Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 4 - Shea Parkside Estates - General Plan Amendment 1 1 1 • : 'u CityR0M - Los Angeles eP _,. - _ ;—�'r,ter'��}� e'. ,`—�- ►�. �, i,}_; ij S 41 - ailed , street r5 Aerial .gyp � ''r'e^." yl.t+tr��v4.•r*:!�" � � �'• OlDetail *rx r .r. • ,�. ref y.�, ar w� dry; J W'M`� + r r r Ilk 1` , 411 •rLL IL f� R r lip IV _. � a-.'o�;.a' s��f ' nR �� - �.O T� �,T • ` 1 1 __ J� f { Q\ � � I� Zc - �-�-nl �� �.�- �� - � -� , M j r - V.«.�Y'. tom!� �4 •.:.+"i--'�7^-`."a�'�'x.a,M,wuw.� -r jF:..,. yrt�`f_:` �.�.'f':....'Y�:.� • - - 'a may. c _. ♦ - j�,H{._ _� "> n_ ,� - -- _ �_ .� .. i r ����TIC�Or rfl� o C.: tV� Cop1rc�M: RD T November 21,2002 �Uno CeTy Wqy C1r y Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor and City Councilmembers: I have written to you in a separate communication with regard to geological and engineering information which I believe you need to have in order to consider the Parkside development further. I now wish to make some suggestions as a resident of,and taxpayer in, Huntington Beachand as a general taxpayer,regarding conditions to be place on the Parkside development. The suggestions are based on my concerns about liability for the City, if it approves this development, and ultimately the taxpayer liability the residents and 1, in particular,would face, if anything happens to this development because of the geologic setting and history in this area. There will be great pressure to approve this project,because of other areas like it approved in the past, because of the amenities associated with it,because there may be questions of legality,etc. involved. If you should approve the EIR and successive actions associated with this development, I ask that you condition it in the following ways at minimum: 1. Require that the developer obtain a signed release from property owners in the area that they are aware of all the geologic hazards associated with the area and with specific lots and that they will hold the City harmless in the event that these hazards actually occur. The release should specifically indicate the associated hazards. Require that the developer to file copies of all the r releases with the City 2. Require the developer to file a hold-harmless statement for the development, equivalent to the above property owner statement with the City Clerk. 3. If the developer and consultant are so sure that there will be no problems for the property owners in this development because of the building code and mitigation measures to be used,require the developer to indemnify the property owners for any problems which do occur. 4. If the developer and is so sure that there will be no problems produced for the residents adjacent to the development and from,require the developer to indemnify these adjacent residents and those down stream from any problems produce during or after construction and completion of the development. If these requirements are met. I believe those who would otherwise have to pick up the bill for any problems with this development,which according to the developer and consultant are unlikely to occur, will avoid such a bill. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I apologize for not having had the time to provide this information sooner. I hope the information supplied is of assistance to you. R. Winchell 6411 Weber Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92647 0, a RECEIVED FROM � �'ZJ�'I'V November 21,2002 AND MADE A Fa COUNCIL,MEEiINGOOFTHE RE ZW C RD Ar T E Huntington Beach City Council OFFICE OF THE CITY LERK Huntington Beach Civic Center GONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor and City Councilmembers: Attached is a Ietter on the Parkside development sent on September 19,2002 from me to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission via Mr. Scott Hess of the Planning Department. Mr. Hess kindly transmitted that letter to the Commission members on my behalf. During the Commission meeting of September 2.1.2002,the consultant on Parkside addressed to some of the comments raised in my letter. Others were not addressed. I am,therefore,transmitting my comments in the form of questions which I believe should asked of,and answered by,the consultant, if you are to be in a fully informed position to consider further the certification of the environmental impact report(EIR) for and further actions related to Parkside,which are before you tonight. These questions are based on my geological background, of which, 1 believe from previous comments to the Council and elsewhere,you are aware. Newport-Inglewood Fault : 1. Is it true that the Newport-Inglewood Fault is considered by many geologists to be the most dangerous fault in California because so many developments like Parkside and critical facilities have been built on poor ground along,and in the vicinity of this fault? (Poor ground is a term used in the engineering and geological professions to describe ground which is,or may,be subject to such phenomena as liquefaction, settlement,creep,etc. Creep is a slow movement of ground in the vicinity of a fault that disrupts roads.pipelines and other infrastructure,leading to the need for, and cost of, continual repair and/or replacement 2. Is it professionally reasonable to continue to build along this fault in poor ground,even if others have done it? Would it not be better to avoid these areas completely? 3. The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)has predicted very significant losses of life,injury and property loss from a moderate to major earthquake localized along the Newport- Inglewood Fault Are not those losses expected to be concentrated in areas of poor ground like Parkside area? If so, what are the number and level of losses that might be expected to be proportionate to the Parkside development? 4. Isn't it true that structures, including single family dwellings as well as such dwellings built in poor ground,which have been said to be built to modern building codes and required mitigation have still failed,and sometimes significantly failed, in a moderate or greater earthquake and produced losses of the type indicated above? Why has not photographic evidence of these problems and even photographic evidence of problems which involve structures which have been built in better ground been included for comparison? 5. Are there photographs in the professional literature that would give even a layperson and understanding of the problems a development like Parkside might have in the event of a major earthquake along the Newport-Inglewood Fault in the event and because the development was built in an area of poor ground? Why have these photographs,especially those which taken in Huntington Beach and adjacent areas during the 1933 Long Beach Earthquake been included in the EIR or otherwise for the Planning Commission and the City Council to review and reflect upon and determine the significance of in their evaluations of,and deliberations,on Parkside? Liquefaction: 1. Can you cite one or more areas in which a development like Parkside,built in poor ground like, and the regional setting of Parkside,built according to present codes and having the mitigation 7Z)—� measures, including ground mitigation proposed.have survived a even a moderate earthquake intact without any of the problems indicated above? If there have been problems,what have been the costs to the individual homeowner and family,the cost to the appropriate governing agencies, e.g..city,county, state and federal agencies,and ultimately to the general taxpayer? 2. Is it true that the placement of engineered soils,e.g. building pads, in an area of liquefiable materials only serves to increase the amplitude, energy concentration,and shaking effects of earthquake waves in such a situation. If so,what could be expected to be the effects, e.g.,costs as above,to structures on these pads and those involved in those effects? Bolsa-Fairview Fault: 1. The consultant has made comments on the Bolsa-Fairview Fault,which would,if present,roughly bisects the Parkside development and would pass through several proposed homes and or lots in the development. The consultant has indicated that this fault is either nonexistent or inactive but despite the existence of some evidence for its nonexistence.has been unable to say it is nonexistent and may only be inactive. If the fault is actually present and inactive and even though it is considered older than 11,000 years in its activity, could it become active and produce surface rupture. If so what would be the effects,e.g., costs,as above, if it did so. 2. Are there cases of faults considered inactive becoming active? Specifically,are there, cases in Southern California of inactive faults becoming active and what are the effects, e.g.,costs as above,associated with renewed activity,especially where these have occurred in poor ground? Is there photographic evidence to support what might be expected and/or from areas where there was better ground for comparison? If so,why have these not been supplied for the informational reasons indicated above? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I apologize for not having had the time to provide this information sooner. I hope the information supplied is of assistance to you. R Winchell 6411 Weber Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92647 AU l • r �. I11 Lea Homes Parkside (proposed) , urs ass= 93tk 0�300ft g pverkand Or ro Bona IV IV t 0 D Co 3 v K v y 7 ?5 �wiW Warner Ave Warner Ave S r [Gp_rp� i;'y Dorado or p.ogers Or 2 D T w w =_ m Dunbar Ave (j = r c a r C7 i 0 y J poradoDj 0 it B = ro $ 6 c z n n. t; Tortuga Or kenilworth Or beta t 0 �� Y�4n0 0> Cc s o< call�xz Occ Y O¢ai=VM Wendy Gir u.Q LZit 04u Z 0 full ! 0 w L oaz 0 a�stol Or m wz0 G1 0 ©2002 MaoQuest.com, Inc.;02002 Naviciation Taohnoktgi•s All riahts reserved. Use Subiect to wrnv License/Goovriaht hA0,aa6.Tt's r MMWE _ • -�- • • F dADE APART OFTHE RECORD ATTHE • . G.,..NCIL MEETING OF — �!-� �-� • OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY.CITY CLERK This map Is Informational only. No representation Is made or warranty given as to Its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use. Privacy Policy &Leaal Notices O 2002 MapQuest.com, Inc. All rights reserved. LEGEND AFD OA fa3lSln RESE]ENriA1 HIGH DENUTY FESCIDMAL I '\\ I1q� 1 0 HEAVY�n aEsuErinu I n+c MAHMA COMEr CIP1 's f LGGAL COASTAL% I AEU : 9ASiw eoL3A d.LA sEmWNTAEor eaAmwr LW WE,TA,A : � cErnnAL wErLAw B WY LINE I 1 UEIR EARK ...a...........................a. 4 1 1 i .. ep tEGTOA YL �4p11:A"�� 4 3l' Zvm AnAmAM-r+�' - O O y< O a z p rt - .-.... _... - - - rn 3 1 WM M APWA, M,O Z O m D v mnr�. mmy - am o�pd a GA C A STAW WADI rn;AK x FEET Existing N .00 LAND USE PLAN Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program Samce: 1986 Certified Bolxa Chica local Coastal P,oBnm Figure 4.1-6 m u m im MUMMEREW MEN w M w i a� ' HB - City Council - - Parkside ' 10/21/2002 RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RE PRD AT THEE COUNCIL MEETING OF OFF ICE O! THE CITY CL RK CONNIE RROCKWAY,CITY CLERK =r: Gh �� N G� 6 4i Robert W. Harrison, PE t� President, Conex Systems Amigos de Bolsa Chica �( J ..................... ............. ........... • .............. ... ........... Areas of Concern • Flow volume — Flow volume will increase substantially — Equipment additions & upgrades required — Increased maintenance fees in later years • Simulation Study — Concentrated on flow volume — Attempt to show a reduction in flood plain • Showed reduction not dependent on Parkside development — Validity dependent on • Accuracy of the model • Accuracy of the input data • Has the Planning Department Staff validated the model? How? • Bacteriological discharge Not addressed • ...... ::::!:::i:::!•'iiiiji:::v::iij:5i:i::C<:j}:::iiiiiii>::i::::i::::i:ii ii:::::::::{5::'i::::::: Location Description Type 9/25/97 1/8&12/98 2/20/98 2/11/99 7/15/99 1/12/00 3/7100 4/26/00 5/24/00 Dry(D)/ Rain(R) R D R 2/19 R 2/99 D D R 3/5 D D BC Reserve at Ped Bridge TC 80 230 9,000 170 400 110 40 40 <20 EC 80 <20 9,000 NS 399 52 <10 20 31 ENT 101 10 <10 10 20 EGGWC Above Tide Gate TC 20 1,400 >16,000 >16,000 <20 40 >16,000 16,000 170 EC 20 140 16,000 >16,000 20 31 563 6,131 63 ENT <10 10 933 1,334 20 Outer BC Below Tide Gate TC <20 800 >16,000 >16,000 20 40 800 260 220 EC <20 20 16,000 >16,000 <10 <10 74 4,106 41 ENT <10 <10 20 10 10 Huntington Harbour at Warner Ave TC 500 300 >16,000 300 <20 20 700 70 20 EC 70 20 16,000 20 <10 <10 63 1,669 41 ENT <10 <10 31 <10 <10 EGGWC at Slater Channel TC 2,400 80,000 160,000 >16,000 300 3,000 >169000 5,000 700 EC 2,400 8,000 90,000 2,400 240 98 794 19,863 158 ENT 30 20 85 10 63 Slater Channel Pump Station TC 1,600,000 50,000 50,000 16,000 >16,000 5,000 >16,000 300 >16,000 EC 900,000 2,800 50,000 3,000 24,192 1,607 1,989 275 4,884 ENT >24,192 115 1,313 4,106 1,674 Springdale Pump Station TC 300,000 NS 160,000 NS NS 5,000 >16,000 >16,000 >16,000 EC 80,000 NS 30,000 NS NS 12,997 1,793 5,794 1,789 ENT NS 1,017 9,208 9,208 19,863 Springdale PS Discharge Gate TC I NS 3,000 >16,000 NS >16,000 NS NS NS NS EC NS 1,300 >16,000 NS 24,192 NS NS NS NS ENT 3,255 NS NS NS NS EGGWC at Golden West TC 1,600,000 8,000 30,000 16,000 1,700 >1,600 16,000 3,000 9,000 EC 900,000 130 24,000 800 86 2,755 748 272 109 ENT 20 269 160 <10 413 ;.;;>:::..:......: ;' .>.....::.::.:............................................................�...... ........................... ........ .................. ........ .............. ................................. .................. ................................................. ................................................................s.............. ... . .......• .............................. EGGWC Water Quality • Evidence shows high bacteriological levels — Total Coliform — E. Coli — Enterococcus • High levels of phosphates, nitrates and heavy metals (Bolsa Chica Restoration EIR) • Parkside will create additional runoff which will add to the existing bacteriological levels • The impact of this additional influx into the pump station on the bacteriological levels has not been, but must be defined • What treatment processes will be used to reduce these levels? • The Wintersburg Channel empties into outer Bolsa Chica Bay and then through Huntington Harbour increasing pollutant levels in both Std X ....................... .......................................... ............... .................................................................................................... ...... ................ ................ ....• .............. Wetlands Origins • Historical maps show area as a wetlands Original ocean inlet was through the beach south of Warner Avenue • Much of the land is below sea level — Land elevation requires substantial fill • 51/2 to 101/2feet • Remains of the original wetlands still exists — Salt tolerant plants are still present 0 Pickle Weed • Wetlands validation — Validate if the anaerobic line still exists defining a wetlands — Core samples are required, but never allowed to be taken ...... ... .... ...... .. .... .... ... ........ . .........I.- . . ...... ............ .... ........ ............. . ..... ................ :. . : . ... ,:,. ........ ....*...... .... ................... ............... ................................. ....................... ........ ........................... ............................................. ............ Recommendation • Structured wetlands — Public acquisition — Provide a filter basin for the EGGWC — Natural treatment for water purification prior to entering outer Bolsa Chica Bay and Huntington Harbour — Provides a buffer for flood control — Provides additional wildlife habitat — Working successfully for the Irvine Ranch Water District • San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary • Just announced that a land parcel at the El Toro Base is being earmarked as a structured wetlands .......... ... .......... .... ..... ....... . ......................... ..... ...... ... ................. \ RECEIVED FROM I?oh wr 1 AND MADE"A PART OF THE RECORL d P"1 COUNCIL-MEETING OF `0 Report for the °=:�"IEZ OCKWAY!CI YOF THE CTYLCLERK Bolsa Chica North-East Wetland "Wintersburg Wetland" (proposed Shea "Parkside Estates" development) prepared for the Bolsa Chica Land Trust Huntington Beach City Council California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish & Wildlife Service October 21 , 2002 by Robert Roy van de Hoek wetland scientist, wildlife biologist geographer & botanist P.O. Box 192 • Malibu, CA 90265 • (310) 456-5604 Report for the Bolsa Chica North-East Wetland "Wintersburg Wetland" (proposed Shea "Parkside Estates" development) prepared for the Bolsa Chica Land Trust Huntington Beach City Council California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish & Wildlife Service October 21 , 2002 by Robert Roy van de Hoek wetland scientist, wildlife biologist geographer & botanist P.O. Box 192 • Malibu, CA 90265 • (310) 456-5604 2 Introduction This report is a wetland evaluation of the Bolsa Chica NorthEast Wetland, also referred to as the Wintersburg Wetlands, in Huntington Beach, California, the proposed site of a development by Shea Homes. The land is approximately 50 acres including 45 acres in the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, and five acres in the jurisdiction of the County of Orange. The subject site is located between the Wintersburg Tidal Creek (also referred to by some as the Wintersburg Flood Control Channel) to the south (moved from its 1920s location to its current location prior to 1963), Graham Street to the east, which is elevated on man-made fill, the Bolsa Chica Mesa and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Reserve to the west and a residential development built in 1965 to the north. My investigation of the area included a field visit on October 18, 2002 and another filed visit on October 20, 2002 to calculate predominant vegetation and to observe hydgologic conditions. Historical Wetlands According to the 1935 Seal Beach USGS 15-minute quadrangle map, the entire Shea parcel was a marshland, with a portion of the parcel,being below sea level. (see tab #1 & compare to tab #2, a 1981 map showing elevations as they were in 1935, with new development overlayed and encroaching on the wetlands.) There are 45 acres that Shea wants to develop in the city of Huntington Beach. Of that 45 acres, roughly 10% of it is shown on this historical map to be below sea level. The balance of the parcel is less than three feet above sea level. It should be noted that the ocean, on a daily basis, rises to about three feet above sea level. While this historical information does not always translate to current regulations regarding wetlands, the thousands of years during which this marshland was being formed, with decomposition of plants and animals over this time, explains why wetland soil characteristics still exist on the subject site. The Shea property, for the most part, remains at its original elevation since measurements were first made on the earliest maps over 100 years ago. This elevation recorded then and now still accurately show the Shea property at below sea level (between -1' to 4'). My own estimate is that the land currently is closer to the minus 3 foot level. It is apparent from comparing photographic evidence with field work conducted on October 18 and October 20, 2002, that approximately 5 feet of fill has been placed on a small amount of acreage (approximately 0.3 acres) of the Shea prioerty that was previously a depressional area about 4 feet below sea level. 3 Wetland Soils Upon inspecting the subject site, I observed clay soils throughout the property. There were indications that the salinity and alkalinty were high as well, as I observed whitish colors on the soil surface in various areas. Salts are not present in sandy soils, only clay soils, which are indicative of coastal wetland soils. My training allows me to make an occular analysis of clay or sandy soil, and clay soils are abundant on the site. It is only in clay and silt soils that evidence of hydric nature, gleization and iron reducing deposits are found. Furthermore, most of the wetland plants I observed on the site can only grow in heavy clay soils. The presence of shell fragments, i.e., clams, oysters and gastropods, indicate the soil has a marine origin. After reviewing the Tom Dodson &Associates document, I noted that Lisa Kegarice agreed that there are hydric soils present on the site. I agree. While she found no reducing conditions, I did find reducing conditions in the soil pits I excavated. There are wetland soils on the site, and a full delineation by an independent qualified wetland delineator is necessary to determine the full extent of jurisdictional wetlands according to Coastal Commission regulations. While various EIR and developer reports state there is no place for water to enter the area,rainfall is sufficient for a wetland water source because there are wetland soils with incredible abilities at water retention. Furthermore, there is no outlet for water to leave this area at present, so all water that arrives via sheetflow drainage from the bluff slopes and rainfall on the level marsh area below or at sea level, remains on the property. Only a slight amount of rainfall is required to begin the stage of ponding due to the extremely high water table and the area being at or near sea level. At some depth below,the surface, there is salt water intrusion from the ocean because it is only about one mile to the beach. In the 1950s, major studies by the U.S. Geological Survey under their Water Supply division, mainly by Poland, et. al., determined that salt water intrusion penetrated inland for several miles in the region of Torrance, and Long Beach, which are similar situations to Bolsa Chica. It is likely, and needs further investigation that water moves under the levee walls of the Wintersburg Channel also resulting in the continuing high water table, since all of the Shea property is either below sea level, and partly only 2-3 feet above sea level. Hydrophytie Vegetation In approximately 40% of the land under city jurisdiction, farming has not been occurring in the last two months - from August through October, 2002. (personal communication, knowledgeable local resident, Monica Hamilton, October 20, 2002.) In this area where the land is not currently being farmed, I observed numerous wetland species growing among the tilled soil. I observed a predominance (90%) of wetland species growing in this area, with only a few upland species (10%) present. If the land were to cease being farmed, it is my professional opinion that wetland plants would increase in species numbers and vegetative cover. Wetland birds and wetland insects would soon follow. A plant list of what I observed follows: 4 Plant List of the Wintersburg Wetland This list of plants was compiled from a comprehensive field survey through the entire city- jurisdiction Shea Property. The survey covered only the approximately 40% of the land that was not being farmed. About 5 % of the entire area is the periphery where the soil has not been farmed or disced. Abbreviations for the wetland categories in the list are: OBL: Obligate wetland plant(>99%), occurs almost always in wetlands; FACW: Facultative wetland plant, usually in wetland(66-99%); FAC: Facultative wetland plant (34-66%); equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands; FAC+: Facultative wetland plant that occurs closer to higher end of wetland category; FAC-: Facultative wetland plant that occurs closer to lower end of wetland category; FACU: Plant that occasionally is found in wetlands 1-33% of the time; UPL: Obligate upland plant that may be found in wetland less than 33% # : Number of individuals counted on the Shea property Dicot Families Aizoaceae # Species Name and Numbering Sequence FAC 5 01. Mesembryanthemum crystallinum Asteraceae FACW+ 5 02. Cotula coronopifolia FAC 1 03. Sonchus aspen Boraginaceae OBL 24 04. Heliotropium curassavicum Brassicaceae OBL 2 05. Lepidium dictyotum FACU 1 06. Lepidium perfoliatum Caryophyllaceae OBL 3 07. Spergularia marina Chenopodiaceae FAC 2 08. Atriplex semibaccata FAC 4 09. Bassia hyssopifolia FAC 71 10. Chenopodium album Convolvulaceae FACW 177 11. Cressa truxillensis UPL 8 12. Convolvulus arvensis Lamiaceae FACW 5 13. Mentha arvensis 5 Malvaceae FAC- 85 14. Malvella leprosa UPL 3 15. Malva parviflora Polygonaceae UPL 1 16. Polygonum arenastrum Solanaceae FAC 2 17. Solanum americanum Monocot Families Poaceae FACW 25 18. Distichlis spicata FAC 10 19. Cynodon dactylon FACW+ 5 20. Polypogon monspeliensis =459 individual plants counted. 6 The quantitative totals of number of wetland plants comes to a total 18 of 20 species (90% are wetland species). Therefore, only 10% of the total plant species are upland species. With this measure of dominance, then the entire Shea area in the city's jurisdiction is wetlands since 90% is clearly dominance or predominance from an ecological analysis of species richness. For the analysis of vegetation, one could lay out a transect to estimate cover, and follow California Native Plant Society methods, but it would provide a sample that would be calculated statistically. Alternatively, all of the plants in the area could be counted, and a comprehensive vegetation analysis can be made. Since a great portion of the study of 40% that is not farmed currently was sparsely covered, I was able to make a count of all individual plants found there. The total number of individual plants is 459 plants. This was a comprehensive count, taking several hours of field work on both October 18 and 20, 2002. With this methodology, I noted that each plant is roughly the same size, in that all of the plants are herbaceous and are low to the ground in their growth. Each individual plant does not spread more than about 1 foot across in breadth. The only exceptions are two grasses (Distichlis spicata and Cynodon dacytlon)which form mats of about 1 Om x 2m (20 square meters in extent.) Of the total number of 459 plants, only 13 are upland individuals, and 446 of 459 are in some category of wetland status. This percentage is at about 99% ground cover, hence there is a dominance and predominance (about 99%) of wetland species. In addition, wetland scientists, in the forefront of accepted thinking of wetlands classification, such as Wayne Ferren at University of California Santa Barbara, and Terry Huffman who wrote the wetland definition for the Army Corps of Engineers, have defined that the determination of wetlands is to be gauged by the guild(or suite) of plants found together in a specific area. In this case, the vast majority at 90 % (18 of 20) are wetland species that range from obligate to facultative. I also measured predominance in the the two large grass populations (Distichlis spicata and Cynodon dactylon). In both cases, I measured 100% dominace of these wetland grasses. I also measured two areas of greater than 5 foot diameter area, where I found 100% dominance of an obligate wetland plant, namely Heliotropium curassavicum, where the other vegetation associates were also wetland indicators (Cressa truxillensis and Malvella leprosa). The two ways of measuring the flora of an area that can indicate dominance include ecological measures of determining species presence, species richness/species diversity or by vegetation cover. In conclusion, no matter which of the possible methods that a wetlands scientist or ecologist utilizes to calculate the dominance-predominance of plants at the Shea city property, there are wetlands present, according to the Coastal Commission and California Department of Fish& Game definitions. Five of the wetland plants observed, the obligate and facultative-wet plants, have adventitious roots, which is further proof of there being wetlands on the subject site. 7 Evidence of Ponding The surface of the soil was investigated to see if evidence of ponding could be found. One of the main supportive methods for determining if ponding occurs is evidence of drift lines. I observed several areas of drift lines, which would have been present from a comparison of photographs taken in March 2001, and May 2001. Field check of the perimeter of the ponding areas of March-May, 2001 show drift lines. Based on the drift lines and the boundaries of the current plants that are growing at or above the drift lines, I would estimate the ponding to have been approximately 3-5 inches deep. I have reviewed photos submitted to the City Council by Mark Bixby, Jan Vandersloot and Monica Hamiltion, and based upon that review, combined with my inspection of the drift lines and the growth areas of the vegetation, it is reasonable to expect that water has ponded for a minimum of 30 days in March and May, 2001. After inspecting climate records of the National Weather Bureau, I determined 2001 was,a below-average rainfall year. This indicates that at a minimum, on an average of one out of two years, there would be some lengthy ponding (approx. 30 days) on the land. This demonstrates that the land is periodically and regularly inundated with water, meeting the criteria of the definition of a wetland. Federal jurisdictional wetland After an exhaustive review of the record for this subject site, I have determined that the EPA delineation of more than 8.3 acres on the northwest portion of the project site is likely to remain a federal jurisdictional issue (see tab #3.)While Shea claims this land is prior converted croplands and the Soil Conservation Service has concurred, the SCS determination was based on incomplete information about the status of farming on the site during the past ten years. A review of the photographic and eyewitness evidence shows that from 1991 until April of 1998 there was no farming on the site. Even when farming was in process before 1991 and after 1998, there were significant portions of the property that were not farmed until just last year. The rule for the federal government to designate a site as prior converted croplands requires that farming be continuous, and if five years passes without farming after December 23, 1985, that designation is no longer valid. Therefore, the wetlands originally delineated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ought to be back in the regulatory picture. Tom Yocom, the national wetlands expert for the EPA concurs with this assessment. While the Alternative #7 does not contemplate building in the area where the EPA declared a wetland, an urban park with hardscape is not an appropriate nor legal land-use designation. Comparison of County parcel& City parcel The LSA delineation is somewhat instructive, and a survey of the parcel of land where they conducted their delineation is extremely instructive, as it demonstrates some of what plants would be growing to the east in the portion of the Bolsa Chica NorthEast Wetland that is under jurisdiction by the City of Huntington Beach, should the farming activities cease. However, from my own observations of the County site, the LSA report greatly underestimated the acreage of Coastal Commission determinative wetlands present. 8 Coastal Commission Jurisdictional Wetlands Presence In the California Coastal Zone only one of the three wetland characteristics is required to determine the presence of wetlands. With the soil,ponding and vegetation evidence, it is apparent that there are numerous locations on the subject site that meet the definition for wetlands in the California Coastal Zone, and that, therefore, are not available for the building of houses or roads, as proposed by Shea Homes. In numerous locations on the subject site, more than one of the three characteristics are present., A thoiough and independent analysis of the entire property is necessary to determine the full extent and-exact mapping of Coastal Commission wetlands at the subject site. Wildlife During the October 18 and October 20, 2002 site visits, I observed the following recognized state-sensitive and endangered species: White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) a California Fully Protected Bird, California Loggerhead Shrike (California Species of Special Concern and in rapid decline,particularly near urban areas), juvenile young-of-the-year Belding's Savannah Sparrow(State of California endangered species.) The sighting of the Belding's Savannah Sparrow is not surprising nor accidental, in light of the fact that the subject site is 1/2 to one mile from existing nesting populations. The Shea property has pickleweed habitat suitable for dispersing Belding's Savannah Sparrows. In the same area where I observed the Belding's Savannah Sparrow, I noticed a Vesper Sparrow. The brushy habitat along Wintersburg Channel and at the west end of the Shea property supports unique sparrow habitat for migrants such as the Vesper Sparrow. In the fallow farm fields on both site visits I respectfully observed 24 and 28 Plovers. I observed four American Pipit (Water Pipit) on the Shea property in the afternoon of October 20, 2002, a further indication that migration is in full swing as birds arrive to spend the winter on the Shea property. In the case of waterfowl, after a careful review of photographs covering the last 10 years, I can state definitively, that in years with a winter rainfall above the average, and even in years slightly below average rainfall, which would represent about 8 years out of 10 (80% of the time), that enough ponding occurs to attract aquatic (water)birds. These water birds include ducks and geese, such as the American Widgeon and Canada Goose, which can be viewed in photos in the EIR record. Other water birds, namely the waders such the Great Blue Heron and Great Egret, also use the Shea property, regardless of agriculture, in 8 out of 10 years, for foraging. In a February 5, 1999 photo in the EIR record, the photograph shows two waterfowl species, seven swimming American Wigeon and four Canada Goose walking in wet mud searching for seeds of wetland plants. American Widgeon always swim and feed in areas where there is green algae and Widgeon- grass (Ruppia maritima). Both species of plants, green algae and Widgeon-grass are legally(according to Corps of Engineers and USFWS) considered as obligate wetland plants because they are in wetlands greater than 99%. 9 I also observed some additional raptors, including a Red-tailed Hawk and a Turkey Vulture flying low over the entire Shea property. The Red-tailed Hawk, like the White-tailed Kite, is protected as a raptor and was focused searching for native gophers on the periphery of the farmed area. I found owl pellets, which indicate that, at a mininum, two to three kinds of owls live here. Nearly all biologists in conducting surveys are negligent in not conducting nocturnal surveys for mammals,reptiles, amphibians, insects, and birds that are active only at night. Based on the ponding I have observed in photos, I would predict abundant frog populations in wet years. Frogs would also be more observable at night due to the calls they make in nocturnal periods. Other observations include the following mammal, Sylvilagus auduboni(Audubon Cottontail Rabbit), and a reptile, Uta stansburiana (Side-blotched Lizard.) I observed an invertebrate nesting population of Bombus (Bumblebees.) It is clear from these brief zoological observations that the Shea property still exhibits biodiversity and ecosystem value in various taxonomic groups. The land would rebound quickly to be,able to support even increased biodiversity if managed as a true farmed wetland in a buffer capacity to the core Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve. Connie Boardman, a biologist that lives in Huntington Beach, has documented the White-tailed Kite on this site, and the California Department of Fish & Game has documented this species using the site for foraging. These sightings do not signify a casual use of the site by the White-tailed Kite, who requires this area for food. Impacts of Development to Bolsa Chica Wetlands Adjacent to Wintersburg Wetlands If the development proposed is allowed to proceed, a significant amount of impervious surface will be added to the watershed immediately adjacent to the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Reserve. The impacts to the wetlands now in public ownership will result in a continuing impairment in perpetuity to the Bolsa Chica Estuary. The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) submitted a letter to the City that states that the Wintersburg Channel is state-owned inland to Graham Street (see tab #4.) The CSLC expressed strong concerns about the impacts of this proposed development to the restoration plans for a sensitive wetland that will be undergoing a sort of shock as it is being restored. Similarly,the US Fish&Wildlife Service also expressed strong concerns about the impacts of this development to a sensitive restoration process. (see tab #5.) In part, USF&WS states, We believe that the subject draft Environmental Impact Report (dEIR) needs expansion or improvement in the following areas: the nature and extent of wetlands on the property, alternatives to avoid or mitigate wetlands impacts on the property, and the relationship of the proposed plan to the Bolsa Chica Mesa development plan, the lowland restoration plan, and flood channel improvement plans. In designing ecological reserves such as Bolsa Chica, all of the current thinking for the last 20+ years in the professional fields of conservation biology, island biogeography and ecological analysis has shown that reserves should have a core area of the greatest protection, surrounded by buffers that separate urban areas away from the core reserve. This subject site should at minimum be kept in open space as such a buffer. Areas that could be considered as a buffer, such as the Bolsa Chica Mesa, is not guaranteed to be fully protected, and it has core wildlife values of its own. I 1 ROBERT ROY VAN DE HOEK Curriculum Vitae (C.V.) Education B. A.,Biological Science,environmental option,California State University Northridge(CSUN), 1986 B.A., Geography, California State University Northridge(CSUN), 1986 M.A. progam, Geography, California State University Northridge, 1986-1990 Academic training and research focused on botany,ecology,invertebrate and vertebrate zoology, and also archaeology, vegetation analysis,historical geography, geomorphology, aerial photo interpretation,map interpretation, and geology. Additional post-graduate education and professional training: University of Nevada at Reno, 1988-1994 Post-graduate work emphasized hydrology,ecology, field botany,biogeography, archaeology, cultural resources management, geomorphology, and botanical classification of streams,meadows, and wetlands of the western United States. Experience 10 years working as a biologist for the federal government, in the United States Forest Service and the United States Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management, 1983-1993. 