This would be a minor disturbance impact to a peripheral foraging area, but would not permanently alter habitat values for these species populationally or within their resident, breeding or seasonal use areas outside the channel,as adequate foraging areas exist nearby. At present the birds using the channel do not seem to be affected adversely by the presence of existing adjacent housing or patterns of human activity along the berm, and it is assumed that they will continue to forage along the channel once construction activities have ceased. Foraging values within the channel result from the presence of water in the channel and the prey species found therein; as long as water is present in the channel, and the foraging values persist,the resources will continue to attract the spectrum of birds mentioned in the comment letter as using the channel. Additionally, please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37, and BCLT-38 (pages 3- 128 to 3-130),regarding impact of project on off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. CB-31 According to the project biologist, the EIR Biological Assessment noted numerous species of birds foraging around the seasonable accumulations of standing water on the agricultural fields. These flooded field areas are ephemeral features formed by rainfall and runoff, and they do not develop natural supporting habitat values. The observed bird use is casual and adventitious. None of the species, which have been noted at the ephemeral pools or in the agricultural areas are biologically or ecologically dependent populationally,locally or regionally upon the resources of the site,or upon any other ruderal or \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFHE\1997\7NI5001UZESPONSETOODMNMNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-152 upland area within the site vicinity. Those species which breed locally do so within the natural wetlands, or in similar created environments(such as golf course marshes and lakes),but do not reside or reproduce within the project boundary. Additionally, please refer to above responses to CB-5 through CB-7 (pages 3-144 to 3-145) which indicate the rational for the EIR's findings that"seasonal ponds"do not exist on the project site. CB-32 The potential haul routes are depicted on Exhibit 15 of the EIR and follow"existing dirt roadways." According to the project biologist, the area of the proposed southerly soil haul route passes through a section of the gum tree ESHA which has no nesting sites for white-tailed kites, nor is part of any identified use area for peregrine falcon (except, perhaps, rare foraging and roosting use), and the disturbances from the soil transportation actions will not jeopardize these species continued use of the site, or nesting habitat, in any way. Temporary disturbances of this sort adjacent to or through casual use areas do not constitute harassment or taking of a sensitive species, any more than do the existing vehicle and human movements through this same area(every few minutes during daylight hours). Additionally, please refer to above responses to J&GB-12 (page 3-64), BCLT-9, and BCLT-10 (page 3- 119),regarding haul route issues. CB-33 and CB-34 The project would be required to comply with the haul route buffers from the Fish and Game ESHA's. The dirt would only be removed from the adjacent site if and when there is an approved grading plan and permit on that site, in which case removal of dirt will be in accordance with the approved plan for that project. Since the approval status of TTM 15460 was not known at the time of Draft EIR preparation, other potential alternative borrow sites were identified. As indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR, if the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has "environmental clearance" to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west,not from existing residential streets to the north. CB-35 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61) and MC-3 (page 3-77), regarding issue of a single access to the project and alternative connections to Bolsa Chica Street and the City's Condition of Approval on use of Greenleaf as "emergency only" access. Additionally, please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3- 128 to 3-130), regarding the impact of the project on the off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. CB-36 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to above response to BCLT-7 (page 3-118), regarding CEQA requirements for Alternative Analysis within an EIR. \\IROI\VOLI\PROJFIIE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-153 CB-37 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. As specifically indicated in response to BCLT-1 (page 3-116) above, Draft EIR recirculation is not required per CEQA Section 15088.5(a). 63. JES-1 (Also prepared letter 6(as HBEB)within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JES-2 Please refer to above responses to MW-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3-128 to 3-130), regarding impact of project on off-site Bolsa Chica Mesa or the Ecological Reserve. JES-3 As identified in Section 5.9 Cultural Resources of the EIR, mitigation measures have been provided to ensure that significant impacts to archaeological sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, which are located on the 45-acre City parcel are reduced to a level less than significant (refer to page 5-173 of the EIR). Section 5.9 does not identify impacts to a significant archeological site located within the 4.5-acre County parcel. The EIR does acknowledge that implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of 0.2 acres of pocket wetlands. As described in Section 5.8 Biological Resources of the EIR,removal of the pickleweed patch will require pocket wetland mitigation consistent with Policy 2.2.25 of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. This mitigation requires that impacts to the isolated pocket wetlands would be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1 (square footage of wetlands to square footage of fill). However, on April 16, 1999, the California Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to remand the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Coastal Commission for consideration. The action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated ESHA. The Appellate Court's finding -that the eucalyptus grove could not, as a bird habitat, be legally relocated -led the Court to remand the LCP back to the Coastal Commission for further consideration. The protection of the eucalyptus grove, within the context of the overall LCP, went before the Coastal Commission on November 2000. On November 2000,the Coastal Commission designated the entire 4.5- acre as conservation, along with other Bolsa Chica lowland property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court on January 12, 2001 by the owner of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, therefore, the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential on the 4.5-acre County parcel remain in effect on the County General Plan and Specific Plan but has not been approved on the LCP. Lastly,as indicated in response MC-5 (page 3-78)above, the State and Federal Agencies with jurisdiction authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Four new alternatives have been proposed in response to Draft EIR comments and new information on FEMA and Coastal Commission decision and is described in above response to MW-2 (page 3-73). Additionally, the new alternatives proposed within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document do not impact the EPA delineation pocket wetlands in the County. \\IR01\VOLI\PRO.1P11,E\1997\7NIMOI\RESPONSECOCOMMENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-154 JES-4 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-12 (page 3-64), BCLT-9 and BCLT-10 (page 3-119), regarding impacts of grading on the mesa. Additionally, it should be noted that the Mesa will not be utilized as a borrow site if it is not developed. JES-5 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding single access through Graham Street. JES-6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. JES-7 According to the project traffic engineer, a secondary emergency only access to the project is planned at Greenleaf, which can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Additionally, it should be noted that the traffic analysis takes into account peak morning and afternoon traffic and all relevant intersections and roadway segments. JES-8 As indicated in the comment and on page 5-52 of the EIR, "as homes abut Graham Street, a wall would be necessary to provide privacy to the back yards." The EIR portrays the current views from Graham Street in Site Photographs A and F,Exhibits 21 and 23,respectively. Exhibit 21 site Photograph A, is a view from the southeastern corner of the project site adjacent to Graham Street, looking north and west across the site towards the existing off-site residential areas, located directly north of the project site. This photograph shows Graham Street in the right corner of the photograph and the East Garden Grove —Wintersburg Channel that extends to the Pacific Ocean in the left corner of the photograph. Also visible in this photograph are the existing on-site eucalyptus groves. Exhibit 23, Site Photograph F, is an off-site view from the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive looking south and west across Graham Street. This photograph shows the off-site adjacent single family residential community, located directly north of the project site and shows a view of the project site from the intersection of Graham and Kenilworth. As can be seen from this photograph a majority of the project site and uses beyond the site cannot be seen from this intersection. Page 5-49 indicates that "the proposed project may affect existing views experienced by pedestrians and vehicles passing by along Graham Street due to the conversion of what is currently vacant land to residential uses." Additionally, page 5-52 indicates, although the views of the site will change, the majority of the project site has been designated for development of residential uses and therefore is consistent with the City Land Use Plan. \\IROI\VOLT\PROIfU.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOM3,MNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-155 Furthermore,it should be noted that Graham Street is not listed as a City existing or proposed scenic route on the City's General Plan. A landscape area of 5 to 15 feet, per City standards, will be provided along the privacy wall proposed by Shea. As the project's entrance is proposed along Graham Street, the applicant proposes to coordinate the streetscape and landscape design of this area in order to strengthen the project's identity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 will ensure that effects of the project on existing views experienced by pedestrians and vehicles passing by along Graham Street are reduced to a level less than significant. The project entry has also been redesigned under the new alternatives and includes a landscape median at the entry road with a 50-foot landscaped paseo park. Please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR, contained in Volume II and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document for additional analysis. It should also be noted that the major view of wetlands located on Bolsa Chica Lowlands is currently from the flood control channel looking south, and that the proposed wall along Graham Street would not extend southerly,past the flood control channel nor interrupt this existing view. Lastly,please refer to above response to DR4(page 3-75),regarding construction of project walls. JES-9 Please refer to above response to J&GB-12(page 3-64),regarding import of fill from Mesa. JES-10 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JES-11 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Additionally, it should be noted that in light of subsequent governmental determinations, the wetlands delineation has been superseded. The governmental agencies have examined the site and concluded that except as identified in the EIR,the site does not contain wetlands. JES-12 The conclusions of the Draft EIR are consistent with the project archeologist's recommendations for avoidance of CA-ORA-83,also known as Cogstone Site. As stated on page 5-171 of the EIR, "According to the Dillon report and an evaluation of currently proposed tentative tract maps(see Exhibits 6a and 6c),the proposed project will not result in impacts to CA-ORA-83. As described in Section 3.0,the approximately 8- acre park/open space(with±3 acres of improved turf area) is proposed and will not be disturbing CA-ORA- 83(complete avoidance of the area),as it will be left as open space." Additionally, please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, which contains supplemental information from the archeologist dated 2/2000, which concludes that the most recent TTM revisions reflect complete avoidance to CA-ORA-83 through elimination of two lots containing the resources. JES-13 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 1\IROI\VOLT\PROIFMZ1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-156 64. REW-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-4 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-5 The EIR summarizes the technical studies that have been prepared for the proposed project so that those readers that are unfamiliar with the technical terms can better understand the project's effects on the environment. Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation, Section 5.6 Earth Resources, Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology, Section 5.8 Biological Resources, and Section 5.9 Cultural Resources of the EIR represent summaries of technical reports prepared for the project. The actual technical reports were included within the appendices to the EIR. REW-6 The EIR acknowledges that the project and its alternatives could have irreversible repercussions. Please refer to Section 5.0 Environmental Analysis and Section 7.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project. REW-7 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-8 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. REW-9 Please note that the Geotechnical Section is referred to as "Earth Resources" in the City Environmental Checklist Form. The report in its entirety has been summarized within"Earth Resources"Section. REW-10 According to the project geotechnical consultant, based on Plate I (in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA), the ground elevations on-site and nearby vary from about 3 feet below sea level to about 50 feet above sea level. Spot elevations and elevation contours are given on Plate I(in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11). Post-grading configuration is shown on Exhibits 38 v through 41 in the EIR.Pad elevations will from 1.0 feet to 10.2 feet. Additionally, lease refer to the g �' Y P new alternatives,contained in Section 6.7-6.10,Final EIR for elevations. \\IR01\VOL1\PRO]FII.E\1997WN15001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-157 REW-11 Exhibits 38 through 41 of the EIR depict four kinds of mappable fill deposits. Each are delineated and labeled on those exhibits; in addition, the 1997 locations of ephemeral piles of dumped fill are pointed out. PSE (1998) recommends that all existing fills be removed and replaced by engineered fill. Where such cannot be accomplished (for example, along the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel embankment),structural setbacks are recommended to mitigate adverse effects of such fills(PSE, 1998). REW-12 The PSE report(PSE, 1998; and Appendix E of the EIR) describes in some detail the significance of both the kinds and the geotechnical properties of on-site deposits; and provides recommendations to mitigate adverse, where extant,geotechnical properties of those materials. The deposits labeled on Exhibits 38 through 41 as alluvium do include a variety of stream, flood plain, and estuarine deposits; all of which are complexly stratified and are typical of low-relief coastal plains. These deposits thus reflect shallow marine and non-marine environments that stem from coastal climatic and sea-level changes (Shakleton and Opdyke, 1973)during the latest Pleistocene and Holocene eras (last --11,000 years). For example, the "Cone Penetrometer Test Correlation Lines" (Plates H through IV, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume RA) particularly illustrate the lenticular and cut-fill relationships of channel (sand), tidal flat (mixed fine-grained and coarse-grained), and overbank (mainly silts) deposits. These correlation lines, which are in essence cross-sections of the subsurface, are discussed relative to the mapped Bolsa-Fairview (B-F) Fault of the CDWR (1968) in Section 1.0 of this exposition. The remedial grading program outlined by PSE (1998) is directed at the issue of inhomogenity of potentially liquefiable soils. In general terms of the importance of interfaces among the various deposits, during grading all removal "bottoms" will be mapped by this firm to mitigate possible effects of placing structures on materials with different bearing qualities. Differential settlements produced by underlying inhomogenity will be monitored prior to release for construction (PSE 1998, in Appendix E of the EIR). Further mitigation could include additional overexcavation to provide more uniform bearing materials or special designed foundations (for example, post-tensioned or mat foundations). Estimates of anticipated settlements, as well as possible remedial measures are discussed by PSE (1998; Appendix E of the Draft EIR). Also, the presence and engineering characteristics of differing soils (i.e., peat, liquefiable layers) are discussed in the PSE report and Appendix E of the Draft EIR, together with methods of remediating soils that are adverse,from a geotechnical standpoint,to development in their natural state. REW-13 The PSE report contains the exploratory logs of 12 backhoe trenches, eight hollow-stem auger borings, and 65 cone penetrometer soundings that were part of the PSE preliminary investigation. In addition,the logs of exploratory excavations produced during previous explorations (Leroy Crandall and Associates, 1988; Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc., 1996) are contained in the PSE report, and were used during the PSE geotechnical analysis of the site. The reviewer is thus afforded ample information about on-site soils that would be useful for assessment of the site. Additionally, the geologic map of the site(Plate I in PSE 1998 in Appendix E of the Draft EIR;Exhibits 38 through 41 of the EIR) shows the aerial distribution of earth materials (deposits). Aerial photographs that were used for a PSE assessment of faults and general site conditions, as well as a Phase I preliminary site environmental assessment, are not particularly more useful for geotechnical review of the PSE reports than the geologic map(Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) and the site photos that are Exhibits 21 through 24 in \\IR01\VOLI\PROIFQ.E\I997\7N15001\RESPONSEIW-OMNEMCS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-158 the EIR, for agricultural disturbance has continually modified the ground surface throughout the years. The aforementioned site photos(EDAW,Inc., 1998)do depict various deposits. For example, Site Photos A and C show at the extreme left a fill embankment for the existing flood control channel shown on the geologic map as Unit af1, and the recently disced alluvial flats; Site Photo L shows the height and typical hill underlain by the upper Pleistocene deposits (map symbol: Qpu). The ancient stream channels identified in PSE reports,based on explorations, occur at depth, and thus are not discernible on the photographs. The enclosed Cone Penetrometer Test Correlation Lines ("cross- sections") A-A' through C-C' (Plates II through IV) depict various subsurface channels, much like fence diagrams. The relations of inhomogeneous soils to site development were briefly discussed in the response to REW- 12 (page 3-158). By employing standard of practice observation of grading to discern significant soil inhomogenity, remedial measures if required can be implemented in a timely and satisfactory manner. In addition to the possible adverse effects of inhomogeneous soil types, a possible positive effect may also exist. Thin, discontinuous layers of liquefiable soil are less likely to produce surface manifestations of liquefaction than thick continuous layers. Also, for the most part, potentially liquefiable soils are interbedded with non-susceptible soils, thus possibly reducing uplift pressures associated with liquefaction. REW-14 Ground water impacts two principal geotechnical concerns; namely, liquefaction and nuisance construction water. As noted by PSE (1998), and earlier reports by others (see references), semi-perched ground water levels varied both spatially and temporarily. Such differences were ascribed to several possible reasons including local ground-water mining, seasonal fluctuations, local drainage devices ("Slater Drain"), possible faulty measurements, and, most importantly,the scattered and discontinuous nature of lenses and seams of highly permeable sands and less permeable fine-grained soils that locally both convey and temporarily impede the downward migration of incident rain and irrigation waters. Cone Penetrometer Test Correlation Lines A-A'through C-C'illustrate those inhomogenities. Information about water levels appears in the exploratory logs and tables of PSE and previous geotechnical reports (in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, as supplemental information from PSE). The reviewer or user(for example, the biologist)of the PSE reports can use the information as required, or to make maps as necessary. However, such maps were not necessary for the preliminary geotechnical assessment, because a conservative ground water level of six feet below ground surface was used in the PSE(1998)liquefaction potential calculations--even though the water may be transient and even though in some areas the ground water levels were deeper(up to 19 feet deep) than six feet. This conservative estimate provided a "worse-case" impact analysis for CEQA purposes. Thus a contour map was not required. Also, dewatering programs have been implemented to assess the feasibility of and to design a program for pumping of nuisance construction water. The preliminary studies indicate such is feasible. A final procedure must await final tract(s) design and, ultimately, actual field conditions. Other sections of this transmittal contain further discussions of ground water. REW-15 The phrase "In the vicinity of. . ." means in essence that the peat deposit was observed in that boring,but did not continue to adjacent borings for which the logs thereof do not indicate the presence of peat. Of the 53 on-site exploratory excavations, ten are reported to have encountered eat deposits; that is, 19 P ry P P P percent of the excavations exposed peat. One other boring log, LC-3, indicates "traces" of peat at depth. \UR01\VOL1\PROHMZ\1997\7N15001\MSPONSETOCOMI,MNTS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-159 Peat deposits are thus scattered over the site, but the thicker and, therefore, the most important from a geotechnical standpoint, deposits are within about 5 to 6 feet of the surface (Table A, Section 5.0 Final EIR,page 1-2, contained in Volume II). Since all areas of the site are programmed for overexcavation to depths of at least 5 feet,potentially detrimental peat deposits will be removed. For recommended removal depths (or elevations) see Table I of PSE(1998).For the reader's convenience,a copy of Table I from that report follows this page. Overexcavation will not be merely on a lot-to-lot basis,but area-wide, and based on field observations during grading. REW-16 The thickness or depths to the tops and bottoms of peat beds are indicated on the logs. Table A also displays the vertical distribution and thicknesses of peat beds encountered during exploration. REW-17 The descriptions on page 5-120 are of existing conditions. Mitigation measures 1 and 2 are set forth as geotechnically feasible methods for mitigating the potential effects of deleterious peat deposits. NROI%VOLIXMOJFLLEU997VNI-%Ol1MPON5E1000MNMNnWEW.RTC-.DOC 3-160 TABLE I Recommended Overexcavation Depths for Removal Location Bottom Elev. Location Bottom Elev. CP-01 -13 CP-34 -17 CP-02 -15 CP-35 -10 CP-03 -14 CP-36 -10 CP-04 -13 CP-37 -10 CP-05 -14 CP-38 -9 CP-06 -14 CP-39 -3 CP-07 -9 CP40 4 CP-08 -8 CP-41 -8 CP-09 Park Site CP-42 -15 CP-10 Park Site CP-43 -8 CP-11 -7 CP-44 -10 CP-12 -5 CP-45 4 CP-13 -5 CP-46 -12 CP-14 -9 CP47 -14 CP-15 -12 CP48 -16 CP-16 -9 CP49 -10 CP-17 -13 CP-50 -15 CP-18 -9 CP-51 -14 CP-19 -9 CP-52 -8 CP-20 -13 CP-53 -9 CP-21 -3 CP-54 -13 CP-22 -12 CP-55 -10 CP-23 -10 CP-56 -10 CP-24 -10 CP-57 -9 CP-25 -19 CP-58 -9 CP-26 -17 CP-27 -10 CPT-1 -14 CP-28 -4 CPT-2 -14 CP-29 -10 CPT-3 -10 CP-30 -5 CPT-4 -19 CP-31 Park Site CPT-5 -8 CP-32 -9 CPT-6 -8 CP-33 -7 CPT-7 -18 Note: Depths are based on MSL and topography from the 40-scale Grading Plans prepared by Hunsaker &Associates,dated 10/14/97(88 Datum). WR01\VOLT\PROIFH.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOARvIENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-161 REW-18 As depicted in Table A,Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,page 1-2, contained in Volume IIA, P p peat deposits of up to about three feet thick occur in the upper five to six feet of some exploratory excavations.These thick deposits are, of course, significant;PSE has thus recommended removal and off- site disposal of such. The deeper peat strata in the borings noted by the reviewer are thin (a few inches) and have been "surcharged" by about 12.5 feet to 28 feet of sediment. The same applies to the "traces" and scattered organic material that are seemingly disseminated in the soils, rather than concentrated in classic "peat" beds. The impacts of such material at depth are minor and have been accounted for in our settlement estimates. The exploratory excavations and CPT soundings clearly indicate that the peat is concentrated at depths above five to six feet below ground surface, with only local thin deposits at greater depths. The number of borings/trenches seemingly yield enough information to permit a reasonable assessment of the potential impacts of existing peat deposits. In fact, the level of investigation and frequency of borings and CPT soundings far exceed"normal" site investigations. A major task in mitigation (i.e., removal) of peat deposits is observance of overexcavations during grading operations, so that the actual depths and area extent of near-surface peat can be identified and complete removal can be carried out. Further, it may be anticipated that soils containing abundant root holes, such as at five to eight feet in trench T-12, will also be identified and removed. For reference, Table I of PSE (1998) indicates that about 5.5 feet to about 19 feet of removals are anticipated. Such overexcavation is anticipated to mitigate porous near-surface soils, and the aforementioned observance of operations would permit variances from Table I,if unanticipated conditions are encountered. In the context of the vertical distribution of peat, it is not surprising,but indeed expected,that the greatest accumulations of the material should be near the present ground surface, owing to the Pleistocene- Holocene history of the Bolsa Chica Area. As spelled out by PSE (1998): about 12,000 to 20,000 years ago sea level was about 350 to 500 feet below the modern sea level (Figure 7, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA); and Poland, et al. (1956) suggested the existence of channels in the Bolsa Chica Area to 150 feet below the modern ground surface. During that time, and as sea level rose for most of the last 12,000 years, the local depositional environment was relatively high energy and thus not conducive, except locally or for short periods of sea level stability, to the deposition of quiet intertidal/lagoonal deposits (fine-grained) that favor peat accumulation. As sea level rose to its modern levels in the last few thousand years, and as river channels were "drowned," tidal flats/lagoons formed that gave rise to the thick, shallow peat deposits on- and near-site. Such is reflected in the extensive database that reveals major peat deposits exist only within the upper 6 feet on the site. As a consequence, the possibility of significant "undetected" peat deposits, as suggested by Dr. Winchell, is incorrect, thus the suggestion that problems will be associated with undetected peat deposits is also incorrect. REW-19 According to the project geotechnical consultant, PSE(1998; Appendix E of EIR) discussed briefly both the Newport-Inglewood(N-I) fault zone and the Bolsa-Fairview Fault(B-F) as mapped by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR, 1968). PSE also summarized the reasons the B-F is neither included in an Alquist-Priolo (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1986a, 1986b) zone, nor afforded a structural setback on the study site. PSE, however, expands its discussion (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) of the B-F to both respond to the concerns expressed in EIR review comments by Dr. Winchell and to aid future reviewers. This expanded discussion(summarized below and included with exhibits in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, Volume IIA) does not change any analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. The activity-level of the B-F is particularly important because it has been inferred to underlie the study site, hence its importance relative to the potential for fault ground rupture. Review suggests, however, that the CDWR \UROI\VOLI\PRO]FII.EU997\7N15WI\RESPONSETOCOhMMNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-162 criteria for geological recent movement along the B-F (or even its existence) is specious based on both regional and site-specific assessment. Regional Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, the B-F was first mapped at and near the study site by CDWR in 1968 (Figure 1, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) based on several lines of indirect evidence: 1) topography on Huntington Beach Mesa; 2) an inferred 3-meter vertical offset of the lower Holocene to uppermost Pleistocene Bolsa Aquifer; 3) differences in ground water quality in late Pleistocene deposits across the inferred fault, and 4) oil-well data northwest of Bolsa Chica Mesa in the Sunset Beach Oil Field. For reference, the inferred trace of the fault as mapped by the CDWR(1968)is shown on Plate I(in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). The City of Huntington Beach(1995), the State of California (1986a, 1986b), and Bryant(1985) indicate, however, that the fault is not active based on a variety of arguments. A map of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone [Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA, modified from City of Huntington Beach(1995)] depicts the B-F as "inactive or non-existent(sic)." Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that the B-F, if extant, is pre-Holocene. For example, the commonly cited topographic evidence for existence of the fault and of its activity-level on nearby Huntington Beach Mesa is an apparent left-lateral offset drainage course. This deflection is in essence most likely a remnant or antecedent bend in the old drainage course,for lateral slip along elements of the N-I is exclusively dextral or ri2ht-lateral. Further, the assumed 3-meter (-10 feet) offset of the Bolsa Aquifer is based on information interpolated between two water wells about 2500 feet apart (Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) --insufficiently close enough to distinguish fault offset from slight(.23 degrees)regional dip or irregularities in the top and bottom of the Bolsa Aquifer. Differences in ground water quality across the inferred B-F are seemingly detectable in the pre-Holocene (Pleistocene)deposits (Figure 4, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). Those differences, however, are not detectable across the mapped fault in the uppermost Pleistocene to lower-Holocene Bolsa Aquifer (Figure 5, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). As shown on Figure 6, (Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA)the faults mapped at the Sunset Beach Oil Field(California Division of Oil and Gas, 1991)neither trend in the same direction as, nor are they spatially or laterally consistent with, the inferred B-F fault. Further, the cross- section in Figure 6 shows the oil field faults as being pre-middle-Pliocene -- several million years old. Thus,evidence of the B-F northwest of the study site is, at a minimum,equivocal. Site Specific Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, from a site-specific standpoint, examination of both hollowstem-auger borings and CPT soundings in the context of the regional geology suggests that if indeed the B-F is present beneath the surface at the study site, it is pre-Holocene. These explorations allow PSE to synthesize an uppermost Pleistocene to upper Holocene stratigraphic section useful for judging the B-F activity level. Uppermost Pleistocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 2/Lower Stage 1 (Bolsa Aquifer)Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, basal sands that are perhaps 20- to 30-feet thick (CDWR, 1968, Cross-Section G-G; Figure 3, Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume Il) overlie middle to upper Pleistocene deposits (PSE, 1998; Exhibits 38 through 41, EDAW, Inc., 1998) and form the base of unlithified sediments in the upper stratigraphic section at the study site. Based on stratigraphic WROI\VOLl\PROJFa E\1997\7NI5001\RE.SPONSETOCOMbMNTSWEW-M-.DOC 3-163 position, lithology, location, and water-bearing characteristics, PSE correlates this basal unit with the "Bolsa water bearing gravel/sand (Aquifer)" of Poland, et al. (1956) and CDWR (1966, 1968) that was previously considered lower Holocene. However, recent investigations (Law/Crandall, 1994; Shlemon et al., 1995; Grant, et al., 1995) demonstrate that the Bolsa is uppermost Pleistocene rather than Holocene in age. The dating stems from correlation of the basal sands and gravels to the marine oxygen isotope stage chronology and from 10,700 to 11,700 years old radiocarbon dates for immediately overlying sediments. These basal sands/gravels make a rather remarkable time line and marker bed, for they are easily recognizable in boring logs, and have sharp,unique signatures on the CPT soundings. Holocene Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 1 Sediments According to the project geotechnical consultant, lower to upper (modern) Holocene fining upward sediment superposed on the Bolsa basal sands (Aquifer) consists of about 30-to 40-feet of locally fossil- rich, gleyed(unoxidized)clays, silts,fine-to occasionally coarse-grained sands and occasional peat beds. These are alluvial/intertidal/marsh sediments,replete with small outwash channels that were laid down as Holocene sea-level rose. These deposits are locally well stratified and provide good signatures on CPT soundings. Bolsa-Fairview Fault Assessment According to the project geotechnical consultant, for this transmittal, PSE compared or "calibrated" CPT soundings with hollowstem-boring logs to identify and match the "30 to 40 feet basal sands" (Bolsa Aquifer) reported in the boring logs with CPT sounding signatures. Comparison of the boring logs with the CPT soundings showed that the basal sands gave rise to a unique, identifiable CPT sounding signature, and that some Holocene sand/clay beds, also yielded useful "marker" signatures. A commonly used and an increasingly acceptable method of fault exploration (Grant, et al., 1995; Law- Crandall, 1994; Freeman, et al., 1992; PSE, 1996)in areas underlain by saturated sediments is correlation of CPT soundings across a suspected fault,much like the use of E-log correlations in oil field exploration. This firm thus constructed three cross-sections or CPT Correlation Lines across the inferred B-F of CDWR (1968). Although the elevations of the CPT soundings were not surveyed, adequate topographic control was available on Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA. The Bolsa Aquifer does not seem to be offset (faulted) near the inferred trace of the CDWR (1968) B-F based on CPT Correlation Lines A-A' through C-C' (Plates II through IV, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). Rather, the top of the Bolsa seems "undisturbed". And overlying Holocene marker beds are likewise not offset. Near the southwest corner of the site,the Bolsa is five to ten feet deeper than below the rest of the site.By contouring the top of the Bolsa in that area(Plate I, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA), it is clear that the change in depth is not linear,as would be expected if the stratum were offset by a fault. The change is semi-circular, thereby indicating that depositional processes (channeling; topographic controls) account for the differences in depth. Note that the dip of the top of the Bolsa in the area of depth change is but two to three degrees. The exaggerated vertical scale of the CPT Correlation Lines makes the depth changes seem abrupt. Summary According to the project geotechnical consultant, in sum, on-site evidence strongly suggests that, if extant, the B-F is pre-Holocene, and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards; such is consistent with the Class D assignment of the fault (Figure 2, Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA) by the City of Huntington Beach (1995). Further, regional evidence is equivocal for even its existence. Accordingly, no setbacks have been recommended for the inferred B-F of CDWR(1968). kMI\VOLI\PROIFH.Ml997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOhAdENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-164 REW-20 Please refer to the figures included in Section 5.0,Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA.The requested map is provided. REW-21 Per the discussions under above response to REW-19 (page 3-162), the possibility of tectonic ground rupture,including en echelon shears attributable to the B-F, is extremely low to nil. REW-22 The sentence seems to need to be revised by dropping the "of' and "two are" and by adding an "is" after "which". Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA. REW-23 Please refer to above response to REW-19(page 3-162). REW-24 Many definitions of an active fault appear in the geological literature. Usually, for projects such as Parkside Estates, in terms of potential for ground rupture, the CDMG(Hart and Bryant, 1997) definition of an active fault as one that has ruptured the ground surface in the Holocene (last -11,000 years) is applied. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted this criterion. The consensus of the geological literature and site-specific evidence indicates that the B-F, if extant, has not slipped in the Holocene. Only equivocal evidence even suggest the existence of the B-F. REW-25 The B-F has been reported,but not proven to be, on-site. The geological evidence indicates that the fault, if extant, is not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards. Rather, on-site explorations yield positive evidence that the inferred fault does not affect uppermost Pleistocene and Holocene sediment. Potential for ground rupture arising from that fault is thus extremely low to nil. REW-26 For engineering purposes, estimates of possible ground motions, such as horizontal acceleration, are usually submitted. Paragraph 4, page 5-121 sets forth possible ground acceleration derived from several methods, each with varying amounts of conservatism. Ground acceleration is particularly useful for liquefaction potential and structural engineering analyses. For the reader, however, a table of intensity (Table B, in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,page 2-3,contained in Volume IIA) is included in the document. For reference, the City of Huntington Beach (1995) indicates possible intensities of XI for the entire gap(flat land)areas and XI+along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. Note that the level of damage as measured by intensity varies with the kinds of buildings. Modern, code-consistent, engineered buildings are planned for the site. For a complete discussion of site seismicity, the reader is referred to PSE(1998)in Appendix E of the EIR. REW-27 In 1997, the State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology issued Special Publication 117 (SP 117), Guidelines for Evaluating; and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in \VROI\VOLI\PROJFH-M199T7N15001\RFSPONSETOCOMME;NTSUNEW-RTC-.DOC 3-165 California. PSE has analyzed the site and provided recommendations to mitigate the site in accordance with those guidelines. That publication stands as the most definitive document to date to establish both means to analyze and to define appropriate mitigation goals. The objective of the Guidelines,as stated on Page 2 of that document, are twofold: • "To assist in the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigations; and • To promote uniform effective statewide implementation of the evaluation and mitigation elements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act." The Guidelines define mitigation as "Those measures that are consistent with established practice and reduce seismic risk to'acceptable levels'." Acceptable levels of risk are defined as "that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the project." Minimum Statewide Safety Standards are defined, based on the above definitions of mitigation and acceptable risk. "The minimum level of mitigation for a project such as this should reduce the risk of ground failure during an earthquake to a level that does not cause the collapse of buildings for human occupancy,but in most cases,NOT to a level of no ground failure at all." The mitigation scheme prepared for the Parkside Estates project includes: • Overexcavation and replacement of 5 to 19 feet of site soils; and • Utilization of post-tensioned slab/foundations or mat foundations designed to withstand differential settlements of 2-inches in 30 feet. These mitigation recommendations are consistent with the Guidelines and are similar, if not more extensive, than similar residential projects in Huntington Beach and other nearby communities. Implementation of these measures will reduce the risk of seismic hazards to acceptable levels consistent with the State guidelines. SP117 suggests that, "localized differential settlements on the order of up to two-thirds of the total settlements anticipated should be assumed unless more precise predictions of differential settlement can be made." The Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC) in preparing its 1999 publication, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of SP117 suggest, " . . . in the absence of extensive site investigation, that the minimum differential settlement on the order of one-half of the total settlement be used in the design." The investigation of this site can be characterized as "extensive" and upon completion of remedial grading, total dynamic settlements of 1 to 4 inches have been estimated. The design of structures for 2- inches over a span of 30 feet is consistent with the recommendations of SP117 and the SCEC guidelines. REW-28 "Level of significance" is not in the geotechnical nomenclature; its use in the EIR is from a CEQA planning perspective, or a measure of change within a project's environmental setting. From a geotechnical standpoint, as discussed above, the State of California has defined "mitigation" and "acceptable level of risk." Structures designed in consideration of and capable of withstanding differential settlements up to 2-inches in 30 feet and overall settlements on the order of 4-inches are expected to protect occupants from injury due to structural failure. Cracking of slabs and foundations and tilting of \11R01\VOLI\PRO]FIl.E\1997\7N150011RESPONSEfO(.' MMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-166 structures could occur as a consequence of a major seismic event in proximity to the site and ground shaking and damage to non-structural possessions remains a significant risk, as is the case throughout Southern California and other seismically active areas. Site remediation has been proposed for all areas of the site including below infrastructure.In fact, deeper remediation is programmed along the alignment of some storm drains and sewers to facilitate construction. After remediation, anticipated seismic settlements are unlikely to significantly affect utilities, although individual agencies supplying services such as gas and electric should be advised of anticipated post-grading. REW-29 Please refer to above response to REW-28 (page 3-166). REW-30 The majority of the recommended site remediation is aimed at mitigation of liquefaction hazards. The major peat concentrations are in the upper 5 to 6 feet, and thus will necessarily be removed in accomplishing the recommended site overexcavation/recompaction (PSE, 1998). As shown in Table I, PSE, 1998 in Appendix E of the EIR, depths of removal will vary from elevation minus 3 to elevation minus 19. REW-31 It is generally recognized that an important factor influencing whether liquefaction is manifested at the ground surface is the thickness of the mantle of non-liquefiable soil above the liquefiable layers. If the mantle of non-liquefiable soil is sufficiently thick, the uplift force due to the excess pore water pressure will not be large enough to cause a breach in the surface layers. Thus, there will be no surface expression. Wave amplification is a phenomenon generally associated with a free-face (i.e., slope) or an inclined material discontinuity. No significant slopes are proposed within the project and the fills will be comprised of a relatively uniform thickness. Densification of surface soils to render them non-liquefiable by overexcavation and recompaction (man-made fills) is a recognized method of liquefaction mitigation and is the preferred technique for the subject site. REW-32 Please refer to above responses to REW-27 and REW-28(pages 3-165 to 3-166). REW-33 Please refer to above responses to REW-27 and REW-28 (pages 3-165 to 3-166). REW-34 Any potential for landsliding will, and can feasibly, be mitigated if the recommendations in the PSE reports are included in design and construction. Additionally,please refer to above response to OCPD-16(page 3-89),regarding landsliding. REW-35 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. WR01\VOLT\PROJFRB\1997\7N15001\SLESPONSEfOCOAMIENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-167 - Additionally,please refer to above response to JV-1 (page 3-30), in Section 3.1, regarding Historical Site Usage document. REW-36 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 65. JDV-1 through JDV-3 Please refer to the above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding on-site wetlands issues. As indicated below in JDV-5 on this page, in light of subsequent determinations,the EPA wetlands determination has been superseded. Additionally, the governmental agencies have examined the site and concluded that except as identified in the Draft EIR,the site does not contain wetlands. JDV-4 The wetlands assessment conducted by Tom Dodson&Associates (TDA)was a field check conducted as part of a "Verification/Update of Wetland Determinations for TT#15377" (i.e., the 45-acre City parcel). The data observed in the field were consistent with the findings of the previous studies, therefore no additional data records were retained. Further,the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer visited the site with Ms. Kegarice of TDA as part of their field verification process. Ms. Kegarice would expect those data are in the decision file for this project located at the Los Angeles District Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer. JDV-5 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding the Army Corps and NRCS' conclusions on wetlands issues on the project site. The governmental agencies have examined the site and concluded that except as identified in the EIR, the site does not contain wetlands. In light of subsequent determinations,the EPA wetlands determination has been superseded. Regarding input/comment from EPA, Tom Yocom, the person involved in the 1989 EPA delineation, is employed at the San Francisco Federal EPA Region 9 office. Both Tom Yocom and Bruce Henderson indicated that the Federal EPA is not required to review the Parkside Estates Draft EIR and would rarely review an EIR unless it involved large Federal jurisdictional issues. The Federal EPA does have jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to designate "special case areas." In 1989, the EPA designated Bolsa Chica as a "special case area." The purpose of this was so the EPA could complete a wetland delineation for the Bolsa Chica Area. After that delineation was published and adopted in 1989, the special case designation ended. At that point in time,the Army Corps of Engineer became the primary agency for dealing with jurisdictional issues under the Clean Water Act of 1972. Subsequent to the 1989 delineation, Bruce Henderson indicated that the Corps was provided with additional data and they were requested to make determinations under the Clean Water Act on areas covered by the 1989 delineation (including the MWD parcel). Based on data, which the Corps shared with the EPA and Tom Yocom, the 1992 reclassification of 8.3 acres as"Prior Converted Cropland"was made on the MWD parcel. The EPA was fully informed of the Corps determination. Additionally, County of Orange staff indicated that the Federal EPA did not provide written comments on the 1994 or 1996 EIRs on Bolsa Chica LCP. After reviewing the Scott White letter report,the City sees no need to change the conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding the presence of wetlands on the site. There is not a Federal clearinghouse for EIR distribution. The Federal EPA oversees the publication of NEPA EIS documents in the Federal Registrar. If City staff believes that a project requires any \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFH,MI997\7N15001\RE.SPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-168 permitting or approval from Federal agencies such as the Army Corps (permit authority for wetlands), or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife(permit authority for endangered species), etc. then those agencies are typically sent copies of the project's environmental document for review. The Parkside Estates EIR was sent to several federal agencies including the Army Corps and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, page 99 of the commentor's attachment (e-mail from Tom Yocom of EPA) reveals additional solicitation from the EPA with their (EPA) reply being that it is not their (EPA)jurisdiction, but rather the Corps of Engineer. JDV-6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The commentor is listing/referring attachments to his letter. Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-7 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The commentor is listing/referring attachments to his letter. Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-8 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally,please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-9 According to TDA and based on their review of the rainfall data provided in this comment, the jurisdictional delineations conducted on this parcel determined the site to have been isolated from historical hydrological sources: a) a fresh water channel to the north where a residential development (tract# 5792) has diverted the historical flows from the site; and b) tidal influence due to historic filling of the site and the construction of the EGGW Channel to the south. Additionally, it should be noted that an updated wetland delineation was performed by LSA for the 4.5-acre County parcel on May 21, 2002 (refer to Volume IIA). The report concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel.The updated report included rainfall data from 1959 to 2000. Further, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (Corps) is the regulatory agency with authority over "jurisdictional wetlands". Jurisdictional wetlands is a term of art which essentially means those wetlands that the Corps has regulatory jurisdiction over. A jurisdictional determination conducted by a consultant must be verified by the Corps because they have ultimate authority. The Corps determined a City portion of the site to be prior converted crop lands in 1992. Following the Farm Bill in 1996 a Memorandum of Understanding between the Corps and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly Soil Conservation Service, was established that relinquished the jurisdictional determination on farmed lands from the Corps to the NRCS. Because of the change in what agency makes the jurisdictional call for farmlands,and the subject parcel is a farmland; the Corps related \UMI\VOLI\PROJFUZ1997VN15WlU\F.SPONSETOWMNffiNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-169 its data to NRCS in 1998 who then confirmed the 1992 determination of Prior Converted Cropland. Therefore,by definition,this City portion of the site does not have any jurisdictional wetlands. JDV-10 Page 2 of the FH&A Biological Assessment (Appendix G of the EIR) outlines the dates of the five (5) field visits made by the project biologist. The fieldwork performed for this project is more than adequate to satisfy CEQA requirements. It is the opinion of the project biologist that the plant species described in the December 10, 1997 report are representative of the species which occur on the project site. The addition of the two plant species listed by the commentor would not change the conclusions of the report relative to the biological sensitivity of the site nor would it change the conclusions of the December 17, 1997 Wetland Determination prepared by Tom Dodson & Associates (TDA). The TDA work included review of prior delineations, collection of vegetation data and digging soil pits to check for indicators of hydric soils;tasks which the Scott White Study indicates were not completed by him. The site had been left fallow for much of the overall period during which visits were conducted, and most of the plants in question are not annual or ephemeral species, but rather are low, woody perennials. Therefore, visits made in the late part of the year, following the season of vegetative production, would easily detect such plants,were they present. The report noted the presence of Salicornia(pickleweed) over portions of the site, and as this species is a halophyte--an indicator of saline soils--it may or may not be an indicator of wetland habitat. It frequently occurs in dense formations on dredging spoils, particularly where seasonal rainfall elevates and concentrates salts in the upper soil profile. Its presence within the agricultural areas, which were capped with soils from the Wintersburg channel, is as likely a reflection of the salinity of the soil as of the presence of remnant wetlands habitats. It was documented in the report that the soils in the field were elevated with fill,to a level at least one meter higher than that of the(presumed)natural grade on the O.C. portion of the parcel. The other species mentioned by the commentor (Lythrum) is a non-native (European origin) invasive species which is considered to be a facultative wetland plant. Like the Salicomia, it frequently occurs in non-wetland habitats with saline soils or in areas where runoff or wastewater accumulates. Its presence on the site is indicative of nothing other than the fact that saline soils are present and that runoff accumulation occurs.This was fully discussed within the EIR biological section. It also may be noted that the site was revisited following the submittal of the report upon which the comments were made; several brief visits were conducted in 1998 and 1999, in March and July. During both of these visits the entire area in question was planted and maintained in active agriculture, mostly producing zucchini squash. There were no areas of native vegetation retained within the footprint of the agriculture. JDV-11 Please refer to above response to JDV-5 (page 3-168). Additionally, the project applicant has complied with the Rivers and Harbor Act jurisdictional issues. Please refer to the attachment, dated August 11, 1999, which is located at the end of Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume HA. The provisional Letter of Permission (LOP) is subject to Coastal Commission approval of the project. \\IR01\VOLI\PRORIE \199T7NI5Wi\RF.SPONSEfOCOMMENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-170 JDV-12 It should be noted that the commentor's reference is to the County's 1986 Land Use Plan (LUP) not the official LCP. It was certified by the Coastal Commission but is not considered by the County to be the current"representative plan" for Bolsa Chica. Additionally, since a majority of the Parkside Estates site (±45 acres) is within the City limits, this 1986 plan is not the applicable land use plan. Rather the City's General Plan as shown on Exhibit 16 of the EIR is the current land use plan for the±45acre City parcel of the proposed project. JDV-13 Please refer to above response to MW-lb(page 3-66),regarding Bolsa-Fairview Fault. Additionally,please refer to the above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-14 Please refer to the above response to NM-2 (page 3-73), regarding ESHA issues. The County parcel contains 0.13 acre of the ESHA along the most westerly boundary. The original plan and the proposed alternative plans do not impact/proposed removal of this ESHA. JDV-15 On April 16, 1999,the California Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to remand the Bolsa Chica LCP back to the Coastal Commission for consideration. The Court determined that the trial court erred in finding that the relocation of raptor habitat was permissible, although it upheld the Commission's approval of the LCP in all other respects (Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al. v. The California Coastal _Commission, Court of Appeal, No. D029461, No. D030270). The action by the County on April 16, 1999 designated the westerly 0.13-acre portion of the 4.5-acre site as Conservation in order to preserve the eucalyptus trees identified as the Fish and Game designated ESHA. The Appellate Court's finding -that the eucalyptus grove could not, as a bird habitat, be legally relocated -led the Court to remand the LCP back to the Coastal Commission for further consideration. The proposed borrow site shown on Exhibit 15 of the EIR is not located within the eucalyptus grove ESHA. Also, as indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR, if the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has environmental clearances to allow fill dirt export. However, no other specific source of borrow has been identified. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from existing residential streets to the north. Refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the haul route. JDV-16 The California Coastal Communities are aware of the proposed project. They have reviewed the Draft EIR and provided no comments to the City of Huntington Beach. \llROI\VOLI\PROIFII.E\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMI;NTSWEW-RTC-DOC 3-171 JDV-17 Although not required by CEQA to be part of an EIR, fiscal impact analyses for the development of the 4.5-acre County parcel have been conducted as part of annexation application requirements and are available at the City Department of Planning. The results of the studies concluded the proposed project would result in a positive fiscal impact to the City. Additionally, regarding library impacts, pages 10 and 11 of the project Initial Study, contained in Appendix A of the EIR, address library impacts. JDV-18 The EIR acknowledges that implementation of the proposed project may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. As discussed in Section 5.1 Land Use of the EIR, in order to reduce this impact to a level less than significant, mitigation was provided, requiring that the applicant satisfy the City's policy requiring 10 percent of proposed units to be affordable. The mitigation measure offers the choice of three (3) methods for meeting the City's requirement. This mitigation must be satisfied subject to the discretion of the City Department Planning. It is the City's standard mitigation measure for affordable housing and has been implemented on several prior projects to the satisfaction of the City. At this time, the City Council has not adopted an affordable housing fee. The standard condition/mitigation measure includes language regarding a fee should one be adopted. JDV-19 Please refer to above response to MW-lb(page 3-66),regarding pre-Holocene Bolsa-Fairview Fault. JDV-20 Please refer to above response to OCPD-13 (page 3-88), regarding water quality impacts and proposed BMP's. With respect to consideration of the USFWS recommendation to provide a vegetated detention basin; as indicated in the EIR and above response to MJL-5 (page 3-140), this site has been zoned for development of single family housing since 1971 and it is currently shown with the same designation on the City's zoning map. According to the project civil engineer, the County of Orange has prepared a Project Report as related to their facility C05 (EGGW Channel)in which the Channel is proposed to be upgraded to carry a 100-year flood and does not include any provision for a retention basin. The EGGW Channel is a County of Orange facility and all issues due to ramification of capacity upgrades should be addressed by the County. JDV-21 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-22 It is the opinion of the project biologist that the City parcel does not contain natural habitats and the statements on page 5-149 of the EIR are accurate. Vegetation including agricultural fields (under cultivation or maintenance since 1952) ruderal plants and eucalyptus trees do not constitute "natural" habitats. Temporary habitat values can be created by the presence of standing water on most any site; however, the sole presence of standing water on an area (and the creation of temporary habitat values) does not constitute a"natural"habitat. \VROIWOLIIPROJFII-"\i997\7N15OOlU SPONSETOCOMNMNTSINEWRTG.DOC 3-172 JDV-23 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. JDV-24 The mitigation measure has been revised to allow for on-site restoration (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-162, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, please refer to responses to MW-2 (page 3-73), USFWS-7 (page 3-194), and MW-lc (page 3-69)regarding the new alternatives,detention basin, and wetlands issues. JDV-25 The EIR school impact analysis and proposed mitigation measures are developed utilizing information and input provided by the School Districts which will provide service to the project. It is common practice and prudent for EIR preparers to solicit written information from School Districts which may be impacted by a project. Page 5-175 of the EIR references these correspondences from the school districts. The purpose of the Draft EIR is to disclose the impact in accordance with established criteria(see page 5- 179), which would result from a project's implementation and not to specify the details how the future students would be accommodated. Both School Districts were sent copies of the Draft EIR and the City did not receive any comments regarding the adequacy of the impact analysis or proposed mitigation provided in the Draft EIR. County certified EIR 551 analyzed the specific school impacts that would result from the Bolsa Chica Mesa development and proposed mitigation measures for the identified impacts. The school districts have considered the cumulative buildout of surrounding development including the Bolsa Chica Mesa in providing the EIR consultant with information to be included in the Draft EIR. Pages 5-185 and 5-190 identify cumulative impacts. Lastly, it should be noted that mitigation agreements between developers and the school districts typically go beyond the State's required fee program and are therefore, encouraged by cities and school districts. JDV-26 Relocation of the Heil Station to Graham and Production Lane and one additional fire company needed at the Graham and Production Lane were not due to Parkside Estates project. The additional fire company is attributed to the new station's overall growth and to accommodate better response time. Regarding service provision to the Parkside Estates project, according to correspondence with the Huntington Beach Fire Department,they have concluded that the response time from Warner Station#7(page 5-179 of EIR) is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint if the proposed residential units contain automatic sprinkler systems. The applicant has agreed to install automatic sprinkler systems per the Fire Department's requirements. Page 5-179 outlines the source of funding for the relocation of the Heil Avenue Station to Graham and Production Lane. Lastly, it should be noted that the Huntington Beach Fire Department has accepted Mitigation Measure I as adequate to reduce potential fire related impacts to levels less than significant. The mitigation does not only require"consultation"as noted by the commentor. \\IRO1\VOLI\PROJFa,C\1997\7Nl5OOl\RESPONSETOOC)MM?NfS\NEW-RTG.DOC 3-173 JDV-27 Please refer to above response to MC4(page 3-78),regarding County parcel water service issues. JDV-28 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, annexation of the County piece into the City will require LAFCO's approval. The annexation will also be considered by the City Council. JDV-29 As indicated in the Draft EIR and response MC-5 (page 3-78), the City parcel contains no wetlands, and therefore, no impacts or alternatives have been identified for this issue (i.e., wetlands on City parcel). Refer to response MW-2 (page 3-73) and Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 6-32 to 6-108, contained in Volume 11,regarding the new proposed alternatives. JDV-30 Please refer to above response to JDV-15 (page 3-171). JDV-31 Please refer to above response to NW-lb(page 3-66),regarding pre-Holocene Bolsa-Fairview Fault. JDV-32 Please refer to above response to JDV-18 (page 3-172). JDV-33 Please refer to above response to JDV-26(page 3-173). Additionally, it should be noted that the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in single family dwellings (under 5,000 square feet) is not a standard fire code requirement. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II for the revision to mitigation measure 1 on page 5-187. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. JDV-34 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 66. JLHa-1 Page 5-74 of the EIR has been revised in response to the comment. (Refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. \VROI\VOLIIPROHMM1997\7N15001TRESPONSETOCOMMLNTSWEW-RTGAOC 3-174 Regarding opening of Greenleaf, the project developer is not proposing public access to Greenleaf. Additionally,please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding City Staff s proposed Condition of Approval. 67. JLHb-1 In regard to EIR references to the Land Use Element (LUE) referencing a development density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre for property designate RL (Low Density Residential), it is acknowledged that these references should be 7.0 dwelling units per net acre. The EIR calculates density on a net acre basis. The letter states that "the development standards for RL designated properties includes "Minimum Building Site Requirements" of 6,000 sq. ft. and 60 ft. width." The developer has submitted an application for lot sizes that are less than 6,000 square feet in area and 60 feet in width under the Planned Unit development provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The staff has determined that the proposed project meets the necessary zoning ordinance criteria to be a Planned Unit Development. Detailed analysis of the applicant's proposal for a Planned Unit Development will be presented in the Staff Report for the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission has the discretion to approve the application for a Planned Unit Development, condition the project to be revised or deny the project based on findings. JLHb-2 With respect to the comment regarding the granting of variances, there are no variances required for the proposed project pursuant to Chapter 241 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Code. Requests for lot area that is less than 6,000 square feet and lot width less than 60 feet are being processed as part of the application for a Planned Unit Development. 68. CCC-1 (Also prepared letter 5 within Section 4.3 of this document) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. CCC-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The Parkside Estates project is not proposed to be a "locked gate" private community. The streets are proposed to be public. Please refer to Exhibit 6a-1,which depicts the proposed street sections. CCC-3 Page 5-30 of the EIR has been revised in response to the comment. (Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Please refer to page 3-33 of the EIR which indicates that any proposed development on the site would require a Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission. CCC-4 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. \VR01\VOLI\PROJFH.E\1997WN15001V2ESPONSETOCOM,MNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-175 Additionally, please refer to the above responses to MJL-5 (page 3-140) and JDV-15 (page 3-171), regarding the history of the site's zoning and General Plan designation and its relationship to Bolsa Chica LCP. CCC-5 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally,please refer to the below responses to CCC-6 through CCC-10 on this page for references to discussions regarding"on-site wetlands"and"grading of the mesa"issues. CCC-6 and CCC-7 Please refer to above response to MW-2 (page 3-73), regarding the new alternatives proposed. Additionally, please refer to JDV-15 (page 3-171), regarding the proposed import of 210,000 of cubic yards of fill from the mesa and the alternative"borrow site"discussion included in the Draft EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that an alternative that avoids mass grading is not necessary, because no major landform alteration is proposed as part of the project. CCC-8,CCC-9 and CCC-10 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Additionally,it should be noted that after reviewing the Scott White letter report,the City sees no need to change the conclusions of the Draft EIR regarding the presence of wetlands on the site. CCC-11 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, the wetlands on the 4.5-acre County parcel have been addressed through prior environmental documentation (refer to Section 3.4 of the EIR). The EIR conclusions regarding wetlands in the 4.5-acre County parcel are consistent with the certified EIR 551 conclusions regarding wetlands on this parcel. As part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002)and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area (refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume ILA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland) will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Additionally, it is the City's understanding that the State Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over wetlands at the State level, as stated in response MC-5 (page 3-78). The Fish and Game letter, dated June 15, 1998,outlines their response regarding on-site wetlands. WR01\VOLT\PROJPIIE1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSVEW-RTC-.DOC 3-176 CCC-12 and CCC-13 As stated above under CCC-6 (page 3-176), the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document does include new alternatives to the project, which avoid impacts to the County EPA delineated wetlands area and the patchy pickleweed. CCC-14,CCC-15 and CCC-16 Exhibits 5a and 5b have been added to the EIR in response to this comment (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume lI). This addition to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. The exhibits depict the conceptual park plan and trails and bike path plan for the original project. The trails and bike path plan (or "Public Access Plan") indicates how pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be able to access the neighborhood park and open space areas. Additionally, the new alternatives to the Draft EIR depict the proposed trail/access on Exhibit 57 and Exhibit 70 (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR (pages 6-59 and 6-94)contained in Volume I1). Additionally, as stated in response to CCC-2(page 3-175),the project is not proposed to be gated. CCC-17 According to the project traffic engineer, the project's traffic study included projected traffic volumes from the Bolsa Chica Development. The project does not cause study intersections or street segments to operate at unacceptable levels of service. Please refer to page 9, Table 2 of the traffic study contained in Appendix B of the EIR. Additionally, Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 21, 2001 that includes previously omitted cumulative developments (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). CCC-18 Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 of Section 5.9 have been revised in response to the comment. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 5-172 to 5-173, contained in Volume II. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. CCC-19 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 69. LAFCO-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. LAFCO-2 The Draft EIR text has been revised in response to the comment (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 3- 23, 3-32, 3-34, 5-178, and 5-183, contained in Volume 11). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. LAFCO-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. \VROI\VOLT\PROIFQ.E\199T7N15001\RESPONSETOCONU,AENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-177 s 70. RPA-1 (Also prepared letter 12 within Section 4.3 of this document) Please refer to above responses to BCLT-15 (page 3-122) and BCLT-50(page 3-133)regarding the Draft EIR's analysis of cumulative impacts. Both projects listed in the comment letter (i.e., mesa ± 1,200 homes and the residential development at the Meadowlark Airport) were listed in Section 4.5 of the EIR. Please note that the development at the Meadowlark Airport Site is referred to as Catellus Residential in the Draft EIR. These projects were also part of the"quantified"cumulative traffic and noise analysis. For the proposed project, quantification of transportation and circulation and noise cumulative effects were analyzed through the use of: 2020 traffic volume projections obtained from the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis (Please refer to page 5-76 of the EIR). These traffic volumes were approved for use by the City of Huntington Beach. Mitigation Measure 5 of the EIR is proposed to reduce the project's incremental contribution to cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level. As indicated by the CEQA requirements outlined in BCLT-15 (page 3-122), the EIR approach and conclusion are clearly consistent with CEQA Guidelines. Cumulative impacts are discussed as appropriate in various individual EIR chapters and in the relevant Technical Appendices (e.g., traffic, drainage and flood control, cultural resources,etc.). Additionally, according to the project traffic engineer, the traffic impact study for the project includes cumulative impacts from the Holly Seacliff project and the Meadowlark Airport project as required by the City of Huntington Beach. Also, the March 29, 2001 study has been revised to reflect the reduced residential units(171 total units)proposed under the reduced density new alternative plans analyzed in the June 2001 New Alternative to the Draft EIR document. Otherwise, traffic conditions in the area have not changed significantly since the original traffic study was prepared. The results of the revised traffic study do not change the conclusions or mitigation requirements of the Draft EIR. RPA-2 As requested in the Resource Preservation Alliance comment letter on the NOP, Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation does address the proposed traffic light at the entrance to the project and its potential for being inherently dangerous under current conditions.As described on pages 5-73 and 5-74 of the EIR, a sight distance analysis was performed. According to the EIR, signalization of Graham Street/"A" Street (required by Mitigation Measure 2) would eliminate left turn safety concerns at this location. Additionally, the project entry has been redesigned under the new alternatives and includes a landscape median at the entry road with a 50-foot landscaped paseo park. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 52 (page 6-53) and Exhibit 67 (page 6-90), contained in Volume IIA, and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. Also to further enhance safety at the project access, Mitigation Measure 4 was proposed to improve the operation on Graham Street from Glenstone to Warner Avenue. This mitigation would result in the restriping of the roadway within existing pavement widths. The restriping would preserve 7-foot bikelanes and incorporate a 14-two-way left turning median along this span. As required in the City of Huntington Beach's Traffic Impact Analyses Guidelines, Darnell and Associates,Inc performed a review of accident history in the project area, which is summarized in.Section 5.3 of the EIR. In response to questions raised about the addition of new traffic from the proposed development, the City has reviewed the Traffic Collision History Report (Section 5.0 Final EIR) for the past ten years for the intersections of Graham Street and Warner Avenue, Graham Street and Glenstone Drive, and Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive. Additionally, accident data information was included within Section 5.3,Transportation/Circulation of the EIR. A review of all collision reports for Graham Street at the noted intersections indicates that only one fatality has occurred along this reach of Graham due to traffic related incidents. This involved a \UROI\VOL1WR07FEE\1997\7N15001URESPONSETOCOASENTSV4EW-RTC-DM 3-178 pedestrian and vehicle and was not due to congestion. The reports indicate that nearly all of the collisions occurred due to motor vehicle operational violations such as unsafe speed, failure to yield, unsafe lane changes,unsafe passing,driving under the influence and illegal turns. There is no evidence to support the contention that the addition of new traffic at these intersections will result in unsafe conditions or unmitigated levels of service that would result in additional traffic hazards or significant impacts. RPA-3 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding the proposed "Condition of Approval" that would prevent opening of the fire access at Greenleaf Lane to through traffic in the future. RPA-4 Please refer to above response to DR-4 (page 3-75),regarding the "Current Proposal" for a wall along the northerly property boundary. Additionally, as identified within the Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed project will establish new land use relationships with adjacent land uses. However, the EIR goes further to state (with back up analysis)that the proposed project's density is less than the densities of single-family residential land uses surrounding the site, and less than the multi-family residential located north of the site. Lastly, it should be noted that the proposed rear yard setbacks of the homes, which would back up to the Kenilworth Drive Homes generally range from 40' to 46' (with one lot having a 37' rear year setback). These rear yard setbacks exceed the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code rear yard setback requirement of 10'. Please also refer to the new alternatives (Final EIR Sections 6.7 -6.10, pages 6-32 to 6-108), which include new configurations for the rear yard setbacks of the homes backing up to the Kenilworth Drive Homes. RPA-5 According to the project civil engineer,the majority of the drainage system would be constructed prior to the rainy season and will be in place to carry the on-site and off-site drainage during the following winter months. After the proposed system has been completed, all of the local systems will be capable of conveying more flow than that of the existing systems. The condition of the surrounding neighborhood will remain unaffected during construction of the storm drain system. The City will require (as a standard condition of approval) bonding for all public improvements prior to final map recordation. Early studies evaluated the possibility of constructing a new pump station within the Shea Project; however, it was determined that the addition of a new pump within the existing Slater Pump Station would be more beneficial for the overall regional drainage system. (Please refer to Page 5-140 of the EIR). RPA-6 According to the project civil engineer, the statement made about the claim by Shea Homes is incorrect. The storm drain system will be installed before streets can be paved. Storm drain construction will be the first item after grading,with storm drain installation and grading happening concurrently in some areas. \VROI\VOLI\PRO]FQE\1997VN15001\RESPONSET000&fMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-179 As stated above, a bond will be posted with the City to cover 100% of the estimated costs of all public improvements prior to commencement of work. RPA-7 Please refer to above response to JDV-17 (page 3-172), regarding fiscal impacts analyses performed for the proposed project. RPA-8 In accordance with Section 15064(e) of CEQA, the EIR does not address the potential for economic changes (i.e., property values) to adjacent properties. Section 15064(e) states in part, that economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Additionally, even if an analysis were to be conducted, it would be speculative at this point to attempt to quantify property value differentials positively or negatively as they might be experienced by any adjacent property owner. RPA-9 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. With respect to the commentor's concern regarding a clear definition of what constitutes a "Less than significant impact," it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. As has been done on prior EIR's prepared for projects in the City, the preparers of the Draft EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. Lastly,please refer to responses below, which address the specific issues addressed in the comment letter. RPA-10 In accordance with City of Huntington Beach practice, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was sent via US Mail to property owners within 500-feet of the project site. Section 3.7 of the EIR outlines the requested discretionary actions for the project. Additionally, please refer to Section 2.0 of this document entitled "Public Participation and Review," which details the public involvement process for this project. This process exceeds both City and CEQA requirements for public notification and involvement. CEQA does not require surrounding property owners to be notified via mail. Additionally, the City sends notice when hearings, such as for CUPS, are scheduled not when applications are filed. RPA-11 EDAW is under contract with the City of Huntington Beach. In regards to the hiring of EDAW as the EIR consultant, upon the determination that an EIR be prepared for the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach staff used the common and customary process of hiring a consultant. In July 1997, the Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach sent a request for proposal (RFP) to four environmental consulting firms. These firms were, the Planning Center, The Chambers Group, Urban Vision,and EDAW,Inc. The Planning Division received and evaluated the proposals from the consulting firms and determined that EDAW's proposal was superior to the other proposals in its response to the City's RFP. On August 18, 1997, EDAW received a letter from the City of Huntington Beach Planning \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFILE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOM MNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-180 Division indicating that staff reviewed EDAW's proposal and was recommending to Council that EDAW be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report. On September 15, 1997, staff recommended that the City Council approve a contract between the City and EDAW, Inc. for preparation of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the proposed Parkside Estates residential project. The Council approved the staff s recommendation unanimously. It should also be noted that prior studies, research, and analysis conducted by EDAW were not in "an effort to receive Negative Declaration Status" as stated in the comment. These prior studies, research, and analysis were completed as part of the City's Initial Study Checklist, which EDAW was assisting the City prepare to determine the type of CEQA documentation necessary for the Parkside Estates Project. EDAW has assisted the City with several Initial Study Documents for projects in the same manner that was completed for the Parkside Estates Project. RPA-12 With respect to the commentor's concern that the Draft EIR concludes there will be no significant unavoidable impacts of the project after mitigation, it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. Per the City's direction, the preparers of the Draft EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. RPA-13 and RPA-14 Please refer to above response to BCLT-7 (page 3-118), regarding CEQA requirements for Alternatives Analysis of the EIR. Additionally, based on this comment and others received on the Draft EIR, additional alternatives have been added to the EIR. Refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,pages 6-32 to 6-108,contained in Volume H for a discussion of the new alternatives. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Drat EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that the 9-hole golf course is not considered due to the fact that the project is not anticipated to cause significant unmitigated project specific and cumulative impacts related to flooding. Please refer to above response to MW-2(page 3-73),regarding the new alternative plans. As indicated in RPA-1 (page 3-178) above, the cumulative impact analysis provided in the Draft EIR is adequate and included the Catellus and Koll Projects. Lastly, as indicated in J&GB2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61) above, the possible secondary access connections were deemed not feasible and not environmentally superior for several reasons, and not a single "speed limit"issue. RPA-15 Please refer to above responses to JLHb-1 and JLHb-2 (page 3-175), regarding LUE and Zoning Ordinance lot size and density issues. \VR01\VOLT\PRO7MZ%1997\7N15001\RESPONSEPDCOARvffiNTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-181 RPA-16,RPA-17,and RPA-18 All of these comments suggest additional alternatives, which the commentor believes should have been included in the Draft EIR. Please refer to above responses to BCLT-7 (page 3-118), regarding CEQA requirements for Alternatives Analysis, and to MW-2 (page 3-73),regarding the new alternatives, which have been added to the EIR in response to comments on the Draft EIR and the new information on FEMA and Coastal Commission decision. Additionally, with respect to the alternative suggested in comment RPA-16, the project will not result in significant land use compatibility impacts and changing lot sizes would not change project impacts in any significant way. The average lot size for the new alternatives is as follows: 1) for Alternatives 6 and 7 average lot size for estate lots is 7,359 and for parkside lots is 5,631 (overall average lot size is 6,495) with a density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre and 2)for Alternatives 8 and 9 average lot size for estate lots is 7,362 and for parkside lots is 5,651 (overall average lot size is 6,506) with a density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes are comparable with existing surrounding average lot sizes that range from 6,383 to 6,954,and the density is lower than existing surrounding densities that range from 4.13 to 4.74 to 24.2(for condos). With respect to the alternative suggested in comment RPA-17, CEQA only requires discussion of alternatives to the project as a whole, and the suggested alternative is not an alternative to the project as a whole. Therefore, it is not a project alternative under CEQA. Also,it should be noted that the alternative is not necessary to reduce project impacts because all impacts to Kenilworth homes have been reduced to a level of less than significant. With respect to the alternative suggested in comment RPA-18,the project site is designated in the General Plan and is zoned for residential use, and an alternative involving trading the property would be inconsistent with the General Plan and would not serve project objectives. RPA-19 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisiomnakers. The comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor, regarding his disagreement with the Draft EIR Alternatives Analysis. As indicated in response to BCLT-7(page 3-118)above,the Alternatives Analysis was prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements. RPA-20 According to the project civil engineer,the hydrology/inundation study was directed toward the area west of Goldenwest Street. The study was based on the assumption that the system east of Goldenwest Street was fully developed. This assumption considers the greatest theoretical impact to the Shea site. (Please refer to Appendix F of the EIR,Hydrology/Inundation Reports). RPA-21 The property to the north does flood under existing conditions because of an inadequate existing drainage system. With the proposed project, however, substantial improvements will be made to the off-site storm drain system serving the community; in particular, the Graham St.- Kenilworth Dr. intersection will become passable during a local 100-year event. The City has adopted by reference in the Municipal Code regulations set by federal and state agencies as they relate to flooding. Currently, these regulations call for any new development to be built at an ele- vation, which is one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation as designated on the FEMA maps or \\IROI\VOLT\PROJPIIE\1997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCOMIv1RNT5\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-182 flooding elevations established by the best available information. In the case of this development,the City has requested additional regional improvements to be made to the storm drain system to ensure that the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive will also meet the 100-year flood protection,which it currently does not have. The City's responsibility is to approve the construction of new development with entitlement requirements that are in conformance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines. RPA-22 According to the project civil engineer,the City and County typically require a developer to improve their one-half('/2) of any public facility they abut. This is why Shea Homes is being required to improve their '/2 of the EGGW. Channel abutting their site. The proposed housing within the Shea project will be protected from the 100-year flood per the City criteria. With reference to the comment about a "heavy rain,"please note that a 100-year flood event is considered a"heavy rain." (Please refer EIR, "Flooding", pages 5-136 through 5-138). RPA-23 According to the project civil engineer, all potential flood hazards applicable to the subject site, and the surrounding area, have been studied and the reports have been reviewed by FEMA and the City concurrently and are on file with the City Department of Public Works. [Please refer to EIR, Appendix F, Hydrology/Inundation Report, East Garden Grove — Wintersburg Channel (C05) 100-year inundation study and to updated studies available in the Department of Public Works (due to the size of the documents they are not contained in Volume IIA of this document, which is the updated technical appendices volume)]. Additionally,please refer to above response to OCPD-3 (page 3-84),regarding the FEMA response. Per the project civil engineer' inundation study, the properties located east and north of Shea's site will experience some flooding in a 100-year storm event but the Shea's site is hydraulically higher than the adjacent properties and this study proved that no off-site flows will enter Shea's site in a 100-year event. The flood control measures referred to in the letter are being built with site development to protect the proposed homes and to improve the flood protection for the adjacent residential neighborhoods. (Please refer to EIR, "On-Site/Off-Site Drainage",page 5-139). RPA-24 According to the project civil engineer, the proposed improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGW Channel) are to be constructed per the Orange County Flood Control District's latest proposed Development Study(see Orange County EIR 560 and the related project report). Shea Homes will contract with a licensed contractor to construct the channel improvements per County standards. (Please refer to EIR, "Mitigation Measures",page 5-142). RPA-25 According to the project civil engineer, per the approved Orange County Drainage Study, after the proposed enlargement of the EGGW Channel, there will be no overtopping on the south side of the channel into homes on Glenstone Drive during a 100-year flood event. After the Channel along the Shea frontage is improved, the Channel at that location will have more capacity than it currently has and it will have more capacity than the channel has upstream from this Project. WROl\VOLI\PROJFIIS\1997\7N15001UZESPONSETOCOMNMNTSWEWRTC-.DOC 3-183 If a storm event is significant enough to overtop the channel, it will occur upstream of this property. If overtopping occurs upstream, the volume of water in the channel will be reduced and can be accommodated in the downstream channel. (Please refer to Draft EIR, Appendix F,Hydrology/Inundation Reports). RPA-26 According to the project civil engineer, the County has designed the ultimate capacity of the EGGW. Channel to accommodate a 100-year flood event after completion of the proposed improvements to the entire channel. With existing conditions and the proposed channel improvements associated with this Project,the EGGW Channel still will not be capable of conveying a 100-year storm event; however, the capacity of the EGGW Channel will be improved as a result of this proposed development. RPA-27 According to the project civil engineer, the County of Orange has an approved Project Report and an approved EIR 560 specifically for the EGGW Channel. Construction of the improvements are scheduled in phases.This information is available at the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record. RPA-28 According to the project civil engineer, the pump station does not go under the channel. The 120" storm drain line will extend under the channel and empty into the forebay of the Slater Pump Station. This kind of construction is not unusual and is done in many areas of Orange County including Huntington Beach. Prior to the proposed construction of any facility within the water table, a localized dewatering operation will be installed to dry the work site that will accommodate the installation of the proposed facilities and to provide protection for the adjacent property as well. (Please refer to EIR, "Remedial Grading",page 3- 21). RPA-29 According to the project civil engineer, the new Storm Drain System will drain directly into the Slater Pump Station Forebay. The majority of the storm flows from the Graham Street drainage system will be the first to arrive at the Slater Pump Station forebay area and will be pumped into the EGGW Channel prior to the arrival of the peak storm flows from the Slater Channel drainage area, and the EGGW Channel drainage area. Therefore, the flow from this site will be pumped out of the pump station by the enlarged Slater pumping plant before flows from other areas reach this location. In the event the pumps are overtaxed by a storm larger than the plant can handle, a one-way flap gate valve will be installed at the end of the proposed storm drain inlet to prevent water from flowing from the Slater forebay back into the proposed drain and possibly flooding the new or existing homes served by the Graham Street Drainage System. (Please refer to EIR, "On-Site/Off-Site Drainage",pages 5-139-140). RPA-30 According to the project civil engineer, the proposed development is being required to protect the new homes from a 100-year flood event. hi addition, Shea Homes has been required to design and construct a drainage system that will pick up the 100-year storm flows at Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive. This is being done by increasing the size of the storm drain facilities, directed through this Development thereby reducing the impacts to the Slater Channel. (Please refer to EIR, "Mitigation Measures",pages 5- 142). \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFILE\1997\7N15001\RF.SPONSETOCOMNMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-184 RPA-31 According to the project civil engineer, the statement implies that drainage flows to or from the adjacent homes will be interfered with. With regard to this, it should be noted that the lots, within the proposed development, along the north property line will drain away from the existing homes located to the north along Kenilworth Drive. Regarding elevation,any new development must be built on elevations one foot above the base floodplain elevation, as required by FEMA. The current plan provides for a grade separation of approximately one and one half feet between the homes to the north and this project. The City has required that the pad elevations be at a minimum elevation of a grade differential of at least one foot and as previously stated, these lots will drain away from the property to the north. There is already a wall along the northerly perimeter of this site and no water gets through the walls. Furthermore, the Shea site is currently higher than most of the lots along Kenilworth Drive and does not receive off-site drainage. Additional information regarding this drainage issue is in DR#2-5 (page 4-53)of this document. RPA-32 According to the project civil engineer, there appears to be a misconception that this site is the low point in the area. However, surrounding street grades indicate that the Shea site (in its existing condition) is actually two to four feet above existing residential low points. The project civil engineer' studies have determined that considerable flooding to the surrounding homes would have to occur before any off-site storm water flows from these areas onto the Shea site. Therefore, since the site does not act as a retention basin,it was not discussed as such in the EIR. RPA-33 According to the project civil engineer, they are not aware of any place within EIR 97-2 where they claimed that the EGGW Channel is capable of carrying the fully improved 100-year designed flow. (Fully improved design flow means all local storm drain facilities within the tributary watershed, would be fully improved to convey the 100-year flood event to the EGGW Channel and the EGGW Channel itself would be improved to Convey that flow). Due to the undeveloped nature of the upstream watershed drainage facilities, and restrictions in the Channel upstream cross-sections, the EGGW Channel is not capable of delivering the design 100-year flows to the area along the frontage of this site. The proposed improvement to EGGW Channel along the frontage of this site will reduce the existing water surface. Please refer to TAD-3 in Section 4.3 (page 4- 70)for additional information. RPA-34 According to the project civil engineer, the proposal is to improve the north half of the EGGW Channel, along the frontage of this site to its ultimate cross-section. When the county completes the south half of the channel improvements, the Channel will be able to convey the fully developed 100-year design flow. The additional flows from the proposed development of the Shea property do not increase the water surface along the property frontage after the proposed improvements to the EGGW Channel are complete. In the Study prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., it was also determined that in a 100-year storm event, the EGGW Channel is at a capacity that, in fact, overtops and floods property upstream of the Graham Street crossing. The upstream overtopping does not relate to this proposed Project and the \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFIIE\I997\7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMNENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-185 flooding does not impact the existing homes adjacent to the northern boundary of this site. There are • sufficient low areas to the north and east to retain the overtopping, which will ultimately be pumped back into the channel when the water level in the channel subsides. (Please refer to Draft EIR, Appendix F, Hydrology/Inundation Reports). RPA-35 According to the project civil engineer, the proposed channel improvements and proposed site improve- ments will protect the proposed residential development and the existing homes to the north from tidal influence caused by the proposed Bolsa Chica Wetland Restoration. More specifically the developer is required to raise the finished grade of the western edge of the site to be above tidal influence. The City has established this tidal elevation,with freeboard, at 10.4 ft(MSL NAVD 88). RPA-36 According to the project civil engineer, in their studies of the 100-year flood event a comparison of the existing channel condition with the proposed improvements demonstrates that, when considering the channel improvements proposed by this project,the computed level of water surface at the Graham Street Bridge is lower than the existing condition. This calculation included the additional flow of 126 cfs from the proposed project. (Please refer to EIR,Appendix F,Hydrology/Inundation Reports). The project civil engineer realizes there would be a slight hydraulic grade line increase at the west end of the channel improvement transition area. However, this slight increase is negated by the decrease in water surface elevation resulting from channel improvements. RPA-37 According to the project civil engineer, they are not aware of any place in any report where there is an indication of increased flooding after this site is developed. Nothing in the accepted studies indicates this to be a valid possibility. RPA-38 According to the project civil engineer,the Catellus project is not located within the watershed,contribut- ing to this system. RPA-39 According to the project civil engineer, Exhibit 42 of the EIR has been included to graphically illustrate the location of proposed improvements. It has not been and is not intended to be used as the basis for any engineering studies. All engineering studies, including sewer and storm drain, are included in the Technical Appendices, which have been reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department.Final plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Public Works. RPA-40 Please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64), regarding a detailed dewatering plan. Additionally, according to the project geotechnical consultant (PSE), boundary conditions will be evaluated with piezometers to monitor groundwater and surface survey to monitor ground surface movement. These instruments will be placed prior to construction and maintained throughout the construction process. As discussed in our response to RWQCB-3 through 5 (pages 4-92 to 4-93) in Section 4.3 of this document,no dewatering or remedial grading will be required for Lot"N",Paseo Park. \VROI\VOLI\PROSUal997\7NI5001\RESPONSETOCO)ANMNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-186 RPA-41 According to the project geotechnical consultant, construction sequencing as discussed in Section 5.0 Final EIR, pages 3-21 and 3-30, contained in Volume H is expected to have no effect on adjacent properties. Additionally, removal and recompaction adjacent to the north property line will be conducted in small increments (±50 by 100 feet). Within the range of required local water drawdown adjacent to existing properties (4 to 9 feet) stress increases in offside areas as a consequence of dewatering efforts will be insignificant and within the range of likely historic fluctuations. While we intend to monitor boundary conditions, significant regional and off-site drawdown is not anticipated. By using surface pumps within relatively small excavation increments adjacent to off-site properties, "crisis points" will not be created. Surficial pumps will be operated only during those periods. Similarly, monitoring wells will be observed during periods of pump activation. Within the tract interior, deeper pumps may be employed to supplement surface pumps. These devices will be designed and operated to have no significant drawdown effects on off-site areas. For additional information regarding dewatering prior to remedial grading,please refer to above response to RPA-40. RPA-42 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. Additionally, as detailed in the MC-5 response, the amount of dewatering required does not indicate a wetland. RPA-43 According to the project geotechnical consultant, it is likely that similar perched water levels extend into off-site areas including the northern boundary area. The construction sequencing described in the EIR and response M&JT-1 (page 3-64)will limit the effects on these perched water levels. RPA-44 According to the project geotechnical consultant, no response to tidal influence was observed in their test pits, and approximately 24 hours was required to recharge a relatively small test pit(PSE, 1997). These facts indicate that either the water is perched and independent of tidal influence or that the permeability and continuity characteristics of these near-surface soils are such that responses are slow. In either case, the construction and dewatering sequences described previously (see response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64)) can be accomplished without significant effects on adjoining properties. RPA-45 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the project is intended to discharge the water into the EGGW Channel. The County will be consulted prior to construction and treatment to satisfy their water quality requirements,as necessary,prior to discharge. In addition,Rivertech,Inc.has recently prepared an Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan dated February 2002. The analysis described in the reports is consistent with EPA's rule of %2 inch of runoff over the watershed as the "first flush" event. Using that rule, EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on \\IR01\VOLI\PROJFME\1997\7Nl5001\I2ESPONSETOCOMMEM\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-187 Table 1 of the February 2002 Addendum report, it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. The reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates, but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. The February 2002 Addendum provides information on current water quality control requirements and includes an appendix that presents information regarding the Urban Runoff Management Plan that will be applied to the Parkside Estates Project. The Addendum is included in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA and is part of Appendix F of the/Final EIR document. Additionally,please refer to above response to OCPD-13 (page 3-88),regarding water quality issues. Regarding dewatering, please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64). The additional details regarding the proposed dewatering plan"constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR,and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions. RPA-46 and RPA-47 Please refer to above responses to JDV-15 (page 3-171), BCLT-9 and BCLT-10 (page3-119), BCLT-12 (page 3-120), CB-33 and CB-34 (page 3-153), regarding comments related to the project's remedial grading and infill program. The project mitigation measures will ensure that the impacts of construction trucks are less than significant. Transportation and circulation Mitigation Measure 1 requires the applicant to coordinate a truck and construction vehicle routing plan, including a dirt import haul route, which must be approved by the City Engineer. The City's standard conditions of approval include the requirement that the property owner be responsible for pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way, as determined by the Public Works Department. Additionally, it should be noted that a written agreement already exists from the adjacent property owner to allow 210,000 cubic yards of dirt from his property,provided appropriate grading permits are granted. RPA-48 As stated in the Draft EIR and in responses BCLT-9 (page 3-119) and CB-33 (page 3-153) above, "the contingency", if required, would only be taken from a site which had full CEQA "environmental clearance"to allow fill dirt export. The City's permit process will review the size of vehicles used in the import operations and the roads that will be used in correlation with the potential for damage to the roadway. Vehicles with axel loadings that exceed the design index of the roadway will not be permitted. However, where it is deemed necessary by the Public Works Department, a bond may be posted by the Developer to cover repair or potential damage to City streets. RPA-49 and RPA-50 See page 5-5,Table C of the EIR. As indicated in the Draft EIR,this analysis was prepared in response to comments raised at the October 9, 1997 scoping meeting. The neighborhood park site for the proposed project is a requirement of the proposed development and will be built in conjunction with the proposed project. Therefore, inclusion of this park site within the analysis is appropriate. Furthermore, the identified"park site"referenced in the comment letter as being located within Area 3 is actually a school site. This school site was not calculated as part of Area 3's density, as it is not a park, which was constructed as part of that residential subdivision. \\IROI\VOLT\PROBIUM1997VNI5001\RESPONSETOCOMNMNTSWSW-RTC-.DW 3-188 Lastly, it should be noted that the Draft EIR did not draw the conclusions regarding compatibility because the density of the proposed project is "10% less than the surrounding developments." Rather, it drew the conclusion of land use compatibility on several factors. These factors include: 1) the fact that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding single-family development, in that it is also a proposed single-family residential development; 2)the project's density is within the range of densities of the surrounding project as well as within the density range allowed under the General Plan designation for the site; and 3) the proposed setbacks of the project are in excess of the required Zoning Code setback requirements. R VA-51 As stated above, the square footage of a home is not the only factor to determine land use compatibility. It is the opinion of the EIR preparer that homes which may vary by±700 square feet in total size would be compatible with one another, particularly when other compatibility factors (listed above) are also considered. RPA-52 and RPA-53 Please refer to above response to RPA-8 (page 3-180). RPA-54 According to the project traffic engineer, the traffic study's analysis results of traffic impacts are presented in the study. The project's level of service impacts are within acceptable levels. (please refer to Table 2,Traffic Study,Appendix B of the Draft EIR). A traffic signal at the project's access street will create gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. RPA-55 According to the project traffic engineer, the intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at LOS A during peak hours as indicated above. A peak hour volume of 250 vehicles is spread over approximately 60 signal cycles meaning there would be no more than 4 vehicles on Graham stopped by traffic existing"A" Street at the signal. (Please refer to Figure 11,Traffic Study,Appendix B of the EIR). The traffic signal is recommended on Graham at "A" Street because of sight distance restrictions at the EGGW Channel,not because, it is warranted by traffic volumes. Additionally, the project entry has been redesigned under the new alternatives and includes a landscape median at the entry road with a 50-foot landscaped paseo park. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Exhibit 52 (page 6-53) and Exhibit 67 (page 6-90), contained in Volume II, and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. RPA-56 The questions in this comment were answered in above response to RPA-1 (page 3-178). Additionally, Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 21, 2001 that includes previously omitted cumulative developments (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume HA). \\IROI\VOLT\PROJFILL'\1997\7N15001\RFSPONSECOCOMbfCNTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-189 RPA-57 Again, the comment expresses the personal opinions of the commentor regarding their belief that the Draft EIR presents an inadequate analysis of cumulative impacts. The commentor also misquotes the Draft EIR by not providing the complete text statements from the cumulative impacts within each EIR Section. It must be noted that when a lead agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not"cumulatively considerable"a lead agency need not consider that effect significant,but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130(a)). As defined in Section 15355(3) "an EIR may determine that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. A project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. The lead agency shall identify facts and analysis supporting its conclusion that the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable." As indicated in above responses BCLT-15 (page 3-122), BCLT-50 (page 3-133), and RPA-1 (page 3- 178), Mitigation Measure 5 in Section 5.3, Mitigation Measures 1 through 3, Standard City Policies in Section 5.7, and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 in Section 5.8 do in fact "render the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact, less than cumulative considerable and thus not significant. This analysis and conclusion is consistent with CEQA as quoted verbatim above. Additionally, Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 21, 2001 that includes previously omitted cumulative developments (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). RPA-58 and RPA-59 These comments express the personal opinions of the commentor regarding their disagreement with the EIR short-term noise impact conclusions presented on pages 5-107 and 5-108. The comment states that impacts to residential noise levels in excess of 65 dbl will result from"dewatering pumps (65 dbl with a 10 dbl penalty for nighttime use)." The EIR actually concludes, "As discussed in Section 3.0 of this document, the remedial grading component of the project will require dewatering. The dewatering activities are estimated to occur over a four (4) to six (6) month period. Approximately 30 to 40 submersible pumps would be utilized during this effort. The exact location of the pumps placement is currently unknown; however,they will most likely be placed on-site adjacent to the flood control channel because groundwater levels are typically higher at this location. According to Foothill Engineering and Dewatering,Inc.,the primary noise levels associated with dewatering occur from the"power source"(i.e., generators) and not the pump itself. The submersible pumps will be placed at the bottom of wells (20 to 40 feet below the surface)and therefore would not produce noise levels, which would exceed 65(dBA)." With respect to other short-term noise levels, the EIR states, "The proposed project has the potential to result in short-term construction noise impacts to surrounding land uses due to the grading and construction activities. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Although most of the types of exterior construction activities associated with the proposed project will not generate continually high noise levels, occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction activities are possible." With the implementation of Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2,this impact is mitigated to a level less than significant. Additionally, it should be noted that this project is not"different from any other development in the City of Huntington Beach, because it is being developed adjacent to existing properties that have been occupied for some 30 years." The City of Huntington Beach, as with most suburban cities, implements "infill projects", which are adjacent to existing residential development. The recent Catellus / WR01\VOLT\PRO1FR.E\199T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMMENTSWEWRTG.DOC 3-190 Meadowlark Airport, Walmart, Wintersburg / Home Depot and McDonnell Douglas projects were all adjacent to existing residential uses and the EIR conclusions regarding short-term noise were similar to the conclusions provided on page 5-107 and 5-108 of the EIR. Lastly, it should be noted that the closest construction activities will occur 15-20' from the adjacent homes along Kenilworth Drive and not 0-F as noted in the comment. RPA-60 As stated on page 3-30 of the EIR, grading and dewatering activities will be done "concurrently" over a 4 to 6 month-period. Construction is expected to be completed over a 21/i to 31/7 year-period. Therefore, a worse-case total construction time frame is 4 years not 5 years as referenced by the comment. Additionally,the noise generated by construction equipment listed in Table T of the EIR will occur within the first 6 months to 1 year of construction and not over the total of 4 year buildout. RPA-61 Please refer to above response to M&JT-1 (page 3-64),regarding dewatering issues. The following criteria was used when designing the grading plan for this site: 1. All pads (actual elevation of the lots) are required to be at least one foot above the 100- year flood elevation as determined by FEMA. 2. The City is requesting that the pad elevations along the north property line, adjacent to the existing homes,be kept at a minimum elevation of one(1)foot and the pad elevations adjacent to the channel to be at 9.5 feet along the westerly end and 7 feet along the easterly end of the site. 3. Lots along the northern property line adjacent to the existing homes cannot have a grade separation of more than two(2)feet. 4. Drainage will be away from the existing residential homes to the north and toward a central collection area adjacent to the flood control channel. Reference is made to the drainage analysis, Section 5.7 of the EIR and in Appendix F of the EIR. The flooding potential of houses on Kenilworth Drive will be reduced as a result of this Development. This is a positive impact. Additionally, please refer to the new alternatives contained in Volume H, Final EIR Sections 6.7 -6.10(pages 6-32 to 6-108). The proposed storm drain will be required as a condition of approval by the Department of Public Works. Therefore, the Project cannot go forward without these improvements being completed in the timeframe required by the City. The houses on Kenilworth Drive currently are subject to flooding during a 100-year flood even without the failure of the existing storm drain system. Once the system is upgraded due to this Development, the flooding possibilities will decrease for the homes on Kenilworth Drive. In response to comment about the possibility of storm drain system failing: The proposed storm drain system is designed to provide for the 100-year flood flows. The pump station is equipped with pumps 0 that run by natural gas engines with liquid propane gas as the back-up source. \\IROl\VOLIWRO7FQ,E\199T7N15001'RESPONSETOC'OMIMNTSWEW-RTC-.WC 3-191 RPA-62 Please refer to above response to JDV-17 (page 3-172),regarding fiscal impacts. RPA-63 and RPA-64 Please refer to above response to JDV-26 (page 3-173), regarding fire response issues. Also, the term "access roads" in the context of the Mitigation Measure would be an "emergency only" access road and not a permanent road. Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding the proposed "Condition of Approval" that would prevent opening of the fire access at Greenleaf Lane to through traffic in the future. Additionally,cumulative impact issues are addressed in response RPA-1 (page 3-178). RPA-65 and RPA-66 Please refer to above response to JDV-25 (page 3-173),regarding schools impact issues. RPA-67 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. RPA-68 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 71. SCAGb-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 72. USFWS-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. USFWS-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The issues raised in the October 16, 1997 letter on the NOP were addressed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, please refer to above response to CSLC-4(page 3-100),regarding the October 16, 1997 letter from the USFWS. Additionally, please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding the nature and extent of wetlands on the property; and above response to MW-2(page 3-73),regarding the alternative proposed to avoid or mitigate wetlands impacts on the property; and above response to MW-lc (page 3-69),regarding the relationship of the proposed plan to the Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Plan. Lastly, the responses below provide additional input to more specific questions/comments raised in the letter. WROI\VOLT\PROIFII.E\1997\7NISOOlUZESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-192 USFWS-3 Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78), regarding on-site wetlands issues. The responsible Federal agencies have made confirmations regarding the nature and extent of on-site wetlands. The Draft EIR identified EPA delineated pocket wetlands within the County parcel. Should the project remove these pocket wetlands,the applicant would need to comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The new alternatives do not impact the EPA delineated pocket wetlands in the County. USFWS-4 The mitigation measure has been revised to allow for on-site restoration (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, page 5-162, contained in Volume II). This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally,please refer to above responses to DFG-2 through DFG-5 (page 3-194), regarding requested revisions to the mitigation on page 5-162 of the EIR. Lastly, as indicated in the Draft EIR and response MC-5 (page 3-78), the City parcel contains no wetlands, and therefore, no impacts or alternatives have been identified for this issue (i.e., wetlands on City parcel). USFWS-5 In accordance with CEQA, the EIR (Exhibit 25) and page 5-45 depicted and discussed the designated trails as proposed by the most current City/County plans in effect at that time. Additionally, the Draft EIR identified a potential project impact to County proposed trails and proposed Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.2 for this identified impact. With respect to the reference regarding "the now defunct Koll development plan" it is the EIR's preparers understanding that the current status of the Bolsa Chica LCP is as follows: The protection of the eucalyptus grove, within the context of the overall LCP, went before the Coastal Commission on November 2000. On November 2000, the Coastal Commission subsequently designated the entire 4.5-acre as conservation, along with other Bolsa Chica lowland property. This action by the Coastal Commission was challenged in court on January 12, 2001 by the owner of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, therefore, the land use designation of Medium-Low density residential remains in effect on the County General Plan and Specific Plan but has not been approved on the LCP. The project does not propose a dead-end interpretive trail as indicated by the commentor. Please refer to above responses to OCPD-6 through OCPD-9 (pages 3-86 to 3-87), regarding Class I bikeway and trail issues, raised by the County. Additionally, please refer to above responses to CCC-14 through CCC-16 (page 3-177), regarding public access and trail concerns, raised by the Coastal Commission. A conceptual trails plan is included as Exhibit 5b (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume 11). Lastly, revised Exhibits 6b-1 and 6b-2 and cross sections are also included in Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II. USFWS-6 Please refer to above response to MW-2 (page 3-73), regarding the new alternatives, which incorporates recommendations made in this comment. NROI\VOLI\PROJERZ1997\7N15OOl\RESPONSETOCOMNIENTSNEW-RTC.MC 3-193 USFWS-7 As indicated in the Draft EIR and above response to MJL-5 (page 3-140), this site has been zoned for development of single family housing since 1971 and it is currently shown with the same designation on the City's zoning map. According to the project civil engineer, the County of Orange has prepared a Project Report as related to their facility C05 (EGGW Channel) in which the Channel is proposed to be upgraded to carry a 100-year flood and does not include any provision for a retention basin. The EGGW Channel is a County of Orange facility and all issues due to ramification of capacity upgrades should be addressed by the County. USFWS-8 Please refer to the report prepared by Rivertech Inc. (contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA), a water quality management engineering company, concluding that the mitigated pollutant load coming from the project and the adjacent 21.8-acre will be less than existing levels. Please refer to above response to MHa-6 (page 3-98), regarding detailed information pertaining water quality and runoff issues. USFWS-9 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 73. OPR-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 74. DFG-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DFG-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DFG-3 As requested by the Department of Fish&Game, mitigation measure 2 of Section 5.8 has been revised to require the "preservation and enhancement" of 2.0 acres of"appropriate wildlife habitat" instead of 0_8 acre. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR,page 5-162, contained in Volume H. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. DFG-4 and DFG-5 Mitigation Measure 2 on page 8-15 has been revised in response to the comments. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume II. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft Is EIR. \UR01\VOL1\PROIFRE\1997\7NI5001VLESPONSETOCONUAENTSWEW-RTC-.DOC 3-194 DFG-6 through DFG-8 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, according to the project biologist, neither white-tailed kite nor red-tailed hawk are limited distributionally or populationally in southern California by a lack of roosting or nesting site resources, as both will next in tall trees regardless of species, and often in man-made structure as well. Red-tailed hawks habituate readily to human presence, and are not considered sensitive species by any agency, although all native birds of prey are protected from direct harm or harassment (as was noted in the Draft EIR). The project does not propose to remove the stand of mature healthy gum trees from the City portion of the site (and the new alternatives do not propose to remove any gum trees within the County parcel), and so there would be no significant loss of habitat or nest sites for this species, although disturbances will arise as a result of construction activities. The portion of the City parcel nearest the grove of trees is designated as a park site (and under the new alternatives, the County portion of the site adjacent to the gum trees will be open space), and it is unlikely that these birds would abandon their nest site as a consequence of the development. White-tailed kite populations in California have rebounded dramatically from their historic lows in the early part of the century and ±35 years ago, when their numbers dropped as a result of habitat losses, direct predation by humans, pesticide residue effects, and possibly also crashes in their prey species populations. It is now known that their numbers and local distribution fluctuate seasonally and annually according to prey species abundance, and that they tend to be somewhat nomadic, changing roosting and nesting sites as they locate new hunting areas. Their relationship to the project site is relative to the presence of the gum trees, as the field probably does not contribute significant food resources; content analysis of 544 white-tailed kite cast pellets from one Santa Barbara site showed evidence of 777 rodents, most of which were voles and house mice, with nothing as large as a ground squirrel or pocket gophers. Since the existing project site supports mostly California ground squirrels and Botta pocket gophers, it is probable that the majority of the kite foraging locally is over non-agricultural fields adjacent to residential areas(where house mice are abundant)and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands(for voles). The proposed project would not significantly reduce or alter essential foraging habitat for white-tailed kite locally, as much larger areas of higher quality, natural habitat exist within the adjacent Bolsa Chica Wetlands System; nor would project implementation result in the loss of kite nesting resources, if they in fact nest within the gum tree grove (no nests were observed during the 5 original and 3 subsequent field visits)on-site. Additionally,Mitigation Measure 1 requires construction activities be limited to areas 500 feet away from any raptor nests identified by a survey conducted immediately prior to project grading. Existing high daily levels of human activity (including hikers,bikers,dogs, equestrians, heavy equipment driving through, disking of the fields, agricultural activities, etc.) in the immediate vicinity of the gum trees, with which the kites presently co-exist, should decrease following project development, as the City portion of the site (adjacent to the gum trees) will be maintained as a park and under the new alternatives the County portion of the site(adjacent to the gum trees)will be maintained as open space, and no longer open to vehicle trespass or other disturbance. Other raptors, which may hunt, loaf or shelter on the site seasonally or occasionally (such as peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, ferruginous hawk, and northern harrier) will lose a portion of the area currently available for foraging with the conversion of the agricultural fields to residential areas. None of these species are directly dependent upon the resource base of the site for population maintenance or for their continued local existence. Additionally,none would use an active or fallow agricultural area as a primary foraging area when adjacent natural habitats offer much greater prey species densities and much lower levels of human activity and disturbance. \VROI\VOLI\PRORILE\1997\7N15001\RESPONSEfOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC-.DOC 3-195 DFG-9 As indicated in the Draft EIR,red-tailed hawks are resident locally, and may nest within the stand of gum trees on the Shea Homes site, below the mesa margin, but they currently hunt opportunistically over the entire mesa system, wherever they encounter prey species. Other birds of prey locally also currently forage widely over the uplands and Bolsa Chica System, and are currently less likely to use the project site simply because it is frequently cleared, is adjacent to residences, and has higher levels of human disturbance. As stated in the Bolsa Chica EIR#551, five species of raptors (American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, black- shouldered kite, red-shouldered hawk, and barn owl) use the Bolsa Chica Mesa as foraging habitat and nesting sites, and, therefore, development may impact these species. However, because the 16,000-acre Laguna Coast Wilderness Park and large portions of the Irvine Ranch are presently utilized by these species, it is believed that they will alternatively use these areas as nesting and/or foraging sites. Certified EIR#551 further concluded that, in addition to these areas,raptors also could utilize the areas of Newport Back Bay, Anaheim Bay, and the areas of Newport Coast. Therefore, due to the large foraging range of raptors and the fact that the adjacent systems listed above provide foraging resources of higher value with greater prey species densities than the existing project site, it is the opinion of the project biologist that the loss of this site will not result in a significant increased dependence by birds of prey on remaining open space such as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Lastly, according to the project biologist, the gum tree areas were designated in 1982 as ecologically 0 sensitive habitats despite the fact that their presence along the base of the knoll brings raptors and other predatory birds unnaturally close to the Bolsa Chica Ecosystem. Concern that the project would result in increased raptor densities in and around the reserve, potentially leading to predation upon sensitive bird species therein (Belding's savannah sparrow, California least tern) led the project biologist to conclude that without the existing "sensitive" gum tree habitat at the wetland margin, there would be much lower raptor predation than presently exists. This issue (i.e., existing proximity of raptor roosting, nesting and hunting perch sites to the Bolsa Chica Lowlands Ecological Reserve) was assessed in the EIR for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Plan (BCWRP - the EIR was certified in 2002), as "current policy" prevents the removal or relocation of the ESHA designation by the State Department of Fish and Game. DFG-10 Please refer to above response to MW-2 (page 3-73), regarding the proposed reduced density alternatives which would reduce biological impacts to a level of insignificance as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b). DFG-11 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DFG-12 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 75. DK-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. WROl\VOLINPROJFII.E\199T7N15001\RESPONSETOCOMI.ENTS\NEW-RTC-DOC 3-196 DK-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DK-3 A secondary emergency-only access to the project is planned at Greenleaf, which can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate that will be for emergency access only. The consulting traffic engineer and City Engineer have concluded that a single access to Graham Street is adequate to handle traffic from this project. Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A or B with the project, which represents free flow during peak hours including when school buses are active. Although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets are used as secondary access to the project,the impact on those streets will be minimal. A traffic signal at the project's access street will create gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. Additionally, please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding traffic flow issues. The Greenleaf alternative was analyzed by the traffic consultant, and no significant impact was found to be associated with it. DK-4 Please refer to above response to DK-3 on this page. 76. B&RF-1 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding traffic flow and increased traffic at Graham Street. B&RF-2 According to the project traffic engineer, left turning vehicles into the project from Graham to"A" Street will enter a designated left turn lane that will prevent rear end accidents. All traffic signal indications at "A" Street will have no sight distance restrictions for Graham Street traffic (pages 22 and 24 of Traffic Study, Appendix B of the Draft EIR). Additionally, please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding traffic flow and increase traffic at Graham Street. Additionally, the applicant has provided an alternative layout that adequately addresses the issue raised. The alternative layout locates the main entry approximately 250 feet southerly of Kenilworth and nearly in line with Street "B" to provide a more direct and effective access into the site. The distance from Graham to the first intersection within the development has been increased from approximately 200 feet to 480 feet. This additional distance will provide the necessary stacking area during peak periods. B&RF-3 Please refer to Section 5.5 Noise of the EIR for an analysis of project traffic noise level impacts. \\HWI\VOLT\PROIFU.al"7\7N15001\MPONSETOOOMI.fNTSMW-RTC-.DOC 3-197 B&RF-4 Please refer to above response to CB-17 (page 3-149),regarding the impact of development on coyotes. B&RF-5 Please refer to above responses to B&RF-2(page 3-197),regarding traffic queuing analysis. B&RF-6 Please refer to above response to DK-3 (page 3-197),regarding Greenleaf issues. City staff will propose a condition of approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane. Additionally, please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61), regarding Greenleaf issues. B&RF-7 Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61),regarding connection to Bolsa Chica Street. B&RF-8 Please refer to above responses to MHa-6 (page 3-98) and MW-lb (page 3-66), regarding runoff and potential for flooding. Regarding the flood insurance cost, according to the project civil engineer, Shea Homes has received a CLOMR from FEMA for their property. The development of this site will not cause a change in the floodplain designation for the homes along Kenilworth, and subsequently, no change for flood insurance is anticipated as a direct result of this project. B&RF-9 According to the project civil engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed to prevent seepage of any polluted material into surface or groundwater. Additionally, please refer to above response to MHa-6 (page 3-98), regarding runoff and water quality issues. B&RF-10 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 77. GT-1 and GT-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to above response to MC-5 (page 3-78),regarding on-site wetlands issues. MOI\VOLT\PR07FII.E\1997\7NMI\RESPONSETOCOTWNTSINEW-RTC-.DOC 3-198 Also, as indicated on page 5-183 of the EIR, the City cannot supply water to any development that is not within the City's limits unless the City declares there is a surplus of water and LAFCO approves the service, or the area annexes to the City prior to being served. The addition of up to 27 additional homes will have no significant impact on the City's supply of water. GT-3 Please refer to above response to MC-6(page 3-81),regarding the Sandover Development on Mesa. 78. C&DM-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. C&DM-2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. C&DM-3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, please refer to above responses to NM-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (page 3- 128),regarding the project's impact on the wildlife in the area.' \\IROI\VOL1\PROIFII.E\1997\7N15001uMPONSETOCOMh ENTS\NM-RTC-.DOC 3-199 4.0 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR Comments/Responses to Comments 4.0 COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE DRAFT EIR The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates project was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of forty-five (45) days. The public review and comment period for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on June 29, 2001 and expired on August 12,2001.The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through August 15, 2001. Comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR were accepted for response via three (3) different methods: 1) verbal comments received at the public information meeting; 2)comment cards distributed at the public information meeting received at the meeting and at the City of Huntington Beach; and 3) comment letters received at the City of Huntington Beach. The comments have been grouped under each category; verbal comments versus comment card comments versus comment letters with each category formatted as follows: • List of Commentors and Comment/Response Series • Responses(see below explanation) It should be noted that many comments provided on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR were the same comments/issues that had been previously raised on the Draft EIR which are responded to within Section 3.0 of this document. In an effort to make this document more"reader friendly",the following"response approach"has been taken. For those comments/issues that had been previously raised and responded to in Section 3.0 of this report, the Section 3.0 response was duplicated within this Section 4.0 for the "first time" the particular comment/issue was raised. Thereafter, for additional comments that raised the same issue, a reference to the "above response" within Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2 or 4.3) was made. This approach prevents the reader from having to search a completely different section of responses to obtain the information (i.e. response needed). Although references to "above responses" are still made in the following Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) the references are all within the "same section" (i.e., Section 4.0). This approach, which is common industry practice,is necessary to reduce redundancy and keep the document a manageable size. 4.1 VERBAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Public Information Meeting The responses to the verbal comments raised at the July 25, 2001 Public Information Meeting have been correspondingly numbered and are provided directly after each verbal comment. While an official court- reporter was not present at the public information meeting to allow for a verbatim account of the meeting proceedings, explicit notes were taken. Verbal comments have been summarized as accurately as possible. All members of the audience were given an opportunity for verbal comment; at which time, the meeting moderator officially closed the verbal comment period. Subsequent to the close of the verbal comment period,several members of the audience continued to provide comment and ask questions of the panel. Many of these comments were addressed at the meeting; however, this document also includes 4-1 additional response for those comments that raise significant environmental issues. A list of the verbal comments received and the comment/response series is provided in this section beginning on page 4-3. 4.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENT CARDS Comment cards were submitted by members of the public to the meeting moderator at the Public Information Meeting. These comment cards enabled the meeting moderator to properly acknowledge those that wished to comment. A majority of the comment cards that were submitted did not contain any specific comments; other than that they wished to speak at the meeting (see verbal comments section). Copies of the submitted comment cards are included under Volume III - Section 6.0 of this document. A list of the comment cards received and the responses to each comment that raises a significant environmental issue is provided in this section on page 4-42. 4.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS The comment letters,which were submitted to the City by agencies, groups, organizations and individuals by August 15, 2001, have been bracketed and numbered (refer to Volume III — Section 7.0). The responses to the comments have been correspondingly numbered and are provided in Subsection 4.3 of this document. Responses are presented for each comment that raises a significant environmental issue. A list of the written comments received via comment letter and the comment/response series is provided in this section beginning on page 4-50. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR or do not raise significant environmental issues. For example, many of the comments reflect the concerns of the commentor only as they relate to the merits of the proposed project (i.e., land use plan and Tentative Tract Map(s)) and not to the adequacy of the environmental information and analysis contained in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. Other comments request additional information. In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, a substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of CEQA and therefore have not been prepared. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. 4-2 4.1 Verbal Comments/Responses to Comments Index 4.1 VERBAL COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT COMMENT/RESPONSE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SERIES PAGE# 1. Sing Joe Kong SJK 1-4 4-5 to 4-7 5402 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 2. Patricia M. Keppler PMK 1-6 4-8 to 4-22 5442 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 3. Eileen Murphy EM 1-3 4-22 to 4-28 201 21S`St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4. Jan Vandersloot JV 1-3 4-28 to 4-29 2221 E. 10h St. Newport Beach,CA 92663 5. Daniel Hankin DH 1-5 4-29 to 4-31 17142 Newquist Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 6. Colleen Beauregard CB 1-5 4-31 to 4-34 17221 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 7. Monica Hamilton MH 1-5 4-34 to 4-36 5401 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 8. Douglas Stewart DS 1-6 4-36 to 4-39 5342 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 9. Gary Mathisen GM 1 4-39 to 4-40 17232 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 10. Lori Feldman LF 1 4-40 5411 Glenstone Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Note: The unidentified speakers (i.e.,those who did not provide their names for the record,are not included in this index. 4-3 4.1 VERBAL COMMENTS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT COMMENT/RESPONSE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING SERIES PAGE# 11. Jeff Roeder JR1-2 4-40 to 4-41 5431 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 12. Don Pichovich DPI 4-41 17131 Camelot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92949 13. Douglas Stewart DS#2— 1 4-41 5342 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Note: The unidentified speakers(i.e.,those who did not provide their names for the record,are not included in this index. 4-4 4.1 RESPONSES TO VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ON JULY 25,2001 1. SJK-1 Comment(Also commented as Speaker 25-JK1 within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker asked 3 questions and brought up one comment. The first question regards the flood control channel. Speaker stated he had lived in his current address for 35 years and during those years he has seen sometimes heavy rain. Speaker indicated that currently the block behind is 50 acres of soil and in case of heavy rain, the water eventually got absorbed in the grass. The speaker would like to know with the proposed 11 feet of fill behind the houses and streets, where the water would go in case of 100-year rain. Speaker wondered other than the bigger pipes and more pumping stations how the flood control channel would work. Speaker was curious if the City will increase the size of the channel. Speaker acknowledged the issue of "Coastal Surge" and questioned with the current size of the flood control channel and the additional run off that would occur because of building houses on the existing vacant land,would the water come out into the ocean. SJK-1 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of DS-2 (page 3-7), within Section 3.1 of this document,regarding flood hazards. According to the project civil engineer, the existing storm drain system was designed to accommodate a 10 to 25 year storm. The Orange County Hydrology Manual defines a storm "frequency" as "the frequency of occurrence of events with the specified precipitation depth and duration. This is expressed in terms of either the return period (e.g., 10-year) or exceedance probability. Exceedance probability is the probability or chance that a given storm magnitude will be equal or exceeded in any year. The County also notes that "a 100-year precipitation event will not necessarily occur exactly once in every 100 years but actually has a finite probability that it will occur in several consecutive years or not at all in a period of 100 years. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mandates that communities (city/county) administer flood plain regulations, including mandatory flood insurance and development criteria to meet the impacts of a (100-year) flood hazard. This change in design criteria has resulted in a deficiency in most storm-drain facilities built prior to the mid-1980's. The City's Master Plan calls for the storm drain system in Graham Street to ultimately be a 120-inch diameter pipe. The existing 60-inch diameter pipe in Graham Street was sized and designed using the older and now outdated hydrology criteria and cannot accommodate the current expected runoff volume of a 100-year frequency design storm flow. The City has adopted design criteria specified by the County of Orange Hydrology Manual, which uses the current and more stringent design criteria to comply with FEMA's flood protection standards. The proposed Parkside Estates development conforms with the master-planned drainage upgrades required by the City (please refer to storm drain exhibits, Exhibit 42 for the original project and Exhibits 58 and 71 for the new alternatives in Section 5.0 Final EIR (Volume 11)), and also will provide a much- improved level of flood protection for the homes within the neighborhoods to the north and east of the Parkside Estates Project by reducing existing flows to the 60" storm drain in Graham Street. There is no difference in water surface displacement of flood risk to neighboring property whether the project is constructed at 5.5 feet or 11 feet(NAVD 1988 datum). All alternatives will provide improved drainage. The applicant is being required by the City and County to improve the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel by removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet-pile or equivalent. This will widen and increase the capacity of the channel by turning the trapezoidal channel into a rectangular one on the 4-5 proposed development side. This will provide for a stable barrier against the erosion of the channel berm (refer to Exhibit 6C-1 section "0-0" located in Section 5.0 Final EIR (Volume H) and Mitigation Measures identified on page 5-142 of the EIR). The north side of the flood control channel that fronts the project site will be improved as a condition of development imposed by Orange County. The levee will be reconstructed using sheet piling or equivalent. The project proponent will pay for construction, but design will be according to County standards, and construction will be subject to County inspection. Impacts of construction of flood control channel improvements was discussed in prior certified EIR 560 dated February 1998. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 requires that the potential adverse impact of construction of any reach, on any downstream reach, be investigated: "Improvements to those areas of the channel system with the greatest deficiencies would be provided prior to those areas with less deficiencies, subject to the evaluation that upstream improvements do not adversely impact unimproved downstream reaches." (emphasis added). The proposed channel improvements will result in water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street to remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (- one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of Slater Pump Station during pumping. The north levee at this location will be sheet pile or equivalent construction. The south levee at this location is reinforced concrete. The basis for County records is the assumption that all the runoff in the upstream watershed can be delivered to the flood control channel and conveyed downstream. This assumed "future condition" flow is appropriate for design of new flood control structures. This assumed flow will also be used for design of the improvements fronting the project site. The existing watershed condition, however, includes areas of upstream flooding and reaches of channel that overtop and release excess flow before it can reach the project site. The design flow cannot now be delivered to the project site primarily due to the deficiencies in the C05 Channel from Beach Boulevard to Woodruff Street. Section 3.5 Phasing of County EIR 560 recommends restricting upstream improvements to those reaches that will not cause an increase in flow in downstream unimproved reaches. FEMA, in a letter dated December 3, 2001, has also concluded that breakouts upstream provide protection for downstream reaches: "However, the additional data submitted in support of this request indicate significant storage in the watershed and breakout of flows along the channel that cause a lower base flood discharge to reach the Shea Homes Parkside Estates property. Given these characteristics,we believe that the revised base flood discharge estimate also is reasonable." Potential overtopping of the EGGW Channel is not a result of the Graham Street Storm Drain System. Flooding of this channel occurs upstream of this site and the Graham Street bridge during a 100-year flood event resulting from cumulative flows from surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, upgrading of the Graham Street System will not prevent nor will it provoke flooding of the EGGW Channel (See "Flooding",Pages 5-136 through 5-138 of the EIR). SJK-2 Comment The second question speaker asked regards neighborhood compatibility. He has been attending the meeting since the beginning and he was under an impression that the City considered many factors when granting permit to the developers and one of them being neighborhood compatibility. He asked if having a view of house 11 feet higher than the existing house is considered a compatible neighborhood. SJK-2 Response The issue of neighborhood compatibility impacts is addressed in detail within the Land Use and Aesthetics sections of the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. 4-6 Additionally, the impacts of adjacent neighborhood views on Alternatives 6 and 8, which consist of existing June 2000 FEMA elevations of 10.9 feet NAVD, were addressed in the June 2001 report. In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternatives on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55,All Alternatives Visual Simulations—Existing Condition contained in Section 5.0 Final EIR(Volume II)). The existing condition view(top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 56, contained in Section 5.OFinal EIR (Volume II)). Please refer to the complete analysis contained within Section 5.0 Final EIR(Volume Il)for additional details regarding this issue. SJK-3 Comment The third question the speaker asked regards the buffer zone. At the last meeting he had suggested a buffer zone between houses because they were so close to each other but he was informed that between residential areas no "buffer zone" is required. Speaker was informed that only when there are two different zonings (i.e., residential and commercial) is a buffer zone required. He would like to get some answers regarding this issue. SJK-3 Response The City's existing General Plan and Zoning Code do not contain any buffer zone requirements for residential development that occurs adjacent to other residential uses. Typically, city planning documents only require buffer zones between different types of land uses such as residential and commercial or residential and industrial uses. The City Zoning Code does require minimum setback requirements for residential development. The original project proposed in the Draft EIR as well as the new alternatives meet the City's residential zoning setback requirements. The original project and new alternatives rear yard setbacks exceed the City's Zoning Code rear yard setback requirement of 10'. SJK-4 Comment Speaker acknowledged that there are many issues regarding the traffic conditions but he did not want to go over them because of the large amount of issues regarding the traffic. Speaker also stated that traffic will be a mess. SJK-4 Response Traffic issues/conditions are addressed in detail within Section 5.3 of the EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. Although the commentor does not raise any specific issues regarding traffic, information regarding the"most commonly raised traffic issues"is provided below in response to PMK-3 (page 4-18). Additionally, with respect to the commentor's statement that "traffic will be a mess", the following information is offered. According to the project traffic engineer,Warner Avenue and Graham Street currently operate at Level of Service A or B during peak hours, which represents free traffic flow. The addition of project traffic does not change the level of service on either arterial(refer to Section 5.3 of the EIR). The new signalized intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street will also operate at Level of Service A (free flow)during peak hours. 4-7 2. PMK-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker raised 6 issues. The first issue is regarding the soil saturation. Recently, her backyard was flooded and there was a serious problem controlling the water from coming into her backyard. She said the water seeped into the soil then into the wall of her backyard. Speaker would like to know how this issue is going to be solved. PMK-1 Response According to the project civil engineer, this statement implies that existing drainage flows to or from the adjacent homes will be interfered with. With regard to this, it should be noted that the lots within the proposed development along the north property line will drain away from the existing homes located to the north along Kenilworth Drive. Please refer to the graphic following page 4-9, which depicts the existing surface drainage patterns. This graphic was provided in the handout materials at the July 25, 2001 Public Information Meeting. Additionally, an existing masonry wall along the proposed development northerly boundary should eliminate cross-property drainage. Existing home sites north of the Shea Homes property were originally designed and graded to drain northerly to Kenilworth Drive. Development lots in the proposed Shea project are designed to drain away from the northern boundary toward proposed interior streets and then to interior storm drains beneath the streets. Within the new alternative plans, the proposed landscaped buffer (50-foot wide paseo park) that will separate the proposed homes from existing homes is designed to drain to an existing 60-inch storm drain along the northern boundary of the proposed project. Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5),within this Section 4.1,regarding flooding. PMK-2 Comment The second issue raised was privacy invasion. Speaker does not have problem with the housing being built, but she did not want the roads to be higher than the existing houses. Speaker is concerned about future cars' headlights shining in to the house and pedestrians in the paseo being able to look into her house through the fence. Speaker commented even with the proposed buffer zone, the existing neighborhood's privacy will be invaded. PMK-2 Response It should be noted that"visual simulations" and the analysis of"privacy view" issues are not required by CEQA. However, in an effort to address the speaker's concern regarding "pedestrians in the paseo park being able to look into her house through the fence," the City requested the preparation of additional visual simulations by Focus 360. These simulations involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions at the location and different elevations (i.e.,BFE of 4.5 and 10.9 feet)of the proposed paseo park trail on the project site. Exhibit A (Photo Keymap) on page 4-11 depicts the location of two (2)views that were selected for simulation. Both views occur at the proposed intersection of"A" and "D" Streets looking in opposing directions. Exhibits B and D which follow are views looking northeast from the north side (on the paseo trail) of the proposed intersection of "A" and "D" Streets. Exhibit B simulates the condition of Alternatives 7 and 9 with a BFE of 4.5 feet, while Exhibit D simulates the condition of Alternatives 6 and 8 with a BFE of 10.9 feet. Exhibits C and E are views looking northwest from the same location as Exhibits B and D. Exhibit C simulates the condition of Alternatives 7 and 9 with a BFE of 4.5 feet and Exhibit E simulates the condition of Alternatives 6 and 8 with a BFE of 10.9 feet. 4-8 The existing condition photos (top photos on Exhibits B through E) were used to build the proposed alternative visual simulations. The simulations (bottom photos), shown on Exhibits B and D depict the proposed paseo park 50-foot landscape buffer under the 4.5-foot BFE scenario (Alternatives 7 and 9). Pedestrians are also shown on the proposed paseo trail which would occur at approximately 3.7-foot elevation according to Exhibit 61a in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. The simulations (bottom photos), shown on Exhibits C and E depict the proposed paseo park 50-foot landscape buffer under the 10.9-foot BFE scenario (Alternatives 6 and 8). Pedestrians are also shown on the proposed paseo trail, which would occur at approximately 8.7-foot elevation according to Exhibit 54a within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. As shown by the simulations, the proposed views of the existing Kenilworth Drive homes by the pedestrians along the paseo park are "partial views" which are interrupted by the proposed 50-foot paseo park landscaping and existing rear yard landscaping of the Kenilworth Drive homes. The proposed paseo park tree and shrub plantings (refer to Exhibits 52 and 67, Conceptual Landscape Plans in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR) are typically two (2) to three (3) layers from the paseo trail to the existing homes. It should be noted that the landscaping depicted within the paseo park was shown to have three (3) to five (5) years of growth/maturity. Based upon a computerized analysis of all visual simulations, Exhibits B through E and the future paseo park landscaping, there appears to be no significant privacy impacts to existing homes from the pedestrians using the future paseo park trail. The simulations of different elevation alternatives appear to have no substantial difference on future views from the paseo trail. This additional visual simulation does not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR or the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. 4-9 f ►yi � �� \ .�ews�r�Ju•� \ I 1u■Y ` 11� N z, NA 1 t t .. �_. �.r .��.: �w. >T �. �Yf.... f7� "T.: �-•-� ,.^- -.r ...- ...r. ..�. �.-n----r,. �._'►y'AF'� t ♦a x �_�� c.:, '� y. ..''', �r.,,,.e,,� k'u '';; a �. _ 1. - n:. � "�,-t7�_� •}, � ",ti �7� 1 f t � ,y, ►"`, '.�,.t '� _.y:. r�- � � l x` k. ��'� Y �• � ,a � f� #fin .�.,�a�.3..-__�G..s._. _::,t._._ _w =.�.-���:..::..�.y:.Oyu:;�t,a>�:�3t3,�._�1L�.x�,::��.�...• e%-�: r..�:�`3[it_S..t.��r'�+.'���,t �T� :� �t! 2 STOR 2 STORY I STORY STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 15322 5332 5342 5352 5362 5392 5402 6 i'�.'r'-'� �—r„�,-3.-. x.�.�...��"� '�+z-'r-i�•r-'"i r..� y � � .F4" *� c� �, �..,,K 1�7�*f.v��� t r ti}s.��,� �'�^�,,,,.. , �;.� + n�=^.,t 'I r �►!it,�? S':�.'�•.� + e ,.,,,,1^E ,p ..,> 4 "Y!'t?.�' y.ai '�:� ti • �: +t^x *. .'! i'.;`r �,y.y,T _:�� K A ,�'' s.'�` i ti r': yr '1 'k 3Y.r-• �� ,�'----�� .:�,�., -i . r += x�� ,.�a�"�-�_ `� �,s, 4���. �-,y`y�t .1.L�+ �.. M �.�.i+-* � —�^�'::'t.;,��•r.a4.. .t':r a _,S�_� A., _ -.,:i,�:_ `'x`,_�•.:-:� '�'ia`l� tx ,- --��"� ? .1 �� �.� � ��, ,� �;¢fir,«,r..�t"�i`�/1 ���• �` ® `W�0000 4 4 y_ � • t t r r r r r r r k ` 1 1 ' 11 111 1 I 1 1 - ` tat Y /:-� ,M _•.f+..s�r � � ." 5 feu ° � ,•n,� .•.r � ! � � _ i ' r _ # r. Iy •{..�: .At, 9 14 1 - 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 r i 1 1 .1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHumtington Beach View of existing residential neighborhood (see Exhibit "A" for view locations within the site). •e. i T' C at K' wee ••t >S� - j : �, . of �0 14 f� a{ +C „ �� ^. on T - ■� no or M L WE View of proposed condition (base flood elevation of 4.5 feet) looking Northwest from the North side of the proposed intersection of Streets "A" and "D". EDAW, Inc. 6iiiroi Exhibit C Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Visual Simulations Source:Focus360 �'• �,�. `'� ay I �`' � .�,'.'. ,'�:: ' -,;�`�" :, ''�.Rye. . .�' a - �.. L C i f.\.. �'! I_ �'u: � '.r1 1• `�.'af F. hY �8e '.'�+ �U...^ a'Y LC t,'s' ` h) t �' is +.. c� �h,F v.i Y4�•� Y Alf _ 1 11 1111 1 1 1 I ILK� y IV lip 4,0 _ Y r ..1 - � Y..' ". •Ili ,� •a� �^'IIA i� I t •• 1 �y r 1 � � i. J .1 a '.,rz`.r. K �'4.+J ... � S r I. '* {. � �� iZ ay. u 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I I 1 I 1 1 • 1 • I I I I 1 1 r r r Im ff Milm 1 r r rl Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHanhugton Bewh Al \ View of existing residential neighborhood (see Exhibit "A" foro view locations within the site). '�V .1� 1 / ' 1 /�\• � r ro RM .... Y ¢ I RyM' 1-A`tIX`'�r�yv i low V \ r View of proposed condition (base flood elevation of 10.9 feet)looking Northwest from the North side of the proposed intersection of Streets "A" and "D". EDAW, Inc. 6/llrol Exhibit E Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Visual Simulations Source: Focus360 Additionally, the following analysis has been provided to address the speaker's concern about "future cars' headlights shining into the existing homes along Kenilworth Drive." w A vehicle headlight impact study, based on the existing site conditions was conducted and the results of that study are illustrated in Exhibit F on the following page. The premise of the study was that vehicles entering the project site onto A/B Street from Graham Street might shine their emergency and vehicle headlights into the windows of neighboring residences on Kenilworth Drive. A horizontal beam spread for low and high beam light emissions was diagramed and overlaid on the site plan. The beam spread was also plotted in a cross sectional format,taking into account the following: 1)two-story construction of the homes, 2) the elevation of B Street in relation to the two elevation alternatives (i.e., 10.9 and 4.5 feet BFE), 3) the existence of the screen wall/fence along Kenilworth Drive residences, 4) screen vegetation on the parkway, 5) the 50-foot paseo park (between the existing homes along Kenilworth and B Street), and 6) existing landscaping. The results of this study indicate that there are breaks in the vegetative screen which would allow vehicle light glare to impact residences along Kenilworth Drive. The light impact study shows that the existing privacy wall/fence behind Kenilworth Drive residences reduces the impact of headlight glare to a less than significant level by blocking most of the light that would otherwise enter the lower stories of the homes on Kenilworth in either of the elevation alternatives (i.e., 10.9 and 4.5 feet BFE). However, the presence of vegetative screening would further reduce this impact by decreasing light spill into the second stories of the Kenilworth homes. Therefore, it is recommended that this project be responsible for the planting of additional mature trees and vegetation screening on the north side of B Street within the parkway to close the existing screen gaps. This recommendation will be a condition of project approval. 4-16 TRACT BOUNDARY 36'-0 CURB LINE 5 YEARS HLADLKJHT PATH 5 YEARS 12'-14' w—ru IT (B.F.E. 10.9' ) F.F.ELEV. MAX BUILEOPO BERNET 3W PROM PP.ELEV KENILWORTH DRIVE TRACT BOUNDARY �46*-O" CURB LINE I YEARS 11HADLIGHTPATI, 5 YEARS LT-14' DERECTLIGHT -14' Olin 0 (B.F.E. 4.5' ) F.F.ELEV. 5.5' F MAX BVILDM HEIGHT RDTe Ar FROM F.F ELEV KENILWORTH DRIVE HEADLIGHT STUDY 1 PARKS ID E ESTATES 0 10 20 B A S S E N I A N L A G 0 N I S H E A HOMES ARCHITECTS 11-12.01 Exhibit F PMK-3 Comment The third issue raised regards the adequacy of one exit and impact of traffic signal on Kenilworth. The speaker indicated that the farmers are already going out through Bolsa Chica on existing dirt roads. The speaker inquired as to why these roads could not be used for the project also. PMK-3 Response Single Proiect Access According to the project traffic engineer,the single access to the project at the intersection"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A(free flow) during peak hours. The intersection will be signalized to assure orderly access into and out of the project. The analysis of this access has been addressed according to standard traffic engineering procedures as required by the City of Huntington Beach. The intersection of Kenilworth and Graham will be benefited by the traffic signal at "A" Street because the signal will create gaps that will allow traffic from Kenilworth to enter northbound Graham Street. The intersection of"A" Street with Graham Street has been moved approximately 200 feet northerly from the original proposal to improve sight distance for northbound vehicles coming over the flood control bridge immediately south of the project. The relocated intersection meets stopping sight distance standards for the posted speed limit. All traffic signals will be seen by on-coming northbound traffic. Secondary Emergency-Only Access According to the project traffic engineer, a secondary emergency-only access to the project is planned at Greenleaf, which can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Although Greenleaf Lane was designed to connect to the Shea Homes site to provide internal circulation, due to neighborhood comments it is the position of the City that existing local streets to the north would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access, and therefore, City staff will propose a Condition of Approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane to an unrestricted public street access. The Greenleaf "emergency only" access can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Second Access from Bolsa Chica Street This comment (regarding a connection to Bolsa Chica Street) was previously addressed in the Draft EIR response J&GB-2&3 (page 3-61) within Section 3.3 of this document, but for reader ease is duplicated below. According to the project traffic engineer, all logical street extensions from the project to the west create either unsafe horizontal or vertical alignments or both for a public street. In order to create a safe intersection at the middle alignment, adjacent property would be rendered undevelopable due to the major cuts required to create 2:1 slopes for the roadway. In addition to Section 6.6 Alternative 5 — Alternative Roadway Connections of the Draft EIR, which addresses the feasibility of roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street, the project traffic engineer provided further analysis of the roadway 4-18 connections through revisions of the text. Please refer to Section 5.0,Final EIR contained in Volume II. The additional information does not change the conclusions made in the Draft EIR and is provided below: Alignment A(Northerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer,this alignment is unacceptable because it creates a confusing and potentially dangerous intersection at Bolsa Chica Street. There is an existing Bolsa Chica hntersection at Los Patos Avenue to the west and an opposite private driveway serving the condominium development to the east. The extension of Bolsa Chica Street will have a prevailing speed of about 45 mph. Adding another intersection immediately adjacent to the private driveway would create turning conflicts at the three legs intersecting Bolsa Chica at nearly the same point. Also, this alignment would create a new street immediately adjacent to the condominiums, which would most likely be opposed by that Homeowner's Association. Alignment B (Middle Extension) According to the project traffic engineer, in order to maintain a maximum 8 percent grade, this extension would create a massive cut (from 130 feet to 170 feet wide) through privately owned property virtually destroying its development potential. Because of cut slope, access from that property to this street would not be feasible without further impacting that property. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there may be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica. Alignment C(Southerly Extension) According to the project traffic engineer, Bolsa Chica Street at this intersection will be on a horizontal and vertical curve with prevailing speeds of about 50 miles per hour. The southerly extension will be on a horizontal curve and an uphill grade of about 4% at its intersection with Bolsa Chica. Acceleration from a 4% uphill grade onto a street with vertical and horizontal curves and prevailing speeds of 50 miles per hour at the intersection would be challenging for the average driver. In addition, there will most likely be sight distance limitations for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles on Bolsa Chica. The severity of the sight distance limitations will depend on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica. Additionally,this alignment requires a fill slope of almost 30 feet. Extension to Bolsa Chica Conclusions According to the project traffic engineer, all three alignments have serious drawbacks. The northerly alignment creates an intersection on Bolsa Chica that is spaced too closely to an existing driveway serving a major development. The center alignment could create a reasonably safe intersection with Bolsa Chica but would be extremely costly and would destroy adjacent property in the process. The southerly alignment creates an intersection with Bolsa Chica with potentially serious grade and sight distance problems. The proposed Parkside Estates residential development will have little effect on existing or future levels of service on Graham Street. The installation of a traffic signal on"A" Street and Graham will create gaps in traffic in the AM and PM peak hours, which will help motorists accessing Graham Street from 4-19 Kenilworth Drive. Because of the acceptable LOS on Graham Street with the project,there is no need for additional access to the west at Bolsa Chica. PMK-4 Comment The fourth issue raised was regarding drainage and flooding. Speaker said she agrees with the other speakers' concerns about the drainage and flooding system. PMK-4 Response Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within this Section 4.1, regarding drainage and flooding issues. PMK-5 Comment The fifth issue raised was regarding the subsidence problem. Speaker indicated they have an existing subsidence problem and she is concerned about the quantities of dirt to be transported by the "heavy" construction trucks. Speaker wondered if we have considered potential impacts associated with heavy trucks,e.g. vibration. PMK-5 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from DR-1 (page 3-75), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding subsidence issue. However, with the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, the response required revisions based on the new alternative plans specifically due to the changed relationship of the development to the northern property boundary (i.e., addition of the Paseo Park). These revisions have been included below. According to the project geotechnical consultant, Mitigation 4, in conjunction with the construction and dewatering methodology/sequencing described in below response DS-2 (page 4-36) within this section 4.1, will mitigate this concern to a level less than significant. Evaluation of the causes of past distress to existing properties is beyond project's purview. The grading plans for the new alternatives place the Paseo Park, a 50-foot wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and `B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area. Trucks delivering rock and/or soil during the grading operation, as well as heavy earth moving equipment, will thus be removed from the existing properties by 50 feet or more. This zone will greatly reduce the vibrations that conceivably could be realized on adjacent properties as a result of grading and/or construction activities. Consequently, these grading activities are expected to have no impact on the northerly adjacent properties. Drainage will be improved by the proposed development when surface and subsurface drainage systems are constructed. Additionally, the following response (which is a partial duplicate of response BCLT-12 (page 3-120) within Section 3.3 of this document) is offered regarding the speaker's concern about routes for "heavy construction trucks" and the "quantities of dirt" to be transported during construction under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document. The impacts of construction traffic and haul road traffic are discussed at page 5-67 of the EIR. Mitigation for construction-related traffic impacts is discussed at pages 5-83 through 5-84 of the EIR. The impacts of construction on air quality are described at pages 5-94 through 5-96 of the EIR. Cumulative construction air quality impacts are discussed at pages 5-97 through 5-98 of the EIR. Measures to mitigate construction impacts on air quality are discussed at page 5-98 through 5-101 of the EIR. The 4-20 project's construction noise impacts are described at pages 5-107 through 5-108 of the EIR, and mitigation measures for those impacts are discussed at pages 5-112 through 5-113 of the EIR. The quantities and types of dewatering equipment are indicated on pages 3-21 and 5-108 of the EIR. During construction, Graham Street will be used as a point of access to the project site. Bolsa Chica Street, to the south of Los Patos Avenue, connecting to one or both of the dirt paths shown on Exhibit 15 of the EIR, might be used as a second point of access for construction vehicles. It is not possible at this time to determine with more precision the precise routes construction and dirt haul trucks will take to and from the project site. As stated in the EIR, before building permits are issued, the applicant must coordinate a truck and construction vehicle routing plan, which must be approved by the City Engineer. This plan must specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction-related impacts to adjacent residences. The Department of Public Works normally requires trucks hauling dirt to proceed along arterial streets to the maximum extent possible in order to minimize neighborhood and traffic impacts. The City's standard conditions of approval include limiting haul truck trips to Monday through Friday, restricting haul trucks from entering the project site before 7:00 a.m. or leaving it after 8:00 p.m., and requiring haul trucks either to be covered or to have water applied to exposed surfaces before leaving the site to prevent dust from affecting the surrounding areas. The other EIR mitigation measures for construction impacts include maintaining grading and earth-moving equipment in proper tune in order to minimize air quality impacts, requiring a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions, and equipping all grading and construction vehicles and equipment with effective muffler systems that use state of the art noise attenuation. Further mitigation measures to minimize construction-related impacts are discussed at the above-noted pages of the EIR. The project mitigation measures will reduce impacts associated with construction truck traffic to a less than significant level. The impacts of the new alternatives on transportation and circulation are discussed at pages 2-7, 2-30, 2- 43, and 2-61 of the New Alternatives document. The impacts of the new alternatives on air quality are discussed at pages 2-7 through 2-8, 2-31, 2-43 through 2-44, and 2-62 of the New Alternatives document. The noise impacts of the new alternatives are discussed at pages 2-8, 2-31, 2-44, and 2-62 of the New Alternatives document. Site preparation will include clearing the site, dewatering it where necessary, over-excavation and recompaction, cuts and fills, import of rock, sand, and dirt, and final finish of building pads, open space, and roads. The number and type of tractors is expected to change depending on the type of work performed at any given time. The grading equipment will likely include dozers, loaders, street sweepers, scrapers, excavators, water pulls, finish blades, and compactors. The number of tractors working on the site is expected to average approximately 16 per day. The import operation will consist of end dump trucks,double bottom dump trucks,transfer trucks, and other trucks. The import operation will consist of an average of around 200 loads per day if only the Graham Street point of access is used. If the Bolsa Chica point of access is used as well,trucks could go in one point of access and out the other. In that case, there would be an average of approximately 300 loads per day. The number of workers on the site during site preparation is expected to average around 22. The following time estimates are based on the assumption that the necessary import is trucked in from off-site rather than obtained from the Bolsa Chica Mesa: site preparation is expected to take approximately 12 months under Alternatives 7 or 9 if only the Graham Street point of entry is used. If the Bolsa Chica point of access is used as well, site preparation for these alternatives is expected to take approximately 11 months. Under Alternatives 6 or 8, site preparation would take approximately 17 months using one point of access and approximately 15 months using two points of access. If any import is obtained from the Bolsa Chica Mesa,rather than being trucked; the greater the amount of import that is 4-21 obtained from the Bolsa Chica Mesa, the shorter the site preparation time will be. These estimates are based on the grading contractor's most recent calculations of the amount of time that will be necessary for site preparation. With the project mitigation measures (refer to above), the impacts of site preparation will be less than significant. The Draft EIR originally estimated that it would be necessary to remove and recompact approximately 470,000 cubic yards of dirt in order to minimize the risk of liquefaction. Based on further calculations by the grading contractor, that number has been revised to approximately 583,000 cubic yards. As a result, the over-excavation and dewatering portion of the operation will take longer than originally anticipated. However, this will not increase either the project's length or its impacts. Because the over-excavation will take place at the same time as the import operation, the increased time frame for over-excavation and recompaction will not increase the overall length of site preparation. The number of tractors (i.e., an average of 16 per day)anticipated to be on site on any given day will remain the same. A separate contractor will be used for sewers, water pipes, and storm drains. Storm drain construction is expected to take 60 working days, with an average of eight workers on site and 30 truck trips a day. Sewer construction is expected to take 55 working days, with an average of five workers on site and 22 truck trips a day. Water line construction is expected to take 35 working days, with an average of six workers on site and 43 truck trips a day. Equipment used for these operations will include low boys, excavators,loaders,water trucks,backhoes,crew trucks, and transit mixers. Construction of the homes is expected to take approximately two to three years, once the site preparation is finished and home construction begins. The houses will be constructed in seven or eight phases, with several phases going on at any given time. The number of workers will vary, with an average of approximately 50 to 60 workers on the site per phase. It is impossible to predict at this time the precise number of total workers on the site at any given time. The number of trucks on the site will change depending on the work being performed. Overall, the equipment will include tractors, backhoes, trenching wheels, concrete trucks, saws, fork lifts, plaster pumps and sprayers, hauling vehicles, and delivery trucks,with only some of those trucks being used at any given time. The level of construction activity described above is typical for the construction of residential projects of a similar size. As described in the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives document, the impacts of construction are expected to be less than significant after mitigation. PMK-6 Comment The last issue raised was the maintenance of the parkway that goes behind the existing houses. Speaker wanted to know who would be in charge of maintaining the parkway. PMK-6 Response As indicated on the Tentative Tract Maps for each of the four (4) alternatives contained within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR as Exhibits 50, 59, 65, and 72, the Paseo Park identified as "Lot N" will be maintained by the future Parkside Estates Home Owners Association(HOA). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR(Volume 11)of this document, which contains these Exhibits. 3. EM-I Comment(Also commented as Speaker 5-EM 1 within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker stated 3 issues. The first issue regards building the project on a wetland. 4-22 EM-1 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of SG-5 (page 3-12), within Section 3.1 of this document,regarding on-site wetlands. According to the project biologist, most of the Parkside Estates project site lies within an active agricultural field, on the north side of the EGGW Channel. The channel has embankments on either side with rise ± 10 feet above the grade on the north side, and somewhat higher on the south side, with a bottom grade within the channel several feet deeper than the surrounding land. The project site was, prior to its conversion to cropland over 50 years ago, a contiguous portion of what is now known as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The agricultural use of the site,documented in the EIR(pages 5-145 through 5-149),has been continuous at least since the early 1950's, and it also appears that much of the site received excess soils from the construction of the EGGW Channel. A chronology of non-agricultural site use (stables, rodeo arena, soil depositing,etc.)also was documented in the Draft EIR. Nearest Remnant Marshland As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is presently no natural coastal marsh habitat within the project boundaries, or immediately adjacent to the development area. The agricultural fields contain a mixture of non-native ruderal herbaceous species and disturbance tolerant native taxa, including some marshland species able to tolerate saline soils. The small remnant marshland patches which were originally present within the Orange County parcel in January 1997 and were eliminated by disking actions on that portion of the overall property in June 1997 (as detailed in Appendix G of the EIR) and have currently been reestablished at 1.2 acres (refer to June 29, 2001 correspondence from California Coastal Commission). The nearest area of remnant marshland on the northern side of the EGGW Channel lies within oil fields west of the westernmost terminus of the Orange County portion of the site, and the northernmost areas of contiguous Bolsa Chica Wetlands lie adjacent to the southern margin of the channel and existing residential developments. Tidal Flow Influences As indicated in the Draft EIR, changes in surface soils and topography associated with agricultural use altered and removed whatever natural marshland configuration might once have occurred on the site, and the presence of the EGGW Channel and oil field roadway dikes have effectively eliminated all natural tidal flows or influences. The depth of the EGGW Channel and elevations of the surrounding land preclude subsurface hydrological intrusion from the south, and high flows within the channel are of short duration, and most are primarily urban runoff. Kenilworth residential development and other projects along the north side of the property eliminated all upland habitat connectivity to or from the site, and most of the surface flows which once reached the property from that direction now are conveyed off-site through underground pipes. Natural Source of Surface Water As indicated in the Draft EIR, the only natural source of surface water to the site is rainfall and direct runoff from the knoll,both of which are unpredictable, seasonal, freshwater sources. An illegally installed (i.e., there was no city permit obtained), unmetered PVC water pipeline serving the stables at the foot of the knoll has been broken numerous times during the past several years, causing localized surface flooding along the southern portion of the agricultural fields, and during years of heavy Winter rainfall (such as 1997/98) surface water accumulates in some lower portions of the site. At such times, salt- tolerant native plant species may germinate from latent seedbanks in the soil, and ruderal formations may become very dense and robust. However,this type of vegetation response is typical within all open lands, 4-23 whether in active agricultural use or lying fallow, whenever abnormally high rainfall amounts accumulate on the surface. It is the nature of most ruderal and many disturbance-tolerant halophytic plant species to persist within and around human use areas, to produce great quantities of seeds annually, most of which remain ungerminated in the soil for years awaiting suitable conditions for germination, and then to respond rapidly and vigorously to adventitious hydrology or unusually high amounts of surface moisture. Site Left Fallow for Two Years According to the project biologist, leaving the project site fallow for a time of two years would not accomplish any worthwhile end,because the site simply does not have true wetlands characteristics. True, functional wetlands possess a matrix of essential characteristics, including seasonal, ephemeral or persistent waters, and a suite of vegetation and faunal elements associated with and supported by the hydrology. Over time, such sites develop the soils characteristics employed by some agencies as a third parameter for determination of wetlands. The mere fact of standing water in low areas on level sites may or may not indicate a natural wetland,particularly if the site has been altered from its original topography, is under constant agricultural or other use, has never supported such systems historically, has standing water only as a result of extraordinary conditions (such as "El Nino rainfall years or broken water pipes), and possesses no other natural features of such a system. The use of a single parameter such as the presence of pooled rainwater for any given period of time during an extended rainy season to demonstrate wetlands presence or absence is not valid biologically or ecologically. The project site once was coastal saltmarsh, not an upland with brackish seasonal ponds, and it was the position of the EIR biological assessment that it would not revert to its former coastal saltmarsh condition under any natural circumstances. The altered topography and soils, lack of any means by which tidal flows can reach the system, absence of consistent hydrological support (aside from rainfall), absence of typical coastal saltmarsh plants or animals, and complete physical isolation from natural saltmarsh habitats precludes this site ever recovering to its former natural condition. The argument that this site, or any other such area,may exhibit minor amounts of facultative or disturbance-tolerant wetlands vegetation if left undisturbed does not change these facts. Maintained or left fallow,this site has the potential only to remain a largely ruderal field, with occasional areas of standing water following heavy rainfall. During years of"normal"rainfall,there would be little likelihood that standing water would persist for more than a few days following storms, and the character of the vegetation would reflect the drier conditions. Given the high growth of ruderal species observed from 1998-2001, it seems likely that fire clearance regulations will continue to be applied,regardless of ownership or project status. State and Federal Agency Conclusions Additionally,both State and Federal Agencies that have jurisdictional authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineer (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Pertinent correspondence from these agencies is discussed below and contained in Section 5.0, Volume IIA, Final EIR Technical Appendices. Please refer below for a discussion of both State and Federal level agencies and their conclusions related to the issue of wetland existence on-site: State Level The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) maintains State jurisdiction over the site. In a letter . dated June 15, 1998, the California Coastal Commission provided the following statements regarding wetlands status: 4-24 "To address the wetland delineation issue, the City of Huntington Beach hired Tom Dodson and Associates to evaluate prior wetland determinations and to conduct additional work for determining if wetlands exist on the portion of the project site located within the City of Huntington Beach. Through a letter dated December 17, 1997, an ecologist for Tom Dodson and Associates concluded that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach did not contain any wetlands based on the Coastal Commission's wetland criteria. The City of Huntington Beach (January 8, 1998) then requested that the California Department of Fish and Game evaluate the work done by Tom Dodson and Associates. The Department of Fish and Game (March 16, 1998) concurred with the assessment of Tom Dodson and Associates that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach does not contain wetlands. The Department of Fish and Game also acknowledged that the County portion of the project site contains wetlands in the form of remnant saltmarsh vegetation(estimated at 0.2 acres in the Draft EIR)." "The findings of Tom Dodson and Associates including the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game with those findings, have been questioned by Scott White Biological Consulting(April 5, 1998)." The California Coastal Commission has indicated verbally and in writing that it relies on the DFG to provide guidance on wetlands determinations. A June 15, 1998 letter from the DFG stated that, "Appendix G of the Draft EIR includes a March 16, 1998 letter written by the Department to the City of Huntington Beach. In that letter, the Department concurred with the no wetland value determination as described in the December 17, 1997 verification/update report of the wetland value determination conclusion prepared by the City of Huntington Beach's consultant, Tom Dodson and Associates, for the Shea Company Property TT#15377." The DFG has indicated in their June 15, 1998 letter that it does not recognize wetlands on the site, which addresses and nullifies Scott White's assertions as raised in the Coastal Commission correspondence; however,it does recognize significant wildlife resource values on the site. DFG further recommended that wildlife values on the County_parcel be mitigated by the enhancement of 2.0 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat at a location acceptable to the Department. They requested that Section 5.8 Mitigation Measure No. 2 be amended to increase the mitigation from 0.8 to 2.0 acres. They also requested that, "This mitigation encompass the protection and enhancement of wildlife value on or as a part of a significant ecological system in the project vicinity, such as the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Alternative equivalent mitigation may also be acceptable if it is consistent with the Draft EIR and approved by the Department prior to any site development activities." Additionally, as part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002)and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area (refer to Composite 4-25 Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland) will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Federal Level Based on issues raised in several letters on the Draft EIR, most notably in the June 15, 1998 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., "the Corps has yet to confirm whether the "seasonal pond... on the site on the westerly end of the property [within the County parcel]..." is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or not..."), the City of Huntington Beach agreed that a formal letter from the Corps addressing the status of the seasonal pond on-site would be imperative prior to the completion of the response to comment/Final EIR document. It took several months during this process to determine whether the Federal wetland authority does in fact concur with the findings of the EIR(i.e., 8.3-acre portion of City parcel is accurately designated as Prior Converted Cropland). The reason for the delay in response from the Federal wetland authority is due to the fact that there have been recent changes in law governing which agencies at the Federal level make the determinations. Ultimately through conversations with Eric Stein and Fari Tabatabai of the Army Corps of Engineers, it was determined that based upon the 1996 Farm Bill, the MRCS maintains jurisdiction over wetland determinations for the project site. The City of Huntington Beach submitted a formal letter to NRCS on November 10, 1998, requesting that they indicate the status of the 1992 Prior Converted Cropland designation for the site. After NRCS' review of all pertinent information, they concluded in a letter dated November 20, 1998, that the site's designation of Prior Converted Cropland is still valid. EM-2 Comment The second issue raised was that the speaker suggested recirculation of the "old" EIR before circulating the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. EM-2 Response As discussed within Section 1.1 of the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document the purpose of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document is to provide the decision-makers with new information (i.e., new alternatives to the Draft EIR) related to the Parkside Estates Project. This New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was prepared in accordance with Section 15088.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency recirculates an EIR when "significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR under Section 15087 but before certification." Subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received new information related to 1) a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), issued by FEMA,on June 14, 2000; 2) the submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001; and 3) the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel. These changes constitute "new information" which was not known at the time the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review. Therefore, preparation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was warranted. City staff and the environmental consultant made the determination that the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document was to be circulated for public review and comment as a stand alone document, per Section 15088.5(c) of CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City of Huntington Beach asked that reviewers 4-26 to limit their comments to the new information and alternatives analyzed in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document that had been revised or added since the original"old"Draft EIR 97-2 document was circulated. Because comments had already been received on the original "old"Draft EIR 97-2 document dated April 19, 1998, the City felt it the most appropriate and in accordance with CEQA to allow the public to"focus"their review on the new or revised information. In an effort to provide the public with a comparison of the original project contained within Draft EIR 97-2 to the New Alternatives, the original Draft EIR project description(as modified with marked text) was included within Section 3.0 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. Additionally, Section 4 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document includes the original "old" Draft EIR Mitigation Measures (Section 8.4 of the EIR) for ease of reference, as the Mitigation Measures are referenced in the environmental assessment within all four alternatives discussed within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. As in the project description (Section 3.0 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document), comments received during the 60-day public review period resulted in changes/revisions that were also incorporated in section 8.4 of the EIR as errata pages. The errata pages have replaced the original pages of the Draft EIR and are included in Volume II, Final EIR. The new technical appendices are bound separately as Volume IIA. Based upon the above information, the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document fulfills the requirements of Section 15088.5 of the CEQA guidelines and provides the public with all "significant new information/changes" that occurred following the public review of the original"old"Draft EIR 97-2. EM-3 Comment The speaker's third issue was her concern about the amount of water that has historically collected on the project site. She questioned what would happen if there was a break if the flood control channel. EM-3 Response Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within this Section 4.1, regarding drainage and flooding issues. Additionally, the following is offered to address the speaker's concern regarding "a break in the flood control channel." The FEMA floodplain study required as part of Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application for the proposed project (Appendix C of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and recently updated per FEMA in the January 30, 2002 submittal)investigates all combinations of levee failures (i.e., break-outs in the flood control channel) to the north, to the south, and to both the north and south simultaneously. The worse-case results of all combinations of failures are provided in Appendix C of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and recently updated per FEMA in the January 30, 2002 submittal to FEMA, which has been included in Section 5.0 Errata of this document. These submittals tabulate water elevations and provide maps of FEMA floodplain extents. The conclusions of the submittals indicate that the results of "levee failures" would be less flooding (i.e., lower water elevations and smaller FEMA floodplain extents) under the scenario with the Parkside Estates development constructed then under the existing conditions scenario-without the Parkside Estates development. In addition, the CLOMR request included a study entitled "Final Response to FEMA May 2, 2002, Comments on February 5, 2001, Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision: Shea Homes Parkside Estates Tentative Nos. 15377 & 15419. Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Watershed from the Tide Gates to I-405 Freeway," prepared by Exponent dated May 16, 2002. This study is comprised of detailed proposed conditions "with-levee" and"without-levee" 4-27 HEC-UNET, Version 4.0, models dated May 16, 2002. These models include East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel from its confluence with the tide gates to its crossing under the San Diego Freeway; Ocean View Channel from its confluence with East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel to its crossing under the San Diego Freeway; and associated levees, pump stations, bridge structures, and culverts. Because the existing levees along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel are not certified in accordance with Section 65.10 of the NFIP regulations, the modeling involved failing levees in accordance with the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners, dated February 2002. As a result of these hydraulic models and a revised delineation of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that would be inundated by the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year(base flood), the FIRM and FIS report can be revised not only for the Shea Homes property but also for the entire study reach once the proposed study improvements are constructed. FEMA reviewed the submitted models and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for the Shea property and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The effective HEC-RAS model dated January 26, 2000,was used as the base conditions model in FEMA's review of the proposed conditions model for the CLOMR request. As a result of more detailed topographic information, the water-surface elevation (WSEL) of the base flood will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL, 1.9 feet, will occur approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Gothard Street. FEMA concluded in a CLOMR to the City of Huntington Beach dated June 6, 2002, that "as a result of the more detailed topographic information,the proposed project, and the failure of uncertified levees, the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The base flood WSEL within the Shea Homes property will be 2.2 feet,referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum(NGVD)of 1929." The conversion of NGVD 29 Datum to NAVD 88 Datum (which is the base datum being used in the design of the project) is calculated by adding 2.4 feet. Therefore, the approved CLOMR WSEL or Base Flood Elevation (BFE) for the project site as adjusted to NAVD88 datum is 4.6 feet. The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document includes two (2) alternatives #7 and#9 with a BFE of 4.5 feet. These two alternatives and the environmental analysis of these alternatives are consistent with the June 6, 2002 approved FEMA CLOMR for the project site. 4. JV-1 Comment(Also commented as Speaker 13-JV1 within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker brought up 3 issues. The first issue the speaker raised was the possibility for the City to recirculate/reevaluate the whole document (Original "OLD" Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR) due to the number of new residents since the first distribution of the original Draft EIR and due to the changes made since the first distribution of the Draft EIR document. JV-1 Response Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within this Section 4.1, regarding recirculation of "significant"new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines. 4-28 JV-2 Comment The second issue the speaker commented on pertained to wetland status. Speaker stated that Bolsa Chica Land Trust(BCLT) has documented the water ponding on the project property for many years. Speaker indicated that the length of time water ponds on the property should be classified as wetland that would be protected under the State Coastal Act. Speaker wondered if the EIR has studied the amount of water collected and how long it has stayed there since the release of the original EIR. JV-2 Response Please refer to above response to EM-1 (page 4-23), within this Section 4.1, regarding on-site wetland issues. For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of EM-1 (page 4-23) and of JV-1 (page 3-31), within Section 3.1 of this document,regarding standing water on-site. According to the project civil engineer, photos documenting Historical Record of this site do not indicate a history of standing water. Any standing water on this site documented by pictures is either from an excessive rainfall, which occurred prior to the photographs or the broken 2-inch water service line that crossed this property. 1998 was a year of abnormal rains referred to as El Nino. The pictures could have been taken after any of these abnormal storms. Hunsaker & Associates prepared the Historical Site Usage document specifically for Shea Homes for submittal to the California Coastal Commission. The project biologist, Frank Hovore, EDAW's subconsultant, reviewed the aerial photographs contained in the Historical Site Usage document microscopically, and summarized his assessment of the land use patterns exhibited in these photographs in the Draft EIR(refer to Appendix G of the EIR). A copy of this document was provided to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game on May 4, 1998 (during the 60-day public review period for the Draft EIR)for their review. A copy was also submitted to the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. This document is also on file at the City Department of Planning. Lastly, based upon the conclusions of the State and Federal resource agencies regarding the status of on- site wetlands (as outlined in above response EM-I within this Section 4.1), requests and/or direction to further study on-site water collection was not provided to the City. The 45-acre City parcel has been actively farmed since 1998. JV-3 Comment Lastly, speaker would like to commend Shea Homes for considering to sell the property. Speaker believes the property should be left as a wetland. JV-3 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 5. DH-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker raised 5 issues. The first issue speaker raised regards the floodplain. Speaker said the floodplain is a major concern for the community and talked about the flooding in the neighborhood that happened several years ago. 4-29 DH-1 Response Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within this Section 4.1,regarding flooding issues. DH-2 Comment Speaker stated that the vehicle access in and out is going to be a major problem. DH-2 Response Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18),within Section 4.1,regarding vehicle access. DH-3 Comment Speaker indicated that the timing of the existing traffic signals (i.e., Library and Goldenwest, Greentree and Warner, going in and out of Home Depot on Warner) is not working well, and he hoped the new signals would have better timing. DH-3 Response The proposed new signal will be installed in accordance with the Department of Public Works Standards. Signal timing requirements will also be implemented consistent with City Standards. DH-4 Comment Speaker suggested that Shea Homes could/should use Bolsa Chica Road as fire access and should do everything to make it happen,but work with the people who live there. DH-4 Response Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within this Section 4.1, regarding the potential for connections to Bolsa Chica Street. DH-5 Comment Speaker asked if the Response to Comments has not been completed for 2-3 years, how it is going to be possible to finish the final Response to Comments in the next 6 months. DH-5 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisiommkers. As indicated in Section 1.4.1 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, the delay in preparing the original Response to Comments was due to factors beyond the control of the City of Huntington Beach and the applicant. These factors have been outlined below. 1st. Following the close of the 60-day public review period ending on June 15, 1998 and based on the written and verbal comments received on the Draft EIR 97-2, City staff and EDAW began preparation of formal responses and Draft EIR errata pages. At City staffs request, the project applicant also prepared a Reduced Density Alternative Concept from July 1998 through February 1999 time frame. 4-30 2nd. Based upon the Draft EIR comment letter from the County of Orange dated May 27, 1998, City staff and the applicant met with the County of Orange between June 1998 and June 2000 to discuss the status and results of the WEST Consultants new analysis of the CO5 Channel watershed. The results of this analysis were used for the issuance of a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) covering the project site. 3rd. In response to the issuance of a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)on June 14, 2000,issued by FEMA; the submittal of a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) to FEMA, accompanied by a flood insurance study by Shea Homes; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission decision, which designated the 4.5-acre County portion of the project site as "conservation," City staff requested and the applicant agreed to prepare a series of alternatives that would address this new information. Based on the new alternatives, staff recommend preparation of a New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, which would disclose the impacts of the new alternatives and be circulated for public review consistent with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 6. CB-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker brought up 5 issues. Speaker was not clear about the visual simulation. Speaker had a question regarding the concept of"higher elevation alternative (II foot elevation house)- she stated one sees less of the house versus the lower elevation (4 foot elevation house)- one sees more of the house." She did not understand how this was possible. CB-1 Response The speaker is referring to the comparison between Exhibit 56 Visual Simulations Alternatives 6 & 8 (BFE of 10.9 feet) to Exhibit 62 Visual Simulations Alternatives 7 & 9 (BFE of 4.5 feet). Because the proposed finished home pads of Alternatives 7 & 9 (4.5-foot BFE) are closer to the elevation of the existing homes along Kenilworth Drive, more of the "actual proposed home" under these alternatives is seen from the Kenilworth home rear fence line. As the proposed BFE raises to 10.9 feet under Alternatives 6 & 8, the 133-foot buffer separations, which includes the 50-foot paseo park and "B" Street, are also elevated and become "more visible. Therefore, the foreground view (which is the 133-foot separation) is an elevated sloped condition, which makes the proposed home beyond the paseo park and `B" Street "less visible." The Cross Section Exhibits contained in the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document better illustrate this situation. A comparison of Exhibit 54a Cross Section Alternative 6 (10.9-foot BFE-Section "A"-'A") to Exhibit 61a Cross Section Alternative 7 (4.5-foot BFE-Section "A""A") shows the different elevations of the slope within the proposed paseo park. Under Alternative 6, the top of the paseo park is at 8.7 feet (creating a bigger slope and making the proposed home beyond"less visible" from the existing rear fence line of the Kenilworth home at 1.7 foot elevation). Under Alternative 7 the top of the paseo park is at 3.7 feet (creating a smaller slope and allowing the proposed home beyond to be "more visible" from the existing rear fence line of the Kenilworth home at 1.7-foot elevation). CB-2 Comment Speaker's second comment was about the ponding of water. Speaker has pictures of tractors stuck in the ground trying to plow the water under. 10 4-31 CB-2 Response Please refer to above response to JV-2 (page 4-29),within this Section 4.1,regarding ponding of water. CB-3 Comment Speaker's third comment regards the proposed 11.5 feet drain into the drainage. Speaker thinks the statement, "all the water percolates to the ground,none of the water will run down the houses" defies the rules of gravity. CB-3 Response Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5),within this Section 4.1,regarding drainage issues. Additionally, it appears that the speaker is referring to a proposed new drainpipe(i.e., "proposed 11.5 feet drain") and the following information is offered in response. The new "10 feet diameter" drain pipe that will be going from the proposed development into the Slater Pump Station forebay (City Channel) underneath the EGGW flood control channel is one of City's conditions of development. The drain will go underneath the channel but will not connect to it (please refer to Exhibit 42 — the original project proposed Storm Drain Improvements and Exhibits 58 and 71 —the new alternatives proposed Storm Drain Improvements located in Volume H Final EIR). Therefore,there is no direct connection between"10 feet diameter"drainpipe and the EGGW flood control channel. CB-4 Comment Speaker's fourth comment regards the existing workers, "food coach", and trucks driving up and down in the"environmentally delicate"area, and farming on a property that is not theirs. CB-4 Response With respect to the existing (farming) workers, food coach, and trucks driving up and down in the environmentally delicate area, we presume this comment questions whether the referenced vehicles are harming environmental resources. To the best information available, the applicant has informed the City that the vehicles associated with the fanning workers, food coach, and farming trucks are using the same dirt paths used for many, many years by cars, trucks and trailers going to and from the prior adjoining horse stable facility. No environmental resources have been identified within or adjacent to these dirt paths. If the speaker was referring to possible archeological disturbance from the farming related vehicles,no archeological disturbance has occurred. The interpretation of (the applicant) farming on property that is not theirs is not clear. The applicant acquired the property in 1996 and continued farming the property in similar manner as the prior owner. The applicant and farmer have entered into a farming lease, which has been regularly renewed. The farming lease agreement has an attached exhibit, which clearly defines the applicant's property. Any farming activity being conducted by the applicant's farmer outside of the subject Shea Homes—Parkside Estates property,would be subject to a specific farming agreement with another property owner. The same farmer has regularly farmed the property; who has planted and harvested various crops including beans, squash, cabbage, and celery. The activity is consistent with the Clean Water Act's and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineer's understanding of normal farming activities. In the early 1990's, the Corps determined the subject property does not contain any waters of the U. S., and that the property constitutes "prior converted farmland" on which normal farming activities are allowed. The Clean Water 4-32 Act defines normal farming activities as including "plowing, seeding, cultivating, minor drainage, harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and water conservation . practices." The Corps has defined"plowing"to mean "all forms of primary tillage, including moldboard, chisel, or wide-blade plowing, discing, harrowing and similar physical means utilized to farm, forest or ranch land for the breaking up, cutting, turning over, or stirring of soil to prepare it for the planting of crops." The Corps and EPA have jointly stated that "plowing" includes "land leveling, to prepare it for the planting of crops." CB-5 Comment Speaker stated her concern about the chemical sprays being put out on the field constantly by men wearing white suits and gas masks. Speaker said none of the residents know what is being put out on the field and when it will be put on. When the dirt gets scraped off with the proposed project it will float all around the neighborhood. Speaker suggested testing the"dirt/soil that has been sprayed. Speaker also suggested that Shea Homes should give a notice to the community regarding what is being sprayed and when it is being sprayed. Speaker was concerned about the effect the chemical sprays would have on the children with asthma because she has three children with asthma. CB-5 Response The project site is currently in agricultural production, and the agricultural use on the site is regulated by the County of Orange, Department of Agriculture, which also issues appropriate permits. As part of normal farming activities,the company that farms the site applies pesticides to control pests; herbicides to control weeds; fungicides to control fungus, mildew, and blight; and adjuvants to assist in spreading the agricultural chemicals uniformly. Most of the pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and adjuvants that the applicant's farmer has used on the site dissipate within two days of application; within fourteen days of application, all of those substances dissipate completely and no longer remain on the plants or in the soil. The pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and adjuvants that the applicant's farmer has used on the plants that are grown on the site are designed to dissipate within a short period of time, so that the plants can safely be harvested and consumed. The farmer also applies fertilizers to the plants. Before planting crops, the farmer tests the soil to determine whether it is deficient in nitrogen, potash, or phosphorus. If it is deficient in any of those nutrients,the farmer adds the appropriate fertilizer to the irrigation water to correct the problem. Most or all of the fertilizer is absorbed by the plants. Once farming activities on the project site cease in anticipation of construction of the project, agricultural chemicals will no longer be used on the site. As a result of the rapid dissipation of most of the agricultural chemicals that have been used on the project site, none of the pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or adjuvants that the applicant's farmer has used are expected to remain in the soil that is removed during site preparation, and none of those substances are expected to be present in the water that is pumped during dewatering. Any fertilizers that remain in the soil after crop harvest will remain in only small quantities and are not expected to pose a risk to human health or any other significant effects when the soil is dewatered or when it is removed and recompacted. The project applicant will be required to obtain permits from the City, the County, and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board before discharging the water obtained through dewatering, and will comply with any conditions attached to those permits, including carrying out any required testing for agricultural chemicals or other substances and performing any required cleanup. The State Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, has found that the impacts of construction dewatering wastes on water quality are de minimus. See Mitigation Measures 3 at page 5-142 of the EIR,which requires the applicant,before 4-33 issuance of a grading permit, to provide a Water Quality Management Plan and all NPDES requirements to the City Engineer for review and approval. The plan in required to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, control techniques and systems,design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. Implementation of this mitigation measures will reduce water quality impacts due to dewatering to a level less than significant. See also responses RWQCB 3,4,and 5 (page 4-92)in Section 4.3 of this document. Earth Resources Mitigation Measure 5, found at page 5-131 of the EIR, requires the soil to be tested before grading permits are issued in order to determine the residential levels of pesticides in the soil. Mitigation Measure 5 also provides for cleanup measures if there are inappropriate or unsafe levels of pesticides. Although residual fertilizers are not expected to cause any significant environmental effects, Mitigation Measure 5 shall be revised to include testing of the soil to determine residual levels of fertilizers as well, and cleanup if there are inappropriate or unsafe levels of fertilizers. Thus, Earth Resources Mitigation Measure 5 shall be revised to provide: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,Phase II environmental soil sampling shall be conducted to determine the residual levels of pesticides or fertilizers in the soil. If inappropriate/unsafe levels are identified by this analysis, "clean up" measures shall be recommended and implemented. The Phase II sampling and any necessary measures shall be approved by the City Department of Public Works. In addition, see the discussion and mitigation measures at pages 5-129 through 5-132 and 5-138 through 5-143 of the EIR. With the implementation of the project mitigation measures, potential impacts from substances applied to plants during farming will be less than significant. 7. NM-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker suggested recirculation of the original EIR because of the number of significant changes in the information that the EIR is based on that occurred since the first release of the EIR document. (i.e., traffic) MH-1 Response Please refer to above response to EM-2(page 4-26), within this Section 4.1,regarding recirculation of the "significant"new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines. MH-2 Comment Speaker stated opening up a Bolsa Chica Road is a good alternative,but building an emergency access on Greenleaf Lane is not a good idea. MH-2 Response Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within this Section 4.1, regarding a Bolsa Chica Street connection. For reader ease, the following is a partial duplicate response of CD-1 (page 3-45) within Section 3.1 of this document regarding the emergency access planned at Greenleaf Lane. According to the project traffic engineer, although not proposed by the City, if existing residential streets to the north were used as secondary access to the project,the impact would be minimal. Traffic from the 4-34 project would add 38 vehicles in the AM peak hour and 45 vehicles in the PM peak hour to Greenleaf Lane south of Warner Avenue. A secondary emergency-only access to the project is planned at Greenleaf Lane, which can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the Greenleaf gate is opened. Additionally, it is the position of the City that existing streets to the north would only be utilized for an "emergency only" access, and therefore, City staff will propose a Condition of Approval for the Parkside Estates project that there would not be any future action taken to open the "emergency only" access at Greenleaf Lane. A traffic signal at the project's access street will create gaps in traffic, which will assist motorists on Kenilworth and Pendleton to gain access to Graham Street during peak hours. MH-3 Comment Speaker commented that having one-way opening of the road is not a good idea and it is already a problem. Speaker stated that the "Edwards Hill" opening has caused continuous traffic along Kennilworth. Speaker stated that for 181 more homes with at least 2 cars per household, creating one more light is not going to solve the issue. Speaker also stated one opening would cause back up during morning commute time. MH-3 Response Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within this Section 4.1,regarding the single project access. Additionally, the development on "Edwards Hill" is part of the Holly-Seacliff master plan, which was considered as "Other Projects", and therefore, part of the cumulative traffic impact analysis for the project. Please refer to page 9 of the Darnell & Associates study dated June 27, 1997 and the revised Darnell &Associates study dated March 29, 2001. The revised traffic study included in Section 5.0 Final EIR does not alter the conclusions or mitigations presented in the Draft EIR. NM-4 Comment Speaker stated that during a recent storm, she and her neighbors experienced flooding into the houses and cars parked on the streets due to a power failure which caused a failure of the pump station. Speaker commented that it is unrealistic to suggest that the community will not have any problems with 4-ft. or 11-ft. elevations. MH-4 Response Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within this Section 4.1, regarding flooding. The potential impacts of the four(4)new reduced density alternatives 6 and 8 (BFE of 10.9) and 7 and 9 (BFE of 4.5) have been addressed in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and the analysis is contained in the June 2001 document which was circulated for public review from July 29,2001 to August 12, 2001. 4-35 MH-5 Comment Speaker stated that the existing community is already built in a bad area and we don't have to keep P g Y Y P making the same bad decision by building this project. She stated a lot has been learned since their community was built in 1965. MH-5 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 8. DS-1 Comment(Also commented as Speaker 1-DS 1-4 within Section 3.1 and as Speaker 13-DS 1 within Section 4.1 of this document) Speaker raised 6 issues. Speaker stated that the original EIR does not include analysis of the"cumulative traffic"impacts of the Catellus-Summerlane Project. DS-1 Response For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate response of RPA-1 (page 3-178), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding"cumulative traffic"impacts. Please note that the development at the Meadowlark Airport Site is referred to as Catellus Residential in the EIR(page 4-3). For the proposed project, quantification of transportation and circulation and noise cumulative effects were analyzed through the use of 2020 traffic volume projections obtained from the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis (Please refer to page 5-76 of the EIR). These traffic volumes were approved for use by the City of Huntington Beach. Mitigation Measure 5 of the EIR is proposed to reduce the project's incremental contribution to cumulative traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally,Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 29, 2001 that includes the following: 1) a reduction in dwelling units from 208 to 171 for the project and 2)the inclusion of 350 dwelling units from the Meadowlark(Catellus)residential project, which was previously omitted (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR). The revised study does not alter the conclusions or mitigations presented in the Draft EIR. Also, please refer to response RPA#2-3 (page 4-85), within Section 4.3 of this document, regarding "cumulative traffic"impacts. DS-2 Comment Speaker stated that the issue of dewatering was never addressed in original EIR or the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. DS-2 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from DS-1 (page 3-6), within Section 3.1 of this document, regarding dewatering. Furthermore, the response has been modified to reflect the changes in the plans (included in the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document) specifically the changed relationship of the development to the northern property boundary (i.e., addition of the Paseo Park). These revisions have been included below. 4-36 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet. Perched ground water was observed in borings and test pits at levels varying from 4 to 19 feet below existing grades. These water levels vary, to some extent, seasonally and are considered to be "perched" above less permeable silt and clay seams. Those interbedded seams are discontinuous laterally and as a result water is flowing both vertically and laterally within the more permeable sand layers. Based upon excavations that were monitored in March and May 1998, digging to depths of approximately 10 feet, water levels at that period were approximately 6 feet below ground surface (bgs). The excavations were pumped on two occasions and monitored periodically in between. The following were the conclusions: 1. No fluctuations in water levels were observed during tidal changes and; 2. Relatively slow recharge(approximately 24 hours)was observed after pumping. The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique, which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4± feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, further excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removals will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavations will be segmented in approximate 200 x 200 feet±increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with similar surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. Remedial grading activities will be setback from the north property line by at least 40 feet at the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom. Such local grading dewatering efforts will not affect existing properties to the north. The grading plans for the new alternatives place the Paseo Park, a 50-foot wide passive land use, between the existing properties on the north and `B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area. In order to monitor the boundary conditions,the following tasks are planned to be accomplished prior to and/or during site grading: 1. Conduct a topographic survey of existing conditions; 2. Install piezometers to monitor groundwater levels; 3. Install and monitor survey monuments; 4. Prepare a detailed dewatering plan for review by the governing agency(s). It should be noted that similar conditions have been encountered elsewhere and procedures similar to those proposed for this site have been successfully implemented on numerous projects throughout the Huntington Beach,Fountain Valley, and Westminster areas. Monitoring of boundary conditions at the south side of the project associated with construction of the sheet pile levee fronting East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (CO5) will be as discussed in prior certified EIR 560. Geotechnical conditions and construction details are available from the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record in accordance with CEQA Section 15148. The additional information presented herein regarding the proposed dewatering plan "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR, and do not 4-37 change the Draft EIR conclusions regarding construction traffic and/or short-term construction noise impacts (i.e., noise from dewatering pumps, as discussed in Section 5.5, Noise and Appendix C of the Draft EIR). DS-3 Comment The third issue the speaker raised regards the existing traffic problem at Kenilworth / Graham area. Speaker stated that there have been 3 major accidents at Graham/Warner with one fatality. Speaker also stated that"Edwards Hill"traffic is a problem. DS-3 Response In response to questions raised about the addition of new traffic from the proposed development, the City has reviewed the Traffic Collision History Report (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR for the detailed report) for the past ten years for the intersections of Graham Street and Warner Avenue, Graham Street and Glenstone Drive, and Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive. Additionally, accident data information was included within Section 5.3,Transportation/Circulation of the EIR. A review of all collision reports for Graham Street at the noted intersections indicates that only one fatality has occurred along this reach of Graham due to traffic related incidents. This involved a pedestrian and vehicle and was not due to congestion. The reports indicate that nearly all of the collisions occurred due to,motor vehicles operational violations such as unsafe speed, failure to yield, unsafe lane changes,unsafe passing,driving under the influence and illegal turns. There is no evidence to support the contention that the addition of new traffic at these intersections will result in unsafe conditions or unmitigated levels of service that would result in additional traffic hazards. Please refer to above response to MH-3 (page 4-35),within this Section 4.1,regarding the"Edwards Hill" traffic. DS-4 Comment Speaker wondered if the community is going to be a gated community or a Home Owner Association community. Speaker asked who is going to maintain and secure(i.e.,vagrancy)the proposed Paseo Park. DS-4 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of CCC-2 (page 3-175), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding gated community. The Parkside Estates project is not proposed to be a "locked gate" private community. The streets are proposed to be public. Please refer to Exhibit 6a-1 of the EIR,which depicts the proposed street sections. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-6 (page 4-22), within this Section 4.1, regarding maintenance of the paseo park. DS-5 Comment Speaker stated a lot of things have changed since the first public information meeting and he commented because the Response to Comments has not been addressed to the public, the public can not make 4-38 comments to the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. Speaker would like to get some clarification about the Response to Comments. DS-5 Response Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within this Section 4.1, regarding recirculation of "significant" new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines and above response to DH-5 (page 4-30), within this Section 4.1, regarding the delay in the preparation of the Response to Comments. DS-6 Comment The sixth issue speaker brought up is about the enforcement of mitigation measures. Speaker stated that the community needs heads-up on pesticide spraying and dewatering. DS-6 Response For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate of response BCLT-7 (page 3-118), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding enforcement of mitigation measures through a mitigation monitoring program. Section 21081.6 of CEQA requires the development and implementation of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This program is required to specify the party responsible for implementation of mitigation, timing of mitigation, and the party responsible for verification of mitigation implementation, consistent with CEQA Section 21081.6. The Mitigation Monitoring Program shall ensure that mitigation measures are implemented. This program will be included as a stand alone document prior to the Project Hearings on the Final EIR. Additionally, please refer to above responses to CB-5 (page 4-33), within this Section 4.1, regarding pesticide spraying and DS-2(page 4-36),within this Section 4.1,regarding dewatering. 9. GM-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker asked to whom the project impacts are "less than significant" (i.e., 37,000 truckloads of dirt and aesthetic impacts). GM-1 Response For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of RPA-9 (page 3-180), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding"less than significant"project impacts. With respect to the commentor's concern regarding a clear definition of what constitutes a "Less than significant impact," it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. As has been done on prior EIR's prepared for projects in the City,the preparers of the EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. Additionally, please refer to PMK-5 (page 4-20), within this Section 4.1, regarding construction traffic (i.e.,dirt hauling impacts). 4-39 Aesthetic Impacts are addressed in detail within Section 5.2 of the EIR, and within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate of response BCLT-16 and 17 (page 3-123)within Section 3.3 of this document regarding aesthetic impacts. The EIR analysis and conclusions are based upon CEQA Guideline Criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. With respect to "loss of open space", as indicated in Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the EIR, the proposed project may be perceived as having a substantial,demonstrable,negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. However,due to the fact that this area has been designated as RL-7 Residential Low Density in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and is in effect an infill project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 10. LF-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker questioned where the children from this development would attend school. Have the school impacts been addressed? LF-1 Response As indicated on pages 5-175 and 5-176 of the EIR, the children from the proposed development would attend the following schools: Hope View Elementary School, Marine View Middle School, and Huntington Beach High School. School impacts were addressed in detail on pages 5-180 and 5-181 of the EIR and referenced on pages 2-12, 2-33, 2-47 and 2-63 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. The EIR school impact analysis and proposed mitigation measures are developed utilizing information and input provided by the School Districts which will provide service to the project. It is common practice and prudent for EIR preparers to solicit written information from School Districts which may be impacted by a project. Page 5-175 of the EIR references these correspondences from the school districts. Both School Districts were sent copies of the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and the City did not receive any comments regarding the adequacy of the impact analysis or proposed mitigation provided in the Draft EIR. 11. JR-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker would like to know the City's/County's plan for the channel improvements if this project does not go through. JR-1 Response The City is currently relying upon the County for final improvements to the Channel. There are no County plans to improve this reach within the next two years. JR-2 Comment Speaker asked where the kids from this project along with the Summerlane kids would go to school. 4-40 JR-2 Response Please refer to above response to LF-1 (page 4-40), within this Section 4.1,regarding school impacts. 12. DP-1 Comment(Speaker did not comment within Section 3.1 of this document.) Speaker stated that the next meeting the public attends will be a "thank you" meeting from Shea Homes because the project will be built. DP-1 Response The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 13. DS#2-1 Comment(Also commented as Speaker 1-DS 1-4 within Section 3.1 and as Speaker 8-DS 1-6 within Section 4.1 of this document.) Speaker stated the community should be able to review the Response to Comments on the original EIR prior to making comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR as several significant changes have happened over the past 2'h years. DS#2-1 Response Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within this Section 4.1, regarding recirculation of "significant'new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines. 4-41 4.2 Comment Cards/Responses to Comments Index 4.2 COMMENT CARDS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX COMMENT/RESPONSE COMMENT CARDS SERIES PAGE# 1. W.R. Curran WRC 1 4-44 17131 Pleasant Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 2. Vi Cowden VC 1 4-44 124 16''Street#1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 3. Lee Haber LH 1 4-44 5392 Glenroy Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 4. John Ayala JA 1 4-44 17152 St. Andrews Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 5. Dr.Julie Lauterborn JL 1—3 444 to 4-45 17101 Greentree Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649 6. June Ross JRs 1 —6 445 to 4-46 5472 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 7. George R.Ross GRR 1—4 4-46 to 4-47 5472 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 8. Jennifer A.Thomas JAT 1 4-47 5432 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 9. Linda Moon LM 1 4-47 Amigos de Bolsa Chica 16331 Bolsa Chica Road#312 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 10. Barbara Olson BO 1 4-47 5262 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 4-42 4.2 COMMENT CARDS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX (CONT'D) COMMENT/RESPONSE COMMENT CARDS SERIES PAGE# 11. Shoy Yee Kong SYK 1 447 5402 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 12. Don Pichovich DP 1 4-48 17131 Camelot Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92649 13. Fred De-Nuccio* FRN 1 4-48 17092 St. Andrews Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4565 14. Douglas Stewart DS 1-6 4-48 5342 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 15. Jeff Roeder JR 1-3 449 5431 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 * No written comments were included on comment card. 4-43 4.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENT CARDS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING 1. WRC-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 2. VC-1 Please refer to above response to EM-1 (page 4-23), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding on- site wetlands. 3. LH-1 According to the project engineer, the property in its present condition is at or above the elevations of adjacent properties.The property does not provide the suggested storage until after adjacent properties are already flooded. The City has conditioned the developer to add drainage capacity to the Kenilworth/Graham intersection, divert offsite drainage into the proposed development drainage system, construct additional drainage to Slater Channel, and install additional pumping capacity at Slater Pump Stations. There are off-site benefits from these conditions. The Kenilworth/Graham intersection will not flood in the event of local intense storms, and drainage from adjacent properties will be able to flow by gravity to the new drainage facilities. Floodplain regulations require that the lots in the new development be filled to one foot above the expected flood elevation. Streets in the proposed development will be graded to be lower than their adjacent lots, and will provide conveyance and storage for on-site storms. Streets and storm drains will not drain to adjacent properties. The drainage will go to the new drainage system and then to Slater Pump Station. 4. JA-1 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the project access issue. 5. JL-1 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the project access issue. Please refer to above response to ME-2 (page 4-34), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the Greenleaf Lane access issue. JL-2 Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding flooding issues. 4-44 JL-3 Please refer to above response to PMK-2 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding privacy issue/impact from pedestrians on the proposed paseo park and traffic on the proposed adjacent street. 6. JRs-1 Implementation of the proposed Parkside Estates project will create short-term construction impacts (i.e., air quality,noise, and traffic), however, mitigation measures have been prepared to mitigate the potential short-term impacts. These measures will reduce the impacts to levels of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be implemented as a condition of project approval. Also, please refer to above response PMK-5 (page 4-20),within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding construction impacts. For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of DR-4 (page 3-75), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding the wall issue. Shea originally proposed to build a 6'±high masonry wall along the north(adjacent to Kenilworth), east (adjacent to Graham Street) and south (adjacent to EGGW Channel) boundaries of the site. This wall would serve as a privacy wall and for aesthetic purposes. Along the southwestern boundary of the project site (along the proposed homes), there is a proposed seawall of varying height. No fencing is required along the northwestern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed park site. Shea proposes to protect, in place, the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site (i.e., homes along the south side of Kenilworth Drive). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, (page 3-14) contained in Volume lI, for the revised text. If a wall is required by the City, the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons. The single wall would provide adequate water drainage, avoid nuisance or hazards,and satisfy maintenance concerns. Under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document, a new 6-foot high masonry wall would not be needed along the north boundary for privacy/aesthetic reasons (due to the 133-foot buffer which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. JRs-2 For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate response from SG-4 (page 3-11)and JS-1 (page 3-32), within Section 3.1 of this document,regarding school traffic. The consulting traffic engineer and City Engineer have concluded that a single access to Graham Street is adequate to handle traffic from this project. Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A or B with the project,which represents free flow during peak hours including when school buses are active. Standard traffic impact analysis methodology, to which this project's analysis conforms, accounts for unusual peaking of traffic during time periods as short as 15 minutes in length. This time interval conforms to the length of time congestion is most severe in the vicinity of a school. The traffic count data shows that during the AM peak period, traffic patterns are not unusually "peaked" in character. Specifically, the Peak Hour Factor(defined as the total traffic flow in one hour divided by four times the largest 15-minute period within that hour) is about 0.90 at Graham/Wamer; if it were less than 0.85, the 4-45 methodology would need to be adjusted. Since pick-up operations at the end of the school day do not coincide with the afternoon peak traffic period,they were not analyzed. JRs-3 Please refer to above response to DS-1 (page 4-36), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding cumulative projects and the inclusion of the Catellus project in the analysis. JRs-4 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding Bolsa Chica Street as potential access. JRs-5 Please refer to above responses to SJK-1 (page 4-5) and EM-3 (page 4-27), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding flood risk and drainage issues. JRs-6 For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate response from MJW-5 (page 3-96), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding parking for the proposed park. According to the project civil engineer, the City's Department of Planning is proposing, in their preliminary conditions of approval, that the proposed project provide 30 on-street parking spaces for the park. City staff has further required that these 30 spaces be provided over and above the on-street parking required for guests of the residences within this proposed project. A parking designation plan has been submitted to the City,which includes the required parking spaces. The park site is designed as a neighborhood park. It is anticipated that many park attendees would walk to the park. 7. GRR-1 Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding EGGW channel improvement plan. Additionally, for reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from RPA-26 (page 3-184), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding expansion of the capacity of the Wintersburg Channel. According to the project civil engineer, the County has designed the ultimate capacity of the EGGW Channel to accommodate a 100-year flood event after completion of the proposed improvements to the entire channel. With existing and the proposed channel improvements associated with this Project, the EGGW Channel still will not be capable of conveying a 100-year storm event; however, the capacity of the EGGW Channel will be improved as a result of this proposed development. GRR-2 Please refer to above response to DS-3 (page 4-38) and PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding traffic and the traffic accident history issue. 4-46 Additionally,for reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate response from SG-4(page 3-11) and JS-1 (page 3-33), within Section 3.1 of this document,regarding school traffic. The consulting traffic engineer and City engineer have concluded that a single access to Graham Street is adequate to handle traffic from this project. Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A or B with the project,which represents free flow during peak hours including when school buses are active. Standard traffic impact analysis methodology, to which this project's analysis conforms, accounts for unusual peaking of traffic during time periods as short as 15 minutes in length. This time interval conforms to the length of time congestion is most severe in the vicinity of a school. The traffic count data shows that during the AM peak period, traffic patterns are not unusually "peaked" in character. Specifically, the Peak Hour Factor (defined as the total traffic flow in one hour divided by four times the largest 15-minute period within that hour) is about 0.90 at Graham/Warner; if it were less than 0.85, the methodology would need to be adjusted. Since pick-up operations at the end of the school day do not coincide with the afternoon peak traffic period,they were not analyzed. GRR-3 &4 Implementation of the proposed Parkside Estates project will create short-term construction impacts (i.e., air quality,noise, and traffic), however,mitigation measures have been prepared to mitigate the potential short-term impacts. These measures will reduce the impacts to levels of less than significant. These mitigation measures will be implemented as a condition of project approval. Also, please refer to above response PMK-5 (page 4-20), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding construction impacts. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-2 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the issue of privacy. 8. JAT-1 Please refer to above response to EM-1 (page 4-23) and JV-3 (page 4-29), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding the status of on-site wetlands. 9. LM-1 Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding recirculation of"significant"new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines. 10. BO-1 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding traffic impact issues. Additionally, please refer to above response to JRs-2 (page 4-45), within this Section 4.2, regarding school traffic. 11. SYK-1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4-47 12. DP-1 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding traffic impact issues. Additionally, please refer to above response to DS-3 (page 4-38), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding traffic accident history issues. 13. FRN-1 No written comments were included on comment card. 14. DS-1 Please refer to above response to DS-5 (page 4-39) and DS-1 (page 4-36), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding Response to Comments document review. DS-2 Please refer to above response to DS-1 (page 4-36), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding cumulative impacts. DS-3 Please refer to above response to DS-2 (page 4-36), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding dewatering. DS-4 Please refer to above response to DS-3 (page 4-38), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding traffic impact and accidents history issues. DS-5 Please refer to above response to DS4(page 4-38),within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding private gated community. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-6 (page 4-22), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding maintenance and safety of the proposed paseo park. DS-6 Please refer to above response to DS-6 (page 4-39), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding mitigation measure enforcement. Additionally,please refer to above response to C134 and CB-5 (page 4-32 to 4-33), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding farming and pesticide application issues. 4-48 15. JR-1 Please refer to above response to LF-1 (page 4-40), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding school P g impacts. JR-2 Please refer to above responses to SJK-1 (page 4-5) and EM-3 (page 4-27), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding the County's plan for the EGGW channel. JR-3 Please refer to above response to MH-2 (page 4-34), within Section 4.1,regarding Greenleaf Lane access issue. 4-49 4.3 Comment Letters/Responses to Comments Index 4.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 1. Southern California Gas Company SCGC#2-1 4-52 Robert S.Warth P.O. Box 3334 Anaheim, CA 92803-3334 2. Donnamarie Risse DR#2-1 -5 4-52 to 4-53 5422 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 3. Department of Transportation DOT#2-1 4-53 Robert F.Joseph District 12 2501 Pullman Street Santa Ana,CA 92705 4. Eileen Murphy Ema 1-6 4-53 to 4-55 201 21"Street Emb 1-3 4-55 to 4-56 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 5. California Coastal Commission CCC#2-1 - 12 4-56 to 4-65 Orange County Area Supervisor Stephen Rynas,AICP 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302(sent via Fax 6/15) 6. Environmental Board HBEB#2-1 - 11 4-65 to 4-69 Frank R. Capon,Chairman 7. Terry Dolton TAD 1-16 4-69 to 4-72 17692 Soreham Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 8. Environmental and Project Planning Services OCPD#2-1 -21 4-72 to 4-77 Division, County of Orange George Britton,Manager 300 N.Flower Street, 3rd Floor Santa Ana,CA 92702 Note: The "#2" under the comment/response series indicates that this is the second written comment letter received by this agency,group or individual on the project's EIR. 4-50 4.3 COMMENT LETTERS/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS INDEX COMMENT/RESPONSE WRITTEN COMMENT LETTERS SERIES PAGE# 9. Bolsa Chica Land Trust BCLT#2-1 - 12 4-77 to 4-80 Nancy Donaven 207 21"Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 10. Amigos de Bolsa Chica ADBC#2-1 - 10 4-81 to 4-82 Linda Sapiro Moon,President P.O. Box 3748 Huntington Beach,CA 92605-3748 11. California State Lands Commission CSLC#2-1 -6 4-82 to 4-85 Dwight E. Sanders 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 12. Resource Preservation Alliance RPA#2-1 -27 4-85 to 4-91 Douglas Stewart 5342 Kenilworth Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92649 13. Kenneth Feldman KF#2-1 -2 4-91 5411 Glenstone Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4705 14. California Regional Water Quality Control Board RWQCB 1-6 4-91 to 4-93 Wanda Smith,Chief 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside,CA 92501-3348 Note: The "#2" under the comment/response series indicates that this is the second written comment letter received by this agency,group or individual on the projects' EIR. 4-51 4.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS LETTERS 1. SCGC#2—1 (Also prepared letter 2-SCGC 1 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 2. DR#2—1 (Also prepared letter 6-DR 1-4 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. DR#2—2 It is not clear from the comment which specific "plan" or exhibit is being referred to by this comment. According to Final EIR Exhibits 53, 60, 68, and 73, the north side of the proposed paseo park (which is adjacent to the Kenilworth homes)has elevations which range from 0.9 feet on the west end to 0.7 feet on the east end. These exhibits also depict elevations for the southern portion of the proposed paseo park between 1.3 and 1.4 feet. Additionally, please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5) and PMK-1 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding flooding and drainage issues. DR#2—3 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response of DR-4 (page 3-75), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding the wall issue. The wall that would be constructed will not be a retaining wall. Shea proposes to build a 6'± high masonry wall along the north (adjacent to Kenilworth), east (adjacent to Graham Street) and south (adjacent to EGGW Channel) boundaries of the site. This wall would serve as a privacy wall and for aesthetic purposes only. Along the southwestern boundary of the project site(along the proposed homes), there is a proposed seawall of varying height. No fencing is required along the northwestern boundary of the site adjacent to the proposed park site. Shea proposes to protect, in place, the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site (i.e., homes along the south side of Kenilworth Drive). Please refer to page 3-14, Section 5.0 Final EIR of this document for the revised text. Under the new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document, a new 6-foot high masonry wall would not be needed along the north boundary for privacy/aesthetic reasons (due to the 133-foot buffer which includes the 50-foot paseo park); however, the City may choose to require a new wall along the north boundary. If a wall is required by the City, the developer would attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall. The City typically does not permit dual wall situations for health and safety reasons. The single wall would avoid nuisance or hazards and satisfy maintenance concerns. DR#2—4 According to the project geotechnical consultant, the plans included within the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document reflect a park(Paseo Park) to be situated between `B" Street and the northerly property line (common to the Risse residence). This park will have a passive use, thus 4-52 remedial grading will not be required in this area. Remedial grading efforts for the new alternative plans will begin approximately 40 feet southerly of the north property line and will extend to depths on the order of 15 feet below `B" Street. Consequently, the dewatering and remedial grading efforts will not impact residences adjacent to the north property line. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-5 (page 4-20), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding subsidence and above response to DS-2 (page 4-36), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding dewatering. DR#2—5 According to the project civil engineer, it appears that the commentor was referring to Exhibit 74A of the June 2001 Parkside Estates New Alternatives to the Draft EIR No. 97-2 document. The cross section that the commentor is asking for can be found on Section A-A on Exhibit 54A in the Parkside Estates New Alternatives to the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 dated June 2001. For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from RPA-21 (page 3-182), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding possible sheet flooding on the single-family neighborhood to the north. The property to the north does flood under existing conditions because of an inadequate existing drainage system. With the proposed project, however, substantial improvements will be made to the off-site storm drain system serving the community; in particular, the Graham St.- Kenilworth Dr. intersection will become passable during a local 100-year event. The City has adopted by reference in the Municipal Code regulations set by federal and state agencies as they relate to flooding. Currently, these regulations call for any new development to be built at an ele- vation, which is one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation as designated on the FEMA maps or floodingelevations established b the best available information. In the case of this development,the City Y P has requested additional regional improvements to be made to the storm drain system to ensure that the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive will also meet the 100-year flood protection, which it currently does not have. The City's responsibility is to approve the construction of new development with entitlement requirements that are in conformance with federal, state and local regulations and guidelines. Lastly,there is no difference in water surface displacement or flood risk to neighboring property whether the project is constructed at 5.5 ft or 11 ft(NAVD 1988 datum)—all of the proposed new alternatives will provide improved drainage. 3. DOT#2—1(Also prepared letter 7-DOT 1-3 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4. Ema—1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding flooding and EM-1 (page 4-23), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding on-site wetland status. 4-53 Ema-2 Please refer to above response to PMK-5 (page 4-20), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding "quantity of dirt to be imported"during construction and the impacts associated with this effort. Additionally, as indicated in the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, the proposed elevations of new homes varies by the alternative. The only homes, which occur adjacent to the proposed homes, are those homes to the north of the project along Kenilworth Drive. As indicated in the visual simulations analysis of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, these proposed homes would have a 133- foot separation including a 50-foot landscape buffer(i.e.,paseo park) which provides more privacy for the existing homes on Kenilworth as compared to the original project. Please refer to above response to SJK- 2 (page 4-6) and PMK-2 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding neighborhood compatibility and privacy invasion issues. Ema-3 According to the project traffic engineer, the single access to the project at the intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A (free traffic flow) during peak hours. The intersection will be signalized to assure orderly access into and out of the project. Additionally,please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the single project access issue. Ema-4 According to the project civil engineer, impacts of the proposed project will be mitigated by storm drainage and flood control channel improvements. There will be no impact to property either to the south of the flood control channel or along the proposed development frontage to the north. As a condition of development,the project proponent is required to make the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive passable during a 100-year storm based on future development conditions. New catch basins and storm drains will pick up storm water in the intersection and convey the flow through a new 120-inch storm drain to Slater Channel where it will be pumped into the EGGW flood control channel. Impact of displacement by the proposed project fill will be mitigated by the new 120-inch storm drain and additional pumping capacity at the Slater Pump Station. Widening the flood control channel and construction of a sheet pile levee will increase the conveyance area and flow capacity of the flood control channel fronting the proposed development and the flow impact area across from the outlets of Slater Pump Station. The impact of additional runoff from the project site (peak discharge of 126 cubic ft. per second) will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street will substantially remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (-one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet only during pumping activity. This increase will not extend into Bolsa Chica. Note that the EGGW flood control channel in the vicinity of the Slater Pump Station has at least 2 ft. of freeboard, and will be able to absorb the small temporary increase in water surface elevation. The above information and conclusions have been discussed in the detailed flood insurance study submittal to FEMA. A copy of this flood insurance study was provided in Appendix C of the June 2001 Parkside Estates New Alternatives to the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume H - Technical Appendices,dated June 2001. This report was subsequently updated in response to comments by FEMA. The revised report entitled "Revised Response to FEMA Comments on February 5, 2001 Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision. Shea Homes Parkside Estates Tentative Tract Nos. 15377 & 15419 4-54 Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Watershed from Tide Gates to I-405 Freeway", dated January 30,2002,has been included in Section 5.0 Errata. Please also refer to above response to EM-3 (page 4-27), regarding CLOMR and expanded watershed analysis. Additionally, please refer to below responses to TAD-3 (page 4-70), CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83), RPA#2-13 (page 4-87), and RPA#2-19 (page 4-89), within Section 4.3 of this document, regarding the additional details of the EGGW Channel improvements and the project impact on water elevations in the EGGW Channel. Ema-5 Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding recirculation of"significant"new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines. Ema-6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Emb—1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Emb-2 The current level of service in the area around the project site is discussed in the EIR on pages 5-58 through 5-67. As shown in Table F in the EIR, all intersections currently operate at an acceptable level of service. Please refer to above response to Ema-3 (page 4-54)above and PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding the single access issue. Emb-3 Constructing levee improvements (sheet pile or equivalent) along only the north side of the flood control channel that fronts the project site is a condition of development imposed by the County of Orange. The water surface elevations upstream and downstream of Slater Pump Station will remain the same, or decreased slightly, so there will be no increase in overtopping risk to the south side of the channel. The water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of Slater Pump Station will experience a small (approximately 1-1/2inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of Slater Pump Station during pumping. However, the levee on the south side of the channel at Slater Pump Station is reinforced concrete,and there is at least two feet of freeboard. Additionally,refer to response to TAD-3, in Section 4.3(page 4-70)of this document. For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from RPA-25 (page 3-183), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding potential impacts caused by the project's EGGW Channel improvements. According to the project civil engineer, per the approved Orange County Drainage Study, after the proposed enlargement of the EGGW. Channel, there will be no overtopping on the south side of the 4-55 channel into homes on Glenstone Drive during a 100-year flood event. After the Channel, along the Shea frontage is improved,the Channel at that location will have more capacity than it currently has and it will have more capacity than the channel has upstream from this Project. If a storm event is significant enough to overtop the channel, it will occur upstream of this property. If overtopping occurs upstream,the volume of water in the channel will be reduced and results in additional capacity in the downstream channel. (Please refer to EIR,Appendix F,Hydrology/Inundation Reports). Additionally, please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5) regarding EGGW Channel improvements contained within Section 4.1 of this document. The below response to CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83)also provides information regarding the EGGW Channel improvements. 5. CCC#2—1 (Also prepared letter 68-CCC 1-19 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. CCC#2—2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The responses provided below address the commentor's specific questions regarding Draft EIR conclusions based upon "incomplete factual data." Please refer to the following response to CCC#2-3. CCC#2—3 The EIR document has not drawn conclusions regarding on-site wetlands based solely on the ACOE "Prior Converted Cropland"designation,and the wetland definition and methodology of the ACOE is not the only standard utilized for determining the existence of wetlands on the project site. The discussions under"Agency Conclusions"regarding wetlands includes both state(i.e.,Fish&Game) and Federal(i.e., ACOE and MRCS) Agency decisions per their respective standards methodology. Furthermore, the following statements have been taken from a 7/3/01 correspondence from the CCC to Mr. Ron Metzler. The City of Huntington Beach has a certified local coastal program(LCP). However,this parcel was deferred certification into the City's LCP due to potential wetland values' ('Because the parcel in the City is deferred,the standard of review for any project proposed in the City parcel is the Coastal Act and a coastal development permit is needed from the Commission for any proposed development.) Though the area may have contained wetlands in the late 1980's, the Department of Fish and Game (March 16, 1998) concurred with a wetland evaluation by Lisa Kegarice of Tom Dodson and Associates (December 17, 1997) that the 44 acre City Parcel did not currently meet wetland criteria. Furthermore, it is our understanding that this parcel has been and is currently being used for agricultural purposes. These statements indicate that the CCC is aware of the State Department of Fish and Game decisions regarding the City Parcel's wetland status. According to a report by Lisa Kegarice of Tom Dodson and Associates, an ecologist with expertise in wetland issues, the City parcel does not meet the Coastal Commission definition of a wetland. The ecologist examined the site and concluded that it does not support predominantly hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation,that it does not contain undrained hydric soils,and that it is not saturated at or near the surface for any length of time following typical storms. 4-56 For reader ease, the following are partial duplicate responses from MC-5 (page 3-78) and CCC-11 through CCC-13 (page 3-176 to 3-177), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding the status of wetlands on site. According to the project biologist, most of the Parkside Estates project site lies within an active agricultural field, on the north side of the EGGW Channel. The channel has embankments on either side with rise ± 10 feet above the grade on the north side, and somewhat higher on the south side, with a bottom grade within the channel several feet deeper than the surrounding land. The project site was, prior to its conversion to cropland over 50 years ago, a contiguous portion of what is now known as the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.The agricultural use of the site, documented in the EIR(pages 5-145 through 5-149), has been continuous at least since the early 1950's, and it also appears that much of the site received excess soils from the construction of the EGGW Channel. A chronology of non-agricultural site use (stables, rodeo arena, soil depositing,etc.) also was documented in the Draft EIR. Nearest Remnant Marshland As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is presently no natural coastal marsh habitat within the project boundaries, or immediately adjacent to the development area. The agricultural fields contain a mixture of non-native ruderal herbaceous species and disturbance tolerant native taxa, including some marshland species able to tolerate saline soils. The small remnant marshland patches which were originally present within the Orange County parcel in January 1997 and were eliminated by disking actions on that portion of the overall property in June 1997 (as detailed in Appendix G of the EIR) and have currently been reestablished at 1.2 acres (refer to June 29, 2001 correspondence from California Coastal Commission). The nearest area of remnant marshland on the northern side of the EGGW Channel lies within oil fields west of the westernmost terminus of the Orange County portion of the site, and the northernmost areas of contiguous Bolsa Chica Wetlands lie adjacent to the southern margin of the channel and existing residential developments. Tidal Flow Influences As indicated in the Draft EIR, changes in surface soils and topography associated with agricultural use altered and removed whatever natural marshland configuration might once have occurred on the site, and the presence of the EGGW Channel and oil field roadway dikes have effectively eliminated all natural tidal flows or influences. The depth of the EGGW Channel and elevations of the surrounding land preclude subsurface hydrological intrusion from the south, and high flows within the channel are of short duration, and most are primarily urban runoff. Kenilworth residential development and other projects along the north side of the property eliminated all upland habitat connectivity to or from the site,and most of the surface flows which once reached the property from that direction now are conveyed off-site through underground pipes. Natural Source of Surface Water As indicated in the Draft EIR, the only natural source of surface water to the site is rainfall and direct runoff from the knoll,both of which are unpredictable, seasonal, freshwater sources. An illegally installed (i.e., there was no city permit obtained), unmetered PVC water pipeline serving the stables at the foot of the knoll has been broken numerous times during the past several years, causing localized surface flooding along the southern portion of the agricultural fields, and during years of heavy Winter rainfall (such as 1997/98) surface water accumulates in some lower portions of the site. At such times, salt- tolerant native plant species may germinate from latent seedbanks in the soil, and ruderal formations may become very dense and robust. However, this type of vegetation response is typical within all open lands, whether in active agricultural use or lying fallow, whenever abnormally high rainfall amounts accumulate on the surface. It is the nature of most ruderal and many disturbance-tolerant halophytic plant species to persist within and around human use areas, to produce great quantities of seeds annually, most of which remain ungerminated in the soil for years awaiting suitable conditions for germination, and then to respond rapidly and vigorously to adventitious hydrology or unusually high amounts of surface moisture. 4-57 State and Federal Agency Conclusions Additionally,both State and Federal Agencies that have jurisdictional authority over the determination of wetland existence on-site have made findings related to the site that are consistent with the conclusions made in the Draft EIR. These agencies include the California Department of Fish and Game at the State level, and the US Army Corps of Engineer (Army Corps) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) at the Federal level. Pertinent correspondence from these agencies is discussed below and contained in Section 5.0, Volume IIA, Final EIR Technical Appendices. Please refer below for a discussion of both State and Federal level agencies and their conclusions related to the issue of wetland existence on-site: State Level The California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) maintains State jurisdiction over the site. In a letter dated June 15, 1998, the California Coastal Commission provided the following statements regarding wetlands status: "To address the wetland delineation issue, the City of Huntington Beach hired Tom Dodson and Associates to evaluate prior wetland determinations and to conduct additional work for determining if wetlands exist on the portion of the project site located within the City of Huntington Beach. Through a letter dated December 17, 1997, an ecologist for Tom Dodson and Associates concluded that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach did not contain any wetlands based on the Coastal Commission's wetland criteria. The City of Huntington Beach (January 8, 1998) then requested that the California Department of Fish and Game evaluate the work done by Tom Dodson and Associates. The Department of Fish and Game (March 16, 1998) concurred with the assessment of Tom Dodson and Associates that the portion of the project site within the City of Huntington Beach does not contain wetlands. The Department of Fish and Game also acknowledged that the County portion of the project site contains wetlands in the form of remnant saltmarsh vegetation (estimated at 0.2 acres in the Draft EIR)." "The findings of Tom Dodson and Associates including the concurrence of the Department of Fish and Game with those findings,have been questioned by Scott White Biological Consulting (April 5, 1998)." The California Coastal Commission has indicated verbally and in writing that it relies on the DFG to provide guidance on wetlands determinations.A June 15, 1998 letter from the DFG stated that, "Appendix G of the Draft EIR includes a March 16, 1998 letter written by the Department to the City of Huntington Beach. In that letter, the Department concurred with the no wetland value determination as described in the December 17, 1997 verification/update report of the wetland value determination conclusion prepared by the City of Huntington Beach's consultant, Tom Dodson and Associates, for the Shea Company Property TT#15377." The DFG has indicated in their June 15, 1998 letter that it does not recognize wetlands on the site, which addresses and nullifies Scott White's assertions as raised in the Coastal Commission correspondence; however,it does recognize significant wildlife resource values on the site. DFG further recommended that wildlife values on the County parcel be mitigated by the enhancement of 2.0 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat at a location acceptable to the Department. They requested that 4-58 Section 5.8 Mitigation Measure No. 2 be amended to increase the mitigation from 0.8 to 2.0 acres. They also requested that, 40 "This mitigation encompass the protection and enhancement of wildlife value on or as a part of a significant ecological system in the project vicinity, such as the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve. Alternative equivalent mitigation may also be acceptable if it is consistent with the Draft EIR and approved by the Department prior to any site development activities." Additionally, as part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002)and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area(refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland) will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Federal Level Based on issues raised in several letters on the Draft EIR, most notably in the June 15, 1998 letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., "the Corps has yet to confirm whether the "seasonal pond... on the site on the westerly end of the property [within County parcel] ..." is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or not..."), the City of Huntington Beach agreed that a formal letter from the Corps addressing the status of the seasonal pond on-site would be imperative prior to the completion of the response to comment/Final EIR document. It took several months during this process to determine whether the Federal wetland authority does in fact concur with the findings of the EIR (i.e., 8.3-acre portion of City parcel is accurately designated as Prior Converted Cropland). The reason for the delay in response from the Federal wetland authority is due to the fact that there have been recent changes in law governing which agencies at the Federal level make the determinations. Ultimately through conversations with Eric Stein and Fari Tabatabai of the Army Corps of Engineer, it was determined that based upon the 1996 Farm Bill, the NRCS maintains jurisdiction over wetland determinations for the project site. The City of Huntington Beach submitted a formal letter to NRCS on November 10, 1998, requesting that they indicate the status of the 1992 Prior Converted Cropland designation for the site. After NRCS' review of all pertinent information, they concluded in a letter dated November 20, 1998,that the site's designation of Prior Converted Cropland is still valid. Additionally, the wetlands on the 4.5-acre County parcel have been addressed through prior environmental documentation (refer to Section 3.4 of the EIR). The EIR conclusions regarding wetlands in the 4.5-acre County parcel are consistent with the certified EIR 551 conclusions regarding wetlands on this parcel. With the respect to the commentor's concern regarding "loss of agricultural land," and preservation of existing agricultural uses, this issue was addressed in both the Initial Study and Draft EIR Section 8.1. According to the State Department of Conservation, the site is not designated as prime or unique farmland. Consequently,the provisions of Coastal Act Sections 30241 and 30241.5 do not apply as those sections concern the preservation of prime farmland. 4-59 Under Section 302402 of the Coastal Act,non-prime farmland such as the project site may be converted to nonagricultural uses if: 1) continued or renewed agricultural use is not feasible; or 2) such conversion would preserve prime farmland or concentrate development consistent Section 30250 of the Act. Section 30250, in turn, provides that residential development in the coastal zone shall be located within, contiguous to, or adjacent to existing developed areas capable of accommodating the development. Section 30250 also prohibits subdivision of land except in areas where 50% of the usable parcels in the area have been developed, and the new parcels would not be smaller than the average existing parcel. The project site meets the guidelines of Sections 30242 and 30250 for development of non-prime agricultural land. The project site is rather small for agricultural use and is surrounded on three sides by existing residential development. The project will not create parcels that are smaller than the average parcel in those surrounding neighborhoods. Further, although the site has been cultivated in the past, it does not present an opportunity for financially feasible agricultural use in the long term. This is reflected by the residential designation of the site in the City's general plan, and the City's zoning of the parcel for residential use. Furthermore, development of the project site will lessen the pressure for development within the area of other, more viable agricultural parcels. This will assist in meeting the long term strategy of the City and the County to focus residential development in suitable developed areas. This has the effect of meeting the significant housing needs within the region while at the same time helping to preserve the most valuable agricultural and open space lands by reducing pressures for development of those lands. Finally, the Initial Study, NOP, and Draft EIR were available to the agencies and organizations with expertise in addressing agricultural and farmland issues. None of these agencies or organizations provided comments on the analysis regarding this issue. This can be taken as an indication that these agencies and organizations do not object to use of this parcel for residential purposes. Lastly, the following is a duplicate response from CB-11&12 (page 3-147), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding the applicability of the"Rivers and Harbors Act"provisions to the proposed project. Additionally, the project applicant has complied with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act jurisdictional issues (please refer to August 11, 1999 correspondence from the Army Corps of Engineers in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices, contained in Volume IIA). According to Tom Dodson and Associates(TDA),the jurisdictional delineations conducted on this parcel determined the site to have been isolated from historical hydrological sources: a) a fresh water channel to the north where a residential development (tract # 5792) has diverted the historical flows from the site; and b) tidal influence due to historic filling of the site and the construction of the EGGW Channel to the south. Also, according to the project geologists and as noted in above response BCLT-29 (page 3-126) variations in ground water levels have been previously documented on-site. Geotechnical recommendations regarding ground water are contained in the 1998 report (Appendix E of the EIR). The ground water levels and moisture contents of the near-surface soils are similar to those observed throughout the Huntington Beach area. Although those conditions will have an economic impact on grading of the site (in the form of above normal grading costs), the final product will be no more affected by ground water conditions than other similarly developed sites in the area. Ground water levels have been considered in the design of improvements. CCC#2—4 The purpose of Section 1.4.2(contained on page 1-4 and page 1-5) of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document is to outline the "General Plan and Zoning History" of the property. The commentor has only cited "a portion" of this history from pages 1-4 and 1-5 and therefore, the "complete" history is not included in the comments and the information cited is not within its complete context. 4-60 As indicated in the comment, the Draft states "The Conservation designation on the City's Coastal Element Land Use Plan was never taken forward by the City to the Coastal Commission for approval. This process is required before the City can implement the Conservation designation." Page 1-5 goes on in the next paragraph to state, "The City initiated the Comprehensive Update to the General Plan in 1991. In the process of updating the General Plan, a portion of the MWD property that is not proposed for residential development under the project was reviewed for redesignation from Open Space -Park to Low Density Residential,however,the land use designation was ultimately not changed and still remains Open Space-Park(OS-P). The land use designation of Residential on the remainder of the site was included on the Land Use Plan and adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1996.The City followed all legal noticing requirements during the General Plan Update Process." The final paragraph under this zoning history discussion states, "It should be noted that the zoning designation on the portion of the property that is proposed for residential development has been R1 or RL (Single Family Residential) since 1971." As stated above, the purpose of this discussion was to provide the reader information regarding the General Plan and Zoning History of the City and County portions of the site. Based upon the current City General Plan designations for the property, the page 2-5 statement"regarding Alternative 6"referenced in the comment is an accurate statement. With respect to the Commission's comments regarding deferred certifications, the following response is offered. In response to the June 15, 1998 letter CCC-68 (within Section 3.3), information regarding deferred certification was added to the Coastal Element discussion of Section 5.1, Land Use Compatibility. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR(page 5-30),contained in Volume II. Additionally, pages 3-23 and 3-31 to 3-33 of the Original Project Description (Section 3.0 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document) include a discussion of "Entitlement Requests" and "3.7 Proposed Actions" for the project. The City of Huntington Beach will apply to the Coastal Commission for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment to amend the Land Use Program (LUP) and Implementation Program(IP), which are the two components of the Local Coastal Program. This action would effectively certify the area. With the LUP amendment, the City would be adding the RL and OS- PR designation for the residential and open space areas respectively. With the IP amendment, the City would be adding the CZ suffix on the zoning map. Proposed Action items 7 and 8 on page 3-33 have been modified per the Commission's comments to provide clarification regarding the City's LCP amendment request. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR of this document for the modified page 3-33. This addition to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. CCC#2—5 Again, as with CCC#2-4 (page 4-60) above, the commentor has recited only portions of the information contained with Section 1.4.2 General Plan and Zoning History. We respectfully disagree with the comment that the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document "Leaves the reader with the impression that zoning which would allow residential development to proceed is formally and finally in place." Page 1-1 of the June 2001 document Section 1-1 provides the summary and purpose of the document. The first paragraph states, "Subsequent to the Draft EIR public review period, the City of Huntington Beach received new information related to 1) a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), issued by FEMA, on June 14,2000; 2)the submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR) application 4-61 to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001; and 3) the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel. These changes constitute "new information" which was not known at the time the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review. Therefore,preparation of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document is warranted." As indicated in this introduction paragraph, the City of Huntington Beach believed it was prudent to develop two new alternatives (Alternatives 8 and 9) which eliminate all development from the 4.5 acre County parcel consistent with the Commission's November 16, 2000 decision. Lastly, in discussing the land use impacts of the new Alternatives 6 and 7 on page 2-5 and 2-29, the document states, "Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel. Although a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR(Medium low residential, 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). Potential development of the County portion of the project site has been accounted for under the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, contained in the LCP. Construction of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel would result in a density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the originally proposed plan's density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre for this parcel. Therefore, the alternative is consistent with the County land use plan." Thus, the document does in fact acknowledge that the lawsuit is "still pending" and the document provides the land use designations according to the currently adopted LCP for the 4.5 acre County parcel. CCC#2—6 Please refer to above response CCC#2-3 (page 4-56) regarding the status of on-site wetlands. Additionally, for reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from BCLT41 (page 3-131), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding the original project and new alternatives impacts to the "1982 Fish and Game ESHA." The stand of the gum trees in the City portion of the site does not fall within the 1982 Fish and Game designated ESHA. Only 0.13 acre of the stand of the gum trees within the County portion falls within the Fish and Game ESHA. (Refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b in Section 5.0 Final EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). The original Tentative Tract Map analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed four new alternatives do not propose removal of the 0.13 acre portion of gum tree ESHA on- site. While the original TTM would have impacted gum trees within the County parcel,the trees were not part of the Fish and Game ESHA which, occurs west of the above ground gas line. The new alternatives propose no removal of any gum trees within County parcel of the project site. It is the City and Environmental consultants' opinion that the "new biological data" referenced in this comment would not result in the addition of alternative development plans that are not already included within the Draft EIR and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. The project's impacts on the Bolsa Chica Lowlands is addressed within responses MW-lc (page 3-69), BCLT-37 and BCLT-38 (pages 3-128 to 3- 130), within Section 3.3 of this document. The December 8, 2000 LSA "Habitat Analysis, Parkside Estates Tentative Tract No. 15419 (County parcel)" was prepared pursuant to a request by the CCC and is included within Section 5.0 Errata. It should be noted that the results of this "County Parcel Habitat Analysis Study" do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR or the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. As indicated in the LSA study, "This analysis identified the dominant vegetation and its distribution within the 4.5 acre County study area, but does not attempt to delineate the extent of potential wetlands. The prevalence of hydrophytes does not in and of itself constitute a wetland. 4-62 CCC#2—7 The purpose of Exhibits 47a and 47b are to depict the"formally adopted June 3, 1982 Department of Fish and Game ESHA" in relation to the Original Project TTM (27-lot County) and the New Alternatives 6 and 7 TTM(9-lot County)respectively. This formal Fish and Game ESHA was the basis for the appellate Court's finding that the eucalyptus grove(Fish&Game designated ESHA)could not, as a bird habitat,be legally relocated. This background information is discussed on page 2-1 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. The reference to "Passive Open Space" occurs on Exhibit 47b, 49, 50, and 51 to indicate the "Proposed Land Use" under new Alternatives 6 and 7, and on 47b it is shown in relation to the 1982 Fish&Game ESHA which is depicted with"gray shading." Additionally, the 0.2 acre pickleweed patch and habitat information (i.e., 1.2 acres of hydrophyte dominated vegetation) presented in the LSA study have not been identified as a wetland on the Fish & Game ESHA. The City is not aware of any revisions to the formally adopted and mapped Fish and Game ESHA depicted on Exhibits 47a and 47b. The 464 foot separation shown on Exhibits 47b and 63 from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site Fish and Game ESHA was calculated utilizing the adopted Fish & Game ESHA map and study. This documentation did not specify that the study area apparently terminated along "an imaginary extension of Bolsa Chica Street to the Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel." Department of Fish and Game was sent a copy of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR for review and comment and no Fish&Game comments were received by the City. CCC#2—8 Please refer to above response CCC#2-5 (page 4-61). The New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document added two (2)new Alternatives 8 and 9 which eliminate all development from the 4.5 acre County parcel consistent of the Commission's November 16, 2000 decision. In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR including the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR provides a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. CCC#2—9 For reader ease,the following is a duplicate response from CCC-14 through CCC-16(page 3-177), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding clarification on the private/public components of the trail system. Exhibits 5a and 5b for the original project have been added to the EIR in response to this comment (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR (page 3-6), contained in Volume R). This addition to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. The exhibits depict the conceptual park plan and trails and bike path plan for the original project. The trails and bike path plan (or "Public Access Plan") indicates how pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be able to access the neighborhood park and open space areas. Additionally, the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR depict the proposed trail/access on Exhibits 57 and 70 (please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR(pages 6-59 and 6-94), contained in Volume II). With respect to the commentor's question regarding public access through Lot "0", the Land Use Summary on Exhibits 50, 59,65 and 72 indicate the use of Lot"0"for pedestrian access. Lastly, as stated in above response to DS-4 (page 4-38), within Section 4.1 of this document, the project is not proposed to be gated. The public will have access to all trails internal to the project. 4-63 CCC#2—10 For reader ease, the following is a partial duplicate response from MHa-6 (page 3-98) and OCPD-13 (page 3-88), within Section 3.3 of this document and OCPD#2-6 (page 4-74) within Section 4.3 of this document,regarding site drainage and water quality. According to the project civil engineer,there is no run-off directed to the wetland restoration area as pro- posed by the Parkside Estates project. The engineer has designed the site to have raised elevations on the west end and local drainage will flow toward the center of the site. The run-off from the proposed project is collected on surface and in underground pipes and then conveyed to the Slater Storm Drain Pump Station, where it is pumped into the EGGW Channel. Please refer to Volume II, Appendix F of the EIR for an expanded discussion of this information. With regard to the Parkside Estates project, a report prepared by Rivertech Inc., a water quality management engineering company, has evaluated the water quality impact from this site and the 21.8 acres located to the northwest of this site which will be conveyed through this site to the Slater Pump Station. Rivertech's recommendation and conclusion is that by installing a pollution separation device, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Therefore, the proposed Parkside Estates development in conjunction with the recommended separation device is expected to improve the quality of urban runoff to the Slater Pump Stations forebay. This information does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. A copy of the Rivertech report has been added to Appendix F - Hydrology/Inundation Reports of the EIR (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume Il). In addition, Rivertech, Inc. has recently prepared an Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan dated February 2002. The analysis described in the reports is consistent with EPA's rule of 1/2 inch of runoff over the watershed as the 'first flush" event. Using that rule, EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant area-wide reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 addendum report,it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel from development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. The reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates,but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. The February 2002 Addendum provides information on the most recent water quality control requirements and includes an appendix that presents information regarding the Urban Runoff Management Plan that will be applied to the Parkside Estates Project. The Addendum is included in Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices contained in Volume IIA and is part of Appendix F of the EIR document. The additional details regarding water quality "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions. Additionally, according to the project biologist, the EGGW Channel has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and terrestrial connection between the project site and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, and actions on the site would not have any measurable affect on the hydrology or water quality of the reserve or restoration areas. There are no tidal flows crossing,reaching or draining from the project site into any other natural area, nor are there any natural freshwater flows or nutrient transport systems entering or existing the site to or from adjacent natural areas. 