Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 1 of 4 - Shea Parkside Estates - General Plan Amendment
Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: _IXApproved LJ Conditionally Approved L3 Denied City Clerk's Signature/ Council Meeting Date: November 18, 2002 Department ID Number: PL 02-49 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH D REQUEST FOR ACTION C= SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBIR S SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator R-.Q, PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planr Wg A/d C SUBJECT: APPROVE REVISED RESOLUTION FOR LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-4 (PARKSIDE ESTATES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT). IStatement f Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for City Council consideration is a request to adopt Resolution No. to further clarify City Council Resolution No. 2002-101 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 (Parkside Estates Residential Project). The resolution includes revised language as requested by the California Coastal Commission staff relative to the adopted Zoning Map Amendment (implementing.Ordinances), CEQA compliance, and issuance of Coastal Development Permits. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Adopt Resolution No. to further clarify City Council Resolution No. 2002-101 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 964". Alternative Action: The City Council may make the following alternative motion: 1. Continue Resolution No. 1-?� and direct staff accordingly. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 18, 2002 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 02-49 Analysis: Resolution No.�o-2 ��.Z3 represents additional information regarding the adopted Zoning Map Amendment, CEQA compliance, and issuance of coastal development permits for the Parkside residential project. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 represented a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program/Coastal Element/implementing Ordinances pursuant to General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A and 96-513 by amending Figure C-2 and associated text in the Coastal Element and Zoning Maps. The local coastal program amendment is subject to California Coastal Commission approval before becoming effective. In preliminary discussions with the California Coastal Commission relative to the Parkside Estates project, they requested that the Local Coastal Program Amendment Resolution address Local Coastal Program Implementing Ordinances, CEQA compliance, . and issuance of Coastal Development Permits. The attached resolution addresses these issues. Environmental Status: The environmental aspects of the project were addressed in EIR 97-2, which was certified by the City Council on October 21, 2002. Attachment: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 City Council Resolution No.c25iO a :C:-,23 RCA Author: Scott Hess/Howard Zelefsky PL02-49 -2- 11/8/2002 3:36 PM 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 96-5B 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/L.CPA 96-4/11/15/02 1 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 96-5B, 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 9&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 EXHIBIT «A„ o ,ems-. /1/0 , 02 voz "LANNING SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 28-5-II CITY OF H NTINGTON BEACH A& ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA USE OF PROPERTY MAP 1� WARNER AVE II ? I L II lil IIIIlI � I IZ III • I El OORbCC OR \r PO IR' c OR 1 N I I rl I I =• I I W z P _ J 1 Ouw BVR � a 2 � Pf.Nfl P .v r^M 1 •+-r-�a''� ' ; SUBJECT �� a ENRO♦ PROPERTY m .ryA?lS>..-''_4�.•�, 4.�-_ ENIIMOPTN a oPci. r l \ ✓� Y \ � i l ( i A99A Or GEC. IFI�"P I rr J n�0unc OR 6.00 -r'f D G •r1 i CAT ON I ' u � °• ""J C F-E I WRPa n O• a `R t« a a C i \Eys�OOE Q �- 3 = RancuuV OR. ate. ' h UJI r :. �t /b•• ^�- J ..� rCII TI - C" - I JPRICE OR. 1 !�=ME YV'1 A �GIq, s�,t O1. a:L'•I..aT I I 1 \` �� \ - I I1 IwOCworr CR. Ou CES I ORRAPMAEL DR. PINC.4 DR. ueR clt �ti 1 #cul �'La / a"o.e..r e.a I ,r+' �• ., / CF-R-CZ I I I I I t l TERPI R OR. 3 33. l \� � � III iiilli ' Illli II ' r VICINITY MAP a�o z 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. 2002-100 t,� • f3 Co 2-0 01-11 3 EXHIBIT "A" SKETCH I o Accompany Legal Description P.O.B. °�•,�- -��� L S89°35'37"E 530.22 N00024'23"E NWLY. COR. PCL. A — } / ``:�128.77' ` o i Ia 26°04'37" m -- = R=67.00; I L=30.49 o� ', - e=26°04'37" w `O -�t"�R=100.00' IN m a� `�`�1 L=45.51' C4 o PROPOSED �� Q=19°36'25" w R=275.00' m N GN�i�` �`p�°°•fig., c. CD z o ` 4, - %8' CD � N00°10'28"E 71.16 _S89°49'32"E� I 80.00.� - �9• I S 2.110.S j2 F 0n Q' voN•�\NG� vp 1> _ �` •�.�,E,�15��• /�'••• . `vim. • `� OWN NNE p�S� �. �' r1� � Q�R P SON /: •:�. ' � GO / Hunsaker & Associates SHEA HOMES PARK PARCEL Irvine, Inc. SE'ly OF ZONE LINE Three Hughes. Irvine, CA 92618 •(714) 583-1010 IN THE CITY OF HUNTING70N BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA Planning • Engineering • Surveying DAM 10-16-00 one 9-OS-02 ear T. VO e..° R.Williams SCALE 1°=200' W.O. 61-15377CX I:\MWD—SHEA\Id\51 13\SHT01 .dw 'N` CAD H&A LEGAL No. 5113 1 SHEET 1 OF 1 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 r , lot ti Wo- s?k- (vdZt57l--\ J _/_(.r �� _ SSA -O 3 --- a------ 3 (A -.Q t 0 Z i 02 (71------------- I� > CC CO vv�e- - C.� h,� CoL)nc.L� co jjll� (—vP-P C'o _ 6o h ,� �- r + 1 �ell',"LAIL zo�2 co =lu P -56 r r .4"_X.=_I+4 ^ A I [�� _. ��/!�4..!�'V "�/ KJ�'✓ ri/ram S; 1 � 9 r V— ti, 4-o occ L Pon LAi C. r-� s : 10`` �, .I. c c � L4O.n 4 � CI _ `._ . 9 SS cU,2- lohk (d � S— 3138C4 9 Mo goo Io Tra.� Map NoS I S3-17 11 (S`A10( C3w�ccl�c�'10r u,ok -�!N Qa C17 �= 4 Q /gam, T© C" Imo IS 5 3-7-7 4 77-1 i S�4 19 I l 5 H 1 CAI _ y Ills OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY P.O.BOX 190 SPaul cott 'lessanAssaro,Cirytanto City aItr 2000 Main Street Lee-Bvrke,Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach,California 92648 John Fuiii,Deputy City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Telephone: (714)536-5555 Sarah Lazarus,Deputy City Attorney City Attorney Facsimile: (714)374-1590 Leonie Mulvihill,Deputy City Attorney January 14, 2003MCEIVED AW VX*APAW ET U joSETMG OF Mr. Mark D. BixbyNNIE A 10"clt 17451 Hillgate Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Re: Your letter of December 17, 2002 (copy attached) Dear Mr. Bixby, I have reviewed your letter dated December 17, 2002, regarding alleged Brown Act violations by various members of the City's Planning Commission. The information presented in your letter does not lead me to believe that any violations of the Brown Act by members of the Planning Commission occurred. Further,please note that the actions taken by the Planning Commission related to the Parkside project were subsequently appealed to the City Council. Essentially, this means that the Planning Commission's action related to the Parkside project was rendered moot. Even if a violation of the Brown Act occurred, (and we do not agree that any such violation did occur), there would be no public purpose served in an attempt to correct or cure the Planning Commission's moot action, under the provisions of Government Code Section 45960.1. In fact, a court would probably view the.City Council's decision on the project as such a corrective action (if any were necessary)pursuant to Government Code §54960.1(e). Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any further questions. Sincerely, J IFER MC GRATH, City Attorney /k c: Mayor Boardman and City Council Members Ray Silver, City Administrator Bill Workman,Asst. City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner pda/031ettem%ixby k I�, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH oLj 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK December 20, 2002 Ron Metzler, Vice President, Planning & Development Shea Homes 603 S. Valencia Avenue, Brea, CA 92833 SUBJECT: STATEMENT OF ACTION Dear Mr. Metzler: Enclosed please find a Statement of Action which sets forth the action the City Council has taken at its meeting of November 18, 2002 adopting Resolution No. 2002-123 to revise Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 (Parkside Estates Residential Project). Sincerely, Connie Brockway City Clerk Enclosure: Statement of Action (Parkside Estates) cc: Councilmember Debbie Cook City Administrator Ray Silver City Attorney Jennifer McGrath Planning Director Howard Zelefsky Planning Manager Scott Hess Senior Planner Mary Beth Broeren :le G:Followup\Stmtact\2002StAct\Stmtofaction res.no.2002-123 (Telephone:714-536-5227) } STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL DRAFT- PRIOR TO COUNCIL APPROVAL/ADOPTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ******Indicates Portions of the Meeting not Included in the Statement of Action***** 5:00 P.M. - Room B-8 7:00 P.M. - Council Chamber Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Monday, November 18, 2002 An audiotape recording of the 5:00 p.m. portion of this meeting and a videotape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Cook called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:05 p.m. in Room B-8. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Green, Dettloff, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer(Green arrived at 5:06 p.m.) Absent: None RECONVENE The Mayor reconvened the regular meetings of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Green, Dettloff, Boardman, Cook, Houchen, Winchell, Bauer, Absent: None (City Council) Adopted Resolution No. 2002-123 Revising Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 (Parkside Estates Residential Project,w/o Graham Street, S/o Kenilworth Drive) and Requested Certification by the California Coastal Commission (440.50) Council Member Dettloff requested that this agenda item be removed from the Consent Calendar to clarify any misunderstanding regarding Parkside Estates and the Coastal Commission process as was reported on by her previously. She stated the city is to submit the Local Coastal Program (LCP)amendment but the Coastal Commission has final approval. Councilmember Dettloff spoke regarding various issues that will be studied by the Coastal Commission including the appeal. She stated that the Coastal Commission biologist would determine if a new delineation is necessary. Howard Zelefsky Director of Planning informed Council that the Coastal Commission asked for an amendment to include additional language to further clarify City Council G:Followup\Stmtact\2002StAct\Stmtofacuon res.no.2002-123 Y Resolution No. 2002-101 relative to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4. He stated that this is what is being presented to Council tonight. Director of Planning Zelefsky responded to Mayor Pro Tern Boardman's inquiry that this Local Coastal Program amendment is for the remaining noncertified area of land. A motion was made by Dettloff, second Bauer to: Adopt 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 96-5B 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." The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Dettloff, Houchen, Bauer NOES: Boardman, Cook, Winchell ABSENT: None Recessed—City Council Mayor Cook recessed the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to Wednesday, November 20, at 6:45 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California to meet jointly with the City Personnel Commission. /s/Connie'Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/ Debbie Cook City Clerk Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their regular meeting held on November 18, 2002. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this 20th day of December 2002. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California G:Followup\Stmtact\2002StAct\Stmtofaction res.no.2002-123 0 A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET __ CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK October 28, 2002 California Coastal Commission South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, 10t' Floor Long Beach, CA 90801-4302 NOTICE OF CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL ACTION ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18 (PARKSIDE ESTATES) Applicant: Ron Metzler,Vice President, Planning & Development, Shea Homes, 603 S. Valencia Avenue, Brea,CA 92833, Appellant Debbie Cook, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 Request: To permit subdivision and development of a 170 single-family residential planned unit development(PUD)and associated infrastructure improvements, and dedicate and improve 8.2 acres for public park purposes. Location: 49.9 acres at 17301 Graham Street(west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, and north of Slater Ave., adjacent to the Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel). Coastal Status: Appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and Area of Deferred Certification Action: On October 21, 2002, after hearing a staff report presentation;conducting a public. hearing on above-mentioned appeal, and discussion, the City of Huntington Beach City Council conditionally approved (4 ayes, 3 noes) Coastal Development Permit(CDP) No. 96- 18 with Findings for Approval and Conditions of Approval (Attachment No. 1). The CDP does not become effective until the Coastal Commission certifies Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 and until the ten (10)working day appeal period to the Coastal Commission for the CDP has expired. The City Council also reviewed and approved Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4: To amend the City's Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances in accordance with the GPA and ZMA and forward to the California Coastal Commission for certification. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1: To redesignate 2.8 acres of RL-7 (Telephone:714-536-5227) 10, Notice of Action— CDP 96-18 Page 2 October 28, 2002 (Residential Low Density) property to OS-P (Open Space-Park); to designate approximately 1.6 acres of the unincorporated parcel as RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.3 acres of the unincorporated parcel as OS-C (Open Space-Conservation); and to amend the Public Facilities Element by removing the fire station designation on the subject site. Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A&96-5B: A)To rezone approximately 40 acres of property to add a CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay)to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential— Floodplain Overlay) designation, and rezone approximately 8.2 acres from RA- CZ (Residential Agriculture—Coastal Zone) and RL-FP2 to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space— Parks and Recreation—Coastal Zone) consistent with the General Plan; B) To prezone approximately 1.6 acres of the unincorporated parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.3 acres of the unincorporated parcel to CC (Coastal Conservation). Annexation No. 98-1: To annex an approximately 4.9 acre parcel into the City from the County of Orange. The following entitlements were approved by the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission and subsequently appealed by Mayor Debbie Cook, in addition to her appeal on the Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18. The City Council,following a public hearing, reviewed and approved Tentative Tract Map Nos. 15377 (City) and 15419 (County): To subdivide approximately 45 acres into 162 residential lots (City), and to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 8 residential lots (County), and associated infrastructure improvements. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90: To develop 171 single-family residential units, including creation of property development standards for dual-product lot sizes, associated infrastructure improvements, 8.2 acres of park improvements, proposed retaining walls with heights of greater than two (2)feet, and develop on a property with a grade differential of greater than three (3)feet between low and high points on the property. Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2: To certify the EIR which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Appeal Procedure to the California Coastal Commission: An appeal of the City of Huntington Beach's action on Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 may be filed in writing with the California Coastal Commission in accordance with Title 14, Section 13111 of the California Administrative Code. Their address is: South Coast Area Office California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 Attn: Theresa Henry (562) 570-5071 (Continued on the next page) g:ffollowup/appeal/coastal comm/cdp W18.doc 2 Notice of Action—CDP 96-18 Page 3 October 28, 2002 The appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission within ten (10)working days from the date of receipt of this notice of final City action by the California Coastal Commission. Sincerely, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB: le Enclosure: Findings and Conditions for Approval cc: Debbie Cook, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Ron Metzler, Vice President, Planning & Development, Shea Homes g tlowup/appeal/coastal cornm/cdp 96-16.doc 3 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15377 (City) and 15419 (County) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-90 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NOS. 15377 (City) and 15419 (County): 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 for subdivision of 45 acres into 162 single family residential lots and several lettered lots for open space and landscaped areas is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Low Density Residential)on the subject property, or other applicable provisions of this Code including the provisions for Planned Unit Developments. Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 for the subdivision of approximately 4.9 acres into nine (9)single family residential lots and lettered lots for open space and landscaped areas is consistent with the pre-General Plan Land Use Element designation of RL-7 (Low Density Residential) on the subject property, or other applicable provisions of this Code including the provisions for Planned Unit Developments. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is generally flat and able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a circulation and drainage perspective. The site is required to be elevated in compliance with City's requirements for new construction and the Conditional Letter of Map Revision from FEMA approved June 6, 2002 and therefore,,requires 263,000 cubic yards of fill. The proposed fill and grade will permit the site to be developed consistent with adopted plans and will result. in a density of 4.4 units per acre which is below the allowable density. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The majority of the site has been previously used for farming and does not contain habitat for wildlife or fish. A 3.3 acre portion of the parcel in the County area has an EPA delineated pocket wetland, patchy pickle weed, potential jurisdictional wetlands, and a buffer to residential uses that will be preserved as open space. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. No existing easements for the public at large will be affected by the project. The project will provide public access through the site to the public park and public trails in the vicinity. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-90: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90 for the development of 171 two-story, detached single family residential units as a Planned Unit Development (PUD)for dual-product lot sizes to include 94 lots with minimum 50'frontages and minimum 5,000 sq. ft. lot sizes (average 5,700 sq. ft.); and 77 lots with minimum 60'frontages and minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lot sizes (avg. >7,000 sq.ft.); and seven flag lots with a minimum frontage of 24% construction of a 8.2 acre park; retaining walls greater than two ft. in height and up to 3.5 ft. in height along the westerly property line adjacent to property within the County of Orange and along flood control channel; and development on a site with a grade differential of greater than three (3) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.1 feet from the low to the high point will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project will be graded to minimize drainage impacts while complying with the flood requirements of FEMA. The proposed grade differential to adjacent residential properties will be mitigated through the use of substantial landscaped setbacks and tree requirements. The project includes significant infrastructure Improvements that:will have area.wide benefits. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding single family residential and open space land uses. The project includes two-story homes that are similar to the surrounding developments; it also incorporates buffer areas for aesthetics and intensified landscaping. Open space areas are located adjacent to existing open space areas to maximize use and buffers. 3. The proposed project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Variations to the wall heights are permitted by conditional use permit and lot size and width are allowed as part of a planned unit development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential on the City portion of the property and pre-General Plan Land Use Element designation of Low Density Residential on the County portion of the property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: Policy 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing residential, neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights,grade elevations, orientation and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in term of style, materials, and colors. The buildings are will articulated and will have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The building pads are higher but there is a setback buffer along the north property line. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18: 1. -Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 for the development of a 171-unit single family residential project within an area of deferred certification in the coastal zone as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. The project layout is consistent with the existing and proposed Low Density Residential land use designation on the property. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed development complies with all development standards except for the increased retaining wall heights, and the minimum lot width and size. The development will be in compliance with City and FEMA requirements pertaining to floodproofing. (02c10924 Parkside TfM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.2 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. The proposed project will provide all required infrastructure consistent with the Local Coastal Program and City requirements. 4. The development conforms to the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The project will not impact existing public access or recreation opportunities in the coastal zone; the project will add opportunities for access to surrounding trails and a proposed public park and will improve a proposed bikeway adjacent to the channel and the developed portion of the site. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL— TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15377 (City) AND NO. 15419 Count 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15419, received and dated July 8, 2002, shall be the approved layout except as amended per the conditions stated herein and as follows: a. Lot No. 4 of TTM 15419 shall be eliminated and made part of the adjoining open space area. 2. The final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) shall not be approved by the City Council until Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5 and General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 are approved and in effect, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 has been approved by the California Coastal Commission. 3. The final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) shall not be approved by the City Council until proof that the area has been annexed into the City by LAFCO; and until Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5 and General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 are approved and in effect, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 has been approved by the California Coastal Commission. If the annexation does not occur the "non annexation"alternative layouts shown on Tentative Tract Map 15377 shall be the approved layout. 4. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning, Public Works and City Attorney's office for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall include the following: a. Provide for maintenance of all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, bike trail links, slopes, walkways and open space areas along Graham Street, surface drainage for lots "B" thru "P" and lots "R" thru "Z" by the Homeowner's Association (HOA). b. Provide for maintenance of slopes, fences and retaining walls that serve as flood control protection, except within the County Flood Control right-of-way. c. Prohibit the blocking or screening of fire hydrants located in public right-of-way. d. Implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) including treatment train. The WQMP shall be included in the CC&Rs as an attachment or addendum for conformance with NPDES (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.3 requirements. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law. e. Provide for maintenance and liability of the two bike trails linking the flood control channel with "C" Street and "L" Street. f. "Notification to purchasers that there will be a City.,.fuablic park within the tract and that access to Greenleaf is for emergency purposes only. 5. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. The Final Map(s)shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Map. b. Vehicular access rights to all public streets, either proposed or existing, shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. (PW) c. The rough grading plan and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (PW) d. A final sewer design study of the project system shall be submitted for Public Works approval.. The deVeloper shall.design the sewer system required to serve the development in conformance with the approved preliminary study and City design criteria. (PW) e. Prior to first plan check submittal, the developer shall submit a water system hydraulic analysis to confirm appropriate on-site sizing and layout. City staff will provide design parameters, including water pressures and flows at points of connection. The hydraulic model output shall conform to City requirements and be fully compatible with and transferable with City software. All costs for water system modeling work shall be borne by the developer. (PW) f. Final hydrology and hydraulic design analysis and calculations for both on and off site drainage facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. The project improvements shall be consistent with the facilities proposed in the Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) issued by FEMA on June 6, 2002. On-site drainage shall not be diverted or concentrated to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. The final design analysis of the system shall be consistent with the approved preliminary studies. All pad elevations must comply with FEMA design criteria in conformance with the CLOMR(BFE 2.2 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)) and as directed by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Public Works. Gradients of less than 2% shall not be permitted in earthen swales without prior approval from Public Works. (PW) g. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Map: (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.4 1) The 8.2,acre public park (Lot"0"and"A") shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach in fee simple for parkland purposes pursuant to Section 254.08.H. of the HBZSO. The applicant shall submit to the City a Grant Deed, along with a preliminary title report, granting a fee ownership in the parkland unencumbered by any easements or covenants, both recorded and unrecorded, which restrict any and all. uses by the City. It shall be the applicant's responsibility as part of the dedication to obtain, record, and submit all necessary quitclaims ensuring a proper dedication. The proposed land shall also be certified clean to the City's Soil Clean-Up Standard, City Specification 431-92 by an acceptable testing firm. Upon acceptance of the Grant Deed language and the submittal of a title insurance policy in an amount equal to the appraised value of the land, the City Clerk, if granted authority as part of the acceptance of the tract map by City Council, shall record the Grant Deed for the parkland dedication. (PW) 2) The domestic water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. Easement widths shall conform with the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 300. (PW) 3) The sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract. (PW) 4) The storm drain system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans for this tract, except those facilities designated to be maintained by the HOA on the improvement plans and in the CC&R's. Easement widths shall conform with the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 300. (PW) 5) A 2.00-foot wide public utility easement along both.sides of each street, per Standard Plan No. 104. _(PW) 6) Graham Street for street purposes. (PW) 7) Greenleaf Lane (Cul-de-sac turn-around)for street purposes. (PW) 8) "A" Street through "M"Street for street purposes. (PW) 9) An easement for public pedestrian access purposes for the two bike trails linking the flood control channel with"L"Street and with"C" Street. 10)An easement for public access purposes 10-feet in width adjacent to or in proximity to the northerly right-of-way of"A" Street and"B"Street within Lot"N", the paseo park. The total width shall be 20-feet as measured from the curb face. h. If necessary, the ultimate Channel right-of-way shall be dedicated on the final map to the County of Orange. (PW) i. All street lighting shall be conveyed to Southern California Edison Co. for maintenance and operation. (PW) j. A reproducible mylar copy and print of the final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. (PW) k. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9- 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following items: (PW) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.5 1) Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. 2) Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 1 Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following criteria: Design Specification: 1) Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. 2) Digital data shall have double precision accuracy (up to fifteen significant digits). 3) Digital data shall have units in US FEET. 4) A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. 5) Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. 6) Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. File Format and Media Specification: 7) Shall be in compliance with the following file format: ➢ AutoCAD (version 13 or later) drawing file: DWG 8) Shall be in compliance with the following media type: ➢ CD Recordable (CD-R) 650 Megabytes M. No construction or public access shall be taken from or to Greenleaf for any purpose other than emergency vehicle access. Any future connection of Greenleaf to the development for public street purposes or private access shall be prohibited until otherwise conveyed through a public hearing process before the City Council. n. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Department of Public Works and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) o. All improvement securities (Faithful. Performance, Labor.& Material and Monumentation Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Department of Public Works and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) p. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) q. An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.6 1) Minimum10 percent of the units shall be affordable to families of low-income level (less than 80% of Orange County median)for a period of thirty years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units. 3) If affordable units (new or rehabilitate)are off-site, they must be under the full control of the applicant. 4) The affordable. units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Final approval (occupancy) of the first residential unit in the tract shall be contingent upon the completion and public availability, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. (MM) 5. The following conditions are required to be completed prior to issuance of Grading Permits: a. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Final grades and elevations on the grading plan shall not vary by more than one (1)foot from the grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map unless otherwise required by these conditions and shall conform to FEMA requirements for elevation above the flood water levels as directed by the Department of Public Works. The recommendations from Section 7.0 and 8.0 of the geotechnical study, Appendix E of the EIR, shall be incorporated into the earthwork activities. (MM) The following public improvements shall be shown on the plan: i. Class I bike trail,and adjacent lot slopes along the channel. (PW) ii. Two bike trails linking the flood control channel with "C" Street and "L" Street. iii. All slopes, sea walls, and drainage control devices along the westerly boundary of the development. (PW) iv. The owner shall submit of"Notice of Intent"(NOI), along with the required fee, to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in compliance with NPDES general construction permit requirements. Copies of the NOI and the written replies received from the SWRCB shall be submitted to the City. (PW-MM) b. Sewer lateral for each habitable lot. (PW) c. All structures over twenty feet(20') in height from the point of connection at the public water source shall require a backflow protection device on the domestic water service unless otherwise approved by the Water Division. (PW) d. A separate irrigation service, meter and backflow protection device shall be required for the park. Additional irrigation services, meters and backflow devices shall be required for any Homeowner Association (HOA) landscaping. (PW) e. Each proposed dwelling unit shall require a separate domestic water meter and service. All domestic water meters shall be sized in accordance with the California Plumbing Code (CPC)and the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works and the Fire Department. (PW/FD) f. Plans for EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS at Greenleaf/LOT R shall be submitted and approved by the fire and planning departments. Indicate gate location, method to secure, slope, and overall final elevation change. (FD) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.7 g. Final finished grade for the park shall be subject to the approval of the Departments of Public Works and Community Services. The final finished grade shall, at a minimum: i. Protect existing trees, meet police department visibility requirements, provide proper drainage, meet conditions for maintaining a playable park and provide a drainage interceptor at the toe of the existing slope that transports run off to the storm drain system prior to entering the.playable park area. (PW) ii. The finish grade in the City park site shall be raised with a City approved topsoil. (PW) iii. The slope of the soil grade adjacent to"H"and "I" street shall be 5:1 max to a low point of 5.0 FT to 7.0 above sea level. The park shall then drain (slope) toward the existing"treed"slope at a minimum of 1% and maximum 2% to a drainage swale at the top of said existing slope. A grade break may occur in closer proximity with the drainage swale and the grade to the swale can be 5:1 maximum or an acceptable solution approved by the Park, Tree and Landscape Division. (PW) iv. The gradient and configuration of the emergency access road shall be approved by Public Works and Fire. (PW/FD) v. A separate lot shall be created for the existing "treed" slope area and shall extend from the western property boundary to the top of the slope at the concrete drainage swale, and from the north property line following the concrete swale south to the H.O.A. maintained lot"P". (PW) h. The Developer shall design and construct a new wet well/dry well sewer lift station and force main as required by the City to replace the existing station in Graham. The new station shall be sized to accommodate existing and the proposed development flows. The existing station shall be abandoned in-place by the developer as directed by The Department of Public Works. The used pumps/controllers shall be returned to the City Yard. The design of the lift station shall comply with all design requirements and criteria of the City of Huntington Beach. (PW) i. The Developer shall design and construct the ultimate improvements to centerline of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (C05) per County of Orange Flood Control District's adopted design standards (sheet pile and cathodic protection, or an equivalent lining if approved by the County). Said channel improvements shall be constructed along the entire project site frontage, extending under Graham Street bridge and transitioning out on the east side of the Graham Street bridge, as directed by the County. Requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers shall be observed in the design and construction of all channel and abutting slope improvements in and adjacent to the channel. Additionally, the Developer shall remove the existing oil-field access bridge over the County channel westerly of the Slater Pump Station, unless otherwise directed by the County of Orange. (PW) j. The Developer shall install two (2)new pump systems (motor, pump, controls, heat exchanger, and necessary appurtenances)within the existing vacant pump bays in the Slater Pump Station as determined necessary (equipment to match/equal City specification). Subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer, a request for fee credits may be considered for improvements exceeding the developer's required project impact mitigation. The value of each existing pump bay to be utilized shall be considered to be $300,000 unless it is proven to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.8 to be a different amount. The developer will be required to make capacity improvements to the system as necessary to drain the subject development and tributary flows to the site as required by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall also obtain necessary written approvals from the County of Orange and other pertinent agencies as required prior to issuance of grading permits. (PW/MM) k. The Developer shall design and construct off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff, as well as conveyance of ultimate upstream flows or deficient, downstream drainage systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. The Developer shall provide the necessary hydrologic and hydraulic studies as required to justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements, and to update that portion of the City's Master Plan of Drainage to reflect the changes and improvements of this project in the plan. If earthen slopes and/or levee protection is constructed along lots on the southwest perimeter of the property, the design shall conform to the FEMA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Design Guidelines (most specifically USACOE Manual EM 1110-2-1913.)Among the items of design criteria to be included are the following: (PW) i. The top of levee or berm shall be wide enough to accommodate a 12- foot wide clear access for maintenance vehicles. Drainage swales and flow lines along the brow of the levee shall not be within the 12-foot travel area. If.seawalls are incorporated into the design, drainage swale flow lines be a minimum of 18-inches from the wall and shall be concrete gutters. ii. The waterside of the levee shall be 3:1 or flatter with riprap or similar slope protection, or 4:1 or flatter without hard slope protection. Seawalls in combination with slopes may be used as approved by the City. iii. The landside of the levee shall be 4:1 or flatter to minimize seepage and permit easy maintenance by homeowner. iv. The levee design shall include a seepage barrier. If sheet piles are employed, no seepage barrier is required. Transitions from sheet piling to earthen berms shall be concrete lined. V. A vehicle turnaround with a turning radius or hammerhead design consistent with maintenance vehicles criteria shall be provided at the end of the levee maintenance road unless otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. vi. The top of levee and/or sea wall shall maintain a minimum elevation of 11 feet or 1-foot of freeboard above the committed water surface elevation in the channel, whichever is greater The top of levee and/or sea wall shall be into the existing topography to prohibit a breach or intrusion into the subdivision from seawater high tide events or storm flows. (PW) I. Storm Drain, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.9 review and approval. The plans shall also be submitted to Orange County Coastkeeper for review and comment. Catch basins shall be grated and not have side openings. (PW) i. To the greatest extent feasible, low flow urban runoff from the properties to the north shall be directed to.a gross pollutant removal device. The developer shall investigate use.of the remainder of the southwest open space area within Tract 15419 for treatment of this runoff. ii. Gross pollutant removal devices (CDS or equivalent)for the removal of debris, sediment, oil and water separation, etc., shall be installed as part of the treatment train for the main line systems. Access to these devices for maintenance shall be provided and included within an easement to the City. iii. If deemed feasible by the City Engineer, the developer shall design and construct a low flow urban runoff treatment train for flows from the Slater Pump Station, which may be conveyed to the potential open space southwest of the project area. If deemed not feasible by the City Engineer, this requirement may be waived. iv. A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices(BMP's) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed. V.. A WQMP shall 1:4 prepared, maintained and updated as needed to.satisfy the requirements of the adopted NPDES program.The plan shall incorporate water quality measures for all improved or unimproved phases of the project. All structural BMP's shall be sized to infiltrate,filter, or treat the 85-percentile 24-hour storm event or the maximum flow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. The WQMP shall include an extensive Home Owner's Association education program, including information booklets and packages for each homeowner, and periodic informational programs to keep owners current with WQMP practices and requirements. (PW) m. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent(13'-14'of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9'of brown trunk). Applicant shall provide a consulting arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (PW) n. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Departments of Public Works and Planning for review and approval. The Landscape Construction Set shall identify the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The plan shall include irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation service sizing. (PW) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.10 o. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. The plan shall include all common areas, the proposed City Park, Graham Street setback area, and the paseo park. The paseo park along the north property line shall include intensified landscaping to further screen possible headlight intrusion. In addition, Lot"B" of TTM 15419 shall consist of non-invasive, native drought tolerant plant material without a permanent irrigation systems. (PW/MM/Code Requirement) p. An erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff during construction and site preparation work. (PW/MM) q. Street Improvement Plans for Graham Street shall be prepared per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 103, (80'/64'), and submitted for review and approval. The developer shall include the following modifications to achieve the minimum number of travel lanes specified and include any additional striping modifications identified by the Transportation Manager to best accommodate specific traffic operations (PW/MM): i. Improve Graham Street, as needed, to correct the stopping sight distance and stacking problems between the southerly crosswalk across Graham at Street"A"and the crest of the Wintersburg Channel Bridge as approved by the Department of Public Works. ii. Restripe Graham Street from Street"A"to Glenstone Drive with a seven (7)foot bike lane.in each direction, one twelve (12)foot through lane in each direction,_and a fourteen (14)foot painted two-way left turn median. iii. Restripe Graham Street northerly from Street"A"as directed by the Department of Public Works, to transition with a seven (7)foot bike lane in each direction, one eighteen (18)foot through lane in each direction, and a fourteen (14)foot painted two-way left turn median. A protected left turn pocket on Graham Street, (northbound to westbound)shall be provided with appropriate tapers in accordance with the design speed, (50 mph). Signage shalt,be added to the intersection of Graham Street and Kenilworth Circle to keep intersection clear. r. Internal public streets shall be designed and constructed as follows (PW): i. All street grades shall have a minimum gradient of 0.50%. ii. Street"A" ("Entry Street") shall be designed and constructed per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 104 modified, (56736'). A dedicated left turn lane and dedicated right turn lane (within 26'from median island to outer curb face)exiting onto Graham Street shall be provided. A 15-foot wide median island shall be constructed at the entry. No parking or driveway openings will be permitted on Street"A"from Graham Street to Street"D". iii. Street"B"shall be designed and constructed per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 104 modified (56'/36')with a 10-foot parkway on each side. iv. Streets"C"thru "M,"shall be designed and constructed per the City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan No. 104 Modified, (48736'). (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.11 V. Parking layout shall conform to City Standards and the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements, including Municipal Ordinance No. 10.40.050. Thirty (30) parking spaces shall be provided for park parking above the count required for residential lot guest parking. No on-street parking shall be permitted adjacent to emergency access areas in compliance with Fire Department Standard Specification 401 and 415. vi. Curb, gutter and sidewalk along all street frontages, per City Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207. vii. An ADA compliant access ramp at the corners of all.street intersections. s. Access for the handicapped in conformance with Title 24, shall be provided from the public sidewalk into the public park at the northerly and southerly ends. t. 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 be met. (MM) u. The developer shall design and install signing and striping plans in accordance with Public Works Standards. (PW) v. The Developer shall design and install Southern California Edison owned street lighting. The plan shall include the height, location, and intensity of streetlights on- site. Street light spacing shall be in conformance with City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan 411. (PW) w. A traffic signal shall be designed and constructed for the intersection of Street"A" and Graham Street. (MM) x. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval, for work within the City's right- of-way. (PW) y. A licensed engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis. This analysis shall provide detailed recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent existing structures, landscaping, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction requirements, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. Said report shall certify that post development ground water conditions shall not be affected or affect improvements. (Precise grading plan only). The developer shall provide a minimum of four(4) agricultural soil tests for fertility and suitability within the park area prior to developing a finish-grading plan. In addition, a geotechnical expert shall be on-site daily during dewatering to monitor soil conditions. (PW) Z. If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No. 431-92 and the conditions of approval. The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties; details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site; and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment. (PW) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.12 aa. Soil imported for park area shall be approved by the City Landscape Architect. The developer shall employ a soil test lab approved by the City Landscape Architect to obtain and test soils that are to be utilized in raising the grade of the proposed park area. After a topsoil source is approved, the developer shall guarantee that said soil is delivered to the site and used on the park. (PW) bb. For import soils, the project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) CC. Provide proof that all site soil meets the requirements found in the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard, City Specification No. 431-92. (FD) dd. The Fire Department must be notified of who will be the environmental site auditor supervising testing operations during soil import. The selected environmental firm is responsible for obtaining Fire Department approval for their testing plan. (FD) ee. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on Graham Street every 250 feet, and at Greenleaf Lane indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities,truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, City contact (Construction Manager(714) 536-5431) regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. (PW) ff. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. (PW) gg. The developer shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (PW/MM) hh. A grading/erosion control plan shall be completed and must abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control; and provide a plan to the Department of Public Works indicating such compliance. (PW) ii. Block wall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.13 the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. The new wall depicted along the northerly property line shall be removed; no new wall is necessary. jj. If grading occurs during the normal breeding season for the red-tailed hawk and other raptors locally, (March to July), a survey shall be conducted for active nests. Should active nests be located within the zone of potential disturbance due to grading or construction activities, work 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. (MM) kk. The property owner 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 though the mechanical excavation of a number of auger holes as well as two (2) 1x1 meter hand excavated units for stratigraphic control. The subsurface test investigation (including a 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. A cultural resource management plan based on the test results shall be developed. (MM) II. The property owner shall provide written evidence that a certified archaeologist has been retained and shall be present at the pre-grading meeting/conference, shall establish procedures for archaeological resource surveillance, and shall establish 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. (MM) mm. A bikeway plan shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach's Departments of Planning and Public Works, in consultation with the Manager of the County PFRD/HBP Program Management and Coordination, for approval of consistency with the Orange County Bikeway Plan. (MM) nn. 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 (MM): 1) Criteria of acceptable noise levels based on type and length of exposure to construction noise levels; 2) 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 3) Temporary generators (if utilized) shall be located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors. 4) Mitigation measures such as restrictions on the time of construction for activities resulting in high noise levels. oo. The applicant shall be responsible for the incorporation of measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion into the project grading permit. Measures, subject (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.14 to the approval and verification by the Department of Public Works, shall include, as appropriate (MM): 1) Provision of rideshare incentives. 2) Provision of transit incentives for construction personnel. 3) Configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference. 4) Measures to minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes. 5) Use of a flagman to guide traffic when deemed necessary. pp. The applicant shall produce evidence acceptable to the City Engineer that: (MM) 1) 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. 2) Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive noise receptors. 3) All operations shall comply with the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance. qq. The applicant shall produce evidence (specifications) acceptable to the City Engineer that the new walls, if constructed, along the project's 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. (MM) rr. The recommendations contained in Section 7.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of the EIR 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. (MM) ss. The applicant shall contract with a dewatering expert to prepare a detailed Dewatering Plan. This plan shall include the placement of monitoring wells 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. (MM) tt. A 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. (MM) uu. 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. (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.15 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. (MM) vv. The developer shall submit a hydraulic computer water model analysis for the development proposed on the City parcel, which addresses the following: 1) Water demand required by.project (fire flow demand as determined by the Fire Department) 2) Master Plan/General Plan Amendment (GPA) review 3) The City of Huntington Beach Water (Master Plan) System Computer Model (i.e. H2ONET) 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). 4) The City of Huntington Beach Water Division must be contracted to perform this analysis on the existing City of Huntington Beach Water System Model (H2ONET), 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. (MM) ww. 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: .1) Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low volume, low angle (22 %2 degree) sprinkler heads. 2) Drip irrigation 3) Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. 4) The use of reclaimed water for irrigated areas and grasslands. 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. 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and construction to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations and when leaving the site. 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; spread soil binders; and implement street sweeping as necessary. (MM) b. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (PW) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.16 c. During construction, the area shall be wet down in the late morning and after work is completed for the day(MM). d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose substances and building materials shall 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. (MM) e. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. Install vehicle wheel-washers before the roadway entrance at construction sites (MM) f. Where feasible, pervious paving materials shall be used to reduce surface water runoff. (MM) g. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (PW) h. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (PW) i. The remediation operations shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas. (PW) j. Comply with the "Water Quality Management Plan" requirements. (PW) k. Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly. Discovery of contaminated soil and/or abandoned oil wells require immediate fire department notification. All project processes in the immediate discovery area shall cease until approved plans are in place. (FD) I. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, maintain equipment engines in proper tune. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes (MM) m. Use low sulfur(0.05% by weight)fuel by weight for construction equipment (MM). n. Phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts (MM). o. A phased schedule for construction activities to minimize daily emissions shall be complied with. Treat unattended construction areas with water(disturbed lands which have been, or are expected to be unused for four or more consecutive days). Schedule activities to minimize the amount of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. p. The planting of vegetative ground cover as soon as possible on construction sites shall be required. Use vegetative stabilization, whenever possible, to control soil erosion from storm water especially on super pads (MM) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.17 q. On-site parking shall be provided for all construction workers and equipment unless approved otherwise by the Department of Public Works. (PW) r. Enclosures or chemical stabilization of open storage piles of sand, dirt, or other aggregate materials shall be required. (MM) s. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. Control off-road vehicle travel by posting driving speed limits on these roads, consistent with City standards. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators when practical. 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. (MM) t. Compliance with all Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (Code Requirement) u. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. v. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Department of Public Works. (PW) w. The property owner shall be responsible for paving all access aprons to the project site and for the maintenance of the paving. (MM) x. The property owner shall be responsible for incorporating measures to reduce construction related traffic congestion with the implementation of rideshare incentives, transit incentives, construction area parking, use of flagmen, and implementation of measures to minimize the obstruction of through traffic lanes, as deemed appropriate by Public Works. (MM) y. 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, project site plans depicting these requirements shall be, reviewed and approved by the Police Department. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15377 & 15419: 1. Tentative Map No. 15377 and 15419 shall be valid for two (2)years of the date of final approval which is from the time the Local Coastal Program Amendment for the area is deemed certified by the California Coastal Commission. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. (02c10924 Parkside TfM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.18 2. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 3. All applicable fees shall be paid from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments fees prior to map recordation. (PW) 4. All new and existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition, all electrical transformers shall be installed underground. Aboveground transformers may be allowed due to certain groundwater conditions and shall be approved by the City Engineer and City Landscape Architect. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-90/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated July 8, 2002 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. Lot No. 4 of TTM 15419 shall be deleted. b. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) c. Individual building site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City's Departments of Planning and Public Works. The final building layout shall be within the building envelope as depicted on the Building Envelope Plan. (MM) d. 25% of the minimum 60 foot wide lots must have side entry garages and/or garages located to the rear of the lot. e. Increase interior side yards (minimum 10')when adjacent to the rear yard of an adjoining lot. f. Stagger the front yard setback for garages (i.e., from two to four feet between all units) within the two subdivisions or develop another alternative to vary the street scene. g. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. h. If outdoor lighting is 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. (MM) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.19 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plans and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. (FD) c. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) d. To maintain required emergency access and site safety during project construction phases, submit a Fire Protection Plan in compliance with City Specification#426-Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) e. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with City Specification #401-Minimum Access for Fire Department Access. (FD) f. Fire hydrants must be installed and be in service before combustible construction begins. Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Fire Department. Indicate hydrant locations and fire department connections. The Fire Department and the Public Works Water Division have determined the number of fire hydrants for the 161 Lot Plan to be 14 and the 171 Lot Plan to be 15. (FD) g. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed throughout each unit. For Fire Department approval, plans shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits (FD). h. A fire alarm system in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Code is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be submitted to Building as separate plans for permits. The system shall provide water flow, tamper, and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, voice communication, and 24-hour central station monitoring. (FD) i. Street names must be approved by the Fire Department. Please refer to City Specification #409-Street Naming Process, Public or Private. (FD) j. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a Licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof.(BD) k. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.20 anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) I. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. m. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). n. The recommendations contained in Section 8.0 of the geotechnical study, located in Appendix E of the EIR, 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.(MM) o. It shall be proven to the City 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.(MM) p. 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 additional fire code requirements in addition to the automatic sprinkler systems, alarm systems, access roads, etc. (MM) 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits: a. Prior to the construction of infrastructure facilities incorporating Tract 15419, proof shall be shown from L.A.F.C.O., for approval of annexation of Tract 15419 into the City of Huntington Beach, subject to approvals from Departments of Planning and Public Works. b. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department; and.submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. c. A grading permit shall be issued. (PW) d. The final Tract Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange and a copy filed with the Planning Department. (PW/Code Requirement) e. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.21 Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The plan shall include all common areas, the proposed City Park, Graham Street setback area, and the paseo park. The paseo park along the north property line shall include intensified landscaping to further screen possible headlight intrusion. In addition, Lot"B" of TTM 15419 shall consist of non-invasive, native drought tolerant plant material without a permanent irrigation systems. (PW) f. The Consulting Arborist (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Existing trees to remain shall also be addressed by said Arborist with recommendations/requirements for protection during construction. Said Arborist report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements. The report shall include the Arborist's name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final plan. (PW) g. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Departments of Fire and Public Works. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. (PW) h. A copy of a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) removing the property(ies)from the floodplain shall be submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. Or submit a copy of completed FEMA Elevation Certificate(s) based on construction drawings, or Floodproofing Certificate in the case on a non-residential structure, for each building. i. The project applicant shall implement conditions of the Public Works Department regarding storm drainage improvements which shall include, but not be limited to (MM): 1) Construct the necessary storm drainage improvements (identified on Exhibit 42 within the EIR)to handle increased flows and intercept off-site flows 2) Ensure that future building pads are placed at elevations suitable to withstand 100- year flood. 3) Construct the necessary improvements to the East Garden Grove—Wintersburg Channel (C05) along the site perimeter k. 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. (MM) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.22 I. 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. (MM) m. The property owner 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. (MM) n. The Southern California Gas Company or designated natural gas provider shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. (MM) o. SCE shall be consulted with during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. (MM) 4. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed. (PW) b. Landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of Record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. Installation of required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be completed. (PW) c. 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. (MM) d. The public park shall be completed other than the one year maintenance period at the request of 50% occupancy (or by the 95th home Certificate of Occupancy). (PW) e. All public infrastructure must be completed per the approved plans. (PW) f. All improvements must be completed per the approved grading plans. (PW) g. The applicant shall be responsible for improving Graham Street in accordance with the approved signing and striping plan. (PW/MM) h. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City-approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. (PW) i. Applicant shall provide the City with Microfilm copies (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work. Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record. (PW) (02c10924 Parkside TfM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.23 j. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) k. Fire hydrants must be installed before combustible construction begins. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (Fire Dept. City Specification 407) (FD) I. Backflow protection shall be constructed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standards Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. m. Address numbers shall be installed on structures to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification 428. (FD) n. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured with KNOX and association (if any) hardware. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with Fire Dept. City Specification No. 415. (FD) o. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained per City Specification #415-Fire Lane Signs. If prior to approved signage fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant may be liable for related expenses. (FD) p. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality. Management District and submit a copy to Planning Department. . q. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. r. 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. s. A second Elevation Certificate certifying the "as built" lowest floor for each building shall be submitted to the Planning Department, or a Letter of Map Revision shall be issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and submitted to the Planning Department. (Code Requirement) t. All drainage, pump station and channel improvements consistent with the facilities identified in the FEMA CLOMR, dated June 6, 2002, shall be completed in place and operational. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA shall be obtained by the developer following completion of the improvements. (PW) u. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with Fire Dept. City Specification 401. Include the Circulation Plan and dimensions of all access roads. v. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Fire Dept. City Specification 422, Well Abandonment. w. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and Fire Dept. City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.24 x. 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.(MM) y. Testing to verify the estimated radon gas levels shall be implemented as deemed necessary by the Department of Planning(MM) z. The following water conservation measures shall be implemented as required by state law: 1) Ultra-low-flush toilets 2) Ultra-low-flow showers and faucets 3) Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems 4) Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code (MM) aa. Water pressure regulators to limit downstream pressure to a maximum of 60 psi shall be installed. (MM) bb.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. (MM) cc. The development shall comply with all applicable Mitigation Measures in Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 and New Alternatives to EIR No. 97-2. 5. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 6. Prior to finalization of the Tract or exoneration of the Guarantee Bond, maintenance for the City Park (Lot A) shall.be for a period of 12 months after the 90-day plant establishment period The Park may open at the beginning of maintenance period. (PW) 7. Service roads and fire access lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posted, marked, and maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) 8. A public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the Parkside Estates residential project. Public art shall incorporate the following: a) Artistic excellence and innovation b) Appropriate to the design of the project c) Indicative of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, society) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.25 The public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Planning Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of any building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. 9. This TTM and CUP and CDP shall not become effective until GPA 98-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A& 5B, and LCPA No. 96-4 has been approved by the City Council, and California Coastal Commission, and is in effect. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 2. Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 3. All applicable fees from the Building, Public Works, and Fire Departments shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 4. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$43.00 for the posting of the Notice of ExDetermination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 5. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 6. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 7. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 8. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 9. The development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) (02c10924 Parkside TTM CUP CDP) Attachment 1.26 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVE' that on Mondax n�121, 2002, at,7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Be�ah;ZFe cr y Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-5A & 96-5B. LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-4 AND ANNEXATION NO. 98-1 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea Homes Request: GPA: To redesignate 2.8 acres of RL-7 (Residential Low Density) property to OS-P (Open Space-Park); to designate approximately 1.5 acres of the unincorporated. parcel as RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.0 acres of the unincorporated parcel' as OS-C (Open Space-Conservation); and to amend the Public Facilities Element by removing the fire station designation on the subject site. ZMA: A) To rezoneapproximately 40 acres of property to add a CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay) to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential - Floodplain Overlay) designation, and rezone-approximately 8:2 acres from RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture - PROOF OF PUBLICATION coastal Zone) and Rener to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space - Parks and Recreation - Coastal Zone) consistent with the General Plan; B To rezone approximately 1,5 acres of the unincorporated parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.0 acres of theunincorporated parcel to OS-C (Open Space Conservation). LCPA: To amend the City's Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances in accordance with the GPA and ZMA and forward to the STATE OF CALIFORNIA) California Coastal Commission for certification. ANNEXATION:Annexation of approximately 4.5 acres into the City from the County of Orange. Location: 17301 Graham Street (west side of Graham Street,south of Warner Avenue,adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channep;and APPEAL OF THE PLANNING.COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SS. NO. 97-2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 15377 (CITY) AND 15419 (COUNTY). CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.96-90 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.96-18(PARKSIDE ESTATES):Applicant: County of Orange Shea Homes Appellant: Debbie Cook, Mayor for the City of Huntington Beach Request: Appeal of ) the Planning Commission's approval of the following:.EIR: Certification of EIR No. 97-2 which e analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project.TTM: To subdivide approximately 45 acres into 162 residential lots (City), and to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 9 residential lots(County).CUP:To develop 171 single-family residential units, including creation of property development standards for dual-product lot sizes, associated am a Citizen of the United States and a infrastructure improvements, 8.2 acres of park improvements, proposed retaining walls with heights resident Of the of greater than two (2) feet, and develop on a property with a grade differential of greater than County aforesaid; I am three (3) feet between low and high points on the property. CDP: To permit subdivision and over the age of eighteen years, and not a development of the site and associated infrastructure improvements pursuant to the TTM and CUP. Location: 17301 Graham Stre2qf (West side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent party to or interested In the below to the thBroeren, Flood Control Channel). Project Planners: Scott Hess, Planning Manager, and Mary Beth S HERn,Principal Planner NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No: 1 which includes.Coastal Development Permit�No. 96-18 entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of filed on October 8, 1996, is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and an Area of Deferred Certification of the Coastal Zone. Final action is conditional upon the California the H UNTI NGTON B Coastal Commission certifying Local Coastal Program Amendment No.96-4. EACH INDEPENDENT, a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, news of general circulation, printed public hearing, city Council discussion and action. City Council action on Item newspaper 1 may I`" p appealed to the California Coastal Commission within ten (10) working days from o the date of and published In the City of Huntin On receipt of the notice of final City action by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Beach, County of Orange State Qf Code is applicable. The California Coastal Commission address is South Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate,10th Floor,Long Beach,CA 90802-4302,phone number:(310)570-5071. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental Impact Report No.97-2 for Item No. 1 was processed California, and that attached Notice Is a and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It'was determined that true and complete copy as was printed Item No. 1 could have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, an environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report`is on file at the City of Huntington Beach and published In the Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. and Fountain Valley Issues of said CaliforniaON FILE: A copy the proposed request is ti staff file in the City Clerk's Office, Main Street, ON Beach, C 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Friday,October-18,2002. newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing, If there are any further questions please call the Planning'Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach October 10 2002 2000 Maio-Street,2nd Floor,Huntington Beach California 92648(714)536-S227 Published Huntington Beach Independent October 10,2002 102-202 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 10 , 2002 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature j f r NOTICE-OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 96-5A & 96-513 LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 96-4 AND ANNEXATION NO. 98-1 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea Homes Request: GPA: To redesignate 2.8 acres of RL-7 (Residential Low Density) property to OS-P (Open Space-Park); to designate approximately 1.5 acres of the unincorporated parcel as RL- 7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately 3.0 acres of the unincorporated parcel as OS-C (Open Space-Conservation); and to amend the Pubiic Fauiii ies Elea Lent uy removing the fire station designation on the subject site. ZMA: A) To rezone approximately 40 acres of property to add a CZ (Coastal Zone Overlay) to the existing RL-FP2 (Low Density Residential—Floodplain Overlay) designation, and rezone approximately 8.2 acres from RA-CZ (Residential Agriculture—Coastal Zone) and RL- FP2 to OS-PR-CZ (Open Space— Parks and Recreation —Coastal Zone) consistent with the General Plan; B) To prezone approximately 1.5 acres of the unincorporated parcel to RL-7 (Residential Low Density), and approximately.3.0 acres of the unincorporated parcel to OS-C (Open Space Conservation). LCPA: To amend the City's Local Coastal Program's Land Use Plan and implementing ordinances in accordance with the GPA and ZMA and forward to the California Coastal Commission for certification. ANNEXATION: Annexation of approximately 4.5 acres into the City from the County of Orange. Location: 17301 Graham Street (west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel); and APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) NO. 97-2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOS. 15377 (CITY)AND 15419 (COUNTY), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-90 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 96-18 (PARKSIDE ESTATES): Applicant: Shea H�+ as pe lant• Dehhio r`^^tt Flavor for the City of Huntinntnt? �oqr h RQCI(IP.St' .,r„„.� , per...,.,,Y.. ,,,, ., Appeal_of the Planning Commission's approval of the following: EIR: Certification of EIR No. 97-2 which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. TTM: To subdivide approximately 45 acres into 162 residential lots (City), and to subdivide approximately 4.5 acres into 9 residential lots (County). CUP: To develop 171 single-family residential units, including creation of property development standards for dual-product lot sizes, associated infrastructure improvements, 8.2 acres of park improvements, proposed retaining walls with heights of greater than two (2) feet, and develop on a property with a grade differential of greater than three (3) feet between low and high points on the property. CDP: To permit subdivision and development of the site and associated infrastructure improvements pursuant to the TTM and CUP. Location: 17301 Graham Street (west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue, adjacent to the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel). Project Planners: Scott Hess, Planning Manager, and Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item No. 1 which includes Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18 filed on October 8, 1996, is located within the appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and an Area of Deferred Certification of the Coastal Zone. Final action is conditional upon the California Coastal Commission certifying Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96- 4. . . 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion and action. City Council action on Item No. 1 may be appealed to the California Coastal Commission within ten (10)working days from the date of receipt of the notice of final City action by the California Coastal Commission pursuant to Section 245.32 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Section 13110 of the California Code of Regulations, or unless Title 14, Section 13573 of the California Administrative Code is applicable. The California Coastal Commission address is South.Coast Area Office, 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90802-4302, phone number: (310) 570-5071. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for Item No. 1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item No. 1 could have a significant environmental effect and, therefore, an environmental impact report is warranted. The environmental impact report is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536- 5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request.is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Friday, October 18, 2002. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at(714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written c:ommunirations to the City Clerk. __ Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk f � P.O. Box 190 1 1) lj Huntington Beach CA 92648 .Aa UCT 1 ' _ , _` I t,",ET1"�:;.i: , n ��hSINGTpy \ O� �"roVr B 939 543 40 822 F9� Rickie Hulsey 16631 Tunstall Ln #2 Huntington Beach CA 92647 C��LOTf��=-PUBLI-C:HEARING } �; '$�.