25 years experience working in the field of environmental analysis, which includes: •experience in mapping various geographies of California, •zoological investigations including birds,mammals,herpetofauna, and invertebrates, and •botanical investigations of rare plants,wetland plants,high-elevation meadow plants, desert plants, and forest ecosystems. Land-use mapper, California State Department of Agriculture, 1981-82 Manager and supervising naturalist for the Santa Catalina Island Interpretive Nature Center, for the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 1996-99 Instructor at Bakersfield College, Cerro Coso College,Lassen College and Long Beach College. Classes taught include: Physical Geography, Geology,Wildlife Biology, Marine Biology, and Natural History. Instructor of an Urban Wetlands Course at the Rancho Santa Botanic Garden. CURRENT: Director, Research&Restoration (Wetland Scientist),Wetlands Action Network, 1999-2002 Experience includes working on wetland projects in southern California, central California,Channel Islands, and northeastern California. 2 Publications Research on wetlands ecology has been presented to the California Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game. Seaside Heliotrope Report, 39 pages,June, 2002 Great Blue Heron Report, 76 pages, January, 2001 Wandering Skipper Report, 2 pages, May, 2002 Ventura Marsh Milkvetch, 3 pages,January, 2002 Published in the California Native Plant Society book entitled California Wild Gardens. Authored several reports with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Interior. Completed several education brochures on flora and fauna of wetlands in California. Ecology of the White-tailed Kite, 1997 Ecology of the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, 1997 Ecology of Wetlands &Uplands, 1999 Ecology of Mammals on the Carrizo Plain, 1993 Paper presented to 20th Symposium of Southern California Botanists on Alien Plant Invasion, 1994 Volunteer, Honorary Appointment& Public Interest Sector Experience Scientist,Environmental Review Board of the Santa Monica Mountains for the County of Los Angeles. Working member of the Los Angeles County Committee for the Southern California Wetlands Recovery Project. (serves with federal and state agency managers and professionals, as well as NGOs -Non- governmental organizations-on this committee). Member of the Ballona Creek Watershed Task Force of the LA County Department of Public Works. Co-chair of the Sierra Club California Coast and Ocean Committee. Chair of the Sierra Club Ballona Wetlands Task Force Additional Relevant Experience Extensively evaluated, tested and interviewed(in 1995), and subsequently rated"fully qualified" as a professional botanist, wildlife biologist, and general biologist, within the State of California,Department of Agriculture,Department of Fish& Game and Department of Parks & Recreation for possible full-time employment in any of these three agencies. Similarly,in 1992,rated qualified as a professional botanist for employment in the U.S. Department of Interior&U.S. Department of Agriculture. Criteria evaluated was academic training, field knowledge and professional experience. In 1985, rated qualitifed as a professonal archaeologist in the U.S. Forest Service. In 1988, rated qualified as professional hydrologist with the U.S. Forest Service. And in 1989, rated qualied as a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Department of Interior. Completed classes with John Callaway,Ph.D.,wetland delineator and scientist, at Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory (PERL) at San Diego State University, specifically focused on Southern California wetland restoration. Qualified Wetlands Scientist for the California coastal zone. Professionally trained to identify the presence and the predominance of wetland plants, soils, and hydrology. J fE OF CALIFORNIA SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLE NT OF WATER RESOURCES CALIFORNIA o�Pr`E a3sl SE 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) ro1Pd ILOS ALAM/TO51 ^O2 v07 —2.30,. '04 1460000 'IC; 107 118'00' FEET(61 405 e I +o 9ti WE , nnNST _ sea o0 LA, vsS FEE1161 I 1 IMI Ea .•E...-• 0 1,1 �Il 1 1 eOLSA i'AL�iG- xLvn.rtt BE rn - NkE Po,a lnrzu__ _ • � ,1 1- i ll';aFR �� s134 _ - L-.hr 91J a =l1• tl is 15 -jeer l4 =e !; 1 • N 1 pIIln Al 1111 -01IN13 �• n33 i � 7 •YI M° t u. S ~�pin8 • �I or 1 I �� , II _ .+c o .c b� �t.,,Is• 1 Icou•,n�.. li [ s b SO, .32 20 �11f., .. LJ 21 E - — 3 'T.a:le, '. -� 22 „ I r�L A B L"" S A P.. C H I C A I . _ - �. I m 3vL L, `n m � 'ELnnL1r<gton m 66tnr' a —FEI�L, Cov I y L 6 aa _ _yy C C--- sea • �11 ..F�NEL �{ t4 �.. '.•i'c /�. .TM1 Gum.) i..Pa.� �•I . -`— III .• :. . _ -_ � II � I I. swr- A IF 4�'30 669w. . 0^ '�27 1 • y30„ r r 0Fin - +� F U ' )F CALIFORNIA ]RRTAm. GOVERNOR. CALIFORNL4 6' TRIP CTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS (ORANGE COUNTY) 'T, STATE ENGINEER swNTw wNA ,1 N,. SEAL BEACH QUADRANGLE l .8 AZO LZt.08 230+ WLSTM/NSTLS 9 Ml. WLSTMIMETLR 4 M/. 118,00' L A S B O L S A S(/ II I it S / \ . _ •• STATE III 23 \ III II -JV Z SUNSET �"hi' 6UX CLUB CABA TOPES II 1 I GUN CLUB JIt j 11 it LOS PA 5OS II 1GUN CLUB j L L3.._..SACELT�LR—'13— -I Q - _ •=-_9"C'•"_._.._... ____ AVENUE 9 A .. B O L .. - - 1 �. S �.; H C A 4 0 lip Fm _ T )) 0 II y FLUB ^2 IF h �NTE ' as Spc}a8d,ile SoL T / AvE i m II I • It + / II i i 1 S - 4230" \ \\\ \\ eyoL cwG&N ccu - -. I v vv w-VI✓/sue')/ I4. s=L_ I II R ti, \ Ji4l — �. �. ��� Y,� �. .0 Y. ' -- \�, - ,r .. .. � i� a �L ->' � Y., C Y, � / ... -.: .. , , • . - •• �� , �` i � • ... .� • a �: �. , i •� � �I . ._ _ _ _�_ _��- - �; - � I, .� , � �� � N off--. � • � � �.� C � •�8 �1 • ���� � � 1 _ .1,. V•i'. •� .v�. s r\/ � ago •_l� ._i.i �t� C,ti a o I v � .. �� /�� Y � :. �, � Y/ �., L Y' W / ,/. :t/ / t :.. ,/� •• _ _`/ i' i!� r �',i /\ � i;,- �.i/ , - � +✓,�" / ,fit• '/ �•� .. �qy .G� /� .) - __.�, r / �\' � - I. •.. -. � y � � ��� �. .. .. .. _. \' �;� � � i %T.N11 0t;CALIFORNIA UAVIS.G"— CALIFORNIA STATE EXFCU'nvr-.OFFICE LANDS CO.N4MISSION 100 3-lowe Avenue.suite IGOL-South Sacramento,CA 95825-8202 Zi- ,i CRUZ M.BUSTAMANTE,LicutPAUIL D.THAYER,Executive Officer e-nant Governor (916) 574-1800 Fax(916) 574-1810 KATHLEEN CONNELL,Controller B.TIMOTHY CAGE,Director of Finance Cali�lmia May Saricef—TUD Phan1-800-735-2922 from Voke Phone 1-80tl-1/35-Z929 August 13,2001 Ms. Mary Beth Broeren City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ms. Nadell Gayou The Resources Agency 1020 9th Street,3rd Floor Sacramento,CA 95814 Dear Ms. Broeren and Ms. Gayou: Staff of the California State Lands Commission (CSLC)has reviewed the New Alternatives to the Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR)#97-2,Parks-ide Estates, SCH 1997091051.Under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the City is the Lead Agency and the CSLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects that could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands,their accompanying CS LC#2 - 1 Public Trust resources or uses,and the public easement in navigable waters. By way of general background,upon admission to the Union in 1850, California acquired nearly 4 million acres of sovereign land underlying the State's navigable waterways.Such lands include,but are not li2nited to,the beds of more than 120 ,navigable rivers and sloughs,nearly 40 navigable lakes,and the three mile wide band of tide and submerged land adjacent to the coast and offshore islands of the State. These lands are managed by the CSLC. The CSLC holds its sovereign interest in these lands subject to the Public Trust for commerce,navigation,fisheries,open space,and preservation of natural environments, among others. TheCSLC is particularly concerned with the natural resources and public recreational opportunities of lands under its jurisdiction. Our-records indicate that by letter dated June 1,1998,CSLC staff provided comments on the original Draft EIR.We reiterate the comments and concerns expressed in that letter as this document not only relies on the analyses of such document,but also CSLC#2-2 adds no additional information or analyse-,regarding the proposed Alterziatives beyond that contained in the initial EIR. The subject document discusses four new alternatives that were developed in conjunction with the Parkside Estates Residential Development Project- The alternative.,; CSLC#2 -3 reflect two different reduced density concepts that have been prepared based upon new information that became available after circulation of the original EIR in:1998.Each of Ms. Mary Betl-t Broeren 2 August 13,2001 Ms. Nadell Gayou the alternatives proposes flood control channel improvements(sheet pile) and storm CSLC#2— 3 p. drain.improvements involving the installation of a pipeline under the East Garden (cont.) Grove-Wintersburg (EGGW)Channel. The nature and extent of the improvements to the EGGW Channel that could result from the origi-nal project were not described or analyzed in the initial EIR. See comment for 5.7 Drainage/Hydrology in our letter of June 1,1998.The current document,in various places,states,in part, "However,the proposed design of this alternative, including the higher pad elevations,storm drain improvements,addition of grreater CSLC#2—4 pumping capacity to the Slater Pump Station,and improvements to the East Garden Grove Wintersburg Flood Control Channel,will mitigate the impacts to a level of less than significant" (emphasis added)There is no description of the improvements to the EGGW Channel and no analysis of the potential impacts of such improvements,e.g., construction, operation,etc. It appears, from Exhibit 58,that only that side of the EGGW Channel adjacent to the proposed development will be improved. How will this selective improvement affect the opposite unimproved side and the downstream portions of the Channel? Will such improvement benefit the development to the detriment of the proposed Bolsa Chica Lowlands Restoration Project(Project) that will be adjacent to the unimproved side of the EGGW Channel?For example,will such improvement increase the potential for or CSLC#2—5 size of Channcl overflows into the Project dud tn additional storm water flows from the development without any corresponding increase of the Channel's capacity in this- section?How would associated water quality impacts to the wetlands be mitigated? What impacts would result from and how will the proposed improvements to the Slater Pump Station exacerbate the above-cited potential impacts? The CSLC acquired ownership of the EGGW Channel,up to its intersection with Graham Street,as part of the acquisition of the 880-acre Bolsa Chica Lowlands, pursuant to Grant Deed recorded on February 14,1997,as Document No. 19970069448, Official Records of Orange County. A copy of that document is enclosed. Upon acquisition, this property was impressed with the Public Trust for waterborne CSLC#2—'6 commerce, navigation,fisheries,open space,recreation,or other recognized Public Trust purposes. Therefore,CSLC authorization will be required for any flood control channel/storm drain improvements anticipated as part of this project. If you have any questions concerning the CSLC's jurisdiction,please contact Rick Ludlow at(916)574-1847. Sincerely, Dwi t . Sanders, Chief Divi 'o of Environmental Planning and Management Enclosure Ms.Mary Betl-z Broeren 3 August 13, 2001 Ms. Nadell Gayou Cc: Members,Bolsa Chica Wetlands Steering Committee(eachw/o enclosure) Rick Ludlow Jane Smith p tHT OFTyF P7Su aW1LDl17g o� United States Department of the Interi or aenvIcB FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE , Ecological Services RcM a Carlsbad Field Office ' 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad,California 92008 JUN 1 5 1998 Mr.James Barnes,Project Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re:Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the Shea Homes Parkside Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Barnes: The Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)has reviewed the referenced document and offers the following comments. The Service is a Federal agency with expertise in fish and wildlife habitat evaluation and mitigation and a long history of involvement in the fish and wildlife issues of Bolsa Chica and the City of Huntington Beach. We are one of the agencies implementing the Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project on State-owned property immediately adjacent to the subject property- The Service had provided a response,dated October 16, 1997,on the Notice of Preparation for this project, yet we do not find that the issues we identified have been addressed in this draft EIR. We believe that the subject draft Environmental Impact Report(dEIR)needs expansion or improvement in the following areas:the nature and extent of wetlands on the property, alternatives to avoid or mitigate wetlands impacts on the property,and the relationship of the proposed plan to the Bolsa Chica Mesa development plan,the lowland restoration plan,and flood channel improvement plans. The actual nature and extent of wetlands on the site continues to be somewhat in dispute. It is our understanding that the Corps of Engineers has yet to confirm whether the"seasonal pond" is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or not. The site history indicates that there is a regular occurrence of ponding and wet soil conditions,as well as frequent disturbance,such as discing. Evidently an obvious and recurrent seasonal pond exists on the site on the westerly end of the property,which would seem to qualify as a"wetland"under the California Coastal Act. If this seasonal pond were not frequently disced,it probably would exhibit other characteristics of wetlands than just ponded water,such as hydrophytic vegetation, , hydric soils,and aquatic organisms. Therefore,we recommend that the proponent and the City of Huntington Beach should consider"environmentally"preferable alternatives such as M protecting the seasonal pond in place, by reducing the development footprint on the western third of the property. The dEIR(pages 5-160&5-162)identifies proposed mitigation of the acknowledged wetlands on the"County Parcel"as 4:1 mitigation within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or an alternative site would be found• We recommend that this proposal be considered as inadequate,since the proponent does not have any evident concurrence from any other landowner that they may mitigate any wetland impacts in the Bolsa Chica Lowland. No offsite mitigation opportunity is apparent. We recommend the dEIR include a discussion of wetland mitigation measures for all of the"wetland"areas of the property. We further recommend that the mitigation measures be site specific and sufficiently detailed to allow the reader and decision-makers to evaluate the allowableness and feasibility of the proposed measures. The dEIR discussion of"aesthetics"includes a discussion of trail alignments. Exhibit 25,page 5-46,shows an"interpretive trail"and a class I bicycle trail along the edge of the subject property but extending into the Bolsa Chica lowlands. This figure infers that the dEIR preparers considered the now defunct Koll development plan to be relevant. In actuality,the proposed trails may not ever exist in the form shown on that figure.(Our wetland restoration plan dEIR/S will include alternative trail alignments on the State property later this year.) The proponent appears to be proposing a dead-end interpretive trail sandwiched between a concrete vertical wall flood channel and perimeter wall at the back of the houses(Exhibit 6b,cross section A-A,page 3-9). We recommend that alternative trail alignments be considered at the west end of the subject property that would connect through the proponent's property to the private property, bicycle trails, and scenic route to the northwest of the subject property,rather than enter or skirt the wetlands of the lowland. The trail alignment along the southerly boundary of the proponent's property should also be considered for a widened,landscaped treatment,more along the lines of a "green way"than a concrete chute and preferably located on the proponent's property,rather than on the flood channel edge. Alternative uses for the 4.9-acre parcel within County jurisdiction should be considered that would avoid houses jutting further into the lowland area currently being planned for restoration and long-term conservation of fish and wildlife. This action would appear to allow for a scenic, naturally landscaped(nontidal wetland and upland habitat restoration),green way connection to the proposed"mesa community park"and further buffer the wetland area from urbanizing influences. This action could even incorporate an interpretive function. As a preliminary part of the engineering analysis for our wetland restoration project,the Service is evaluating the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood channel functions and inadequacies. We are finding that with some alternatives for improving the flood channel capacity to handle the 100-year flood,a detention basin would be necessary to avoid having to make improvements to the Warner Avenue connection between Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. The subject property may be considered an excellent location for such a detention basin. We recommend that the dEIR include an evaluation of the alternatives for addressing this section of flood channel, since their action may foreclose implementation of otherwise feasible alternatives for solving existing threat of flooding and storm water damage. Y Also as part of our preliminary analysis for our wetland restoration project, the Service has received information from County agencies regarding the quality and constituents of runoff in the area of this proposed project. Some potential problems are being noted that probably originate with street and yard runoff. For example,high total coliform counts have been detected in the wetwell of the Slater pump station,large amounts of trash and urban debris deposit in the flood chaiuiel. The proposed project apparently would incrementally contribute to these problems. .We recommend a discussion of these problems and measures that the proponent may implement to avoid incremental degradation,such as Best Management Practices,grease traps,and vegetated swales/detention basins. We look forward to working with the City of Huntington Beach and the proponent on this project. We are particularly interested in aspects to the subject project that may impinge on the wetland restoration project that we are evaluating. Please refer any question to Jack Faucher of this office at (760)431-9440. Sincerely, A. Bartel Assistant Field Supervisor Wet-Cands 9Lcrion Nerwork protecting & restoring wetlands along the Pacific M' ratory Pathways October 21,20002 RECEIVED FROM` 'osur#'�)� �Cj&' v AND MADE A PART OF THE RE RD T T_H The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable CouncilmemberSCOUNCI MEETI MEETING CITY CLERK ` O'i. OFFICECity of Huntington Beach CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK 2000 Main Street �, P G Huntington Beach,CA 92648-2702 re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA Wintersburg Wetlands AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" Dear Mayor Cook and Councilmembers: We respectfully ask that you deny certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Parkside/Shea development and deny issuance of a coastal development permit for this same project. The project site is a historical wetland, as evidenced by the 1935 Seal Beach USGS 15-minute quadrangle map, and still to this date,exhibits numerous wetland characteristics. Please refer to the report written by Robert Roy van de Hoek, a wetland scientist,wildlife biologist, geographer and botanist,who has visited the site and evaluated it to determine what,if any,wetland characteristics remain today. He has found that,indeed,in spite of the owner's discing and farming activities carried on since it was bought and conceived for residential development in 1997,the site still displays numerous wetland characteristics and deserves to be subjected to a full-fledged wetland delineation by an independent scientist(not.associated with or paid by Shea Homes)who would be given sufficient access to the site to conduct a thorough and legally defensible analysis. In addition,we offer the following comments, all of which cry out for further analysis prior to approvals of the items you have before you today. I. Part of the Historical Bolsa Chica Wetlands: Clearly,this entire subject parcel is part of the historical Bolsa Chica Wetlands ecosystem complex. Once more than 8,000 acres, and so lush,with birds so abundant that they "darkened the sky," the remnant Bolsa Chica Wetlands are but a small portion of the once historical acreage. These lands- called the Wintersburg Wetlands by local residents-are part of that heritage. According to Tom Yocom, national wetlands expert for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, this parcel of land was tidally influenced prior to the site being diked in 1899. The United States Geological Service 1935 Seal Beach 15-minute quadrangle map also shows the entire Shea parcel, as well as the homes immediately adjacent, south of Warner, as being marshlands. All of the coastal wetlands in Southern California are remnants of their former complexities and sizes, and they are all degraded. They are also, therefore, all the more precious and important to protect, recover and restore. This wetland, adjacent to a 905-acre area that has been purchased/ acquired for the public, is especially important for protection, recovery and restoration,because of the added value such efforts will bring to the public investment already made in Bolsa Chica. P.O. Box 1145, MaCibu, Cal 90265 • (310) 456-5604 + fax: (310) 456-5612 D I 'P- b C,, The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers • City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 2 II. Presence of Wetlands as Defined in the California Coastal Zone and Coastal Act Mandate for Protecting Wetlands While a complete wetland delineation for both federal and state jurisdictions of the County lands has now been completed by LSA Associates, Inc.,no such current wetland delineation exists for the Shea lands subject to City of Huntington Beach jurisdiction. The EIR can not be certified due to this basic inadequacy, and it is not surprising such a delineation was not initiated by the developer because a very cursory observation of the soils on the subject site indicates that most of the lands in the City jurisdiction at least meet the one criteria necessary for a wetland determination in the California Coastal Zone. LSA's analysis of May, 2002,while only analyzing the lands under County of Orange jurisdiction and therefore insufficient, it is also flawed, and shows a basic underlying false premise the developer apparently has: "the Commission's definition is based on only two criteria: hydrology and either vegetation or soils (exceptions include certain areas that lack wetland soils and vegetation." This interpretation is blatantly wrong. Basing a Coastal Zone wetland determination on the stated by LSA criteria is erroneous and illegal. The Kirkorowicz legal decision in the California Court of Appeals (Christopher Kirkorowicz et al., v. California Coastal Commission- 83 Cal.App. 4th 980; 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 739; 100 Cal Rptr. 2d 124;2000 Daily Journal DAP 10423; 31 ELR 20168) clearly put to rest that in the California Coastal zone only one of three criteria is necessary to define a wetland: 1) predominance of undrained hydric soil; 2) predominance of hydrophytic vegetation OR 3) saturation with water (ponding) at/near the surface at some time during the growing season The Appeals Court noted in its opinion that: "'[w]etland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes...' (Cal. Code Reg., tit.14, § 13577, subd. (b)(1), italics added.) Consequently, evidence that hydrophytes exist on a property to a degree permitting jurisdictional wetland determination renders unnecessary any additional evidence of wetland hydrology or hydric soils." It is clear that in most of the lands of the Shea property, including the lands under City of Huntington Beach jurisdiction, at least one of the three required wetland characteristics exist. In some areas, there is a predominance of wetland vegetation. In some areas, there is a predominance of clay wetland soils. In some areas, there is evidence of ponded water for days on end, including in years that are not considered "wet" years. In some areas, there are combinations of these criteria. Therefore, according to the 4th District California Appeals Court, as noted in Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court, the proposed housing development is not one of the allowable reasons for filling a wetland in the California Coastal zone and Shea Homes, thus, can not be granted a coastal development permit. r The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers * City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 3 Arid climate Additional legal guidance for the Southern California and climate,which helps in both determining California Coastal zone wetlands--as well as federal jurisdictional wetlands--has been given by the Appeals Court in the Kirkorowicz case,in which the Court references the 1989 US Army Corps of Engineers delineation manual in notation 16 of its opinion: "n16 Under the subheading 'Problem Area Wetlands,'THE 1989 MANUAL PERTINENTLY INSTRUCTS: 'Highly variable seasonal wetlands--In many regions (especially in and and semiarid regions), depressional areas occur that may have indicators of all three wetland criteria during the wetter portion of the growing season,but normally lack indicators of wetland hydrology and/or hydrophytic vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. In addition,some of these areas lack field indicators of hydric soil. OBL and FACW plant species normally are dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season,while FACU and UPL species (usually annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season and during and for some time after droughts. Examples of highly variable seasonal wetlands are pothole wetlands in the upper Midwest,playa wetlands in the Southwest, and vernal pools along the coast of California. Become familiar with the ecology of these and similar types of wetlands...Also,be particularly aware of drought conditions that permit invasion of UPL species (even perennials).' (1989 Manual,supra,at pp.55,57.)" This additional information and guidance for agencies to use in wetland determinations supports the well-known analyses of renowned wetland scientists such as Dr.Joy Zedler. Dr. Zedler, a scientist on the National Academy of Sciences Wetlands Panel, and Wayne Ferren of UC Santa Barbara, and a consultant for the US EPA, have for years contended that California and other southwestern and regions exhibit far different characteristics than wetlands in the eastern United States where rainfall patterns are markedly distinct. While a developer-biased delineation based on faulty assumptions was completed for the county Shea lands,no such delineation has been undertaken for the city lands in recent years. In 1997 an "evaluation of the wetland determinations" for the lands under city jurisdiction was written by Lisa Kegarice of Tom Dodson & Associates,but it is clearly,by the author's own admission, not meant to be a wetland delineation. While the author states she visited the site to perform"groundtruthing," no field data sheets are included in the evaluation, and there are numerous erroneous conclusions in this report. In April 11, 1997, The California Coastal Commission staff specifically requests a formal wetland delineation be performed, stating the necessity for doing so using the California Department of Fish &Game guidelines,which is based on the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service standards. While this request appears to have been met for the Shea land under county jurisdiction (LSA report-albeit biased and not using the correct criteria), it has not yet been met for the Shea land under city jurisdiction. At the very least, an independent wetland delineation needs to be undertaken and completed in order that the EIR be certified. However, the evidence presented by Robert van de Hoek is sufficient to deny issuance of a coastal development permit, as the wetland characteristics present require that no permit be issued for building on this site. The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers • City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 4 III. Degraded Nature of Wetlands and Need for New Delineation Subsequent to DFG Determination In 1981 the California Department of Fish &Game (CDFG) "Determination of the Status of Bolsa Chica Wetlands" (1981), the Shea property-both the City and County parcels-was determined to be "historically part of the Bolsa Chica wetland complex,but so severely degraded that it was no longer considered a functional wetland." For many years, the California Department of Fish & Game and the California Coastal Commission denied the importance of protecting "degraded"wetlands in the coastal zone and allowed for their destruction, in return for mitigation of"higher quality"wetlands. This was common practice with both agencies prior to 1999 when the 4th District California Court of Appeals determined clearly that this practice was not in accordance with the law. It was the Bolsa Chica Land Trust decision, litigated in part by the current Mayor of Huntington Beach, Debbie Cook, which clarified this practice was to cease and has changed the way the Coastal Commission views "degraded" wetlands. No longer are they allowed to be filled and destroyed, with mitigation performed elsewhere. All wetlands in the coastal zone are now given the sacred status they deserve, and are no longer dismissed as no longer being a wetland because of their "degraded"nature. Therefore, it is crucial that a new delineation and determination by CDFG and the California Coastal Commission be undertaken, with these recently underscored legal notions in mind. After reviewing the letters from the California Department of Fish & Game (DFG), who the Coastal Commission regularly relies on for wetlands determinations, it is apparent that DFG primarily relied on reports submitted by the landowner, which are based on erroneous facts and erroneous conclusions. DFG did not evidently undertake its own on-site evaluation of the wetlands characteristics,but was preparing to do so when the landowner disced the property, altering the vegetation significantly and filling the ponded areas. In addition, the record for this subject site and EIR shows that Scott Harris, a qualified and respected biologist with the California Department of Fish& Game had expressed concerns over new information he had received about the subject site, and he was preparing to visit the site for a new wetland inspection when the aforementioned discing was done. IV. LSA Delineation: LSA not only has an erroneous legal interpretation of the definition of a wetland in the California Coastal Zone,but it makes conclusions not based on any sort of science or law. For instance,while admitting that there is a predominance of hydrophytes in the Sea-blite Scrub and Pickleweedf Sea- blite Scrub areas, the conclusion is that "...areas composed of these habitat types do not appear to be associated with wetlands as defined by either the Commission or the Corps. Therefore, the vegetation in these areas is not associated with functional wetlands." This conclusion is taken from out of thin air, certainly not based on any legal guidance or manual for determining wetlands. LSA asserts the plants "do not appear to be associated..."--while the plants listed in the LSA report for these habitat areas are included in the wetland plant list (Reed) published by the US Fish&Wildlife Service and used by both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coastal Commission for designating wetlands. The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers * City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 5 V.Coastal Commission concerns: A. Proximity to Bolsa Chica ESHAs and Wetlands: In the letter from Coastal Commission staff Steve Rynas, the Commission's concerns about this land being adjacent to the Bolsa Chica lands that are now in public hands and part of an imminent restoration is well-noted. There are legal grounds for protecting lands adjacent to such areas,both in the Interpretative Guidelines of the California Coastal Act,as well as in established case law referencing these guidelines and the California Public Resources Code. In notation 10 of the Kirkorowicz opinion, the Appeals Court states: "The Interpretive Guideline recognizes that the Coastal Act requires wetlands be maintained and where feasible restored, and that they are not isolated,independently functioning systems,but rather dependent upon and highly influence by their surroundings. Indeed, the Commission cautions that when it determines that any adjacent area is necessary to maintain the functional capacity of a wetland,it will require the area be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values consistent with section 30240, subdivision (a). (Interpretative Guideline,supra, at pp. 31,33.)"' Quoting again from the Kirkorowicz opinion: "...As City's biologist Scheidt explained, '[a]ll wetland areas,even [*995] those in a heavily disturbed state, are considered significant biological resources in so far as they have a potential to buffer adjacent,higher quality areas. In this case,much higher quality wetland habitat is present to the south beyond the limits of the proposed site development area.' The logic of this argument is apparent, for the failure to preserve and protect degraded or disturbed wetlands buffering adjacent higher quality wetlands will inevitably jeopardize, compromise and eventually erode the latter. In Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court, supra 71 Cal. App. 4th at pages 506-508, this court examined the issue of what development would be permitted in ESHA's. We found that the restrictions on development in section 30240 did not vary depending on whether the ESHA was in a threatened or deteriorating condition. Doubting that the Commission in deciding whether a particular area is [**34] an ESHA within the meaning of section 30107.5 may consider its viability,we stated: 'There is simply no reference in section 30240 which can be interpreted as diminishing the level of protection an ESHA received based on its viability. Rather, under the statutory scheme, ESHA's, whether they are pristine and growing or fouled and threatened, received uniform treatment and protection.' (Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court, supra 71 Cal. App. 4th at page 508.) The same reasoning applies here, as the statutory scheme protecting wetlands in this regard does not differ in any meaningful fashion from the protecting ESHA's. Finally, as we explained in Bolsa, the failure to protect the low- quality wetlands would encourage developers to find threats and hazards to all wetlands located in economically inconvenient locations. (Ibid.)" The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers • City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 6 B. Standard of Review In addition, the Coastal Commission deferred certification into the City's LCP "due to potential wetland values. This "white-hole"process means that the standard of review is the Coastal Act, and the developer needs to go to the Coastal Commission for approval of any coastal development permit. The City can not issue a Coastal Development permit based on this information,but rather the developer must go directly to the Commission for a coastal development permit. (see July 3, 2001 letter from Steve Rynas, California Coastal Commission, footnote 1.) C. Non-Continuous Farming &Illegal Removal of Wetland Vegetation On the 1992 County of Orange Land Use Plan map, this area, in its entirety is actually marked "WETLAND." While the Commission staff letter of July 3, 2001, appears to indicate there are no concerns about wetlands, this is based on the faulty assumption that "this parcel has been and is currently being used for agricultural purposes." What the Commission staff evidently does not know, and what photographic and eyewitness evidence shows is that the land in question was not ALL farmed until just last year (2001.) In addition, from 1991 until April 22, 1998 (Earth Day),no farming apparently took place on the lands. While the Commission opened an enforcement action on the county portion of the Shea land, evidently no enforcement action was ever noticed or followed-up on by the Commission, yet, as Grace Noh's letter of June 29, 2001 states, "...development on the subject site (including,but not limited to, disking, vegetation removal, construction, grading, test wells, etc.)will require issuance of a Coastal Development Permit." Clearly, the land owner has allowed or initiated illegal vegetation removal- on April 22, 1998-at least (after seven years of no farming and a change in ownership.) While one might suggest that this activity was merely a continuance of a farming activity that took place on the subject site for many years before, the non-farming years and change of ownership are key factors. It was Shea Homes that bought the site, not "Shea Broccoli" or "Shea Lima Beans" - and obviously, their intention was to build homes and to skirt wetland regulations by removing wetland vegetation in the coastal zone, and illegal activity,but one for which they have not yet been brought to justice. D. Water Quality Issues Three letters have been submitted to the City of Huntington Beach by the Coastal Commission, each declaring dissatisfaction with the water quality analyses in the Environmental Impact Report. Clearly, this topic not addressed in a sufficient manner, and the EIR can, therefore,not be certified. On September 9, 2002, the Commission stated that "the proposed Water Quality Plan is based on faulty assumptions and analysis." Many of these concerns have not yet been adequately addressed. The September 20, 2002 letter from the Coastal Commission states that "we maintain our conclusion that the information presented in the EIR's water quality documents is fundamentally flawed." On October 18, 2002, the Commission states that "the water quality analyses in the Parkside Estates EIR have significant problems." Because Huntington Harbor is considered an "impaired water body" no further degradation at all is allowed under the Clean Water Act. There is no analysis or description of potential impacts, mitigation measures or alternatives for water quality in the EIR. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are not evaluated or discussed. In addition to impacts to Huntington Harbor, impacts to the Bolsa Chica Reserve has also not been adequately addressed in the EIR. The Honorable Debbie Cook, Mayor & Honorable Councilmembers • City of Huntington Beach re: Bolsa Chica NorthEast AKA Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica AKA proposed "Parkside Estates" October 21, 20002 page 7 VI. Winter Home (for awhile) to Canada Geese: From approximately 1991 (when farming ceased) to 1997 (when Shea purchased the property and began farming again-in April, 1998,in order to avoid wetland determinations, and perhaps to gain a farming subsidy or tax benefit), Canada Geese were observed regularly on these lands. In 1995, about 250 Canada Geese were observed, each year the flock being a bit larger than the year before, as the extended families of this particular flock returned each year to the Bolsa Chica NorthEast Wetlands (north of Wintersburg Channel and east of the Bolsa Chica Mesa.) (Kristin Bender, ecology professor, California State University Long Beach,personal communication, 1995.) After 1998 when farming was once again begun, Canada Geese have still been observed on the subject site from time to time, although not evidently in as great of numbers. This site deserves to be called the Canada Goose Wetland at Bolsa Chica, as opposed to the Shea Parkside Estates, as the Geese need this land for their overwintering home. VII. US Fish &Wildlife Service stated concerns: In 1998 the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service submitted comments on the draft EIR,which explicitly stated that improvement was needed related to "the nature and extent of wetlands on the property." The Service's letter specifically that: "the site history indicates there is regular a regular occurrence of ponding and wet soil conditions,as well as frequent disturbance, such as discing. Evidently an obvious and recurrent seasonal pond exists on the site on the westerly end of the property, which would seem to qualify as a 'wetland' under the California Coastal Act. If this seasonal pond were not frequently disced,it probably would exhibit other characteristics of wetlands than just ponded water, such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and aquatic organisms." We concur with this assessment of the Fish&Wildlife Service. Alternatives analysis to avoid this historical wetland that shows up as a depressional area in historical maps the 1930s have not been completed, as suggested by the Fish&Wildlife Service. This depressional area has evidently been recently filled by the developer, in order to avoid the concerns expressed by this agency and numerous others. This illegal filling of a coastal zone wetland requires enforcement action by the Coastal Commission. We urge the City to contact the Commission staff and seek enforcement action for the placement of fill on this wetland, as well as for unpermitted removal of vegetation. Wetlands Action Network strongly urges the City Council to deny certification of the EIR until a proper and full wetland delineation is undertaken for the city site and until water quality issues are properly addressed, and we urge the Council to deny issuance of a coastal development permit, deny approval of the subdivision and deny conditional use permit no. 96-90. Sincerely, Marcia Hanscom Executive Director Wetlands Action Network PPt�ENT OFTy� Piss rIIwsZI. Lr" United States Department of the Interior ` FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE +►q - '" Ecological Services � { CH 3 Carlsbad Field Office J U N 1 91999 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad,California 92008 CC '�cv'ciC;�-MENT JUN 15 1998 Mr. James Baines,Project Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 for the Shea Homes Parkside Estates Subdivision Dear Mr. Barnes: The Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)has reviewed the referenced document and offers the following comments. The Service is a Federal agency with expertise in fish and wildlife habitat evaluation and mitigation and a long history of involvement in the fish and wildlife issues of Bolsa Chica and the City of Huntington Beach. We are one of the agencies implementing the Bolsa Chica Lowland Restoration Project on State-owned property immediately adjacent to the subject property. The Service had provided a response, dated October 16, 1997, on the Notice of Preparation for this project, yet we do not find that the issues we identified have been addressed in this draft EIR. We believe that the subject draft Environmental Impact Report(dEIR) needs expansion or improvement in the following areas: the nature and extent of wetlands on the property, alternatives to avoid or mitigate wetlands impacts on the property,and the relationship of the proposed plan to the Bolsa Chica Mesa development plan,the lowland restoration plan, and flood channel improvement plans. The actual nature and extent of wetlands on the site continues to be somewhat in dispute. It is our understanding that the Corps of Engineers has yet to confirm whether the"seasonal pond"is under Federal jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,or not. The site history indicates that there is a regular occurrence of ponding and wet soil conditions, as well as frequent disturbance, such as discing. Evidently an obvious and recurrent seasonal pond exists on the site on the westerly end of the property,which would seem to qualify as a"wetland" under the California Coastal Act. If this seasonal pond were not frequently disced, it probably would exhibit other characteristics of wetlands than just ponded water, such as hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils,and aquatic organisms. Therefore, we recommend that the proponent and the City of Huntington Beach should consider"environmentally"preferable alternatives such as protecting the seasonal pond in place,by reducing the development footprint on the western third of the property. The dEIR(pages 5-160 & 5-162) identifies proposed mitigation of the acknowledged wetlands on the"County Parcel"as 4:1 mitigation within the Bolsa Chica Lowlands or an alternative site would be found. We recommend that this proposal be considered as inadequate, since the proponent does not have any evident concurrence from any other landowner that they may mitigate any wetland impacts in the Bolsa Chica Lowland. No offsite mitigation opportunity is apparent. We recommend the dEIR include a discussion of wetland mitigation measures for all of the"wetland" areas of the property. We further recommend that the mitigation measures be site specific and sufficiently detailed to allow the reader and decision-makers to evaluate the allowableness and feasibility of the proposed measures. The dEIR discussion of"aesthetics"includes a discussion of trail alignments. Exhibit 25, page 5-46, shows an"interpretive trail"and a class I bicycle trail along the edge of the subject property but extending into the Bolsa Chica lowlands. This figure infers that the dEIR preparers considered the now defunct Koll development plan to be relevant. In actuality,the proposed trails may not ever exist in the form shown on that figure. (Our wetland restoration plan dEIR/S will include alternative trail alignments on the State property later this year.) The proponent appears to be proposing a dead-end interpretive trail sandwiched between a concrete vertical wall flood channel and perimeter wall at the back of the houses(Exhibit 6b, cross section A-A,page 3-9). We recommend that alternative trail alignments be considered at the west end of the subject property that would connect through the proponent's property to the private property, bicycle trails, and scenic route to the northwest of the subject property, rather than enter or skirt the wetlands of the lowland. The trail alignment along the southerly boundary of the proponent's property should also be considered for a widened, landscaped treatment, more along the lines of a "green way"than a concrete chute and preferably located on the proponent's property,rather than on the flood channel edge. Alternative uses for the 4.9-acre parcel within County jurisdiction should be considered that would avoid houses jutting further into the lowland area currently being planned for restoration and long-term conservation of fish and wildlife. This action would appear to allow for a scenic, naturally landscaped(nontidal wetland and upland habitat restoration), green way connection to the proposed:`mesa community park" and further buffer the wetland area from urbanizing influences. This action could even incorporate an interpretive function. As a preliminary part of the engineering analysis for our wetland restoration project,the Service is evaluating the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg flood channel functions and inadequacies. We are finding that with some alternatives for improving the flood channel capacity to handle the 100-year flood,a detention basin would be necessary to avoid having to make improvements to the Warner Avenue connection between Outer Bolsa Bay and Huntington Harbour. The subject property may be considered an excellent location for such a detention basin. We recommend that the dEIR include an evaluation of the alternatives for addressing this section of flood channel, since their action may foreclose implementation of otherwise feasible alternatives for solving existing threat of flooding and storm water damage. Also as part of our preliminary analysis for our wetland restoration project,the Service has received information from County agencies regarding the quality and constituents of runoff in the area of this proposed project. Some potential problems are being noted that probably originate with street and yard runoff. For example,high total coliform counts have been detected in the wetwell of the Slater pump station,large amounts of trash and urban debris deposit in the flood channel. The proposed project apparently would incrementally contribute to these problems. We recommend a discussion of these problems and measures that the proponent may implement to avoid incremental degradation,such as Best Management Practices, grease traps,and vegetated swales/detention basins. We look forward to working with the City of Huntington Beach and the proponent on this project. We are particularly interested in aspects to the subject project that may impinge on the wetland restoration project that we are evaluating. Please refer any question to Jack Fancher of this office at(760).431-9440. Sincerely, 110, h4t4- A.Bartel Assistant Field Supervisor STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ;ouch Coast Area Office 1 oceangate,Suite 1000 ,e9 Beach,CA 90802-4302 �6W)590-5071 July 3, 2001 Ron Metzler RECEIVED Vice President, Planning and Development Shea Homes JUL - 6 2001 P.O. Box 1509 Brea, CA 92822-1509 PLAN & DEV SUBJECT: Proposed Parkside Estates Development Dear Mr. Metzler: Shea Homes is proposing residential development on property that was formerly owned by the Metropolitan Water District. This property consists of two discrete parcels. The first parcel is an approximate 44 acre parcel within the City of Huntington Beach. 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'. 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. The second parcel is a five acre parcel that is located in unincorporated Orange County. This parcel is within the area regulated by the Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program. The Coastal Commission designated this area as Conservation (November 16, 2000). However, on May 8, 2001 the County of Orange voted to decline acceptance of the Commission's suggested modifications'. Therefore, the Bolsa Chica LCP area is not certified. The available documentation for the five acre County parcel have indicated two principal resource/habitat facts. First, that the five acre County parcel has been identified in numerous public documents as containing wetlands3. Second, that the ' 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. 2 Additionally, pursuant to Section 13537 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Commission's certification lapsed on May 16, 2001. 3 DepwInism of Fish and Game Letter, June 15, 1998 Ron Metzler July 3, 2001 2 County parcel has not been used for agricultural use. A biological evaluation prepared by Frank Hovore (July 11, 1997) substantiated the lack of historic or current agricultural use of the County parcel. On March 7, 2001 Commission staff met with your staff on the County parcel to further consider the status of the wetlands. At this meeting Shea Homes presented to Commission staff a wetland assessment conducted by LSA Associates, Inc. (December 8, 2000) between September 1999 and September 2000. This estimation identified approximately 1.2 acres of wetland habitat indicators such as Bassia Scrub, Sea-Blite Scrub, and Saltgrass. Furthermore, the LSA assessment identified .9 acres of Eucalyptus woodland. The Eucalyptus woodland has been considered environmentally sensitive habitat in Boise Chica as it provides perching and nesting habitat for raptors. Though the LSA Associates estimate of December 8, 2000 provides additional biological information on the status of the wetlands on the County parcel, it is a preliminary and cursory document. The letter states that it "does not attempt to delineate the extent of potential wetlands." Consequently, when Shea Homes submits to the Commission an application for a coastal development permit for residential development, Shea Homes will need to provide a formal wetland delineation in compliance with the Commission's wetland criteria. Through such a scientific investigation the area] extent of the wetlands in relation to the proposed residential development can be determined. For example, we note that several wetland plants {such as five-hook bassia) have been included in the Ruderal Herbaceous category by LSA. Additional study of this area may conclude that wetlands exist within Ruderal Herbaceous area. At this time, we also need to reiterate that the buffer between any residential development and wetland or other ESHA areas may not limited to 100 feet. Depending on the resource values in the vicinity, Commission staff may recommend a buffer from 100 feet to 300 feet in width. Resource values are currently considered high in this area based on the necessity to preserve the wetlands and raptor habitat. Consequently, the County parcel was designated Conservation by the Commission in November 2000 when it acted on the Boise Chica LCP. Department of Fish and Game Letter, March 16, 1998 Parkside Estates SW#97-2, EDAW Inc., April 1998 R;Ao oica/Evaluation, Shea Homes Property,by Frank Hovore,July 11, 1997 Existing Habitat Maps, by Hunsaker and Associates, March 21, 1996 1996 Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, The Solso Chica Local Coastal Program E/R #F551, Orange County Environmental Management Agency, March 21, 1996. A Determination of the Geoguaphical Extent of Water of the united States at Boise China, Orange County,C&Wbr ufa, United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 10, 1989. . M Ron Metzler July 3, 2001 3 We appreciate tie work of Shea Homes and LSA Associates in providing us with a better understanding of the wetlands on the County parcel and we look forward to a formal wetland delineation and biological study. This information will be crucial for evaluating the appropriateness of residential development and, if appropriate, how impacts from proposed residential development can be mitigated. Should you have any additional questions regarding the status of these two parcels please do not hesitate to contact me at 562-590-5071. Sincerely, Stephen Rynas, A1CP Orange County Area Supervisor cc: Deborah Lee, Coastal Commission H:UAMraXShea HomesWheaI1.doc I , 6222C-4/92 N. 1 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 i HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Oaf� •'•'t ;''' 3 I HEAVY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL I Qqy :ti E. j MC� MARINA COMMERCIAL �`'] '�,� •• • ,• �� � •,, � i LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM BOLSA �• CHICA SEGMENT BOUNDARY LINEC'y� WETLAND ^, WETLAND \ r + BOLSA CHICA STUDY AREA I.• j' SJ _FLOOD CONTROL' WETLAND BOUNDARY LINE ••CHANNEL•" ' CH�CA GARfiEID CON 3 1 BOLSA NEC>O R r 3 LINEAR, P 2 3 REGIONALS `Oy 2 PARK f w �►p Oy 3 /3 MC j 2. I i I CENTRAL WETLAND MC ' 3 i 3 i J . 3mc _ �_ _ ••- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH OUTER BOLSA BAY WETLAND o FT co UNTY OF ORANGE Soo 1600 LAND USE PLAN \ \- - ��----- FIGURE 2.4-1 Y PIJRPOSIE AND NEED FOR ACTION Bolsa Chica DEIS/DEIR coastal oriented commercial uses. An environmental impact report was prepared for the LUP for the proposed project and the LUP was adopted in 1985 by the orange County Board of Supervisors after extensive revision to satisfy the concerns of the California Coastal Commission. The California Coastal Commission denied the revised LUP,but then offered to certify the LUP provided that Orange County would accept certain conditions. The LUP was conditionally certified in 1986 and is shown as Figure 2.4-1. It should be noted that the conditions for the LUP were never fulfilled and lack of community support coupled with additional information on the extent of wetlands on site made the implementation of the LUP infeasible. The Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition (BCPC) was formed in late 1988 by Orange County Supervisor Harriet M. Wieder and then Huntington Beach Mayor John Erskine. The core members of the BCPC included the County of Orange, California State Lands Commission, City of Huntington Beach, the major landowner(Signal Bolsa Corporation),and the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. In addition, numerous interested parties and agencies were invited to form a technical advisory group to the core group. The Bolsa Chica planning Coalition Concept Land Use Plan was developed through the BCPC. This plan is provided in Figure 2.4-2. This plan, which has not been formally certified or adopted by any public agency, was used by the Signal Bolsa Corporation as the concept plan for the proposed project (Alternative 1) and is the basis for the LCP being pursued by the City of Huntington Beach. 2-12 �Di STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS.Goveaaon CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION : <. t' i�• f: 17 \ 46 FREWNT.SUITE 2000 _ at SAN FeZ1NCISCO. CA 94t05-2219 •', �� VOICE AND TOO (415)904-5200 " FAX(415) 904-3400 �' a October 18, 2-002 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.0 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 NP DES.and WQMP standards/requirements, by definition, preclude a project from further degrading water z 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 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.a Thus, while a Water Quality Management Plan designed with respect to CWA requirements may be 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 aware that 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")® but 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 necessary to 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 a PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v.Washington Dept of Ecology,511 U.S.700, 705,718, 114 S. Ct. 1900, 1906, 1912(1994),citing 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)C...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). S See 33 U.S.C.§ 1313(d). 33 U.S.C.§1342(p)(3)(B)- Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159(e Cir. 1999);33 U.S.C.§ 1311(b)(1)(C). O 0 ZOOZ'OZ jagweldeS 'uolsslwwo0 6uluueld yoeag uoftilunH of.01s 000 woo jeual Pue:ZOoZ 'OL jagwaldaS 'uajaoje ylaq keW ol;}els 000 w04rdgal'(Z-/-6)2i13 leU1_4 salelS3 aplWed BulNe6aJ'ZOOZ '6 jegweldaS'uejaoja ylag tiey4 of Uels uolsslwwo0 lelseo0 wou 04al of salels3 eppyded Jo)a13 leuld ZOOZ AInr to t,L-t 96ed e 'a13 SelelS3 SPlsVed 318 JaAal ZOOZ 6.egwaldeS s,000 eLa ees eseald'sans! f4!lenb ja,em 6ulslej sieuel luawwoo}o lsg leftied a Jo=l s :suoseaj 6ulmollol ayl col ells slyl woq 4lenb iolem uollonaisuoo-}sod Inoge suolsnlouoo pamell aney s:poded yoaVanla ay;ot'yoeag u016ullunH to Al!0 all of Jallal ZOOZ '6 lagwaldeS ino ul paq!josap sy 6r';uaw4eeil pue uo!sran!p aaleMwols gsn!l lsig Aq 9oueoq!u6tsu!jo 19na1 e of palebggjw aq lym luecudoleAep pesodord eqj Aq pasneo sjoedwi lqgenb jejam!e!10910d ••••Isanngpou ayl of peleool luawdolanap Woe g•tZ &gjsstxe ue)tq pajnquluoo j}ouru gsng lsaq eqj os!e ;nq 'selegg ap!s4jed peuueld egl ulgym Aluo}ou pajejauab 110uru gsnp IVY eq;BurJeal;pue BQipanlp Ag e!q►ssod ale speol luelnpod ut suollonpaa aq1 %gy Alojewncoadde Aq slanal Buljslxa ueq}ssal eq p!noM luawdolanap Jaye leuuego aalelS of speol luejnllod pale4tl!w eq;legl pelolpeid s!ld 'tout 'goapan►a AW podaa wnpueppy ZoOZ tierugaj eqj jo k elgel uo paseg„ pue „!eeae ewes aq; woa4 s!anal Bulls►xe uegl ssel eq!qna Aegejoj uoi}ejS dwnd jalelS eqj of speol lueln!!od paleAtl!w agl 'loefoid aql jo linsai a se„ :O1a ayl ul paleadai sluawalels ayl apnloul suolsnlouoo asoyl'iclaweN •(sllufl Sad 'lClaweu) saolloead lu9w96eueV4 1sa8 pasodoid to sag!I!ge ay}to slsAleus llayl ul smug leluawspunl weluoo spodad loala9nl8 ZOOZ Pus 8661 941 'loafoid slyl ul slsAleus Al!lenb.Lalemn ayl yllnn swalgojd snouas aae ajayl leyl pualuoo of enulluoo em 'sluawwoo of asuodsau an u!aeadds Aa g ldlynn 411m eoueulwojd ayl pue 'slaoda-t:l yoalJanlb a4l ul sewe welgojd aLg uanlo 'g 'suolsnlouoo Maya aleplle^ul ley} smeg Ieluawepun} uleluoo spodaj ZOOZ PUe 866E 409VaM-8 ayl'Jallal yj6 jagwaldaS mo ul pole4suowap se 19A •sluawwoo of esuodse-d all ul AIanlsualxa pal!o Gunn (suogoas 6ulnnollol ul ssnos!P ll!nn am se)suolsnlouoo ail pue 'b13 ayl ul fl!lenb jalenn to uolssnoslp anlluelsgns lsow ayl pauleluoo (ZOOZ PUe 8660 sllodeU y39lpaAf8 941 •luawdolanap slyl Aq paAoldwa aq ly6lw le4l saogoeJd luawa6eusVq lsag luawlea.l leinloruls pue 'Ioiluoo aoinos `u6iseP ells leguelod ssnoslp Allualolllns lou P!P lleaa 866E I!jd`d ayl'aanoaiolry •saalenn 6uln1939J Aaylo pue 'a/Vasa-1 eolyo eslog 'jogjeH uol6uqunH of sloedwl legualod ssajppe AllualoWns lou pIp l4eJa 866L ludy all 8'slsAleue mo ul 'itlgenb jalem of sloedwl loefoid to slsAleue lualoU4ns a 6ulluesaid lnoyllm 'suogeln6aj Alllenb jalom lejapa). pue alels algeolldde ayl 9zlu6009j yolynn 'g pue Z samseaW uolle6gllM uo Alai Aldwls louueo a13 s9lels3 apls:V8d •luawdolanap ayl Aq pasneo sloedwl Alone of sanllewalie saquosap pue sloedwl salenlena 13 ayl 6wunsua to/gglglsuodsaa ayl seq.Aoua6d.peal 9141 -sluawailnbai lejapal pue alels jeglo of loafgns aq Allenluana ll!M loa fo.+d aLa 6ulzlu600ei of uolllppe ul uolssnoslp s!44 ul 96e6u9 s-dl3 pue 'sdWB Zoo-& 'sL jagoho E ljouno0 R110 yoeag uoi6ugunH aU}jo sjagwalN 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 is simply 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 riot 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 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 enterlW or existing the site to or from adjacent natural areas."(From Page 4-64 of Final EIR)' (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. We contend 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 have attached.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 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION outh Coast Area Office 00 Oceangate,Suite 1000 Long Beach,CA 90802-4302 (5U)590-W71 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 0 998 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 10' and 17', 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 3O3(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 H untington 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 be taken 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 t"e 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, Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Area Supervisor HALenerACity of Huntlnpton Beech\Broeren0ldoc „{.� A }. aai ti-. 3v STATE-OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Goremo, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ., SOUTH COAST AREA 2AS W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 BOX 1d50 3 BEACH, CA 90802.AA16 (310( 590-5071 April 11 , 1997 Jayna Morgan EDAW, Inc. 17875 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92714 Re: Biological Evaluation of Shea Homes Property in Huntington Beach Project No. 6N153.01 , February 7, 1997 Dear Ms. Morgan, Thank you, for submitting the Biological Evaluation for the Shea Homes property dated February 7, 1997. The subject 49 acre property is 1 ocated partially in the City of Huntington Beach and partially in the unincorporated Bolsa Chica area of the County of Orange. This area of Huntington Beach has no certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The County portion is part of the certified Bolsa Chic a LCP. I received the evaluation on February 20 , 1997. I was not able to respond earlier due to the need to complete other formally submitted projects with deadlines and also because we are in the process of moving our office. The February 7 evaluation was the second prepared for the site by Frank Hov o re & Associates. My response to the November 25 , 1996 evaluation was dated January 30, 1997. Following are my comments on the February 7 biological evaluation. The evaluation states that Corps delineation protocols on the site were not performed. A formal wetland delineation should be performed. The delineation should use the California Department of Fish and Game guidelines which is based on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service standards. As I pointed out in my last response, the Corps wetland definition differs significantly from the USFWS, CDFG, and Coastal Commission definition of wetland _ Of the three wetland indicators, vegetation, hydrology, and soils, the Corps requires all three to be present for an area to be considered a Wetland. The USF6IS, CDFG, and the Coastal Commission recognize a wetland site if any DM of the three indicators are present. It was not clear in the November 25, 1996 Biological Evaluation, that the project site extended beyond the City of Huntington Beach boundary into unincorporated Orange County area. Because it does, please note that you should also coordinate with the County of Orange regarding any development proposal for the area. The evaluation refers to "an area approximately 8.3 acres in overall extent, located adjacent to existing residential development on the northern boundary of the site, [which] was at one time delineated by the EPA (1989) as jurisdictional wetlands." This 8.3 acre area should be depicted on a map/site plan of the site. The evaluation also states that "a prior converted cropland designation remains in effect insofar as existing agricul tural uses continue". What agricultural use, if any, continues at the subject ,site? What has been the duration of the agricultural use? Shea Homes Property Biological Evaluation Page 2 The evaluation attributes much of the site's degradation in habitat value to regular disking. If the disking was not approved by the Coastal Commission, the Commission does not recognize the degradation due to unpermi tted development . The habitat value which existed prior to the unpermi tted development (disking) is what the Commission recognizes. Restoration of the site may be appropriate. Further, the CDFG recognized that the habitat value of the site was degraded, but still valuable in its 1982 determination. The Commission deferred certification of the area based on this wetland value determination. The fact that the habitat is considered degraded does not constitute grounds to dismiss the site's value. The anticipated development appears to be residential . Please note that in denying certification of the subject area within Huntington Beach the Commission specifically found residential use inappropriate due to wetland values. Findings supporting the Commission's denial of certification of the MWD portion of the Huntington Beach LCP were included with my response letter dated January 30, 1997. Even without performing a full wetland delineation, the Biological Evaluation finds wetland habitat on site. There does not seem to be a significant change at the site from the conditions when the Commission denied certification of the site in conjunction with the City of Huntington Beach LCP. Given the Commission's action on the certification of the Pacific Coast Highway area of deferred certification, it is likely a similar land use and zoning (conservation) for the areas of the subject site which contain wetlands would be most appropriate. If, after a wetlands delineation is performed and the delineation is concurred with by CDFG, it is determined that the site can accommodate some residential development please note that any unavoidable impacts to wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat area must be mitigated . The biological evaluation identifies a Eucalyptus grove on site. The evaluation dismisses the grove's potential for providing any habitat value. However, the Commission has, under certain circumstances in the past, found that Eucalyptus groves can provide habitat; for example as roosting sites for raptors or nesting sites for endangered butterflies. It would be helpful to know more about the overall project. It may be appropriate to discuss other potential concerns connected with the project. For example, does the project propose any public access or recreation facilities. The Bol sa Chi ca LCP recommends a public hiking trail along the East Garden Grove/Wintersburg Channel . It may be appropriate to accommodate public parking in conjunction with the development of your site in order to facilitate public use of the trail . As we know more about the project, we can provide greater input. Our records do not indicate any coastal development permit approvals for disking at the subject site. Was Coastal Commission approval for disking the site obtained? If so, please submit evidence. The Coastal Act definition of development includes the removal of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes. Section 13252 of the California Code of Regulations exempts certain repair and maintenance activities from the need to obtain a coastal development permit. However, pursuant to Section 13252(a)(3) of the �� ^' • ` 4Shea Homes Property Biological Evaluation Page 3 Regulations . any repair or maintenance activity located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area or within 50 feet 'of environmentally sensitive area that includes the presence, whether temporary or permanent, of mechanized equipment, I s not exempt. The Commission deferred certification of the area from the Huntington Beach LCP due to the presence of wetlands. Wetlands are also identified on the Orange County portion of the site. Wetlands are recognized by the Coastal Commission as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Consequently, it appears that the site disking requires approval of a coastal development permit. Please be advised that no further disking should occur without first consulting with this office and obtaining any necessary approvals. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Biological Evaluation. I have enclosed a copy of CDFG's "An Identification and Generalized Classification of the Wetlands of California" for your information and review. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding thi s matter. Sincer'el(y,, Meg V, ughn Staff Analyst enc. cc: Frank Hovore, Frank Hovore & Associates 8659F Communications Received by the City Clerk's Office For and Against Parkside Estates Project �a� � D =1 a , b , c RECE 96!�S T H I E l E N o� OCT 0 92002 f n1• `�" INVESTIGATIONS, INC. t �� HARRY C. THIELEN 3271 AIR FLITE WAY TELEPHONE OWNER (562) 988-2727 LONG BEACH, CA 90807-5321 FAX (562) 492-1179 CALIFORNIA LIC. PT8122 September 26, 2002 _ !