4-64 CCC#2—11 According to the project civil engineer, the rationale and necessity for this seawall was discussed in the detailed flood insurance study submitted to FEMA. A copy of this flood insurance study was provided in Appendix C of the June 2001 Parkside Estates New Alternatives to the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume II-Technical Appendices, dated June 2001. This report was subsequently updated in response to comments by FEMA. The revised report entitled "Revised Response to FEMA Comments on February 5, 2001 Request for Conditional letter of map Revision: Shea Homes Parkside Estates Tentative Tract Nos. 15377 & 15419 Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove- Wintersburg Channel Watershed from Tide Gates to I-405 Freeway", dated January 30, 2002, has been included in Section 5.0 Errata. The seawall is required by the City in response to the proposed Bolsa Chica Wetland Restoration, and provides regional benefits from possible future flooding to existing residential areas north and east of the proposed project. More specifically, the developer is required to raise the finished grade of the western edge of the site to be above tidal influence. The City has established this tidal elevation at 10.4 ft (MSL NAVD 88). Details of the structure are provided in Sections J-J, K-K, and H-H in Exhibit 50a These exhibits along with revised exhibits 50 and 65 (which depict the location of the sections in relationship to the proposed project have been added to Section 5.0 Errata. These Exhibits do not alter the conclusions or mitigations presented in the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. The seawall will be a combination of some or all of the following: an approximate 3-ft high masonry retaining wall at the base, a 4:1 landscaped midway slope, and a low masonry retaining wall at pad height with a tubular steel security fence. The seawall essentially extends the existing flood control levee northward by approximately 530 feet. The sea wall will not be incompatible with the character of the surrounding area, will not substantially alter any natural land forms, and will not significantly obstruct or adversely affect visual quality in the area. The landscape slope, which will be maintained by the HOA, will soften visual impacts and provide a more natural transition from the open space to the project. The view of the tubular and steel security fence atop the wall will be reduced by background landscaping. Accordingly, the seawall would not conflict with Sections 30251 or 30253(2)of the Coastal Act. CCC#2—12 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The above responses CCC#2-3 through CCC#2-11 (pages 4-56 to 4-65) have adequately addressed the Commission's concerns. 6. HBEB#2—1 (Also prepared letter 63-JES 1-13 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. HBEB#2—2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The original alternatives are discussed on pages 6-1 through 6-31 of the EIR. The four new alternatives are discussed on pages 2-1 through 2-65 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. HBEB#2—3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4-65 HBEB#2—4 Please refer to above response to PMK-2 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding view impacts to the north from the proposed paseo park and`B" Street. Additionally, as stated by the commentor, though not required by CEQA, the additional visual simulations provides a realistic image of the northerly views from the project. The "paseo park" location .was selected in consultation with City staff to provide a "worse case" analysis of the "closest public views"from the proposed project site looking north. Lastly, a visual privacy study was performed by Bassenian-Lagoni Architects to provide a graphic depiction of views (line of sight) from the existing homes and proposed homes second story windows. Please refer to Exhibit AA on the following page 4-67, which depicts views from proposed Lot 60 within the Parkside Estates project. As shown on the attached exhibit, under new alternatives 6 and 8 (BFE of 10.9 feet) the line of sight (with a separation distance of more than 133 feet) from the second story of existing and proposed homes provides a view of"the roofs" of the existing and proposed homes. Under new alternatives 7 and 9 (BFE of 4.5 feet) the line of sight with a separation distance of more than 133 feet from the second story of existing and proposed homes provides a view at the lower edge of the windows. These line of sight sections, though not required by CEQA, provides further analysis of the project visual impacts. Because of the distance between the proposed project and the existing houses and the limited view that residents of the proposed project will have with existing houses, there will be no significant privacy impacts under any of the new alternatives. This analysis does not change the conclusions of the original Draft EIR or the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. HBEB#2—5 Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding flood hazards. Also,please refer to below responses to TAD-3 (page 4-70),CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83), RPA#2-13 (page 4-87), and RPA#2-19 (page 4-89), within Section 4.3 of this document, regarding the additional details of the EGGW Channel improvements and the project impact on water elevations in the EGGW Channel. Additionally,please refer to above response to Ema-4(page 4-54),regarding flood control issues. HBEB#2—6 Please refer to above response to CCC#2-10 (page 4-64), within this Section 4.3, regarding storm water quality and the impact of runoff on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. HBEB#2—7 Please refer to above response to CCC#2-7 (page 4-63), within this Section 4.3, regarding the Fish and Game ESHA depicted on Exhibits 47b and 63 within the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. HBEB#2—8 For reader ease,the following is a partial duplicate response from CB-14 (page 3-148),within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding eucalyptus trees. 4-66 . TRACTBOUNDARY 16' Iw-0' 30-0' CURB LINE S YEARS(B.F.E. 10.9' ) .. ,2._14. �! =YEARS Ida 6T®t7 a F.F.ELEV. 11.4' z '�' MAK. FY.ELEV.HBICRIT - 30'FROM PP.B 6',0' it LOT 60 K E N I L W O R T H DRIVE TRACT BOUNDARY 16'-0' 10'-0' 16'-0" 10'-0' S0'-0' 23•-0" -CURB —JRJW UWE a A YEARS j, 1� SYEARS — (B.F.E. 4.5' ) l2'-U• a! T�". 12'-14' F.F.ELEV.5.5' 6.d• — MAX BUKXeM®(RTT -O 30'PROM F.F.ELEV. wa1a®'rveas LOT 60 K E N I L W O R T H DRIVE - s -_- -- — � � VISUAL PRIVACY STUDY PARKS IDE ESTATES �-» 3 0 5_ 10 20 B A S S E N I A N/L A G O N I SHEA HOMES ARCHITECTS 11•12.01 Exhibit AA Many of the gum trees are dead or dying, for a variety of reasons, and the commentor considers the dead trees to be "important habitat for wildlife." According to the project biologist, because they are non- native trees, and the wood has no native primary decomposer species to reduce it and return its nutrients to the soil, it provides little organic material for ecosystem use. Further, the dead leaves, branches and trunks decay slowly, if at all, with only drywood termites reducing their mass, and the accumulations of rank debris beneath the canopy offer habitat for only the most generalist of invertebrate and vertebrate taxa, many of which (Argentine ants, house mouse, black rat, opossum, red fox) are not native and are predatory upon bird eggs and nestlings, posing a particular threat to species nesting low to the ground or on open substrates. Native species which might shelter in the gum tree understory include raccoon and coyote,both of which are found throughout North America in virtually all habitat types, including urban settings, and are not necessarily present because of the tree debris. Cavity-making birds, such as woodpeckers, do create nest holes in dead gum tree snags, which may be used by American kestrel (another predator not normally found next to the wetlands), but mostly appear to attract non-native European starlings and house sparrows locally. As stated above, the proposed development will not remove or alter the trees in the ESHA, so their value to wildlife(birds of prey)will remain intact. HBEB#2—9 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from J&GB-12 (page 3-64), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding the fill dirt issue. As indicated on page 3-23 of the EIR,if the adjacent import site is not utilized,then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has environmental clearances to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from existing residential streets to the north. Refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation for a more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the haul route. Also, according to the project civil engineer, the neighboring site referred to would be one alternative source of fill material. There are other alternative locations off-site. The dirt will only be removed from the adjacent site if and when there is an approved grading plan and permit on that site, in which case removal of dirt will be in accordance with the approved plan. The alternative source of material has not been determined,but will be selected during the permit process for the grading plan(please refer to page 3-21 of the EIR for a discussion of the borrow pit). Lastly, it should be noted that the neighboring site, if utilized as the proposed borrow site shall be required to be returned to a natural graded, contoured condition that blends into the surrounding landscape. City Staff will recommend a condition of approval that will ensure the above is implemented. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-5 (page 4-20), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding construction impacts(specifically truck travel on surrounding area.) HBEB#2—10 For reader ease, the following two paragraphs are a duplicate response from JES-7 (page 3-155), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding project access issue. This is an identical comment to the JES-7 within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project traffic engineer, a secondary emergency only access to the project is planned at Greenleaf, which can be used by the Police and Fire Departments when necessary. The traffic signal at 4-68 "A" Street can adequately evacuate vehicles from the project in case of natural disaster until the City opens the Greenleaf gate. Additionally, it should be noted that the traffic analysis takes into account peak morning and afternoon traffic and all relevant intersections and roadway segments. According to the project traffic engineer,the new signalized intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A (free flow) during peak hours. Traffic on Graham Street entering Marine View School backs up in the morning of the four-way stop signs on Graham at Glenstone Drive. It is not unusual to have at least one traffic signal serving a residential or industrial neighborhood between intersections of two arterial highways. The intersection of Kenilworth and Graham will be benefited by the traffic signal at "A" Street because the signal will create gaps that will allow traffic from Kenilworth to enter northbound Graham Street. The intersection of"A" Street with Graham Street has been moved approximately 200 feet northerly from the original proposal to improve sight distance for northbound vehicles coming over the flood control bridge immediately south of the project. The relocated intersection meets stopping sight distance standards for the posted speed limit. All traffic signals will be seen by on-coming northbound traffic. Since the intersection will be operating at Level of Service A during peak hours, it is highly unlikely that traffic entering the project will queue out of the left turn pocket that is being provided. According to the project traffic engineer, with regard to southbound Marine View School traffic backing up at the stop sign on Graham at Glenstone, the traffic study recommends that a 14' two-way left turn land be striped on Graham from Warner to Slater. This would provide storage for Marine View School traffic and clear the southbound through lane for through traffic. This striping improvement would also improve the projected Level of Service at the intersection shown in Table 2 of the traffic study contained in Volume IIA. HBEB#2—11 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 7. TAD—1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. TAD-2 The project will not increase the risk of flooding at the existing residential developments. As discussed in response SJK-1 (page 4-5) and Ema-4 (page 4-54) above, flooding risks under the project will be lower than current risks because of the improvements to the drainage system that will be required as a condition of the project. According to the project civil engineer, with regard to the inability for existing residential development to be retrofitted to meet FEMA requirements, it should be noted that the County's proposed future improvements to the EGGW flood control channel should address FEMA's requirements without retrofitting existing properties. Please refer to the watershed project report and certified EIR 560 for EGGW and Ocean View Channels prepared by the County. Since the impacts associated with the EGGW channel improvements were fully disclosed as part of a prior certified EIR, a reference or citation of this fact is appropriate and allowed for under CEQA (Section 15148 of the Guidelines). This information (Certified EIR 560 and Project Study Report) is available for public inspection at the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record. The cited EIR document is listed in Section 9.4 References of the EIR. 4-69 TAD-3 The commentor is requesting responses to two separate issues: impact of the proposed project on water surface elevation in the flood control channel, and whether the displacement by the proposed project fill causes a significant impact to adjacent properties. Please refer to above response to Ema-4 (page 4-54) and below responses to RPA#2-13 (page 4-87) and RPA#2-19 (page 4-89) which conclude that any potential impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by flood control improvements that are conditions of development. Additionally, please refer to above response to Ema-4 (page 4-54), regarding potential impacts from displacement by the project. TAD-4 According to the project civil engineer,the privacy wall has no flood protection function. The height of the privacy wall is based on the height of the flood control channel service road(which will also serve as a bike trail),which will not substantially change regardless of proposed project alternatives. TAD-5 According to the project civil engineer,water quality issues have been addressed in "Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan" prepared by Rivertech, Inc. in December 1998 and the addendum to this document prepared in February 2002. A copy of the Rivertech reports have been added to Appendix F— Hydrology/Inundation Reports of the EIR (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR). The analysis described in the reports is consistent with EPA's rule of'/2 inch of runoff over the watershed as the "first flush"event. Using that rule,EPA's Storm Water Management Model(SWMM), and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 addendum report, it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent. The reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates, but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. TAD-6 According to the project civil engineer, the proposed project implements the City's Master Plan of Drainage, and responds to conditions of development. These conditions require that plans be approved and permits be secured from both the City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange when applicable. TAD-7 The project will not have a significant effect on the privacy of existing residential developments to the east or across the channel to the south. None of the project homes will be close enough to existing homes to significantly reduce privacy. The nearest homes to the east, across Graham Street are approximately 150 feet from the two houses on the project site that will face them. The nearest homes to the south are approximately 220 feet from the homes on the project site that will face them. isAdditionally, please refer to above response to PMK-2 (page 4-8), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding view impacts to the north from the proposed paseo park and`B"Street. 4-70 TAD—8 Please refer to above responses to CCC#2-6 & 7 (page 4-62 to 4-63), within this Section 4.3, regarding the Fish and Game ESHA and its relationship (i.e., separations)to the original DEIR project and four(4) new alternatives analyzed in the June 2001 document. Additionally, as indicated on page 4 of the July 31, 2001 comment letter from the Coastal Commission, "The Commission, through its November 16, 2000 decision, because of the resource values present, proposed that the land use of the County parcel be designated as "Conservation" based on Section 30240 of the Coastal Act. Consequently, from the Commission perspective, any proposed development on the County parcel must be consistent with the"Conservation" designation. The County, however, on May 8, 2001 declined to accept the Commission's suggested modifications. From the County's perspective, this means that the Commission's "Conservation"land use designation is not operational. Though the County may not have accepted the Commission's suggested modifications,any proposed residential development, before it can be undertaken,must nevertheless by reviewed by the Commission either through the coastal development permitting process or through the local coastal program process." Though the "Conservation" designation is not an "adopted" land use designation from the County's perspective, Alternatives 8 and 9 (04ot County) were developed to be consistent with this "Conservation"designation on the 4.5 acre County parcel. TAD-9 As indicated in above response to HBEB#2-8 (page 4-66), within this Section 4.3, although the City eucalyptus grove is not part of the Fish and Game ESHA, these trees are proposed to be preserved within the 4.1 acre Passive City Park. Please refer to Exhibits 49-Alternatives 6 and 7-Conceptual Land Use Plan 171 Lots-Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA and 64-Alternative 8&9- Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 lots-Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot)-June 2000 FEMA within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document and Section 5.0 Errata. These Exhibits show the distance relationship of the existing trees to the active park site, which are "adequate" according to the project arborist. TAD—10 Please refer to above response to HBEB#2-8 (page 4-66), within this Section 4.3, regarding eucalyptus trees and discussions relating to dead or dying trees. TAD—11 Please refer to above response to CCC#2-3 (page 4-56), within this Section 4.3, regarding the status of wetlands on site and impacts related to the loss of agriculture. Also pages 3-23 and 3-31 of the Original Project Description(Section 3.0 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document)includes a discussion of"Entitlement Requests" and"3.7 Proposed Actions"for the project. TAD—12 According to the project traffic engineer, it is not unusual to have at least one traffic signal serving a residential or industrial neighborhood between intersections of two arterial highways. As discussed in the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives document, the project, as mitigated, will not have significant effects on traffic. 4-71 TAD—13 The intersection of"A" Street with Graham Street has been moved approximately 200 feet northerly from the original proposal to improve sight distance for northbound vehicles coming over the flood control bridge immediately south of the project. The relocated intersection meets stopping sight distance standards for the posted speed limit. All traffic signals will be seen by on-coming northbound traffic. Since the intersection will be operating at Level of Service A (free flow) during peak hours, it is highly unlikely that traffic entering the project will queue out of the left turn pocket that is being provided. TAD—14 Traffic on Graham Street entering Marine View School backs up in the morning because of the four-way stop signs on Graham at Glenstone Drive. Additionally, according to the project traffic engineer, with regard to southbound Marine View School traffic backing up at the stop sign on Graham at Glenstone, the traffic study recommends that a 14' two- way left turn land be striped on Graham from Warner to Slater. This would provide storage for Marine View School traffic and clear the southbound through land for through traffic. This striping improvement would also improve the projected Level of Service at the intersection shown in Table 2 of the March 29, 2001 Traffic Study,contained in Volume IIA. TAD—15 The intersection of Kenilworth and Graham will be benefited by the traffic signal to be located at Graham and "A" Street because the signal will create gaps that will allow traffic from Kenilworth to enter northbound Graham Street. TAD—16 During construction, appropriate safety measures will be in effect to eliminate conflicts between construction traffic and pedestrians on Graham Street. According to the project traffic engineer, the number of construction vehicles will be insignificant to the existing levels of service on Graham Street. A traffic control plan will be in effect at all times to safely guide non-construction traffic through the construction zone. 8. OCPD#2—1 (Also prepared letter 16-OCPD 1-19 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. OCPD#2—2 According to the project civil engineer, the comments made by the commentor are very similar to the comments made by the State Lands Commission (CSLC#2-5, (page 4-83)). The response to CSLC#2-5 below is therefore responsive to the commentor of OCPD#2-2. Please refer to this response. OCPD#2—3 The project proponent is aware of the requirements of City, County, and FEMA. According to the project civil engineer, the hydrology referred to by the County is the hydrology associated with the flood insurance study" prepared by Exponent to support a request by the applicant for a CLOMR. Written 4-72 concurrence regarding review of the hydrology used in the detailed flood insurance study by the City, as the floodplain administrator,has been received and provided to FEMA. As stated in above responses OCPD-3 (page 3-84) and EM-3 (page 4-27); FEMA reviewed the submitted models and the data used to prepare the effective FIRM for the Shea property and determined that the proposed project meets the minimum floodplain management criteria of the NFIP. The effective HEC- RAS model dated January 26, 2000, was used as the base conditions model in FEMA's review of the proposed conditions model for the CLOMR request. As a result of more detailed topographic information, the water-surface elevation (WSEL) of the base flood will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The maximum decrease in base flood WSEL, 1.9 feet, will occur approximately 1,000 feet downstream of Gothard Street. The writer commented in a letter dated August 10,2001: "The new hydrology used for the CLOMR needs to be approved by FEMA as the County of Orange already has approved hydrology for the C05 Channel system." FEMA provided the requested approval in a letter dated December 3, 2001, which states in part: "However, the additional data submitted in support of this request indicate significant storage in the watershed and breakout flows along the channel that cause a lower base flood discharge to reach the Shea Homes Parkside Estates property. Given these characteristics, we believe that the revised base flood discharge estimate also is reasonable." Subsequently, FEMA concluded in a CLOMR to the City of Huntington Beach, dated June 6, 2002, that "as a result of the more detailed topographic information, the proposed project, and the failure of uncertified levees, the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood WSEL along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The base flood WSEL within the Shea Homes property will be 2.2 feet, referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929." Because the County holds review and approval authority for flood control improvements that the project proponent has been conditioned to provide, it would be appropriate to broaden this response to include two issues related to Slater Pump Station. First, simultaneous failure of levees and Slater Pump Station would not result in a higher water surface elevation over the project site. For the purpose of the FEMA flood insurance study where levees are assumed to fail, Slater Pump Station returns water that would be permanently lost from East Garden Grove-Wintersburg (EGGW) Channel, back to the channel. The pumping prevents the water surface elevation in the channel from dropping as much as it would without pumping, effectively increasing the volume of water in the channel available to pass through a levee breach into the project site. In the absence of any pumping from Slater Channel, the water surface elevation over the project site would decrease slightly. Both scenarios were included in the submittals to FEMA dated August 20, 2001; November 9, 2001; and January 30, 2002. The higher, with-pump station alternative was used by FEMA for establishing a base flood elevation for the project site. Second, the throttle-back limitation, if applicable to the Slater Pump Station public property encroachment permit, would only marginally impact the City's commitment to keep Slater Channel at a specified water surface elevation. The April 21,2000 letter was provided to the project civil engineer and was included in the January 30, 2001 FEMA report as Attachment 1. According to the project civil engineer, the impact of additional runoff from the project site and additional pumping capacity will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by improvements to EGGW flood control channel. Water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street will remain 4-73 the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (-one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet only during peak pumping activity. This increase will not extend into Bolsa Chica. Note that the EGGW flood control channel in the vicinity of Slater Pump Station has at least 2 ft of freeboard, and will be able to absorb the small temporary increase in water surface elevation. Throttle-back limits, if applied, would be to further mitigate the small temporary increase in water surface elevation at Slater Pump Station. OCPD#2-4 According to the project civil engineer, flood control channel improvements are conditions of development required by Orange County. The existing flood control channel adjacent to the property will be widened and reinforced with a steel sheet pile levee. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the County, and permits issued accordingly. Improvements will not be made without County approval. Please refer to"Mitigation Measures"on page 5-142 of the EIR. OCPD#2-5 The project proponent is aware of the requirements for levee certification by FEMA. Improvements will not be made without proper approvals and certifications from the County and FEMA. OCPD#2-6 For reader ease,the following is a duplicate response from OCPD-12&13 (pages 3-87 to 3-88), within the Section 3.3 of this document, regarding water quality. Please note this is an identical comment to the OCPD 12&13 within Section 3.3 of this document. The response has not changed. The comment raises the issue of the quality of the water in Huntington Harbor. As discussed below in response OCPD-13, the proposed project will not adversely affect water quality in the harbor. In fact, as a result of the project, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Please refer to the "Water Quality" section found on page 5-141 of the EIR. With regard to the Parkside Estates project, a report prepared by Rivertech Inc., a water quality management engineering company, has evaluated the water quality impact from this site and the 21.8 acres located to the northwest of this site which will be conveyed through this site to the Slater Pump Station. Rivertech's recommendation and conclusion is that by installing a pollution separation device, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from the same area. Therefore, the proposed Parkside Estates development in conjunction with the recommended separation device is expected to improve the quality of urban runoff to the Slater Pump Station forebay. This information does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. A copy of the Rivertech report has been added to Appendix F - Hydrology/Inundation Reports of the EIR (refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR Technical Appendices,contained in Volume IIA). In addition, Rivertech, Inc. has recently prepared an Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan dated February 2002. The analysis described in the reports is consistent with EPA's rule of V2 inch of runoff over the watershed as the 'first flush" event. Using that rule, EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWAM, and the concept of stormwater diversion and treatment proposed by Rivertech, significant reductions in pollutant loads will be achieved when Parkside Estates is developed. Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 Addendum report, it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than 4-74 existing levels by approximately 45 percent. The reductions in pollutant loads are possible by diverting and treating the first flush runoff generated not only within the planned Parkside Estates,but also the first flush runoff contributed by an existing 21.8-acre development located to the northwest of Parkside Estates. Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment. The February 2002 Addendum provides information on current water quality control requirements and includes an appendix that presents information regarding the Urban Runoff Management Plan that will be applied to the Parkside Estates Project. The Urban Runoff Management Plan identifies specific BMPs to be used. The Addendum is included in Section 5.0, Final EIR, contained in Volume H, and is part of Appendix F of the EIR document. The additional details regarding water quality "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 3 in Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions. Additionally, please refer to below responses RWQCB-3 through 5 (pages 4-92 to 4-93), within this Section 4.3,regarding the impacts of water removed during dewatering. OCPD#2—7 As shown in response OCPD#2-6, the project as mitigated will improve the quality of water in Huntington Harbor by reducing the pollutant loads that are discharged. Because the project will have a beneficial impact,rather than an adverse effect,on the harbor, it is not necessary to add further mitigation measures. OCPD#2—8 The statements contained in the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document indicated that for Alternatives 6-9 "surface water running due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces would be less than the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR due to the reduction of units and increase in open space for Alternatives 6-9." Although the surface water runoff impacts would be less than the original project,the same mitigation as identified for the original project applies. OCPD#2—9 Please refer to above response to OCPD#2-6 (page 4-74), within this Section 4.3,regarding water quality issues. OCPD#2—10 The revised title has been made on Exhibit 5b. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR (page 3-6). Additionally, new Exhibits 50, 51, 52, 57,59, 65, 66, 67, 70 and 72 (of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document)depict the Proposed Class I Bikeway. OCPD#2—11 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from OCPD-7 (page 3-86), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding Class I bikeway. Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR, which includes the revised Exhibits 5b and 6c and the new Exhibits 50, 51, 52, 57, 59, 65, 66, 67, 70 and 72 (of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document). These exhibits depict the Proposed Class I Bikeway. The County standard for this bikeway will be implemented. 4-75 The revised exhibits do not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor do they raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. OCPD#2—12 Per the commentor's request,the Aesthetics Mitigation Measures#4 on page 8-9 has been revised to read as follows,"Prior to approval of building permits,the applicant shall submit a bikeway plan to the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning, in consultation with the Manager of the County PFRD/HBP Program Management & Coordination, for approval of consistency with the Orange County Bikeway Plan." Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR(page 8-9). The revised mitigation measure does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. OCPD#2—13 For reader ease, the following is a partial response from OCPD-6 (page 3-86), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding Class I bikeway. Additionally, both the City and project applicant have continued to coordinate with the County regarding this issue. Subsequent meetings with County staff and written correspondence dated 1/8/98 and 7/29/98 from County staff have occurred. Also, reference to the Class I bikeway was added to page 3-31 of the EIR and was discussed in EIR Section 5.1,Land Use Compatibility. Additionally, the County trails (Class I bikeway) is discussed within the aesthetics sections of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR and the Class I bike trail location is graphically depicted on Exhibits 50, 51, 52, 57,59,65,66,67,70,and 72. OCPD#2—14 The project does implement the proposed Class I bikeway on that part of the flood control facility within the project boundaries to facilitate connection with the flood control facility that will remain in the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Plan. Please refer to above response to OCPD#2-12 and 13 regarding the City and applicants involvement in this Bikeway implementation effort. OCPD#2—15 Please refer to above response to OCPD#2-11 & 12(pages 4-75 to 4-76)which indicate that the County Standard for this bikeway will be implemented. OCPD#2—16 Please refer to Section 3.0 Original EIR Project Description(within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document and Section 5.0 Final EIR), which includes the revised page 3-31 with the added project objective.The following objective was added: "Provide a Class I bikeway connecting the project site to Graham Street, the proposed local park and the future Bolsa Chica Open Space Trails/Bikeway System." 4-76 This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the County trails (Class I bikeway) is discussed within the aesthetics sections of the New Alternatives to the EIR and Class I bike trail location is graphically depicted on Exhibits 50, 51, 52, 57, 59,65,66,67,70, and 72. OCPD#2—17 Please refer to above response to OCPD#2-11 & 12 (pages 4-75 to 4-76) which indicate that the County Standard for this bikeway will be implemented. OCPD#2—18 Section 5.9, Cultural Resources, of the EIR includes Mitigation Measures (2 and 3), regarding recovery plans(i.e.,preservation,salvage,etc.)and appropriate action in case of significant finds of resources. The measures that will be implemented will follow the appropriate protocol for donation, curation and maintenance of the artifacts by a suitable repository. OCPD#2—19 Please refer to above response to OCPD#2-18 on this page, regarding potential maintenance of the artifacts. OCPD#2—20 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. The issue of solid waste disposal was not considered a significant issue and was focused out of the Initial Study. During the NOP period no comments were received regarding solid waste from any state or local agencies, therefore, solid waste was not analyzed further in the Draft EIR. City residents benefit from having waste recycled at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). In addition, contractors can recycle asphalt and concrete waste at an existing facility in the City. The City requires all developers implement applicable local and state regulations pertaining to solid waste disposal per standard City conditions of approval. OCPD#2—21 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 9. BCLT#2—1 (Also prepared letter 52-BCLT 1-59 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. BCLT#2—2&3 Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding recirculation of the original Draft EIR and "significant" new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines and above response to DH-5 (page 4-30), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding the preparation of the Response to Comments. 4-77 BCLT#2—4 Page 2-1 of the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR discusses the April 16, 1999 appellate court decision and its relationship to the original project and new reduced density alternative. Additionally, please refer to above response to EM-1 (page 4-23), within Section 4.1 of this document, and CCC#2-3 (page 4-56), within this Section 4.3,regarding the status of wetlands on-site. BCLT#2—5 Please refer to above response to JV-2 (page 4-29), within section 4.1 of this document, regarding standing water on the property after rainfall. "Standing water on the property after rainfall" does not constitute "significant new information." As part of the project applicant's response to the Coastal Commission comment, an updated wetland delineation of the County parcel was performed (completed by LSA Associates, on May 21, 2002) and is included in Volume IIA of this document. The wetlands delineation report prepared by LSA concluded that there is a total of 0.30 acre of potential Corps jurisdiction within the County parcel. The same area plus two small areas (0.03 acre each), satisfy the Coastal Commission's wetland definition, therefore, a total of 0.36 acre of potential Commission jurisdiction occurs within the County parcel. Regardless of the wetland delineation results, the loss of the patchy pickleweed area, (refer to Composite Resource Map in Volume IIA, which shows a portion of the patchy pickleweed as potential jurisdiction wetland), will be mitigated with a restoration plan as required by revised Mitigation Measure 2 per the Department of Fish and Game's June 15, 1998 correspondence(see letter#74 of this document). Lastly, based upon the conclusions of the State and Federal resource agencies regarding the status of on- site wetlands (as outlined in above response CCC#2-3 (page 4-56) within this Section 4.3), requests and/or direction to further study on-site water collection was not provided to the City. BCLT#2—6 For reader ease, the following is a partial duplicate response from JDV-20 (page 3-172) within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding"use of the site as a detention basin". As indicated in the Draft EIR, this site has been zoned for development of single family housing since 1971 and it is currently shown with the same designation on the City's zoning map. According to the project civil engineer,the County of Orange has prepared a Project Report as related to their facility C05 (EGGW Channel)in which the Channel is proposed to be upgraded to carry a 100-year flood and does not include any provision for a retention basin. An alternative in which the site is restored as a wetland would not meet any of the project objectives therefore under CEQA it would not be considered a feasible alternative. BCLT#2—7 The June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document takes into account all new regulatory actions that have affected development of the site since June 15, 1998. Please refer to above response to CCC#2-3 (page 4-56), regarding the project's need for a Section 10 permit pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act. Additionally, please refer to the June 29, 2000 Army Corps Correspondence and June 23, 2000 Vandermost Correspondence regarding jurisdictional determination of the existing EGGW Channel and adjacent area. 4-78 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from MHa-5 (page 3-98) within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding"Canada geese and migratory birds". According to the project biologist, the ephemeral areas of standing water which often accumulate on the site following storms do not create habitats which are different, unique or vital resources locally, but rather are temporary, low quality fresh or brackish pools, lacking the native aquatic vegetation or invertebrates (=natural forage values) of natural marshlands. Nevertheless, the pools may be a visible attractant to birds,particularly ecological generalists(such as Canada goose,etc.). The fallow agricultural areas, which may contain seeds and chaff from ploughed ruderal and crop vegetation; also may attract generalist feeders such as Canada goose and other species, which readily forage in fallow croplands. None of these species is considered sensitive by resource agencies, although many of them are managed for hunting by California Department of Fish & Game. None of the species which have been noted at the ephemeral pools or feeding within the fallow agricultural areas are biologically or ecologically dependent populationally, locally or regionally upon the resources of the site, or upon any other ruderal or upland area within the site vicinity. Those species, which breed locally may do so within natural wetlands,or in created environments with suitable characteristics(such as golf course water features), but do not reside or reproduce within the project boundary. The loss of a minor amount of casual foraging field area for Canada geese would not in any measurable way adversely affect this common and widespread game bird,nor any of the other species. Additionally, the comment mentions documents obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the wetland status of the project site. These internal documents do not affect the conclusions reached by the Army Corps of Engineers or the conclusions of the NRCS that the project site is not wetland but Prior Converted Cropland. Nor do these internal discussions constitute new information that requires recirculation of the EIR. Also, please refer to above response CCC#2-3 (page 4-56) concerning the determination by the Coastal Commission and CDFG that the project site does not contain wetlands as defined under state law,including the Coastal Act. BCLT#2—8 Please refer to above response BCLT #2 — 6 (page 4-78) regarding use of the site as a detention basin. Also,for reader ease the following is a partial duplicate of response BOLT-7 (page 3-118)in Section 3.1 regarding the range of alternatives required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines do not require the Draft EIR to include all alternatives to the proposed project as submitted from the public. In accordance with Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR provides a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. The Draft EIR must also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. By providing this range of alternatives, the decision-makers are allowed to take action within the range presented in the EIR. The Draft EIR provided an analysis of five (5) different alternatives (including 3 alternative roadway connections) as directed by City Staff and the NOP scoping process(Please refer to pages 6-1 through 6-31 of the EIR). The Draft EIR further provided rational for rejection of a sixth alternative suggested by a NOP comment letter. Lastly, in response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the new information related to a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; the submittal of a Conditional Letter of map Revision (CLOMR)application to FEMA with an updated hydrologic study of the flood hazards by Shea Homes in February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission suggested modification to the County's Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program designation within the 4.5-acre County parcel, four (4) new alternatives have been added to the EIR (refer to Section 6.7 on page 6-32 of this document entitled 4-79 Section 5.0 Final EIR, contained in Volume Il). These four alternatives were also included in a separate document entitled New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, which was released for public review and comment from June 29,2001 through August 13, 2001. Responses prepared for the comments received on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document,are contained in Section 4.0 of this document. The EIR has examined a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain most of the project objectives,as required by CEQA. As explained above in response BCLT#2-6, an alternative under which the site is used for a detention basin would not meet any of the project objectives. Therefore, under CEQA it is not considered a feasible alternative. BCLT#2—9 A detailed discussion of the Bolsa Fairview fault was presented by Pacific Soils (the project geotechnical consultant), for prior response to MW-lb contained within Section 3.3 of this document. In summary, the project geotechnical consultant has concluded that the on-site evidence strongly suggests that the Bolsa Fairview fault,if extant,is pre-Holocene, and thus not active according to Alquist-Priolo standards. Such is consistent with the Class D assignment of the fault by the City of Huntington Beach. The issue of liquefaction has also been previously addressed by Pacific Soils,prior responses to REW-13, 14, 26, 30, 31 (pages 3-158, 3-159, 3-165, 3-167, & 3-167), OCPD-15 (page 3-88), and BCLT-29 (page 3-126) within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project geotechnical consultant, the remedial grading proposed in that document is aimed, in large part, at mitigation of that potential hazard to an acceptable level of risk. BCLT#2—10 Please refer to above response to PMK-3(page 4-18),within this Section 4.3,regarding traffic impact. According to the project traffic engineer,the single access to the project at the intersection"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A (free flow) during peak hours. The analysis of this access has been addressed according to standard traffic engineering procedures as required by the City of Huntington Beach. Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5) and Emb-3 (page 4-55), within Section 4.3 of this document,regarding EGGW Channel improvements. The EGGW Channel improvements and the project impacts on the EGGW Channel water elevations are also addressed below in response to CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83)within Section 4.3 of this document. BCLT#2—11 and BCLT#2—12 Please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding recirculation of the original Draft EIR and "significant" new information in accordance with Section 15088.5 of CEQA Guidelines and above response to DH-5 (page 4-30), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding the preparation of the Response to Comments. Additionally, as indicated on pages 1-4 of the New Alternative to the Draft EIR document,the response to comments on the Draft EIR (section 3.0 of this document); the response to comments on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR (Section 4.0 of this document) and the final EIR will be made available for public review prior to any public hearings for EIR certification or project action. This approach is consistent with Section 15089(b)of the CEQA guidelines. 4-80 10. ADBC#2—1 (Also prepared letter 48-ADBC 1 within Section 3.3 of this document.) During the public comment period from June 29, 2001 to August 12, 2001 on the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document, the original Draft EIR was made available at libraries and the City Hall for reference. Additionally, please refer to above response to EM-2 (page 4-26), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding recirculation of the EIR. ADBC#2—2 Please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding flood hazards. Also,please refer to above response to HBEB#2-5 (page 4-66) and below responses to TAD-3 (page 4-70), CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83), RPA#2-13 (page 4-87), and RPA#2-19 (page 4-89), within Section 4.3 of this document, regarding the additional details of the EGGW Channel improvements and the project impact on water elevations in the EGGW Channel. ADBC#2—3 Please refer to above response to TAD-5 (page 4-70), within this Section 4.3, regarding water quality issues. ADBC#2—4 Please refer to above response to PMK-2 (page 4-8) within Section 4.1 regarding view impacts to the north from the proposed paseo park and"B"street and HBEB#2-4(page 4-66),regarding view impacts to the north from the proposed home second story windows. ADBC#2—5 Exhibits 47a, 47b and 63 within the June 2001 document depict the Fish and Game ESHA separation distance in relation to the original DEIR TTM, the 9-lot County (Alternatives 6 and 7) and the 0-lot County(Alternative 8 and 9). ADBC#2—6 Please refer to above response to HBEB#2-8 (page 4-66), within this Section 4.3, regarding eucalyptus trees and discussions relating to dead or dying trees. ADBC#2—7 Please refer to above response to CCC#2-3 (page 4-56) within this Section 4.3 regarding onsite wetland states. ADBC#2—8 Please refer to above responses to BCLT#2-6 (page 4-78) and BCLT#2-8 (page 4-79) within this Section 4.3 regarding the"use of the site as a detention basin"and the"range of alternatives required by CEQA." 4-81 ADBC#2—9 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within this Section 4.3,regarding borrow sites and haul routes. During construction, appropriate safety measures will be in effect to eliminate conflicts between construction traffic and pedestrians on Graham Street. The applicant will be required to coordinate a truck and construction vehicle routing plan, which must be approved by the City Engineer. This plan will specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction-related impacts to adjacent residences. This mitigation measure will reduce the impacts of construction vehicles to a less than significant level. In addition, transportation/circulation Mitigation Measure 3 will require the applicant, before building permits are issued, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer that standards regarding pedestrian/bicycle safety along the perimeter sidewalks have been met. For reader ease the following is a duplicate response of DR-2 (page 3-75) within Section 3.3, regarding construction vehicle access. According to the project traffic engineer,construction vehicles will enter the property from Graham Street or from the west(via an approved haul route, see Exhibit 15,Haul Route for Import Map, of the EIR),not from existing residential streets to the north. This information has been added to Section 3.0 Project Description of the EIR (page 3-23). Please refer to Section 5.0 Final EIR (page 3-23), contained in Volume H, for the revised text. This modification to the document does not change the overall conclusions of the Draft EIR nor does it raise any significant issues that were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-5 (page 4-20) within Section 4.1, this document, regarding construction traffic. ADBC#2—10 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1, regarding the project's traffic impact issues. According to the project traffic engineer,the intersection of Kenilworth and Graham will be benefited by the traffic signal at "A" Street because the signal will create gaps that will allow traffic from Kenilworth to enter northbound Graham Street. 11. CSLC#2—1 (Also prepared letter 40-CSLC 1-19 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. CSLC#2—2 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Please refer to Section 3.1 (response letter 40) of this document for the responses to the CSLC prior letter dated June 1, 1998. The analysis contained in the June,2001 New Alternative to the Draft EIR document was prepared consistent with Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 4-82 CSLC#2—3 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisiomnakers. CSLC#2—4 The first and last sentences of the commentor's inquiry refer to the nature and extent of the improvements to EGGW Channel, and analysis of the potential impacts of such improvements. Construction of the improvements is scheduled to occur in phases. Detailed information regarding the EGGW Channel improvements and associated impacts are addressed in the approved Project Report and certified Orange County EIR 560. Since the impacts associated with the EGGW channel improvements were fully disclosed as part of a prior certified EIR, a reference or citation of this fact is appropriate and allowed for under CEQA (Section 15148 of the Guidelines). This information (Certified EIR 560 and Project Study Report) is available at the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record. The cited EIR document is listed in Section 9.4 References of the EIR. Additionally, for reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from CSLC-14 (page 3-103) within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding"proposed channel improvements". The project applicant is being required by the City and County to improve the East Garden Grove—EGGW Channel by removing the existing trapezoidal slope channel wall on the northern side of the Channel adjacent to the project site and replacing it with a vertical wall of sheet-pile or equivalent. This will widen and increase the capacity of the Channel by turning the trapezoidal Channel into a rectangular one on the proposed Development side. This will also provide for a stable barrier against the erosion of the Channel berm(please refer to Exhibit 6B, Sections A-A,B-B,and C-C,and Mitigation Measures on page 5-142 of the EIR.)Environmental Impacts resulting from channel improvements have been addressed in EIR 560. Since the impacts associated with the EGGW channel improvements were fully disclosed as part of a prior certified EIR,a reference or citation of this fact is appropriate and allowed for under CEQA(Section 15148 of the Guidelines). This information (Certified EIR 560 and Project Study Report) is available at the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record. The cited EIR document is listed in Section 9.4 References of the EIR. According to the project civil engineer,the existing flood control channel adjacent to the property will be widened and reinforced with a sheet pile levee that is satisfactory to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers certification and FEMA acceptance. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the County and City of Huntington Beach, and permits issued accordingly. Improvements will not be made without County approval. Flood control channel improvements will mitigate the impacts of the proposed project to a level of insignificance. The response to CSLC#2-5 below covers questions regarding Slater Pump Station improvements. CSLC#2-5 According to the project civil engineer, this comment consists of six separate questions encompassing flood control and water quality issues. Each comment is addressed individually below. 1) It appears that only one side of EGGW Channel will be improved. Flood control improvements will be within the frontage limits of the proposed development and will provide a regional benefit. Improvements will consist of widening the flood control channel and reinforcing the north levee with a steel sheet pile levee. The improvements to the Channel are discussed in response CSLC #2-4 (page 4-83) above. 4-83 2) How will the selective improvement affect the opposite unimproved side and the downstream portions of the flood control channel through Bolsa Chica? The improvements to the northern side of the Channel will not affect the opposite side of the Channel or cause increased risk of flooding on the opposite side. Although this is a selective improvement, widening the flood control channel and construction of a sheet pile levee will increase the conveyance area and flow capacity of the flood control channel fronting the proposed development and the flow impact area across from the outlets of Slater Pump Station. The impact of additional runoff from the project site (peak discharge of 126 cubic ft per second), and additional pumping capacity at Slater Pump Station will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Water surface elevations along four miles of the flood control channel from the tide gates to Gothard Street will remain the same or decrease slightly. There will be a small (—one-half inch) temporary (less than one hour) increase in water surface elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet only during pumping activity. This increase will not extend into Bolsa Chica. Note that the EGGW flood control channel in the vicinity of Slater Pump Station has at least 2 ft of freeboard, and will be able to absorb the small temporary increase in water surface elevation. 3) Will such improvement benefit the development to the detriment of the proposed Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project? The Bolsa Chica project will be downstream of the proposed project. As explained above,water surface elevations downstream of the proposed project, including the reach through Bolsa Chica, will remain the same or decrease slightly. The small temporary increase in water surface elevation will be in the immediate vicinity of the Slater Pump Station outlet and will not extend into Bolsa Chica. There will be no detriment to the Bolsa Chica project. 4) Will such improvements increase the potential for, or size of, channel overflows into the [Bolsa Chica] project due to additional storm water flows from the development without any corresponding increase in channel capacity through the Bolsa Chica area? As explained above, the additional volume of runoff from development is about 2 acre-ft, with a peak discharge of 126 cubic ft per second. The impact of the increased peak discharge into Slater Channel will be mitigated by the additional pumping capacity in Slater Pump Station. Increased flow into Slater Channel will not result in a proportionate increase of flow out of Slater Channel into in EGGW flood control channel. Flow out of Slater Pump Station will be temporary and intermittent, controlled by the rate of filling of Slater Channel and individual pump settings, which control the rate of emptying of Slater Channel. Increased flow into the EGGW flood control channel will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by increase in size of the channel fronting the proposed development. 5) How would associated water quality impacts to the [Bolsa Chica] wetlands be mitigated? Water quality impacts associated with development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by on-site structural best management practices. This concern has also been responded to in above responses to TAD-5 (page 4-70)and CCC#2-10(page 4-64). 6) What impacts would result from and how will the proposed improvements to Slater Pump Station exacerbate the above-cited potential impacts? Potential water quality impacts will be mitigated on site, before storm runoff reaches Slater Channel and Slater Pump Station. Potential impacts from flow into the EGGW flood control channel will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the increase in flood control channel size. The potential for overtopping is offset by the widening improvements to the Channel. CSLC#2-6 According to the project civil engineer, CSLC ownership of the EGGW Channel is subject to an encumbrance in the form of a flood control easement granted to the Orange County Flood Control District 4-84 recorded on June 16, 1964,Book 7091, Pages 32 through 37. Since the easement predates the transfer of ownership of the underlying land to CSLC, the prior rights of OCFCD for flood control uses will take precedence over other uses. It is the project proponent's understanding that authority to issue public property encroachment permits for flood control facilities is still retained by OCFCD for the flood control channel improvements within the limits of the proposed development. However, the improvement plans shall be submitted to the CSLC for review and comment concurrently with submittals to OCFCD. 12. RPA#2—1 (Also prepared letter 70-RPA 1-68 within Section 3.3 of this document.) The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. RPA#2—2 Please refer to response to RWQCB-3 through 5 (pages 4-92 to 4-93) below and DR #2-4 (page 4-52) above within this Section 4.3 regarding dewatering and remedial grading. According to the project geotechnical consultant, when grading plans are finalized, grading and dewatering efforts will be a combined effort between the civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, grading contractor,and dewatering subcontractor. RPA#2—3 According to the project traffic engineer, the traffic impact study for the project includes cumulative impacts from the Holly Seacliff project (includes Edwards Hill properties). Additionally, Darnell and Associates submitted a revised traffic analysis on March 21, 2001 that includes the following: 1) reduction in dwelling units from 208 to 171 for the project and 2)inclusion of 350 dwelling units from the Meadowlark (Catellus) project, which was previously omitted (please refer to Section 5.0, Final EIR). The revised study does not alter the conclusions or mitigations presented in the Draft EIR. RPA#2—4 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. Additionally, please refer to above response to PMK-6 (page 4-22), within Section 4.1 of this document, regarding the maintenance and the security of the proposed paseo park. RPA#2—5 Please refer to above response to PMK-5 (page 4-20) within Section 4.1 of this document regarding the construction impacts related to the volume of fill (import) for the original project and new alternative analyzed in the June 2001 document. RPA#2—6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. RPA#2—7 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4-85 RPA#2—8 Please note a portion of this is an identical comment to RPA-20 (page 3-182) within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project civil engineer, the comments made by the commentor appear to be statements referring to a December 1992 report about potential flooding problems several miles upstream in the vicinity of the I-405 freeway. A later statement refers to not seeing any specific indication of flooding in "this area". With respect to potential flooding problems upstream of the proposed development, Orange County has prepared and approved a watershed Project Report and certified EIR 560 for the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg and Ocean View Channels. Since the impacts associated with the EGGW channel improvements were fully disclosed as part of a prior certified EIR, a reference or citation of this fact is appropriate and allowed for under CEQA (Section 15148 of the Guidelines). This information (Certified EIR 560 and Project Study Report)is available at the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record. The cited EIR document is listed in Section 9.4 References of the EIR(refer to Section 5.0 Errata, contained in Volume II). In the County Project Report and EIR 560, it was acknowledged that there are flood control deficiencies in the areas the commentor refers to. With respect to not seeing flooding in "this area", the commentor is directed to response RPA#2-16. The engineering studies identified deficiencies and breakouts upstream of the project site during the 100-year event that limit the amount of water that can reach the flood control channel frontage along the project site. RPA#2—9 Please note this is an identical comment to RPA-21 (page 3-182) within Section 3.3 of this document. The response has not changed. Please refer to above response to DR#2-5 (page 4-53), within this Section 4.3, regarding flood control aspects. RPA#2—10 Please note this is an identical comment to RPA-22(page 3-183)within Section 3.3 of this document. For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from RPA-22 (page 3-183), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding expansion of the capacity of the Wintersburg Channel. According to the project civil engineer,the City and County typically require a developer to improve their one-half(1/2) of any public facility they abut. This is why Shea Homes is being required to improve their 1/2 of the E.G.G.-W. Channel abutting their site. The proposed housing within the Shea project will be protected from the 100-year flood per the City criteria. With reference to the comment about a "heavy rain,"please note that a 100-year flood event is considered a"heavy rain." (Please refer EIR, "Flooding", pages 5-136 through 5-138). For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from RPA-30 (page 3-184), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding drainage deficiencies on Graham. According to the project civil engineer, the proposed development is being required to protect the new homes from a 100-year flood event. In addition, Shea Homes has been required to design and construct a drainage system that will pick up the 100-year storm flows at Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive. This is being done by increasing the size of the storm drain facilities, directed through this Development thereby reducing the impacts to the Slater Channel. (Please refer to EIR, "Mitigation Measures",pages 5- 142). 4-86 Additionally, the impact of the proposed project will be mitigated by storm drainage and flood control channel improvements. Please refer to above response to CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83) within this section for additional information regarding effects of the proposed EGGW Channel improvements. There will be no impact to the properties either to the south of the flood control channel or along the proposed development frontage to the north. As a condition of development, the project proponent is required to make the intersection of Graham Street at Kenilworth Drive passable during a 100-year storm based on future development conditions. New catch basins and storm drains will pick up storm water in the intersection and convey the flow to Slater Channel where it will be pumped into the EGGW flood control channel. RPA#2—11 For reader ease, the following is a partial duplicate response from RPA-49 & 50 (page 3-188), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding the density issue. See page 5-5,Table C of the EIR. As indicated in the Draft EIR,this analysis was prepared in response to comments raised at the October 9, 1997 scoping meeting. The neighborhood park site for the proposed project is a requirement of the proposed development and will be built in conjunction with the proposed project. Therefore,inclusion of this park site within the analysis of density is appropriate. Lastly,it should be noted that the Draft EIR did not draw the conclusions regarding compatibility because the density of the proposed project is "10% less than the surrounding developments." Rather, it drew the conclusion of land use compatibility on several factors. These factors include: 1) the fact that the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding single-family development, in that it is also a proposed single-family residential development; 2)the project's density is within the range of densities of the surrounding project as well as within the density range allowed under the General Plan designation for the site; and 3) the proposed setbacks of the project are in excess of the required Zoning Code setback requirements. RPA#2—12 Please note this is an identical comment to RPA-23 (page 3-183)within Section 3.3 of this document. Flood control improvements are conditions of development. With respect to the elevation of the project site, the site is at or above the elevations of the adjacent property to the north. Additional information regarding flooding is in response to RPA-23 (page 3-183) within Section 3.3 of this document. With respect to the project site looking like a retention basin, please refer to RPA-32 (page 3-185) within Section 3.3 of this document. RPA#2—13 Please note this is an identical comment to RPA-24(page 3-183)within Section 3.3 of this document. For reader ease,the following is a duplicate response from RPA-24 within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project civil engineer, the proposed improvement to the EGGW Channel are to be constructed per the Orange County Flood Control District's latest proposed Development Study (see Orange County EIR 560 and the related project report). Shea Homes will contract with a licensed contractor to construct the channel improvements per County standards. (Please refer to EIR, "Mitigation Measures",page 5-142). 4-87 Also, according to the project civil engineer, improvements to EGGW Channel are conditions of development required by Orange County. The existing flood control channel adjacent to the property will be widened and reinforced with a steel sheet pile levee. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the County, and permits issued accordingly. Improvements will not be made without County approval. Flood control channel improvements will mitigate the impacts of the proposed project to a level of insignificance. Additional information is provided in below response to RPA#2-16 and above response to CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83)within this Section 4.3. RPA#2—14 and 15 Please note this is an identical comment to RPA-46 and 47 (page 3-188) within Section 3.3 of this document. For reader ease,the following is a duplicate response from RPA-46 and 47, within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding soil import approval and dump truck impacts.The response has not changed. Please refer to above responses to JDV-15 (page 3-171), BCLT-9 and BCLT-10 (page 3-119), BCLT-12 (page 3-120), CB-33 and CB-34 (page 3-153), within Section 3.3 of this document, regarding comments related to the project's remedial grading and infill program. The project mitigation measures will ensure that the impacts of construction trucks are less than significant. Transportation and circulation Mitigation Measure 1 requires the applicant to coordinate a truck and construction vehicle routing plan, including a dirt import haul route, which must be approved by the City Engineer. The City's standard conditions of approval include the requirement that the property owner be responsible for pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way, as determined by the Public Works Department. Additionally, it should be noted that a written agreement already exists from the adjacent property owner to allow 210,000 cubic yards of dirt from his property,provided appropriate grading permits are granted. RPA#2—16 Please note that this is an identical comment to RPA-27 (page 3-184)within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project civil engineer, engineering studies reported in DEIR 97-2 Appendix F do not infer that the EGGW flood control channel is a "100-year" channel. The engineering studies identified deficiencies and breakouts upstream of the project site during the 100-year event that limit the amount of water that can reach the flood control channel frontage along the project site. Intermittent phased improvements have been ongoing since the mid to late 1980s. Orange County has prepared and approved a watershed Project Report and certified EIR 560 for the EGGW and Ocean View Channels. Channel deficiencies and construction phasing are covered in these documents which are available for review at the Orange County Flood Control District. Also refer to above response to RPA#2-13 (page 4-87)regarding improvements to the EGGW Channel. It is unclear who the commentor is referring to when identifying `Bolsa Chica people". If the commentor is referring to Bolsa Chica lowland restoration efforts, the comment should be directed to the Federal/State team preparing that EIR/EIS. RPA#2—17 Please note that this is an identical comment to RPA-28 (page 3-184)within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project civil engineer,storm drain pipe construction across the flood control channel will proceed in three stages. All stages include temporary sheet piling and dewatering to facilitate pipe installation per standard engineering practice. Please refer to above response to RPA-28 within Section 3.3 of this document,for additional information. 4-88 RPA#2—18 Please note that this is an identical comment to RPA-29 (page 3-184 a e within Section 3.3 of this document. ) The new storm drain system will drain directly to Slater Pump Station. Per conditions of development, the project proponent is required, among other things, to install additional pumping capacity in Slater Pump Station. The additional pump capacity is more than the proposed delivery from the project's new storm drain system. Therefore, there will be no adverse impact on Slater Channel. Refer to above responses CSLC#2-4 and CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83) for additional information regarding flood control and water quality issues. Additionally,please refer to above response to SJK-1 (page 4-5),in Section 4.1 of this document. RPA#2—19 Please note that this is an identical comment to RPA-30(page 3-184)within Section 3.3 of this document. According to the project civil engineer, the impact of the proposed project will be mitigated by storm drainage and flood control channel improvements. There will be no impact to the properties either to the south of the flood control channel or along the proposed development frontage to the north. As a condition of development,the project proponent is required to make the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive passable during a 100-year storm based on future development conditions. New catch basins and storm drains will pick up storm water in the intersection and convey the flow to Slater Channel where it will be pumped into the EGGW flood control channel. Additionally,please refer to above responses to RPA#2-9 (page 4-86),RPA#2-10(page 4-86),RPA#2-18 (page 4-89) and CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83)for additional information regarding drainage,expansion capacity of the EGGW Channel, Slater Plump Station capacity,and flood control issues. RPA#2—20 Please note that this is an identical comment to RPA-31 (page 3-85) within Section 3.3 of this document. Please refer to RPA-31, within Section 3.3 of this document, which addresses this question as it applies to the "original" project analyzed in the Draft EIR. Additionally, the following response RPA-31 has been revised to refer to the new plans contained in the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. (Revised response RPA-31) According to the project civil engineer,this statement implies that drainage to or from the adjacent homes will be interfered with. With regard to this, it should be noted that the proposed development along the north property line will drain away from, or southerly of, the existing homes located to the north of the proposed development. 1. The letter further states, "You want to be than the new site." Any new residential lots must be a minimum of one foot above the FEMA base flood elevation as required by the city. The proposed grades of the landscape buffer (paseo park) adjacent to the northerly single-family homes will approximate the grades of those homes. The drainage plan for this area is described in#2 below. 2. The letter further states, "Don't let the proposed block walls block the course of water from your property." — Additionally, an existing masonry wall along the proposed development northerly boundary should minimize cross-property drainage. Existing home sites north of the Shea homes property were originally designed and graded to drain northerly to Kenilworth Drive. Development 4-89 lots in the proposed Shea project are designed to drain away from the northern boundary toward proposed interior streets and then to interior storm drains beneath the streets. The landscaped buffer (paseo park) that will separate the proposed homes from existing homes is designed to drain to an existing 60-inch storm drain along the northern boundary of the proposed project. RPA#2—21 It is not clear from the comment what specific question is being raised regarding flooding within the EIR Section 7.0 Long Term Implications of the Proposed Project. RPA#2—22 Please note this is an identical comment to the RPA-12(page 3-181)within Section 3.3 of this document. The response has not changed. With respect to the commentor's concern that the Draft EIR concludes there will be no significant unavoidable impacts of the project after mitigation, it should be noted that Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides criteria for judging significant effects from a project on the environment. Per the City's direction,the preparers of the EIR utilized these criteria in assessing project impacts.Please refer to the first few paragraphs listed under impacts within each topical section contained in Section 5.0 of the EIR. RPA#2—23 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from JDV-26 (page 3-173), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding fire response issues. Relocation of the Heil Station to Graham and Production Lane and one additional fire company needed at the Graham and Production Lane were not due to Parkside Estates project. The additional fire company is attributed to the new station's overall growth and to accommodate better response time. Regarding service provision to the Parkside Estates project, according to correspondence with the Huntington Beach Fire Department,they have concluded that the response time from Warner Station#7(page 5-179 of EIR) is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint if the proposed residential units contain automatic sprinkler systems. The applicant has agreed to install automatic sprinkler systems per the Fire Department's requirements. Page 5-179 outlines the source of funding for the relocation of the Heil Avenue Station to Graham and Production Lane. Lastly, it should be noted that the Huntington Beach Fire Department has accepted Mitigation Measure 1 as adequate to reduce potential fire related impacts to levels less than significant. The mitigation does not only require"consultation"as noted by the commentor. Please refer to above responses to J&GB-2 and J&GB-3 (page 3-61) within Section 3.3, regarding the proposed "Condition of Approval" that would prevent opening of the fire access at Greenleaf Lane to through traffic in the future. RPA#2—24 Please refer to above response to LF-1 (page 4-40), within Section 4.1 of this document,regarding school impacts. 4-90 RPA#2—25 Sewer impacts have been addressed within Section 5.10, Public Services and Utilities of the EIR and within the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. As indicated by sewer Mitigation Measure 16 of the Public Services and Utilities, included within the above references documents, "prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner (Shea Homes) shall construct the new sewer lift station and force main in accordance with the City-approved Sewer Plan for the proposed project, and implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding sewer infrastructure improvements to handle increased sewer flow demands." Based upon implementation of this Mitigation Measure, the project's impacts as well as the existing sewer lift station deficiencies will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. RPA#2—26 For reader ease, the following is a duplicate response from JDV-17 (page 3-172), within Section 3.3 of this document,regarding fiscal impact. Although not required by CEQA to be part of an EIR, fiscal impact analyses for the development of the 4.5-acre County parcel have been conducted as part of annexation application requirements and are available at the City Department of Planning. The results of the studies concluded the proposed project would result in a positive fiscal impact to the City. RPA#2—27 Please refer to above response BCLT#2-8 (page 4-79) within this Section 4.3 regarding CEQA requirement for alternative analysis. 13. KF#2 — 1 (Also prepared letters 53, 54, & 55-KFa 1-7, KFb 1, & KFc 1 within Section 3.3 of this document.) Please refer to above response to DR#2-5 (page 4-53) and RPA#2-20 (page 4-89)within this Section 4.3, regarding flooding issues in relation to a rise in elevation. Additionally,please refer to above responses to PMK-5 (page 4-20) and SJK-4 (page 4-7)in Section 4.1, regarding noise and traffic issues. KF#2—2 Please refer to above response to PMK-3 (page 4-18), within Section 4.1,regarding traffic impact issues. According to the project traffic engineer,the single access to the project at the intersection"A" Street and Graham Street will operate at Level of Service A(free flow) during peak hours. The intersection will be signalized to assure orderly access into and out of the project during emergencies. Also, an access for emergency vehicles is proposed from the project to Greenleaf Lane to the north. 14. RWQCB—1 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4-91 RWQCB—2 Please refer to above response to CCC#2-10(page 4-64), CSLC#2-5 (page 4-83) and OCPD#2-6 (page 4- 74)within this Section 4.3,regarding water quality issues and stormwater runoff impacts. RWQCB—3 through RWQCB—5 The permit requirements mentioned in RWQCB-3, 4, and 5 are noted. See also Mitigation Measure 3 at page 5-142 of the EIR, which requires the applicant, before issuance of a grading permit, to provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and erosion control plan accompanied by a completed Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to the latest Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and all NPDES requirements to the City Engineer for review and approval. The plan is required to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using best management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as are appropriate. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce water quality impacts due to dewatering to a level less than significant. This response was previously addressed in the EIR comment M&JT-1 (page 3-64)within Section 3.3 of this document. For information purposes, the previous response (M&JT-1 (page 3-64)) to questions regarding site grading and dewatering are presented below. The response has been modified to reflect the changes in the plans (included in the June, 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document) specifically the changed relationship of the development to the northern property boundary (i.e., addition of the Paseo Park). According to the project geotechnical consultant, the recommended grading process includes overexcavation of loose/soft, compressible soils to depths varying from 5 to 19 feet. Perched ground water was observed in borings and test pits at levels varying from 4 to 19 feet below existing grades. These water levels vary, to some extent, seasonally and are considered to be "perched" above less permeable silt and clay seams. Those interbedded seams are discontinuous laterally and as a result water is flowing both vertically and laterally within the more permeable sand layers. Based upon excavations that were monitored in March and May 1998, digging to depths of approximately 10 feet, water levels at that period were approximately 6 feet below ground surface(bgs). The excavations were pumped on two occasions and monitored periodically in between. The following were the conclusions: 1. No fluctuations in water levels were observed during tidal changes and; 2. Relatively slow recharge(approximately 24 hours)was observed after pumping. The grading and construction dewatering effort will consist of a combination of several techniques. The primary technique, which will be used in proximity to the northerly project development limit, will be initiated approximately 40 feet south of the north boundary and will consist of accomplishing the excavation of the upper 4± feet with conventional earth moving equipment (scrapers). At that point, further excavation of wetter materials will be accomplished with a large excavator (backhoe). The excavation will predominately be 10 feet deep or less except for the extreme easterly one-third of the boundary where removals will be on the order of 15 feet. Dewatering of this northerly boundary area will be accomplished by surface pumps within the excavation. The excavations will be segmented in approximate 200 x 200 feet±increments that will be refilled with a mixture of materials from an adjacent excavation and drier import materials as needed. Within the interior of the project, dewatering will be accomplished with similar surface pumps, supplemented with local shallow well points, and dewatering wells. Remedial grading activities will be set back from the 4-92 north property line by at least 40 feet at the top of excavation and 50 feet at the bottom. Such local grading and dewatering efforts will not affect existing properties to the north. The grading plans for the new alternatives place the Paseo Park, a 50-foot wide passive land use,between the existing properties on the north and `B" Street. Neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required for that area. In order to monitor the boundary conditions, following tasks are planned to be accomplished prior to and/or during site grading: 1. Conduct a topographic survey of existing conditions; 2. Install piezometers to monitor groundwater levels; 3. Install and monitor survey monuments; 4. Prepare a detailed dewatering plan for review by the governing agency(s). It should be noted that similar conditions have been encountered elsewhere and procedures similar to those proposed for this site have been successfully implemented on numerous projects throughout the Huntington Beach,Fountain Valley,and Westminster areas. Monitoring of boundary conditions at the south side of the project associated with construction of the sheet pile levee fronting East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (CO5) will be as discussed in prior certified EIR 560. Geotechnical conditions and construction details are available from the Orange County Flood Control District as a matter of public record in accordance with CEQA Section 15148. The additional information presented herein regarding the proposed dewatering plan "constitute the first step" of implementing Mitigation Measure 4 in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of the EIR, and do not change the Draft EIR conclusions regarding construction traffic and/or short-term construction noise impacts (i.e., noise from dewatering pumps, as discussed in Section 5.5, Noise and Appendix C of the Draft EIR). RWQCB—6 The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decisionmakers. 4-93 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR #97-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME II ZIA ,4j r �j y ,, y: 1, J y / y ,_ / jo .p 0+ Prepared for: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Prepared by: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 PARKSIDE ESTATES EIR No. 97-2 Volume II FINAL EIR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97091051 PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 PREPARED BY: EDAW,Inc. July 2002 0 `�7 ... �_ t�7 7� 5.0 FINAL EIR The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR that were both previously circulated. The Final EIR includes changes in response to typographical errors found and requests received from the City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Department of Public Works. Additional changes have been made in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR. The original Draft EIR TTM's were also revised to address the Department of Public Works and Department of Planning comments and to ensure no remedial grading impacts to ORA 83 would occur as a result of project implementation. The revisions to the original Draft EIR TTM's resulted in the removal of 2 residential lots from the original plan. The original TTM's now include a total of 206 residential lots versus 208. These project description modifications were also included within Section 3.0 of the June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. The June 2001 New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, which was circulated for public review, from June 29, 2001 through August 12, 2001, added four(4) new Reduced Density Alternatives as Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of the EIR. The TTM's for the new Reduced Density Alternatives include a total of 171 residential lots (Alternatives 6 and 7) and 161 residential lots (Alternatives 8 and 9). It should be noted that the new alternatives text and exhibits included in this Final EIR are not in marked text, because the new alternatives were made available to the public during the public review period for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR document. They are added to this Final EIR document in their entirety (except minor editorial/format modifications to fit this document) in regular text, and only revisions to section numbers are shown in marked text (i.e., section number 2.2 changed to 6.7) to follow the sequence of the alternatives in the Final EIR. The changes to the original text(see following pages with page numbers as they appear in the Draft EIR), which consist of completeness or accuracy edits, are being corrected at this time. Additions to the text are indicated with bold italics. Deletions to the text are indicated with strikeouts. The changes to the Draft EIR and New Alternatives to the Draft EIR, as they relate to issues contained within this Final EIR, do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Included under a separate cover, as Volume IIA, Appendices to the Final EIR, are subconsultant documents prepared subsequent to the circulation of the Draft EIR. The documents included consist of: I. Revised Transportation Study for Proposed Parkside Estates Residential Development, March 29, 2001 and Traffic Collision History Report for Three Intersections -Appendix B in the Draft/Final EIR 2. Supplemental Information from PSE for the Draft EIR Comments, August 3, 1999 and for the New Alternatives to the Draft EIR Comments, October 12, 2001 and June 13, 2002-Appendix E in the Draft/Final EIR 3. Revised Response to FEMA Comments on February 5, 2001 Request for Conditional Letter of Map Revision: Parkside Estates Tentative Tract Nos. 15377 and 15419 Expanded Watershed Analysis of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel Watershed from Tide Gates to I-405 Freeway, January 30, 2002 (Note: due to the size of this report, it is available on file at the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works, for public review) — Appendix F of the Draft/Final EIR 4. Federal Emergency Management Agency CLOMR Approval Correspondence: June 6, 2002 regarding effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Orange County, California and Incorporated \\IROI\VOLT\PROIFlLE\1997\7NI5Ml\RESPONSETOCOMMENTS\NEW-RTC.DOC a Areas (the effective FIRM and FIS report for your community), in accordance with Part 65 of the --�- National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP)regulations.—Appendix F of the Draft/Final EIR 5. Rivertech Water Quality Analysis / Plan, December 1998 and Rivertech Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, February 2002 — Appendix F in the Draft/Final EIR 6. City of Huntington Beach, USDA, Corps of Engineers, and Vandermost Correspondence: a) November 10, 1998, regarding prior converted cropland; b) November 20, 1998, regarding prior converted cropland; c) August 11, 1999, regarding Section 10 provisions of the Rivers and Harbors Act; and d)June 29, 2000 Vandermost Consulting Services,Inc., regarding jurisdictional determination of the existing EGGW Channel; e) August 29, 2000 Correspondence, regarding concurrence of the jurisdictional determination of the existing EGGW Channel; and Supplemental EPA wetland and pickleweed location Exhibits — Appendix G in the Draft/Final EIR 7. California Coastal Commission Correspondence: a) June 29, 2001 regarding re-established remnant marshland; b) July 3, 2001, regarding proposed Parkside Estates development and Habitat Analysis,Parkside Estates Tentative Tract No. 15419 (County Parcel), December 8, 2000 - Appendix G in the Draft/Final EIR 8. May 21, 2002 Delineation of Wetlands Subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Coastal Commission Regulatory Authority and Composite Resource Map for County Parcel Map, prepared by LSA -Appendix G in the Draft/Final EIR \VR01\VOLT\PROIFTLE\1997\7N1500]\RESPONSETOCOMMEMS\NEW-RTC.DOC b TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 General Purpose ...................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Environmental Procedures ...................................................................................1-1 1.3 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons.................................................................1-3 1.4 Major Issues .........................................................................................................1-4 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARIES ................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................2-1 2.2 Project Impact Summary......................................................................................2-2 2.3 Alternative Summary............................................................................................2-2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................3-1 3.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Characteristics..........................................................................................3-1 3.3 Project Applicant/Property Owners....................................................................3-28 3.4 History of Project...............................................................................................3-28 3.5 Phasing...............................................................................................................3-30 3.6 Project Objectives...............................................................................................3-30 3.7 Proposed Actions................................................................................................3-31 3.8 Lead, Responsible and Interested Agencies.......................................................3-33 4.0 REGIONAL, CITYWIDE AND LOCAL SETTING.......................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Regional Setting...................................................................................................4-1 4.3 Citywide Setting...................................................................................................4-1 4.4 Local Setting ........................................................................................................4-1 4.5 Related Projects....................................................................................................4-2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS...................................................................................5-1 5.1 Land Use Compatibility.......................................................................................5-2 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare ................................................................................5-38 5.3 Transportation/Circulation ................................................................................5-58 5.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................5-86 5.5 Noise.................................................................................................................5-102 5.6 Earth Resources................................................................................................5-114 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology.........................................................................................5-133 5.8 Biological Resources........................................................................................5-144 5.9 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................5-163 5.10 Public Services and Utilities ............................................................................5-174 i 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT......................................................6-1 6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development......................................................6-13 6.3 Alternative 2 - Development Under Existing Zoning........................................6-15 6.4 Alternative 3 - Alternative Location...................................................................6-18 6.5 Alternative 4 - Alternative Park Site Location...................................................6-19 6.6 Alternative 5 - Alternative Roadway Connections.............................................6-22 6.7 Alternative 6 -Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing BFE (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 Feet at Northeast Comer....................6-32 6.8 Alternative 7 - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected BFE (updated FEMA with LOMR) -4.5 Feet ...................................6-61 6.9 Alternative 8 -Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)with Existing BFE (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 Feet at Northeast Comer....................6-75 6.10 Alternative 9 - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected BFE (updated FEMA with LOMR) -4.5 Feet ...................................6-96 7.0 LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT...............................7-1 7.1 Short-Term Used Versus Long-Term Productivity..............................................7-1 7.2 Growth Inducing Impacts.....................................................................................7-2 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES ..............................................................................8-1 8.1 Impacts Found Not to be Significant....................................................................8-1 8.2 Impacts Mitigated to a Level Less than Significant.............................................8-4 ... 8.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts..............................................................................8-7 8.4 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................8-8 8.5 Applicable Standard City Policies and Requirements........................................8-20 9.0 REPORT PREPARATION RESOURCES......................................................................9-1 9.1 Organizations and Persons Consulted..................................................................9-1 9.2 Report Preparation Staff.......................................................................................9-2 9.3 Contributors..........................................................................................................9-2 9.4 References............................................................................................................9-3 TECHNICAL APPENDICES - VOLUME I A Public Participation and Review 1. Initial Study/NOP 2. Written Comments in Response to NOP and Utility Questionnaires 3. Correspondence Related to NOP Comments 4. Scoping Meeting Agenda Package 5. Speaker/Comment Cards 6. Scoping Meeting Minutes B Darnell & Associates -Traffic Study C EDAW - Noise Modeling and Dewatering Noise Specifications D EDAW - Air Modeling E Pacific Soils, Inc. - Geology Report, Response Correspondence, and Phase I Assessment ii TECHNICAL APPENDICES - VOLUME H F Hunsaker& Associates - Hydrology/Inundation Reports G Frank Hovore & Associates - Biology Report, Wetlands Delineation, 1989 EPA Wetlands Map and Arborist Report H Brian D. Dillon, Ph.D. - Archaeological Assessment I Hunsaker& Associates - Sewer Study iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................3-2 2 Local Vicinity...................................................................................................................3-3 3 USGS Map .......................................................................................................................3-4 4 Aerial Photo......................................................................................................................3-5 5 Conceptual Land Use Plan...............................................................................................3-6 5aConceptual Park Plan.....................................................................................................3-6a 5b Conceptual Trails and Bikeways....................................................................................3-6b 6a Proposed Tentative Tract Map - City...............................................................................3-7 6a-1 Street Cross Sections........................................................................................................3-8 6b-1 Site Plan Sections - City...................................................................................................3-9 6b-2 Site Plan Sections - City.................................................................................................3-9a 6bSite Sections - City...........................................................................................................3-9 6c Proposed Tentative Tract Map - County........................................................................3-10 6c-1 Site Cross Sections - County..........................................................................................3-11 7 Typical 5,000 SF (min.)Lot Illustration.........................................................................3-12 8 Typical 6,000 SF (min.)Lot Illustration.........................................................................3-13 9 Parkside Building Elevations - Plan 1............................................................................3-15 10 Parkside Building Elevations - Plan 2............................................................................3-16 11 Parkside Building Elevations -Plan 3............................................................................3-17 12 The Estates Building Elevations - Plan 1 .......................................................................3-18 13 The Estates Building Elevations -Plan 2.......................................................................3-19 14 The Estates Building Elevations - Plan 3.......................................................................3-20 15 Haul Route For Import Map...........................................................................................3-22 16 Current General Plan Land Use Designations................................................................3-24 17 Current Zoning Map.......................................................................................................3-25 18 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations.............................................................3-26 19 Proposed Zoning ............................................................................................................3-27 20 Site Photo Index .............................................................................................................5-39 21 Site Photos (A, B, & C)..................................................................................................5-40 22 Site Photos (D &E)........................................................................................................5-41 23 Site Photos (F, G, H, &1)...............................................................................................5-42 24 Site Photos (J, K, &L)...................................................................................................5-43 25 City/County Designated Trails.......................................................................................5-46 26 Section Key Map............................................................................................................5-50 27 Cross Sections ................................................................................................................5-51 28 Conceptual Landscape Plan............................................................................................5-53 29 Existing Intersection Geometrics ...................................................................................5-59 30 Existing Traffic Volumes...............................................................................................5-61 31 Project Trip Distribution ................................................................................................5-70 32 Project Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...............................................................5-71 33 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes...........................................................................5-72 34 Short Term Cumulative Traffic Volumes ......................................................................5-77 iv 35 Year 2020 Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.........................................................5-79 36 Year 2020 Intersection Geometrics................................................................................5-80 37 "A" Street Full Access Project Traffic...........................................................................5-85 38 Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations (1 of 4)................................................5-115 39 Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations (2 of 4)................................................5-116 40 Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations (3 of 4)................................................5-117 41 Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations (4 of 4)................................................5-118 42 Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Improvements.....................................................5-134 43 Watershed Boundary Map............................................................................................5-135 44 Circulation Alternative A...............................................................................................6-23 45 Circulation Alternative B ...............................................................................................6-26 46 Circulation Alternative C...............................................................................................6-29 47a All Alternatives -Fish and Game ESHA Map - Original TTM.....................................6-46 47b Alternatives 6 &7 -Fish and Game ESHA Map - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA.................................................................................6-47 48 All Alternatives - Approximate Base Flood Elevations (BFE)—June 2000 FEMA......6-48 49 Alternatives 6 & 7 -Conceptual Land Use Plan 171 Lots—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-49 50 Alternative 6 -Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-50 50a Alternative 6—Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City)—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)..............................................................................................6-51 51 Alternatives 6 & 7 -Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-52 52 Alternatives 6 &7 - Conceptual Landscape Plan—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA.................................................................................6-53 53 Alternative 6 - Key Map—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-54 54a Alternative 6 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-55 54b Alternative 6 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-56 55 All Alternatives - Visual Simulations -Existing Conditions.........................................6-57 56 Alternatives 6 & 8 - Visual Simulations -Reduced Density Alternative - June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-58 57 Alternatives 6 & 7 - Conceptual Recreation and Open Space - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-59 58 Alternatives 6 & 7 - Storm Drainage Map -Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) —June 2000 FEMA................................................................................6-60 59 Alternative 7 -Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)—updated FEMA with LOMR.............................................6-70 60 Alternative 7 - Key Map - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)— updatedFEMA with LOMR ..........................................................................................6-71 61a Alternative 7 - Site Cross Section - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) - updatedFEMA with LOMR...........................................................................................6-72 v 61b Alternative 7 - Site Cross Section - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) - updatedFEMA with LOMR...........................................................................................6-73 62 Alternatives 7 & 9 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative - UpdatedFEMA with LOMR..........................................................................................6-74 63 Alternatives 8 & 9 -Fish and Game ESHA Map -Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA.................................................................................6-85 64 Alternatives 8 & 9 - Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 lots - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-86 65 Alternative 8 -Tentative Tract map No. 15377 (City) - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-87 65a Alternative 8—Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City)—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)..............................................................................................6-88 66 Alternatives 8 & 9 -Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-89 67 Alternatives 8 & 9 -Conceptual Landscape Plan -Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA.................................................................................6-90 68 Alternative 8 - Key Map—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-91 69a Alternative 8 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-92 69b Alternative 8 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)— June2000 FEMA ...........................................................................................................6-93 70 Alternatives 8 & 9 - Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA..............................................................6-94 71 Alternatives 8 & 9 - Storm Drainage Map—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—June 2000 FEMA.................................................................................6-95 72 Alternative 9 -Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City)—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)—Updated FEMA with LOMR..........................................6-105 73 Alternative 9 - Key Map—Reduced Alternative (0-lot County)—updated FEMA withLOMR ..................................................................................................................6-106 74a Alternative 9 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)— updatedFEMA with LOMR.........................................................................................6-107 74b Alternative 9 - Site Cross Sections—Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)— updatedFEMA with LOMR.........................................................................................6-108 A LIST OF TABLES Table Page ARequired EIR Sections ..........................................................................................................1-2 B Project Impact Summary Matrix......................................................................................2-3 C Density Survey of Surrounding Residential Uses ............................................................5-4 D Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections....................................................5-62 E Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments ..........................................................5-63 F Summary of Intersection Level of Service..........................................................................5-65 G Summary of Roadway Link Level of Service.....................................................................5-66 H Summary of Trip Generation Rates&Calculations...........................................................5-69 I Graham Street Residential Project Percentage of Net Traffic Impact on Intersections.....5-78 J Summary of Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service........................................................5-81 K Summary of Year 2020 Roadway Capacity........................................................................5-82 LAmbient Air Quality Standards...........................................................................................5-88 M Draft 1997 AQMP Target Attainment Dates......................................................................5-90 N Number of Days Exceeding State Air Quality Standards Orange County Air Quality MonitoringSummary 1992-1995........................................................................................5-92 OConstruction Emissions..................................................................................................5-96 P Project 1997 Estimated Emissions (Pounds/Day)..........................................................5-97 Q Typical Outdoor Noise Levels......................................................................................5-104 R Existing Condition Distances To CNEL Noise Contours............................................5-105 S Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure.............................................5-107 T Construction Equipment Noise ....................................................................................5-107 U Existing Plus Project Distances To CNEL Noise Contours.........................................5-110 V Year 2020 Distances To CNEL Noise Contours..........................................................5-111 W Existing and Proposed Runoff Volumes for a 100-Year Storm Event.........................5-137 X Comparative Significance, Shea Homes Archaeological Sites....................................5-170 YSummary of Alternatives.......................................................................................................6-2 ZAlternative Summary Matrix............................................................................................6-3 AA Impacts of the Alternatives which would not result from the Project..................................6-7 BBCut,Fill, and Import Quantities ..........................................................................................6-41 vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL PURPOSE This EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No. 98- 1/Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5/Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County)/Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90/Coastal Development Permit No. 96- 18/Annexation 98-1 and a Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 964. The proposed requests will allow for the development of 208 206 single family homes and a park site on approximately 49 acres of land. Approximately 44.5 acres of the project site is located in the City of Huntington Beach, and the remaining 4.5 acres is located in the unincorporated County of Orange and is proposed for annexation into the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach has the principal authority to approve the project and is the lead agency for preparation and certification of this EIR. The material contained in this EIR is intended to serve as an informational document for decisions to be made by the City and responsible agencies regarding the proposed project. This EIR provides an overall analysis of potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. The issues discussed within this EIR are those which have been identified in the course of extensive review of all potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.). This report complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the City of Huntington Beach for implementation of CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines require that each EIR contain areas of description and analysis. Table A identifies areas required by CEQA and the corresponding sections in this EIR. This EIR analyzes and assesses the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and the cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the surrounding area. It identifies alternatives to the proposed project and discusses possible ways to reduce or avoid the potentially significant environmental impacts. The environmental procedures for analysis of the proposed project were initiated in September, 1997 when the City prepared an Initial Study for the proposed project. Through the preparation of the Initial Study, the City determined that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment and that an EIR was necessary to analyze potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the potential development of the project site. The Initial Study is contained in Technical Appendix A of this EIR. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared for this EIR and circulated with the Initial Study for review by the State Office of Planning and Research and other agencies and interested parties on September 15, 1997. The NOP and the comments received on the NOP are included in Technical Appendix A. CAMY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\INIROD-I.DOC 1-1 TABLE A REQUIRED EIR SECTIONS Required Description and Analysis Section of EIR 1. Summary (Section 15123 of Guidelines) Section 2.0 2. Description of Project (Section 15124 of Guidelines) Section 3.0 3. Description of Environmental Setting (Section 15125 of Sections 4.0 and 5.0 Guidelines) 4. Environmental Impact(Sections 15126 and 15143 of Section 5.0 Guidelines) a. Significant Environmental Effects b. Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided C. Mitigation Measures 5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action(Section 15126 of Section 6.0 Guidelines) 6. The Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Section 7.0 Environment and Long-term Productivity (Section 15126 of Guidelines) 7. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes (Section Section 7.0 15126 of Guidelines) 8. Growth Inducing Impacts (Section 15126 of Guidelines) Section 7.0 Source: EDAW, Inc. P:\1997\7N 15001 TIR\INTRODUCTION.DOC 1-2 This EIR, as a final document pursuant to Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, will serve as the environmental informational document for all public and private activities and undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of completion of the project The City of Huntington Beach recognizes the fact that if new information should arise (i.e. through subsequent studies), an addendum pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines may be required. The City of Huntington Beach as the decision making body, will consider the information in this EIR in the course of their deliberations. CEQA Guidelines Section 21081.6 requires that a public agency adopt a reporting or monitoring program for adopted mitigation measures or conditions of the project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project will be prepared under a separate cover and will be submitted to the City with the Final EIR for consideration at the time the proposed project is considered for approval. This document will be available at the time the project is considered for approval. Technical Studies The following technical studies were prepared for this EIR: • Traffic Study for Graham Street Residential Development, Darnell & Associates, Inc. • Air Modeling, EDAW • Noise Modeling and Dewatering Noise Specifications, EDAW • Geology Report, Pacific Soils, Inc. • Phase I Assessment, Pacific Soils,Inc. • Hydrology Report, Hunsaker& Associates Irvine, Inc. • Biology Report and Wetlands Delineation, Frank Hovore & Associates, Inc. • Archaeological Assessment, Brian D. Dillon, Ph. D. • Sewer Study, Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. These technical studies are included in the Appendices of this EIR. 1.3 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS The lead agency for preparation of this EIR is the City of Huntington Beach. The project sponsor for this project is Shea Homes, Inc.. The environmental consultant to the City is EDAW, Inc. P:\1997\7N 15001 TIR\INTRODUCTION.DOC 1-3 Lead Agency: City of Huntington Beach Ms. "'elaaie Faller Mr. Howard Zelefsky Director of Planning Mr.jm Bames Scott Hess ref Planning Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5271 Proiect Applicant: Shea Homes Mr. Ron Metzler Vice President Eby Planning and Development Shea Homes 603 S. Valencia Avenue Brea,CA 928263 (714) 985-1300 Environmental Consultant: EDAW,Inc. Ms. Jayna Morgan, Senior Associate Ms. Sally Mir-abella, Asseeiate Ms.Alia Hokuki,Associate EDAW,Inc. 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 (714)660-8044 1.4 MAJOR ISSUES The major issues of the project identified in the Initial Study outline areas of possible environmental impact resulting from development of the project site. As a result of the Initial Study, this EIR addresses the following areas of potential environmental effect: • Land Use Compatibility • Earth Resources • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Drainage/Hydrology • Transportation/Circulation • Biological Resources • Air Quality 0 Cultural Resources • Noise 0 Public Services and Utilities 1-4 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARIES 2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No. 98-1/Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5/Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County)/Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90/Coastal Development Permit No. 96- 18/Annexation 98-1 and a Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. The proposed requests will allow for the development of 2-W206 single family homes and a park site on approximately 49 acres of land. Approximately 44.5 acres of the project site is located in the City of Huntington Beach, and the remaining 4.5 acres is located in the unincorporated County of Orange and is proposed for annexation into the City of Huntington Beach. Access to the project site from a regional perspective is provided via Pacific Coast Highway, and the San Diego (405) Freeway from the Warner Avenue interchange. On a local perspective, access is provided via Warner Avenue. Long-Term Implications of the Proiect Growth Inducing Impacts According to the CEQA Guidelines, this section is concerned with "... the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." It should not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. The project site is characterized by vacant, undeveloped land. The project will provide 2-98 206 new units that will promote residential activity and park use. The anticipated 50 to 75 year life span of structures represents a short-term use of the environment. Nevertheless, implementation of the project would represent a relatively long-term commitment to urbanization. It is logical to assume that the proposed uses will, in turn, be replaced by another productive activity as the development and redevelopment of the land progresses through time in response to human needs. Development of the site will contribute to cumulative impacts related to urbanization, traffic, traffic related noise levels, runoff volumes, air pollution, noise, and public services and utilities over a long period of time. Development of the site would result in a cumulative reduction in open space in the City; however, most of the site has been designated for residential since 1971. Development of the project represents a continuation of urban growth and development that is occurring in the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County. 2-1 Long-term benefits include resolution of flooding issues for the proposed project and adjacent residential land uses. Existing facilities to the north of the project site are currently incapable of handling existing runoff (beyond a 25 year storm event) and therefore are not adequate to accommodate any increase in project runoff. The proposed drainage system will convey runoff from the site through new storm drain lines directly to the existing Slater Pump Station. These lines with their flow interceptions eliminate the existing deficiencies in the Graham Street storm drain (refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this document). Additionally, the existing deficient sewer pump station facilities will be replaced, expanded and modernized. The City's park system also will be enhanced by the dedication and improvement of the proposed park site. Short-term impacts of the development due to construction activities include increased noise, dust and vehicular emissions associated with construction vehicles. For a more detailed discussion of the level of significance of environmental impacts, please refer to the appropriate section (i.e. air, noise, etc.) within this EIR. The only immediate short-term benefit of the project would be construction related employment. 2.2 PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY This Environmental Impact Report evaluates the potential project-specific and cumulative impacts regarding Land Use, Aesthetics/Light and Glare, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Earth Resources, Drainage/Hydrology, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Public Services and Utilities. Significant impacts, the level of significance, and the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR are summarized in the Project Impact Summary which begins on page 2-3. 2.3 ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY Alternatives to the proposed project under consideration and evaluated in this EIR are listed below. The Alternative Section provides a descriptive analysis and evaluation of each alternative. In addition, the Alternatives Summary located in Section 6.0, displays a comparison of each alternatives' potential environmental impact in comparison to the proposed project. • No Project/No Development • Development under Existing Zoning • Alternative Location • Alternative Park Site Location • Alternative Roadway Connections - Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C • Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing BFE (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner • Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected BFE (updated FEMA with CLOMR) - 4.5 Feet • Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing BFE (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner • Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected BFE (updated FEMA with CLOMR) - 4.5 Feet 2-2 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE LAND USE COMPATABILITY Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is No impacts related to on-site residential land use specific considered to be less than relationships are anticipated. significant. No impacts related to on-site land use relationships Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is between the proposed park and proposed specific considered to be less than residential uses are anticipated. significant. The establishment of new residential land use Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is relationships with adjacent land uses will not result specific considered to be less than in significant impacts. significant. No impacts related to land use relationships Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is between the proposed park and existing off-site specific considered to be less than residential uses are anticipated. significant. The proposed project will not result in conflicts or Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is inconsistencies with the applicable goals and specific considered to be less than policies of the Land Use,Urban Design,Housing, significant. Historic and Cultural Resources,Economic Development,Growth Management,Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services,Recreation and Community Services,Utilities,Environmental Resources/Conservation,Air Quality,Coastal, Environmental Hazards,Noise,and Hazardous Materials Elements of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The proposed project may result in inconsistencies Project- 1. Prior to recordation of a final tract map,the applicant must satisfy the City Is policy Project-specific impact with the City's Affordable Housing Policy. Specific requiring 10 percent ofproposed units to be affordable. This requirement must be mitigated to a level less than satisfied to the discretion of the City Department of Planning through one of the significant. following methods: a. Pay a fee to the City,if such a process is available; b. Participate with other developers or a non-profit organization to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing apartment units at any off-site location within a suitable area and provide for continued affordability,or e. Provide the required affordable units at one of Shea Homes'future multi family projects within the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project will not result in impacts to Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is the Land Use Plan,or its associated components,of Specific considered to be less than the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. significant. 2-3 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF)IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE LAND USE(CONT'D) Project- None provided. Cumulative impact is specific and considered to be less than The proposed project,in conjunction with other Cumulative significant. past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects,will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use,Urban Design,Historic and Cultural Resources,Economic Development, Growth Management,Circulation,Public Facilities and Public Services,Recreation and Community Services,Utilities,Environmental Resources/Conservation,Air Quality,Coastal, Environmental Hazards,Noise,and Hazardous Material Elements.No significant cumulative land use impacts to the above stated elements are anticipated. The proposed project,in conjunction with other Project- Mitigation Measure 1 above shall be implemented. Project-specific and past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future specific and Cumulative impacts are projects,may result in inconsistencies with the Cumulative mitigated to a level less than Cit 's Affordable Housing Policy. significant. The proposed project,in conjunction with other Cumulative None provided. Cumulative impact is past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future considered to be less than projects,will not result in impacts to the Land Use significant. Plan,or its associated components,of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Project- 1. Prior to approval of building permits,the applicant shall provide proof of Project-specific impacts are specific incorporation of City commentskonditions related to the overall proposed design and mitigated to a level less than The proposed project may be perceived as having a layout of buildings,and landscaping. This design and layout of buildings shall be significant. substantial,demonstrable,negative aesthetic effect approved by the City Department of Planning. due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. 1. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area outside the perimeter wall along Graham Street to be reviewed and approved by the City Department of Planning, 2-4 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE(CONT'D) Project- 3. Prior to approval of building permits,the applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan Project-specific impacts are specific to be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning, mitigated to a level less than The proposed project will result in the removal of which includes the replacement of all mature trees on the site at a 2:1 ratio with 36- significant. eucalyptus trees,which could affect the current inch box trees. views of the site. As indicated in Section 6.0 of this document, several of the alternatives would not result in the removal of eucalyptus trees and therefore no mitigation would be required. The proposed project will not result in impacts to a Project- None provided. Project-Specific impact is City-proposed scenic route designated adjacent to specific considered to be less than the site. si nificant. The proposed project may result in impacts to Project- 4.Prior to approval of building permits,the applicant shall submit a bikeways plan to the Project-Specific impact is County-proposed trails. Specific City of Huntington Beach Planning Division Department,in consultation with the mitigated to a level less than Manager of the County PFRD/HBP Program Management and Coordination,for significant. approval of consistency with the Orange County Bikeway Plan. for approval of LIGHT AND GLARE Project- Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impacts specific mitigated to a level less than On-Site significant. The project's development will increase the generation of light and glare on-site with on-site vehicle-related increases.In addition,the proposed project may result in an impact on the surrounding residential developments primarily to the north,and to some extent,to the east. Off-Site Project- Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impacts Lighting from the proposed development may specific mitigated to a level less than result in light and glare impacts to adjacent off-site significant. uses. 2-5 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Project- 1. Prior to the issuance ofbuildinggrading permits,the applicant shall coordinate with Project-specific impacts specific the City of Huntington Beach in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing mitigated to a level less than The proposed project will result in short-term plan(including dirt import haul route). This plan shall specify the hours in which significant. construction related impacts due to the addition of transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction related impacts to truck and construction vehicle traffic.Depending on adjacent residences. The final plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. the location of the haul route,traffic impacts along the selected route may occur. The proposed project will not result in project Project- None provided. Project-specific impacts are specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases specific considered to be less than at the modeled intersections and roadway segments significant. under the existing plus project condition. The proposed project may result in impacts to Project- 2. Prior to the final inspection ' ,the applicant shall Project-specific impacts pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular safety related to the specific construct a traffic signal and improve the intersection at the proposed"A"Street and mitigated to a level less than establishment of access and an on-site circulation Graham Street. significant. system. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer that standards(including ADA)regarding pedestria"icycle safety along the perimeter sidewalks-have will be met 4. Prior to the final inspection issuenee of eerofimle ofoeempan the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to the project access("A" Street)as follows: ■ Two 7 foot bikelanes;one 12'through lane in each direction,and a 141two-way left turning median. Additionally,the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from "A"street to Warner Avenue,as follows: ■ Two 7 foot bikelanes,one 18'through lane in each direction,and a 14'two-way left turning median. The improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. The proposed project will not result in significant Project- None provided. Project-specific impacts are impacts to parking. specific considered to be less than significant. The proposed project will not result in project- Project- None provided. Project-specific impacts are specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases specific considered to be less than at the modeled intersections and roadway segments significant. under the short-term cumulative condition. 2-6 1 � TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION(CONT'D) Project- 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant shall participate in the Project-specific and specific and applicable Traffic Impact Fee(TIF)for the City of Huntington Beach. The actual cumulative impacts are The proposed project in conjunction with other past, Cumulativel? allocation shall be approved by the City.Appropriate credits shall be granted toward mitigated to a level less than present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects Fejeet- the TIF. The TIF shall cover the project's fair share of year 2020 improvements to significant.Prejeet speeifie will result in level of service deficiencies at the speei€ie the arterial street system as follows: intersections Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue 0 Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue—reconfigure intersection for east/west h �� eart. and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the traffic to provide dual left turns and either three throughs or two throughs and year 2020 condition. an exclusive right turn lane. This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. • Graham Street/Warner Avenue—reconfigure intersection to provide an exclusive southbound right turn lane from Graham Street to Warner Avenue.This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. AIR QUALITY Project- 1. During grading and construction,the applicant shall be responsible for compliance Project-specific impacts are specific with the following: mitigated to a level less than The proposed project is anticipated to exceed A. During clearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation,maintain equipment significant. SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for NO, engines in proper tune. during construction activities.Further,the addition of B. After clearing,grading,earth moving,or excavation: emissions to an air basin designated as non- 1) Wet the area down,sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with attainment is considered under CEQA to be a repeated soakings,as necessary,to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick significant impact. up by the wind. 2) Spread soil binders,and 3) Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 3) Use low sulfur fuel(.05%by weight)for construction equipment. D. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days. E. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 2. During grading and construction,the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following(or other reasonably equivalent measures as required by the City Engineer): A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). 2-7 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY(CONT'D) D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose substances and building materials to be covered,or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization,whenever possible,to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. L Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand,dirt,or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity front power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators when practical. 3. During grading and construction,the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that vehicle movement on any unpaved surface other than water trucks shall be terminated if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. 4. During grading and construction,the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped wish proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit.Measures,subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department,shall include,as appropriate: ■ Provision of rideshare incentives. ■ Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. ■ Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. ■ Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 2-8 f TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AIR QUALITY(CONT'D) Project- 7. Prior to the final inspection ' ,the applicant Project-specific impacts are specific shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its mitigated to a level less than The proposed project is anticipated to exceed fair-share'towards regional traffic improvement systems(Le.,traffic impact fees) significant. SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets and ROC.The daily exceedance of the thresholds for impacted by project development. CO and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. 8. Prior to the final inspection issuanee of use and oeempamey perm the applicant Further,the addition of emissions to an air basin shall provide proof that energy saving features have been installed in project homes designated as non-attainment is considered under as required by the Uniform Building Code Features may include:solar or low- CEQA to be a significant impact. emission water heaters,energy efficient appliances,double-glass paned windows, low-sodium parking lights,etc. The proposed project,in conjunction with other past, Cumulative Mitigation Measures I through 6 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impacts are present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects, mitigated to a level less than will result in a short-term air quality impact due to significant. construction activities.The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project,in conjunction with other past, Cumulative Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impacts are present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects, mitigated to a level less than will result in significant cumulative long-term significant. impacts to air quality. 2-9 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE NOISE Project- 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall submit and have approved Project-specific impact specific a noise mitigation plan to the Department of Planning Communify Developmeit mitigated to a level less than The proposed project has the potential to result in that will reduce or mitigate short-term noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive. The significant. significant short-term noise impacts during exterior plan shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and shall and interior construction activities. include,but not be limited to: A. A criteria of acceptable noise levels based opt type and length of exposure to construction noise levels; B. Physical reduction measures such as temporary noise barriers that provide separation between the source and the receptor;temporary soundproof structures to house portable generators;and C. Temporary generators(if utilized)shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors. D. Mitigation measures such as restrictions on the time of construction for activities resulting in high noise levels. 2. Prior to issuance ofgrading permits,the applicant shall produce evidence acceptable to the City Engineer that: A. All grading and construction vehicles and equipment,faed or mobile,shall be equipped and maintained with effective muffler systems that use state of the art noise attenuation. B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive noise receptors. C. All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. The proposed project will increase the existing plus Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is project traffic noise levels along Graham Street by specific considered less than up to 0.8 dB. significant. Based on the distance of on-site and off-site homes Project- 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall produce evidence Project-specific impact to the park and the barriers(i.e.,proposed new six specific (specifications)acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls along the projects mitigated to a level less than (6)foot wall),the proposed project is not northern property(along the rear property line of lot#103 to lot#123 on Kenilworth significant. anticipated to result in significant noise impacts Drive and the side property lines of lots#125 and#126 on Greenleaf Lane of Tract from recreational activities at the proposed park 5792)and Graham Street(along the project's boundary)will be constructed to site. achieve maximum sound attenuation. The proposed project in conjunction with other Cumulative None provided. Cumulative impact is past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future considered less than projects will not result in a short-term construction significant. noise impact. 2-10 1 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE NOISE(CONT'D) Cumulative Mitigation Measure 3 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impact is mitigated to a level less than The proposed project in conjunction with other significant. past,present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a significant incremental increase(0.8 dBA)in traffic noise levels in the year 2020.Noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL are not anticipated considering the sound reduction effects of the proposed wall along the northern property line and along Graham Street. EARTH RESOURCES Project- 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the recommendations contained in Section Project-specific impact specific Z 0 of the geotechnical study,located in Appendix E of this document shall be mitigated to a level less than Significant settlements of peat deposits within the incorporated into the earthwork activities of the proposed project to the satisfaction significant. upper 5 feet could continue over the design life of of the City Engineer.Earthwork activities include grading,clearing and demolition, the structures without mitigation in the form of site preparation,unsuitable soil removals,backcuts,excavation processing, removal and/or surcharge. compaction of all fills,mixing,benching,inspection,survey control,subgrade preparation,cut and fill slope construction,haul roads,import soils,structural load and settlement/subsidence measures,and storm drain relocation. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the recommendations contained in Section 8.0 of the geotechnical study,located in Appendix E of this document,shall be incorporated into the structural design of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.Structural design activities include:Foundation Design; Settlements including Foundation Loads and Seismically Induced Settlements,Post- Tensioned Slab/Foundations;Mat Foundations;Other Foundation Recommendations such as Footing Embedment,Underslab Treatment,and Subgrade Moisture Content,Concrete Driveways,Sidewalks,and Flatwork; Structural Setbacks,Retaining Walls;Other Design and Construction Recommendations such as Lot Drainage,Utility Excavations, Utility Trench Back ell,Corrosion,Metallic Structures,and Concrete Structures. The potential exists for significant impacts from the Project- Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact on-site mildly to severely corrosive soils. specific mitigated to a level less than significant. The potential exists for soils with poor pavement Project- Mitigation Measures I and 2 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact support characteristics. specific mitigated to a level less than significant. 2-11 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE EARTH RESOURCES(CONT'D) Project- Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact specific mitigated to a level less than Potential impacts may result from soils with low significant. shear strength. Potential impacts may result from soil shrinkage. Project- Mitigation Measures I and 2 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact specific mitigated to a level less than significant. No active or potentially active faults are known to Project- None proposed. Project-specific impact is exist on the site.There are no impacts associated specific considered to be less than with ground surface rupture on the project site. significant. Potential impacts may result from ground shaking. Project- Mitigation Measures I and 2 above,and Project-specific impact specific 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit,it shall be proven to the Department of mitigated to a level less than Public Works that all structures are designed in accordance with the seismic design significant. provisions of the Uniform Building Codes or Structural Engineers Association of California to promote safeV in the event of an earthquake Potential impacts may result associated with Project- Mitigation Measure 1 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement. specific mitigated to a level less than significant. Potential impacts may result associated with Project- None proposed. Project-specific impact is Tsunamis. specific considered to be less than significant. Potential impacts may result associated with Project- None proposed. Project-specific impact is Seiches. specific considered to be less than significant. The proposed local dewatering may result in Project- 4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant shall contract with a Project-specific impact subsidence of adjacent properties along the specific dewatering expert to prepare a detailed Dewatering Plan. This plan shall include mitigated to a level less than project's northern property boundary. the placement of monitoring wells near along the northern property line to evaluate significant. ground water levels during the proposed project dewatering activities. The dewatering activities shall be adjusted immediately if the monitoring wells show ground water level changes which may effect subsidence of adjacent properties. The Dewatering Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. Groundwater impacts may occur. Project- Mitigation Measure 4 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact specific mitigated to a level less than significant. 2-12 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE EARTH RESOURCES(CONT'D) Project- S. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,Phase II environmental soil sampling shall Project-specific impact specific be conducted to determine the residual levels of pesticides in the soil.If mitigated to a level less than The potential exists for impacts from hazardous inappropriate/unsafe levels are identified by this analysis, "clean up"measures shall significant. materials to occur. be recommended and implemented. The Phase II sampling and any necessary measures shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. Prior to the final inspection ' ,testing to verify the estimated radon gas levels shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the Department of Planning The proposed project in conjunction with other Cumulative None proposed. Cumulative impact is past,present,and reasonable foreseeable future considered less than projects will not result in a cumulative impact significant. related to geology/soils. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY Project- 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the project applicant shall implement Project-specific impact specific conditions of the Public Works Department regarding storm drainage mitigated to a level less than The proposed project may result in potential improvements which shall include,but not be limited to: significant. impacts to drainage. ■ Construct the necessary storm drainage improvements(identified on Exhibit 42 within the EIR)to handle increased flows and intercept off-site flows. ■ Ensure that future building pads are placed at elevations suitable to withstand 100 year flood. ■ Construct the necessary improvements to the East Garden Grove—Wintersburg Channel(C05)along the site perimeter The proposed project may result in potential Project- Mitigation Measure 1 above shall be implemented. Project-specific impact impacts associated with flooding. specific mitigated to a level less than significant. The proposed project may result in potential Project- 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits,the applicant shall submit a "Notice of Project-specific impact impacts to water quality. specific Intent"(NOI),along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control mitigated to a level less than Board to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction permit and significant. provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the discharger's identification number. 