�6'�A�'R"'4'Q1'�`� 3 5 i l�ll}Fi{II!!IIl1311tI�fllil�i31lI11lIt113�11!l�illilltllFtli�l Z Connie Brockway, City Clerk T�() City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 U'J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 163 281 02 547 �pNSINGTp�, FIRST FED BAN.X CAL MCI 4087 GLENCOE AVE MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 CP cppNJI LEGAL NOTICE -&qkj�,�IW 11 11 1 1 if I I I I I I Ili I I I it I I I I I I I I I if I I 111 ill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk Tl� P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ING; 16325215 468- Mih3ilo Krq-,iph C.2 KRA5L521 9�16491024 1501 14 10/145/092 FORWARD J'IME EXP RTN TO SEND KRASICH 18642 PARK GLEN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92640 -6ZOE; LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk C�; IN City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 c C T o C 11 L; Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ING Kim Kennedy 122 9th Street, Apt. D Huntington Beach CA 92648 KENNI=2a 9�26481014 1901 14 10/10/02 FORWARD TIME t=XP 1-(TN 1*0 6END KENNEDY' KIMBERLY ANN 84 HULME c*r &E STANFORD CA 9430S-740EY N I LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HF,A Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 'j"fj 0 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 ocl i o? Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z 11 �vl Filr 163 112 05 283 Charles Vershaw ING 1321 Denise Ct Brea CA 92821 VERS321 9ROR110a7 1601 07 10/16/042 ca, FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND VERSHAW 17a REPOSADO DR LA HABRA HEIGHTS CA 90631-7826 N I ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC KARIN4 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I i N11 LTF R ro ING; 8 ST1 OFF PO BO SUNSET BEACH CA 90742 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING is Its 91 pill lifil fill$M 1.21 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Fid Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 11 oc-I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 f 0- 0 ING Joseph Racano 301 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 T I r- i UK t4 0 S E "T O SEND- -A NTI Ca a LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEA R Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 03 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ING L3 282 15 10 'OCCUPANT --- C.3y 4892 SEARIDGE CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA co o 92649 T Q 5Q E ",--0,Ul3LI0tA TY - RING AL-N OTJQ� - i i li I l ilifillIIllsIliI111I IddilfillJi11ifIll-1IfIfIIllIIIIl Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 J Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C) ING; 163 282 14 o PONA III-QCCUPANT 4896 SEARIDGE CIR C-0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 PUBLIC HEA LEG Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk n 7 " P.O. -fI ICO2 'nO. Box 190 -4: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 H E PA T CR 41 T11/0 2�ss I NGTpy 939 542 84 766 Paresh Gajjar C4 5101 Tortuga Dr#105 Huntington Beach CA 92649 U F-.,,E T t R' LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARIN V!-,I c 11,01111 if 1 1111 It I-fili II 1III!j 11,11 111 111[tit fIIIIIIIIIiIIIII11- i)nnie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 n -3f r (,unti gton Beach, CA 92648 ETER-'I C, ��NSINGTOy 939 541 78 PO,14 660 Rachana Sar 1048 Irvine Ave#274 Newport Beach CA 92660 LEGAL NOTICE- PUB HEARING -ckway, City Clerk intin ton Beach the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 _ V r iNGT / 163 045 10 Oy ff0�„Fo 6F Robert Joseph Allen 183 17232 Greenleaf Ln Huntington Beach CA 92649 __.mac__.._:�+.�:..aw.�:�._.--c-_..._._.� -.�.—.•�'—.,n_-, -,:.— - .. _---_- _..w_�..� — "'---_�_�; RETIJP� '— - . ft �:rc. - - 1 t�iETUrt, '»a• �,: '� � � ^-.�- � L_-:-�,_.. fTY SENDS-f-,.. :4_ -_. TO- SENDEr�° `� at`o c LEG&N.OTICE� PU LCREARING S'%i � ' i.•-j.):.} � 1�f�f flitf�fllfsflffl�ef�il rfffff�(Iflitllf tfl't�tf�3fifef�tli - �_--_, :)ckway, City Clerk ,_..., a untington Beach J the City Clerk �'� I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 � f.. N Y� it [�f�1 L •y'J ._ _ d l f INGTO,y 3RP0441, �!,9 939 541 64 646 y Timothy Walker ^ WALK071 926491008 1502 08 11/04/02 Z RETURN TO SENDER WALKER MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNASLETO__FOR_ WARD___ NTY Ca LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING �h�J�.1�T�+ �•+� i'�llfFti�llk��ftflt3if1112Jllflttt��ll�fllllitll�illlllttl�F�� )ckway, City Clerk untington Beach f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 H 16311106 276 Leland Hou 40767 Ondina PI Fremont CA 94539 >wro.„fo der NIS HOU-76y 94SB97a21 1901 21 101251OR FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND HOU 1060 SOLANO AVE &702 ALBANY CA 94706-1681 NTI LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING of the City Clerk--------------- r! -"J 0. Box 190 2- 1 Beach, CA 92648 H M'71 Z27-P 939 542 59 741 Robert Chang 4682 Warner Ave#C216 Huntington Beach CA 92649 E N W R N RE TUR, 0 S-ENDER TO SENDER�F ATI PUB IC HEARING AS ADDRE-S`;-`-m1D rockway, City Clerk -luntington Beach of the City Clerk O. Box 190 4 n Beach, CA 92648 2 ING 163 123 11 362 OCCUPANT 5102-D DUNBAR HUNTINGTON BEAjH--CA--92Q49--------- ITO CrIJ Connie Brockway, City Clerk ��'�(CS`�Q_e. ��f.A C City of Huntington Beach C— A �. .. Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 , 111 .,.; =. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 pp pp^^ INGtOy 163.27201 542 d `'�to"��''�`�Fy�, RUTH F FEERER 8272 SEAPORT DR -�- HUNTINGTON BEACH �•,�ry 9, - �-.�► Q ...n:,.�a,,r.,.,. _ --__.._..__ . . -n.-.{{ryry 9 2,r Bra F ppNTV ��` TO 1 r^a/~ Ttl LEG k 011 ,;;� BLIC,H N0 U . NG •)l f i 1 1" 11 11! lli l I' i ! II 1 �i�•��:`�.':.':.~'..' t sets t si?�sss et is s ststts s is istt s st stets t Connie Brockway, City Clerk '� ,, j �:S City of Huntington Beach t PPS t A LW/c> '' Office of the City Clerk Q.O. Box 190 >� is OCT 6'Cl 11' 1 r�/ (�y� :�—., SONOEII �'.� k I Ii�C �..��DP�. . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 200? R-.Yg :sr.r ❑ H WAS.LEFT W mas SA ❑NOT DELIVERABLE AS AOD %E0 U -NOT N EO N01 KNOWN ❑UNCLAIMED❑REFUSED (71 NO SUCH STIM.NIIAIBER 0 DO NOT REMAR•IN ENV� ❑INSUFFICIENT AI RM �NTINGTp 0 NO MW RECEPTACLE 16312310 36 _ axCLSEDNOO TIQk � AFELD INV E NT INC,„ PO oAN\� B \ t `' er e CA 92266 co cppNTY ca` LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING onnie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach _T 0 A,1 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 n Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �VNTING 4 16313126 383 CABO DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS AS 1176 Main St T U R t e_1 Irvine CA 92614 RFTURN c�NNT1Ca 10 S1. if- [T' O hpT I-CE G IF W 0 6 0 R 0,L: F Wrk LIC HEARING T ls is1111111il IV ttttttr Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach p m Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 u) 11 CC) i'? LI/ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 F1 M NA,CT E 4 939 543 18 800 Jerrold Collier 5145 Tortuga Dr#i 11 Huntington Beach CA 92649 R.P TU RETUW Rh TO SEl"'g-P, LEGAL NOTICE- PU 3UDHEARING', :)c,lmay, 6ity Clerk untington Beach � )f the City Clerk e FD I Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 H M E IT 0k ) t No F0,q RAS �Ne.4 WA;jDFA-c Seb,837 $.COTT F ftWND 3'310-9,—CREST -DF, MANHATTAN -BREACH' 90266 LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING I f I I I I I i I I I I f f I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 11'IT! !!hJTT 01 THIS Ic' P J 0 A L��N'�" 'L' , , I - -, A S P E C"IfF!'C' -,I ''.1. 1� U N,D LE L 1 V E R m6L EL R C' i u,:,14 T 0 163 123 06 356 Rubin Nichols 5052 Dunbar Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 U r�,vT ca�y=— i6A),NOTICE— PUBLIC HEM. R.G -11 list I]Is IL111111111 I I flifilill f!'Jill 111111HIIII, A L _,_, -17 R;�fl�------Id. is — F llu-I C Wi )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach f the City Clerk 7, r. Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 Ok Z t7 Wj 163041 10 126 t Robert Hanki ?r I Z ANG 2130 Main t#140 e c ' ' 4P I rAP 0 Huntin n Beach CA 92648 ockway, City Clerk iunfingto�Beach )f Mle City Clerk Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 a b �� r I U to-1,4 939 543 -91 OCCUPANT 5096 TORTUGA DR #112 HUNTINGTON BEAqH- 92649 T 0 S NO Ek, T 0 S EN'Q MTN '% LE -NOTICE PUBLIC HE ING untington Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 Beach, CA 92648 )OD 01 ) 939 541 94 676 G Scott Cameron 17172 Abaione Ln#207 Huntington Beach CA 92649 -ETURN RETU" T'I s L F i I TINerr X X LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEA NG' lit J%orlway, %.OILY ,untington Beach )f the City Clerk Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 N IND .000, �2V 939 543 42 OCCUPANT 17202 CORBINA LIN #111 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 RE MTN .1TO S� LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HIARIM-4 rockway, City Clerk -luntingtdn Beach - ..,T err : a : r� of the City Clerk O. Box 190 n Beach, CA 92648 eGAn JIN6Tp 939 543 06 �f'� OCCUPANT 5145 TORTUGA DR #2 0 3 y HUNTINGTON BEACH CA _ 92649 - -_ t/ �N.►p �Q il±_ 1 u fi H�..,,-���- �NTY LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC i i i 1 i' ! j 1 RR )ckway, City Clerk intington Beach '��o AT C r W Wi f the City Clerk ). Box 190 Beach,CA 92648 HN ; :? t � 939 542 01 OCCUPANT ING" 17172 ABALONE LN #210 >wro.,,fo dF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 9y 92649 L�I TvLEGAL NOTICE— PUBLIC HE ^l ?;,raiIi . ! S!?.'•d':......li?4?.?i??ii?..91 ??3??l::i luntington Beach • �.T�,� )f the City Clerk `` D. Box 190 i Beach, CA 92648 (I N6Tpy A 163 123 02 352 Fu & Lily Yeh 6071 Manorfield Dr �„�--� Huntington Beach CA 92F48 _ d od way, City Clerk luntington Beach )f the City Clerk ` �� ) I Box 190 � � ; J? r; �' . - • i i Beach, CA 92648 rI rl- 9939 542 50 OCCUPANT AXM4410 F 17151 CORBINA LN #211 j � 9y HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 z's NTY c r cGALI�D�TI,CE- P =C HEARING l� �.7 1} :i.i H 11'tt � F• >._- '"� .T _ -�•�� '=� ii 'i!E{1f!!Iii7 F!i£!�i Ei!i •ifi�iitlEi itiE!iiiiiii!1 i Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach" Office of the City Clerk l i, ' 0-11 ro P.O. Box 190 (J Huntington Beach,CA 92648 �'C WIH, CA N I- Hut NIETER4 dr, znz OCT 2 U A !0: /U O ING?- 93954187 669 4PO44, Allan Fish 17172 Abalone Ln #204 Huntington Beach CA 92649 EN D[E64 NOTICE PUBLIC ' !I . , 0 RD 1-': - 1111 It I I)IIIIII fill I 111I)IIII III lifflill Ili),)If lifillil Ild d) fl ". Connie Brockway, City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach V a Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ,.,7 U tl.�' CA Zug 2o 120' Al I N G 0 163 131 24 382 -ALTIC PROPERTIES tLC C.3 908 E CYPRESS ST --ANA-H'ETM"FA 92805 ' F Ll RE TH IND, P) S E LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HW.K i 47 111'1 A I Jill If Ili If fill lifflill Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk zi T P.O.. Box 190 CIC j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7- 1 12320 CCUPANT 5132-D DUNBAR ti HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 Rt- T0 I D L IR 0-1 TY r) LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING �A! L Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk C '11'�J2 P.O. Box 190 , U'1 ��� =:%�Z4 t.; '_°,1• Huntington Beach,CA 92648 :{ 1 93954 4 Y ~:�. INGtOy DONNA OZI a0 _•_ 4r o F9 PO BOX 4 HUNTINGTO l EAC1H 9,a6 : 9' LAC ; � . .NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARIR Ji • .f% �i yy yy '� .i�51 .3�'T3'� 14?ti fi :t?1 :t. t it?i Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have 'ewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside E tes Signature: project and req at the City Council ve the project. The benefits of this pro) , u arly the flood control Address: 1 SZ �,�11�C,C .�1 H.B. improvements and re ng elimination or r 1 of required floo " surance, lead me to support the project. Phone: i Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr $ Mrs Ronald 5 Candipan a 7W P L,WS Or Current Resident 17452 Hi l lgate Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4707 �L� to TO w' G-r- 1 Wpm n-0V139 HB10464 -Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address Q H.B. improvements and resulting eliminaq*o4 or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Robert G Atkins ®-� or Current Resident 5612 Ridgebury Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4828 ' i YL S HB10496 Marty Annenberg 17152 Camelot Circle CA Huntington Beach, CA UAW 2 1 P 12: 17 October 16, 2002 City Of Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: The proposed Shea Homes development, at the west side of Graham Street, south of Warner Avenue. The homes in this new tract are going to be built on filled, built up land, with the lots elevated from 3 feet to 9 feet above the present elevations of the land. This puts this tract at a considerably higher elevation than the tract just to the north of it, tract 5792, the Prestige Homes tract just south of Warner Avenue. Because of this higher elevation of the Shea Homes tract, in a heavy rainstorm, rainwater will drain from the Shea Homes tract into the Prestige Homes tract, and could cause severe flooding in the homes of the Prestige Homes tract, especially when the flood control channel is filled up with water from upstream. As one of the original homeowners in the Prestige Homes tract, I have lived at 17152 Camelot Circle for 36 years. I am worried that my house may get flooded and severely damaged due to rainwater from the Shea Homes tract flooding the Prestige Homes tract. The homeowners of the Prestige Homes tract will hold the City Council Of Huntington Beach responsible for damage to our homes caused by such flooding from the Shea Homes tract, and a lawsuit against the City would be our recourse to get compensation for our damages. Therefore, I urge the City Council not to approve the Shea Homes tract at the higher built up elevation. The Shea Homes tract should be built at elevations no higher than the Prestige Homes tract to avoid the flooding that could occur to the Prestige Homes tract. --T Marty Annenberg 0-1 17152 Camelot Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ��S C) PPZs6a f1 ►/� CA 1002 OCT 21 a 9. i h v -' �1. 2002 L A N D T R U S T October 15,2002 City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 PAX 714-536-5233 Subject: SHEA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT—EIR 97-2 Dear City Council Members: As you know,the Bolsa Chica Land Trust's mission is to acquire and preserve all of the remaining open space at the Bolsa Chica for the benefit of future generations. The decision to approve or disapprove development of the Shea Property will be before you soon. The Bolsa Chica Land Trust strongly encourages you to withhold approval because of the many faults with the project's environmental impact assessment. The primary objection to the proposed development is that the Shea Property should be classified as a wetland Despite the developer's assertions and any regulatory definitions,the fact remains that the Shea property used to be and should once again be designated as wetland. This land experiences prolonged pondmg of water during the rainy season. The EIR for the project even admits that the water table is shallow and calls for dewatenng before grading can begin. project approval will inhibit the ability for the City and its neighbors to consider the viability of the property as a constructed wetland for treatment of urban runoff from the Wintersburg Channel. There is sufficient question concerning the wetland aspects of the project to deny its approval on this basis alone. Other issues with the EIR include that traffic studies are done with outdated data. New traffic studies need to be done. The plan is also faulted with respect to handling of runoff from the property as well insufficient evaluation of potential flooding impacts to neighboring areas. As an organization that is dedicated to not only the Bolsa Chica but to the integrated and related whole of Huntington Beach, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust urges the City Council to not approve the Shea project that is before you. Appropriate evaluation of the EIR to correct its deficiencies,and to allow for reasonable evaluation of alternatives to the current and faulted project should be your number one basis for consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Evan C.Henry C C-Lt f'v ri UCAY ,9 1�t President C Y464 ne 59011NARNER AVENUE #1 3 0 ,Con fi �� ofno,.1 S f a HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649-4659 - PHONE 714-960-9939 www.boisachicalandtrust.org _i!` w• Yi lei , + At A Glance *c �' same density as neighbors 0 8.2 acres of new public ..and sewer infrastructure ° - 0 Over$8 million in new flood ff �' *New Class A bike trail Plus -when completed, flood insurance premiums will be eliminated or reduced —51atr=r'Asenu • • • • • • • Description of Flood Control Improvements Shea Homes is proposing to install the following • • • flood control infrastructure at its own expense upon .• . .• • • the approval of Parkside Estates: _ • • • • Increasing the capacity of the Wintersburg flood • • . • . • • channel by installing new steel levee barriers • • . . 40 percent increase in capacity of the Slater pump station • • • • New and expanded storm drain system. • • • • These improvements will reduce flooding that • • • currently occurs in nearby tracts - and reduce • • or eliminate mandatory flood insurance for •, r• •• • • • • approximately 7,000 homes and businesses in • . • • • • Huntington Beach. W e a.�sc,_ ree �.► St.�.6kovr.a,�`�.vel ►-no..v\��,R; — �`A t,o� v� - 1�- -3� ' pry per� OU.r r1tL4lw $ , EDINGER AVE U A v.000) n.02m s.0e �' ��, 0 Y 4 8 c�YV'2��N�G 1�.wpld 1 115 (1.62) 111.11) (16.37) J 20 WARNER AVE.2 �� �, .A Ez.aa, Es.ao NOTE: s _\\ C` SLATER AVE suRVEr DATUM NGYD n MSL I\ �444 \\ � LEGEND ROOD AREA WED ON FEA41 moo APPROXIMATE' La7.B01 ` FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY(4W ACRES) FLOOD ARFA BASED ON SHEA HOMES 2002'DETAILED' '^�L\ � \\ HOOD INSURANCE STUDY AND FEW CLOMR(Z410 ACRES) CLf \ THIS AREA 5 STILL SUBJECT TO FLOOD INSURANCE BUT THE 1L J BASE ROOD ELEVATION(off)WILL BE REDUCED AS A RESULT OC& \\\ OF IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED AS A PART OF SHEA HOMES DEVELOPMWr 1QVel AREA REMOVED FROM FEW ROOD AREA BASED ON SHEA HOMES 2001 Q-re U 9 7 'DETAILED'ROOD INSURANCE STUDY AND FEMA CLOW(1430 ACRES) \� i/,(f,((/ All IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE INSTALLED PER THIS aOA4R FOR THESE 'B \ ff BASE ROOD ELEVATIONS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE \\\ 868 ' O AREAS MORE ADCCDED TO FEW 11RATF MAPPING FLOOD AREA DUE TO � '+ CL. B FROM INSTALLATION S ARE THE m02 BASF FLOOD ELEVATION WHICH WILL RFSUIT (B.00) FROM EDBYSHAOF ES DEVELOPMENT DRAIN LMPROVFMENTS TO BE � Z PROVIDED BY SHEA HOMES DEVELOPMENT e I W PREPARED BY. PREPARED FOR: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES VV � 1 N C Sh oae.a o umw aew s NG . E AIRVEYINC w�a ab in tuu y i �I' Thee f4EMi.Me, U9nN. Pt M9156YW. fG EfMl 4)NH v.wa.....n+..'nu iw naIMi m.iW \ I CERTIFIED TOPOGRAPHIC WORKMAP �+ (PER CLOMR APPLICATION) 0. 1 E77iI L lal cul-opo-mop.tlwp Broeren, Mary Beth From: Steve Rynas [sryna4coastal.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 1,8, 2002 3:43 PM To: Mary Beth Broeren (E-mail) Cc: Teresa Henry;Janna Shackeroff; Deborah Lee Subject: Huntington Beach City Council Meeting -October 21, 2002 Letter: Parkside Estates Exhibit6.pdf Exhibit5.pdf Exhibit7.pdf Exhibit4.PDF Exhibit2.pdf ExhibitIpdf Letter to Cit... k Exhibitl.pdf <<Parkside Estates Letter to City Council 10.18.02 FInal.pdf>> <<Exhibit6.pdf>> <<Exhibit5.pdf>> <<Exhibit7.pdf>> <<EXhibit4.PDF>> <<Exhibit2.pdf>> Attached is our letter to be forwarded to the City Council when it hears the Parkside Estates Project on Monday, Oct. 21st. The main letter is the one that starts with "Parkside" the remainder are exhibits. Stephen Rynas <<Exhibit3.pdf>> <<Exhibitl.pdf>> Supervisor, Regulation and Planning Orange County California Coastal Commission - 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4302 ^` { c7.3 http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ - ' - c rY > r,^, C" D/ 1 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY- GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 October 18, 2002 To: Members of the Huntington Beach City Council From: 'Teresa Henry,California Coastal Commission, Long Beach District Manager Steve Rynas, California Coastal Commission, Orange County Coastal Programs Supervisor Janna Shackeroff, California Coastal Commission, Water Quality Unit RE: Water Quality issues in the Parkside Estates EIR(97-2) Introduction California Coastal Commission staff appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Huntington Beach City Council about Parkside Estates (Shea Homes, Final EIR 97- 2). In early September, the Coastal Commission water quality staff raised several major problem areas in the water quality analysis of the Final EIR, and we have had numerous discussions and correspondences with City staff regarding our concerns. Although the City has certified the EIR as adequate, we continue to maintain that the water quality analyses in the Parkside Estates EIR have significant problems. This letter outlines the key water quality issues that remain. A. Discussion of whether State and Federal Water Quality Requirements, ``by definition, preclude a project from further degrading water quality."' Coastal Commission and City staffs have been discussing the merits of the Rivertech Inc. water quality reports,(1998 and 2002), as well as their role in the water quality discussions of the EIR. City staff stated: "These reports were not used to support the EIR's findings of insignificant impact. The April 1998 Draft EIR concluded that water quality impacts of the project would be less than significant because the project would be required, per Drainage/Hydrology.Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, to comply with federal and state water quality requirements.... In other words, the NPDES and WQMP standards/requirements, by definition, preclude a project from further degrading water quality.... Though City staff maintains compliance with NPDES and:CWA requirements will prevent the project from degrading water quality, the staff does not acknowledge the limitations of these requirements. The requirements of the Clean Water Act and its 1 From Memorandum from Mary Beth Broeren to Huntington Beach Planning Commission, September 24, 2002, regarding water quality issues raised by California Coastal Commission staff. 2 From Memorandum from Mary Beth Broeren to Huntington Beach Planning Commission, September 24, 2002, regarding'water quality issues raised by California Coastal Commission staff. Members of the,Huntington Beach City Council 2 October 18, 2002 state law analogue do not necessarily preclude a development from causing some degradation of water quality. Provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA) do protect against degradation of water quality, but certain exceptions to the anti-degradation rules do exist. CWA Section 303 (Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans) establishes the anti-degradation policy, which generally requires state water quality standards to "be sufficient to maintain existing beneficial uses of navigable waters, preventing their further degradation."3 However, the anti-degradation provisions-of the CWA do not prevent all degradation.4 Thus, while a Water Quality Management Plan designed with respect to CWA requirements may adequate to protect water quality, the provisions in the regulations do not necessarily preclude any further degradation. Moreover, the heart of the CWA's system for ensuring maintenance of adequate ambient water quality is the Total Maximum Daily Load("TMDL") program,5 which has not yet been implemented in this area. Far more advanced than the TMDL program is the permitting program under the CWA, known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES")program, which incorporates information from the TMDL program. However, beyond their initial construction, residential subdivisions are not directly regulated by the NPDES program. Other than certain prohibitions on specific types of pollution, the Municipal Stormwater permits that will be issued under the NPDES program are the only state or federal water quality permits of which we are awarethat will even indirectly apply to Parkside Estate's long-term management of water quality. Those municipal stormwater permits regulate runoff only as it is eventually discharged from a municipal storm sewer. Such discharges must be controlled to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent practicable" ("MEP"),6 b'ut it is important to note that the MEP standard is a technology-based standard that does not necessarily preclude further degradation. In fact, the courts have specifically held that municipal stormwater permits need not comply with the mandates of CWA section 301(b)(1)(C) (requiring that, in addition to technology-based standards, there be achieved "any more stringent limitation, including those necessaryto meet water quality standards").' A development meeting the MEP standard can still, by definition, degrade water quality. Therefore, CWA and its NPDES statues do not preclude water quality impacts and it is still necessary to analyze and describe potential impacts,mitigation measures, and alternatives in an EIR document. EIRs routinely evaluate potential water quality impacts, suites of Best Management Practices, as well as the potential impacts of those 3 PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't,of Ecology,51'1 U.S. 700, 705, 718, 114 S. Ct. 1900, 1906, 1912 (1994), citin 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(B);40 C.F.R. §§ 131.6 and 131.12 (1993). 4 See,e.g.,40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(1) (". . . the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained. : ." (emphasis added))and§ 131.12(a)(2) (providing a means by which states may allow some amount of degradation). 5 See 33 U.S.C. §,1313(d). s 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B). Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159(9t" Cir. 1999); 33 U.S.C.§ 1311(b)(1)(C). . Members of the Huntington Beach City Council 3 October 18, 2002 BMPs; and EIRs engage in this discussion in addition to recognizing the project will eventually be subject to other state and federal requirements. The Lead Agency has the responsibility of ensuring the EIR evaluates impacts and describes alternatives to avoid impacts caused by the development. Parkside Estates EIR cannot simply rely on Mitigation Measures 2 and 3, which recognize the applicable state and federal water quality regulations, without presenting a sufficient analysis of project impacts to water quality. In our analysis,$ the April 1998 Draft did not sufficiently address potential impacts.to Huntington Harbor, Bolsa Chica Reserve, and other receiving waters. Moreover, the April 1998 Draft did not sufficiently discuss potential site design, source control, and structural treatment Best Management Practices that might be employed by this development. The Rivertech Reports (1998,and 2002) contained the most substantive discussion of water quality in the EIR, and the conclusions (as we will discuss in following sections) were cited extensively in the Response to Comments. Yet, as demonstrated in our September 9th letter, the Rivertech 1998 and 2002 reports contain fundamental flaws that invalidate their conclusions. B. Given the problem areas in the"Rivertech Reports, and the prominence with which they appear in the Response to Comments, we continue to contend that there are serious problems with the water quality analysis in this project. The 1998 and 2002 Rivertech Reports contain fundamental flaws in their analysis of the abilities of proposed Best Management Practices (namely, CDS Units). Namely, those conclusions include the statements repeated in the RTC: as a result-of the project, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater Pump Station forebaywill be less than existing levels from the same area;" and "Based on Table 1 of the February 2002 Addendum report[by Rivettech, Inc.], it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would be less than existing levels by approximately 45%. 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.... Potential water quality impacts caused by the proposed development will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by first flush stormwater diversion and treatment."9 As described in our September 9, 2002 letter to the City of Huntington Beach,10 the Rivertech Reports have flawed conclusions about post-construction water quality from this site for the following reasons: a For a partial list of comment letters raising water,quality issues, please see the CCC's September 9 2002 letter RE Parkside Estates EIR. 9 Page 4-74 of July 2002 Final EIR for Parkside Estates. 10 Letter from.Coastal Commission staff to Mary Beth:.Broeren,September 9, 2002,regarding Parkside - Estates Final EIR (97-2); letter from CCC staff to Mary.Beth Broeren, September 10, 2002; and letter from CCC staff to Huntington Beach Planning Commission, September 20,'2002. Members of the Huntington Beach City Council 4 October 18, 2002 The conclusions in the RTC that are based on the Rivertech, Inc. report's estimations of pollutant removal efficiencies need to be reconsidered. Even though it is an approximation, the 45% figure is most likely a significant over-estimation of the capabilities of BMPs and needs to,be reconciled for the following reasons: i. While the number is an approximation, it grossly over-estimates the ability of BMPs or suites of BMPs to achieve pollutant reduction. Based on the analytical'assumptions of the Rivertech Reports, to get a 45% reduction in pollutant Loads over pre-development levels, this WQMP would have to achieve at least a 90% reduction in all kinds of urban runoff pollutants at all times." This issimply not feasible given technology at this time and the dynamics of the real world environment, given that illicit discharges, accidental spills, and poorly maintained BMPs are a common reality. ii. It is difficult to make a quantitative or definitive conclusion about expected pollutant loads in urban runoff without a much more detailed investigation and data set: Potentially, water quality may be better than existing as a result of the development, but it must be realized that this development entails 50 acres of new residential development on a site that currently has no polluted runoff. Although the 20 acres of adjacent development will be treated with an end-of-the pipe structural BMP, it is questionable if this will compensate for the additional 50 acres of urban runoff. The EIR's Response to Comments (RTC) regarding water quality focused heavily on findings in the Rivertech, Inc. reports of 1998 and 2002; as indicated above, we continue to believe there are serious problems with the analysis, and this remains an issue. C. Potential water quality impacts to Huntington Harbor. The Final EIR reasoned that because"mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel will be less than existing levels from the same area" and "pollutant loads to Slater Channel... would be,less than existing levels by approximately 45 percent" (p. 4-74 of EIR), the development would not further degrade an already degraded condition. Given that 1) Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 do not necessarily preclude further degradation to water quality, 2) the EIR does not propose any further standards by which the future Water Quality Management Plan must comply, and 3)'the heavy reliance on the erroneous Rivertech conclusions in justifying the conclusion that there will be no impact to Huntington Harbor, we do not believe the analysis of impacts to Huntington Harbor is accurate. D. Potential water quality impacts to the Bolsa Chica'Reserve. Based on the assumptions in the Rivertech Reports (1998 and 2002). Members of the Huntington Beach City Council 5 October 18, 2002 We first raised the issue of water quality impacts to Bolsa Chica Reserve because the following passage from the EIR implies that there can be no water quality impacts from this development on the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. We believe this passage is contradictory to our assertion. The EIR states on page 4-64: "Additionally, according to the project biologist, the EGGW Channel has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface,hydrological and terrestrial connection between the projectaite 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."(From Page 4-64 of Final EIR)1 (emphasis added) As we established in our September 9, 2002 letter, the above RTC statement is misleading. It is,true that there is no direct connection of surface runoff or subsurface flows from the development directly to the Bolsa Chica wetlands, but it is entirely possible that runoff from the development.can flow through the tidal gates and into the Bolsa Chica Reserve-once it has traveled down the EGGW Channel and into Outer Bolsa Bay. The EIR should clearly depict the potential flow paths that runoff from this development might take. If,as a result of this development, pollutant loads or concentrations of pollutants are higher than existing levels, it does have the potential for impacting the Bolsa Chica Reserve once it has been introduced to the EGGW Channel. Therefore, polluted runoff from Parkside Estates has the ability to reach some parts of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Wecontend that just as the potential impacts to Huntington Harbor have not been addressed in this EIR neither have the potential impacts to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. For your consideration we haveattached a chronology of.the aforementioned series of correspondences between Coastal Commission staff and City of Huntington Beach staff. Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments for your consideration. Given the importance of the coastal resources in this area and the value of protecting and possibly enhancing water quality, we felt it was important',to highlight our remaining concerns. We look forward to continuing our work with the City on these issues. 12 From Response to Comments page 4-64 (response to Coastal Commission staff letter dated July 31, 2001). Members of the Huntington Beach City Council 6 October 18,2002 cc: Teresa Henry and Steve Rynas, California Coastal Commission Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Attachments: 1. Letter from Stephen Rynas (Coastal Commission Staff) to Mary Beth Broeren (City of Huntington Beach), with attached memorandum from Janna Shackeroff(Water Quality Unit) to Stephen Rynas, dated September 9, 2002 2. Memorandum from Rivertech, Inc. to Mary Beth Broeren, dated September 10, 2002 3. Letter from Stephen Rynas to Mary Beth Broeren, dated September 10, 2002 4. Memorandum from Hasan Nouri,Rivertech-Inc. to Mary Beth Broeren, dated September 17, 2002 5. Letter from Mary Beth Broeren to Stephen Rynas, dated September 18, 2002 -6.: Letter from Stephen Rynas to Huntington Beach Planning Commission, dated September 20, 2002 7. Memorandum from Mary Beth Broeren to Huntington Beach Planning Commission, dated September 24, 2002 i STATE OF CALIFORNIA--THE RESOURCEL .r,ENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSIONem South Coast Area office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 September 9, 2002 Mary Beth Broeren Planning Department City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: The City of Huntington Beach Planning Department will be acting on the Shea Homes development proposal to construct 171 residential units by Graham Street adjacent to the Wintersburg flood control channel on September 10,1 2002. Commission staff requests that the Planning Commission not approve the proposed development. Specifically, the Commission's Water Quality Unit believes that the proposed Water Quality Plan is based on faulty assumptions and analysis. Additionally, Commission staff has not had an opportunity to review, through the'EIR process, new information presented as an addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan (Rivertech, 1998 and 2002). Prior to certification of the EIR, the flaws of the proposed Water Quality Plan should be corrected. Attached to this letter is the memorandum from the Commission's Water Quality Unit, which provides greater detail on our concerns. Please note, that this letter is specific to water quality and that many Coastal Act concerns discussed in our prior letters remain. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sin erely, Stephen Rynas, A1CP Orange County Area Supervisor H:\Letters\City of Huntington Beach\BroerenOl.doc STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGE- GRAY DAVIS.GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION rK 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94105-2219 VOICE AND TDO (415) 904.5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 September 10, 2002 TO: Steve Rynas, Long Beach FROM: Janna Shackeroff, Water Quality Unit . SUBJECT: Refutation of the Water Quality Analysis and Findings of"Insignificance with Mitigation" in the Parkside Estates EIR: An Analysis of the July 2002 Response to Comments to Final EIR; the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, December 1998, and Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, February 2002. I. Introduction: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Final EIR for the Parkside Estates (Shea Homes) development in the City of Huntington Beach. In a letter dated July 31, 2001, Coastal Commission staff raised the issue of potential water quality impacts to coastal waters and resources by the proposed development. The water quality staff of the California Coastal Commission has reviewed the Response to Comments (2002)to the Final EIR, the February 2002 Addendum to the Water Quality Control Plan, and all relevant water quality documents in the Final EIR. Unfortunately, our concerns pertaining to water quality were not addressed in the Response to Comments nor the new information in the February 2002 Addendum to the Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan (Rivertech, 1998 and 2002) (hereafter referred to as 'Water Quality Plan"). Moreover, the Water Quality Plan and the water quality determination in the Final EIR are based on faulty assumptions and analyses. Coastal Commission staff has concerns about the project's impact on coastal resources and water quality. We respectfully ask that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission deny certification of the Parkside Estates EIR as it is currently written. Prior to certification of the EIR, the flaws in the Water Quality Plan should be corrected, and the entire water quality mitigation plan for the development should to be reassessed and redesigned to adequately address water quality concerns. II. Documents Reviewed This memorandum constitutes California Coastal Commission staffs analysis of the potential impacts to water quality by the proposed Parkside Estates, as discussed in the Final EIR and Response to Comments. This memorandum does not address any issues other than water quality. The primary documents upon which this analysis was based include the following: Comments on Parkside Estates R,_ ,.-jnse to Comments to Final EIR Page 2 A 1. Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Qualify Control Plan, prepared by Rivertech, Inc, Decen ber r1998 2. Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, 'prepared by Rivertech,Inc, February 2002, 3. Comment Letters on the New Alternatives to the DEIR, 4. Response to Comments (in particular, CCC#2-10,page 4-64; OCPD#2-6, pages 4-74 to 4-75; MHa-6, page 3-99; OCPD-12&13. pages 3-87 to 3-88). Ill. Basic Components of`a Water Quality;Management Plan for a New Residential Development Neat Sensitive Resources In order to fully address the issues raised by:the water quality analysis for Parkside Estates, it is necessary to establish what the broad nonpoint source pollution prevention community regards as basic components of a water,quality management plan for large residential subdivisions. Typically, urban residential areas generate a wide array of pollutants and significant pollutant loads; runoff usually includes.such pollutants as pesticides and synthetic organic pollutants;nutrients; bacteria; heavy metals; oil, grease, gasoline, and other automotive fluids; sediments,; trash and particulate,debris; oxygen-demanding substances;and variety of other contaminants. It is widely recognized in water quality literature that management of urban runoff that successful water quality management, particularly in a new development in which the issues Ican be incorporated from the primary stages of planning, integrates a three- pronged approach. Water quality management should include each of these three components: 1) Site Design standards 2) Source Control Best Management Practices 3) Structural Treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs).' Site design varies significantly from one site to the:next;;and it is an often overlooked, but nonetheless critical, component of pollution prevention. For example,water quality site design principles can include such measures as minimizing impervious surfaces, promoting infiltration, using porous pavements, designing infiltration:trenches into street medians, integrating vegetated swales,and.biological treatment systems into the common landscaping or along streets and parking lots, using shared driveways, minimizing footprints of buildings, and even:designing roadways to encourage public transportation and thus lessen vehicle miles traveled. Source control measures prevent pollutants from being released in the first place. Nonpoint source pollution education, efficient irrigation practices, planting native vegetation, and minimizing the use of pesticides and fertilizers are some of the more ' Information can be found at Center for Watershed Protection http://www.cwp,org/and US EPA Nonpoint Source Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urban.html . Comments on Parkside Estate sponse to Comments to Final EIR Page 3 common source control BMPs. Source control measures should target both pollution prevention and reducing nuisance flows. Structural treatment BMPs target the removal of pollutants that are inevitably and sometimes unavoidably introduced into runoff. In a residential development, a wide array of pollutants can be entrained in runoff, thus,residential developments typically, employ treatment trains—an extensive,network of structural BMPs, usually incorporating several different types of BMPs that together willmaddress all of the pollutants in urban runoff. Treatment trains include multiple steps of treatment, filtration, and infiltration, as is appropriate:in each circum stance.211 Treatment BMPs are those in which runoff is routed through filter media, like charcoal, resin beads, sand, or a manufactured media designed to adsorb particular pollutants, or through a biological system like constructed wetlands that remove pollutants,through phytoremediation. These processes are necessary to deal with the entire range of pollutants that will be generated by,a residential development. IV. Flaws in the Water Quality Analysis of the Parkside Estates final EIR The 1998 and 2002 Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan ('Water Quality Plan") contains multiple fundamental flaws. Because the Final EIR based its conclusion of insignificant water quality impacts on the Water Quailty Plan's analysis, the Final EIR conclusion is insufficient as currently written. The flaws are substantial enough that we recommend the Huntington Beach 'Planning Commission reject certification of the Final EIR as currently proposed. A. The proposed water-quality mitigation will not remove the range of pollutants nor the amountof pollutants generated. by an`urban development. Parkside Estate's proposed use-of CDS Units as the principal means of water g-uality treatment measure is not sufficientto protect coastal water quality. The Water Quality Plan proposes Storm Drain Inserts and Continuous Deflection Separation systems (CDS Units) as the sole structural treatment BMPs. The use of these two devices without further filtration or treatment is insufficient to mitigate the potential impacts.to water quality from this site. These technologies will remove some amount of trash and sediments from runoff, but they will not significantly reduce bacteria, nutrients, pesticides and other synthetic organic pollutants, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, automotive fluids, and the wide array of other urban pollutants. Storm drain inserts are typically used as the initial.step in removing trash and some particulate matter, ,oils and greases. Storm drain inserts fit into storm drain inlets and contain trash racks and a small amount of filter media to remove sediments and some dissolved constituents. Many developments of similar scale to the Parkside Estates utilize storm drain inserts as the first stage in an extensive network of treatment technologies (a development- 2 The extremely high water table precludes the use of infiltration BMPs on this site. Comments on Parkside Estates R ...- nse to Comments to Final EIR Page 4 specific array of swales, vegetated treatment systems, sand filters, constructed wetlands,and treatment devices like Stormwater Management's .Storm Filter). In practice, storm drain inserts work best in small parking lots or very small development sites. One storm drain insert per entire residential block in Parksidewould provide only pre-screening for large particulates and a very small percent of oils and grease in the runoff. Essentially, under the current design for Parkside Estates, CDS Units would provide the principal treatment of runoff from the development. CDS Units primarily remove trash and coarse-grained sediments but do not remove any other urban pollutants:to any significant degree. By relying solely on CDS Units, the runoff from this development will.still contain significant levels of bacteria; nutrients, pesticides, oil, grease, gasoline, fine-grained sediments,synthetic organic pollutants, and other urban pollutants. Industry data.suggests that CDS Units can remove 99% of trash under certain circurnstances,s and they have been shown to remove up to 70% of total suspended solids when the total concentrations exceed 75 mg1L. However, below 75 mg/L, CDS Units may achieve 0% removal of TSS.4 No data suggests that CDS-Units remove 90%,of all urban runoff pollutants, as is stated in the Rivertech Reports (1998;and 2002). Other than trash and sediments, the CDS Unit-type technology removes only those pollutants that are adhered to the trash and coarse-grained sediments that are screened by this technology. Therefore, the technology,is shown to be highly effective at removing trash and particulate debris; moderately effective with sediments. (coarse-grained sediments are preferentially removed and fine-grained sediments like clays and silts are--the least likely to be removed); and relatively ineffective at removing bacteria, pesticides, nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, automotive fluids, and other urban contaminants. Therefore, two major flaws in the Parkside Estates Water Quality Analysis come to light. First, the Water Quality Plan, and thus the Final EIR, is in error claiming that the proposed mitigation will remove all pollutants in urban runoff. In fact,the proposed treatments will not remove the wide range of pollutants, including bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and a wide array of other toxic pollutants will still be discharged to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel, and ultimately to coastal waters. As proposed, entire categories of pollutants are not being addressed, and at a minimum, a revised water quality plan should address all categories of pollutants (e.g. bacteria, pesticides, nutrients, etc.) 3 http://www..epa.gov/region01/steward/ceitts/stormwaterLtechs/contdeflective.htmI Investigation of Structural Control Measures for New Development., FinalReport. November 1999. Prepared by Larry Walker and Associates, Inc. for Sacramento Stormwater Management Program, P.45. Comments on Parkside Estate: . <sponse to Comments to Final EIR Page 5 Second, the Water Quality Plan errs in its calculations of the pollutant loads that will be removed from runoff. The Water Quality Plan assumes that CDS Units would remove 90% of all urban runoff pollutants generated by this development, and this number is used rin the primary calculations of post development water quality., These calculation's of expected pollutant loads were used to demonstrate the robustness of the proposed mitigation and finally to conclude that this development would not have significant impacts on coastal water quality. As established in preceding,paragraphs, the'90% estimation may only be used in relation to trash levels, and no other urban pollutant. Therefore, the EIR cannot conclude there will beano significant impact to-water quality based on these calculations, given that their major assumptions are flawed. B. The,undeveloped site is not a source of pollution to coastal waters The Parkside-Estates siteis currentlyan undeveloped parcel and is not a source of nonpoint source pollution (i.e. there currently is no polluted runoff discharged from the site). Therefore, by converting this open parcel of land into a residential subdivision,.any amount of polluted runoff, no matter how well-,or poorly-filtered it may be, will exceed pollutant contribution from the baseline conditions, The Final EIR suggests that because the development proposes to filter runoff from both this site and the adjacent, unrelated residential development, there will be an area-wide improvement'in water quality. The EIR estimates pollutant loads would be 45% less than existing levels. Based on the current water quality,plan claims of area-wide reductions in polluted runoff cannot be supported. Primarily, as established above, the undeveloped Parkside Estate site is not a source of polluted runoff. The site in question totals approximately 50 acres, and the adjacent development, which will,be 'routed through,CDS Units, totals approximately 21 acres. The conclusion that there will be an area-wide reduction in pollutant loads is based upon the assumption of a 90%,removal efficiency of all urban pollutants, The Final EIR should acknowledge that-polluted runoff from the Parkside Estates, in fact, will increase over existing conditions. Treatment of runoff from the adjacent neighborhood can help offset increases in polluted'runoff, but the EIR exaggerates that offset because of the faulty assumptions of CDS Units. As proposed, there will be an increase in urban runoff as a result of this development. Comments on Parkside Estates Re.:. .ase to Continents to Final EIR Page 6 C. Impacts to Huntington Harbor Accordingly, since it has been established that runoff may be measurably more impaired than under existing conditions,'the impact to Huntington Harbor must be;6onsidered. The.Finai El does not discuss adequately the fact that runoff ultimately is discharged into Huntington Harbor,a 303(d)-isted water body; despite multiple requests from comment letters to address this issue. Ru.noff from the development ultimately must pass through Huntington Harbor to reach the Pacific,Ocean. Huntington Harbor;, is on the State Water Resources Control Board's 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for the following pollutants: metals (from Urban Runoff, Storm Sewers, and Boatyards), pathogens:(from Urban-Runoff, Storm Sewers), and pesticides (from Urban Runoff and Storm Sewers). As an impairedwater'body, Huntington Harbor is afforded an especially high level of protection; thus, every measure to limit the introduction of these pollutants to.its waters should be taken. D. Connectivity with and Impacts to Bolsa Chico Wetlands Similarly, since it has been established that runoff may be measurably more, impaired than in,existing conditions, the'impact to Bolsa Chiba must be considered. While the Final EIR contends.that Bolsa Chica wetlands would. not'b'e impacted by water quality impairments from the Parkside Estates, Coastal Commission staff-maintains this statement''is incorrect. The Response to Comments states that the EGGW Channel "has completely severed the surface and shallow subsurface hydrological and.terrestrial connection between the project site and the Bolsa Chico wetlands, and actions on the site would not have any measurable affect on the.hydrology or water quality of the reserve or restoration areas.", We believe this to be in error. Although the EEGW Channel does not have.a direct flow to the Bolsa Chica wetlands,the channel's outlet is within meters of the only tidal inlet to the Department of Fish and Game Bolsa Chico,reserve. Runoff from Parkside Estates would be pumped through the Slater Pump Station and discharged into Slater:Channel; which discharges almost immediately into the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGW). A concrete-lined levy, the EGGW channel is a highly polluted urban drainage channel that currently receives stormwater and..nuisance flows from many square miles of urban landscape. The EGGW outlet discharges into Outer Bolsa Bay, which is a small water body connecting the Southern end of Huntington Harbor and the DFG Bolsa Chica reserve. Water in Outer Bolsa Bay, which contains all stormwater and nuisance flows from the EGGW 5 Response to Comments, Page 4.64. Comments on Parkside Estate sponse to Comments to Final EIR Page 7 { channel, may pass through tide gates into the Bolsa Chica reserve. It may also pass through a culvert under Warner Avenue and into Huntington Harbor. E. Use of the'term "Low Flow Diversion" The Rivertech Report as well as the Response to Comments refers to a "Proposed First Flush and Low Flow Diversion" of runoff'in-the Parkside Estates. The term "low flow diversion,"as used in the report is a misnomer; the EIR uses it to describe the need to pump runoff to the Slater drainage channel in the dry weather season to prevent flooding of the streets in the summer. In general, however, the term "low flow diversion" refers to the diversion of low flow runoff -the amount of runoff up to a certain rate runoff, typically that which flows in,dry weather seasons)through a(wastewater treatment facility to be treated prior to being discharged in the ocean. Defining a-water conveyance action as a low flow diversion, without it actually being thus, may have left some reviewers with an inaccurate perceptionsof the projects design. Low fl`ow.diversions of°urban 'runoff to wastewater treatment plants have been highly publicized and lauded(as an immediate fix for beach closures-a high profile issue in Huntington Beach. Therefore, it is-imperative to clarify the use of the term "low flow diversion,"or perhaps avoid the use this term at all. MEMORNDUM TO: Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Hasan Nouri, Rivertech Inc. DATE: September 10, 2002 SUBJECT: Responses to Comments by the California Coastal Commission on Parkside Estates "Conceptual"Water Quality Control Plan I have just received the comments by the State of California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) dated September 9, 2002 on the Parkside Estates Water Quality Control Plan. Given the time constraints I will attempt to provide you with my responses to the best of my ability. We appreciate the information provided to us by the staff of the Coastal Commission on our 1998 Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan (1998 Report) and the 2002 Addendum. The comments are useful and will be integrated in our future plans. However, the following points must be mentioned In 1998 Rivertech Inc. at the request of Shea Homes provided numerical analysis of pollutant loads from Parkside Estates under Existing and Developed Conditions. None of the planned residential developments at that time provided this level of detail. In fact, CEQA documents typically only provide the general level of analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR including mitigation measures 2 and 3 (recommended by RWQCB) which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits. The 1998 report was only conceptual and at that time the alternatives using innovative technology to treat urban runoff was limited. Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS) was a (state of the art) device at the time. In 1998 the CDS manufacturer had advised us that the system was capable of removing up to 90% of the pollutants. Research during the past 4 years on CDS units shows that the efficiency of the equipment to remove pollutants is more limited. Realizing this fact about CDS, our 2002 Addendum identifies within Section Best Management Practices (BMPs) including a treatment train which will reduce the water quality impacts to less than significant levels. As required by the City conditions, prior to the issuance of grading permits, we will prepare an Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) that will describe and identify that treatment train. Consistent with the requirements of the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB-SR) the URMP will include numerical analysis of pollutant loads that would be contributed under existing and developed conditions. The URMP will also identify and describe mitigation measures that would reduce pollutant loads to insignificant levels. Unfortunately, the comments by the Coastal Commission make no mention of the URMP and our future plans. Also, it should be noted that the analysis included in the 1998 report assumes that only the 21.8 acres of existing development contributes urban pollutants to the Slater Channel and not the undeveloped Parkside Estates area. The staff of the Coastal Commission has misinterpreted this information and understands that,urban pollutant loads calculated under.Existing Conditions is from an area that includes the existing development of 21..8 acres as well as the undeveloped Parkside Estates site. In addition to the BMPs and the treatment train described in Section 3 of our 2002 Addendum`we are currently investigating the use of sand filters for treating urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates. After the implementation of URMP we are confident that the requirements of the RWQCB-SR and the Coastal Commission will be satisfied. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES r-I'ZNCY ti` GRAY DAVIS,;GoveffW CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-5071 September 10, 2002 Mary Beth Broeren Planning Department City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: Thank for the opportunity to review the comments-by Hasan Nouri of Rivertech„Inc. on our water quality letter of September 9' 2002 for the Parkside Estates EIR (EIR). Our comments on the ElR were tased, on the data and analysis of the EIR itself. As Mr. Nouri noted, additional research on the performance of water treatment methods since 1998 has documented the•-need for a future.Urban`Runoff Management Plan that will describe and identify the water quality treatment plan. In his'letter, Mr. Nouri confirmed that the proposed structural BMPs in the EIR would not be sufficient on their own to mitigateimpacts to water quality. We were aware that a future Urban Runoff Management Plan would be developed, but the general. concept of the water quality mitigation plan proposed in the EIR did not indicate that the future plans would include other, more protective BMPs. Commissionfstaff looks fiorward to the opportunity to work with the City`s_water quality staff to develop such a plan which will protect and enhance water quality and the biological integrity of Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. Sinc rely, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor H:\Letters\City of Huntington Beach\Broeren02.doc R/VER#''EILOIl�l INC` MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Beth Broeren, City of Huntington Beach FROM: Hasan Nouri, Rivertech Inc: DATE: September 17 2002. SUBJECT: Explanation of Conceptual Plans described in Rivertech's 1998 and 2002 reports and responses to the Coastal Commission's comments. This Memorandum in addition to the Memorandum submitted to.you on September 10, 2002 respond to the concerns expressed by the State of"California, Coastal Commission (Commission) in their letter of September 9, 2002: Previous to these memorandums we have prepared the following reports: • Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water.Quality Control Plan, Prepared by Rivertech Inc., December 1998 • Addendum to Urban Runoff Water Quality Analysis and Conceptual Water Quality Control Plan, Prepared by Rivertech Inc., February 2002. First, please note that both reports are "conceptual" levels of studies. The,purpose of the reports was to provide project guidance to,mitigate the water quality impacts of the planned Parkside Estates development.In 1998, none,of the planned residential developments in Orange County at that time provided that level of detail In .fact, CEQA documents typically only provide the general level of'analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 th rough .5442 .of the: EIR including mitigation measures. 2 and 3; (recommended by RWQCB) which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits Second,Rivertech Inc: agrees with the staff of the Commission that urban runoff produced by residential developments usually contain such pollutants as pesticides and synthetic organic pollutants; nutrients; bacteria; heavy metals; oil, grease, gasoline, and other automotive fluids; sediments;trash and particulate debris; oxygen demanding substances; and variety,of other contaminants. To control the discharge of these pollutants to,the downstream receiving waters the 2002 Addendum identifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) including a treatment train, which will reduce the water quality impacts to less than significant levels. As required by the City conditions, prior to the issuance,of grading permits, we will prepare an Urban Runoff Management Plan(URMP)that will describe and identify that treatment train. In addition, the URMP will recommend Site.Design.Standards as well as..Souree Control BMPs. The URMP will review a wide variety of design and treatment modalities and will create a treatment train capable of achieving regulatory compliance. Among the design.and treatment modalities the applicant will consider are the following: 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 210,Laguna Hills, CA_USA, 92653- Tel, (949)586-16127 Fax(949)457-6356 www.rivertec.com 1 ', 1-Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS): The CDS unit is highly effective in removing sediments, trash and debris from urban runoff. In a study conducted for stormwater flow in Brevard County, Florida by the CDS Technologies the following removal rates of pollutants were achieved. TABLE 1 CDS Constituent Removal Efficiencies in Percent Storm No. BOD COD TSS Phosphorus 1 18 27 50 29 2 32 25 50 27 3 63 53 70 30 In a study performed by Professor Michael Stenstrom, Professor of Environmental Engineering at UCLA (CDS Performance Review Manual — Table 6) it is shown that the CDS unit is 80 to 90% effective in the removal of free oil/hydrocarbons from urban runoff. In addition, since the CDS unit is a highly effective liquid/solid separator, pollutants that are attached to sediments will be removed to some degree. However, many pollutants that are adsorbed to the fine sediment particles will escape the CDS unit. Therefore, additional BMPs must be employed in the planned Parkside Estates. A CDS unit is currently in operation in the City of Huntington Beach within a project named "The Boardwalk". The project, being a residential development, was developed by PLC of Newport Beach. The CDS unit was designed for the first flush wet weather flow. The dry weather flow, however, after being screened through the CDS unit is diverted to the sanitary sewer line. 2-StormFilter: This system manufactured by Stormwater Management consists of vertical cylinder with media of various types placed in the cylinder. Water enters laterally through the filter, enters a vertical cylinder well which exits to an underdrain system. Due to limited capacity application of this system in the Parkside Estates will require surface or underground storage areas. The URMP will investigate appropriate locations within the Parkside Estates where StormFilters can be used. Studies' have shown the following efficiencies in removing pollutants from urban runoff by this system. TABLE 2 Constituent Removal Efficiencies by StormFilter in Percent Investigator TSS Cu Pb Zn O&G COD TPH Stormwater, 92 65 82 83 81 70 84 1994 Lief, 1998 43 33 50 29 Woodward, 74/69 1998 Final Report;Investigation of Structural Control Measures for New Development;Prepared for Sacramento Stormwater management Program;Prepared by Larry Walker Associates,Inc,November 1999. 2 3-Grass Swales: Grass Swales are channels having mild slopes and covered with grass. Runoff is directed to the grass swales before discharging into storm drains. Within the Grass Swales treatment takes place through a variety of physical, chemical and biological mechanisms as the runoff flows to and along the Grass Swale. Treatment efficiency is largely a function of depth of flow relative to grass height and velocity of flow. Table 3 lists the performance data of Grass Swales. TABLE 3 Percent Removal of Pollutants by Grass Swales Data Source/ TSS I Cu Pb Zn O&G Other Reference Khan, 1992 83 46 67 63 75 TP-29; FC-(70) Khan, 1992 72 10 25 15 49 TP-50;FC-64 Goldberg, 1993 68 42 62 TN-31;TP-4.5 21 King, 1995 67 1 -35 1 6 1 -3 1 TP-39 Barrett, 1998 87, 85 17,41 91, 75 TOC-51,53 FC-ne Schueler, 81 56 50 69 TN-52; TP-17; 1994 a Cr-37 Schueler, 87 89 90 90 TN-84; TP-83; 1994 a Cr-88 Schueler, 65 28 41-55 49 TKN-17; TP- 1994 b 41• Cr 12-16 Schueler, -85 14 18-92 47 TKN-9; TP-12 1994 b Cr, 22-17 Schueler, 98 62-67 67-94 81 TKN-48; TP-18 1994 b Cr 51-61 Evans, 1994 60 66 62 94 TP-40 0 82 4-Sand Filters: Sand filters within Parkside Estates may be constructed as underground facilities. In general, sand filters are feasible at locations where space is limited for the construction of detention or retention basins. Sand filters are excellent BMPs for the removal of bacteria. Table 4 shows the efficiency of sand filters in removing pollutants as well as bacteria from urban runoff9. Removal efficiencies shown in Table 4 are based on data collected from 13 monitoring studies. Proper operation of filter systems such as sand filters requires frequent maintenance program. Urbonas et of (1997) found that the hydraulic conveyance of a sand filter decreased from 3 feet- 2 EPA Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices,EPA-821-R-99-012,August 1999 3 per-hour per-square-foot of filter area to less than 0.05 feet-per-hour after only several storms. Therefore, use of sand filters within Parkside Estates will require an efficient maintenance program. In order to provide treatment for the first flush as well as dry weather flow sand filters must be placed off-line. This would require the construction of a diversion structure (Smart Box) upstream of sand filters to bypass stormwater in excess of the first flush flow. TABLE 4 Pollutant Removal Efficiency of Sand Filters in Percent Median or Range of Removal Average (percent) Number of Parameter Removal Observations Efficiency Low High (percent) Soluble Phosphorus -31 -37 -25 2 Total Phosphorus 45 -25 80 15 Ammonia-Nitrogen 68 43 94 4 Nitrate -13 -100 27 13 Organic Nitrogen 28 0 56 2 Total Nitrogen 32 13 71 9 Suspended Solids 81 8 98 15 Bacteria 37 36 83 5 Organic carbon 57 10 99 11 Cadmium 26 N/A N/A 1 Chromium 54 47 61 2 Copper 34 22 84 9 Lead 71 -16 89 11 Zinc 69 33 91 15 Using the above structural and nonstructural BMPs and the pollutant removal rates indicated in Tables 1 through 4 as well as the EPA's National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) Event Mean Concentrations (EMCs) data the URMP will evaluate the pollutant loads under Existing and Developed Conditions. As indicated in Rivertech Inc.'s 1998 and 2002 reports the URMP will be based on treating urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates development as well as an existing development having a drainage area of 21.8 acres. The number and size of the BMPs will be selected such that pollutant loads to the receiving waters under Developed Condition will be less than Existing. 4 IMPACTS TO RECEIVING WATERS Runoff from the planned Parkside Estates will be released into the Slater Channel from where it will be pumped to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGWC) which discharges into Bolsa Bay. Bolsa Bay in turn discharges into Huntington Harbor. Through tidal action and oceanic processes it is possible for the runoff from the Bolsa Bay to reach the Bolsa Chica Reserve when the tide gates are open. The State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region (RWQCB-SR) has listed Huntington Harbor as an impaired body of water but not the EGGWC. However, it must be mentioned that EGGWC is a source of impairment. Impairment exists when a surface water body does not meet the water quality standards assigned to it. In other words, impairment can exist if numeric or narrative water quality objectives are not met, or if beneficial uses are not being attained. Impaired waters are made public in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). The regulatory response to a 303(d) listing is to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the water body and the pollutants causing impairment. TMDLs have not yet been established for Huntington Harbor or EGGWC. According to RWQCB-SR TMDLs for Huntington Harbor is tentatively scheduled to begin in 2007. Realizing the sensitivities and constraints of the water bodies that receive runoff from the planned Parkside Estates, Rivertech's URMP will identify solutions that will not degrade the quality of receiving waters as compared to existing. This can be achieved by recommending structural and nonstructural BMPs that would be integrated with the planned development. These BMPs will treat urban runoff not only from the planned development but also from an existing development having a drainage area of 21.8 acres situated to the northwest of the Parkside Estates. The level of bacteria in EGGWC and Huntington Harbor, which is a major concern, after the planned Parkside Estates development should be less than existing. Because the drainage area from Parkside Estates is very small as compared to that draining to EGGWC,the improvement in water quality in EGGWC will not be significant. LOW FLOW DIVERSION In managing stormwater and urban runoff from the planned Parkside Estates three different types of flow are classified: • Storm Flow: Stone flow discharges to Slater Channel by gravity when flap gates at Slater Channel are open. • First Flush Flow: A portion of this flow may be released by gravity while the remainder might be pumped to Slater Channel. The proportions of gravity and pumped flows will depend on upstream hydraulic conditions as well as tailwater elevation in the Slater Channel. All of the First Flush Flow will receive treatment before discharging to the Slater Channel. • Low Flow or Dry Weather Flow: The majority of this type of flow may have to be pumped to Slater Channel because the flap gates during non-storm periods may be closed. All of this type of flow will also receive treatment before discharging into the Slater Channel. I hope my two memorandums have responded to the concerns expressed by the Commission staff. If you have any questions or require further information please do not hesitate to contact me at (949) 586-6127 or on my mobile telephone which is (949) 233-8286. 5 l • .�r�p�4•' S.0 r JJ City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536-5271 Fax 374-1640 RECEIVED 374-16U South Coast Region SEP 2 4 2002 September 18,2002 CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION Stephen Rynas California Coastal Commission 200 Oceangate, Ste. 1000 Long Beach, CA 908024302 Subject: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Stephen: In recent correspondence from Coastal Commission staff regarding the water quality analysis in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Parkside Estates project, you have requested additional data/analysis on the basis that the level of analysis in the EIR is inadequate. The purpose of this letter is to address the concerns expressed by you and other Coastal Commission staff on this issue. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) requirements The above-referenced EIR was prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA, i.e., to consider the significance of the changes to the environment caused by implementation of the residential development project and alternatives. That is, the proposed project and alternatives (analyzed at a Tentative Tract Map level of detail)accordingly must be the focus of the EIR. CEQA does not require, nor does EIR analysis typically include a detailed Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) because the plan is prepared once final design plans/site plans are in process. CEQA documents,for a project of this nature, typically only provide the general level of analysis provided on pages 5-138, 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR including mitigation measures 2 and 3 (recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board), which require the applicant comply with NPDES requirements and obtain the necessary permits prior to the issuance of grading permits. The Rivertech reports of 1998 and 2002, which are part of the EIR, provide additional quantitative information related to water quality impacts in response to public comments. These reports explain in further detail how the BMPs could reduce Water Quality impacts to acceptable levels. The level of analysis in the EIR is to analyze the implementation of the project and project alternatives as depicted at the Tentative Tract Map level of detail. It would be premature to prepare a detailed URMP at this stage of the project, because the final project design may change or be further refined upon project approval via conditions of that approval. Mr. Stephen Rynas September 18,2002 Page 2 of 3 Based on the comments from Coastal Commission staff, it appears that the staff is requesting information that is normally associated with a permit application, e.g. coastal development permit application to the Coastal Commission and using the Coastal Act as the level of review instead of CEQA. The level of detail you have requested is unprecedented to the City's and its consultant's knowledge or experience for a project at this stage. The City has routinely indicated in its environmental documents that a Water Quality Management Plan would be prepared, including specific BMPs, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. While we understand that water quality has become an increasingly important issue, and the City is aggressively pursuing all means available to improve water quality in our jurisdiction, we believe that the agency's recent assertions and requests for more detailed plans as expressed in your letter regarding Parkside Estates EIR is without sufficient merit or bearing at this stage to deem it inconsistent with CEQA requirements and that the EIR is adequate. The City will be applying for a Local Coastal Program Amendment(LCPA) for this project. As we have discussed,because the Coastal Development Permit for the project would then be issued by the City, there may be a greater level of concern over the perceived jurisdictional issues in terms of the water quality approval for the project. As we demonstrated on the Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan project, also a LCPA, the City is more than willing to work with Coastal Commission staff regarding water quality requirements and concerns. We would expect the same level of discussion for the Parkside Estates project and not a new standard of review. We respectfully request that Coastal Commission staff remove its objection to certification of the EIR document based on the above discussion. We believe the standard of review should be CEQA, and at the same time,we do not believe that the EIR is inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Information Regarding Correspondence Notwithstanding the above, we did want to respond to your request for additional information to further demonstrate that we have been and will continue to be responsive to Coastal Commission's staff concerns. The project water quality consultant has provided a response memorandum that is attached for your information. In addition, in your letter dated September l0a',you state"the EIR did not indicate that the future plans would include, more protective BMPs." We believe that this is an inaccurate statement. Mitigation Measure 3, Drainage/Hydrology, states: "Prior to 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 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 system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions which are appropriate." Mr. Stephen Rynas September 18,2002 Page 3 of 3 It is clear to City staff that this means a variety of feasible BMPs will be evaluated. The mitigation measure does not say that only the BMPs that were mentioned in the EIR or its technical studies will be employed but rather that this project will be held to the same standard as every other development project in terms of complying with accepted standards. Morover,the EIR itself does not indicate a certain set of BMPs. On page 5-141, it reads: "Stormwater flows from the future buildout of the residential project will be subject to the NPDES permit process. Throughout 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 include..." While the Addendum reports in the Technical Appendices do evaluate specific BMPs, e.g. CDS units, these reports are intended to provide a conceptual level of analysis regarding possible options/recommendations for the project. They do not override or negate the mitigation measure and EIR discussion excerpted above. Again,we do not see where the EIR limits the potential BMPs that may be used and request that Coastal Commission staff.consider this in making its decision on whether or not to remove its objection to certification of EIR. We hope that the above and attached information is helpful. The City of Huntington Beach remains committed to complying with the requirements of CEQA and believes that the project EIR does that. In addition,we believe that we have demonstrated a consistent effort to work with Coastal Commission staff to ensure that Coastal Act provisions are met and look forward to that continued relationship. Sincerely, M Beth Broeren Principal Planner Attachment CC: Chuck Damm,Senior Deputy Director Deborah Lee,Deputy Director Theresa Henry,District Manager Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning Scott Hess,Planning Manager STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (562)590-6071 September 20, 2002 Mary Beth Broeren Planning Department City of Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 RE: Environmental Impact Report 97-2 (Parkside Estates) Dear Ms. Broeren: On September 9, 2002, Coastal Commission staff submitted a letter to the City commenting on the water quality issues in the Parkside Estates EIR (97-2). The letter addressed multiple fundamental flaws in the water quality analyses of the EIR. Since receipt of the letter, the City has engaged Coastal Commission staff in a dialogue regarding the issues we raised and the contents of the EIR. Coastal Commission staff has received two letters from the City (September 10 and 18, 2002) and two memorandums from Rivertech Consultants (September 10 and 17, 2002) clarifying how the EIR conducted the water quality analysis. We thank both the City and Rivertech for their responses. Coastal Commission staff recognizes that the CEQA process operates at a level of specificity less than what a regulatory agency like ours would expect in seeing a water quality plan. Thus, the City is correct in stating that a Water Quality Management Plan detailing the exact treatment train and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would come at a later phase of the development planning process, as stated in Mitigation Measure 3 (MM3) of the EIR. However, we maintain our conclusion that the information presented in the EIR's water quality documents is fundamentally flawed. We agree with Management Measure 3 in that the final WQMP shall be developed at a later stage; rather, our concern was that the Rivertech Reports (1998 and 2002) used inaccurate data and assumptions to help explain and support the EIR's findings of insignificant impact. We continue to maintain that the information in these Reports, as well as the Response to Comments which drew heavily on these reports, is fundamentally flawed. This was discussed in depth in our September 9, 2002 letter. The Rivertech memoranda (September 10t' and 17t'', 2002) concur with our analyses: CDS Units are not sufficient to protect water quality from this development. CDS Units do not achieve 90% reductions of all urban runoff pollutants, and therefore, there will not be 45% area-wide reductions in pollutant load as was stated in the EIR. When multiple comment letters questioned the impact of this development on Huntington Harbor, the Response to Comments cited the 45% figure and then stated that there would be no impact on the Harbor's water quality. Given its inaccuracies, the 45% reduction figure cannot be used to determine that there will be no significant impact on Huntington Harbor; therefore, we believe the impacts to Huntington Harbor, a 303(d)-listed water body, have not been fully considered. At the same time, we concede that discerning the difference between significant or insignificant impacts to an already-impaired water body is not an easy task. Ultimately, though, the solution must rest in the development of WQMP that incorporates a thorough and protective array of structural BMPs, site design, and source control measures. We would be happy to continue working with the consultants to develop an appropriate WQMP. In addition, Rivertech concurs with Coastal Commission staff's statement that runoff from this development can reach the Bolsa Chica reserve, although the EIR states otherwise. Therefore, similar to our statements about Huntington Harbor, we do not believe water quality impacts to the Bolsa Chica Reserve have been fully considered. Coastal Commission staff will not suggest a particular action betaken by the City's Planning Commission at its September 24' hearing. We simply request that the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and City Council consider these problem areas in the EIR when they determine what course of action to take. We look forward to continuing this dialogue with the City and the consultants to develop a sound and protective Water Quality Management Plan for the Parkside Estates. Such a plan will need to be prepared by the time this project is submitted to the Commission for review. It is our understanding that the development contemplated under this EIR will be submitted to the Commission as an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program. Sincerely, _J4� Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor H:\Letters\City of Huntington Beach\Broeren03.doc Page: 2 Y. •- --� ..� i �...-......�...�....�.���..... y �.- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION lotN HUNnWTON NUM TO: Planning Commission Members South Coast Region FROM: Mary Beta Broeretn, Principal Planner S E P 214 2002 DATE: September 24, 2002 CAUFORNIA SUBJECT: PARKSIDE ESTATES—RESPONSE TO COASTAL COMiAQb%r4 eNAARAIcC10' ' STAFF LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 20,2002 In response to the 9/20/02 Coastal Commission staff(CCC)correspondence,staff has consulted its EIR consultant,EDAW,and the water quality consultant,Riveitecb,Inc. in response to specific statements m, the 9/20/02 correspondence staff offers the following responses. 