►a C_ G R Q Huntington Beach Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA92648 V Re: Huntington Beach Homeowners view of Shea's purposed Parkside Development --7� City Council: My wife,myself and our two boys have lived at 17191 Greenleaf Lane, Huntington Beach for the last twelve years. We consider our neighborhood to be one of peaceful, quiet and calm solitude. Our family has spent a lot of time and money on our house and consider it to be exemplary of the neighborhood. We are opposed to Shea or any other developer building in the purposed Parkside area for the following reasons: We have a swimming pool and when we re-plastered the pool, we found out first hand how high the water table is. We had to pump water out of our drained pool every morning so the workers could re-plaster. If one were to dewater the proposed site,we are told the ground will shift and crack our pool and make our foundation unsafe. One can view the wall running along the back of the houses on Kenilworth. When viewing, one can see how the wall has sunk in areas. This field is not suitable for mega volume housing. At the Council Meeting, responsibility for damages to our homes was discussed briefly The City Planner said, "these homes already have damage, how can you hold us liable". This tells everyone they will shriek from their responsibility as soon as the homes are built. They area already setting the stage. If in fact, there is no type of insurance to cover such a situation or bond,why not have one created. The City of Huntington Beach must demand some kind of long term insurance to protect its citizens. We bought and kept our house because Greenleaf Lane is a quiet street, safe for children. If one were to make it a dedicated ingress/egress,the traffic would turn Greenleaf Into a major highway. This places our children in danger. We want the Huntington City Staff report#B-3C section m to remove the wording which states " Any future 1 f Connection of Greenleaf to the development for public street purpose or private access shall be prohibited until otherwise conveyed through a public hearing process before City Council. This comment leaves it open for developers to open our street at a later date. We are not part of that proposed development and it would destroy our peaceful neighborhood. Why not enter off Bolsa Chica? It is only a two way street where the entrance would occur. This fact was brought up at the last City Council Meeting. However, Staff did not answer why they are not going that direction. In fact,please review the video taken of that meeting. It is amazing to the public, how a City Council Member can ask a question and the staff person responds without answering. It is not feasible is an easy response. If this proposed project does start, Shea must put monitors in place throughout our tract. They want to put them on the border. We need them in place all the way to El Dorado Street. Liquid faction can happen anywhere in our tract. Knowing first hand where the water table is I am confident homes in our tract will be substantially effected. The monitors along the wall and within our tract need to be monitored daily. Another example of thestaff/Shea not answering a direct question. The questioned asked," will the monuments be monitored daily?" Reply, "Someone will be on the site". Does that mean yes?. If so, the public needs to hear a definite yes in writing. On the site, does not mean they will be monitored daily. We feel the EIR has not taken into consideration many concerning factors. How can someone on Staff/Shea claim to not know what kind of water is underground. Obviously,the report is not thorough. Everything in the report was taken as an average. What about peak times for High Tide? Living on Greenleaf lane we know the composition of the Wetland area. The area in question is not suitable for building homes. The EIR also does not adequately discuss the fault line that runs through the middle of the site. We heard a few comments about the flood insurance increases in some surrounding areas. Why after 30 years are those people in a flood zone? Is it poor planning from new homes in the area? Who was involved in rezoning? It sounds to good to be true that they rezone in the middle of this proposed plan. A resident I spoke with had received higher flood insurance with no explanation of why all of a sudden they were in a flood zone. They wrote for an explanation and no one could give them one. They actually got a waiver on there insurance and did not have to pay because no one could tell them who or why there property was changed. Why? For the above reasons and others we are not aware of at this date, we request that Shea NOT be allowed to build in this natural wetland. We are hereby placing the City of Huntington Beach on notice that any damage to our home resulting from building on 2 this Wetland will be sought from the City of Huntington Beach. One must realize that when the development is finished Shea will not be around to seek damages. The owners that have their homes damaged from Shea will have no place to turn to except to the City of Huntington Beach. This will be a Horrible way for the neighborhood to tell the City of Huntington Beach" I told you so" Very truly yours, arty C. Thielen and Lorraine Thielen 17191 Greenleaf Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 3 Huntington Beach City Council C� C/o City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 o c October 4,2002 o c , c-1 Reference: "Parkside Estates Final EIR No. 97-2 w - Honorable Mayor and City Council: My wife and I have been living on Kenilworth since 1966. We have been following with great interest the proposed Shea Homes Project behind us. We are extremely concerned over the impact of such a development on our property. We have repeatedly expressed our concerns in verbal and written comments to the Planning Commission. These concerns seemed to be totally ignored as the Planning Commission on a 6-to-1 vote approved the certification of the EIR on September 24,2002. We hereby reiterate our concerns for your information and consideration. The most serious concern deals with the subsidence issue. The short-term issue has to do with the impact of the project's heavy groundwork on further subsidence of our backyard. It can be expected that the stability of the land will be severely disturbed by the development's ground preparations. Although the EIR acknowledged that the grading activities could conceivably impact the adjacent properties, it ultimately concluded that they"expected to have no impact on the northerly adjacent properties". The EIR fails to provide any reliable data or test results to substantiate its conclusions. Hence, we hereby offer our backyard as an experimental platform for the developer and/or the City to measure the ground movements before,during,and after all the ground preparations.It is to the benefit of everyone to have these measurements on record.But to us, a bigger and more serious subsidence issue is a long-term one. Ground subsidence takes place slowly over time. It may raise its ugly head long after the developer sells its last house. Therefore,we urge the City to require the developer and its grading contractor to post all available insurance and bond to protect as from such catastrophe. P4,4� . 1 1-e-:� l �'l` - D Our next concern involves our personal security. If the City decides to replace our existing perimeter wall adjacent to the Shea Homes property with a new wall, our wall will be torn down. As a result,we would like to know how long we will be without a wall in our backyard and understand that precautionary measures will be undertaken by the City to safeguard our security during the period when our backyard is wide open. Our last but not least concern relates to the traffic condition at the intersection of Kenilworth and Graham during peak-traffic hours.Both the relevant EIR and the Planning Department Staff Reports fail to demonstrate and justify that the traffic lights to be installed at the Project's"A" Street and Graham will provide gaps for the motorists on Kenilworth to safely exit onto the northbound lane of Graham. This concern of ours has been repeatedly ignored by the Planning Department. In conclusion,the City Council has the duty to the public you serve to preserve their quality of life, to protect their properties, and to ensure their safety. That a developer can proceed with a residential housing plan only after having to backfill with 5 to 10 feet of dirt over acres of virgin land is a true and clear indication that something is radically wrong. We therefore respectfully urge you to overturn the certification of the EIR and ultimately reject this proposed development project. Thank you very much. Sincerely, 01 Mr. &Mrs. Sing Joe Kong 5402 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2 10/15/2002 16:52 7148486643 HBDERM PAGE 02 JA.N D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. � .. .� Resid nce: Office: 2221 E16 trees 8101 Nevim=,Suite C Newport h,CA 92663 Hunt ngton Beach,CA 92647 Phone:(9 9)548-6326 Phoi .:(714)848-0770 Email: JolkV344ol.com Fax:�714)848-6643 October 1 ,2002 Mayor D bbie Cook,and Huntington Beach City Council Members, _ City of Hi intiVon Beach j a 7 2000 Mai i Street i ;z Huntingt n Beach, CA 92648 > Re: City ouneil Meeting October 21, 2002 Shea arkside Project Agenda =f Please Require Further EIR Documentation ` N ,Z Dear May r Cools,and Huntington Beach City Council Members, N c5 This is a(request to require further environmental documentation befor. you certify the Shea Parkside EIR as complete. The Parks de RJR is incomplete because it does not have an up to-date w•eiland delineation on the portion of the property that is within the city limits of Huntington Beach, approximately 45 acres. The recen wetland delineation by LSA in May 2002 was done on the 5 acre County parcel,.not the City p ce). The last wetland delineation for the City parcel was in December 1997, nearly 5 years ago.,By the time this project goes before the Coastal Commission,t)a 5-year time limit for wetlands delineation will be passed. It is time for a new wetland delineate?n for the City portion. The City Council should have this wetland delineation in hand when yolp make your decisions regarding the Parkside project. If state Coastal Commission protected wetlands are found to be present on the City portion,housing will not be allowed in these areas undo r Section 30233 of the Coastal A t, and adequate setbacks will be required which will change tie allowable footprint, density,a d intensity of the subject parcel. ! 'There is new information that should be reviewed in any new wetland delineation of the City portion, Contrary to the May 2002 LSA report. the Army Corps has neve said that~wetlands do not exist on the City portion. The Army Corps position was that wetlan s on the City portion were not under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps, first because of a"prior r converted cropland" designatao i, and second, because the jurisdiction now belongs to the Soil Conservation Service. Jurisdietio lal calls are quite different from the fact of wetlands existence. Under certain circumstances, wetlands may not be under the jurisdiction of the federal Alrmy Corps,but still be under the jurisdiction of the State Coastal Commission. This circumstances is found in the May 2002 LSA,report of the wetlands in the County portion. Note that certain wetlands in the County portion are under Corps jurisdiction,but others are under State Coastal Co _=ssion jurisdiction. This is because State guidelines for wetlands definitions are different from i'ederal guidelines. The State guidelines require only one of the wetland parameters of water, soii., and vegetation to be present al ng with habitat value, while the federal guidelines require call three. The Coastal Commission has never denied the existence of wetlands under the State Oidelines. The Coastal CominissigQn, and the Huntington Beach City Council, should be given,the,,opportunity to review a current v etlands delineation for the City portion. ! I( b 1 OCT-15-2002 17 46 7148486643 P.02 10/15/2002 16:52 7148486643 HBDERM PAGE 03 h " I Histori y, the City portion contained tidelands as pact of the Bolsa ica wetlands. See maps from 18413 showing the tidal sloughs running through f he property. Th a tidal sloughs are. still evident as T dark depressions coursing through the property on aerial p otographs through the years. M reover, a Section 10 Rivers and Harbor Act ipennit was requi ed by the Army Corps because of this fact. The fact that the site has been constantly farmed doe$ not diminish potential presence of wetlands on the site. If the area were not farmed, tho site would reve t to. wetlands, as what happeried in 1998. The Scott White biology letter report identified wetlaa vegetation returning to areas of t ie site after rainfall when the site was not farmed for a few riiont 3.s. These wetlands may be class' red as "farmed -wetlands" under federal guidelines, rather than `prior converted cropland,44 ` In 1989, the EPA delineated an 8.3-acre portion of thislproperty as jurisdictional. wetlands. This area can still be seen on aerial photographs.The delineation in 1997 did nc properly test this area for water test wells. i Since 1997,citizens have been collecting serial photographs showing porn g of water inn areas of the City portion that exceed 14 or 18 days in duration, as well as 'ldlife usage including migratory birds, shorebirds, ducks, herons,egrets,and Cilnada geese. The pers ent ponding of water in certain areas of I the property is also evident in aerial pbotogra s taken over several years. WetJarnd egetatiorn was identified by a biologist, Scott±White in 1998, rthin the City portion. This observation was made after the 1997 delineation. The total wetland areas that could be protected by thO Coastal Comnnilsion are roughly 11.6 acres. This is calculated by adding the 8.3-acre of El',I�. wetlands plus .3 acres identified by scientist Bert Feldmeth in the early 1990's as containiig Facultative we and vegetation an.d.the ponding persistently seen in successive aerial photographs. The wetl d delineation should be done for the City of kiuntington Bea4, with a view towards recognizirg the value of potential wetlands on the site,n¢t an exercise in minishung the value of the wetla ds on the site. An independent consultant should be retained rho does not have ties «nth the hea Company, and therefore will not have a'perceived confli4t of interest. Previous wetland d lineations seem biased against the presence of Wetlands on the s e. Another atter that belongs under the purview of furQher EIR evaluati� n includes the future availabili of potable water for this site. Recent nev reports have dMmented concern by MWD water from MWD may be reduced by a reduced allocation formulation. Will this affect wa r supply for Huntington Beach, including igrou�ndwater rep enishment, when the grouxndwa r tables are dropping and replenishment water is being re ced. Will Huntington Beach hav enough water to service this project? Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, I /Ja'nD.Veandersloot, MD I 2 4 P.03 OCT-15-2002 17:46 7149486643 9?% lraacy aoaavea 4831 Los Paton Aveumme 8aa1 agtoa 8eavhv CA 9Z649 714 O40 7496 /GG ID-2 October 9,2002 C"J ~ Mayor Debbie Cook Members of the City Council cam-, City Han Hundni on Beach,CA 92648 p' Dear Mayor Cook and City Council Members; An appeal l of the planning Commission's decision on the Shea property on Graham Street has been N I hope that the Council will take a serious look at the issues involved in this property since it would be much more valuable to the community as a constructed wedand for use is cleaning the effluent as it upends its way down the flood control channel—or probably as it rashes its way down the channel in storm phase. It also appears that members of the city staff wish to use promised monies from the project for infrasdractute. While we do have needs in that regard I believe it would be infinitely wiser to obtain the use of this property as a wedand since once it is built on there will be no more opportunity for use as a wedand. I will appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerdy, Awl, •� C., HB City Council % City Clerk 2000 Main Street HB CA 92648 Re:Parkside Estates Final EIR No 97-2 o Honorable Mayor and City CounciI> o I am wri ti ng to urge you to look careful ly at the i nadequacies of thi s EIR. ='' L My reasons are these. D '> 1. THERE ARE INCREASED FLOOD THREATS The City has permits for 2 pump stations. The City says they need no more permit's fogth� pump stations this project will require. The County says they need permits. This should be decided before the project goes further. 2..INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION. this EIR relies on traffic studies from 1994 and 1966. The traffic study should be updated to 2002. 3. SUBSTANDARD FIRE. DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TIME this area doesn't meet HB Fire Department standard today. The City is planning on moving,the current closest fire station to a location which is a greater distance away from the area. The City plan today called for anew fire station to be located on the Shea property. However this fire station was deleted from the General plan for this Shea project. I find this unfathomable planning. The EIR has many more deficiencies. Please do not approve this project as presented. Thank you ..� - leer Murphy , 20121st Street HB CA 92648 lit ",0doW 1Z=W A0Wka OnWw INu W*ft Pays: 1 Huntington Beach City Council c/o City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702 T October 11, 2002 0 ry Re:Parkside Estates Final EIR No.97-2 � L �� Honorable Mayor and City Council: Y � All too often, over the past 30 years of the great Southern California building boom, - 77 mistakes that were made in planning for land use, building and development were not recognized. until the flood or mudslide or other destructive event occurred. Of course the disaster came after the city officials who had approved the ill-fated building projects...... were long gone. There have been too many examples of flooded, collapsing or sliding homes which,when the cause analysis was done, results indicated the dwellings had been built in unsafe, unsuitable or questionable areas. But the city council persons who had approved the building of these doomed homes...... were long gone. There are also examples of areas where the traffic has become so dense as to create conditions in which auto accidents are inevitable and fatalities occur, including those to children playing or walking to school. But those who approved the sources of this traffic...... are long gone. Now we have before us another building project which has the potential to create serious problems for hundreds of current and future residents. Although the builder has made a significant effort to address and possibly mitigate some concerns, it is still unclear what conditions could occur before all proposed flood and drainage preparations would be completed. It is unclear what steps would be taken to prevent serious subsidence problems for adjacent existing homes. Residents also believe that a new, complete and realistic on-site traffic study must to be conducted. There have been other specific unresolved issues addressed in writing and at several public meetings. These concerns are being detailed in other correspondence and will again be presented at the next public meeting because they are still ...... unresolved. I realize the current Council is in a state of flux in which a majority of members will soon finish their terms. I trust, however, that all members will carefully assess the concerns of the voters and taxpayers, some of whom have been devoting many unpaid hours to analyzing the potential and possibly harmful impact of the Parkside project. I hope you will listen to and study their input as diligently as you consider the polished professional presentation of the builder. I hope you will take the time to do so. And I surely hope that this City Council will not join the invisible ranks of those anonymous public officials who approve projects which later create severe problems, after you too.......are long gone. 4" '<Vq, Priscilla F. Wolz 5392 Kenilworth Dr. Huntington Beach, CA 92649 I J 0 C T I 2002 October 11, 2002 b Cz O C-� t Huntington Beach City Council ' =: c/oCity Clerk c5 2000 Main Street '� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ' = Dear Council: Cn b. I am writing as a concerned citizen of this city regarding the Shea Parkside project. This is the 171 single family homes on the"bean field" located south of Kenilworth, west of Graham, and north of the Wintersburg Channel. I have concerns with the number of homes proposed on this site, the one-way entrance and exit onto Graham, the increased traffic, and on school days the stream of traffic when parents are dropping off their children at Marine View cars will create their own lane and enter Glenstone to make quick turn around and go across Graham. These additional homes in this area with families having two cars will only make it that much more congested. I feet we have already developed Huntington Beach with enough homes. P.S. Thank You for approving the long awaited sports complex in Huntington Beach. I am sure it will be great for children and parents to enjoyff!! Sincerely, 7 Mrs. Susan M. Fish 17442 Ln ate Mae -Finntiagtoag8h CA 926�19 Sue Fish Commnry' C/ CC CID-L) LAER 'PEARC E 'l �t7 & Associates Consultants in Strategic Communications October 16, 2002 Q C j 17 2002 Mayor Debbie Cook zt City of Huntington Beach o Via Courier Dear Mayor Cook: JFri crIl t. fi x' I am writing on behalf of Shea Homes Parkside Estates, as their community outfMch-' consultant. We recently sent a letter 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. We provided those receiving the letter the opportunity to let you and your fellow council members know their feelings regarding the approval of Parkside Estates. Enclosed are copies of the reply cards we received back today, which is the first possible day we could have received them. We received: 53 cards requesting that the council APPROVE Parkside Estates 3 cards requesting that the council deny Parkside Estates Some typical comments: • "Thank you for your possible assistance in eliminating flood insurance, which we feel is totally unnecessary in our area. Thank you!" • "Since I am a Senior Citizen and also a single mother, I would love to have my flood insurance reduced." • "Great idea. I strongly support the flood control improvements." We will continue to receive responses in days to come, and I will keep you updated. Best regards, Laer P c & Associates Laer Pearce, APR bl� b President 0- cc: Ms. Mary Beth Broeren Mr. Ron Metzler 22892 Mill Creek Dr., Laguna Hills, CA 92653 ► 949.599.1212 ► Fax. 949-599.1213 mailbox@laer.com ► www.laer.com ' 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: lwW'/—I!�J, J,V"h/ 5 do , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: ��.��+ •- �yo� / �' Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Moesslacher Family Or Current Resident 16671 Simmone Ln Huntington Bh. CA 92647-4368 !I,I,,,,I,I,lI,,,I„II,,,I,l„t„II„I1►,i„l,I,,,I�„il„ll,l HB04472 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: "7 / - �y0 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Leonard Paul Or Current Resident 15571 Mytinger Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4262 II,)„„I,I,II,,,I„II,,,I,I„I„I,I,II,,,,I,II„►1,,,1111,,,1 HB03191 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: Philip B. el , H.B. 1Td31 San Roque L�P improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of H„o sb,� �28aT-eaaz 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 CI ne C regarding your project: �I a 17631 son Roque Ln Huntington Bh. CA 92647-6642 ,il,,,1[fill,,I,II,,,l1,,,J,d„I,I„II,,,,IIII,,,I HB06145 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. ,7� 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: 70�y �3 � '� 3 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions yo pro The Perkins Family regarding � Or Current Resident "� 17171 KristoPpher Ln ' Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5627 Ilil,,,,I,I,II,,,I„II,nI,I,I„Il,,,,l,lln,llr„I,,,II,I„II _ H802093 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. PZnev., 71Zt .> Please make any corrections necessary to the label belo Dear Shea Homes: bI have the following comments/questions t regarding your project: Mr & Mrs Uwe K Hansen oP--•Cu 17912 Shamleyy Cir Huntington Btu, CA 92649-4941 II,I,�„I,I,II,,,I„II,I,,,I„II,1,,,1„I,,,II,,,il�,l,ll►I„i HB10953 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 6L-I- I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signatur . project and request that the City Council approve the H.B. project. Address: VjEJ1>BURUWU j The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control , 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 Braendle Family regarding your project Or Current Resident i 18261 Fieldbury Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1053 H908795 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: 16 Z Q, Q. LLy3'1 l�N , H.F improvements and resulting elimination for reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: [I/ h Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Thomas D Hunter Or Current Resident 6122 Gumm .Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4228 I1+I,+,+I+1,II,,,I+,lI,,,I+I„I►,I,I„I,II+,I+„I+l„1,1,,1,11 ' H804791 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates SignaG . project and request that the City Council approve the project. /� The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: � � �/(C� 1/l A'_ ��- , H.B LAN- 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 5645 Ocean Vista or Huntington Bh, CA 92648-7519 Ao) /U (S C� HBO9393 ,ed •� Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: .t and request that the City Council approve the project. rr� ine benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: -7d+ ? , H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of q� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �, � f Please make any corrections necessary ` label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr Brian K O Steen Or Current Resident! �a..�arn���. j♦�{. Huntington Bh, CA HB05715 , I 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 2 /1 The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address7c)31 �I 1.�V'C 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 Talbott Family Or Current Resident 7031 starlight Cir Huntington' Bh, CA 92647-3543 II,I,,,,i,I,II,III[fill,, HB05410 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: .14 7 ZZ project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: Z=d: p 2 , 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 e regarding your project: The Atachian Family Or Current Resident 7522 Rhine Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4613 ,II,,,I„II fill,I„l,ii,,,,,II„IIIIII,I„I,i,lfill HB01124 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: . I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: t a_� project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: _� 07 , 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 8 Mrs David •E Gautschy regarding your project: Or Current Resident 7122 Bluesails Dr Huntington eh, CA 92647-3571 HBO5361 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: �� `�Z Z, 0 ��G� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project Phone: 7l - 8+� k- !� 2 33 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr Joseph T McKee or current Resident 16972 Red Rock Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4020 HB1i364 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: V/S/SZ Sl s9%. . Z)/' , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone;/7/y� f��!b 2 9 (, 9 T— Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions o regarding your project: Miss Andrea L Black Or Current Resident 6452 Shayne Dr Z A4, �� ,,,,,E o�✓,uEti Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3326 II,I,,,I III,Ilr,ri fill Irl„it,r,II,,,I,I,IIr,iI,II„I,I,,,ill T H900982 S54 �. Dear Huntington Beach City Council: ; I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside};'states Signatur 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 // J required flood insurance, lead me to support the project Phone: - 6 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr ��SE�f/7,7�R�i �L i`At/ regarding your project 6402 Santa Vnez Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6156 H806714 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 02 I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council approve the project l/ j� IN The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: f/ !�-(•!' H•I improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Phone: 0�/ :CO p,A14) l A73W 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 Mrs Gwyneth P Martin Or Current Resident 16592 Dale Vista Ln Huntington -Bh, CA 92647-4317 Il,l,,,rl,{,Ii,,,lull,,,I,Ir,l,rll,n,lllu,ll,l,u,l,lrllu{ H804397 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: �0�`02! oje, xc L H•F 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 Herbert J Bolton f/yr Gi ilc� ram, /L.3o SaA<� Or Current Resident 6921 Vista Del Sol Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6655 � .��� ����` � fl,lu„I,I,llrul„ll,,,I,1{,r,liu,l,l„I,lu,l,l,,,fll,�,ll °�- u"V7-„' -7- .46L4, H806440 D ,� 1 �� O�G�T/g�/ C✓Of 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:/ ACU7� H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: '? M-01 9 Please make any-corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions reganjing your project: Mr & Mrs Daniel 5 Lloyd G4 q 17 or Current Resident 5321 Candle Cir 1AI&V ! wc4QIv Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4719 Q HR10421 . I 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: 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 regar ' g your proj The Arechiga Family Or Current Resident 7850 Slater Ave Spc 65 Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6759 il,1,��,I,I,Il,,,I,,Ii,�,1,11,,I,,,I,I,I,I,I,,,li,,,l,l„I,►I! ' HBO097O � Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 1 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: r H.1 improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of ta_n.� Qol 64 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear ea Homes: I have the following comments/questions # regard' g your project: The Bunge Family ; , Or Current Resident �-� 6872 Manhattan Dr • �, Huntington Bh, CA 92647=5657 ` o HB04056 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: , 8 J�2,. `C46W )S9-4L/46— , H.1 improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 723 �j�y� 8Z 4 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Michael b Kinnee regarding your project Or Current Resident JibA v 444dA 5842 Trophy Dr , Huntington Bh, CA 92649-3724 II,I�„►I,I�II,,,I,,II,1,�,,II,I,,,1,�1,i,1„I,I„1„I,11„1,I oed H802226 � � Dear Runtington Beach City Council: - - I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: CJ project and request that the City Council approve the project. / The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address:(D 351 ShiefW,5 ( V HJ 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 Steve J Perry Or Current Resident �- 6351 Shields Dr Huntington- Bh, CA 92647-4249 IIIII U 11lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIIIIIIIIIIIIII111{IIIIIII{IIItII '_�� �L �..wlli��`/✓(_.O� HB04650 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: �6 35 Z SE,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 The Wisenbaker FamilyI regarding your project: Or Current Resident 16352 Serenade Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3540 IIII117/I1l1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII{III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,11{1lIIIIII HBOSS57 _ w Dear Huntington Beach City Council: 1 I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Si ture: ' project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Addre H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone: 42 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions reg your project: The Sikorske Family ��lI ��� or Current Resident -� 5881 Raphael or Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4937 �. IIIIt111I1I111111l11IIII111111111111 loll1ItilII111111111111I1I }-tB 10806 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: p /� 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:�lo��� _,� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: l7 �F-� g a S �-�Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mrs Pauline Goble � yQ C iw OL Or Current Resident 16651 Tiber Ln � a 0J-,,, (Li Huntington Bh.. CA 926)47-4619 IIII111111IIII11Illlllllllllillilllllll�llllllllll!)llllllllll r /�� � ��C HB01482 -u- -i.Gs- �,�C GLcc-tom 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: 7 % �r1� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 714 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions r regarding your project: ; The Koepp Family Or Current Resident 17361 Breda Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92549-4626 III II11 fill lllllll'lIIIIIIIIIl111IIIIIIIIIIII11Ill1JllllllllIII -e.,:na 7&0 H802560 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:/2/7A H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 2/-iz'-oc5 7 65,""-7 D Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr $ Mrs Ronald W Kennedy 3 Or Current Resident 17172 Treehaven Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5529 II111111Illlllliiltllllllllllllllllllllilllllll111111111111111 H801958 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.. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �✓� 1 � +� l 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 Kathryn M Pace regarding your project: or Current Resident 17201 Julip Ln Huntington- Bh-, CA 92647-5623 II,I,,,,I,I,II,..I„II,,,I,I,I„II,,,,I,!„11,11,,,•,,,II,1,1,1 ' H804088 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. Q The benefits of this project,-particularly the flood control Address: 1705'1 H.I improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of '1 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: a,q) Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions s regarding your project: Mrs Edward A Vergilio rrer�t Resident Plin Ln U ton Bh, CA 92649-4501 HBIO109 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.I 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 Ernesto Navar regardin your project Or Current Resident 5871 Liege Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4642 fA H802637 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 ��O p The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: L 1n y , H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of f required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phon ` Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr 'Bruce R Corel 'or Current Resident 17241 Lido Ln Huntington* Bh, CA 92647-6140 HBO6547 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: 17( z cerc .C� H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/4 ,FL`-j- Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Ms Marla M Judd regarding your project: or Current Resident 7762 Arbor Cir Huntington Bh, ' CA 92647-7351 HBO1322 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: lJ, improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: tsd —3 (/ O Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr & Mrs Ronald F Robbins regarding your project: Or Current Resident 5942 Franmer Cir Huntington eh, CA 92649-3706 H802280 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'iDC. �� H.] improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7iip-375 Q 5o,6 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr & Mrs David R Mucha Or Current Resident 6912 Via Carona Dr d � Huntington- Bh, CA 92647-6650 7 II,l111111I111111111111,111111,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 r /A) � H806473 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�&z H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of 9oro"'517 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 regarding your project The Andreassen Family 16351 Mercier Ln Huntington Bh, . CA 92647-3311 II111,1,I,I,II„1i1,II,,,I1,II1,111,11,11,,,11111,„1►Il111111 � � �/h r H800991 - U✓ ,� ( 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: AS GISs� r� �,C , H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of eil 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 B Healey /i✓ig�� ll ,�.� �,""o Or Current Resident -, 6181 Palisade Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3226 �a�J915—, I I,I„1,111,11„11„I I„I 11,III1,111,1111,111,11,1„1,1111,,,1 H803005 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: Moot)U C,,V Q R , H.E improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project Phone: '21 - - 4-7�}- 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 . 7052 Moonlight Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3531 II,I,,,,I,1,II,,,I„II,,,I„il„hl,,,ll,,,,il,ll,►„I,I„I,II HB05440 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 �, J H.1 improve is and resulting elimination or reduction of r 17�Z'`,5 required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: �/ z���, �� �i + Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr Richard W Reighter r ding your roje� ct l 6941 Paula Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4352 II,I,,,,1,I,Il,,,I„II,,,I,I„I„II„I,I,„I,1,1„I,,,II„11,1 CRIrS�� GcaD T7 'T29 J�1� H904259 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: f I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes Parkside Estates Signatur . ll project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: t��0� we�l5 I'� , H.E improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of Wesf'/Yt nS7`�'� ev g2�93 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 Brian L Lundquist Or Current Resident 8401 Wells Rd Westminster, CA 92683-7817 HB11580 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: c7 t7 (9��t �Q�� , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of --��—L � ✓ � �� 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 Amendola Family regarding your project: or current Resident 5381 Glenstone Dr ��i Huntington Bh, CA 92649-4703 ZVI LL P-,,IA e6JU; L H810470 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' The benefits of this project, particularly the flood control Address: , H.I 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 Brandi MO!M'699HS Alqacok regarding your project Or Current Resident" 7561 Rhine Dr Huntington Bh, CA 92647-4640 HBOli34 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed 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: ! H 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 Kurt ivy or Current Resident 1723 Blue Fox Cir •H}Qtr►ti,ngton Bh, CA 92647-5602 ��l�tlli�7�l�I1,Ijll��l,1�,�Ijlljlr►Ij/1111')jlli'11i►Illlijl) HB04069 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: wak zg-& Lgai improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: . &Le�' AW 6,2; 49 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Miss Gloria D Sunghera regardingyourproject: Or Current Resident 18012 Upperlake Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1129 I�,j►,,,j,jrlj,,,jujj„�,,,,jj„rlj„j,lj►luu,jj►,Irl,l►j,� HB08084 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/ VW44.0r 40A e . H. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of " '"9 A"'" Zfe,0,4 required flood Insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7/y—",0P-79 7e .i/eictV f72. 6z?A- ".7S Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Foust Family o #A/ Or Current Resident 16391 Duchess Ln tiof Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3211 Amg ��, ,►,► , ,�jr„ „��,,, „��11,�►�►►r��,,,�j�►�,,,,,�j,�,�,� VtiWK 7��0� l6f7 o/ i:lRo)�'!f /My i 14802982 Q,v eutrris�f_ �rr.d iJ_ _may a��i-�� ..♦ i► _ __ -77 s Dear!4I ntington Beach City Council: / I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature. : t project and request that the City Council approve theproject The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: `-W5' 'MA I.V 1 1 Ln- , H., improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of �i Phone: 1� required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. b Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Winn Family regarding your project: Or Current Resident 17451 Avalon Ln Huntington. Bh, CA 92647-6105 HBOB904 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signature: c project and request that the City Council approve the project The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: _�_7 ,�,t �,dd . , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance,lead me to support the project. Phone:_ 8 J40 — 9' Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions The Grabowski Family 2 regarding your project: or Current Resident 16272 Duchess Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-3210 HB03002 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`fie n 9f f�e� 'Q r ,H.E improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 1 (�{ S ( ._Gj s Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions Mr E Mrs Francis C Hu regarding your project: Or Current Resident 6081 Manorfield Or Huntington Bh, CA 92648-1066 HB07927 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: $ — �j 6 Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project Mr Arthur K Erickson Or Current Resident 6411 Athena Dr00� L.vc-ec Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6125 II,I,,,,1,I,II,,,I„II,,,I,II,►,,,II„I,I,I,I,,,,II,,,II,II„! ' HB06631 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. / I 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 Yoshihiro B Kawauchi or Current Resident 17131 Treehaven Ln Huntington Bh, CA 92647-5528 11,1,,,,1,1,11,►,I„Ii,,,I,I,I„I,I,,,I,II„I,,,il,,,,lll„I,I H801966 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parks Es tes Signature: project and request that the City Co approve pr ect The benefits of this project, ly floo ontrol dress: H.B. improvements and r tin urination or ductio of 0 • required flood insuran 1 me to sup p the 'ect. ne: r Ple any correcti s el elow: eaz H�omes- h thec /q do regar 'ng yo . ro' ct The ez Family urrent Resident . 