3. Prior to the issuance of the grading permits,the applicant shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and all NPDES requirements(enacted by the EPA)for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using management practices,control techniques and systems,design and engineering methods,and such other provisions which are appropriate. 2-13 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY(CONT'D) Cumulative Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impacts mitigated to a level less than The proposed project would contribute to potential significant. cumulative drainage,flooding,and water quality impacts. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Project- 1. If project grading construction is scheduled during the normal breeding season for Project-specific and specific and red-tailed hawk and other raptors locally(March to July),a survey shall be cumulative impact mitigated The proposed project may result in impacts to Cumulative conducted for active nests. Prior to the issuance ofgrading permits,should any to a level less than affected species locally and regionally. active nests be located within the zone of potential disturbance,construction significant. activities shall be limited to areas 500 feet away from the nest until the young have fledged and have begun foraging away from the nest site. The 500 foot protection zone shall be fenced with visible warning-color materials.Nest trees shall be removed during the non-breeding season only, The proposed project may result in potential Project- 2. Wetlands impacts to the isolated pocket wetlands shall be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1 Project-specific impact impacts to pocket wetland habitats on the County specific (square footage of wetlands to square footage of fill). The Coastal Development mitigated to a level less than parcel. Permit shall require that mitigation for the fill of the pocket wetlands that significant. mitigation be implemented prior to or eomeurremtwith the development ereating the As indicated in Section 6.0 of this document, adverse impact the issuance of a grading permit for the 4.S acre County Parcel. several of the alternatives would not result in The mitigation site shall be on-site or within the Bolsa Chiea Lowlands unless the removal impacts to the County parcel wetland Lowlands are sold to a new landowner and the new landowner is unwilling to allow habitats and therefore no mitigation would be the proposed mitigation to proceed.In such a case,the developer of the site shall required. find an alternative mitigation site. The total mitigation for the loss of two small patches of degraded pickleweed habitat shall include the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game. The project,in conjunction with other past,present, Cumulative Mitigation Measures I and 2 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impact mitigated and reasonably foreseeable future projects,will to a level less than incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of significant. biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES Project- None provided. Project-specific impacts are specific considered less than The proposed project will not result in a significant significant. impact on paleontological sites. 2-14 M TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CULTURAL RESOURCES(CONT'D) Project- 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall conduct a subsurface test Project-specific impacts are specific investigation for CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 to determine the horizontal boundaries of considered less than The proposed project may result in a significant the sites as well as to confirm the surface conclusions of non-significance as indicated significant. impact on archaeological sites CA-ORA-1308 and in the March,1997 Archeological Assessment.This may be accomplished through the 1309. mechanical excavation of a number of auger holes as well as two Ixl-meter hand excavated units for stratigraphic control.The subsurface test investigation,which includes discussion of significance(depth,nature,condition,and extent of resources), final mitigation recommendations,and cost estimates,shall be submitted to the Planning CommunityDevelopmen Director for review and approval. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall create(if deemed necessary through Measure 1 above)a cultural resource management plan based on test results. A full data recovery program shall be designed if site avoidance is not feasible through design.Possible recovery plans include,but are not limited to,preservation,salvage, partial salvage,or no mitigation necessary. The plan shall include consultation with the appropriate Native American Organization and be reviewed and approved by the Planning Community Developmen Director.Additionally the plan shall require peer review in conformance with the Coastal Commission's Archeological Guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall provide written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained,shall be present at the pre-grading meeting/conference,shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance,and shall establish,in cooperation with the project proponent,procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling,identification,and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. The archeological resource surveillance procedures shall include a provision for Native American review of grading operations.If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered,the archeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Planning GommunityDevelopme Department and the appropriate Native American Organization. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant,the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions,in cooperation with the applicant,for exploration andlor salvage. These actions,as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources,shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Gemmunity Director. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, Cumulative Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 above shall be implemented. Cumulative impact mitigated present,and reasonably foreseeable future projects to a level less than will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss significant. of potentially significant cultural resources. 2-15 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Project- None provided. Project-specific impact is specific considered to be less than Implementation of the proposed project will not significant. result in significant impacts to public transportation services. Implementation of the above measures will mitigate Project- Fire Project-specific impacts all project-specific impacts to public services and specific 1, Prior to approval of building permits,building plans shall be submitted to and mitigated to a level less than utilities to a level less than significant. approved by the Fire Department.If during the Fire Department's plan check it significant. becomes evident that fireground operations will become impeded,the department will impose standard additional fire code requirements sueh as in addition to the automatic sprinkler systems,alarm systems,access roads,etc. Police 2. Prior to issuance of building permits,the Police Department shall be consulted during preliminary stages of the project design to review the safety features, determine their adequacy,and suggest improvements. 3. During construction and at complete buildout,the project shall provide easy access into and within the project site for emergency vehicles and addresses shall be well marked to facilitate response by officers.Prior to the first final inspection C-erttfieate of9eeupaney,project site plans depicting these requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Schools 4. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the State fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit applications. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall show proof of compliance with the Mitigation Agreement established between the Huntington Beach Union High School District,subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. Water 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the development proposed on the City parcel, which addresses the following: a. Water demand required by nroieet Ure flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) b. Master Plan/General Plan Amendment(ON)review 2-16 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES(CONT'D) The City of Huntington Beach Water(Master Plan)System Computer Model (Le.H2O8o*NET)must be run with the proposed land use demands(Le. GPA),and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (Le.the General Plan,in effect at the time the Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (1120BoyleNET),for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water system,the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. 7. Prior to final inspection issuance efuse and oeempaneyperm the following water conservation measures shall be implemented as required by state law: a. Ultra-low-flush toilets b. Ultra-low-flow showers and faucets C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code 8. Prior to final inspection ,water pressure regulators to limit downstream pressure to a maximum of 60 psi shall be installed. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits,pervious paving material shall be used whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge and slopes and grades shall be controlled to discourage water waste through runoff. 10. Prior to final inspection ' ,the applicant shall provide information to prospective residents regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance in selecting irrigation and landscaping. 11. The Water Division and Park, Tree,and Landscape Division of the City's Public Works Department shall be consulted during design and construction of the Park for further water conservation measures to review irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use,as well as measures that may be incorporated into the project to reduce peak hour water demand. 12. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the portion of the project to be developed on the County parcel, which addresses the following: a. Water demand required by aroiect (fireJlow demand as determined by the Fire Department) b. M aster Plan/General Plan Amendment(!EPA)review The City of Huntington Beach Water(Master Plan)System Computer Model (Le.H2OBo*NET)must be run with the proposed land use demands(Le. 2-17 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES(CONT'D) CPA),and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (i.e.the General Plan,in effect at the time the Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2OBoyleNET),for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance. The developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel,at no cost to the City.Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works- Water Division. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits,for any lot within the 4.5 acre parcel within the County of Orange,the applicant shall show proof from LAFCO of approval of annexation of the County parcel into the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District,subject to the approval of the City Planning and Public Works Departments. 14. Irrigation systems within the Park which minimize water waste shall be used to the greatest extent possible.Such measures should involve,where appropriate,the following features: a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume, low angle(22%degree)sprinkler heads. b. Drip irrigation C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. d. The use of reclaimed water for irrigated areas and grass lands. The project applicants shall connect to the Orange County Water District's"Green Acres" system of reclaimed water should this supply of water be available.Separate irrigation services shall be installed to ease this transition. 15. Landscape and irrigation plans for the Park which encourage minimized use of lawns and utilize warm season,drought tolerant species shall be submitted to and approved by the Water Division and Park, Tree,and Landscape Division. Sewer 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the property owner(Shea Homes)shall construct the new sewer lift station and force main in accordance with the City- approved Sewer Plan for the proposed project,and implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding sewer infrastructure improvements to handle increased sewerJlow demands. 2-18 TABLE B PROJECT IMPACT SUMMARY MATRIX DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT SCOPE MITIGATION MEASURES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES(CONT'D) Natural Gas 17. Prior to issuance of building permits,The the Southern California Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. Electricity 18. Prior to issuance of building permits,SCE shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. The proposed project will create increased demand Mitigation Measures 1 through 18 above shall be implemented. for public services and utilities on a local and Project- Project-specific and regional basis.Additionally,the project,in specific and cumulative impact mitigated conjunction with other past,present and reasonably Cumulative to a level less than foreseeable future projects,will create an increased significant. demand on fire,police,schools,community services,water,sewer,natural gas,and electrical services and facilities. 2-19 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site encompasses approximately 49 acres. Approximately 44.5 acres of the overall project site is located within the northwest portion of the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, and the remaining 4.5 acres are located within the County of Orange, California. The project site is located on the west side of Graham Street between Warner and Slater Avenues. The northern border of the site is bounded by existing medium-high density condominiums on Bolsa Chica Street and low density residential development located along green Leaf Avenue Greenleaf Lane and Kenilworth Drive. Graham Street bounds the eastern border, with low density residential land uses located east of Graham Street. The southern border is bounded by the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (which carries stormdrain runoff to the Pacific Ocean) with low density residential abutting the south side of the channel. The location of the project in relation to the regional and local setting is displayed in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3 illustrates the site on a USGS topographical map. Exhibit 4 depicts an aerial view of the project site. Access to the project site from a regional perspective is provided via Pacific Coast Highway, and the San Diego (405) Freeway from the Warner Avenue interchange. On a local perspective, access is provided via Warner Avenue. 3.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects associated with General Plan Amendment No. 98-1/Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5/Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County)/Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90/Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18/Annexation 98-1/and a Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. Single Family Residential Uses The project consists of a subdivision of the site to create 208 206 single family homes. Exhibit 5 depicts the proposed overall conceptual land use plan while Exhibit 5a illustrates the Conceptual Park Plan and Exhibit 5b illustrates the Proposed Conceptual Trails and Bikeways Pat#Plan . A total of 44-3109 of the lots, identified as Parkside Homes (indicated in yellow orange on Plan) will have an avenge a minimum size of 5,000 square feet, and 9-5 97 lots, identified as The Estates (indicated in efange yellow on Plan) will have eage a minimum size of 6,000 square feet. Average lot size for the Parkside Homes is -5-,7470 5,754 square feet. Average lot size for The Estates is 7-030 7,077 square feet. Of the total 2.08 206 units, 444 179 will be located on the 44.5-acre portion located within the City of Huntington Beach (refer to Exhibits 6a, 6a-1, and 6b) and 27 units will be located on the 4.5-acre County of Orange portion (refer to Exhibits 6c and 6c-1). The overall project will have a gross density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 7 illustrates the proposed layout of a typical minimum 5,000 SF lot, while Exhibit 8 illustrates the proposed layout of a typical minimum 6,000 SF lot. 3-1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1- _•_�,,, SAN BERNARDINO ( COUNTY LL •. Riverside Fwy. r RIVERSIDE COUTTY / • Anaheim ° ' I • Garden Grove Fwy. S+ Orange Santa Ana Tustin � Nationa��w Costa 10 Huntington Mesa i Beach Aic� Newport Irivne % Beach o� PROJECT SITE r I PACIFIC OCEAN Laguna Beach °rte , ti I San Juan Capistrano SAN DIEGO San Clemente COUNTY T) No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 1 Source: EDAW, Inc. Regional Location Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach �Q. �G �P s9 BOLSA cn MC FAL DEN CIO W EDINGER y Q A 0 m vQi 2 HEIL z O = Q PROJEC T O O w RNER L AVE. m S/TE WARNER O �- '9c+�� SL TER VE. mac, o J ' 0 TALB T O Q AVE. ti o 0 Q ELLIS A VE. m No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 2 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Local Vicinity Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach � aitr 8S h \\� r -'.F30LSA /0 HICA // ' a* •I1b5tdW heelerRO val ST/.113P 1?, Park { �r—�(1T1NffAR�---- -------- 9 W. •• E NSFR.; /1 � _ ar I� VSch r 'ffjDI r - fi_.P rk ..I III•—•1, �r g .��yT ii '•IS = a 'pop71GI� Trai ju _ W I •� 1 J Ink �� �. .f i �•.• T S MEADOW K �`S e- ��' �AIR 'rygl y i � A •Ij l)iBil .•� /'i - eadowla = �- sR'e� a ••Iq • Country Cl • • �• h ' 25 26 r _- Bch 829 1VW PROJECT J �v B6 5/ SITE p •s -• _ a'� -_ Pusn0ii6 i S. E/ / Eps � UI ' M111 A JJJ U !C � 5 ° O Scale: (approx.) I"=2,000' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 3 Source: USGS, Seal Beach Quadran.gle USGS Map iI fy�j•t� I_— p {`fir 1 /`1�_ I!- 1 '{! !,• —, , �' r yj; 1 !i4sy r ,"� I' .�� i� ` �_ R1:Vy�L �.lr\ •R j �. �_�s.Yi. o:f t�.r, I. R.'�, T-�Y_. 5 ,i...�,�IJ `rl,l - ! r . : I •- I a _ .. .y!t . "� ��'�.,.�� 11Q�Y �F! � �; i .� � �' L • H � �,.�_. _ i � IePF+' � � w' any. ,J it .1 x.Mw lrr✓• �471� 1 , Ili: 7+ � yL�� t l{ ,`�-r' �.'k�a�ru : +�-r r , 1•'-� 1 1, w� � ,�•! �� ,`1 �.. _'�M11 Hy,.��rw lll9, � '��' „^Y. r •P; ', :� II r �� • ..� �ll :�/; r ( ;i. ! •• f'w�j1• .w Y4r .,.,. Ir..�`'� 7 � ���i;^�����u'�r�-rr '1 ;f„C/ i iDL -. yg ��`` ?�}y�'•. a �; .�,. ''ram ,., Yam; . .. � ^ � � ..� y � �. I P Y �Ab r 0 DI I� F � T r I r4 MAIN rl Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHunhigton Beach — — — — — — — — LOT W::�, 10? 0? 0 12� ) 701? 2� vo LOT TL LOT OT i OT a LOT E FO CO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF-ORANGE- O %K) NOT A PART LOT V V9� 000- L — — — — LEGEND NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 601 WIDE LOTS (ESTATES) 97 LOTS P F -j- 50'WIDE LOTS(PARKSIDE) 109 LOTS BOA COMMON AREAS AVERAGE LOT SIZE ESTATES 7,077 S.F. '-0 T A PARKSIDE 5,754 S.F. W?T MAP DATE DENT=FER OVERALL PROJECT 6,377 S.F. 11 2/2-/W Jic Scale: (approx.) I"=200' 11oz 2aZ" EDAW, Inc. Falfibit 5 Source:Hum alm&Associates Irvine,Inc. Conceptual Land Use Plan (206 Lots) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach 4oV ` Jul i , 10ja ' PR CTICE—SOCCER. , .o \. 9 TOT LOT- 1 36'X36'ZO NE 1 32'X24'ZONE �0. 1, I 3��' • 4 MEB S ROA 60'X66' BASKETBALL COURT A�Oo BACKSTOP FRANK �ti'p ``� e 4' , PARK-_SITE. RADMACHER m , ZF: TBACT_I5377 HUNTINGTON BEACH ASSOCIATES, INC. Landscape Architects A� sp. ��-�—: ' eti ,d SHEA HOMES (714)83Z-1774 3 1� 7� 4 6124/98 14841 Yorba Street.Suite 204 - Tustin.CA 92680 O Scale:(approx.) 1"=60' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 5a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Conceptual Park Plan Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 city ofHuntlngton Beech J URIS w �_d yl J� -4 • I ccR 853 TRACT ";0 5799 . r� __ ' , ,.;� , , r •ar •r. 'r;•r i •r •r •rrr a •r r •r a• •r •rr trr p SANDOr ER /`CL__ it ` l .kc I ur• ,wr " • i` r i, an arHUH NNOW eEgal - - �- � 'III - ��' � .:'� p® ♦♦♦♦', ®® �r', ' ��_ i�/ - PROPOSED TRAIL - ly - - BIKEWAY I T 1 _ _ i P7 :1 iil 1: \. _ � ,� � �sfipA-�� ��,� � i. ; ,. _ �� /''�/ ;' y sue+ '\� •O �, 'a"d' .�� � �_ _ � , � a _ I y ♦♦ � EXISTING TRAIL/ BIKEWAY f •~ yr ti = /` n , 1`���{ � Y.L. v � ♦ / G \31'4 r i LEGEND � ! �° 1 . 1 PUBLIC PARK/OPEN SPACE EXISTING TRAIL / BIKEWAY PROPOSED TRAIL / BIKEWAY J - = - ---• PROPOSED TRAIL BY OTHERS DATE RIENTIFlER Ma�Scale: (approx.) 1"=300' oa +e oz EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 5b Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Conceptual Trails and Bikeways Plan (206 Lots) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach SEE _ - �' .'"' it's• 'Pt LM:A T� COO 7� 9. • / I uAce •O LL COO _ vO 'j" uOJ y I>u Au mTAYrA .. �A , Cltt HUNTINGTON 8E •'+ - ,� •\ , Y ,.-T / J \ NOTES • L ,p'rJ „ "J '• �.� 1, EKISONG LAND USE:VACANT. ' 0 1. E%ISTING ZONING:RI-FPZ AND RA-CZ >/ "'o �TpL ) 3. PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AND PARK. 4. PARK REOIIIREMENTS TO BE MET BY LAND DEDICATION. p, TMi 6A �/ 5. WATER SERVICE: ON OF HUNCTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM. �P G. SEWER SERVICE:ON OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS}ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. T. GAS SERVICE:SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY. ya _ a. ELECTRIC\ SERVICE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. 9. TELEPHONE SERVICE GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. To. CABLE TELEVISION TIME WARNER.!--_IE r S•�'/ y/~• / -'� NON ANNEXATION-ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT II SCHOOL DISTRICT HUNTINGTON BEACH ON SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HUNTPL-.MAPS BEACH UNION OUCH SCHOOL DISTRICT. 1 1 12 MULTIPLE PS MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE'�/ ,� O`,. •\ \ �� / —�y ,- CML t3 THIS is AN LAPP CATION FORIFORNIA MEA TDEVUOPM£NT PERMIT. � LAND USE SUMMARY LOT No. USE T x��4 e •, • / \\ DETAL OF PLW STATION -1 N 1-11 (97 LOTS) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(6.0 S0.FT. 6-1 MIN.) G u °•Lo _ �Aj \ �— ` 2�' �a�� 9T9 (EZ LOTS) ..Ol 1-1Y RE510ENDAL 0.—W.FT YIN.J� Iy� ' A•-•O• i r�10 81EaGPosS DAfRESt.ANDas NE1 By aTY Sr _eF, LOT•O'-09 GROSS ACRESL OF LOT U I /,.�, �� K e, •e'-v,•R-=r,-.' W+osuPE Lon.uAINTMNfD DY HOA lr PEpESTITAH ACCESS CONNECTING TO CHINK¢TRUL _ OS��G`� �, Cpo�"- \ K I %/ _ •I� \ 1'a AND DPANAGE %O .I '� ..MNAGE • �LpP�ol- tl6t cAR --', P � .Gr '•.� � ,V ��� � N+F` LEGAL DESCRIPTION / G0� 17 \��� I I • ALL OF PARCEL a A 9 AS CONVEYED TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER Scale:(approx.)1'1=215' O��G NAP GATE(DENT FIR PIT' \ 1 �� DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CAllFOftNU By CDR PoRATION QUITCLAIM DEED c+°1 1/14/DO J1C 1. RECORDEDI�;� �a „pF 1 IN BOOK 11080,PAGE I87 OF OFFICIALRECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY.EDAw,Inc. ' \ O . Exhibit 6a Source:EDAW,Inc. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. With97r.,tTT tCdlQ Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach 3 so, 40• 40• a• 32' 32' a o.n 01 0 (ti o C LEVEL LINE 2% 2x N.T.S GRAHAM STREET 48' 24' 24' 6' 18'TYP. 18'TYP. 6' 0.17' 0.17' f 2' UTILITY EASEMENT- 0 -2' UTILITY EASEMENT LEVEL LINE 2% Z I — N.T.S INTERNAL LOCAL STREETS (8, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, J, K, L & M STREETS) 52 ?6' 26' 6' 20'TYP. 20'TYP. 6' 0.17' 0.77'. 1 2' UTILITY EASEMENT- O4 - -2' UTILITY EASEMENT LEVEL LINE 21 29. I - N.T.S ENTRY STREET (A STREET) EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 6a-I Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Street Cross Sections Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 } City of Hundngton Beach 0 �m • 24' PROPOSED 25' MASTER PLAW EDW (�j CLASS 1 B6cE I tAIL Z C<Z 2 STORY ELEV. e.e7s ,Lr 4• 1.125' EPR POSPI E E I m HOUSE Z. `es ' `� c7 TRACT 15460 18' 2XMIN — —� t2.5) I7• T 6.2' — m POSSIBLE/IGNN WATER TOP OF WALL PROPOSED na" STEEL COMBINATION PERRIETER U LOT tt ExrsTutc '^ LOW EL. 7.s EL•1o.o Mutt ATOP a r CONCRETE SEAWALL Iii PAo.7.r>o DRAB+ �TO�BE RE ED W s' Lor 1.10 ! m i Exnrarc PAD EI'�z P.to.o 40' 20' EXISTING GROUND LOT Be 4 ---------- PROPOSED RETAINING WALL-2' MASONRY PERIMETER `...!——1—t_ ——�.— ——4——t— ——— 3' .•18•:.•• . WALL(6'HIGH) 1.4'CONCRETE SEAWALL - . OEPPROPOSED BCD(CRET�OIrCN LOT B ICLRIO*•.: LOT W -' J. .. (FROM 1.s TO 2) yamSECTION "A—"A" SECTION "D"—"D" SxWAr i TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 12 AND CHANNEL TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 130 AND ADJACENT LOT _ --------------------------------- ----------------------------- aALrroatruo.n,c.+ NTS NTS —r-r— r SipN1AT01 r,tor rlOaluL I I Z ----- ---i=-- t ----- I --------- 1 I 24' 98'— 11 PROPOSED 25' 73' '�' c��a ( 32'MASTER PLANt 7 2 STORY a D PROPOSED a m II 9.e73' 10' v 71125- SHEET PILE HOUSE 2:1 MAX. TRACT 1 4 7 I cs Ir r 1 2.1't 15' 27LMIN ——— /(,EXIST. m — - -C POSSIBLE NICK WATER TOP OF 44:1�4 PROPOSED TUBULAR STEEL COMBINATION PERIMETER LOT 14e EXISTING In LANE EL- 7.5 EL-10.0 WALL ATOP OF X CONCRETE SEAWALL II PA0�7.t0 ORNN TOO BE REMOVED LOT 7J3 BERMGRAHAM ST. if —— —-�/ \/` Z COSTING PAD p-_• LO I 1 • --- /X r —— PROPOSED ; l�1) EXISTING GROUNDRETAINING WKL•2' MASONRY PERIMETER �—1—Y———1—i --iWALL (6' MGM) PROPOSED CONCRETE arch CONCRETE SEAWALL DEPTH VARIES(MIN. r) ____ _ _ ____ (FROM 7.5 TO 2) SECTION "8"—"B" SECTION "Er'—"E" DETAIL "A" TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 148 AND CHANNEL TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 133 AND ADJACENT LOT PROPOSED SEWER LIFT STATION ----------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- NTS NTS NTS arr2 r,.. 24' a•r.R...r 98' 'I a�w�irr PROPOSED 25' 73' - `--111 Q>.R r s:nu.so�a rr MASTER - ; 2 STORY "�' EPROPOSED - ELEV..t2Y 2A75' , 10' ,4•, 1.125' SHEET PILE y �i}6 r' +�••.R HOUSE (tcs.. n RwI&Nf mo 4.7't --Ir., MAX 2XMIN _—— �(°2.5; _ 2 STORY i PROPOSED MASONRY MALL(6•HIG„) � -{ p... NG DWI LOT 136 �� DRAIN �� THE"REM "D --- -- 0 BEHOUSE ---- Z LOT 114 3 P.9.5 LOT 115 RETA,NWG WAll.0.9' MASONPRPERIMETER P 7.5 WALL(6• HIGH) • ---------- SECTION "C"—"C" SECTION "F"—"4 D LOT 1 ---- TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT-136 AND—CHANNEL -- -- —TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT-1 1 —AN LOT 15 NTS NTS Scale: (approx.) I"=20' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 6b-1 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Site Plan Sections (City) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach C.L. J PROPOSED MASONRY WALL (6'HM) - Ri GRAHAM ST. • TRACTEXISTING �� TRACT 5792 TRACT 15377 Z I �� •-> ►: �m 2 STORY m 2 STORY 4D 31" 41' 10'LANDSCAPE LOT B B' 32' HOUSE HOUSE EXISTING 2 STORY LOT 115 CONSTRUCT NEW 6' . P=7.5 S LOT 1 16 HOUSE MASONRY PERIMETER WALL HOUSE 41' P=5.0 EXISTING PAD I PROPOSED CQG --- -- -(P=o.7) P-1.o - 2 STORY PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL-2.5' - ll -- PERIMETER WALL(6'HIGH) PROTECT EXISTING ,�1ASONRY \ EXISTING GROUND�- - HOUSE EX157. Cdfi`J LOT 67 M PUCE WALL ,�EXIST. 60' RCP LO,7.1 2.07C �1AREMOVE _ds_f TO BE REMOVED --- jT - EXISTING GROUND) SECTION "G"—"G" SECTION "J"—"J" SECTION "M"—"M" -- TYP. SECTION THRU.—LOT_115—AND LOT 116 -- TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 76 AND KENILWORTH DRIVE HOME TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 67 AND GRAHAM STREET NTS ---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- NTS NTS EXISTING ml TRACT 5792 TRACT 15377 2 J O 2 STORY m 37' 2 STO RY 4:7 GRADED SLOPEHOA m 2 STORY i EXISTING 2,' LAN MAINTAINED 12 HOUSEJ HOUSE LANDSCAPED PER CONSTRUCT NEW 6' CITY REOUIREMENTS PROPOSED TUBULAR STEEL COMBINATION HOUSE HOUSE MASONRY PERIMETER WALL PERIMETER WALL (6'HIGH) • 2:1 MAX. ATOP RETAINING WALL POSSIBLE HIGH WATER '&2!OX MP 174EXISTING PAD P=2.4 LINE EL- 7.5 10.0P=8.6 LOi 180 P 4.060 ------ ------ - - - -- --- ---- �- - Pa 10.5 PROTECT EXISTING EXISTING CROUND��\ EXISTING GROUND ., PROPOSED MASONRY WALL (6'NIGH) MASONRY WALL \ - IN PLACE �+ RETAINING WALL-2.4' - `-EXIST. RE RCP -A- --- - TO BE REMOVED - SECTION "H"—"H" SECTION "K"—"K" SECTION "N"—"N" TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 160 AND LOT 174 TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 70 AND KENILWORTH DRIVE HOME TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 180 AND CO. OF ORANGE LOT ------ --------------- NTS -------------- --------------------------------- NTS NTS NTS EXISTING - LU TRACT 5792 TRACT 15377 J " DI L)M 2 STORY 18' �m 40' 2 STORY 2 STORY HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE HOUSE CONSTRUCT NEW HOUSE 6'MASONRY PERIMETER WALL 2:1 MAX. ATOP RETAINING WALL LOT 1718 P=3.7 P=7.5 EXISTING PAD=T 156 (P-0.6) 2.3 ------------ - -�--- -----�--- --- PROTECT EXISIING _ EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED MASONRY WALL (6' HIGH) IN MASONRY WALL i �\ RETAINING WALL-3' - EXIST. W RCP TO BE REMOVED SECTION "I"—"I" SECTION "L"—"L' TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 156 AND LOT 178 TYP. SECTION THRU. LOT 68 AND KENILWORTH DRIVE HOME. ------------------------------------- NTS NTS Scale:(approx.) 1"=20' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 6b-2 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. ! Site Plan Sections (City) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach �3' O x ' 00 T V - EXIS EUR VD it / 4N i Es •9. C� f /C°yt I� W / `` Ole- 0 e y coo ' ti IF \c R IIlk / / o�s�� Ro�N NOTES P / x � ,/ ON'( �PS�G /" 1. EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT. 2. BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PORTION). 3. PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. E\10O� / 4. PARK REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY LAND DEDICATION. 5. WATER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM. 6. SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBUC c WORKS k ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. 7. GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY. p�� 1,y,HNW,EN S. ELECTRIC SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. ,> N0 Oft11p1t0� /- s 9. TELEPHONE SERVICE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. 10. CABLE TELEVISION: TIME WARNER. •/ �� / / - 11. SCHOOL DISTRICT: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. 12. MULTIPLE MAPS MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 � BLUE GUM (EUCALYPTUS) TREE MATRIX of THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. / 13. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 20 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER WITHIN T.T. 15419* 35 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12" DIA. WITHIN T.T. 15419 LAND USE SUMMARY - U 55 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES WITHIN T.T. 15419 LOT NO. USE 4 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER OUTSIDE T.T. 15419* 1-27 (27 LOTS) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(5000 SO.FT.MIN.) 14 = TOTAL.NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12" DIA. OUTSIDE T.T. 15419 A-6 LANDSCAPE LOT.MAINTAINED BY HOA 18 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES OUTSIDE T.T. 15419 C DRAINAGE LOT,MAINTAINED BY HOA MAP DATE IDENTIFIER ' DATE OF LATEST CHANGE TO THIS MAP •ub' 54 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2/24/00 BY:Jic 19 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES PRESERVED WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DATE of THIS PLOT �� PORTIONS OF PARCELS 6, 7, 8 & 9 AS CONVEYED TO THE 02 24 00 1 TENTAM TRACT NM 15410 s METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BY O LOCATION MAP REFER TO PAGES 5 AND 6 (TABLE t) OF THE SEPTEMBER. 1998 CONSULTING ARBORIST'S REPORT. PREPARED BY ALDEN KELLEY. CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 22, 1974 IN BOOK 11080, PAGE 287 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF Scale: (approx.) 1"=150' ORANGE COUNTY. EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 6c Source: raker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) (27 Lot) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach aU� F 24' rk 98' CIA TE PROPOSED 25' 73' GIASS I ow W z 2 STORY n�12 9.57V 4' 1.I25' SNEET PLE HOUSE V 2:1 14A1L 21G1IN (T1.$) m LOT 24 19' rAISTINC N PAD.8.25 / DRA9I EARTHEN W J z_ PROPOSED RETAWING WALL.t• PERIMETERWALL MGM) SECTION "0"—"0" N.T.S Q 0 TRACT 15419 �m EXIST.10' GAS EASEMENT BERM 1 EL=10.0 2x LOT 13 P-9.5 EXISTING GROUND 4- At EXIST. GAS LINE ABOVE GROUND (TO BE RELOCATED) SECTION "P"- "P" (2 7 LOT) N.T.S fil TRACT 15.60 TaACT 15377 TOP 0.s�""" LOT c PROPOSED n,.IAAR s,m COMBINA,IDN PrA.,M PO�t NIGH MtpT WALL ATOP OF 3'CONCRETE SEAWALL UUE Ex- 3' LOT 5 P- EL-2.4t 9.5 EXISTING PAD (11) 4.1 �EIWS'IW1G GROUND PROPOSED CONpKff OITGI I.4'OD 0Cft7E SEAWALL 00"VARIES(UK.-) SECTION "R"- "R" N.T.S EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 6c-1 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Site Cross Sections (County) Parkside Estates FAN 97-2 City ofHunMron Beach 50' 50' 50' N N N s4 sa sz 5' - 5' 0 2R 3 1R 5 0 0 0 N N N 50' 50' 50' Scale:(approx.) 1"=30' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 7 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Typical 5,000 SF (min.) Lot Illustration Parkside Estate&IR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach 60' 60' 60' 41 +I +I 0 0 0 N N N 15' ©5 5 2H 5 1 5# 3 5' o N N N N 60' 60' 60' Scale:(approx.) I"=30' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit s Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Typical 6,000 SF (min.) Lot Illustration The project also proposes an optional layout, in the event that the City of Huntington Beach does not annex the 4.5-acre County of Orange portion and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 is not completed. As identified on Exhibit 6a, this optional layout proposes the construction of 181 single family dwelling units strictly within the 44.5-acre City of Huntington Beach land. For purposes of this EIR, this document addresses the worst-case scenario (i.e., buildout of 2-98 206 units and park). As shown on Exhibits 7 and 8, the lots would vary from 50-foot frontage within an average lot size of approximately cT 40 5,754 square feet, to 60-foot frontage with an average lot size of approximately 7-,0-30 7,077 square feet. The proposed 60-foot lots are located along the project's northern property boundary. There are three (3) architectural and floor plans proposed for the Parkside Homes (minimum 5,000 square foot lots), with homes ranging from 2,500 to 2,800 square feet. Exhibits 9 through 11 identify Parkside Homes Plans 1 through 3. The Estates (minimum 6,000 square foot lots) would also have three (3) different architectural and floor plans, with homes ranging from approximately 2,800 to 3,300 square feet. Exhibits 12 through 14 identify The Estates Plans 1 through 3. The e*isting six feet wall that etiffently stands between the pr-ejeet site and the existing adjaeent homes to the nefth leeated off of Kenilwefth Drive is proposed to be refneved. Along with development of the residential component of the project, the property owner (Shea Homes) proposes to construct a six-foot masonry privacy wall that would run along the rear property line of Lots 103 to Lots 123 (homes fronting on Kenilworth Drive), and the side property lines of Lots 125 and 126 (homes fronting on Greenleaf Lane) of Tract 5792 located north of the site (see to Exhibit 26). Shea Homes proposes to protect in place the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site (i.e., homes along Kenilworth Drive). The City is requesting that a dual wall situation not be created between the proposed wall and the existing wall along the north boundary of the site, and that the developer attempt to obtain cooperation from the owners'of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall thereby eliminating the dual wall situation. The property owner also proposes the development of a six-foot masonry privacy wall along the eastern property boundary (adjacent to Graham Street)and the southern property boundary (adjacent to the East Garden Grove— Wintersburg Channel— CO5). 3-14 Park/Open Space Uses The project also proposes dedication of an 8.2 ±-acre park site located in the northwestern corner of the project site, which would include flat useable acreage of approximately-3-.6 3.8± acres and 4.-6 4.4± acres of open space. The City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department proposes the construction of a large turf area with a sef4ball baekstep, a soccer1footba4baseball practice field overlay, a*d a tot lotand basketball area (not a full court) on the 3-.6 3.8-acre park area. Preliminary plans for the park are being developed by the City (Refer to Exhibit 5a Conceptual Park Plan). According to the City Community Services Department, Shea Homes would provide the park dedication and funding (up to $250,000) for turf, trees, irrigation, and surface clearing (to depths of historical disking) and berming to intercept water that runs down the side of the bluff to future catch basins (2) provided on the park site. The City of Huntington Beach through other potential funding sources would be responsible for providing the softball back stop, md tot lot, and basketball court. The park does not include field night lighting and is not intended for competitive league games. The proposed fields would serve neighborhood kids who practice softball, soccer, or football recreationally on an informal basis. The pafk ea serve as a pr-aetiee field for- laeal youth afganized spei4s teamsThe City would not allocate the park to any youth sports organizations for regular games. There would be no rest room facilities on the park since these are high maintenance items for a city, and the concept of a neighborhood park is to serve the immediate area and not to have organized, competitive sports group usage of the park. The proposed park would be linked via a proposed trail system to the proposed Class I bikeway along the Wintersburg Channel(Refer to Exhibit 5b). 3-14a Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach i t' lk - �� v- u — v • •Sw FRONT '3 001 ww „ I 1 Y 1 : LEFT REAR RIGHT No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 9 Source: Bassenian Lagoni Architects. Parkside Building Elevations - Plan 1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach • a \ I I t a� I a FRONT gleam m AL LEFT REAR RIGHT • No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 10 Source: Bassenlan Lagoni Architects' Parkside Building Elevations - Plan 2 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach • y .n FRONT a TV LEFT REAR RIGHT • No Scale EDAW, Inc. _ Exhibit 11 Source: Bassenian Lagonf Architects. Parkside Building Elevations - Plan 3 97-2 City I Huntingtoni'I 'L�i•.o- 5es.'. �r a F a . � �j i r • r .s X^u' aaellf�i I � • r ' , -, i SAS,• r r ` ���� � "'' :� �"'` _° '•�'� �a '' ' � � .✓ram�n- a c".� � �. � 1. w •DR s 3 � �fl u 5' ��,,. � FRONT • r i f: NoScale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 12 Source: BBG Architects The Estates Building Plan I 1 1e Estates 1 97-2 City I Huntington Beach ;rr a / / /Rtl//%%/d. up'OiP1i jpp/ •1��w.1: � ���Y r/ y� E 16'I r�Krflldtr �?uad1:I/e.7�a40��i�F�bF��E,o"��.� , J u�i�i �. LIlw� Apr ..��ri�1 �` 9M A 11A+Ap6Q 13�GI .". N� D9pr+ a7�ppQ dye v ,`• :. r C a �rh �p iD �+ H"aa 9rlJ6i ,+!o� 'O�dfio_Q wd sAP� r ��D a• i��A�l�l ). A 1 - �d .r L h` y " 11wi7A�lil�' ICO 6�I�i�. �. ..�atan��!/'INd I'Lltll�✓i +1 A.,.�' '}�9 � n; , (V 1.j. - - : I h�✓��A If•t•QW !'fib. .4 � � �'• '' - ��-..._ -. � P � i11117�t1111 :, I r7 l�r.� 9pi V11/ i Q�&, n �r �� :rr, �f�w�lO�tlA?hd�fAtLIQI ---- m �i ah, , �-�=I�QP.rtJiF•.i�f•T�.'�711�3� ' = ' .,':m:m' �r��uMttiCv�a -.;dQv 3 '11 LEFT ELEVAT10.4 � � *P;:�I mot• ., .y��i 1�')i70Di���lp�y,�► s 1�..- t �r r kP /q�D p y _� �— -- yt 'ar wJ• f ;:y � '�'I�.E 5' °/4ii•+ _ii�I 1/,yr.�..�kJ4�hd!4] 7 , � v�`Kr�L --- �, -Jam+-1-• ® � � l� �-- S '�vq� 6 FRONTELEVATION Y �p REAR KEVATION No Scale tl �"x1.i W�s�[M V1ih1Atl1 r' r m �� 'dYtis Yf1A - /K tOh ItlI. /8. EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 13 Source: BEIG Architects The Estates Building Elevations 1 d arkside Estates d 97-2 City of Huntington Beach uu R�T ELEVATION LEFT ELEVAMN' �tIT.tPf n4 i` •t 13 i . : 5 �I _.�_— � �` ° //u`/ n8 "'dyltQ �d JyR>�lel►.6:�. t .,r'• Y6 ��'�,,- t� �� m'� �,rrr-1',71 , rB�. , �na4s I Il_ FRONT REAR ELEVAT*N No Scale r)Y ' ♦JN" .�l�� �vlv:r V �.IL�I:POii� EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 14 ElevationsSource: BBG Architects The Estates Building Plan 3 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach ------------- ---------- ----------------- L S PATOS AVENUE----------- --------- -- ---- z�zi -G— ------------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- —-------- ---------- ------------ -------- ----------- - -------- Z• PROPOSED PROJECT- SITE. 'TENTATIVE,-TRACT NO. 153.77 HUNTINGTON C 'J P/ j BORROW SITE - TEN 'A T1 VE TRACT NO.-- 154�0 1.4 , % -----------w 'y. wk 7 -- ------------ --- --------- C % tA�P 04C tA J A ---------- qs NOTE: ), 1. TRACTS 15419 AND 15377 HAUL ROUTE HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH A THE CITY NOISE ORDINANCE. Z. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ADJACENT STREETS IN A NEAT, CLEW DUST FREE AND 'a SANITARY CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CLEAN UP ON ADJACENT STREETS AFFECTED BY HIS CONSTRUCTION, METHOD OF STREET CLEANING SHALL BE DRY SWEEPING OF ALL PAVED AREAS. 3. HAUL ROUTE TO BE USED OVER APPROXIMATELY 4 TO 6 MONTHS IN ORDER TO MOVE FILL DIRT TO PROPOSED SITES UTILIZING GRADING SCRAPERS. e C 0. , 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FLAGMAN AT ALL ROAD CROSSINGS WHENEVER TRUCKS ARE MOVING DIRT FROM BORROW SITE TO PROPOSED PROJECT SITES. _A -4- p; 5 HAUL ROUTE ROAD TO BE A MAXIMUM OF 50' WIDE. 4 • O 7 _7 No Scale EDAW1 Inc. Exhibit 15 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. Haul Route For Import Map Remedial Grading Prior to construction of the proposed development, the applicant proposes remedial grading on the project site. The purpose of tie this grading component of the project is to remediate existing on-site soils through the removal and replacement of loose soils. This technique involves removal and recompaction of a sufficient portion of the liquefiable soils, such that ground surface manifestation cannot occur and deeper seismic settlements are within tolerable limits. The technique may be used in conjunction with raising site grades to establish greater overburden stresses. Approximately 4 to 20 feet of dirt would be removed and replaced in a compacted form. Refer to Table 1 of Appendix E. The over-excavation will be accomplished incrementally to afford protection to adjoining, existing improvements. Where facilities are to be protected in-place, temporary excavation backcuts will be made as flat as 2:1 and will be exposed at maximum height for only a few hours at a time. Refilling will begin immediately after excavation and approval. According to the project engineers, the average elevation of the site would not change more than four to five feet. Current elevations of the portions of the site subject to grading vary from -2.0 feet in the area adjacent to the residences to the north, to 7.4 feet near the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. The remedial grading would not include the 8-acre portion of the 44.5-acre site located in the northwest corner. The applicant intends to dedicate this area as Open Space and therefore, no major landform alteration is proposed as part of the project. The remedial grading component of the project will require dewatering. The dewatering activities are estimated to occur over a four- to six-month period. Approximately 30 to 40 submersible pumps could be utilized during this effort in conjunction with gravel drains and surface pumps that will be placed within the excavation bottom. Dewatering techniques adjacent to existing improvements will be limited to gravel drains and surface pumps only in order to limit drawdown below off-site improvements. These procedures will be monitored in order to have no significant settlement impact on these facilities. The exact location of the pumps' placement is currently unknown; however, they will most likely be placed on-site adjacent to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel because groundwater levels are typically higher at this location. Please refer to Section 5.5 Noise and Section 5.6 Earth Resources for a discussion of potential impacts associated with the dewatering activities. The project anticipates approximately 470,000 cubic yards of removal and recompaction and 210,000 cubic yards of import. The dirt import to create the new grade would be obtained from a borrow site on the adjacent Bolsa Chica property. The possible location of the sites are shown on Exhibit 15. An analysis of the impacts of grading (i.e., soil removal) on the adjacent borrow site is contained in Certified EIR 551. Existing dirt roads (used in conjunction with past oil activities) located on private property would be transformed into "haul roads," which grading vehicles would use to import dirt. 3-21 Exhibit 15 identifies two (2) potential haul roads: one (1) extending from the northwestern portion of the site westerly; and one (1) extending from the County of Orange portion of the site to the northwest. The haul roads would be a maximum of 50-feet wide. Haul route hours of operation would be consistent with the City's Noise Ordinance, and would be used over approximately four (4) to six (6) months. If the adjacent import site is not utilized, then the proposed project would import fill from another local source that has environmental clearances to allow fill dirt export. Should the local export site require use of public roadways to transport the fill import to the project site, a haul route plan would require approval from the City Department of Public Works. Construction vehicles would enter the property from Graham Street or from the west, not from Kenilworth Drive or Greenleaf Lane. Refer to section 5.3 Transportation / Circulation for a more detailed discussion of impacts associated with the haul route. Entitlement Requests In order to accommodate the proposed development, a General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment is being requested. The General Plan Amendment request consists of three (3) elements. First, the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department proposes to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a park site as part of the project. The outline of the proposed park site currently does not conform to the City's existing Land Use Map (refer to Exhibit 16). The City proposes to modify the Land Use Map so that a portion of the site designated RL-7 is changed to OS-PR (Open Space - Parks and Recreation) (refer to Exhibit 18). An 8.2 ±-acre park site, which would include flat useable acreage of approximately-3-.6 3.8 ± acres and 4-6 4.4± acres of open space, would be established within the proposed subdivision. The Zoning Map Amendment request consists of three elements. First, the City Community Development Department proposes to amend the City's Zoning Map to accommodate the park site. The outline of the proposed park site currently does not conform to the City's zoning map (refer to Exhibit 17). The map would be modified so that the park site would be zoned OS-PR- CZ (Open Space - Parks and Recreation) instead of RL-FP2 and RA-CZ (refer to Exhibit 19). Second, the property owner (Shea Homes) proposes to add the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix to the City's zoning map as depicted on Exhibit 19. Sectional District Map No. 28-5-11 of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance currently identifies the site as RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential - Floodplain District) (refer to Exhibit 17). This designation should also contain the CZ suffix, as the project site is located within the Coastal Zone area. This change does not effect the allowed density on-site. Third, the property owner (Shea Homes) proposes to prezone the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel to RL-FP2-CA (Residential Low Density - Floodplain District - Coastal Zone). The 4.5-acre parcel is proposed to be annexed to the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District. Consistency with City and County Plans and Policies are discussed in further detail in Section 5.1 Land Use of this document. 3-23 ■ �1�111111 / Sol IIIIIIIIoI ��/1111111111� /lollloll ��1111111111111111 loll ♦ •IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� �•� ► • �I ANN • '���� loon■ • y�_V a:a•1;rn;cia��� -40 oil In MATTA 1 Parkside Estate*IR 97-2 City of Huntington: Bench WARNER AVER —�- + Cam—=SOP l D ADO o R3 PD R3-PO N RI RI i D N " C4 •R2 R2 = RI =RI~ "1 RI R2 "_ S PC IET I � RI RI RI RI RI ,, R. 3 R3-23 . yr. R2 ; RI RI RI J '�" ..r..■ RI « ......:. qv R3-23 . r NNor N. RI J RI LEGEND A s « N. NI R1 �R3 %'•.+ . rx.j MCNIIwoNTM RI Rl LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT _ °iR3- RI RI ". HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RA-CZ PROJECT SITE /RI s R3 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ••'+lly 1�-_ R " RI RI RI RI MEDIUM DENSITY RI-FP2 I R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT $ "' ° C F—E I « OP OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT o : ' RI 0 i [ager i 3 RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE DISTRICT j ��. :RI RI - g COMMUNITY FACILITIES c A�.Gl o I �— "• RI An CF-E DISTRICT ' ••~ COMMUNITY FACILIT ES P�r; u �...' v s .a CF-R (RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT �� u N t 'i► M on " • ` R1-CZ CZ COASTAL ZONE SUFFIX �� \,GL D� f�� x i °C RI RI :h RI RI RI-CZ " S Gt 9l 2 �']COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY "� ,Q/, 9� r RI-CZ c R I C ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY MLR \� j 1-CZ Rr-C2 Ion C s ti. „ RI-C2 v R 1 FP-2 FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT (6.5 - 12.5 MAC) """!il �� '��� , s Rr- "•^'• — WITHIN FLOOD ZONE-FP2 ..• ua���`�u,,,,`�ti Q � a aZ •t Gti R: LZ 1 N PROJECT BOUNDARY / �.r' ^'•� Q� CF R C2 RI .1 ^\, v ,e c'e �( l/ - R 1 R- RI Scale: (approx.) 1"=800' i RI-r.7 �� EDAW, Inc. Exhibit (7 Source: City of Huntington Bcach Current Zoning; Map ■ �1�111111 - 1 :�����IIIIIII�•I ���1111111111� ZVI MM ����� �� ��1111111111�1111� i mm .,m me m ��� 11����� ♦ •/111111111111111� . popSIR V VP , ddlL Ira 1 Parkside Estateb EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach WARNER % AVER 1 C�t:OP RS PO R3 PDIR, L R RI RI w R2 t RZ . t RI RI Ri RI C4 a • RI .c c R2 R1 RI RI RI RI v R _ SY" RI R3-23 R2 RI RI ' RI .`v�'p RI..... R3-23 rOft.' / ,. wRI 3-23%•�R � I LEGEND (� w, RI , ................ R N .IOIIiw O / RI Rl LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - R3 RI RI o , C4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -CZ OS- PR ROJECT SITE RI ' MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY -cz o• R3 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT y.+�+++ -_ RL-FP2-CZ RI �� .•' 14' RI RI RI RI MEDIUM DENSITY .. R2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT $ ,� C F-E I m OP OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT o• RI ,RN 1 RA RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURE DISTRICT :RI RI / G�, 4' g COMMUNITY FACILITIES ` CF-E (EDUCATION)DISTRICT �� o +1• •-,w. • •••� w RI CF-R COMMUNITY FACILITIES _ (RECREATIONAL)DISTRICT RI-CZ , Y , CZ COASTAL ZONE SUFFIXr ,G1 ? q °C RI RI R _J RI-CZ COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY qi• Q��Gtl RI-CZ o RI RL-FP2-CZ � "'- ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY , -CZ RI-C2 ! /if ♦ ;y RI-CZ RI FP-2 FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT ""�� �. 'Qi, RI-C= r - cc WITHIN FLOOD ZONE-FP2 rc..o , �� d co _`.T=J� R I f ?,. P` •. �, R! CZ N PROJECT BOUNDARY / s•►s Q� -� CF-R{Z RI TERMER �f�►� ,c �Ce � A R1 w 6 RI-CZ s N q�. _ Scale: (approx.) I"=800' c� RI-CZ EDAW, Inc. Exhibit (9 Source: City of Huntington Beach Proposed Zoning 3.3 PROJECT APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNERS The 49-acre project site is owned by Shea Homes. Shea Homes offices are located at 603 S. Valencia Avenue, Brea, CA 92823. Shea Homes is the applicant for Annexation 98-1, Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15377 (City) and 15419 (County), Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90, Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18, Annexation, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. The applicant contact for Shea Homes is Mr. Ron Metzler, Vice President. The City of Huntington Beach is the applicant for General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5. The Emit Dent Planning Department contact person is Mr. Am Bames Scott Hess, planne Planning Manager for the City. The contact for the park portion of the project is Mr. Jim Engle, Community Services Deputy Director for the City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department. 3.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT The project site is vacant and supports little vegetation due to regular clearing, disking, and farming activities that have been ongoing for more than the past 40 years. Until recently, an off- site equestrian facility operated in the southwest corner of the City portion of the project site. A grove of eucalyptus trees has long existed on-site near the northwest corner of the City portion of the project site. An Historical Site Usage Report was prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc. for Shea Homes in July 24, 1997. This report, based on aerial photographs and documentation, reviews the historic uses of the site from 1950 to June of 1997. According to this report, from 1952 to 1959, agricultural cultivation covered the majority of the project site. By 1970, the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, located south of the project site, was constructed and agricultural uses on the site continued. In 1974, Metropolitan Water District purchased the site from Signal Landmark. In February 1975, stables were identified on the site. From June 1975 to December 1989, the project site was leased to Roy C. Purshe for cultivation of crops. Additionally, Section 5.8 Biological Resources includes a summary description of historical on-site uses from 1952 to 1995. In 1986, the City of Huntington Beach took action to change the land use designation on most of the project site (known as the MWD property) from Residential to Conservation on the Coastal Element Land Use Plan. At that time, the City was actively negotiating with the County over the ultimate land use for the Bolsa Chica. The City decision in 1986 to designate the MWD property Conservation was partly in response to a proposal by the County and Signal Landmark to intensively develop the Bolsa Chica. The MAID property was designated Conservation in response to the County's intense plan for the Bolsa Chica. In 1988, a Bolsa Chica Coalition was successful in negotiating a much less intensive Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan. Consequently, the Bolsa Chica Coalition Plan proposed Residential Development on the MWD Property. From 1980 to 1989, MWD leased portions of the site to Smokys Stables. Historical site photos identify exercise and show ring, stables and trailers on-site. 3-28 In December 1981, the site was designated as "Severely Degraded Historic Wetland - Not Presently Functioning as Wetland." In February 1989, approximately 8.3 acres of the City parcel (along the north boundary below the eucalyptus trees found on-site) and.2.4 acres of the County parcel were identified as jurisdictional wetlands by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In October 1991, a report by D.R. Sanders and Associates, Inc. concluded that the 8.3-acre area determined to be jurisdictional wetland by EPA is instead non jurisdictional "prior converted croplands." In May 1992, a letter from US Army Corps of Engineers also reclassified the 8.3-acre area from "jurisdictional wetlands" by EPA as "prior converted croplands, thus not subject to Corps' Section 404 permit requirements. Please refer to Section 5.8 Biological Resources of this document for an expanded discussion of the wetland issue. In 1992, the California Coastal Commission approved Coastal Development Permit 5-82-278 for another stable operation to be located on a portion of the site, including a parking area and caretaker residence. In September 1993, a portion of the site located in the City was subsequently leased for one (1) year to Norman L. Abbott for agricultural purposes. On June 15, 1994, the California Coastal Commission issued an Exemption Letter for "Hole-in-the-Wall" stable facilities, including 22 horse stalls on a 16,000 square foot site, for the boarding houses. In January 1996, a letter was sent to MWD from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This letter affirmed that none of the land making up the project site lies within prospective Federal wetland restoration project area (known as the Bolsa Chica Wetland Restoration project). In March 1996, the County portion of the site was analyzed as part of the overall Bolsa Chica Project EIR (Orange County Project No. 551). The Existing Habitats Map contained within this EIR described the City portion of the site as "Agricultural," "Ruderal," "Exotic trees," or"Non-native Grassland." The County portion of the site was described as "Non-native Grassland" or "Pickleweed." In September 1996, Shea Homes purchased the site. In January 1997, the Coastal Commission certified the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP designated the County portion of the site for residential development. It should be noted that a lawsuit on the LCP approval is pending. The 49-acre site also has been evaluated in previous planning documents including: • Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project, August 1992 - The project site was previously analyzed in 1992 as part of the larger 1,712-acre site proposed for development. The proposed land uses were residential. Preparation of the EIS/EIR was not completed, and therefore the report was never approved by the lead agencies. • Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 551 for the Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program, December 14, 1994 - The project site was previously analyzed as part of this EIR, which was certified by the County of Orange on December 14, 1994. The Board of Supervisors certification of Final EIR 551 was challenged by the filing of a petition for writ of mandate in Bolsa Chica Land Trust et al. V. County of Orange, Superior Court No. 741344. On February 16, 1996, the Orange County Superior Court 3-29 rendered its decision in the lawsuit. The court rejected all challenges to the review of particular environmental impacts but also ruled that the reinstatement of the tidal inlet within the project after the close of the public comment period on the 1994 Revised Draft EIR rendered the project description unstable and required recirculation of the EIR. • Recirculated EIR 551, March 1996- The County portion of the site was included as part of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica project, which contained a revised project description and the environmental analysis for the tidal inlet in accordance with the court's order,March 1996. • General Plan Update EIR, May 1996 - The 44.66-acre portion of the project site located in the City of Huntington Beach was evaluated within the General Plan Environmental Impact Report in 1996. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the General Plan Update and certified on May 13, 1996. The General Plan, adopted on May 13, 1996, is comprised of 16 separate elements; land use, urban design, housing, historic and cultural resources, economic development, growth management, circulation, public facilities and public services, recreation and community services, utilities, environmental resources/conservation, air quality, coastal, environmental hazards, noise and hazardous materials. The Land Plan Map adopted with the General Plan designates the City portion of the project site as RL-7 (Residential—Low Density) and OS-P (Open Space -Park). In September 1997, the City of Huntington Beach prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Shea Homes project and determined that an EIR was necessary to analyze the potentially significant environmental effects associated with buildout of the proposed project. 3.5 PHASING Grading and dewatering activities are anticipated to occur concurrently over a four to six month period as discussed above. Construction of the residential units is anticipated to occur subsequent to completion of the project site remediation grading and final grading. The construction is expected to be completed two and one-half to three and one-half years from initiation depending on market conditions. 3.6 PROJECT OBJECTIVES A statement of objectives is required by Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The objectives of the applicant and the City of Huntington Beach are identified through the following: Applicant • Provide a variety of high quality residential units consistent with the City's General Plan and Bolsa Chica LCP. 3-30 • Dedicate and improve a park site consistent with the City's Land Use Element, which -00*1 designates a portion of the site OS-P (Open Space - Park). • Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed residential uses. • Improve existing soils deficiencies found on-site through remedial grading. • Improve drainage deficiencies by expanding capacity of Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. • Replace, expand, and modernize existing deficient sewer pump station facilities. • Improve drainage deficiencies within the Graham Street system. • Accomplish zoning map "clean up"through the addition of prior omissions. • Provide a Class I bikeway connecting the project site to Graham Street, the proposed local park and the future Bolsa Chica open space trails I bikeway system. City of Huntington Beach • Implement the policies and development standards of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. • Create a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. • Promote the development of residential land uses that convey a high quality visual image and character. • Provide for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate the demands of new and existing development. • Balance projected costs and revenues. • Balance the City's long-term needs for residential property. • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development, and that timing and funding of improvements is closely correlated with development phasing. 3.7 PROPOSED ACTIONS The following section describes discretionary actions that are currently proposed for the subject property. Approval of these actions is granted by the Lead Agency(City of Huntington Beach). 1. Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2. Acceptance of an environmental document as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental 3-31 Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA guidelines, City policies, and certification that the data was considered in final decisions on the project. 2. Annexation 98-1. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting annexation of the 4.5- acre county parcel to the City of Huntington Beach through the Local Agency, Formation Commission (LAFCO). Shea Homes will also propose a concurrent annexation to the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD). 3. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. The City of Huntington Beach is proposing to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a park site as part of the project. The City proposes to modify the Land Use Map so that a portion of the site designated RL-7 is changed to OS-PR (Open Space - Parks and Recreation). The City also proposes to remove the fire station designation and descriptions of a fire station on the site, found within the General Plan; since no lowland development was approved as part of the Bolsa Chica project, the City has determined that a fire station at this location is unnecessary. Therefore, it is requesting removal of this designation from Figure PF-1 Public Facility Locations. Third, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting to amend the General Plan to designate the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density). 4. Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a zone map amendment from RL-FP2 to RL-FP2-CZ, which would add the Coastal Zone suffix to the residential zoning. The City is requesting a zone map amendment from RA- CZ to OS-PR-CZ, which would bring the zoning into consistency with the General Plan and to amend a portion of the RL-FP2-CZ zone to OS-PR-CZ to reflect the park boundary. The purpose of the zone amendments are to 1) clean up the zoning map by correcting an omission on the zoning map; and 2) bring the zoning (on the park component of the project) into consistency with the General Plan designation. Additionally, the property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting a map amendment to prezone the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel as RL-FP2-CZ (Residential Low Density - Floodplain District - Coastal Zone). 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County). The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide the site into lots for development. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for proposed development which includes the following: a. Dual-product lot sizes to include 50-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet (with an average lot size of over 5,700 square feet), and 60-foot wide lots with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (with an average lot size of over 7,000 square feet); 3-32 b. Dedication and improvement of an 8.2±acre neighborhood park; and 100%a C. Improvement of two-model home and sales complexes. 7. Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) to permit subdivision and development of the property per CUP No. 96-90 and Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15377 and 15419. Upon approval of action 8 below, the City of Huntington Beach would issue the CDP for TTM No. 15377. 8. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. The property owner (Shea Homes) is requesting approval from the City of the Local Coastal Program Amendment in order to have the residential zoning designation reflected in the City's Local Coastal Program, resulting in the establishment of the CZ District on the entire project site. The City of Huntington Beach will apply to the Coastal Commission for the Local Coastal Program (LCP) amendment to amend the Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Program (IP), which are the two components of the Local Coastal Program. Approval of this action would effectively certify the area. With the LUP amendment, the City would be adding the RL and OS-PR designation for the residential and open space areas respectively. With the IP amendment, the City would be adding the CZ suffix on the zoning map. 3.8 LEAD, RESPONSIBLE,AND INTERESTED AGENCIES Lead Agency - In conformance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is defined as the "public agency, which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project." This EIR will be used by the City of Huntington Beach, as the Lead Agency, in the review and consideration of the proposed project. The Lead Agency Contact is: Ms. Melanie S. Fall Scott Hess Dir,eeter-of Community Developmen W. Am Bames Planning Manager City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92649 (714) 536-5271 Resnonsible/Interested Agencies Responsible Agencies are those agencies that have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with development of the proposed project site. This EIR is also intended to provide environmental information to a number of agencies, which may be involved in serving the project, or may otherwise have an interest in the development's environmental effects. These agencies include, but are not limited to, the following: 3-33 Agencies: Interest: 1. Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater transport and treatment 2. Huntington Beach Public Works Department Potential impacts upon water, sewer availability, flood control, grading impacts to adjacent improvements, and roadway conditions and improvements 3. Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation of County portion of project site to City and Orange County Sanitation District 4. Orange County Environmental Management Potential cumulative effects related to Agency traffic,noise and flood control 5. Huntington Beach Water District Potential impacts upon water supplies 6. Orange County Transit District Accessibility to existing bus stops 7. State Department of Fish and Game Impacts on Biological Resources 8. California Coastal Commission Issues related to issuance of a Coastal Development Permit (i.e. wetlands analysis,public access, traffic analysis, archaeological analysis, geologic analysis) and Potential Impacts to Coastal Zoned Areas 9. Huntington Beach Union High School District Impacts on existing high schools 10. Ocean View School District Impacts on existing elementary/middle schools 11. Orange County Flood Control District Potential impacts related to flooding 12. State Office of Historic Preservation Potential impacts to Archaeological Resources 13. Regional Water Quality Control Board Impacts related to water quality 14. State Lands Commission Issues related to the adjacent Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project 3-34 4.0 REGIONAL, CITYWIDE,AND LOCAL SETTING 4.1 INTRODUCTION The following section discusses the project area from,a regional, citywide and local perspective. The project site itself is also discussed. The setting section has been divided into these three subsections to indicate and discuss the three distinct areas in which the project may affect or be affected by existing and proposed development. The study areas discussed in this section were designated for the purpose of evaluating project impacts only and do not necessarily represent an adopted study area of the City of Huntington Beach. 4.2 REGIONAL SETTING The City of Huntington Beach is located in northwest Orange County along the southern California coast. The County of Orange is south of the County of Los Angeles and north of San Diego County. The regional location is displayed in Exhibit 1 within the Project Description of this EIR. The major arterials surrounding the site from a regional perspective are the San Diego (405) and Garden Grove (22) Freeways to the north; and Pacific Coast Highway (1) to the west. Direct access to the site would be from the San Diego Freeway (405) at the Warner Avenue/Magnolia Street interchange. Regional facilities include the John Wayne Airport located to the southeast in nearby Santa Ana and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station located in Seal Beach to the west. 4.3 CITYWIDE SETTING From a citywide perspective, the project is located within the western portion of the City of Huntington Beach approximately one (1) mile east of the Pacific Ocean. Surrounding municipalities include Westminster to the northeast, Fountain Valley to the east, Costa Mesa to the southeast, and Newport Beach to the south. Exhibit 2 within the Project Description'of this report displays the project's location within the City of Huntington Beach. 4.4 LOCAL SETTING From a local perspective, the project site is located on the west side of Graham Street between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue. The northern border of the site is bounded by existing residential development located along Gree., Leaf Avenue Greenleaf Lane and Kenilworth Drive. Graham Street bounds the eastern border, with low density residential land uses located east of Graham Street. The southern border is bounded by the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (which carries stormdrain runoff to the Pacific Ocean). The project site encompasses approximately 49 acres and is vacant, and undeveloped. The project site is characterized by generally flat topography, with the exception of the northwestern corner of the project site. This corner contains a knoll area. Exhibit 3 within Section 3.0 Project 4-1 Description section depicts the project site on a USGS topographical map, while Exhibit 4 within the Project Description section depicts a 1997 aerial photograph taken of the site. 4.5 RELATED PROJECTS In the local vicinity of the project site there are projects that may be affected by or affect the proposed project. Each project's size, location, approval status and relationship to the proposed project is discussed below. Huntington Beach Planned Development Projects 1. Waterfront (Phases II - VI & Residential): Zone Change No. 87-7/ Development Agreement/Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 8 8-1/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 82-2. The first phase was development of the Hilton Hotel which has been complete and in operation since July 1990. The Robert Mayer Corporation is presently constructing a 516-room resort complex, a 135,000 square foot conference center, and erg to 224184 residential units. 2. Main Pier,Phase II: Conditional Use Permit No. 92-17/Coastal Development Permit No. 92-14/Tentative Tract Map No. 14666. A mixed use project consisting of 80 residential units and 39,766 square feet of new retail development. The project is located on the 2 blocks bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Sixth, Main and Walnut Streets; and was , approved by California Coastal Commission on June 13, 1996. 3. Ocean Crest: Development Permit No. 96-11/Zone Change No. 96-3/Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-2. Tentative Tract No. 14135/Conditional Use Permit No. 96-27/Coastal (zone change from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential). The project consists of construction of 54 single family homes on a 9.8-acre site located northwest of the intersection of Palm Avenue and Seapoint Avenue. The project was approved by Planning Commission on November 12, 1996. This project is e-uffendy ane eensti:uefien complete. 4. 3rd Block West: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Design Review Board No. 95-59/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352. The project was originally approved by the City Council in 1991. The Redevelopment Agency and JT Development have recently requested an amendment to the approved plans to add more commercial square footage and reduce the number of residential units. The revised project is currently under-review by the Planning Di-,,isien and will mquife Feview and appr-eyal e complete. The project consists of a mix of uses with 25,500 square feet of retail on the ground level and 11,000 square feet of office space on a second level fronting Main Street and 45 42 townhomes units. The project is on an 82,023 square-foot site located on the West 300 block of Main Street (full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, Fifth Street, and Orange Avenue). 4-2 5. Catellus Residential: The project site encompasses approximately 48.4 acres located about six-hundred (600) feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. The applicant received approvals for a Conditional Use Permit/Tentative Tract Map to develop-3-25 303 single-family detached dwelling units, one (1) public park, and two (2) private parks. All units and improvements have been constructed. 6. Bolsa Chica: Bolsa Chica is a 1,588-acre unincorporated area within the County of Orange. The Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program preparation/processing has shifted over to the County. Although the City surrounds the Bolsa Chica area and will be impacted by the development, the project is within the County's jurisdiction. Kell Real Estate Gr-eup Hearthside Homes, a subsidiary of California Coastal Communities, is the primary land owner. Other owners include Fieldstone, Ocean View School District, Metropolitan Water District, Huntington Beach Company, D. E. Goodell, the State of California, and the City of Huntington Beach. On January 11, 1996, the California Coastal Commission approved the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program which allowed for development of a maximum of 3,300 residential units (including a maximum 900 units in the lowlands) on a total of approximately 400 acres; Commercial - an optional 10 acres of commercial on the mesa; designation of a total of 87 acres for recreational uses (consisting of 58 acres for the Linear Park, 17 acres for a mesa community park, 8 acres for a lowland community park, and 5 acres for beach access and trails). The approved plan did not include the controversial Bolsa Chica Street Extension (a.k.a., the Cross-Gap Connector) but included an "interior collector street" connecting Talbert Ave. and Graham Street. The original approval approved included a Wetlands Restoration plan with a non-navigable tidal inlet which supports existing and restored tidal wetlands; and improvements to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. The LCP was subsequently modified and approved by the Coastal Commission in June 1996. The modifications were (1) elimination of residential development in lowland wetland areas; (2) reduction in the number of residential units from 2,500 to 1,235; and(3) elimination of the filling of Warner Pond. In February 1997, state and federal agencies entered into an agreement to acquire and restore 9W 880 acres of the Bolsa Chica lowlands, thereby eliminating the potential for development of the lowlands (with the exception of the Fieldstone property). Once the California State Lands Commission purchased the restoration plan property, it was removed from the LCP. The Wetlands Restoration Plan includes a 24.5-acre parcel west of the Proposed Parkside Estates Project Site, and south of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. This 24.5-acre parcel is currently owned by MWD and the Bolsa Chica Lowland Trust. 7. Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Area: Tentative Tract No. 14700 (Peninsula II)/Tentative Tract No. 14662 Xaee)/Tentative Tract No. 14659 (Sherwood)/ and additional tracts and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. This is a 570-acre area generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Huntington and Main Streets to the east, Yorktown Avenue and Summit Drive to the south, and the Edwards Street bluffs to the west. Uses will include Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Mixed Development, Commercial, Industrial and Open Space. Ultimately, up to 3-,895 3,022 residential units may be constructed in the area over the next ten to fifteen years. The :570- nt.«e e r site .s 1. eate on Ellis A yenue/14unfington and Main Street eriktewn and wvav Ya v�vv. vi.�v is aVvu 4 VII Li11J l-1T VZ I4TVT1 Z1il IC Approximately T, W 1,865 units have been approved. 8. Pier Plaza: Permit No. 93-70/Coastal Development Permit. New parking lot with 634 stalls, new restroom and concession building, amphitheater and landscaping, improved pedestrian, vehicular: rollerblade, etc.) access in and around pier. The project is located on 4-3 I Pacific Coast Highway. The project construction started in October 1996 and is , complete. . 9. Duke's Surf City Restaurant: Conditional Use Permit No. 94-25/Coastal Development Permit No. 94-10. The project site consists of construction of a new 18,000 square foot, two story restaurant located at 317 Pacific Coast Highway (old Maxwell's site). The project is u nde f nstf etie, complete. 10. Cannes Pointe: Tentative Tract Map No. 14590/Conditional Use Permit No. 96-35. The 6-acre project site consists of construction of 29 Single Family Homes, ranging in size from 1,645 to 2,000 square feet. The project site is a triangular lot bounded by Huntington Street, Main Street, and Garfield Avenue. The project is complete. 11. Seabridge Specific Plan: The project consists of development of 20 single family detached units on approximately 3.98 acres, located within the Seabridge Specific Plan (east side of Beach Boulevard, approximately 800 feet south of Adams Avenue). This project was approved by the Planning Commission, but has not yet been constructed. 12. Bowen Court: Proposal to develop 23 senior residential units on approximately 0.75 acres located on the southwest corner of Yorktown Avenue and Lake Street. The project was denied by Planning Commission; and approved by the City Council on appeal of the Planning Commission decision, on June 2, 1997. The project is under construction. 13. 21" - 22nd Street: Proposal to amend the zoning on approximately 0.88 acres located on PCH between 21st and 22nd Streets, within the Downtown Specific Plan, from District- 1 (Visitors Serving Commercial) to District-2 (Residential). If approved, The residential designation will allow for development of a maximum of 10 single family detached units or a maximum of 26 multifamily units (or combination of single and multifamily units). However, no proposal for development has been submitted to date. The project was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and is pending the California Coastal Commission approval. 14. Wintersburg/Home Depot: Proposal for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map to allow for the development of a Home Depot, School Administrative Office, and relocation of recreational fields at the southeast corner of Warner Avenue and Golden West Street. The project consists of the demolition of the closed Wintersburg School buildings, and the construction of a 106,548 SF Home Depot store and 24,337 SF garden center on a 10.5-acre site. The project also includes a future 30,000 SF building on 2.71 acres, and the relocation of various athletic fields on a 4.06-acre remainder parcel and on 16 acres at the adjacent Ocean View High School. The project was approved by Planning Commission in May and City Council in June, 1997. The project site is complete. 4-4 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS The following section details project impacts which were previously identified in the Initial Study and Public Scoping Meeting for the proposed project. The Initial Study is contained in Appendix A. The environmental topics addressed in this EIR are as follows: • Land Use Compatibility • Earth Resources • Aesthetics/Light and Glare • Drainage/Hydrology • Traffic/Circulation • Biological Resources • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Noise • Public Services and Utilities Each impact analysis is structured in the following manner: 1. Existing Conditions 2. Impacts 3. Cumulative Impacts 4. Standard City Policies and Requirements 5. Mitigation Measures 6. Level of Significance The Existing Conditions section describes the project site and characteristics as they presently occur. This description focuses on the particular impact area (e.g. noise, air quality, etc.) that is being discussed. The Impacts section describes how implementation of the proposed project will affect the existing conditions related to the site, neighborhood, and region. The Cumulative Impacts section describes the potential impacts of the project in conjunction with other approved,proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The Standard City Policies and Requirements section identifies the applicable City standard conditions of approval and policies which will be required of the project, if approved. Some of these standard conditions and policies serve to reduce or minimize environmental impacts; however, because the conditions of approval are considered part of the project, they are not considered mitigation measures and have been identified separately. The Mitigation Measures section identifies the measures recommended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Level of Significance section states whether the project-specific and cumulative impacts identified in the Impacts analysis can be mitigated. If the impacts cannot be mitigated, or are lessened but not mitigated to a level of less than significant, they would be noted as unavoidable adverse impacts. PA I997\7N 15001\EWSECTION5.0.1)OC 5-1 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility 5.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY EXISTING CONDITIONS On-Site Land Uses The 49.5-acre site currently consists of vacant land. The majority of the site is absent of vegetation due to the past farming, regular discing and clearing activities that have been ongoing for the past 30 years. Two (2) existing eucalyptus groves are located at the westerly side of the property; one (1) in the northern corner and one (1) in the County parcel of the site. The entire site is primarily level and flat, rising very gradually to a 45-foot Mesa at the northwest corner of the site. The eastern and southwestern portions of the site are level vacant fields with an elevation near sea level. Exhibit 4 within Section 3.0 Project Description of this document identifies the existing vacant, undeveloped site. Surrounding Land Uses The northern border of the site is bounded by existing residential development located along Green Leaf Avenue and Kenilworth Drive. The eastern boundary is bounded by Graham Street, while the southern boundary is bounded by the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (which carries stormdrain runoff to the Pacific Ocean). The flood control channel embankment rises ±10 feet above site grade, and forms a visual and physical barrier along the entire southern margin. Roadway and residential developments extend away from the east and north boundaries. The only contiguous, adjacent vacant land begins at the western boundary of the project area, where the land rises approximately 45 feet up to the leveled top of a Mesa (commonly known as the Bolsa Chica Mesa). Most of the Mesa area lies outside the project area, extending beyond the City of Huntington Beach boundary into the unincorporated County area. The Mesa slopes facing the project area support little natural vegetation, and are actively degraded by dumped trash, abandoned vehicles, and informal roads used for off-road vehicle (ORV) driving and biking. The land west of the 4.5-acre County Parcel is intended to be included in the Wetlands Restoration Program for the Bolsa Chica Lowlands. An egg horse stable, wieh is operated by the "Hole in the Wall" riding club is was located off-site near the project's western boundary. According to County of Orange records, this existing stable (Smoky Stables) was permitted under Use Permit 93-0222, which expired on October 15, 1996. The stables were granted an extension of 18 months by an amendment to the plan (CP950071). Atha;,,,,!,,_- ., er-ding to County sta fr it is their- opinien tha4 this use is no longer-appropriate. The stables were removed in December 2000. In response to comments raised at the October 9, 1997 scoping meeting, a survey was conducted in March, 1998 by Hunsaker & Associates, which identified the densities of existing residential uses that surround the project site. Table C represents the findings of the study. As delineated in Table C, the residential uses surrounding the project site were divided into six (6) areas. Area 1 5-2 Environmental Analysis -•� Land Use Compatibility consists of the single-family residential uses located directly north of the project site up to Warner Avenue. Area 2 consists of the single-family residential uses located northeast of the project site, east of Graham Street up to Warner Avenue. Area 3 includes the single-family residential uses located south and southeast of the project site, south of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. Area 4 includes the single-family residential uses located south of the site, south of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. Area 5 consists of the multi-family 4- plex units located directly west of Area 1. Area 6 includes the Cabo del Mar condominiums located northwest of the project site. As indicated in Table C, the densities of the areas adjacent to the site containing single-family homes (Areas 1 through 4), range from 4.43 to 4.74 dwelling units per acre. The overall average density for Areas 1 through 4 is 4.62 dwelling units per acre. Area 5 contains 23 lots of 4-plexes on 6.421 acres. Area 6 contains 288 condominium units (Cabo del Mar) on 12.506 acres, resulting in a density of 24.2 dwelling units per acre. Existing Land Use Plans City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach's General Plan Update, adopted in 1996, is comprised of 16 separate elements. The Elements are: land use, urban design, housing, historic and cultural resources, economic development, growth management, circulation, public facilities and public services, recreation and community services, utilities, environmental resources/conservation, air quality, coastal, environmental hazards, noise and hazardous materials. The following provides a brief discussion of these Elements applicable to the project, including a listing of applicable goals. LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element (LUE) for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan provides for the types, density/intensity, design, and distribution of commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural land uses, as well as public and private open space. The LUE includes goals designed to serve as a general guide for the future development of Huntington Beach in terms of location of uses, allowable residential densities, and other criteria. The LUE designates the portion of the project site located in the City of Huntington Beach RL-7 Residential Low Density and OS-P (Open Space - Park). The RL-7 designation allows for a development density of 7.0 dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 16 within Section 3.0 Project Description of this document identifies the current General Plan designation on the City of Huntington Beach portion of the site. PA 1997\7N 15001\EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-3 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility TABLE C DENSITY SURVEY OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL USES Area Acreage No. of Lots Average Lot DU/AC Size 1 38.411 180 6,383 4.69 2 43.501 206 6,444 4.74 3 83.812 389 6,468 4.64 4 37.487 166 6,954 4.43 Overall Average DU/AC for Areas 14 4.62 5 6.421 23 Lots NA 4-Plexes 4-Plexes 6 12.506 288 Units NA Condos 24.2 Condos Project Site 49.84 2W206 6,346-6,377 4.47 4.13 AREA VAN" , —•— ' R2 to A RI r CI FM a RI IRI M Rt RI M •pt R // RI ia•a!'�.. � RI 1 ' M i R3 EA RI RA-C PROPOSED %M ' 3 SITE r / RI-FP2 M s M RI � CF-E 1 RI r.•c.0 -.. , a ♦� .«..-•-- �j ti Rt-CZ RI Ill its Al �i ON-CZ 'b � etie RI e Z R).� .. �' .. IN•CZ "' R 1 ti u M•ci e �•�.// Srr� RI � N RI 3� LM1 FYI • a 1M a ' �,ti Rh CZ ■1• Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. i C:%ff DOCIJWNTS\SHEA\1-2000.Emu.a rmusE.DOC 5-4 Environmental Analysis .... Land Use Compatibility The primary goal of the Land Use Element is to provide guidance regarding the manner in which lands are to be used in the City of Huntington Beach. Applicable goals include: • Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. • Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation facilities, utility infrastructure, and public services. • Achieve the logical, orderly, and beneficial expansion of the City's services and jurisdictional limits. • Achieve and maintain a high quality of architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. • Ensure that significant environmental habitats and resources are maintained. • Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhood, corridors, and centers. • Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. • Preserve the City's open spaces. Additionally, applicable policies include: • Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: a. Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades, and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box-like" structures). b. Avoid building materials, colors, and construction elements that visually dominate their setting and contrast significantly with the character of their neighborhood. C. Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. PA1997\7N I5001\EIR\LANDU SE.DOC 5-5 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility d. Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. e. Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. • Require that the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following. a. Establish a street configuration involving the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a pattern of "blocks" rather than cul-dc-sacs (Plate LU- I and LU-2). b. Integrate public squares,mini-parks, or other landscaped elements. C. Cluster residential units and, if possible, integrate small clusters of multi-family housing within single family areas to preserve open space. d. Establish a common "gathering" or activity center within a reasonable walking distance of residential neighborhoods. This center may contain services, such as child or adult-care, recreation, public meeting rooms, recreational facilities, small convenience commercial uses, or similar facilities. e. Site common facilities around a public park or plaza to encourage a high level of community activity. f. Establish a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, and other elements that link all community areas and provide linkages to land uses in adjacent areas. g. Orient housing units to neighborhood and collector streets. h. Site and design units and incorporate elements, such as porches, that emphasize front yards as an activity area and "outdoor living room," by locating garages in the rear or side yards. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. j. Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-6 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility k. Include alleys or other means to minimize the dominance of garages along the street frontage. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT The Urban Design Element focuses on the quality of the City's physical and visual character, which is determined by the organization, scale, density and pattern of the community's built environment and open spaces. The primary goal of the Urban Design Element is to establish and strengthen community identity. Applicable goals include: • Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. • Protect and enhance the City's public coastal views and oceanside character and screen any uses that detract from the City's character. Applicable policies include: "` • Coordinate streetscape and landscape design in all residential neighborhoods to strengthen their identities. a. Design public streetscape improvements (landscape features, signage, and street furniture) to provide unique qualities to the "Old Town," Holly-Seacliff, Ellis/Golden West Quarter section, Southeast Residential, Northwest Residential, and Huntington Harbour districts. b. Encourage public improvements that provide visual and physical separation between single family development and commercial corridors, through the use of: • landscape materials; • berms; • and well-designed fences and walls. • Establish visual relief to the monotony of walled "superblock" corridors and enhance the corridors image through the visual strengths of the respective residential neighborhoods in which they are located including: a. for new development, require the use of landscape materials in the public ' right-of-way; P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-7 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility b. for both new and existing development, establish a consistent pattern of street trees along the corridor using the predominate tree types of the adjacent residential areas; C. develop a variety of street sections to allow for variation of right-of-way widths and sidewalk configurations, for example, some of the walls have a 3' to 4' planting strip in which plant materials have been placed outside of the wall while other tracts have no plantings outside of the wall. Recognize that sidewalk width on residential district arterial streets is less important than in other situations as there are few pedestrians and few pedestrian destinations (bus stops are a possible exception) along these arterials. If the sidewalk is narrowed to accommodate tree wells or wider planting strips, a sidewalk width of 34e 4' is ample; d. for new development, increased landscaping area; and e. consider reducing street widths to increase landscaping area. The Element also identifies the following implementation program related to annexation: Annexation Feasibility Study Upon receipt of a request for annexation, the City shall conduct an "annexation feasibility study" to determine whether the proposed annexation: • is adjacent to existing corporate boundaries; • contains or will contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses; • contains or will contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City; • would place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services; and • would place an undue burden on school and other public services. Based on the study's findings, the City may pursue annexation, as appropriate. C:\MY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\I-2000.EIRTANDUSE.DOC 5-8 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility HOUSING ELEMENT The Housing Element, adopted in July, 1990, is intended to direct residential development and preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values of the community. The Housing Element is an official municipal response to a growing awareness of the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as legal requirements that housing policy be made a part of the planning process. As such, the Element establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted goals for its housing program which are consistent with State and Regional housing policies. These goals are: • The attainment of decent housing within a satisfying living environment for households of all socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups in Huntington Beach. • The provision of a variety of housing opportunities by type, tenure, and cost for households of all sizes throughout the City. • The development of a balanced residential environment with access to employment opportunities, community facilities, and adequate services. In order to progress toward the attainment of these goals,the City has committed itself to specific policies and programs. Policies applicable to the proposed project include: • Promote housing which meets the special needs of handicapped and elderly persons. • 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. • Encourage the use of energy conservation devices and passive design concepts which make use of the natural climate to increase energy efficiency and reduce housing costs. • Continue to encourage alternative forms of transit such as buses, bicycles, and walking. Provide housing opportunities for all households regardless of race, color, religion, sex, family size, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age or physical disability. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT The Historic and Cultural Resources Element examines the history and events that helped shape the community's built environment. Along with a basic historical understanding, the styles and variations of Huntington Beach's architectural resources also were examined. The overall intent PA 1997\7N]5001\EM\LANDUSE.DOC 5-9 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility of this element is to identify the historical resources of the community, their current designations and community status, and the issues affecting their future. An applicable goal includes: • To promote the preservation and restoration of the sites, structures and districts which have architectural, historical, and/or archaeological significance to the City of Huntington Beach. The project site currently does not contain significant historic structures, but does contain archaeologically significant resources. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT The Economic Development Element is specifically concerned with the identification of a strategy to address development potentials that will broaden and stabilize the City's economic base. Its goals and policies are formulated to provide new policy direction for the City and the planning area. The primary goals of the Economic Development Element are to provide for the economic opportunities of City's residents, business retention and expansion, and land use plan implementation. An applicable goal includes: • Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT The Growth Management Element, adopted in April, 1992, is a prerequisite to establish and continue eligibility to receive monies generated by the sales tax which was approved by Orange County voters in November, 1990 as Measure M (Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance). The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Element is to establish goals,policies, and programs that will promote growth and development based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate circulation system and public facilities and services. The applicable goals of the Growth Management Element are to: • Reduce traffic congestion. • Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. PA1997\7N15001\E1R\LANDUSE.D0C 5-10 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility CIRCULATION ELEMENT The purpose of the Circulation Element is to evaluate the transportation needs of the City and present a comprehensive transportation plan to accommodate those needs. The Circulation Element focuses on the City's arterial streets and highways, public transportation modes and services, water transportation, and air transportation. The primary goal of the Circulation Element is to provide a multi-mode transportation system that ensures the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Applicable goals include: • Provide a balanced transportation system that supports the policies of the General Plan and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City while minimizing environmental impacts. • Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. • Develop a balanced and integrated multi-modal transportation system. • Provide sufficient, well designed, and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City. Applicable policies include: • Minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, "by-pass" or "through" traffic that intrudes into residential neighborhoods. • Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasible. • 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. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT The Public Facilities and Public Services Element discusses public facility service provision for Huntington Beach residents and businesses. The services discussed in this element include: law enforcement, fire protection, marine safety, education, libraries, and governmental administration. Applicable goals include: RA 997\7NI 500 1 TIMLANDUSEDOC 5-11 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility • Protect the community from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime, and provide other necessary services within the City. • Ensure adequate protection from fire and medical emergencies for Huntington Beach residents and property owners. • Promote a strong public school system which advocates quality education. Promote the maintenance and enhancement of the existing educational systems facilities, and promote opportunities for students and residents of the City to enhance the quality of life for existing and future residents. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT The Recreation and Community Services Element has been adopted to identify, maintain, and enhance local parks and recreational services and facilities. Applicable goals include: • Enrich the quality of life for all citizens of Huntington Beach by providing constructive and creative leisure opportunities. • Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. • Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. • Ensure recreation facilities are renovated and upgraded to meet the current recreational interests of adults and youth. • Provide parks and other open space areas that are efficiently designed to maximize use while providing cost efficient maintenance and operations. Applicable policies include: • Maintain the adequacy of the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. • Consider the following when adopting the plan for acquiring and accepting parkland: PA1997\7N15001\EWLANDUSE.DOC 5-12 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility '' a. City's needs for open space and recreation and sports facilities based on current and projected needs; b. City's needs for open space,recreation and sports facilities based on the location of existing open space, and recreation and sports facilities, including school recreation ands sports facilities; C. Preservation of natural resources, and historic and cultural areas; d. Ease of accessibility; e. Usability of proposed parklands (i.e., topography and other landform constraints); and f. Consistency with the City's Park and Master Plan. • Require parkland acquisitions to be fiscally efficient and beneficial to the needs of the community. • Provide for the inclusion of recreational trails in new developments which link with the existing or planned trails. UTILITIES ELEMENT The Utilities Element discusses water supply, sanitation treatment (wastewater), storm drainage, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications. Applicable goals include: • Provide a water supply system which is able to meet the projected water demands; upgrade deficient systems and expand water treatment, supply, and distribution facilities; and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of water provision in the City. • Provide a wastewater collection and treatment system which is able to support permitted land uses, upgrade existing deficient systems, and pursue funding sources to reduce costs of wastewater service provision in the City. • Provide a flood control system which is able to support the permitted land uses while preserving the public safety, upgrade existing deficient systems, and pursue funding sources to reduce the costs of flood control provision in the City. PA 1997\7N15001TIRTANDUSE.DOC 5-13 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility • Maintain solid waste collection and disposal services in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB939), and pursue funding sources to reduce the cost of the collection and disposal services in the City. • Maintain and expand service provision to City of Huntington Beach residences and businesses. Applicable policies include: • Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities, upgrade and expand storm drain and flood control facilities. • Limit new development, when necessary, until adequate flood control facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommodate the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in accordance with the Growth Management Element. • Require improvements to the existing storm drain and flood control facilities necessitated by new development be borne by the new development benefiting from the improvements; either through the payment of fees, or by the actual construction of the improvements in accordance with State Nexus Legislation. • Evaluate any existing environmental degradation or potential degradation from current or planned storm drain and flood control facilities in wetlands or other sensitive environments. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Environmental Resources/Conservation Element addresses the City of Huntington Beach's environmental resources. Applicable goals include: • Improve and enhance the overall aesthetic value and appearance of the City of Huntington Beach through the provision and maintenance of local public and private open space. • Protect and preserve significant habitats of plant and wildlife species, including wetlands, for their intrinsic values. • Conserve the natural environment and resources of the community for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of its residents and visitors. • Maintain the visual quality of the City's natural land forms and water bodies. P:\1997\7N15001\E]R\LANDUSE.DOC 5-14 Environmental Analysis .. Land Use Compatibility AIR QUALITY ELEMENT The purpose of the Air Quality Element is to address air quality factors affecting the City, and establish goals, policies, and programs in order to help achieve the goals of the Air Quality Management Plan adopted by South Coast Air Quality Management District. An applicable goal includes: • Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. COASTAL ELEMENT The Coastal Element, amended in 1992, includes information sufficiently detailed to indicate kinds, location, and intensity of land use and applicable resource protection and development policies. The Coastal Element designates different categories of land uses which will be permitted within the coastal zone and specifies the location of these categories. The land use map, categories, and additional policies together constitute the Coastal Element, which is intended to reflect local conditions and needs while meeting the Coastal Act policies and requirements. The goals and policies within the Coastal Element provide guidance and direction for development in the coastal zone. Applicable goals and policies include: • Encouragement of alternatives to the private automobile for transportation to recreation areas. • Preservation of adequate arterial capacities for recreational traffic. • Increased water conservation by investigating the feasibility of requiring conservation measures in the design of new projects in the coastal zone. • Protection of significant habitat areas requiring wetland enhancement and buffers in exchange for development rights. • Improvement of the aesthetic and biological quality of wetland areas. • Ensure that prior to approval of new development, that adequate sewage facilities can be provided to serve such development. • Ensure that prior to approval of new development, that adequate drainage can be provided to serve such development. • Ensure that prior to approval of new development, that adequate water service can be provided to serve such development. • Provision of transit facilities adequate to encourage and meet future demand. P:\1997\7N15001\EMLANDUSE.DOC 5-15 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The Environmental Hazards Element addresses flooding as it pertains to geologic, seismic, and soils hazards. This Environmental Hazards Element and the referenced materials together satisfy the geologic and seismic portion of the Section 65302 (g) requirement. Applicable goals include: • Ensure that the number of deaths and injuries, levels of property damage, levels of economic and social disruption, and interruption of vital services resulting from seismic activity and geologic hazards shall be within levels of acceptable risk. • Reduce the potential for mesa edge and bluff erosion hazards, and reduce the potential for beach sand loss. • Eliminate, to the greatest degree possible, the risk from flood hazards to life, property, public investment, and social order in the City of Huntington Beach. 0 Ensure the safety of the City's businesses and resident from peat hazards. Applicable policies include: During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific measures to be taken by developers, builders or property owners in flood prone areas (Figure EH-11), to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and the risks upon human safety. Maintain the City's portion of the flood control system at a level necessary to protect residents from 100-year flood risks. NOISE ELEMENT The purpose of the Noise Element is to identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The Noise Element recognizes the guidelines adopted by the Office of Noise Control in the State Department of Health Services and analyzes and quantifies to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: • Highways and freeways; • Primary arterials and major local streets; • Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems; • Aviation and airport related operations; • Other ground stationary noise sources contributing to community noise environment. PA 1997\7N 15001\EWLANDUSE.DOC 5-16 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility An applicable goal includes: • Ensure that all necessary and appropriate actions are taken to protect Huntington Beach residents, employees, visitors, and noise sensitive uses from the adverse impacts created by excessive noise levels from stationary and ambient sources. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ELEMENT In February, 1987, the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed the preparation of a countywide hazardous waste management plan. The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, completed in January, 1989 and amended in June, 1991, establishes a city and county action program for managing hazardous waste through the year 2000. The City of Huntington Beach must implement and incorporate applicable portions of the County Plan into its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and has done so through the preparation of the Hazardous Materials Element. An applicable goal includes: • Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property, and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Under the present Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City of Huntington Beach portion of the project site is currently zoned RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential - Floodplain District) and RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture-Coastal Zone Overlay). Exhibit 4-8-17 in Section 3.0 Project Description of this EIR illustrates on-site and surrounding existing zoning. The current zoning map for the property is inconsistent with the actual zoning that should be placed on the site. The RL-FP2 designation should contain the CZ suffix, as the project site is located within the Coastal Zone area; however, it does not. As indicated on Exhibit 4-9 17, the western portion of the site is currently zoned RA-CZ. Property north, east, and south of the project site is currently zoned RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential -Floodplain District). Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program The Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program (LCP) was adopted in 1997; however,it should be noted that a lawsuit regarding the LCP approval is pending. The LCP encompasses approximately 1,599 acres within the unincorporated northwestern Orange County, within which the 4.5-acre portion of the project site is contained. The Bolsa Chica LCP area lies entirely within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act, and is therefore under the land use planning and regulatory jurisdiction of both the County of Orange and the California Coastal Commission. 5-17 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility An LCP is defined by Coastal Act §30108.6 as follows: "Local coastal program" means a local government's (a) land use plans, (b) zoning ordinances, (c) zoning district maps, and (d) within sensitive coastal resources areas, other implementing actions, which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of, this division at the local level. " This LCP was prepared by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency to: 1) comprehensively satisfy the requirements of the California Coastal Act for a Land Use Plan for this area; and 2) establish the County's General Plan, zoning ordinances, zoning regulations, and other implementing action programs required for the Bolsa Chica Segment of the North Coast Planning Unit of the County's LCP. The Bolsa Chica LCP is organized into three (3)parts: 1) Land Use Plan; 2) Planned Community Program; and 3) Wetlands Restoration Program. The Land Use Plan is the general planning and policy component of the LCP. It illustrates the location and intensity of public and private land uses, identifies primary roads and trails, provides development and resource conservation policies, and includes detailed components to accomplish the objectives of the California Coastal Act and County General Plan. The Planning Community Program includes land use regulations and site development standards for all the public and private development areas within the community. It establishes both specific regulations applicable to each Land Use Planning Area, and general regulations for off-street parking, signage, and oil production anywhere within the Planned Community. The Wetlands Restoration Program is necessary to implement Land Use Plan policies for the restoration and conservation of sensitive coastal resources areas within Bolsa Chica. LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Summary chapter of the LCP Land Use Plan provides a general description of the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan (LUP). Subsequent chapters of the LUP provide the specific policies, technical information, and plans related to particular resource or development components of the plan. The LUP Summary designates and zones the 4.5-acre County parcel as ML (Medium-Low Density Residential - 6.5-12.5 dwelling units per acre)within Planning Area 9 of Bolsa Chica. The various components of the LUP that relate to the project site and associated policies are discussed below. PA1997\7N15001\EIR\LANDUSE.D0C 5-18 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility RESOURCE RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION COMPONENT This section of the LUP provides the policies that set the standards for, and guide implementation of, the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Program. Under the identified policies, the Wetlands Restoration Program will restore the Lowland by creating a wetlands ecosystem. Consequently, the policies cover: creation, preservation, and restoration of wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), and buffers; protection of endangered and threatened species; phasing and funding requirements; and monitoring and maintenance programs. The Orange County parcel is designated as Medium-Low Residential and is not located within a Conservation Planning Area as identified on the LUP. However, the parcel does contain 4 .4 acres of designated pocket wetlands. A small triangular piece of the County Parcel (13 acres along the most westerly edge) is within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as mapped by the State Department of Fish and Game on June 3, 1982 (see Exhibit 47 in Section 6.7 of this EIR). COASTAL/MARINE RESOURCES COMPONENT This section identifies LUP policies for tidal hydrology, water quality management, and flood control. Both the Wetlands Restoration Program and the Planned Community Program set forth more detailed plans, regulatory requirements, and maintenance/monitoring responsibilities that implement these policies. Applicable policies include the following: • All drainage facilities and erosion control measures at Bolsa Chica shall be designed and constructed to protect coastal/marine resources in accordance with the Orange County Flood Control District Design Manual and the Orange County Grading Code. • Urban runoff from the Bolsa Chica LCP Area shall comply with all existing and applicable Federal, State, and local water quality laws and regulations. • The EGGW Flood Control Channel shall be upgraded between Graham Street and the Full Tidal portion of Wetlands Ecosystem Area to provide combined extreme tide/100-year storm event protection to existing and future homes in the area. PHYSICAL RESOURCES COMPONENT This section sets forth the geotechnical policies for Bolsa Chica, and includes technical information related to mitigation of geologic hazards and implementation of the LUP. It discusses soil conditions and potential liquefaction, faulting, groundwater and subsidence, and the stability of bluffs and slopes adjacent to development and within Hariett Wieder Regional Park. Applicable policies include the following: CAMYDOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-19 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility • Structures for human occupancy, which are located in areas of liquefiable soils, shall conform with all design mitigations required by the County of Orange to minimize risk to life and property. Where appropriate, mitigation should include foundation designs and measures to increase the resistance of the underlying soils to liquefaction. • In accordance with California's Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, all development within Bolsa Chica shall be consistent with the site planning and engineering guidelines and the real estate disclosure requirements for the Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zones established for the Newport-Inglewood fault zone that traverses Bolsa Chica. • Surficial subsidence shall be monitored and groundwater re-pressurization or other methods shall be used to limit potential subsidence impacts. • Where development areas adjoin bluffs, all buildings and habitable structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from the bluff edge to be structurally safe from the threat of bluff erosion for a minimum of 50 years. Geotechnical engineering reports shall be required by the County of Orange to determine this setback. CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPONENT This section describes the archaeological and paleontological resources within Bolsa Chica, and how they will be preserved,protected, and/or documented. Applicable policies include: • The Bolsa Chica Planned Community Program shall require compliance with all County- adopted archaeological/paleontological policies and Board of Supervisors Resolution No. 77-866 related to cultural and scientific resources, to ensure that all reasonable and proper steps are taken to either preserve archaeological remains in place, or alternatively, that measures are taken to assure the recovery, identification, and analysis of such resources so that their scientific and historical values are preserved. VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES COMPONENT This section provides the policies to protect and enhance Bolsa Chica's visual and scenic resources. In conjunction with implementation of the Wetlands Restoration Program, these policies will restore and protect the visual character of Bolsa Chica and remediate the scenic degradation that has occurred over the last 100 years. Applicable policies include: • The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, PA1997\7N15001\EIRTANDUSE.DOC 5-20 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. The purpose of this policy is to protect existing views of the coast from public areas. • Public viewing opportunities shall be provided from all trails within Bolsa Chica, including: a. The Class I Trail within the Buffer which separates the Muted Tidal wetlands from the Bolsa Chica Mesa development; b. The Class I Trail along the EGGW Flood Control Channel; and C. The Class I Trail along the flood control berm that separates the most inland Muted Tidal wetlands from the Lowland development, and along the boardwalk that connects Harriet Wieder Regional Park with the Lowland. • Utilities for all development shall be placed underground, unless impractical or undesirable from a comprehensive environmental perspective. • Existing above-ground utilities and oil equipment shall be removed from Bolsa Chica wherever and whenever possible, without interfering with the oil operations. PUBLIC ACCESS AND VISITOR-SERVING RECREATION COMPONENT This chapter sets forth the LUP policies for public coastal access and visitor-serving recreation and interpretive facilities that will serve residents and visitors to Bolsa Chica. It discusses how the new trails, parks, and open space areas will complement and tie together the existing regional facilities, including Bolsa Chica State Beach, the State Ecological Reserve, and Huntington Central Park. Applicable policies include: • All visitor-serving interpretive facilities shall be designed to be compatible with wildlife habitats. Public trails and interpretive programs shall be designed to ensure they do not adversely affect the Wetlands Ecosystem Area. • Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. • A comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails shall be provided for public access. This network shall link Huntington Central Park, Harriet Wieder Regional Park, Bolsa Chica Wetlands Ecosystem Area, Bolsa Chica State Beach, Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve, and the Bolsa Chica Mesa bluff trail to surrounding residential, "^ recreation, and public parking areas. PA1997\7N15001\EIR\LANDUSE.D0C 5-21 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility • All bikeways shall be consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Regional Bikeways and the Huntington Beach Master Plan of Local Bikeways. • The Landowner/Master Developer shall dedicate to the County of Orange or other public agency, the land and/or easements within the Bolsa Chica LCP Area that are required for public trails indicated on the Coastal Access and Recreation Plan. REGIONAL CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT This chapter sets forth the Regional Circulation/Transportation Policies of this LUP and provides technical information regarding new primary and secondary arterial highways to be constructed within the Bolsa Chica LCP Area, as well as a regional improvement program (County-labeled Area Traffic Improvement Program) that will be implemented in conjunction with the project. Additionally, this chapter includes Air Quality Policies and related technical information. Applicable policies include: • An Area Traffic Improvement Program (ATIP) shall be created and include the following elements: a. Regional road improvements that enhance coastal access; b. Improvements to Bolsa Chica Street, Warner Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway which are the primary travel corridors serving the LCP Area; C. Provision of funding for traffic improvements; and d. A traffic improvement phasing plan which ensures that road improvements are phased in conjunction with residential and commercial development. • Non-auto circulation shall be provided within the Planned Community, including Class I and Class II bicycle, equestrian, and hiking trails linking community parks, Bolsa Chica State Beach, and Harriet Wieder Regional Park. Pedestrian connections from residential subdivisions to these trails shall be provided. Surrounding communities shall also have access to these trails to facilitate non-vehicular access to local and regional recreational opportunities. Safe and secure bicycle racks shall be provided at appropriate locations within the community and regional parks, along the trails, and within the visitor-serving and neighborhood commercial development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. • The arterial highway facilities implemented as part of the Planned Community shall include provisions for bus turnouts at appropriate locations. • Pedestrian linkages from adjacent residential uses shall be furnished to accommodate access to the bus transit systems. P:\1997\7N15001\EIMLANDUSE.DOC 5-22 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT This chapter sets forth the LUP development policies for both the 234-acre Bolsa Chica Mesa, which lies south of Warner Avenue and east of Outer Bolsa Bay, and the 185-acre northeast portion of the Bolsa Chica Lowland, which lies between the Wetlands Ecosystem Area and existing residential areas in the City of Huntington Beach. The LUP descriptions include policies, as well as plans and technical information, relating to residential and neighborhood commercial land uses, local roads and infrastructure, and community design. Applicable policies include: • The number of dwelling units for the Bolsa Chica Mesa shall not exceed 1,235. • A wide range of residential densities and housing types shall be permitted on the Bolsa Chica Mesa. A comparatively narrow range of Low-Density housing types shall be permitted in the Northeast Lowland. Although individual projects may vary, overall Planning Area densities shall not exceed the County General Plan's "Suburban" Residential Neighborhoods category (i.e., 0.5 to 18.0 DU/AC). • Street lights and other lamps over twelve (12) feet high in development areas shall be shielded to reduce the amount of light straying into the Wetlands Ecosystem Area. • New residential development shall be compatible in terms of neighborhood character and scale with existing, adjacent residential development in the City of Huntington Beach. • Community parks, trails, and an interpretive kayak/canoe facility shall serve the recreational needs of local residents, and shall also supply public coastal access and staging areas for visitors to Bolsa Chica where appropriate. • Water supply for development and fire protection shall be established in cooperation with an existing water agency or through the creation of a new agency. • Domestic and landscape water conservation devices shall be required in all new development,pursuant to State and County laws and guidelines. • Reclaimed water shall be used for public parkways and common area landscape irrigation within Bolsa Chica if the Orange County Water District and the Landowner/Master Developer reach agreement that it is economically feasible to provide reclaimed water through OCWD's Green Acres Project. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\ILANDUSE.DOC 5-23 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility OIL PRODUCTION COMPONENT This chapter provides the LUP policies necessary to allow oil production to continue at Bolsa Chica, and to ensure compatibility between ongoing oil production and wetlands restoration and development. According to Figure 7.3-1 of the LCP LUP, the project site does not contain any oil producing facilities. FINANCING AND PHASING COMPONENT This chapter sets forth the LUP policies for the phasing and financing of wetlands restoration and community development. An applicable policy includes: • Residential development shall be phased in conjunction with the capacity of public facilities and services. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. A project may be deemed to have a significant land use effect if it will: (a) Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; (b) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. A significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in physical development, which is inconsistent with the adopted goals and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan or Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance, and the Bolsa Chica LCP. Additionally, a significant land use impact would occur if implementation of the project would create incompatibilities of land use either on or off-site. The proposed project will result in the development of single family residential and a park, which will establish new land use relationships with adjacent land uses. The overall effect of the change in land use associated with the project creates potential impacts. These impacts are evaluated based on the above stated impact criteria. The following analysis includes impacts that would result from the implementation of the proposed project as described in Section 3.0 Project Description of this document. Impacts associated with implementation of alternatives for this project are discussed in Section 6.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project. P:\1997\7N15001\EJR\LANDUSE.D0C 5-24 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility Where there are measurable definitive General Plan or LCP standards, this EIR has used these standards for impact criteria (i.e. noise, traffic, air, water supply, and storm drainage). The standards are discussed further in the Transportation/ Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, Drainage/Hydrology and Public Services and Utilities sections of this EIR. On-Site Land Use The proposed project will allow for the development of the site with 249 206 single-family homes, a t 3-.6-3.8-acre park, and 4A 4.4-acre open space area. Of the total 2-09 206 units, 444 179 will be located on the 44.5-acre portion located within the City of Huntington Beach (refer to Exhibit 6a), while 27 units will be located on the 4.5-acre County of Orange portion (refer to Exhibit 6c). Exhibits 9 through 14 in Section 3.0 Project Description of this document identify the proposed residential building elevations for the project. Lots, as shown on Exhibits 6a and 6c of Section 3.0 Project Description of this EIR, will vary from 50-foot frontage with an average lot size of approximately 5-,770 5,754 square feet, to 60-foot frontage with an average lot size of approximately 7-,030 7,077 square feet. The combined overall average lot size is approximately 6,350 square feet. These uses are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and the Bolsa Chica LCP. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project will establish on-site land use relationships. A total of 109 lots will have a minimum of 5,000 square feet, identified as Parkside Homes, and 95 97 lots will have a minimum of 6,000 square feet, identified as The Estates. Exhibit 7 of the Project Description section illustrates the proposed layout of a typical 5,000 SF lot, while Exhibit 8 illustrates the proposed layout of a typical 6,000 SF lot. Based on the layout of the residential subdivision and its consistency with General Plan and LCP uses identified for the site, no impacts related to on-site residential land use relationships are anticipated. Implementation of the proposed project will establish on-site land use relationships between the proposed residential uses adjacent to the proposed park. The proposed land uses will not result in significant effects resulting from the proposed park's adjacency to the proposed residential land uses. An interior roadway is proposed between these uses, which provides distance between these uses. Additionally, the park will not include park lighting and is not intended for competitive league games. No impacts related to on-site land use relationships between the proposed park and proposed residential uses are anticipated. Surroundinz Land Use Implementation of the proposed project will establish new land use relationships with adjacent land uses. As previously identified under Existing Conditions, land uses immediately adjacent to the project site include the following: single family residential to the north located along Green 5-25 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility Leaf "venu Greenleaf Lane and Kenilworth Drive, multi-family residential (Cabo del Mar) to the northwest of the site, single family residential to the east across Graham Street, the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and single family residential to the south, and open space to the west. The project site generally is located within a low-density single family residential area, with the exception of multi-family residential land uses located north of the western portion of the site. As stated previously, the densities of the areas adjacent to the site containing single-family homes (Areas 1 through 4) range from 4.43 to 4.74 dwelling units per acre. The overall average density for Areas 1 through 4 is 4.62 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, Area 5 contains 4-plex units on 6.421 acres, while Area 6 contains 288 condominium units on 12.506 acres, resulting in a density of 24.2 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes 209 206 dwelling units on approximately 49.5 acres, resulting in an average density of 44-7 4.13 acres per dwelling unit (refer to Table Q. The proposed project's density is less than the densities of single family residential land uses surrounding the site, and less than the multi-family residential located north of the site. The project also proposes to create single family homes that will possess characteristics similar to the surrounding neighborhoods (refer to Exhibits 9 through 14 in Section 3.0 Project Description of this document). Therefore, the establishment of new residential land use relationships with adjacent land uses will not result in significant impacts. The proposed park may result in significant effects related to land use relationships between the existing off-site residential uses and the proposed park site. The project proposes to replae-ethe -Yen*wall with construct a six-foot masonry privacy wall that would run along the rear property line of Lots 103 to Lots 123 and the side property line of Lots 125 and 126. Shea proposes to protect in place, the existing block wall along the north boundary of the site (i.e., homes along Kenilworth Drive). The City is requesting that a dual wall situation not be created between the proposed wall and the existing wall along the north boundary of the site, and that the developer attempt to obtain cooperation from the owner's of the adjacent property to remove and replace the existing wall thereby eliminating the dual wall situation. Additionally, the park will not include park lighting and is not intended for competitive league games. No impacts related to land use relationships between the proposed park and existing off-site residential uses are anticipated. Land Use Plans City of Huntington Beach General Plan/Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The proposed project will result in development that is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL-7 (Residential — Low Density). Additionally, please refer to the following discussion: 5-26 Environmental Analysis ••�, Land Use Compatibility LAND USE ELEMENT The proposed project will result in development of single family residential, which is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and Map. The residential component of the proposed project complies with the intent and is consistent with the previously stated goals and policies of the Land Use Element. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use Element resulting from implementation of the residential component of the project are anticipated. The project also proposes to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Map to accommodate a park site as part of the project. The outline of the park site currently does not conform to the City's existing Land Use Map. The City Community Services Department proposes to modify the Land Use Map so that a portion of the site designated RL-7 is changed to OS-PR (Open Space - Parks and Recreation). The change results in residential designated land converting to open space/park area. Additionally, the OS-PR designation would simply be an extension of the existing OS-PR designation, versus introducing a new land use into the area; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. Additionally, the City proposes to amend the General Plan to designate the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel from MLR(Medium-Low Residential), which allows for 6.5 — 12.5 DU/AC to RL- 7 (Residential Low Density), which allows for 7 DU/AC. This would ensure appropriate and consistent zoning if the County parcel is annexed into the City. Implementation of the Amendment to the General Plan will result in the project's consistency with the City's Land Use Map. Since the actual residential densities do not change significantly as a result of this amendment, no impacts are anticipated. The project also proposes various building elevations and facades to ensure that single-family residential units convey a high level of quality and character. Building materials, colors, and construction elements are proposed to blend with the existing adjacent residential developments. The amount and width of paving of front yards for driveway and garage access has been minimized to allow for landscaping (refer to Section 3.0 Project Description of this document for examples of proposed building elevations and layouts). With the exception of the "L" Street terminus, the The project does not propose cul-de-sacs, but rather, proposes the interconnection of individual streets that emphasizes a patter pattern of "blocks", consistent with policies of the Land Use Element. Sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian paths, linking the community areas and providing linkages to adjacent land uses are proposed (refer to Section 3.0 Project Description and Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare). CAMY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EM\LANDUSE.DOC 5-27 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Specific aesthetic and visual image impacts are discussed in the Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of this EIR. The proposed project will comply with the intent of the Urban Design Element as discussed in Section 5.2 of this document. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Urban Design Element are anticipated. Additionally, the applicant shall be responsible for conducting an "annexation feasibility study" to determine whether the proposed annexation of the County parcel complies with the City's requirements. Based on the study's findings, the City would then pursue annexation as appropriate. HOUSING ELEMENT The proposed project will not result in impacts to the Housing Element. The project site is designated as Low Density Residential. Buildout of the project area is accounted for in the General Plan and future growth scenarios for the City. The project will not result in a loss of land designated for the provision of affordable housing. The proposed project may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. The applicant has proposed various scenarios in order to comply with the City's Affordable Housing policy; however, mitigation has been provided to ensure compliance with this policy. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy occur. HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT The project site does not contain significant historical resources; however, it does contain significant archaeological resources. Buildout of the proposed project will implement the policies of the Historical and Cultural Resources Element. Please refer to Section 5.9 Cultural Resources of this document for a complete discussion of potential effects to archaeological/paleontological resources resulting from the proposed project. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT The project will comply with the intent and goals of the Economic Development Element. Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase of City residents to assist in the stabilization of the City's economic base. No conflict or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and the Economic Development Element are anticipated. P:\1997\7N15001\E1R\LANDUSE.D0C 5-28 Environmental Analysis 11 Land Use Compatibility CIRCULATION/GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENTS Buildout of the proposed project will implement the policies of the Circulation Element. The planned road capacities have been evaluated based on proposed land uses. Please refer to Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation of this EIR for a complete discussion of the transportation impacts associated with the proposed project. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT This development will alter the need for various services in the area. The public services and utilities agencies involved have been contacted during preparation of this Environmental Impact Report. Specific impacts to these services are discussed in detail in the Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR. No impacts to the Public Facilities and Public Services Element are anticipated. Please refer to Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of this EIR for a complete discussion of the public services and utilities impacts associated with the proposed project. RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ELEMENT The Recreation and Community Services Element indicates a park goal of five acres per 1,000 population. Buildout of the proposed project would result in additional population, resulting in a need for additional parkland. The project proposes a±3;6 3.8-acre park adjacent to a±4.64.4-acre open space area within the northwestern corner of the project site, consistent with the Land Use Element designation and the goals and policies of the Recreation and Community Services Element. A more detailed discussion of required parkland and the recreational components of the project can be found in Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Recreation and Community Services Element are anticipated. UTILITIES ELEMENT This development will alter the need for various services in the area. The City of Huntington Beach Public Works and other utilities agencies involved have been contacted during preparation of this EIR. Specific impacts to these services are discussed in detail in Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Utilities Element are anticipated. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES/CONSERVATION ELEMENT The proposed project will not result in inconsistencies with the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Resources/Conservation Element. Implementation of the proposed project will allow for the development of residential, park, and open space uses. The project will result in the 5-29 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility development of underutilized land, which has been proposed for eventual development of residential uses by the City's Land Use Element. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element are anticipated. AIR QUALITY ELEMENT Specific air quality impacts, both short- and long-term, are discussed in Section 5.4 Air Quality of this EIR. The proposed project will comply with the goals of the Air Quality Element. Mitigation measures to reduce short-term and long-term air quality impacts are provided in Section 5.4 Air Quality of this EIR. The proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD's emission level thresholds after mitigation; therefore, impacts are not considered significant. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Air Quality Element are anticipated. COASTAL ELEMENT The proposed project site is located within the Coastal Zone; however, current zoning of the Huntington Beach portion of the project site does not reflect this because the portion of the project site located within the Huntington Beach LCP was deferred certification by the Coastal Commission in 1985. The current zoning map designates the residential-designated portion of the site as RL-FP2; however, since this area is located within the Coastal Zone, it should be designated as RL-FP2-CZ. Consequently, the standard of review remains the Coastal Act and any proposed development occurring in the project site will require a coastal development permit (refer to Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR)from the Commission until the area is certified. The project area within the City limits was deferred certification based on unresolved issues regarding the protection of wetlands. The project proposes a zoning map amendment to correct this map inconsistency and certify the area. Implementation of the project's proposed zoning map amendment will require that development of the site comply with the provisions of the City's Coastal Element. Additionally, the project provides for trail linkages and recreation open space consistent with the Coastal Element.The proposed project will comply with the goals and policies of the Coastal Element that are identified under Existing Conditions. A more detailed discussion of the project's consistency with Coastal Element goals and policies can be found in Sections 5.2 through 5.10 of this document. Buildout of the proposed project will not result in any impacts to the Coastal Element. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The proposed project will comply with the intent of the Environmental Hazards Element by undergoing all required geologic and seismic safety processes and programs. A more detailed discussion of geologic characteristics of the site can be found in the Earth Resources section of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Environmental Hazards Element are anticipated with the proposed project. 5-30 Environmental Analysis ,.N Land Use Compatibility NOISE ELEMENT Specific short-term and long-term noise impacts to on-site and off-site sensitive receptors are discussed in Section 5.5 Noise of this EIR. The proposed project will comply with the intent and goals of the Noise Element by complying with all applicable short- and long-term noise standards. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Noise Element are anticipated. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ELEMENT Potential impacts associated with proposed land uses are discussed in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of this EIR. The proposed project will comply with the intent and goals of the Hazardous Materials Element. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Hazardous Materials Element are anticipated. Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance The proposed project will result in amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Map Amendment request consists of three elements. First, the City Community Services Department proposes to amend the City's Zoning Map to accommodate the park site. The outline of the park site currently does not conform to the City's zoning map. The map will be modified so that the park site will be zoned OS-PR(Open Space -Parks and Recreation) instead of RL-FP2. Second, the property owner (Shea Homes) proposes to add the CZ (Coastal Zone) suffix to the City's zoning map. Sectional District Map No. 28-5-11 of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance currently identifies the site as RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential - Floodplain District). This designation should also contain the CZ suffix, as the project site is located within the Coastal Zone area. Third, the project proposes to prezone the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel from MLR (medium-low density), which allows for 6.5 to 12.5 DU/AC, to RL- FP2-CZ (Residential Low Density - Floodplain District - Coastal Zone), which allows for 7 DU/AC. The first two (2) zoning amendments can be characterized as "clean-up"-type amendments, and the third amendment is required for annexation of the 4.5-acre County parcel. The amendment does not increase the density of allowed units. Therefore, the proposed amendments as identified above will not significantly change the existing zoning and uses of the site. The zone change will be compatible with surrounding zoning. Approval of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to City zoning compatibility. No project-specific impacts to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are anticipated. 5-31 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program LAND USE PLAN The proposed project may result in impacts to the LCP LUP. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 27 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County of Orange parcel. As indicated under existing conditions, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (medium low residential - 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). Additionally, the approved LUP identifies a cap of 1,235 residential units to be developed within the Bolsa Chica area. Potential development of the County portion of the project site has been accounted for under the LUP. Construction of 27 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel would result in a density of 3-2 6.0 dwelling units per acre, which is lower(but not significantly lower) than the existing designated density of between 6.5 and 12.5 DU/AC. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. RESOURCE RESTORATION AND CONSERVATION COMPONENT As identified in the existing conditions, the County parcel of the project site contains .4 acres of pocket wetlands and.l3 acres of ESHA. Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to this pocket wetlands area are provided in Section 5.8 Biological Resources of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Resource Restoration and Conservation Component of the LCP are anticipated. COASTAL%% RIME RESOURCES COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Coastal/Marine Resources Component related to water quality management and flood control. A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal/Marine Resources Component of the LCP are anticipated. PHYSICAL RESOURCES COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Physical Resources Component related to soils conditions, potential liquefaction, faulting, groundwater and subsidence, and slope stability. A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5.6 Earth Resources of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Physical Resources Component of the LCP are anticipated. 5-32 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Cultural Resources Component related to the preservation, protection, and/or documentation of cultural resources. According to archival information from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, the Bolsa Chica LCP Area does not contain any recognized or previously-recorded paleontological sites. An archaeological survey has been conducted for the site. A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5.9 Cultural Resources of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Cultural Resources Component of the LCP are anticipated. VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Visual and Scenic Resources Component related to the protection and enhancement of Bolsa Chica's visual and scenic resources. A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Visual and Scenic Resources Component of the LCP are anticipated. PUBLIC ACCESS AND VISITOR-SERVING RECREATION COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Public Access and Visitor-Serving Recreation Component related to the provision of trails, parks, and open space areas that will complement and tie together the existing regional facilities. The project proposes the development of a park site adjacent to open space areas, and also allows for the accommodation of City/County-designated trails. A more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in Section 5.2 Aesthetics/Light and Glare and Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Public Access and Visitor-Serving Recreation Component of the LCP are anticipated. REGIONAL CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Regional Circulation/Transportation Component related to the provision of primary and secondary arterial highways to be constructed within the LCP area. A more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in Section 5.3 Transportation/Circulation of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Regional Circulation/Transportation Component of the LCP are anticipated. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-3 3 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the applicable policies of the Development Component related to residential land uses, local roads and infrastructure, and community design. The proposed development within the County parcel (i.e. 27 dwelling units) is consistent with the LUP, and is compatible in terms of neighborhood character and scale with existing adjacent residential development in the City of Huntington Beach (refer to Surrounding Land Use discussion). The project proposed 3-6 3.8-acre park is consistent with Development Component policies related to the provision of parks to serve the recreational needs of local residents. The project proposes to provide adequate water supply for development and fire protection in cooperation with existing water agencies. Domestic and landscape water conservation devices are also proposed. A more detailed discussion of these issues can be found in Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Development Component of the LCP are anticipated. OIL PRODUCTION COMPONENT The project site does not contain any oil producing facilities. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Oil Production Component of the LCP are anticipated. FINANCING AND PHASING COMPONENT Buildout of the proposed project will implement the policy of the Financing and Phasing Component related to the phasing of development in conjunction with the capacity of public facilities and services. A more detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Section 5.10 Public Services and Utilities of this EIR. No conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Financing and Phasing Component of the LCP are anticipated. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative impact of development in the area. The potential development of the project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program as analyzed above. No significant cumulative land use consistency impacts are anticipated. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall submit three copies of the site plan to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. If street names are necessary, submit proposal to Fire Department for review and approval. CAMYDOCUMENTWHEA\1-2000.E MANDUSE.DOC 5-34 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility B. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall depict all utility apparatus, such as, but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. C. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall depict colors and building materials as proposed. D. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall submit a Landscape Construction Set to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works for approval. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and include all proposed/existing plan materials (location, type, size, quantity), and irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 Landscape Improvements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. E. The applicant/owner shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. F. The required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed and installed by the applicant/owner prior to release of the models. G. All improvements (including landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. H. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to recordation of a final tract map, the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring 10 percent of proposed units to be affordable. This requirement must be satisfied to the discretion of the City Planning Department through one of the following methods: P:\1997\7N 15001\EIIt\LANDUSE.DOC 5-3 5 Environmental Analysis Land Use Compatibility a. Pay a fee to the City, if such a process is available; b. Participate with other developers or a non-profit organization to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing apartment units at any off-site location within a suitable area and provide for continued affordability; or C. Provide the required affordable units at one of Shea Homes' future multi-family projects within the City of Huntington Beach. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE No impacts related to on-site residential land use relationships are anticipated. No impacts related to on-site land use relationships between the proposed park and proposed residential uses are anticipated. The establishment of new residential land use relationships with adjacent land uses will not result in significant impacts. No impacts related to land use relationships between the proposed park and existing off-site residential uses are anticipated. The proposed project will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Urban Design, Housing, Historic and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Growth Management, Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services, Recreation and Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources/ Conservation, Air Quality, Coastal, Environmental Hazards, Noise, and Hazardous Materials Elements of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The proposed project may result in inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing Policy. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. The proposed project will not result in impacts to the Land Use Plan, or its associated components, of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with the applicable goals and policies of the Land Use, Urban Design, Historic and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Growth Management, Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services, Recreation and Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources/Conservation, Air Quality, Coastal, Environmental P:\1997\7N15001\EIMANDUSELOC 5-36 Environmental Analysis , Land Use Compatibility Hazards,Noise, and Hazardous Material Elements.No significant cumulative land use impacts to the above stated elements are anticipated. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, may result in inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing Policy. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will not result in impacts to the Land Use Plan, or its associated components, of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. -..% P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\LANDUSE.DOC 5-3 7 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare 5.2 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE EXISTING CONDITIONS Aesthetics (View Analysis) The visual character of the project site is primarily disced vacant land. The site is flat with the exception of a rolling hill within the northwestern corner of the site that extends in a southwesterly direction. The predominant vegetation on the site includes two (2) eucalyptus groves in the northwestern portion of the site. Surrounding land uses consist of Low-Density and Medium-High Density Residential uses,the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, and open space. The northern border of the site is bounded primarily by existing single-family residential development. The northwestern border of the site is bounded by existing multi-family residential development (Cabo del Mar condominiums). The eastern border of the site is bounded by Graham Street, while the southern boundary is bounded by the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, which carries stormdrain runoff to the Pacific Ocean. The western off-site border of the project site is bounded primarily by open space with the exception of a small horse boarding area, which includes a stable and an existing storage area associated with the stable. Site-Photos A view analysis was prepared for the project. Photographs have been taken of the project site and surrounding off-site areas. Exhibit 20 Site Photo Index shows the location from which each photograph was taken. Existing on-site conditions are depicted in Exhibits 21 and 22. Existing off-site conditions are depicted in Exhibit 23 and 24. Exhibit 21, Site Photograph A, is a view from the southeastern corner of the project site adjacent to Graham Street, looking northwest across the site towards the existing off-site residential areas located directly north of the project site. This photograph shows Graham Street in the right corner and the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel that extends to the Pacific Ocean in the left corner. Exhibit 21, Site Photograph B, is a view from the northern property edge near Greenleaf Lane, looking west over the project site towards the northerly most existing on-site eucalyptus grove and beyond. Existing off-site multi-family residential uses (Cabo del Mar condominiums) can be seen in the right background of the photo. Exhibit 21, Site Photograph C, is a view from the edge of East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel towards the most westerly portion of the site. This view shows the existing unrecorded 10-foot above-ground gas line located on-site and a portion of the southerly most eucalyptus grove. PA I 997\7N 1500 1 TMAESTHETICS.DOC 5-3 8 \ o cr . ANI ® -, - ke P3 Al AN NNO �i .��� rl A� mm — a. ,� '�.� �V`'� 't'�;f,'_�'" �!R ail )i�`• � \aA gip"i+±�+�.��. �-=--�� ✓ � -� \�L \��t�l��_ �_ - .n_•� � � �, Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach Wintersburg Channel Eucal tus Grove yp Existing Residential Graham Street may_p � . - '�-�`:�` fi' .....�- _a�. • +! i l - .�c - sl � fit': �.`>: , s Y+4S•„e... y1 ti c.-, _ .. - y OView of Project Site Looking Northeast Eucalyptus Grove Eucalyptus Trees Existing Horse Stable Northern Boundary m ersburg Channel Existing Gas line (above ground) r; N © View of the Northwestern Portion of Site © View of the Southwestern Portion of Site EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 21 Source: EDAW, Inc. Site Photos (A,B&C) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach Graham Street Saddleback Mountains Wintersburg Channel Existing Residential OView of the Project Site Looking Southeast EW7 Cabo Del Mar Existing Residential Saddleback Mountains Condominiums Graham Street Existing Residential W°� . _ r _777 s..3."s r • O View of the Project Site Looking Northeast EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 22 Source: EDAW, Inc. Site Photos (D&E) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach • Project Site Existing Graham Street Kenilworth Drive i i . _t tL x . ....-., 1.-. OView From the Intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive Looking West Graham Street Northern Boundary it Kenilworth Drive - 'Kenilworth Drive © View Along Kenilworth Drive O View Along Kenilworth Drive O View of Northwestern Portion of Project Looking East Looking West Looking North EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 23 Source: EDAW, Inc. Site Photos (F,G,H&I) Parkside Estates EIR 974 City of Huntington Bean • Off-Site Existing Storage Area Wintersburg Channel Existing Residential O1- 1rei Horse Stable Graham Street r Cabo Del Mar Cond_ ominiurims y ' OView of Project Site Looking East O View of Western Portion of Project Site LookingWest to Existing Storage Arm Off-Site Existing Horse Stable Wintersburg Channel ° s _'ram. a r ��_- .,.r^+. •r,.:= .. -: - .. .. . . - © View Looking West of Existing Stables EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 2 Source: EDAW, Inc. Site Photos (J,K&L Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare Exhibit 22, Site Photograph D, is a view from the top of the existing on-site knoll area in the northwestern portion of the project site looking southeast across the site. This photograph shows the existing off-site residential developments across the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and surrounding area. On-site eucalyptus trees can be seen in the left foreground of the site photo. Exhibit 22, Site Photograph E, is a view from the center of the project site looking northeast across the project site toward the existing off-site residential land uses. The on-site eucalyptus trees can be identified in the left portion of the photo. The Cabo del Mar condominiums, located off-site near the northwestern portion of the project site, can be seen beyond the on-site eucalyptus trees. The existing off-site residential uses located further east beyond Graham Street can be seen in the background. Exhibit 23, Site Photograph F, is an off-site view from the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Drive looking southwest across Graham Street. This photograph shows the off-site adjacent single-family residential community located directly north of the project site. Site Photograph G is a view from Kenilworth Drive looking east towards the intersection of Kenilworth Drive and Graham Street, while Site Photograph H is a view from Kenilworth Drive looking west towards the intersection of Kenilworth Drive and Greenleaf Lane. Site Photograph I is a view from the northwestern portion of the project site looking off-site, north toward the terminus of Greenleaf Lane and the existing residential development. Exhibit 24, Site Photograph J, is a view from the southern boundary of the project site adjacent to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel looking northeast along the channel. Graham Street is depicted, as well as the existing off-site single-family residential located just beyond this street. The off-site Cabo del Mar condominiums (multi-family residential uses), located north of the project site, as well as the existing on-site eucalyptus grove, are depicted in the left portion of the photo. Exhibit 24, Site Photograph K, is a view from the western portion of the site looking west off-site towards the existing eucalyptus grove and off-site storage area. Exhibit 24, Site Photograph L, is a view from the western boundary looking further west. The photograph depicts the existing horse stable and associated storage area located off-site. Surrounding Views A few of the two-story residences located north of the project site currently maintain views of the vacant project site as well as the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, which is located just south of the site. With current elevations, a six-foot wall running along the majority of the boundary between the existing residences and the project site prohibits views of the project site from the back yards/first stories of the existing single-family homes. The current elevation of the project site area adjacent to the existing homes is approximately 2.0 feet below sea level, while the existing homes sit at approximately 1.0 foot above sea level. The raised flood control channel sits at approximately 10 to 12 feet above sea level. Some of the existing two-story residences along Kenilworth Drive maintain a slight view of the Bolsa Chica Area southwest of the project site, from their second stories. From this location, residents are also able to view the project site and the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. PA 1997\7N 15001\EIRUESTHETICS.DOC 5-44 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare The stands of eucalyptus trees, one (1) located in the northwestern portion and one (1) in the southwestern portion of the site, are visible from surrounding areas. Eucalyptus trees are typically viewed as aesthetic amenities. Several of the trees in the eucalyptus grove are either dying or dead. As indicated in Section 5.8 Biological Resources of this document, about one- third of the existing trees exhibit limb drop and crown death typical of drought-stressed eucalyptus. In order to determine the existing number and status of trees located on the project site, an arborist report was prepared by Alden Kelley, Consulting Arborist (refer to Appendix G of this document). According to this report, the stand of trees consists of 26 live mature trees, 8 dead or dying trees, a grove-like cluster of 3 multi-trunk trees, and several dozen smaller trees that are either natural seedlings or regrowth from stumps of felled trees. Trails/Corridors According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element, the project site is located east of what is designated as a planned scenic route. The planned scenic route runs north- south along Bolsa Chica Street, and down along the City of Huntington Beach boundary (refer to Exhibit 25). Figure 4.3-1 of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program identifies Bolsa Chica Street as a proposed Class II Bicycle Lane (on-street bike lanes on both sides of the street). This lane would run north-south along Bolsa Chica Street, veering away from the project site at approximately 1,100 feet south of the intersection of Los Patos and Bolsa Chica Street in a northwesterly direction, paralleling the bluff edge toward the County LCP proposed Mesa Community Park. The LCP also identifies an interpretive trail with limited access to be located along the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, south of the site. A proposed Class I (off-street) Bicycle and Hiking Trail is also proposed adjacent to the interpretive trail. Exhibit 25 identifies the proposed trails. Light and Glare On-Site The majority of the site is undeveloped, and is therefore characterized by the absence of light and glare. The light that does occur within the project site is from nighttime illumination currently generated by the streetlights and vehicular lights associated with the surrounding area roadway, as well as the housing developments adjacent to the northern boundary. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\AESTHETTCS.DOC 5-45 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 Cih_• of Hnnirngton Bench I WARNER AVE. � O I � � o • EXISTING co ■ o° RESIDENTIAL o° • r ■ o ---1 U ; ❑° COSTAL ZONE < ■ ❑ BOUNDARY O L--- ■ o LOS PATOS AVE. 100 INN m ■ o •■■■■ ■ O ■ O PROJECT SITE EXISTING •• SINGLE-FAMILY PROPOSED ��� •••• N RESIDENTIAL MESA ♦ •••'• 0*0*0*0*0*0*0* E■E■EROE■�— COMMUNITY •s•■■■i■��• e ♦ • . • ------ --� PARK •••• ■ ••• ,•� 0000,00 • • a I 100'BUFFER • • •• `` Z I} • OI¢ ,••� LEGEND S 1 a 00 • �•�•�CLASS I(OFF STREET) ��� UIm BICYCLE AND HIKING TRAIL •� ROSE CLASS 11(ON-STREET)BICYCLE LANE ••••INTERPRETIVE TRAIL(LIMITED ACCESS) ••••�•� `� 1------ O11000 PLANNED SCENICROUTES •■.■ `� No Scale ---COUNTY LCP AREA BOUNDARY(CITY LIMITS) •�� ` EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 2; Source: City of Huntington Beach City/County Designated Trails Source: Countv of Oranee Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare Off-Site Nighttime illumination in the immediate vicinity of the project is currently provided by street lighting along Graham Street and at the terminus of Greenleaf Lane. The existing residential area adjacent to the northern boundary of the site also provides noticeable illumination at night from the backyard areas. Vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways produce glare in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The amount of glare experienced in the surrounding vicinity is typical for a suburban setting. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. The project would typically have a significant aesthetics impact if it will: (b) Have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. For the purposes of this EK a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in an obstruction of any scenic views open to the public or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. In addition, a significant light and glare impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse increase in light and glare on adjacent properties. The proposed project will eliminate existing on-site uses, converting primarily open areas to suburban uses. Additionally, the project proposes to eliminate some of the eucalyptus trees that exist onsite. The significance of this effect related to aesthetics and light and glare on a project- specific and cumulative basis is discussed below. Aesthetics Buildout of the proposed project will permanently alter the existing visual environment of the project site. The undeveloped character of the site would be transformed into a developed setting. The development would eliminate the current open space view for pedestrians and vehicles passing by on surrounding roadways. This development may be perceived by some members of the community as a significant, negative aesthetic effect due to the placement of 298 206 single family residential units on approximately 41 acres of what is currently undeveloped, open space. As discussed within Section 3.4 History of Project of this document, the project site historically has been utilized for agricultural purposes since as far back as 1952. According to the Historical C:\MYDOCLlNENTS\SBEA\1-2000.EIR\AESTME-I.DW 5-47 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare Site Usage Report, prepared in July, 1997 by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., based on a review of historical site photos taken from 1,9952 to 1997, the project site has been in various states of agricultural-type appearance (i.e., recently plowed, tilled, disced, vegetation, etc.). The majority of the 44.5-acre portion of the project site is designated within the City General Plan as RL-7 Residential Low Density. This designation was placed on this property in 1971. The 4.5- acre portion of the project site is designated within the 1997 Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program as Medium-Low Density Residential. Therefore, the 44.5-acre and 4.5-acre portions of the site have not been designated by the City or County General Plans as scenic open space. The project could be considered an infill project due to the fact that it is surrounded by existing residential to the north, west, and south(beyond the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel). The proposed project may result in significant aesthetic effects due to development of the proposed park on currently vacant land. Although the park is proposed to be developed on what is currently vacant, 34 3.8± acres is proposed as flat useable park acreage, while 4-.64.4± acres would remain as open space. Additionally, the park is not proposing night-lighting. No impacts are anticipated due to the development of the proposed park. Additionally, the applicant proposes development of single-family homes that will possess characteristics similar to the surrounding neighborhoods (refer to Section 5.1 Land Use of this document). The project proposes 18 different building elevations. An example of six (6) proposed building elevations are depicted on Exhibits 9 through 14 in Section 3.0 Project Description. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the conversion of the undeveloped project site to residential uses to a level less than significant. Surrounding Views The proposed project may impact existing views experienced by the second stories of the adjacent single family residences located directly north of the project site. The second stories of the existing residences currently maintain views to the south of the vacant project site and East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. Some of the second stories are able to see the Bolsa Chica open space areas southwest of the site. Current elevations of the portions of the site subject to grading vary from -2.0 feet in the area adjacent to the residences to the north, to 7.4 feet near the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. The project proposes grading in order to remediate existing on-site soils through the removal and replacement of loose soils and the placement of additional fill dirt on-site. Grading will result in on-site landform grade elevation increases. The site elevation increase combined with construction of residential units adjacent to the existing residential to the north could block current views experienced by the residents. 5-48 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare In order to specifically assess potential impacts to the existing homes located off of Kenilworth Drive due to the proposed residential development, Exhibit 26 Section Key Map and Exhibit 27 Cross Sections were created. Exhibit 26 identifies the actual sections. Exhibit 27 identifies three (3) actual lots from three (3) sections that represent the overall situation of the existing homes. As indicated on Exhibit 27, Section &C W W(homes located east of Cabo del Mar condominiums), the home within this section maintains a rear-yard setback of 25 feet. The home proposed to be located south of this home will be built on an elevation of 1.1, which is lower than the existing home's elevation of 44 1.9. Additionally the proposed home will have a 41-foot rear-yard setback, which would result in 66 feet between the two homes. As indicated on Exhibit 27, Section E-$X-X(homes located east of Section G-G W W), the home within this section maintains a rear-yard setback of 25 feet. The home proposed to be located south of this home will be built on an elevation of.91.2, which is !ewe slightly higher than the existing home's elevation of .9. AddifienallyHowever, the proposed home will have a 44-foot rear-yard setback, which would result in 69 feet between the two homes. As indicated on Exhibit 27, Section A-A Y-Y(homes located east of Section " X-X), the home within this section maintains a rear-yard setback of 35 feet. The home proposed to be located south of this home will be built on an elevation of 2.1, which is higher than the existing home's elevation of .4. However, the proposed home will have a 41-foot rear-yard setback, which would result in 76 feet between the two homes. According to the project engineers, the proposed grading along the Northern property boundary will result in an average increase in landform grade elevation of two to three feet. This amount could be considered minimal due to the fact that the current elevations are below the landform elevations of the existing residential. However, the proposed residential building elevations would be greater than the existing residential to the north, and would impact the existing views experienced by the residential uses north of the project site (refer to Exhibit 27). The City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) allows a maximum residential building height of 35 feet, with a required approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Zoning Administrator for buildings exceeding 30 feet. As indicated on Exhibit 27, the height of the proposed residential units is approximately 29 feet; therefore, the building heights of the proposed homes are in conformance with City of Huntington Beach ZSO. Additionally, the ZSO requires a minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. As indicated on Exhibit 27, the rear yard setbacks for the proposed homes adjacent to the existing homes off of Kenilworth Drive are approximately 40 feet. The project proposes a rear-yard setback that is well over the required standard. This is proposed to lessen the perceived change related to construction of the new homes. The overall distances between the proposed homes and the existing homes are great enough to provide a barrier between the homes. No impacts are anticipated. The proposed project may affect existing views experienced by pedestrians and vehicles passing by along Graham Street due to the conversion of what is currently vacant land to residential uses. 549 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • fw�n:1 � X fY3 fY fY1 115 f1 113 1fY 11f f10 f09 f08 f 7 f08 fO f04 f03 1Y6 207270.ot0 fY5 .. •. :. t 0093. \ / 232STORY 1 Y I 25262 Y I tL-ISM • • 2 S292 Y • t 3> STORY 2Y• 2 oRY 2 STORY•I 2 STO Y 1 5 Y 1 2 Y I 2 2 Y 2 5 n Y Yb2STORY 2 aRY 2 ORY 2uTORY 1 5442 STORY 5452 Y t 54722 STORYTORY t7232 X P= 9 P= 16 P=0 P= 1.2 I P=0.7 P=0.77 P=0.6P=0.2 P=0.6231 P= 1.8 '7 /8 f 4 °.z r/e 7 g . AH'XX 1.9tb0. .' t.2 xX7 Lr N A VA ) I1M 6X 0.7 X 60' �80 ,ti0 I t x x x .6 + 1.3 X X I.I i.1 °. 0.9 m 91 mm 2S X 1.J X 1.3 t.2 X 1X t % x x x x 'X 1X 2A { v X S 3 90 N ry N 86 x 85 84 83 = 82 N 81 v 80 ' �N 78 r 77 76 75 • 74 73 N 7 7f a 70 a 1 _ ry N N_ N _N h N _h N_ 1.6 N P= 1.? P= i.1 - P= 1.0 P= .1 P= 1 P= 1.7 n P=2.0 P=2.0 P= 1.6 P= 1.4 P= 1- P= 1.2 P= 1.1 P= 1.0 n P= 1.1 P= 1.2 ti 1 1 P= 1.5 P= 1.8 P= .1 p;•?4 0. °x 0% 0x °X x X x r o. 0.7 1.7 X X xto 0.e i 1 0.8 x 5 11' 48' X 60' W. W. 0' 60' o.a 60' 60' 60' _�0'_ 60' 60' -460' 60 60' 601ii 60' 16))' 6'(16 8\ % o -^ DO 1.7 h n b - h O n - O ••1 O n •1 1 a e �' 1.6 LOT L '� ' _ .s LOT o='s'�sT1 °X °X LOT ' J - ' _ = LOT G nx t 1 °" LO _ _ _ �� _ �- 1 ,5 60 4 1 r ?e x1 55 49 .J7 .'a -8 ` _ ?� - .9 48 - •J2 a : 6 38, - �q 4 0.7 4 V V 1 � o tp W 1 W 1 A Ot Ot a 108 b1 e 1 'X 01 128' s 91 9Y 93 -•0 - u N rn - v u v c'r u -0• a P=2.0 vP=27 oP-J.0 u f of I 0 4O os -1 I ax GO N o% �O eI I� m0 xiO 4 a x ss22 l x 0 � o to iO4• 102 roo' 102 102' 4 X 3 X P 2.3 / 0Aft b X 0 _ +� N 17 �- 1.6 A 1 /W�`1 0 1 @'7 X60' 60' N 9 °' v � N v X Ot lw tD m ♦ / Y 101'if 75• v N _ s 1 7 I 102 l+ 102' 1.7 t.e ' � 111 i< � A_ O ^� G CO rl x e 102' 1 2.z I 1 X r o • to 02 o.e 7 X FIX0.e t 104 ' 1p7• 1 1o3 U17 b \� 2X t X 3 t3 7r6 'e 23 u 1 2 X j03 9 1 , 2.3 QI 67' 24 M v nl ' -, m ► W �' X 1 + W u ul . �\ ?B• X i x 1�! 22.3 � 0.6 N ►- a 1 lT 0 w-� Y 19 X yy X 24 1' F 100' 0 • 0 Scale:(approx.) 1"=100' EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 26 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Section Key Map Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 • City ofHuntington Beacb TRACT NO.5792 Tr 15377 EXISTING HOME 5252 KENILWORTH 60' P41 1 1 PROTECT EX51m MASONRY WALL IN Y la+ KENILWORTH DRIVE P1ACE 6' SONRY WAAU PROPOISED HOME ~ ■g-STREET Yew Y ' LOT#86 ECEVAnON-0.3 E�EVAnaw.,.T ELEVATION.1.1 25' 41'. i 59' m SECTION W W 12° TT 15377 TRACT NO.5792 NM • EXISTING HOME S342 KENILWORTH PROTECT EX67M pN AUSONRY 60' ra" u, wA1t PROP 1S D HOME Lj Th 48' E Lor s 78 Ij ■g STREET 8 RETA wAu ELEVATION TOP RETA AINING WALL KENILWORTH DRIVE E,"Anouv.>r ELEVATION.1.2 t . I [— — i !411 44' se 2a 2S' SECTION X-X , EXLSTING HOME 5422 KENILWORTH TRACT NO.5792 TT 1S377 _ PROPOSED H Q LOT � � 6a PROTECT OUSTING MASONRY WAIL 48 P." Ll IN PACE -CONSTRECT NEW . MASON M ■E STREET . ATOP RETAWING WALL KENILWORTH DRIVE Q ELEVATION■24 ELEVATION a2 ELEVATION-A 35' 41' 2 3V 20' im SECTION Y-Y• See Section KeyMap P Scale:(approx.) 1"20' For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 27 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Cross Sections Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare Although the view of the site will change, the majority of the project site has been designated for development of residential uses and therefore is consistent with the City Land Use Plan. Additionally, a privacy wall is proposed along Graham Street(along the rear property line of lots #66, #67, and #68). Landscaping will also be provided along this wall. As the project's entrance is proposed along Graham Street, the applicant proposes to coordinate the streetscape and landscape design of this area in order to strengthen the project's identity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 will ensure that effects of the project on existing views experienced by pedestrians and vehicles passing by along Graham Street are reduced to a level less than significant. Based on the results of the Arborist Report prepared for the proposed project, it has been recommended that the site developer remove all dead trees, young trees (which were judged unsuitable as preservation candidates, owing to their attenuated form and related susceptibility to windthrow), and 18 of the mature trees. Although eight (8) of the mature trees and the group of three (3) multi-trunked trees were designated for consideration as candidates for preservation, the removal of the remaining trees could be perceived by some as an aesthetics impact since eucalyptus trees are often subjectively and/or emotionally viewed as aesthetic amenities. The removal of any eucalyptus trees currently located in the County parcel of the project site could also be perceived by some as an aesthetics impact. The City maintains a current condition, requiring replacement of all mature trees at a 2 to 1 ratio with 36-inch box trees. Additionally, the project includes a Conceptual Landscape Plan, which identifies landscaping proposed as part of the project. Exhibit 28 depicts the Conceptual Landscape Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 will reduce impacts related to the removal of onsite trees to a level less than significant. Trails/Corridors The proposed project will not result in impacts to a City-proposed scenic route designated adjacent to the site. As indicated in Existing Conditions, the project site is located east of what is designated as a planned scenic route. The planned scenic route runs north-south along Bolsa Chica Street within the City of Huntington Beach. Any open space views of Bolsa Chica that would occur from this scenic route would not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located at a lower elevation than the proposed scenic route; therefore, no views would be obstructed. No impacts to the City-proposed scenic route are anticipated. PA 1997\7N 15001 TIMAESTHETICS.DOC 5-52 Iwo Mal 1 1 z ` MON Vill g �2_ � �%��1��11�4�II�P�11�1�� 1 k d p ,,� � b�'��i��'�, � \✓h. / � �-. �y it ,1141 i�i■■■... 1Vr �lir II ,. �� �:, o,� a.:il o ilk! -rbiy�a�lop-not �n� !,��.I!' � II�IG��L� fi �b��� j ��- i �. . -s �n`♦ � a {',��r..!!♦cell' 9� I�III ��'999//4'/O'61�P C. + J t /T � ti� �ll � �� �1�,1 / ��j`' ��IiIl 1 �."�1'. a ,M. T —GG�/ 1__ 9 � lir F IP .i l ��I_ H�il t �i 1 yy�� s 6� . �ilr EIS 'In rt �►irli �Illr �li� � p„ Z ® ilia 14R, �11� .�Ilr , Ili — I :'II I• .�; �I! ■Ilr 'I �Il� i'I" Y 1,�11 _ it, _y - 1 l L Ilr, _N11 �f I"II�. milli / lily •� t�l 1 aIF d 111� �LIM� ILI �f•I� '�I I 1�: �+ I�i� .r I'1 +°Ih i 1•�11 ��. If�� I I�q/ ` " LfI VCR' Y/"j II 1�Y/jvSJ � A P l .l� Cj/s �� SJl , �w - TORE r-f_� 127 I.. ..ter.._�.... , 1 111 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare The proposed project may result in impacts to County-proposed trails. As depicted on Exhibit 25, the Bolsa Chica LCP identifies Bolsa Chica Street as a proposed Class II Bicycle Lane (on-street bike lanes on both sides of the street). This lane would run north-south along Bolsa Chica Street, veering away from the project site toward the County-proposed Mesa Community Park. The County of Orange also identifies an interpretive trail with limited access to be located along the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, south of the site (refer to Exhibit 25). A proposed Class I (off-street) Bicycle and Hiking Trail is also proposed adjacent to the interpretive trail. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics will reduce potential impacts related to County-designated Trails/Corridors to a level less than significant. Light and Glare On-Site The proposed project may result in a substantial adverse increase in light and glare in the surrounding area of the site. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new light sources into the project area. Light sources are anticipated to occur from the illumination of on- site residences (i.e., interior and exterior lighting). Proposed light sources would be similar to those generated by existing adjacent residential. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare would reduce impacts related to residential lighting to a less than significant level. Required street lighting will increase the source of night lighting within the area. The addition of nighttime lights to the project site is considered a significant impact. Mitigation has been proposed that requires the preparation of a plan showing the proposed height, location, and intensity of all the proposed street lighting. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Glare impacts are primarily related to reflective surfaces of the buildings and vehicles which may be visible from one or more locations. Because reflective building materials are not allowed for residential units, the proposed project will not result in an increase in glare in the residential areas of the project site. No impact is anticipated. The vehicular related glare will increase proportionately with the increased traffic generated from project development. The on-site vehicle-related increases in glare are not considered significant in a suburban setting.No impacts are anticipated. Off-Site Development of the project site will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project. Outdoor lighting due to the project will contribute to the general night sky illumination. This overall illumination will be visible from the residences adjacent to the PA 1997\7N 15001 TMAESTHETICS.DOC 5-54 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare northern boundary of the site, as well as adjacent roadways. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Development of the project site will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site. Outdoor lighting due to the project will contribute to the general night sky illumination. Standard City Policies and Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare will reduce this impact to a less than significant level. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Aesthetics The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will incrementally contribute to the changes to the perceived aesthetic quality of the local and regional area. It is anticipated that some members of the community will consider the cumulative loss of views to vacant land to have an adverse aesthetic impact. However, this project is an infill project within the City of Huntington Beach, and is designated as RL-7 ... Residential Low Density in the City General Plan and Medium-Low Density Residential in the County Local Coastal Program. Therefore, with implementation of project mitigation, the cumulative impacts as a result of the project are considered less than significant. Light and Glare The proposed residential development, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative light and glare impacts. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of standard City Policies and Requirements and Light & Glare Mitigation Measures 1 through 3. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall ensure that if outdoor lighting is included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. PA 1997\7N 15001 TIMAESTHETICS.DOC 5-5 5 Environmental Analysis Aesthetics/Light and Glare MITIGATION MEASURES Aesthetics 1. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of incorporation of City comments/conditions related to the overall proposed design and layout of buildings, and landscaping. This design and layout of buildings shall be approved by the City Plaming Department of Planning. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area outside the perimeter wall along Graham Street to be reviewed and approved by the City Plafming Department of Planning. 3. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan to be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning Divisien, which includes the replacement of all mature trees on the site at a 2:1 ratio with 36-inch box trees. 4. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit a bikeways plan to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Oivisiee Department, in consultation with the Manager of the County PFRD/MBP Program Management and Coordination, for approval of consistency with the Orange County Bikeway Plan. for- appr-eval of pFejeret. - -- isteney with the County Master-Plan of Bieyele T Light and Glare 1. Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a plan which shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of street lights on-site. The plan shall comply with minimum standards for roadway lighting, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning and Public Works Department. 2. Prior to the approval of building permits, if outdoor lighting is to be included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. 3. Non-reflective materials shall be utilized to the extent feasible. Individual building site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning and Public Works Department. 5-56 Environmental Analysis ,.., Aesthetics/Light and Glare LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Aesthetics The proposed project may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. However, due to the fact that this area has been designated as RL-7 Residential Low Density in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, and is in effect an infill project, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The proposed project will result in the removal of eucalyptus trees, which could affect the current views of the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 will reduce impacts related to the removal of onsite trees to a level less than significant. The proposed project will not result in impacts to a City-proposed scenic route designated adjacent to the site. The proposed project may result in impacts to County-proposed trails. Implementation of Aesthetics Mitigation Measure 4 will reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less -•�, than significant. Light and Glare On-Site The project's development will increase the generation of light and glare on-site with on-site vehicle-related increases. In addition, the proposed project may result in an impact on the surrounding residential developments primarily to the north, and to some extent, to the east. However, implementation Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare will reduce light and glare impacts to a level less than significant. Off-Site Lighting from the proposed development may result in light and glare impacts to adjacent off- site uses. Implementation of Light and Glare Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will reduce Light and Glare Impacts to a level less than significant. P:\1997\7N 15001 TWAESTHETTCS.DOC 5-5 7 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation 5.3 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The information contained in this section is summarized from the Traffic Study for the Graham Street Residential Development,June 27, 1997,prepared by Darnell and Associates,Inc. The traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, July 1993. Discussions were held with the City of Huntington Beach traffic engineering staff prior to preparation of this study to establish the project scope, methodology, and technical assumptions. The report is provided in Technical Appendix B of this EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS Surrounding and On-Site Street System Primary regional access in Huntington Beach is provided by I-405 (San Diego Freeway), a north- south freeway located to the east of the site. Primary local east-west access to the project site will be along Warner Avenue, while north-south access will be along Graham Street. A short description of these facilities follows. Exhibit 29 illustrates the existing street system in the vicinity of the site, including intersection configurations and traffic signal and stop sign locations. As can be seen in Exhibit 29, the four (4) intersections along Warner Avenue are signalized. The Graham Street intersections are operated by stop sign control. Warner Avenue - Warner Avenue is a six-lane east-west roadway which has a raised median and intermittent left-turn pockets between Springdale Street and Bolsa Chica Street. Parking is prohibited. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of Warner Avenue between Springdale Street and Bolsa Chica Street. Land uses along Warner Avenue near the project site include commercial, retail, office, and school facilities. The speed limit on Warner Avenue is generally 50 miles per hour (MPH). According to the City's Circulation Element, Warner Avenue is currently designated as a truck route. Graham Street - Graham Street is currently a two lane commuter road which provides 64' of pavement from Warner Avenue to the proposed project access. South of this access to Glenstone, the road narrows to 52' due to the overcrossing of the flood control channel. This roadway also provides bikelanes. The speed limit on Graham Street is generally 40 MPH. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\TRANS-CIRCULATION.DOC 5-58 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach c 70 a m = z D 0 = m m 4 m s�- O o WARNER AVE 0 0 O O � O O T PENDLETON KENILWORTH GLENSTONE LEGEND MOO = TRAFFIC SIGNAL = STOP SIGN SLATER AVE 1 = APPROACH LANES No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 29 Source: Darnell &Associates, Inc. Existing Intersection Geometrics Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation Existing Traffic Volumes Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is the total volume of traffic passing on a roadway on an average day of the year. ADT data is used to determine the amount of use a given roadway segment experiences on an average day. Exhibit 30 summarizes the roadway links ADT volumes on the two study segments. This Exhibit also depicts the (AM/PM peak hour) traffic volumes at the six (6) study intersections. Manual traffic counts (AM/PM peak hours) at the intersections were conducted in October of 1996. Daily traffic volumes were collected on Graham Street and on Warner Avenue between Greentree and Graham Street in October 1996. Other daily traffic on Warner Avenue was assembled from the Bolsa Chica Traffic Study and represents 1994 traffic volumes. It should be noted that the October 1996 counts do not demonstrate a significant change from 1994 volumes. Existing Intersection and Roadway Segment Level of Service(LOS) Roadway capacity is generally limited by the ability to move vehicles through intersections. Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of"quality of flow," and as shown in Table D, there are six levels of service, A through F, which relate to traffic congestion from best to worst, respectively. In general, Level A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion. Conversely, Level F represents severe congestion with stop-and-go conditions. Levels E and F typically are considered to be unsatisfactory. Corresponding to each level of service shown in Table D is a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. Generally speaking, this is the ratio of an intersection's traffic volume (V) to its capacity (C), with capacity defined as the theoretical maximum number of vehicles that can pass through the intersection during a specified period of time. In accordance with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Assessment Procedure Guidelines, these level of service determinations were made for signalized intersections using the methodology commonly referred to as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). With this technique, an intersection's ICU value (i.e., a V/C ratio) is computed based upon the intersection's traffic volumes and its traffic-carrying capacity. Stop sign controlled intersections were analyzed with the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Level of service for roadway links is quantified in terms of a volume/capacity (V/C) ratio. Similar to intersection V/C ratio, this V/C ratio is a quantitative comparison of a roadway segment's demand or volume to its theoretical maximum traffic-carrying per lane capacity. Table E identifies the corresponding roadway segment's V/C ratio to each level of service. The City of Huntington Beach has determined that LOS C or better is the acceptable standard for roadway links, while LOS D or better is the acceptable standard for intersections. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\TRANS-CIRCULAnON.DOC 5-60 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach Ep 0 N 4 > w j z = i m pp O 00 0 w 357/340 N o .�_ 984/1252 0 .cn 83/90 193/188 o -�— 624/866 1 2/7 J w w �— 704/1118 -- 598/922 42/97 41/70 84/195 0 30,000 0 28,300 0 30,000 0 25,000 WARNER AVE °o o o 0 379/244 1 fi 7/31 --w) 78/88 133/168 + �' 734/781 co 1216/1321 — rr ry 984/1058 —� ►:i 921/930 N cn cn N 189/233 w o c,, 0, o 11/30 3/38 N C' CANJN 90/171 00 N O co N N O w Co N a) O c0 E0 PENDLETON KENILWORTH o 196/209 � o N 26/44 N150/33 En 0/4 7,200Ln 33/8 o cn 15/14J N 2/0 C-n LEGEND 10/14 w N MOO = TRAFFIC SIGNAL GLENSTONE OXX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC SLATER AVE ZZZ = DAILY TRAFFIC No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 30 Source: Darnell&Associates,Inc. Existing Traffic Volumes Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation TABLE D LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ' Level of Service Interpretation ICU , A Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. 0.00-0.60 B Uncongested operations;all vehicles clear in a single cycle. 0.61 -0.70 C Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches. 0.71 -0.80 D Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection 0.81 -0.90 functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks.No long-standing lines formed. E Severe congestion with some long-standing lines on critical 0.91 - 1.00 approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations. 1.010+ Source: Highway Capacity Manual,Transportation Research Board Number 212,January 1990. (')Intersection Capacity Utilization. P:\1997\7N1500ITIMTRANS CIRCULATION.DOC 5-62 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation TABLE E LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR ROADWAY SEGMENTS(') Nominal Range Level of Service Interpretation to Volume-to- Capacity Ratio A Low volumes; primarily free-flow operations. Density is 0.00-0.60 low, and vehicles can freely maneuver within the traffic stream. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. B Stable flow with potential for some restriction of operating 0.61 - 0.70 speeds due to traffic conditions. Maneuvering is only slightly restricted. The stopped delays are not bothersome, and drives are not subject to appreciable tension. C Stable operations; however, the ability to maneuver is more 0.71 - 0.80 restricted by the increase in traffic volumes. Relatively satisfactory operating speeds prevail, but adverse signal coordination or longer queues cause delays. D Approaching unstable traffic flow, where small increases in 0.81 - 0.90 volume could cause substantial delays. Most drivers are restricted in their ability to maneuver and in their selection of travel speeds. Comfort and convenience are low but tolerable. E Operations characterized by significant approach delays and 0.91 - 1.00 average travel speeds of one-half to one-third the free-flow speed. Flow is unstable and potential for stoppages of brief duration. High signal density, extensive queuing, or progression/timing are the typical causes of the delays. F Forced-flow operations with high approach delays at critical 1.010+ signalized intersections. Speeds are reduced substantially, and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of downstream congestion. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1965. PAI997\7N15001TIR\TRANS CIRCULATION.DOC 5-63 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation The analysis of existing intersection levels of service was based upon the peak-hour traffic volumes illustrated on previously referenced Exhibit 32 and the existing intersection geometrics depicted on previously referenced Exhibit 29. Table F summarizes the existing levels of service at the six (6) study intersections during the peak hours. As can be seen in Table F,all intersections currently operate at LOS C or better for both peak period with existing traffic volumes. A daily traffic volume analysis was conducted by comparing daily traffic to volume thresholds for roadway classifications. Thresholds for roadway classifications are published in the City of Huntington Beach's Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines. The results are presented in Table G. As can be seen in Table G, all segments on Warner Avenue and Graham Street currently operate within acceptable levels of service. (Note: The ICU level-of-service computations are contained in the Appendix of the traffic report which is contained in Appendix B of the EIR). Signal Warrant Analysis/Traffic Signalization As stated previously, Exhibit 29 identifies the location of existing traffic signals in the vicinity of the project site. Currently, the existing site does not contain any signalized access. A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for future conditions with the project. The results of this warrant analysis are presented in the Impact Section of this discussion. Site Access/Circulation Since the existing site is presently vacant land, formerly used for farming, no formal access to the site currently exists. Parkine Since the existing site is presently vacant land, formerly used for farming, no parking presently exists on-site. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of impacts that are considered normally to have a significant effect on the environment.A project would typically have a significant transportation/circulation impact if it will: (1) cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\TRANS-CIRCULATION.DOC 5-64 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation TABLE F SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing Plus Project Short Term Cumulative Existing Conditions Conditions Conditions Intersection AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Bolsa Chica/Warner 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.64 B 0.64 B Greentree/Warner 0.31 A 0.41 A 0.31 A 0.43 A 0.32 A 0.44 A Graham/Wamer 0.55 A 0.61 B 0.59 A 0.67 B 0.61 B 0.69 B Springdale/Wamer 0.61 B 0.74 C 0.61 B 0.74 C 0.62 B 0.75 C Graham/Glenstone(stop) N/A B N/A A N/A B N/A A N/A B N/A A Graham/Slater(stop) N/A A N/A A N/A A N/A B N/A A N/A B Source: Darnell&Associates, Inc. (1) Refer to the Appendix of the traffic study for ICU calculation worksheets. (2) Refer to Table D for intersection Level of Service definition. (3) LOS =Level of Service defined using ICU methodology for signalized intersections (4) Stop controlled intersections were analyzed with HCM methodology P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\TRANS_CIRCULATION.DOC 5-65 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation TABLE G SUMMARY OF ROADWAY LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE Exist+ Short Term LOS D Exist Project Cumulative Segment Class Capacity ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS ADT V/C LOS Warner Avenue • Bolsa 6 Major 48,600 30,000 0.56 A 30,625 0.58 A 31,915 0.59 A Chica/Greentree 6 Major 48,600 28,300 0.52 A 29,050 0.54 A 30,340 0.56 A • Greentree/Warner 6 Major 48,600 30,000 0.56 A 30,500 0.56 A 31,530 0.58 A • Warner/Springdale 6 Major 48,600 25,000 0.46 A 25,250 0.47 A 26,280 0.49 A • East of Springdale Graham Street • Glenstone/"A" Street 2 Commuter 11,700 7,200 0.55 A 8,200 0.63 B 10,780 0.83 D • "A" Street/Wamer 2 Commuter 11,700 7,200 0.55 A 8,700 0.67 B 11,280 0.87 D Source: Darnell&Associates, Inc. (1) LOS=Level of Service (2) Capacity per City of Huntington Beach TIA Guidelines (3) ADT=Average Daily Traffic (4) V/C=Volume to Capacity Ratio (5) Refer to Table E for roadway segment link Level of Service definition. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\TRANS-CMCULATION.DM 5-66 Environmental Analysis 100* Transportation/Circulation According to the City of Huntington Beach performance criteria established in the Traffic Impact Assessment Preparation Guidelines, a traffic increase is considered a significant impact if LOS C could not be achieved for the roadway segments and/or if LOS D could not be achieved for the intersections impacted by the proposed project within the community. Additionally, impacts to access/internal circulation and pedestrian safety are considered a significant impact if the proposed roadways and access points do not conform to City standards. Lastly, a project will have a significant impact if it results in significant effects on existing parking facilities, or creates a demand for new parking. For purposes of this EIR, increases in a parking demand which exceeds the supply will be considered significant. The proposed project will increase vehicular traffic on the existing and future roadway system. The project will establish new site access and provide an on-site circulation system including new parking supply. Additionally,the proposed project in conjunction with past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to a cumulative increase in vehicular traffic in the local vicinity. These increases and the adequacy of the on-site circulation system and parking are considered potential impacts. The significance of each is described below related to the above criteria. Construction Traffic Construction related traffic would be associated with workers arriving and leaving the project site, and truck and construction vehicle traffic. Construction worker traffic is not anticipated to create a significant impact to area-wide circulation. Potential construction related impacts on local traffic and circulation would be short-term in nature. The total estimate construction time frame for the grading is six (6) months and project construction is approximately two and one-half years. Mitigation Measure 1 will mitigate short-term construction related impacts to a level of less than significant. Haul Route Traffic The proposed project will result in short-term transportation/circulation impacts due to implementation of the grading component of the proposed project. Construction/grading vehicles will be hauling dirt from proposed borrow site(s), as described in Section 3.0 of this EIR, to the project site. They will be traveling from the borrow site to the project site fill areas via a "haul road." The location of the haul road(s) will depend on the location of the borrow site(s). If an adjacent borrow site can be utilized, no traffic impacts are anticipated since the haul route (refer to Exhibit 15 in Section 3.0)would not occur on public roadways. Should a different local borrow site be required, the haul route would utilize the public street system. Mitigation Measure 1 is proposed to ensure use of the public streets for a haul route would not result in significant traffic impacts. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\TRANS C1RCULATI0N.D0C 5-67 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation Signal Warrant Analysis/Traffic Signalization The proposed project may impact the circulation system by the introduction of an additional access along Graham Street. A signal warrant analysis using Caltrans' Peak-Hour Traffic Signal Warrant was conducted for the project entry ("A" Street) on Graham Street. Under this configuration, the intersection will warrant a traffic signal (Refer to the Appendix of the TIA included in Appendix B of this EIR for signal warrant analysis worksheets). Mitigation Measure 2 is proposed which requires the construction of this signal prior to project occupancy. Based upon the distance of the new signal on Graham Street to other existing traffic signals along Graham Street and traffic volumes along Graham Street, the introduction of this new signal will not negatively impact the existing circulation system. Project Traffic The proposed project will generate an increase in existing daily vehicle trips. Due to increases in vehicles, roadway capacity will be impacted. This impact is discussed in greater detail below. A three step process was utilized to estimate project-related traffic impacts and evaluate their significance at various points on the street network. First,the traffic which will be generated by the proposed development was determined. Secondly, the traffic volumes were geographically distributed to major attractions of trips, such as employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas or residential areas. Finally,the trips were assigned to specific roadways and the project-related traffic volumes are analyzed using ICU/LOS techniques. Traffic Generation Trip generation for the proposed land use was obtained from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Traffic Generators. This publication is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Daily and peak hour generation was approved by the City of Huntington Beach prior to performing the traffic analysis. The rates and calculations for the site are summarized on Table H. As can be seen in Table H, the project has the potential to generate 2,496 daily vehicular trips. During the morning peak hour, the site will generate 200 trips and 250 trips are expected to occur in the evening peak hour. The project also proposes a small neighborhood park (± 3.5 acres of usable area) within the development. For the purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that trips generated by the project include use of the park. Although there may be some outside attraction to the park, these trips would be considered insignificant to traffic flow. It should also be noted that park trips generally occur outside of the peak hour and therefore would have little effect on the intersection analyses. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\TRANS CMCULAnON.DOC 5-68 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic distribution is the determination of the directional orientation of traffic. Traffic distribution is based on the geographical location of employment centers, commercial centers, recreational areas, or residential concentrations. Trip distribution for the project was estimated using likely travel routes and destinations, as well as access and proximity to traffic generators, such as freeways, shopping centers, etc. This project proposes one access point onto Graham Street at "A" Street. Trip distribution patterns were approved by the City of Huntington Beach prior to performing the traffic analysis. Trip distribution for the project is depicted on Exhibit 31. TABLE H SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES & CALCULATIONS Trip Generation Rates Single Family Daily: 12 trips per unit AM Peak: 8% of daily split 30:70 (inbound:outbound) PM Peak: 10% of daily split 70:30(inbound:outbound) Average AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use Density Traffic In Out Tot In Out Tot Single Family 208 Units 2;496 60 140 200 175 75 250 2,472 Source: Darnell and Associates,Inc. 'Rates per SANDAG Traffic Generators Traffic volumes associated with the distribution percentages were assigned to the study intersections. These volumes are presented on Exhibit 32. The actual impacts that the Project trips have on the surrounding roadway system are discussed under the section which follows. Existing Plus Proiect Traffic The traffic volumes presented in Exhibit 32 were added to the existing traffic volumes to provide the condition of existing plus project traffic.These volumes are presented on Exhibit 33. 5-69 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach co �, c� Ln v o N m = z D Z D G7 T m w r n m _ -i m D fO Ln 1 5% o `- 17% f— 25% 20% ...-- 10% O �— $% °O WARNER AVE O O O O 8% —�- 25%--� 30% ° ..,1 f � 10% o CD CD 10% O PENOLETON . f KENILWORTH o A STREET (PROJECT ACCESS) Z.'. . .. . . . . . O PROJECT SITE GLENSTONE 0 LEGEND `4 35% ° >� � o° = TRAFFIC SIGNAL ` SLATER AVE XX% = PROJECT DISTRIBUTION No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 31 Source: Darnell&Associates,Inc. Project Trip Distribution Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach 425 0 125 m 250 = lZ _ N Z D 250 D 0) > 0 O D � 24/13 .�— 35/19 12 36 Co -f— 6 18 200 �-- a +- 11/6 750 / 500 �J / 0 0 0 O 625 15 44-i- O WARNER AVE 18/5 0 250 5/14 ---► / � 14/8 � j ry 14/g—► PENDLETON NCo\ W � 500 KENILWORTH -1500 r—--- • . . . . . . . . A STREET (PROJECT ACCESS) f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROJECT SITE 1000 w 0 GLENSTONE N LEGEND N 875 = TRAFFIC SIGNAL � °i � 21/61 no0 SLATER AVE XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC ZZZ = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 12510 w No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 32 Source: Darncll &Associates,Inc. Project Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach m O � N N 2 N z c0 v 0 OD o _ W to -P � 00 C' w� w 37 147 o co 83/90 W 193/188 jrQ 381/353 N O / "J CA o can j �-- 635/872� 1019/1271 �— 704 1118 L4 ^' -�-- 604/940 42 97 2/7 -� �- 53/106 84/195 o 30,625 0 29,050 0 30,500 0 25,250 WARNER AVE 0 / O O O 379/244-) 7/31 - ( 78/88 fi �' 147/176 J ---) t 984/1058 c,, � oo _ 739/795—= � -, co 1231/1365--= � N � W Oo O 935/938—— ►v cn 11/30 3/36 c\w 207/286 ��rn 90/171 1 CAN0)� N CC' 0 NNE C, — N NcnO CO c0 PENDLETON 8,700 KENILWORTH 00 0 �-217/270 o N 26/44 C-n /4 33 A STREET �1 33/8 1 T N Ln 15/14 8,200C4 \ Q, N v 2/0 -J LEGEND 10/14 "w co GLENSTONE 0 0 = TRAFFIC SIGNAL XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC SLATER AVE ZZZ = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 33 Source: Darnell&Associates,Inc. Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation Existing Plus Project Levels of Service Review of Table F (contained in Existing Conditions) shows that with the addition of project traffic, all study intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. No project- specific impacts to intersections have been identified.No intersection improvements are required as a result of project traffic. ICU worksheets are included in the Appendix of the traffic study which is included in Appendix B of the EIR. The addition of project related daily traffic to roadway segments does not cause a level of service deficiency as evidenced in the roadway capacity summary on Table G (contained in Existing Conditions).No project-specific impacts to roadway links have been identified. Site Access/Circulation Increased activity on-site and in the vicinity of the project could expose pedestrians and bicycles to traffic hazards. The project proposes unrestricted access (i.e., not gated) at the intersection of A Street (new project street) and Graham Street. According to the City Traffic and Fire Department(s),this access (along with secondary"emergency only"access) is adequate to serve the proposed project. Refer to Section 6.0 of this EIR for a discussion of alternative access points/roadway connections. The intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street was analyzed for existing plus project conditions, assuming one lane for exiting vehicles and a left turn pocket for northbound Graham Street. The analysis was performed with stop control on A Street. Project traffic volumes for this scenario are depicted on Exhibit 37 at the end of this section. For both the morning and evening peaks, north/south movement on Graham Street operates at LOS A. The eastbound left/right operates at LOS C. As stated previously, a traffic signal is required at the intersection of"A" Street and Graham Street. The signal at the project access will reduce pedestrian traffic hazards at this location. Sidewalks shall also be constructed to City Standards and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and Mitigation Measure 3 will ensure this occurs. Sight Distance Corner sight distance based on prevailing speeds was measured in the field to determine the ability of motorists traveling northbound on Graham Street and eastbound on "A" Street to see each other. Based on City provided speed surveys taken in 1994, the 85th percentile speed on Graham Street between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue is 45 mph and the posted speed limit is 40 mph. Because the sight distance analysis was performed for northbound traffic only and since there is a stop sign on Graham at Glenstone approximately 700 feet south of the proposed "A" Street, a new speed survey was conducted to determine if the stop sign on Graham Street at Glenstone had a P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\TRANS CIRCULAnON.DOC 5-73 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation significant effect on prevailing speeds for northbound traffic just south of"A" Street. The results for the northbound direction of travel shows that the 85th percentile speed is 40 mph. Based on City comments, corner sight distance was calculated based on 45 mph. Using the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Table 405.1A, corner sight distance for a 45 mph road is approximately 500 feet. This distance is measured from a 3.5'height at the location of the driver on the minor road to a 4.25' object height in the center of the approaching lane of the major road. Based on existing topography,the 500'of corner site distance at "A" Street was not attainable. This is considered a project-specific impact. Signalization of Graham StreetP'A' Street(required by Mitigation Measure 2)would eliminate left turn safety concerns at this location. To further enhance safety at the project access, Mitigation Measure 4 is proposed to improve the operation on Graham Street from Glenstone to Warner Avenue by restriping the roadway within existing pavement widths. The restriping would preserve 7' bikelanes and incorporate a 14' two-way left turning median along this span. In front of the project south to Glenstone, one 12' travel lane in each direction can be accommodated. From the "A" Street north to Warner, one 18'travel lane in each direction can be accommodated. The two-way left turn median will allow left turning vehicles at all access points along Graham to take refuge while waiting for appropriate gaps in the traffic stream. The median also allows vehicles exiting the side streets a safety zone and an acceleration lane. By maintaining the median all the way to Warner Avenue, other side street accesses can benefit from this safety improvement. Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measures 24 reduce the potential site access and pedestrian/bicycle hazards to a level less than significant. Accident Data As required in the City of Huntington Beach's Traffic Impact Analyses Guidelines, a review of accident history in the project area was performed by Darnell and Associates, Inc. Over a 2-1/2 year period, traffic collisions on the 1/2 mile segment of Graham Street from Warner to Slater resulted in one (1) incident with no report of injury. This rate calculates to 0.25 collisions per one million vehicle miles (mvm) traveled. It should be noted that this one accident was vehicle/fixed object and the cause was attributable to driving under the influence. According to the Countywide averages for accident history for Orange County on two lane roadways, the average is 1.5 accidents/mvm. Based on the proposed project and recommended safety mitigation to include a traffic signal and roadway modifications (Mitigation Measures 2 and 4), the introduction of the proposed project is not expected to raise the incident rate on Graham Street. Accidents at involved intersections on Graham Street over the same 2-1/2 year period are summarized .. as follows: CAMYDOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\TRANS -1.D0C 5-74 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation • Graham/Pendleton-One vehicle/vehicle collision;no injury • Graham/Glenstone-One vehicle/bicycle collision;injury • Graham/Slater-One vehicle/fixed object collision;no injury • Graham/Warner-Nine incidents with nine reported injuries The incident rate on Graham Street near the project we is insignificant. A higher incident rate occurs at the intersection of Graham/Wamer with approximately 3.6 collisions occurring each year. Although higher traffic density does not necessarily correlate to increased accident rates, the proposed project's contribution of traffic at this intersection is 3.75% of the short term total. In an effort to quantify this added demand in terms of accident potential, a calculation was performed that equates to an increase 0.135 incidents per year (3.6 + 3.75% = 3.735) or one accident every 7.4 years. According to Darnell and Associates,Inc.,this potential is not considered significant. Parking Implementation of the proposed project will create an additional demand for parking. The project also proposes to increase the on-site supply of parking. The project will provide parking for the proposed development consistent with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) requirements of: two (2) covered spaces and two (2) open spaces per unit for up to four (4) bedrooms and three (3)covered spaces and three (3) open spaces per unit for" five (5) or more bedrooms. A parking plan consistent with these requirements has been approved by the Department of Public Works. Additionally; , 208 residential units is 104 spaees and the pfopesed site plan aeoeffffnedates a tetal ef appr-eximawly , No impacts are anticipated No formal parking requirements exist for neighborhood parks based upon the close (walking) distance of the intended park users. According to Darnell & Associates and Paul Cook & Associates, approximately 80% of the park users will walk to the site. The remaining 20% will utilize the on-street parking within the project. The parking plan approved by the Department of Public Works accommodates parking demand generated by the neighborhood park; the rro jeer is no parking impacts are anticipated. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will impact existing and future roadways and intersections. To assess the significance of these impacts project traffic was combined with existing traffic and traffic from other surrounding developments and evaluated related to previous stated criteria. The significance of these cumulative impacts is discussed below. 5-75 Environmental Analysis ., Transportation/Circulation Surrounding Development Cumulative analyses were completed for the years 2000 and 2020 respectively. Future traffic volumes include (a) ambient traffic volume growth and (b) volumes which will be generated by other developments. Buildout traffic forecasts for post 2020 conditions were evaluated using volume data from the Bolsa Chica Traffic Impact Analysis,August 16, 1994. Short-Term Cumulative Traffic Research of the study area and discussions with the City of Huntington Beach Planning Division determined that other projects' traffic which will influence the study area for short term traffic conditions are the Holly-Seacliff area developments. A breakdown of dwelling units was provided by the City, which at buildout will consist of approximately 2,580 units. To provide a worst case short term analysis, it was assumed these units are completed at the time the proposed project is completed. A percentage of the Holly-Seacliff traffic was assigned to Slater, Graham and Warner to provide additional analysis. This traffic was added to the existing plus project scenario. The short term cumulative traffic volumes are depicted on Exhibit 34 Short-Term Cumulative Levels of Service With the addition of the Holly-Seacliff area development to existing plus project conditions, analyzed intersections and street segments will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service as summarized in Tables F and G (contained in Existing Conditions). Worksheets for this condition are provided in the Appendix of the traffic study which is included in Appendix B of the EIR. No project-specific impacts have been identified under the short-term Cumulative Condition. Table I was developed in accordance with City of Huntington Beach Traffic Impact Analyses Guidelines to determine the project's share of total intersection impact under the short-term Cumulative Condition. Table F shows project impacts at all study intersections during the morning and evening peak hours. 2020 Traffic and Levels of Service As stated previously, the traffic volume data for this forecast year was obtained from the Bolsa Chica Project Traffic Impact Analysis, August 16, 1994. These traffic volumes were approved for use by the City of Huntington Beach. Traffic volumes were projected for the major intersections on Warner Avenue, including Bolsa Chica, Graham Street and Springdale Street. Projections were also made for Graham Street/Slater Avenue with the assumption of a traffic signal. The year 2020 daily and peak hour traffic volumes are presented on Exhibit 35. The improvements identified in the Bolsa Chica report for intersection modifications are represented by the lane geometry depicted on Exhibit 36. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\TRANS CIRCULATION.DOC 5-76 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach m O N N � = N Z �• CO v O co 0 Ui N y N O \\� -CA N+ \\\ rn 381 353 ~''\ w 37 147 Co 83/90 U, M co 193/188 o ��„ � -�— 708/911 N 10 2/1310 J f— 762/1149 �' L4 -�—622/971 42/97 j �- 2/7 �- 53/1 C16 L•. 84/195 31 o 31 ,915 0 30,340 0 ,530 0 26,280 WARNER AVE O O O O 379/244 ''1 7/31 �'` 78/88 + �' 147/176 r' 1009/1130--*.- c, co 770/871 T -s, co 1261/1455--4— cn o0 0 960/1010-40- N cn 11/30 � 3/36 c-4 (A213/304 �� 90/171 cam',, N N W CDN N L4 toN NQ) O PENDLETON to `o 40 11 ,280 NJ KENILWORTH 23 278 o00 N o N 26 44 \ _ _ rn N k— 150/33 A STREET t° cr �— 0/4 33/8 .... . . . . c, 15/14 10,780 rn 2/0 —� w o LEGEND 10/14 GLENSTONE MOO = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0 XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC SLATER AVE ZZZ = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 34 Source: Darnell &Associates,Inc. Short Term Cumulative Traffic Volumes Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation TABLE I GRAHAM STREET RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PERCENTAGE OF NET TRAFFIC IMPACT ON INTERSECTIONS Intersections Traffic Volumes AM Peak Calculation Net Traffic Impact EB/WB Street NB/SB Street Vp Ve Vc=Vp+Ve+Vsht 100*Vp/Vc-Ve 1 (%) Warner Bolsa Chica 50 3,020 3,174 100*50/3,174-3,020 1.55 Warner Greentree 60 2,294 2,458 100*60/2,458-2,294 2.38 Warner Graham 120 2,770 3,077 100*120/3,077-2,770 3.75 Warner Springdale 40 3,480 3,563 100*40/3,563-3,480 1.11 Slater Graham 80 578 679 100*80/679-578 10.54 Glenstone Graham 80 794 895 100*80/895-794 8.21 Intersections Traffic Volumes AM Peak Calculation Net Traffic Impact EB/WB Street NB/SB Street Vp Ve Vc=Vp+Ve+Vsht 100*Vp/Vc- Ve 1 (%) Warner Bolsa Chica 63 3,633 3,811 100*63/3,811-3,633 1.63 Warner Greentree 76 2,974 3,179 100*76/3,179-2,974 2.33 Warner Graham 154 3,354 3,637 100*154/3,637-3,354 4.06 Warner Springdale 52 4,223 4,378 100*52/4,378-4,223 1.17 Slater Graham 1001 672 798 100*100/798-672 11.14 Glenstone Graham 100 1 734 870 100*100/870-734 10.31 Source: Section 30.1.07.02 - Percentage of Net Traffic Impact, City of Huntington Beach Vp=Project Traffic Volume Vc=Cumulative Traffic Volume for the Short Term Study Period=Vp+Ve+Vsht Ve=Existing Traffic Volume Vsht= Other Projects Traffic Volume P.\1997\7N15001\HIR\TRANS CIRCULATIONDOC 5-78 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach 0 M N Cr D N W D D N � vJ n Cn v JC0 CO CNo rn °' " 439/378 w ►� p 0 L '�' 229/198 v D w— 641/901 (AA o 0 174/261 " L" -- --588/1105 /— 185/519 �— .0-) � / -� � 19/67 790/1346 � 1r 39/142 37,800 39,800 {- -36 100 33,200 WARNER AVE 0 0 525/430 �"" 303/99� fi � 126/143 1100/1305-; L4 cn 734/896--- -� L„ N En 1023/1012--= N 0) rn 34/112� No � 136/359 � �� 127/363 oOC) to t 0, to Lp J � � GJ �1N too 10,700 coo nWi w �179/236 cn N f-40/113 O T� SLATER AVE 0 LEGEND N J �J N CO o = TRAFFIC SIGNAL co to XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK TRAFFIC O ZZZ = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 35 Source: Darncll&Associates,Inc. Year 2020 Daily and Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach cc � N X D Z D 0 _ f m D -N-I O WARNER AVE o o -T -�.- LEGEND °o SLATER AVE 0 °o = TRAFFIC SIGNAL = APPROACH LANES -i— = RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS 0 No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 36 Source: Darnell&Associatcs,Inc. Year 2020 Intersection Geometrics Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation The ICU calculation summaries with the assumed lane geometries are presented in Table J. As can seen in Table J,the intersection of Bolsa Chica/Wamer Avenue will operate at LOS E for both peak periods. The intersection of Graham Street/Warner will also operate at LOS E under the PM peak hour. This is considered a significant cumulative impact on these two (2) intersections. These impact deficiencies were documented in the Bolsa Chica traffic study, however, no improvements were recommended in the study. The following describes the necessary improvements to the two (2)intersections to bring them within acceptable levels of service: 1. Bolsa Chica/Wamer Avenue - Minimum improvements to this intersection to obtain adequate level of service consist of restriping the intersection to provide dual left turns for east/west with two through lanes and exclusive right turns (or three throughs with optional right). This can be accommodated within existing pavement width. Both restriping alternatives will achieve LOS D operation for both peak periods as well as maintain bikelanes. 2. Graham Street/Wamer Avenue - Improvements to this intersection to obtain adequate PM peak hour level of service consists of an exclusive southbound right turn lane from Graham to Warner. TABLE J SUMMARY OF YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Intersection Year 2020 Conditions AM Peak PM Peak ICU LOS ICU LOS Bolsa Chica/Wamer 0.98 E 0.97 E <Mitigated(dual left EB/WB, 2 thru, excl rgt) 0.80 D 0.87 D <Mitigated(dual left EB/WB, 3 thru, opt rgt) 0.82 D 0.84 D Graham/Wamer 0.69 B 0.92 E <Mitigated(exclusive SBR) 0.64 B 0.69 B Springdale Warner 0.54 A 0.77 C Graham/Slater 0.30 A 0.37 A Source: Darnell&Associates,Inc. LOS =Level of Service defined using ICU methodology These additional lane geometrics are also presented on Exhibit 36. Mitigation Measure 5 is proposed to ensure the projects contribution to the cumulative impact at these two intersections is reduced to a less than significant level. PA 19970N 15001 TIR\TRANS_CIRCULATION.DOC 5-81 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation A summary of daily traffic impact on roadway segments is presented on Table K, assuming roadways constructed to their ultimate classifications. As can be seen in Table K, all roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service for projected year 2020 traffic volumes. No significant year 2020 cumulative impacts have been identified to roadway segments. Site Access/Circulation The impacts associated with on-site circulation and pedestrian/bicycle safety are project-specific issues and are therefore not impacted further by cumulative buildout. Signal Warrant Analysis/Traffic Signalization No significant cumulative 2020 buildout impacts have been identified related to traffic signalization. Parkins The impacts associated with on-site parking are project-specific issues and are therefore not impacted by further cumulative buildout. TABLE K SUMMARY OF YEAR 2020 ROADWAY CAPACITY LOS D 2020 Segment Class Capacity ADT V/C LOS Warner Avenue <West of Bolsa Chica 6 Major 48,600 37,800 0.70 B <Bolsa Chica/Graham 6 Major 48,600 39,800 0.74 C <Graham/Springdale 6 Major 48,600 36,100 0.67 B <East of Springdale 6 Major 48,600 33,200 0.61 B Graham Street <Warner/Glenstone Secondary 1 25,200 10,700 0.38 A Source: Darnell & Associates,Inc. LOS =Level of Service Capacity per City of Huntington Beach TIA Guidelines ADT=Average Daily Traffic V/C=Volume to capacity(LOS E) ratio PAI997\7N1500ITIR\TRANS CIRCULATION.DOC 5-82 Environmental Analysis Transportation/Circulation STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to issuance of building permits (or certificate of occupancy, if determined appropriate by the Traffic Division and Planning Division) of the first phase of development, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Traffic Engineering Division. The study shall be used to determine the project's Traffic Impact Fee. The traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. B. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of grading big permits, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan (including dirt import haul route). This plan shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction related impacts to adjacent residences. The final plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a traffic signal and improve the intersection at the proposed"A"Street and Graham Street. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer that standards (including ADA) regarding pedestrian/bicycle safety along the perimeter sidewalks will have been met. 4. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to the project access("A" Street) as follows: • Two 7 foot bikelanes; one 12'through lane in each direction, and a 14' two-way left turning median. Additionally, the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from "A" street to Warner Avenue, as follows: • Two 7 foot bikelanes, one 18' through lane in each direction, and a 14' two-way left turning median. The improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. 5-83 Environmental Analysis - - Transportation/Circulation 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall participate in the applicable Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for the City of Huntington Beach. The actual allocation shall be approved by the City. Appropriate credits shall be granted toward the TIF. The TIF shall cover the project's fair share of year 2020 improvements to the arterial street system as follows: • Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue - reconfigure intersection for east/west traffic to provide dual left turns and either three throughs or two throughs and an exclusive right turn lane. This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. • Graham Street/Warner Avenue - reconfigure intersection to provide an exclusive southbound right turn lane from Graham Street to Warner Avenue. This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will result in short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. Depending on the location of the haul route, traffic impacts along the selected route may occur. Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce these impacts to a level less than significant. The proposed project will not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the existing plus project condition. The proposed project may result in impacts to pedestrian,bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an on-site circulation system. Mitigation Measures 2 through 4 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant. The proposed project will not result in significant impacts to parking. The proposed project will not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the short-term cumulative condition. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in level of service deficiencies at the intersections Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the year 2020 condition. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 will reduce the project's incremental impacts to a level less than significant. 5-84 Parkside Estates"` R 97-2 City of Huntington Beach 0 X m m z WARNER AVE m z O m D c EL DORADO D O� PENDLETON z GLENROY � _ m D N m m KENILWORTH -4 W rn P a 2496 A STREET (PROJECT ACCESS) LEGEND 84/45 ^' 0 XX/YY = AM/PM PEAK PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC 56/30 ; o ZZZ = PROJECT ONLY DAILY TRAFFIC No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 37 Source: Darnell &Associates,Inc. "A" Street Full Access Project Traffic Environmental Analysis Air Quality 5.4 AIR QUALITY This report addresses the potential impacts related to air quality associated with the proposed Shea Homes project. The information contained in this report is consistent with the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis. The assumptions and air quality calculations prepared by EDAW,Inc. are provided in Technical Appendix D of this EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS Meteorology/Climate The climate around the project site, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidity. The Pacific high pressure zone dominates the local weather patterns and creates a repetitive pattern of frequent early morning cloudiness, hazy afternoon sunshine, daytime onshore breezes, and little temperature change throughout the year. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, and Santa Ana winds. Precipitation is limited to a few storms during the wet winter season. Temperatures are normally mild with rare extremes above 100°F or below freezing. The annual mean temperature of 62°F has little seasonal variation. Winds in the project area are typically driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night,the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling offshore to the sea. In addition, winds control the rate and direction of pollution dispersal. Southern California is notorious for strong temperature inversions that limit the vertical depth through which pollution can be mixed. These inversions are characterized by seasonal differences. In summer, coastal areas are characterized by a sharp discontinuity between the cool marine air at the surface and the warm, sinking air aloft within the high pressure cell over the ocean to the west. This marine/subsidence inversion allows for good local mixing, but acts as a giant lid over the basin. Air starting onshore at the beach is relatively clean, but becomes progressively more polluted as sources continue to add pollution from below without any dilution from above. A second type of inversion forms on cold early winter mornings. These inversions are ground based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs and pollutants concentrate near their sources(i.e. roadways). Most of the air pollutants are confined to the air volume below the base of any inversion, or in a very shallow layer near the ground in the case of a surface inversion. P:\1997\7N15001TIRWIRQUALITY.DOC 5-86 Environmental Analysis Air Quality Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin. This area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. In 1987, Senate Bill 151 became law, giving the SCAQMD significant authority. The law instructs the SCAQMD to develop new transportation control measures and to develop rules for indirect emission sources. Indirect sources are shopping centers, stadiums, and facilities which attract a large number of vehicles. The SCAQMD is also required to develop further programs and regulations that will increase ride sharing and limit heavy-duty truck traffic on freeways during rush hours. Every three years, SCAQMD prepares an overall plan for air quality improvement. Each iteration of the plan is an update of the previous plan and has a 20-year horizon. The SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), adopted the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin in September, 1994. At that time, the South Coast Air Basin was designated as a non-attainment area(i.e., does not attain either Federal or State air quality standards) for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and fine particulate matter (PMIO) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CARB. Table L provides the ambient air quality standards and the relevant harmful effects for each pollutant. Comparing the 1994 AQMP with the 1991 AQMP, the basic control strategy remains the same in many respects. There are some refinements proposed with this revision. For example, what were called Tier I measures in the 1991 AQMP are now referred to as short- and intermediate-term measures in the 1994 AQMP. Additionally, what were called Tier lI and Tier III measures in the 1991 AQMP have been consolidated, and are now referred to as long-term measures. Short- and intermediate-term emission reduction measures are those that can be adopted using currently available technological applications, statutory authority, and management practices. Such measures have been defined for stationary,mobile, and area source categories. Long-term emission reduction measures include already-demonstrated but commercially unavailable control technologies and "on-the-horizon" technologies requiring advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near future. This category also includes measures that require commitments for research, development, and widespread commercial application of technologies that may not exist yet, but may be reasonably expected given the rapid technological advances gained over the past 20 years. The federal Clean Air Act recognized the need to develop new technology control measures. It specifically provided "extreme" ozone non-attainment areas and the necessary time to develop the new control measures [Section 182(e)(5)]. Many of the long- term emission reduction measures which rely on technologies that are not currently developed are considered as meeting Section 182(e)(5)requirements. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\AIRQUALITY.DOC 5-8 7 Environmental Analysis Air Quality TABLE L AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS STATESTANDARD FEDERALSTANDARD Pollutant Concentration, Concentration, MOST RELEVANT EFFECTS Averaging Time Averaging Time Ozone >0.09 ppm,I-hr.avg. >0.12 ppm,1-hr avg. (a)Short-term exposures:(1)Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals.(2) Risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals;(b)Long-term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans;(c)Vegetation damage;(d)Property damage Carbon >9.0 ppm,8-hr avg. >9 ppm,8-hr avg. (a)Aggravation of angina pectoris and other aspects of coronary heart disease;(b)Decreased exercise tolerance in Monoxide >20 ppm,1-hr avg. >35 ppm,I-hr avg. persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease;(c)Impairment of central nervous system functions; (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses Nitrogen >0.25 ppm,I-hravg. >0.053 ppm,ann.avg. (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory disease and respiratory symptoms in sensitive groups; (b) Risk to Dioxide public health implied by pulmonary and extra-pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and pulmonary structural changes;(c)Contribution to atmospheric discoloration Sulfur >0.04 ppm,24-hr avg. >0.03 ppm,ann.avg. (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by symptoms which may include wheezing, shortness of breath and chest' Dioxide >0.25 ppm,l-hr.avg. >0.14 ppm,24-hr avg. tightness,during exercise or physical activity in persons with asthma Suspended >30 µg/m3,ann.Geometric >50 g/m3,ann. (a)Excess deaths from short-term exposures and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive patients with respiratory Particulate mean Arithmetic mean disease;(b)Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function,especially in children Matter >50 µg/m3,24-hr avg. >150 g/m3,24-hr avg. (PM 10) Sulfates z25 µg/m3,24-hr avg. (a)Decrease in ventilatory function;(b)Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms;(c)Aggravation of cardio-pulmonary disease;(d)Vegetation damage;(e)Degradation of visibility;(f)Property damage Lead >_1.5 µg/m3,30-day avg. >1.5 g/m3,calendar quarter (a)Increased body burden;(b)Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction Visibility- In sufficient amount to (a)Increased body burden;(b)Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction Reducing reduce the visual range to Particles less than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70%,8- hour average(IOam-6pm) Source:SCAQMD, 1996 ppm parts by volume per million parts of air mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter of air µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter of air avg. average ann. annual P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\AIRQUALIW.DOC 5-88 Environmental Analysis Air Quality The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP) is based on the 1994 AQMP, and carries forward most of the innovative strategies crafted in that AQMP. The current AQMP places a greater focus on particulate matter (PM10), since this is the first plan required by federal law to demonstrate attainment of the federal PM10 ambient air quality standards. The Plan also updates the demonstration of attainment for ozone and carbon monoxide, and includes a maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide (NOD, as the South Coast Air Basin now qualifies for attainment of that federal standard. The 1997 AQMP proposes policies and measures to achieve federal and state standards for healthful air quality in the Basin and those portions of the Mojave Desert and Salton Sea Air Basins (formerly named the Southeast Desert Air Basin) that are under South Coast Air Quality Management District (District)jurisdiction (namely, Antelope Valley and Coachella Valley). The target attainment dates for Federal and State standards are depicted in Table M. The AQMP was approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board of Directors on November 15, 1996. Federal Requirements In November, 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act(CAA)was an overhaul of the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progress and attainment, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. In addition, the CAA requires the District to develop: a Federal Attainment Plan for Ozone (Ozone Plan) as given in Section 182 (c)(2)(A); a post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan as required in Section 182(c)(2)(B); Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the Los Angeles county portion of the SEDAB (Antelope Valley) and the Riverside Non-attainment area of the SEDAB (Coachella - San Jacinto Planning Area); and a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) which incorporates best available control measures (BALM) for fugitive sources (referred to as the PM10 BACM SIP), as required by Section 189(b)(1)(B). State Requirements The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was signed into law on September 30, 1988. Through its many requirements, the CCAA serves as the centerpiece of the Basin's attainment planning efforts since it is generally more stringent than the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. PA1997\7N15001\E1R\AMQUAL=.D0C 5-89 Environmental Analysis Air Quality TABLE M DRAFT 1997 AQMP TARGET ATTAINMENT DATES Pollutant Federal State Nitrogen Dioxide met met Carbon Monoxide 2000 2000 PM10 2006 2010+ Ozone 2010 2010+ Source: SCAQMD, 1996 Key CCAA requirements that the District addresses in the 1997 AQMP are to: apply Best Available Retrofit Control Technology; reduce non-attainment pollutants and their precursors at a rate of five percent per year, or, if this cannot be done, include all feasible measures and an expeditious implementation schedule; achieve an average vehicle ridership during peak commute hours of 1.5 persons per vehicle by 1999; ensure no net increase in mobile source emissions after 1997; reduce population exposure to severe non-attainment pollutants (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide for the Basin) according to a prescribed schedule; and rank control measures by cost-effectiveness and implementation priority. Additionally, state law requires market-based programs proposed as part of the AQMP to meet specific design requirements. Finally, state law requires the plan to provide for attainment of the federal and state ambient air quality standards(Health& Safety Code Section 40462). Existing Air Qualitx The air quality of the South Coast Air Basin is determined both by the primary pollutants added daily to the air mass and by the secondary pollutants. Secondary pollutants, specifically ozone, represent the major air quality problems basinwide. The air quality of the project site is determined by primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the specific meteorological factors which influence the site. Southern California has frequent temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground-based or elevated. Ground-based inversions, sometimes referred to as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear, cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground-based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs. High concentrations of primary pollutants may occur locally to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixed inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion acts as a lid over the South Coast Air Basin. It is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. P:U997\7N15001\E1R\AMQUAL1TY.DOC 5-90 Environmental Analysis ..., Air Quality There has been a significant improvement in air quality in the South Coast Air Basin over previous years' air pollution levels. Between 1976 and 1993, the number of days the federal standard was exceeded decreased by 47 percent. The calendar year 1993, for example, represents one of the cleanest years on record for the Basin. In that year, the federal standards were exceeded at one or more locations in the Basin on 147 days; however,this was still more frequently than any other area of the nation. Basinwide, of the federal and state standards which were exceeded in 1993,the ozone standard was exceeded most frequently, followed by carbon monoxide, and PM10. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfate, and lead concentrations were below both the state and federal standards. Despite its improved air quality over the past years, the South Coast Air Basin has the worst ozone air quality in the nation, and is the only area designated as "extreme" non-attainment for ozone. The Basin is the only area in non-attainment of the federal nitrogen dioxide air quality standard. In 1992, the Basin recorded the greatest number of exceedances of the federal carbon monoxide standard in the nation. PM10 levels are also very high compared to most other areas. The nearest monitoring station is the Los Alamitos station which is located approximately 3 miles north of the project site. This station monitors ozone and sulfur dioxide. Data for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide was obtained from the Costa Mesa station located approximately 7 miles east of the project site. Table N summarizes the last five years of monitoring data and depicts the number of days on which pollution levels exceeded state standards. Table N identifies the number of days exceeding state air quality in the Orange County area and indicates that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. Ozone is a secondary pollutant and is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in the project vicinity. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at both the Costa Mesa and the Los Alamitos monitoring stations with the more significant areas being those directly upwind. The ozone levels at the Los Alamitos station have significantly decreased over the past few years. Carbon monoxide standards have not been exceeded over the past several years at the Costa Mesa station. This station is located adjacent to Harbor Boulevard, and it is very likely that the carbon monoxide concentrations recorded at this station are influenced by the motor vehicle activity on this roadway. Carbon monoxide is generally considered to be a local pollutant. Carbon monoxide is directly emitted from several sources (most notably motor vehicles), and the highest concentrations experienced are directly adjacent to the source. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\AIRQUALITY.DOC 5-91 Environmental Analysis Air Quality TABLE N NUMBER OF DAYS EXCEEDING STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ORANGE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY 1992-1995 Pollutant/Standard 1992 1993 1994 1995 Ozone 1-HR>0.09 ppm 21 22 3 3 Carbon Monoxide 1-HR>20 ppm 0 0 0 0 8-HR>9 ppm 1 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide 1-HR>0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 Sulfur Dioxide 24-HR>0.05 ppm 0 0 0 0 Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hr 50 µg/m3 4* 0 l l** 14** Source: California Environmental Protection Agency (Air Resources Board) Air Quality Data, 1991 through 1995 ppm parts per million parts of air,by volume ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter -- pollutant not monitored * Newport Beach station ** Anaheim station Particulate concentrations monitored at other stations in Orange County should be representative of the level currently experienced at the project site. Particulates are particles of dust, smoke, and minute droplets of liquids called aerosols. These are the particles which have the potential to do the greatest harm to human health because they can pass through the body's natural filtering system and become lodged in the lungs. Inhaled particulates reduce lung capacity and may carry materials into the body. Project Site Presently, the approximately 49.5-acre project site is currently vacant. The site currently generates no traffic and is assumed to generate negligible mobile and stationary source air emissions. P:\1997\7N15001TWAIRQUALITY.DOC 5-92 Environmental Analysis ., Air Quality IMPACTS Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of impacts that are normally considered to have a significant effect on the environment. A project would typically have a significant air quality impact if it will: (x) violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration. For the purposes of this EIR, actions that violate federal standards for criteria pollutants (i.e. primary standards designed to safeguard the health of people considered to be sensitive receptors while outdoors) and secondary standards (designed to safeguard human welfare) are considered significant impacts. Additionally, actions that violate State standards developed by CARB or SCAQMD, including thresholds for criteria pollutants are considered significant impacts. Threshold criteria for determining environmental significance has been established by the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis. These are: Short-Term/Construction Emissions • 2.5 tons per quarter of reactive organic compounds (ROC) • 2.5 tons per quarter of nitrogen oxides (NOJ • 24.75 tons per quarter of carbon monoxide (CO) • 6.75 tons per quarter of PMIo Long-Term/Operational Emissions • 55 pounds per day of reactive organic compounds(ROC) • 55 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides(NO,) • 550 pounds per day for carbon monoxide(CO) • 150 pounds per day of PMIo Impacts to air quality can be separated into short-term and long-term impacts. Short-term impacts usually are related to construction activities. During construction, the preparation of foundations and footings, demolition of existing structures, and building assembly will create temporary emissions of dusts, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants throughout the project construction period. "'►� P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\AIRQUALITY.DOC 5-93 Environmental Analysis Air Quality Long-term air quality impacts would result from two types of emissions sources, stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include the emissions produced from on-site energy use for heating, cooling, operation of electrical machinery, lighting, appliances, and other equipment that consumes electricity or natural gas. Mobile sources are emissions generated by vehicles. Secondary project-related impacts derive from a number of other small, growth-connected emissions sources. Such sources include, but are not limited to: evaporative emissions at gas stations or from paints,thinners,or solvents used in construction and maintenance or light industrial uses, increased air travel from business travelers, dust from tire wear and re-suspended roadway dust, etc. All these emissions points are either temporary, or they are so small in comparison to project-related automotive sources that their impact would not be significant. Emissions increases from additional development within the airshed, even if they do not of themselves cause standards to be violated, should be considered cumulatively significant because they impede future regional attainment of clean air standards. The impacts related to the above criteria are discussed below. Short-Term Impacts The proposed project will have a short-term impact on air quality from construction activities. The grading of the project site, the construction of the buildings, and construction worker trips will create temporary emissions of dust, fumes, equipment exhaust, and other air contaminants throughout the project construction period. Pollutant emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity,the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. In order to evaluate the project emissions, emission factors contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were utilized. In addition, assumptions for construction activities were obtained from the project applicant. The assumptions for construction activities and short-term air quality calculations are provided in Appendix D of this EIR. The following outlines the anticipated impacts related to construction for the proposed project. Based on the emission factors and assumptions for construction activities, it is anticipated that the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for NO, Table O provides a comparison of daily construction emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant and identifies the percent by which the emission threshold is exceeded. The daily exceedance of the threshold for NO, is a short-term air quality impact. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 are proposed to reduce this impact. SCAQMD identifies that the proposed measures are capable of reducing NO,, emissions by P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\AIRQUALITY.DOC 5-94 Environmental Analysis .,, Air Quality up to 97 percent (Tables 11-2, 11-3, 11-4 in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993). With implementation of mitigation,this impact is reduced to a level less than significant. Long-Term Impacts The development of the proposed project will result in long—term air quality impacts. Long—term air quality emissions associated with the proposed project would result from two types of sources: stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include the emissions produced from on—site energy use for heating, cooling, operation of electrical machinery, lighting, appliances, and other equipment that consumes electricity or natural gas. Mobile sources are emissions generated by increased vehicular trips which will result from project implementation. The pollutants generated in the largest quantities would be CO, NO,,, and PM10. Hydrocarbons (HC) would be emitted in smaller quantities. Long-term impacts associated with the proposed project's implementation are discussed under the heading Total Emissions later in this section. Stationary Source Emissions Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources are generally large emitters with one or more emission sources at a facility with an identified location (e.g., power plants, refinery boilers). Area sources generally consist of many small emission sources (e.g., residential water heaters, architectural coatings) which are distributed across the region. Stationary emissions will be generated on-site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Off-site emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional off—site emissions. In order to evaluate the project emissions, emission factors contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were utilized. Projections of the proposed project's generated stationary source emissions are presented in column 1 of Table P. The calculations for the projections are contained in Appendix D of this EIR. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile source emissions will be generated by vehicle trips as a result of the proposed project. Mobile source or indirect emissions projected to result from implementation of the proposed project are vehicular pollutants released by increases in vehicular traffic. Several pollutants are directly emitted from motor vehicles. These include CO, NO, PM,,,, and HC. CO is the primary pollutant of major concern along roadways since air quality standards for CO along roadways are exceeded more frequently than the other pollutant standards. PA 1997\7N 15001 TWAIRQUALITY.DOC 5-95 Environmental Analysis Air Quality For the purpose of quantifying mobile source air quality impacts, the emission factors contained in the 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis were utilized. The projections of the proposed project's generated mobile source emissions are presented in column 2 of Table P. The calculations for the projections are contained in Appendix D of this EIR. Total Emissions Long-term total emissions generated from the project are the sum of the stationary source emissions and the mobile source emissions. The total emissions amount is then compared to the impact criteria for long-term emissions established by the SCAQMD for daily threshold emission levels. It should be noted that the air quality analysis of mobile source emissions is based on standards set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook for Air Quality Analysis, with environmental significance determined accordingly. This worst-case analysis criteria assumes that the proposed project will generate increased traffic; and therefore, increased vehicle emissions. While it is obvious that the increased emissions will be generated in the vicinity of the project site, the increase will not necessarily constitute a net increase in emissions generated within the South Coast Air Basin. The totals for both vehicular and stationary source emissions generated by the proposed project are displayed in column 3 of Table P. TABLE O CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Pollutant SCAQMD Construction Exceeds Percent Threshold Emissions Threshold? Exceeded Carbon 550 (lbs/day) 34 (lbs/day) No -- Monoxide Reactive Organic 75 (lbs/day) I 1 (lbs/day) No -- Compounds Nitrogen Oxides 100 (lbs/day) 158 (lbs/day) Yes 58% PM10 150 (lbs/day) 11 (lbs/day) No -- Source: EDAW, Inc., 1997 PA1997\7N15001\EIR\AMQUAL1TY.D0C 5-96 Environmental Analysis Air Quality TABLE P PROJECT 1997 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Emission Stationary Mobile Total SCAQMD Exceeds Percent Sources Sources Emissions Threshold Threshold? Exceeded Carbon Monoxide 0.7 690.6 691.3 550 yes 26% Nitrogen Oxides 4.0 47.8 51.8 55 no -- Particulates (PM10) 0.1 4.2 4.3 150 no -- Reactive Organic 0.0 56.2 56.2 55 yes 2% Compounds Source: EDAW,Inc., 1997 Based on the long-term emissions estimated to be generated by the proposed project, it is anticipated that the proposed project will exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO and ROC. Table P provides a comparison of daily total emissions to the SCAQMD's emission thresholds of significance for each pollutant, and identifies the percent by which the emission thresholds are exceeded. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. In addition, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 is proposed to reduce this impact. SCAQMD identifies that the proposed measures are capable of reducing CO emissions by up to 31 percent and ROC emissions by up to 6 percent (Tables 11-6, 11-7 in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993). With implementation of mitigation, this impact is reduced to a level less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by Mitigation Measures 1 through 6. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be an impact. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 will reduce this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and P:\1997\7NI5001\EfR\AMQUALITY.DOC 5-97 Environmental Analysis Air Quality stationary source emissions. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. During construction, the applicant shall use water trucks or sprinkler systems on all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust from being raised when leaving the site. B. During construction, the applicant shall use low sulfur fuel (.05% by weight) for construction equipment. C. During construction, the applicant shall attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days(first stage smog alerts). D. During construction, the applicant shall discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2) Spread soil binders; and 3) Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; 3) Use low sulfur fuel(.05%by weight) for construction equipment. 5-98 Environmental Analysis Air Quality D. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days. E. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 2. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following(or other reasonably equivalent measures as required by the City Engineer): A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. ` F. Wash off trucks leaving site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators when practical. 3. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that vehicle movement on any unpaved surface other than water trucks shall be terminated if wind - MON speeds exceed 15 mph. 5-99 Environmental Analysis Air Quality 4. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance.of the paving. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: • Provision of rideshare incentives. • Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its `fair-share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 8. Prior to the issuance of use and occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide proof that energy saving features have been installed in project homes as required by the Uniform Building Code. Features may include: solar or low-emission water heaters, energy efficient appliances, double-glass paned windows, low-sodium parking lights, etc. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for NOX during construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non- attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 are proposed to reduce this impact. This impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for CO and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. Further,the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered 5-100 Environmental Analysis Air Quality under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 are proposed to reduce this impact. This impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by Mitigation Measures 1 through 6. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 will reduce the proposed project's incremental contribution to this impact by reducing the proposed project's mobile and stationary source emissions. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, is reduced to a level less than significant. 5-101 Environmental Analysis Noise 5.5 NOISE This report addresses the potential impacts related to noise associated with the proposed Shea Homes project. The noise calculations prepared by EDAW, Inc., February 1997 and March 1998 are provided in Appendix C. The traffic assumptions used in the noise analysis are from the traffic study prepared by Darnell&Associates,June 1997. EXISTING CONDITIONS Noise Measurement Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the Decibel (dB). One decibel is approximately equal to the threshold of a person's hearing, 30 decibels is considered very quiet, 45 decibels is commonly considered the maximum indoor noise level, and 65 decibels is commonly considered the maximum outdoor noise levels. At 100 decibels noise begins to be intolerable and at 180 decibels noise is lethal. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) performs this compensation by discrimination against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A-weighted decibel." The "equivalent noise level" or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. Several rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: (1)the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man; (2) the variety of noises found in the environment; (3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment; and(4)the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour average noise level based on the A-weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 P.M. to 10 P.M.)penalizes noises by 5 dB, while nighttime (10 P.M. PA1997\7N15001\EIR\N0ISE.D0C 5-102 Environmental Analysis .... Noise to 7 A.M.) noises are penalized by 10 dB. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. Table Q depicts typical outdoor noise levels in terms of CNEL. Federal Agencies typically use the Day-Night Level (LdJ description. In most applications,the differences between Ld,and CNEL metrics are negligible. Noise Criteria State of California The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles and motor boats, establish noise impact boundaries around airports, regulate freeway noise affecting classrooms, and set noise insulation standards. The standards which are applicable to the proposed project are the State Noise Insulation Standards found in the California Code of Regulations. This code requires acoustical insulation in areas subjected to 60 CNEL or greater in order to maintain an annual interior level of 45 CNEL in any habitable room of a dwelling unit. This code applies to new projects which include multiple-family residences, hotels, or motels. The State Guidelines establish noise acceptability ranges for various land uses. These ranges are in terms of the CNEL scale. For residential land uses, an outdoor noise of 65 CNEL and an interior noise of 45 CNEL are considered acceptable. Outdoor use areas are typically defined by Caltrans and the State of California Noise and Land Use Criteria as rear yards, patios and balconies. Open Space park land has an exterior standard of 65 CNEL for active recreation areas. There is no other specific standard for general open space areas, although these noise levels should be as quiet as possible. Commercial, retail, and industrial land uses are not as sensitive to noise as residential land uses and therefore have higher interior and exterior noise standards. City of Huntington Beach General Plan The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element identifies goals, objectives, and policies formulated to provide basic guiding principles for reduction of noise. The sound level limit for all residential areas is 65 CNEL for outdoor and 45 CNEL for indoor areas. Land uses that are considered "noise sensitive" receptors which require low noise levels typically include churches, public and private schools, libraries, park and recreation facilities, institutions, residential units, and hospitals. Low noise levels are necessary for these uses in order to preserve their intended goals such as education, health promotion, and general state of well-being. P:\1997\7N15001\E1R\N0ISE.D0C 5-103 Environmental Analysis Noise TABLE Q TYPICAL OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS LAND USE CNEL Apartment Next To Freeway 88 3/4 Mile From Touchdown At Major Airport 86 Downtown With Some Construction Activity 78 Urban High Density Apartment 76 Urban Row Housing On Major Avenue 68 Old Urban Residential 59 Wooded Residential 51 Agricultural Cropland 44 Rural Residential 39 Wilderness Ambient 35 Source: EDAW, Inc. CNEL =Community Noise Equivalent Level Existing Traffic Noise Levels Presently, the 49.5-acre project site is vacant. The area surrounding the project is primarily residential uses. Residential uses are considered noise sensitive receptors. The project site is designated for single-family residential uses and is located in an urbanized location with ambient background noise levels. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to intrusive noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure time and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, and recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than are sports facilities, and commercial and industrial land uses. The principal source of noise on the project site and in the vicinity of the project site is vehicular traffic. Based upon information contained in the Traffic Study, the major source of traffic related noise occurs from Graham Street, a two lane commuter road which runs adjacent to the site. The existing noise levels used in the analysis for the proposed project have been estimated in terms of the CNEL index by modeling the roadways for current traffic speed characteristics. The roadway noise levels were computed using the Highway Noise Model published in the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD-77- 108, December 1978.). PAI997\7N15001\EIR\NOISE.DOC 5-104 Environmental Analysis Noise The FHWA Model uses traffic volume (average number of vehicle trips per day), vehicle mix (percentage of cars, trucks, and heavy trucks), vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the CNEL. Equivalent noise levels are computed for each of the time periods. Weighing these noise levels and adding them, results in the CNEL for the existing traffic estimated. For roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions have been made and are incorporated in the modeling effort. Table R details the current noise levels for the modeled road segment. Table R provides the distances to the existing 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours for Graham Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue. These values represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. In addition, Table R provides the CNEL at 50 feet from the nearest travel lane centerline. Varying topography, different distances of noise sensitive receptors from the road segments, different design and location of existing structures as well as variable traffic volumes, speeds, and mixes make it difficult to precisely forecast the existing traffic noise levels at specific locations. The projections depicted in Table R do not take into account the mitigating effects of any intervening structures, such as walls,that may effect ambient noise levels. The existing sensitive receptors located closest to Graham Street are the single-family homes (approximately 6 homes) along Kenilworth, Glenstone, and Pendleton Streets located approximately 51, 50, and 61 feet from the centerline of the roadway. The existing CNEL contour is approximately 68 feet from the center line of Graham Street. Therefore, the roadway segment currently exposes sensitive receptors to noise levels slightly over the 65 CNEL exposure limit. As stated previously, the noise projections do not take into account the mitigating effects of any intervening structures, such as walls, that may effect ambient noise levels,thus this is considered a worst case scenario. TABLE R EXISTING CONDITION DISTANCES TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Distance To Contour' CNEL At 50 Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Feet' Graham Street(between Slater 0 68 211 65.1 dB Avenue and Warner Avenue) Source: EDAW, Inc. ' Distance to CNEL contour from centerline of roadway in feet. z CNEL at 50 feet from near travel lane centerline. CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level P:\1997\7N 15001\EIMNOISE.DOC 5-105 Environmental Analysis Noise IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of impacts that are normally considered to have a significant effect on the environment. A project would typically have a significant noise impact if it will: (p) Substantially increase ambient noise levels adjacent to the project. The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Noise Element specifies the sound level limit for all residential areas as 65 CNEL for outdoor and 45 CNEL for indoor areas. Any increase in noise above those limits will have a significant noise impact. In addition to the above criteria, noise impacts must be assessed in terms of perceived change in existing sound levels. Typically for short-term noise sources, an increase of at least 3 dB is usually required before most people perceive a change in noise levels, and an increase of 5 dB is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. Table C is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. Their recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been assumed for this analysis that they are applicable to all sources of noise that are described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as Ldn or CNEL. These metrics are generally applied to transportation noise sources, and define noise exposure in terms of average noise exposure during a 24-hour period with penalties added to noise that occurs during the nighttime or evening. Ldn or CNEL are often defined in terms of an average annual day, and are therefore quite different than the short-term noise level descriptors described above. This report will utilize Table S in determining which noise impacts have the potential to be noticeable and considered to be a significant noise impact. Currently, the modeled roadway segment does slightly exceed the criteria for acceptable noise levels under a "worst case" scenario assuming no sound reductions from walls. To determine project related impacts to this roadway segment,the criteria of"perceived change" along with the violation of noise standards will be used. For the perceived change condition, if the street segment experiences a noise increase over 1.5 dB beyond the estimated future noise conditions due to project related traffic,this will be considered a significant impact. PA199T7N15001\EIR\NO1SE.DOC 5-106 Environmental Analysis 14"N Noise For the purposes of this report, significant impacts exist where the community noise standards are violated as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. The impacts related to the above stated criteria are discussed below. Potential noise impacts are divided into two groups: short-term and long-term. The short-term temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long- term impacts are generated by mobile sources and stationary sources associated with occupancy and operation of the development. Short-term Construction Noise The proposed project has the potential to result in short-term construction noise impacts to surrounding land uses due to the grading and construction activities. Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Although most of the types of exterior construction activities associated with the proposed project will not generate continually high noise levels, occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction activities are possible. Table T depicts typical construction equipment noise. Construction equipment noise is controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency's Noise Control Program (Part 204 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations). TABLES SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN CUMULATIVE NOISE EXPOSURE Ambient Noise Level Without Project Significant Impact (L. or CNEL) <60 dB +5.0 dB or more 60 - 65 dB +3.0 dB or more >65 dB +1.5 dB or more Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) TABLE T CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE Type Maximum Level, dB at 50 Feet Bulldozers 87 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Source: Environmental Noise Pollution, 1977 P:\1997\7N 15001\EIMNOISE.DOC 5-107 Environmental Analysis Noise During the construction phase of the project, noise from construction activities will add to the noise environment in the immediate area. Activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table D, ranging from 85 to 88dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities will be temporary in nature and are expected to occur during normal daytime working hours. Construction noise impacts could result in annoyance or sleep disruption for nearby residences if nighttime operations occurred, or if unusually noisy equipment was used. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment. Noise associated with the hauling of fill import will also occur during construction. The noise would be short in duration and would occur primarily during daytime hours. The proposed project has the potential to result in significant short-term noise impacts on nearby sensitive noise receptors. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce short-term construction noise impacts to noise sensitive land uses a level less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this document, the remedial grading component of the project will require dewatering. The dewatering activities are estimated to occur over a four (4) to six (6) month period. Approximately 30 to 40 submersible pumps would be utilized during this effort. The exact location of the pumps placement is current unknown; however, they will most likely be placed on-site adjacent to the flood control channel because groundwater levels are typically higher at this location. According to Foothill Engineering and Dewatering, Inc., the primary noise levels associated with dewatering occur from the "power source" (i.e., generators) and not the pump itself. The submersible pumps will be placed at the bottom of wells (20 to 40 feet below the surface) and therefore would not produce noise levels which would exceed 65 (dBA). Based upon information provided by Utility Consultants of Orange County, temporary electrical power necessary to operate the dewatering pumps could be brought underground to the project site from the east side of Graham Street where it currently exists. If the dewatering activities can be accomplished using temporary electrical power at the site, potential noise impacts associated with the activities would be minimal and would not exceed City standards. If this temporary electrical power cannot be obtained, gas-powered portable generators would be required to power the submersible pumps. Specifications on generators with soundproof housing indicate the resulting noise levels are 65.5 (dBA) at 23 feet (refer to Appendix C for actual specifications). Typical "non-soundproof' generators can produce noise levels between 80 and 90 (dBA). Additionally, the portable generator(s) with soundproof housing could be placed within temporary soundproof structures to further reduce the noise levels. Mitigation Measure 1 has been proposed to ensure the construction dewatering activities do not exceed City noise standards. Implementation of this mitigation will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\N0ISE.D0C 5-108 Environmental Analysis Noise Long-Term Impacts Roadway Noise A potential acoustic impact of buildout of the project site is noise from project generated traffic along nearby roadways. Noise modeling for long-term impacts is based on existing plus project traffic conditions as discussed in Darnell & Associates traffic study. In order to determine project impacts, the existing plus project traffic conditions as well as year 2020 cumulative traffic conditions were modeled for estimated noise levels. Based upon the future traffic volumes contained in the traffic study and distances of the surrounding roadways to sensitive receptors (i.e., existing and future homes), Graham Street between Slater Avenue and Warner Avenue was selected for modeling analysis. If two different volume numbers were provided for the Graham Street segment in the traffic analysis, the higher volume was utilized to provide a worst-case analysis. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT NOISE LEVELS Based on the CNEL contours in Table E it is estimated that roadway segment modeled for noise will continue to expose off-site sensitive receptors to noise levels which exceed the 65 CNEL ' exposure limit assuming no sound wall reductions. The 65 CNEL is projected at 81 feet from the roadway centerline. As stated above, the closest off site sensitive receptors are the single family residences (approximately 6 homes) along Kenilworth, Glenstone, and Pendleton Streets located approximately 51, 50, and 61 feet from the near travel lane of the roadway. The closest future on- site sensitive receptors are lots #66, #67 and #68 (refer to Exhibit 6a) located approximately 65, 90, and 113 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Thus, Lot #66 may currently experience exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL assuming no sound reduction from walls. As stated previously, the noise projections do not take into account the mitigating effects of any intervening structures, such as walls, that may effect ambient noise levels. The increase in CNEL due to project implementation is 0.8dB. This increase is substantially less than the 1.5dB standard for a perceived change for this worst case scenario. Additionally, noise industry standards data indicates that sound walls can reduce noise levels from 5 dBA to a maximum of approximately 20 dBA. The project proposes to—replaee the-euFFew six feet leeated nerth-ef the site wit construct a six-foot masonry privacy wall that would run along the rear property line of lot #103 to lot #123 and the side property lines of lots 4125 and #126 of Tract 5792. Privacy walls will also be included along Graham Street (rear property line of proposed lots #66, #67, and #68). Mitigation Measure 3 is proposed to ensure the new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise attenuation. No impact is anticipated. CAMY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\I-2000.EIR\NOISE.DOC 5-109 Environmental Analysis Noise TABLE U EXISTING PLUS PROJECT DISTANCES TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Distance To Contour CNEL At 50 Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Feet Graham Street(between Slater 0 81 254 65.9dB Avenue and Warner Avenue) Source: EDAW, Inc. ' Distance to CNEL contour from centerline of roadway in feet. 2 CNEL at 50 feet from near travel lane centerline. CNEL=Community Noise Equivalent Level Recreational Noise Another potential acoustic impact of the project is noise associated with recreational activities generated at the proposed park site. As described in Section 3.0 of this document, the ±8 acre park site located in the northwest corner of the project site would include approximately-.4 3.8 acres of flat useable space. The City Community Services Department proposes the construction of a large turf area with a softball backstop, a soccerlfoe"baseball overlay,-Md a tot lot, and basketball court on the -:43.8-acre park area (refer to Section 3.0). The park does not include field night lighting.The turf area would serve neighborhood kids who practice softball, soccer, or €eethall baseball recreationally and is not designed for competitive league games. Noise levels from a typical tot lot (for 12 children) range between 43 and 65 (dBA) at 50 feet from the noise source (i.e., play area). The noise levels associated with informal practice games are not anticipated to exceed the standards of the City's noise ordinance based on noise measurement data for organized league games. Existing off-site homes located closest to the proposed park are on Greenleaf Lane and are approximately 300 to 350 feet from the proposed park activities where noise would be generated (i.e., backstop area and tot lot). The project proposes to mplaee the eufFew six feet wall wi construct a six-foot masonry privacy wall that would run along the rear property line of lot #103 to lot #123 and the side property lines of lots #125 and#126 of Tract 5792, located north of the site. The proposed on-site homes closest to the park are 100 feet from the proposed park activities. Based on the distance of on-site and off-site homes to the park and the barriers (i.e., proposed new six (6) foot wall), no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measure 3 is proposed to ensure the new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise attenuation. No impact is anticipated. 5-110 Environmental Analysis ,OWN Noise CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a short-term construction noise impact. The projects incremental impact is mitigated to a less than significant level. The long-term cumulative noise levels are discussed below. YEAR 2020 NOISE LEVELS Table F depicts the year 2020 noise levels. This future scenario includes traffic associated with buildout of the project along with all other proposed and approved development in the area. It is estimated that vehicular traffic along Graham Street will continue to expose sensitive receptors to noise levels above 65 CNEL assuming no sound wall reductions. The 65 CNEL is projected at 105 feet from the roadway centerline and noise levels of 67 dBA are projected 50 feet for the near travel lane. As stated above, the closest off-site sensitive receptors are the single family residences along Kenilworth, Glenstone, and Pendleton Streets located approximately 51, 50, and 61 feet from the near travel lane of the roadway. The closest future on-site sensitive receptors are lots #66, #67 and #68 (refer to Exhibit 6a) located approximately 65, 90, and 113 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Thus, lots #66 and #67 may experience exterior noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL assuming no sound reduction from walls. TABLE V YEAR 2020 DISTANCES TO CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Distance To Contour' CNEL At 50 Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Feet' Graham Street(between Slater 0 105 330 67.1dB Avenue and Warner Avenue) Source: EDAW, Inc. ' Distance to CNEL contour from centerline of roadway in feet. 2 CNEL at 50 feet from near travel lane centerline. CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a significant incremental increase (0.8 dBA) in traffic noise levels in the year 2020. Noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL are not anticipated considering the sound PA1997\7N15001\EIR\N0ISE.D0C 5-111 Environmental Analysis Noise reduction effects of the proposed wall along the northern property line and along Graham Street. Mitigation Measure 3 is proposed to ensure the new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise attenuation. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. MITIGATION MEASURES l. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit and have approved a noise mitigation plan to the Department of Planning that will reduce or mitigate short-term noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive. The plan shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and shall include,but not be limited to: A. A criteria of acceptable noise levels based on type and length of exposure to construction noise levels; B. Physical reduction measures such as temporary noise barriers that provide separation between the source and the receptor; temporary soundproof structures to house portable generators; and C. Temporary generators (if utilized) shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors. D. Mitigation measures such as restrictions on the time of construction for activities resulting in high noise levels. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence acceptable to the City Engineer that: A. All grading and construction vehicles and equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped and maintained with effective muffler systems that use state of the art noise attenuation. B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive noise receptors. C. All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. 5-112 Environmental Analysis -*OW, Noise 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence (specifications) acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls along the projects northern property (along the rear property line of lot #103 to lot #123 on Kenilworth Drive and the side property lines of lots #125 and #126 on Greenleaf Lane of Tract 5792) and Graham Street (along the project's boundary) will be constructed to achieve maximum sound attenuation. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project has the potential to result in significant short-term noise impacts during exterior and interior construction activities. Implementation of Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 will reduce short-term construction noise impacts to a level less than significant. The proposed project will increase the existing plus project traffic noise levels along Graham Street by up to 0.8 dB. The 0.8 dB increase in noise levels is not considered a significant impact. Based on the distance of on-site and off-site homes to the park and the barriers (i.e., proposed new six (6) foot wall), the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant noise "` impacts from recreational activities at the proposed park site. Mitigation Measure 3 is proposed to ensure the new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a short-term construction noise impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a significant incremental increase (0.8 dBA) in traffic noise levels in the year 2020. Noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL are not anticipated considering the sound reduction effects of the proposed wall along the northern property line and along Graham Street. Mitigation Measure 3 is proposed to ensure the new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction. 5-113 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources 5.6 EARTH RESOURCES A geotechnical assessment of the site was prepared for the project by Pacific Soils Engineering (PSE), February, 1998. PSE also completed a Phase I Assessment of the property in January 1997. Findings of the reports are summarized below. The full text of the reports is included in Appendix E of this EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that PSE completed a study in April, 1997 which was reviewed by the County of Orange. This study addressed only the "remedial grading" portion of the project. The revised February, 1998 study addresses implementation of the full project as described in Section 3.0 of this EIR. The County comments on the original report have been addressed in the revised study and a response memo contained within Appendix E. EXISTING CONDITIONS Site Investigation Several geotechnical studies were previously performed on this site prior to PSE's current field exploration. The first investigation was performed in 1986 by LeRoy Crandall and Associates (LCA). A second investigation was performed by Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc. (SMC). A total of 18 exploratory borings and 5 trenches were excavated, logged, and sampled as part of those previous field investigations. The above mentioned studies as well as others are referenced in Appendix I of the PSE report contained in Appendix E of the EIR. Appendices III and IV of the PSE report present excavation logs and laboratory data, respectively, from the above referenced reports. PSE conducted a supplemental field investigation which was comprised of the excavation, logging, and sampling of eight (8) exploratory borings, twelve (12) test pits, and sixty-five (65) cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings within the limits of the subject site. The CPT soundings were performed to specifically address the potential for on-site liquefaction. The approximate locations of the subsurface explorations are shown on Exhibits 38-41 Boring/Test Pit Location Maps 1-4. The CPT's were advanced to depths ranging from ±21 to ±51 feet below existing site grades. Detailed logs of the CPT's and a summary of the equipment used are presented in Appendix E. The test pits were excavated with a rubber-tired backhoe to depths ranging from 6± to 15± feet. The CPT soundings were performed to depths ranging from 31± to 60± feet. Details of the drilling and Logs of Borings are presented in Appendix III of the geotechnical report contained in Appendix E of this EIR. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-114 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 / --------- City of Huntington Beach -------------------- /! 20727 ° 1.7 o / A X r t / t.7 X X 0 BBt AB X .aa S ftR - 7 — t X �1 sD 0 u x JOIN I \ ' REMO�E Ell 1 0 RCP �. 11 XI Ous T Ur t 1✓✓✓5 T C, -1 I ® IX REFS TO A RI REPO PREP D 1.1 / �// �` '7 �,__ 90 _ •5 Be 85 84 BY A DEN K Y, TEO� fP.,20. 6 0�1 y ��•. /' THE DE C I 0 PR ERygTI 0 NTIAL. m / / ow q , P- 1.6 P- 1.2 P-0.8 P-0.8 \ P- 1.1 P- 1 P- 1.7 / 7Qal / al -Byk- — SL7e�cw �! — — — — ��� %/ /• s. J 'f,/'// A��/� r!/i/asA �- =iYOL- - a0o'_- fv.�- r 16QG- - -- V�7 IN / , 1Y/ / /-J4LA Cue It — / '% • �.i., t F XX � 'b / _t /.` t v --wc _ _ _-ar- x-ms•---1 / / %/ 'ryR�/ �/J •7 \ 0.4 0.7 a v ZI •11�1 rEe .& Zt ,IV ,✓i T E-,7,/ .° C 0.3 'ta § u 29 6 1 T•12 1 �eps- >t 07 a o o. #E 141,*1 ax�R Sp /MP`IPCET / a N / r CANy� , � Cb I •, II ARK .SIT I 11" s I , I a � F- 1 T "A N O I I N y W • �� s�Md t , I 1 / °sue \ a' -. TP•3 Qal �l A I'll 0 L `_ / /I✓ w I.( /. 1. �t >.� i t s r 0 w 0. 4A .� QP 1PEQ Sp ,MP INk`7�� k•' � '��� ,,5 X 2•Z G 1F` tl ,�t,�/1 � � 0 „ y 0 qa.� Legend 0.z °- / os br 2• -� yd +A ' �� wo s / ai ". P' i /�� o.s P �� - O F of 1 -FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EMBANKMENT CITY 0 HUNTINGTON BE / / / / /' /i �i� srB s. / x 96 V i V / I %/ T •7 / a3 / e�5 - P 31 V = s aft-PILL MOUNDS AwACExr To THE FLOOD Pf of 3-READILY OBsew%BLE FILL MANTLE RESULTANT MAIN 4-I.ISCELLTreO O 0 AN ° / '/ - ,2 3 e P,z• }� of FFIOMS DE,.�MAPPAL IROAD AND PAD FILL) BLE FILL DEPOSITS ry o/ / •2 /i/' X / 1 p 1 9 f 4 °P wo a,`, af5-GRAHAM STREET FILL EMBANKMENT y0 /+y / 9 Pg 5, P t J QQ s b / i yy =oa \\ \ M QS I-POSSIBLE SMALL SLUMP t�j TL 4i \ ``,, ,.X \ CPT•8.x QCO1-:oLLuvwM / P`21 L CP•40 g° P caij0* ,%' t, `\ N QPU-UPPER PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS •o �-`,r C)UERED WHERE INFE�PROEDIAMTELY LOCATED ,8 o P Qal M r ®-HORIZONTALBEDONJO �, Ps a. N 2\ , \ o ( S APPRDXUMAS Qx3 mC F BORING BY -�(�PU ( /,.- / 3 9 , / \/ , \ w '� x PACIFIC P` 2• /+� � "I\ P T�rt-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT BY }13 Ps A A 0.o , Z• / �� / 9 f N 'V \`' \ PACIFIC SOILS END, _ P` / / .� / +Y \ •• e T-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPT 13Y PALM g / $. SOILS ENB.INC. C M ps 4.8`- Q a' 8 o .`_ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPT BY PACIFIC e - o' - Q sd+`` yiz 1 ,5� 5 \ a.� \ as a tT t\u 0 1 SOILS ENG.INC.0424W-3/284n O9 • ,a / 5g ., P• �� O �e LC t0_APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING BY � a ,` 0 AND ASSOC, Q e P• ,e / 59 p• 6\ // 'p . a B APPROXCIMATELOCA BY LLTION OF BORING a� 3• / s 1 , a 0% o a sTO.Ev-MILLER coNaULTANrs INC • T"-APPROXMATE LOCATION OF TRENCH BY O SEE SHEET 4 SEE SHEET 3 ~ STONEY-MLLER LTANTSM NOTE:AS PER THE ATTACHED BORING AND TRENCH LOGS,FILL DEPOSITS OTHER THAN THOSE DELINEATED ON THIS MAP Scale:(approx.) 1"=100' APE SCATTERED ACROSS THE Srte BUT ARE UNMAPPABLE OWING TO THEIR LACK OF RECOGNIZABLE MORPHOLOGY OR THEN-SMALL SCALE DAW, Inc. Exhibit 38 Source: Pacific Soils Engineering,Inc. Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations (1 of 4) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach + , _ KENILWORTH DRIVE ''--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- /eon .o° 7 •C• \ � 0.{ i . . ..I ' I I I I �• l I k.2S 8fkT. I ( � ' -- I�-'%51 "-te la _ I . !' . .' T. TO BBa ABAJr ONdfi ` J r _ ..\ voa 'I i ;x ^ 60NED `I loon REMOVE E> 0-RCP I(P • - P•11 y -_- REMO ..6QP (PfS I _ 01 _ - _ __t ID sD wt cawr 21 e x .,. ._. 5T C 36 � v v ^ I� ' ' a• V �7 90 5 86 85 /84 83 - 81 80 78 77 76 75 74 73 � 71 1.6 P- V2 P=0.8 P=0.8 P. 1.1 P- 1 P- 1.7 P-2.0 P-2� P- 1.6 P= 1.4 P=0,81 P-0.8 P=0.5 P=,0.6 P=0.9 P- 1.2 P= 1.5 P='1.8 I' P 2.1 Pm 2.4 Qal al 2 °Y9 Q , x Q CPT x 2 al °, 0'. SACK • R O- __NIP_ _S0W _�4441<_ \v x ° -- `- _ -- - - -- --,, - -- `' CPT-1 h ' O7a, raKe leiro O.S1i taro_ 3� ROB 2].w 2].w _ eD se.00 I.e O.S� 3 :� - -- sr.c� .\` i • � t 0.9 '° .co.i :r.y oP 0.; -- -- -- a -- -- " - I x itaf -_ --gyp,- n�.5 $�_- --)I,.d�- '\ - �.- _ \ - --(ERAS- _ 2�, dl' *•� I x W u \J �, a Cn h 1 ,.7 1 I \ @ 91 ru I" \ of 111. 2v W I l \ -v a :I ,.s 8 u'\ 29 iA xt T•12� a; o.e oo. 28: C .g i-3w\ x zY ox --oX I I 1 ;, I B• °.eI a I I x I = �} I`• I - - - ss ,5. A a .I az aw... wxor-c' - -- ' 4 o ' ° W I d a 'fs n n {, ° w z :•� a or i. x 'o� N z� QaI \ U W A $I I ,I, I ,_T - �Xt1 1 .. C2.2 O - yq t i uo W ,�'1 I O 1 a, w PT 7v • a R N A u ? I u a A 1 3 cn v \ y 111 a U 8 oe a\. �` § ,I>< .1 rn\ I �§: 1} is o9 u W 9� 1` a , Ig�" 00 a o �, a N \\ \ TP-3. s x o n's I •B � � 1 25 ' 1F 1 ', \ A 1 1.7 \ �i .s �y/ Q� 1T1 'e 14 1 i i I v 1 1 $ \ \ y t\ �/ v i' 3 s 9 R1 / s 'i la � � a I,1 'a. • \ ' 11 2v � n it �� u w � 9 \ \ 1.9 \P� '.,a h} �; r /":. zz �s�' / i� I u co �,, 1,i • \v Cn 1 °� Gy ,3 ' �O 1 `Kt °i .a o ` n +•]]y, ,f `ti h ,.y %'� s. i ♦'� o �4` m� t� * ,14 1 u s 1 1i � - AO ` 1,''_ $\ '°' a'�\ �. t�•- � '��' / Oq�•� a. CP JP•13a �w \� C ( r v 1 z/ ii Y'35. i e •3 � 5 x 2? _ "` 1 i}t '0 1 v A - ,\ , ' \ \ tale 9 v 3:�' .i .•�.�/ •10z.2 '4� 9 of y 2� rsas AI` t�t ,� 1$ i,. szt d t.z ry / x I pull0 ir= ✓ 2 Py\ i ' ` uo HS \ x / P`�9 /�"�'� � �„'`, \\ \ �\ \�� `\•\ � >O � i� .T�E� 2'ap%i .i� / ,.8 1 2 ' � i!i '/ ��````fo �i/ . 01 p$.e .yd •.�� � -� ,\`\\" �\w N\ �l 1\ q�'' ace'-- �sq��' b9 �'� � �pSSER t? Loll CPT• XPs fF/�o�i�/ -�� /�',.� •o N .4 \ \ N \ Cm \pi.\ / )98�� �fn91/ `� -p�bb �'�/ '/� P.\� /gd: � �� '` N2t N `�', 9 \ \ t > ,�i'- q � � \A y' f a-s' / ,�� I.e j �•/ •. ,o+Y � 6� A� \ u 0 ( ��-' ao =='; "` e end Iz •� , o `g. 17, ,205 i -/ / / of 1 -FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL EM8ANKhQW ®-HORIZONTAL BEDDING aft f HS•8-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING BY - �CANT�ROL�CW�WI•E?'T TO THE FLOOD IS PACIFIC SOILS ENG•INC. 1 5 / / of -READILY OBSERVABLE FILL MANTLE RESULTANT b P /- FROM SITE DEMOLRION PACIFIC SOILS - / 0.9 0 �� q• 3 T•Y2 -APPRoxuMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT BY e / 57 a - •� N ' `., `\ °" ' // O`Jx / 7-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPT BY PACtnC 16 1• - � / of 4-M T�NOEEOOI DMPAA p BLE FILL DEPOSITS ENq INC. s,5 \�¢x af5-GRAHAM STREET FILL EMBANKMENTi SO�s ENG INC 5 B P �'� / -POSSIBLE SMALL SLUMP CP• APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPr BY PACIFIC �6 P' Q.S SOILS ENG.INC.<3/2M9-3rM9n 15 v, ae �- o. \0 �� / Q a I-ALLUVRJM LC•m_APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING BY • \ 0 _ \ x �i -N0T1=AS PER THE ATTACHED BORING AND TAENCM LOGS FILL Q LEROY CRANDALL AND ASSOC. CP•19 `` \ ® P / i / - DEPOSITS OTHER THAN THOSE DELINEATED ON THIS MAP qC O'-COLLUVIUM \.. ® o.e ,:�`�•\ t.Ti 5 Sri%/ / ,ztaie 9i / ARE.SCATTERED ACROSS THE SRT;BUT ARE UNMAPPABLE •.� B•8 -APPSTOROXIMATE LOCATON OF BORIaG BY �] / OWING TO THEIR LACK OF RECOGNIZABLE MORPHOLOGY. ^9�•7V-UPPER PU7STOCENE DEPOSITS O-APPRP LOCATION of TRENCH By Scale:(approx.) 1 =100 SEE SHEET 3 OR THEIR SMALL SCALE yr GEOLOGIC CONTACT APPROXIMATELY LOCATED . - QUERIED WHERE INFERRED 1•y STONEY-MILER CONSULTANTS Y1G EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 39 Source: Pacific Soils Engineering,Inc. Geologic Map with Boring/Test Pit Locations :.(2 of 4) C3rU(50 ° 9 60 6 P \ \\ �° \� \ \\ \\ \ \ t ,... `t ' 5 516 Ox \ \ \ `;\ \ 49 -Pa 4 Z \ \ \\ P.3.4 2.6 a b0 ..Cy 0 zarr �4.9 o \ P. 4.3 p -----1 3.0 r=3.6 «x ri -7 28 z 3,3 P4 3 a 'g• $� cu o- ) \ \ \ 10 29 p ° reA� 9 p�2.3 P.2.8 — �(U 3 N ^,�, \ ,•'E i 15 .s j .3+°• �$ . !p +O-_=\' ;,t \Y Od ., p=2.3 P \ O >' \ `\ ma m Aon.m� N Q, 9 ,\ � P4 Z• rje/ pm n u <rr�., � �� \ \\ 0 � \Oa\ f28 P— 1.6 — a O o- ` � r� o \\ a\\ � \, 0� Z O X � A ry �� � rid •P. � �, �' � \ \ \\ ,D \\ o \ a a a , CA °x CIO \ F _o w �q, V �, \ \ o-. \ \ 13 cV 13. O �� ' 0 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 SEE SHEET 1 ' CP•21 SEE SHEET 3 City of Huntington Beach 5 ( H BUS_ C7 D A /'" /' f/ /:i/ �( �. y° oI I $ -- �- n` j i. ; / i �_ 78 Ps 1 $ A S1 all 000 499 ,6 i CID Ps �o �: - io.:, % /9i 66 ' �r6 ���✓, �/ / �''%'\ qNa 2T�.—_r ati - f 1� •,��.: 'i + •t •7 i _ / �S P� '/ ''�� 1.3 ,,/ / �/ ' I � - " !� �a 1 `� r� 14( 1�� a�P / � -•{ il'�I! �/ ,G 1,�- - bb sp'8• '� //i Q�' . ('� q 5• / ,I Tao t+(a' �\ - = �\ j . � � •53 ��� `tFC� �� /��,j�//""•i� ,o � ( �P 8•/ '-� \ ?; 1 � '� ,�' LC ST � �111• �' P' 1•� 1 r'� n.a � \v (�Q � I� ?06057 D, j '��-'�'.'' ." %�0 r .3.1 ./i� �-• \ \. S , � i�J� � `— r �--�1 b i�p��/�/ t d J i/S!%" / /, / X� ��` �`_r•` �� r /�• ,i p0 ' x/ p 1 6 '�/ ;-� --'�' ^'1r 0- �' /� �� �� � 1785605 � � P ,.v b 9 6• / f /\ Legend x � Ep- 'CIS of,1 -FLOOD coNTRoL CHANNEL EMBANKMENT 2-FILL S ACUAELM TO THE FLOODCHAN x a• �' , i%' 2057944,2 MP / of 3-READILY OBSERVABLE FILL MANTLE RESULTANT 0.3 ° FRO% 1 a.4i•2 P �_ / i P/ :iz - \ (— of 4-MISCELLANEOUS ITE DEMOLITION FILL DEPOSITS QaI 1 P' ,q ,+J+ �j/�� (MAW ROAD AND PAD MBA `fl / of g'GRAHAM STREET FILL EMBANKMENT usn 1I y�• �/,i n . TE d6 P /� / QSI-POSSIBLE SMALL SLUMP QCOI-COLLUVIUM C, �'\ p(,�-UPPER PLEISTOCENE DEPOSITS A i O� \ �� —? r-GEOLOGIC CONTACT APPROXIMATELY LOCATED; 3 I X / �;./ �,(}/• \ �'' OUEFUED WHERE INFERRED +. IN / / / /. / /; \ ®-HORIZONTAL BEDDINGX• v O�\\ !j HS'B-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING BY / -o.e 7 %= �� /` \\ PACIFIC SOILS EN41NC. x O \ VVVjJ, T•y2 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT BY (/A^ PrCIFlC SOILS ENG,INC 1, / �� �\ �/^ - CPT•T_APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF CPT BY PACIFICSOL . o \ ® APPROXIMATE S ENG.INC�LOCAMON 4OF�IUe�CPT BY PACIFIC SOILSL-1- LROXI ATE LOCATION OFNDALL AND BORING BY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING BY STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS INC, TP•5-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TRENCH BY / STONEY-MILLER CONSULTANTS.INC. • /i1� / NOTE AS PER THE ATTACHED BORING AND TRENCH LOGS FILL DEPOSITS OTHER THAN THOSE DELINEATED ON THIS MAP APE SCATTERED ACROSS THE SIM BUT ARE UNMAPPABLE OWING TO THEIR LACK OF RECOGNQABLE MORPHOLOGY. Scale:(approx.) 1"=100' OR THEIR SMALL SCALE EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 41 Source: Pacific Soils Engineering,Inc. Geologic Map With Boring/Test Pit Locations (4 of 4) Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 EXISTING 60" RCP O�ofHuntington Beech TO BE INTERCEPTED -..-.... FUTURE EXTENSION • & ABANDONED I - a._ "1 LOT W' i-n owe,_ e •. 1 1 /• P O O E L LOT L LOT T°II-I O I —�— � or 6 LOT E Q INTERCEPT THE 60" RCP AT THIS o 0 o Q 0 0 0 S LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 60" NME Y q } 1 Q 0r } I I � LOT A 9 x ; i CITY OF H NTINGTON BEACH O n ram.____________------------------------ COUNTY , O s I OF ORANGE / ® AV "' of •a' „ O O O o o..• i 4 O O • @K o o % o i 0 j INTERCEPT THE I NOT A PART y � ,� o � ' 60" RCP AT THIS / PROPOSED NEW LINE LOCATION WITH LOT V 0 ^' IN GRAHAM STREET (10211) PROPOSED NEW ;--- -FROM ]KENILWORTH DRIVE 102" LINE SOUTH THROUGH THE SITE PROPOSED LINE (APPROX. 120") A AT 0 „ " SLATER PUMP STATION TO BE UPGRADED OA NOT .'-1 • O PART �051 FLOOD CONTROL MAPr DATE IDENTIFIER Coaln CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTLA Scale: (approx.) I"=200' "" w ° z D3 l a Dz c (SHEET PILE OR APPROVED EQUAL) EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 42 Source: Hunsaker 8c Associates Irvine,Inc. Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Improvements (206 Lots) Environmental Analysis Earth Resources In addition to the three existing piezometers installed by SMC, four monitoring wells were installed in selected borings excavated as part of the PSE investigation. Wells were installed in HS-3A,HS-4, HS-6, and HS-8 as noted Exhibits 38-41 on the boring logs contained in Appendix E. The wells vary in depth from 20f to 40t feet and were constructed with 2-inch diameter slotted PVC pipe, and the upper 10 feet consisted of solid pipe. The slotted portion of the pipe was covered with a permeable membrane which acts as a filter to minimize migration of fine- grained soils into the well. The excavation was backfilled with clean sand and capped with native soils. Laboratory tests were performed on selected representative soil samples as an aid in soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the soils. The geotechnical laboratory testing program included determinations of moisture content and dry density, Atterberg limits, grain size, expansion potential, shear strength (direct shear), settlement potential (consolidation), compaction (maximum density/optimum moisture), R-value (a test developed by the State of California to evaluate the support characteristics of subgrade soils). and soil corrosivity. Laboratory testing procedures and results are summarized in Appendix IV of the PSE report located in Appendix E of the EIR. Topography/Site Conditions The site is virtually flat ranging in elevation from near sea level to a few feet above sea level except for the bluff that rises approximately 50 vertical feet outside the westerly boundary and a fill embankment that rises up to 12 feet along the easterly and southerly boundaries. Fill soils have been spread several hundred feet on-site, extending away from the bridge crossing of East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. Past land use has been agricultural. Remnants of a stable area are located in the southwesterly portions of the site. A 60-inch storm drain is located near the northerly site boundary at a depth of approximately 6 to 9 feet below grade. A gas pipeline is present near the westerly site boundary. Stratigraphy/Subsurface Soils The subject property is within the Bolsa Gap which is a flood plain that is bounded on the west by Bolsa Mesa and on the east by Huntington Mesa (Poland and others, 1956). Native materials beneath the site have been mapped as Quaternary alluvium and include intertidal marsh and channel deposits consisting of clays, silts, some sand and occasional peat beds. Upper Pleistocene deposits have been mapped along the bluff in the western portion of the property. These deposits include marine and terrestrial terrace deposits. Appendix E includes a discussion of the Pleistocene and Holocene deposits that were laid down upon older sedimentary rocks, and represent the project's areas modern geomorphic environments. PA 1997\7N 15001\E[R\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-1 19 Environmental Analysis —� Earth Resources The near-surface soils onsite consist of both fills from recent site use and alluvial sands, silts, and clays, in varying proportions, to the depths explored by PSE. The fills exist in the form of loose, uncompacted material adjacent to the bridge over the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and remnants of past agricultural and stable use. The alluvial deposits are intertidal and tidal, and consist of loose, silty sands, non-plastic sandy silts, clayey silts of low plasticity, and occasional silty to lean clays. The upper sands and silts are typically loose to medium dense, moist to wet and are considered compressible and potentially susceptible to liquefaction. The fine-grained clayey silts and clays are moist to very moist, soft to firm, are considered compressible but not subject to liquefaction. Groundwater in the form of perched seepage has been encountered at various elevations between the surface and a depth of ten feet depending largely upon seasonal introduction of surface water and the presence and configuration of interbedded seams of highly permeable sands and less permeable fine-grained soils. Groundwater depths are discussed later in this Section. Peat was encountered in the upper five feet in the previous investigations and in the vicinity of borings B-2, LC-3, LC-5, LC-7 and LC-10 as well as test pits TP-3 and TP-4. Refer to Exhibits 38-41. Only minor deposits of peat were observed during the PSE investigation. Significant deposits of peat have not been observed below approximate elevation minus 5 feet. Organic (peat) deposits in the upper 5 feet reportedly exist to a thickness of as much as two (2)to three (3) feet and, where present, could produce additional settlements of several inches over the life of the project. Inorganic sands, silts and clays will begin an immediate response to applied loads and significant soil settlements will continue for 1 to 4 months after loading, depending upon the load, the thickness of compressible layer, and location of more permeable drainage layers (i.e., sands). Dense sands and gravelly sands were encountered at depths ranging from 30 feet below grade at B-7 to over 40 feet below grade at CP-24. Refer to Exhibits 38-41. According to PSE, these deposits are neither highly compressible nor subject to liquefaction. Seismicity The active Newport-Inglewood fault zone (N-I) is the dominant geologic structural feature of the Orange County coastal plain (Barrows, 1974). The N-I is characteristically a right-lateral strike- slip fault, one of several northwest-trending continental borderland faults that extend from the Mojave Desert in the east to beyond the Channel Islands in the west (Fischer and Mills, 1991). Several discrete strands form the N-I in the Bolsa Gap. The North Branch of the N-I, of which is twe-are germane to the geotechnical analysis of the study site, is about 0.4 mile south of the ..� study site, has been demonstrated to be active (Grant, et al., 1995; Law/Crandall, 1994), and has been placed in an Alquist-Priolo (A-P) Zone (State of California, 1986), which mandates site- CAMYDOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\EARTHR-I.DOC 5-120 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources specific fault rupture hazard investigations. That Zone does not encroach onto the project site. The North Branch of the N-I is considered capable of producing moderate to large earthquakes; such as the M6.3 "Long Beach" earthquake that was centered on the N-I near Newport Beach. The potential for such an earthquake on the N-I is the most important element in the seismic hazard analysis summarized below and contained in Appendix II of the PSE report. Potential for Ground Rupture Faults have not been reported within the project site and the site does not lie within an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone of the State of California (Hart, 1994, State of California, 1986). Therefore, ground rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely at this site. Strong Ground Motion Potential The project site, like all property in Southern California, is subject to strong ground shaking due to earthquakes on nearby faults. The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is interpreted as having the potential for generating the highest on-site ground accelerations at the project site. Two methods of analysis are traditionally used to estimate ground accelerations generated by hypothetical earthquakes along regional and local faults: (1) deterministic and (2) probabilistic analysis. Both were used by PSE; and both are acceptable analytical methods. The deterministic approach usually yields higher hypothetical ground accelerations than the probabilistic. A detailed discussion of these methods is provided in Appendix II of PSE's report contained in Appendix E of this EIR. The probabilistic analysis performed by PSE yielded acceleration of about .39g for the 475-year exposure period and about .25g to .28g (say .26g) for the 200-year period. The deterministic analysis yielded .6g for a "maximum probable" event and .75g for the "maximum credible" event. Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils undergo a temporary loss of strength during severe ground shaking and acquire a degree of mobility sufficient to permit ground deformation. In extreme cases, the soil particles can become suspended in groundwater, resulting in the soil deposit becoming mobile and fluid-like. Liquefaction is generally considered to occur primarily in loose to medium dense deposits of saturated soils. Thus, three conditions are required for liquefaction to occur: 1) a cohesionless soil of loose to medium density; 2) a saturated condition; and 3) rapid large strain, cyclic loading, normally provided by earthquake motions. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-121 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources The major factors affecting the susceptibility of a site to liquefaction are: • Stress history of the site soils. • Grain size of the site soils. • Magnitude and duration of ground shaking. Simply stated, saturated, loose, cohesionless sands are most susceptible to liquefaction, with susceptibility increasing with lower density, lower confining stress, and increased ground shaking. Dense gravels and deposits with significant cohesion from fine-grained (clay) fractions are typically not susceptible. Silty sands, sandy silts, and medium dense to dense sands may be susceptible depending upon the interrelationship of the variables discussed above. Liquefaction can manifest itself in various forms. In the extreme case, ground surface rupture, sand boils, and slope failure can occur. Only when the development of liquefaction is sufficiently extensive and shallow enough in proximity to the ground surface do the manifestations become significant. If the mantle of non-liquefiable soil above a liquefiable soil is sufficiently thick, the uplift forces will not be sufficient to produce surface manifestation even if liquefaction occurs in the deeper deposits. Thin, discontinuous layers of liquefiable soil are less likely to produce surface manifestations than thick, continuous layers. Potentially liquefiable soils have been identified to exist at the subject site. For the most part, these potentially liquefiable strata consist of sands and silts that exist in the upper 30 to 35 feet on the site and are interbedded with more cohesive clayey silts and silty clays that are not susceptible to liquefaction. The most significant variable in assessing liquefaction of this site is the selection of an appropriate design acceleration. Arguments can be made for utilization of site accelerations for liquefaction analyses varying from 0.27g to as much as 0.73g depending upon the analytic approach and the level of risk that is deemed appropriate. For liquefaction analysis, an estimated maximum ground acceleration of 0.5 g was used by PSE. This level of ground shaking could be experienced at the site as a result of a Magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located approximately 0.4 miles from the site. The CPT soundings identified sandy silts to silts and clays as the primary constituents of the on- site alluvium with local potentially liquefiable coarse-grained lenses and layers. Surface expression of liquefaction of the underlying soils is probable without site remediation. Some seismically induced settlement of the potentially liquefiable zones, on the order of 1 to 4 inches, can be anticipated under the assumed design earthquake after the "remedial grading" is completed. Therefore, the "remedial grading" component of the project as described in Section 3.0 of this EIR was developed in response to the on-site potential for surface expression of liquefaction. The detailed discussion of remedial grading and foundation design are discussed under the Impacts Section. 5-122 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources Tsunamis (Seismic Sea Waves) Tsunami is a term used to define the water gravity waves most commonly associated with submarine seismic disturbances. Tsunamis can also be generated by underwater volcanic explosions and landslides. The California coast has experienced only small, dampened tsunamis derived from much larger ones that have inflicted substantial damage to the Japanese coast from seismic activity of the Pacific-Eurasian plate boundary in the Western Pacific. Tsunamis on the east side of the Pacific Rim have affected the coast of California. Since 1812, there have been five major tsunamis. The Alaskan earthquake of 1964 which had a magnitude of M,9.1 was the most significant(Bernard and Goulet 1981). According to the City of Huntington Beach, and because of the present low elevation, the site is considered moderately susceptible to Tsunami run-up. Seiches The potential for damage from seiches (seismically induced waves on inland bodies of water) is considered low. The only reasonable sources are the adjacent storm channel which could overtop if a large earthquake occurred locally, and when the channel is filled to capacity; or, in a worst case scenario, if Prado Dam (a structure built to control floods along the Santa Ana River) were to overtop or fail during a large earthquake, when the appurtenant reservoir is filled. Those probabilities seem low. Subsidence Regional subsidence has been reported in the literature (for example, Law/Crandall, 1980; City of Huntington Beach, 1995). Law/Crandall indicates that parts of the region underwent about 10 feet of subsidence, probably resultant from water extraction and oil withdrawal from the Huntington Beach oil field (in which the site is in close proximity). However, the rate of subsidence decreased to a rate of about .01 foot per year as oil production has decreased and as water injection of the oil field has increased. The City of Huntington Beach also expects the rate to decrease. Peat oxidation can also give rise to subsidence, but generally occurs on a more localized level. Ground Water Groundwater was encountered in the exploratory borings and were generally at six (6) feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on previous work done on the site (1988 and 1996), groundwater was reported to be between four (4) to six (6) feet bgs and between 10 to 19 feet bgs. Variations in the semi-perched water levels may be attributed to local mining of water, seasonal P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-123 Environmental Analysis ,.. Earth Resources fluctuations, local drainage devices ("Slater Drain" of Bolsa Chica EIR, 1996), or perhaps faulty measurements. The proposed project will require localized subsurface dewatering prior to and during construction. Hazardous Materials A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been completed by PSE. This ESA was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard E-1527 as per an agreement with Shea Homes. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to evaluate recognized environmental conditions on and near the subject property. Environmental conditions are evaluated with respect to environmental contaminants defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and petroleum products. In addition, previous property use is evaluated. No oil wells occur on the property based on a review of oil field maps. The Sunset Beach oil field is to the west and the Huntington Beach oil field is to the south. Federal and State environmental data bases were searched to determine whether documented , environmentally impacted sites occur on or near the property. A copy of the records search is included as Appendix 8.2 of the Phase I assessment. A site under review by the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (CAL EPA), leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, solid waste landfill site (SWLF), registered underground storage tank (UST) sites, sites under review by the Orange County Health Care Agency and hazardous waste generators are listed within 1.25 miles of the property. The Steverson Bros. Boucher Site is under review by CAL EPA. This site is northwesterly of the property. A preliminary assessment is in progress for this site. According to PSE, it is considered unlikely that the property has been adversely affected by the documented environmentally impacted sites. The Boucher Landfill is the nearest environmentally listed site and is located off-site to the northwest. This landfill has been closed and is considered to pose minimal public risk by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. Public risk was calculated using conservative assumptions. Refer to Reference 1 of the Phase I assessment. The Cabo Del Mar condominium complex has been developed on the landfill site. This landfill was approximately 500 feet northerly of the northwest property corner. A large steel tank was observed off-site adjacent to the western property boundary. The tank did not appear to be in use and no evidence of chemical spillage was observed by PSE. Due to the sites past agricultural use, residual pesticide levels may be present in the soil. The property is within Orange County which has been designated as a Radon Zone 3 area. Radon gas levels have been estimated to be below 2 picocuries per liter (pCi/1). Picocurie is a standard measure for P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-124 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources radioactivity, specifically the rate of decay for a gram of radium- 37 billion decays per second. A picoCurie (pCi) is one trillionth of a Curie. Picocurie per Liter is a unit of radioactivity corresponding to one decay every 27 seconds in a volume of one liter, or 0.037 decays per second or 2.2 decay per minute in every liter of air containing 1 pCi/l. The EPA action level for radon gas is 4 pCi/l. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. A project may be deemed to have a significant effect if it will: (r) Expose people or structures to major geologic hazards. (v) Create a potential public health hazard to people or animal or plant populations in the area affected. For the purposes of this EIR, significant geologic hazards are considered geologic conditions that cannot be overcome by design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices in future development that will occur with implementation of the proposed project. The impacts related to the above stated criteria are discussed below. Soils The project site is composed of alluvial deposits of sands, clays, silty clay. Undocumented fills and peat deposits have also been encountered on the site in the past. On-site silts and peat deposits are highly compressible. Excavations at the site will include removal of existing compressible soils, undocumented fills, disturbed soils during grading and any peat layers encountered, footing excavations and trenching for utility lines. Compressible soils not detected and mitigated prior to construction may severely damage structural foundations. Significant settlements of peat deposits within the upper 5 feet could continue over the design life of the structures without mitigation in the form of removal and/or surcharge. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 along with the "remedial grading" component of the project will reduce this impact to a level less than significant. The potential exists for significant impacts from the on-site mildly to severely corrosive soils. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 require implementation of the PSE recommendations which will reduce potential impacts from corrosive soils to a less than significant level. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIRTARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-125 Environmental Analysis --�» Earth Resources The majority of on-site soils possess poor to moderate pavement subgrade support characteristics with R-values estimated to typically range from 10 or below to on the order of 20 (a "good" R- value would be anything above 50). Depending upon the final distribution of site soil as well as the nature and distribution of import soils, pavement support characteristics could similarly vary. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 shall be implemented to ensure potential impacts from soils with poor pavement support characteristics are reduced to a level less than significant level. The native site soils within the potential zone of influence of structures possess relatively low shear strength at existing moisture and density conditions. Fills, compacted to project standards, at or slightly above optimum content, will exhibit substantially higher shear strength characteristics and can be expected to provide suitable bearing support to typical shallow foundation systems. Deep foundations, if employed, shall be designed to develop support within the dense sands that exist below 30 to 50 feet. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 (along with the "remedial grading" component of the project) will ensure potential impacts resulting from soils with low shear strength are reduced to less than significant levels. The upper site soils, including existing fills and alluvial deposits, can be expected to undergo shrinkage on the order of 10 to 15 percent when excavated and reused as compacted fill. In - addition, shrinkage from settlement of one inch should be expected for each one foot of design fill to be placed. Peat has been identified on-site with locally significant concentrations in the vicinity of borings B-2, LC-3, LC-5, LC-7, and LC-10 (Exhibits 38-41). Thick (>3 inches) concentrations of this material will require separation and off-site disposal while less significant concentrations (0 to 3 inches thick) will likely be adequately scattered and mixed during site remediation so as to be insignificant. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 (along the "remedial grading" component of the project) will ensure potential impacts resulting from soil shrinkage are reduced to less than significant levels. Seismicity Potential for Ground Rupture No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. There are no impacts associated with ground surface rupture on the project site. Strong Ground Motion Potential The project site is located in a seismically active area where significant ground shaking from local earthquakes can be expected. One active fault (the Newport-Inglewood) is located 0.4 miles from the project site. Ground shaking impacts on the project site are considered to be moderate to high due to the proximity of known active faults within the region. Development of the proposed project may expose structures or persons to impacts associated with ground shaking. Seismic P:\1997\7NI500i\EUL\EARTBRESOURCES.DOC 5-126 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources design of the proposed development will be in accordance with Uniform Building Code criteria. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 (along the "remedial grading" component) will reduce impacts due to ground shaking to a level less than significant. Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement In April 1991, the State of California enacted the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code, Division 2, Chapters 7-8). The purpose of the Act is to protect the public safety from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure. The Act defines mitigation as "...those measures that are consistent with established practice and reduce seismic risk to acceptable levels." Acceptable level of risk is defined as "that level that provides reasonable protection of the public safety, though it does not necessarily ensure continued structural integrity and functionality of the property [California Code of Regulations; Section 3721(a)]." In the context of that Act, mitigation of the liquefaction potential at this site to appropriate levels of risk (i.e., level less than significant under CEQA) can best be accomplished by a combination of grading and foundation design alternatives. The recommendation criteria are to 1) perform overexcavation and recompaction of surface soils, in conjunction with placement of design fills, to provide sufficient non-liquefiable soil above potentially liquefiable soils such that ground surface manifestation is precluded, and 2) design improvements to withstand up to 2-inches of differential settlement. The data from the 65 CPT Soundings, conducted by PSE, as well as other data developed by previous consultants, has been used to evaluate potential liquefaction occurrence and seismic settlement at each data point. On the basis of past data and in consideration of proposed site grading, PSE has prepared "remedial grading" recommendations throughout the site that are intended to satisfy the above stated criteria and therefore render the site suitable for residential development. The "remedial grading" has been incorporated as part of the proposed project description. The various depths of recommended overexcavations are indicated in Table I of Appendix E and the grading recommendations are summarized as follows: Overexcavate the site to the depths indicated in Table I of Appendix E. Minimally, overexcavation to elevation minus three (-3) feet will be required and locally overexcavation to as deep as elevation minus nineteen (4 9) is recommended. Plate 2 of Appendix E is based on an assessment of the overexcavation necessary to extend removals locally below currently proposed storm drain and sewer inverts as geotechnical issues. Where concentrations of peat are encountered in the overexcavation process, they should be separated and disposed of off-site. PAI997\7N 15001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES DOC 5-127 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources Upon overexcavation to the required depths, the exposed bottom should be sufficiently stabilized to support compaction equipment. Upon stabilization, fills may be placed and compacted to project specifications until design grades are obtained. Thus, with the implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project and grading recommendations which are summarized above and required by Mitigation Measure 1, impacts associated with Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement are reduced to less than significant levels. Tsunamis (Seismic Sea Waves) With the implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades), potential impacts from Tsunamis are reduced to a less than significant level. Seiches According to PSE, the probability of impacts from Seiches is low and with implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades) and improvements to the C05 channel as identified in Section 5.7, potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Subsidence According to PSE, there is a small likelihood that relatively uniform subsidence could ^ems continue to occur (after the implementation of remedial grading efforts), but the probability of significant damage to the completed development from, this source is seeming low. Regional groundwater withdrawal and peat oxidation can increase the potential for subsidence. The project grading and construction activities will implement removal of peat soils. As stated above, the project will also require localized dewatering (see below). According to PSE, no subsidence impacts to adjacent properties from the proposed local dewatering are anticipated. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 will ensure that the proposed local dewatering does not result in subsidence of adjacent properties along the project's northern property boundary. Ground Water The upper site soils are typically moist to wet with perched water currently present at a depth of approximately six feet below existing grade. Depending upon the time of year, free water may be encountered during site grading in soils within approximately 2 feet above the water surface. The soils below that elevation will require drying and mixing in order to be excavated and compacted -.. 5-128 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources to project standards. Water is likely to be at its highest levels during the winter rainy season and at its lowest levels during the summer months. Excavation of the site soil will be hindered by the presence of perched water and high moisture content soils. The coarser grained sands will generally support excavation equipment, possibly even when saturated, however, the interbedded silts, clayey silts and sandy silts are likely to be unstable when subjected to heavy wheel loads from conventional scrapers. Repeated surface loading with heavy, rubber-tired vehicles tends to "work" moisture to the surface. The project will require subsurface dewatering prior to and during construction. Mitigation Measure 4 is proposed to ensure an appropriate plan for dewatering is implemented. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, no groundwater impacts are anticipated. Potential noise and subsidence impacts which could result from the dewatering activities are discussed in their respective sections of this EIR. Mitigation Measures are recommended to ensure no significant impacts result from the dewatering activities. Hazardous Materials Since no oil wells are located on-site, no impacts from this potential hazard would occur. Based on a review of regulatory information, it is considered unlikely by PSE that the property has been adversely effected by the documented environmentally impacted sites near the property. No impacts are anticipated. The Boucher Landfill site was previously located approximately 500 feet northwest of the northwest property corner. The Cabo Del Mar condominium complex has been developed on this site. The Department of Toxic Substances Control considers the site to pose minimal public risk and an adverse environment impact to the subject property from this site is considered unlikely according to PSE. Pesticides such as DDT and related compounds were widely applied to agricultural properties from 1944 through 1970. Background residual concentrations of these pesticides are common on agricultural properties. These pesticides if not properly treated/removed would impact the future ' users of the site. Mitigation Measure 5 requires Phase II environmental soil sampling to determine the residual levels of pesticides in the soil. Implementation of this measure will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. The site is within Orange County which has been designated as a Radon Zone 3. Radon levels have been estimated to be below 2 pCi/l, which are below EPA significance level; however, to ensure potential hazards would not occur, Mitigation Measure 6 requires testing to verify the estimated radon levels, subsequent to building. Implementation of this measure will reduce potential impact to a less than significant level. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\EARTHRESOURCES.DOC 5-129 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulative impact related to geology/soils. No cumulative impacts have been identified. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to submittal for building permits, a detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include onsite soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Earthwork activities include grading, clearing and demolition, site preparation, unsuitable soil removals, backcuts, excavation processing, compaction of all fills, mixing, benching, inspection, survey control, subgrade preparation, cut and fill slope construction, haul roads, import soils, structural load and settlement/subsidence measures, and storm drain relocation. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the recommendations contained in Section 8.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document, shall be incorporated into the structural design of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Structural design activities include: Foundation Design; Settlements including Foundation Loads and Seismically Induced Settlements; Post-Tensioned Slab/ Foundations; Mat Foundations; Other Foundation Recommendations such as Footing Embedment, Underslab Treatment, and Subgrade Moisture Content; Concrete Driveways, Sidewalks, and Flatwork; Structural Setbacks; Retaining Walls; Other Design and Construction Recommendations such as Lot Drainage, Utility Excavations, Utility Trench Backfill, Corrosion, Metallic Structures, and Concrete Structures. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, it shall be proven to the Department of Public Works that all structures are designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes or Structural Engineers Association of California to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. 5-130 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources 4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall contract with a dewatering expert to prepare a detailed Dewatering Plan. This plan shall include the placement of monitoring wells along near the northern property line to evaluate ground water levels during the proposed project dewatering activities. The dewatering activities shall be adjusted immediately if the monitoring wells show ground water level changes which may effect subsidence of adjacent properties. The Dewatering Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Phase H environmental soil sampling shall be conducted to determine the residual levels of pesticides in the soil. If inappropriate/unsafe levels are identified by this analysis, "clean up" measures shall be recommended and implemented. The Phase H sampling and any necessary measures shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, testing to verify the estimated radon gas levels shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the Department of Community Development. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Significant settlements of peat deposits within the upper 5 feet could continue over the design life of the structures without mitigation in the form of removal and/or surcharge. This is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 along with the "remedial grading" component of the project will reduce this impact to a level less than significant. The potential exists for significant impacts from the on-site mildly to severely corrosive soils. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 require implementation of the PSE recommendations which will reduce potential impacts from corrosive soils to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 shall be implemented to ensure potential impacts from soils with poor pavement support characteristics are reduced to a level less than significant level. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 (along with the "remedial grading" component of the project) will ensure potential impacts resulting from soils with low shear strength are reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 (along the "remedial grading"component of the project) will ensure potential impacts resulting from soil shrinkage are reduced to less than significant levels. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. There are no impacts associated with ground surface rupture on the project site. 5-131 Environmental Analysis Earth Resources Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 (along the "remedial grading" component) will reduce impacts due to ground shaking to a level less than significant. With the implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project and grading recommendations which are summarized above and required by Mitigation Measure 1, impacts associated with Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement are reduced to less than significant levels. With the implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades), potential impacts from Tsunamis are reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts from Seiches is low and with implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades) and improvements to the C05 channel as identified in Section 5.7, potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 will ensure that the proposed local dewatering does not result in subsidence of adjacent properties along the project's northern property boundary. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4,no groundwater impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures 5 and 6 will reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials to levels less than significant. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulative impact related to geology/soils. -0611, 5-132 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology 5.7 DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY The information contained in this section is summarized from March, 1998 Hydrology and Hydraulics Study and the December, 1997 East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (C05) 100- Year Inundation Study prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The studies are provided as Technical Appendix F of the EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS On-Site/Off-Site Drainage The natural direction of drainage of the project site is from the northeast to the southwest. A majority of the project site is at 0.07 percent slope. Exhibit 42 depicts the existing drainage system for the site and adjacent areas. Existing runoff from the site surface drains southwest; however, there are high points along the southwest boundary of the site which under a 100-year storm prevent flow from exiting the site. For the purpose of the drainage analysis, a total of 186.9 (off-site) acres was included. The extra acreage is contained within four (4) of five (5) watershed areas tributary to the Graham Street storm drain system. A description of the watershed areas is provided below. Exhibit 43 identifies the site location and indicates the size of each watershed area tributary to the existing Graham Street storm drain system. All areas referred to below are reflected on Exhibit 43. The area surrounding the site consists of Area Nos. 1 and 2 to the north, and Area No. 5 to the east. These areas currently flow into the Graham Street storm drain system. It should be noted that Area 1 (Tract No. 10853) presently drains into the site at Greenleaf Lane and flows into an existing 60-inch RCP along the northern site boundary where it connects into the Graham Street storm drain. Additionally, Area No. 3, north of Warner Avenue, is tributary to this system and combines with the flow from Area No. 4 (Meadowlark Golf Course) to add to the flow in the Graham Street storm drain system. The upstream end of the Graham Street storm drain system begins at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Graham Street, where Area No. 3 (after retaining some of its flow within Area No. 4) flows south on Graham Street. The system picks up flows within Area No. 2 at Kenilworth Drive; Area No. 1, at 100± south of Kenilworth (from a 60-inch storm drain located along the north property line of the site) (see Exhibit 42); and Area No. 5,just south of the proposed entry of this site. The flow from Area No. 5 enters the existing storm drain in Graham Street about 400 feet south of Kenilworth Drive. The combined flow from all these areas is carried through the existing system under the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and flows into the Slater Channel, which flows into the Slater Pump Station and is ultimately pumped into the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\HYDROLOGY.DOC 5-133 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City of Huntington Beach MEADOWLARK COLF COURSE AREA#4 AREA#3 W A R N R R A V F. AREA# JAA R 1# Emizwoorn 0 R I V F TRACI 00UNIIARY-7 TRACT 15377 L1 H si _ UN,INGION BEACH cotiN,Y Or ORKNOT r XISnNG CRAI-1A. S.O. SYSTEM RA C7 54 O gg@Y G ` . / ,/�'�Y /� ,,,�"�G1'l SLATER CHANNEL No Scale EDAW, Inc. Exhibit 43 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine, Inc. Watershed Boundary Map Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology The existing condition runoff volumes for a 100-year storm event (Q100) for the existing 186.9- acre drainage area and the 49-acre project site are shown in Table W. Advanced Engineering Software (AES) was utilized for estimation of the flows for 100-year return frequency. The results of these calculations are included in Appendix F under sections "100-year Off-Site or On- Site Hydrology" for existing and ultimate conditions. Water Surface Hydraulic Gradient "WSPG" was utilized for hydraulic calculations and the results and an explanation of methodology is included in Appendix F under title "Hydraulic Calculations". The existing drainage area boundaries and node numbers which relate to the calculations in the drainage analysis are shown in Section 3, which is contained in Appendix F of the EIR. Flooding The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) which depict flood hazard areas. The federal program enables property owners to purchase flood insurance based on identified flood hazards in the area. The FIRM map for the area shows that the project site is located within the A99 Flood Zone (Protected by Federal Project under Construction). This A99 Flood Zone is the result of a revision to the previous zone AO. This revision was made by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on April 30, 1996. The Zone A99 designation is used to identify areas that are protected by a Federal flood protection system under construction from a flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) with no base flood elevations (BFEs) determined. The revision to the zone is based on construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem flood control project, which includes two critical features -- channel and bridge widening and channelization of the Lower Santa Ana River Channel Reaches 1 through 4, and construction of the Seven Oaks Dam. The existing residential uses north of the project site currently experience flooding due to existing deficiencies in the existing Graham Street storm drain system. Historically, the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel has reached capacity during larger rain storms in the area according to City staff. Based on an analysis performed by Hunsaker & Associates and contained in Appendix F, the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel may experience overtopping in the area from Goldenwest Street westerly to Warner Avenue during a 100-year storm event. The computer program "HEC-2, Water Surface Profiles" by the US Army Corps of Engineers was used in this analysis for computing the 100-year expected water surface evaluation. A split-flow option in the HEC-2 Program was utilized for computing the runoff amounts which overtop the existing C05 Channel in the 100-year expected peak discharge. For computation procedures, see HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles User Manual, September 1990, and Application of the HEC-2 Split Flow Option Training document No. 18, April 1982. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\HYDROLOGY.DOC 5-136 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology TABLE W EXISTING AND PROPOSED RUNOFF VOLUMES FOR A 100-YEAR STORM EVENT Cumulative Watershed Areas Acres Existing Proposed Flow Flow Q100 Q100 Increase Summation (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) (CFS) 1 21.8 77.3 77.3 0.0 77.1 2 40.7 94.5 94.5 0.0 405.5 3 46.0 120.8 120.8 0.0 405.53 4 65.7 166.23 166.2 3 0.0 405.53 Total Off-Site Flow Accumulation NA NA NA NA 472.54 Project Site 49.0 0.001 126.1 126.12 NA Total Off-Site& On-Site Flow Accumulation NA NA NA NA 598.6 Net Project Increases NA NA NA NA 126.12 Source:Adams Streeter 1. The City's hydrology map shows 0 runoff from the existing project site under a 100-year flood. 2. This flow will be mitigated by the proposed project's new storm drains and the Slater/Wintersburg Pump Station improvements. 3. This flow figure does not assume any retention within the Medowlark Golf Course. 4. This flow will be intercepted and diverted from the existing Graham Street storm drain through the project sites new storm drains to the Slater/Wintersburg Pump Station. Thus,the capacity of the Graham Street storm drain is increased by this figure. Note: Sub-areas which are contained within each watershed area are shown in Sections 3 and 4 of Appendix F. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\HYDROLOGY.DOC 5-137 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology The results of the HEC-2 computer study on a 100-year flood event on a fully developed East Garden Grove -Wintersburg Channel watershed are described below: • The East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel could only carry about 4,200 cfs and would exceed its levees and overflow them in a 100-year flood event. • There would be no overflow along the channel to the north between Cooper Lane and Marie Lane, View Circle and Summer Cloud Lane, and a portion on either side of Warner Avenue. These areas represent 53% of the total channel. • The length of time and that the channel would exceed its existing banks varies with location, but the longest time is about 2 1/2 hours. • Because the existing south levee is slightly lower than the north levee in most of the area where overtopping occurs, most of the excess runoff flows over the south levee. • A total of about 52 acre-feet (AF) of water could w44 actually overtop the north side of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. Water Ouality Water quality in California is regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. NPDES permits are required for any commercial and/or industrial construction sites. As stated above, the existing site is currently undeveloped. The site has also been in agricultural production since the 1950's. It is anticipated that the existing runoff (minimal) from the site contains concentrations of fertilizers and pesticides associated with the past agricultural uses. These include particulate solids (total suspended solids), nutrients (total nitrogen compounds and phosphates) and oxygen demanding substances (BOD). IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. A project may be deemed to have a significant effect if it will: (f) Substantially degrade water quality (q) Cause substantial flooding,erosion or siltation. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the proposed project would cause or expose people and property to substantial flooding or make worse existing 5-138 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology drainage deficiency problems. The impacts related to the above stated criteria are discussed below. Additionally, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would cause a substantial degradation of water quality. On-Site/Off--Site Drainage Implementation of the proposed project will alter existing drainage patterns on-site. Surface flows will be redirected to allow for the development of the residential project. The proposed drainage system will convey runoff from the site (approximately 49 acres) through new storm drain lines directly to the existing Slater Pump Station. Beneficial impacts will occur to the Graham Street storm drain system and are discussed below. The proposed Q100 figures for the drainage area of the project site are presented in Table W. The hydraulic calculation results and methodology are included in Appendix F under the title "Hydraulic Calculations". Under a 100- year storm event, the proposed project will result in a total flow increase of 126.1 cfs. Increased project runoff will be affected by the introduction of an additional 20.5 (50% of residential acreage) acres of impermeable surface areas such as streets, residential driveways, and building pads. Additionally, the proposed condition will include intercepted off-site flows (472.5 cfs) from the Graham Street storm drain. Under a 100 year storm event the proposed project will -^* result in a total increase of 126.1 cfs into the Slater Pump Station. Because the existing areas north of the project currently experience drainage deficiencies, this increase is considered to be significant. The existing facilities are currently not adequate to handle existing runoff and therefore are not adequate to accommodate the increase in project runoff. This is considered a significant impact. An expanded discussion of the necessary mitigation is provided below. The required hydrology analysis performed by Hunsaker & Associates to determine the increase in storm flow into the Slater Pump Station as a result of the development of this site is discussed below. Several methods were used to determine this increase. The different methods are described in Appendix F of the EIR. Please refer to Section 6.7 to Section 6.10, which includes the updated hydrologic study, "FEMA Detailed Flood Insurance Study" prepared by Exponent. The following describes the method which provides a more conservative estimate, which yields the most realistic solution. • The proposed development is required to intercept the Graham Street storm drain system, containing flows from Area Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, this would require the drain through the site to be designed to carry the total peak storm flows without any temporary storm water storage within the golf course. It was assumed that the filling of this low area in the golf course would not be permitted until the over-topping of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel has been eliminated. 5-139 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology • Area 5 will continue to drain into the existing Graham Street drain. With all of the area north of this point taken out of the existing Graham Street drainage system, this area should experience a reduction of flood occurrences. • The Area 1 flows will be directed through the site, joining with on-site flows before joining with the drain from Graham Street where all the flows will cross under the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and enter the Slater Pump Station. The flows that were determined in the hydrology study to enter the site from Graham Street (Area Nos. 2, 3, and 4 =405.5 cfs) were taken along with the flows from Greenleaf Lane (Area No. 1 = 77.3 cfs) and traveled the Greenleaf Lane flows over to Graham Street, where they were snnmed confluenced based on their times of concentration. This resulted in a peak flow rate of 472.5 cfs (for Area Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4). When this is subtracted from the total peak flow that the entire drainage area, including this site, discharges to the Slater Pump Station (Area Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and the site = 598.6 cfs), the result is an increase of 126.1 cfs. The normal peak efficiency of each pump in the Slater Pump Station is about 66,000 gpm (147 cfs). Therefore, one additional pump this size should be more than able to offset any increase in flow caused by the development of this site. Preliminary pipe sizes required to convey calculated 100-year flows are shown on Exhibit 42 of this EIR and with the implementation of the on-site storm drain system (described below) on-site flows are adequately handled. A proposed 60-inch new storm drain line will intercept flows from Watershed Area 1, thereby eliminating off-site flows of 77 cfs into the Graham Street system. The proposed 102-inch storm drain line (parallel to the existing 60-inch RCP in Graham Street) from Kenilworth south to "A" Street and then through the site will convey all off-site flows from Areas 2-4 (472.5 cfs). These lines will connect to a 120-inch storm drain line on-site which will connect to the Slater Pump Station via a RC box under the C05. These lines with their flow interceptions eliminate the existing deficiencies in the Graham Street storm drain. The above improvements have been required as mitigation for the proposed project. Implementation of these improvements will mitigate proposed drainage impacts to a less than significant level. Flooding The proposed project is located within a flood hazard area. Due to the location of the project site within the A99 zone which is not subject to NFIP development standards and the results of the Hunsaker & Associates Channel Inundation Study, significant flooding impacts to the project are not anticipated. The results of the Channel Inundation Study indicate that under the future with project condition, no change occurs in the current condition of the channel upstream of Graham Street. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 which required the above discussed drainage improvements (including improvement to C05 along the site) will further 5-140 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology reduce any potential flooding impact to a level less than significant. Additionally,please refer to Section 6.7 to Section 6.10, which includes the updated hydrologic study, "FEMA Detailed Flood Insurance Study"prepared by Exponent. Water Quality The proposed project has the potential to result in a long-term impact on water quality due to the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Volatile solids in urban runoff can originate: from accidental spills or deliberate dumping of lubricating oils or fuel oils; from emissions of engines during normal operations such as vehicle exhaust particulates or drippings of crankcase oil; from dustfall or rainout of atmospheric particulates; from spilling of crude or refined petroleum products; from leached or eroded pavement; from natural seepage on land; or from natural biogenic sources. The proposed project has the potential to result in an impact on water quality due to the addition of volatile solids to the runoff. Stormwater flows from the future buildout of the residential project will be subject to the NPDES permit process. Through the NPDES Permit process, the City currently requires contributors to non-point runoff pollution to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for pollution. Under this program, the developer is responsible for identification and --�. implementation of a program of BMPs which can include special scheduling of project activities, prohibitions of certain practices, establishment of certain maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of downstream waters. Typical elements of such a BMP program would include addressing the use of oil and grease traps, detention basins, vegetated filter strips, and other common techniques in order to preclude discharge of pollutants to local storm drains and channels. Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 will reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in a cumulative impact related to flooding. The project's incremental contribution to this impact can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Water runoff will cumulatively increase due to the introduction of impervious surfaces. The proposed mitigation measures will reduce the project's incremental cumulative impact to a level less than significant. Buildout of the proposed project in conjunction with future related projects will incrementally contribute to a cumulative increase in the total amount of surface runoff erosion and water quality impacts. Construction related activities that require grading and vegetation removal will increase runoff, causing greater erosion and downstream siltation. Implementation of proposed mitigation and standard City policies and requirements will reduce the project's incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to a level less than significant. 5-141 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to issuance of building permits, a grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. B. Prior to issuance building permits, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to Public Works Department. C. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding storm drainage improvements which shall include, but not be limited to: • Construct the necessary storm drainage improvements (identified on Exhibit 42 within the EIR)to handle increased flows and intercept off-site flows. • Ensure that future building pads are placed at elevations suitable to withstand 100-year flood. • Construct the necessary improvements to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (C05) along the site perimeter. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the discharger's identification number. 3. Prior to the issuance of the grading permits, the applicant shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and all NPDES requirements (enacted by the EPA) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. PAI997\7N15001\EIR\HYDROLOGY.DOC 5-142 Environmental Analysis Drainage/Hydrology LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE With implementation of standard City policies and requirements and proposed Mitigation Measures 1, the potential impacts to drainage will be reduced to a level less than significant. With implementation of standard City policies and requirements and proposed Mitigation Measures 1, the potential impacts associated with flooding will be reduced to a level less than significant. With implementation of standard City policies and requirements and proposed Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, the potential impacts to water quality will be reduced to a level less than significant. Implementation of proposed Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 and standard City policies and requirements will reduce the project's contribution to potential cumulative drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts to a level less than significant. PAI997\7N 15001 TIRWYDROLOGY.DOC 5-143 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 5.8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The information contained in this section is summarized from the results of a technical report prepared by Frank Hovore & Associates (FHA) December, 1997, and an updated wetlands delineation assessment by FHA and Tom Dodson (L. Kegarice, Dec. 1997). This delineation was performed at the request of the California Coastal Commission. These documents in their entirety are contained in Appendix G. This delineation focused on the 8.3 acres originally delineated by the EPA (1989) as jurisdictional wetlands within the 44.5-acre city parcel. This area was subsequently removed from wetland designation by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (1992) and reclassified as "Prior Converted Cropland" (May 20, 1992 correspondence from the Department of the Army). EXISTING CONDITIONS Study Methods Sensitive biological resources present (or potentially present) on site were initially identified through a thorough literature review using materials from the following sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1993, 1994, 1996, 1997), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (1988, 1990a, 1990b, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, and 1996c, 1997), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (1992, 1995, reviewed 1997), and the California Native Plant Society (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Standard field guides were used for field identification of resources, and a spectrum of appropriate literature resources pertinent to the project area or issues under consideration were also consulted. Field Reconnaissance FHA biologists visited the Shea Homes property in Huntington Beach and adjoining property in the County (Tent. Tract Map. No. 15377 and 15419) on 23 November 1996, 17 December, 1996, 14 January 1997, 07 June 1997 and 20 November 1997. The initial visits were intended to assess the presence or absence of wetlands or wetlands-type habitat values on the parcel, per the findings of various prior delineations and observations. The most recent visit was conducted with L. Kegarice (Tom Dodson & Associates), for the purposes of reviewing and formally updating the prior wetlands delineations relative to the presence/absence of the three (3) parameters of wetlands delineation standards, and to assess overall land and habitat conditions following a± 5 months fallow time. 5-144 Environmental Analysis --� Biological Resources Plant species encountered during field surveys were identified and recorded, or samples were taken and conveyed to local arboreta or universities for determination. Scientific nomenclature and common names of plants used in this report follow Hickman (1993), or where not available in Hickman, common names are taken from Beauchamp (1986), Munz (1974), or Abrams (1923 and 1944) and Abrams and Ferris (1951 and 1960). Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded. Expected wildlife usage of the site was determined according to known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Stebbins (1985) for reptiles and amphibians; American Ornithologists' Union (with supplements to 1997) for birds;Jameson and Peters (1986) for mammals. Historic Land Uses Inferred From Aerial Photographs A series of color or black and white aerial photographs, showing the site on 25 different dates from December, 1952 through March, 1995, was reviewed microscopically to evaluate historic land use, conditions and habitats on the Shea site. A distinction has been made between land within the City of Huntington Beach and the f 5 acres of Orange County land which comprises the southwestern extension of the overall parcel. The City/County line passes through the property just southwest of the primary agricultural lands, and in none of the photographs is there any visible evidence of land cultivation within the Orange County parcel. The following summarizes FHA's subjective assessments of the land use patterns exhibited in these photographs. • 12/26/52: City area: The subject property lies within a larger cleared area, extending further to the north, south and east of the site boundaries. Agricultural cultivation, as inferred from corrugated substrates (either disked or tilled), covers most of the land surface within Huntington Beach, except in the easternmost tip of the property (now under Graham Street) and along the western margin, below the bluffs, where more natural-appearing vegetation is present (the type of vegetation cannot be deduced from the photograph). Vehicle tracks, trails and some small clearings are visible within this area. There is no constructed development on the off-site knoll top. County area: the 5 acre Orange County ("Orange County") parcel is indistinguishable, in terms of its surface features and relative contiguity with surrounding habitats, from land to the south and west, most of which appears to be marshland, with some minor flow swales visible. Three broad roads transect the overall area on N-S alignments, and there is only a narrow canal separating the lands west of the project site from the more extensive (and evidently more disturbed) Bolsa Chica system to the south. PAI 997\7NI 500 1\EIR\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-145 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources • 3/24/59: City area: Agriculture covers about the same extent of the area as in 1952; flooding is visible over most of the western portion of the site in this winter photo. A drainage swale, extending to the north from the site is evident. There is agriculture where the Kenilworth Street development is presently located. The off-site knoll top area is not yet developed. County area: The 5 acre Orange County parcel remains as it was in 1952. • 1/31/70: City area: The East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel has been constructed since the 1959 photo, with its alignment bisecting the original agricultural fields (still visible below the channel). The western portion of the site below the knoll is flooded, and the fields appear fallow, with a network of minor flow lines and depressions evident. The remnant marshland area is almost entirely within Orange County. A narrow area, approximately 25' x 250', between a farm road and the levee (which as cultivated in the 1959 photo) now exhibits patchy vegetation which may be pickleweed, although the areas has been permanently isolated from the larger marshlands of Bolsa Chica by the flood control channel. The Kenilworth tract and a portion of the off-site knoll top are now developed. County area: The 5 acre county parcel shows little evidence of activity or use. Most of the road system which formerly passed through the site was eliminated by construction of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. • 6/28/70: City area: The entire 44 acre area, extending off-site up onto the knoll (but with the exception of the eucalyptus trees), has been recently tilled, with soil furrows narrow and cross-hatched. County area: The aforementioned clearing extends southwest into the 5 acres Orange County parcel, to the dirt access roadway crossing between the knoll and the channel. There also is a linear swath of disturbance visible as a white band across the middle of the vegetated area. • 10/26/73: City area: Heavy, curvilinear contour furrows are visible over the entire site except in an otherwise disturbed area in the southwestern corner. The furrows extend over the top of knoll, leaving only the eucalyptus trees undisturbed. Activities associated with a roadway traversing the southwestern corner of the site and crossing the channel appear to have cleared about one-half of the vegetation patch detected in the 1/31/70 photo. County area: The eastern portion of the 5 acre parcel exhibits substantial recent disturbance. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\13I0RESOURCES.DOC 5-146 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources ' • 2/17/75: City area: The entire site, including the off-site knoll, appears to have been recently tilled, furrows straight; stables now visible at foot of knoll. County area: Remnant vegetation in the 5 acre Orange County parcel appears to have recovered slightly from 1973 clearing. • 12/28/76: City area: Entire site (except SW corner) again appears to have recently been tilled and/or disced. A large pad of freshly-spread soils covers the southwestern corner area,just east of stables. County area: Evidence of vehicle entry (tracks), and vegetation appears very fragmented, with high degree of disturbance in eastern portion. • 12/14/78: City area: Agricultural areas appear to have been deeply plowed in diagonal pattern (SW/NE); standing water evident in low areas below eucalyptus grove, along alignment of shallow swale and within arena under construction near stables, surrounded soils with unidentified mottling effect. County area: No changes evident from prior conditions. • 2/25/80: City area: Fields appear to have been left fallow, but row lines now run east- west, so it has been re-tilled since 1978 photo; water standing in western portion. Arena site shows little evidence of use. County area: New vehicle intrusion evident, although effects on vegetation are not clearly discernible due to photo quality. • 1/31/81: City area: Fields and slopes are cleared and freshly tilled or disced. Arena has a visible fence around perimeter, and there are other graded features nearby (one rectangular, one elliptical); some water standing in low end of arena. County area: Area appears to have been lightly cleared; vegetation less evident than in earlier photos (due to photo quality). • 2/19/83: City area: Fields again appear recently plowed, in a diagonal pattern, and western end appears saturated below eucalyptus grove. The arena appears more developed, and has a trench (?) around it; numerous "spots," which may be piles of fill or other material are apparent in the area between the arena and channel. County area: Grading and development more extensive on knoll top off-site, and condominiums being constructed on land north of the eastern knoll margin. • 3/19/86: City area: Agricultural field area completely cleared to open soils, with heavy diagonal till lines, some evidence of standing water north of stables; off-site knoll not disked; activity around stable and arena areas more extensive, with piles of fill (if that is what they were) no longer evident, perhaps having been spread on site. County area: Vehicle activity and some surface clearing evident in eastern portion of 5 acre parcel, possibly removing a small area of patchy vegetation. -"•*. P:\1997\7N15001\EIMMORESOURCES.DOC 5-147 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources • 1/9/87 and 1/21/87: City area: Agricultural fields appear evenly vegetated (crops?), with east-west till lines in first photo, new clearing and grading across lower 1/3 of fields and onto knoll on 21 st. County area: Area heavily used in both photos, with abundant evidence of vehicles and grading; some small structures placed in eastern end of site, apparently part of stable expansion. • 1/24/88: City area: Fields entirely cleared and disked, with cross-hatched tilling lines visible, except for a small rectangular area along the southern margin, where mottled vegetation formation is present. County area: Activity around arena and eastern portion of 5 acre site is more extensive and appears to have been expanding steadily since 1986. • 1/30/89: City area: Slopes and field area recently disked, with multiple turn-around lines visible across center of field; development around arena even more extensive, with buildings,parking areas and three smaller arenas visible. County area: No change in shape or extent of disturbance within vegetation patches; area of disturbance around stables extends into the 5 acre Orange County parcel. • 3/15/90: City area: Field and slope area shows evidence of disking since 1989 photo, as alignment of furrows has changed, but Spring weed growth has covered most of surface, except along lower margin, where disturbance or soil deposition has kept substrate patchily clear. County area: No change in shape or extent of vegetation from previous photo. • 1/14/91: City area: No evidence of clearing or grading since 1990 photo, and most of the structures and activity areas around arena site are gone or appear abandoned. Vegetation on fields appears thin, some shrub cover evident. County area: No significant change in shape or extent of development or disturbance to vegetation since previous photo. • 1/8/92 and 1/24/92: City area: Fields appear vegetated, and there are no recent till lines evident. Activity area around stables and arena is still extensive, but photos do not show facilities clearly; areas appears largely to have been abandoned. County area: Eastern end of area bare where disturbed in prior years. • 1/3/93 and 5/14/93: City area: Field appears to not have been tilled recently, but vegetation present is thin and patchy, with shrubs evident along southern portion. No water visible. The second photo is the only one taken in late Spring. Agricultural areas patchily vegetated, some larger shrubs evident, and no till lines visible. Arena appears abandoned, stables and disturbance footprint retracted somewhat. County area: Slight increase in density of patchy pickleweed vegetation formation (compared with 1980s) in western portion. PA 1997\7N 1500I TIMBIORESOURCES.DOC 5-148 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources • 1/3/94: City area: Vegetation on fields and slopes has been cleared since 5/14/93 photo, with soils exposed over most of the area; arena and stable areas also appear to have been lightly cleared. County area: Vegetation patches easily detectable by the characteristic "rusty" coloration of the pickleweed. • 1/26/95, 1/28/95 (combined for purposes of analysis) and 3/27/95: City area: Fields appear to have been disced in January photos, but probably several months earlier, as some shrubs are visible, although less extensively arrayed than in 1993. Area appears very wet, the arena is overgrown with weeds and there is little sign of use around the stables. March photo shows a slight decrease in the extent of standing water, no change in field condition or cover. County area: Vegetation patches difficult to assess due to darkness of photos, but no evidence of changes in extent or shape from previous photo. Conditions encountered during the first three field surveys are similar to those exhibited within the 1992 through 1995 photographs, with little or no detectable change in the extent or degree of disturbance to landforms or to the remnant pickleweed marshland patch. The term "marshland" used to describe these vegetation fragments reflects the apparent origin of the remnant habitat, as its condition at the time of the visit was severely degraded, and the site no longer receives sufficient natural hydrology to be considered a functional coastal marsh ecosystem. Discing in the Orange County portion of the site prior to the June, 1997 visit completely removed all traces of the surface vegetation except larger trees, and a f 10 foot wide strip of mostly ruderal herbaceous plants, with a few pickleweed intermixed, growing beneath an elevated oil pipeline which passes through the bottomland area. General Habitats City Parcel There are virtually no natural or naturalized habitats within the 44 acre Huntington Beach portion of the site. A shallow depression formed by the abandoned arena occasionally contained temporary accumulations of rainfall or nuisance water, attracting some foraging waterfowl, but not forming natural habitat. County Parcel Two small, contiguous areas of probably remnant coastal saltmarsh-type vegetation were situated in a bottomland remnant of the original marshlands from which the site was created. --* Most of this area north of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel was removed, confined P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-149 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources and altered by construction of the channel and berm. The remaining area is bisected by an elevated eA gas pipeline, and was used casually as a dumping site for trash (notably many large tires and sections of telephone poles). The two pickleweed fragments, which together were substantially less than one acre (50'by I50'or about.2 acres according to the biologist's initial field survey estimate) digitized delineation eontained in --dried EIR 55 1j, were completely isolated from any other such habitat by the knoll, the channel and development. Nothing remains of these patches following the most recent disking and clearing of the site. It should be noted that the delineated "pocket wetlands" shown on the EPA map (refer to Draft EIR Appendix G) within the Orange County parcel do not overlay the area of patchy pickleweed. The nearest intact, ecologically-functional coastal marshland and surface water ecosystems lie off-site to the south and west, beyond where the knoll intersects the flood control channel, or south of the channel, within the main Bolsa Chica wetlands. There now are no tidal inflows to the proposed project site, and because the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel bottom lies lower than landforms on the site, there is little possibility of subsurface accretion of water from the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Historic freshwater runoff to the site, which historically created topographical relief and carried in nutrients and organic debris, have been eliminated by surrounding development and off-site conveyance of stormwater flows. Veeetation City Parcel - Agricultural Fields (including the EPA delineated 8.3 Acres) Level, disced portions of the site, including the 8.3 acres, have been under cultivation or maintenance continuously since at least 1952. As surface vegetation regrows following discing, the fields exhibit a relatively homogeneous ruderal vegetative cover, dominated over most of the surface by extensive areas of crabgrass (Cynodon dactylon) and an even cover of cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), with scattered patches of other non-native grasses and herbaceous subshrubs (pigweed, Chenopodium album; wild radish, Raphanus sativus; curly dock, Rumex crispus•, common purslane, Portulaca oleracea; narrow-leaved iceplant, prob. Mesembryanthemum sp.; peppergrass, Lepidium latifolium; Australian saltbush, Atriplex semibaccata). A species of nutsedge also formed low mats where sandier soils were present; it was tentatively identified as either Cyperus rotundus, stated by Tucker(1993, in Hickman, The Jepson Manual, higher plants of California) as "Often considered the world's worst weed.," or C. esculentus, characterized by Tucker as a "worldwide weed." Although both are classified as facultative wetlands species (Reed, 1988, National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: California [Region O]), they also are indicative of degraded conditions, being found most typically in "croplands, disturbed places." (Tucker, 1993, in Hickman, loc. cit.). Native herbaceous species were infrequent in the agricultural field, comprised primarily of disturbance-tolerant taxa which have either persisted on-site or colonized areas where topsoils 5-150 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources have been less-thoroughly overturned. Scattered individuals of alkali heath (Frankenia salina), salt bush (Atriplex triangularis), sand spurrey (Spergularia marina), alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa) and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis) were found in less-disturbed portions of the field, but nowhere did they form natural stands or create native habitat. Most plant species observed are tolerant of, or have affinities for, alkaline and saline soils, which would be expected given the probable historic geography of the site. Numerous subsites of soils and vegetation were examined within the 8.3 acre delineated area and across the agricultural field. Nowhere did FHA and L. Kegarice observe even remnant wetland resources or other natural habitats. No trees or shrubs of any kind, native or otherwise, are present within the agricultural use areas, and the only subshrubs present during any of the site visits were tumbleweeds (Amaranthus albus) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus)regardless of the length of time since disking. County Parcel - Marshland Fragment Historic aerial photographs clearly show that the Orange County portion of the property was formed from the upper margin of the Bolsa Chica marshlands, severed geographically by the construction of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, and degraded repeatedly by off- site roadway construction, oil drilling and associated surface activities. All that remained on the project site were two very small patches of pickleweed (Salicornia sp.), in a low area immediately adjacent to the channel berm and horse stable parking areas. Habitat values within the two small pickleweed patches were essentially diminutives of those typically found within degraded portions of the Bolsa Chica wetlands: low, spreading cover dominated by pickleweed and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), with a few shrubby rush (Juncus sp., prob. balticus) interspersed. This type of habitat persists in a highly-degraded formation immediately west.of the Orange County parcel, within oil fields. The pickleweed patches were very limited in overall extent and were highly-disturbed, but centrally each had a few square meters of fairly homogenous plant cover, with relatively few invasive non-natives. Neither fragment measured more than a few meters across, together encompassing about 50' x 150' (estimate' or about .2 acres according to EPA 1989 digitized delineation eentained in EIR 551 the biologist's initial field survey estimate), with their configuration having been determined and restricted over the years since the channel was constructed by patterns of land use and the spread of exotic tree cover. Activity along the eastern margin between 1970 and the early 1990s pushed the formation back from its greatest post-development extent in the 1950s, and it had not changed significantly over the past 20+years (as determined from aerial photographs). The remainder of the Orange County portion of the site supported only ruderal subshrubs, not considered to be remnant marshland habitat, densely overgrown with invasive gum trees. ...,, 5-151 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Wildlife City Parcel Wildlife use of the agricultural fields is severely limited by the lack of native vegetation, lack of cover, and consistently high levels of human disturbance. Rodent activity was detected in several areas, and consisted primarily of pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae ssp.) and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) burrows. Both species are moderately common over the entire agricultural portion of the site, the ground squirrels in particular forming a loose colony within the western margin of the fields. We observed a single great blue heron (Ardea herodias) stalking prey (probably gophers) in the fields in the eastern portion of the site, and several red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) are resident locally. Dogs and their tracks are common on the site, but it is probable that a few carnivores and omnivores (such as coyote, Canis latrans, raccoon, Procyon lotor, long-tailed weasel, Mustela frenata) persist locally. Non- native mammals expected to occur here would include opossum (Didelphis virginiana, tracks observed 1997), black rat(Rattus rattus), house mouse (Mus musculus)and domestic cats. One shrub and one tree species, castor bean (Ricinis communis) and Tasmanian blue gum (prob. Eucalyptus globulus), respectively, comprise most of the marginal vegetation; both are non- native, noxious invasives (and in the case of castor bean, highly toxic) that contribute minimally to and/or more often detract negatively from natural habitat values. Following disturbance, the fields and contiguous portions of the knoll revegetate with non-native annual grasses, Australian saltbush and small thickets of castor bean, overstoried by the row of decadent gum trees. Numerous trees in the grove are either dying or dead. About one-third of the gum trees present exhibit limb drop and crown death typical of drought-stressed eucalyptus, and most of them are heavily-infested by two species of Eucalyptus borers (Phoracantha semipunctata, P. recurva), imported Australian beetles which kill trunks and branches of gum trees with low internal water balances. Although some birds of prey and a few songbirds may utilize Eucalyptus for perching, roosting and nesting, such use is low and non-essential relative to native tree species, and as a rule the presence of these trees degrades natural habitat values. Native songbirds may die from nasal suffocation if they attempt to feed from the sticky blossoms of gum trees (R. Stallcup, 1996, "Deadly Eucalyptus", Pt. Reyes Bird Observation Laboratory newsletter), and eucalyptus shade and leaf debris can degrade soils, suppress native plant growth and promote invasive alien weeds. More importantly, it must be noted that tall trees of any kind are not natural features of southern California coastal salt marsh ecosystems. No such trees grew alongside the marshes prior to human habitation of the areas, and their presence adjacent to marshlands provides birds of prey and crows with hunting perches and nest sites, contributing to unnaturally-intense levels of PAI997\7N15001TIR\BIORESOURCESDOC 5-152 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources predation and harassment of sensitive wetlands wildlife. Several active crow nests and one nest possibly of a red-tailed hawk, are present in the grove of gum trees, and during the June, 1997 visit, crows were observed taking and eating northern mockingbird fledglings from nests in yards in adjacent residential developments. Eucalyptus trees are often subjectively and/or emotionally viewed as aesthetic amenities, so it is important to note that they are not native in any part of North America. Additionally, their presence and invasive spread directly alters and degrades the biotic integrity of the natural habitats. County Parcel Although no invertebrates were observed in standing rainwater on the site, several species of shorebirds and songbirds (common snipe, Gallinago gallinago; spotted sandpiper, Actitis macularia; black-necked stilt, Himantopus mexicanus; western kingbird, Tyrannus verticalis) were foraging in and around the arena depression during early visits. The only native mammals seen were Audubon cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and California ground squirrel, both of which feed in the agricultural fields; eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), an imported pest species locally, was seen in urban areas on top the knoll. Tracks, fur and scat of non-native red fox(Vulpes vulpes) were observed near the arena site and within the pickleweed patches. Prior to their removal, the physical habitat structure of the two pickleweed patches (.2 acres) was relatively intact, at least in terms of residence sufficiency for low numbers of smaller organisms, but nothing larger than invertebrates, rodents or songbirds. The patches were fragments of a formerly much-larger system which had been severely constricted and degraded by construction of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, and it is possible that species such as broad-handed mole (Scapanus latimanus), pocket gopher, house mouse, black rat, Stephen's vole (Microtus californicus stephensi), harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis longicauda), Audubon cottontail, song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and Belding's savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi) at one time might have occurred within them, either in low resident densities (mole and rodents), or as transients from other, more suitable, habitat systems nearby (birds). None of the species noted above were observed during the FHA's surveys, but several species of wintering songbirds, including white-crowned and golden-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys, Z. atricapilla) were observed foraging in the pickleweed patches. The presence of even a few red foxes within such a small area of natural habitat would seriously compromise its ability to support small mammals and low-nesting birds populationally. Red foxes in other systems (Seal Beach, Ballona wetlands) have proven to be thorough and relentless PAI99717NI500ITIRTIORESOURCES.DOC 5-153 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources predators upon virtually all smaller organisms; when numerous they may hunt in packs, killing larger species such as raccoon, egrets and great blue heron. They would particularly depress or extirpate populations of surface-dwelling rodents such as voles and harvest mice, and in a small, confined area, foxes would quickly eliminate song or savannah sparrows as breeding birds. A fox den was not found during field surveys; however, FHA concluded their tracks were evident in several areas, and the partially-eaten remains of an undetermined shorebird were found near the pond. Although FHA did not search for foxes in June, 1997, tracks possibly of foxes were observed, and their pungent musk odor was detected, leading FHA to conclude that the foxes survived the recent disking of the patches. Because of their presence, FHA concluded that the pickleweed fragments did not likely support resident populations of any native rodents or songbirds. Sensitive Species General Definitions -Regulatory Framework Sensitive species are classified in a variety of ways, both formally (e.g. State or Federal Threatened and Endangered Species) and informally (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) "Special" species. Species may be formally listed and protected as Threatened or Endangered by CDFG or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, "the service") (Federal: FT, FE; State: ST, SE), or as California Fully Protected (CFP). Informal listings by agencies include California Species of Special Concern (CSC) (a broad data-base category applied to species, roost sites, or nest sites); or as USFWS Candidate taxa. CDFG and local governmental agencies may also recognize special listings developed by focal groups, if properly reviewed and published (i.e. Audubon Society "Blue List", California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plants"). Sensitive Vegetation Resources on the Project Site The absence of natural wetlands values, combined with frequent topsoil discing, have removed whatever native vegetation associations might once have existed on the Huntington Beach portion of the property. There are no surface wetlands features on the Orange County portion of the project site. The small patch of pickleweed (.2 acres) discussed earlier were remnants of former marshland habitat, isolated by the construction of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel and degraded by agricultural and other land uses over the past 45+years. P:\1997\7N15001\E1R\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-154 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources Sensitive Invertebrates There are no sensitive invertebrates on the project site. The wide-ranging monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is not protected as a species, but is of concern to the CDFG where it forms wintering aggregations in tall trees along the coast. The site was visited on several occasions during Winter, and while numerous monarchs were observed nectaring on the blossoms of the gum trees, and no aggregations were seen. Saltmarsh skipper butterfly (Panoquina errans) larvae feed on saltgrass in local coastal areas, and it may occur wherever the plant is found; however, it was not observed during the surveys, and there is very little of the host plant on the site. Coastal populations of sensitive tiger beetle species (Cicindela spp.) are generally found on saltflats, mudflats, dune strands, open dune sands, or around the margins of estuaries; no tiger beetles were observed on the site, and there are no habitats suitable for population formation by any sensitive cicindelid species. Sensitive Vertebrates There are no sensitive fish, amphibians or reptiles on the project site, and none would be expected to occur within the surrounding upland areas. A number of sensitive bird species might forage casually in or over the agricultural field, or within the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, but none of these would be directly dependent upon the resource base of the site for population maintenance or their continued local existence. Refer to Appendix G for a listing of sensitive shorebird and marshland species expected to occur casually from the Bolsa Chica wetlands, or as vagrants, on or near the project site. Sensitive raptors observed locally or expected to pass through the general site vicinity during seasonal migration would include: Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis osprey Pandion haliaetus white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus northern harrier Circus cyaneus American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum merlin Falco columbarius western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea short-eared owl Asio flammeus long-eared owl Asio otus P:\1997\7N15001\EIMMORESOURCES.DOC 5-15 5 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources The open agricultural field, with its abundant gopher and ground squirrel populations, may attract resident and seasonal hunting use by birds of prey, including a number of hawks and owls. The trees adjacent to the field provide nest and roost sites for some generalist species (red- tailed hawk, Buteo jamaicensis; red-shouldered hawk, Buteo lineatus; great horned owl, Bubo virginiensis; barn owl, Tyto alba), but sensitive taxa generally would not be expected to breed within this type of disturbed and non-native habitat. A pair (presumably) of white-tailed kites was observed in June, 1997, foraging and roosting in eucalyptus trees along the northern margin of the Orange County area. Cursory searching at that time did not reveal a nest, but the bird's behavior and presence at that time of year could indicate a local territory. Single individuals of northern harrier and ferruginous hawk were also observed over the site, in November, 1997. A single loggerhead shrike, possibly a wintering migrant and not a local resident was seen in January, 1997, flying upslope on the knoll between the stables and gum tree grove. FHA did not see this species in June, 1997, but a single bird was observed near the terminus of Bolsa Chica Boulevard, at the north end of the knoll top, in November, 1997. It is not possible to determine the resident status of this species on the site based upon these isolated observations. The frequency of discing and clearing, combined with the continuous presence of humans, dogs and red foxes along the channel berm and in the agricultural fields probably renders the site unsuitable for burrowing owl nesting, although the species does breed sporadically in upland habitats along the southern California coast. Habitat values are completely lacking on-site for sensitive songbird species, except for extremely marginal use of the trees and surrounding residential areas as sheltering sites during seasonal migration. No listed species would find resident habitat resources on the site, and it is unlikely that local saltmarsh endemics (such as Belding's savannah sparrow) would leave the higher quality habitats south of the channel to forage in the open,ruderal field or gum tree.grove. Sensitive mammal use of the site would directly depend upon the presence of suitable food resources, home range or territory availability and quality, and tolerance for human activity. The only native mammals currently resident on the property (as determined by tracks, scat, fur, burrows and other sign) are ecological generalist species which have "urbanized" broadly in southern California, and are either sufficiently small and/or mobile to maintain viable populations in a highly fragmented landscape. Bats, which are highly-mobile and somewhat migratory, could occur anywhere in southern California where flying insect populations are sufficient to sustain their aerial feeding requirements. Sensitive species which might be expected to occur within or over the Bolsa Chica wetlands and adjacent upland habitats would include: so. Calif. saltmarsh shrew Sorex ornatus salicornicus California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus pallid bat Antrozous pallidus P:U 99717N15001 TIM13I0RESOURCES.DOC 5-15 6 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources big-eared bat Plecotus townsendi sspp. small-footed bat Myotis ciliolabrum long-eared myotis bat Myotis evotis fringed bat Myotis thysanodes long-legged bat Myotis volans Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis California mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia Stephen's vole Microtus californicus stephensi The shrew and vole generally occupy open, grassy habitats around the margins of marshes, while the jackrabbit, pocket mouse and woodrat typically reside in open, sandy coastal sage scrub habitats, and only the woodrat is tolerant of frequent human disturbance. No evidence of these or other sensitive mammals was observed on the site, and the regular discing of the field and knoll areas effectively precludes long-term utilization of that portion of the site by most burrow-inhabiting organisms (although the gophers and ground squirrels recolonize the area rapidly). Marshland species historically may have occurred locally north of the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel, but channel construction impacts, recent fox predation, generally low habitat quality, and the frequency of human disturbance on the site would preclude even moderate species diversity or densities. Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat Linkages Natural movement corridors and habitat linkages have been the focus of numerous studies intended to better understand relationships between large animal populations, open space reserves, and natural movement patterns (see Referenced Materials in Appendix G). Fragmentation of large habitats into smaller or isolated segments has been demonstrated to reduce natural biological diversity, eliminate disturbance-sensitive species, restrict genetic flow between meta-populations, and can lead to localized extinctions of entire floral or faunal assemblages. Most land use planning guidelines now recognize the importance of protecting wildlife movement corridors, and seek to retain major linkages intact wherever possible. Defining corridor alignments and specific spatial and resource requirements may be somewhat conjectural, but simply-stated, the accepted basic rule in planning corridors or reserves is that "bigger is better". The project site is "land-locked" on the north and east margins by existing residential development and infrastructure, and has been effectively isolated terrestrially from the Bolsa Chica marshlands to the south by the interposing East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. Open space to the west lies up and over the knoll, but there are yet open marshland and degraded P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-157 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources upland habitats in that direction. Larger, more mobile species (coyote, fox, bobcat, raccoon) can easily traverse the knoll and reach the site from the west, but there are insufficient resources within the property to induce any of these taxa to remain. They can use existing service road crossings to move over the channel and into habitats to the south, so for these species there may yet be a tenuous linkage with larger open space. Smaller, less-mobile species (rodents, lizards, snakes, amphibians) already have severely reduced population densities within the remnant areas on the north side of the channel, and their relative inability to cross the channel precludes all but extremely infrequent movement to or from the south. For such species, the site and surrounding uplands provide limited habitat values or sustaining resources, and there are no effective corridor or linkage systems to larger, more viable habitat areas nearby. Flying insects, birds and bats have the ability to move easily from the site to surrounding open space areas, and their use of the site would be directly related to its foraging or other resource values, not as part of a migratory corridor or seasonal use area. The ruderal and exotic vegetation formations present do not offer unique or essential resources to migratory species, and actually may be a decrement of those found within other urban open space (such as parks and golf courses),because of the degraded nature of the site and the lack of standing water. IMPACTS Potentially significant impacts on biological resources posed by the proposed project were delineated from criteria contained in the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G of these guidelines states that a project will normally have a significant impact on biological resources if it will: • Substantially affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the habitat of such species. • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. • Substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plant. Section 15O65(a) of the CEQA Guidelines also states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when "the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition, because of the sensitive nature and decline of wetland habitats throughout California, P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-15 8 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources the removal, filling, dredging, or alteration (directly or indirectly) of wetland or riparian areas will be considered a significant impact. Potential Project Impacts to Biological Resources (General Impacts) Implementation of the proposed project would not remove or alter any natural or native vegetation formations on the property. The site contains no natural wetland habitat, coastal sage scrub or other sensitive natural assemblages. No natural plant communities or natural populations of native species would be affected, directly or indirectly, by the proposed development. Conversion of 44 acres of agricultural field and 5 acres of ruderal and degraded gum tree stands would not result in important or significant losses of habitat or biological support resources of native wildlife populations. Alteration of the project areas from their existing conditions, and removal of non-native shrubs and trees would not contribute incrementally at any level of biological significance to general losses of natural habitat within the local area. The project would generate no direct significant adverse impacts to natural wildlife habitats on a local or regional scale. Impacts to Resident Birds of Prey At least one native raptorial bird species, the red-tailed hawk, appears to nest within the exotic tree grove on the margin of the project site. These trees are in a declining state of health, with many of them dying or dead, and may pose a limb-drop hazard to activities beneath them. The loss of potential or actual nest sites for native birds of prey within the mature gum tree grove an the northwest corner of the Huntington Beach parcel would be an important local impact of the project. The loss of active nesting sites for native birds of prey, or disturbance of occupied nests during the breeding season would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 1 has been proposed to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impacts to Sensitive Species No sensitive plant, invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal species are known or expected to reside within, or occur in a resource-dependent relationship with, any portion of the overall 49 acre site. No adverse impacts are projected for any agency-listed species known to occur within the greater Bolsa Chica ecosystem as a result of the conversion of the project site from its present conditions (agricultural land and ruderal bottomland with exotic trees) to urban recreational and residential uses. The loss of minor acreages of marginally-suitable foraging, loafing, sheltering and hunting areas for resident and migratory wildlife will not result in a --R measurable decline or harm to any of the affected species. Most transient resource uses by PAI 997\7NI 500 1\EIR\BIORESOURCES.DOC 5-15 9 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources migratory wildlife would continue within urban landscapes, except foraging and hunting by larger predators. Removal of exotic trees from the site would alleviate existing levels of hunting pressure by predatory birds within the adjacent Bolsa Chica wetlands, which might be a beneficial impact to sensitive species residing therein. Project implementation would generate no direct significant adverse impacts to native wildlife populations or sensitive species locally or regionally. Impacts to Wetlands and Riparian Areas County Parcel-Impacts to Wetland Values It should be noted that the delineated "pocket wetlands" shown on the EPA map (refer to Appendix G) within the Orange County parcel do not overlay the area of pickleweed. It appears that it was not determined to have been wetlands in the 1989 EPA delineation. The EPA map overlay follows the contours of the base of the knoll, possibly the historic alignment of a runoff channel from the north; however, this area now has been elevated several meters above natural wetlands grade (as measured against existing habitats west of the site) by slope subsidence and roadway grading, and is overgrown with Eucalyptus trees. Nevertheless, removal of the pickleweed patch will require pocket wetland mitigation consistent with Policy 2.2.25 of the Bolsa Chica LCP. Mitigation Measure 2 will reduce the impacts associated with the removal of-2 .4 acres of pocket wetlands to a less than significant level. City Parcel-Impacts to Wetlands Values The Huntington Beach parcel contains an area variously delineated at between 7.6 and 8.3 acres of wetlands, as determined by the single parameter method, wherein the presence of hydric soils suffices to define a wetland. The most recent determinations of the site (D. Sanders, 1991; T. Dodson & Assoc., 1997) concluded that the putative hydric soils were delineated during a period of high groundwater, and that the site in fact no longer meets any of the EPA, ACOE, CDFG, USFWS or Coastal Commission criteria for wetlands. There are no identifiable natural wetland or marshland vegetation formations on the site, seasonally or as regrowth following alterations (although some ruderal and disturbance-tolerant plant taxa present are facultative wetland or upland species), and there are no natural surface water features. There are no riparian plants, formations or habitat values on the overall property. The nearest riparian indicator species to the project site are a few mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrubs growing in a low swale on the roadway margin at the south end of the knoll, above the dirt access road. These do not constitute a riparian habitat formation. Based on the results of the December, 1998 Updated Wetlands Delineation (Appendix G) and the March, 1998 Correspondence from the State Department of Fish and Game, the proposed CAMYDOCUMENTS\SBEA\1-2000.EIR\BIORES--I.DOC 5-160 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources project would generate no adverse impacts to identifiable surface wetlands, marshland or riparian features or associated wildlife resources or populations, nor would it alter any natural watercourse or other surface hydrological feature. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors and Habitat Linkages The project site does not provide essential resources for any migratory wildlife species, nor is it within an identified major movement corridor for terrestrial wildlife. The open, ruderal agricultural field is not an important local stopover resource for migratory waterfowl or other seasonally-occurring species. Small animal movement into and out of the site is residual to natural population movement within larger open space reserves and undeveloped land nearby. The service road passage exiting the site and crossing over the channel connects on the south side at a residential area, and of the two crossings adjacent to open space locally, the westernmost roadway (at the margin of the Orange County. parcel) offers the most direct and undisturbed passage between habitat areas. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no identifiable significant adverse impacts to wildlife movement on a local, regional or statewide scale. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The intent of this section is to state standard City conditions and requirements which reduce impacts identified previously in this section. No standard City conditions or requirements are applicable to identified project impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES Where significant impacts to site resources have been identified above, appropriate mitigation measures are suggested, intended to reduce the level of the impact to less than significant levels biologically. 1. If project grading construction is scheduled during the normal breeding season for red- tailed hawk and other raptors locally (March to July), a survey shall be conducted for active nests. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, should any active nests be located within the zone of potential disturbance, construction activities shall be limited to areas 5-161 Environmental Analysis Biological Resources 500 feet away from the nest until the young have fledged and have begun foraging away from the nest site. The 500 foot protection zone shall be fenced with visible warning- color materials. Nest trees shall be removed during the non-breeding season only. 2. Wetlands impacts to the isolated pocket wetlands shall be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1 (square footage of wetlands to square footage of fill). The Coastal Development Permit shall require that mitigation for the fill of the pocket wetlands, tha4 mitigati be implemented prior to ^„+with the development ^ eating the a =rer-se impac4 the issuance of a grading permit for the 4.5 acre County Parcel. The mitigation site shall be on-site or within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands unless the Lowlands are sold to a new landowner and the new landowner is unwilling to allow the proposed mitigation to proceed. In such a case, the developer of the site shall find an alternative mitigation site. The total mitigation for the loss of two small patches of degraded pickleweed habitat shall include the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Mitigation Measure 1, which requires the protection of raptor nest sites during construction, and removal of nest trees during the non-breeding season will suffice to reduce impacts to the affected species locally and regionally to levels of biological insignificance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will ensure no construction impacts result to the potential loss of active nesting sites for native birds of prey. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 will reduce potential impacts to pocket wetland habitats on the County parcel to a less than significant level. The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 5-162 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources 5.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES The information contained within this section is summarized from a technical report prepared by Brian D. Dillon, Ph.D. titled Archaeological Assessment of the SHEA Homes Project Tentative Tract 15377 and Tentative Tract 15419, March 1997. The report in its entirety is provided in Appendix H of this EIR. The summary below focuses on the onsite archeological resources, the significance of the resources, potential project impacts to the onsite resources, and mitigation measures required to reduce or eliminate project impacts. A detailed discussion of the different Pre- Historic and Historic periods is provided in Appendix H. The `Early Millingstone Horizon"period is described below due to the fact that this period relates to the archaeological site CA-ORA-83. Prior archaeological work has been performed on this site as part of the previous environmental documentation described in Section 3.0. The previous archaeological work is noted below and the findings of prior work have been incorporated by reference into the Appendix H report. The discussion regarding paleontological sites is taken from the January 1996 Bolsa Chica LCP which includes the county portion of the property. EXISTING CONDITIONS Paleontological Sites According to archival information from the natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (as reported by Dr. John Cooper,a county-certified archaeologist/paleontologist, 1992)the Bolsa Chica LCP Area does not contain any recognized or previously-recorded paleontological sites. A surface examination of sediment exposures in Bolsa Chica revealed locally abundant molluscan invertebrate shell material (Cooper, 1980). This material is geologically young (5,000 to 10,000 years old) and is not considered to be paleontologically significant. No other occurrences of fossils were noted. Quaternary deposits along the Orange County coast have produced abundant and significant invertebrate fossils, a well as scattered, significant vertebrate remains. The closest vertebrate fossil location is LACM 65113 (located about one mile north of the Bolsa Chica LCP along Warner Avenue in Huntington Beach), which yielded late Pleistocene mammoth tooth and tusk fragments and bison jaw bone fragments. Other late Pleistocene terrestrial vertebrate remains have been recorded off-site on the Newport Beach Mesa and in the Seal Beach area. PAI997\7N15001TIMULTUPAL.DOC 5-163 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources Archeological Background Between 7,000 and 1,200 B.P., Wallace's (1955 and 1978) Milling Stone Horizon or Warren's (1968) Encinitas Period sites are marked by large numbers of manos and milling stones and relatively few projectile points. This assemblage is interpreted to be the result of a greater emphasis on seed collecting. A large percentage of the tool assemblage is composed of crude chopping, scraping, and cutting tools (Warren 1968:2). Bone tools and shell beads are rare and basketry manufacture is suggested by the presence of tarring pebbles. Also characteristic of this early period are "Cogged Stones" (Eberhardt, 1961) of unknown function, possibly gaming pieces or field hockey stones, as well as discoidal stones. Both were made through pecking and grinding, and have been found at Millingstone sites both on the coast and in the interior. Such cogged stones are most commonly found at sites along the Orange County coast such as ORA-83, informally known for many years as the"Cogstone Site". Archeology Studies/Findings Records Search Findings In February 1997, Brian D. Dillon conducted a field survey of the project site. Normal survey techniques, as developed at the University of California were utilized. Ten- to twenty-five meter- wide parallel transects were walked at minimum over the study parcel, depending upon slope, vegetational cover, and other variables, but all locations most likely to contain archaeological sites or reveal information about the subsurface, especially areas identified by previous researchers as archaeologically sensitive, were inspected more closely, usually by means of five- meter-transects. The 1997 archaeological field survey of the site confirmed the existence not only of portions of CA-ORA-83 already said to exist on the western margins of the project site, but also the two much smaller and less significant archaeological sites (CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309), documented by De Barros in 1992. The 1992 site records for all three sites are included in Appendix A of Appendix H, and detailed discussions of each site appear below. Foot Survey Findings An archeological records search conducted at the UCLA Archeological Information Center in February, 1997, revealed that what is now the Shea Homes property has been evaluated by archeologists on no fewer than four previous occasions, and that four separate archeological reports exist detailing the nature of the property's archeological resources. Unfortunately, not all P:\1997\7N15001TIR\CULTURAL.DOC 5-164 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources of these reports have been filed with the UCLA AIC and were not initially available at the time of Dillon's archival search. Of these four reports, the earliest (Ross and Desautels, 1970) is too general to be of much use, but the later three (Wlodarski, 1981; De Barros, 1992; Orange County Environmental Management Agency, 1996) contain very precise archeological site inventory information and specific mitigation recommendations. As early as 16 years before the present research, it was recognized and formally stated (Wlodarski, 1981) that a portion of the very ancient and highly significant CA-ORA-83 archeological site overlapped onto the northwest corner of the study parcel. Subsequent researchers (De Barros, 1992; OCEMA, 1996) confirmed this conclusion. In 1992, two previously undiscovered small archeological sites (CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309) were additionally recorded upon the Shea Homes property (De Barros, 1992), bringing the total number of recorded archeological sites known to exist on the property to three. CA-ORA-83 The majority of this archeological site is located off the project property. This archeological site lies on the eastern and southeastern edge of Bolsa Chica Mesa overlooking Bolsa Chica Lagoon. One of the most significant of all Orange County sites, ORA-83 is also known as the "Cogstone" site after the great numbers of these Early Millingstone artifacts recovered from it over the past 70 years. Because of constant cultivation over the past century, many buried artifacts have been brought up to the surface of the site, and until very recently, CA-ORA-83 has produced many more diagnostic artifacts from "surface" (i.e., brought up by the plow) contexts than from scientific excavation. The ORA-83 site has been more thoroughly excavated over a longer period of time, and by a greater number of different archeologists, than perhaps any other single archeological site in coastal Orange County. The most recent episode of intensive research by Scientific Resources Surveys, Inc., began in 1990 and was still ongoing when the Dillon Report was prepared (March, 1997). CA-ORA-83 had produced over 400 cogstones of various types by 1981 (SRS, 1981: 52). Perhaps more significantly, as a result of the more recent (post 1990) work by SRS, also discovered at the site are what can be interpreted as the tools used in order to make cogstones, as well as several failed examples discarded during the process of manufacture. A very enigmatic shell, stone and bone bead industry discovered at the site may predate most or all other stratigraphically identified examples from coastal Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Other new discoveries are a human burial component at the site. Mason (OCEMA, 1996: 4.12- 16-18), concludes that no total estimate of burials is possible, given present information and the fragmentary nature of the finds. He further concludes that a count of at least 19 individuals is possible, and that most if not all represent secondary reburials. All or most researchers who have studied the CA-ORA-83 archeological site have conceded that large areas of the site are badly disturbed and that the site's archeological potential is quite variable within its boundaries (cf. see also Van Bueren, et. Al, 1989: 72). Notwithstanding the P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\CULTURAL.DOC 5-165 Environmental Analysis Wftl Cultural Resources presence of large zones of disturbance within the site, intensive recent (post 1990) excavations by Nancy Whitney-Desautels and SRS have revealed deeply buried, intact deposits in at least one area of the site near its southern margin. The Dillon, 1997, archaeological survey found CA-ORA-83 to be present upon the Shea Homes parcel in three separate locations: for the sake of clarity, these three locations of ORA-83 on the Shea Homes property have been referred to as the north, central and south loci. It should be noted that portions of CA-ORA-83 have been previously referred to by prior researchers as CA-ORA-86 and CA-ORA-144, although it was later determined that they were part of the same archeological site. The probable reason for this occurrence is discussed in Appendix H. The prior references are included in the descriptions below. CA-ORA-83 (ORA-86) North Locus (On-Site) The northeasternmost margin of ORA-83 (the northeastern part of that area previously designated as CA-ORA-86) was found in February, 1997, to penetrate into the northwesternmost corner of TT 15377. Abundant marine shell was observed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Top, on the east-facing slope descending from the mesa top to the old marshland below, and for a short distance eastwards over the low-lying flats below this slope. The archaeological deposit here is very badly disturbed by several dirt roads, by erosion, and, on the flat land below the base of the mesa, by disc-plowing. This disturbance has served to "smear" the deposit and render it larger in horizontal extent that it was prior to such disturbance. No artifacts were observed, but based on the mixture of shell species (i.e., both sandy or silty bottom species and rocky shore species), the presence of midden, and the continuous distribution of the deposit off-parcel to the west and southwest to the main portion of CA-ORA-83 lead Dille w Dillon to conclude that the deposit here is archaeological rather than natural. Some portions of this deposit are fairly shallow. Dillon found through examination of the root mat of at least one Eucalyptus tree indicates that little or no shell in the sandy, silty soil below the uppermost 10 to 20 cm was present. Deeper deposits could exist elsewhere at this locus on the Shea Homes parcel, but it should be noted that the archaeological deposit is not uniformly or consistently deep at the base of the mesa. Dillon is in agreement with the site boundaries for this area as noted by Weber in 1991 as determined from surface indications and shown on her site record update and reproduced in Appendix A of the Archaeological Report contained in Appendix H of this EIR. CA-ORA-83 (ORA-144) Central Locus (On-Site) The easternmost margin of ORA-83 below and to the east of the telephone pole storage yard on the top of Bolsa Chica Mesa (the part of the site earlier designated as CA-ORA-144) was found in February, 1997, to penetrate into the westernmost margin of TT 15377 in the vicinity of proposed streets I and M to its north. The same general appearance of the site as found at the north locus C:\MYDOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\CULTURAL.DOC 5-166 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources was also discovered at this location. The archaeological deposit, however, is largely confined to the sloping side of the mesa here, and does not extend outwards over the lowland flats to the east to any appreciable extent. Dillon is in agreement with the site boundaries for this area as noted by Weber in 1991 as determined from surface indications and shown on her site record update and reproduced in Appendix A of the Archaeological Report contained in Appendix H of this EIR. CA-ORA-83 (ORA-83) South Locus (On-Site) The southeasternmost margin of ORA-83 to the south of the southern boundary of the telephone pole storage yard (a part of the site originally designated as CA-ORA-83) was found in February, 1997, to penetrate into the northwesternmost margin of TT 15419 in the vicinity of lots 5 & 6 and 10 through 12. The archaeological site deposit here is incorporated into the steep face of the southeast-facing edge of the Bolsa Chica Mesa, between the pole yard to the north and northeast, and a large borrow area (previously salvage excavated by Munoz, 1975) lying to the southwest off the subject parcel. The same general appearance of the site as found at the north and central loci was also discovered at this location. The archaeological deposit, however, like that of the central locus, appears largely confined to the steep side of the mesa here, and may not extend outwards over the lowland flats to the east to any appreciable extent. Recent filling and earthmoving has occurred over this flat area which may have obscured surface deposits. Although De Barros (1992) notes or at least suspects surface shell deposits over the flatlands in the Eucalyptus grove to the southeast of TT 15419 and off of the Shea Homes parcel, such an extension of the site does not seem to appear on the Shea Homes side of the property line. Dillon is in agreement with the site boundaries for this southern locus as noted by Weber in 1991 as determined from surface indications and shown on her site record update and reproduced in Appendix A of this report. CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 (On-Site) Both ORA-1308 and 1309 were discovered and recorded on the Shea Homes parcel in 1991, and reported upon in the De Barros (1992) report as "possible" or as "potential" archaeological sites. In other words, they were borderline cases that, according to their original recorders, and may not even be archaeological in nature. Doubts as to bona fide archaeological site status were initially raised in 1991 because of the total lack of artifacts in surface contexts at both sites, and because the shell composition ratio does not duplicate that of well-known nearby shell middens such as CA-ORA-83, where rock-dwelling species are abundantly represented. If not archaeological, either or both site could possibly represent a natural shell accumulation or perhaps redeposited archaeological material from some other archaeological site in the vicinity. The limited auger test program done by Chambers Group (1991) around the same time that both sites were recorded could not resolve this basic ambiguity about them. If either or both sites can be determined as non-archaeological, then they cease to have archaeological site status and as a consequence need not be mitigated in any way. P:\1997\7N15001\E]R\CULTURAL.DOC 5-167 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources This being the case, one of the basic goals of the February, 1997, survey of the Shea Homes parcel was to evaluate both CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, and to determine whether or not either or both were actually archaeological sites. A secondary goal was to assess the significance of either or both sites, as much as possible given the limitations of surface testing, if either or both appeared to be bona fide (i.e.,. real sites). The reasoning back and forth to determine if the sites were actually archeological sites is detailed in Appendix H. CA-ORA-1308 Dillon's conclusion is that CA-ORA-1308 represents a small, badly disturbed archaeological shell deposit, probably quite late in age. In February of 1997, the site was found to be covered with garbage and heavily admixed with imported construction fill (nails, PVC piping, tile, brick, plaster, and cement fragments) probably resulting from occasional and illicit dumping made possible by the site's proximity to Graham street. Other kinds of household garbage (broken glass, plastic, tin and aluminum cans) rounds out the recent historic "artifact" component at the site. The discing has served to churn the deposit and thoroughly admix such modern garbage with the most probably thin original archaeological deposit. Regular discing has also served to flatten and "smear" the site, or secondarily redeposit it, over a much larger horizontal area than it probably occupied before such plowing began. Ferraro and Beckman in 1991 measured the ORA-1308 archaeological site's dimensions as 35 meters east-west by 55 meters north-south, giving a total surface area which they estimate as around 1,500 square meters. Dillon found the site to measure approximately the same width east- west but only around 35 meters north-south, giving a surface area of only around 1,225 square meters. This disparity could be the result of changes in the site's dimensions caused by five years of disc- plowing intercalated between the 1991 and 1997 archaeological inspections, or by visibility problems faced by the August, 1991 site recorders, who may have had to deal with vegetational cover which might have obscured the site surface. This latter point cannot be formally addressed, for although Ferraro and Beckman note on their 1991 record form that the site was in "wheat" at the time of their recording. There is no discussion in the De Barros (1992) report detailing the height of such vegetation in the ORA-1308 area, what problems for visual access it might have caused, nor any photographs of the site. The archaeological site's dimensions will change from year to year depending upon the nature of the disc plowing it is subjected to, and, since such plowing typically proceeds from east to west rather than from north to south, the CA-ORA-1308 site will continue to expand along its east- west axis while generally maintaining its north-south extent. Despite the absence of any measurable evidence, Dillons impression is that prior to repeated disc-plowing of the ORA-1308 site, it probably covered less than half the area it presently occupies today. PA 1997\7N 15001\EIR\CULTURAL.DOC 5-16 8 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources CA-ORA-1309 Dillon also concluded that CA-ORA-1309 represents a small, badly disturbed archeological shell deposit. The only real difference between the two sites, apart from their location, is the greater perceived size of ORA-1309 and the near absence of the kinds of recent garbage on it and in it that are characteristic of the ORA-1308 deposit. Ferraro and Beckman on their 1991 record form measure ORA-1309 as 42 meters east-west by 70 meters north-south for a total area stated as around 2,300 square meters. Dillon found the site to be approximately 60 meters east-west by around 35 meters north-south, giving a total surface area of around 2,100 square meters. The same explanations for the disparity between the 1991 and 1997 site dimensions discussed above in the context of the ORA-1308 site also apply to the ORA-1309 site. Dillon also believes that the ORA-1309 site originally occupied around half its present surface area prior to the advent of modern disc-plowing. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of impacts that are normally considered to have a significant effect on the environment. A project would typically have a significant cultural resources impact if it will: (j) disrupt or adversely affect a prehistoric or historic archaeological site or a property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic social group; or a paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study. For purposes of this EIR, and in accordance with Appendix K of CEQA, an "important" archaeological resource is defined as one which: 1) is associated with an event or person of: a) recognized significance in California or American history,or b) recognized archaeological importance in prehistory; 2) can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or archaeological research questions; 3) has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\CULTURAL.DOC 5-169 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources 4) is at least 100 years old and possess substantial stratigraphic integrity; or 5) involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. Paleontological Resources No significant fossils are known to exist within the Bolsa Chica LCP Area, including the Huntington and Bolsa Chica Mesas. Because the area contains sediments that are geologically young and nonfossiliferous,it is not expected that there are any paleontological resources that could be impacted by development. Archaeology According to Appendix H of this EIR, archaeological site significance can only be assessed on a comparative basis, using objective criteria against which each site may be measured. Such criteria normally involve at least the following considerations: • the site's age; • the site's uniqueness; and • how intact the site is. The greater any given site's age, uniqueness, and intactness (or "integrity"), the more likely it is to be significant; the reverse is also true. These three criteria are not offered as a means of contradicting other (i.e.: "legal" state or federal) definitions of "archaeological significance," simply as a means of offering an explanation in layperson's terms as to how archaeologists typically determine whether a given archaeological site merits preservation, mitigation, or no further action. TABLE X COMPARATIVE SIGNIFICANCE, SHEA HOMES ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Site: Midden Marine Artifacts Burials Age Uniqueness Integrity Significance Shell CA-ORA-83* Abundant Abundant Present Present? Millingstone Great Poor Moderate CA-ORA-1308 Absent Present Absent Absent Late Prehist Moderate Minimal Very Low CA-ORA-1309 Absent Present Absent Absent Late Prehist I Moderate Very poor Low *Only that portion of CA-ORA-83, its northeasternmost margin previously identified as CA-ORA-86, incorporated within the Shea Homes project area, is considered here. PA 1997\7N 15001\Ent\CULTURAL.DOC 5-170 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources The evaluation of any or all of the three significance criteria for any single archaeological site must be done in consideration of what is already known about the archaeological patterns of the region, and in specific comparative reference to other, similar, sites nearby. A large body of comparative material has been evaluated in the report contained in Appendix H, and provides the basis for the comparisons made for each of the three project archaeological sites. Table X allows for comparisons between the three (3) prehistoric archaeological sites within the study area (study boundaries). Since all three (3) sites are prehistoric in age, they would qualify as potentially significant under criterion 1. CA-ORA-83, with a well-documented Early Millingstone deposit and substantial intermediate period deposits as well, obviously qualifies. In consideration of criterion 2, those sites with a greater combination of unusual, rare or unique features (burials) or rare and diagnostic artifacts (such as cogstones) are considered much more significant than those sites with few or no. unusual, rare, or unique features or artifacts. Therefore, CA-ORA-83 again obviously qualifies here. CA-ORA-1308 and 1309, on the other hand, with no features or artifacts yet reported, must consequently be considered much less significant. In consideration of criterion 3, those sites that have been either badly damaged or nearly destroyed (regardless of how ancient or unique they might once have been) may be assessed as having at best only minimal potential significance. Those with at least some intact portion remaining may be considered comparatively more significant. CA-ORA-1308 and -1309 due to their having been disc-plowed for many years, and CA-ORA-1308 having been used as an illicit dump yield the sites minimal or very poor integrity. Additionally, the portion of CA-ORA-83 within the project boundaries is given a poor integrity rating due to the fact that it could have been redeposited there from some other part of that site. Taking all of these considerations into account, Dillon concludes that the portion of the CA-ORA- 83 archaeological site which is contained by the Shea Homes project is only of moderate significance, specifically in relation to other, better-studied portions of the same site. Several decades of intensive archaeological research in every part of this large and complex but badly disturbed archaeological site reveal that its northeasternmost fringe retains a very low potential for containing intact, undisturbed deposits incorporating features or artifacts in any abundance. The most detailed work on this part of the site (SRS, 1981) suggests most strongly that this portion of the ORA-83 site is a recent result of grading, filling, and earth-moving activities. Similarly, CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 are, respectively, of minimal and of very low significance because of their lack of artifacts, extremely disturbed state, and, in the case of ORA-1308, the extreme admixture of modern garbage within the deposit. According to the Dillon report and an evaluation of currently proposed tentative tract maps (see Exhibits 6a and 6c), the proposed project will not result in impacts to CA-ORA-83. As described in Section 3.0, the approximately 8-acre park/open space (with ±3 acres of improved turf area) is proposed and will not be disturbing CA-ORA-83 (complete avoidance of the area), as it will be left as open space. The ±3-acre area will be surface cleared and/or filled with clean dirt import as 5-171 Environmental Analysis -- , Cultural Resources described in Section 3.0 of this document. Additionally, according to Table X Comparative Significance, Shea Homes Archaeological Sites of the archaeological assessment, CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309 were found to be absent of artifacts and burials, with the significance of each site being very low and low, respectively. According to the report, CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA- 1309 are, respectively, of minimal and of very low significance because of their lack of artifacts, extremely disturbed state, and, in the case of CA-ORA-1308, the extreme admixture of modern garbage within the deposit. Nevertheless, the proposed project grading and development will result in impacts to these two (2) sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will ensure that the project does not result in significant impacts to CA-ORA-1308 and CA-ORA-1309. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of potentially significant archeological resources in the subregion. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a level less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 3. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS The intent of this section is to state standard City conditions and requirements which reduce impacts identified previously in this section. No standard City conditions or requirements are applicable to identified project impacts. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall conduct a subsurface test investigation for CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 to determine the horizontal boundaries of the sites as well as to confirm the surface conclusions of non-significance as indicated in the March, 1997 Archeological Assessment. This may be accomplished through the mechanical excavation of a number of auger holes as well as two lxl-meter hand excavated units for stratigraphic control. The subsurface test investigation, which includes discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates, shall be submitted to the G,...,...,,,,ity Development Planning Director for review and approval. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall create (if deemed necessary through Measure 1 above) a cultural resource management plan based on test results. A full data recovery program shall be designed if site avoidance is not feasible through design. Possible recovery plans include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. The plan shall include consultation with appropriate Native ..., American Organization and be reviewed and approved by the Community Develepment 5-172 Environmental Analysis Cultural Resources Planning Director. Additionally the plan shall require peer review in conformance with the Coastal Commission's Archeological Guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pre-grading meeting/ conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If additional or unexpected archaeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the Geffifflunity Development Planning Department. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and . disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Eeffffiafiiy Development Planning Director. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not result in a significant impact on paleontological sites. The proposed project may result in a significant impact on archaeological sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 will reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of potentially significant cultural resources. The project's incremental contribution to this impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1 through 3. 5-173 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities 5.