1. The letter(3rd paragraph)states °our concern was that the Rivertech Reports(1998 and 2002)used inaccurate data and assumptions to help:c*am and support the EIR's findings of insignificant Response: These reports were not used to support the EIR's findings of insignificant impact" The April . 1998 Draft EIR concluded that water quality impacts of the project would be less than significant because the project would be requited,per.DrainaSwHydrology Mitigation Measures 2 and 3,to comply with. foderal .and state water quality roquiramai% specifically the.:National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.(NPDES) and Water.Quality Management Plan(WQNd P) regains. In other words, the NPDES and WQMP standards/requirements, by definition, preclude a project from finther degrading water quality. The December 1998 Rivertech, Inc.:.report was prepared.after the Draft EIR(and its conclusions of less than siginificantt)was circulated for review. Tlie 1998 report was prepared in response to comments on the Draft regarding what type of water quality techniques aught be employed and specifically cited LIDS units. At that time, CDS units were "state of the art"technology and the.data provided in the.1998 Riverteeh, Inc. report were based on information from tho maraf tetf user and generally accepted in the industry. The.2002 Rivertoch report was prepared at the request of the Department of Public'Works to speak to the not yet-adopted but expected requhunents for an Urban Runoff Management Plan.. 2. The letter (Y4. paragraph) states "CDS units do not achieve 90% reductions of all urban runoff pollutants,and therefore,there will not be 45%area-wide reductions in pollutant load as was stated in the EUV' Response: Tine City and the water quality consultant concur that data now show that CDS.units do not achieve 90%reductions in concentrations of pollutants., This was communicated in the.Rivertech, Inc. memoranda attached to the 9/24/02 Plaming Commission staff report. Regarding the 45%figure,given that CDS units acre not as effective as they were believed to be in 1998, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required in order to achieve reductions in pollutant loads. Examples of OW24002 1501 Z(714)3784M fa("4)M460 nuwrr Kd "A1,3.wars» CASE!EvOw 2 se$ possible Bh4Ps were seed in the 9/17/02 Riverteeh,Inc.memorandum,and page 4 of the 9/24/02 staff report reviews the EIR discussion of 13MPs. Depending on the constituents and BIVIPs used in the detailed WQMP, it is possible that the 45%figure will not be achieved,or could be exceeded. The Response to Comments(RTC)and technical reports prepared`for the RTC state that from the project site and adjacent 21.8 ,acre area "it is predicted that the mitigated pollutant loads to Slater Channel after development would-be loss than existing levels by approximately 45 percent." Staff believes that this language in the RTC does not require modification as it was based on best available information at that time and is an;approximahon. More importantly,the EIR conclusion that there would not be significant impacts was not predicated on that approximation. Finally,the EIR does oat state that there will be an area-wide reduction in pollutant load but, rather; speaks solely to a reduction to Slater Channel as evidenced in the RTC quoted above. 3. The letter (41b paragraph) states, "%Iien multiple comment letters questioned the impact of this development on Huntington,Harbor,the Response to Comments cited the 45%figure and then stated that there would be no impact on the Harbor's water quality." Response: The above statement is making an unfair comparison using only partial statements from the RTC without disclosing the full content of the response. Several water quality responses including Response OCPD#2-6 on page 4-74 of Volume'I of the July, 2002 Final EIR state the following,"&e project will not adversely affect water quality in Huntington Harbor. In fact, as a result of the project, the mitigated pollutant loads to the Slater lump Station forebay will be less than existing levels from that same area."Contrary to the CCC assertion, the 45%figure was cited as the anticipated reduction in mitigated pollutant,loads to the Slater Channel and not the anticipated reduction for Huntington Harbor. Thus,the above EIR response statement is true and consistent with the information prevented in Riveatech Inc.'s 9/17102 Memorandum. Under C EQA criteria,project impacts can be found to be "less than significant"as long as they do not further degrade an existing degraded condition.In discussing the EGGWC and Huntington Harbor water bodies,the 9/17/02 Memorandum states,"Riverte+ch's URMP will identify solutions that will not degrade the quality of receiving waters as compared to existing."Thin statement is also consistent with the above response that the pmjo ct will not adversely affect the water duality in Huntington Harbor. 4. The letter(5"'paragraph)states,"In addition,Rivertech concurs with the Coastal Commission staffs statement that run-off from this development can reach the Bolsa Chica reserve,although the EIR states otherwise." Response: The above statement is not accurate and gives the reader the impression that the most recent 0117/02 Riverteo lr,Inc. Memorandum contradicts the analysis provided on pages 5-141 through 5-142 of the EIR and Rivertech Inc.'s prior two reports prepared in response to comments and incorporated into the RTC/k final EIR. The 9/17/02Memorandum provides the following scenario in which"rum-off prom this development can reach the Balsa Chica Reserve';"Runoff from the planned Parkside Estates will be released into the Slater Channel firm where it will be pumped to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel (EGGWC) which discharges into Bolsa Bay. Balsa Bay in turn discharges into Huntington Harbor. Through tidal action and oceanic processes it is passible for the runoff frown the Bolsa Bay to reach the Bolsa Reserve when the tide gates are open." It should be noted that the"Balsa Bay"referred to in the above sentence is the Outer Bolsa Bay, and the reference to the "Bolsa Reserve"is the Inner Bolsa Bay, sometimes also refered to as Balsa Chica Reserve. 'rho Memorandum further explains that post treated project runoff along with the additional 21.8 acre area will be unproved over existing conditions prior to being pumped into the: Slater Channel and would logically remain at this improved level(i.e.better than existing)when it ultimately reaches Huntington Harbor. .,.--.-w .-.... r•..ter............ 'v.ter...w... .....q....�. T oa.n+wwwwra.c:cyw y.o w o Furthermore, the above referenced CCC statement does not indicate a"specific location"where, 'the EIR states otherwise." Based upon EDAW's review of the.EIR and RTC we believe that Coastal Commission staff is referring to response CCC# 2-10 on page 4-64 of Volume I of the July,2002 Final EIR. This response states the following: "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 cn&m has designed the site to have raised elevations on the west end and local drainage will flow toward the center.:of the site. The ruA-off from the proposed project is.collected on surface and in andd pipes and then conveyed to the Slater Storm Drain Pump Station, where it is pumped into the EGGW Chmuiel. Please refer to Volume II, Appendix.F of the EIR for an expanded discussion of this information." The above EIR paragraph contains true aggggaft that do not conflict with Rivertach Inc.'s statements explaining the process in which the collected and treated project runoff could ultimately reach Huntington Harbor and the Bolsa Chica resew. The"wetland restoration area"refieared to above is the Boba Chica Wetland,which receives no runoff from EGGWC and is not the same as Bolsa Chita Reserve. In conclusion,staff appreciates the CCC staffs acknowledgement that a detailed WQMP is not required at this stage of a project but instead is preared a#ter projecCapproval. Staff belives drat the above responsw clarify n gs about the content of the BIR and Wives that the EIR is.adequate. Cc: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning Scott Hem,Planning Manager C. d C— LAIRVEARCE - Associates PO 0-1 L.R Ele-P&, 0- Consultants in Strategic Communications r I ¢G SS cc rno+'� Pvsi-cR� i� �yy� October 17, 2002 RECEIVED Mayor Debbie Cook City of Huntington Beach 0 C T 17 2002 Via Courier r. City of h City Coup Dear Mayor Cook: '�stiC`:�9 I am writing to update you on the responses received today in support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates. The responses came in response to a letter we sent recently to homes and businesses within the flood zone area that will benefit from Shea Homes' construction of flood and drainage improvements related to Parkside Estates. In today's mail, we received: 115 cards requesting that the council APPROVE Parkside Estates 15 cards requesting that the council deny Parkside Estates Combined with cards received previously, the current total tally is: 168 Huntington Beach residents asking the council APPROVE Parkside Estates 18 residents requesting that the council deny Parkside Estates We will continue to receive responses in days to come, and I will keep you updated. Best regards, Laer Pe c Associates er Pearce, APR c President _ C . cc: l/Ms. Mary Beth Broeren , CD Mr. Ron Metzler '-- l� Mom' � _ Ci 22892 Mill Creek Dr., Laguna Hills, CA 92653 ► 949.599._1212 ► Fax. 949.599.1213 mailbox0laer.com ► www.laer.com i bear.Huntington Beach City Council; x `e h Homes' sSignature., ,,ate l•".L'. �`-have revleyved materials on Shea om s Parkstde Estate p ,ject and request that the City Council approve the project. �^ r The benefits.of this project,particularly the flood control Address: � � .3 / 4°lU 1. � , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone 1) a 1420 dil Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Diana Vergudo �' 0r current Resident V .t 16302 serenade Ln 1�.7Y11 Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3540 ��r�rirr�r�r�jrrr�r���rrrjrr��rr�if u,u���a r��rrr n tir�jrrir� HBO5561 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes"Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council.approve the project.. j The benefitsof this project, articular) the flood control Address: •�' ,H.B. p j particularly improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flo d insurance,leadme to support the project. Phone: Please make,any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 17301 Forbes Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4666 jjr�nrrjr�r��f�rfrr�{r�rrrjuj��jrrr�jrnj�rrjjrurrr rrrj) HB02489 .Dear Huntington Beach City Council: T have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: end request that the City Council approve the project. i� gg The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: V I� H.E. improvements and:resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below; ' Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Yu Family regarding your project: - Or Current Resident 6272 F2rinelia Car Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4220 �jrjrrtr�t�r��urirr��rrr�rJrr�u�r�u�r���rrrlur�u�r�rEr�r� H804661 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 5�S7-2- H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of r required food insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: (,c. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Fox Family regarding your project: 5592 Kern Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4531 1�1'111r�tI1111a11/1��I�rr1�a�1�1�r1r��rfJrl'�1�II�IIr11'11e1 H810129 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. �y The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: r 1�`�G V h H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ,r required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: j ,- [Gj-7 r Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr michae l S Flynn regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6541 Kirklund Cir Huntington untington .Bh, CA 92647-5625 U—(11/Tt111111f1111 toll....1111111#11111111U` 11111 H802155 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Si a project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 42 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of pp r�II required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 61,- 1�t X-n75- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mrs Kimberlee A Merrick or current Resident 6532 Wrenfield Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5650 ��1�If11'1�1'�11111111111'111111'11111r till I111111 ul'11111111 HBQ3651 �.Dear Huntinpon Beach City Council: I have roiewed materials on-Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signatur project and request that the City Council approve the project, /J�% " The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: �� � f , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of � � � required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: � "11 , 7f 3, Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Robert D Davis or current Resident 17591 Collins Cir Huntington utntilnl!gl!ton t Bh t CA 9{{12647-tt6560 1 1 jlt�tlll�iIIIIIII1f1�It11�t��lrt[tjttl�rrfjt!l1fl U ttt'�i�l'�� • _ H805982 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: l I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: f project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 6,�--Z1 9-Vhewk Ox H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: (74) 9'q-3 F7�1 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Peck Familyregarding your project: or current Resident 6471 Athena Dr Huntington untttit`nlFgl totf n l`8h1 ,t31f CA 9t(261+4ii71f-612t5yy1 1t Ilf�rilI111M1�r1tltl�tlrrltltrltrt��ti111r1t1rltlr�rrt111�r111 H806627 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:�,, �24L ��Lt ; project and request that the City Council approve the project f The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: C�l� ! , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �y required flood insurance, lead me to support th pact. Phone:°'7j4 Z//7 472-) Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Berardini Family Or Current Resident 17782 San Doval Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92647-6638 {{ �1I I H r I I I S I I I I J I 1"Ilr 1111 1 11 lfrl'tit�r'�Ilrll H806339 t J I C Estates Signature: pa _ project.TI )Introl Address: j�'4,'-� L A) Q in 1 of ),foj' (- rbta e-A 7)4,q required flooa oject. Phone:Otlq) 3't`i L"Iss-er Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 6421 Crandall Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92547-4205 II,1,I,.I,flllll#flip,.#�IJlll#�flfflllllllll#LL�IIJ,IIII,I,I HBO3212 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: % I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside•Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. �r j The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: t 1/ : W.�, �. , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 4f S Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & 'Mrs Merle A Stelter or Current Resident 6171 Gumm or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4227 III lot $1111ffl#IIIIIIo#If#fl fit 111l a llffli#ff/►#fIIIIIIIIIIj HB04786 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 1 have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone t Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Roth Family Or Current Resident 6661 Wrenf i eld Dr Ix Huntington Sh, CA 92647-5651 Iflf!U IllfllllllllJlflJIfIIII1Ilfl1#f#flil,ff,lfl##Ilfffllfi) H9oa836 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; ° I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. . A The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 17 3 44 i'1 improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Ora �f_0 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �" 0 'T,? f� `ra Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Scott W Shaw Or Current Resident 17341 Canna Cir Huntington BM, CA 92647-6206 1111tt fill fi{jlttlitlIttt)tIII fill 1jEitltttll ti Hea6549 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Sign—re: project and request that the City Council approve the project, The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address-�, �� >. �n-� H;B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to,,support the project. Phone: �"jf Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs David A Eitman 17981 Larcrest Cir" Huntington Sh, CA 92647-5456 HeO5835 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials,on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signa r project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: =►E.l H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: �, Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 7572 Seine Or Huntington Sh, iiCiAi J2iiii64ii7-4615ff {{++ I[tll-1 III llt"Iltlil11 oil'tIitllllltlillIfIIIdIof Ittl,t1l/tli) H801451 Dear Iuntington Beach City Council: to I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature- pro ject and request that the City Council approve the project. - ,, - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address; H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone. '- -tom'''' '✓ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below; Dear Shea homes: I have the following comments/questions The Russell Family regarding your project: Or current Resident 19431 MacGregor Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92648=5540 Il�irrrrl�l�Llrrrl�rlirrlr�l�I��lrlr�l„111rrr�r!l���r!lr�ll�l HBO8534 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 22 y a-Vo el-- H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 47 P g Phone: wr)r :rxJ C, e- c..,b required flood insurance,lead a to support the.project. b/dj;+ e Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Barbara Angela regarding your project: or Current Resident L-f ii t—ze- �(yu 17242 AiP90 Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5501 uC.) -f 0JI?AZ !Irlrrrrlrlr!lrrrlrr!!rr`rl�lrin!lrrUrrirrr!!rlr�lrrlilrl�rl! 'CloocP Cys ��:/#` � . /;s !7 r&; rr Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I`have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:._G► ' 2.. ,�, •�I k '1i`A#trr DP 06- ,H.B. improvements,and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone:(114) Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Rowe Family Or Current Resident 6842 Manhattan Dr Huntington 9h CA 92647-5667 !l,Irrrrlrlrllrrrl�rllwrrlrlrir�Ilrrrll�rl�rrlrlrrir�lrlrrlr!! Heo4053 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: "I haver"eviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signaturevo project and request that the City Council approve the project. � The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: Z1V_ . H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions or your project: The Charrier FamilY or Current Resident 16762 Lovell Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4237 llrlrrrrl►i►Ilrrrl�rllrrrl►l�rlrrtrl►ril►Irrri till rrrl►Il►rirt , H804557 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature; Dt project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: A � 1�IG. ✓: , H.& improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: I i 4- 44 1 —-7.7 7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Hunt Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 6852 Rook Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5665 I�rlr►►rlrjtllrulnll�rrlrl►Irrllrrrllr�rlrlrrlrlr►�I►Irrll►I H804145 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this projects particularly the flood control Address: oZ- iN .. H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: j' Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs David G Cott on Or Current Resident 17172 Englewood Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5502 Ilrlr�rrl+Irljrnlirll�nlrlrlrrlrlrllrrrrrlrllrrrl►rlrl►nlll H802033 Dear,Huntington Search City Council: ' , I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. �-. ( _ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:--" *7,� 0/ J (/Wf " H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of - required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Y� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: secklund: Woodworking or Current Business 7501 slater Ave Ste H Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7755 (II„„I, II,,,IIf„il,„I,Itl,rl�l,l,,l,II,,,II,,,I HB13000 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:1,&rA. H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of r required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below:: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 6392 Farinella ter Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4222 III loll t1,1,11,t,1,tllet�ltle,L,,I,I,tl,l„{,I{r{„�,1,1ri,1{I H804673 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: r /� I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parlmide Estates Signature(A �/ project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 5 4 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Tokyo Auto" Rpr,Huntngton Beach Or current Business 17502 Gothard St Huntington Beach. CA 92647-6214 H912626 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: •I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: VL project and request#hat the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project.. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below. Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Thomas A Beringer or Current Resident 16762 Busby Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4217 lllll�lllrlrllutltrllrlIIIII.IIfIIIllrll11.Ir11r1.liri11t1111rr) HB04774 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signatu�c�- , ag project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: Y & vc C t , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction off required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: -�— Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Luther D Williams tP'- .fir �gLRTG 17152 Autumn Cir, Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5501 llrlrrrr1111 lilts If dill 11111I1r11Ir11rrll a1{rIl{trrl'1lrllr{! HBO1947 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this projoctr particularly the flood control Address; G Ld .GEC ,H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Pho � &ZS required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. ne: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Robert D Rizzuto regarding your project: Or current Resident 5971 Gildred Cit" Huntington Bh, CA 92649-370i7 11rII1rr1t11IIIIIIIIlII t III{If I II { IiIlIfI III1III11I1tI HBQ2255 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ` I have"reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Sigpnature:,A4J - project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: t`1'l�r'.t7 �.; -� � , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: , Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Michael W' Smith regarding your project: Or Current Resident a Ce, E*V 5971 Midiron Cir f Huntington 9h, CA 92649-3720 `cuIt-ka f ti.'J�cA&Clad • rp HB02322 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: r;�� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: j�� �t 9��"1` Cc r , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: " Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The t.ldes Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7111 Moonlight Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3531 Lrk , /,fm I{tl1tit{,{1{{►ttIit{{ttt{t III It{t{t41j{iatt{{rtt{jiw t{{j a{lj SLAedge 15 JAM re H805427 - A Dear Huntington Beach City Council: *�.. f I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:r project and request that the City Council approve the project. .:The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: � � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the,project. Phone: Z—A-�'� 7 1V Z- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The, Fields Family or Current Resident 6521 Cory Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6609 {{t{utt{i{11itot{Nil{u1lrjtj,t{1tt{{ittlr{nt►{t{mljjtI'll M802180 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea.Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:- (,1� ,e `7' �t,.H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 2 f f 7 '' 9 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below. Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Efrain Contreras regarding your project: or current Resident 17271 Gurney Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6138 ({r'ilrr{r{rn tlt{rr{{Ili{t{{IllI1{{1�{{i{ulr{►rF{Irt{�t�{11{ x HBo665? Dear Huntington Beach City Council; r I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Signature: �- project and request that the City Council approve the project. H.B:""S ,r/ _ �. , The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: L improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 57/ — Please snake any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 5891 Brannen Dr ; Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4607 {�r�rrrr�l�i{{rrr{►r{{rMtrr{rr{r{{rr{{n r{ill{{r{a rrr{{it{{r� HB02454 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: �,,,�..�► I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: L�'1�l 11 ,=z� '1 zze2 ,H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone:"`? L/., t-I �L..- ZI required:flood insurance,lead me to support the project. � �—� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs `Thomas M Whalen regarding your project: or current Resident 17771 Prescott Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6431 {{1{a lit►{1{�n l{lr{{rri{r{{r a�rl)a{{+rlr{{{frl{r�r{{{{rrr) H804966 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: , .. //j l / •I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signs e: r'`}f�.�j project and request that the City Council approve the project. Y The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 1 Z i L cl a C z..; , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: r f y , y y/ y Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs William R Johns Or Current Resident 17321 Lido to Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6141 �lrlrr a(r!r(!r n!rr!lrrrlr(l�rier((r(ritr a!(r!(r(rrr!(lrrr!( a HeO6u9Q Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ,r+ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Dennis E Sweeney regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6362 Athena Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5158 !Ir(rrrrlr(r!(wr�lril�rrrlr(lrrurllr�rlrl�rlrlrtlrrrjrGr(rll HBO6621 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: ' project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 417. , / % 6 Lc�G ,H.B. P 1 P Y improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please snake any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes; I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Arthur C Li theredge 3y ' : --',, �s' 17291 Madera Ln , Huntington 6h, CA 92647-6127 a" f l(rlrr,rlrjrtirrrtii(ttrr(rt(r�nt�l�rtrllrrrltr(rrrr�((rt(rr( H8466.00 Dear runtington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'.Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. R The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address•' ?M , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. -�--.� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Patrick S Scanlon regarding your project: Or Current Resident 5772 Trophy Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3724 !(I)ru r)r! H802220 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: RAA A( ' A'-IV C'r�Z,4eY, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: `I/, -�9-4 k-G 414c,;? Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Haggard FanU ly or Current Resident 17851 Car~ranza Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6674 HB06315 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature le� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: ;H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required'flood insurance,lead,me to support the project. Phone(-714) 84 2.G� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Thomas L Bebout regarding your project: or current Resident 6592 Jardines Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6625 II�I+,,,l,l,ll,,,l,�ll,,,l,1lrrrilrr„!rlri�lrl,Ir,,,l,Irrl,ll HBU6104 Dear runtington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: t project and request that the City Council approve the project. a The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: + H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Yoneda Family Or current Resident 6101 Dagny Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3250 II�It�tll�lt!!1�/lt�ll�,tlltllr��ltl�ltll!llttlitt###t!!###!!! HB03039 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Sign re: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. —� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: f /' The Dangl Family or Current Resident 17361 Alta Vista Cir Huntington Bh 1 CA 92647-6130' l�illlnlllt!ltlrli#Ilnflrlllullull#�� lu�lt #ttll�I1�11 d��� �_j H906776 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly-the flood control Address: ` .�� 2)A ,,.,,x H.B. improvements and resulting elimination,or`reduction of required flood insurance, least me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below. Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Richard L Overstreet regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7532 Danube Or Huntington Shii . CA 92647-4637 !l1lltttltitl!#t1ltl!l1t111ltt�t!!#titlltlt#1lttllltrl#!!11/!! H80iS47 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ' -1 have e'viewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: i t/!= / <'/K.H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone; Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Barrett Family 18151 Riverside Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1077 {i,Irn,1,Irllrrr�rr'{rt{rrullllrrrlrxrllrrrlrlrlrrrr{II{rrr{� HB0804O Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I,have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: aoot� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 7J7/ 6.# AIA ' , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: �l' 'T' f 4 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Henson Family or Current Resident 17511 Crown C it Huntington 8h, CA 92649-4720 {{rl,r+rlrlr{lurlu{I�Ir,rlr,Il,r,{rr{r111Rr�rrr{I,�rllrlrlrl Heioaa7 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; 'I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: "1Z n.... ..ti , n H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 3)t•' *- -Zk A '? a9 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions vat.hleen A Herold regarding your project: or Current Resident 5792 'Trophy Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3724 Ilrlrrrr{,{r{hri{tr{{rl�rrrllrlrrr ��lrlr{rr{{r{nulrlrr{Irl H90222I Dear Huntington Beach City Council: " I havereviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature. , project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: H B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr John M Knobbe Or Current Resident 17962 Dellglen Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6445 11�1!l �11111'1�1111/�inli�lllir�il1/111�11liillin!l1/1l�liwi ' H805852 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates` Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ,. The benefits of this project,particularly the floodcontrol Address: l � , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Jo A Nedderm3n or Current Resident 5522 Serene Dr Huntington 8h, ;CA 92649-4833 1llilltl(f'IIIII ill1111111�11111/illiiill/iillli/�111111111l1 H811235 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on.Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Signature: ` project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: ` -- ,'H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of }� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding our project: Mr Be Mrs Eugene* J Pratte or, Current Resident 16341 Gentry Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92647-3303 ti,filllll�I111�1111IIT���II11111,1{Lfll!«f�ll�l1�1111�11111111 "801081 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: `3 I hate reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: / H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of , required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Joseph H Parks or Current Resident 17311 Apei Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4605 H811029 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: Qr, ! , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone;- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The menard Family or current Resident 6912 Los Amigos Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92547-6659 HBO6364 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ,/� / f. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: H,B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 7- :9 l,P-7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regardi your project. Mr & Mrs Ted D Ailanjian or Current Residence' 6832 Via Angelina Drat ? Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6682 oa4L H806391 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: T *« I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: Y H.R. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: requiredflood insurance, lead me to support the project. P , Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Oakley Family regarding your project: or Current. Resident 6251 Moonfield Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1039 1111rrrr111111r fill r11rr1rrrrlll{ur fill r{III r1111111111n1111 H807990 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature. project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: ....- ;f'+^,9 l ZAX.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: , Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Biel, Family Or Current Resident 16412 Underhill Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3332 I�r{nrrlr{r{{rrr�rrl{nrlrr{{n�Nlrrr{{ru�r{gin{{rr{r{{rrlr{ HBO1064 Dear Huntington Beach City Ceatncil: G I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parlcside Estates Signature- project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: ` 2A, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Stewart W Moore Or Current* Res i den t 17732 Wrightwood Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4956 {{r{rrrrlr{r{{err{rr{Ir{rrr{rr{Ir{nr{r{u{{rrrrllnr{rlrrrl{{ HB10 727 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature; aject and request that the City Council approve the project. ��j the benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ' q} o,;Pd ' ya< &r, H.B. improvements'and resulting elimination or reduction of � �» required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Jason M Hudson or Current Resident 16341 Woodstock Ln Huntington Bh', CA 92647-3237 jllili�rlllrlllnl�ijjllrfi�llGrillj+rlfilli,f/1l�I�Rllliiilll HB02929 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature; _ L� jGHA project and request that the City Council approve the project. ^� The benefits of this project;particularly the flood control Address: tS ts��(Z V, � j?— H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone:--') Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Dean H Butler dr Current Resident 5642 Kern Dr Huntington Bh, ,CA 92649-4533 ��l�i n l�i�rj�lll�il��l�ul�il�1�l�1i1��►n�jr��ii�li�l��l�n j HB10274 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature; project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of phone: ttJc required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Zapf Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 17172 Fr^iml Ln HuntingtonttB{{h, {{CA 92tt649-4511 i'IIi111�1I1'�i f�U'tllill�t!!i'1�ii U jf N I�'�!lljilf(���1!/� H62Q144 Dear Huntington Beach City Council ` " - I have reviewed materials on Shea'Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. +_ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: Z -Jr �� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: '7l1V �4S 74 7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Hiller Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 7531 Rhone Ln Huntington Bh, (CA 92647-4120 IlflllllJtllIlf11ir1ilftlltlf1I111II1lIrIIIt�ltllli�tlIII111III $ HE D1615 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates SignaturAr project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Addres , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs William E Buckley or Current Resident 5712 Kern Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4535 ��'rlrtrlltlrll��tlt1'IIIr n IrrIII111I11I n I1I1rn II11Ir�IIrrII HB10281 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. f r The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: f�$' ,H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please snake any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Golden West Dental Or Current easiness 16900 Goldenwest St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-8405 III ItI1111I111111it fill I III oil IIIII III III1IIIII fit 1111111111II H812301 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have teviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatu - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: / , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Harry J Carlson Dr Current Resident 17921 Oldglen Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4917 H910972 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature b4," project and request that the City Council approve the project. 1/ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Boccignone Famil regarding your project: _ y Or Current Resident 6772 Rook Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5641 H903270 Dear Huntington Beach.City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 49061 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ?�4 Q Z 7 9 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: T Please make any corrections necessary to-the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions re arding your project: Mr. & Mrs Raymond B Dirling Or Current Resident o 18061 Heathpoint Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6545 HB05968 ,.Dear Wentington Beach City Council: r I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. - The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: + H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of - 4 ) required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 5 T Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Anthony J Marcoly Or Current Resident 15522 Charleyville Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3701 I1/I1l�rjl�rlltl�j�ljlljl�tr�jljrltllllrrinl�nG�n11111��11 x HBO239i Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: <L,AdN project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below:- Dear Shea Homes: I have the fallowing comments/questions Mr & Mrs regarding your project: or Current E Lippcld t Resident 6792 Spickard Dr Huntington jj Sh, tCA 92647``-6680 (f (Illtllt(III�IIIr111:t�lllll�l.�rtl{/1�11I11IIMi1tII11tI1I1fI111 HB03961 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _r�nG. A�, -___,-fJ� 214,!r_ project and request that the City Council approve the project. �'_� Q The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: -�(i-t7r, .-> -- H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Audrey Meyer Or Current Resident 16641 Robert Ln Huntington( Bh, CAji92647-4240 �jl'Ilti'1'ljjlrt�l[E�tlt�i�19�11�illlft�llirll�tl�l/l1111411t H8047aS Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ''I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. r ~ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: ` ` '" .Y.� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr, & Mrs Richard J Burger regarding your project: Or Current resident 6372 Fallingwater, Dr Huntington Bh1, CA 9{{2647-6505 ' ��III U t�l�1f�1ll�tl��l/tjr��/Itfr�l�tltll�lll�t/I'tlit��ilt H804901 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: • 1� project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: J I;L.C-/� � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: P o Please make any corrections necessary to the label below; Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Futh K Wong Or current Resident 17251 Ap+el Ln Huntington Bh. CA 92649-4603 (�t�ttrr�l�tM�n r�rt�Ft{t�tftijljj�tjj nllaj{a�l�t n r��lrr��� He11OO1 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. t :f The benefits of this project,particularly the flood'control Adess:ll - .� ,H.B, improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: ' ~- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr John D King Or Current Resident 16542 Waite. Ln HuntingtOn. Bh. CA 92647-4828 jjt�trujljljjrltjujjrllJcjtljjt�jrttj�jMrll�tjttjttjrltjtljj �,{�. H800269 •Dear.Huntington Beach Cityouncit: - have,reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project: The benefits of this project,particularly the flood comol Address: / r H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of � f .� required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: `" Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: � . I have the following comme.� Mrs Betty J 0 Keefe rleprdingy rproject: or Current Resident ` ,0. / f� C�S 18151 Brentwell Cir Huntington Bh, CA .926w4L7-6518AW too tee: �j ry•CR2`� •�'` f Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address. H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. ���.'� '�� '' Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Heitzmann Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 17391 Jepsen Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5622 �Crjrr a jr�r��rrrj a��r a�rrr�rr�jrrrrjr�rrfr�jrjtirrr���rrrj� HB02215 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: < I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: .. - � project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: � .s,- , N improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: (71 ) •Z?- 9" required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. .� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Trenka Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 6631 wrenfield or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5651 ��r{rrrr�r�rN�u r�rr�irrr�t�r�n��rir�r�a rr���r��4'rrr��rrr��� HB03839 Dear-Huntington Beach City Council: t I have`reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. 'The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: V-6 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:-- b I`'! _ e Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Teresa L Holloway or Current Resident 6451 Armada Dr Huntington 1Sh1 . CA 92647 -5512 {�r�rr►r{r{tllrwr{�d{{rig{r{{wwr{r{rrwr�{rw�i{r{r{urr{{rr{r{{ z H806€64 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates' Signature: . project and request that the City Council approve the Project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 17OC/ 1W , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: t Please make any corrections necessary to the label below. Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 17081 Twain Ln Huntington 8h, CA 92649-4551 H810192 Dear Huntington,Beach City Council: l have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ��- r - 4d—W rt- The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:_ ( 4 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required red flood insurance,lead me to support Phone: -- q Ixlaart the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Humes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The OraGm Familyvn or Current Resident ' s 6611 Wrenfiel.d Dr y Huntington 6h, CA 92547-5651 H80a841 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ 4 have t Mewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: ; project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: —,-7&/o/.......a .,-Y�� improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of / � �/ . required flood insurance;lead me to support the project-. Phone; " Please make any corrections necessary to the Label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Gene M Cook Or Current Resident 17661 Amherton 'Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92649-4802 il,itu,ltl,llirtlrtliti,rrittilt,itilItt,tltltlln fit lll,1n) H810643 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: f 07, C.r�+ 1' ./ , H B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: j4 4-7 419 r�% ; Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes I have the following comments/questions The Danze Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident - 17702 Collins Cir Huntington Bh, CA` 92647-6530 Iltltt,t lilt lift �i, lit„i,flt,tl,lt�tN,Nj,tilr��ttltltiitti HBOSD6p` Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea.Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. � e The benefits of this project,particularly the`flood control Address: H,B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone; 71 7_. 0 ,9 0 required flood insurance, lead.me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following.comments/questions Mr & Mrs Rufus W White regarding your project: Or Current` Resident 6792 Baker Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5619 lltl„ultltil,t1luilt4iltitl fill uutlll,lultlutt1t111,toI H803901 m Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Sinature412 project and request that the City Council approve the project,The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Addres r" �'C"� c ,H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of J f required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Campbell Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 8901 Langport Cir Huntington ))Bii h, Nor CA 92649 l!-3714 `'L' �'1'flit'f�l'�I11'Il�liillll��t'tlf�flll'1�1!'f�U Iitl�ll�tl'j � 5901 ran R Cltmptielt M D. 59111 Inn¢port Or. !-IB02359 Hum%agtonBd6 EGA 92849 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ...,.,., I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: -..: project and request that the City Council approve the project. > 3 lJt Q The benefits of this project,particularly Address: (, -ow , p 1 particular the flood control � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: <.( Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the fallowing comments/questions Mr & Mrs Michael D Ransom regarding your project: Or Current Resident 5831 Liege Dr Huntin{{gton1{{Bh, CA+ 92ii649-464rr2!!{{++ ..- 'ji�llll�l�Il�ffljlljF1'Iilfltjt�jllljlllll�t'!1'j/1ll111.111/' ' H802641 Dear Huntington Beach City Council; I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes`Parkside Estates Signature: j project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly, the flood control Address: I Lf► H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ,required flood insurance, lead me to.support the project. Phone: 7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Custom Aquarium Installations regarding your project: Or Current Business 7351 Heil Ave Ste $ Huntington Beach,_ CA 92rr647-4534 (Iljflii'I�I�F/1/11/�'11!'f�li�l�t'1i/��1ljfl�lfll'f�fljl�l�li H812681 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: " I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project _ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address. AA6K Ay6 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: /7/!�2 ro 114d Z/fi- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Ace Cleaners or current Business 5938 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4660 Il,I,„ililill„rl,illil,„I,,I,IIi„Ilirll,,,,,llil„li„Ilil ! He14103 Dear Huntington Beach City Council• i have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:_71C1 ��1;7-417 elZ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Beans N Stuff Or Current Business 6521 Cory Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5609 r I i�l�,,r l i 1,l 1,,,I,,I I,,,I,I�I„I I„I 1,r,1,f i,i►I,I„r!I I,I„I H812101 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _�& project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of N ' '1;i f required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: / Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Miss Nancy L Angell Or Current Resident 17261 Chapparal Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4630 11,I,,,,I,f,I i,,,l i r l(,I„.I.,I,I I,,,,I1,11,►,►I I.,,,,I I I I,,,I H802625 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 'I have feviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ! The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address• * H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 1'� gpel- 0 d,J /"�s- rep required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr $ Mrs Ernest O Bartolo regarding your project: or / ,7,, NAP or current Resident /� _ 6142 Jasonwood or Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1038 Ililiriil,I,Ii�„lr,Il.,Ir.r,IIII�,�„ll,i,rir�l,rl„I,I,rII,I /•�• Dy �CDr�stde�• 5���� Oc ew�rvre 46�v���7' HB07982 YPp�"�y 0" Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project, particuI4rly the,flood control Address: �(D 3�oZ M ►- ( e h V-- , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 4:6 1 0_0/ 7- required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Wetterich Family Or Current Resident 16312 Mercier Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3312 Ililrr„lilrll„rlirll,,,Ir,II„illrrr,ll,rl,lr„Ilr,lrlllr„I HB01009 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ZL H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Faris Family or Current Resident 17222 Wild Rose Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4652 ii,I,,,,I,I,Ii,„I,rl1,li„I„I�II„rl,lr„I�I��Irlr,lrllrlr,l H902424 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 74 _ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ tZE The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address- �`� �� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: if c1 Z _ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Paul G Fontes Or Current Resident 17351 Breda Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4626 1111,1,,I,I,I I1„111 I I,I„,{1,I,I I„111,1 fill 11111 1 11111111111 HB02559 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. q ) r The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:?/ /` '.J 6'. l i��' �i( H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: / Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Lee Family or Current Resident 7192 sunlight Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3555 II,1,,,1I.i,11,1,I,,II,,,11,II„111,�1,1„1,1,1,11,1�1,11,11�1 HB05497 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 2 ' required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:-7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: Mrs.Shelby C McNutt I have the following comments/questions LC16401 Merck LA regarding uI project: Himfttm Bh,G 92647-3313 - i6401 MercierJLn Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3313 III I„II,,,III III[fill I„i1111111111111►111#1111 HBOO994 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I"have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Karl D Conroy Or Current Resident 6441 crandal 1 Dr �C m�V%0,+k aVt- Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4205 1n1bUr0.V\cQ_ huv\Apels o� &o �Ofs J�Oc H803210 1'YtQh--y�—za n 1,�1s � 1 � Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Maria L Jacinto regarding your project: or Current Resident 6081 Wintergreen or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6463 H805148 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: •nn= `�� 4----��; project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 4�p p Uk 2 Q�y �? �r3 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or e. uction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 22, Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Meyer Family or current Resident 6042 Doyle Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4219 I I,i,��,I,i�l 1,,,1„I I,�,I,I„I,►I,{,,,I I I,I„�1„i�,1,{i l„.I H804549 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: G���� � _ y i have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: �/J V12y project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 39 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Robert J Baker regarding your project: br Current Resident 16391 Serenade Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3539 Il,l,r��l�l�llrr,lull,,.Ir,it„I,l„►IIrl,irrl,Irr,rrllr,Lll ' HB05567 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: %�— project and request that the City Council approve the project. /G-7' �,-y Address: H.B. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control q�Gu improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: -7!N - required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. 8 r.�Z'c►Sl Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr $ Mrs Steven P Lakso Or Current Resident 6671 Cory or Huntington eh, CA 92647-5562 il,l�r„IrI,Ilr,rlr,Ilirrlrl,Ir,III r gill ir,l,lli,ilrrrll,ltill HB02206 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: \2< � _���'� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr $ Mrs Lawrence D Pratt regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6121 Galipean Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6418 II,I„ulrlilli,rlrrllrirl,llrrrl„lrirlll,rlrrrl,lrrrllll,r,) HB049e6 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: /L/✓.,A?I& -- project and request that the City Council approve the project - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /9.3z Z Qi�G�:(,C'�� ��� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr & Mrs Richard T Foster Or Current Resident 19322 Archfield Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92648-5510 HBO9313 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: = I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signatur project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, articular) the flood control Address: WHuntington ichard Benvenutf , H.B. P 1 particularly 7902 Wellbank Ln improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Bh,CA 92649 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions r ding your project: Mr & Mrs Richard A Senvenuti Or Current Resident 17902 Wellbank Ln C 4,C4 ,r„4, p— Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4966 ,, H810921 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: (i G ra� n-� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of l _ /J���3 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: !7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Greg Holland Or Current Resident 16661 Robert Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4240 II,I„„I,I,II,,,I�,II,,,I,{„i„I,I,.I„III,►„II„,„II�I,i,l H804737 Dear Ijuntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. \ J— The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: I-A G V c H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Michael F Keating regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6461 Jersey Cir Huntington eh, CA 92647-3306 111111„{�{,II,,,111111�,1111111111111,111111,1111,11111,11111 ` H800969 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /����� AUkV$ bz,. , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: (71 V)8 / Y 1.0 11 S Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mrs Morgan L Carter regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17271 Taurus Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5659 11,111„111,11,1,1,1111„1,11I1,11„111{11,11►11„1,1111111111 HB04120 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:4(WAe.- A& project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of `� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �Y Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Benson Family Or Current Resident 19341 Ocean Heights Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92648-7514 11111111111,111,11,111111111111111111111111111111111„III,1,11 H809375 Dear Huptington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project 6�� RC�C7 The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 2-- q , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Todd T Nowels regarding your project: t 6832 Rook Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5665 H804143 zr Huntington Beach City Council: i have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: / , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of / required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 570 6 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions ip=�dz uffM4 regarding your project: 17172 Northfield Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5533 HB02057 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: fftt� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 7o Al/Li& /1 j-:;, Vle . , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 71 yz eCLz2—y(6S'a Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Frank E 6uadagnini regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7091 Nimrod or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6220 II„„I,I„I,III,oil,l,,,,,ll„l,II. HB00742 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:- project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Addres L H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: `?�G( 31 I Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Moore Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident PLI�66sr PRtV�TfZA A-LL 7142 Nimrod Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6222 G1-fizl �itx1/ aIV1 �' t15'EP-V16E9- HBOO727 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: v project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: f H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Kathleen C Hann regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17421 Mayor Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5605 HB03949 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: r project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /7Z3z r? 5'o rice c zf , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/�J- `t`d' !f Z S� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Schier Family or Current Resident 17232 Argo Cir Huntington Sh, CA 92647-5601 I I,1,,,,I,I,i l►„I„I I. 1I1111911 i„I I„I,,, HB04104 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature( project and request that the City Council approve the project ,� - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:/77W L4,QX,-1e- elr" improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �I v��y r required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr & Mrs Paul H Winslow Or Current Resident 17721 Baxter Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6501 fill.„.1,III)„ 11111111 11 11111 fill,,i,l,11„1,1„111111111 H804989 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature project and request that the City Council approve the project. — The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: T1 b Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Rayf ord W Williams regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6711 Crista Palma Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6620 II,I►��►I,I�iI„,I„II,,,1,11�,►11►,,,I,III,,,,„II►„11►(I„I HBOSS92 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. p The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ��1_�- rit0 �/i P u , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project Phone: 7/y 4 Z_ 3 0(o 61 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Springfield Family or Current Resident 17191 Golden View Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5618 Ii,I,►►,i,l,li,1 III fill,,l,l,l III I►,►,►III„I►I,I►,,,,II,II►II H803885 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:173 Z 6 1IL,�, , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Dunn Family Or Current Resident 17302 Whetmore Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5600 H804003 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ' I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: wend— ' 41, project and request that the City Council approve the project. J Address: H.B. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control ,[ �v �d ✓ , improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: I L4 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Thomas L Lalonde 6132 Shields Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4246 11�1���,I►I IIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIlill,i„II„,liliifill H804614 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: 7 project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: VC , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 'fit � L+41 �-( required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 2C"t Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: One Moore Photo or Current Business 7142 Nimrod Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-6222 11�1,�,�I,I�I1„.I.,II,��i�ll�,��I�I,�I,I,�1,1,1►,I��I�I,I,�II HB12879 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: "I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _ project and request that the City Council approve the project. f - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ! ��T/�/�' � , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ' required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: *HtiH6ton deFA Tgrf4ier Dr Bh, CA 92649-4945 ,I„I111,,,1„I,till III I,,,,I11,1„I He10751 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ' Q nn n- I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: 0G�._ih ` I1 project and request that the City Council approve the project. +The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: L 2 S�i,U 1 f ri- , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of .� 0 6 9 i �� - � required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: , � �T Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 17462 Skyline Ln Huntington Bh. CA 92647-6233 111111 If I,I,1I,,, III11„1,11,1„1,if 1111111111111111 I,II I pill HB00934 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ' I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: � - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: `( �Gf/y1Q_ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Craig E 5ufficool regarding your project: or Current Resident 15611 Busby Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92647-4215 II,I,,.,I,I,II,,,1„II,,,I�i„I.►1,1,,,11,1�1,�„ii,�,lll„i,l HB04754 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: - I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: DGG`i project and request that the City Council approve the project. _The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 74-(e Le A 7 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ¢-) a Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Gayle R Holman -rgalw Current Resident 17461 Lido Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92647-6143 II,I,,,,I,I,Ii,,,I„Il,„I,II,,,,,Il,l„I„II„Il,,,,,l�►�il.l ' HB06700 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 60# H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Bressette Co regarding your project: or Current Business 16541 Gothard St Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4471 HB12440 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 7 I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:"--- project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /7,7`7Z �J✓��.�o �y� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr $ Mrs Sherman M Williams Or Current Resident 17372 Encino Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6137 HBO6739 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: IL �- I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: -�/�� �1,��V 941 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Beatty Family or Current Resident 17441 Alta Vista Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6130 IIIIIII1111,IIIIfIIIII,,,l,llI„I II„II,II,,,II„1,„III,,,II I H206782 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. ` The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: .;,:2_ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Ross W Willour regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6462 Jersey Cir Huntington 8h, CA 92647-3308 I,I(,,,I I(,,,I I I,,i I I,I I,,,I„I„I I,,,,I,I11,,,1 HB00967 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature. project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:�ad� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: (_�1�12 W7_/Sl s/ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr $ Mrs Burnham R Benner regarding your project: Or Current R si(lent 02 5unligh Pr tington B `-BA 92647-3555 H805498 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature:— project and request that the City Council approve the project. - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ��3�l /✓f}L� ��✓_ , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Gorden E Gates or Current Resident 16381 Serenade Ln Huntington Sh, CA 92647-3539 II,I,yx,lrl,Ii,,,I„III„I fill„I,I,,,II,I,I III„I,r,rli„II,) H805566 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:_ kaA---� &44Am-J project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �1�.5,3 /ef/Dti.l& NF , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of (".11�9� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Robert Burns Or Current Resident 16532 Rhone Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4623 H801401 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: - I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly'&flood control Address: � � �C 'Glhfd� �f , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/q Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Clark H Corey regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6941 Tucana Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5660 II,I,,,,i,I,II,,,I„II,,,I,I,I„II,,,I!„!I,►„I,►I,,,Iiii,,,i HB04126 Dear ffuntington Beach City Council: n I have.,reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature:_,` project and request that the City Council approve the project. - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ;�o rtt_ 00 r a 0 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Cheryl Coleman or Current Resident 6871 Via Carona Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6686 1111111111111111111111111lrll,iillrrl11111111 fill llilllllll111 ' HB06482 r Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatu project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of /n' required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:( L , (O Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Tang Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17221 Julip Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5623 Il�lritil�lrllir�lnllriilrl►li�lliriililiill�rililirrllrrllrl H804090 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: Project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:_ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: Ihave the following comments/questions The Wood Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17601 Wrightwood Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4953 Ililiri�lililli►rlirllilr oil 111111rrrlrlirrll,lli III ulllrrl11 HB10709 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: A I have reviewoA •')J` zside Estates Signature: e the project. 7 3 / !�i'/��O L1✓ Acontrol Address:_ r / � - , H.B. fiction of /�, fie project. Phone: 7 f - fYf- 9-2 1-5 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs David C Schumacher regarding your project: Or Current Resident ?Iw¢ 17331 Kristoppher Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5628 A/f -41�, II,I,,,,I,I,iI„►I„il,,,I,I,i„II„�,I,II„I,,,11„�,Iil,,,ll ` �'" ��� «�r/� =� ��✓ Sri�Y�S t�L fit,•-r'ct� H802137 Ci2Lr�/ 1 2(Y& Mel Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:r.A .--- project and request that the City Council approve the project. ,z The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:-"1/ Ul ee hJ Ae H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to.the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Smith Family regarding your project: a `GK or Current Resident 6611 Lakeview Dr - Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1123 II,I, I,I,II,,,I„II,►I,,,,II,,,II„I,I„II,,,,Ii,,,ll„I,IIAT HB08075 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: t i/ project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 7 , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 46rp(— Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Charles J Vranek regarding your project: Or Current Resident d 6441 Athena Dr , E Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6125 - 1 '10"U HB06629 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature:�i `_Z7A�i!'afd project and request that the City Council approve the project (/ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:(O G,/ --ZIP YGE 7V ddT.&J/. 92, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Mancino Family LitSd0 oy yryt nlvp-oa.< Aa•t�4'/JW or current Resident 6061 Doyle or 2W /17kdoedw ookw A".02.,Jp• �? Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4218 Illl,rlll,l,III,11111l1111111111Illlrlllllilllllllliliflllill) ' 4►r a w.0aU os s kF�r'd0 j Its eur HB04542 4ge-' e w 3 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. J/ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:�)�` 7 � ,�]-�eifsQ� ,K-i4iU t , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of r7 y/ required flood insuranc lead me to support the project. Phone: c.� . q � PP P 1 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Peterson Family 0r Current Resident 17372 Whetmore Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5600 11111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 III 11111111111111111111111 HBO3997 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �,/_ , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead ror support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs John S Quinn Or Current Resident 6541 Sabbicas Circe Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6636 111111,Ill IIIIIIII1111rI111I1111II1lirII11111 It I III 11111111111 HBO6159 T Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 1 ' I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _ _ project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: b 2-7 F9/ 14 4QL, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: (7t b Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Dick Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 6271 Farinella Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4200 Z y,l>t` 11fill11111111)��1��11���1�� �1�111���11�►�1���1���111��1�1 z- /�oc� s��,J w�C� Tic H804690 E L� iu�! �) t IU �4 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:/'y`7`fz�Z Kyl,•►��4Y�'I C , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Leech Family 1 or Current Resident e 97?ri� 17442 Kurt Ln �� ' Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5629 �[ .O C_f NY LL. s •• • III lilt 1I111111 fill 111t��1�{�i��il����l�ll�i���l��l�,I�i�l��ll "dt i e-a114074.r /s Jezv H903953 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. / �j The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �(� 6?,u,, ,* U• �O W-7 improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �/�r ��� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the Iabel below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Swezea Family regarding your proje ' — e mac-defd Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4228 ifIIIIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,I,I fill fill HB04794 near Huntington Beach City Council: 7� IL. -iewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates � gn �Si ature: _ project and request that the City Council approve the project = The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: V H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Gary S Finkel regarding your project: Or Current Resident 5791 Midway Or Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1021 ,,11 5G�1UL)`S A -wlle, are a r � HBC17739 \ Pitt v........... s Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ,. I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �� Sg-•,C,s H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support Phone: Y Yy-.L —9d 0 Q pport the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Curtis L Ramsey regarding your project: Or Current Resident �^� 7071 Bluesails Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3512 HBOS345 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: 4i1 project and request that the City Council approve the project // 1 The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:/f�tJ�� 4/4 CT H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of / required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/ `y L? 7 7 ?00/ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs William C Varney Or Current Resident 16521 Robert Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4240 H904733 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: - I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _- project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: L41eo, 1D.4 j � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 5-tq D D Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Paul D Twedt regarding your project: Or Current Resident U/:_�_o��- 6421 Glenfox Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6525 &A �v II,I.,,�I�i�ll,,,I,.II.,,I,II.,�I,I,,,I,I,i,l,�,l,l,,,ll,,,ill �► 1 � HB05926 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, Iead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Lecocq Family regarding your project: -- ` or current Resident 16501 Charleyville Cir �S Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3701 � � n HB02383 J'7 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: �"e,,05 project and request that the City Council approve the project. / /� The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 6 �V L C41,4'O 4-k-IZ , C!!l, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of o © required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:-�'' �lY — 6�7— 6 p Z9© Please make any convections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr c William P Wills regarding your pr ject: Gwfj �� Or Current Resident Co. xiny4as 18012 Clearwater Cirj Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1119 4V SA F S do Nn41Z,a IWx' fci� /svJ2�t Cap HBO8150 /�` Q/ S' fr S �N Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ���� - I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:t'73o a Al,t el egy Zv*#W- H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: M- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Dale L Dunn �.�� � �,r�Or Current Resident ��-f 4���" 17302 Almelo Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4621 II,1„„I.l,Ii..,I.,Ii.I.,,l„I,II,,,,I,I„�IIlI�„„1,1,1�1,1 TQwe�' ,� �'� 4'•� �"`•"-•�'t T . HB02536 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:— �,`� r fl�p , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Douglas P Swanson regarding your project: Or Current Resident C-an 4-4o, �«a LP 17621 Collins Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6557 (I,I,,till 1,11,,,1„111„1,11,11111„I,I,i,,,l a L--� T_'��, �, ,�A�►,,. HBOB985 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature-.--'-,�' ��J project and request that the City Council approve the project �,, , I The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:���.� U�`� �-� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:(ZZZ/����" 96-�/ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project t t Mr Thomas J Rees or current Resident 7122 Betty Dr "t T Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5451 11,(,,, I,I,II,,,I„II,►,i,l,l„I„I,(,l,,,,11„I,I„I,I„II,I Alryv et i ?'y7e OYC, ec� HBO6574 .1-1 fib ` side Estates Signature: '" the project. / Z"L I� J�4 L��t�" �� �'"' .—Y LIM d control Address: ; H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 1 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regardin your project: Mrs Carolyn B Millers w ,d� 4 or Current Resident 17912 Denvale Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4854 IIIIt111111,IItI�I1IiIIlIttll,l1111111,IIII,III11111II11111111 I 6o HBIO584 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: My L+YL , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs David J Povich pl,{.dls4 lT mi op r'ca.& fkWi rwi- Or Current Resident 16362 Gentry Ln (ju` IIS (,tom Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3304 IIIIIiI1111111111111111111111I11111t111111I1111I1111111111111) H801097 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates .Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: C Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Goode Family or Current Resident 7021 Moonlight Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3531 11111IIIII1,11 fill I1111111 fill 1IIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111I1III1 H905435 • Deer Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: .YU project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: l Q0 U 5 Z.. _cNG1,1 Lrt i'`o, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Solum Family regarding your project: Or Current ResidentoA 16652 Lovell Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4236 I I,I„I,I I I,I I,,,I,I I I„III 111I„I,I„I I„I I,i,I,I,,,I,I I I,,,I 1 ' 7 HB04566 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 5q 5 R-L C-P_ (L , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: 1l� 6�� —c)(3 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. T Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Ralph S Torrellas .Z a r N, Or Current Resident 5951 Price Or Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4934 a✓lC� a f�' rt�IF a��h'�o� III,l„II �1 ^r HB11079 Dear liuntington Beach City Council: Q ' 1 �� rn-�✓ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: 1 prof '-^^»pqt that the City Council approve the project 1 The flood control Address: H.B. iml QPP tr��� of rec ject. Phone: Pl( elow: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions re ding -se proje r The Bremmer Family � d— Or Current Resident 16762 Hermit Cir WL "�' �� � Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4621 � HB01444 ` Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Cound (move the project. 1 Address: , H.B. imnrov ments and re(Uujed flnnd incnranro� 1- a --zo. p nrt the nrnjeCt Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs James A Hanna regarding your project: or Current Resident 6462 Govin Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3307 HB00797 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions re ding your project: Ms Phyllis R Fowler 2 &SL"- � Jdp -� YI or current Resident 6301 Warner Ave SPC 49 ( Huntington Bh. CA 92647-soo4 � H801742 -Dear,Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr $ Mrs Rexford T Parker regarding your project: or Current Resident 18171 Riverside Cir Huntington 8h, CA 92648-1077 Ta 74 H808042 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signa • ,`,_J project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: Q C(!5:. LuK 1TI=oi2Q L-" , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/T a 10 --5,50 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Donavan A Cullings JA or Current Residentij;Nt� mEiW iJO LLA RS 17952 Whitford Ln )�1 lNS�t�.,4C C�.uc.� it1=UafZ Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4W2 OFFSET TNF TJAm�CrE pc�t./E t3Y �C�R�Y1 Nb w hl� L iT'12.� Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ � �O �� I have reviewed materials on Shea Ho�ss Parkside Estates i e: project and request that the City Coun pprove the project. `) r The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control s: �U `� �" , H. . improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of r� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Ph+4e: g'j�!Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions /0i1 1•4 L regarding your project: e8392 r =Lambert Nava ��� � _M/tA(Ifw p�� or rrent dent a �� �, ./ uCA 92647-492 ~ Q�n � � NO / ,� �1�lF • II,I,,,,I,I,II,,,I.,I1,,,I,I„II,I,,,,I,I,II„I,I,,,,1,111„►I C �� �Cd JS 06 H803714 AlorMY r/ 0 *- D;eaF JJuntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: = project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mrs Pamela K Lawler regarding your project: � � l Or Current Resident 17081 Berlin Ln re Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4501 �` Ilrlrrrrlri,lirr,irrll,irr�lr,l,l,l,llrr,„rillrrirr,rlirr,lil ` � �' �' �� HB10111 , Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of / required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. one: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions re ding yqur proj ct: Mr & Mrs Scott A Kahn Or current Resident r Ck L I V11 5631 Selkirk or Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4831 II►Irrr(if IIII Ito lr,Il,irrritIII[III I III rrrrIII rrrrlllirrrl G HB10551 ��/ �ys Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr & Mrs Carl 0 Olson WE *10U LAD Q1XT-HG12L PAY Or Current Resident 17811 Alfawn Cir "rvyice Tide Huntington Sh, CA 92649-4801 II�I,r,rlrlrllrrrlrrllrlrr,I,rllrrl,llrrrrr,llrrrll„rll,l,lrl akA I" c'ele E)62L1. 1.1,- 14t `` '�v►VT h�T�4T L�t�L C� �:� H810567 �lr41=L,.e To Sm6 p n� �3) w Ae tiDjar�Iyntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. - The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 1 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Stephen M Henny Or current Resident 17852 San Leandro LnC� - Huntington 8h, CA 92647-6677 II,I.,,rirl,Il,rrlrrllr„i,Il,r,lir,l„rlt,rrl,lrlrrrlrllrlr,l `�"�°'� ��`�J°��'4,�\�"�''��'a� H206262 1� \4K� Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have reviewed.materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: -J;4 46 4-r of E e,> , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �d ' d / Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Andrew M Vuncanon ��� Or Current Resident 6431 Morion Cir �,�� � � Eso� ,�Q.o,.,/ Huntington Bh, CA 92547-6532 Il,l,r„I,I,Ilrrrlrrll,„Irllrr,Irl,,,llrrrlrlrrllrrrrllrrl,ll �� Acief, ' "Q6 xexv c-er HB06012 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: �o PO A. - 0 V �.� I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: L-4c.-SJ //,-A Z�� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ��� '/ d4-, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me.to support the project. Phone: Lf Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Charles W Gimer regarding your project 17531 Collins Cirr Huntington Bh, CA -92647-6560 ))rlrrrrl,1,lirrrlrrlir,rlrllr,ri,I;rj.��l,►rrrlir►,rll„rlll HB06015 Dear Iluntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Hom ' Par Estates Signat e: _ .project and request that the City CWV ouncil ove the project. ben. of this project, particu y the d control Address: H.B. im Vs and resulting eli ation or redu 'on of required floo yu�ance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any co ,etons necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions - ....:.. �. 48-102 tA 2, IAIA Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions esident regarding your project: �yea� � �. �o n y1',/ .�'� } ( f eieshtiGliey- n f ary FQYt tr4 64 uAV L A E R 9 E A R C E 2) Pic P Associates �. G� Consultants in Strategic Communications Pos 0 0 C T Mayor Debbie Cook c' ' City of Huntington Beach lv -- ; : Via Courier F� Dear Mayor Cook: _. I am writing to update you on the additional responses received today in support of Shea Homes' Parkside Estates. The responses came in response to a letter we sent recently to homes and businesses within the flood zone area that will benefit from Shea Homes' construction of flood and drainage improvements related to Parkside Estates. In today's mail, we received: 76 cards requesting that the council APPROVE;Parkside Estates 4 cards requesting that the council deny Parkside Estates Combined with cards received previously, the current total tally is: 244 Hu tington Beach residents asking the council APPROVE Parkside Estates l 22 residents requesting that the council deny Parkside Estates We will cuntinue"to receive responses in days to come, and I will keep you updated. Best regar s, Laer Pea e Associates aPearce, APR President cc: As. Mary Beth Broeren Mr. Ron Metzler � e� l01�- /OZ- t`U n t c A, tin (\J G�� 22892 Mill Creek Dr., Laguna Hills, CA 92653 ► 949-599.1212 ► Fax. 949.599.1213 mailboxQlaer.com m- www.laer.com Dear lu.:zntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. / r� 6� The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: G �J��' �1 d � - H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Alan B McGregor �y�t 1� �N +2. t� Or Current Resident 16332 Bradbury Ln A'wdj Lt&6 �-0 Huntington eh, CA 92647-3248 Q�d erdF6' 1`W-9 6041"?.