17962 Highland Ln Huntington Bh, CA 9264 527 HB05751 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: Aix I have reviewed materials on Shea Homes'Parkside Estates Signaturela 4AVIeSELM project and request that the City Council approve the project 'E+ The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: �nESQ �y�le- I Je , H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: 7 f 4 g�7'-7� g Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Marshall Family Or Current Resident 6092 Summerdale Or Huntington- Bh, CA 92647-5525 H801933 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� 'vl �OCJ . 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 Paul G Pearce Or Current Resident �- 17411 La Mesa Ln ( Q Huntington Sh, CA 92647-6110 HB06850 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:l9)0��. W t,\\bctn0 �' . , H.B. improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: `X\4 $AA-CrZo(& Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: 1 have the following comments/questions regarding your project: The Miller Family { Or Current Resident 18092 Wellbrook Cir Huntington Bh, CA 92647-6553 II,I„►,I,I,Ii,,,I„II,,,I,II,,,I,I„I,i,,,ll,l,l,,,,l,l„I,II HB05980 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: 1.7212 OV 1 A'qyJ H.B improvements and resulting elimination or reduction of required flood insurance, lead me to support the project. Phone: '��Y--Aft --/O / Please make any corrections necessary to the label below: Dear Shea Homes: I have the following comments/questions regarding your project: Mr & Mrs John E Ferguson or current Resident 17297 Apel Ln Huntington Bh. CA 92649-4603 Ilrlr,rrlrlrll,rrlrrll,lrrrlr,I,IIr,II,r,,,Il,l,l„1„rl,rrlll ' HB11007 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: �/ �D C R f 2i C- H.1 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 Arthur J Lambert regarding your project: Or current Resident 6502 Cadiz Cir Huntington Bh, CA 9264776613 !lrl,r,rlrlrllrrrlrrltr►,Irllrr,Ilurr,ll,rll,ll,,,r,l,l,l,rl) HB06191 Dear Huntington Beach City Council: I have reviewed materials on Shea Hom 'Parkside Estates Signature: project and request that the City Council � e project. The benefits of this project,particularly the flood control Address: , H.1 improvements and resulting eliminate n or on of required flood insurance,lead met 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 Richard E Boykin Or Current Resident 17042 Newquist Ln �'U Huntington Bh. CA 926.49-4537 �orl, We rz- 11rl fill III IIII III II,I III III III III loll,lrrrl)I,rl,rlr III rlr) GIS t/V G- ✓/z C UJ��l /l�i H800629 i ; f Y� GIfY OF October 18, 2002 HUNTINGTON SEACH, CA Honorable Mayor and City Council, 1001 OCT 18 A 8: 2 U I investigated the Bolsa Chica(Koll/Hearthside)Revised EIR(8/17/94)to find out what it had to say about Fire Response. Contained therein was this nugget of insight [footnotes added for clarification]: "In a comment on the 1993 Draft EIR, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department indicated that at the present time they do not meet their response standard criteria to the existing homes east of the lowland area[1] and future residences in the Holly Seacliff area [2]. Previous plans for Bolsa Chica contained a fire station in the lowland which accessed both the Bolsa Chica Mesa development and Holly Seacliff area via the cross gap connector road. However, the current County LCP does not propose the cross gap connector. "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 Seacliff. However, if Option A [3] for the County LCP Area is ultimately approved or the City of Huntington Beach refuses to enter into a reciprocal aid agreement with the OCFD in the event Option B [4] is approved, service deficiencies will persist in the incorporated areas until a new city fire station is constructed." The Bolsa Chica EIR doesn't say that a new city fire station constructed farther east of their proposed locations would eliminate service deficiencies to our area. It does not define where the "city fire station" should be constructed to eliminate service deficiencies to the lowland,but remember that the City's General Plan was published in 1996, two (2) years after this Draft EIR information. The General Plan: "to build a new fire station near Springdale Street and the proposed Cross-Gap Connector in the Bolsa Chica Development. If the proposed Cross-Gap Connector is not constructed, two fire stations will be required. The two stations are proposed to be located in the Edwards/Garfield area [Holly Seacliff] and the Graham/Kenilworth area [east lowlands]." There HAS to be 2 stations because there was no other city land available(and no cross-gap connector)to service both areas! [1] Kenilworth vicinity residents [2] a map of this joint deficient area is in the City's 1996 General Plan [3] no lowland development [4] [lowland development But that's not all. Some of the very Fire Response concerns residents have with Parkside, the City also voiced back in 1994 in its Response to Comments regarding the Bolsa Chica Revised EIR! I swear I did not read this information until October 17th. This is either a case of"great minds think alike" or"what goes around comes around.": � I lll, , 6� V i "The location of fire stations and equipment defines the basic fire protection coverage of any area. Stations should be located to provide an average response time of five(5) minutes or less, to all portions of the project." "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." "As noted in Annex Nos. 22 and 23,prompt response time is critical to providing effective emergency services." "The fire protection mitigation described above does not mitigate the paramedic impacts of the project." The question must be asked: why was the City concerned with these issues in 1994 on the Bolsa Chica Project and not in 2002 for its own Parkside Project? Sii�n`cereley, J e Bixby 1 451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 October 17, 2002 ; ! `f' Cl'['Y Or Honorable Mayor and City Council, HUNT 4 N i O N BEACH' CA 2001 OCT 18 A 8- 24 I understand that the City Council was impressed by the scope of Mark&Monica's anti- Parkside presentation,but that some Council members may have felt that it does not merit further study because the information isn't"professional"in nature. There's a short 2 word answer for that—amateur astronomers. They don't study the stars for a living, yet when they think they've found a comet they report it to the professionals, who then confirm or deny the information. City Staff have done the same. When they heard we were going to protest removal of the proposed Kenilworth fire station from the General Plan, they hastily revised the EIR to respond to the protest. The EIR process was 5 years along, yet just 4 days before the Planning Commission Public Hearing, City Staff changed information in the EIR to respond to us"amateurs." Of course,we don't expect them to automatically follow up on everything residents say—it's not their job to do so, and they have plenty of other projects to work on. However, in response to residents'concerns,the Planning Commission directed City Staff to update the traffic count, and Staff hastily did so. That's what we're asking. You have the authority to direct City Staff to investigate—to confirm or deny—the information residents have presented. You have the authority to officially request public agencies to perform a new,updated wetlands delineation. A CEQA court case from 1985 says that"relevant personal observations"are evidence. Residents have photos of ponding on the Shea property, and of illegal bulldozer grading. These are"relevant personal observations"that need to be studied by the professionals. Thank you. P.S. It is highly amusing that some of the very Fire Response issues we have raised with the Parkside Final EIR were raised by the City in its Response to Comments letter of October 4, 1994, on the Bolsa Chica Revised EIR: "The location of fire stations and equipment defines the basic fire protection coverage of any area. Stations should be located to provide an average response time of five(5)minutes or less,to all portions of the project." "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." "As noted in Annex Nos. 22 and 23,prompt response time is critical to providing effective emergency services.""The fire protection mitigation described above does not mitigate the paramedic impacts of the project." lie Bixby 17451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 October 15, 2002 HB City Council ^' o C/o City Clerk o Z! c 2000 Main St - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 cn -<{ rvJ D r 1-rt Honorable Mayor and Council Members, 00 � I wish to clear up something about the Parkside EIR 97-2 appeal. The Council is note• deciding whether or not the property owner has a right to develop their land. Rather,as part of that right to develop, the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)planning process demands certifying an informational document--the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)--as"adequate,""complete," and"sufficient"to allow"informed decision making." "CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced"(CEQA Guideline 150030)). You are deciding whether there is enough information in the EIR for this decision making to occur. You are deciding whether or not there is adequate discussion and analysis of the environmental issues associated with the project. You are deciding whether the mitigation measures are sufficient enough to lessen the environmental impacts to a level"less than significant." "The EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action"(CEQA Guideline 15003 (d)). Clearly, the"apprehensive citizenry"of Huntington Beach is not convinced that the Final EIR is"adequate,""complete,"and"sufficient." During the past year,residents have uncovered a wealth of information that has left them scratching their heads as to why it wasn't included in the EIR, or why it was only mentioned in passing without analysis, or why it was discussed in a Staff Report rather than the EIR itself. Residents surrounding the Shea property are still apprehensive that mitigations do not lessen the impacts as much as they could. They feel the mitigations are inadequate because the initial informational analysis they are based upon was inadequate. So again, let me be clear: you are not deciding if Shea Homes has a right to develop their property. You are deciding if the Parkside Final EIR#97-2 is "adequate,""complete," and"sufficient"enough to allow"informed decision making." I(and many other residents) do not think that it is. I urge you to overturn the Planning Commission's certification vote. Sincerely, d4� J kieixby 17451 Hillgate Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 I Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration 17451 Hillgate, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 - 714-625-0876 -www.bixby.org/parkside October 14, 2002 a G HB City Council c/o HB City Clerk _ 2000 Main St `- Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E D ' 90 Honorable Mayor and City Council, C---, <, _J v We appeal the HB Planning Commission decision of September 24, 2002, to certify Parkside Estates Final EIR No. 97-2. Contrary to Planning Staff opinion,we feel it does not adequately analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project, does not completely identify project alternatives, and does not adequately identify mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts to surrounding homes. We also appeal approval of the project's entitlements: Tentative Tract Map No. 15377 (City)/ Tentative Tract map No. 15419 (County); Conditional Use Permit No. 96-90 Coastal Development Permit No. 96-18; General Plan Amendment No. 98-1; Coastal Plan Amendment No. 96-4 There are major concerns with this project that we feel the EIR does not adequately address, discuss, analyze or mitigate(including,but not limited to): ■ WETLANDS DESIGNATION is still in dispute; state criteria have not been studied ■ SOIL TESTING has not tested for PCBs,which were found on a nearby property; there is also the history of illegal fill having been dumped on the project property ■ DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY has not been adequately studied nor sufficiently mitigated ■ SUBSIDENCE has not been sufficiently mitigated ■ ODOR PROBLEMS noted in the EIR Technical Appendix have not been mitigated ■ CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS have not been sufficiently mitigated ■ TRAFFIC has not been adequately studied nor sufficiently mitigated ■ NOISE has not been adequately studied nor sufficiently mitigated ■ FIRE &EMERGENCY MEDICAL AID RESPONSE has not been adequately studied nor sufficiently mitigated. The associated General Plan Amendment may contradict General Plan policy and may violate CEQA"alternative projects"policy In addition, we wish to complain about procedural sloppiness throughout the Parkside Estates planning process. These items are discussed in more detail below: �1 WETLANDS DESIGNATION Volume II Section 3.4—History of Project Volume II Section 5.8—Biological Resources Volume II Section 7.2 - Growth Inducing Impacts Volume IIA Technical Appendices Part 8—Wetlands Delineation The site of the proposed development is not residential infill; rather, it is an integral and contiguous part of the Bolsa Chica(clearly visible in aerial photographs). Despite the non- permitted grading and other alterations of the property's appearance over the years,the site retains wetlands characteristics (most notably ponding, on both the city and county portions), which meet the wetlands designation criteria of the jurisdictional agencies, the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. From the website h!tp://www.coastal.ca.gov/web/wetrev/wetch3.htm.1 (PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR THE REVIEW OF WETLAND PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA'S COASTAL ZONE): "In the California coastal zone,the California Coastal Commission(CCC),with the assistance of the Department of Fish and Game(DFG) is responsible for determining the presence of wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act. . . . the DFG only requires the presence of one attribute(e.g., hydrology,hydric soils, or hydrophytic vegetation) for an area to qualify as a wetland(Environmental Services Division, 1987). In 1992, the Army Corps of Engineers determined that the 45-acre Shea parcel within the HB city limits did not contain any federal wetlands. In December 1997, Tom Dodson&Associates evaluated the site using the U.S. Department of Fish&Wildlife's federal definition, and also concluded the site had no wetlands. 1997 appears to be the last time the City site was evaluated. In 2002, LSA&Associates evaluated the 5-acre county parcel only. The Coastal Commission itself does not seem to have performed(or commissioned) an evaluation of the City property using its criteria; rather, they merely acknowledge in a July 2001 letter that others have done evaluations that have found no wetlands as of 1997. Since the Coastal Commission follows different guidelines than the USDFW, this subject should be revisited. Furthermore, another California wetland property that was farmed for 50 years(Ballona, owned by Playa Capital Company) is again showing wetland characteristics since farming stopped 15 years ago! As Huntington Beach residents have ground photos documenting wetlands ponding on the Shea property during agricultural use,just imagine what the Shea property would show of wetlands after 15 years of no farming! A close reading of Lisa Kegarice's (Tom Dodson&Associates) December 17, 1997 letter in the Draft EIR says that the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual was used to arrive at the"no wetlands on City parcel"conclusion. From a copy of the manual at: http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/pub/outgoing/co/reg/whnan87.pdf- "USER NOTES: The hydric soil list published in the 1987 Corps Manual is obsolete. Current hydric soil definition, criteria, and lists are available over the World Wide Web from the U.S.D.A.Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). (HQUSACE, 27 Aug 91, 6 Mar 92)" If Kegarice used an older version of the 1987 manual in 1996/1997, she was using obsolete information! Further web research indicates that federal wetlands delineations of agricultural land now use the delineation methods in the 1994 National Food Security Act Manual(NFSAM), 3rd Edition, which was updated in 1996 with a section entitled"Field Indicators of Hydric Soils." Non- agricultural land still uses the 1987 USACE manual. So it appears that not only did Kegarice use an obsolete manual, she used the wrong manual. If all that weren't enough, a 1994 Memorandum of Agreement(h.ttp://www.wetlands.com/fed/frl 90194.htm) changed the method by which agricultural lands undergo federal wetlands delineation. With so much at stake, we feel the City parcel of the Shea property needs a new wetlands delineation using current methods—both federal and state. The EIR tends to blame much incriminating hydrology on Big Bad El Nino, giving it a bit too much credit. The EIR doesn't correlate aerial photographs that show ponding against the Los Alamitos rain gage data provided in the EIR's Technical Appendices. By working backwards and forwards in time from photo dates showing ponding, you can find the bracketing storm events which strongly imply the 18+ consecutive days of ponding needed to achieve one of the three wetlands parameters(hydrology). In fact, such a correlation may even show 16 seasons worth of 18 or more consecutive days of ponding. If you chart the season total precipitation amounts for these 16, you can see that the ponding will happen in dry years, average years, and above average years. Another reason to revisit the wetlands issue is that the"Historic Land Uses Inferred From Aerial Photographs"portion of the EIR conveniently neglects to mention the presence of a quite clearly visible subsurface streambed running the entire length of the property parallel to the Wintersburg Channel. The width of this streambed and the number of secondary branches varies from year to year depending on the height of the water table, and when it is high, vegetation growing on this portion of the property is much darker due to increased water availability. Thus the likelihood of hydric soils being found in this area is quite high, and if confirmed, would support a positive wetlands delineation. SOIL TESTING Volume II Section 5.6—Earth Resources Historical aerial photographs document that illegal fill was slowly added along the southwestern area of the project property during the Smoky Stables decade, 1980-1989. Ground photographs taken on April 22, 1998 show that two bulldozers were used to regrade this fill without a grading permit so that the low areas on the property prone to ponding were raised. Subsequent aerial photographs show dramatic changes in topology after the bulldozing. The EIR treats the Shea property as agricultural and thus only tested for pesticides associated with farming activity. No testing for PCBs has been done to date or is planned for the future in either the EIR or the Conditions of Approval. Given the serious PCB contamination discovered earlier this year at the nearby Hearthside Fieldstone property at the southern terminus of Graham Street, we feel that PCB and other contaminant testing must be performed on the Shea property also. DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY Volume II Section 5.7 -Drainage[Hydrology Volume II Section 5.8 -Biological Resources Volume IIA- Appendices The Coastal Commission letter of September 20, 2002 says the water quality information in the EIR is"fundamentally flawed." A fundamentally flawed document should not be considered adequate. We think that speaks volumes,but there's plenty else that's troublesome: Negative water quality impacts stemming from project runoff causing increased Slater Pump Station activity has not been analyzed nor have mitigations been proposed. The EIR did not examine the alternative of relocating the two new storm pumps to Lot O for a direct connection to the Wintersburg Channel. The EIR did not examine the risk to existing neighborhoods in the Slater Channel watershed from adding significant new runoff to the Slater Pump Station, which constitutes a single point of failure. The EIR does not address the impact of this project on the aquifers that are used for local drinking water supplies. In the existing condition with the project site used primarily for agriculture, rainfall percolates into the soil and recharges the local aquifer. If the development does proceed and the property is largely covered with impermeable surfaces such as streets and houses,most rainfall will be redirected to the ocean as urban runoff and will not percolate into the soil to recharge the aquifer. Without such periodic recharging,the aquifer may start to recede and suffer from increased seawater intrusion,thus impacting local drinking water supplies. Because of the elevated level of the pads and the importation of fill, the Parkside site will be at a significantly higher elevation than the Prestige tract to the north. There is no analysis of what would occur(in terms of run-off) if the storm drain system proposed by Shea fails. Certainly that adjacent neighborhood would be subject to a much greater flood risk if this were to occur and must be reviewed more fully. The hydrology reports are deficient in the testing of the water tables. Test pits were dug in 1998 but no current data are available. The consultant does not know if the water table is tidal or a closed aquifer. Aerial photos reveal a subterranean river that currently affects several properties on Kenilworth, which is not even mentioned in the hydrology report. Collectively this is extremely important information and could change dewatering and soils compaction analysis. Based on this we therefore believe that the impacts of the drainage/hydrology section of the EIR have not been fully measured and that the current and potentially resultant impacts have not been properly mitigated. We request that a condition of approval be added to require seeking a County permit for installation of the 2 new storm pumps being proposed for this project. Condition of Approval 5 (k)on Attachment page 1.9 of the TTM Notice of Action says that, "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." Sounds good,but to this day city Public Works staff insists that County approvals are not needed. We also request that a condition be added to establish an "Improvement District"comprised of all parcels within the Parkside project to provide "at[funding whatsoever"for the operation, repair,replacement,inspection, licensing and/or maintenance in perpetuity for an Urban Runoff Pump Station(which will pump directly into the Wintersburg Channel)to be located on or about Lot"O"as shown on the current Conditional Land Use Plan. All operations whatsoever concerning the new pump station are to be carried out under license and supervision of the City of Huntington Beach with all costs whatsoever to be borne by the new Improvement District. SUBSIDENCE Volume II Section 8.4—Mitigation Measures The EIR does not provide for adequate mitigation measures to assure existing homes to the north along Kenilworth Drive(Tract Map No. 5792) are protected from subsidence and ground movement as a result of over-excavation and dewatering of the subject property. With the many examples in Huntington Beach of construction-caused ground movement and subsidence, phrases like"successfully implemented on numerous projects"(EIR Volume I, 3.3 —Response to Comments) and"time-tested"(Staff Report 9/24/02,B-2a,pg. 6)do not provide homeowner protection against any likely damaging impact. Existing homeowners need indemnification from construction-caused damages by the developer during construction and a reasonable period thereafter. ODOR Volume II Section 8.1- Environmental Impacts Found Not to be Significant Volume IIA Technical Appendices Part 5 -Water Quality The EIR contradicts itself on the issue of odor. Volume II Section 8.1 claims, "It is not anticipated that the proposed residential project will produce any noticeable objectionable odors." However, EIR Volume IIA Part 5,page 4-1 states: "Although the storm drain system is designed to accommodate the flow during the 100-year storm event, it has certain deficiencies during non-storm periods. Water elevation in the Slater Channel during non-storm period is frequently higher than the invert elevations of the storm drains at Nodes 250, 211 and 608. The flap gate at node 609 is provided to minimize the reverse flow from the Slater Channel to the storm drain system during non-storm periods. Even if the flap gate is fully leak proof, dry weather flow from on-site and off-site areas is expected to accumulate within the storm drain system. This may create anaerobic conditions and produce odor problems within the development." Thus the Technical Appendix warns of possible odor problems, while the main EIR volume claims there will not be any objectionable odors. Well,which is it? And if there are possible odor problems,why isn't there any suggested mitigation? CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Volume I Section 4.1 Verbal Comments/Responses to Comments; PMK-5 Response Volume II Section 5.2—Aesthetics/Light and Glare Volume II Section 8.4—Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures to block automobile headlights from shining into adjacent neighbors' yards and windows from Street `A' and `B' are insufficient. The "intensified"paseo park landscaping called for in the Conditions of Approval will not be planted until near the end of the 4-year construction project, after the new drainage system has been installed and the old drainage system can be abandoned, and after the paseo park has been over-excavated and remediated. According to the applicant's information and drawings,the proposed foliage won't be of sufficient height to block automobile headlights for at least five(5) years after planting. Thus there's a total of nine (9) years before the mitigation measure actually mitigates the impact of headlight intrusion! This alone would have a degree of significant impact to Kenilworth and Greenleaf homeowners with bedrooms and family rooms facing out onto `A' and `B' streets. The impacts to neighboring homes of the construction process are insufficiently mitigated. Taking just one aspect of the site preparation as an example: limiting round-trips of tandem dump-trucks--with all their attendant noise, vibration, and traffic impacts—to five (5) days-a- week, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m.,will not"significantly"reduce the noise impact for nearby residents who are retired, work from home, or work swing/night shifts. Condition of Approval "qq" states that"new walls, if constructed, along the project's northern property [along Kenilworth]. . .will be constructed to achieve maximum sound attenuation." However, Condition"ii" states, "The new wall depicted along the northerly property line shall be removed; no new wall is necessary." How was "ii"determined? The EIR should also re-evaluate construction traffic impacts in light of the September 9th traffic study showing substantially more traffic in the existing condition. TRAFFIC Volume II Section 5.3 —Traffic/Circulation Volume II Section 6.6—Alternative 5 —Alternative Roadway Connections In response to complaints from residents that the traffic study in the EIR was outdated(not to mention conducted during the lowest school enrollment in a decade), an attempt was made to obtain current data in early September 2002. While the new study did verify residents' concerns of a substantial traffic increase since the original EIR study,it still does not capture the full effect of Marine View Middle School peak traffic as it was conducted before student attendance had stabilized(per residents' discussions with the OVSD). The new data demonstrated that peak traffic patterns for the Graham/Glenstone intersection had shifted from Level of Service B down to Level of Service D (both factoring in projected Parkside traffic). According to the EIR, "The City of Huntington Beach has determined that LOS C or better is the acceptable standard for roadway links,while LOS D or better is the acceptable standard for intersections." Would a study performed after Marine View attendance had stabilized(just a few weeks later)have shown a projected unsatisfactory Graham/Glenstone intersection Level of Service E? If so,then current EIR mitigation measures would be insufficient. The EIR proposes re-striping Graham Street to add a left-turn median at Glenstone in order to mitigate congestion. This is a fraudulent mitigation since southbound Graham drivers already behave as if such a left-turn median already exists! Therefore adding such striping will not significantly reduce Graham Street congestion. The EIR does not adequately address the negative impacts resulting to Kenilworth& Graham from the new signal to be installed at"A"street. Southbound morning peak Graham cars will form a long queue at the "A"street signal,blocking access and sight lines for Kenilworth drivers wanting to turn left onto northbound Graham. The EIR does not adequately attempt to engineer a viable Circulation Alternative B connection to Bolsa Chica Street. Once the new residents of the Parkside Estates are in their new homes, they will undoubtedly insist on an additional access, so the developer should be required to bear the cost of design and construction at the outset, and not foster the demand onto the City later on. Otherwise,Parkside residents will undoubtedly insist on opening access to Greenleaf Lane, which is completely unacceptable to residents in the existing homes to the north. The EIR dismissed the reality of this situation, and as approved,will have a detrimental effect on surrounding neighbors. NOISE Volume II Section 5.5-Noise The EIR's noise impact analysis does not include aircraft noise from commercial jet traffic on landing approach into Long Beach,military jet traffic on landing approach into Los Alamitos, or beach advertising banner aircraft(which may or may not have been banned by recent city ordinance). Secondly, construction noise impacts from the Graham Street haul route need to be re-evaluated in light of the September 9th traffic study,which showed substantially more traffic in the existing condition. The EIR and subsequent conditions for approval do not go far enough in protecting nearby residents from traffic noise. There should be a condition whereby allowing the connection to Greenleaf to be opened to non-emergency access would be contingent upon a City Council public hearing and a simple majority vote by residents living in the tract north of the project site. There should also be a condition added to forbid the use of stop signs for controlling through traffic on`B"street in order to prevent stop & go traffic noise from impacting existing residents on the south side of Kenilworth. FIRE & EMERGENCY MEDICAL AID RESPONSE Volume II Section 3.7—Proposed Actions Volume II Section 5.10—Public Services and Utilities Volume II Section 6.0—Alternatives to the Proposed Project The EIR does not adequately analyze the effect to existing homes of amending the General Plan and removing the fire station designation. It analyzes Parkside only. CEQA Guideline 15126.2 (a): "Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environmental shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area...and other aspects of the resource base such as...public services." The EIR(Errata)mentions response times will be affected,but does not say whether this is a"significant"impact or not. However, as there is mention of a mitigation measure (MM1), the impact is significant by default. CEQA Guideline 15126.4 (3) "Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." Thus the significance of the impact should have been discussed. CEQA Guideline 15125 (c) "The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must permit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context." The City produced two late communication"Errata"pages for the Final EIR after they got wind of residents planning a public hearing protest on the grounds that the HB General Plan specifically calls for a Fire Station at Graham &Kenilworth. Furthermore, the General Plan also contains the 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 percent of the time." Since CEQA Guideline 15125 (d) "The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans...", and the EIR does not discuss this inconsistency(it"wishes"it away with a proposed General Plan Amendment 98-1), City Planners had the Fire Department conduct a driving study of response times (since official data is still being collected) from Edwards Station to prove that the Graham/Kenilworth station was no longer necessary. However, the Fire Department's tests were only to the major intersection of Graham & Slater, not to actual homes deep in the nearby housing tracts. They also only tested code"2"(no sirens or lights, so include time spent stopped at intersections),rather than approximate code"3"(sirens&lights, so omit time spent stopped at intersections). Based upon their initial tests, the Fire Department expressed"confidence"of meeting the response standard(within 5 minutes 80%of the time)to Parkside, and this information was incorporated into the late communication Errata pages for the EIR on September 1 Oth. However, additional testing by the Fire Department completed after our 9/10 public hearing presentation still questioning response times forced them to conclude that Edwards Station would not necessarily meet the standard for all of Parkside (contradicting what they had said previously, and thus contradicting the new Errata EIR). Since homes on Kenilworth approximate homes on "A"street,this new information raises legitimate concerns for existing residents, and should have been included in the EIR. CEQA Guideline 15130 requires analyzing cumulative impacts of probable future projects. The EIR Errata does consider this and admits, "Response time from the new [Heil] location to the project site would be greater than 5 minutes." Subsequent Fire Department testing(again,to the Graham/Slater intersection only)now disputes this,but that contradictory info is not in the EIR, and you have to judge by what's actually in the EIR. Furthermore,we did our own driving tests from Relocated Heil Station, and those times indicated it would take more than 5 minutes to get to Felson or Bates(south of Graham& Slater). The 9/24 staff report also makes reference to "exceptional degree of overlapping coverage" for the Parkside area,noting there are 3 fire stations: Edwards, Heil/Relocated Heil, and Warner. Well, the EIR admits Warner Station does not meet the 5-minute response standard at all for this vicinity(and our driving tests confirmed that), so to even include it is laughable. Based upon our tests,the housing tracts south of Graham/Slater will remain deficient in emergency response if they must depend on Edwards &Relocated Heil only. The Fire Department essentially dismisses south Graham/Slater in the 9/24/02 Staff Report. They shrug their shoulders with"the project has mitigation measures to cover any delayed response." The F.D. also weasel their way out with the disclaimer that the response"goal allows for 20 percent of emergency responses to exceed the 5 minute standard." Guess which area is going to have its unfair share of that 20%--south Graham/Slater! We're sure the intent of the 20%non-compliance cushion is to allow for unfavorable driving conditions such as rain, fog, or heavy traffic, or to allow that the primary fire station is unavailable and the secondary station must be used. We cannot believe the intent of the cushion is to leave parts of the city deficient, and it is unfathomable that the City would willingly leave areas of the city deficient in emergency response if it didn't have to. There are 9 alternative developments presented in the Parkside EIR. But not one of them is for a development utilizing the General Plan as-is; in other words,homes plus a fire station, or fire station only! This could be violation of CEQA Guideline 15126.6 regarding"Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project." CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (f--1): "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are...general plan consistency..." There is also CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (a) "An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation....The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives." Since