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Information used in the preparation of this analysis was obtained through letters and phone conversations with public services and utilities in October, 1997 through February, 1998. Utility service questionnaires are contained in Appendix A of this EIR. EXISTING CONDITIONS Fire The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department dated October 8, 1997. Fire protection for the proposed project will be provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The site will be served by two stations. The first is the Heil Fire Station #8 located at 5891 Heil Street, approximately one mile from the project site. The second station serving the site is the Warner Station #7 at 3831 Warner Avenue, approximately one and one half(11/2) miles from the project site. Heil Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine company. Response time from the Heil Station is estimated to be five minutes. Warner Station is equipped with a four-person paramedic engine. Response time from the Warner Station is estimated to be five minutes and 30 seconds. These stations provide fire protection, emergency medical aid (paramedic level), and emergency ambulance transportation. Fire Station #8 at 5891 Heil Avenue is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the year 2000 in order to mitigate a response deficiency that exists in the industrial section of the City of Huntington Beach. This will result in Station #8 being one and three-quarter (13/4) miles instead of one mile from the project site, making Warner Station #7 the closest station to the site. Fire Station #6 located on Edwards Street near Ellis Avenue is scheduled to be constructed in late 1998,which will be a back-up unit to the proposed project site. Currently, fire department response time to the project area does not meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee. This policy requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. Police The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Police Department dated October 13, 1997. Police service is provided to the project area by the Huntington Beach Police Department. The project site encompasses Reporting District # 176. The Department is currently responsible for crime prevention, investigation, and enforcement of P:\1997\7N1500J\E1R\PSU.D0C 5-174 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities ' the law, providing police support to the area with patrol responses, reporting, and investigative support. The department currently provides minimal law enforcement services to the project site. The Police Department is located approximately 4 miles from the project site, located at 2000 Main Street at Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach. The averages for response times (including dispatch time) are: • Priority 1 = 7.9 minutes • Priority 2 = 14.65 minutes • Priority 3 = 19.05 minutes Police vehicles include passenger cars, motorcycles, helicopters, vans, and buses. At the present time,the Police Department has 224 sworn officers and 142 civilian personnel. Schools The following information is based on correspondence from the Ocean View School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District, dated November 25, 1997 and November 6, 1997, respectively. Ocean View School District The proposed project site lies within the Ocean View School District for elementary (grades K-5) and middle (grades 6-8) schools. Middle schools within the District provide a balanced curriculum that includes computer labs,woodshops, art rooms, and music rooms. Hope View School is the elementary facility that will serve the project site. It is approximately one and one half(11/2) miles from the site. Enrollment at Hope View is currently 628 students with a projected enrollment of 5 percent increase annually. By the year 2000, the projected enrollment will be 718 students. The District currently attempts to cap enrollment growth at 650 to 700 students for elementary schools. All elementary schools in the District are participating in the Class Size Reduction Program. In order to meet the required ratio of twenty students to one teacher (20:1) for grades K-3, the District recently purchased twenty-eight portables. Generally, Hope View elementary school is built out. Marine View is the middle school facility that will serve the project site. It is approximately four (4) miles from the site. Enrollment at Marine View Middle School is currently 764 students with an annual increase of approximately 2 percent. The District anticipates the need for one additional portable for the 1998-99 school year. Additionally, the District currently has a need to PAI997\7N15001TIR\PSU.DOC 5-175 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities improve the physical education facilities at Marine View, as well as Mesa View, Spring View, and Vista View middle schools. Generally, Marine View middle school is built out. Huntington Beach Union High School District The project site lies within the Huntington Beach Union High School District for high schools (grades 9-12). Huntington Beach High School is the facility that will serve the project site. It is located at 1905 Main Street, approximately two and one-half (2 '/2) miles from the site. According to the District, schools are projected to be fully occupied in the near future from the impact of enrollment growth from existing homes. Community Services The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department, dated January 22, 1998. The Community Services Department is responsible for recreation, park development, arts and cultural services, human services, beach maintenance, parking, and marine safety. The site currently does not place a demand on this service. Water The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department- Water Division, dated October 10, 1997 and February 5, 1998. The City of Huntington Beach Water Division provides potable water for domestic, fire, and irrigation service to areas within the City of Huntington Beach. The City of Huntington Beach water supply is derived from two primary sources: imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin. On an annual average, the Water Division obtains approximately 70 percent of its water from the nine city wells, and imports 30 percent of its water via the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) system. The Water Division maintains emergency connections with the cities of Fountain Valley, Westminster, and Seal Beach. The City of Huntington Beach maintains a Water Master Plan (WMP), which identifies existing and projected water facilities for areas within the City. The WMP is based on the City's General Plan, as adopted in April, 1995. According to the Public Works Department, the 1995 WMP has identified certain water supply and storage deficiencies for storage areas. These will be corrected upon completion of the projects identified in the WMP by the year 2006. Funding for such corrections shall be provided via the funding mechanisms identified in the WMP. PAI997\7N15001\EIR\PSU.DOC 5-176 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities According to the WMP, the closest water lines to the project site are as follows: there is a 12- inch water line in Graham Street, east of the site and an 8-inch water line in Greenleaf Lane, north of the site. Water currently provided to the site is minimal; the project site is vacant and does not generate a substantial need for water. Public Transportation The following information is based on correspondence from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), dated February 3, 1998. Public transportation service to the project vicinity is provided by OCTA. Transit service is currently provided to the project area along Warner Avenue and Graham Street. Bus route 72 provides sixty-two (62) one-way trips daily. Bus service operates on Warner Avenue and limited service operates on Graham Street. Two of these trips run on Graham Street. There are also the following seven bus stops in the area: 1) eastbound on Warner east of Leslie 2) eastbound on Warner east of Graham 3) southbound on Graham south of Warner 4) eastbound on Slater east of Graham 5) northbound on Graham north of Slater 6) westbound on Warner west of Graham 7)westbound on Warner opposite Leslie. The level of transit service is currently planned to increase by 49 percent by the year 2015. Sewer The following information is based on correspondence from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department and the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, dated October 9, 1997 and October 19, 1997 respectively. The existing sewer facilities for the Huntington Beach portion of the project site are served by two agencies: 1) the City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department, Sewage Division, for collection of wastewater; and 2) the County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) of Orange County District No. 11, for the treatment of wastewater. Wastewater generated within the District's service area is processed at treatment plants: OCSD Plant No. 5 located at 10844 Ellis Avenue in Fountain Valley; and Plant No. 2 located easterly of the City of Huntington Beach, approximately 12 miles from this property. The City Sewer Division provides public sanitary sewer services to the Huntington Beach portion of the project site. There is currently a need to construct a new sewer lift station to handle existing flows, as well as any potential proposed flows. The existing sewer lift station (Station No. 1) located along - . Graham Street north of the project site is deficient. PAI997\7N15001\EIR\PSU.DOC 5-177 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities The OCSD operates under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS), which are affected by the flow received for treatment. The City portion of the project area is within OCSD No. 11, and for sewage flow purposes, it is tributary to the OCSD No. 11 Slater Avenue Pump Station, which is currently deficient. The Q 5-acre County parcel is not currently within the Orange County Sanitation District's boundaries. The project site currently does not generate sewage. Storm Drainage Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR for a discussion of storm drainage. Natural Gas The following information is based on correspondence from the Southern California Gas Company, dated January 20, 1998. Natural gas service is provided by The Southern California Gas Company. Existing facilities in the area include existing lines located along Graham Street, Kenilworth Drive, and Greenleaf Lane. An existing unrecorded 104eet inch above-ground gas line is located on-site. The uses onsite currently do not place a significant demand on this service. Electricity The following information is based on correspondence from the Southern California Edison Company, received September 25, 1997. Electrical service is provided in the area by Southern California Edison Company (SCE). All new lines installed in the City are required to be underground, and the City is currently working with SCE to achieve the undergrounding of existing lines. IMPACTS Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines serves as a guideline/general example of consequences that are deemed to have a significant effect on the environment. A project may be deemed to have a significant public services and utilities effect if it will: (e) Breach published national, state, or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control; (n) Encourage activities which result in the use of large amounts of fuel, water, or energy; (o) Use fuel,water, or energy in a wasteful manner; 5-178 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities (z) Interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Additionally, for the purposes of this EIR, expansion of existing services due to project demand constitutes a significant impact if the provider anticipates substantial difficulty in providing increased service. All public services and utilities have been analyzed to assess capacity impacts associated with the proposed project. Fire Future development of the project site may create a need for additional fire protection services. The increase in the number of residential units and the number of individuals brought into the area, as well as the resulting increase in traffic will directly affect the fire department's responses. Currently, fire department response time from the Heil and Warner stations to the project area do not meet the criteria established by the Cities Growth Management Committee, which requires a fire department response time under five minutes 80 percent of the time. As indicated previously, the Heil Station at 5891 Heil Avenue, although currently only one (1) mile away from the project site, is planned to be relocated to Graham and Production Lane by the-Yeai7-20oas funding permits, resulting in the fire station being located one and three-quarter(1 3/4)miles away from the project site. Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the fire station. Response time from the new location to the project site would be greater than five minutes. Warner Station#7 would become the closest station to the project site, being located one and one- half(1%) miles from the site with a response time of five-and-a-half(5 %2)minutes. Potentially, one additional fire company will be required at the new facility at Graham and Production Lane. Capital revenue for this new facility is currently under negotiation with the development of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. The most likely source for revenue will come from the City's General Fund. Additionally, the fire department has reviewed the proposed access points (i.e., one full access off Graham Street and one "emergency only" access [which was initially proposed as a full access] at Greenleaf Lane) and have concluded that the proposal is acceptable from a fire safety standpoint as long as a traffic signal is installed at the Graham access (refer to traffic mitigation) and Mitigation Measure 1 of this section is implemented. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire protection services to a level less than significant. Police Development within the project area will adversely impact the level of police services presently provided. Calls for service will increase, requiring additional staff and office time to manage the 5-179 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities project area. Unless additional personnel are provided for the proposed area, the level of service needed will decrease in both response time and quality of service. According to the City of Huntington Beach Police Department's equation for low density residential development, assuming the County of Orange parcel is annexed into the City of Huntington Beach, the Police Department could anticipate one call for service per 2.04 units per year. The equation would be: 298 206 units x 1 call/2.04 units = 482 101 calls expected per year at project buildout. To maintain the existing workload of 356 calls per officer per year, 4.02101 calls per year= 356 calls per officer per year = .29 officers required to complement the existing staff. If the County of Orange parcel is not annexed into the City, the equation would be: 483181 units x 1 call/2.04 units _ 356 calls/ officer/year = .25 officers required to complement the existing staff. This increase would not be significant. Although implementation of the proposed project would not require the need for one full-time officer, the project would increase the calls for service; therefore, increasing the workload of the Police Department. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 would reduce this project- specific impact to a level less than significant. Schools The development of 209 206 new residential units would generate additional students. Overall, schools are built out and could not accommodate additional students. Other costs include the need for increased staff (certified and classified), classroom supplies, textbooks, transportation, and technology equipment. Potential impacts to Ocean View School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District due the proposed project are discussed below. Ocean View School District The proposed project would result in the generation of additional students to attend elementary schools within the Ocean View School District. The District currently utilizes a .329 student generation factor for elementary schools (K-5). Assuming buildout of M 206 single family dwelling units, the proposed project would result in the generation of 68 students that would attend Ocean View School District elementary schools. The additional 68 students would require three (3) additional classrooms and employment of three (3) additional certified full-time teachers at the elementary level. As identified previously under existing conditions, due to the Class Size Reduction Program, which requires classroom sizes of 20 students or less for third grade class levels and below, Ocean View School District has been required to provide approximately 70 additional classrooms District-wide. The over-capacity condition within Ocean View School District elementary schools would be further worsened, which is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4 would reduce the project's impact to a level less than significant. CAMY D0CUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIRTSU.DOC 5-180 Environmental Analysis .� Public Services and Utilities Ocean View School District currently utilizes a .089 student generation factor for middle schools (6-8). Assuming buildout of 209 206 single family dwelling units, the proposed project would result in the generation of 19 students that would attend Ocean View School District middle schools. The additional 19 students would require one (1) additional classroom and employment of one (1) additional certified part-time teacher at the middle school level. The over-capacity condition within Ocean View School District middle schools would be further worsened, which is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4 would reduce the project's impact to a level less than significant. Huntington Beach Union High School District The proposed project would result in the generation of additional students to attend elements schools within the Huntington Beach Union High School District. Huntington Beach Union High School District currently utilizes a student generation factor of.2 high school students per single family dwelling unit. Assuming buildout of 208 single family dwelling units, the proposed project would result in the generation of approximately 42 students that would attend Huntington Beach High School. According to the Huntington Beach Union High School District, the District's schools are projected to be fully occupied from the impact of enrollment growth from existing homes. Thus, the project would generate a need for additional facilities and staff. Funding for staff is provided through the State revenue limit formula, and there currently is no source of funds for the expansion of facilities, with the exception of developer fees. The over-capacity condition within Huntington Beach High School would be further worsened, which is considered a significant impact.. According to the Huntington Union High School District, the District and the applicant currently have a mitigation agreement on the project. Mitigation Measure 5 would reduce the project's impact to a level less than significant. Community Services The proposed project would create an increased demand for recreational facilities due to the increase in population. The proposed project will generate a maximum of 744707 residents based on 3.43 persons per household. The City's acreage-to-population standard prescribes five (5) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The County's local park code provides for 2.5 acres of land or the proportionate share thereof for each 1,000 persons residing within the County. This requirement shall be complied with by the provision of parkland, the payment of park fees, or by a combination of both. The EIR analysis utilized the City's requirement as it is more stringent. To meet the City's parkland requirement, the project would need to provide 3.5-74 acres of parkland/open space for the new residents. As indicated in Section 3.0 Project Description of this EIR, the property owner (Shea Homes) proposes the provision of approximately 8.2 acres of open space/recreational uses, which includes 4,64.4 acres of bluff and down slopes to a stand of eucalyptus trees, and a-3.6 3.8-acre flat area at the base of the bluff, which will accommodate recreational activities. This land use represents 5-181 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities 16.68 percent of the entire project site. In addition, the property owner is offering $250,000 worth of improvements. According to the Community Services Deputy Director, funding would provide turf, trees (including addressing the eucalyptus grove), irrigation, and earth movement to divert water off of the park site. Based on a requirement of 3.5-74 park/open space acres, the provision of 8.2 acres of recreation open space and improvement funds, the project exceeds the park requirement by approximately 4.6386 acres. Additionally, the Community Services Department has indicated that it concurs with the overall property-owner proposed combination of money and land. Although the project will create an increased demand for recreational facilities, the project proposes more than adequate park components to offset this potential impact. No impacts are anticipated. Water City of Huntington Beach Implementation of the proposed project would result in development of land uses that may impact existing City water services and facilities. According to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department - Water Division, the estimated water consumption rate for the proposed project is approximately 130,000 gallons per day. The expansion of future City-wide improvements are detailed in the 1995 Water System Master Plan (WMP) Update. Since that time, the Water Division has adopted a revised Water Master Plan dated December 2000. As indicated by the Water Division, as long as the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, as adopted in Ap -SMay 1996, the project would not adversely impact the existing level of service. According to correspondence from the City Water Division,the proposed project is consistent with the Water&ystent-Master Plan-update. The City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan 1995 Update prepared by Boyle Engineering has formulated an improvement system to accommodate all project development within the City. In order to more specifically define the impact of the proposed project on the City's water system and to determine the acceptable piping sizes required within the proposed development, the City Public Works Department requires that the property owner (Shea Homes) provide a hydraulic computer water model analysis. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6 through 13 will reduce impacts to water services and facilities resulting from development proposed within the City of Huntington Beach to a level less than significant. County of Orange Implementation of the proposed project would result in development of 2-57 dwelling units located within the County of Orange that may impact existing City water services and facilities. According to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department - Water Division, the 5-182 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities estimated water consumption rate for the proposed project is approximately 130,000 gallons per day. The expansion of future City-wide improvements are detailed in the 1995 Water System Master Plan (WMP) Update. Since that time, the Water Division has adopted a revised Water Master Plan dated December 2000. However, according to the City Water Division, areas currently existing outside existing City boundaries were not factored into the 1995 Master Plan's analysis nor the December 2000 Water Master Plan. Consequently, any impacts these new areas may cause would need to be reviewed and mitigated. The County of Orange portion of the site outside existing City boundaries was not factored into the 1995 Master Plan's analysis nor the December 2000 Water Master Plan. According to the Water Department, the City cannot supply water to any development that is not within the City's limits unless the City declares there is a surplus of water and LAFCO approves the service, or the area annexes to the City prior to being served. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 7 through 13 will reduce impacts to water services and facilities resulting from development proposed within the County of Orange to a level less than significant. The proposed park may result in significant effects to water services and facilities due to the implementation of turf areas that would require water. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 14 and 15 will reduce impacts to water services and facilities due to the proposed park to a level less than significant. Public Transportation The proposed project may result in impacts to the level of service presently provided by OCTA due to the increased number of residents in the area that may utilize OCTA services. According to OCTA, the proposed project is not expected to adversely impact the level of service OCTA presently provides to the area nor will the project create a need for the expansion of facilities or addition of staff. OCTA plans to increase the level of transit service by 49 percent by the year 2015. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts to public transportation level of service. Sewer Implementation of the proposed project may result in additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows. According to the City Public Works Department, the proposed project would be required to convey its sewer flows to an existing sewer lift station (station #1) and force main; however as indicated previously, this station and force main are known to be deficient. Additionally, the 4.5-acre County parcel will require annexation to the Orange County Sanitation District. 5-183 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities City standards were utilized to calculate the average sewer flows estimated for the proposed project. Although County Sanitation Districts generation rates could have been utilized to calculate average flows, City standards were used as they are more restrictive and provided a more "worste-case" estimate. Based on City standards, the average sewer flows estimated for the proposed project are as follows: • 42 acres of Low Density Residential at 1800 gallons/day/acre =75,600 gallons per day • 8-acre park site at 200 gallons/day = 1,600 gallons per day Total Estimated On-Site Average Flows =77,200 gallons per day Hunsaker & Associates prepared a Sewer Plan (refer to Appendix I of this document) to accommodate anticipated sewer flows. The project proposes to construct a new sewer lift station and force main and abandon the existing station and force main. According to the Sewer Plan, the proposed sewer system would flow by gravity to a new sewer lift station sited adjacent to Lot No. 68 in the Graham Street right-of-way, approximately 150 feet south of Kenilworth Drive. Modifications would be made to the City's gravity sewer system in Graham Street in order for existing sewer flows to be collected and pumped by the new lift station through a new force main to the Orange County Sanitation District sewer, located in Warner Avenue. The new sewer lift station would be similar to the City's Ellis Avenue Sewage Lift Station, as required by City staff. The lift station would be designed as a two-pump facility with each pump capable of pumping the estimated design peak flow. The existing sewer system would remain intact until the new lift station and force main are completed and accepted by the City. The existing Graham Street Sewer Lift Station would be abandoned only after the new lift station and force main are operational, and accepted by the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 13 and 16 will reduce impacts related to demands on the existing sewer system to a level less than significant. Storm Drainage Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR for a discussion of impacts related to storm drainage. Natural Gas The Gas Company indicates that gas service could be provided to the proposed project. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. The Gas Company anticipates that project consumption can be accommodated by existing facilities without any significant impacts. Mitigation Measure 17 is proposed to ensure energy conservation standards are met. No impacts are anticipated with implementation of proposed mitigation. 5-184 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities ' It should be noted that Assembly Bill 1890, commonly referred to as the "Public Utilities Act", has allowed for the deregulation of public utilities in California. Based on this Act, a number of other service providers are able to enter the marketplace. Consequently, there may be additional utility service providers in the near future providing the same services that The Gas Company currently provides to southern California and the proposed project site. Electricity Adequate electric power supply can be provided. SCE does not anticipate any significant impacts in providing the project site with electrical power. Mitigation Measure 18 is proposed to ensure energy conservation standards are met. No impacts are anticipated with implementation of proposed mitigation. SCE stands ready to install distribution facilities for the project site. It should be noted that Assembly Bill 1890, commonly referred to as the "Public Utilities Act", has allowed for the deregulation of public utilities in California. Based on this Act, a number of other service providers are able to enter the marketplace. Consequently, there may be additional utility service providers in the near future providing the same services that The Edison Company currently provides to southern California and the proposed project site. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Fire The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on fire services. Police The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on police services. Schools The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on schools. Community Services The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on community services. P:U 997\7N 15001\EIR\PSU.DOC 5-18 5 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities Water The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments,will have an incremental cumulative impact on water supplies and facilities. Public Transportation The proposed project will not result in impacts to public transportation levels of service; therefore, the project in and of itself will not contribute to the cumulative impact on public transportation services in the area. Sewer The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on sewage facilities. Storm Drains Refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology for a discussion of cumulative impacts related to storm drains. Natural Gas The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on natural gas. Electricity The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future developments, will have an incremental cumulative impact on electricity. STANDARD CITY POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS A. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees in place at the time building permits are pulled. P:\1997\7N15001\EIRTSU.DOC 5-186 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities MITIGATION MEASURES Fire 1. Prior to approval of building permits, building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. If during the Fire Department's plan check it becomes evident that fireground operations will become impeded, the department will impose standar- additional fire code requirements sueh as in addition to the automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. Police 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Police Department shall be consulted during preliminary stages of the project design to review the safety features, determine their adequacy, and suggest improvements. 3. During construction and at complete buildout, the project shall provide easy access into and within the project site for emergency vehicles and addresses shall be well marked to facilitate response by officers. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, project site plans depicting these requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Schools 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the State fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit applications. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall show proof of compliance with the Mitigation Agreement established between the Huntington Beach Union High School District, subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. Water 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the development proposed on the City parcel, which addresses the following: a. Water demand required by project (fire flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) 5-187 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities b. Master Plan/General Plan Amendment (GPA)review The City of Huntington Beach Water (Master Plan) System Computer Model (i.e. H2OBe*NET) must be run with the proposed land use demands (i.e. GPA), and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (i.e. the General Plan, in effect at the time the Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2OBe-*NET), for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance. If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water system, the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. 7. Prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, the following water conservation measures shall be implemented as required by state law: a. Ultra-low-flush toilets b. Ultra-low-flow showers and faucets C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code 8. Prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, water pressure regulators to limit downstream pressure to a maximum of 60 psi shall be installed. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, pervious paving material shall be used whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge and slopes and grades shall be controlled to discourage water waste through runoff. 10. Prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, the applicant shall provide information to prospective residents regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance in selecting irrigation and landscaping. 11. The Water Division and Park, Tree, and Landscape Division of the City's Public Works Department shall be consulted during design and construction of the Park for further water conservation measures to review irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use, as well as measures that may be incorporated into the project to reduce peak hour water demand. 12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the portion of the project to be developed on the County parcel, which addresses the following: 5-188 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities a. Water demand required by project (fire flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) b. Master Plan/General Plan Amendment(GPA)review The City of Huntington Beach Water (Master Plan) System Computer Model (i.e. H2OB,e,*NET) must be run with the proposed land use demands (i.e. GPA), and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (i.e. the General Plan, in effect at the time the current Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2OBe*NET), for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance. The developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel, at no cost to the City. Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works - Water Division. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits,for any lot within the 4.5 acre parcel within the County of Orange, the applicant shall show proof from LAFCO of approval of annexation of the County parcel into the City of Huntington Beach, and the Orange County Sanitation District subject to the approval of the City Planning and Public Works Departments. 14. Irrigation systems within the Park which minimize water waste shall be used to the greatest extent possible. Such measures should involve, where appropriate, the following features: a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume, low angle (22 %2 degree) sprinkler heads. b. Drip irrigation C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. d. The use of reclaimed water for irrigated areas and grass lands. The project applicants shall connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system of reclaimed water should this supply of water be available. Separate irrigation services shall be installed to ease this transition. 15. Landscape and irrigation plans for the Park which encourage minimized use of lawns and utilize warm season, drought tolerant species shall be submitted to and approved by the Water Division and Park, Tree, and Landscape Division. h-r-igatien system shall designed te use r-eelaimed wa4er-when available. 5-189 Environmental Analysis Public Services and Utilities Sewer 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner (Shea Homes) shall construct the new sewer lift station and force main in accordance with the City-approved Sewer Plan for the proposed project, and implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding sewer infrastructure improvements to handle increased sewer flow demands. Storm Drains Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR. Natural Gas 17. Prior to issuance of building permits, The the Southern California Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. Electricity 18. Prior to issuance of building permits, SCE shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to public transportation services. Implementation of the above measures will mitigate all project-specific impacts to public services and utilities to a level less than significant. The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis. Additionally, the project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will create an increased demand on fire, police, schools,community services, water, sewer, natural gas, and electrical services and facilities. Implementation of mitigation measures will reduce each incremental cumulative impact on the associated public services and/or utilities to a level less than significant. 5-190 6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.1 INTRODUCTION The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (d) requires that an EIR, "Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which could reasonably attain the basic objectives of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives". Section 15126 (d)(1) states, "The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." As stated in Section 15126 (d) (4), "The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by the `rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The key issue is whether the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed decision making and informed public participation." Pursuant to the guidelines, a range of alternatives are considered and evaluated in this EIR. These alternatives were developed in the course of project planning and environmental review. The discussion in this section provides: 1. A description of alternatives considered; 2. An analysis of whether the alternatives are feasible (as defined by the CEQA Guidelines in Section 15364), meet the objectives of the project (described in Section 3.0 of this EIR), and remain under consideration (summarized in Table Y); 3. An analysis of the alternatives under consideration and the proposed project. The analysis of the alternatives that were considered during the Draft EIR is primarily summarized in Table Z. The focus of this analysis is to determine if feasible alternatives are capable of eliminating or reducing the significant environmental effects of the project to a level of insignificance. Please note that alternatives 6 through 9 were added subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR, in response to comments, and would result in impacts, which are reduced from or similar to the project description of impacts. Please refer to Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of this document. 4. A description of the impacts of the alternatives that are not generated by the proposed project is summarized in Table AA. 5. Statements indicating why the alternative has been rejected from consideration, if appropriate. Alternative Suimested by NOP Comment Letter One of the several comment letters received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR requested that the EIR consider an alternative that would allow for construction of a nine-hole golf course with 50 to 75 luxury homes bordering the course. Typically, a project of this nature would need a minimum of 80 acres to accommodate a nine-hole golf course. In order to accommodate 75 luxury homes with a minimum of 6,000 square foot lots, the project would require an additional 15 acres. A nine-hole golf course combined with 75 luxury homes would require at least 95 acres. The project site consists of only 49.5 acres; therefore, this alternative is not feasible and has not been further analyzed. 6-1 TABLE Y -01-4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES Alternative Technically Meets Project Environmentally Under Further Feasible Applicant's Superior Consideration Objectives 1. No Project/No Development Yes No Yes Yes 2. Development under Existing Zoning Yes No No No 3. Alternative Location No No N/A No 4. Alternative Park Site Location Yes No No No 5. Alternative Roadway Connections- Alternate A Alternate B No No No No Alternate C Maybe No No Yes No No No No 6. Reduced Density Alternative(9-Lot Yes Yes No Yes County)with Existing Base Flood Elevation(June 2000 FEMA)—10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner 7. Reduced Density Alternative(9-Lot Yes Yes Yes Yes County)with Projected Based Flood Elevation(updated FEMA with LOMR) —4.5 Feet 8. Reduced Density Alternative(0-Lot Yes Yes No Yes County/CCC Conservation)with Existing Base Flood Elevation(June 2000 FEMA)—10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner 9. Reduced Density Alternative(0-Lot Yes Yes Yes Yes County/CCC Conservation)with Projected Base Flood Elevation(Updated FEMA with LOMR)—4.5 Feet Source:EDAW,Inc. 6-2 TABLE Z ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MATRIX ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 CATEGORY NO PROJECT/NO UNDER ALTERNATIVE PARK OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING SITE LOCATION LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The proposed project may result in inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in Housing Policy. this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project,in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in foreseeable future projects,may result in inconsistencies with the City's this impact. this impact. similar impact. Affordable Housing Policy. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project may be perceived as having a substantial,demonstrable, Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project will result in the removal of eucalyptus trees,which Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in could affect the current views of the site. this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project may result in impacts to County-proposed trails. Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in this impact. this impact. similar impact. LIGHT AND GLARE On-Site Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in The project's development will increase the generation of light and glare on- this impact. this impact. similar impact. site with on-site vehicle-related increases.In addition,the proposed project may result in an impact on the surrounding residential developments primarily to the north,and to some extent,to the east. Off-Site Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in Lighting from the proposed development may result in light and glare impacts this impact. this impact. similar impact. to adjacent off-site uses. TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION The proposed project will result in short-term construction related impacts due to Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will increase the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic.Depending on the location this impact. this impact. this impact. of the haul route,traffic impacts along the selected route may occur. The proposed project may result in impacts to pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will increase safety related to the establishment of access and an on-site circulation system. this impact. this impact. this impact. Note: Alternatives 6 through 9 were added subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR and would result in impacts which are reduced from or similar to the project description of impacts. Please refer to Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of this document. 6-3 TABLE Z ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MATRIX ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 CATEGORY NO PROJECT/NO UNDER ALTERNATIVE PARK OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING SITE LOCATION TRANSPORTATION/ The proposed project in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will increase CIRCULATION(CONT'D) foreseeable future projects will result in level of service deficiencies at the this impact. this impact. this impact. intersections Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the year 2020 condition. AIR QUALITY The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in emission levels for NO,during construction activities.Further,the addition of this impact. this impact. similar impact. emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in emission levels for CO and ROC.The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO this impact. this impact. similar impact. and ROC is a long-term air quality impact.Further,the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project,in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in foreseeable future projects,will result in a short-term air quality impact due to this impact. this impact. similar impact. construction activities.The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project,in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in foreseeable future projects,will result in significant cumulative long-term this impact. this impact. similar impact. impacts to air quality. NOISE The proposed project has the potential to result in significant short-term noise Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in impacts during exterior and interior construction activities. this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project will increase the existing plus project traffic noise levels Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in along Graham Street by up to 0.8 dB. this impact. this impact. similar impact. EARTH RESOURCES Significant settlements of peat deposits within the upper 5 feet could continue Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in over the design life of the structures without mitigation in the form of this impact. similar impact. similar impact. removal and/or surcharge. The potential exists for significant impacts from the on-site mildly to severely Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in corrosive soils. this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Note: Alternatives 6 through 9 were added subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR and would result in impacts which are reduced from or similar to the project description of impacts. Please refer to Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of this document. TABLE Z ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MATRIX ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 CATEGORY NO PROJECT/NO UNDER ALTERNATIVE PARK OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING SITE LOCATION EARTH RESOURCES The potential exists for soils with poor pavement support characteristics. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in (CONT'D) this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result from soils with low shear strength. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result from soil shrinkage. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result from ground shaking. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result associated with Liquefaction and Seismic Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in Settlement. this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result associated with Tsunamis. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Potential impacts may result associated with Seiches. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. The proposed local dewatering may result in subsidence of adjacent Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in:. properties along the project's northern property boundary. this impact. similar impact. similar impact. Groundwater impacts may occur. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. The potential exists for impacts from hazardous materials to occur. Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in this impact. similar impact. similar impact. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY The proposed project may result in potential impacts to drainage. Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project may result in potential impacts associated with Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in flooding. this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project may result in potential impacts to water quality. Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project would contribute to potential cumulative drainage, Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in flooding,and water quality impacts. this impact. this impact. similar impact. Note: Alternatives 6 through 9 were added subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR and would result in impacts which are reduced from or similar to the project description of impacts. Please refer to Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of this document. 6-S TABLE Z ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY MATRIX ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE 4 CATEGORY NO PROJECT/NO UNDER ALTERNATIVE PARK OF IMPACT DESCRIPTION OF IMPACT DEVELOPMENT EXISTING ZONING SITE LOCATION BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project may result in impacts to affected species locally and Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in regionally. this impact. similar impact. similar impact. The proposed project may result in potential impacts to pocket wetland Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in habitats on the County parcel. this impact. similar impact. similar impact. The project,in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will result in Alternative will result in foreseeable future projects,will incrementally contribute to the cumulative this impact. similar impact. similar impact. loss of biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project may result in a significant impact on archaeological sites Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will increase CA-ORA-1308 and 1309. this impact. this impact. this impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past,present,and reasonably Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will increase foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of this impact. this impact. this impact. potentially significant cultural resources. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed project may result in impacts to public services and facilities. Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in this impact. this impact. similar impact. The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and Alternative will reduce Alternative will increase Alternative will result in utilities on a local and regional basis.Additionally,the project,in conjunction this impact. this impact. similar impact. with other past,present and reasonably foreseeable future projects,will create an increased demand on fire,police,schools,community services,water, sewer,natural gas,and electrical services and facilities. Note: Alternatives 6 through 9 were added subsequent to the preparation of the Draft EIR and would result in impacts which are reduced from or similar to the project description of impacts. Please refer to Sections 6.7 through 6.10 of this document. � S TABLE AA IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT 1. No Project/No Development Continued existing drainage deficiencies at the Graham Street storm drains stem. 2. Development under Existing The proposed alternative would result in the develop- Zoning ment of 367 units, resulting in on-site and off-site land use compatibility impacts. Due to the construction of 367 units, this alternative would result in a significant perceived change of the site from vacant, undeveloped land to residential uses. This alternative would generate project traffic volumes greater than the proposed project due to the construction of 367 units. The construction of 367 units would result in short-term air quality impacts due to additional trucks and construction vehicle traffic. The additional homes developed through this alternative would generate traffic volumes greater than those generated by the proposed project, thereby increasing long-term mobile source emissions. The construction of 367 units would result in short-term noise impacts due to the additional trucks and construction vehicle traffic. The additional homes developed through this alternative would generate traffic volumes greater than those generated by the proposed project, thereby increasing traffic-generated noise levels. This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces. P:\1997\7N15001\EIRWLTERNAnVES.DOC 6-7 TABLE AA IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT This alternative would require grading of a larger area to allow for residential pads, which could potentially disturb significant archaeological resources. The existing zoning would allow for development to be located within the proposed additional designated park area proposed by the project. This could impact CA-ORA-83. Because this alternative would result in the development of 159 additional units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police, library, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be greater. 3. Alternative Location N/A 4. Alternative Park Site Location Locating the park along Graham Street would require a General Plan Amendment for the entire park site area. The "neighborhood" character of the proposed park would be lost under this alternative. The project- proposed location of the park site places it adjacent to an existing bluff ands eucalyptus trees, thereby expanding the overall open space/park area to ±8.2 acres. Relocation of the park site could potentially generate more project traffic volumes than the proposed project. Relocating the park site to Graham Street would impel more citizens to drive to this location, as it would be located off a main roadway and would not maintain a "neighborhood" character. Therefore, impacts associated with on-street parking would be greater than the proposed project. Development of residential uses within the area proposed as park/open space under the proposed project, would require grading to allow for residential pads, which could potentially disturb significant `'° archaeological resources (CA-ORA-83). P:\1997\7N15001\EIRWLTERNA'nV ES.DOC 6-8 TABLE AA IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT Due to the park site's adjacency to Graham Street, public safety impacts could occur. 5. Alternative Roadway Connections Alternate Roadway Alignment A —Northerly Extension The roadway extension would affect the immediate views of the site that adjacent residents currently maintain. The extension of Bolsa Chica Street will have a prevailing speed of about 45 miles per hour. Adding another intersection immediately adjacent to the private driveway would create turning conflicts at the three legs intersecting Bolsa Chica at nearly the same point. This alternative would result in greater short-term air quality impacts than the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic to construct the roadway extension. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions similar to the proposed project. The roadway extension would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions would be similar. Increased construction noise levels would occur due to the increase of construction vehicles associated with roadway development. Noise impacts could occur due to more vehicles traveling through the project site. In order to accommodate the northerly roadway connection to Bolsa Chica Street, embankment fills varying up to 17 feet in height and southerly/northerly facing cut slopes to heights on the order of 20 feet would P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\ALTERNATIVES.DOC 6-9 TABLE AA IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT be required. Fills would induce settlements in the underlying alluvial soils on the order of one-half to one- inch for each foot of fill. This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the roadway extension. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff due to the construction of the roadway extension. The proposed northerly extension roadway would require grading, which could potentially disturb significant archaeological resources (CA-ORA-83). Alternate Roadway Alignment B—Mid Extension Construction of this middle extension roadway would cut through privately owned property proposed for development. The massive cut required to construct this roadway would completely eliminate this adjacent property's development potential. Because of the cut slope, access from that property to this street would not be feasible without further impacting that property. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there may be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. This alternative would result in impacts from short-term construction due to construction of the roadway extension. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions similar to the proposed project. The roadway extension would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions would be similar. P:\1997\7N15001\EIRWLTEP'NATTVES.DOC 6-10 TABLE AA IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT This alternative would require construction of the roadway extension. Increased construction noise levels would occur due to the increase of construction vehicles associated with roadway development. Constructing the middle roadway connection to Bolsa Chica Street as proposed with this alternative, would require cut slopes approaching 40 feet in height. This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the roadway extension. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff due to the construction of the roadway extension. Alternate Roadway Alignment C —Southerly Extension Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there will most likely be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. This alternative would require a fill slope of almost 30 feet. This alternative would result in short-term construction noise due to the construction of the roadway extension. Increased construction noise levels would occur due to the increase of construction vehicles associated with roadway development. P:\1997\7N15001\SR\ALTERNATTVES.DOC 6-11 TABLE AA - IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES WHICH WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE IMPACT This alternative would require an embankment up to 35 feet in height. The proposed alignment would cross an existing gas line. Significant settlements, likely exceeding the structural capacity of the gas line, would be induced as a result of the embankment construction. Without extensive remediation,the required slope for this extension would be considered susceptible to seismically induced deformation (lateral spreading)project. This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the roadway extension. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding due to the construction of the roadway extension. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff due to the construction of the roadway extension. The proposed southerly connection to Bolsa Chica Street would impact existing pickleweed located off-site. 6. Reduced Density Alternative (9-Lot It substantially increases the finished,floor elevations, which in County) with Existing Base Flood Elevation turn increased the amount of import and hauling of dirt and (June 2000 FEMA)—10.9 Feet at Northeast lengthens the duration of grading operations and associated Corner impacts(Le.,short-term air quality and noise impacts,etc.). 7. Reduced Density Alternative (9-Lot None County)with Projected Base Flood Elevation (Updated FEMA with LOMR)—4.5 Feet 8. Reduced Density Alternative (0-Lot It substantially increases the finished floor elevations, which in County / CCC Conservation) with Existing turn increased the amount of import and hauling of dirt and Base Flood Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) — lengthens the duration of grading operations and associated 10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner impacts(Le.,short-term air quality and noise impacts,etc.). 9. Reduced Density Alternative (0-Lot None County / CCC Conservation) with Projected Base Flood Elevation (Updated FEMA with LOMR) — 4.5 Feet 6-12 Alternatives Analyzed The following alternatives are discussed in this section: 1. Alternative 1 -No Project/No Development 2. Alternative 2 -Development Under Existing Zoning 3. Alternative 3 - Alternative Location 4. Alternative 4 — Alternative Park Site Location (alternative suggested during scoping meeting) 5. Alternative 5 — Alternative Roadway Connections (alternative suggested during scoping meeting) 6. Alternative 6 — Reduced Density with Existing Base Flood Elevation — 10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner 7. Alternative 7—Reduced Density with Projected Base Flood Elevation—4.5 Feet 8. Alternative 8 — Reduced Density with Existing Base Flood Elevation — 10.9 Feet at Northeast Corner 9. Alternative 9—Reduced Density with Projected Base Flood Elevation—4.5 Feet A description of each alternative is provided and the alternative is discussed below. This section evaluates alternatives that may be capable of eliminating, or reducing to a level of insignificance, adverse impacts associated with the project. Additionally, the alternatives considered environmentally superior to the proposed project are identified. 6.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT Description of Alternative An evaluation of a "No Project" Alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2). Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented and the site would remain in its current undeveloped state. The No Project/No Development alternative would restrict development of the project site by not allowing the construction of the residential and park uses proposed as part of the project. The vacant, undeveloped site would remain as it is currently and no development would occur. Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would avoid all land use impacts associated with the proposed project. Since the project site would remain in its current vacant, undeveloped state, potential impacts related to land use compatibility associated with the proposed project would not occur. Land use impacts would be avoided. Land use compatibility impacts would be less than the proposed project. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This alternative would avoid all aesthetics/light and glare impacts associated with the proposed project. The present appearance of the vacant, undeveloped site would not change and development of 298 206 residential units and park uses would not occur. No aesthetic impacts to surrounding land uses would occur with the No Project/No Development alternative. Potential aesthetic/light and glare impacts resulting from the proposed project would be avoided with this 6-13 alternative. Impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare would be less than the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION This alternative would avoid all impacts to transportation/circulation. This alternative would not contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. This alternative also would not result in vehicular increases on the surrounding street system. Traffic improvements proposed for the project area would not be implemented with the No Project/No Development alternative; however they would be unnecessary with this alternative. Impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be. less than the proposed project. AIR QUALITY This alternative would avoid all air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. No short-term or long-term increases in air emissions would result, as the project site would remain in its existing state. Impacts associated with air quality would be less than the proposed project. NOISE This alternative would avoid all noise impacts associated with the proposed project. As the project site would remain in its current state, short-term construction noise to adjacent sensitive receptors would not occur. Because this alternative would not generate additional vehicular traffic, nor would it result in the construction of the neighborhood park, no long-term traffic related noise impacts would result to surrounding land uses. Impacts associated with noise would be less than the proposed project. EARTH RESOURCES The project site currently contains loose soils prone to liquefaction. The project grading activities proposed to remediate the soils condition onsite would not be implemented with this alternative. Therefore, the existing condition of the site soils would remain. Impacts associated with earth resources would be greater than the proposed project. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would avoid all impacts related to increased surface water runoff. This alternative would not result in the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces. This alternative also will not result in the addition of pollutants typical of urban runoff. Additionally, this alternative would not result in the benefits of drainage improvements to the Graham Street drain system, Slater Pump Station, or C05. This alternative in effect, would not assist in providing drainage improvements to the neighborhoods located to the north and south of the project site. PA 1997\7N 15001\EIR\ALTERNATI V ES.DOC 6-14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would avoid all impacts related to biological resources. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would avoid all potential impacts related to archaeological resources. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would not result in impacts to public services and utilities as identified due to implementation of the proposed project. The No Project/No Development alternative would not place demands on existing public service facilities and services that currently accommodate the site. This alternative would not result in the expansion of the park/open space area as realized by the proposed project. This alternative also would not result in the provision of funds for park . improvements as proposed by the project. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It does not meet the project applicant's objectives. It is environmentally superior to the proposed project and remains under consideration. 6.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 - DEVELOPMENT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Description of Alternative Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented, and the project site would be developed under the existing City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange zoning. The City of Huntington Beach parcel of the project site would be developed under the existing zoning, which allows for seven (7) dwelling units per acre. Based on 44.5 acres, development under the existing City zoning would allow for maximum buildout of 311 residential units. The County of Orange parcel of the project site would be developed under the existing zoning, which allows for 6.5 — 12.5 dwelling units per acre. Based on 4.5 acres, development under the existing County zoning would allow for maximum buildout of 56 units. This alternative would result in the total development of a maximum of 367 dwelling units. Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would result in an increase in land use impacts, compared to that associated with the proposed project. Land use compatibility impacts both on-site and off-site would be greater with this alternative since it would allow for the development of 4-59 161 units more than the 6-15 proposed project. Impacts associated with land uses are anticipated to be greater than the proposed project due to the increased density. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This alternative would result in greater aesthetics/light and glare impacts compared to those associated with the proposed project. The perceived change of the site from vacant, undeveloped land to residential uses would be more significant than the proposed project due to the increased density/intensity of this alternative. A total of 4-59161 more units would be built on the site with this alternative. Due to the increased density and intensity of this alternative, the overall impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare would be greater than the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION This alternative would generate greater project traffic volumes than the proposed project due to the increased number of residential units. Impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be more than the proposed project. AIR QUALITY The construction of 4-59 161 additional homes would result in greater short-term air quality impacts than those generated by the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to additional trucks and construction vehicle traffic. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions greater than the proposed project. The additional homes developed through this alternative would generate traffic volumes greater than those generated by the proposed project, thereby increasing long-term mobile source emissions. NOISE This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts than the proposed project during construction activities, due to the increased number of homes to be built. Noise impacts generated by the increase in traffic also would be greater than the proposed project. EARTH CONDITIONS This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction and soil settlement than the proposed project. The City would most likely require that any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. Therefore, similar impacts would be anticipated with buildout under the existing zoning. 6-16 DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces, greater than those of the proposed project due to the 4-59161 additional homes to be constructed. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding, similar to that of the proposed project. This alternative could potentially result in an increase in water runoff that is greater than that of the proposed project. Development under this alternative would not include the storm drainage improvements as proposed by the project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, greater than those of the proposed project. The development of this alternative would still be required to take into consideration significant archaeological resources located on site similar to the proposed project; however, the existing zoning would allow for development to be located within a portion of the designated park area proposed by the project. Development of residential uses within this area would require grading to allow for residential pads, which could potentially disturb significant archaeological resources (CA-ORA-83). Open space and park uses proposed by the project would be more environmentally sensitive to any archaeological resources than development of residential uses would be. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would result in greater impacts to public services and utilities than the proposed project. Because this alternative would result in the development of 4-59161 additional units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police, library, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be greater. Additionally, this alternative would not result in the provision of funds for park improvements,nor would it result in the expansion of the park/open space area. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It does not meet the project applicant's objectives. This alternative does not reduce impacts of the proposed project. Furthermore, it creates potentially new impacts not caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is environmentally inferior to the proposed project and is removed from further consideration. 6-17 6.4 ALTERNATIVE 3 - ALTERNATIVE LOCATION This alternative considers locating the proposed project at a different site. This alternative is required by CEQA and is intended to evaluate the option of the development of the proposed project at another site. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, any alternative site evaluated herein must have similar characteristics as the project site including size, landform, and amenity opportunities. Development would include the same type of use, density, and intensity as the proposed project site. Upon a preliminary analysis of the potential sites of approximately 49 acres within the City of Huntington Beach, the Holly-Seacliff development site was selected for consideration as an alternative site. This site was however rejected from further review due to various constraints encountered. The following discussion briefly describes why the Holly- Seacliff alternative site was dismissed. As previously outlined in Section 3.0 Project Description of this EIR, the following objectives were identified by the project applicant: Applicant • Provide a variety of high quality residential consistent with the City's General Plan and Bolsa Chica LCP. • Dedicate and improve park site consistent with the City's Land Use Element, which -* designates a portion of the site OS-P (Open Space - Park). • Provide adequate infrastructure to support the proposed residential uses. • Improve existing soils deficiencies found onsite through remedial grading. • Improve drainage deficiencies by expanding capacity of Wintersburg Flood Control Channel. • Replace, expand, and modernize existing deficient sewer pump station facilities. City of Huntington Beach • Create a development compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. • Promote the development of residential land uses that convey a high quality visual image and character. • Provide for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate the demands of new and existing development. ,. • Balance projected costs and revenues. P:\1997\7N15001\EIRWLTERNATIVES.DOC 6-1 g • Balance the City's long-term needs for residential property. • Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development, and that timing and funding of improvements is closely correlated with development phasing. The Holly-Seacliff Project site is approximately 570 acres generally bounded by Ellis Avenue to the north, Huntington and Main Streets to the east, Yorktown Avenue and Summit Drive to the south, and the Edwards Street bluffs to the west. Currently approved uses for the site include Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, Mixed Development, Commercial, Industrial and Open Space. Ultimately, up to 3,89-5 3,022 residential units may be constructed in the area over the next ten to fifteen years. One (1) Multiple areas within the Holly-Seacliff Project area is are currently zoned for Residential -Low Density 1, allowing for residential densities ranging from 4 to 7 dwelling units per acre. These sites, however, are already developed and cannot ale to accommodate the . project as proposed due to size limitations. Additionally, the location of Holly-Seacliff site does not meet the objective of remediating existing deficiencies related to storm drainage and liquefiable soils. Based on the preceding analysis, the alternative site evaluation has been eliminated. 6.5 ALTERNATIVE 4 — ALTERNATIVE PARK SITE LOCATION (Alternative Suggested during Scoping Meeting) Description of Alternative This alternative assumes that the park would be located in another area of the site. Under this alternative, the proposed±-3-.(3.8-acre park site would be located in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Graham Street, rather than in the northwestern corner of the site adjacent to the existing bluffs and eucalyptus trees. The alternative park location would provide a buffer from Graham Street, which would be considered a positive aspect of this alternative. Relocating the park adjacent to Graham Street would in turn relocate homes to the proposed project's park location in order to accommodate the total construction of 2M 206 units. Development of residential uses within this area would require grading to allow for residential pads. Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would result in greater land use compatibility impacts, compared to those associated with the proposed project. Locating the park along Graham Street would require a 6-19 General Plan Amendment for the entire park site area, since that area of the proposed site is currently designated RL-7 (Low Density Residential). Additionally, the "neighborhood" character of the proposed park would be lost under this alternative. The project-proposed location of the park site places it adjacent to an existing bluff and eucalyptus trees, thereby expanding the overall open space/park area to ±8.2 acres. The alternative would locate the park adjacent to Graham Street, which is a two lane commuter roadway, currently experiencing 7,200 average trips daily. This alternative would result in the separation of the park and open space area. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This alternative would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts compared to those associated with the proposed project. Aesthetics/light and glare impacts resulting from the proposed project would also occur with relocation of the park site. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Relocation of the park site would potentially generate more project traffic volumes than the proposed project. Relocating the park site Graham Street would impel more citizens to drive to this location, as it would be located off a main roadway and would not maintain a "neighborhood" character. Therefore, impacts associated with on-street parking would be greater than the proposed project. AIR QUALITY This alternative would result in short-term air quality impacts similar to the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions similar to the proposed project. Relocation of the park site would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions would be similar. NOISE This alternative would result in similar short-term impacts as the proposed project during construction activities. Noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be similar to the proposed project. EARTH RESOURCES This alternative would result in impacts associated with liquefiable soils, similar to the proposed project. This alternative also would result in impacts associated with ground shaking and other geotechnical constraints, similar to that of the proposed project. 6-20 DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces similar to the proposed project. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding, similar to that of the proposed project. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff that is similar to that of the proposed project. Relocation of the park site would neither reduce nor increase drainage/hydrology impacts resulting from the proposed project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in a greater potential for impacts to archaeological resources than the proposed project. The development of this alternative would still be required to take into consideration significant archaeological resources located on site similar to the proposed project. However, relocating the park adjacent to Graham Street would in turn relocate homes to the proposed project's park location in order to accommodate the total construction of 209 206 units. Development of residential uses within this area would require grading to allow for residential pads, which could potentially disturb significant archaeological resources. The park proposed by the project would be more environmentally sensitive to archaeological resources (CA-ORA-83). Development of residential uses would require grading, which would impact CA-ORA-83. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities, similar to those of the proposed project. Relocation of the park site would not increase, decrease, or eliminate impacts related to public services and utilities. PUBLIC SAFETY This alternative would result in potential public safety impacts due to the relocation of the project site. The park would be relocated adjacent to Graham Street, which experiences more vehicular traffic than the project-proposed park site location. Due to the park site's adjacency to Graham Street, public safety impacts could occur. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It does not meet the project applicant's objective of dedicating and improving a park site consistent with the City's Land Use Element, which designates a portion of the site OS-P (Open Space-Park). This alternative does not reduce impacts of the proposed project and it does create new impacts not caused by the proposed project. CAMYDOCUMENTSVSHEAU-2000MMALTERN-2.DOC 6-21 Therefore, it is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. It is removed from further consideration. 6.6 ALTERNATIVE 5 — ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY CONNECTIONS (Alternative Suggested during Scoping Meeting) Alternative 5 consists of a roadway connection from the project site to Bolsa Chica Street. Three- (3) alternate plans (Circulation Alternative A through C) for street connections to Bolsa Chica Street were analyzed. It is assumed that implementation of this alternative would result in the construction of 2-9S 206 dwelling units and a park site, similar to the proposed project. The following discusses these alternate roadway connection alternatives. ALTERNATE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT A—NORTHERLY EXTENSION Description of Alternative Alternate Roadway Alignment A involves a westerly extension of `B" Street, north of the proposed park site, connecting to Bolsa Chica Street (refer to Exhibit 44). Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would result in land use compatibility impacts similar to the proposed project. This alternative would consist of the construction of 299 206 residential units and the park site; however, the extension would result in the park site being smaller than it would be with the proposed project. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This alternative would result in greater aesthetics/light and glare impacts compared to those associated with the proposed project. Impacts would occur due to the proposed roadway extension's close proximity to the existing residential to the north. The roadway extension would affect the immediate views of the site that these residents currently maintain. Rather than having the view of the park as proposed by the project, these residents would be viewing the roadway extension. Overall impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare would be greater than the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION According to Darnell & Associates, Inc. (project traffic engineers), this alignment would create a confusing and potentially dangerous intersection at Bolsa Chica Street. There is an existing Bolsa Chica intersection of Los Patos Avenue to the west and an opposite private driveway serving the condominium development to the east. CAMY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIl2\ALTERN-2.DOC 6-22 _ C 'i U XQ (jl RM _ _ \� `• OU •- \ � '��� i_•i'A_ICI a L�Tri; � �-�.�..�'..����.�_ v�as�.. ffit Too ��• ��� � © �����:°�_—_-si1'V rr. fir:v V' .! \'�• � 1PP41 �s I 'p ti ey 4 � � �c r/fa►v � ► I.. i The extension of Bolsa Chica Street will have a prevailing speed of about 45 miles per hour. Adding another intersection immediately adjacent to the private driveway would create turning conflicts at the three legs intersecting Bolsa Chica at nearly the same point. Impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be greater than the proposed project. AIR QUALITY This alternative would result in greater short-term air quality impacts than the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic to construct the roadway extension. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions greater than the proposed project, since the construction of this roadway extension would ultimately bring additional traffic closer to the existing residences adjacent to the roadway. The roadway extension would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions caused by the development of residential uses would be similar. NOISE This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts than the proposed project during construction activities. The alternative would require construction of the roadway extension in addition to construction of the proposed homes. Noise impacts could possibly be greater due to the fact that the roadway connection could cause more vehicles to travel through the project site. Noise impacts to existing residences along the roadway could be expected to be greater, as compared to open space uses as proposed by the project. EARTH CONDITIONS This alternative would result in impacts associated with liquifiable soils, ground shaking and other geotechnical constraints similar to the proposed project. Additionally, in order to accommodate the northerly roadway connection to Bolsa Chica Street, embankment fills varying up to 17 feet in height and southerly/northerly facing cut slopes to heights on the order of 20 feet would be required. Fills would induce settlements in the underlying alluvial soils on the order of one-half to one-inch for each foot of fill. Impacts related to earth conditions would be greater than the proposed project. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the homes and the roadway extension. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding, greater than that of the proposed project. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff that is greater than that of the proposed project. The roadway extension would increase the amount of impervious surfaces related to the proposed project. Impacts related to drainage/hydrology would be greater than the proposed project. PAI 997\7N 15001\EIR\ALTERNATI V ES.DOC 6-24 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in a greater potential for impacts to archaeological resources than the proposed project (CA-ORA-83). The development of this alternative would still be required to take into consideration significant archaeological resources located on site similar to the proposed project. However, the proposed northerly extension roadway would require grading, which could potentially disturb significant archaeological resources. Construction of the northern roadway extension would result in greater impacts related to archaeological resources than the proposed project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities, similar to those of the proposed project. Construction of the roadway would not increase, decrease, or eliminate impacts related to public services and utilities. Status of Alternative This alternative is not technically feasible. According to Darnell & Associates, Inc., .. implementation of this alternative would create a potentially dangerous intersection at Bolsa Chica Street, due to its close proximity to the existing intersection of Los Patos Avenue/Bolsa Chica Street/private Cabo del Mar condominiums driveway. It does not meet the project applicant's objectives. This alternative does not reduce impacts of the proposed project and creates new impacts not caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. It is removed from further consideration. ALTERNATE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT B—MID EXTENSION Description of Alternative Alternate Roadway Alignment B involves a westerly extension of"I" Street, running along the proposed park's southern boundary, connecting to Bolsa Chica Street (refer to Exhibit 45). Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would result in land use compatibility impacts greater than those resulting from the proposed project. This alternative would consist of the construction of 298 206 residential units and the park site. Additionally, construction of this middle extension roadway would cut through privately owned property proposed for development. The massive cut required to construct this roadway would completely eliminate this property's development potential. CAMY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.E]R\ALTERN-2.DOC 6-25 In, �\ NES lit Pat ►ill p m �.� I,t��-., �; v1 MI `kg-j L�.' � OR yr , ILI OR Mal L Iris, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION According to Darnell & Associates, Inc. (project traffic engineers), in order to maintain a maximum eight percent (8%) grade, this extension would create a massive cut (from 130 feet to 70 feet wide) through privately owned property virtually destroying its development potential. Because of the cut slope, access from that property to this street would not be feasible without further impacting that property. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there may be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. AIR QUALITY This alternative would result in greater short-term air quality impacts than the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic to construct the roadway extension. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions similar to the proposed project. The roadway extension would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions would be similar. NOISE This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts than the proposed project during construction activities. The alternative would require construction of the roadway extension in addition to construction of the proposed homes. Noise impacts could possibly be greater due to the fact that the roadway connection could cause more vehicles to travel through the project site, especially if development within the Bolsa Chica area were to be developed. EARTH CONDITIONS This alternative would result in impacts associated with expansive soils, ground shaking and other geotechnical constraints, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, constructing the middle roadway connection to Bolsa Chica Street as proposed with this alternative would result in impacts not experienced by the proposed project. This alternative would require cut slopes approaching 40 feet in height. The slopes could be considered grossly stable but potentially unstable and may require protection in the form of geogrid reinforcement and/or stabilization with geogrid-reinforced replacement fills. Impacts related to earth conditions would be greater than the proposed project. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the homes and the roadway extension. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding, greater than that of the proposed PAI997\7N 15001 TIR\ALTERNATI V ES.DOC 6-27 project. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff that is greater than the proposed project. The roadway extension would increase the amount of impervious surfaces related to the proposed project. Impacts related to drainage/hydrology would be greater than the proposed project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in greater impacts to biological resources due to a larger area that would be affected by implementation of this roadway. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to that of the proposed project. Construction of the roadway extension would still be required to take into consideration significant archaeological resources located on site, similar to the proposed project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities, similar to those of the proposed project. Construction of the roadway extension would not increase, decrease, or eliminate impacts related to public services and utilities. Status of Alternative This alternative may be technically feasible. According to Darnell & Associates, Inc., this alternative could create a reasonably safe intersection with Bolsa Chica Street; however, it would be extremely costly and would destroy adjacent property in the process. It does not meet the project applicant's objectives. This alternative does not reduce impacts of the proposed project and creates new impacts not caused by the proposed project; however, it is technically feasible. It remains under consideration. ALTERNATE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT C—SOUTHERLY EXTENSION Description of Alternative Alternate Roadway Alignment C involves a westerly extension of "L" Street in the southern portion of the project site that connects to Bolsa Chica Street (refer to Exhibit 46). Environmental Assessment LAND USE COMPATIBILITY This alternative would result in land use compatibility impacts similar to those resulting from the proposed project. PA 1997\7N 15001\EIR\ALTERNATI V ES.DOC 6-28 �P Mkt 011 tj skull I Sol' Ci 11 -,✓�r��P � RISEN,-,, - i IBM U, NRI 11 � �r �°� y b � r��.`�`�'�� tom'• . �,� •. MT `i�►i it � � 1 .� _ ��� ���,' ���a, ��, l- rN, i — AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This alternative would result in similar aesthetics/light and glare impacts compared to those associated with the proposed project. Aesthetics/light and glare impacts resulting from the proposed project would also occur with relocation of the park site. Overall impacts associated with aesthetics/light and glare would be similar to the proposed project. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION According to Darnell & Associates, Inc. (project traffic engineers), Bolsa Chica Street at this proposed intersection will be on a horizontal and vertical curve, and the southerly extension will be on a vertical curve. This would be a very undesirable intersection for the average driver based on prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. Depending on the vertical and horizontal alignment of Bolsa Chica Street, there will most likely be a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. Additionally, in order to construct this alignment, a fill slope of almost 30 feet would be needed. Impacts related to transportation/circulation would be greater than the proposed project's resulting impacts. AIR QUALITY This alternative would result in greater short-term air quality impacts than the proposed project. Impacts would result from short-term construction due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic to construct the roadway extension. This alternative would result in long-term mobile source emissions similar to the proposed project. The roadway extension would not affect the number of residential units to be built; therefore, traffic volumes resulting in mobile source emissions would be similar. NOISE This alternative would result in greater short-term impacts than the proposed project during construction activities. The alternative would require construction of the roadway extension in addition to construction of the proposed homes. Noise impacts could possibly be greater due to the fact that the roadway connection could cause more vehicles to travel through the project site. EARTH CONDITIONS This alternative would result in impacts associated with expansive soils, ground shaking and other geotechnical constraints, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, constructing the southerly roadway connection to Bolsa Chica Street as proposed with this alternative would result in impacts not experienced by the proposed project. This alternative would require an embankment up to 35 feet in height. The proposed alignment would also cross an existing gas line. Significant settlements, likely exceeding the structural capacity of the gas line, would be PAI997\7N 15001\EIR\ALTERNATI V ES.DOC 6-30 induced as a result of the embankment construction. Additionally, the slope would be considered ' susceptible to seismically induced deformation (lateral spreading) without extensive remediation. Impacts related to earth conditions would be greater than the proposed project. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY This alternative would result in surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces related to the homes and the roadway extension. This alternative would result in potential impacts related to flooding, greater than that of the proposed project. This alternative would result in an increase in water runoff that is greater than that of the proposed project. The roadway extension would increase the amount of impervious surfaces related to the proposed project. Impacts related to drainage/hydrology would be greater than the proposed project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in greater impacts to biological resources. The proposed southerly connection to Bolsa Chica Street would impact existing pickleweed located off-site. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to that of the proposed project. Construction of the roadway extension would still be required to take into consideration significant archaeological resources located on site, similar to the proposed project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities, similar to those of the proposed project. Construction of the roadway extension would not increase, decrease, or eliminate impacts related to public services and utilities. Status of Alternative This alternative is not technically feasible. According to Darnell & Associates, Inc., this would be a very undesirable intersection for the average driver based on prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. This alternative would result in a sight distance problem for southbound to eastbound left turns and for westbound vehicles seeing southbound and northbound vehicles at prevailing speeds on Bolsa Chica Street. It does not meet the project applicant's objectives. This alternative does not reduce impacts of the proposed project and creates new impacts not caused by the proposed project. Therefore, it is environmentally inferior to the proposed project. It is removed from further consideration. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\ALTERNATIV ES.DOC 6-31 34-6.7 ALTERNATIVE 6 - REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE (9-LOT COUNTY) WITH EXISTING BASE FLOOD ELEVATION(JUNE 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 FEET AT NORTHEAST CORNER Reduced Density Alternative Concept Applicable to Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and 9 The Reduced Density Alternative Concept was initially prepared in response to comments received from the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Bolsa Chica Land Trust (BCLT), and others during the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR for the Parkside Estates project. In order to adequately respond to these comments, the City of Huntington Beach directed the applicant to prepare an alternative plan to be considered as part of the EIR. The above-referenced comments requested several issues be considered as part of an alternative plan. The following specific issues raised within the comment letters (referenced at the end of each issue)resulted in the preparation of this alternative plan: • Avoid eucalyptus trees on the County portion of the site, which are part of a larger Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) previously designated by Fish and Game (BCLT) • Design project to avoid impacts to remnant wetland (i.e.,remnant pickleweed) area located in the County portion of the project (DFG) • Explore a project alternative which avoids impacts to the 0.4-acre EPA delineated wetland area in the County rather than simply proposing that adverse impacts be mitigated(CCC) • Consider alternative uses (i.e., open space/scenic greenway) for the 4.5-acre County parcel that would avoid houses jutting further into the lowland area currently being planned for restoration and long-term conservation of fish and wildlife (USFWS) Additionally, subsequent to the end of the 60-day public review period of the Draft EIR, the Court of Appeal rendered a decision on the appeal of the trial court's decisions pertaining to the Local Coastal Program for the Bolsa Chica project. As part of the decision, which occurred on April 16, 1999, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court's decision with respect to relocating the bird habitat proposed as part of the Bolsa Chica project. According to the Court of Appeal, the Coastal Act does not permit destruction of an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) simply because the destruction is mitigated off-site. The proposed original plan and alternatives accommodate this recent court decision. The 4.5-acre County parcel contains 0.13 acre (west of the above ground gas line) of the DFG designated ESHA (please refer to Exhibits 47a, 47b and 63). The Parkside Estates original project proposes development of 27 single-family homes within the County portion of the project site, which would require the removal of eucalyptus trees (refer to Section 3.0). Although the trees which, would have been removed were not part of the larger designated eucalyptus ESHA, impacts associated with other tree removal were identified in the Draft EIR. In an effort to reduce the impact related to removal of these trees to a level less than significant, the Draft EIR proposed mitigation requiring replacement of the trees at a 2:1 ratio. In response to comments on the Draft EIR and the court decision regarding the preservation of eucalyptus ESHA, an alternative plan has been prepared resulting in complete avoidance of all County eucalyptus trees including the 0.13 acre onsite ESHA. Implementation of this Reduced Density alternative plan would result in the development of 9 lots versus 27 lots on the County parcel and ensure that impacts related to the removal of onsite trees remain less than significant. 6-32 Actions by FEMA and Coastal Commission Applicable to Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and 9 —» In response to the release of a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), issued by FEMA, on June 14, 2000; Shea Homes' submittal of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application on February 2001; and the November 2000 Coastal Commission decision, four new alternatives to Tentative Tract Maps 15377 and 15419 have been developed, which present 1) variations in site base floodplain elevations (i.e., 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) versus 4.5 feet (NAVD 88))1 and 2) different development assumptions for the 4.5-acre County parcel (i.e., 9 lots versus 0-lot). The following discussion provides more detail on the new elevations established for the four alternatives. The original pad and finished floor elevations shown on Tentative Tract maps 15377 and 15419 for Parkside Estates, which were demonstrated and referenced within the Draft EIR, were based upon the City of Huntington Beach interpretation of the January 1997 FIRM, which designated the project site as an A99 zone. Because the A99 zone is considered an "interim" zone (pending completion of the Santa Ana River project in 1999), the local authority (i.e., City) has the discretion to dictate minimum pad elevations for a project. At the time the Draft EIR was prepared, the City of Huntington Beach required minimum pad elevations for Tentative Tracts 15377 and 15419 to be 1.00 foot (NAVD 88). The Tentative Tract Map pad elevations shown in the Draft EIR ranged from approximately 1.0 foot (NAVD 88) along the northern property boundary up to 9.5 feet (NAVD 88) adjacent to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel (CO5). Subsequent to completion of the Santa Ana River flood control improvements, FEMA required the Orange County Flood Control District to conduct a new analysis of the CO5 watershed. The Orange County Flood Control District commissioned WEST Consultants, a private consulting civil engineering firm, to begin a detailed flood insurance study of the CO5 Channel. The results of that study had not been released before the DEIR 97-2 was circulated for comment in April 1998. WEST Consultants did not produce a detailed flood insurance study and was directed by the County to provide an "approximate" watershed analysis of the CO5 to the Orange County Flood Control District, for submission to FEMA. Subsequently, new base flood elevation contours were "informally" produced by the County of Orange from the WEST study in June 2000. These new informal, non-published or "unofficial" base flood elevation contours were made available to the City of Huntington Beach on an information basis to establish minimum pad elevations for new developments within the watershed study area. The City's interpretation of the base flood contours requires pad elevations of Tentative Tracts 15377 and 15419 to range between 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) and 11.4 feet (NAVD 88 datum) - considerably higher than any prior base flood elevation previously predicted for the subject property. Following their review of the approximate watershed analysis completed by WEST, FEMA issued a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) which became effective June 14, 2000 along with a 1 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents,are based on mean sea level,(North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. 6-33 revised FIRM and established new floodplain development criteria for the areas adjacent to or near the COS. A copy of this letter is contained in Appendix A of this document. The project applicant, Shea Homes has revised their original development plans (Tentative Tract Maps 15377 and 15419) to be in compliance with the non-published base flood contours (i.e., June 2000 FEMA). (Refer to the following Alternatives 6 and 8). Per FEMA regulations, only detailed flood insurance studies (FISs) can have Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) that can be used by a community to comply with FEMA regulations. FISs that produced Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that predated the June 2000 FIRM are examples of detailed FISs. The February 2001 Focused Detailed Flood Insurance Study that has been submitted to FEMA by Shea Homes is another example of an FIS that may produce a BFE. Approximate Flood Insurance Studies cannot have BFEs. The June 2000 approximate FIS is an example. In certain places throughout this document, reference is made to "informal," "non-published" or "unofficial" Base Flood Elevations which were interpolated by the County of Orange from the WEST Consultants approximate study. These elevations are not BFEs as defined by FEMA. FEMA 44 CFR 60.3 requires that Base Flood Elevation data be provided by certain project proponents in areas that do not have BFEs. The customary means of providing BFEs is the detailed FIS. In conformance with FEMA and City requirements, and as recommended by the WEST study, Shea Homes commissioned additional engineering firms to conduct a "new focused detailed flood insurance study" of the CO5 and determined from the best available information the base flood elevations for the Parkside Estates Project under FEMA policy. The Shea Homes analysis demonstrates the minimum base flood elevation to be at 4.5 feet (NAVD 88 datum). The minimum pad elevations are required to be one foot above the minimum base flood elevation by the City or 5.5 feet (NAVD 88 datum). "Alternative" Tentative Tract maps 15377 and 15419 have been produced based upon that conclusion. (Refer to the following Alternatives 7 and 9). In February 2001, Shea Homes submitted a request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) application along with the analysis, to FEMA for approval. FEMA concluded in a CLOMR to the City of Huntington Beach dated June 6, 2002, that "as a result of the more detailed topographic information, the proposed project, and the failure of uncertified levees, the base flood WSEL will decrease compared to the effective base flood Zood WSEL along the northern overbank of East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel. The base ,flood WSEL, within the Shea Homes property will be 2.2 feet, referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)of 1929." The conversion of NGVD 29 Datum to NAVD 88 Datum is calculated by adding 2.4 feet. Therefore, the approved CLOMR WSEL or Base Flood Elevation (BFE)for the project site as adjusted to NAVD88 datum is 4.6 feet. Alternatives #7 and#9 listed below have a BFE of 4.5 feet. These two alternatives and the environmental analysis of these alternatives are consistent with the June 6, 2002 approved FEMA CLOMR for the project site. 6-34 Summary The four proposed alternatives reflect two different reduced density concepts in conjunction with two floodplain elevation alternatives: • Alternative 6 - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Flood Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 feet at northeast corner • Alternative 7 - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Flood Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) -4.5 feet • Alternative 8 - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Flood Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 feet at northeast corner • Alternative 9 - Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Flood Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) -4.5 feet Description of Alternative This alternative plan avoids all County eucalyptus trees (including the 0.13-acre eucalyptus ESHA located in the County portion of the project site) by reducing the number of dwelling units located in the County parcel from 27 lots to 9 lots. Under this alternative, the number of units in the City parcel have also been reduced by 17 units to accommodate open space/park like buffers, which assist in off-setting impacts of the revised base floodplain elevation for the site. As shown in Exhibit 48, the non-published Approximate Base Flood Elevations (BFE) map derived from the WEST study, this alternative reflects the base floodplain elevation (BFE) of 10.9 feet at the northeast corner of the site. Considering the above discussed factors, this alternative results in a - , total project dwelling unit reduction of-3-7 35, from 209 206 to 171 dwelling units (please refer to Exhibits 49, the Conceptual Land Use Plan 171 lots; Exhibits 50, 50a, and 51, the Tentative Tract Maps for City and County; and Exhibit 52, the Conceptual Landscape Plan). The Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) results in the following changes to the entire project. First, the alternative plan will have a total of 77 estate lots with a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and average size of 7,359 square feet and 94 parkside lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet and average size of 5,631 square feet versus 95 estates lots (average 7,030 sq.ft.) and 111 parkside lots (average 5,770 sq.ft.) as identified with the originally proposed plan. Second, the overall alternative plan will have a gross density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) versus a gross density of 4.13 du/ac with the originally proposed plan. Third, the alternative plan provides for 44414.2 acres of park / open space use versus ".2 acres of park / open space under the proposed plan. Fourth, the alternative land use plan provides for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area. Fifth, the alternative land use plan provides for a 464-foot buffer from the closest proposed residential use to the portion of the ESHA located on-site versus a 60-foot buffer identified with the originally proposed plan. Lastly, the alternative land use plan includes a 133-foot separation (including a 50-foot wide paseo park) from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential unit. The proposed applications discussed in the Draft EIR (i.e., General Plan, zoning maps and CUP) will be revised to reflect this alternative layout. Under this scenario, City staff would also consider the non-annexation alternative. This non- annexation alternative would restrict development of the proposed 9 residential units within the 6-35 County portion of the project site. Within this alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units proposed within the City of Huntington Beach portion of the project would be a total of 164 units. This non-annexation alternative presents 7 fewer units than the 171 units Annexation alternative. Under the non-annexation alternative, 2 units are gained with the reconfiguration of roadways and lots. The impacts of the non-annexation alternative would essentially be the same as those to be discussed later under Alternative 8 and therefore are not repeated in the analysis provided below. Environmental Assessment The following is a review of potential environmental effects of the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) described above and as shown in the above referenced exhibits. It should be noted that the Mitigation Measures referenced in the following sections are included in their entirety within Sections 4.0 5.0 and 8.4 of this Final EIR document. Land Use This alternative would result in land use impacts similar to those associated with the original project. Similar to the original project, the alternative plan may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy would also still apply to this alternative plan. Density of the original project would be reduced from 4.13 du/ac proposed under the original project to 3.5 du/ac under the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA). The alternative is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL (Residential, Low Density) and with the City of Huntington Beach applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel. Although a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (Medium low residential, 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). Potential development of the County portion of the project site has been accounted for under the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan, contained in the LCP. Construction of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel would result in a density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the originally proposed plan's density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre for this parcel. Therefore, the alternative is consistent with the County land use plan. Aesthetics/Light and Glare Although the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) would result in the development of -3-7 35 less units than the original project, the alternative still may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The increase in pad elevations (ranging from 10.9 feet to 11.5 feet (NAVD 88)) associated with this alternative mainly affect the northern portion of the site and are discussed in the paragraphs below. As stated above, the alternative plan also includes 6 additional acres of open space. Approximately 6-36 2 acres of the 6 additional acres comprise a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which will act as a —� buffer between the existing Kenilworth residential units and the proposed residential units (refer to Exhibits 53 - 54b). The paseo park also provides pedestrian access to the proposed 8.2 acre public park (4.1 acres of passive public park and 4.1 acres of active public park) at the northwest corner of the site. Overall, the reduction of total dwelling units (i.e., 37 35 units less) and addition of 6 acres of park space will assist in offsetting the aesthetic impacts associated with increased pad elevations across the site. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) would still apply to this alternative. The following outlines the visual impacts to the existing adjacent homes located off of Kenilworth. The original plan analyzed in the Draft EIR depicted the proposed homes across from Kenilworth at pad elevations of 0.08 feet to 2.1 feet (NAVD 88). The proposed homes were to be located/setback (rear yard setback) 25 to 35 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. Under the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA), the proposed pad elevations would increase to a range of 11.1 feet to 11.3 feet (NAVD 88) across different sections along Kenilworth (please refer to Exhibits 53, 54a and 54b, Key Map and Site Cross Sections). Although this increase is 9 to 10 feet above the original plans, the proposed homes would be located 133 to 154 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. This is a 108 to 119 feet increase in separation of the original plan. The 133 foot separation is comprised of a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which lies immediately adjacent to the existing Kenilworth Homes; a 56-foot roadway (i.e., "B" Street), which lies to the south of the paseo park; and a 27-foot front yard setback of the proposed Parkside Estates homes. At the project entry the 133-foot separation expands to 154 feet. This expansion occurs within the paseo park (i.e., 87 feet vs. 50 feet) and the entry roadway which includes a 15-foot landscaped median (i.e., 67 feet vs. 56 feet). Visual Simulation In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternative on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55, All Alternatives Visual Simulations - Existing Condition). The first view on Exhibit 55, is taken from the rear wall/fence line of an existing home (5322 Kenilworth Drive). The photo depicts a panoramic view across the project site to the CO5 Channel. The second photo on Exhibit 55 was taken from the corner of Graham Street looking west, depicting the rear wall along the existing residential units. The photo also shows the backs of the existing Kenilworth homes and the existing vegetation, which currently interrupts the view across the project site. Because of this existing vegetation and in order to provide a "worstie case" visual analysis, the photograph of the existing project site was taken from the Kenilworth home rear wall/fence on the Shea property. The existing condition view ( top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 56, Alternatives 6 & 8 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative -June 2000 FEMA). Exhibit 56 shows the proposed alternatives 6 and 8, which consist of existing June 2000 FEMA elevations of 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) along with a simulation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The simulation shows that the higher pad elevations of the proposed alternative do not create any adverse impacts on the existing homes'privacy and views. The proposed 133-foot separation including a 50-foot landscaped buffer (i.e., paseo park) in this 6-37 alternative creates more privacy for the existing homes on Kenilworth as compared to the original project. The simulations depict a more aesthetically pleasing view of the proposed alternative's homes'front yards versus the original project's homes'rear yards. Based upon the above analysis and exhibits included herein, this alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the originally proposed project. Although the pad elevations are higher with this alternative (i.e., 9 to 10 feet), the separation is greater (i.e., 108 to 119 feet) and serves to offset the increase in pad elevations. This alternative plan would preserve the majority of eucalyptus trees located on the City portion of the site by locating the trees within a park, similar to the original project. Only those trees on the City parcel that have been designated within the Arborist Report as requiring removal would be removed. The rationale for removing dead or dying trees is provided within the Arborist reports, dated September 29, 1996 and September 1998, respectively. The report prepared for the grove located in the City Parcel is located in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix B of this document and the report prepared for the grove located in the County Parcel is located in Appendix B in this document. Mitigation Measure 3 under Aesthetics, would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts related to the removal of any dead or dying trees on site to a level less than significant. As stated above, this Alternative proposes complete avoidance of all the eucalyptus trees located within the County portion of the site, unlike the original project. Additionally, the alternative provides a 464-foot buffer from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. The original project impacts related to the removal of eucalyptus trees and the on-site ESHA are eliminated by this alternative. The alternative plan may result in impacts to County-proposed trails, similar to the original project. There are existing and proposed 8-foot wide County trails to the south and west of the project site. The project proposes 8-foot trails within the site. Exhibit 57, Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan, depicts the proposed trail and bike path plan for the 171 unit alternative plan. Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics would apply to this alternative to reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less than significant. This alternative will reduce the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the County parcel compared with the original project due to the fact that the amount of development is reduced (i.e., 9 units versus 27 units). However, compared with existing conditions, the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site, similar to but less than the original project. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare would still apply to this alternative. Overall, this alternative will result in less than significant aesthetic impacts after mitigation, similar to the original project. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. The short-term impacts would be more than the original project due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) due to the increased floodplain elevation for the site and the duration of the grading operation. The same assumptions as in the original project (i.e., worsw case scenario - using one entrance/exit off of Graham 6-38 street) have been used in assessing the short-term daily trips for grading operations, therefore, the number of truck trips hauling dirt daily would remain the same as in the Draft EIR, however the duration of the grading operation would be lengthened from 6 to 12 months (refer to Earth Resources). Mitigation Measure 1 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) regarding short-term impacts would still apply to this alternative. Short-term transportation/circulation impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative also would result in long-term vehicular increases on the surrounding street system. Traffic improvements proposed for the project area still would be implemented with the alternative plan, as they also would be necessary with this alternative. However, due to the fact that this alternative proposes the development of-3-7-35 fewer units than the original project, this plan would generate lower project traffic volumes than the original project. Long-term impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be less than the original project. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in approximately 2,496 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Based on the proposed 171 dwelling units, the alternative would result in 2,052 ADT. This represents 444 fewer trips per day or an 18 percent reduction in ADT. Additionally, this scenario presents a total of 164 trips during the morning peak hour and 205 trips during the evening peak hour, compared to 200 and 250 morning and evening peak hour trips for the original project. Although there would be a reduction in ADT with this alternative plan, Mitigation Measures 2 through 4 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document), regarding potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an on-site circulation system and Mitigation Measure 5 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) regarding potential level of service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the 2020 condition would still apply. Air Quality Impacts from the alternative plan associated with short-term air quality would be more than the original project, due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled and the increase in duration of the grading operation from 6 to 12 months (refer to Earth Resources). Impact significance, however, is based upon a daily or quarterly pollution generation level which is not substantially different from the original Draft EIR project, because the greater fill import volume is spread out over a longer timeframe. The potential impact significance is also reduced by the construction of -3-7 35 fewer homes which would result in less construction activity air quality impacts (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, haul vehicles and fugitive dust) than those generated by the original project. The combination of an extended construction duration and fewer units built will create peak activity day unmitigated nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds that are almost identical to the original project (58 percent "excess" for the original project versus 55 percent for this alternative) (refer to Appendix E, Supplemental Air Quality Data). Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) ire Dr-aft EIR regarding short-term impacts during construction activities would still be applicable to this alternative. Application of these Mitigation Measures would reduce short-term construction activity impacts to a level that is less than significant on a daily or quarterly basis. The extension of the emissions duration from 6 to 12 months is considered an adverse, but less than significant air quality impact. This alternative would result in fewer long-term mobile source emissions than the original ... project due to the reduced ADT from-3-7 35 less units. Estimation of mobile source emissions is 6-39 based on ADT; therefore, since the plan alternative is estimated to result in an 18 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less mobile source emissions (i.e., 18 percent). Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document), HR-to reduce impacts related to long-term impacts would still apply to this alternative, thereby reducing the alternative's long- term and incremental contribution to this impact to a level less than significant. Noise This alternative would result in more short-term impacts compared to the original project during construction activities due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled and the increased duration of the grading operation from 6 to 12 months. Standard City policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) fiefa the DFfA EIR would still apply to this alternative. Short-term noise impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Long-term noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be less than the original project due to less traffic being generated than the original project. Estimation of noise impacts due to increase in traffic is based on ADT; therefore, since the alternative plan is estimated to result in an 18 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less traffic-related noise impacts (i.e., 18 percent). Although the plan alternative would result in less traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measure 3 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) ' identified to ensure new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction would still apply to this alternative. Earth Resources This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction and soil settlement as the original project. The City would require that any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. In order to achieve the required FEMA base floodplain elevation on site, there would be an increase in amount of import, which correlates to the increased elevation. The amount of dirt hauled would be more compared to the original project (please refer to Table BB, Cut, Fill and Import Quantities). Additionally, the duration of grading operation under this alternative would be proportionately longer (i.e., 12 months compared to the 6 months in the original project). This is due to the increase in amount of import related to the increased elevations. Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) idefifi€ied in the Draft ft Erg to reduce impacts also would still apply to this alternative. Grading impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. 6-40 Table BB Cut,Fill,and Import Quantities Alternative Min.Pad Pad Elevation Cut Fill Import Duration* Floodplain Range Elevation Alternative 6-Reduced 10.9 ft.at 10.9- 11.5 ft. 920 c.y. 501,890 c.y. 500,970 c.y. 12.0 months Density Alternative(9- southwest lot County)-June 2000 corner FEMA (NAVD 88) Alternative 7-Reduced 5.5 ft. 5.5- 11.4 ft. 4,950 c.y. 268,240 c.y. 263,290 c.y. 6.0 months Density Alternative(9- (NAVD 88) lot County)-updated FEMA with applicant's LOMR Alternative 8-Reduced 10.9 ft.at 10.9- 11.5 ft. 860 c.y. 485,980 c.y. 485,120 c.y. 11.0 months Density Alternative(0- southwest lot County)-June 2000 corner FEMA (NAVD 88) Alternative 9-Reduced 5.5 ft. 5.5- 11.5 ft. 4,920 c.y. 249,940 c.y. 245,020 c.y. 6.0 months Density Alternative(0- (NAVD 88) �**: lot County)-updated FEMA with applicant's LOMR Original Project In 1.0 ft. 1.0-9.5 ft. N/A N/A 210,000 c.y. 6.0 months Draft EIR (NAVD 88) Source: Reed Thomas Company,Inc. Assumptions: 1. Using one entrance/exit off of Graham Street-worste case scenario,average 2,000 cubic yards per day(the amount of dirt hauled each day may vary due to supply). 2. Using conventional bottom dump trailers,two trailers per truck. 3. Average compacted volume per truck trip with two trailers is 14 cubic yards. * The duration figures have been"rounded up"to the nearest month to provide for a conservative analysis. According to Reed Thomas Company, Inc. a minimum of 6 months (noted in the Draft EIR) is necessary to import 210,000 cy, 245,020 cy or 263,290 cy due to fact that the amount of dirt hauled may vary on a daily basis, due to the supply. Based on experience with similar projects, Reed Thomas Company believes that a 6 month timeframe can accommodate an import of 210,000 cy and 263,290 cy. 6-41 Drainage/Hydrology This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces, less than that of the original project due to the construction of 3-7 35 fewer homes and provision of 6 additional acres of open space/parkland. The development under this alternative also would require the storm drainage improvements as proposed by the original project (please refer to Exhibit 58). Mitigation Measure 1 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) related to drainage, flooding and cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) related to water quality and cumulative impacts identified in the Draft EER to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative. This alternative's potential impacts related to flooding are discussed below. A majority of this discussion has been summarized from the January 30, 2001 study prepared by Exponent and contained in Appendix C of this document. Because the basis for flood analysis is the project's designation by a FEMA FIRM, the following discussion has been provided. On June 14, 2000 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a LOMR and a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for flood-prone areas along the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg (C05) and Ocean View (C06) Channels in Huntington Beach, Orange County. The revised FIRM, still identified as Map No. 06059C0036F having a revision date of January 3, 1997, shows the flood hazards as unnumbered A-Zones (this revised map has not been published but a reproducible copy has been provided to the City for circulation by request). An A-Zone designates an area subject to flooding during a 100-year (1% annual chance) event, but because adequately detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed, no base flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown on the map. The February 14, 2000 approximate study (performed by WEST Consultants) submitted by the County of Orange, which formed the basis for FEMA's actions, reported a potential flooding depth of about 8 feet over the proposed Parkside Estates project site. In the absence of a detailed hydraulic analysis, new BFE's were "informally" produced by the County and as shown on Exhibit 48, range between 10.2 feet and 10.9 feet (1988 datum)2. These BFE's were utilized to calculate the pad elevations for this alternative. The June 2000 FIRM superseded the previously existing FIRM (Map No. 06059C0036F) which had placed the Shea Homes property in Zone A99, as identified and discussed in the Draft EIR. Because the A99 zone is considered an "interim" zone, the local authority (i.e., City) has the discretion to dictate minimum pad elevations for a project on the best available information. At the time the Draft EIR was prepared, the City of Huntington Beach required minimum pad elevations for Tentative Tracts 15377 and 15419 to be 1.00 foot above the then known base flood elevation (NGVD 29 datum). The last FIRM based on a FEMA detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was Map No. 06059C0036E, with an effective date of September 15, 1989. This FIRM showed the proposed Shea Homes property in Zone AH with a BFE of 1 ft (NGVD 29) or 3.44 feet (NAVD 88 datum)'. 2 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level,(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929(NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents,are based on mean sea level,(North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. 6-42 By issuing a LOMR and revised FIRM based on approximate rather than detailed methods, - . FEMA anticipates that the City of Huntington Beach will require a more detailed Flood Insurance Study from the project applicant to ensure development conforms with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations (see below). As a condition of participating in the NFIP Huntington Beach is required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum standards of the NFIP listed in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3. In areas designated as approximate Zone A, where FEMA has not provided detailed hydraulic studies, the City must comply with Paragraph 60.3 (b) (3) and (4): (b) When the Administrator has designated areas of special flood hazards (A zones) by the publication of a community's FHBM or FIRM, but has neither produced water surface elevation data nor identified a floodway or coastal high hazard area, the community shall: (3) Require that all new subdivision proposals and other proposed developments (including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, include within such proposals base flood elevation data; (4) Obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source, including data developed pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A on the community's FHBM or FIRM meet the standards in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(12), (c)(14), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section; The proposed Parkside Estates project meets the threshold size necessary to trigger this regulation. The project applicant retained Exponent to prepare a detailed Flood Insurance Study for the property. The results of the study, which predict a lower base flood elevation for the project site, are discussed under Alternative 7 in the following section. The current effective Flood Insurance Study states the need for a more detailed flood plain analysis, and the NFIP regulations require the City of Huntington Beach to eliminate the approximations in the present study for development projects larger than 50 units. The BFE's presented in this alternative indicate potentially greater impacts related to flooding than the existing and proposed condition, which was analyzed in the DEIR. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. The increase in flood water surface elevation to adjacent properties caused by the proposed development under this alternative is zero (0) foot for riverine flooding, and 0.12 foot for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. The zero to negligible increase in water surface elevation from the project alternative is because drainage improvements (shown in 6-43 Exhibit 58) to be made as conditions of development more than make up for displacement by fill of storage volume on the project site and closure of the connection to Bolsa Chica lowlands draining the property to the west. The proposed storm drain improvements include additional gravity drainage from the property to the Slater Pump Station and additional pumping capacity at the station. These storm drain improvements are shown on Exhibit 58. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) in thDm EIR would apply to this alternative. Biological Resources This alternative would result in fewer impacts related to biological resources than the original project. Mitigation Measure 1 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document), which ensures that no construction impacts affect the potential active nesting sites for native birds of prey would still apply. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in the removal of an EPA delineated pocket wetland and a 0.2 acre pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the project site. Implementation of the proposed alternative would not result in removal of the EPA delineated wetland nor the 0.2 acre pickleweed patch; therefore, the portion of Mitigation Measure 2 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) under Biological Resources that is designed to mitigate for the loss of wetland would not be required. However, the latter portion of Mitigation Measure 2 still applies to the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA), which requires "the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game." Additionally, this Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) provides 3.3 acres of open space in the County parcel. An on-site preservation and enhancement plan for 2 acres will be implemented under this alternative per Mitigation Measure 2 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) of 0 . Overall, this alternative results in less impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to those of the original project. Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR and in response to comments, Mr. Brian Dillon, consulting archeologist conducted an additional survey of the project site. A copy of this report, dated, February 14, 2000, is contained in Appendix D of this document The Tentative Tract Maps contained in the Draft EIR were revised to ensure no remedial grading impacts would occur to ORA 83 as a result of project implementation. Refer to Section 3.0 of this document. The result of the study, prepared by Brian Dillon, states that the revision of the TTM's and redesign of the site result in mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the CA-ORA- 83/86 archaeological site by avoidance of the site. The previous Tentative Tract Map in the Draft EIR included a potential overlap of roads, lots, etc. onto the easternmost fringe of archaeological site CA-ORA-83/86. The revised 171 unit Tentative Tract Map for this alternative includes relocation of roads, lots, etc. away from the archaeological site in an easterly direction, resulting in complete avoidance of the archaeological site. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) identified in the Draft ETD Cultural Reseur-ees would apply to this alternative. Public Services and Utilities This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities that would be less than the original project. Because this alternative would result in the development of 3-7 35 fewer units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police protection, library, gas, electricity, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be less. 6-44 Although the impacts would be less with this alternative, Mitigation Measures 1 through 18 (Sections 5.0 and 8.4 of this document) under Public Services and Utilities identified in the Draft EIR would still apply to ensure impacts are reduced to a level less than significant. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It meets the project applicant's objectives. This alternative reduces impacts of the original project in that it completely avoids the eucalyptus trees, the EPA delineated pocket wetland, and the pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the site, and provides a 464-foot buffer from the closest residential use to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Furthermore, it provides 6 additional acres of open space. However, this alternative substantially increases the finished floor elevations, compared to the original project, which in turn increases the amount of import and hauling of dirt and lengthens the duration of grading operations and associated impacts (i.e., short-term air quality and noise impacts, etc.). Additionally, if the BFEs assumed for this alternative are correct, impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Thus, although it reduces many impacts compared to the original project, it increases impacts related to grading, specifically the amount of time (i.e., 12 months vs. 6 months), which would be required to import dirt, to comply with current approximate FIS base floodplain elevations. Because this alternative reduces some of the impacts from the original project yet increases other impacts, it is considered to be environmentally similar to the original project and remains under consideration. _Ww+ 6-45 -'�Nib �ll��' � � � ',,`��+� � • •`Al ` VA �,u��1 � _ .. ��.,, In ®,�, ,�`, � �► %\ �,,l Ali �, _� � /i���\�`, �"'�•`��''" ,\ .� u � VIM v SEA Oil LN NOW. \ L �• I �► A• lop + IN I, , _ C ,.r _ l`I_ ilk \ �v� '�, _ . �--�� �N�� ���\ yr► � � _ �� � \+, r� y Nk\,, 151 M"S SIR .. v OWN " ,.. ► ® tea -��S� �� 0 � � ���� ``�� ,� WIN �► , \ ��t�� kINN LVIL ` t���•�,,,���g � III � �, o � � CD CD CD � n u � 0• CD O OIN O CD �yrt3,k+�' � t,c rh+.J���3rks• ��s'H,; O ,( fi �.a , 4� x o C.r• �+IL•t�nW pf• y_� µr�Y�' + j'6 00 N � F'��h���F,r, �'•�t�����Y s L n '7k` sr ��,�., ¢5'r�c� 'F 'v' �ry�• 4I)� � MI > 'q sr � rar '`' �, �` s 'y�r �• � ,ypkz F a'z�'�3� kk'rb'�(" .G.. s� t x �yar'�<�?• s�'•��rw j�` M i �ar��s �; �G � � r'a as � r tii Y°Ki'srr� "Pg '�F'crk. r r rr C ya ¢ �b asS. yt, g3�{ ra. • « snrda 4�.'�y ""bplpFtiM �. .ry✓y,'/err - c Y > "Y�Yi� OO o- y kk u�t nh n�., ¢ F � 4,Iy� 4/r ' ya s. ` D \ •• 3! F' �'J" Tr) x R �F 1 5��rb{x���•Y'� '�"`' �t�"z� J ��'d �q 4 S� � \ :�+w "v���a y�qs a �t�,/•�"h 28 kr o r� �,} � pr a+ / / � ��'���"ft! �. ,��yY { y r''� �tsq � m Y'k {•fir ^ b � � �"�.�E."R"X^�a)'iYk yqx���Sr. ; F i / �'q qMd'�' ��^LTGr � O/ � / �F+► L,w P Jnc R^ t nG 4.rYqv6 �'�j !'!fEY •9A �,? err x� ��•;5• fib_ ,•{. �] � ��''� r''�',vEI,•�5,y�k� �r � Y � , CT zi . � �,'�d'y fb < hl �tiy a yrys t,G.*, �'yt 4 6 YYY a� y by.9iG` r� Sy�i�,��t`Y'� k•'� "[r��rw $ �''r�� "�yo r ��,s+�.c+�yr �.t„ ;s,^'s<M1✓ t f 3�`;� 7 x aja�1�'i' ,�4�iS s,.y�,� a ,.,( ��.T�����j���yyYSl�wF;s a ��d" F � •d°�F� �`S � \ ��Gy�,>q �4h Sy�"'ls, c• < ?iF.zrfy�'"n'M'' r�r,'� !lj��'�i !'o //y') �N 1�! � �....q'akr�5 ,�fC >.� •t�, rs)''��r�'" :y 4 S•y �y� '� ���` � s 7,� r��� r;'�"F, /p O `\\�/ G �•�`.,,"L :kj�P v�✓ ta" � G � c• ��6 'rlrfr�bj4viz,'' re�,� Y�ryhd•'G^`y�7s�y�`�'ql�,.G'"�L� �' t ` //�� • i"/ \� 1 ) z w Z7,I �(^ �Y• .,w�q fY'r' <, j �i u��.�k` •h' > h �'��;5'A r .4,��^` v O/ �)kh ��Y v��rky�''as�at"r3'�•�'rly �ih � �2•> r�✓"Sry,��yrr�t �'� n6 v�r,% {��.. 6�.3a�.'�S���/ Af k.�/i�h 3 F r i.VF. �f•..� ry�a��•+yq. ,x O \ s�a.lr6asSi P ✓ +Ne/i,h& S >r �'Sr'bz^" ,�"5.�^i (� �, i"•x�f}^.�y,,",,��'3/52f•'� �v� /. Y� .ti, {t;'+,.. �/ r�1 k��F�/�,yf'C7.f t. .n,�.r � \ 'J�r�'3�.c�7;� J ,�w t C ��'�/}%f��'.)� •.LSn, t�r.�ia Sy:S^� , 4"i �,i'';�'elfi' ,ip r`�4y ,j3,b(J i`- (" a ��� � \ ;i•�"c{.i x ` ag t'irwr �C ✓2ch•"""11�A<Fz s Y4 �7Sr is ;✓ ' \ //� �,,ya.. s"' y 'i AA k•• ��� i,'X'" "!� �ii•l �x�X;� .�s� :Graz .br y{ 71 NZ f la \ S /a170 Y. te .•'•• •.��..•:.: T � owe s°•°° •" 00 owe "N ®O-ed 90 � / ��rho 1 .�..�.•�.;:� / \ \� �' ow N 00 d- N Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHun&W on Beech I ®miv�nnva I 7,7ACT JVO. 100-3 i • I � — — _ TRACT ND. 6702 — — — ' LOT a v i I - -T I ..� LOTH =0 0 0 0 0 ® ® 0 0 0 O ® O cOO I Lm yy to LOT j LOT U LOTM $ QQ Lo s LOT , LOT Y LO t T a r i O ro .0 PO I COO O b0 to :O �O ��t� OJ rL C '�•„ � a r CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH--------------------- COUNTY OF ORANGE ®. r°' O., " :OO u to o' ➢ r / , ' Qe« ° ,,,� -� y� to to OT a Qa r ➢ / r r O1 r ° y to io Q r,. ®° r o�r o to yot N rn / li r ' r1 0� V. 1 Tj �➢ r'"° r• !�`°« to ✓'a! r %/ • 1 OP➢ � r P ,Y4 �f • / NOT A PART LOT 05 n.e-•, rues 6�"`'' LEGEND �'" /` ✓ a. c / --- - PASSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. i --- �� ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. PASEO PARK,HOA COMMON AREAS, 6.2 AC. - &PASSIVE OPEN SPACE 60'WIDE LOTS (ESTATES) 77 LOTS =- £ OPENHN SP SPAC k 4 50'WIDE LOTS (PARKSIDE) 94 LOTS E' � .y. AVERAGE LOT SIZE NOT A +� PART ESTATES 7,359S.F. • O PARKSIDE 5,631 S.F. S.F. Scale: (approx.) 1"=200' OVERALL PROJECT C409 S i EDAW, Inc. 6/11/1 Exhibit49 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternatives 6 & 7-Conceptual Land Use Plan 171 Lots Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA `I r. NMI .- ��•.O.e_: ' d • �c\� I rr II1 . J7. 11 a�, — r \ �\ *�::-, �,, \ - � ��► \`yam.._..,. q •, r��� .,,\ � �. �:� \ _ 4 LV NICE- Our MRS, Lei IS NMI 'a WOV®RIVEA I.Fe-M, 110 HAP Ran 1 ' � ` � �>a•.` s. �i �rc,a-r �����..�''"\\�• �CIE Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach LOT Y- • 30 30 PROPOSED 6 TUBULAR PROPOSED TUBULAR STEEL COMBINATION STEEL fENCE(35'HICK PERIMETER WALL 20 20 POSSIBLE HIGH WATER LINE Q=1Q4' 29 LOT 3 Q=114' P-110' 10 10 3.0'CONCRETE SEAWALL 4:1 5 \- -,--PROPOSED GRAVEL SURFACE 0, PROPOSED CONCRETE DITCH OR APPROVED EQUAL 0 DEPTH VARIES(NIPL 8� 20'CONCRETE SEAWALL -10 TOP--n4' -10 SECTION "H" - "H" t;o j30 1 m V 0 TRACT 15460 i TRACT 15377 PROPOSED 6'TUBULAR STEEL 30 COMBINATION PERIMETER WALL V'LOT P L ATOP OF 35'CONCRETE SEAWALL 20 OF CONCRETE SEAW-ALL---ml20 POSSIBLE H104 WATER LINE Q=1Q4' � 3S' • Q�2 � LOT 114 P=1'LO 10 \\ E)(ISTING PAD:\,4 41 EXISTING GROUND 10 0 35'CONCRETE SEAWALL 0 TOP=1L4' PROPOSED CONCRETE DITCH DEPTH VARIES WIN 81) 20'CONCRETE SEAWALL -10 (FROM 75 TO 2) -10 SECTION t; Rea 30 TRACT 15460 i TRACT 15377 PROPOSED 6'TUBULAR STEEL 30 COMBINATION PERIMETER WALL 1?LOT P ATOP OF 35'CONCRETE SEAWALL 20 T F �14 20 POSSIBLE HIGH WATER , LINE Q-Q4' Q=32 LOT 116 Pti15 10 \\ )(35 STING PAD 41 EXISTING GROUND 10 0 35'CONCRETE SEAWALL 0 TOP=114' PROPOSED CONCRETE DITCH DEPTH VARIES Mg 80) 25'CONCRETE SEA WALL •O -10 (FROM 75 TO 2) -10 Scale: (approx.) 1"=20' SECTION "K" - "K" EDAW, Inc. 3/18/02 Exhibit 50a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 6-TTM No. 15377 - Cross Sections (City) Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)-June 2000 FEIVIA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHundogton Beach • u V a v y - x o'� I 9 . I 0 r P lal• I 'p=11.0 e• g0 � '"'� 13® . / �=. lol• I � .B'bK 39' 2� '�53 +�� ' �y -p >F�� � O\S� / /`\C] GN i 106• 1 1 ,t° leK,2 'zol- G SVV / LOT`A sr a RFwrrr s Q ® .� X v .� G s vsx r` I/ p•,' � _� � 1 /x� /i5•su - • �� r LOT C V • h � RIfIK nw aw LINE • �/ S SI c0 tq SPA E / I� I yG C-1 1 gP.gy oy NOTES I 1. EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT. 2" BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDEN PROPOSED LAND AN EN USE: T RESIDENT IAL OD W DENSITY. 4. P ION.nAL (PORTION). . 5. WATER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM. 6. SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC N•�`( / WORKS h ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT. _ +; / - 7. GAS SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY. h_ I / - C�� 8. ELECTRIC SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISN COMPANY. 10. TELEPHONE L TTEEVIISIN: TIMENERAL WARNER.TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. 11. SCHOOL DISTRICT: HUNTINGTN BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HUNTINGT/ CH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. 12. ULTIPLEOMAPS AMAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 / OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. BLUE GUM (EUCALYPTUS) TREE MATRIX 13. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. LAND USE SUMMARY / - waymmmw 20 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER WITHIN T.T. 15419* LOT No. USE gy 35 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12' DIA. WITHIN T.T. 15419 1-9 (9 LOTS) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(5000 50.FT.MM.) 55 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES WITHIN T.T. 15419 A-B LANDSCAPE LOT.MAINTAINED BY HOA. 4 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER OUTSIDE T.T. 15419* C DRAINAGE LOT,MAINTAINED BY HOA. 14 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12' DIA. OUTSIDE T.T. 15419 /✓ �„s�'`'� 18 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES OUTSIDE T.T. 15419 LEGAL DESCRIPTION . 0 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PORTIONS OF PARCELS 6, 7, 8 do 9 AS CONVEYED TO THE 73 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES PRESERVED WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNA BY CORPORATION QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 22. 1974 TENTATIVE TRACT NO.t *REFER TO PAGES 5 AND 6 (TABLE 1) OF THE SEPTEMBER, 1998 IN BOOK 11080, PAGE 287 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOCATION MAP CONSULTING ARBORISYS REPORT, PREPARED BY ALDEN KELLEY. ORANGE COUNTY. Scale: (approx.) 1"=150' EDAW, Inc. 6/11/O1 Exhibit 51 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternatives 6 & 7-Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA . j r.: yr""l .riJ' O�FFC°2K'O`O°C°Ce e.�'a ut°a<are r.r Berrene ono mar a "rV& ,�t �'i F ♦ •_�� A e. ♦ �_�—r i 0 Cd^ � �, �l Gr i All WO s I cif' ! •(!'.-w� - r ,y Y i 170,' `r .Q Y 1 � 1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • J / � I 126 207z7o.o10/ 125 123 122 12! 120 1\10, 7 11 !0-0 113 112 1 1 109 108 10 106 105 !04 103 la°93. 0 2 STORY 1 STORY I 2 STORY 7 STORY I 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 12 STORY I 2 STORY 1 STORY 11 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 70RYI 2 STORY I 2 STORY 2 STORY I 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY _ 7 STORY X 5242 5252 5262 5282 x 5292 5302 5312 5322 5332 I 5342 5352 5362 5372 5382 5392 x 5�2 F1422 5432 5442 5452 5472 DORY 7232 .7% P= f.9_ x P- 1.6 P= P=0.7 P=0.6 " o� 31 / = 1.8 I a 18 1 114 I o.z Q I.9 x 1 ® O = /.9'S Pool I.Z X p.7 x oX x 6 a X .6 L T O 9A1 X root % X 9 X X x pope 137 0.6&- ♦ RM OX __ 7r __a 0'9 __X o.7 4 7 X XG; _ O I.3 X 1E5 X 1 61 "YEABA SW ow 4:1 .3 4.7 1:2 2.26 SO I/H C 2.2• 3 5 RI S 2: x to_ _x 7 NI 0.8 o a, o ,.I n - - o _ 8 L. ^as - m a o� .8,.STAEET°Xa0 - x m ate-oX m asses' 0.7 X m 1., ass m 1-. m a LOT R x ` x x x " x i' 0.8 72' yS.1' 49' 67' S0' r, 49' 52' �n a'� t 55• m wAw 1a X .1 8 5 ry a 1.1 . 10 X67' vl �� ? -_ y� a b x ' :, p O N 74 73 72 a s 3 f 32 33 I °X 49 °. 48 42 7 I 59 60 61 I I X6 sa P= 11.1 N PO 3 11.1 vP= 11.1 P=o 1.2 P= )1.2 N P=.11.2 P= 11.2 P= 11.25 P= )1.25 P= 11. r^ P= 3 ^y P= 11, 120' z.2 OT X4 • )t" IX _B x O' 7 LOT T y X 10 % V " 0.7 LOT Ub a . SLOT �I e5 I� �I S X 4 a b h X LOT W p 6 c r f0 60' 60' 61' S' i LOT X ,. LOT Y ' u f{ 4i x P=�71.4 .� °x ,� 5' 63' 72' 64' 5' S' °7 62' 67' °,a 63' 5' 5' 62' 67- 65' 5' I 120' b 179' 109' 0 oX I I_ ��f 06' 103' x I 9 O I �102' too, I p I 10 I% 103' s o p �C II w N p °� p O a °� [ a b I 'm p .a y ' 171' � 1 ..g7 �: V O 1 i�"i N 01 a°° O U1 `I 3{I O N N 2.2 , 17 4 N��ll O �X iV X $ h II i X a7. 102 9ZL::- 102' 1.7 ,.a 112' �� nil 1• `1g MI 1 IX x 102' 1 .z 22 o y 148' O i 0 1V u V 1 4 .e W i .c 1 x X �. II W m f���Cl```.000\,,�,,` � p � 'O p� 1x a VO +O of 95 y1�1 tl ml & I� ,p 6y .. v �0 o.9 j tl_W \ �O P��i 2X 'x 'ss. X N N O X / Oz 32. f2t• o.a jp4' I Uypi' i,7 1 ''p3. U \? zX w 1 4 2 _ 'U e P. x7 LA 103 �= ! 3 w 2 .68 4 tl tl W or x 1 tl �, ,o �1 'O 1.9 �\ 9 ZB• v X 9' 2X 1 b z v 1 alai iv 1 t i� o. J N \ 9 5 \ 0! .3 oX ' 1 0i �7°0' N w ry s Q4 x 25 1 Scale: (approx.) 1"=100' EDAW, Inc. 6/n/O1 Exhibit 53 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 6-Key Map - Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) - June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • 40 40 R/W OB"S EET EX75TINI MASON Y WALL 5 (PRO IN PLACE) 30 PROPOSED 6'111104 PROPOSED OME20 MAST RY WCO 1 18 50' /2'_ 20 27' P ISEO PAR MIN OAv rrr r r rrr r r=rr rr.r.rr 17 GH 1P '�_ 1010 OEI [R;l lt 1t6FT PRL E ED 0�� 2s 2x M S� PE 12' MUNG 3.5' 5' 3.5' 2x r_' =17 0 5' 28' -40 POSED LET .10 •10 IXISTING W STORM DRAIN . SECTION "A» - »A» 40 40 R/Vv W S EET 5 ' 30 I I PROPIC SED 6'HIGH 30 L 1 4 MASOI 4RY WALL 20 PRO POSED OME 1 18 50' 22' 20 LILI 27' � P4SEO PAR N A =?l7' PRO S Pi 11r 9X 211 1 2X x w 10 A7 12' IX +57 I� E 6.5 3.5' .5' 3.5' 2. EL 15 0 0 29' IXISTIN MASONRY WALL (PRO IN PLA •10 •10 PROPOSED INLET EXISTING W STORM DRAIN SECTION »8» - »B» See Key Map *scale: a rox. 1°=2 ' For Cross-Section Locations ( pp ) 0 EDAW, Inc. 6/11/O1 Exhibit 54a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 6-Site Cross Sections Reduced,Density Alternative(9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • 40 40 R/W "B'S EET 30 56, 30 Li PROPC SED 6'HI ~ PROPOSED ME _ I I - MAS01 iRY WAU CO 20 20 27' 1 ' 18 50' 23' Fl H FL R= 9—_ I P EO PR EDP =nY 2=X, 1 sx wN. 10 y�S( 1 ' - 12' IXI NG 1 H ME 3.5' 6.5 5' 3.5' Zx EL=10 0 0 31' EXLSTIN MASON Y WALL (PROTE IN PLA •10 -10 PROPOSED INLET SECTION "C" - "C" IXIsnNG 60-STORM DRAIN 40 40 R1W "A"'S REET EXIVING MASON RY WALL 67' (� (PRO IN RA 30 oC 30 PRO SEW 6'HI MASO RY WALL cc 20 - 20 2 ' 17 15' 18' 87' 35' Tzzp i EO PAR ( 2 10 x 2 10 u .aro. 20' 47 S i 12 EXIMNG It 1c H ME I. F El s sx EL-f a6 23' 5' 39' Srdewa/k POSED LET -10 •10 EXISTING W STORM DRAIN SECTION "D» - "D" Oscale: See Key Map (approx.) V=20' For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. 6/n/O1 Exhibit 54b Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 6-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) -June 2000 FEMA .r Iiijiiliiiii , ./•'7//I IlA'� 01A. 11h - 1 1 p 1 c T' ��" Xi_ r.•. 'J.r1 . x 1 - -ti. ,r ����`` 111�I� � / .A.l f/ t . V C\\ • a � i 1rtr,Im ITR 1 1 61 ox, 1 1 ' S �� CS ,4 �` , ly +aF tl. Jt � } y`w�rl, d j" „ :4' v Fyn.a ,y .:�y.� } • ..47 w' ; ' t/y.. 4. • 1 �T _ y +.• u IF•.I �. '�ir.71YF y` }` G " < �YrT _: :G, . I�� r�.•,y�"' ± ar ti',..- :,bra• �.4' � , .•z. ;M1X Y 1 1 II Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHrmtington Beach (« nT m TR4CT NO. 10863 TRACT NO. 57D2 - - - • ! . tiF?4r�}-- h,�--�,` � I ... " •.t ICE• •t .m. .a.: .t ,s, yr .a. ,r .� .� _.r .a' - .a lr •Q 7 `\ SANDOVER�'�- C I 1 urNv 11 J 7 �i \� l `t � .I '` _ •\ i' _/'� J �\ ��s "® rs : �*' �'' / .yam \ ��.'\ r ` ;. I' �� N.> �'-�r � V I i � �• ;r I �� y ; ■� = � • •gym ®m®, Y ® . �Y / •�� . fi EXISTING TRAIL OPEN PA s c--- 6O 1 I \ Y A . * ♦ r. �i o- a I \. LEGEND PASSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. ♦ — ,_, ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. l / `♦♦ PASEO PARK, HOA COMMON AREAS, A 8 PASSIVE OPEN SPACE 8.2 AC. EXISTING COUNTY TRAIL (8' WIDE) ■ r )�I ; = 1 ■ _ .... PROPOSED COUNTY TRAIL (8' WIDE) ; �"�� ��� ■� --■ PROPOSED CITY TRAIL BY SHEA HOMES II■ --� PROPOSED CITY TRAIL BY OTHERS • Scale: (approx.) 1"=300' EDAW, Inc. 6/1 voi Exhibit 57 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternatives 6 & 7-Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan Source:OCTA,Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofRunhWton Beach ! EXISTING 60" RCP FUTURE EXTENSION • TOcBWINTERCEPTED m, _ _ _ � .„ Tr?ALT NG. 57£2 J.- ,� � LOT O I ,' y LOT Z Yew< I Yb PASSIVE @ O '• O 0 0 ® 0 0 0 O O O p OO PARK SITE 'I O E o O T ° INTERCEPT THE 60" RCP AT THIS u `°'° LOT °'w LOT X LOT• ' ` LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 60" LINE •"° y��w @ Ng F " k 0 0 0 0 o � A� LOTA� + g p{ }Pi'<e• i uauu O O O O G O R OO O 1.OS O O A. ------------------------------------ COUNTY CITY OE HUNTINGTON BEACH T jOF ORANGE O i I o cp • ® � ® ' o i INTERCEPT THE Q ®o 0 0 i 60" RCP AT THIS o CAI) o i PROPOSED NEW LINE LOCATION WITH LOT P r- o ® o ® IN GRAHAM STREET (102") PROPOSED NEW NOT a r rr r O -"--FROM FROM KENILWORTH DRIVE 102" LINE TO PROJECT ENTRY I oua Y I I �. O cp0j�l� .oT, O ` e O Iiy i/�pf 4 e f5 wM^ �4 ✓� --_ e �- _-- PROPOSED NEW ` 120" LINE 5 o SLATER PUMP STATION I X;4ry TO BE UPGRADED PASSIVE �+ • q, OPEN SPACE HG� �yry�o rk to NOT 1 a� PLI r?T f�p c� `cr� i • O Qw"" = FLOOD CONTROL Scale: (approx.) I"=2oo' CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT EDAW, IIIC. 6izo/o2 (SHEET PILE OR APPROVED EQUAL) Exhibit 58 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternatives 6 & 7-Storm Drainage Map Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA 2J 6.8 ALTERNATIVE 7 - REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE(9-LOT COUNTY)WITH PROJECTED BASE FLOOD ELEVATION(UPDATED FEMA WITH LOMR)-4.5 FEET Description of Alternative Alternative 7 differs from Alternative 6 in the proposed base flood elevations (4.5 feet versus 10.9 feet). This alternative plan avoids all County eucalyptus trees (including the 0.13 acre eucalyptus ESHA located in the County portion of the project site, please refer to Exhibits 47a and 47b) by reducing the number of dwelling units located in the County from 27 lots to 9 lots. Under this alternative, the number of units in the City parcel have also been reduced by 17 units to accommodate buffers which assist in off-setting impacts of the revised base flood elevation for the site. Considering the above discussed factors, this alternative results in a total project dwelling unit reduction of 37-35 from 288 206 to 171 dwelling units (please refer to Exhibits 49, Conceptual Land Use Plan 171 lots; Exhibit 51, Tentative Tract Map (County); Exhibit 52, Conceptual Landscape Plan (contained in Section 2.2) and Exhibit 59, Tentative Tract Map (City) in this section. It should be noted that in order to reduce duplication, only those exhibits, which contain different information than the prior Alternative 6 are shown. The Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) results in the following changes to the entire project. First, the alternative plan will have a total of 77 estate lots with a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and average size of 7,359 square feet and 94 parkside lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet and average size of 5,631 square feet versus 95 estate lots (average 7,030 sq. ft.) and 111 parkside lots (average 5,770 sq. ft.) as identified with the original proposed plan. Second, the overall alternative plan will have a gross density of 3.