- HBO3028 (A jrf Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: J,6v project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: Lllsw C H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of (` required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �jT �Y� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Herman L Wietzel regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6561 Kilda Cir Huntington eh, CA 92647-5625 ,,I,I,Ii,,,I„II,fill I,I„II„I,I,I,I,i„II,),,,III,,III Heo2114 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: , YZ, I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �'�iCJ•�2_ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Best Limousine svc Or Current Business 7472 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5441 H613375 Pear Huntington Beach City Council: �I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: (jA- ,-,Ir, project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 0 97 cJ� C1 - H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:_ '1(4- ;?'f- 4 g C)I Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions ` 'Miss ,( rr� ++ ' regarding your project: VtLIDYfp �.1lpgdl� Or Current Resident 6602 Rennrick Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5638 III II„I,II,,,,,I,II„I,I - H902123 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 1 C,Q,3 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Preston Family Or current Resident 17401 Caspers Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5607 HBO2932 _r Dear Huntington Beach City Council: -- I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particztlarlq the flood control Address: '`,J t .ti H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ���� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Robert L Saitman regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6582 shenlyn Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5646 H902174 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: C��`l� c�-`� C� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Lloyd Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6622 Manhattan Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5678 H903906 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: (,1`� ` �d Z L H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mrs Jtalie Slater regarding your project: Or Current Resident 16571 Potter Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4822 H600259 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:6 3 3 o2 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions 1 Mrs Minnie L Kreutzer regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6332 Athena or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6124 H806656 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: y I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �'7�ao% r -2�;�,�.,i ^' H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 3 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mrs ,Rosemary Wharton regarding your project: or' W-rent Resident 17201 Berlin Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4505 111111 r 1,l 1,i„fill i'l 1111 HB10084 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: G( , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of y F 7 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: -/ 70 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs L L Hamilton Or Current Resident 7032 Sunlight Dr Hui-itington Bh', CA 92647-3551 11,,,111 fill,I HBO54e3 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatur project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /99EQ- 'n• H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Louis P Scalise Or Current Resident 16882 Canyon Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4011 Heii396 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: J4 l Y project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �3 i � �.1 � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of q o- required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: L5�1) t� D Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Osterhout Family Or Current Resident 6312 Farinella Dr Huntington Bh , CA 92647-4222 H904665 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: •1I(9( Q,(Wu-oc� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �g`�-��=�-� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Miss Alice Ting Or Current Resident 71oi Nimrod Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6221 HB00741 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. /' The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: '�� 'J=S p,, B• improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Walter G Lawrence Or Current Resident 6352 Freeborn Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5513 HB02011 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: (� 'I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: �C.�.t-C-- GJ1P�,, project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 7(���- S-F, 1l Oct�+r bor H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: U Qqa 3 13 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Anthony F Gonzales Or Current Resident 17642 Still Harbor Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6437 "R050eO Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: C k project and request that the City Council approve the project. 6_ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 5 Q + ()CQ.n Y H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ) Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Chough Family o-(N� Or Current Resident 5601 Ocean Terrace Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92648-7511 H809366 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: J /V I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control -Address:- I(0 5S( 1 fi!A A CS Lg,,)7 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ? / / --3 2J- L5--6 Please make �ny;iorrections necessary to the labeLbelow: Dear Shea Homes: 1 ' I have the following comments/questions ..- regarding your project: Resident 16551 Thames Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4629 HBO1536 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatu project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:_f�4U/ /Vi OV—nG C� 1,24`4: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Leland E Bruce Or Current Resident 16431 Mercier Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3313 HB00997 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: 1 r L, project and request that the City Council approve the project. F V,, The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 3 �� � improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: "�i�i Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Merritt Familya �i '� � �, Or Current Resident 16431 Rhone Ln �DG Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4128 Ilrlrr..1,Irllrrrl,rllrirlilrrlrrrllrrlrl{,rirrrllrrrrl{rrllrl �ACC yr��1, . �� �-�� -� HBO1579 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates ftur project and request that the City Council approve the projectThe benefits of this project, particularly the flood controless: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of + n required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Z=0 (o� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Joseph M Shirley or Current Resident 17402 Caspers Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5607 Iirlrrrri�lrllrrrirrllrrrlrlrlrrtlrrllrrrlrrrlllrrrrrlrlrrlrll HBO3925 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:_ 1�7� � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/// Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Richard H Viner or Current Resident 16732 Lovell Ln Huntington eh, CA 92647-4237 IlilniilililliirliilliiililFrliili{iil)rlrrrlrillMill 111111 - HB04560 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: G � project and request that the City Council approve the project. �/� The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: j H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of --7 / required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: t/� / 4 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Scott Family Or Current Resident 18252 Fieldbury Ln Huntington eh, CA 92648-1052 HBO8812 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: c I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. aa The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 1 Z"f 2�1�� �l H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction.of 64- - i required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Chua Family or Current Resident 17291 Destry Cir Huntington Bh,. CA 92647-6135 ilrl�rrrl�l�Il�rrl��llr�rl�ll�����ll��ll��irlrl�i�rr��lll���ll HB06679 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have-reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: l���/ �- H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of /! required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7l7 � 7 l ,� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Steven J Robert regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17911 Caledonia Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6519 HB05688 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. Q The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: S-7 !q t 1� _,f l W"j-' A LGo-ta,, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of (7 �L r� ) _� Z�� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: � Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: R . W. Company or Current Business 5791 Bellfield Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-1042 H613432 Dear Huntington Beach City Council:. A I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 46�1 V l 1J &Q , , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs William J Anderson regarding your project: Or Current Resident 16401 Woodstock Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3239 HB02935 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have-reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: bm project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: 'C� - 1�Lk �� C-L'�',H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 6-7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Liu Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 5791 Bellfield Ln Huntington eh, JCA 92648J-1O42t I1,1,Illlfll{Illlllllltlllll,{IllrIIfIIfIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll,Iflll HBO7686 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:,6 kl e H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Or Current Resident 16351 Rhone Ln q r-1/712C r 114,412 Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4126 II,Irrrrlrirllrr,Ir,Ii,.,I.I.,I,r,ll,r{�{.II.►rlrlrrrrllr,il,l �r�';i'�.t�s , — ��Sc l�te�� HBO1572 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: / '- I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: / � improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Voita G Safranek regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17382 Ireland Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5621 IIIIIIIf11)1{III11111111 fIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr11i11IIIII,II,III HBO2161 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: '-I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: _O&L IZ 55,,9:eL- project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:,#-05Z 4hH.B�( improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,.lead me to support the project. Phone: �! G,��-- 121 D gP-- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding project: Resident 5456 Bankton Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4711 �► 1111111�11IIIlI,IIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111I1 HB10435 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: . f !� I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. - �- The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: Z' H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Sandoval Family regarding your project: or Current Resident 6431 Meadowcrest Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5575 III III lilt 1111 1111111111 III III IIIIIII II11111 IIIIIIf IIIIIIIIIII HB02071 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: - I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: o� project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Heinz L Butner Or Current Resident 17312 Madera Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6145 IIIIII111 fit 111111 11 11ItIIII1111111111111111111111111111 lift II HBO6616 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: �a I havi,reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:_7072 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: rj/9 8'92-2gf S Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr $ Mrs Kenneth R Lindelin regarding your project: -9f- ^„ ^en# ;gran 1 eiem - 7072 sunlight Or V Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3551 Ili�,r a Irl,ll,irl,il�rrrl„Ilr,lilrilrlrrrilllrrrlrrlrllilrrl HBO54e7 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ^� I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. Uq The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ! r f r , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 7834 Arbor Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-7366 Ilrl,i„I,I,II,r,lirlln,Ilrrrl,,llr,llrr,ll,,,rllr,lrrlrrllil H801339 Dear Huntington Beach..City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: VIA H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction off .-� .required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Murray Family or Current Resident 6341 Athena Or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6123 II,I..„I.I,II�r,I,rilr,ri,Il,rrrrll.,I►Ir,ll„I„I,„Il,l,lrl HeO6638 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: . I have.reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signat project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: c�u r`r ✓ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs John A Baumgartner 6 9 -C 1; JtO U (4 Ct l�iJ !l v 5871 Padua Dr — Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4921 III I,I,I III fill III I,1LI 0� HB10590 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: , project and request that the City Council approve the project. ) The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Hamilton Family Or Current Resident 6752 Rook Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5641 il,I,,,,IrI,II,,,III Ilrr,i,I,I„il,,,l„I,,,II,I,i,I,l,ll,l,Il HBQ38�a� Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatu project and request that the City Council approve the project. �� �•-G �/`�'V � �/V ' The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Add ess: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of /l required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:���71 O � /J Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Burdette Family Or Current Resident 17792 San Leandro Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6640 IIIfill1,1,1,1 HB06226 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ;.I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: J11 _ project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:- G ( Sir e _��'', H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �3 9:77 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Rick M Wood Or Current Resident 17901 ,shamley Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4941 II,Irriilrlrllrrrl„Il,lir,IIIIIIIrrrlrllI U lllllrlr,rll a rlll H910949 Dear HuntingtY B act .,i � o ci i�'� I �,el,, }f l , I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: 6• project and request that the City Council approve the project. i/e The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: r H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: ?` r G G required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs James 0 Lamotte or Current Resident 7611 Vantage Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4634 fill,rrL1„Irll,r„II III,rlr„Ilr„II fill,l HeO1442 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: UP U/(�,�✓�"� j�j�G J.lt �. H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: b Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Robert A Kuehn Or Current Resident 6801 Crista Palma Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6622 II,lr,rrl,lilt„rl„llrr,lrll,r,ll,r„Irl,ilrlllr,,,,ill,lrlil HB05586 Dear Huntington Beach City Council:. I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: _ project and request that the City Council approve the project. 1 / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 16 38 r JJ�GZ,Q. �S �� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 71 �,!/y ,j/� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: `1 b ` Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: . j 16301 Duchess Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-8100 HB03014 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: bV,• Q.�2c s��,l project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: lo i3y/a H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Viola J Stewart or Current Resident 6252 Newbury Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6534 II,i„1,11I,II,,,I„II„11,II,,,1,1,1,11„I„1,111,111111,,,11 HBOB873 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: 11 , project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �/_��- tf 7_¢7• Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Sternberg Family or Current Resident 6451 Fallingwater Dr E�t/�ovRA6E 7 /�Pir?�+yE�+IfiVTj Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6506 �� D� � n ��!�-4 I III 11„1,1,11„11„111,11,11„11(1111111111111111111111111111 0 A2MA QIVb&,t /61�/`ASr�VC/ V/`G �rZ A?aJfrT WzAz cSENE/?Alirr ZL H904910 Dear Huntington Beach.City Council: ' I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: j� - project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: -7 Ly DZ a if 4U H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of VOW Mr.&Mrs.Lopez required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: AVV7602 Vantage Dr Huntington Bh,CA 92647 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Julie L Lope-z Or Current Residea't 7602 Vantage Dr Huntington Bh, CA -P2647-4635 HBO1433 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates. Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:-7/ ,�A6,A& A�� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of � j�. required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: / js Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mrs Mavis R Pietila regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7112 sunlight Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92547-3553 Ilrlr,i,I,I,IIr„Ir,II,,,I„II„I,I„I,I,,,II,,,rlli,l,l„Ilil HB05491 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: (� project and request that the City Council approve the project. .C4 The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: Z _� d/ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: GG''�/4-z, . Y required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Edgar P Williams Or Current Resident .� 6721 Cory Dr Z 7;� �d� Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5612 �- He02203 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: - �J I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: IaIU6 project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly;the flood control Address: a�7� �� �G� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs William H Small Or Current Resident 17371 Encino Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6137 H906742 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. "9L �Z` IX 1,4 The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 7 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Toneatto Family Or Current Resident 17582 Wrightwood Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4959 HB10699 Dear.Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:_ < �� �••� �`�!C' ��y j� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: /L-/ '� �i � & Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: j Mr & Mrs Don Ariosto Or Current Residentr;C!t32 1 16662 Dale Vista Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4319 HB04430 Dear'Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: zk�� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: / C2 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Jesus C Munoz Or Current Resident 6962 Verlene Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4357 IIIII II11111111111 III I 1111111 fill 1111111111111111111111I,I1111 f H904266 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: r Q project and request that the City Council approve the project. _ The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:- COr-'A H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 4 7-- �7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: A Kiddie Karousel Home Preschl or Current Business 6542 Cory Or Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5609 IIIILIIIIII,I111111,II111III,IIII)fill IIIIII,III III 11111111111 HB12102 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: n I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signatur : V project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address• q6� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Resident regarding your project: 6952 Verlene , Cir Huntington eh, CA 92647-4357 Hill I11111111111111111111111111111 fill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,II HB04265 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 7 dS7 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: / Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Ms Jacqueline M Vaughn regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7051 Ellis Ave Trlr 35 Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1251 He07316 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ZO H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �' � required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: l �G Q Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrs Dorothy N�lbandian 7� or current Resident 72 7072 Moonlight Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3531 HBO5441 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signa e: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: `7 K 2,z 1Z N D 9 H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: j �y 1 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Dennis K Thompson or Current Resident 7822 Rhine or Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4645 HBO1160 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 1(oa5 a. Q no rA�un.� «.r.n_ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ^' °^ �, e.Jk at L c-4j"1 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: t,a_ g y(0_ C -tom Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Bates Family regarding your project: or Current Resident . 16252 Bradbury Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92{{647-3246F IIIIIIIfIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlI111IiF111IlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' HB03035 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. n r n The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: `�i�� ,�t��C� �f�(SI CL ( L� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone:-714) 6 41- 4 3 (0 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 17391 Alta Vista Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6130 111111III111111 I1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIliII 11Jill IIIIIIIIIII HB779 Dear.Huntington Beach City Council: f I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. Mr Charles Barbara The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:- 6641 Crista Palma Dr H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of WIntirigton Beach,CA 92647 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: -(9 2*Z Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Charles S Barbara Or Current Resident Hunt ngtona Palma 9 � � �� Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6665 F J.a a. .k.-e ic, III 11111 I111 lilt III III,11111111IIIIIIII111111 lilt 1111111111111 HB05598 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature, project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: /6t12-Z 5 c vi.mow Gi r, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: kZ Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Resident regarding your project: 18022 Shoreview Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1124 ,I,I„I„III„i,ll,l„I HB08068 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �l� �r H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7i y-pt/e-3 d Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Knoth Fancily Or Current Resident 7112 Betty Or Huntington .Bh, CA 92647-5451 HBO6573 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: fr 1 v� � H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Or Current Resident 162 .1M Huntington Bh, CA 92547-4114 11111 I11111„1I1,II1t,III,iI,,,l111,11,I,111111IIIIIII,I,II HB01621 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: t7�� �c �Y �, �� H.S. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ) Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Irving Tucker Or Current Resident 6052 Dagny Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3250 H903043 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: WRUWr project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly, the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of MIN s��� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: -7 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Walker Family Or Current Resident 17871 Quintana Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6673 I,„I,,I I„I I,I I,,,I I„I,,,I„I I,i„, 111111111 HB06284 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: / 7 j�j/j y Al H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 7 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 16772 Busby Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4217 I,,,I,I„I„I,I,I,I I I,,,I I„I I,,1,11,1,,1 H904773 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: _ I have'reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: . ?ct and request that the City Council approve the project. ...e benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ( ?� `�.�� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7�4 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs William A Radig Or Current Resident 17971 Larcrest Cir Huntington eh, CA 92647-6456 HB05934 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: / f L_ I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: P v� l 3�d 'ol project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ( b Z S N I CONS b Q... H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ci l E6 y 7 required flood insurance, Lead me to support the project. Phone: �z/� F Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Ultrak 2000 Or Current Business 6162 Shields Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4246 II,I,,,,l,I,II,,,Irrll„rlrl„I„Irl,l,rlrll,,,ll„r,l,llnl,l He129el Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 46/6_2 J-6C*e6g& 2�r_. H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of r equired flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone y-3 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Robert Abraham regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6162 Shields Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92547-4246 {I,{,rr,I,Ir{I,rrl„II,,,I,I,rI„Irl,lrrl,llr„Il,r„Irll„I,I H904616 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have°reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: i' project and request that the City Council approve the project.The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 6 b 9/ FYI A 2/4,TJ(I Z y '7, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 0 t-f 7 S 7 �763 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Resident 6681 Marilyn Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4366 „I„I I„i I,,,I I„I„I,,,I I I,I I I I i HB04346 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: 4 _ project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Ad H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Ph " ' 4-1 � required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. = Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Etem Family Or Current Resident 7672 Vantage Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4635 HBO1439 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates SiRnaturekl�76F project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address:—.: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ( f U ( � required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: "I Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Ms Patricia L Briggs Or Current Resident 5621 Ocean Terrace Dr _ Huntington Bh, CA 92648-7511 HBO9364 Dear,Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: C,;� �� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �`� ��� 3'�`�_��0--), Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Michael D Lind Or Current Resident 16312 Gentry Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3304 II,Irr,rlrl,ILrrlrrllrrrlr,Ilrrrllrli�rrri,rl„,ilrrlrllrlr�l HBO1102 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: ��/, �p'G� required flood insurance,lead me to support the project.. `� p "� Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Ms Michelle L Hughes Or Current Resident 8431 Wells Rd Westminster, CA 92683-7817 II,I„rrl,1,Il„Irrl�r,Ilrlrr�li„Irr„IIl,rrl„Ilrr�,ll,l,l,l HB11577 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signat project and request that the City Council approve the project. ` The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ��64e,�,, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Andrew R Akiyoshi Or Current Resident 6561 Peggy Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4310 WU�hfl ��51� G �Url-� ►_ti I11111II,IIIIII111,il,llI111111,II1111111l1,11111�11111111111 • k4our lye j 4 Ruh L HB04172 1 Dear Huntington Beach r,h.r1--..--- i I ha states Signature: , - proj S U f 1 Lo ro ect. u a The 4 trol Address: � 1 �J I r r T > ' = H.B. improvel..«14_ If required flood insurance, ie.�:- . sport the project. Phone: ?J' rk -` Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs LawrenCe J Kemp Or Current Resident � � �%% 5911 Franmar Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3706 11111[till IIIIIIIIIIII J 11111111,111111,1111111111111111111111 ,' HB022e7 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: . 0/(� project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: ���' / H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Mrs Hugh A McGlynn ��`/ ere Or Current Resident / 19372 Maidstone Ln a.& Zzle a Huntington Bh, CA 92648-5504 y+ IIlI11 III111IIIIIIIIIIl1111I1111I1I1IIII11111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII ��r ���� H809307 Dear-Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council,approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �j l ✓� 1`�1� S r H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of S required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: � I L4 - (, Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions `2 L 1✓vo`� regarding your project: Or urr side Z"� ��PO�-=� � n,n 6112 S ields Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4246 VV\!A kwl-Z s II III H fill III(IIIIIIII[II(IIIIIIIf)III[I)III III III IIIIIIIIIII I -flood Mil I ICOLS l,"L(.- off o roe HB04612 C,J wLx hei 6,- 1� ,5 S cie- bog 6--ck -P 4 44 Ll-o- Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 21 lzi, H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of /-� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ( Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your p ject: The Boehm Family Or Current Resident 16621 Busby Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4215 IIIIII III IIIIIIIIfill �sU HB04755 ` w Dear Huntington Beach City Council: x � 01 1 I't,14AC C '• I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: __JdC6A project and request that the City Council approve the project. 57� lL The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: /Z/ 3s 7-- /47 S'9 .lease make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I-have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs .Robert C Richter Or Current Resident 5762 Padua Or Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4920 11, III 1,11 111„1„11111„B i l 1,I,r„1,11{„„{1,,,,1,i l„,11 HB10667 ,Q Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signat project.and request that the City Council approve the project. .SACK 4 ANNE MALEY 18132 FIELPDU2Y LANE- The benefits'of this project, particularly the flood-control Addrg HUNTINGTGN -€3F_-Ae_'H, rfA H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of g2647 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 4y. a d,7_ �day f � - Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Maley Family 1 r/eprding your project: Or Current Resident 18132 Fieldbury Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6520 y'""' ` '7 02 DEC ?? 11[If fill 11,II,i,1„II,,,1111„1111,,,1,111,,,,,11,i,1,111 fill . �—) Al HeO5956 MAI MA Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature. project and request that the City Council approve the project. A�� // r / The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: �� j !'//jj tCJYy� �* H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: ,0j1p Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Charles E Weave regarding your project rti� � ! or Current Resident � (�OS(l�vl/¢�G, Huntington Bh, CA 92.647-4122 � S�vOy II,I,,,,I,I,II,,,I„11,,,I,I„i,,,ll„I,I„l,l„I,I,,,lilir,�T • ��'�P��-��� rmZ H8016081�J6; Dear Huntington Beach City Council: .�I kraveleviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: Z �_ project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: 0 ?✓ H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �— Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Resident reg ding your project:7 J 6061 Manorfield Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1064 H80790O Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ` I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mrr & tars Dean R Mouren-Laurens C4- a b t,-d� 4 t-ves c� Or Current Resident 6912 Capstone Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5606 «'�.. a-t 0 HB04100 ftiaA 51a on Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: �(f project and request that the City Council approve the project. � /�-�`� The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: `(0 (, C , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the.label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions re arding your project: Resident 16735 Arbor Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-7348y /A I,IIII,,i1,1111,„1 fill,I,Il,,,i„II III„ll„1„,II„1,1„,I,II t L)4C,147�614G— r��o/°E/Zr�"S�— ft1 -/-rW 5 CO IqlqO1111/— , e S� H2013O4 Dear 1 3 s Signat proje( A ,j ct. The h ,� Address: H.B. impr, _ .. ur re uLuon of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: • Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Alan J Schinnerer y9W A129 Duuaeik-)& PW -'Ta1VFPtQ- or current Resident 5581 Ridgebury Or Egowt Yoc)�2 Prwoe." b ° U fj--oe Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4825 �� 1,I„1I,I,I,I fill l,,,,ll„I,I) �W G �-kriu&-o4 X2 Ak 7: ut,�' ck�A.) n H810501 A jfjj —,i e- Ov'�-urs V -S`r> Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Hatala Family or current Resident L r t S nU` 6301 Newbury Dr j5 cGrc� &,'i ll zc. Huntington Sh, CA 92647-6535 / _r 16 2! Z 1:12 r �✓v� �Cc7�� HBOSS62 h G ����y� tr�G /yDL�• �� c, CG c�n9 fv 41-4° 40-csS fflG Dear Huntington Beach City Council: C\-��-�i� I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project. The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr & Mrs Michael H Shrubsole } LL_- CO ��l\1yl)1� 1 R Y Or Current Resident _ 17091 Erwin Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5503 H801994 o\Q O f-ar�Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes' Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council Ga ewe� e project. ct --r ,A0 Address: 511671 f��,� �wr r hive H.B. +n...�.� rpcn�tin .mil' _]__ __ __i_. .• F l" 1 uuuuvit Tr rcnncTiy�i-vr 41-ti J Phone: 43 rE�u1L? �.+.raQ• e"eazxc�l c c� •:•YY ��7'R t'�'Lit: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: OHS' �- S �liJd Em I have the following�rie ts/ u�esns regarding you'Xzltccti�/��1e� The Dodge Family Or Current Resident T + c CAA � cLn,0(-'�F 5291 Kenilworth Dr - . Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4524 IM.@r c yc « 1.1 L'I�Zw(�Q.�t?}�.JX ' L L��✓t '4- �':�V'G i T H91005 4 L"J; h<a r' " M C V—e- kz,>1,.( 5. From:Robert A Pc'k:w Fax:+1(714)962.4810 To:City Cound Fax: +1(714)526.5233 Page 2 of 2 Monday,October 21.2002 2:02 P%1 BOB POLKOW -.rL ,,; 21772 Oceanview Lane Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 8215 Home Phone 962-4810 Email RPolkow@aol.com _" ;•�, { ' '�: ;, vr� Z`u�? OAT 21 P j } October 21,2002 SUBJECT: Request to nullify Agenda items 9 D1,A,B,& C,and D2 A&B TO: Huntington Beach Council I,and I am sure,others concerned with the prosperous future of our city were elated that the planning commissions approval of the Shea home project and.the Strand would be a small step to assure future progress in Huntington Beach. Anti-development groups have kept our city on it's knees for the past years since they attained a choke hold on our city's progress. These appeals should be disapproved as not in the best interest of the majority of voters in our city; I repeat,the majority,not the special interest groups that caused our city to be court cited for neglecting our city's infrastructure. It may sound trite but when Pam Julian Houchen,even though she and our elected officials had not been a part of the program that caused the infrastructure neglect,had to plead guilty to a lesser charge of a misdemeanor instead of a felony I emotionally turned the air blue with my thoughts. It's about time,even before election that,as in the Wal-Mart case,the wishes of the majority take top precedence. RESPECTFULLY: SOB POLKOW, Concerned citizen for Progress and Prosperity in Huntington Beach, 21772 Oceanview Lane,Huntington Beach,Ca 92646-8215 (71-4)9624810 ,_` ;tip-. , ,•�. J1,v.,_ �..-"�,�: _•� r Oct. 169 2002 0 C T ` 1 2002 �h To: City of HB — City Council ➢ From :Dan Lloyd 25 year HB resident and Landing tract neighbor to Shea Development ➢ RE: Shea Homes Planned Development adjacent to Wetlands ➢ I approve of this planned development., ➢ Currently 1 pay $600 in flood insurance premiums each year. Not once have I needed to use this insurance. If the city does not have the funds to do the studies Shea conducted or implement the improvements Shea will implement upon project approval, I feel you owe it to the citizens of Huntington Beach to approve this development. ➢ I believe in property rights. Shea Homes a constitutional right to build on property it owns as long as the planned neighborhood meets all legal and code requirements. The city's planning staff stated that it has fulfilled this obligation, so please give Shea the right to build. Opponents bring up issues like wetlands, flooding, noise —just about anything to further delay our relief from high flood insurance premiums. I ask you, are they the experts? Do they have graduate degrees in hydraulics or biology or urban planning? Do they have a professional license that requires them to adhere to an ethical code? None of the above. They are self-appointed experts who are expert in nothing except delaying tactics. Who are you going to believe — the experts on your staff and the environmental consulting team, or these other guys? They've delayed it long enough. Go with the experts and vote yes. ➢ Dan Lloyd 5321 Candle Circle HB, Ca. 92649 (714)846-0159 7/ ,F cf V, y�" 1,70 100 1 a b , I Al A River Runs Through It. . . � �` zs>e.N" ¢fi'.. �� •�' ���F i�.`gig, - t $➢„� �,. ky�: y'r � My name is Julie Bixby. I live at 17451 Hillgate Lane. I am deeply concerned about the property you see in this photo. Shea claims to have been a"good faith" neighbor... Photo: March 14, 1994 RECEIVED FROM :5U I AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF -2 --_ OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK L l "l T L' W, llliiq:�` �• #•.t'±Rt `YF '" _ .A �y ''•^ 7—c's.•�1' �_�q` .64 N Nli �"... f y..v'C *....'^ ( "'%. -.�lr_..,;,�. ��..•��' \<t�."`x:v."`"'-^+.r. E 4a, a q `i r'^w a'. yq Permit? What permit? Why didn't Shea obtain a Public Works permit for the brick work they did on the 60" storm drain under their property? Photo: July 13, 2001 3 Misleading Propaganda? 13 14 r , i WARNER AVE j ra.ruu rcw,+rw .� RA mk AK j CfCfVD _ _" = t noon , n n• ruse ;':,/ p.Ea-w¢,rwr'!yn.o rae9 9b' xW1� iwip000 4 $. T AR.RUN� s zrxrHwvr 7 �g v- t 7{ REP -D 9Y' f M1K W ®IfUYS AK10.6 I (I kiI SI7C8I-fOtI1C9 _ ti�� = CERTIFIED TOPOGRAPHIC WORKAM (PR as u APPUCATIONJ And why didn't Shea explain in their mailings to residents that the upstream floodplain improvements are the result of new modeling techniques, and are not the result of any planned physical infrastructure? 4 Mrs. Mucha, thanks for asking! Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Padmide Estates Signature project and request that the City Council approve the project �� 'he benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:��/7 I/.Z. C Y>'1 ,H. .npronments and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance lead me to support the project Phone Please make any corrections necessary to the label below. Dear Shea Homes: I have the following cornments/questions regarding your project Mr 8 Mrs David R Mucha or Current Resident 6912 Via Carona Or Q 01— Huntington eh, CA 92647-6650 And 4.1-6 ILI���,Id�II���Ldl��ddL��II���I�I,II�����dI�tLLd�lt H806473 But more importantly, there are still serious EIR questions that haven't been adequately, completely, or sufficiently answered. 