CEQA Guidelines regularly put"zoning" and"general plan"in the same sentence (there's even a Guideline 15183, "Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan,or Zoning"!), it is baffling that an"existing zoning"alternative was considered but an"existing General Plan fire station designation" alternative was not! CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (b) states, "...the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project..." The EIR makes no determination whether removing the fire station designation would have a significant impact on surrounding homes; it merely states there are "impacts"on emergency response from the project. Well, since there are fire safety mitigations,by default they are mitigating a"significant"impact. CEQA Guideline 15126.4 (3) "Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." A"Fire Station+homes" alternative or"Fire station only" alternative would have avoided any response effects of the project and eliminated the need for a mitigation measure! CEQA Guideline 15004: "The 1998 amendment clarifies that public agencies must consider the significant effects of a project before taking actions which may limit their choice of potential project alternatives and mitigation measures." Yes, the EIR does identify mitigation measures—but for the Parkside project only, and for fire safety only. The Final EIR does not address mitigation measures to lessen the impact to existing, surrounding homes of removing the fire station designation, nor does it address medical emergency mitigations! Why medical mitigation? The overwhelming majority of emergency calls to the Fire Department are for medical aid assistance, not actual fires! How will smoke alarms, sprinklers, a traffic signal, and mitigation measure 1 (additional fire code requirements, if necessary)help the person having a heart attack or other medical emergency,whether they live in the western half of Parkside or live south of the Graham/Slater intersection? CEQA Guideline 15126.4(B): "The mitigation measure must be `roughly proportional' to the impacts of the project." Since the response time impacts would have a greater proportional effect on medical emergencies than structural emergencies, shouldn't the mitigation measures address medical mitigation in greater proportion than structural? PROCEDURAL SLOPPINESS We feel the City Council should be informed of Procedural sloppiness throughout the planning process for the Parkside Estates project. This list is complaints is far longer than it should be for a valid, adequate planning project: The"Final"EIR contains erroneous information. Marine View Middle School is stated as being four(4)miles from the project site,when it is actually four-tenths (A)miles away. Huntington Beach High School is stated as being two and one-half(2.5)miles from the project site, when it is actually four and one-half(4.5)miles away. It also states that there are two(2) OCTA bus stops on Graham Street between Warner and Slater. Those bus stops were removed in September 2000; the"Final"EIR was released nearly two (2) years later,plenty of time to have corrected the out-dated information. The"Final"EIR was released August 2, 2002. Planning Department Staff did not notice that pages were missing until a resident pointed it out to them at a Planning Commission Study Session. Subsequently the missing pages, and corrections in conjunction with those missing pages,were distributed August 30th,just 11 days before the initial Public Hearing on September 10i . The Staff Report released late in the day on September 6th contained two(2) "Errata"pages for the"Final"EK significantly changing the information contained therein. This was a mere four (4) days before the September IOth Public Hearing. The distribution of the Staff Report on September 6th was mishandled. First,resident Sing Joe Kong visited City Hall at 4pm Friday, September 6th,which is the time he was told the Report would be made available. After a nearly 30 minute wait,he was handed parts of the Report and told the rest was still unavailable. The resident was unable to stay until 5pm, and thus left with an incomplete Staff Report. Secondly, the Central Library closes at 5pm on Fridays. As the full Report was not finished until after 5pm, a City Planning staffer dropped the Report into the book return slot. This Report was never found, so another copy was delivered to the Central.Library on Monday, September 9th. However,the Central Library does not open until 1pm on Mondays. Thus the Staff Report was only available for 1.5 days at Central Library(half of Monday and all of Tuesday),just 2 days (all day Saturday and Tuesday) at Helen Murphy Branch Library, and just 2 days at City Hall Planning Department(Monday and Tuesday), leaving very little time for residents to study it before Tuesday night's Public Hearing. City Planners released an"Errata to the Errata"page (correcting a typo) for the"Final"EIR at the Planning Commission Study Session September loth,mere hours before the initial Public Hearing. Why this one typo was corrected but not other blatant typos elsewhere in the EIR is perplexing. During all Study Sessions, Bob Righetti, Public Works Consultant, continually insisted to the Planning Commissioners that the project did not require County permits for the planned installation of new pumps at Slater Pump Station. Alarmed resident Bob Dingwall contacted the County,who in turn wrote a letter to the City noting that County permits will be required for the new pumps. Public Works Consultant Bob Righetti also refused to respond to two a-mails and one voice mail from resident Mark Bixby regarding substantive on-topic issues. Resident Dean Albright submitted traffic flow maps to the Planning Department on September 20th for inclusion in the public comments section of the Staff Report distributed September 23ra His submission was not included. When he called the Planning Department to find out why, he was told City Planner Scott Hess decided the maps weren't important enough to be included. Consequently, the resident was forced to distribute his public comment contribution as a late communication at the 5pm Planning Commission Study Session on September 27th,just hours before the Public Hearing re-opened. The Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program is under lawsuit that has not yet been decided. The 4.5- acre county portion of the Shea property falls into that lawsuit. How was this project even up for approval before that lawsuit is adjudicated? The Final EIR does not replace original EIR verbiage and documents with New Draft Alternatives. Did Garry Brown of Coastkeeper ever weigh in on the testing of the Slater sludge? Dick Harlow working as a consultant for developers in front of the city and people he hired while director of planning. Is this a conflict of interest? CONCLUSION "CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public" (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988)202 Cal.App.3d 296). Why is it that so much information and analysis on the Shea property has been done by the public and not by the City? And why is the information gathered by residents not in the Final EIR? "CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR,but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good-faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692). With so many omissions (analyses, mitigations, alternatives, etc.), redesigns, re-evaluations, and information added at the very last minute(Errata pages, subsequent staff reports), how can the Parkside EIR be considered"full disclosure,""adequate,""complete,"or"sufficient?" We feel the evidence is overwhelming that EIR No. 97-2 (Parkside Estates) is actually insufficient, incomplete, and inadequate; that its certification should be repealed by the City Council; and that its accompanying entitlements, amendments, and permits,be denied. Sincerely, M . Julie E. Bixby Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration �1 ^Yxv H i � e mi n � / a 0ppcW {{ a w 1 C r � We are a group of neighbors who share a very different vision for this property, as you can see from our name and this conceptual diagram. Copies of these slides are available from the web address http://www.bixby.org/parkside/. Please direct any questions about this presentation to: Mark Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln o Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4707 � -� 714-625-0876 01 `= mark@bixby.org Monica Hamiltonco c� 5401 Kenilworth o Huntington Beach, CA 92649-4528 -_ 714-840-8901 mdruzich@earthlink.net http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 1 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 The NWWR Vision i • Acquisition and Re-integration with the Greater Bolsa Chica Ecosystem • Restoration of the wetlands, functioning as a Natural Treatment System, Flood Buffer, and Wildlife Habitat • Filtration of urban runoff that would otherwise flow into Huntington Harbour Our vision is: To acquire this valuable and restorable property and reintegrate it with the rest of Bolsa Chica To restore the wetlands to serve as a natural treatment system providing wildlif habitat To filter the urban runoff that would otherwise enter Huntington Harbor http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 2 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 IRWD Treatment Flood Control Channel 1r � Wetlands S7arm �'"`° Type I -- Offline Water Qnahry N'etlnnrls �"' �� ClnrmFlow Type II -- Inline D;vecsion Structure D,,,l,ela ush lherF�o° and Fin\Y • Type III -- Co-located Fl F lo m (112"to 314')where applicable .__.. TWe Within Detention Development Existing or Proposed Offline Area Basins Water Quality Wetlands Flood Control Channel tt o •. .K , '.^ ....�_._,.___..,���,.��Wuler Quulil). ""• I`rishns, .. a Wetlands t q , Storm ^"y 3� t m,9; ''^'v""` w._,'..`e°tl Detention t K � �' !if" l•'torr Confrol Chaiuttl ° &ram warm F low ��, i / Dixersun, Sbvrnve 7:ype 11 i Type III Existing or Proposed In Line Water Quality Wetlands Water Quality Wetlands � p Developmen, 71'1t111n Existing OY PYO OSed Area Detention Basin The Irvine Ranch Water District has an ambitious program of creating 37 treatment wetlands. Treatment wetlands can be more cost-effective than building extra traditional treatment capacity. The Shea property would be a Type I model. HB's Bartlett Park is a Type III model. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 3 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 The Shea Parkside vision : III-Conceived and Poorly Planned • Loss of wetlands • Increased traffic problems • Increased flood threat • Increased water pollution • Threat of home damage by subsidence • Fire response deficiencies • Numerous other concerns But we're here today to talk about the Shea vision, which only offers: •Loss of wetlands •More traffic •A greater flood threat •Potential damage to adjacent homes •More pollution •And fire response time deficiencies All of which outweighs potential infrastructure improvements Pretty compelling, eh? http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 4 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 It's Really a Wetlands! Three parameters for wetlands delineation: 1 . Hydric soils 2. Hydrophytic vegetation 3. Consecutive days of ponding water This property exhibits all three. The Coastal Commission only requires just one! http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 5 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Coastal Commission July 3, 2001 letter "Though the area may have contained wetlands in the late 1980's, the DFG (March 16, 1998) concurred with a wetland evaluation . . .that the 44 acre City Parcel did not currently meet wetland criteria." • The Commission merely acknowledges DFG's opinion and does not state whether the property meets Commission wetland criteria! Mary Beth Broeren of the HB Planning Department seriously misrepresented the contents of this letter at the October 7 2002 city council study session. The Commission is merely acknowledging DFG's opinion. This letter does NOT say that the Commission thinks the city parcel does not meet wetland criteria. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 6 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Where's the 1 00-foot setback? • Coastal Commission July 3, 2001 letter notes the potential for wetlands to exist in the County portion, and mentions the need for a 100- to 300-foot setback buffer • May 21 , 2002 LSA wetlands delineation study finds potential Commission wetlands in County portion, yet no setback is included in the tract map The letter states: "At this time, we also need to reiterate that the buffer between any residential development and wetland or other ESHA areas may not [be] limited to 100 feet. Depending on the resource values in the vicinity, Commission staff may recommend a buffer from 100 feet to 300 feet in width. Resource values are currently considered high in this area based on the necessity to preserve the wetlands and raptor habitat." http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 7 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 100-foot setbacks on the Count arcel t r / .:,9 yr .it'„ 1.,i ✓p SS/p�•ff'{!i ;/cYC,r- r_., '�•- .cr 7 r� r� r:•. ,:. .bl'J '*nw .�t+�'"'�,�yr X�l wtae`�< R.s""��-�<+t`1 •r�,s�y,�'� �1 r`�•r:✓" ", � r l w 1 � ✓ .3!� U 'r � ^S°et s• TY•�:"Fib' ,.. n` ,. -!._ 1 i 1 .>r"`}e����:` ���.. -�j� -�'�w� r �:8� g%- AJ, '�a � ��'��ar�-".• "-i.�e��c+`i� r';I�� � 1 r v 4 .,,�.. ,;.;r�s.,,r"S✓ +/,�r'`� ..�rt•^&, 9&`rr 7S1 >.' ,<r � � 1 r,� ♦♦ t... h I t� '� } ..•! Gw'��,_..'��'a �a ,,h �,,-» '���,'.T y h ..r..., i � �'�a �R,Y2.. J.�!♦ 1 t� :♦�� /. �*ry"� .�rr� / t r4,.>�a .. �1 C`cl .. ,lrli� db i'�♦ ; 9.0,�'�' 1 7 e.vt -�:% �•^ va•X S �• .M t Sa> r rv`''`_,/} '�{ Y i n 1 // � T' �' a 7n,•�._ [..,� � �, �7d,C:,47,E :C. S zA l ��. �..4-. n� 4., �.. ✓r .,�`_ of •� �t `�.-.�.,' y'•9 �s'rett't,, . +IWa as R. 1 •.> -• /�Y,T+ \,'ifs `•�♦ `1' ''� ����+ � .3} j}a r♦'LI/[jyy�k}iir`•••'Y.rd � 1 9i ,Y 1�ie1�_ t t♦ �����'.'�`^-Y• �n•�. LEGEND A—afft.O.Ju dki-MWdad, B.sdaaas�to,ieaw.m [[[ ♦ a �' ,�� i •y'�` " C' r _ I , 7,' ®Arw nM 01, Pondfey Brd 2r#3I�C".� ••'r�>tr<'�' ...----�.� � lf�Li-ss'rt•. � � ' wwr ou.c,..xaw •... Bau M Soarm:flunsaker&Associates i 'f��••1 •� END OF �H(VCMEf k. f'�i'h'�51-♦1 Map ,t•al)�.. + t t22MO(SH093 t) Figure 0 IV LA\ Scale i.Feet Parktide Fstates Tirwiue Tract Number 15#19 J � a 45 90 Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands The two 100-foot radius circles added to this County parcel wetlands map have been centered at the eastern edges of two of the wetlands with potential Coastal Commission jurisdiction. Note how the western edge of the Parkside development intrudes into the minimum 100-foot setback zone. Now imagine these circles have a 300-foot radius (the maximum potential Coastal Commission setback). This will essentially preclude ANY Shea development whatsoever on the County parcel! Current revised Shea plans have deleted Lot 4, but Lot 5 is still closer than 100 feet to the nearest wetland. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 8 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Hydric Soils May 21 2002 LSA report in EIR • Documents hydric soils on County portion, but speculatively dismisses the findings: — "may be remnants from a time prior to construction of the Wintersburg Channel" — "soils exhibiting hydric indicators were deposited on site, and were then intermixed with the native soil during past ground disturbance activities" (i.e. illegal dumping) • These assertions cannot be proven! • Ignores the likelihood these hydric soils result from current wetlands conditions http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 9 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Hydrophytic Vegetation • LSA uses the illegal dumping excuse to dismiss the presence of hydrophytic vegetation on the County portion (cannot be proven!) • EIR responses to comments dismiss hydrophytic vegetation by blaming it on seeds laying dormant for years and then suddenly sprouting in unusually wet years (DUHH !) When left fallow and undisturbed this property has always reverted to wetland characteristics. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 10 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Consecutive Days of Ponding Water See Dr. Jan Vandersloot's June 14, 1998 comment letter in EIR Volume III One of the three parameters for defining a wetland is the presence of ponding water for 18 or more consecutive days. Many of the following photographs originally appeared in Dr. Jan Vandersloot's June 14, 1998 comment letter that appears in the July 2002 Final EIR Volume III. Two things to keep in mind when viewing these photographs: 1. The photography was done during breaks in the rainstorms. Therefore, the first photo in a sequence might have been taken after a couple of days of rain, and any ponding present in the picture may have actually accumulated a few days earlier. 2. Water takes time to evaporate. Therefore, if the last photo in a sequence depicts a large pond, it will take several additional days to evaporate. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 11 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 16+ Consecutive Days of Ponding December 7, 1997 — December 22, 1997 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 12 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 7, 1997 a �9 �p �MEh 9 w,^ a ii 'n Ot liaui�ap.� 'l"G,x,�n e x w , m a q Note the presence of what appear to be seagulls or other water birds in the foreground pond. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 13 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 9, 1997 n 1 d .. w http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 14 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 13, 1997 a 4 _ MwAmw. �' •rh Y 7� h'e� # 'R its? Nitl 7 y a http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 15 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 14, 1997 r, ° http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 16 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 15, 1997 ;. d K4 IM r ww a r http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 17 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 16, 1997 afr u� `t a .s u4 n �" .4 a z c ft v '^ s ' , The mud is still quite wet in this picture. http://www.bixby.org/parksidc/ 18 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 17, 1997 f x 4 P r wy y W. or w A" ' d `` w x "" http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 19 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 18, 1997 a� > a„ � x m #M ,, 4, I http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 20 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 19, 1997 t mw 4 { r ry ,dam a http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 21 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 20, 1997 I� I �v r t 1 I I 1 http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 22 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 21 , 1997 http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 23 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 December 22, 1997 J Ag ': t n � i�* ea k i.'.4�� ��.�iF�ry p �"�& �`�'�•f�•t n'�,��'"d, i�� P. fiti } S� � �" '�� ' �; � s y•a3r� sti.� � T"�i cq� �•t#"J, � :Kt �,�,.�.�, http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 24 i Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 45 Consecutive Days of Ponding January 12, 1998 — February 26, 1998 http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 25 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 12, 1998 �. 1 y' i http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 26 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 14, 1998 � e a vm I�i ;tf http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 27 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 15, 1998 http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 28 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 16, 1998 s; ,� r 3 y y. � m A U � r y ffip� http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 29 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 17, 1998 IN WN i 4 ' Aw m , d1 k s �.Q g­ http://www.blxby.org/parks'lde/I�' �i�'3 f�r�h ✓.t N �"`i�i G� http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 30 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 18, 1998 �rXNi' , *. �rw F� o �w http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 31 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 19, 1998 r tea. a a t e v http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 32 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 January 20, 1998 r� y � r s, http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 33 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I January 21 , 1998 s ,,996' yr� v � ;} z� � � r✓ �f,�,cn'w ':� i ' s r+i �y �. e s Note the Canadian geese in the foreground and the great blue heron in the background. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 34 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Plus additional omitted photographs taken on the 10 days of January 22-31 , 1998 The copies of the photographs covering the period January 22-31, 1998 were included in Dr. Vandersloot's EIR comment letter, but the original copies were not available for this PowerPoint presentation. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 35 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1 February 1 , 1998 ry .' RaA 4 F'R'95 .^ ✓�i�.. (F) '`�:sFa�i 7; �'r�'^�'�, ,C e✓ C n s P http://www.bixby.org/parksidc/ 36 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 4, 1998 Mal } w ; r y .m s is .YA- �v..- . AdI Note the waterfowl swimming in the lake near the far shore. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 37 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 5, 1998 m ri���� a Ps http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 38 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 7, 1998 x �u erg ✓/ trR , H: 'A ✓ "4 W� 9.i friia P v � r+r s u rm L c xa, '.4. � A I I N•�f.. w ��. •• g� 1X# �'u mrs e f P: ✓�ly ...j http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 39 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 8, 1998 Al ALM- �FI a rvEEmy m i a f9r 9 httpJ/www.bixby.org/pai-kside/ 40 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 9, 1998 i e 4 a a �r o0 h ' F S I it I http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 41 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 10, 1998 j Anaclo k e' % %� yip vD i ,a •` . ,. ..'h`.... _'?'"-"... may; "is 1 rr v a a� s „ http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 42 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 12, 1998 NINE U=MM IN- man x +4� t µ http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 43 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I February 15, 1998 AL jw CA i http://w,ww.blxby.org/parks'ldci 44 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 16, 1998 �u r .i. 4 �k r M a N f is http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 45 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 19, 1998 � iC io Y fly.. ^'i' } fir:� •� mspt http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 46 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 February 24, 1998 01, IiA 14 r � .� x 2, �7 ��i� ,9y�'x '�•� ���b � Y�, e^ � f� fig" �_P�.'�+5`�`��y� 'a9 �.;� " �"� „k 'b 6✓ x http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 47 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i February 26, 1998 tugs' y v � 3 http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 48 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 A River Runs Through It (and so does illegal dumping of fill) As documented by 50 years of aerial photography http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 49 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Things to look for • The "ephemeral" channel running through !� the site, consistently visible over 30 years (only briefly mentioned by EIR) i • Substantial illegal fill dirt being dumped in the Smoky's Stables area near the Slater Pump Station bridge in order to raise land elevations • Correlation to daily rainfall records show consecutive days of ponding in many years (and not just El Nino years!) Consecutive days of ponding were calculated by using the photograph date to look up historical daily rainfall data for OC PFRD Los Alamitos station #170. The date of the photo was used as a starting point for moving BACKWARDS through the historical rainfall data until the beginning date of the storm sequence most likely to have produced the ponding. The number of days between the start of the likely storm sequence and the date of the photograph was declared to be the number of consecutive ponding days. This count was also extended FORWARDS if additional storms continued to fill the ponds after the photo was taken. However, this does not account for slow evaporation after the storms have ended. In all likelihood, some of the large ponds pictured may take an additional week or two to fully evaporate. So the number of consecutive ponding days are likely to be greater than what is listed at the top of the slides. See the July 2002 Final EIR Volume IIA Section 8 County parcel LSA wetlands delineation report for the detailed rainfall data used in this ponding analysis. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 50 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 12/26/52 - EIR ill, "ray K p, � �ry 6 EIR says: "12/26/52: City area: The subject property lies within a larger cleared area, extending further to the north, south and east of the site boundaries. Agricultural cultivation, as inferred from corrugated substrates (either disked or tilled), covers most of the land surface within Huntington Beach, except in the easternmost tip of the property (now under Graham Street) and along the western margin, below the bluffs, where more natural-appearing vegetation is present (the type of vegetation cannot be deduced from the photograph). Vehicle tracks, trails and some small clearings are visible within this area. There is no constructed development on the off-site knoll top. County area: the 5 acre Orange County ("Orange County") parcel is indistinguishable, in terms of its surface features and relative contiguity with surrounding habitats, from land to the south and west, most of which appears to be marshland, with some minor flow swales visible. Three broad roads transect the overall area on N-S alignments, and there is only a narrow canal separating the lands west of the project site from the more extensive (and evidently more disturbed) Bolsa Chica system to the south." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 51 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/24/59 — EIR — ponding 36+ days — way below avg season x� j r s i A w r< v h r 02/16/59 start of pond-making storm scquencc 03 24' 9 date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 36-+- consecutive days of ponding 5.55 inches season total EIR says: "3/24/59: Cite area: A­IleultUrC covers about the same extent of the area as in 1952: flooding is visible over most of the western portion of the site in this winter photo. A drainage swale, extending to the north from the site is evident. There is agriculture where the Kenilworth Street development is presently located. The off-site knoll top area is not yet developed. County area: The 5 acre Orange County parcel remains as it was in 1952." http:, ww«.b1xby.org/parksidc, 5? Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 5/1 /67 — ponding 32+ days — avg season y i 0 a ff y M o i 03/31/67 = start of pond-making storm sequence 05/01/67 =date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 32+ consecutive days of ponding 11.72 inches season total Note the sinuous streambed feature running parallel to the Wintersburg Channel. This is referred to as the "ephemeral" channel in many developer documents,but it is clearly visible through most of the 40-year history documented by these aerial photographs. Note the large lake adjacent to the eucalyptus trees. Note that a slightly raised roadbed is the only topographic disturbance near the bridge in what is otherwise a flat piece of property. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 53 Neighbors for WintersbUrg Wetlands Restoration October >4` 7007 ZZ WIN te di 0|/|0/70 = start u[pond-making storm sequence U|/3|/7O = date o[photograph _____________________ 2Zfoonoecuiivcduyxn[pondiog 044iuchos season total [|RVo\ U Section 5.Qsays: °1/31/70: City area: The East Garden Grove VVin{erobxrg Channel has been constructed oinco the 1959 photo, with its alignment bisecting the original agricultural fio|dx (still visible below the channel). The western portion of the site below the knoll is flooded, and the fields appear fallow, with anoivvork oF minor flow lines and depressions evident. The remnant marshland area is a|/noa1 entirely within Orange Cooniy. /\ narrow area, approximately 25' x 250', bc1v/ocn a [unn road and the levee (which as cultivated in the 1959 photo) now exhibits patchy vegetation which may be pick|cvvoud, although the areas has been pcoounoni|y iao|u<cd from the larger nnumh|unds of Bolsa Chica by the flood control channel. The Kenilworth tract and a portion of the off-site knoll top are uo`A, developed. County area: The 5 acre county parcel shows little evidence of activity or use. Most o[the road syu1crn `vbirh formerly passed through the site was eliminated by construction of the [uoi Garden Grove nVin1crshurgChunnc|." Note that theE|F n/n/n /zuo \hcoircuuh d |e turobycol|/ng /� a "network of nz///or Unp lin es and dcprceuiona" (]n the contrary, this image ia quite dramatic. Yet this will he the only E|R nooniiono[the strcumhod. Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 6/28/70 - E I R g _ a. " n�+ I, 0"M L { EIR says: "6/28/70: City area: The entire 44 acre area, extending off-site up onto the knoll (but with the exception of the eucalyptus trees), has been recently tilled, with soil furrows narrow and cross-hatched. County area: The aforementioned clearing extends southwest into the 5 acres Orange County parcel, to the dirt access roadway crossing between the knoll and the channel. There also is a linear swath of disturbance visible as a white band across me middle of the vegetated area." http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 55 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 10/26/73 - EIR Z� � � r b ^ z t w x 1 e " ^ EIR says: "10/26/73: City area: Heavy, curvilinear contour furrows are visible over the entire site except in an otherwise disturbed area in the southwestern corner. The furrows extend over the top of knoll, leaving only the eucalyptus trees undisturbed. Activities associated with a roadway traversing the southwestern corner of the site and crossing the channel appear to have cleared about one-half of the vegetation patch detected in the 1/31/70 photo. County area: The eastern portion of the 5 acre parcel exhibits substantial recent disturbance." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 56 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/17/75 - EIR '0�3 {r. �a � e $q r 11[ r N N Ya r�7 '� •/' ti .�i v , x � r• +�; k � vim. *" ��_���- ",, EIR says: "2/17/75: City area: The entire site, including the off-site knoll, appears to have been recently tilled, furrows straight; stables now visible at foot of knoll. County area: Remnant vegetation in the 5 acre Orange County parcel appears to have recovered slightly from 1973 clearing." http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 57 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 12/28/76 - EIR 'gyp d R i - r r r AAn EIR says: "l2/28/76: City area: Entire site (except SW corner) again appears to have recently been tilled and/or disced. A large pad of freshly-spread soils covers the southwestern corner area, just east of stables. County area: Evidence of vehicle entry (tracks), and vegetation appears very fragmented, with high degree of disturbance in eastern portion." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 58 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/24/78 — ponding 30+ days - way above avg season x i z _ 3Y �rF ; ' 9a I i Yij � i � E n i @ c x 4 w- 12/26/77 = start of pond-making storm sequence 01/24/78 =date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 30+ consecutive days of ponding 22.09 inches season total The area adjacent to the eucalyptus trees is very dark, and is likely evidence of ponding. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 59 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 12/14/78 — EIR — ponding 31 + days — above avg season v fY w J 1 1/14/78 start of pond-making storm sequence 12/14/78 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 3 1+ consecutive days ofponding 13.07 inches season total EIR says: "12/14/78: City area: Agricultural areas appear to have been deeply plowed in diagonal pattern (SW/NE); standing water evident in low areas below eucalyptus grove, along alignment of shallow Swale and within arena under construction near stables, surrounded soils with unidentified mottling effect. County area: No changes evident from prior conditions." http://www.blxby.org/parks'lde/ 60 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/25/80 — EIR — ponding 29+ days — above avg season dM R^ t 3 � 5 I.. r r p ,r. v 01/28/80 = start of pond-making storm sequence 02/25/80 =date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 29+ consecutive days of pending 16.37 inches season total The EIR says: "2/25/80: City area: Fields appear to have been left fallow, but row lines now run east-west, so it has been re-tilled since 1978 photo; water standing in western portion. Arena site shows little evidence of use. County area: New vehicle intrusion evident, although effects on vegetation are not clearly discernible due to photo quality." Note that the streambed feature is not evident, but the first signs of the stables are visible. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 61 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14. 2002 1/31/81 — E I R — ponding 4+ days — below avg season w : rwY sv r r O1/28/81 = start of pond-making storm sequence O 1/3 1/81 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 4+ consecutive days of ponding 7.97 inches season total EIR says: "1/31/81: City area: Fields and slopes are cleared and freshly tilled or disced. Arena has a visible fence around perimeter, and there are other graded features nearby (one rectangular, one elliptical); some water standing in low end of arena. County area: Area appears to have been lightly cleared; vegetation less evident than in earlier photos (due to photo quality)." http://www.blxby.org/parkslde/ 62 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/15/81 — ponding 20+ days - way below avg season Sr 4 er G s 3 � , v t' P, rr„ sr Mpr td T y.. 03101/81 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/15/81 = date of photograph 03/20/81 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 20+ consecutive days of ponding 7.97 inches season total Streambed reappears. Ponding evident in western portion. Increased land disturbance in the stables area. Signs of illegal fill dumping piles. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 63 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/19/82 — ponding 22+ days — avg season Aw r yam, f , e � ' 03/12/82 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/19/82 = date of photograph 04/02/82= end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 22+ consecutive days of ponding 9.87 inches season total A very large lake adjacent to the eucalyptus trees. Additional ponding visible next to the Wintersburg Channel. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 64 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/19/83 — EIR — ponding 37+ days — way above avg seas. fa s a 6 . AM � 3� o� �F� � "� � I i ' t o✓�U�841.,a� �x r n" y o k r✓i�„'tiW'Y 'siI' k r a , f 4 E"i R t e 01/23/83 = start of pond-making storm sequence 02/19/83 =date of photograph 02/28/83 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 37+ consecutive days of ponding 17.87 inches season total The EIR says: "2/19/83: City area: Fields again appear recently plowed, in a diagonal pattern, and western end appears saturated below eucalyptus grove. The arena appears more developed, and has a trench (?) around it; numerous "spots," which may be piles of fill or other material are apparent in the area between the arena and channel. County area: Grading and development more extensive on knoll top off-site, and condominiums being constructed on land north of the eastern knoll margin." Note the numerous piles of illegally dumped fill. Note also that the vegetation seems to be more robust in the streambed area. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 65 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 4/14/83 — way above avg season n. V ti http://www.blxby.org/parkslde/ 66 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 4/7/84 — ponding 2+ days — way below avg season MP s k ` IDS 4 } f G° d e � { it fair t } i e- v y: i s� 04/06/84 = start of pond-making storm sequence 04/07/84 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 2+ consecutive days of ponding 7.93 inches season total Original road alignment from the bridge almost completely gone. Signs of ponding in the upper right corner. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 67 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i 12/11/85 — ponding 26+ days — avg season ® w 11/25/85 = start of pond-making storm sequence 12/11/85 = date of photograph 12/20/85 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 26+ consecutive days of ponding 11.63 inches season total http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 68 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/19/86 — EIR — ponding 11 + days — avg season wig i p 3 g r � i der a t s en d 6 Po, j n h 1 ¢me s 03/09/86 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/19/86 =date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 11+ consecutive days of pending 11.63 inches season total EIR says: "3/19/86: City area: Agricultural field area completely cleared to open soils, with heavy diagonal till lines, some evidence of standing water north of stables; off-site knoll not disked; activity around stable and arena areas more extensive, with piles of fill (if that is what they were) no longer evident,perhaps having been spread on site. County area: Vehicle activity and some surface clearing evident in eastern portion of 5 acre parcel, possibly removing a small area of patchy vegetation." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 69 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/9/87 - EIR — rain 1/4/87 — way below avg season s f 2 s� �1✓ N �'zf � G � '° EIR says: "1/9/87 and 1/21/87: City area: Agricultural fields appear evenly vegetated (crops"), with east - west till lines in first photo, new clearing and grading across lower 1/3 of fields and onto knoll on 21 st. County area: Area heavily used in both photos, with abundant evidence of vehicles and grading; some small structures placed in eastern end of site, apparently part of stable expansion. " http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ ?0 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/21/87 — E I R — rain 1/4/87 — way below avg season aE 9 s i I � _ dyry rva � Qa+ 1 1 a , u ' Ar � a it fti� x � E rJ, EIR says: "1/9/87 and 1/21/87: City area: Agricultural fields appear evenly vegetated (crops?), with east - west till lines in first photo, new clearing and grading across lower 1/3 of fields and onto knoll on 21 st. County area: Area heavily used in both photos, with abundant evidence of vehicles and grading; some small structures placed in eastern end of site, apparently part of stable expansion. " http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 71 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/20/87 — ponding 15+ days — way below avg season x� a $ 2 / s v x m i a s lt Hs, z r. 4 02/10/87 start of pond-making storm sequence 02/20/87 date of photograph 02/24/87 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 15+ consecutive days of ponding 5.21 inches season total Ponding visible in the area pointed to by the arrow. Note that the fill area to the right of this ponding seems to be at a slightly higher elevation. Also note the apparent ground saturation adjacent to the eucalyptus trees. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 72 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 July 1987 OEM ti � a s a� w a q r, , i a _ yi T+ . A dramatic picture showing the clearly defined streambed feature. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 73 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/24/88 — EIR - rain 1/17/88 — way below avg season ,w N' i I 1 11 u R ti s n e „ F e m E1R says: "1/24/88: City area: Fields entirely cleared and disked, with cross-hatched tilling lines visible, except for a small rectangular area along the southern margin, where mottled vegetation formation is present. County area: Activity around arena and eastern portion of 5 acre site is more extensive and appears to have been expanding steadily since 1986." Note that the buildup of Fill east of the arena is now big enough to cast a shadow on the north edge of the pile. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 74 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/11/88 — rain 2/2/88 — way below avg season x 'M P 5� t � o u n a e K } y fi e � TRH � r �m a s 3 Remnants of the Slater Pump Station bridge roadbed still visible on the property. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 75 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/30/89 — EIR — rain 1/24/89 — way below avg season t Ir a -A a t, EIR says: "1/30/89: City area: Slopes and field area recently disked, with multiple turn-around lines visible across center of field; development around arena even more extensive, with buildings, parking areas and three smaller arenas visible. County area: No change in shape or extent of disturbance within vegetation patches; area off disturbance around stables extends into the 5 acre Orange County parcel." Note that more fill has been added near the bridge, and the old roadbed had been completely obliterated by the surrounding raised terrain. http://www.blxby.org/parks'lde/ 76 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 10/27/89 — rain 10/21/89 — way below avg season n �r N r The arrow points to the edge of the raised fill area. Note the dramatic height difference. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 77 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/27/90 — rain 1/13/90 — way below avg season �s ZI i r � rW znV „ aim t http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 78 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/15/90 - EIR — rain 3/12/90 — way below avg season u �14 r w c S 4 i t ✓ 3 gip' � �C Y v ,,�{I. n p M x#I e rg y - a e ,,:. ..«.. 'Fw# a -4' a �:_ ✓ ,:. EIR says: "3/15/90: City area: Field and slope area shows evidence of disking since 1989 photo, as alignment of furrows has changed, but Spring weed growth has covered most of surface, except along lower margin,' where disturbance or soil deposition has kept substrate patchily clear. County area: No change in shape or extent of vegetation from previous photo." http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 79 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/14/91 — El R — rain 1/3/91 — below avg season N y'v5$j WyQG 3 f f r� e s� z f T 4 lid EIR says: "1/14/91: City area: No evidence of clearing or grading since 1990 photo, and most of the structures and activity areas around arena site are gone or appear abandoned. Vegetation on fields appears thin, some shrub cover evident. County area: No significant change in shape or extent of development or disturbance to vegetation since previous photo." http://www.bixby.org/parksldc/ 80 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/8/92 — EIR — rain 12/28/91 — avg season r., F f. 3 V �I e a = y.a e � � P n Zs . e' 1 y N h= u k P 66 R i tt T I P� EIR says: "1/8/92 and 1/24/92: City area: Fields appear vegetated, and there are no recent till lines evident. Activity area around stables and arena is still extensive,but photos do not show facilities clearly; areas appears largely to have been abandoned. County area: Eastern end of area bare where disturbed in prior years." Streambed feature reemerges. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 81 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/9/92 - rain 12/28/91 — avg season a �w a p " < y aw t http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 82 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1 /24/92 — EI R — rain 1 /3/92 — avg season � TY t � , r' ''ter f , -Y s , EIR says: "1/8/92 and 1/24/92: City area: Fields appear vegetated, and there are no recent till lines evident. Activity area around stables and arena is still extensive, but photos do not show facilities clearly; areas appears largely to have been abandoned. County area: Eastern end of area bare where disturbed in prior years." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 83 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I 3/4/92 — ponding 29+ days — avg season 4 44, q "11A sf t H / 4 02/07/92 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/04/92 = date of photograph 03/06/92 =end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 29+ consecutive days of ponding 11.39 inches season total Dramatic view of the very prominent streambed feature. Ponding evident alongside the Wintersburg Channel near the fill mound, and also in the horse arena. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 84 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/3/93 — E I R — rain 12/28/92 — way above avg season .t. r� r as F i e T k i S � E EIR says: "1/3/93 and 5/14/93: City area: Field appears to not have been tilled recently, but vegetation present is thin and patchy, with shrubs evident along southern portion. No water visible. The second photo is the only one taken in late Spring. Agricultural areas patchily vegetated, some larger shrubs evident, and no till lines visible. Arena appears abandoned, stables and disturbance footprint retracted somewhat. County area: Slight increase in density of patchy pickleweed vegetation formation (compared with 1980s) in western portion." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 85 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/10/93 — ponding 62+ days — way above avg season h n d w t"*a� vox 12/28/92 = start of pond-making storm sequence 02/10/93 =date of photograph 02/27/93 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 62+ consecutive days of ponding 17.87 inches season total Serious ponding illustrating the raised elevation of the fill "island" near the bridge. Additional ponding visible near the eucalyptus trees. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 86 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 5/14/93 — EIR — rain 3/26/93 — way above avg season k d L � .,tea k EIR says: "1/3/93 and 5/14/93: City area: Field appears to not have been tilled recently, but vegetation present is thin and patchy, with shrubs evident along southern portion. No water visible. The second photo is the only one taken in late Spring. Agricultural areas patchily vegetated, some larger shrubs evident, and no till lines visible. Arena appears abandoned, stables and disturbance footprint retracted somewhat. County area: Slight increase in density of patchy pickleweed vegetation formation (compared with 1980s) in western portion." http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 87 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1 /3/94 — EIR — rain 12/12/93 — below avg season i 4 „ „� Sv Y " EIR says: "1/3/94: City area: Vegetation on fields and slopes has been cleared since 5/14/93 photo, with soils exposed over most of the area; arena and stable areas also appear to have been lightly cleared. County area: Vegetation patches easily detectable by the characteristic "rusty" coloration of the pickleweed.- http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 88 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/14/94 — rain 3/6/94 — below avg season 91 Wi _ r w.n° it a at7i „ " r � "'d �- r� m r _y I 4 Another nice view of the streambed feature. Note how the streambed feature and the 8 acres near the eucalyptus trees have the same vegetation coloring, indicating increased water availability. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 89 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/28/95 — EIR — ponding 26+ days — way above avg seas. ; P s P.. s px 9 O1/03/95 = start of pond-making storm sequence O1/28/95 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 26+ consecutive days of ponding 18.42 inches season total EIR says: "1/26/95, 1/28/95 (combined for purposes of analysis) and 3/27/95: City area : Fields appear to have been disced in January photos, but probably several months earlier, as some shrubs are visible, although less extensively arrayed than in 1993. Area appears very wet, the arena is overgrown with weeds and there is little sign of use around the stables. March photo shows a slight decrease in the extent of standing water, no change in field condition or cover. County area: Vegetation patches difficult to assess due to darkness of photos, but no evidence of changes in extent or shape from previous photo. " http://www.blxby.org/parkside/, 90 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 March 1995 x A3� y # v a5 s £ a f" N s Saturated ground noted near the fill mound and the eucalyptus trees. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 91 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/27/95 — EIR — ponding 22+ days — way above avg season WAU 03/06/95 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/27/95 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 22+ consecutive days of ponding 18.42 inches season total EIR says: "1/26/95, 1/28/95 (combined for purposes of analysis) and 3/27/95: City, area : Fields appear to have been disced in January photos, but probably several months earlier, as some shrubs are visible, although less extensively arrayed than in 1993. Area appears very wet, the arena is overgrown with weeds and there is little sign of use around the stables. March photo shows a slight decrease in the extent of standing water, no change in field condition or cover. County area: Vegetation patches difficult to assess due to darkness of photos, but no evidence of changes in extent or shape from previous photo." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 92 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/19/96 — ponding 29+ days — below avg season i y v q 9. 02/20/96 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/19/96 = date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 29+ consecutive days of ponding 7.33 inches season total Saturation strongly evident near the eucalyptus trees. Good definition of the streambed feature. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 93 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1/29/97 — ponding 33+ days — avg season a r „ 12/28/96 start of pond-making storm sequence 01/29/97 date of photograph ----------------------------------------- 33+ consecutive days of ponding 10.60 inches season total Serious ponding again illustrates the raised elevation of the fill mound. http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 94 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2/14/97 — rain 2/11/97 — avg season H g r wx r a n i y http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 95 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 3/10/98 — ponding 28+ days — way above avg season r c a ^ u c t � i a ^ � m s� t a a 02/15/98 = start of pond-making storm sequence 03/10/98 date of photograph 03/14/98 = end of pond-filling storm sequence ----------------------------------------- 28+ consecutive days of ponding 20.77 inches season total http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 96 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Total precipitation for seasons with 18 or more consecutive days of ponding 25 20 -- 15 10 5 0 58- 66- 69- 77- 78- 79- 80- 81- 40 82- 85- 91- 92- 94- 95- 96- 97- 59 67 70 78 79 80 81 82 yr 83 86 92 93 95 96 97 98 avg Shea tends to blame incriminating wetlands-supporting hydrological data on Big Bad El Nino. However, this chart of total season rainfall for each documented ponding season shows that such ponding can occur in seasons of below average rainfall, average rainfall, and above average rainfall. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 97 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i But Shea had a problem -- too much proof of ponding ! Solution: Fill in the ponding areas! i http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 98 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 "Farming" or illegal grading? You decide! April 22, 1998 (rain March 26) v � * '' ', � �-` •� A^ , + ^, � y F a* � � d i' 0 If this is "farming", then they are apparently also "farming" with the same bulldozer equipment at the new Sports Park south of the Huntington Beach Central Library. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 99 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 With not one bulldozer, but two! April 22, 1998 i u `'w`.4 � i ,N,: ij r; # 4 w ate?� ��, ✓�`"��'"` +�. "' o «aaa'kx.*^Are# w �.�,� �'*�M., ��' °✓ .��' ` http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 100 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Note the elevation difference between the bulldozer and the ponding li- t. ✓ � a H b �N ..ice ✓'N Yw�Cb'w� 'dye � �' p4 flkr 4 fi Kj, F m w http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 101 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Now you see it -- March 10, 1998 �r r x S s � t The well-defined fill mound casts a nice shadow along its northern edge. littp://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 102 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Now you don't — late 1999 or 2000 A y � A s xi G I' y re s4 µ IIiIIN�p �j N s. w w a The fill mound has largely disappeared, having been regraded and redistributed into areas of the property that used to be subject to ponding. But note that soil saturation still appears to persist in the fill-in areas. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 103 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 April 25, 2002 .:,.c.-�., �., ..1.�� 4".�'�,'�` �`" �I°��.�"• r Atli 11 w i I ii �G "�4�d� J�� ....r^.'"s�'; .1.....�� 6w tP�� Jll�' ::. G"xt'�✓' !w-ww'TM.,s✓ !A"" ate' ",�'^_. � �t �. Ya�n^T x ""i"u Another view showing the absence of the fill mound after it had been spread around. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 104 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i i I i But the ponding still persisted . . . http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 105 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 March 14 , 2001 " a Sr i This tractor spent several weeks stuck in the middle of this large lake. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 106 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 March 18, 2001 k 44 og, S101111 IV FIS i --Ai I " �,1 1, ';�� z a Est +• � �� � .� r r http://www.blxby.org/parksidc/ 107 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I March 23 2001 vt AIJ k 6 e y e P o P The ponding persisted for quite some time this season. The photographs don't cover the whole period, but the large lake lasted for about 3 weeks. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ log Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 The solution to incriminating ponding? More "farming" with bulldozers! http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 109 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i March 28 2001 Yet again, we see two bulldozers working to fill in that pesky ponding area. http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 110 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Selective Soil/Water Testing Avoided the "interesting" locations http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 111 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Need Soil Tests in Subsidence Zone d >o � A tt D � " • x s _ , Sf i F r y ty i This is a composite image created from an aerial photograph superimposed with the 4 pages of soil test maps from the EIR. If you look closely in the circled subsidence zone where the streambed feature touches the Kenilworth homes, you see a complete absence of any soil testing! Given the confirmed presence of active soil changes in this area, you would have thought it should be singled out for EXTRA testing. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 112 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Insufficient Testing for PCBs in Soil • "No transformers" assumed to mean no PCBs There has been no soil testing to date to check for PCBs • This seems grossly irresponsible given the proximity to the confirmed PCB dumping ground at the end of Graham Street CA DTSC has been contacted . . . http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 113 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Water test pit locations — March 1997 N 4 w; e r _ r 3 z a f q r a Y j na V` g{ 1 Y Y r N" r i y � n a llY,f. a v This is a composite image created from an aerial photograph superimposed with the water test pit map from the EIR. Note how the 3 test pits were chosen for areas free from ponding. Note also how the streambed feature is avoided, as well as the large ponding area next to the eucalyptus trees. It doesn't look like they were very serious about understanding the hydrology of this property. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 114 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Tidal ly-i nfl uenced groundwater , 1 /+ m4, �'� r 4 �� -J�r 'S}�° r�yx � 51 v �� \ i� ��`r � �✓'' � /-`�„y -7°�.v�, i �( � �r &a'j( a S„�S t�N' Ic. '1 �.;-r ✓ y I pre�<< G� i k ASf H'.1yw,s' �f Rr� t a P -,I `� Rs p y, M'`,r g6�,, r �7.zl ��%° `��, u)+�`� -e�a�IZY� �;a ,A ���!*�L3an�,�,t'°• ° ty �' } 1� �i' �,/-2��rM"r'� � �1��t ee cif��� _, �"'��J rye. l � r•�. ,�"4 1.,� ���� �4..�� }� y-�; ' X i WeNa di 0 e -.2 �1;5; ..; a 4 � Y �y � ry ^! -• � e t, �l�1 J't �•'�'�'"��01! t1�010t s�01116dlN011 WINOIId{ � � M 'o i B I a J. B M PSuurce:Iiunsekcr no Jl,'. 11 5•l�"t KDr��2,eR 11/22/ONSH0931) Figure 9 N LA se.m i-Feel Po,U&bf.w 7 Wme Tact Number 15419 V\ A o as so Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands The LSA wetlands delineation for the County portion did thorough groundwater testing and determined that tidal influence is present. We believe a similarly thorough study needs to be done on the City portion. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 115 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 LSA Report Inaccurate Regarding "prior converted croplands" • E I R erroneously states that in 1992 Army Corps said that there were no wetlands i • Army Corps really just said that they could not exercise jurisdiction • "Prior converted croplands" designation is irrelevant to the Coastal Commission, which uses a different set of definitions i http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 116 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Prior Converted Croplands or Farmed Wetlands? • Prior Converted Cropland — inundation less than 15 consecutive days • Farmed Wetlands — inundation for 15 or more consecutive days (subject to CWA Section 404 regulations) in at least 51 % of rain seasons • Our current photographic database can prove Farmed Wetlands status in 44% of seasons since 1966-1967 Initial analysis of aerial photography suggests that the "Prior Converted Croplands" area of the city parcel meets the definition of"Farmed Wetlands" 44% of the time since 1966-1967. Further analysis will be conducted after obtaining additional aerial photographs. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 117 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 A New Wetlands Delineation is Overdue for the City Parcel • Delineations are only valid for 5 years, and the last one is getting old: — 11/23/96 first site visit (nearly 6 years ago) — 07/11/97 amended final draft (over 5 years ago) — 11/20/97 last site visit (4 years 11 months ago) — 12/17/97 Lisa Kegarice delineation letter sent (4 years 10 months ago) http://www.bixby,org/parksidc/ 118 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 New Delineation Justified by Sloppy Work and New Evidence • Coastal Commission has not said they agree with the old delineation • Sloppy water table testing the first time • New aerial ponding evidence http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 119 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Kegarice used the WRONG delineation manual in 1997! • 1987 USACE delineation manual was used • Hydric soil info was obsoleted in 1992 • 1994 Memorandum of Understanding said that the National Food Safety Act Manual (NFSAM) will be used for federal delineations of agricultural land • NFSAM updated in 1996 with "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils" • A new delineation must be performed using NFSAM ! http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 120 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I Buried Secrets — July 13 , 2001 Or, Indiana Jones and the Storm Drain of Doom http://www.blxby.org/parks]de/ 121 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 The map shows the existing 60 storm d ra i n , Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City o££luntington Beach EXISTING 60"RCP — — ■ FUTURE EXTENSION .—.I TOt$E'cINTURCEPTED - RY O`I'HFRS � .rr -ar°ll' ''sa■''�e — OPOSET)-NEW�MfADD �;,�,� PROPOSE D NEW 60"LINE � t d V ft t— tXi i l L' 0 , 1 i �( PROPOSED iEW V , �r 7 r\ , za,II[rrF � . \o , r' t \ '\a ----INTERCEPT THE "RCP AT THIS C �ROPORAHAM STREET(102") SED NEW LINE LOC�ION WITH FROM KENILWORTH,DRIVE P0R0 ONED�NEW TO PROJECT ENTRY All project documents to date show a simple 60"reinforced concrete pipe storm drain running under the northern boundary of the property. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 122 I Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Shea contractors dug several deep holes near the storm drain P t � h x 6� v http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 123 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Bricks & quick-set mortar were installed down in the holes t � r. � c �yr�5 1 ✓� Sw http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 124 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Public Works denies all knowledge HB DPW initially said it is a County drain • County said it is a City drain • HB DPW then agreed it is a City drain, but had no idea of what work was being done • HB DPW then surmised that Shea was merely confirming the location of the drain But later that night, the truth is discovered! Unfortunately this is a sadly typical interaction between the Department of Public Works and the residents it is supposed to serve. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 125 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Indiana Jones and i The Storm Drain of Doom • A member of the loyal opposition enters the storm drain after midnight to explore • Apparently there are multiple southerly extensions (leach lines) of this drain running under the Shea property • The Shea contractors had bricked off these extensions in order to prevent water from the main drain from flowing under the Shea property http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 126 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 The map neglects to mention the leach lines that are now sealed Bricked-off leach lines Parkside Estates EIR 97-2 City offluntington Beach EXISTING 60"RCP ,= f>,\,. �pn FUTURE EXTENSION TO:BEcINTERCEPTED 1 BY OTHERS_`__ ,m _ r _ )11k� - ♦' E A OSWIlNEWZ�IN � � y s — D T 70 CD , . E NOT6T03SCA LE. J i:a I .ROPOSED� �, I 'A PROPOSED NEE t20"LINE \ `\ �� i \ j\ \ i •roc � ?� \ ^\�� ' �y. �.zv:-, `� '' �.,�`'.' � \ OV\' `. + \ )j \\ `` \ —INTERCEPT THE 60"RCP AT THIS t \ \ PROPOSED NEW LINE LOCATIQN WITH LV GRAHAM STREET(102") PROPOSED NEW FROM KENILWORTH DRIVE 102"LINE TO PROJECT ENTRY Gosh, I wonder why these southerly extensions are not shown on any of the EIR maps? Please note these extensions are NOT TO SCALE. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 127 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I 1 I I I Shea -- Guilty of: • Tampering with the state of a wetland whose status is still subject to legitimate debate? • Performing work on city storm drains without a permit? • Unethical behavior that should not be implicitly sanctioned by the City of HB? These actions cast doubt on all parties involved. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 128 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Wetlands Summary • Proven ponding tendencies (not just El Nino years) • Repeated, unpermitted actions by Shea to prevent future ponding • Sloppy, improper, no longer valid wetlands delineation of the city parcel • EIR should not be certified without a new wetlands delineation for the city parcel http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 129 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i I � I Water Quality Issues http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ l��� Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Hidden Negative Water Quality Impacts • Parkside adds significant new runoff to the Slater Channel • More frequent Slater pumping will be needed to maintain the -6 ft MSL elevation • Slater pollution will enter the Wintersburg Channel more frequently than today • Resulting in extra days of pollution for Bolsa Chica & Huntington Harbour The September 9th Coastal Commission letter raised several important water quality issues. But one that has not been discussed so far is that Parkside runoff will cause nasty Slater Channel pollution to be pumped into the Wintersburg Channel more frequently than today, ultimately worsening conditions in Huntington Harbour. http://www,blxby.org/parkside/ 131 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Solution : Move the New Pumps to the North Bank of the Wintersburg • WIN — costs less to build • WIN — doesn't send extra Slater pollution to Huntington Harbour • WIN — superior safety by not relying on Slater Pump Station as a single point of failure • WIN — all maintenance expenses whatsoever could be funded via Improvement District But don 't forget that County pump permit! The win-win-win-win solution to this problem is easy -put the new pumps in a new pump station at Parkside Lot O for a direct connection to the Wintersburg Channel. A County permit is REQUIRED no matter where those new pumps end up. Don't let Bob Dingwall's meek exterior fool you this issue is not going to go away. ;-) We have a close working relationship with our friends in County Flood Control, and this issue is definitely on their radar screen too. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 132 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 What's that awful smell??? Hx6t6,g D.,_Ped A—-21.gA.— Abandoned Existing 60"RCP 44J � say East Carden Grove Wintershurg Channel 609 Slater Channel Slater Pump Station EIR Volume IIA, Section 5, page 4-1 Buried deep in the EIR original water quality report is a statement that stagnant water will collect at the circled nodes in the drainage system and may possibly produce odor problems within the development: "Although the storm drain system is designed to accommodate the flow during the 100-year storm event, it has certain deficiencies during non-storm periods. Water elevation in the Slater Channel during non-storm periods is frequently higher than the invert elevations of the storm drains at Nodes 250,211 and 608. The flap gate at node 609 is provided to minimize the reverse flow from the Slater Channel to the storm drain system during non- storm periods. Even if the flap gate is fully leak proof, dry weather flow from on-site and off-site areas is expected to accumulate within the storm drain system. This may create anaerobic conditions and produce odor problems within the development. Further, during early stages of a storm when this severely degraded dry weather flow finds its way to the Slater Channel it will adversely impact the quality of water in the downstream channels." Yet these odors are not mentioned amongst the various impacts in the main section of the EIR, nor are any mitigations offered. Consultants at the September 24th Planning Commission meeting denied that these odors were anything out of the ordinary. Yet if that is the case, why the special mention here? http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 133 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 September 20t" Coastal Commission letter on water ualit a Y "fundamentally flawed" used inaccurate data and assumptions" "there will not be 45% area-wide reductions" "impacts to Huntington Harbour. . . have not been fully considered" "impacts to the Bolsa Chica Reserve have [not] been fully considered" The September 20th Coastal Commission letter rather strongly condemns the water quality analysis in the Final EIR. The Coastal Commission isn't telling you how to vote here, but I think the quote "fundamentally flawed" is a rather strong hint! http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 134 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Water Pollutant TMDLs are Coming for Huntington Harbour • 303(d) pollutant limits will be established in the 2006-2010 timeframe, according to the Santa Ana RWQCB • Adding Parkside pollution today will make it harder and more expensive to meet these limits tomorrow • HB will be stuck paying the clean-up bill, not Shea! TMDL pollutant limits will be coming soon for Huntington Harbour. Adding Parkside pollution today will make it harder and more expensive to meet these limits tomorrow. HB will be stuck paying the clean-up bill, not Shea! http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 135 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i I Drainage/Hydrology Issues http://www.blxby.org/parks'lde/" 136 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 City/County Disagreement on Slater Pump Station permits • Bob Ri hetti and other city staff insists no permits are needed for the new Shea pumps • But the County insists that permits are REQUIRED! — 05/27/98 County letter DEIR comment — 09/04/02 County letter to Public Works • City still denies the permits are required To this day, the city INSISTS that no such permits are needed to add the new Shea pumps to the Slater Pump Station. bttp://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 137 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Lack of Cooperation • City insists the original 1964 Slater Pump Station permit covers new Shea pumps • Though conditions have changed greatly in the past 4 decades, no new permit will be sought from the County • The County has ultimate authority over the Wintersburg, a key piece of public safety infrastructure which doesn't meet modern design standards, and should be consulted The 1964 permit for the Slater Pump Station covers the first two pumps. A 1967 rider covers the third pump. When I asked Bob Righetti of FIB Public Works Engineering how come pumps 4 and 5 aren't mentioned,he replied: "The original 1964 permit was for the construction of 8 full bays with flap gates and outfall structures. What was not included in the construction at that time was the installation of the pumps. At that point in time,the two Pumps were deemed adequate to pump the flows getting to the station, and any additional pumps were in excess of the existing condition. When the third pump was added, the request for a permit rider for the pump was submitted to the County as a courtesy. However, since that time it has been the city's understanding and operational position that a rider for each pump is not needed since it is the actual connection to the county, i.e., the bays and outlet gates that require a permit, which we have with the original permit and construction. Therefore, no permit was needed, or requested, from the county for pumps four and five. We will not be obtaining a permit for any additional pumps installed with the development of the Parkside Estates." Simply astounding. The City is apparently unwilling to cooperate with the County when clearly both parties should have an interest in close communication regarding the Wintersburg Channel, a key piece of public safety infrastructure that unfortunately does not meet modern design standards. There is simply no justification the City can give for this stance that is going to reassure 1113 residents who live near the Slater Pump Station. Do not"back door" these new pumps on a 40-year old permit; the County needs to be consulted during the planning process, and a new County permit should be obtained for these pumps prior to construction. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 13 8 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Evading the Safety Limits? • County required an automated stilling well throttle-back sensor for the Shields Pump Station to protect the Wintersburg • No County permit and no such sensor is planned for the Slater Pump Station • The Slater Pump Station should be held to the same modern safety standards as the Shields Pump Station! It is simply untenable for the city to maintain that the Slater Pump Station is not subject to modern County safety standards designed to prevent the Wintersburg Channel from overflowing. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 139 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i Increased Flood Threat: Another Deficient EIR Analysis s • Parkside adds to runoff in Slater Channel, so the pump station will be expanded . . . • . . . but the County may require throttle-back limits to protect the Wintersburg Channel from overflowing • Therefore if the Wintersburg is full, the new Slater pumps may not operate, thus increasing the risk of a Slater Channel flood which is not analyzed by the EIR Parkside runoff will be directed to an expanded Slater Pump Station. But the County might impose throttle- back limits on these new pumps to protect the Wintersburg. So in the cases where the new pumps won't be allowed to operate, Parkside actually WORSENS the Slater flood threat. The final EIR disagrees with this contention as stated in the following comment response OCPD#2-3 in Volume I page 4-73: "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 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. " All very reassuring, but never say"never"as it is the unexpected events which tend to cause problems. If tile Wintersburg Channel or the Slater Channel should even overflow briefly by one-half inch, that is a biro deal to residents living nearby. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 140 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 A Questionable CLOMR "If the pumps are not operated at full capacity, the changes to the flood hazard information described in the CLOMR may not be accurate. In a separate letter, to Orange County Officials, we are expressing concern over this issue." -- FEMA letter dated July 29, 2002 Literally, the very foundation of this project is questionable. It does not seem prudent to continue the development process until the question of Slater Pump Station limits has been resolved. The full paragraph in the FEMA letter from which the slide quote was taken: "Please note that in accordance with Section 65.10 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, the CLOMR issued for Case No. 01-09-393R specifically requires the requester to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the Slater Pumping Station once a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) is requested. A CLOMR provides FEMA's comments on the effects that a proposed project would have on the flood hazard information shown on the effective FIRM if built as proposed. If the pumps are not operated at full capacity, the changes to the flood hazard information described in the CLOMR may not be accurate. In a separate letter, to Orange County Officials, we are expressing concerns over this issue." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 141 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I � Shifting the Flood Risk Parkside runoff north of the Wintersburg will be sent south to the Slater Channel I • Existing Slater neighborhoods will be at risk during El Nino-class storms at Wintersburg high tide • Shifting the risk burden to other neighborhoods is bad public policy, and so are single point of failure designs! Parkside runoff originating north of the Wintersburg will be sent south to the Slater Channel. This puts existing Slater neighborhoods at risk because the Slater Pump Station is a single point of failure with severe consequences if a failure should occur. Shifting the risk burden to other neighborhoods is bad public policy, and single points of failure are bad technical policy! http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 142 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 EIR Deficiency: Does Not Analyze Any Drainage Alternatives • No discussion of the MUCH simpler solution of building a new pump station at Lot O and directly connecting to the Wintersburg Channel • All costs whatsoever could be funded by an Improvement District http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 143 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i EIR Deficiency: Does Not Analyze Impact to Local Aquifers • Seawater intrusion already a problem • Paving this property will greatly reduce aquifer recharge from fresh rainwater • Seawater intrusion will then worsen • Orange County aquifers currently significantly overdrawn due to drought and population increase http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ t44 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 E I R Deficiency: No Analysis of Impacts of Drainage Failures On Kenilworth Tract • Parkside will sit at significantly higher elevation than adjacent Kenilworth tract • If there is failure of any component of the Parkside drainage system (i.e. clogged drains, etc), flood conditions will compound for the Kenilworth homes and surroundings • EIR does not analyze or mitigate for these failure conditions http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 145 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 I i i l 1 i Subsidence Issues http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 146 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Kenilworth Subsidence Zone v a r The area where the streambed feature intersects the Kenilworth homes is subject to chronic subsidence problems. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 147 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Patios are cracking i �1 5 kq ik� k �b S j1 FF http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 148 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Walls are splitting �xl�L.'' cN ,� 40� r777nw +P'x g mry � w t ,�. k xagc` -Ell E �* pM lkiw i- L.� 'tira� "� ��=,'n .y �i�.��'wr r.w 4 �4 �a'„��ti of s�ro�y s+�.,a.»•'` "€. �"�"i�a�,a� � f� s'�°x`r��"-�`� `"t - a „ y,p e ¢ http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 149 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Walls are tilting IN �afar F k a i Y"�✓ gym— ql�i//" ,� .." i ti ,. f" :�.,,� ✓,g;r ,rya�a>� .,� �a � f-gin ,::.,. µ „y�°,�"" „� �+ �,,or u �� ,;:�a y�+„�.,����' 3� �,:r�,s� ,�"�"w�'"" � a+r' .;, ✓ ,',�'y� �,m ��� g,� �5� /;,di' ' a2 rz ti � M `5 ;'� n%�'" "�>ii .:.^tY.a&r �•', +ate ,. �m .� Note the bubbles in the level are not in the center, level position. http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 150 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Walls are sinking . . . 'J P t in I tMifilllill�, dU (i ll"it �) 71 � $ ' �" � `nip lljtii"Dili lri of 11,lift „ _s'-- ::, - M � t •�nr rff Hl �)iii(IU I,�f.�.. .) 4 n f d r° M w2� Note the major sag in the wall under the white fence. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 151 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 . . . by as much as 12 inches ! y'9y - ���{ �'r� ��j J��,+'„ ��t1j ��'E ,��� t}larr �rz a✓r '� r� 6 {� f? r yyT L s �15 ' t a Ix a M�14 �16- 1 t ta,f� "k. � f` 1a3fi rr e r d rpp gam,g, Agra i £` r � •V gt'j'�' r ✓'� r t � rr�,.��'' 3Y"�`- 1 w'� it t ��,. a r rj a s i Twelve extra inches of masonry had to been added to this wall section to restore it to its original level height. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 152 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Insufficient Protections During Overexcavation & Dewatering • Shea insists these techniques are time-tested and won't harm adjacent homes • HB has history of residential subsidence problems • Shea promises careful monitoring, but the first signs of trouble may be cracked foundations on Kenilworth homes • Shea and/or HB will be held liable for any problems during construction or thereafter • If they're so certain of their mitigation measures they should provide indemnification for any and all casualty loss to existing homeowners The examples cited were not valid comparisons. Unlike the Kenilworth tract, they were not large tracts of land as close to existing homes sharing the same subsoil conditions. They were well above sea-level. They have lower water table levels, which are not brackish water. They aren't an integral part of an existing wetland. Any independent hydrology engineer will tell you that it is completely unpredictable what will happen during and after the overexcavation and dewatering process is done. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 153 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i 'I I Liquefaction Issues http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 154 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Liquefaction : New Threat Caused by Mitigation in Final EIR • Liquefaction can occur on any wet, uncompacted sub-strata during a temblor • Parkside plans propose a 50'-wide Paseo Park to mitigate vibration and likely subsidence problems — sloped toward 22 existing homes on Kenilworth — they claim that `neither dewatering nor remedial grading will be required. . .' — made of tens of thousands of cubic yards of fill This new alternative EIR call this a buffer to reduce vibration to mitigate a likely subsidence problem http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 155 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i Liquefaction : New Threat Caused by Mitigation in Final EIR i • The wet, uncompacted sub-strata together with the new fill would be subject to liquefaction, therefore the whole slope would be at extreme risk for liquefaction and slumping during a temblor, endangering homes on Kenilworth • The Final EIR doesn't account for this newly created and foreseeable problem which is a likely consequence of their proposed mitigation This is like building on a sponge. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 156 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Traffic Issues http://www.blxby.org/parksldc/ 157 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 We Demand a Traffic i a c Study Recount. I i Data collected during Labor Day week when many people are away on summer vacations (and not driving on HB roads!) — OVSD gym EIR says collecting traffic data during "typical weekday peak commute hours" is best (this EIR was the result of a successful court challenge) — Holiday weeks are not "typical"! • OVSD enrollment was still ramping up We demand a recount because the September 9th traffic study failed to capture typical AM peak conditions. This data was collected on the first two days of school during the short Labor Day workweek when many people are still out of town on vacation. But perhaps most importantly, Marine View enrollment is lighter than normal during tills period. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 158 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 OVSD Enrollment Still Ramping Up • Some families still on vacation • Clueless parents slow to realize school has resumed • Incoming transfers from year-round districts with different academic calendars • First enrollment statistics not collected until September 27th Source: Sharon Tugwell, OVSD Financial Services OVSD would have been happy to explain to you that school enrollment generally increases throughout the month of September. Because of this, they don't bother collecting the first official enrollment statistics until September 27th. We promise to shut up about undercounting if a new traffic study is conducted on any Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday after September 27th. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 159 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 1997+Project HCM p .28 Southbound Graham at Glenstone Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 L1 LZ Clow Rate 27 183 334 344 Service Time 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.0 tilization, x 0.04 0.26 0.45 0.48 ep. headway, hd 5.83 5.16 4.88 4.99 capacity 277 433 584 594 Delay 9.09 9.98 11.85 12.47 OS A A B 8 pproach: Delay 9.09 9.98 11.85 12.47 LOS A A B B ntersection Delay 11.62 Intersection LOS B I I i I So why is an accurate count so important? The old traffic data shows this intersection doing OK at Level of Service B. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 160 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 2002+Project HCM p . 36 Southbound Graham at Glenstone Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 -low Rate 77 2B9 362 501 Service Time 5.2 4.1 3.9 3.9 tilization, x 0.15 0.49 0.60 0.81 ep. headway, hd 7.21 6.11 5.93 5.85 Capacity 327 533 574 602 ^elay 11.52 14.86 17.32 29.45 Os B B C D Approach: Delay 11.52 14.86 17.32 29.45 LOS B B C D _ntersection Delay 21.32 Intersection LOS C Would an accurate count show unacceptable LOS E? But the recent traffic data shows this intersection has now degraded to Level of Service D, the minimum that is considered acceptable. We wonder if an accurate count would really show unacceptable LOS E. Only a recount capturing the full Marine View effect can put this question to rest. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 161 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Restri in — a Fraudulent p g Mitigation • The EIR proposes left-turn median striping to mitigate Graham congestion • But drivers are already using a de-facto i left-turn median of their own creation • So painting some extra lines in the middle of Graham won't change anything! • How about conditioning for a traffic signal i at Graham & Glenstone instead? i The median restriping proposed by the EIR is a fraudulent mitigation that changes nothing. Graham drivers already behave as if there is a left-turn median between Warner & Slater. Conditioning for a signal at Graham & Glenstone would be a genuine mitigation that would actually help things. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 162 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Restriping still a bogus mitigation ! 2002+Project+Improv HCM p.40 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 riow Rate 77 274 3 359 228 273 Service Time 4.8 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.1 3.8 :.ilization, x 0.15 0.44 0.01 0.62 0.41 0.46 !p. headway, hd 6.78 5.81 6.60 6.26 6.42 6.12 capacity 327 524 253 556 523 Delay 10.93 13.35 9.34 18.78 13.46 14.00 )S B B A C B B ?proach: Delay 10.93 13.35 18.70 13.75 LOS B B C B ztersection Delay 14.96 Intersection LOS B Traffic study shows a mythical 55% delay reduction after restriping But a recount still won't change the fact that Graham restriping is a fraudulent mitigation. The new study promises a 55% delay reduction due to restriping but that's simply a fraud since Graham AM peak drivers already behave as if that proposed left-turn median exists. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 163 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Increased Traffic Congestion i • Graham Street already congested at peak periods • Congestion will be worsened by: i — Marine View gym (in progress) — Parkside (proposed) — Hearthside/Fieldstone (proposed) • Circulation Alternative B (exit to Bolsa Chica St) needed to reduce the additional burden on Graham Street! Graham already suffers from substantial congestion which will grow worse due to current and future projects. We feel this project needs to be conditioned to include the Circulation Alternative B exit to Bolsa Chica Street in order to reduce the future burden on Graham. http://www.blxby.org/parksidc/ 164 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Pressure to open Greenleaf to through traffic • Connection to Greenleaf proposed as "emergency only" access • But a future City Council could open it up to through traffic, despite 100% Greenleaf opposition • Circulation Alternative B (Bolsa Chica St) would remove the Greenleaf temptation and provide suitable emergency access http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 165 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i Graham Haul Route Needs Reanalysis • September 9t" 2002 traffic study shows significantly more traffic on Graham • EIR conclusions about haul route impacts are based on stale 1995 traffic data • These impacts of moving up to 285,000 cubic yards of fill need to be reanalyzed littp://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 166 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Graham & Glenstone Peak Traffic Thursday, February 14, 2002, 7:35AM l e dt 5 A' m� irk . r xd i The sterile and stale traffic study diagrams simply don't do justice to today's traffic conditions, as you can see from this video clip shot from the Wintersburg bridge looking south on Graham towards the Glenstone intersection. Note the huge left turn queue that forms despite the absence of EIR median striping, and also note the cars illegally passing on the right that are going to cheat and make the Glenstone U-turn to bypass this queue. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 167 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 G lenstone U-turns Friday, September 6, 2002 — 7:33AM ----------------- �r ih p Here is the view from west Glenstone looking east towards Graham. Note the cars turning off of Graham to do a U-turn in order to skip the huge left turn queue. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 168 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Left Turn Trouble at Kenilworth • Backups caused by the Parkside signal will create left turn delays when exiting Kenilworth onto northbound Graham • Southbound cars waiting at the signal will cause dangerous visibility problems • "Keep Intersection Clear" striping won't solve the visibility problem Southbound Graham traffic will be forced to wait at the Parkside signal, and the resulting queue will extend beyond Kenilworth. This will cause delays and dangerous visibility problems for Kenilworth residents wanting to turn left onto northbound Graham. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 169 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 North Graham from Kenilworth Monday, September 9, 2002 — 7:31 AM f, Y ti a, lid Vi e 6 " s It is already difficult for Kenilworth residents to exit onto Graham due to oncoming Graham traffic. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 170 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 South Graham from Kenilworth Monday, September 9, 2002 — 7:31 AM `III w t I, 7 Putting in a signal at Parkside's "A" street will cause this southbound Graham traffic to queue up and block Kenilworth. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 171 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i Fire/Medical Response Issues i http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 172 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Planning Commission Decision : Certify the Parkside E I R Based Upon CEQA Compliance 1 . Analyzes the potential environmental impacts 2. Identifies project alternatives 3. Identifies mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts The HB Planning Commission certified the Parkside EIR based upon these 3 criteria. With regards to Public Services—specific Fire Response & Safety--we feel the Final EIR fails to comply with CEQA on all 3 points. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 173 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 "Analyzes the potential environmental I impacts" (EIR Errata) • Future development of the project site may create a need for additional fire protection services. The increase in the number of residential units and the number of individuals brought into the area, as well as the resulting increase in traffic will directly affect the fire department's responses." • "Additional impacts to current response times are anticipated with relocation of the [Heil] fire station. Response time from the new location to the project site would be greater than 5 minutes." • "Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 will reduce impacts related to the need for adequate response times and additional fire protection services to a level less than significant." The EIR does NOT adequately analyze the effect to existing homes of amending the General Plan and removing the fire station designation. It analyzes Parkside only. CEQA Guideline 15126.2 (a): "Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environmental shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long- term effects. The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area...and other aspects of the resource base such as...public services." The EIR (Errata) mentions response times will be affected, but does NOT say whether this is a "significant" impact or not. However, as there is mention of a mitigation measure, then the impact is significant by default. CEQA Guideline 15126.4 (3) "Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." The EIR probably omits stating whether the impact is significant or not because they assume the General Plan Amendment would automatically be approved as an entitlement. However, the General Plan Amendment is NOT a part of the EIR, and thus the significance of the impact should have been discussed. CEQA Guideline 15125 ( c) "The EIR must demonstrate that the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project were adequately investigated and discussed and it must pen-nit the significant effects of the project to be considered in the full environmental context." CEQA Guideline 15125 (d) "The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans..." http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 174 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Edwards Response Time Estimates kjTHEIi DR KII IOfiTllfii 4 K£i11LW Tkl-DR� VL z [ `sr� w 6:00-Greenleaf — n ✓ P i ,b 4;z m 1.PLt�IA IJi C.. :'r 1 Z c.t �'•l A • { a' 1*.ske.L MR f J.f ni,;M'4iE 9�tK 5:15-Glenstone DR Z- 4BJN£■rraFi,.. V a t�� 4:30-Grhm/Slater �e s=-».,,,_ s' L PRt .tOl'fEiFCEl1RLLr e1 R tl (lR #� SSVF£(p r r F�455 OODD# as, 6:00-Bates ��P tlR 1 u 1 yy4.'F c Rp pP xFhE:l�i,�{ ( 4,r rt1 x ma R TNf r ry SI 'ell /� �'�Av1,r ti p,(yp(f R 4('t$L b 5 u ,- g� { rCs�'rY ' 5:45-Candle � y 4q�.�U "uas,c j mccu Es DR g'}� 'E CL oa A IR iQ 4 t.3 R. 41" c.auewrnrt c� tlt�+itu < c 7 `" ��' � ` ¢t ;'te 'Pl N SIR z,.tx FtntDR a $ my ioc�.o rU .u_ v '•. a�� ni ITE TLI,t pR, MISER t 5:45-Felson ` �w vY.E'tu0 tWtSHTR€ � a 4t spars icu5t oa R �t ti �-, xis rw IN vemuR caz 7 ' /Y? "T !. SEETtEr t PARK REST Lx ` z rARK rExx£x PARK RIOU 1.4 ,y' 4 PARK PORUr OR ri5 T' MAL?u to 6 F1 � � QP }r 1 , �k. PARK CROOK,111 � / WPM PATHVNE OFt � 0,9 "; } 7, Q h �S l2 PAxxla',UD£ IRt � ..�..�:.d. -.._._.._. k*.tr',,^.;. r �L,': �•. --F'I SFN I +. 13 PFVARKcr DR SEE V 65 L4RR11 tJ, M w 14 OUAN MINT I, 14 ARK LN SPICtVACD i,h FS 16 '7. 9s,LA' t"16 Ct E.APAOSOQ,t;K`.. - EUdWQ",�2 Ch The City produced 3 late communication"Errata"pages for the Final EIR after they got wind of us planning a protest on thegrounds that the HB General Plan specifically calls for a Fire Station at Graham&Kenilworth. Since CEQA Guideline 15125(d)"The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans...",and the EIR does not discuss this inconsistency(it"wishes"it away with a proposed General Plan Amendment),City Planners had the Fire Department conduct a driving study of response times from Edwards Station to prove that the Graham/Kenilworth station was no longer necessary(since official data is still being collected). However,the Fire Department's test were only to the major intersection of Graham &Slater,not to actual homes deep in the nearby housing tracts. So we took the 4:30 estimate and added on driving time to actual homes. The 4:30 time is 3:30 driving time plus 1:00"get in gear"time(per Chief Burney). We confirmed the 3:30 time driving via Talbert/Springdale. Based on the 4:30,the Fire Department expressed"confidence"of meeting the response standard(within 5 minutes 80%of the time)to Parkside,and this information was incorporated into the late communication Errata pages for the EIR. However,additional testing by the Fire Department after our 9/10 presentation questioning response times concluded that Edwards Station would not necessarily meet the standard for all of Parkside(contradicting what they had said previously,and thus contradicting the Errata EIR). While the F.D.still didn't indicate whether Edwards could meet the time to other homes,their 9/24 staff report admission on Parkside response and our driving tests indicate Edwards station would not be a good"first response"station for this area.(see map) CEQA Guideline 15130 requires analyzing cumulative impacts of probable future projects. The EIR Errata does consider this and admits,"Response time from the new[Heil]location to the project site would be greater than 5 minutes." Subsequent Fire Department testing(again,to the Graham/Slater intersection only) now disputes this,but that contradictory info is NOT in the EIR,and you have to judge by what's actually in the EIR. Furthermore,we did our own driving tests from Relocated Heil Station,and those times indicated it would take more than 5 minutes to get to Felson or Bates. Division Chief Burney indicated at the 9/24 Hearing that the Fire Department tested"code 2"conditions(stopping at intersections,not having right-of-way). Our tests more closely approximated"code 3"(sirens&lights)by omitting time spent stopped at intersections,and driving the speed limit(code 3 does not permit exceeding the speed limit). We also tested to actual homes and not merely closest intersection. The 9/24 staff report also makes reference to"exceptional degree of overlapping coverage"for the Parkside vicinity,noting there are 3 fire stations:Edwards, Heil/Relocated Heil,and Warner. Well,the EIR admits Warner Station does not meet the 5-minute response standard at all(and our driving tests confirmed that),so to even include it is laughable. Based upon our tests,the housing tracts south of Graham/Slater will remain deficient in emergency response if they must depend on Edwards&Relocated Heil only. The Fire Department essentially dismisses south Graham/Slater in the 9/24/02 Staff Report. They shrug their shoulders with"the project has mitigation measures to cover any delayed response." The F.D.also weasel their way out with the disclaimer that the response"goal allows for 20 percent of emergency responses to exceed the 5 minute standard." Guess which area is going to have its unfair share of that 20%--south Graham/Slater! We're sure the intent of the 20%non-compliance cushion is to allow for unfavorable driving conditions such as rain,fog,or heavy traffic,or to allow that the primary fire station is unavailable and the secondary station must be used. We cannot believe the intent of the cushion is to leave parts of the city deficient,and it is unfathomable that the City would willingly leave areas of the city deficient in emergency response if it didn't have to. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 175 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 i " Identifies project alternatives" • No project/no development • Development under existing zoning • Alternative location Alternative park site location • Alternative roadway connections • Reduced density alternatives (4) • Development incorporatinq the existing General Plan fire station designation is NOT included in EIR! You know what? The City doesn't have to. There are 9 alternative developments presented in the Parkside EIR. But not one of them is for a development utilizing the General Plan as-is; in other words, homes plus a fire station! This could be violation of CEQA Guideline 15126.6 regarding "Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project." CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (f-1): "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are...general plan consistency..." CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (a) "An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation....The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives." Since CEQA Guidelines regularly put "zoning" and"general plan" in the same sentence (there's even a Guideline 15183, "Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning"!), it is baffling that an "existing zoning" alternative was considered but an "existing General Plan [ire station designation" alternative was not! CEQA Guideline 15126.6 (b) states, "...the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project..." The EIR makes no determination whether removing the fire station designation would have a significant impact on surrounding homes; it merely states there are "impacts" on emergency response from the project. Well, since there are fire safety mitigations, by default they are mitigating a "significant" impact. CEQA Guideline 15126.4 (3) "Mitigation measures are not required for effects which are not found to be significant." A Fire Station +homes alternative would have avoided any response effects of the project and eliminated the need for a mitigation measure! http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 176 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Keep the General Plan Fire Station Designation ! • HB General Plan clearly shows the Graham/Slater area to be emergency response deficient. • Recent H.B.F.D. tests have not proved otherwise; so much for "exceptional degree of overlapping coverage" from Warner, Edwards, and "Relocated" Heil stations. • G.P. Policy P.F. 2.1 .1 "Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable fire response times to meet a five minute standard, 80% of the time." • Graham/Slater residents are just as entitled to prompt emergency service as other residents! Even if residents are successful in overturning the Parkside project, we still urge the City Council to keep the fire station designation in the General Plan, as we don't want to constitute that"20% over 5 minutes" leeway in the response standard. Graham/Slater residents are just as entitled to prompt emergency service as other city residents! A good effort to eliminate the deficiency was made by the City by locating the Edwards Station closer to Ellis than the originally proposed Garfield. This location reduces the size of the deficient area but does not eliminate it, as we are talking about a far corner of the City. Having a Kenilworth Station be the primary station for Graham/Slater would not only eliminate the response deficiency, it would also free up Warner station to concentrate on the Harbour, free up Edwards to concentrate on Seacliff, and Production (Relocated Heil) to concentrate on the north, as noted in the Fire Department's 2001 annual report, and it would comply with General Plan Policy P.F. 2.1.1 http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 177 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Types of Calls to H . B . F . D . (by percentage) 70 . 50 40 t Elmedical aidl 30 �� �❑fires 20 } 1992 1996 2001 i I Yes, the EIR does identify mitigation measures—but for the Parkside project only, and for FIRE Safety only. The Final EIR does NOT address mitigation measures to lesson the impact to existing, surrounding homes of removing the fire station designation, nor does it address medical emergency mitigations! Why medical mitigation? This is why: the overwhelming majority of emergency calls to the Fire Department are for MEDICAL AID assistance, NOT actual fires! How will smoke alarms, sprinklers, a traffic signal, and mitigation measure I (additional fire code requirements, if necessary) help the person having a heart attack or other medical emergency, whether they live in the western half of Parkside or live south of the Graham/Slater intersection? CEQA Guideline 15126.4(B): "The mitigation measure must be `roughly proportional' to the impacts of the project." Since the response time impacts would have a greater proportional effect on medical emergencies than structural emergencies, shouldn't the mitigation measures address medical mitigation in greater proportion than structural? -------------------------------------------------------------- Data Sources: 1992 HB Draft General Plan: 70% medical aid, 6% fires 1996 FIB General Plan: 68% medical aid, 6% fires 2001 H.B.F.D. Annual Report: 65% medical aid, 3% fires http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 178 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Parkside EIR fails on All 3 Counts: 1 . It does NOT adequately analyze the potential Public Services environmental impacts to surrounding homes. 2. It does NOT identify a project alternative incorporating a fire station. 3. It does NOT identify mitigation measures to lessen the project's Response Time impacts to surrounding homes, nor does it identify any medical safety mitigations. As they say in baseball, "3 strikes, you're out!" The Parkside Final EIR errata or otherwise--falls in it's three-fold task: It does NOT adequately analyze the potential Public Services environmental impacts to existing homes of amending the General Plan and removing the fire station designation. 2. It does NOT identify an alternative project of homes plus a fire station. 3. It does NOT identify mitigation measures to lessen the project's impacts on existing homes, nor does it identify any medical safety mitigation for existing homes or Parkside itself. CFQA has not been properly followed! http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 179 ti'eighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 li Aesthetics/Light and Glare Issues http://vN,vy°\v.bixby.orgiparksidci 180 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Headlight Mitigation Too Slow g g • Car headlights on project streets will shine into Kenilworth homes • Paseo Park will be landscaped to block this light • But these trees won't be planted until construction is completed in 4 years • The trees won't reach mature headlight- blocking heights for another 5 years http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 181 tieighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Noise Issues http: \\ \\�v.bixby.org/parks1dc S,2 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Graham Street Haul Route Impact Needs Reevaluation • September 9t" traffic study shows substantially more existing traffic (and thus noise) on Graham • If the adjacent Bolsa Chica mesa cannot be used for the fill borrow site, Graham will be used as the haul route • EIR needs to reevaluate Graham haul route noise impacts in light of higher traffic levels # of trucks round-trip 6 days per week, 7 am to 8 pm (dusk) http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 183 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Construction Schedule Will Impact Retirees and Telecommuters Cityconstruction schedule is Monday — y Saturday, 7AM — 8PM • Impacts to retirees, telecommuters, and swing shift workers, stay-at-home moms, children and care-givers are not discussed • The mitigation measures will not proposed g reduce the impacts for these classes of residents http://www.bixbv.oi-g/pai-ks]de/ 184 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Aircraft Noise Impacts Omitted • Neighborhood is under the Long Beach / Los Alamitos landing flight paths • Military and commercial aircraft fly low enough to read tail logos • Beach banner aircraft also present during summer months • EIR does not factor any of this aircraft noise into its CNEL impact calculations http://www.blxby.org/parkslde/ 185 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 On Final Approach to Long Beach E u w e PAN, iNI�� :a D.i ,fib i.i ii�i5i .fart As seen from the back yard of 17451 Hillgate Ln which is located near cross-streets of Graham & Glenstone just south of the Shea property in the triangular tract bounded by Graham Street, the Wintersburg Channel, and the Slater Channel. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 186 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Suggested Conditions of Approval http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 187 Neighbors (or Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Traffic Conditions • Require Circulation Alternative B • Require signalization of Graham & Glenstone • Forbid the use of stop signs on "B" street to reduce noise impacts to adjacent Kenilworth homes • Hold Shea to their repeated promises to convey property rights to Kenilworth / Greenleaf homeowners to give them control of access, preventing opening of Greenleaf Lane to through traffic. http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ ] K Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Drainage/Hydrology Conditions • Seeking a County permit for new storm pumps must be REQUIRED (the current phrase "necessary permits" leaves too much wiggle room) • Install the new pumps at Lot O for direct connect to the Wintersburg Channel, with all costs whatsoever funded by an Improvement District http://www.bixby.org/parkside/ 189 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 002 I ProcessIssues it II, I � lhttp:,/�N,'ww.bixby.org/parksidei Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Accuracy Counts ! • Invalid maps at study sessions • Missing sections from Final EIR • Contradictory statements remain in Final EIR • Egregious typos ( A miles to Marine View") • Half-baked fire response testing • Stale, fantasy traffic data • Botched staff report distribution • Staff in denial regarding County permit requirements for Slater Pump Station Believe it or not, this is my first exposure to civic activism, and frankly I am APPALLED at the shoddy work that's been revealed. Clearly there is an alarming "push to approve" here that has completely sacrificed quality and attention to detail. http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 191 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2OO2 But wait, there's more . . . • Frequent release of significant new information as "Late Communications" • Bobi h tti f H B D ob e o DPW refusing to return g g e-mails and voice mails • Dean Albright's traffic maps withheld from agenda packet by Scott Hess • Lobbyist Dick Harlow ethical implications as former Planning Director i http: /\t% vv.bixby.org%parksidc' 1`�= Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 Conclusions http://www.blxby.org/parkside/ 193 Neighbors for Wintersburg Wetlands Restoration October 14, 2002 It's Simply a Bad Project with a Bad EIR! • It's a fundamentally unbuildable wetland • Too man negative impacts on existing Y g p g neighborhoods- Existing homeowners need better protection and indemnification against damage/loss Too many omitted impacts and non-mitigations in the contradictory, error-laden, deficient Final EIR • Fails to fulfill 7 of 10 City Goals stated in 1996 GP • A failure of vision not in keeping with the forward- looking city that Huntington Beach ought to be! III conclusion, this is simply a bad project %with a bad EIR. 1t does not meet the following" General Plan goals: Goal 1. Maintain a safe community. Goal 2. Assure long-term adequacy of the city's infrastructure facilities. Goal 3. Enhance and maintain the environmental quality of the community. Goal 4. Improve the city's long-term transportation system and integrate it into the regional system as it evolves. Goal 6. Adequately address the city's human issues and recognize their importance to preserving the health and safety of the community. Goal 7. Provide for diverse housing stock throughout the conununity and maintain the quality of housing stock. And through this process the planning staffhas failed at this one: Goal S. Maintain and continually improve organizational effectiveness. Please vote to reject the EIR and to deny this project as presently constituted. THANK YOU! http:!;hN,,v,,v.bixby.orgiparksidci 1�)4