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) versus a gross density of 4.13 du/ac with the originally proposed plan. Third, the alternative plan provides for 44-4 14.2 acres of park / open space use versus 8-48.2 acres of park / open space under the proposed plan. Fourth, the alternative land use plan provides for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area. Fifth, the alternative land use plan provides for a 464-foot buffer from the closest proposed residential use to the portion of the ESHA located on-site versus a 60-foot buffer identified with the originally proposed plan. Lastly, the alternative land use plan includes a 133-foot separation (including a 50-foot wide paseo park) from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential units. The proposed applications discussed in the Draft EIR (i.e., General Plan, zoning maps and CUP) will be revised to reflect this alternative layout. Under this scenario, City staff would also consider the non-annexation alternative. This non- annexation alternative would restrict development of the proposed 9 residential units within the County portion of the project site. Within this alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units proposed within the City of Huntington Beach portion of the project would be a total of 164 units. This non-annexation alternative presents 7 fewer units than the 171-unit annexation alternative. Under the non-annexation alternative, 2 units are gained with the reconfiguration of roadways and lots. The impacts of the non-annexation alternative would essentially be the same as those to be discussed later under Alternative 9, and therefore are not repeated in the analysis provided below. 6-61 Environmental Assessment The following is a review of potential environmental effects of the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) described above and as shown in the above referenced exhibits. It should be noted that the Mitigation Measures contained in the original Draft EIR and referenced in the following sections are included in their entirety within Section 4.0 of this document. Land Use This alternative would result in land use impacts similar to those associated with the original project. Similar to the original project, the alternative plan may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy would also still apply to this alternative plan. Density of the original project would be reduced from 4.13 du/ac proposed under the original project to 3.5 du/ac under the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR). The alternative is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL (Residential, Low Density) and with the City of Huntington Beach applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel. Although a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (Medium low residential, 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). Potential development of the County portion of the project site has been accounted for under the Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan contained in the LCP. Construction of 9 residential dwelling units on the 4.5-acre County parcel would result in a density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the originally proposed plan's projected density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre for this parcel. Therefore, the alternative is consistent with the County land use plan. Aesthetics/Light and Glare Although the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) would result in the development of 37 35 less units than the original project, the alternative still may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The increases in pad elevations (ranging from 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) to 11.4 feet : 5.5 feet adjacent to the Kenilworth homes and along the northern portion of the site and gradually increasing to 11.4 feet towards southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the CO5) associated with this alternative are discussed in the paragraphs below. As stated above, the alternative plan would include 6 additional acres of open space. Approximately 2 acres of the 6 additional acres comprise a 50- foot wide linear paseo park, which will act as a buffer between the existing Kenilworth residential units and the proposed residential units (refer to Exhibits 60 - 61b). The paseo park also provides pedestrian access to the 8.2-acre public park (4.1 acres of active and 4.1 acres of -- , passive public park) at the northwest corner of the site. Overall, the reduction of total dwelling 6-62 units (i.e., -P 35 units less) and addition of 6 acres of park space will assist in offsetting the aesthetic impacts associated with increased pad elevations across the site. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative. Additionally, the decrease in elevation compared to Alternative 6 is due to a new "detailed flood insurance study" of the COS, commissioned by the applicant. Along the northern portion of the site the proposed base flood elevation of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88), as developed by the detailed study, is considerably lower than the base flood elevation of 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) under the previous alternative and is not anticipated to create a significant impact. The following outlines the visual impacts to the existing adjacent homes located off of Kenilworth. The original plan analyzed in the Draft EIR depicted the proposed homes across from Kenilworth at pad elevations of 0.08 feet to 2.1 feet (NAVD 88). The proposed homes were to be located/setback(rear yard setback) 25 to 35 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. Under the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), the proposed pad elevations would increase to an elevation of 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) along Kenilworth (please refer to Exhibits 60, 61a and 61b, Key Map and Site Cross Sections on the following pages). Although this increase is approximately 2 to 4 feet above the original plans, the proposed homes would be located 133 to 154 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. This is a 108 to 119 feet increase in separation from the original plan. The 133 foot separation is comprised of a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which lies immediately adjacent to the existing Kenilworth homes; a 56-foot roadway (i.e., "B" Street), which lies to the south of the paseo park; and a 27-foot front yard setback of the proposed Parkside Estates homes. At the project entry the 133-foot separation expands to 154 feet. This expansion occurs within the paseo park (i.e. 87 feet vs. 50 feet) and the entry roadway which includes a 15-foot landscaped median (i.e., 67feet vs. 56 feet). Visual Simulation In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternative on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55, All Alternatives Visual Simulations - Existing Condition (under Alternative 6)). The first view on Exhibit 55, is taken from the rear wall/fence line of an existing home (5322 Kenilworth Drive). The photo depicts a panoramic view across the project site to the CO5 Channel. The second photo on Exhibit 55 was taken from the corner of Graham Street looking west, depicting the rear wall along the existing residential units. The photo also shows the backs of the existing Kenilworth homes and the existing vegetation, which currently interrupts the view across the project site. Because of this existing vegetation and in order to provide a "worste case" visual analysis, the photograph of the existing project site was taken from the Kenilworth home rear wall/fence on the Shea property. The existing condition view (top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 62, Alternatives 7 & 9 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative - updated FEMA with LOMR). Exhibit 62 shows the proposed alternatives 7 and 9, which consist of projected floodplain elevations of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88) along with a simulation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The simulation shows that the higher pad elevations of the proposed alternative do not create any adverse impacts on the existing homes'privacy and views. 6-63 The proposed 133-foot separation including a 50-foot landscaped buffer (i.e., paseo park) in this '"Aa alternative creates more privacy for the existing homes on Kenilworth as compared to the original project. The simulations depict a more aesthetically pleasing view of the proposed alternative's homes'front yards versus the original project's homes'rear yards. Based upon the above analysis and exhibits included herein, this alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the originally proposed project. Although the pad elevations are higher with this alternative plan (i.e., 2 to 4 feet), the separation is greater (i.e., 108 to 119 feet) and serves to offset the increase in pad elevations. This alternative plan would preserve the majority of eucalyptus trees located on the City portion of the site by locating the trees within a park, similar to the original project. Only those trees on the City parcel that have been designated within the Arborist Report as requiring removal would be removed. The rationale for removing dead or dying trees is provided within the Arborist reports, dated September 29, 1996 and September 1998, respectively. The report prepared for the grove is located in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix B of this document, and the report prepared for the grove located in the County Parcel is located in Appendix B in this document). Mitigation Measure 3 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts related to the removal of any dead or dying trees onsite to a level less than significant. As stated above, this alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) proposes complete avoidance of all the eucalyptus trees located within the County portion of the site, unlike the original project. Additionally, the alternative provides a 464-foot buffer from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. The original project impacts related to the removal of eucalyptus trees and the onsite ESHA are eliminated with by this alternative. * The alternative plan may result in impacts to County-proposed trails, similar to the original project. There are existing and proposed 8-foot wide County trails to the south and west of the project site. The project also proposes 8-foot wide trails within the site. Exhibit 57, under Alternative 7, depicts the proposed trail and bike path plan for the 171 unit alternative plan. Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less than significant. This alternative will reduce the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the County parcel compared with the original project due to the fact that the amount of development is reduced (i.e., 9 units versus 27 units). However, compared with existing conditions the Reduced Density Alternative (9-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site, similar to but less than the original project. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare would still apply to this alternative. Overall, this alternative will result in less than significant aesthetic impacts after mitigation, similar to the original project. 6-64 Transportation/Circulation This alternative would contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. The short-term impacts would be the same as the original project due to insignificant differences in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) between this alternative and the original project(refer to Table BB). The same assumptions as in the original project (i.e., worste case scenario - using one entrance/exit off of Graham Street) have been used in assessing the short-term daily trips for grading operations, therefore, the number of truck trips hauling dirt daily and the duration of the grading operation would remain approximately the same (6 months) as in the Draft EIR (please refer to Earth Resources). Mitigation Measures 1 regarding short-term impacts would still apply to this alternative. Short- term transportation/circulation impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative would also result in vehicular increases on the surrounding street system, as in the original project. Traffic improvements proposed for the project area still would be implemented with the alternative plan, as they also would be necessary with this alternative. However, due to the fact that this alternative proposes the development of 3-7 35 fewer units than the original project, this plan would generate lower project traffic volumes than the original project. Long-term impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be less than the original project. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in approximately 2,496 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Based on the proposed 171 dwelling units, this alternative would result in 2,052 ADT. This represents 444 fewer trips per day or a 18 percent reduction in ADT. Additionally, this scenario presents a total of 164 trips during the morning peak hour trips and 205 trips during the evening peak hour, compared to 200 and 250 morning and evening peak hours for the original project. Although there would be a reduction in ADT with this alternative plan, Mitigation Measures 2 through 4, regarding potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an onsite circulation system and Mitigation Measure 5 regarding potential level of service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the 2020 condition would still apply. Air Quality Impacts from the alternative plan associated with short-term air quality would be the same as the original project, due to only a small increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and an identical duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project (please refer to Earth Resources). Any small increased grading activity emissions would be offset by the construction of 3P 35 fewer homes which would result in less construction activity air quality impacts (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, haul vehicles and fugitive dust) than those generated by the original project. The combination of slightly increased fill impact but fewer units built will create peak activity day unmitigated NOx emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds that are very similar to the original project (58 percent "excess" for the original project versus 63 percent for this alternative) (refer to Appendix E, Supplemental Air Quality Data). Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 in the Draft EIR regarding short-term impacts during construction activities would still be applicable to this alternative. Application of 6-65 these Mitigation Measures would reduce short-term construction activity impacts to a level that is less than significant. This alternative would result in fewer long-term mobile source emissions than the original project, due to the reduced ADT from-P 35 less units. Estimation of mobile source emissions is based on ADT; therefore, since the plan alternative is estimated to result in an 18 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less mobile source emissions (i.e., 18 percent). Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts related to long-term impacts would still apply to this alternative, thereby reducing the alternative's long-term and incremental contribution to this impact to a level less than significant. Noise This alternative would result in the same short-term impacts compared to the original project during construction activities due to the insignificant increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and the fact that duration of the grading operation would remain approximately the same (i.e., 6 months) as in the original project. Standard City policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 from the Draft EIR would still apply to this alternative. Short-term noise impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Long-term noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be less than the original project due to less traffic being generated than the original project. Estimation of noise impacts due to increase in traffic is based on ADT; therefore, since the alternative plan is estimated to result in an 18 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less traffic-related noise impacts (i.e., 18 percent). Although the plan alternative would result in less traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measure 3 identified to ensure new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction would still apply to this alternative. Earth Resources This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction and soil settlement as the original project. The City would require that any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. There is an insignificant difference in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and the duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project (please refer to Table BB, above, for cut, fill and import quantities). Similar impacts would be anticipated with buildout of the alternative plan, and Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts would also apply to this alternative. Grading impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Drainage/Hydrology This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces, less than that of the original project due to the construction of 3-7 35 fewer homes and provision of 6 additional acres of open space/parkland. The development under this alternative also would require the storm drainage improvements as 6-66 proposed by the original project (please refer to Exhibit 58, under Alternative 6). Mitigation Measure 1 related to drainage, flooding and cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 related to water quality and cumulative impacts in the Draft EIR identified to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative. This alternative's potential impacts related to flooding are discussed below. A. majority of this discussion has been summarized from the January 30, 2001 study prepared by Exponent and contained in Appendix C of this document. Because the basis for flood analysis is the project's designation by FEMA LOMR and revised FIRM,the following discussion has been provided. Exponent has investigated past studies and prepared a detailed Flood Insurance Study focused on the Parkside Estates property in order to determine an appropriate BFE for a CLOMR for the property. The Exponent transmittal documents for the proposed CLOMR are contained in Appendix C and are dated January 30, 2001. FEMA requires a detailed Flood Insurance Study because the revised FIRM and LOMR issued by FEMA in June 2000, based on an approximate study, shows the flood hazard at the Shea Homes property as an unnumbered A-Zone without a BFE. Where FEMA has not provided detailed FIS, FEMA regulations state that the floodplain administrator must require a project proponent to prepare a detailed analysis. The study's purpose was to evaluate the appropriate 100-year(1% annual chance) flood depth for the underlying floodplain in order to achieve adequate flood protection. Both riverine and combined riverine and coastal storm surge events were modeled. This focused detailed Flood Insurance Study concludes that the 100-year (1% annual chance) water surface elevation (i.e., BFE) over the Shea Homes property is 1.76 ft (NGVD 29 3) for riverine flooding, and 1.88 ft (NGVD 29) for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. These elevations correspond to a rounded BFE of 2 feet (NGVD 29). This BFE when converted to 1988 datum is 4.44 or a rounded figure of 4.5. This BFE is substantially less than the base flood elevations of 10.2 feet to 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) interpolated by the County from the WEST study used for FEMA's LOMR issued June 2000 FIRM (please refer to Exhibit 48). The reasons for this substantial difference are primarily because the focused detailed study prepared by Exponent uses 1) new detailed and accurate contour mapping, 2) a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) levee breach analysis, 3) hydrology consistent with FEMA and CoE published discharges, 4) an unsteady flow model which accounts for flood storage and unsteady tidal control, and 5) proposed improvements with the Parkside Estates development. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed discussion of the factors listed above. The increase in flood water surface elevation to adjacent properties caused by the proposed development under this alternative is zero (0) foot for riverine flooding, and 0.12 foot for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. The zero to negligible increase in water surface elevation from the project alternative is because drainage improvements (shown in Exhibit 58) to be made as conditions of development more than make up for displacement by fill 3 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level,(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929(NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents,are based on mean sea level,(North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD 88)). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. 6-67 of storage volume on the project site and closure of the connection to Bolsa Chica lowlands draining the property to the west. The proposed storm drain improvements include additional gravity drainage from the property to the Slater Pump Station and additional pumping capacity at the station. These storm drain improvements are shown on Exhibit 58. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 in the Draft EIR would apply to this alternative. if the 13FEs assufnedferthis altemative-are-eeffeet, }Impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Biological Resources This alternative would result in fewer impacts related to biological resources than the original project. Mitigation Measure 1, which ensures that no construction impacts affect the potential active nesting sites for native birds of prey would still apply. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in the removal of an EPA delineated pocket wetland and a 0.2 acre pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the project site. Implementation of the proposed alternative would not result in removal of the EPA delineated wetland nor the 0.2-acre pickleweed patch; therefore, the portion of Mitigation Measure 2 under Biological Resources that is designed to mitigate for the loss of wetland would not be required. However, the latter portion of Mitigation Measure 2 still applies to the Reduced Density Alternative with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), which requires "the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game." This Reduced Density Alternative with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) provides 3.3 acres of open space in the County parcel. An on-site preservation and enhancement plan for 2 acres will be implemented under this alternative per Mitigation Measure 2 of the EIR. Overall, this alternative results in less impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to those of the original project. Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR and in response to comments,Mr. Brian Dillon consulting archeologist, conducted an additional survey of the project site. A copy of this report date, February 14, 2000 is contained in Appendix D of this document. The Tentative Tract Maps contained in the Draft EIR were revised to ensure no remedial grading impacts would occur to ORA 83 as a result of project implementation. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this document. The result of the study, prepared by Brian Dillon, states that the revision of the TTM's and redesign of the site result in mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the CA-ORA- 83/86 archaeological site by avoidance of the site. The previous Tentative Tract Map in the Draft EIR included a potential overlap of roads, lots, etc. onto the easternmost fringe of archaeological site CA-ORA-83/86. The revised 171 unit TTM for this alternative includes relocation of roads, lots, etc. away from the archaeological site in an easterly direction, resulting in complete avoidance of the archaeological site. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 identified in the Draft EIR Cultural Resources would apply to this alternative. 6-68 Public Services and Utilities This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities that would be less than the original project. Because this alternative would result in the development of 37- 35 fewer units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police protection, library, gas, electricity, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be less. Although the impacts would be less with this alternative, Mitigation Measures 1 through 18 under Public Services and Utilities identified in the Draft EIR would still apply to ensure impacts are reduced to a level less than significant. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It meets the project applicant's objectives. This alternative reduces impacts of the original project in that it completely avoids the eucalyptus trees, the EPA delineated pocket wetland, and the pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the site, and provides a 464-foot buffer from the closest residential use to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Furthermore, it provides 6 additional acres of open space. This project slightly increases the overall site base flood elevation, compared to the original project. This results in . an insignificant difference in the amount of import and the duration of grading operation. As noted above, if the BF& assumed for- this alte alive e e eeffeet, }Impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Thus, it reduces many impacts compared to the original project, and does not create significant impacts related to the increase in base flood elevation. Therefore, it is environmentally superior to the original project and remains under consideration if approval of Shea Home's CLOMR application to FEMA is granted. 6-69 �TMOSIONNAL3M 1. _ �� -- .��.. WIN /NN ��', r--- - -- _ ����1��r�T/��-=....���li►�1► _ 11f. ► ��ll}�+r a �i1 I MM 1 i �5i i 4 ♦ /- I s a. �- �. �r��� �� i0may l ll II � I it\v kl'MI Sol nipAg Wr Om 3.1 Al R`��� ,� .�,�,��i' I��►�� `��a�.�;�,;�� .®��-,�-�--��.• �� �► IFfAF crigma's"T" v !:i ow 4 OR ' • 1 • 1 1 . 1 I . 1 1 1 1 • , • . I � 1' Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach 0' r ) 11 f�WORTH, ,vftiwe 126 20771793°'°/ 125 123 122 f21 f20 JTiTlrr I\lJ. `.�J ✓�. ff3 f12 f1f ff0 f09 f08 f07 f06 105 f04 f03 ° / 2 STORY I STORY I 2 STORY I i STORY 2 STORY I 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY ( 2 STORY 1 STORY 11 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY TORY 2 STORY I 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY I 1 STORY 1 STORY X 5242 5252 x 5262 5282 I 5292 x 5302 5312 5322 X 5332 5342 5352 x 5382 5372 5382 5392 S402 5422 5432 5442 5452 x 5472 TORY - / 7232 X P= 9 P= 1.2 " P=0.7 P=0.7 x P=0. PP=0.6 P=0.2 231 / = 1.8 ,.7 P= 1.9 P= 1.6 L T B o0 e 18 1 114 °X 6 I�. k 1.7% I% % '% POOL tx ® O = 1.5X Poa 9 x iX X x OX X .6 P00� IS7 9.47 0.64 X X0.7 41 X X X % _X X 0.6 0� 1.4 Cae X2.4 x 7:1 X 4 3 5: L R.27a ^ a4X�T a�4s "� ,X "�I "B"STREET°X n cos X '1� S.E4X n 10 -0-s .i J IX n 4 - F. x .3 /1G� x c 33 0 1' o.e 7?' S tt' 3 3 49• 6T 50' ~` p x �0'- -4 18 X �. �,8 ��_ �� 49' �� 52' - I g '^ ,.6 Q4 ap eo 6 �A� }(o• LI "•' '1• x M 730 11 m A 33 aO N 74 h 73 '-"P=72 31 ^ 32 ^ 933 1} 47 0 48 ^ 4�7 41 59 60 6f 1 X "' a ,moo 102• nP=5.5 P095.5 5.5 1 P-o .7 P=5.9 P=5.5 II P 5.5 w P 5.5 C% P 5.5 P=5.8°.w P- .5 w P-55 iQ 120' 2.2 • X - X' - L, X o• x XN LOT Se LOT T LOT Ub `°LOT e I 2 e I^ X H e " rn a ss 1O U f0 60, 60' 63. °7 ' x to O) ,.6 A 4- L. 0.3 s 5, 3 3' X LOT W LOT X LOT Y Q O X P=s2s 5' 68' 72' 1.7 69• 5' 39 5' R 7' 67' 0." 68. S' 5' 57' 67' 70' .5• I 120' x 179' 109' i " f06, 103' x 102' 100' 10 1,2 103' _ 1 3 N v0 °X I ( �� I I I Tp I x --��» I I I.6 I v U ilt' U C>t !O h= tog' 7 m 4 C'A qy ��"i 6 •A A m tl CT '� cil N Q .e U I�M U N O 1 la U 0 N O zX 6" 1 v v W X c.l rn 4 tl Ov o 113' I 104' 1 I 101' I 102' 1iV to vt 102 1.7 t.6 Q ire• j� 40. `.y5 I �_ X I I 1 X,OL 5 d 148' - 4 `I U Q lV tr er i ,n 1 X 2X � of u v, m YS v Q a1 v � 66 I.6 3 4 II O 0.8 v ~ V J X C1 Q W OHO X'L O / 2X tx x 0.8 1 J OHO > 2.2 N P� U 0. 32 121' 104' 10 I 1 1 1oS 1.7 tr \ x 24, a' v tN v X ,03 2.3 OD 1O Q W oI x ' u, 38 �\ A. ,( } x '9• zX 0.6 'r oy O 1'�' �, 4 O 1 m ° N N \. \ .p Q 8 ` V / $ 60 2% 5 s. X °' t00• m o+ J � 2.2 % Q t 3 O - Scale. (approx.) 1 n--100' EDAW, Inc. 6/n/Ol Exhibit 60 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 7-Key Map Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County)-Updated FEMA with LOMR Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHunlington Beach 40 40 R1W "Bs S7REEr IXISTI MASONRY WALL 5 ' (PRO IN PL4 30 30 PRO G111 MASO SEYD HI 'FF IPROPOSED OME 27' 1 18 50' 12' 20 i PAS EOP4W EXIINC HO -710 3.5' S' 10 PR EDAD=55' ez i 13 d �,. 1' zx 12' ISpNG X7\7 �� % ���� zx �z ww . LO zz zx =V 0 11 0 POSED NLET •10 -10 EXISTING W STORM DRAIN SECTION "A" - "A" 40 40 RIW 'B"STREEr 30 5 30 PROPC SED 6'HI MASO Y W ZO ZO PROPOSED ME 27' 1 1 18 - 50' 22' P P 10 3.5' S' 10 PROOSID PAD=55' 7z % sx EVE 2 ,� l ,l l i zx pz T Aft SLOP zx zx NG G ME tS 0 0 5' 16' EXISTIN MASON Y WALL (PROTE.7 IN PLACO -10 .10 \�PROPOSED INLET IXLSTING 6V STORM DRAIN SECTION "B" - "B" See Key Map OScale:(approx.) 1"=20' For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. 6/11/O1 Exhibit 61a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 7—Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County)-Updated FEMA with LOMR Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHundnoon Beach • 40 40 R1W "B"S EET RM 5 30 30 PROPC SED 6'11 IF MASOI IRY WALL n 20 27' 1 1 B, 18' 50' 23' 20 PR POSED HOME 3.5' 3.5' 10 = 10 PR EDP =SS' 3A 2 3 �c �% �� I zx ?x I MN. OPE zx zs EXIS NG 11 H ME EL--10 0 0 5' 19 EXISTIN MASONY WALL (PRO IN PEA -10 PROPOSED INLET -10 EXISTING W STORM DRAIN SECTION "C" - "C" � 40 R/W "A"S REET EXISTiN MASONRY WALL 67' (PRO IN PLACE) 30 oC � PROPOSED 6'HIGH �- MASO MY WW� lei %F7 20 - 20 2 ' 15' 1 18' 87 35' A-E 4FK 10 10 zx zs 20' al zz O E 12' EXISTING G H ME s zs -a6 0 r> ra 0 23' S' 39' � POSED I NLEr .10 -10 EXISTING 6V STORM DRAIN SECTION "D" - "D" See Key Map OScale: ( )PProx.a I°=20' For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. 6/n/O1 Exhibit 61b Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 7-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative(9-lot County)-Updated FEMA with LOMR 1 ,1 , • tt . , 1 - � �, t •1� f ' r = � r fh I 1. _ �yy z\iitt� _ YI,•ij � i� w' u.,.... i +} q,} 1t Yam' w�_� . Oil tp.�4 C�'/�,qya 1 •.. r •4`�.,y: �, f •��,, rl '� _., � ',y�� f -•. `S;�`o i�. .� '. C iiyr k : t{ � J'e ii { �Mn'»*.Tx. -rye 1 yy •. `y'r:i ti _ °es } P A',; !^ • ...y .{(u. rt,�jrtL`. v � y ♦ - S t �� "n+��'. d�.� � •AI. � 1 c" l� .ex ,��.,- t#� .7Y � � �t �� ?. _y1: J y y.�„ ., --, - 'Ny as i��/ - �'/'� - r•.. * `j •�Y-ram '���w r. sar`4.. 'V'' � �. t= h - ... 1 • I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t , 1 1 '1 11 1 1I 11f 1 I ' 264 6.9 ALTERNATIVE 8 - REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE (0-LOT COUNTY/CCC CONSERVATION WITH EXISTING BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (JUNE 2000 FEMA) - 10.9 FEET AT NORTHEAST CORNER Description of Alternative Alternative 8 differs from the two previous alternatives in that no dwelling units are proposed within the County. Similar to Alternative 6, however, the proposed elevations reflect June 2000 FEMA BFEs (10.9 feet) (NAVD 88). This alternative plan avoids all County eucalyptus trees (including the eucalyptus ESHA located in the County portion of the project site, (please refer to Exhibit 63, Fish and Game ESHA Map)) by avoiding development within the County portion and assuming designation of California Coastal Commission Conservation on the County portion of the site. Under this alternative, the number of units in the City parcel have been reduced by 18 units to accommodate buffers which assist in off-setting impacts of the revised base flood elevation for the site. As shown in Exhibit 48, the Approximate Base Flood Elevations (BFE), this alternative reflects the BFE of 10.9 feet at northeast corner of the site. Considering the above discussed factors, this alternative results in a total project dwelling unit reduction of 4-7 45, from 2-N 206 to 161 dwelling units (please refer to Exhibits 64, Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 lots; Exhibits 65, 65a, and 66, Tentative Tract Maps for City and County; and Exhibit 67, Conceptual Landscape Plan). The Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) results in the following changes to the entire project. First, the alternative plan will have a total of 77 estate lots with a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and average size of 7,362 square feet and 84 parkside lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet and average size of 5,651 square feet versus 95 estate lots (average 7,030 sq. ft.) and 111 parkside lots (average 5,770 sq. ft.) as identified with the proposed plan. Second, the overall alternative plan will have a gross density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) versus a gross density of 4.13 du/ac with the originally proposed plan. Third, the alternative plan provides for 16.1 acres of park/ open space use versus 84 8.2 acres of park / open space under the proposed plan. Fourth, the alternative land use plan provides for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area. Fifth, the alternative land use plan provides for a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest proposed residential use'to the portion of the ESHA located on-site versus a 60-foot buffer identified with the originally proposed plan. Lastly, the alternative land use plan includes a 133-foot separation (including a 50-foot wide paseo park) from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential units. The proposed applications discussed in the Draft EIR (i.e., General Plan, zoning maps and CUP) will be revised to reflect this alternative layout. Under this scenario, City staff would also consider the non-annexation alternative. Within this non-annexation alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units proposed within the City of Huntington Beach portion of the project would remain unchanged (i.e., 161 units), because no units are assumed within the County based upon the CCC Conservation designation. 6-75 Environmental Assessment ..�.. The following is a review of potential environmental effects of the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) described above and as shown in the above referenced exhibits. It should be noted that the Mitigation Measures contained in the original Draft EIR and referenced in the following sections are included in their entirety within Section 4.0 of this document. Land Use This alternative would result in land use impacts similar to those associated with the original project. Similar to the original project, the alternative plan may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy would still apply to this alternative plan. Density of the original project would be reduced from 4.13 du/ac proposed under the original project to 3.2 du/ac under the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA). This alternative is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL (Residential, Low Density) and with the City of Huntington Beach applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in no development within the 4.5-acre County parcel consistent with the CCC Conservation November 2000 decision to - •. redesignate this parcel as conservation. Because a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (Medium low residential, 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). However, no development would occur under this alternative, therefore, no plan consistency impacts would result. Aesthetics/Light and Glare Although the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) would result in the development of 4-7 45 less units than the original project, the alternative still may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The increases in pad elevations (ranging from 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) to 11.5 feet (NAVD 88)) associated with this alternative mainly affect the northern portion of the site and are discussed in the paragraphs below. As stated above, the alternative plan also includes 7.7 additional acres of open space. Approximately, 2 acres of the 7.7 additional acres comprise a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which will act as a buffer between the existing Kenilworth residential units and the proposed residential units (please refer to Exhibits 68 - 69b). The paseo park also provides pedestrian access to the proposed 8.2-acre public park (4.1 acres of passive public park and 4.1 acres of active public park) at the northwest corner of the site. Overall, the reduction of total dwelling units (i.e., 47- 45 units less) and addition of 7.7 acres of park space will assist in offsetting the aesthetic impacts associated with increased pad elevations across the site. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative. The following outlines the visual impacts to the existing adjacent homes located off of Kenilworth. The original plan analyzed in the Draft EIR depicted the proposed homes across 6-76 from Kenilworth at pad elevations of 0.08 feet to 2.1 feet (NAVD 88). The proposed homes were to be located/setback (rear yard setback) 25 to 35 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. Under the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Flood Elevation (June 2000 FEMA), the proposed pad elevations would increase to a range of 11.1 feet to 11.3 feet (NAVD 88) across different sections along Kenilworth (please refer to Exhibits 68, 69a and 69b, Key Map and Site Cross Sections, on the following pages). Although this increase is 9 to 10 feet above the original plans, the proposed homes would be located 133 to 154 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. This is a 108 to 119 feet increase in separation of the original plan. The 133 foot separation is comprised of a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which lies immediately adjacent to the existing Kenilworth homes; a 56-foot roadway (i.e., "B" Street), which lies to the south of the paseo park, and a 27-foot front yard setback of the proposed Parkside Estates homes. At the project entry the 133-foot separation expands to 154 feet. This expansion occurs within the paseo park (i.e., 87 feet vs. 50 feet) and the entry roadway which includes a 15-foot landscaped median (i.e., 67 feet vs. 56 feet). Visual Simulation In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternative on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55, All Alternatives Visual Simulations - Existing Condition (under Alternative 6)). The first view on Exhibit 55, is taken from the rear wall/fence line of an existing home (5322 Kenilworth Drive). The photo depicts a panoramic view across the project site to the CO5 Channel. The second photo on Exhibit 55 was taken from the corner of Graham Street looking west, depicting the rear wall along the existing residential units. The photo also shows the backs of the existing Kenilworth homes and the existing vegetation, which currently interrupts the view across the project site. Because of this existing vegetation and in order to provide a "worste case" visual analysis, the photograph of the existing project site was taken from the Kenilworth home rear wall/fence on the Shea property. The existing condition view ( top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 56, Alternatives 6 & 8 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative -June 2000 FEMA (under Alternative 6)). Exhibit 56 shows the proposed alternatives 6 and 8, which consist of existing June 2000 FEMA elevations of 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) along with a simulation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The simulation shows that the higher pad elevations of the proposed alternative do not create any adverse impacts on the existing homes' privacy and views. The proposed 133-foot separation including a 50-foot landscaped buffer (i.e., paseo park) in this alternative creates more privacy for the existing homes on Kenilworth as compared to the original project. The simulations depict a more aesthetically pleasing view of the proposed alternative's homes'front yards versus the original project's homes'rear yards. Based upon the above analysis and exhibits included herein, this alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the originally proposed project. Although the pad elevations are higher with this alternative (i.e., 9 to 10 feet), the separation is greater (i.e., 108 to 119 feet) and serves to offset the increase in pad elevations. This alternative plan would preserve the majority of eucalyptus trees located on the City portion of the site by locating the trees within a park, similar to the original project. Only those trees on 6-77 the City parcel that have been designated within the Arborist Report as requiring removal would be removed. The rationale for removing dead or dying trees is provided within the Arborist reports, dated September 29, 1996 and September 1998, respectively. The report prepared for the grove located in the City Parcel is located in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix B of this document, and the report prepared for the grove located in the County Parcel is located in Appendix B of this document. Mitigation Measure 3 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts related to the removal of any dead or dying trees onsite to a level less than significant. As stated above, this alternative proposes complete avoidance of all the eucalyptus trees located within the County portion of the site, unlike the original project. Additionally, the alternative provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. The original project impacts related to the removal of eucalyptus trees and the onsite ESHA are eliminated by this alternative. The alternative plan may result in impacts to County-proposed trails, similar to the original project. There are existing and proposed 8-foot wide County trails on south and west sides of the project site. The project also proposes 8-foot wide trails within the site. Exhibit 70, Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan depicts the proposed trail and bike path plan for the 161 unit alternative plan. Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics would apply to this alternative to reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less than significant. This alternative will reduce the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the County parcel compared with the original project due to the fact that development is avoided within the County portion of the project site. However, compared with existing conditions this alternative will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site and may .. .. impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site, similar to but less than the original project. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare would still apply to this alternative. Overall, this alternative will result in less than significant aesthetic impacts after mitigation, similar to the original project. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. The short-term impacts would be more than the original project due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) due to the increased floodplain elevation for the site, and the duration of the grading operation. The same assumptions as in the original project (i.e., worste case scenario - using one entrance/exit off of Graham Street) have been used in assessing the short-term daily trips for grading operations, therefore, the number of truck trips hauling dirt daily would remain the same as in the Draft EIR, however, the duration of the grading operation would be lengthened from 6 to 11 months (please refer to Earth Resources). Mitigation Measure 1 regarding short-term impacts would still apply to this alternative. Short-term transportation/circulation impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative also would result in long-term vehicular increases on the surrounding street system. Traffic improvements proposed for the project area still would be implemented with the alternative plan, as they also would be necessary with this alternative. However, due to the fact 6-78 that this alternative proposes the development of 4-7 45 fewer units than the original project, this plan would generate lower project traffic volumes than the original project. Long-term impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be less than the original project. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in approximately 2,496 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Based on the proposed 161 dwelling units, the alternative would result in 1,932 ADT. This represents 564 fewer trips per day or a 23 percent reduction in ADT. Additionally, this scenario presents a total of 155 trips during the morning peak hour and 193 trips during the evening peak hour, compared to 200 and 250 morning and evening peak hour trips for the original project. Although there would be a reduction in ADT with this alternative plan, Mitigation Measures 2 through 4 regarding potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an on-site circulation system and Mitigation Measure 5 regarding potential level of service deficiencies. at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the 2020 condition would still apply. Air Quality Impacts from the alternative plan associated with short-term air quality would be more than the original project, due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled and the duration of the grading operation from 6 to 11 months (please refer to Earth Resources). Impact significance, however, is based upon a daily or quarterly pollution generation level which is not substantially different from the original Draft EIR project, because the greater fill import volume is spread out over a longer timeframe. The potential impact significance is also reduced by the construction of 47-45 fewer homes which would result in less construction activity air quality impacts (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, haul vehicles and fugitive dust) than those generated by the original project. The combination of an extended construction duration and fewer units built will create peak activity day unmitigated NOx emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds that are almost identical to the original project (58 percent "excess" for the original project versus 55 percent for this alternative) (refer to Appendix E, Supplemental Air Quality Data). Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 in the Draft EIR regarding short-term impacts during construction activities would still be applicable to this alternative. Application of these Mitigation Measures would reduce short-term construction activity impacts to a level that is less than significant on a daily or quarterly basis. The extension of the emissions duration from 6 to 11 months is considered an adverse, but less than significant air quality impact. This alternative would result in fewer long-term mobile source emissions than the original project due to the reduced ADT from 47 45 less units. Estimation of mobile source emissions is based on ADT; therefore, since the plan alternative is estimated to result in a 23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less mobile source emissions (i.e., 23 percent). Additionally, the proposed 161 dwelling units proposed under this alternative is below the AQMD air quality threshold for single family, which is 166 dwelling units (CEQA Air Quality Handbook,Table 6.2). Therefore, the long-term air quality impacts would be considered less than significant under this alternative. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts related to long-term impacts would still apply to this alternative, thereby further reducing the alternative's incremental contribution to this impact to a level less than significant. 6-79 Noise This alternative would result in more short-term impacts compared to the original project during construction activities due to an increase in the amount of dirt hauled and increased duration of grading operation from 6 to 11 months. Standard City policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 from the Draft EIR would still apply to this alternative. Short-term noise impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Long-term noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be less than the original project due to less traffic being generated than the original project. Estimation of noise impacts due to increase in traffic is based on ADT; therefore, since the alternative plan is estimated to result in a 23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less traffic-related noise impacts (i.e., 23 percent). Although the plan alternative would result in less traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measure 3 in the Draft EIR identified to ensure new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction would still apply to this alternative. Earth Resources This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction and soil settlement as the original project. The City would require that any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. In order to achieve the required FEMA base floodplain elevation on site, there would be an increase in amount of import, which correlates to the increased elevation. -M The amount of dirt hauled would be more compared to the original project (please refer to Table BB, Cut, Fill and Import Quantities, above). Additionally, the duration of grading operation under this alternative would be proportionately longer (i.e., 11 months compared to the 6 months in the original project). This is due to the increase in amount of import related to the increased elevations. Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 in the Draft EIR identified to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative. Grading impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Drainage/Hydrology This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces less than that of the original project due to the 4-7 45 fewer homes and provision of 7.7 additional acres of open space/parkland. The development under this alternative also would require the storm drainage improvements as proposed by the original project (please refer to Exhibit 71). Mitigation Measure 1 related to drainage, flooding and cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 related to water quality and cumulative impacts identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative. This alternative's potential impacts related to flooding are discussed below. A majority of this discussion has been summarized from the January 30, 2001 study prepared by Exponent and contained in Appendix C of this document. Because the basis for flood analysis is the project's designation by a FEMA FIRM, the following discussion has been provided. 6-80 On June 14, 2000 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued a LOMR and a revised Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for flood- prone areas along the East Garden Grove- Wintersburg (C05) and Ocean View (C06) Channels in Huntington Beach, Orange County. The revised FIRM, still identified as Map No. 06059C0036F having a revision date of January 3, 1997, shows the flood hazards as unnumbered A-Zones (this revised map has not been published but a reproducible copy has been provided to the City for circulation by request). An A-Zone designates an area subject to flooding during a 100-year (1% annual chance) event, but because adequately detailed hydraulic analyses have not been performed,no base flood elevations (BFEs) or depths are shown on the map. The February 14, 2000 approximate study (performed by WEST Consultants) submitted by the County of Orange, which formed the basis for FEMA's actions, reported a potential flooding depth of about 8 feet over the proposed Parkside Estates project site. In the absence of a detailed hydraulic analysis, new BFE's were "informally" produced by the County and as shown on Exhibit 38, range between 10.2 feet and 10.9 feet (NAVD 88 datum)4. These BFE's were utilized to calculate the pad elevations for this alternative. The June 2000 FIRM superseded the previously existing FIRM (Map No. 06059C0036F) which had placed the Shea Homes property in Zone A99, as identified and discussed in the Draft EIR. Because the A99 zone is considered an "interim" zone, the local authority (i.e., the City) has the discretion to dictate minimum pad elevations for a project on the best available information. At the time, the Draft EIR was prepared, the City of Huntington Beach required minimum pad elevations for Tentative Tract 15377 and 15419 to be 1.00 foot (NAVD 88). The last firm based on a FEMA detailed Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was Map No. 06059C0036E, with an effective date of September 15, 1989. This FIRM showed the proposed Shea Homes property in Zone AH with a BFE of 1 ft (NGVD 29)or 3.44 feet (NAVD 88 datum). By issuing a LOMR and revised FIRM based on approximate rather than detailed methods, FEMA anticipates that the City of Huntington Beach will require a more detailed Flood Insurance Study from the project applicant to ensure development conforms with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations (see below). As a condition of participating in the NFIP Huntington Beach is required to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum standards of the NFIP listed in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.3. In areas designated as approximate Zone A, where FEMA has not provided detailed hydraulic studies, the City must comply with Paragraph 60.3 (b) (3) and(4): (b) When the Administrator has designated areas of special flood hazards (A zones) by the publication of a community's FHBM or FIRM, but has neither produced water surface elevation data nor identified a floodway or coastal high hazard area, the community shall: 4 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level,(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929(NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents,are based on mean sea level,(North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. 6-81 (3) Require that all new subdivision proposals and other proposed developments -•.. (including proposals for manufactured home parks and subdivisions) greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is the lesser, include within such proposals base flood elevation data; (4) Obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a Federal, State, or other source, including data developed pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) of this section, as criteria for requiring that new construction, substantial improvements, or other development in Zone A on the community's FHBM or FIRM meet the standards in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(12), (c)(14), (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section; The proposed Parkside Estates project meets the threshold size necessary to trigger this regulation. The project applicant retained Exponent to prepare a detailed Flood Insurance Study for the property. The results of the study, which predict a lower base flood elevation for the project site, are discussed under Alternative 7 in the preceding section. The current effective Flood Insurance Study states the need for a more detailed flood study, and the NFIP regulations require the City of Huntington Beach to refine the approximations in the present study for development projects larger than 50 units. The BFE's presented in this alternative indicate potentially greater impacts related to flooding than the existing and proposed condition, which was analyzed in the DEIR. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. The increase in flood water surface elevation to adjacent properties caused by the proposed development under this alternative is zero foot for riverine flooding, and 0.12 foot for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. The zero to negligible increase in water surface elevation from the project alternative is because drainage improvements (shown in Exhibit 58) to be made as conditions of development more than make up for displacement by fill of storage volume on the project site and closure of the connection to Bolsa Chica lowlands draining the property to the west. The proposed storm drain improvements include additional gravity drainage from the property to the Slater Pump Station and additional pumping capacity at the station. These storm drain improvements are shown on Exhibit 58. Mitigation Measures 1 though 3 in the Draft EIR would apply to this alternative. Biological Resources This alternative would result in fewer impacts related to biological resources than the original project. Mitigation Measure 1, which ensures that no construction impacts affect the potential active nesting sites for native birds of prey would still apply. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in the removal of an EPA delineated pocket wetland and a 0.2 acre pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the project site. Implementation of the proposed alternative would not result in removal of the EPA delineated wetland nor the 0.2-acre pickleweed patch; therefore, the portion of Mitigation Measure 2 under Biological Resources that is designed to mitigate for the loss of wetland would not be required. However, the latter portion of Mitigation Measure 2 still applies to the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA), which requires "the preservation 6-82 and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game." Additionally, this Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA) provides 5 acres of open space in the County parcel. An on-site preservation and enhancement plan for 2 acres will be implemented under this alternative per Mitigation Measure 2 of the EIR. Overall, this alternative results in less impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to those of the original project. Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR and in response to comments, Mr. Brian Dillon, consulting archeologist conducted an additional survey of the project site. A copy of this report, dated, February 14, 2000, is contained in Appendix D-of this document. The Tentative Tract Maps contained in the Draft EIR were revised to ensure no remedial grading impacts would occur to ORA 83 as a result of project implementation. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this document. The result of the study,prepared by Brian Dillon, states that the revision of the TTM's and redesign of the site result in mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the CA-ORA- 83/86 archaeological site by avoidance of the site. The previous Tentative Tract Map in the Draft EIR included a potential overlap of roads, lots, etc. onto the easternmost fringe of archaeological site CA-ORA-83/86. The revised 161 unit TTM for this alternative includes relocation of roads, lots, etc. away from the archaeological site in an easterly direction, resulting in complete avoidance of the archaeological site. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 identified in the Draft EIR Cultural Resources would apply to this alternative. Public Services and Utilities This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities that would be less than the original project. Because this alternative would result in the development of 47 45 fewer units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police protection, library, gas, electricity, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be less. Although the impacts would be less with this alternative, Mitigation Measures 1 through 18 under Public Services and Utilities identified in the Draft EIR would still apply to ensure impacts are reduced to a level less than significant. Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It meets the project applicant's objectives. This alternative reduces impacts of the original project in that it completely avoids the eucalyptus trees, the EPA delineated pocket wetland, and the pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the site, and provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential use to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Furthermore, it provides 7.7 additional acres of open space. However, this alternative substantially increases the finished floor elevations, compared to the original project, which in turn increases the amount of import and hauling of dirt and lengthens the duration of grading operations and associated impacts (i.e., short-term air and noise impacts, etc.). Additionally, if the BFEs assumed for this alternative are correct, impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater 6-83 pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Thus, although it reduces many impacts compared to the original project, it increases impacts related to grading, specifically the amount of time (i.e., 11 months vs. 6 months), which would be required to import dirt, to comply with current approximate FIS base floodplain elevations. Because this alternative reduces some of the impacts from the original project yet increases other impacts, it is considered to be environmentally similar to the original project and remains under consideration. 6-84 - 4 me ►i 0 MIA , . AN LIMA IVA �,:;��" _ „ v� 1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 00,oFSuadufflaaBeach XBMWO DRM TRACT NO. IGFJ63 TRACT ND. 5702 • — gyp' — .L`" -� — I ',R."' S1C' P a. j. �. . .,.9" •�' 'C9' 'A" 14p..°,.C... F _ .... wr a I , LOT R OT Z —� OTe se 0 ® ® LOT y LOT„ or rw LOT, , Lot r O to Lo iA I I � r �O SO l y � /0 0• _� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ,yP ' r bo 'O " F �A COUNTY OF ORANGE t O° A r / `01 jo GO r 1 O.p r n ' earn �. PP ra j i p OP r O 1% 3a / • i 1. 1 I j i y LOT Op ,.n,p rr` �.p Pe'P r QI On r / Q.Qp r vPon r �,n r M / LOT P� I i �i•ir" �n p`A ft��lP� 1P .14 A% LEGEND I I PASSIVE LOT P _ PASSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. OPEN SPACE L��;rsl o v --• / '_� ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC PARK 4.1 AC. / J� j PASEO PARK,HOA COMMON AREAS, 7.9 AC. - &PASSIVE OPEN SPACE - j/ ryry" 0 60F WIDE LOTS(ESTATES) 77 LOTS 501 WIDE LOTS(PARKSIDE) 84 LOTS AVERAGE LOT SIZE ESTATES 79362 S.F. • O /" PARKSIDE 5,651 S.F. Scale: (approx.) 1"=200' // OVERALL PROJECT 6,469 S.F. EDAW, Inc. 6/11/ol Exhibit 64 Son=:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternatives 8 & 9-Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 Lots Reduced Density Alternative(0-lot County)-June 2000 FEMA - '� -EEEC��-,, ��� r1 i 1 Q \�, � `\`o`�\�'• � s a s a - IIA;I +••s >�_ ,�l II � MIS ��� 0 � •�'� O �_� II�� 1 � � 0;•....• � '�,��iias� �..:�•ii:Iu�':�_tic�:a�� s• PA AN IP OF i 0 4 .III' � '. yr �h" .•,.> `.. a ON Mom I I i �Q I 4•\�\\1\ S �I����a nk � . AM LA 51 law MA AVE We�1. .u ► I � � N � t\• �� ---��� ��-=z�_ - Alt\���������;�� ����!���' �� ' '��` ,•: Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beacb } • 30 30 m� PROPOSED TUBULAR TOP OF BERM 20 STEEL FENCE 'HIGH - 20 POSSIBLE HIGH WATER °C LINE a--10A' LXARIFS Y STREET 10 10 0 , 0 aWRNG GROUND -W CONCRETE SEAWALL .10 -10 SECTION »E» - "E» 30 30 PROPOSED TUBULAR TOP OF BERM STEEL FENCE(1Y HICK _ POSSIBLE HIGH WATER LINE EL=1Q4' i V=_ Ir STREET 10 0 0 EXI571NG GROUND TE JW CONCRE SEAWALL .10 •10 SECTION »F" - »F» 0 30 °p 30 PROPOSED TUBULAR ' 3 STM FENCE OY Mao � d 20 °L 20 POSSIBLE HIGH WATER LINEEL=10A' 10 ' m Y STREET 10 IV CONCRETE SEAWALL �� 3.r CONCRETE SEAWALL - - - - - TOP=f14' 0 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE Mai EXISTING GROUND DEPTH VARIES(MINE 8h , •10 -10 Scale. (approx.) i"-=20 SECTION »I» - »I» EDAW, Inc. 3/18/02 Exhibit 65a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 8-TTM No. 15377 - Cross Sections (City) Reduced Density Alternative (04ot County)-June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • V v a r i - eT 14 I V ^' / / SFAWAIl I.HTO ! t \ ITO• �5U ,,� / ( �(Vv L I °P x N{. SUIYALLPl i�1') - "'s % e r Y JLME1lS , / r x x GNP�NL�IMPa° / • % x x x >9�3` � x / NOTES 1. EXISTING LAND USE: VACANT. 2. BOLSA CHICA SPECIFIC PLAN MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PORTION). 3. PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. 4. PARK REOUIREMENTS TO BE MET BY LAND DEDICATION. 5. WATER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM. 6. SEWER SERVICE: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC 7. GAS 3ERMCEA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIIA GASSCOIMPANY. 8. ELECTRIC SERVICE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY. 9. TELEPHONE SERVICE: GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA. x 10. CABLE TELEVISION: TIME WARNER. 11. SCHOOL DISTRICT: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND / / 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. 12. MULTIPLE MAPS MAY BE FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 66456.1 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE. 13. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. l / BLUE GUM (EUCALYPTUS) TREE MATRIX LAND USE SUMMARY '.20 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER WITHIN T.T. 15419* LOT No. USE 35 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12- DIA WITHIN T.T. 15419 55 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES WITHIN T.T. 15419 1 LANDSCAPE LOT,MAINTAINED BY HOA. 4 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES 12' DIA. OR GREATER OUTSIDE T.T. 15419* 14 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES LESS THAN 12' DIA. OUTSIDE T.T. 75419 18 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES OUTSIDE T.T. 15419 LEGAL DESCRIPTION _ 0 = TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PORTIONS OF PARCELS 6, 7, 8 do 9 AS CONVEYED TO THE 73 - TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES PRESERVED MTN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA BY CORPOR477ON OUITCLAIA4 DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 22, 1974 *REFER TO PAGES 5 AND 6 (TABLE 1) OF THE SEPTEMBER, 1998 IN BOOK 11060, PAGE 287 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF CONSULTING ARBORISYS REPORT, PREPARED BY ALDEN KELLEY. ORANGE COUNTY. Scale: (approx.) 111=150' EDAW, Inc. 6n 1/01 Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Exhibit 66Alternatives 8 & 9-Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) -June 2000 FENU c�' ere ewfeo ra`,#e 8c•Forra�e e'o rw��Friars sa,.,`.:.�we.�+'wenrn"e�efed"Op c0-,n f ! OL w e w w_ _e w w w w • w w w w N !� s w w • w- w C .. 1 I 1 to 04 Ili Ili I lip Y . rr . 1 i r i r . I � i III Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntmgton Beacb f J W&WORT H DRIVE Of26 zmz7o.o107 2!f25 f23 12 1 120 J l�r�r - 1\1 J ,1 ;J2 1 f3 1 f2 111 f 10 209 f08 f 106 f05 f04 103 iBC93. 2 S70RY t STORY I 2 STORY 11 STORY 2 STORY t STORY 2 STORY. 12 STORY I 2 STORY t STORY I t STORY 12 STORY 2 STORY TORYI 2 STORY I 2 STORYWSTORYI 2 STORY t STORY 2 STORYtSTORY1 STORY 5242 5252 5262 ,4 5282 5292 5302 5312 5322 5332 5342 5352 5362 5372 5382 5392 5402 5432 5442 5452 x 5472 DORY X P= L9 x P= 1.6 P= 9 P= 12 "C" -P=0.7 P=0.7 P-0.7 P=0.6 P=0.218 1 114z 0. x .6X .6 9.41 X 'X aao� 'X i® O = 1.5X 000� 9 X ,% x soot 157 27- aa_ Al 4 0 �� �X -�r �_o off__� _ XO.7- • G v tEs x 1 t 4:1 -- 3 4:1 ,2 725 50 w Cow z.7 3 . RI S x 24 \ 7 ..N OI 0.8 i.t 4 I. 6 L !7>•250 m m �u m I_ a CDI 0.7m m - ' X O R� x \ - X "B.STREET X x a�SX oX m a`y o.7 x m nu m 'X m a mLOT x x-� 16 .55, " w rx moo•_ _4 1a 1' o.872' " 51' - 1$ 49' 67'- -50' 1� f9' 52' v, o ^ A" 1. yo 8 i e y 49 0. 48 4917 gg t 59 60 X61 I X X I O Q S n O O 6 u e so 0 fw 7 7 t02• n'6 P- 11.1 a P0_9 11.1 ,"'.,P= 11.1 P=o.�1.2 N P= 71.2 P= 11.2 P= 11.2``.' P= 11.25, P= 11.25 P= 11.�r^,I P= .3 �^„ P= 11. 5 t20' z.z OT 1.8 x X °.rO 'LOT T Ue "I 6 65 X X LOT LOT L } A X LOT W LOT X LOT Y I" I w X I P=z121.4 ,, '� "1 U.3 a n f0T' 60' 60' 6J' S' L ,. at x X q _ 5' 68' 72' 69' S' S' 0 7' 67' IU 68' S' S' 67• 67' 70' S' 120' m 179' 709• 90 ,I'O ox I_ ��T06' 70J' x I 102' t00' 10 1_2 O v IS V oy� lV' + ay( ��u u x + .yI1 ' 171' B C71 4 O 7 ��i I= Off A m 1 3 uCA N N l p p 6 /7 t N _.O Iz 00 N z.z 3 ii X 9 113 I 104' 'v I ILA Q 1. N ' c. W 9 0 , 112' > b •� tl O h t 7 ,.7 102 9y0 102' ,.6 s / n •. .15 O - 1 ,X x 102' \ z 1,2 5 CO T48' o v "ae 1 X X J• 'x O! I ...O CT o 9 5 Cn p r+ m1 iC o •O 0.9 _ t ' ® � � \ q � x x 8 p .r oX 9 ro0 N o '. O, o.e 12 t' 0.6 104' U)o1' i�7 �'' \? 2.2 %A i �• - x 37. 3. - Q I , 103 ,.7 w x 24 t 1�i 1 n N � 9 u_ X 1031.9 'P. ! z.3 P t 6T p 1 1 +O Y W X 1 4>, •O u1_ �\ 9 z8• G x �9• z.z v /Y7 _ 1 -0 9 5 t` X °X N a_ O 1 ro t v N 1 y 1 N p0, 15 1 5 24 ,. �07jp1 �' jp3 / 3 *Scale:(approx.) 1"=100' EDAW, Inc. 6/n/O1 Exhibit 68 Source: Humaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 8-Key Map Reduced Density Alternative(0-lot County) -June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHunt7ngton Beach 40 R/M/ 40 08=S EEr EXIVING MASON Y WALL (PROTE IN PLA 30 561 30 PROPOSED WHIGH PROPOSED ME I MASO RY Wcc 20 1 18 50' /2'- 20 27' 1 P 4SE0 PAR 4PRJ�H FL R=116ED =11P 9 gb IX NCH 10 Pf iL 2X 10 / / / / / / / / / / /i/ / / / 2x 2.[ - PE 12' ir NG 3.5' [65'� .5' 3.5' 2x =V 0 5. 28' 0 POSED LET -10 .10 . EXISTING 607 STORM DRAIN SECTION "A" - "A» 40 40 . R/W "BD STREET 30 — 5oo PROPOSED W HI 30 AW0 RY WAU 20 PROPOSED 1 18 50, 22' EIEI - 27' � EO PAR "Nj4a Z=JL70 PRO S P =11P' 9�_ I 95 n Ql' 10 1 2T MI . 47 12' 4E"X?S17NG,3.5' 6.53.5' 2s p 29 p (ISTIN MASO Y WALL PRO IN PLACV -10 PROPOSED INLET •10 SECTION »�" - "B" EXISTING 60'STORM DRAIN. See Key Map escale: a rox. 1"=20� For Cross-Section Locations ( PP ) EDAW, Inc. 6/11/01 Exhibit 69a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 8-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative(04ot County)-June 2000 FEMA Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntyngton Beach 40 40 R/W =8'PREET i. 30 5 oc 30 L I ' I PROK SED 6'HI ~ PROPOSED hOME MASO RY W 20 27' 1 18150' 23' LJLI LR;jsH FL R= ro��Wlh P EO PR7___� EDP =113' 9�� IP�r sx 1 sx 2x ►ma- 10 �7 S[ 1 ' 12' IX El NC H E D5' 3.5' Tx EL--10 0 0 . 31' EXISTiN MASO Y WALL PROIEU IN PLA .10 •10 PROPOSED INLET SECTION "C" - "C" EXISTING 60-STORM DRAIN 40 40 MASO Y WALL R/W sA'S REETj—E4SnNG (PROTB.T IN PLA 67' 30 30 PROPOSED 6H1,24 20 MASONRY WAU 202 15' 18' 1 87' 35' i EO PARI',f--'--, 10 s 10 sx ,mr. 20' �y S OPE 12 IXISTINC ' E USTC H Q-- F 2x EL=a6 0 a 0 23' S' 39' Sidewalk POSED NLET •10 - •10 IXISTiNC W STORM DRAIN SECTION "D" - "D" See Key Map � PPx•) � *Scale: a ro 1°=2 For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. 6/11/O1 Exhibit 69b Source: Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 8-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative(04ot County)-June 2000 FEMA T— ��a _=—�1� _�-- -_." _ / f •�^�-�i� it ___ ���r _ .�F�''�.r siL:Jr�i�__:�r.�! ADWe •a!IM=Mlly ` u _ y l � IN OWWRIlRouk MCA`; gi , iIlk ' - 0.5 - _ F rj r gg IVA i� 1 AMR 1► Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHunhngton Beech EXISTING 60" RCP ___ FUTURE EXTENSION �Fr TO II�RCEPTED �+ _ MACT ,vo" SrDz W J Eta H-- ---------- ---- """'°""'°„' „- -", .. �.. �.......�- is Lore LOT O . Y OT Z 111. PASSIVE Q O ++ O O O ® O ® O +• ® O OO PARK SITE , 0 LOT 4 INTERCEPT THE 60" RCP AT THIS °r or LOT T ' o LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 60" LINE , t4' LOT A � i as+uv: uvau • O ,r a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE ® 0 0 o e O O O d O ' o ® O 000 INTERCEPT THE r v ,r Coll ® � // 60" RCP AT THIS r PROPOSED NEW LINE LOCATION WITH NOT A pART Lure Q o � ® ® ' IN GRAHAM STREET (102") PROPOSED NEW pr ,mot"% ;-FROM KENILWORTH DRIVE 102" LINE TO PROJECT ENTRY l- - CW osPAS ' JJ LOT P OPEN sP CE PROPOSED LINE(APPROX. 120") CD SLATER PUMP STATION TO BE UPGRADED w 4, X , w II efs • ON" FLOOD CONTROL Scale:(approx.) 1"=200' CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT EDAW, Inc. 6/1 liol (SHEET PILE OR APPROVED EQUAL) Exhibit 71 Source:Hunsalrer&Associates Irvine,Inc, Alternatives 8 & 9-Storm Drainage Map Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County)-June 200 FEMA 2.4 6.10 ALTERNATIVE 9 - REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE (0-LOT COUNTY/CCC CONSERVATION) WITH PROJECTED BASE FLOOD ELEVATION(UPDATED FEMA WITH LOMR) -4.5 FEET Description of Alternative Alternative 9 differs from Alternative 8 in the proposed base flood elevations (4.5 feet versus 10.9 feet). This alternative plan avoids all County eucalyptus trees (including the eucalyptus ESHA located in the County portion of the project site, please refer to Exhibit 63) by avoiding development within the County portion and assuming designation of California Coastal Commission Conservation on the County site. Under this alternative, the number of units in the City parcel have also been reduced by 18 units to accommodate buffers which assist in off setting impacts of the revised base flood elevation for the site. Considering the above discussed factors, this alternative results in a total project dwelling unit reduction of 47-45 from 208 206 to 161 dwelling units (refer to Exhibits 64, Conceptual Land Use Plan 161 lots; Exhibit 66, Tentative Tract Map (County); Exhibit 67, Conceptual Landscape Plan and Exhibit 72, Tentative Tract Map (City) in this section). It should be noted that in order to reduce duplication, only those exhibits, which contain different information than the prior Alternative 8 are shown. The Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) results in the following changes to the entire project. First, the alternative plan will have a total of 77 estate lots with a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and average size of 7,362 square feet and 84 parkside lots with a minimum size of 5,000 square feet and average size of 5,651 square feet versus 95 estate lots (average 7,030 sq.ft.) and 111 parkside lots (average 5,770 sq.ft.) as identified with the proposed plan. Second, the overall alternative plan will have a gross density of 3.2 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) versus a gross density of 4.13 du/ac with the proposed plan. Third, the alternative plan provides for 16.1 acres of park / open space use versus 84 8.2 acres of park / open space under the proposed plan. Fourth, the alternative land use plan provides for avoidance and preservation in place of the remnant pickleweed area and the EPA delineated pocket wetland area. Fifth, the alternative land use plan provides for a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest proposed residential use to the portion of the ESHA located on-site versus a 60-foot buffer identified with the originally proposed plan. Lastly, the alternative land use plan includes a 133-foot separation (including a 50-foot wide paseo park) from the existing residential units along Kenilworth to the closest proposed residential units. The proposed applications discussed (i.e., General Plan, zoning maps and CUP) will be revised to reflect this alternative layout. Under this scenario, City staff would also consider the non-annexation alternative. Within this non-annexation alternative, the total number of residential dwelling units proposed within the City of Huntington Beach portion of the project would remain unchanged (i.e., 161 units), because no units are assumed within the County based upon the CCC Conservation designation. 6-96 Environmental Assessment The following is a review of potential environmental effects of the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) described above and as shown in the above referenced exhibits. It should be noted that the Mitigation Measures contained in the original Draft EIR and referenced in the following sections are included in their entirety within Section 4.0 of this document. Land Use This alternative would result in land use impacts similar to those associated with the original project. Similar to the original project, the alternative plan may result in impacts related to the provision of affordable housing. Mitigation Measure 1 to ensure that no inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing policy would still apply to this alternative plan. Density of the original project would be reduced from 4.13 du/ac proposed under the original project to 3.2 du/ac under the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Existing Base Floodplain Elevation (June 2000 FEMA). This alternative is consistent with the adopted City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use designation of RL (Residential, Low Density) and with the City of Huntington Beach applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in no development within the 4.5-acre County parcel consistent with the CCC Conservation November 2000 decision to - . redesignate this parcel as conservation. Because a lawsuit is pending on the current Bolsa Chica LCP designations, the County portion of the project site is currently designated as MLR (Medium low residential, 6.5 - 12.5 dwelling units per acre). However, no development would occur under this alternative, therefore, no plan consistency impacts would result. Aesthetics/Light and Glare Although the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR) would result in the development of 4-7 45 less units than the original project, the alternative still may be perceived as having a substantial, demonstrable, negative aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The increases in pad elevations (ranging from 5.5 feet to 11.5 feet (NAVD 88) - 5.5 feet adjacent to the Kenilworth homes and along the northern portion of the site and gradually increasing to 11.4 feet towards southwestern portion of the site adjacent to the CO5) associated with this alternative are discussed in the paragraphs below. As stated above, the alternative plan would include 7.7 additional acres of open space. Approximately, 2 acres of the 7.7 additional acres comprise a 50- foot wide linear paseo park, which will act as a buffer between the existing Kenilworth residential units and the proposed residential units (refer to Exhibits 73 - 74b). The paseo park also provides pedestrian access to the proposed 8.2-acre public park (4.1 acres of passive public park and 4.1 acres of active public park) at the northwest corner of the site. Overall the reduction of total dwelling units (i.e., 4-7 45 units less) and addition of 7.7 acres of park space will assist in offsetting the aesthetics impacts associated with increased pad elevations across the site. Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative. Additionally, 6-97 the decrease in elevation, compared to Alternatives 6 and 8 is due to a new detailed flood insurance study of the COS, commissioned by the applicant. Along the northern portion of the site the proposed pad elevation of 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) (base flood elevation of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88), developed by the detailed study) is considerably lower than the base flood elevation of 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) under the previous alternative, and is not anticipated to create a significant impact. The following outlines the visual impacts to the existing adjacent homes located off of Kenilworth. The original plan analyzed in the Draft EIR depicted the proposed homes across from Kenilworth at pad elevations of 0.08 feet to 2.1 feet (NAVD 88). These proposed homes were to be located/setback (rear yard setback) 25 to 35 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. Under the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected. Base Flood Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), the proposed pad elevations would increase to an elevation of 5.5 feet (NAVD 88) along Kenilworth (please refer to Exhibits 73, 74a and 74b, Key Map and Site Cross Sections on the following pages). Although this increase is 2 to 4 feet above the original plans, the proposed homes would be located 133 to 154 feet from the existing Kenilworth homes. This is 108 to 119 feet increase in separation from the original plan. The 133 foot separation is comprised of a 50-foot wide linear paseo park, which lies immediately adjacent to the existing Kenilworth homes; a 56-foot roadway (i.e., "B" Street), which lies to the south of the paseo park; and a 27-foot front yard setback of the proposed Parkside Estates homes. At the project entry the 133-foot separation expands to 154 feet. This expansion occurs within the paseo park (i.e., 87 feet vs. 50 feet) and the entry roadway which includes a 15-foot landscaped median (i.e., 67 feet vs. 56 feet). Visual Simulation In order to provide a realistic analysis of the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed alternative on the existing residential development along Kenilworth, a visual simulation study was conducted by Focus 360. The study involved taking a series of photographs of the existing conditions (please refer to Exhibit 55, All Alternatives Visual Simulations - Existing Condition (under Alternative 6)). The first view on Exhibit 55, is taken from the rear wall/fence line of an existing home (5322 Kenilworth Drive). The photo depicts a panoramic view across the project site to the CO5 Channel. The second photo on Exhibit 55 was taken from the corner of Graham Street looking west, depicting the rear wall along the existing residential units. The photo also shows the backs of the existing Kenilworth homes and the existing vegetation, which currently interrupts the view across the project site. Because of this existing vegetation and in order to provide a "worste case" visual analysis, the photograph of the existing project site was taken from the Kenilworth home rear wall/fence on the Shea property. The existing condition view ( top photo on Exhibit 55) was then utilized to build the visual simulation for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR and the proposed alternative (please refer to Exhibit 62, Alternatives 7 & 9 - Visual Simulations - Reduced Density Alternative - updated FEMA with LOMR (under Alternative 7)). Exhibit 62 shows the proposed alternatives 7 and 9, which consist of projected floodplain elevations of 4.5 feet (NAVD 88) along with a simulation of the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The simulation shows that the higher pad elevations of the proposed alternative do not create any adverse impacts on the existing homes' privacy and views. The proposed 133-foot separation including a 50-foot landscaped buffer (i.e., paseo park) in this alternative creates more privacy for the existing homes on 6-98 Kenilworth as compared to the original project. The simulations depict a more aesthetically pleasing view of the proposed alternative's homes'front yards versus the original project's homes' rear yards. Based upon the above analysis and exhibits included herein, this alternative would result in similar aesthetic impacts as the originally proposed project. Although the pad elevations are higher with this alternative plan (i.e., 2 to 4 feet), the separation is greater (i.e., 108 to 119 feet) and serves to offset the increase in pad elevations. This alternative plan would preserve the majority of eucalyptus trees located on the City portion of the site by locating the trees within a park, similar to the original project. Only those trees on the City parcel that have been designated within the Arborist Report as requiring removal would be removed. The rationale for removing dead or dying trees is provided within the Arborist reports, dated September 29, 1996 and September 1998, respectively. The report prepared for the grove located in the City Parcel is located in Appendix G of the Draft EIR and Appendix B of this document, and the report prepared for the grove located in the County Parcel is located in Appendix B in this document. Mitigation Measure 3 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts related to the removal of any dead or dying trees onsite to a level less than significant. As stated above, this alternative proposes complete avoidance of all the eucalyptus trees located within the County portion of the site, unlike the original project. Additionally, the alternative provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential unit to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. The original project impacts related to the removal of eucalyptus trees and the onsite ESHA are eliminated by this alternative. The alternative plan may result in impacts to County-proposed trails, similar to the original project. There are existing and proposed 8-foot wide County trails on south and west sides of the project site. The project also proposes 8-foot wide trails within the site. Exhibit 70, Conceptual Recreation and Open Space Plan, under Alternative 8 depicts the proposed trail and bike path plan for the 161 unit alternative plan. Mitigation Measure 4 under Aesthetics would still apply to this alternative to reduce impacts to County-proposed trails to a level less than significant. This alternative will reduce the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the County parcel compared with the original project due to the fact that development is avoided within the County portion of the project site due to the CCC conservation designation. However, compared with existing conditions the Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) will incrementally increase the amount of light and glare in the vicinity of the project site and may impact the Bolsa Chica Preserve area south of the site, similar to but less than the original project. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 under Light and Glare also would apply to this alternative. Overall, this alternative will result in less than significant aesthetic impacts after mitigation, similar to the original project. Transportation/Circulation This alternative would contribute to short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. The short-term impacts would be the same as the 6-99 original project due to insignificant differences in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) between this alternative and the original project (refer to Table BB). The same assumptions as in the original project (i.e., worste case scenario - using one entrance/exit off of Graham Street) have been used in assessing the short-term daily trips for grading operations, therefore, the number of truck trips hauling dirt daily and the duration of the grading operation would remain approximately the same (i.e., 6 months) as in the Draft EIR (please refer to Earth Resources). Mitigation Measure I regarding short-term impacts would still apply to this alternative. Short- term transportation/circulation impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. This alternative also would result in vehicular increases on the surrounding street system, as in the original project. Traffic improvements proposed for the project area still would be implemented with the alternative plan, as they also would be necessary with this alternative. However, due to the fact that this alternative proposes the development of 4-7 45 fewer units than the original project, this plan would generate lower project traffic volumes than the original project. Long-term impacts associated with transportation/circulation would be less than the original project. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in approximately 2,496 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Based on the proposed 161 dwelling units, this alternative would result in 1,932 ADT. This represents 564 fewer trips per day or a 23 percent reduction in ADT. Additionally, this scenario presents a total of 155 trips during the morning peak hour and 193 trips during the evening peak hour, compared to 200 and 250 morning and evening peak hour trips for the original project. Although there would be a reduction in ADT with this alternative plan, Mitigation Measures 2 through 4 regarding potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an onsite circulation system and Mitigation Measure 5 regarding potential level of service deficiencies at the intersections of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the 2020 condition would still apply. Air Quality Impacts from the alternative plan associated with short-term air quality would be the same as in the original project, due to only a small increase in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and an identical duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project (please refer to Earth Resources). Any small increased grading activity emissions would be offset by the construction of 47 45 fewer homes which would result in less construction activity air quality impacts (i.e., emissions from construction equipment, haul vehicles and fugitive dust) than those generated by the original project. The combination of slightly increased fill impact but fewer units built will create peak activity day unmitigated NOx emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds that are slightly less, but fairly similar to the original project (58 percent "excess" for the original project versus 43 percent for this alternative) (refer to Appendix E, Supplemental Air Quality Data). Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 in the Draft EIR regarding short-term impacts during construction activities would still be applicable to this alternative. Application of these Mitigation Measures would reduce short-term construction activity impacts to a level that is less than significant. This alternative also would result in fewer long-term mobile source emissions than the original project due to the reduced ADT from 47-45 less units. Estimation of mobile source emissions is based on ADT; therefore, since the plan alternative is estimated to result in a 23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in 6-100 proportionately less mobile source emissions (i.e., 23 percent). Additionally, the proposed 161 dwelling units proposed under this alternative is below the AQMD air quality threshold for single family, which is 166 dwelling units (CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 6.2). Therefore, the long-term air quality impacts would be considered less than significant under this alternative. Mitigation Measures 7 and 8 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts related to long-term impacts would also apply to this alternative, thereby further reducing the alternative's incremental contribution to this impact to a level less than significant. Noise This alternative would result in the same short-term impacts compared to the original project during construction activities due to immeasurable differences in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and the duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project. Standard City policies and Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 would still apply to this alternative. Short-term noise impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Long-term noise impacts due to the increase in traffic would be less than the original project due to less traffic being generated than the original project. Estimation of noise impacts due to increase in traffic is based on ADT; therefore, since the alternative plan is estimated to result in a 23 percent reduction in ADT (as described above), it is assumed that the plan alternative would result in proportionately less traffic-related noise impacts (i.e., 23 percent). Although the plan alternative would result in less traffic-related noise impacts, Mitigation Measure 3 in the Draft EIR identified to ensure new walls are constructed to achieve maximum noise reduction would apply to this alternative. Earth Resources This alternative would result in similar impacts associated with liquefaction and soil settlement as the original project. The City would require that any proposed development implement remedial grading activities. There is an insignificant difference in the amount of dirt hauled (i.e., import) and the duration of grading operation (i.e., 6 months) between this alternative and the original project (please refer to Table BB, Cut, Fill and Import Quantities, above). Similar impacts would be anticipated with buildout of the alternative plan, and Mitigation Measures 1 through 6 identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts still would apply to this alternative. Grading impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Drainage/Hydrology This alternative would result in increased surface water runoff due to the covering of surface soils with impermeable structures and surfaces less than those of the original project due to the 4-7 45 fewer homes and provision of 7.7 additional acres of open space/parkland. The development under this alternative also would require the storm drainage improvements as proposed by the original project (please refer to Exhibit 71). Mitigation Measure 1 related to drainage, flooding and cumulative impacts, and Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 related to water quality and cumulative impacts identified in the Draft EIR to reduce impacts also would apply to this alternative. This alternative's potential impacts related to flooding are discussed below. A majority of this ., discussion has been summarized from the January 30, 2001 study prepared by Exponent and 6-101 contained in Appendix C of this document. Because the basis for flood analysis is the project's designation by FEMA LOMR and revised FIRM,the following discussion has been provided. Exponent has investigated past studies and prepared a detailed FIS focused on the Parkside Estates property in order to determine an appropriate BFE for a CLOMR. The Exponent transmittal documents for the proposed CLOMR are contained in Appendix C and are dated January 30, 2001. FEMA requires a detailed Flood Insurance Study because the revised FIRM and LOMR issued by FEMA in June 2000, based on an approximate study, shows the flood hazard at the Shea Homes property as an unnumbered A-Zone without a BFE. Where FEMA has not provided detailed FIS, FEMA regulations state that the floodplain administrator must require a project proponent to prepare a detailed analysis. The study's purpose was to evaluate the appropriate 100-year(1% annual chance) flood depth for the underlying floodplain in order to achieve adequate flood protection. Both riverine and combined riverine and coastal storm surge events were modeled. This focused detailed Flood Insurance Study concludes that the 100-year (1% annual chance) water surface elevation (i.e., BFE) over the Shea Homes property is 1.76 ft (NGVD 29 5) for riverine flooding, and 1.88 ft (NGVD 29) for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. These elevations correspond to a rounded BFE of 2 ft (NGVD 29). This BFE when converted to 1988 datum is 4.44 or a rounded figure of 4.5. This BFE is substantially less than the base flood elevations of 10.2 feet to 10.9 feet (NAVD 88) interpolated by the County from the WEST study used for FEMA's LOMR issued June 2000 FIRM (refer to Exhibit 48). The reasons for this substantial difference are primarily because the focused detailed study prepared by Exponent uses 1) new detailed and accurate contour mapping, 2) a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CoE) levee breach analysis, 3) hydrology consistent with FEMA and CoE published discharges, 4) an unsteady flow model which accounts for flood storage and unsteady tidal control, and 5) proposed improvements with the Parkside Estates development. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed discussion of the factors listed above. The increase in flood water surface elevation to adjacent properties caused by the proposed development under this alternative is zero (0) ft for riverine flooding, and 0.12 ft for combined riverine and coastal storm surge flooding. The zero to negligible increase in water surface elevation from the project alternative is because drainage improvements (shown in Exhibit 58) to be made as conditions of development more than make up for displacement by fill of storage volume on the project site and closure of the connection to Bolsa Chica lowlands draining the property to the west. The proposed storm drain improvements include additional gravity drainage from the property to the Slater Pump Station and additional pumping capacity at the station. These storm drain improvements are shown on Exhibit 58. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 in the Draft EIR would apply to this alternative. if theBFEs-assumed for- this-alte tive-are-eei+ec-t, ilmpacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping 5 All elevations in the focused detailed Flood Insurance Study prepared by Exponent for Shea Homes are based on mean sea level,(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929(NGVD 29)). The Shea Homes development elevations, in separate documents,are based on mean sea level,(North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88)). NGVD 29 elevations may be converted to NAVD 88 elevations by adding 2.44 feet to NGVD 29 elevations. 6-102 capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Biological Resources This alternative would result in fewer impacts related to biological resources than the original project. Mitigation Measure 1, which ensures that no construction impacts affect the potential active nesting sites for native birds of prey would still apply. As described in the Draft EIR, the original project would result in the removal of an EPA delineated pocket wetland and a 0.2 acre pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the project site. Implementation of the proposed alternative would not result in removal of the EPA delineated wetland nor the 0.2-acre pickleweed patch; therefore, the portion of Mitigation Measure 2 under Biological Resources that is designed to mitigate for the loss of wetland would not be required. However, the latter portion of Mitigation Measure 2 still applies to the Reduced Density Alternative with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with Applicant's LOMR), which requires "the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per the Department of Fish and Game." This Reduced Density Alternative with Projected Base Floodplain Elevation (updated FEMA with LOMR) provides 5 acres of open space in the County parcel. An on-site preservation and enhancement plan for 2 acres will be implemented under this alternative per Mitigation Measure 2 of the EIR. Overall, this alternative results in less impacts to biological resources. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in potential impacts to archaeological resources, similar to those of the original project. Subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR and in response to comments, Mr. Brian Dillon, consulting archeologist conducted an additional survey of the project site. A copy of this report, dated, February 14, 2000, is contained in Appendix D of this document. The Tentative Tract Maps contained in the Draft EIR were revised to ensure no remedial grading impacts would occur to ORA 83 as a result of project implementation. Please refer to Section 3.0 of this document. The result of the study, prepared by Brian Dillon, states that the revision of the TTM's and redesign of the site result in mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the CA-ORA- 83/86 archaeological site by avoidance of the site. The previous Tentative Tract Map in the Draft EIR included a potential overlap of roads, lots, etc. onto the easternmost fringe of archaeological site CA-ORA-83/86. The revised 161 unit TTM for this alternative includes relocation of roads, lots, etc. away from the archaeological site in an easterly direction, resulting in complete avoidance of the archaeological site. Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 identified in the Draft EIR Cultural Resources would apply to this alternative. Public Services and Utilities This alternative would result in impacts to public services and utilities that would be less than the original project. Because this alternative would result in the development of 4:7 45 fewer units, the demands on existing public services and utilities (i.e., schools, sewer and water, fire protection, police protection, library, gas, electricity, hospitals, transit, etc.) would be less. Although the impacts would be less with this alternative, Mitigation Measures 1 through 18 under Public Services and Utilities identified in the Draft EIR would still apply to ensure impacts ..... are reduced to a level less than significant. 6-103 Status of Alternative This alternative is technically feasible. It meets the project applicant's objectives. This alternative reduces impacts of the original project in that it completely avoids the eucalyptus trees, the EPA delineated pocket wetland, and the pickleweed patch located on the County portion of the site, and provides a 767.3-foot buffer from the closest residential use to the 0.13 acre on-site ESHA. Furthermore, it provides 7.7 additional acres of open space. This alternative slightly increases the overall site base flood elevation, compared to the original project. This results in an insignificant difference in the amount of import and the duration of grading operation. As noted above, if the BFEs assamed-for-this altemam e-are eoffeet, }Impacts related to flooding under this alternative could potentially be greater than under the condition analyzed in the Draft EIR in the absence of the increased pad elevations. However, the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations, storm drain improvements, addition of greater pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station, and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel, will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant. Thus, it reduces many impacts compared to the original project and does not create significant impacts related to the increase in base flood elevation. Therefore, it is environmentally superior to the original project and remains under consideration if approval of Shea Home's CLOMR application to FEMA is granted. 6-104 *�� �`i:S� /t®-�! / ss • . i ��I' �`_ .�a'��f � f•, ■/� T'- irai � ..9 �_.�'.T�r7� Lid _ 1���_:�►"_a �C..-:t.:_� _i"-� d1�'��►�!�i��"�"= ��I�n}11 - e 16r _ ,fin• 4 lop&mp .1 o ry INS -tit RIF POMP `-�• _. J Ali �,�•. � � , i�: � �� .. � �.: �` _•• `�'►'• 1 f. irk � � �!/�� � ®, �, .� '�. �� .�;-, ,� b / = �`'� '' �iJi"�f%ice • "immxg .���:•���-� '� i� ',• �� •.. - •• - . . .. .- A . •• • � t��;.:� �4L�_1���` rid, - a ••« . • •.-. 11 • 1 1 1 Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach .� J r r �/KEF&WORTH )DRIVE 126 207270.010) 125 123 122 121 120 J T�r� ! I\jo. ;/.1 ✓ 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 18093. 0 2 STORY 1,STORY It62 STORY t STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 2STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY t STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY TORYb2RY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY TORY t STORY x5242 5252 5262 5282 5292 SOOT 5372 5322 5332 5342 5352 5362 5372 5382 5402 5422 Sa32 5452 5472 7 8�l P= 1.9 XP= 1.6 P= 9 P= 1.2 P=0.7 P=0.7 x7 P=0.6 P=0.2114 0.2k i.9 = 1.9' aoo� 1.2OX 0] OX x .6 X .6 T 9.11 1 R'' ,.7 x X x roa iX Paa x 9 X x X aaai 137 7S- a.w" 09 0.9 a 0.9 ��`/ 47 X t X X % --X. X 0.6 X 0.7 0 - 1.4 2 Cme a 3 7:1_ .x_ ACL 1.2 x 4 J 5: 2.4 L a-r�o n a4x-T�h- n ml '^ _ _ m vl LI ,a _ x o 'z n .$..STRREFFI 0.7 ro a1s x o.7a4x n ri n a ' •o 3 - x x --- oX x 1X GL4X T., a4 33 X 33 LOT In -4 51' o.a 72' - 51' 49' 6T 50' 1 -' ` x AA 5° j � 55' "A" 1.0 x =� 1a `'�. 49' _� 7 'I �'� tX M 6 . o ` taa X I n J I 73 72 3f 32 47 0 48 4�.7 I 59 60 I I x N O N O O O 5 O O 5• 1� O O O O� n CD 5 6S8P=5.5 N Pa_a5.5 wP= 11.1 1 P=o§.7 P=5.9 P=5.5 P-5.5 N P=5.5 N P=5.5 P=5.8o_N I - P=5.5 QOT xx- _ ,I I`�" x o• X x o uN, LOT Sb ^LOT T 3 9 I BLOT I 2 6 I e I 38 1X n m a ss h 10 LOT U 10 60' 60' 63' 5' 3 X o 0.6 LOT W LOT X ,. LOT Y O X m P=b2s p; °O• aX ; 179' 109' ! 5' 68' 72' 69' 5' S 7 67 68 'S' S 67 67 70' S' I 120' 4 8 O It 106' f03' x 102' 'of) f0 103, 9 '� °x - I I 1 I I F 1r p I 'X O I U +n m Z7 + oy 1 y� U U1 N N t m n O1 �n 76' t7N I U1 tt, a1 7- U U ¢_ 1.1 U Cb O3 2S 2X / U it3 -A' v 35 I Vt01' \\,V/� x 0 1 I 4 3 1 12' t h to O u1 102 102' 1.7 1.a 1 .ram, lo. �2g to co -0 X X 102' 148' o U 38 I to cp e u w a n is a U CT 1 x x 6 n .a0'o X I X. 0 In\%OX 3 x 121' 0.6 104' 1 101. o v 1 4+ 2.2 �1 2' 6, p 1 io3' 1.7 X s 65 e c x 103' A Uul U - n w �I 1 tl v Y; 38 ,.9 �\ ZB• zX s. O 1 UN OI v 2X 06 > O 1 ^^ 101 O 1 ap ,% .O p N SOD N \ \P O n '�$ 3 �fOO 2x 25 5 rn W 9 10 ` jp3 u•an O 1� / z:? �'� Q 1.3 *Scale: (approx.) 1"=100' EDAW, Inc. 6/11/O1 Exhibit 73 Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 9-Key Map Reduced Density Alternative(04ot County) -Updated FEMA with LOMR Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHundogton Beach 40 40 R/W IV EEf 00SHNC MASON Y WALL 5 • (PRO IN PLA fa 30 oC 30 PROPOSED MASONRY cc 20 HI ~ PROPOSED OME 27' 1 1 18 20 50' 12' P DaSl NG H 10 [�F] _ 3.5' 2A5' 10 PR SED AD=SS' ex i I •3R I1. 12' !STING .l� �c l l �l ��c i �� ss faa LO �x sx _ V 0 0 5' 14 POSED NLET -10 .10 IXISTING 6V STORM DRAIN SECTION "A" - "A" 40 40 R�yy "8'S WET 30 5 30 PROPOSED WHIGH MASO RY WALL cc 20 F1 _t�_ I I F FT 20 PROPOSED OME 27' 1 1 ' 18 50' 22' i i PA11O p iJ10 _ 3.5' .5' 10 CLEr PRO S P 2�s i I I ' .c zx zx N� OP sx ss' EXI NC � ;G4ME El ELO 15 0 0 5' 16' IXISTIN MASON Y WALL (PRO IN PLA 40 't •10 PROPOSED INLET EXISTING 6r STORM DRAIN SECTION "B" - "B" See Key Map Scale: (approx.) 1"=20' For Cross-Section Locations EDAW, Inc. 6/11/ol Exhibit 74a Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 9-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative (04ot County) -Updated FEMA with LOMR Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach • 40 40 R/W "Bs STREET 5 �j 30 30 I PRO SED 6'HI MASS RY WAU 20 PROPOSED ME 27' 1 1 ' 18 20 50' 23' P OP 10LYY = 3.5' 3.5' 10 pi PR m P�1D=55' zx %3A' zx 2 x"� M X �� I zs zx I MrN. SLOPE zx 112- IXI NG �HME EL=10 0 0 5' 19' IXISTIN MASONY WALL (PRO IN PEA .10 .10 PROPOSED INSET EXISTING W STORM DRAM SECTION "C" "C" 40 40 RIW "A'5 rREST A/W —EMSTING MASONRY WALL 67' (PRO RAW A 30 30 PROPOSED 6'HIGH MASO RY WALL 20 20 2 15' 18' 55 1 87' 35' O PARK 10 10 Llm�r zs 20' 2x mmmagm= O E 12' IXISTINC G H ME El x zx -a6 0 0 23' S' 39' Sidewalk POSED LET .10 — •10 IXES7INC 60'STORM DRAIN SECTION "D" - "D" See Key Map •Scale: a rox. ���=20� For Cross-Section Locations ( PP ) EDAW, Inc. 6/n/oi Exhibit 74b Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Alternative 9-Site Cross Sections Reduced Density Alternative (0-lot County) -Updated FEMA with LOMR 7.0 LONGTERM IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7.1 SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY The site is presently zoned as low density residential, floodplain district. The project site is surrounded by existing residential development to the north and east. The south is bounded by the East Garden Grove -Wintersburg Channel. To the west of the site is open space. The project site is characterized by vacant, undeveloped land. The project will provide 209 206 new units that will promote residential activity and park use. The anticipated 50 to 75 year life span of structures represents a short-term use of the environment. Nevertheless, implementation of the project would represent a relatively long-term commitment to urbanization. It is logical to assume that the proposed uses will, in turn, be replaced by another productive activity as the development and redevelopment of the land progresses through time in response to human needs. Development of the site will contribute to cumulative impacts related to urbanization, traffic, traffic related noise levels, runoff volumes, air pollution, noise, and public services and utilities over a long period of time. Development of the site would result in a cumulative reduction in open space in the City; however, most of the site has been designated for residential since 1971. Development of the project represents a continuation of urban growth and development that is occurring in the City of Huntington Beach and Orange County. Long-term benefits include resolution of flooding issues for the proposed project and adjacent residential land uses. Existing facilities to the north of the project site are currently incapable of handling existing runoff and therefore are not adequate to accommodate any increase in project runoff. The proposed drainage system will convey runoff from the site through new storm drain lines directly to the existing Slater Pump Station. These lines with their flow interceptions eliminate the existing deficiencies in the Graham Street storm drain (refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this document). Additionally, the existing deficient sewer pump station facilities will be replaced, expanded and modernized. The City's park system also will be enhanced by the dedication and improvement of the proposed park site. Short-term impacts of the development due to construction activities include increased noise, dust and vehicular emissions associated with construction vehicles. For a more detailed discussion of the level of significance of environmental impacts, please refer to the appropriate section (i.e. air, noise, etc.) within this EIR. The only immediate short-term benefit of the project would be construction related employment. C:\MY DOCUMENTS\SHEA\1-2000.EIR\LONGTERM.DOC 7-1 7.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS "^ According to the CEQA Guidelines, this section is concerned with "...the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment." It should not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. The proposed project provides for the development of residential land uses. The project site is situated in an area which has been experiencing a rapid rate of regional and local growth and development. Population growth in the City of Huntington Beach is expected to continue through the year 2015. Implementation of the proposed project would be growth-inducing in terms of increasing population. The increase in population will in turn cause an increase in demand for utilities, community services, fire protection facilities and personnel, increased police personnel, and schools. Additionally, it is likely that other uses will be attracted to the area to absorb demands generated by the proposed residential uses. These uses will include, but will not be limited to, support commercial services, and employment-based uses. No major extension of overall infrastructure (i.e. roads, utility mains, etc.) outside the project boundaries would occur that would induce additional growth. The proposed project site represents an area containing undeveloped land, surrounded by development. As such, it can be viewed as an infill site and a logical extension of the development of land uses surrounding the site. It can also be viewed as an opportunity to provide a complementary, cohesive land use to surrounding suburban areas. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and south beyond the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel. The City has recognized in the General Plan the development potential of the site and has included development of the site in its planning projections. Consequently, most major urban systems have been, or will be, sized in anticipation of site development. Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach requires that a service feasibility study be conducted as part of the annexation process. This would determine whether the proposed annexation would place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services or if it would place an undue burden on school and other public services. Based on the study's findings, the City would decide whether annexation would be appropriate. 7-2 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARIES The following summarizes the proposed project's relationship to impacts found not to be significant, impacts mitigated to a level less than significant, unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures, and applicable standard City policies and requirements. 8.1 IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Initial Study An Initial study was prepared to identify the potential significance of.the effects due to the proposed project. Explanations for why these impacts were found not to be significant are contained identified below and contained in Appendix A of this EIR. Farmland The project will result in the loss of farmland currently located on the site; however, according to State Department of Conservation, the site is not designated as prime or unique farmland. The project is consistent with the site's land use designation. According to the prior property owners (MWD), the project site has been farmed for bean crops and/or regularly disced and cleared for the past 30 years.No impacts related to agricultural resources are anticipated. Landslide, Expansive Soils, and Groundwater According to the Huntington Beach General Plan Update Technical Background Report, there is a slight potential for landslide activity within Huntington Beach. Although the potential for landslides exists, there have been no historical problems associated with landslides in the project area. According to the PSE report, the near-surface onsite soils vary in expansion potential from "very low"to "low"when tested in accordance with UBC 18-2, which is the testing procedure typically utilized throughout southern California to determine soils expansion potential. Potential impacts associated with expansive soils are therefore considered to be less than significant. The proposed project will not result in substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Climate and Objectionable Odors The project will not alter ambient temperatures, moisture or airflow. It is not anticipated that the proposed residential project will produce any noticeable objectionable odors. P:\1997\7N15001\EIR\ENVIRONSUMM.DOC 8-1 Historic Resources According to the City of Huntington Beach Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan, no historical resources exist on the project site. Therefore, the project will not affect historical resources or existing local religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts to hospital or telephone services and facilities. Draft EIR Impacts which were determined by this Draft EIR not to be significant are listed below. Explanations for why these impacts were found not to be significant are contained within this Draft EIR in the appropriate environmental section. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY No impacts related to on- site residential land use relationships are anticipated. No impacts related to on-site land use relationships between the proposed park and proposed residential uses are anticipated. The establishment of new residential land use relationships with adjacent land uses will not result in significant impacts. No impacts related to land use relationships between the proposed park and existing off-site residential uses are anticipated. The proposed project will not result in impacts to the Land Use, Urban Design, Housing, Historic and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Growth Management, Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services, Recreation and Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources/ Conservation, Air Quality, Coastal, Environmental Hazards, Noise, and Hazardous Materials Elements of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The proposed project will not result in impacts to the Land Use Plan, or its associated components, of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will not result in impacts to the Land Use, Urban Design, Historic and Cultural Resources, Economic Development, Growth Management, Circulation, Public Facilities and Public Services, Recreation and Community Services, Utilities, Environmental Resources/ Conservation, Air Quality, Coastal, Environmental Hazards, Noise, and Hazardous Material Elements. No significant cumulative land use impacts to the above stated elements are anticipated. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIMENV IRONSUMM.DOC 8-2 The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will not result in impacts to the Land Use Plan, or its associated components, of the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. AESTHETICS The proposed project will not result in impacts to a City-proposed scenic route designated adjacent to the site. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The proposed project will not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the existing plus project condition. The proposed project will not result in significant impacts to parking. The proposed project will not result in project-specific impacts related to vehicular traffic increases at the modeled intersections and roadway segments under the short-term cumulative condition. NOISE The proposed project will increase the existing plus project traffic noise levels along Graham Street by up to 0.8 dB. The 0.8 dB increase in noise levels is not considered a significant impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a short-term construction noise impact. EARTH RESOURCES No active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site. There are no impacts associated with ground surface rupture on the project site. With the implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades),potential impacts from Tsunamis are reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts from Seiches is low and with implementation of the "remedial grading" component of the project (which raises the site grades) and improvements to the C05 channel as identified in Section 5.7, potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future projects will not result in a cumulative impact related to geology/soils. P:\1997\7N15001\E]R\ENVIRONSUMM.DOC 8-3 CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project will not result in a significant impact on paleontological sites. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to public transportation services. 8.2 IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Impacts associated with the following environmental issues will be mitigated to a level less than significant upon implementation of applicable standard City policies and requirements and recommended mitigation measures. A summary of the mitigation measures has been provided in Section 8.4. Initial Study The proposed project may result in impacts to natural resources and energy. Please refer to mitigation provided under Initial Study Mitigation Measures. The proposed project may result in impacts to solid waste disposal services and facilities. Draft EIR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The proposed project may result in inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing Policy. The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, may result in inconsistencies with the City's Affordable Housing Policy. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE The proposed project may be perceived by some members of the community as having a negative significant, demonstrable aesthetic effect due to the reduction of viewable open space areas. The proposed project will result in the removal of eucalyptus trees, which could affect the current views of the site. The proposed project may result in impacts to County-proposed trails. P:\1997\7NI5001\EIR\ENVIRONSUNIM.DOC 8-4 The project's development will increase the generation of light and glare on-site with on-site vehicle-related increases. Further, the proposed project may result in an impact on the surrounding residential developments primarily to the north and to some extent to the east. The project's development will increase the generation of light and glare on-site with on-site vehicle-related increases. Further, the proposed project may result in an impact on the surrounding residential developments primarily to the north, and to some extent, to the east. Lighting from the proposed development may result in light and glare impacts to adjacent off- site uses. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The proposed project will result in short-term construction related impacts due to the addition of truck and construction vehicle traffic. Depending on the location of the haul route, traffic impacts along the selected route may occur. The proposed project may result in impacts to pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety related to the establishment of access and an on-site circulation system. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in level of service deficiencies at the intersections Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue and Graham Street and Warner Avenue under the year 2020 condition. AIR QUALITY The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission levels for NO,, during construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non- attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission,levels for CO and ROC. The daily exceedance of the thresholds for CO and ROC is a long-term air quality impact. Further,the addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in a short-term air quality impact due to construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will result in significant cumulative long-term impacts to air quality. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. P:\1997\7N 15001\EIR\EN V IRONSUMM.DOC 8-5 NOISE The proposed project has the potential to result in significant short-term noise impacts during exterior and interior construction activities. Based on the distance of on-site and off-site homes to the park and the barriers (i.e., proposed new six (6) foot wall), the proposed project may result in significant noise impacts from recreational activities at the proposed park site. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant noise impacts from recreational activities at the proposed park site, based on the distance of on-site and off-site homes to the park and the barriers (i.e., proposed new six(6)foot wall), The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will not result in a significant incremental increase (0.8 dBA) in traffic noise levels in the year 2020. Noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL are not anticipated considering the sound reduction effects of the proposed wall along the northern property line and along Graham Street. EARTH RESOURCES Significant settlements of peat deposits within the upper 5 feet could continue over the design life of the structures without mitigation in the form of removal and/or surcharge. The potential exists for significant impacts from the on-site mildly to severely corrosive soils. The proposed project may result in impacts from soils with poor pavement support characteristics. The proposed project may result in impacts from soils with low shear strength. The proposed project may result in impacts from soil shrinkage. The proposed project may result in impacts due to ground shaking. The proposed project may result in impacts associated with liquefaction and seismic settlement. The proposed project may result in impacts related to seiches. The proposed project may result in local subsidence of adjacent properties along the project's northern property boundary due to dewatering. The proposed project may result in groundwater impacts. The proposed project may result in impacts from hazardous materials. PA 1997\7N]5001\EIM\EN V IRONSUMM.DOC 8-6 DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY The proposed project may result in potential impacts to drainage. The proposed project may result in potential impacts to flooding. The proposed project may result in potential impacts to water quality. The project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects may result in drainage, flooding, and water quality impacts. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed project may result in the potential loss of active nesting sites for native birds of prey. The proposed project may result in potential impacts to pocket wetland habitats on the County parcel. The project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources. CULTURAL RESOURCES The proposed project may result in a significant impact on archaeological sites CA-ORA-1308 and 1309. The proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects will incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of potentially significant cultural resources. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES The proposed project will create increased demand for public services and utilities on a local and regional basis. Additionally, the project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will create an increased demand on fire, police, schools, community services, water, sewer, natural gas, and electrical services and facilities. 8.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The proposed project would not result in unavoidable adverse impacts. Identified impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the implementation of applicable standard City policies and requirements and recommended mitigation measures. P:\1997\7N 15001 TWENV IRONSUMM.DOC 8-7 8.4 MITIGATION MEASURES ., . Initial Study Mitigation Measures NATURAL RESOURCES/ENERGY 1. Building design and construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Prior to approval of building permits for the Specific Plan, architectural and engineering plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works to ensure conformance with these standards. Energy conservation features should include: • Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or exceed State of California, Title 24 requirements. 0 Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems. Use of natural ventilation where possible. • Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking. Installation of ventilation devices. • Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs. Landscaping with deciduous trees, to provide shade in the summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months. TELEPHONE 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, building plans shall be submitted to GTE enabling GTE to assess the improvements necessary to provide adequate service to the project site. LIBRARY l. The applicant shall provide development fees to mitigate conditions of increased demand as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the City fee schedule in effect at the time of future building permit applications. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 1. To reduce the proposed project's impacts on waste disposal facilities, project designs shall develop a means of reducing the amount of waste generated both during construction and when the project is in use. The waste reduction program shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of building permits. Potential ways of reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling programs, and use of low maintenance landscaping when possible (i.e., native vegetation instead of turf). 8-8 2. Rainbow Disposal shall be contacted during the design stage of project components to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal. The designs shall include rubbish enclosures,projected travel areas, and turnabouts where necessary. Draft EIR Mitigation Measures LAND USE 1. Prior to recordation of a final tract map, the applicant must satisfy the City's policy requiring 10 percent of proposed units to be affordable. This requirement must be satisfied to the discretion of the City Plan Department of Planning through one of the following methods: a. Pay a fee to the City, if such a process is available; b. Participate with other developers or a non-profit organization to acquire and/or rehabilitate existing apartment units at any off-site location within a suitable area and provide for continued affordability; or C. Provide the required affordable units at one of Shea Homes' future multi-family projects within the City of Huntington Beach. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Aesthetics 1. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of incorporation of City comments/conditions related to the overall proposed design and layout of buildings, and landscaping. This design and layout of buildings shall be approved by the City Planning Department of Planning. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan for the area outside the perimeter wall along Graham Street to be reviewed and approved by the City Plug Department of Planning. 3. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall provide a Landscape Plan to be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning Divisien, which includes the replacement of all mature trees on the site at a 2:1 ratio with 36-inch box trees. 4. Prior to approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit a bikeways plan to the City of Huntington Beach Planning lien Department, in consultation with the Manager of the County PFRD/HBP Program Management and Coordination, for approval of consistency with the Orange County Bikeway Plan. for- approval of p-ejeet. with CvranrJ r.v ea Wa V aVyV1V 11 K11J. 8-9 Light and Glare 1. Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a plan which shows the proposed height, location, and intensity of street lights on-site. The plan shall comply with minimum standards for roadway lighting, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning and Public Works Department. 2. Prior to the approval of building permits, if outdoor lighting is to be included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. 3. Non-reflective materials shall be utilized to the extent feasible. Individual building site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning and Public Works Department. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 1. Prior to the issuance of buildin grading permits, the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan (including dirt import haul route). This plan shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction related impacts to adjacent residences. The final plan shall be approved by the City Engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of a final inspection eeftif eate of eeeupa the applicant shall construct a traffic signal and improve the intersection at the proposed "A" Street and Graham Street. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer that standards (including ADA) regarding pedestrian/bicycle safety along the perimeter sidewalks will have been met. 4. Prior to the final inspection issuanee of eefti fierce of e the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from Glenstone to the project access ("A" Street) as follows: • Two 7 foot bikelanes; one 12' through lane in each direction, and a 14' two-way left turning median. Additionally, the applicant shall be responsible for restriping Graham Street from"A" street to Warner Avenue, as follows: • Two 7 foot bikelanes, one 18' through lane in each direction, and a 14' two-way left turning median. The improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer. 8-10 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall participate in the applicable Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) for the City of Huntington Beach. The actual allocation shall be approved by the City. Appropriate credits shall be granted toward the TIF. The TIF shall cover the project's fair share of year 2020 improvements to the arterial street system as follows: • Bolsa Chica Street/Warner Avenue - reconfigure intersection for east/west traffic to provide dual left turns and either three throughs or two throughs and an exclusive right turn lane. This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. • Graham Street/Warner Avenue - reconfigure intersection to provide an exclusive southbound right turn lane from Graham Street to Warner Avenue. This deficiency is a product of cumulative growth and not a direct result of the proposed project. AIR QUALITY 1. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following: A. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. B. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation: 1) Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pick up by the wind. 2) Spread soil binders; and 3) Implement street sweeping as necessary. C. During construction: 1) Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; 2) Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, 3) Use low sulfur fuel (05%by weight) for construction equipment. D. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days. E. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 2. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for compliance with the following(or other resources as required by the City Engineer): A. Require a phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions. 8-11 B. Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. C. Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). D. Require the planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites. E. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites. F. Wash off trucks leaving site. G. Require all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials to be covered, or to maintain a minimum freeboard of two feet between the top of the load and the top of the truck bed sides. H. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads. I. Require enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials. J. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. K. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators when practical. 3. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that vehicle movement on any unpaved surface other than water trucks shall be terminated if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. 4. During grading and construction, the applicant shall be responsible for the paving of all access aprons to the project site and the maintenance of the paving. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for assuring that construction vehicles be equipped with proper emission control equipment to substantially reduce emissions. 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. - Measures, subject to the approval and verification by the Public Works Department, shall include, as appropriate: 8-12 • Provision of rideshare incentives. • Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. • Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. • Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the final inspection issuanee of use and eeeupaney pe ,;+c, the applicant shall provide proof to the City's Traffic Engineer that the project has contributed its `fair- share' towards regional traffic improvement systems (i.e., traffic impact fees) for the area. This shall include efforts to synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by project development. 8. Prior to the final inspection ' , the applicant shall provide proof that energy saving features have been installed in project homes as required by the Uniform Building Code. Features may include: solar or low-emission water . heaters, energy efficient appliances, double-glass paned windows, low-sodium parking lights, etc. NOISE 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit and have approved a noise mitigation plan to the Department of CeRununity Develepment Planning that will reduce or mitigate short-term noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive. The plan shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance and shall include,but not be limited to: A. A criteria of acceptable noise levels based on type and length of exposure to construction noise levels; B. Physical reduction measures such as temporary noise barriers that provide separation between the source and the receptor; temporary soundproof structures to house portable generators; and C. Temporary generators (if utilized) shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors. D. Mitigation measures such as restrictions on the time of construction for activities resulting in high noise levels. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence acceptable to the City Engineer that: A. All grading and construction vehicles and equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped and maintained with effective muffler systems that use state of the art noise attenuation. 8-13 B. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive noise receptors. C. All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall produce evidence (specifications) acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls along the projects northern property (along the rear property line of lot #103 to lot #123 on Kenilworth Drive and the side property lines of lots #125 and #126 on Greenleaf Lane of Tract 5792) and Graham Street (along the project's boundary) will be constructed to achieve maximum sound attenuation. EARTH RESOURCES 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Earthwork activities include grading, clearing and demolition, site preparation, unsuitable soil removals, backcuts, excavation processing, compaction of all fills, mixing, benching, inspection, survey control, subgrade preparation, cut and fill slope construction, haul roads, import soils, structural load and settlement/subsidence measures, and storm drain relocation. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the recommendations contained in Section 8.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of this document, shall be incorporated into the structural design of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Structural design activities include: Foundation Design; Settlements including Foundation Loads and Seismically Induced Settlements; Post-Tensioned Slab/ Foundations; Mat Foundations; Other Foundation Recommendations such as Footing Embedment, Underslab Treatment, and Subgrade Moisture Content; Concrete Driveways, Sidewalks, and Flatwork; Structural Setbacks; Retaining Walls; Other Design and Construction Recommendations such as Lot Drainage, Utility Excavations, Utility Trench Backfill, Corrosion, Metallic Structures, and Concrete Structures. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, it shall be proven to the Department of Public Works that all structures are designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes or Structural Engineers Association of California to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. 4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall contract with a dewatering expert to prepare a detailed Dewatering Plan. This plan shall include the placement of monitoring wells aleRg near the northern property line to evaluate ground water levels during the proposed project dewatering activities. The dewatering activities shall be adjusted immediately if the monitoring wells show ground water level changes which 8-14 may effect subsidence of adjacent properties. The Dewatering Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Phase II environmental soil sampling shall be conducted to determine the residual levels of pesticides in the soil. If inappropriate/unsafe levels are identified by this analysis, "clean up" measures shall be recommended and implemented. The Phase II sampling and any necessary measures shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 6. Prior to the final inspection issuanee of eeAifieates of eeeupaney, testing to verify the estimated radon gas levels shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the Department of C-ea ,.,..,,nity Devef,,,,,, en Planning. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding storm drainage improvements which shall include,but not be limited to: • Construct the necessary storm drainage improvements (identified on Exhibit 42 within the EIR)to handle increased flows and intercept off-site flows. • Ensure that future building pads are placed at elevations suitable to withstand 100- year flood. • Construct the necessary improvements to the East Garden Grove - Wintersburg Channel (C05) along the site perimeter. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit a "Notice of Intent" (NOI), along with the required fee to the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the State NPDES General Construction permit and provide the City with a copy of the written reply containing the discharger's identification number. 3. Prior to the issuance of the grading permits, the applicant shall provide a Water Quality Management Plan showing conformance to the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan and all NPDES requirements (enacted by the EPA) for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practical using management practices, control techniques and systems, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. If project grading construction is scheduled during the normal breeding season for red- tailed hawk and other raptors locally (March to July), a survey shall be conducted for active nests. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, should any active nests be located within the zone of potential disturbance, construction activities shall be limited to areas 500 feet away from the nest until the young have fledged and have begun foraging away 8-15 from the nest site. The 500 foot protection zone shall be fenced with visible warning- color materials. Nest trees shall be removed during the non-breeding season only. 2. Wetlands impacts to the isolated pocket wetlands shall be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1 (square footage of wetlands to square footage of fill). The Coastal Development Permit shall require that mitigation for the fill of the pocket wetlands, that fnitigati be implemented prior to enetH -eat with the devel pment e e:frog the adverse i „ao the issuance of a grading permit for the 4.5 acre County Parcel. The mitigation site shall be on-site or within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands unless the Lowlands are sold to a new landowner and the new landowner is unwilling to allow the proposed mitigation to proceed. In such a case, the developer of the site shall find an alternative mitigation site. The total mitigation for the loss of two small patches of degraded pickleweed habitat shall include the preservation and enhancement of 2 acres of appropriate wildlife habitat per established requirement of the Department of Fish and Game. The DFG shall approve the habitat to be preserved and enhanced. CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall conduct a subsurface test investigation for CA-ORA-1308 and 1309 to determine the horizontal boundaries of the sites as well as to confirm the surface conclusions of non-significance as indicated in the March, 1997 Archeological Assessment. This may be accomplished through the mechanical excavation of a number of auger holes as well as two 1 x 1-meter hand excavated units for stratigraphic control. The subsurface test investigation, which includes discussion of significance (depth, nature, condition, and extent of resources), final mitigation recommendations, and cost estimates, shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall create(if deemed necessary through Measure 1 above) a cultural resource management plan based on test results. A full data recovery program shall be designed if site avoidance is not feasible through design. Possible recovery plans include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. The plan shall include consultation with appropriate Native American Organization and be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Additionally, the plan shall require peer review in conformance with the Coastal Commission's Archaeological Guidelines. 3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained, shall be present at the pre-grading meeting/ conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the project proponent, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. The archaeological resource surveillance procedures shall include a provision for Native American review of grading operations. If additional or unexpected ... archaeological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the applicant and to the GewmRmity Develepfnen4 Hann Department of Planning and the 8-16 appropriate Native American Organization. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the applicant, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Eeffffa Develepim Planning Director. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire 1. Prior to approval of building permits, building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. If during the Fire Department's plan check it becomes evident that fireground operations will become impeded, the department will impose stand additional fire code requirements sueh as in addition to the automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. Police 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Police Department shall be consulted during preliminary stages of the project design to review the safety features, determine their adequacy, and suggest improvements. 3. During construction and at complete buildout, the project shall provide easy access into and within the project site for emergency vehicles and addresses shall be well marked to facilitate response by officers. Prior to the first final inspection Certifieate of Geeupane , project site plans depicting these requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department. Schools 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide school fees to mitigate conditions of overcrowding as part of building permit application. These fees shall be based on the State fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit applications. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall show proof of compliance with the Mitigation Agreement established between the Huntington Beach Union High School District, subject to the approval of the City of Huntington Beach. Water 6. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the development proposed on the City parcel, which addresses the following: a. Water demand required by project (fire flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) 8-17 b. Master Plan/General Plan Amendment(GPA)review The City of Huntington Beach Water (Master Plan) System Computer Model (i.e. H2OBe*NET) must be run with the proposed land use demands (i.e. GPA), and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (i.e. the General Plan, in effect at the time the Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2OBe*NET), for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance. If the analysis shows that project demands cannot be met with the City's current water system, the developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project at no cost to the City. 7. Prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, the following water conservation measures shall be implemented as required by state law: a. Ultra-low-flush toilets b. Ultra-low-flow showers and faucets C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code 8. Prior to issuanee of use and eeettpaney pem final inspection, water pressure regulators ' to limit downstream pressure to a maximum of 60 psi shall be installed. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, pervious paving material shall be used whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge and slopes and grades shall be controlled to discourage water waste through runoff. 10. Prior to issuanee of use and eeeupaRey pe final inspection, the applicant shall provide information to prospective residents regarding benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance in selecting irrigation and landscaping. 11. The Water Division and Park, Tree, and Landscape Division of the City's Public Works Department shall be consulted during design and construction of the Park for further water conservation measures to review irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use, as well as measures that may be incorporated into the project to reduce peak hour water demand. 12. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the portion of the project to be developed on the County parcel, which addresses the following: a. Water demand required by project --Ohl (fire flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) 8-18 b. Master Plan/General Plan Amendment (GPA,)review The City of Huntington Beach Water (Master Plan) System Computer Model (i.e. H2OBe*NET) must be run with the proposed land use demands (i.e. GPA), and contrasted with the model run using the existing land use demands, (i.e. the General Plan, in effect at the time the current Water Master Plan was adopted). The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2OBe,*NET), for a fee to be paid by the developer a minimum of 30 days in advance. The developer shall be required to upgrade the City's system to meet the demands and/or otherwise mitigate the impacts of the project proposed development on the County parcel, at no cost to the City. Any incremental impacts to the City's water system would need to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works - Water Division. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits,for any lot within the 4.5 acre parcel within the County of Orange, the applicant shall show proof from LAFCO of approval of annexation of the County parcel into the City of Huntington Beach and the Orange County Sanitation District, subject to the approval of the City Planning and Public Works Departments. 14. Irrigation systems within the Park which minimize water waste shall be used to the greatest extent possible. Such measures should involve, where appropriate, the following features: a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume, low angle (22 % degree) sprinkler heads. b. Drip irrigation C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. d. The use of reclaimed water for irrigated areas and grass lands. The project applicants shall connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system of reclaimed water should this supply of water be available. Separate irrigation services shall be installed to ease this transition. 15. Landscape and irrigation plans for the Park which encourage minimized use of lawns and utilize warm season, drought tolerant species shall be submitted to and approved by the Water Division and Park, Tree, and Landscape Division. Sewer 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner (Shea Homes) shall construct the new sewer lift station and force main in accordance with the City-approved Sewer Plan for the proposed project, and implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding sewer infrastructure improvements to handle increased sewer flow demands. 8-19 Storm Drains Please refer to Section 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology of this EIR. Natural,Gas 17. Prior to issuance of building permits, The the Southern California Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. 8-1 9a