5 i Look, up in the sky! n � . m x, T g NO 2w v Why doesn't the EIR mention that this area of Huntington Beach is subjected to daily noise from planes landing at Long Beach and Los Alamitos? Photo: October 2002, from the backyard of 17451 Hillgate Lane (Near Graham& Glenstone); white crossbars are patio cover; plane is headed NW towards Long Beach Airport. 6 s �} '� �3 x-'��`a ' �v '��s - r xz..:s F�'���aa�� ��,�T .y��'�s-�'y� �'ia5'`� c'�� ,• "1 "0, e� r FR x r nr qx w ,r9 aY,. v'�.y1at- �fi'"'- .y�a ", �•^*` T i�r x ,r i y.'s+ .'["c r $ .: '%y r .'In`' .:-r f"C•.-g • sr Uk-;,'..' ,� .�� 1 tyl}y, «fie 2 4�- 4 ����•K• ��^ i `k c4� ♦ �'Fg. �,`„ Gs��,«�,t�'K,§"� �''>�t'y° ,, Y "TF-C`��';S� ' �&�f.,i°•. r .}`, y;6a � `k y€7- -�' r �t of� x!.s�` ��r�� t taw'�k •Y i�Y1 AI f P T`# �y'' "i. � 'i4. --ry •'f *py��.. Yb q yavJ�Fp ._ ,g�`#1 h 4 `.Z/•—�.•... y �" �.CN',;,1 x a x� K si., .+� ,� ram'' J �". �,.a.♦ f4t� - , ..,,.. ,�.. f.�#t✓ � _ fJ � .tl�t„'r T'i •`•`�.� V s .4..7.,E � a��.n`.+'`•y. �t e:i t sN°f.t�� ',`•.�"�,� �sY' �`� a k,lil r � • �r ij3 t r a ,� r,.{'+ ,� .. � r'W � �• '� A�-,.~ ��,. ,r � ts, t ��~ `� sri ',{� � � p�� iY€ �1�►..... �'t�aJ C�. �a •13a a'"`4 j [ _. .'�3' Pet ..R�1 .'Sa hr: ` (��.,two 1 1 • 1 , 1 1 •- 1 - 1 • 1 • � i 1 • 1 1 Bogus Re-striping Mitigation f � r y r"y _. Ail y r s w How can the updated traffic study be-serious in claiming that re-striping Graham will result in a 55% delay reduction at Graham & Glenstone, when drivers already behave as if re-striping is there? i i 8 Plenty of room for homes and a fire station . . . T'++ tl, TII OZ a� d i w 4 � J1U A Why wasn't a "General Plan consistency" alternative considered in the list of alternative projects? That is, leave the fire station designation intact and build homes around it? (or better yet,just build the fire station only?) 9 Fire Response Time Estimates �G 5 .ec. {� ' Y 'J ' �'..� �' ' tix±r 9 oa ou or.' K[wic4 �t nest es�j � n fl!n un aTRe OR kit 6:00-Greenleaf r E ij L 5:15-Glenstone e1+Ax „ ;Q-Rr` inE j,�,t1'3r eEn $ i r 4:30-Grhm/Slater — �` �. x 2��- W RRt a c.NJ1"fM'P OV'Sl5AT R fR wx J'ui 6:00-Bates �`� �� r-••"`'4ra 2.R��au � °P�.'y � � a�x��p � s relr�xclR a ctR ire 5:45-CandletiS�b 1tyk,�`ti ffi� r ci l0U E5 OR jr1 wckLtaW`cRia .pR i U 4... ; a :ah�`` Staxyy'�` 0 F 2�j tY r{F C[ 'SA#Yitl (ZI ) �3$i RiC i 7 5 - C(1 r �� 3 C� / K FAELI ifatATER OR cY a4 V '.. r �-e r v TER i@R. DR„'+ pxi a�� .. L i ti r4: 5:45-Felson ux""c tR ,E,HwtEc� §ou �'VAWk PA, 24 pWE H';,sste.%a'P Eta � E rmi-raa i/r"53 (� d x r rrkrrrx s��y14~ 411`_ 2 au7c p �f i C SEE 'Ica, 1 7PAR crosiuov A T d Gov} +r a Pea RiTA,,I" `� a vARn ,r 'ARK HWU J lAA E?04K tN b� F`l'�/ "3'ri�Pa'r �r.L' IN 10 PART 7 to t!RCM(VI L11 12 PT WtE UR „ LU ov" r#0 r- t axrrc''xt SEE 7 G5 Ea Ix`!H E'13 t.N { ' 15 IE44 e,a.•LX i$Pictt J LR y' -�7§CiEnfA6V .'R DR z P&MI Ea How do the Fire & Planning Departments reconcile the proposed General Plan Amendment to remove the Kenilworth Fire Station with: -General Plan Policy PF 2.1.1, -the time response data in the EIR on Warner& Relocated Heil, -the 9/24/02 Staff Report on time response from Edwards, -the fire station location analysis in the Bolsa Chica Project Revised EIR, •and the City's own concerns on adequate fire response as cited in the Bolsa Chica Project Revised EIR Response to Comments? ------------------------------------- Map: Thomas Guide 2002, Orange County pg. 857 a) HB General Plan Policy PF 2.1.1, "Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable emergency fire response times to meet a five minute standard, 80% of the time." b) Warner station does not meet the response standard (Parkside EIR) c) Relocated Heil station does not meet the standard (Parkside EIR) d) Edwards will likely not meet the response standard to parts of Parkside (Staff Report 9/24/02) e) Bolsa Chica Project Revised EIR(1994): "A new County fire station in the lowland near the terminus of Springdale Street or Talbert Avenue would eliminate service deficiencies to adjacent incorporated residential areas including Holly Seaclif ." (emphasis added) f) "This verbal standard will not be met with the current fire station configuration as shown in the REIR because the back-up stations for the project are well beyond the distance and time requirements necessary to meet the objectives." City of HB RTC letter, Bolsa Chica Project REIR 1994. 10 Types of Calls to H .B. F. D. (by percentage) 70 60 50 40 ❑medical aid 30 fires 20 10 0 1992 1996 2001 The City was plenty concerned about medical aid response--and back-up station response—for the 1994 Bolsa Chica Revised EIR. Why isn't the City concerned with these issues now with the 2002 Parkside EIR? ------------------------------------------ "The fire protection mitigation described above does not mitigate the paramedic impacts of the project." City of HB RTC letter, Bolsa Chica Project REIR, 1994. Data Sources: 1992 HB Draft General Plan: 70% medical aid, 6% fires 1996 HB General Plan: 68% medical aid, 6% fires 2001 H.B.F.D. Annual Report: 65% medical aid, 3% fires 11 Should we just pinch our Noses? 83,fsdg neKIOPM: A"'—21"$.4"" Abandoned Existing 60 RCP 493 x Al =69 Ac \ : b0! su '' East Garden Grove Wintersburg Channel rf bog Slater Channel Slater Pump Station EIR Volume IIA, Section 5, page 4-1 Why can't the EIR make up its mind on odor? Volume II thinks there won't be any objectionable odors, while Volume IIA says there might be odor problems. ----------------------------------- Volume 1I—"It is not anticipated that the proposed residential project will produce any noticeable objectionable odors." Volume IIA--"This may create anaerobic conditions and produce odor problems within the development." 12 Pump up the Volume 40 , Why doesn't the EIR analyze the negative water quality impacts from Parkside runoff that will cause more frequent pump-outs of Slater Channel pollution into the Wintersburg Channel and down to Huntington Harbour? 13 Coastal Commission has the last word: E I R flunks Water Quality! • "faulty assumptions and analysis" (9/10/02) • "information presented. . .is fundamentally flawed" (9/20/02) • "there are serious problems with the analysis" (10/18/02) This slide speaks for itself. The EIR flunks water quality. 14 y Parkside EIR is not fully CEQA compliant! 1 . Does not adequately analyze potential environmental impacts 2. Does not completely identify project alternatives 3. Does not sufficiently identify mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts The Parkside EIR is not fully CEQA compliant. Please overturn the Planning Commission's certification. Thank you. 15 PARKSIDE ESTATES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT iF o- 2 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE R RD A tTHE COUNCIL MEETING OF 1 a- a D_1 a�b�c Late Communication OFFICE OF THE CITY`CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 Expand Open Space Area (2.8 acres) Pre-General Plan County Area (4.9 acres) — Low Density Residential (1.6 acres) — Open Space Conservation (3.3 acres) Remove Fire Station Designation 3 GENERAL PLAN(EXISTING) GENERAL PLAN(PROPOSED)' I i IIE C -Pi RMH-25 . Ir jy: y b R1vdH-25� ' �•�. RMH 25! 7 , L-7 OS-P _ .77 BOLSA CT.�I�C.'i/��—t c � BOLSA.CHIC A/ ORANGE O COUNTY OF RL 7 :. . N y ORANGE RL- i �� f � ,.-, HJNtWb3N 4 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication I EXHIBIT"C„ I �, �,Fi 1GPA No.98-1 01 x£ ? o ® ®U6aiAYn 4 � �p1 `t�Rnw' samm � 1 ..O w.mm CCL+q i �mmm� aYayw.«m! �caa,v�,7 - :a,�mums`ww 9 oaaass 5 �?e�a.m.�m� �� 4 wr9m�ccaaem� 0 wxt,.aed.n � I � L Zoning Map Amendment No. 96-5A & 96-5B - Add Coastal Zone Suffix (40 acres) Rezone 8.2 acres to Open Space — Park Pre-Zone County Area (4.9 acres) — Low Density Residential (1.6 acres) — Coastal Conservation (3.3 acres) 6 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication ZONING(Elt'ISTING) ZOrTl1 rG PPOSED) k °CG 1 `CG i RMH f lYN[ 7 RM _. RL-FP2 RL.-FP2 8 z R.L CZ IMH _ c RL-CZ ° RMB RA` - ,� BOLSA CHICHI BOLSA'CFIICA/ COUNTY OF s COUN Y OF t ORANGE OKANGE - ✓�. RL CZ-FP2 r CC-FPZ-CZ Iti-CZ-FP a �r 7 Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-4 Amend LCP Land Use Plan & Implementing Ordinances (GPA & ZMA) Revise LCP/Coastal Element Text & Exhibits Annexation No. 98-1 Annex 4.9 acres (vacant land) 8 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Appeal of Planning Commission's Conditional Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City) — Land Subdivision for 162 Single Family Residential Lots — Dedicate 8.2 acres for Public Park Tentative Tract Map No. 15419 (County) — Land Subdivision for eight Single Family Residential Lots & Coastal Conservation Area 9 Appeal of Planning Commission's Conditional Approval k, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90/CDP No. 96-18 — 170 Single Family Residential Units/Planned Unit Development — Associated Infrastructure Improvements — Mix of 50' wide lots (min. 5,000 sq. ft., average 5,700 sq. ft.) and 60' wide lots (min. 6,000 sq. ft., average 6,700 sq. ft.) — Improve 8.2 acre park — Retaining walls 2 ft. to 3.5 ft. EIR No. 97-2 10 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Parkside Estates (Alt. 7) Y sa.3 k h Conceptual Land Use Olxnm icF.ax oxxonn tS �� E i E vmE P xx&ncl n oFx SIATEs T6�E T3N9F owxw.w.o:ca x.e.s.r 12 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Original Plan a� 'a* d " rx 13 208 Unit Plan { +a �. � � ••kN�� ' a " 14 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Current Planned Unit Development ly + 3 194 rt" l f L k: q 4` yy 15 Benefits of Project Numerous Public Improvements (e.g. storm drain, flood control protection, traffic signal, sewer) 1430 acres (7,000 residential units) and new mall removed from flood insurance boundary 28% of site open space (8.2 acre public park) Preservation of Natural Resources 17 affordable housing units (off-site) 16 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Planning Commission Action Ir Study Sessions Two Public Hearings , Certified EIR Recommend Approval of GPA, ZMA, and LCPA to City Council Approved TTM's, CUP, and CDP 17 Appeal of EIR, TTM's, CUP and CDP Mayor Debbie Cook Issues: — Wetlands designation — Construction Impacts — Traffic/Noise — Soils (subsidence) — Drainage/Hydrology — Fire/Emergency Medical Response 18 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Analysis Consistent with General Plan Conforms to Zoning Code Development compatible with surrounding neighborhoods — Design/Density — Buffer/Setbacks — Retaining Walls County Parcel 19 Planning Commission & Staff Recommendation : Approve TTM's, CUP, & CDP with modifications: — Delete lot no. 4 of TTM 15419 — Dedicate public pedestrian access — Additional site layout design criteria Approve GPA, ZMA, LCPA, and Annexation 20 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication Reasons For Approval GPA, ZMA, LCPA, and Annexation Accommodates more useable neighborhood park r Lowers residential density on parcel in County , CZ suffix ensures provisions of Coastal Act Area sufficiently served by existing fire services Does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts 21 Reasons For Approval TTM's, CUP, CDP - Appeal , Zoned and general planned residential for 31 years Numerous Public Improvements 1 ,430 acres (7,000 residential units) removed from mandatory flood insurance zone New Huntington Mall (Bella Terra) removed from Flood Zone 28% of project as open space r Affordable housing off-site (17 units) Consistent with General Plan, Zoning and LCP 22 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication EIR 97-2 Analyzes development on vacant site of up to 208 single family homes, associated infrastructure and public & private open space (current request is for 171 homes) Documents potential impacts in 10 issue areas Evaluates nine alternatives to the original project Serves as an informational document 23 BACKGROUND 1998 — Draft EIR circulated 2000 — FEMA issued a revised flood map, which affected the subject property 2001 — New Alternatives to the Draft EIR circulated 2002 — Response to Comments completed — PC Certified EIR on 9/24/02 24 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication t ANALYSIS EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA: Analysis of potential impacts, using existing conditions at project initiation as a benchmark Analysis of alternatives which may lessen/avoid impacts Identifies mitigation measures to address significant impacts 25 ANALYSIS City received substantial public comments on the EIR Comments have been responded to pursuant to CEQA Project revised and mitigation measures revised in response to comments 26 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication ANALYSIS Appeal of EIR certification lists eight specific items: Wetlands County parcel: wetland delineation completed 2002 City parcel: up to 8.3 acres of Prior Converted Cropland; State Dept. of Fish & Game concur with no wetlands on site Other appeal issues Construction impacts, traffic, noise, soils testing, drainage/hydrology, subsidence and fire & emergency medical response 27 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends certification of EIR No. 97-2 because: Complies with requirements of CEQA Adequately analyzes project impacts 2s D-1 a,b,c Late Communication END OF PRESENTATION 29 D-1 a,b,c Late Communication • 16531 Bolsa Chica St., Ste. 312, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 3546 (714) 840-1575 Amlgos de e5lsa ' ur t< � � 11.'?c isS t:.LitaB . Chica October 21, 2002 FROM »c HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL A PART F>t i HERECO : THE 2000 Main Street �1EET►NG ,. J�PICE O� -�•I7Y Ct.E[�h Huntington Beach, CA 29648 v CIE BROC, + CITY Ct l~,=, RE: October 21, 2002 City Council Agenda Item D.1. Parkside Estates Dear Mayor Cook and City Councilmembers: Amigos de Bolsa Chica has long advocated the public acquisition of the property owned by Shea Homes adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands. This property is an integral part of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands ecosystem and can provide an ideal site for a constructed wetland which would benefit our community by providing wildlife habitat area in addition to improving the water quality of Huntington Harbour and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Ecological Reserve. The timely acquisition and incorporation of the Shea property into the plans for the pending Bolsa Chica Wetlands restoration project could provide both environmental and economic benefits to Huntington Beach. In regard to the submission of EIR 97-2, we believe that the EIR as submitted is seriously flawed. Attached is a copy of the letter submitted by Amigos de Bolsa Chica in regard to the EIR on August 13, 2001. The thorough evaluation of a wetlands restoration project option should be required in the EIR. We believe that currently recognized wetlands delineation criteria would establish the property as a wetland, requiring further evaluation of the alternative of wetland restoration. Further, we agree with the California Coastal Commission that the impacts to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and Huntington Harbour from runoff from the project have not been adequately evaluated in the current EIR and the Environmental Quality Act requires a comprehensive analysis of those impacts. We urge the City Council to vote against approval of EIR 97-2 and the deny certification of the tract map and permits for the Parkside Estates Project pending further evaluation of impacts and project options as stated above. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, L' a Sapiro Moon President, Amigos de Bolsa Chica (2)Ami2os 16531 Bcl1sa,C'hica St.,Ste.,312. Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3546•(714)840-1575 = B61%sa Chica August 13, 2001 City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Environmental Services 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 By Fax(714)374-1648 Attn:Mary Beth Broeren RE: Parkside Estates EIR Dear Ms. Broeren: Amigos de Bolsa Chica has the following concerns regarding the Parkside Estates New Alternatives to Draft EIR#97-2. 1. Ali Inclusive EIR Because of the significant events that have occurred since the circulation of the initial EM. including,changes in the FEMA base elevation requirements, Appellate Court decisions relating to the Bolsa Chica and ESHAs, and the November 2000 action of the California Coastal Commission,we believe that a review of the entire project,its impacts and characteristics should ADBC#2 — 1 be included in one new EIR. It is unrealistic to assume that interested parties will have access to or have reviewed the prior circulated EIR. We suggest that the EIR infonnation be consolidated and re-circulated as one document package. 2. )Flood Control It appears that although the proposed project will be protected from flooding,because of its elevation above that of surrounding properties,it could significantly increase the potential of flooding in surrounding neighborhoods. Also the channel wall separating the project from the ADBC#2—2 flood control channel is higher than the wall on the other side of the channel, providing greater potential for flooding on the opposite side of the channel, The EIR should evaluate these impacts. There should also be discussion of the quality of runoff water from the property entering the channel and emptying into Outer Bolsa Bay_ The pollution of Outer Bolsa and Huntington ADBC#2—3 Harbor from V"unersburg Channel is already of great concern The extent of increased pollution should be thoroughly addressed in the EIR 3. Views The EIR should demonstrate view plains not only up to the proposed residents but down from the project to existing residences. It appears that the elevated project will expose surrounding ADBC#2—4 homeowners to unprotected viewing from the project and roadway_ Protection of privacy of surrounding for surrounding residents should be addressed. N w City of Huntington Beach Page 2 4. ESHAs The project should conform to the recommendations of the California Coastal Commission in regard to buffers around Environmentally Sensitive Habitat areas and wetlands. Substantial ADBC#2 -5 buffers of at least 100 meters should be provided around eucalyptus trees_ Buffers must not include any uses such as sidewalks, yards, active parks or hard improvements. Arborists are not appropriate persons to determine the value of trees and plants as habitat areas. A qualified wildlife biologist should determine the habitat value of existing trees. IADBC#2 -6 5. Wetlands. The area contained historic wetlands which have been degraded in recent years as the property was used for agricultural purposes. If wetland habitat area can be restored, it should not be acceptable to allow residential development on the property just because the agricultural use has ADBC#2-7 ceased. The restoration of the prior wetland condition should be explored in the EIR. 6. Public Acquisition for flood control and Ecological Preserve The alternative uses of flood control settling basin and wildlife preserve should be explored. The area could be an important component to flood control improvements being sought by the County ADBC#2- 8 and City of Huntington Beach. The property could also be incorporated into the Bolsa Chica Wetlands restoration project. Those uses should be explored in the EIR. 7. Traffic and Construction impacts The EIR contains no details regarding off site haul routes for fill material into the project at Graham Street. Considering that as many as I40 loads of fill material may be hauled each day over a l2 month period, the impact upon traffic and public'safety in the surrounding area will be substantial. Students accessing nearby Marine View School must be adequately protected from ADBC#2-9 risks associated with the heavy construction equipment traffic. Also, the three outlets onto Graham Street from tracts immediately north of the project could create dangerous conditions caused by construction vehicle traffic. The Elk should address all potential impacts on the surrounding area from construction traffic and proposed mitigation measures. Post construction traffic impacts should also be reviewed and mitigation measures detailed. ADBC#2- 1 C Access to and from existing tracts at Kenilworth and traffic on Graham would be adversely impacted. Sincerely, Linda Sapiro Moon President, Amigos de Bolsa Chica j ;?y y+y� f PA KS-1 E � , ESTATES' m3 z.�4.+.8%...5eia v�e�ae ...,a`Y..S�ef,a.X..�4iY1 ffiw•,�m,-.� c°wx,ay.. 'S,.s3 ..4e'°S'Vdx,. gm r ti � 'y 44 a P N; fir.� + �,lF �. E � �a � "'� ''";�'����.`�•G e � R '��. �I �" �' ��•�1� G. ,�� , 4�_ �' ::� .�. ' v>v rl �Nl� 99@@++ �� �•,w�< � R's ��[' :� G. + � fq I✓ �`n`r� � ;`�\1�1.� ��1. ��! `�;��n rr' ' \�! c�,i� �tl_ d;� - 1; � � ';� j,��,'h,���tr���v'+a,....t`�'%r r*� 1�+ \�� Ai �� ��� �� �'•+ Q �'�.w L� di+",�t�.-ar,�&'��'} �x 11 � r4y r;,, ti 4:. . ,, 4.t Vi � ar,, , J`�• � ,� .'1 , �"k�¢ ��e 4}t v ��A"a ♦����: 3. _..i`� to 3T :` '` ti S�^'a.���.: '�'.��1'�ry,r.}fie. .. �.• q7 �kf'�nl�4' GY �€��`a� x ����<�tt s�'� �`,-��- '; '�"e����r. . n.�l -� '+3:. -,y- < a �$. ''` 4:' t �tgr a�+��.. P�'� j � •..�+ -c �� :..,s ��-�__•a`s4A` `' �s �,ht� -Yi W'Y� fTtit r, gg " 5 V al"I at, �.a..g �g7gq xrira ya.` �;, t_i 1 j "r= -• C°�'�^t'. 'WS: t«�� �- 3a r'p� •_�.: ,k� E.. ,.',�-`:r, ;�: .� � � � yi;s 7 " .v +t ,. ;-.,.r $?., _ a,4:s;`:.... ..'.. xd '�. " ,£• " .,,. -., 7 '.�.'" e+.- L. '+�sb. '` mod+ "" f`r 1 t, T r ,•� - -'. ,r° r,. ., . �, ;5._x• :.a., ak� dJ ^;. m2 :-.4n a; -i '` ,�, �+•z.' �a .. e '•,;,; - :.., ,. :.�....q -, , - ,2.'• a, ,+3. ,... a.� 'r'a4. �n%•" i` '�+.� d,5 .1 �.. a, '' {,� v. z .r.•�_'. ;k;:. "Az Sj .; '•- „� ,r ..; ..,,� a 2. :,. ,�� jai"-• :,x+. ...s .sr 'uS§ -u4°y7r�'L.1.. '•w �' }i ! ': �•r a _.c° �?y�*. `) �S �,v �� � :� � �� � �l ` s 7T •w� � - � . '-3;a :�%�°ram y t"''�!�..,�' _ _ 4 %S i , , - _, b ♦ ,� o, � b. � ��� "� i .F•.n.�•y,=��'•- -..,,..'I� -. - 's®-----+1 �.r ` '�nf, :s,� �^ �— `� � :+F ;'�' � u �'�xx d _ rl�- �.' �,_.• -. �,. ��.w�- r�'�4x:+.,r G�` ` ,....-... •+�+� ;fir -;. ; /n 4` '770M ,.,,.:�. .. ,.aa .{ •xa, ,.. „�,,: °5 3 ' ..t,�,� .....e. 9...,�..puiv'n4 ..&.�ti,� curs,�'z3:; �$-�.Y°.�n�k.��r. >:Y'u. .�.:i. ,:m.u3-`.�xa�'�.Ek�,.3 '�V;�.a�:.s,"J"#r�� Plan Evolution M i'; } �M. � �1 �•� Im Cl I 'i IPRO � G ��'aa+ 7w.�¢.e aY4rh�� t •,tt�a;e."j. '. �R lip "Mid FM f ii li'^ �. E 11l II �� Ir�i _ ,M, .Y •#�i yr•+^�,� �. ; �.'+ i�R1 i[fl -.. � '�� !+�'( +1� ��r I k i 1 i i✓ I L� Rt � , '/"# � r, � `w+• I ..�1L I�#__ All ` "if'k'. ' � � ."'_13 L ( �5.+ � -�SG� 1 '' �✓i . •.% . syl�/ i • .n.w. i� ,� -vmae-r-�.ee V-�--r rs+-, �r 1I r I.9FY F '7iy 1 wr. �'Jii ,.��.� `I a-•p_� a t s Jr 14 7. �'C� 1 _. lrb: �. z ■�/ { '1777: - �� d aL•Sr ail 44-r.c� . :I I I�_ 's.. J ' tr -, .= j _'„ • ` '!� r ' � #r Yav-ern s-1r'm�i r+-r �; , a / '�� :� 1 I zat� a trial - 411 � �Oy( ;� •' ,. �' � E - -- _-.per — -, ��� I .,�,/� -c�Fs`.�:k,��. LU At 41 rJ. , 47/ — t .fir +`„� <r." ' r l� r•. • .t- '�.�.- �.. ,. ,.�f } ��'� r SL Plan Evolutmien It- i. t;. o ,;�:t o-r ,.mr..•n �Y•.. •�.���"'+�� i� � ; �;»' � ;t �� i� '�i4. +0 `�n.,J,�..+-, r *I.taa K I ..t !�A � 1 *cs� ®3�® S ,_ � _ -+« _ ,�,,t+� , �..jj( `�_•�L� �c�t � � � '� �� 4^�Si• 7 �-„ �• y�� U��iw' .. m-- qdG,:q ,„r �� "'i^n ^r JP X `�! j•A•1 , _' 'Ta,^S1,7a [`!l, ti t .,{ v �? ,r ' /�-"- r'a � �,rr tt,+t � �;•m e � f � i n* }r..,t L`_� I v P' lb )T P a �1 • 1�� ,+'`}-i��ca }!p� � .-. � .yS �� ,°�3 iM1 �� >� "r� ... a ;r 1 1 � 's ..,ti .y 8g�.i� , i <., �, �tvt �gjt�+,J` '.i N.�It.�1t"1 F ' , �4 F }_ x�y..•t ',ct' ! �+ _ � mC�i� _ ,_.. - $.'"�C. a. �-�•;� � � ..1Y;4'�- s+J�-�1.�?!•:� ..�-1. �:�'�� �`j. a r y�„-� ���. a .,qa` �`�1 Ilk r�#��_.g�' A. .w •.i y `�• �.n, �-j �hi -a: , f N r. ( �"�i T m � t ,� ::` �' � �� � � �1 �®�Ili.. r.�ric-il iSi�r'st� �® '� W?�„i'". p:' '��V�,y.•a r� �'�."J.i Imp 4ME� � wd ����T � .?��I', ���• 9� .. ..Jyl �^•�� ���®�®®,0 ® � /�, � �S�,mY P f• qi f ,Sr ;a-,.vs. ^ 4s Nv k.�' y!, �m " 1,r �i� I®� �'®�' �� -.yam.;;, .,d+�'��(y .a �a � �R i�� � I �• �' '��� �4'e*'� r ; f �,• r``� �,'ss ¢(.��'w � 9.��3 C�- �'a3 � m� '�' `4� '-' _-, ' • � va.�r � 3 Z..�, i '� '.+� � , tt�' ar y d � u r�'.�..xy�-q, �' F 4''� ,,� �.2 �' r •�1�� -� ♦ � ',},X�1 e i � 4 ,��tz � �s,�:: 5v1 & p� Y � + !� �, � �•�f� �� �� �� '�s �.;v����� � Q.' 1'' t �, IP� '`�'1145 f� i}'� I ,d �� t! '��;'�,. '•~gam« J a z"i a" r .,' k` �"fit � '� �r."� � f'�f yiy � ilr 1 •may � 'a 5TA fit.. :� rh�a�Y�+` `i��t�••�'� .��' ,�� ��� f �y " r� , �...,� �. 3� i" ���.j, v, if � ia' �b� �. ,♦`t qi. }u&' P , �.. e t 4r �.�• r r�'''7n 1 - ��i � � t �I ��� ,,. z. to '} R�•�`.-f 'r+ h s1!` �'�"&... �'*'�', d',� t�• aa` .a F'hY r r .. ...:,, ��gr^}t 1�` '.,,�, " t:m, r-. •�lAOat a y{ fi f i -^•,. `CG,. t : j y,� ��;+g yf J< �Ydr t ��s1" `f�, •, ���, ���� .,,� �r."a , p�n � � a -,'�^`�� r.•V �.. ' "�*- 1 � ..,,.�. b / - ,_ �. v � � '':'i�L__' r„' ,�� ,` �:��r•.t, �,`s. s '4t'9'. ' x.. �sr1r.••� � .d4'rJt�,� .1_.. ma i Plan Evolution w�iJ — -1� �—�(.n� - � �i��' r! f"r - •! � L!4 � , l.t�;1.4r.���y� '�i.. -�. \� . - 4 � � NF i�7"TI'3j1� �� f•� IE, ll •-I '9_-�.�a• �Ikw-"��.e ,.'L1a lu:��y •..a+--,u�_ �r� i. r i , iQT 3[R_ �' • yh (lv�ti '1 �'T {r. i di k b :y w ITr" -. ,ir • • -. "1i` - rl�, i !'C- f' '➢1't c �hfil: 3R7. 9PRIORG v© VAN „- .: I �. :;,:•. oCp�� ovo n0 0 ppp0 � .� s. s r`. ���_""�' 41 ,� � � • ,t �' Y .,,emu• " `�" ; ��p,�:=��pC s•�+�`��pppOp© � q•w' , .�t�'� f r �# s .5 Viq � �®�®�P�1s .���� P• , erY II C� �1� � r ya'1ty �! �. ----�• ,�, _.. ��. ��poyd�" .� :r�� R'. �+••i! 11►1 ..'� �tilC^���.,rf.L,- �,i N' \' �r',•,+e ,// , � �"�,..y.l� � ��_� ,�v. 'T111II r �l _ ji• 1!!: V, ... - 7. way- a '' y y l zr; _ .• .. Parkslude Estates Alt . 7 R 6 r Irl A F � 40. u REMOVED 37 LOTS 1 y INCREASED OPEN SPACE TO 14.4 ACRES 8.2 ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK 1 Y 6.2 ACRES OF COMMON AREA yLl RESOURCE PRESERVATION - EUCALYPTUS TREES, WETLANDS AND BUFFER Parksmide Estates (Alt . 7) `� ' � ' aaiw..-ri, ~ �7 # %�'4, 6 Y -�14 . i1Ti.�,Jt .ZJ i.yJ: ♦ J ��r. 4 1••��• ���yj"4 � . p��,� ilf F�"`I1►�=C I(T�-:E'* -/7"'d t� l 71RC3'"' v. l ',r G. � �� �s -aiSB 1K � "ey ESTATES - 77 LOTS WITH AVG. LOT SIZE OF 7359 S.F. ' � �,�'� •. J PARKSIDE - 94 LOTS WITH ' AVG. LOT SIZE OF 5631 S.F. COMPARABLE DENSITY WITH ►F `"~`' ""�` r NEIGHBORS GREENLEAF CONNECTION Y FOR EMERGENCY USE ONLY OVER 130' SEPARATION BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW HOMES • • • - • • • - • :111 Mic _ ZONE A y ..... .:. .k �; lu PZ Wit•�,'ifiyyy`) ry :'.:.', 't {� � � P� t- ((1��^� v MIN. PAD ELEV. 11.4' 0 He1L_�JL"_ L_ ::.... .::.. . . .•...,; ,.. , 1 t7� V Fy '�,a,l, � o��*ar`TM�3 r��y��ra i�� _..,Y..r •:p:::::�. .•.a \ .. lAKRNEf� `�r r� �I tih ER`ARN G ��9' �Si,Ff��a t e'``�a�✓ .� :' � ��,�f'r.••'4,� :2-�'y �,irkT ..,�. � — 4 �I-,_.� R, .'Ib.J''. ,. j�l(i }i.• „rt� ,� x"S., �.} i�!�� r yq,r ,� t�,nc� b� F j —� t`S�'ria.T� r��,� � �,„�,,.r��•,,,l�-r r�. ,�, —� _1 SL A_T E R �,t I LT' 12 "c, a �i'�'' � a,�i lO��y���s r� � ��Ic4r-•� r't Y�y ti }h stir e.�r�r ?V 1 }d ,`� a'�'r�464 L�� �"`,�,�s`� ���r,��rF•t3 i'� P 5 �"�t '�a..s�`��L�r1 ,'F".�„ ��M�y�`��`. � ��} ga�� r 1 § > n M�TaF�A1r \ ".C�.� cia7c�"+� ��y+>r i, "fr�4't' r�ir. ��s �• ,, � T � B E R T DR r F`t r(>. �'�} 1.�+'�•tx L &.+ (M9x �"Fi I R �--.' -__--- aj4vlt �' �'-'w'�•a r�' x F, r , y�zra f& eARI(a l,,,r�-r��;�t ter�'�'r�j�a#�, h,���e.�¢r ,��a, ad�, p�•�'�t w'�� .,�,� aw ELLIS � ?r' '�'"'1" �`"�J"`��� rR�tyt r �!1+ {N r•' 0_' A.a�cx�nnnr r.Gm n r� yt4 .,�'f' s�,xKr wnw�ruw as Ara 3 MlA Ge'tl wr ENLARCEMENT OF COUNTY vrcINrrr WP R —�� ���' APPROXIMATE FLOOD INSURANCE'STUDY a EDINGfR AVE. U n m !A ..I 'J 13� 12 9R v.BBi u.Bm ?s, Vol VICINITY MAP 4 iR1 E u1.nT` acSRn 120 14 � (R.Rn� _V— WARNER AVE t`t NOTE SWVEV DATUM NGVD 19 AIR �\ \ SLATER AVE. '' LECEND / HOOD ARM BASED OV flA T'R10'MYRO%NNTE' \\\\ \\\ ' 9 ROOD RdL*MCf STUDY tk&W ACRES) \ \� \\ HOOD AREA LASED CAN SHEA HOMES E 'DETARFD' L,y� LLJ, 1 ROOD RdURANCf STUDY AND fa"CLOAt fE+R)ACRES) W MLA D STRL we)ECE TO ROOD WSURNL a AM THE vi f ,E RASE ROOD REVATOV(RED MI AT REDUCED AS A RESMY 1'Far� ("' OF M OVEALfMS WTALLED AS A PART OF SHU HOMES DEVHOPAIENT \\\\ ) TA. q� {• / �� MFA RfAfOVfD FROM lfhN HOOD AREA 8a ON SHEA HOME51E)E tf bfl'MED'ROOD A41)57 CESTUDYAND/TM C10NR 4436TACRF51 \\ 911 AfLE ROOD UEMS AWST eL Rd EARFE PER 1HD ROALR FOR THESE \ 11.611 ` BASF ROOD iIEVATLONS TO BfCOME EfiCC1M i \ 96 D.IBI w: A AREA$ADOFD t0 FfM4 ROOD AREA WE ro _ MORE AOCURATf A me\ NSIMBERS ME THE MP BASE FLOOD REVArtgV WxL[rr WB[RESULT FROM MSTALWEION Of STORM DRAM NNROVEMEN S TO RE n \\ ! z ERoV BY 5H HOME5 DEVELOPMEVT 9 'sy W { C PREPARED BY., ePRLEPA-REEDT FOR. T` / E (2 " ®HULA I x I ASSOCIATES 1SheaHomes \I / 47 1 R V N L ; I C �i` �t1 / ' NXN G • E4'1H11GlMC AAVIIIMC w-rww�wcr a: n:4F..M Mom• MH... RZ MSOl1 n—fo Y:s Iu aoi m \' -- CERTIFIED TOPOGRAPHIC WORKMAP \\` + (PER ClOMR APPLICATION) l Parksolde Estates Alt . 7 � R � � � r., �ti -� r'� �y ..� �� �-'''_-�-� [� 'f�' 7/-•��`�-'� . ram-.�"7 ^� I S Jim tt 40 ON -� ��l � ,`e�. ��' fo$ra roc ,ye... e�g„c..�,r .er•.t'eo B .P e�Ps+° ��. `i •S •. y-. .� � Ali � abh � �:. I r � w 1. h r 6 , d` `�� tea'` �c # ' • l Pad Elevation Typical Cross Sect 'ion 1156' (VARIES FROM 133'TO 167') 40 ., _ x, x 1 AO B ( Rnv S REET WIN i 30 C I a ._._� _—� I } 30 O 20 , 23, �� 20 m.7.PROPOSED HOME- PASEO PARK EXISTING HOMEii } { I FINISHEOFLOOR 6 --- — _ 10 EXISTING tOP � ( xv ' 26 � EL=i.0 ' _ r i zk i, _ r f e v EXISTING MASONRYWALL _ (PROTECT IN P CE) EFA10 - - PROPOSED INLET SECTION "C".. "C" EXISTING 60"CABO DEL MAR STORM'DRAIN ti d t � I yy ' d „r 4 }�4 J £ I I t w �r r, y{g�� x'A•ti� � ,{{ I . Existing Draminage IN Pipe Flow JJ Ilk- l`f M' I�.r '9rlir' �1'} r .l ._ p- •Y , �' , 1 ^ 1Ij� - rface Uzi 4 14 Flow i �It�ate't t »r y _ � ■ya � , •Ail"LALA.Jft7 -a`� __ : I I f-. I i �. •� ..:�fe • 4 air � � q ., ,� s`i�r,`��ir,JJ--a *n- r>!+-�'r�..i . �GG�1 �...--�r. .. �L '� r . �. .�. ..) .' Channel r ♦ rIr Flow PARKSIDE ;� y'+° �, ` . '! •, ' ; ESTATES Jill Existing ell Ile . Basins I I EXISTING 60"STORM DRAIN EXISTING 60"STORM DRAIN INTERCEPT THE 60" STORM DRAIN AT THIS LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 60" LINE INTERCEPT THE 60"STORM DRAIN AT THIS (FLOW DIRECTION TO WATER QUALITY BMP) LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 102" LINE AND DIVERT FLOWS THROUGH PARKSIDE PROPOSED NEW 120"STORM DRAIN ry FROM GRAHAM —KENILWORTH PROPOSED NEW INTERSECTION SOUTH THROUGH 60" LINE 'c THE PARKSID`E ESTATES EXISTING 66"STORM DRAIN PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (APPROX 120") ti� 'll L * r i ` W Jr Existing Drainage 1 . • • a -.� {.�►3..�_ .,yt ^. �.':. •r ray'.-l. d u`Pr _ Imo, _.,•J .�.� l l '• �/, ( I Op OP rT. Surface I IA Flow I AL r �41Lu., aFt {�L Y`J. 1 Y e_• ppp .iy I* f +I .Y f. e� ' ryr�" r �_ ..v. . - rl,C ae ♦-f!'.�{pr--� m r�`t�[-� �rGr' r• -� I I , � - �� 4 r,,G`al� ..•`�. Channel Flow ` PARKSIDE 1 d •�, `� , ESTATES r yExisting ew �•ice �01 _ i 01 . •i._R w"- `. � � . • '�..°} tea- '4 � :•d 7j..* .�L.. �ii. 1Fp _,h� '• i16.�r /� � w� .�- u R-. 1 EXISTING 60"STORM DRAIN EXISTING 60" STORM DRAIN NEW SEWER LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN TO WARNER INTERCEPT THE 60" STORM DRAIN AT THIS _ LOCATION WITH PROPOSED NEW 60" LINE I ERCEPT THE 60"STORM DRAIN AT THIS I-- (FLOW DIRECTION TO WATER QUALITY BM" ) L CATION WITH PROP,�y,,�ED NEW 102" LINE AND '-DIYRT FLOWS THROUGH PARKSIDE -1 PROPOSED NEW iR0"SiO6 DF AIN-- - -FROM GRAHAM-KENILWORTH PROPOSED NEW,), INTERSECTION SOUTH THROUGH 60" LINE THE PARKSIDE ESTATES WATER QUALITY .MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXISTING 66" STORM DRAIN SEA WALL < PROPOSED STORM DRAIN (APPROX 120") L�e�o T� SLATER PUMP STATION T L W TO BE UPGRADED (2 NEW PUMPS) FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL J CLASSy8IKE TRAIL-- IMPROVEMENT j' (SHEET PILE OR APPROVED EQUAL) i n n o n ■ AA911u1'/'NJiI INN*A f I. 1 ARINE VIEW ' ��.,�y•l SCHOOL Jv Public Benefits I] STORM DRAIN I7 STORM WATER PUMP FACILITIES 0 WATER QUALITY fff11 111 //1111 u FLOOD CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS _ ������ t► �G �� ����' ❑ SEA WALL ❑ NEW FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ❑ 1430 ACRES WILL BE REMOVED FROM FLOOD INSURANCE ! '' ❑ 2410 ACRES POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM LOWER FLOOD INSURANCE RATES ❑ SANITARY SEWER Public Benefits 0 4.1 ACRES ACTIVE PARK To warner ,& I] 4.1 ACRES PASSIVE PARK 6.2 ACRES PASEO PARK, HOA COMMON AREAS, & PASSIVE OPEN SPACE TOTAL OF 14.4 ACRES, �-P�p 1 /3 OF TOTAL AREA 13 NATURAL RESOURCES 1' WILL BE PRESERVEDpp 0 CLASS 1 BIKE TRAIL — Public Benefits 13 GRAHAM STREET To warner STRIPING u TRAFFIC SIGNAL GREENLEAF LANE FOR � , ��` �� ��` • EMERGENCY ACCESS �� �� ■ ONLY \ ', ,� : �► ����j U� To Slater Parksinde Estates Alt . 7 • Y _ P 4JC ' axe i.' lr �i3' ~' Y •rR.- '�kr+t �P� r ,l�Y / � y Pi 40 tlry �y CO p j•4 ,•.•< v �, poi '�'' ' .►=• � ..�'21F�.. .ice.~ -t 1� •� ' .,�-� � tR�� � f r Parkside Estates proposes to construct over 8 million in extensive regional public benefits. P e'1 '' a �iANA rr t d .Fvtt '�,,.,y��amy y. F v _� —. -- --.ter I .ai�'' (. . •�rrc'r`' 'i I A•' Parkside Estates improvements lead to the removal of approximately 7,000 residences from mandatory flood insurance requirements NOTE TO FILE : The original , ID physical EIR 97 - 2 has been filed as an attachment to 10 Resolution 2002 - 123 PASIDE ESTATES EIR#97 2 RESPONSE TO COIVIMENTs ON DRAFT EIR ANl) NEW ALTERNATIVES TO T IE DRAFT EIR'' VOLUME I e :t x i n s � i €ter' w 4 v N� E� 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 0 �. ... 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 a9gax "a ' 4�j a" a" cc- z z > < 4B g= 4 o o W W 2 _ i" i" a„ 4• i" { I a i' Q la„ y a" d„ ?x d" s an gx Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City ofHuntington Beach 3 • u�� Pill $ t.E , yv, ,•:- =n s;; ..... ,,. ._ ,.sr i 5 /:, �... �.. .ir<.,1,:.,x ✓ >.., ;..., yr. 'E ce, sk ¢ �, � ..<,,. a a � �.✓fix.a, E�,..h �. _.. ✓ � - .,a a �,. ... .. ... .s ,,s K.. '.. •� ., r,. ✓. x.. '�+ ., ..v, ..., ,. x: >..,}. ,.. v; .. - _:F .3. J x-a ... ...,.. 7 e <' °4-.. ;-,&x � ... .. .'i ,s ., .., a:`•s.._4 H ,9 ;<,.� <. >G.T.. �. yy -;5C u,. L a.: i�J�ySa.. ' '. «n,?,,x�Z.... .• ,f ... .✓ a ,. ». <a.<.., v �.. ...3. . E,,.. .. '31., .a, f .,.__ �.^ , . :. ... /.1✓'n _ F 3 t z- < ..<..�,::is - - < € ., ..-, fir.»»^„z... ,.,y .. ., _• .,.. .�,. .r, .,. :�. .._... <. _ �'. .2a`P .r.�x'*� z,x.... �'�"- d�L�,4k:✓a� ._.,. -. A .» �� -..'�., .,*'�'"��"e .:e.: ,r,r..,,.,. ,m ,t,+.<: �*�ms,. P 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 2 STORY 1 STORY 2.STORY 1 STORY 5302 5312 5322 5332 5342 5352 5362 5372 5382 5392 5402 5422 5432 5442 .5452 5472 �g3 � � k ` PA 1 ( u a� :s S1 F�Q PA . IC -5 4 3 a H^5 r e a � i $ a - � f I x EE �4v w al f 1. is r , , «. t-2 M ? � a XP 47 48 61 a a :� a P= 11.25 P= 11.25 P 11.25 P= i 1.3 P= 11.3 P= jr 1.3 #d, P= 11.4 l 0 e, O Q a ;-yr •< M Hsu 44 Y (� ERIT -13 CT a \1 . Key Map of the view locations of Exhibits B, C,D & E. EDAW, Inc. 6/n/OI Exhibit A Source:Hunsaker&Associates Irvine,Inc. Visual Simulations Source:.Focus360 E tV`777,- 9WA7, OT eir A—Y 44 AP -!7 �rjr. 3.76 "IN lR IM, gj l ye "PT tk, l r t S J — .'�! i.Try '•{ _ `` ., ,, - .,gy,c r 1 +( f .31 .y �•i .4 TZi. i J 1 J '♦Y `D"" \!r:4v.,����9�,`�� t V •� .:7 ,v.i f;,'� .�.ht ♦.t.1 — jP{I} r J S i �i -f—��, c� f, r" l 2l �:\�•ts r`rfJ it + � + � 1 M � ,` Viz. � c•,'• ..t .7' ,{ fi � ^." Y' v<+; �� 'ay �� Y (`� ♦ i)41f" Y¢(.�Y4 �+}�\ 4 .J � r.M1 �!,' '..�, i b."�F` 4. �� F•, °V fit{( Vc fY Y� ,.�, t _ WN r�+r7,�� a } �,y J'+r �i - ,y 't.l '+,V l'/'�� •}t `;+fit:p'f !f! Y"Tr . ,' J p f f,� - _:' � � . ; i�tYU��! `L'T,�,.'r'l♦ � t,J ♦` .:. — � ! ° ^ t �� ""... . kt�`+.2't♦ t°..}J�.�;4+.} yT �wfr'+.), 3 ,Fi y,�K t�'�`�`�• _ .�, `��: � _...__.-. bra °�*.s SW' -`xGjF^ /i�♦ ,'•�Rr. t G� � •A,_j�..! �t ¢ _ '�!< .)r" 1 't• ..�. `5��... f�r7•}�,.� ri•y r•'�j rtslr''rt �`� -F � •, �•tt r4 k::, {� ' ' ' f t.•v ', • ..b, �`!a \"'fi i+.,y��"� Jr. ., ,y� + ^73'`� F�' `' f,t�' c '`� •tia� �, ��iY �r f' yt�Qr �E�.`r�°4f �•� .,1 r��f4. •Y ��� 4i.`+�ti�H�F{.��Y�+� if`^fit i' ..•r'• ' 'rr 3 { _ .,�aT�r .-iti•-t' -F � c;,y., � `_ S'}hy L ,��}y' • l _ T"��` f� iS S 5�'� .�!-J� L a T'cv � } Y+ •/ � � lty� _ 4 »L 1 r�Idd• r t �•1 �'t'�1' � t � j(l ( K' ,(, ♦ T.r FLT r+ t .1 f 1} .7J 5v +1: � r-x �'(.,:J°'+ •`S�Vr ��} `'S^•fF' lltu �r ��r +'CIEl fF',"1'�Jt'i; i hlT. 1� �'�I ! � � .�j 1� J<•+ y.�-'�'�y �r"� J i -,r (} ���� n' Y'i ',ti." ('h •t~+.4 r'f ft � eta �;�C �,,i,r��-Q {t�p.4"'L"' > Y /w��� 7 1 `J l j.• � d r r Y s'1 - r Y 4 i f I ✓ "ice 1,4{Y C� �1 ,,V+4 �� �4 l7 � tY . �$�ff�., • �� � �'� i "� \ + r�-r i :fir el.. _ 2 1 �r�i y. � < ,�•'r rl' i.� f .�' Z�;p yl kf CTl,,11 _ � �� � -. Ilk '�� � � ��,♦;x !,}.+ }, �1P + tt�,r/ �' y F•:+��.r at fA t .��f{,>I pp .�ll,rr s�+ '�}�1:}, + '� ♦ {t at��� f ,Y �i�$, r _,.1 ) 1+ tIS �1r k t#§+�A �pJw: ��� � ���.,>��Li`S't"!� ♦r. zF�t`} �. £( 1.c.f�r �tlr t5 , 1r�,rtSy7ti fk�' �f. ar ,1� 11 91 -jl 't4T Ai.I t,1' nth ✓1 h wnr, � +' I ) �+ I +1 7j14 �l .,Q� ✓r•'. p 1 tF ,.t.• •wWA. 14 , .a•. .h,"!'i:r` 1 t ,fa �'`� '� � i����s Crj��r,��i S� t�'�=t�` �a r��'`C f�`-. •y��o. L 't<�r..'r� _ •Y,t (��tr+'�+�`* '.ytr/.r,+•% '1 +',.er.1���.. �.�, 7x���`+'• _ 11 { �1;•-�r� _.a ��,/��f A�j�f>�e � os ._ •t' �b�4�`d t{iu� y,}�u� `I +'., 1 r�:,� � /^? �! c'g>sy. �`i? 9 t I .. sti. �. rTs•e.� '}, .' w §.; {��,'?r,r.,•r>����Fd,-n'y� f..;ry,� t � ��c t ;i�n�bLt rI . 1;, y r�d�•"'Y„}�^�� $l �aj •` � �`�lyt�--'s(- 9�•� �� AY//,II` -_ �� ,' f +t ra•G ,fir?' +.� ,., a �t�.- _ r � -rf�y!Y .,. J"1 �'•,- S,1 �� ,y t .0 +); t , ,� �9�j, y�i`ts-a;' +t .mat � L•f' ! ., , tll ��,. . ;+r �l 7t rat 1J'1 i• ••• @��y. tl k�r .4 t Y' (., ,,/ t- tis��' y` \. ,fY' trj •.� ,x ,� c� '� A — TO di •"r:htl,t'. '•ti v q. 4 a...._,: ';�,,..� ter;__ !rP } .�, t + +'!: h(r,(�J[JO'• i ",I t �, S ,,Y�'.' t:_` ..•! , F44•R�'. t 3'� ,♦•rimer = b r � , � � .,._ 7,1 . rY•. -I•' ,r' _ �4 rtt ":N2lrlf Sri M:,. d �•,'"�,' , 4� � rr�.rt3 u.� / lo��� y. Y.,. � � ,yr j•.� i t .-` v a � 4,jt,_ -. "� 3.. Y a:4 ,M iA1 yj?z 4� � ` � rL,;�: z �'s, r;t:J. �+G.:�r �;v' � 1��,✓ N�5 1`}*i�Yr•Y'a i��tt t �'. ;,, .,y r r!, t 8 mot. -St: ' :� _s, ,,�,p•Y�y� ����,4T?Q tf'.: •. -. 'tt ir`,. i•' � f .rS4` ,tic i,h<'� �� � ( .j'1 •i +ht.U'Y'�'¢f 1.1/'4,dV'y 4( �.f..T fi� �,'✓;..' �. �. •r 9 F• icy.. +1<�- t, c 4 '\ - Al �it� •i)�i' aft sC 4ch`� '�.•yr';st r s c it . o - + r d1�,,r�"vt�►.t�] 1 `t 1 � �At 1. ��1�1 'jsi• It � t•t$ �..tt((,, �Wg`h��ri�/rt Ytt r tFyy�..;^ t t� :. �><F 7 `a'� y/ r ,[i• `ay���f�4}t1t r j �I;}t r 1 +u•v'�'�• �'t a• 1 77 7 4 •f• s.c;, r��N -�; t 5'.'•-' - TJ ri�;. Sr '.r.tz - �• r t '�dt •J'�. al, t Ki •'1 � ti� Y� h 1""11��'s �t .rC n: ,;• ._ r . tS.t - •J .: 1} l�l+ kJ�f t' �y R ♦ kkP im o t .:1tt+t A r _ ��Ci'�5;7�!••j':I�-=�t1�gj`19' yit• • '�'�sd ,�♦�JYf�J'' �1 � '• ,�. - t€' .� ti. ;t - ��'r,,�.A"n'�t�f}}'����°/pp•��?O,a• '4♦e"t�,rr .• ' 1S° ,(�`�,� f'! t�t`N• ,,�.0 to i',7 !- r D�.•[' '"C�.� � CNN •jl� � y�`,rti � � ' tr , `{' R�•Y stay" � - 0 • a�'Yk,t"'•'. t ' } ra f ,•• t '�`_. _ l �NM ,� 1 .fir;.• <'`1 �, - Ir. � ftr'+S'-Ti T Y ��{' 7 �ar-.!Cir t ff Pr'•'• `�'C�i�1T 'T� A , r ,r 0 1 } 'y t +L •5 9 f f�tjr`� "w. it �y . l 4'r irta 4` �' `15 t i y- t `r� J s � ,r�at�� k�L { J,1 l* :t'� ^.Vi•+ I � J ..r.:T•I}3, {, t i ..1 �n �' t��, �J�!...J+� �''' — �b:�tw`JI•t 1 1� r s �,.. ; ��' i� •. — ��'t ,�.�' 4-'' ;'�� J; r rf y,'i; -�,;� A � �-N1 ±• 1 t 3 '•� i��, .�y�TJ!{Mt' ���' }; ski. 41 - �{ 1 '3 t t���; j?-:^v h•� r s s `. F,do-. v!"-e �.�'`. -^,.� 1'1 �� -4 " Z, eC 4• _ 1-`gr +�' 1- • • h kv Aol — 1h � � }r� � � t a° td' i;, �•Rf1' -a+ ��l�`�,r� +'�"t i 1��, �✓ g}, `st t yr � ,5° ' r ,�.';' 1- � 'v �5�� �� +• ` ,�,.• y, \��' 71 ?' i • � Ml tl�iL�i�}�iSa _— j ` _ �t ���, fi �-t+� t 1, /- r�.C'Y�P , { IS`0.�`S 7�{emu C�, `l�' >�• — „?•� • '�� •''t �4aS+'+`�i. �Y tr,7. m F•��1. ,r�l'r{K�,•'}j` S '' l�hi`�•m;� w .ii`�.. t'j���" »�1"''3' ,l J •' 1`. Z ��� .t' s kl�:��� t� { �t"r ,� 1 ,k2 ",a'v rl'�J r h�"� < i '!•4' '' r��+3 ��. t ttAA IJ. 5 r f 3 .r .3 s1 r .�` c'-t�•'����� �yL' '��;r' — E,y� � �R' s s4��f, r frr��c,r. s �^`e �y�f4K"! �d1>rr� �i j;t�,'���p — `'F'• Tl��t�! �'`''• ,.+•, t"�.� r '; J a. : '.�••.r r, i t ..tt4`3 ,` r � ��.- '• Y5 •' 1111 iL.l� '� ' — � `J3 "� •ifitt t,t �, �^ y dS y :1 wT �J ..t .tYY �,s Il ,"'CAE t t �.1- K �• �'/� � a t i :rri j.ry�. r tY Z<:i'. .1 — .\.�` ,� 't ��ti u, \ t1 r-•r j �T - �' t fir, r r,l t W :sty �. t• yy,<� � 1 �. — _t r,.�A�t���'S..S '.�'.31 5T - r�y — •� YYt �' +.dr. � 4.1 r e[..X l"Y;, i'ra,�ti`,•F. L�{Y aPA rPs �5`h�r1�p,, - y ..��`T� � >��}}}�� fir,a .. ,iA� I•`' � ,�e+�'r''y .�,.'e sp,� t f��, �'� F 9^",r�Stst4.� , n ' ,a• F 6 �� � I � ��',_ � 4�` �`y tt - 1� j r — ` ~� '1��,,77���'_'" rlrj`�3, 4 *'�~��� ti'•T•.��q A7� r•�� � •a ,tr r+�. r:y., `r '� f.7j`I- a .S r. � .{`• J ti tt+ � r�■ • :� ,fit � i+ K .s �:p' ++r �r t��J •� �� 11 a '�'if .r .Z IlIBM Ir .1 ° l r — �`'. t 1'•y.�. - ���+ . .t f, •'y 5A .AYE/l'".,>zC"} � •+ - U; . cat ��'�`.• h•'� It�:1 �'�''� 1. � r � r• r 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" 15'0" 46'-0" 20'-0" CURB LINE R/W 5 YEARS HBADI.ICUr PATH 5 YEARS — 12'-14' D1R=LIGHT 12'-14' F.F. ELEV. 11.4' - MAX BUlIDM HE[OOH1 30'FROMF.F.EI.EV. — — —— — — K E N I L W O R T H DRIVE • TRACCBOUNDARY 15'-0" 46'-0" 20'-0" ,gg CURB LIIQB R/W 5 YEARS HEADLIGHTPATH 5 YEARS 12'-14' DIRECT LIGHT 12'-14' — —— ( B.F.E. 4.5 ) F.F. ELEV. 5.5' o _ =__ -_ MAX BLIUMM HETC�II 30'FROM FP.BLEV. S=XAMWAM nit KENILWORTH DRIVE FMTRMTYPES ',e, r r a IaRA PI N=.56 r a r r a r a a r a r HEADLIGHT STUDY PARKS IDE ESTATES 05-10 20 B A S S E N I A N / L A O O 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 � 4 ( B.F.E. 10.9' ) F.F. ELEV. 11.4' MAX.BUILDIM HEIGHT 30'FROM FF.M". LOT i W O R T H DRIVE • 4 O ( B.F.E. 4.5' ) F.F. ELEV. 5.5' — MAX BUILD11%HEIGHT NOM 30'FROM FF.ELEV CAM DESIGN FMIRMTYM LOT WORTH DRIVE I p p 1 l i 0 5 10 20 _ a 17�r B A S S E N I A N / L A G O N I S H E A HOMES ARCHITECTS 11.12.01 Exhibit A,As 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